I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
OAQPS12103
WORKSHOP ON
REQUIREMENTS FOR
NONATTAINMENT
AREA PLANS
OAQPS No. 1.2-103
REVISED EDITION
APRIL 1978
PHILADELPHIA
FEB. 28-MARCH 1, 1978
SAN FRANCISCO
MARCH 9 - 10, 1978
KANSAS CITY, MO.
MARCH 6-7, 1978
-------
I
I
I
I
I
•WORKSHOPS ON REQUIREMENTS FOR
NONATTAINMENT AREA PLANS
| —COMPILATION OF PRESENTATIONS—
I
Revised Edition
I
I
I
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
' Philadelphia, Pa. — February 28-March 1, 1978
• Kansas City, Mo. — March 6-7, 1978
San Francisco, Cal. — March 9-10, 1978
April 1978
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PREFACE TO REVISED EDITION
Under the Clean A1r Act Amendments of 1977, States must sub-
mit revisions to their State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for all
areas that are not attaining the national ambient air quality
standards. The SIP revisions must be submitted by January 1, 1979,
and must demonstrate attainment of the national standards by 1982.
An extension up to 1987 1s available for plan revisions for carbon
monoxide and photochemical oxldants 1f the State demonstrates that
attainment by 1982 1s not possible with the application of reason-
ably available control measures. The Act provides economic sanc-
tions for those nonattalnment areas that do not have approved plan
revisions by July 1, 1979.
EPA held a series of three two-day workshops to outline
requirements of the Clean A1r Act Amendments of 1977 and specifi-
cally discuss the provisions of the Act Amendments that pertain to
nonattalnment areas. The objective of the workshops was to out-
line the criteria for an acceptable 1979 plan. The workshops
discussed the major portions of an Implementation plan revision
and provided guidance on specific Items that must be part of the
plan. The workshops were not designed to cover all the details of
preparation of a SIP revision such as how to estimate future emis-
sions and how to model air pollutant concentrations. References
were made to sources of this Information, however.
The second workshop, held in Kansas City, was videotaped.
Edited tapes of this workshop are available through the EPA Regional
Offices to further disseminate information concerning the require-
ments for the 1979 SIP revisions.
This compilation was designed to accompany the workshops and
be used as an aid by both the participants and those not able to
attend the workshops. The compilation contains the visual aids
used by the presenters, followed by textual material supporting
the presentations. The material is arranged in the order of pre-
sentation. The material is restricted to the requirements for
the nonattalnment area SIPs.
The actual workshops and the previous edition of this compila-
tion also covered a number of miscellaneous topics concerning
requirements for SIP revisions not directly associated with the
nonattalnment area plans. These requirements are 1n the formative
stages as compared to the material presented in the first day
iii
-------
and a half of the workshop and thus contain a number of Issues
that have not yet been resolved. EPA wanted to provide preliminary
Ideas concerning those topics and obtain reactions to them. Mate*
Hal on these miscellaneous topics have been deleted from this
edition of this compilation and from the videotape of the workshop.
In addition, a number of minor changes have been Incorporated
Into this edition of the compilation to Improve the clarify of
the material 1n response to comments and questions received at
the workshops.
The overall goal of the workshops was to provide the State
and local governments with a clear understanding of what will be
required regarding the 1979 plan submission for nonattainment
areas and to assist them 1n the development of a reasonable pro-
gram to accomplish the objectives of the 1977 Amendments to attain
the national ambient air quality standards as expedltlously as
practicable.
iv
-------
I
I
I
* TABLE OF CONTENTS
To Revised Edition
• Preface 111
• Workshop Agenda and Speakers v11
Opening Remarks 1
I Overview of Clean Air Act Requirements and
Organization of Workshop 11
I Control Strategy and General Plan Requirements 29
Transportation-Related Issues 85
I Emission Inventory 93
_ Emissions - A1r Quality Relationships 117
• Definition of RACT 147
I Public Participation and Intergovernmental
Consultation •• 169
• Reasonable Further Progress 171
Procedural Requirements 207
I New Source Review 235
Miscellaneous Topics 253
I Summary of Clean A1r Act Amendments of 1977 255
•Memorandum, "Criteria for Approval of 1979 SIP
Revisions" 275
I
I
I
I
-------
1
1
1
•
1
1
1
•
1
I
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DAY 1
TIME
8:30
8:40
9:15
9:45
10:00
11:15
12:15
1:15
1:45
2:15
2:45
3:00
3:30
3:45
1
'Walter
WORKSHOP ON REQUIREMENTS FOR
NONATTAINMENT AREA PLANS
TOPIC
Welcome
Opening Remarks
Overview of CAA Requirements and
Organization of Workshop
Break
Control Strategy and General Plan
Requirements
Transportation-Related Issues
Lunch
Emission Inventory
Emissions -Air Quality
Relationships
Definition of RACT
Break
Public Participation and Inter-
governmental Consultation
Day 1 Summation
Adjourn
SPEAKER
Regional
Administrator
Walter Barber]
John Hidinger
Darryl Tyler
David Dunbar
2
John Hidinger
Johnnie Pearson
David Foster
Johnnie Pearson
John Hidinger
Barber and John Hidinger were unable to attend the
San Francisco Workshop; Richard Rhoads presented
2
Imants
the opening remarks
Krese presented this topic at the San Francisco Workshop.
3
This topic was not presented at the San Francisco Workshop.
vi1
-------
DAY 2
TIME TOPIC
8:30 Reasonable Further Progress
9:30 Procedural Requirements
10:15 Break
10:30 New Source Review
11:30 Lunch
12:30 Miscellaneous Topics (detailed below)
Tall Stacks
Permit Fees
Assurance of Plan Adequacy
State Board Composition
Interstate Pollution
Public Notification
Maintenance of Pay
A1r Pollution Episode Reporting
Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (Part C)
2:00 General Discussion
2:30 Closing Remarks
2:40 Adjourn
SPEAKER
Michael Trutna
John S11vas1
Robert Honrfak
Michael Trutna
David Dunbar
Joseph Sableskl
Joseph Sableskl
John S1lvas1
John S1lvas1
Joseph Sableskl
Joseph Sableskl
Joseph Sableskl
Michael Trutna
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
SPEAKERS
Walter C. Barber, Director
Office of A1r Quality Planning
and Standards (MD 10)
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
John Hldinger, Director
Office of Transportation and Land
Use Policy (AW 443)
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Darryl D. Tyler, Chief
Standards Implementation Branch (SIB)
Control Programs Development
Division (MD 15)
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
David Dunbar, Chief
Policy Development Section, SIB
Control Programs Development
Division (MD 15)
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
Johnnie Pearson
Policy Development Section, SIB
Control Programs Development
Division (MD 15)
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
David Foster
Policy Development Section, SIB
Control Programs Development
Division (MD 15)
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
1x
-------
SPEAKERS
(continued)
Michael Trutna
Policy Development Section, SIB
Control Programs Development
Divisors (MD T5)
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
John Silvasi
Plans Guidelines Section, SIB
Control Programs Development
Division (MD 15)
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
Robert Homiak, Attorney-Advisor
Division of Stationary Source
Enforcement (EN 341)
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Joseph J. Sableski, Chief
Plans Guidelines Section, SIB
(Workshop Coordinator)
Control Programs Development
Division (MD 15)
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development
Division (MD 15)
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
Imants Krese
Air and Hazardous Materials
Division, Region IX Office
Environmental Protection Agency
San Francisco, CA 94105
-------
Opening Remarks
-------
I
I
OPENING REMARKS I
PREPARED STATEMENT FROM WALTER BARBER, DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS |
Interpreting the Act Requirements —
The development of the January 1979 SIPs to meet the require- *
ments of the Clean A1r Act Amendments of 1977 1s a most complex
and demanding task. A literal first reading of the Clean A1r Act •
as Amended August 7, 1977* may lead one to conclude that the task •
1s an Impossible one 1n the time allowed by Congress. Between the
passage of the Amendments 1n August and these Workshops, EPA has •
devoted much time and energy 1n trying to establish reasonable and •
achievable goals for SIP submissions that, at least, meet the
Intent of Congress. These SIP requirements were developed with the
Input of many groups from outside the Agency. These groups Include •
State and local air pollution control officials, elected officials, •
environmental groups, Industrial representatives and many others.
EPA 1n cooperation with other groups such as the APCA, STAPPA, and •
ALAPCO has participated 1n numerous meetings, forums, and seminars |
to explain the Amendments and to solicit opinions on how the
Congressional mandate Imposed by the Amendments could be reasonably
met. At the same time that the discussions and debates on the
policy Issues created by the Act were taking place, the Agency was
also conducting meetings, workshops, etc., on the technical tools
(air quality modeling, emission factors, control techniques) to be
used In developing the SIPs.
This Workshop concludes the Initial consultation/discussion/
debate process that has been going on since August 7, 1977. That
process has been most valuable and 1n fact absolutely necessary 1f
the Agency was to have any hope of developing achievable goals for
the SIP submission. Unfortunately, while this very necessary pro-
cess was taking place, the clock did not stop ticking away toward
the January 1, 1979, SIP submission date. If the States are to
meet that date, discussions and debates must now be replaced by
hard work toward meeting realistic though difficult goals. It 1s
time for EPA to bite the bullet and spell out the requirements for
an acceptable SIP.
SIP Policy Statement
On February 24, 1978, the Administrator Issued the "Criteria
for Approval of 1979 SIP Submissions." That policy statement sum-
marlzes the elements which a 1979 SIP revision for a non-attainment
area must contain 1n order to meet the requirements of Part D of
the Clean Air Act and be approved by EPA.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Goal of Workshop
It Is the purpose of this series of Workshops to amplify on the
Administrator's SIP Criteria Policy Statement. The objective of the
workshop will be to outline 1n significant detail the criteria for
an acceptable 1979 plan. The workshops will discuss the major
portions of an Implementation plan revision and provide guidance on
specific Items that must be part of the plan. The workshops are not
designed to cover all the technical details of preparation of a SIP
revision such as how to estimate future emissions or how to model air
pollution concentrations. References, however, will be made to
acceptable sources of this type of Information.
Form of Workshop
It Is not our purpose 1n these Workshops to debate the Clean A1r
Act and Its associated Implementation Issues; I hope we have already
done that. Our purpose 1s to present the basic SIP requirements In a
logical lecture type format. While each presentation will be follow-
ed by a question and answer period, the questions should be of a clar-
ifying nature or to gain additional Information on how specific
requirements can be met 1n a specific situation. Also, during the
question and answer period, we ask that you Identify areas where
additional technical guidance 1s needed. While we have made every
effort to develop requirements that are achievable with currently
available guidance, 1t 1s possible that some additional guidance
relative to a specific requirement for a given area may need to be
developed. As I stated earlier, specific technical guidelines will
be referenced 1n the presentations as well as the handout materials.
Sanctions
It 1s the Intent of the Agency to establish reasonable and
achievable requirements for the development of the 1979 SIP sub-
missions. Since we believe we have succeeded 1n that Intent, we
feel that we must take a firm posture with regard to the Imposition
of the Congressionally mandated sanctions where the reasonable
requirements are not met. These sanctions Include prohibiting con-
struction of major new or modified air pollution sources and discon-
tinuing certain EPA and DOT grants.
107 Designations
It would seem reasonable before we get underway with what Is
required 1n a SIP submission, that we take a few minutes to focus
on the areas to be covered by the requirements.
-------
On February 23, 1977, the Administrator, after reviewing earlier
State submissions, listed those counties or portions thereof that
were violating the national ambient air quality standards. SIPs must
be developed for each of these areas by January, 1979. Of the 3,215
counties in the U.S.:
607 are listed as non-attainment for 0
421 are listed as non-attainment for TSP
190 are listed as non-attainment for CO
101 are listed as non-attainment for S0?, and
8 are listed as non-attainment for NOJ;
It is the overall goal of this Workshop to provide the State and
local governments with a clear understanding of what will be required
in the 1979 SIP in order to attain the standard everywhere.
CONTROL AGENCY RESOURCES
Background
The 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments place upon State and other
governmental bodies a responsibility for ensuring that adequate
personnel, funding, and authority are available to carry out the SIPs.
Federal government resources are provided to these governmental
bodies to assist them in their planning activities and operational
programs necessary to develop, revise, and carry out these plans.
This Federal government program operates through program grant
assistance, Federal assignees and special demonstration grant and
contract assistance.
Resource Status
In 1977 resources expended by State and local agencies engaged
in planning, regulatory and enforcement aspects of the national air
pollution control effort totaled approximately 7300 man-years and
$174 million. The Federal government contributed approximately
$58.5 million or 33.6 percent of the total resources.
Resource Needs
The resources needed to attain and maintain standards have con-
tinued to outstrip existing manpower and dollar availability. For
example, the growth in positions and man-years in 1977 was less than
in any of the three previous years. The average cost of a man-year
of effort in 1977 was $23,400 compared to approximately $19,900 in
1975. These statistics reflect inflationary costs of salaries and
agency operations that often result in lower agency growth than is
needed to fulfill program needs.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Estimation techniques, manpower models, and estimates made by
control agencies predict resource needs to accomplish current plans
(pre-1977 Amendments) to be in the range of 10,000 man-years and
approximately $240 million. With the additional requirements imposed
by the Clean Air Act amendments, these predictive estimates will
undoubtedly rise even higher. With the shortfall between what is
needed compared to available resource:, our national resource program
has been operated on a priority basis with national program guidance
~ "•**•?su' •'*•»: '»•""'•; t--- h* d"»v Soire iV-~ remain undone, as »*eflected
in trie recent iu? attainment/non-attainment designations. There are
still many areas that have not attained the standards.
Current Funding and Future Prospects
Resources are now being channeled into planning for those com-
plex programs set forth by the Amendments. The States will be
developing SIPs by January 1, 1979, that will include strategies for
the control of all sources, including non-traditional sources such
as industrial fugitive emissions and urban reentrainment. In addi-
tion, strategies associated with control of transportation sources
and growth considerations are required.
To assist the State and local governments in developing these
plans, the 1978 control agency appropriation will be increased from
$58 million to $66 million. The additional $8 million this year will
be used to obtain contractors, in increase grants to control agencies,
and to fund metropolitan planning organizations.
In 1979 we have asked Congress to increase agency support money
by another $8 million to continue implementation of the plans and by
an additional $5 million to assist in the support of inspection/
maintenance programs. This will result in a total of approximately
$79 million in Federal assistance to States. As a minimum, States
are expected to increase their contributions over 1977 funds by
approximately $25 million. Even with these increases, there is an
estimated $20+ million shortfall for State and local air pollution
control agencies. This shortfall will necessitate even further
prioritization of the requirements imposed on the State and locals by
EPA and a prioritization of the resource allocation within the State
and local agencies toward meeting those requirements.
As I mentioned earlier, it has taken EPA from the passage of the
Amendments until now to develop SIP requirements that appear to us to
be reasonable and attainable. One of the factors that influences us
was the known shortfall in resources between what is ideally needed
to develop and implement SIPs as well as the other things a control
agency is required to do and the resources that are currently avail-
able or likely to be available in the near future. We believe that
-------
the requirements that will be presented during this Workshop meet the
Intent of the Act, are reasonable and are attainable with the re-
sources available. I don't mean to leave you with the Idea that I
think this job 1s easy; I know 1t Isn't, but I think 1t 1s possible.
I would like to pause here and let Jack H1d1nger take a few
minutes to summarize some of the specific things he and OTLUP have
been doing since August 1977 to develop requirements for transporta-
tion measures and Intergovernmental coeperatlsn and cortsult
can be reasonably Included 1n the January 1979 SIP subnrfttals.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Remarks by John 0. Hldinger
Director, Office of Transportation
and Land Use Policy
My Office has the responsibility for the following require-
ments under the 1977 Clean Air Act:
0 Develop the Regulations for the State/Local Consultation
Process (Section 121)
0 Develop the Guidelines and the Regulations for the Designa-
tion of a Lead Planning Agency (Section 174)
0 Develop the Transportation Planning Process Guidelines
(Section 108(e))
0 Published the Information Documents on TCP Measures
(Section 108(f))
0 Develop Policies for Inspection and Maintenance Programs
0 Develop Policies for Implementing the Coordination of
Sewage Treatment Grants and Air Quality Plans (Section 316)
One of my primary concerns is the relationship between various
governmental units in trying to accomplish this complex task of
controlling air pollution. I feel that in passing the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1977, Congress recognized the necessity of
establishing an approach of shared responsibilities between state
and local levels of government. Section 174 specifically requires
that 1n preparing a plan to control oxldants or carbon monoxide
a jointly determined division of responsibilities be made by the
State and the local elected officials.
This division of responsibilities is especially important in
the area of transportation control planning. In this area we have
learned through bitter experience that the political process is
just as important as the technical process in implementing trans-
portation control measures.
The tntial transportation work that we are requiring in order
to submit an acceptable SIP in 1979 focuses on establishing the
planning process, developing a work program, and forging the inter-
governmental relationships that will be necessary to plan and
Implement an ambitious transportation control plan.
-------
At the same time that this process is being developed, we
believe that measures that have been planned either in the SIP or
as part of the DOT process that show benefits for air quality
should be moved forward for implementation. Evidence <&f this will
be the project', and measures included in the Transportation Improve-
ment Program (TIP) and its Ar.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONTINUATION OF PREPARED STATEMENT
FROM WALTER BARBER
Before I turn the program back to Darryl, I would like to take
just a few minutes to express my concern for the difficulty of the
task that lies ahead to develop adequate SIPs by January 1979 and to
fully implement those SIPs by 1982 or even 1987. I hope you see
EPA as working with you in this process. As I stated in my very
first remarks, we have taken from August 1977 till now to develop
these requirements as we were trying to develop reasonable and achiev-
able goals that still met the intent of Congress. We have not taken
the Act and seen how many barriers we could throw before you and try
to justify ourselves by citing it as the intent of Congress. We have
tried to do quite the opposite. We have tried to develop requirements
that overcome barriers and make it as easy as possible to develop SIPs
that will meet the intent of Congress. For instance, we will be indi-
cating areas where certain requirements can be met in phases beyond
1979 rather than all at once by January.
I would also like you to realize that EPA isn't going to lay out
a series of requirements at these Workshops and then go home to wait
and see what you come up with in January. To the limit of our
resources, both Headquarters and Regional, we are going to be workin«-
with you to complete this task on time. We want to work with you~-
not make it hard for you.
Between now and January, many tough decisions are going to have
to be made. We realize this. We hope you will look at this Workshop
as the first in a series of efforts on our part to help you with
those tough decisions.
-------
Overview of Clean Air Act
Requirements and Organization
of Workshop
n
-------
REQUIREMENTS FOR
PREPARATION.
ADOPTION.
and
SUBMITTAL
OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
PLAN CONTENT AND REQUIREMENTS
40CFR51SUBPARTB
•LEGAL AUTHORITY *REVIEW OF NEW AND
MODIFIED SOURCES
•CONTROL STRATEGY *SOURCE SURVEILLANCE
•COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE ^RESOURCES
•PREVENTION OF AIR INTERGOVERNMENTAL
POLLUTION EMER- COOPERATION
-.EfcCY EPISODES
•AIRrOLLUTION
SURVEILLANCE
•RULES AND
REGULATIONS
1979
SUBMISSION
12
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PLAN SUBMISSION APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL
JANUARY 1. W7> JULY 1. 197*
W^P €5
PLAN MUST DEMONSTRATE
ATTAINMENT AS
•^^Tis?
— ^Sy^fliiy^
^^p^^p~<-
AS PRACTICABLE
Primary Standard
TSP *SO2 * N02
1982
1
-------
TSP SO2
SECONDARY STANDARDS
REASONABLE TIME
CO, Ox
UP TO FIVE YEAR
EXTENSION IS PROVIDED
CO, Ox
NO LATER THAN
DEC. 31,1987
14
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CRITERIA FOR
EXTENSION
OF 1982 DEADLINE FOR CO, 0,
1. MUST HAVE APPLICATION OF ALL
REASONABLE CONTROL MEASURES.
2. MUST HAVE A DEMONSTRATION THAT
STANDARD CAN NOT BE MET BY 1982.
EXTENSION NOT AUTOMATIC
PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR NON ATTAINMENT AREAS
SECTION 172 <«)
•• PROVIDE FOR ATTAINMENT OF EACH NATIONAL
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD IN EACH SUCH AREA AS
EXPEDITIOUSLV AS PRACTICABLE - - -" (CONTROL
STRATEGY)
SECTION 172 (b)
•THE PLAN PROVISIONS REQUIRED BY SUBSECTION (a)
SHALL "
15
-------
(1) BE ADOPTED BY STATE (OR
PROMULGATED BY THE ADMINIS-
TRATOR) AFTER REASONABLE
NOTICE AND PUBLIC HEARING.
(2) PROVIDE FOR IMPLEMENTATION
OF ALL REASONABLY AVAILABLE
CONTROL MEASURES AS EXPEDI-
TIOUSLY AS PRACTICABLE.
(3) REQUIRE INTERIM REASONABLE
FURTHER PROGRESS.
16
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(4) INCLUDE A COMPREHENSIVE,
ACCURATE CURRENT INVENTORY
OF ACTUAL EMISSIONS FROM ALL
SOURCES AND SHOULD BE RESUB-
MITTED AS FREQUENTLY AS
NECESSARY TO ASSURE COMPLI-
ANCE WITH REASONABLE
FURTHER PROGRESS PROVISIONS.
(5) EXPRESSLY IDENTIFY AND QUANTIFY
EMISSIONS FROM CONSTRUCTION
AND OPERATION OF NEW OR
MODIFIED SOURCES.
(6) REQUIRE PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCT-
ION AND OPERATION OF NEW OR
MODIFIED SOURCES IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SECTION 173 (PERMIT REQUIRE-
MENTS. )
17
-------
(7) IDENTIFY AND COMMIT THE
FINANCIAL AND MANPOWER
RESOURCES TO CARRY OUT
PLAN.
(8) CONTAIN EMISSION LIMITATIONS,
SCHEDULES OF COMPLIANCE.
(9) EVIDENCE OF PUBLIC AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENTAL INVOLVEMENT
AND CONSULTATION.
IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS
OF AIR QUALITY, HEALTH WELFARE,
ENERGY AND SOCIAL EFFECTS.
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENT
ON ANALYSIS.
18
-------
(10) WRITTEN EVIDENCE OF STATE,
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ETC.
HAVE ADOPTED NECESSARY
REQUIREMENT TO IMPLEMENT
AND ENFORCE PLAN.
(11) MEET CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS IF ATTAINMENT
DATE AFTER 1982.
ADDITIONAL NEW SOURCE REVIEW ANALYSIS
SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTING I & M
IDENTIFY OTHER MEASURES NECESSARY TO
ATTAIN BY 12-31-87
PLAN REQUIREMENTS
• CONTROL STRATEGY
• ADOPTION AFTER PUBLIC HEARING
• IMPLEMENT RACM
• REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS
• EMISSION INVENTORY FOR STRATEGY - DEVELOPMENT AND
REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS
• QUANTIFICATION OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW OR MODIFIED SOURCES
• PERMITS FOR NEW OR MODIFIED SOURCES
• FINANCIAL AID MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
• EMISSION LIMITATION, SCHEDULES OF COMPLIANCE
• CONSULTATION
• ANALYSIS OF IMPACT OF PLAN & ALTERNATIVES & COMMENT
SUMMARY
• EVIDENCE OF COMMITTMENT TO IMPLEMENT & ENFORCE
• REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANS WITH PROJECTED ATTAINMENT
BEYOND 1982
19
-------
WORKSHOP AGENDA
DAY 1
•CONTROL STRATEGY AND
GENERAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS
•TRANSPORTATION RELATED ISSUES
•EMISSION INVENTORY
•EMISSION - AIR QUALITY
RELATIONSHIPS
•RACT
• PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
CONSULTATION
DAY 2
•REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS
•PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
•NEW SOURCE REVIEW
•MISC. TOPICS
Tall Stacks
Permit Fees
Assurance of Plan Adequacy
State Board Composition
Interstate Pollution
Public Notification
Maintenence of Pay
Air Pollution Episode Reporting
PSD (Part C)
20
-------
OVERVIEW OF CAA REQUIREMENTS AND ORGANIZATION OF WORKSHOP
I. 40 CFR 51 - Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Sub-
mittal of Implementation Plans.
Subpart B - Plan Content and Requirenents. These requirements
were developed pursuant to CAA of 1970 and not altered by CAA
Amendments of 1977.
*A. Legal authority - Each plan shall show that the State has
the legal authority to carry out the plan.
*B. Control strategy - Each plan shall contain a control
strategy that provides for the attainment and maintenance of the
applicable air quality standards.
*C. Compliance schedules - Each plan shall contain legally
enforceable compliance schedules setting forth the dates by which
sources must be in compliance with any applicable requirements
of the plan.
D. Prevention of air pollution emergency episodes - Each plan
shall include a contingency plan which provides for the taking of
emission control actions necessary to prevent ambient pollutant
concentrations from reaching levels which could cause significant
Harm to the health of persons.
E. Air quality surveillance - Each plan shall provide for
the establishment of an air quality surveillance system.
*F. Review of new sources and modification - Each plan shall
set forth legally enforceable procedures adequate to determine
whether the construction or modification of a source will result
1n violations of applicable portions of the control strategy or
will Interfere with attainment or maintenance of a national air
quality standard.
G. Source surveillance - Each plan shall provide for moni-
toring the Status of compliance with any rules and regulations
which set forth any portion of the control strategy.
H. Resources - Each plan shall include a description of the
resources available to the State and local agencies to carry out
the plan.
These requirements will be highlighted during the workshop.
21
-------
*I. Intergovernmental cooperation - Each plan shall provide for
the exchange of information and identification of intergovernmental
responsibilities as necessary to develop and implement the plan.
*J. Rules and regulations - Emission limitations and other
measures necessary for attainment and maintenance of any national
standards shall be adopted as rules and regulations enforceable by
the State agency.
II. The Clean Air Act As Amended August 1977
A. Date of Plan Submission -- January 1, 1979
B. EPA Approval/Disapproval - July 1, 1979
C, Plan must demonstrate attainment
1. As expeditiously as practicable but no later than 12/31/82
for TSP, S09, and NOp primary standard./
~" ^ I- L.
2. Reasonable time for TSP and S0? secondary standard attain-
ment.
3. As expeditiously as practicable but no later than 12/31/87
for CO and 0
/\
D. Extensions
1. Up to a 5-year extension is provided for CO and 0
2. Criteria for extension is: x
a. Must have application of all reasonably available
control measures (RACM).This includes transportation control
measures as well as stationary source control measures.
b. Must have a demonstration that attainment of standard
is not possible by 12/31/82 through the application of RACM.
3. The granting of extension is not automatic.
a. A demonstration of need must be made
b. State must fulfill all other statutory requirements.
III. Clean Air Act of 1977: Part D - Plan Requirements for Non-Attain-
ment Areas (These requirements supplement those presented in
40 CFR 51 Subpart B noted in "I" above.)
A. Sec. 172(a) - "... shall provide for attainment of each such
national ambient air quality standard in each area as expeditiously as
practicable..." (control strategy)
22
-------
B. Sec. 172(b) - "The plan provisions required by subsection
(a) shall" -
1. be adopted by State (or promulgated by the Administrator)
after reasonable notice and public hearing
2. provide for implementation of all reasonably available
control measures as expeditiously as practicable.
3. require interim reasonable further progress
4. include a comprehensive, accurate current inventory of
actual emissions from all sources and should be resubmitted as fre-
quently as necessary to assure compliance with reasonable further
progress provisions.
5. expressly identify and quantify emissions from construc-
tion and operation of new or modified sources
6. require permits for construction and operation of new or
modified sources in accordance with Sec. 173 (permit requirements)
7. identify and commit the financial and manpower resources
to carry out plan
8. contain emission limitations, schedules of compliance
9. evidence of public and local government involvement and
consultation
a. identification and analysis of air quality, health,
welfare, economic, energy, and social effects
b. summary of public comment on analysis
10. written evidence of State, local government, etc. have
adopted necessary requirements to implement and enforce plan
11. meet certain additional requirements if attainment date
after 1982
a. additional new source review analysis
b. schedule for impementing I/M
c. identify other measures necessary to attain by
12/31/87
IV. Organization of Workshop'
A. Control strategy and general plan requirements
This presentation will focus on the development of a control
strategy which identifies those measures that must be implemented in
order to attain and maintain the air quality standards within the
time allocated by the Act. The presentation will also focus on the
general SIP requirements that appear in the recent EPA policy state-
ment "Criteria for Approval of 1979 SIP Revisions." This presentation
will set the stage for the more detailed dicussions that will follow
during the next two days. The specific requirements of Part D of
the CAA-1977 included in this presentation are:
23
-------
1. Sec. 172(a)--provide for attainment of the standard
(control strategy)
2. Sec. 173(b)(l)--adoption after public hearing
3. Sec. 172(b)(2)--implement reasonably available control
measures (RACM)
4. Sec. 172(b)(7)--financial and manpower requirements
5. Sec. 172(b)(9)--analysis of impact of plan and alter-
natives considered and a summary of public comments on
the analysis
6. Sec. 172(b)(10)-evidence of commitment to implement and
enforce the plan
7. Sec. 172(b)(ll)-additional requirements for plans with
post-1982 attainment dates
B. Transportation Related Issues
This presentation will focus on specific transportation issues
that must be considered in the development and implementation of the
SIP control strategy. Specific transportation control measures will
discussed. The specific CAA-1977 Part D requirements include in this
presentation are:
1. Sec. 172(a)--provide for attainment of the standard
(control strategy)
2. Sec. 172(b)(2)—implement RACM
3. Sec. 172(b)(9)--analysis of impact of plan and alter-
natives considered and a summary of public comment of
the analysis.
4. Sec. 172(b)(ll)-additional requirements for plans with
post-1982 attainment dates.
C. Emission Inventory
In order to develop a SIP, the State must have a current compre-
hensive and accurate emission inventory. The inventory establishes
the base from which emissions must be reduced in order to attain the
standards. The specific CAA-1977 Part D requirements included in
this presentation are:
1. Sec. 172(b)(4)--emission inventory adequate to develop
control strategy and meet the requirement of assuring
reasonable further progress.
2. Sec. 172(b)(5)--quantification of emissions from new
and modified sources.
D. Emissions—Air Quality Relationships
This presentation provides information on how current emissions
and air quality data are used to determine the level of control needed
to attain the standards. The specific CAA-1977 Part D requirement
included in this presentation are:
24
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1. Sec. 172(a)--provide for attainment of the standard
(control strategy)
2. Sec. 172(b)(4)--emission inventory adequate to develop con-
trol strategy and meet the requirement of assuring reasonable
further progress.
E. Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
The Clean Air Act requires that reasonably available control
technology (RACT) be used in developing the control strategy and
it be used in defining interim reasonable further progress. This
presentation will review those factors that should be considered in
defining RACT for a particular source and present information on guid-
ance material that is available to assist in making RACT determinations.
The specific CAA-1977 Part D requirements included in this presentation
are:
1. Sec. 172(a)--provide for attainment of the standard
(control strategy)
2. Sec. 172(b)(2)--implement RACM
3. Sec. 172(b)(3)--require in the interim, reasonable
further progress
4. Sec. 172(b)(ll)-additional requirements for plans with
post-1982 attainment dates
F. Public Participation and Intergovernmental Consultation
In the development of a SIP, it is logical that the public be
involved and that there be a considerable amount of intergovernmental
cooperation. This is particularly true of when developing transpor-
tation control measures and measures to control fugitive dust. This
presentation will focus on the specific CAA requirements for partici-
pation and consultation. The specific CAA-1977 Part D requirements
included in this presentation are:
1. Sec. 172(a)--provide for attainment of the standard
(control strategy)
2. Sec. 172(b)(9)--evidence of public, local government,
and State legislative involvement and consultation in
accordance with Sec. 174 (relating to planning proced-
ures)
G. Reasonable Further Progress
The Congress in developing the CAA Amendments of 1977 added the
requirement that a SIP must not only demonstrate attainment of the
standards as expeditiously as possible but that there must be a
significant amount of progress in the early years toward meeting
25
-------
that objective followed by annual progress thereafter. This presen-
tation will outline the requirements for demonstrating the control
strategy's ability to provide for reasonable further progress and
the annual monitoring of the progress toward meeting that objective.
The specific CAA-1977 Part D requirements included in the presenta-
tion are:
1. Sec. 172(a)--provide for attainment of the standards
(control strategy)
2. Sec. 172(b)(2)—implement RACM
3. Sec. 172(b)(3)--require, in the interim, reasonable
further progress
4. Sec. 172(b)(4)--emission inventory adequate to develop
control strategy and meet the requirement of assuring
reasonable further progress
5. Sec. 172(b)(5)--quantification of emissions from new
and modified sources.
H. Procedural Requirements
There are a number of procedural requirements that a SIP must
meet. They include the adoption of rules and regulations, the sub-
mi ttal of regulatory development and implementation schedules, the
development and submittal of compliance schedules, and the commitment
of resources to implement the SIP. This presentation will include
a discussion of EPA's realization that not all regulations required
by the SIP control strategy can be legally enforceable by the
January, 1979, submittal date. This presentation will specify for
which pollutants and for which source categories the States may
submit schedules in lieu of actual control requirements or adopted
measures. The requirement for periodic progress reports on the
implementation of these schedules will also be discussed. The specific
CAA-1977 Part D requirements included in this presentation are:
1. Sec. 172(a)--provide for attainment of the standards
(control strategy)
2. Sec. 172(b)(l)--adoption after public hearing
3. Sec. 172(b)(7)--financial and manpower requirements
4. Sec. 172(b)(8)--emission limitation and compliance
schedules necessary to meet the requirements of this
section
5. Sec. 172(b)(10)-evidence to commitment to implement and
enforce the plan.
I. New Source Review
The CAA-1977 has a number of additional new source review
requirements. This presentation will identify those retirements
with particular emphasis on how the new requirements fit into exist-
ing State NSR programs. The specific CAA-1977 Part D requirements
Included in this presentation are:
26
-------
1. Sec. 172(a)--provide for attainment of the standards
(control strategy)
2. Sec. I72(b)(3)--requ1re, 1n the Interim, reasonable
further progress
3. Sec. I72(b)(5)--quant1f1cat1on of emissions from new
and modified sources
4. Sec. 172(b)(6)--permits for new and modified source 1n
accordance with Sec. 173.
5. Sec. 172(b)(ll)-additional requirements for plans with
post-1982 attainment dates
J. Miscellaneous Requirements
The CAA-1977 contains a number of additional SIP requirements
that are not specifically related to the development of control
measures that demonstrate attainment of the standards and provide
for interim reasonable further progress. These requirements Include:
1. Tall stacks
2. Permit fees
3. Assurance of plan adequacy
4. State board composition
5. Interstate pollution
6. Public notification
7. Maintenance of pay
8. Episode reports
9. Prevention of significant deterioration
The final series of short presentations will discuss these
requirements. It is felt that these presentations will provide a
degree of completeness to the workshop.
27
-------
Control Strategy
and General Plan Requirements
29
-------
CONTROL STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
AND
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
APPROVAL OF 1979 PLANS
FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS
GENERAL
PROCEDURES FOR DEVELOPMENT
OF A CONTROL STRATEGY
CONTROL STRATEGY
MUST BE DEVELOPED
FOR THE AREA WHICH HAS
BEEN DESIGNATED NONATTAINMENT
30
-------
INTERNAL VIOLATION
EXTERNAL SOURCE
EXTERNAL VIOLATION
INTERNAL SOURCE
X MAJOR SOURCES
APPENDIX A
SIGNIFICANT AIR QUALITY INCREMENTS
FOR NON-ATTAINMENT AREAS
POLLUTANT AVERAGING TIME
S02
PM
N02
CO
ANNUAL
1 MD/m3
1 MB/m3
1 M9/m3
24.HOUH
6 in/m3
5 Md/m3
8-HOUR
0.6 mg/m3
3-HOUR
25 |M/m3
1-HOUR
2 mg/m3
EACH AREA MUST
HAVE ITS OWN
DEMONSTRATION
31
-------
EXAMPLE REHLON CONCEPT
DEMONSTRATION NO DEMONSTRATION
NECESSARY
HOW MUCH
I. CONTROL WILL BE NEEDED?
PRIMARY STO.
SECONDARY STD i
ft
n
32
-------
Designated Non-Attainment Area
WIDESPREAD
1
Localized
Designated
Non-Attainment
Area
VIOLATIONS
SHORT TERM
ANNUAL
33
-------
3
WHAT
ALTERNATIVES DO YOU HAVE?
TRADITIONAL
• Retrofit
• Process changes
NONTRADITIONAL
• Road paving
• Land use type
34
-------
5. EXPECTED REDUCTIONS
STRATEGY A
STR
SUMMARY
of Recommended Emission
Limitations and/or Control Efficiencies
for Stationary YOG Sources
SUMMARY
OF POSSIBLE PERCENT EMISSION
REDUCTIONS FROM RTCMs
35
-------
PART1CULATES....
mmmmmmmmmfmmmmm
NO SPECIFIC CONTROL
TECHNIQUE GUIDELINE DOCUMENTS
WHERE CAN
YOU GET
HELP FOR
TSP
INFORMATION FOR DETERMINING PERCENT
CONTROL FOR TSP
> CONTROLLED AND UNCONTROLLED EMISSION RATES AND
APPLICABLE LIMITATIONS FOR EIGHTY PROCESSES. SEPTEMBER 1976
> GUIDELINE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF CONTROL STRATEGIES IN AREAS
WITH FUGITIVE DUST PROBLEMS, OAOPS 1.2-071. OCTOBER 1977
k TECHNICAL GUIDANCE FOR CONTROL OF INDUSTRIAL PROCESS
' FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS, MARCH 1977, EPA 460 / 3-77-010
36
-------
WHERE DO YOU
GET HELP FOR
S02,NOX,CO *
*H*f*m*f*immrmsmm*fBfn* ^W
SSEIS
STRATEGY SELECTION
IS IT TECHNICALLY
ACCEPTABLE
* ATTAIN AEAP
* SPECIFIC ATTAIN DATE
* CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ACHIEVABLE
* ENFORCEABLE
37
-------
IMPACT OF STRATEGY SELECTION
-------
f"
PRIMARY STANDARD
I AEAP
NOT LATER THAN 1982.
SECONDARY STP \-
RACT
>RACT
1982
REASONABLE
TIME
"REASONABLE TIME SHALL DEPEND ON THE
DEGREE OF EMISSION REDUCTION NEEDED FOR
ATTAINMENT OF SUCH SECONDARY STANDARD
AND THE SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND TECHNOLOG-
ICAL PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN CARRYING OUT A
CONTROL STRATEGY TO ATTAINMENT AND
MAINTENANCE OF SUCH SECOND STANDARD."
Illlllllll
39
-------
DEMONSTRATION BASED ON USE OF MODELS
• INTERIM GUIDELINE ON AIR QUALITY
MODELS OAQPS 1.2-080
FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
& FUGITIVE DUST MODELING
if TECHNICAL GUIDANCE FOR CONTROL INDUSTRIAL
PROCESS FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
EPA 450 / 3-77-010
* GUIDANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF CONTROL
STRATEGIES IN AREAS WITH FUGITIVE
DUST PROBLEMS OAQPS 1.2-071
TSP
S02
NOX
UNLESS
APPROVED
BY REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR
40
-------
ROLLBACK
Can Be Used For
Preliminary
Assessment Of
Control Strategy
Adequacy
*TSP
•SO,
*NOX
*CO
Strategy
Demonstration
For
*o.
BACKGROUND
THAT PORTION OF MEASURED AMBIENT
LEVELS THAT CANNOT BE REDUCED BY CONTROLLING
EMISSIONS FROM MAN-MADE SOURCES.
TSP
ANNUAL
30 40 /jg/m3
SHORT TERM"|
• INTERIM GUIDELINE ON AQ MODELS
OAQPS 1.2 080
41
-------
OXIDANT
PROCEDURES FOR QUANTIFYING
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PHOTOCHEMICAL
OXIDANTS AND PRECURSURS
EPA 45O/2-77-O21B
8
DEVELOP
EMISSION LIMITATIONS
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
42
-------
1
ADOPTION
11
. GOVERNOR'S APPROVAL
12
. SUBMITTAL TO I t»
43
-------
iGeneral Requirements I
FOR APPROVAL OF 1979
PLANS FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS.
ADOPTION OF LEGAL
ENFORCEABLE PROCEDURES
COMMITTMENT
TO IMPLEMENT
AND
ENFORCE THE PLAN.
44
-------
SCHEDULES
SCHEDULES
MUST
CALL
45
-------
ESTIMATE%
OF
REASONABLE
ANNUAL REDUCTION
REDUCTION IN EARLY YEARS
•RECOGNIZE LAG IN
IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS
SREDITS FOR ACTION
INCE AUG.7, 1977
46
-------
plan
must
consider
progress toward
meeting schedules
•emission
reductions
47
-------
LOCAL INVOLVEMENT
IN PLAN
ANALYSIS OF AIR QUALITY,
HEALTH, WELFARE, ECONOMIC,
ENERGY, AND SOCIAL IMPACT
OF THE PLAN
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
FOR CONTROL STRATEGIES
AFTER 1982
CO&
48
-------
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE SITES,
SIZES AND PRODUCTION PROCESSES,
AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TECHNIQUES
FOR NEW SOURCES WHICH DEMONSTRATE THAT
BENEFITS OUTWEIGH THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND
SOCIAL COST OF A NEW SOURCE LOCATING IN
AN AREA.
INSPECTION
/MAINTENANCE
JUNE 3Q 1979
49
-------
EXCEPTIONS:
no opportunity to
conduct technical analysis
legislature has no
opportunity to consider
LEGAL AUTHORITY
NO LATER THAN 7/1/80
COMMITTMENT TO
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
SPECIFIC
POLLUTANTS
50
-------
SO,
Regulations submitted 1979
* Attainment by 1982
f REGULATIONS AND SCHEDULE 1979
I ^ATTAINMENT 1982
PARTICULATE MATTER
(REGULATIONS FOR TRADITIONAL
.... ALSO INCLUDESX|FUGITIVE
INDUSTRIAL PROCESS
SCHEDULES FOR NON-TRADITIONAL
* SOQRCES 1979
* ATTAINMENT 1982
51
-------
OX1DANT & CO PUN
REGULATIONS
.STATIONARY
SOURCES
SCHEDULES STATIONARY
SOURCES, KM
ATTAINMENT DATE 1982/1987
POLLUTANT
S02
Nox
Paniculate
Matter
Ox
CO
ATTAINMENT
DATE
1982
1982
1982
1982/1987
1982/1987
1979 SUBMITTAL
REGS.
Y«
Yet
Yet
Traditional
Sourcedncludei
fugitive)
Yd
Stationery Source
(IOCTG)
Yet
Stationary Sources
SCHEDULES
No
Yei
Yet
Non-Traditional
Yet
1. later CTG't ittued
after Jan. 1978
2. I/M
3 TCM
4 other meaiures
Yet
1 I/M
2 TCM
3. other measures
OXIDANT
*MAJOR URBAN AREAS
^SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION OF
VOC EMISSIONS
*REDUCE PEAK CONCENTRATION
IN URBAN AREAS
* SOLVE RURAL OX BY MINIMIZING
VOC EMISSION OXIDANTS
WHICH MAY BE TRANSPORTED
52
-------
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
*URBAN AREA PROVIDE DEMONSTRATION
OF ATTAINMENT
*RURAL AREA NOT NECESSARY TO
PROVIDE DEMONSTRATION OF ATTAINMENT
*RURAL PLAN DEPENDS UPON URBAN PLAN
AND RACT ON SOURCES > 100T/YR IN
RURAL AREAS
II
MAJOR URBAN
GREATER THAN
200,000 IN 1970
53
-------
RACT REGULATIONS FIRST
10 CTG & STAGE 1
SCHEDULE FOR RACT WHICH
CALLS FOR ANNUAL SUB™
MITTAL OF REGULATIONS
BEGINNING IN JAN. 1980
MOBILE
SOURCES
IMPLEMENT REASONABLE
TCM's ASAP!
RCTM
FEB. 1978
5 MEASURES
AUGUST 1978
14 MEASURES
54
-------
Transportation Measures
• PROMPT ANALYSIS
• IMPLEMENT IN PHASES IF
NECESSARY
•IMPLEMENTATION MAY BE
COMPLICATED & LENGTHY
1979 PLAN SUBMITTED WITH
EXTENSION BEYOND 1982
*EXPEDITIOUS IMPLEMENTATION OF
CURRENT RTCM
^PROGRAM TO EVALUATE RANGE OF
ALTERNATIVE PACKAGES
•^PROVIDE EVALUATION OF LONG
RANGE ALTERNATIVES
* SCHEDULE FOR ANALYSIS AND
ADOPTION OF TCM AEAP
PLANS FOR UNCLASSIFIED AREAS
FOR OXIDANT
*SUBMIT PLAN WITHIN 9 MONTHS OF
NON-ATTAINMENT DETERMINATION
*ATTAINMENT DATE
*OFF SETS UNTIL PLAN DEVELOPED
55
-------
JANUARY
1978
JULY
1978
-GROUP I CTG ISSUED (10)
STAGE I GUIDANCE ISSUED
GROUP I (B) RTCM GUIDANCE ISSUED
-(FEBRUARY 1978)
-GROUP II CTG ISSUED
GROUP II (14) RTCM GUIDANCE ISSUED
-(AUGUST, 1978)
JANUARY
1979
-SO2 REGS
TSP REGS (TRADITIONAL)
SCHEDULES (NON TRADITIONAL)
NOX REGS
SCHEDULES
Ox & CO
REGS (STATIONARY)
SCHEDULES I/M
TCM
OTHER MEASURES
GROUP III CTG ISSUED (DEC. 1978)
JULY
1979
'PLAN APPROVAL/DISAPPROVAL
LEGAL AUTHORITY I/M (JUNE 30 ,1979)
. LAST CTG's ISSUED (GROUP IV)
JANUARY
1980
"SUBMISSION OF REGS FOR GROUP II & III
CTG'f (15)
SUBMISSION OF LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE
PROCEDURES FOR RTCM CONTINUES AS
INDICATED IN THE 1979 SCHEDULES
ANNUAL REPORT ON PROGRESS TOWARD
.MEETING SCHEDULES
56
-------
JULY
1980
JANUARY
1981
~ LEGAL AUTHORITY I/M (LEGISLATE NO
OPPORTUNITY BETWEEN 8/7/77 & 6/30/79)
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE TCM SHOULD BE
-COMPLETED
"REGULATIONS FOR GROUP IVCTG'S
REPRESENTATIVE LIST OF RTCM IMPLEMENTED
ON PILOT OR DEMONSTRATION BASIS
ANNUAL REPORT ON PROGRESS TOWARD MEETING
-SCHEDULES
JULY
1981
JANUARY
1982
'CONTINUED SUBMITTAL OF LEGALLY
ENFORCEABLE PROCEDURES FOR RTCMs
AS MAY HAVE BEEN INDICATED IN 1979
-SCHEDULES
" I/M IMPLEMENTED FOR DECENTRALIZED SYSTEM
(PRIVATE GARAGE)
LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE PROCEDURES FOR ALL
_RTCM TO BE SUBMITTED
JULY
1982
"SUBMISSION OF ALL NECESSARY MEASURES TO
PROVIDE FOR ATTAINMENT (CO . O, ) STANDARDS
-BY NO LATER THAN DECEMBER 31, 1987
DECEMBER
1982
"S02 , TSP, NOX STANDARDS ATTAINED
I/M IMPLEMENTATION FOR CENTRALIZED SYSTEM
(STATE)
RTCM IMPLEMENTED (FULL IMPLEMENTATION FOR
SOME OF THE MORE DIFFICULT MEASURES MAY
EXTEND BEYOND 1982)
I RACT IMPLEMENTED
57
-------
CONTROL STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 PLANS FOR NON-ATTAINMENT AREAS
I. Overview of procedures for Control Strategy Development
A. Area for development
1. Plan shall be developed for each non-attainment area as
designated under Section 107.
2. Should include the consideration of sources which may be
located outside the non-attainment areas but which have a significant
impact (as defined in Appendix A, Interim Guideline on Air Quality
Models, OAQPS No. 1.2-080) upon non-attainment area, (see Attachment A)
3. Each non-attainment area must have its own control strategy
demonstration. The example region approach (Sec. 51.13) per se will
not be accepted. However, a slight variation would be permissible
for 0 (i.e., demonstrated urban attainment with additional rural
stationary source control will be sufficient and no demonstration of
attainment is necessary for rural areas).
B. What type and how much control is required to attain the
standards?
1. The magnitude of the problem
a. Primary/secondary standard
b. Maintenance
2. Geographic extent
a. Localized (see Attachment B)
b. Widespread (see Attachment C)
3. Temporal
That is, SIP-related limits should be based on concentra-
tion estimates for the averaging time which results in the most
stringent control requirements. In all cases, these concentration
estimates are assumed to be a sum of the concentration contributed by
the source and an appropriate background concentration.
If the annual average air quality standard is exceeded by
a greater degree (percentage) than standards for other averaging times,
the annual average is considered the restrictive standard. In this
case the sum of the highest estimated annual average concentration
and the annual average background provides the concentration which
should be used to specify emission limits. However, if a short-term
standard is exceeded by a greater degree and 1s thus Identified as
the restrictive standard, other considerations are required because
the frequency of occurrence must also be taken into account.
58
-------
I
ATTACHMENT A
INTERNAL VIOLATION
EXTERNAL SOURCE
EXTERNAL VIOLATION
INTERNAL SOURCE
X MAJOR SOURCES
59
-------
ATTACHMENT B
Designated
Non-Attainment
Area
Localized
60
-------
ATTACHMENT C
«
Designated Non-Attainment Area
WIDESPREAD
61
-------
4. Source categories which constribute to the problem and
from which further control is available.
a. Stationary
b. Mobile
C. Strategy alternatives
1. Technological controls (i.e., traditional sources)
a. Retrofi t
b. Process changes
2. Non-traditional controls
a. Road paving, sweeping, dust suppression
b. Land use type
D. Strategy screening depends upon:
1. Initial modeling results of base case
2. Availability and accuracy of data base
3. Social, economic, and institutional constraints
4. Resources
NOTE: Because of the magnitude of the problem, in many
cases, it will take all you can think of to attain.
E. Emission reduction estimates for each alternative should be
developed (i.e., determine the emission reduction obtained through
the application of each strategy alternative):
Oxidant
1. RACT--(See Attachment D) (More information is presented
in discussion on RACT)
2. RTCM--(See Attachment E) (More information can be found
on discussion of Transportation Related Issues)
Total Suspended Particulate
(See Attachment F)
Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide
(See Attachment F)
F. Strategy selection
1. Technically acceptable (most important step)
a. Provides for attainment as expeditiously as practicable
(AEAP)
b. Sets forth date of attainment
c. AQ projected to attain standard
d. Control technology adequate
62
-------
ATTACHMENT D
Summary of Recommended Emission
Limitations and/or Control Efficiences for
Stationary VOC Sources
Emission Limitation
GROUp j or Control Efficiency
Large Appliance Manufacture
Magnet Wire Insulation
Gasoline Bulk Plants
Metal furniture Manufacture
Petroleum Liquid Storage,
Fixed Roof Tanks
Degreasing
Bulk Gasoline Terminals
Petroleum Refinery Vacuum Systems,
Waste Water Separators and Process
Unit Turnaround
Service Stations, Stage I
GROUP II
Petroleum Refinery Fugitive
Emissions (leaks)
Surface Coating of Other Metal
Products - Industrial
Pharmaceutical Manufacture
Rubber Products Manufacture
Paint Manufacture
Vegetable Oil Processing
Graphic Arts (Printing)
Flat Wood Products
Service Stations, Stage II
Petroleum Liquid Storage
Floating Roof Tanks
GROUP III
Ship and Barge Transport of
Gasoline and Crude Oil
Organic Chemical Manufacture
Process Streams
Fugitive (Leaks)
Dry Cleaning
Wood Furniture Manufacture
Architectural and Miscellaneous
Coatings
63
-------
ATTACHMENT D (Continued)
Summary of Recommended Emission Limitations
and/or Control Efficiencies for Stationary VOC Sources
Emission Limitation
or Control Efficiency
GROUP IV
Organic Chemical Manufacture
Waste Disposal
Storage and Handling
OTHERS
Natural Gas and Crude Oil
Production
Adhesives
Other Induxtrial Surface
Coatings
Auto Refinishing
Other Solvent Usage
64
-------
ATTACHMENT E
SUMMARY OF POSSIBLE
PERCENT EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM
RTCMs
MEASURES % Emission Reduction
Inspection/maintenance
Vapor recovery
Improved public transit
Exclusive bus and carpool lanes
Areawide carpool programs
Private car restrictions
Long-range transit improvements
On-street parking controls
Park and ride and fringe parking lots
Pedestrian malls
Employer programs to encourage car and van polling,
mass transit, bicycling and walking
Bicycle lanes and storage facilities
Staggered work hours
Road pricing to discourage single occupancy
auto trips
Controls on extended vehicle idling
Traffic flow improvements
Alternative fuels or engines and other fleet
vehicle controls
Other than light duty vehicle retrofit
Extreme cold start emission reduction programs
65
-------
ATTACHMENT F
INFORMATION FOU DETERMINING
PERCENT CONTROL FOR TSP, SQ2, NOX, CO
BE
— CONTROLLED AND UNCONTROLLED EMISSION RATES AND
APPLICABLE LIMITATIONS FOR EIGHTY PROCESSES., SEPTEMBER 1976,
- EXTERNAL COMBUSTION
- SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
- FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
- METALLURGICAL
- MINERAL PRODUCTS
- WOOD PROCESSING
~ GUIDELINE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF CONTROL STRATEGIES IN AREAS
WITH FUGITIVE DUST PROBLEMS, CAQPS # 1,2-071, OCTOBER 1977
- UNPAVED ROADS
- ENTRAINED STREET DUST
- CONTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION
- AGRICULTURE
- TAILING PILES
- PARKING LOTS
— TECHNICAL GUIDANCE FOR CONTROL OF INDUSTRIAL PROCESS
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS, MARCH 1977, EPA 450/3-77-010
- COMMON DUST SOURCES
- IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTION
- PRIMARY NON-FERROUS SMELTING
- SECONDARY NON-FERROUS SMELTING
- FOUNDRIES
- MATERIALS EXTRACTION AND BENEFICIATION
- GRAIN ELEVATORS
- -PORTLAND CEMENT
- LIME
- CONCRETE BATCHING
- ASPHALT CONCRETE PRODUCTION
- LUMBER AND FURNITURE
66
-------
ATTACHMENT F (Continued)
2
TSP (CONTINUED)
— SSEIS's FOR NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARD DEVELOPMENT
S02, NOX, CO
— SSEIS's FOR NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARD DEVELOPMENT
67
-------
2. Economic analysis
3. Institutional impact
a. Local government
b. MPO's
c. Social impact—public acceptance
d. Financial and manpower commitments to carry out the
strategy
e. Welfare, energy impact
NOTE: Might use decision matrix similar to Washington
Environmental Research Center matrix.
(See Attachment G)
G. Demonstration of attainment
1. Plan must demonstrate attainment
a. AEAP but no later than 12/31/82 for TSP, S0?, NO
primary standard ^ x
b. Reasonable time for TSP, S0? secondary standard
attainment
(1) Reasonable time shall be 1982 if only RACT is
needed to attain secondary standard
(2) Where greater than RACT is required or where the
State shows that good cause exists for a longer period of time "reason-
able time" shall depend on the degree of emission reduction needed
for attainment of such secondary standard and on the social, economic,
and technological problems involved in carrying out a control strategy
adequate for attainment and maintenance of such secondary standard
(Sec. 51.13).
c. AEAP but no later than 12/31/87 for CO, 0
2. Same models as used for determination of levef of control
a. "Interim Guideline on Air Quality Models" OAQPS 1.2-080
(1) Multi-Source Models for Sulfur Dioxide and Par-
ticulate Matter (Annual Average)--"If a preliminary assessment of the
adequacy of a control strategy is desired, the Rollback Model may be
used. However, in most cases such a screening does not constitute an
adequate control strategy demonstration.
The Climatological Dispersion Model (COM, the
Air Quality Display Model (AQDM), and the Texas Climatological Model
(TCM) are recommended for evaluating the long-term impact of urban
multi-source complexes. If the meteorological or topographic com-
plexities are such that the use of any available air quality model
is precluded, an attempt should be made to acquire or improve the
necessary data bases and to develop appropriate analytical techniques.
(2) Multi-Source Models for Sulfur Dioxide and
Particulate Matter (Short-term Averages)—Again, a Rollback Model may
be used for the preliminary assessment of a control strategy. The
Real-Time Air Quality Simulation Model (RAM) is recommended for evalu-
ating the impact of multi-source complexes on air quality averaged
over short-term periods. It is applicable to both urban and rural
68
-------
<Ł>
I—
5
I
Administrative
Considerations
10
"« P
Control
Application
X
llUOJTtin
OATlDOjac;
snonuriuoouoN
shomrijuoi) "
ON-N ssX-A sistxg
!SB3T-Ł - "I
}soi\j-"[ 'xa^
iTqcidsoDy ISI^OT
•
.
* * -t^ |
6 !/>
0,
10
«s
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
1 - Ntost Expensive
2 - Moderately Expensive
3 - Least Expensive
•
9"[qE^d3DDy }sop>j
rH
rt to
•H •!->
U 10
O O
CO U
•i o
•< u
•M
O i/>
I) 4->
>-. 10
•H O
Q u:
J31J1.0
S3DTJJ ^t?UO"[33^[
.u.u/OTd.n na,V
auioouj E3J.V
aaipo
SUTJ:O^TUOJ^
I.uaui33.ioju3
•^ui8W ure.iSo.id
J3t[^Q
luouiuaaAog 01
.toi!aisuo3 01
j.3:HT[t0d 01
uoiianpay \
SS3U3APD3JJ3 %
flJ C
6 O iH
0) -H O
rH •*-> O
§ +J
1— 1
69
a
n)
f-i
4J
f-H
-------
situations. The Texas Episodic Model (TEM) may be used if the data
bases required to apply RAM are unavailable. Also, if the resources
required to operate RAM or TEM are not available, then COM, AQDM, or
TCM may be used to estimate short-term concentrations of S0? and
parti cul ate matter. COM and AQDM incorporate procedures, snch as
that discussed by Larsen, to convert 3-hour and 24-hour average con-
centrations from annual average concentration estimates. Such
statistical techniques are valid only in urban, multi -source e
and should not be used in situations dominated by large point
..i...._:
and requirements described in Volume 9 of the Guidelines for Air Quality
Maintenance Planning and Analysis, "Guidelines for Review of the Impact
of Indirect Sources on Ambient Air Quality," are recommended for
screening all sources of CO which fulfill the definition of an indirect
source. The indirect source guideline is based on the use of HIWAY
and other simple dispersion techniques. It is acceptable to apply
these latter techniques, e.g., HIWAY, independently of the indirect
source guideline if it is found that the guideline does not adequately
consider a wide enough set of circumstances. If a preliminary assess-
ment of the adequacy of a control strategy applicable to an urban area
is desired, the Rollback Model may be used.
Situations that require more refined techniques should be considered
on a case-by-case basis with the use of expert consultation. If a suit-
able model is available and the data and technical competence required
for this model are available, it may be used. An example of such a
refined technique is APRAC-1A. However, if a region-wide analysis is
necessary and the complexities are such that the use of any available
air quality model is precluded, an attempt should be made to acquire
or improve the necessary data bases and to develop appropriate analyt-
ical techniques.
(4) Models for Nitrogen Dioxide—The recommendations
for point source screening techniques and model are also applicable
to evaluate point sources of nitrogen oxides (NO ) under limited
circumstances. The circumstances require an assumption that all NOX
is emitted in the form of NO, or is converted to N0_ by the time it
reaches the ground and that N02 is a nonreactive pollutant.
For sources located where atmospheric photochemical reactions are
significant, a Rollback Model may be used as a preliminary assessment
to evaluate the control strategies for multiple sources (mobile and
stationary) of NO . Another acceptable screening technique for multi-
ple sources is to make an assumption similar to that required for
point sources and then to use a model for nonreactive pollutants, such
as COM.
b. "Uses, Limitations, and Technical Basis of Procedures
for Quantifying Relationships between Photochemical Oxidants and
Precursors " EPA 450/2-77-021 a.
70
-------
c. "Technical Guidance for Control of Industrial Process
Fugitive Particulate Emissions," March, 1977, EPA.
(1) "Estimation of the long-term, area-wide air
quality impact—No long-term dispersion model is generally available
which adequately considers the complicating factors peculiar to
Industrial Process Fugitive Particulate Emissions. The possible
development of such a model for industrial source complexes is being
investigated. In the interim, the absence of an adequate annual
model is not critical, since the short-term localized impact of IPFPE's
is of primary concern from the viewpoint of development adequate emis-
sion control strategies.
Preliminary estimates of area-wide, annual-average impact can be
obtained by including the IPFPE sources in the multisource urban
models, e.g., COM and AQDM, which are being used for other sources of
particulate matter in the area of concern. For such purposes, the
details of source configuration are not so critical as they are for
short-term, localized, air quality modeling. On the distance scales
of area-wide models, many area sources (e.g., haul roads and roof
monitors) can be treated as point sources. The roadway network of a
relatively large plant can be treated as a uniform area source. A
related aspect is that many emissions can be "lumped" because the
physical parameters of the individual sources are not so critical as
they are in short-term, localized air quality modeling."
(2) Multi-source (complex) short-term model under
development, Summer, 1978.
d. "Guideline for Development of Control Strategies in
Areas with Fugitive Dust Problems," OAQPS 1.2-071.—"In those areas
where fugitive dust sources predominate, such as in the west and the
arid southwest (e.g., Phoenix, Las Vegas, etc.) AQDM and COM are of
limited value; other models such as atmospheric transport and diffu-
sion, ATM, and Hanna Gifford may be adapted for these areas.
At the present time, the consideration of fugitive dust sources
in diffusion models is limited. Continued use of AQDM and COM appears
to be the most reasonable approach for those areas where particles
less than 10 micrometers predominate. Other techniques may be more
useful in those areas where larger sized particles are common.
2. No rollback for TSP, S02, N0x, unless approved by RA
3. Background concentration—that portion of measured ambient
levels that cannot be reduced by controlling emissions from man-made
sources
a. TSP—measure ambient level of particulate matter in
non-urban areas:
71
-------
Annual: Background Air Quality—To adequately assess
the significance of the air quality impact of a source, background
concentrations must be considered. Background air quality relevant
to a given source includes those pollutant concentrations due to
natural sources and distant, unidentified man-made sources. For
example, it is commonly assumed that the annual mean background
concentration of particulate matter is 30-40 yg/m3 over much of the
Eastern United States. Typically, air quality data are used to estab-
lish background concentrations in the vicinity of the source under
consideration. However, where the source is not isolated, it may be
necessary to use a multi-source model to establish the impact of all
other nearby sources during dispersion conditions conducive to high
concentrations.
If the point source is truly isolated and not affected by other
readily identified man-made sources, two options for determining back-
ground concentrations from air quality data are available. The
preferable option is to use air quality data collected in the vicinity
of the source to determine mean background concentrations for the
averaging times of interest when the point source itself is not impact-
ing on the monitor. The second option applies when no monitors are
located in the vicinity of the source. In that case, average measured
concentrations from a "regional" site can be used to establish a back-
Short-term: Background Air Quality—For shorter
averaging times, background concentrations are determined by
the following procedure. First, meteorological conditions are
identified for the day and similar days when the highest, second-
highest estimated concentration due to the source occurs. Then the
average background concentration on days with similar meteorological
conditions is determined from air quality measurements. The background
for each hour is assumed to be an average of hourly concentrations
measures at sites outside of a 90° sector downwind of the source. The
1-hour concentrations are then averaged to obtain the background
concentration for the averaging time of concern.
If air quality data from a local monitoring network are not
available, then monitored data from a "regional" site may be used for
the second option. Such a site should characterize air quality across
a broad area, including that in which the source is located. The tech-
nique of characterizing meteorological conditions and determining
associated background concentrations can then be employed.
Reference: "Interim Guideline on Air Quality Modeling" OAQPS 1.2-080
p34.
b. Oxidant—"Procedures for Quantifying Relationships
Between Photochemical Oxidants and Precursors" EPA 450/2-77-021B
72
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
H. Development of emission limitation or legally enforceable pro-
cedures of schedules of commitments for the development and adoption
of legally enforceable procedures.
I. Public hearings
J. Adoption
K. Governor's approval
L. Submittal to EPA
II. General requirements for approval of 1979 plans for non-attainment
areas
A. Adoption of rules and regulations in legally enforceable form
of all measures necessary for attainment (See discussion on Procedural
Requirements for more information)
B. Commitment to implement and enforce
1. 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,
regulation, ordinance or other legally enforceable document, the neces-
sary-requirement and schedules and timetables for compliance, and are
committed to implement and enforce the appropriate elements of the plan.
C. Schedules
1. Where adoption by 1979 not possible, (e.g., certain trans-
portation control measures and certain measures to control NO and TSP)
a schedule for expeditious development, adoption, submittal, aSid imple-
mentation of these revisions would be acceptable.
2. Schedules provide implementation AEAP
3. Prior to attainment, measures must be implemented rapidly
enough to provide the emission reductions necessary to maintain
reasonable further progress. (See discussion on Reasonable Further
Progress.)
4. Schedule would be part of applicable plan and represent
commitments on part of the State to meet key milestones set forth in
schedule. (See discussion on Procedural Requirements.)
D. Emission reductions estimates
1. Each adopted or scheduled control measure or for related
group of measures where estimates of individual measures are imprac-
tical.
2. Recognized estimates may change as measures are more fully
analyzed and implemented.
3. As estimates change, these should be reported and included
in subsequent plan submissions to insure plan remains adequate.
73
-------
E. Reasonable further progress toward primary and secondary
standard
1. Annual incremental reduction in total emissions (new, as
well as existing).
2. Substantial reductions in early years
3. Recognize some measures cannot be immediately implemented
a. State shows lag in reductions is necessary
b. Acceptable even though reductions for RFP are not
achieved for a year or two
4. Credit for:
a. SIP revisions that have been submitted after 8/7/77
b. Compliance after 8/7/77 with regs already approved
(within year 1979) "Not paper trades"
F. Identification and quantification of growth from new sources
1. New source can be accommodated with SIP
2. Offsets
(See discussion on New Source Review)
G. Annual reporting
1. Progress toward meeting commitment schedules for submis-
sion of legally enforceable procedures
2. Emissions
H. Identification and commitment to financial and manpower
resources
1. Written evidence that agencies have included provisions
in respective budgets
I Evidence of public, local agency involvement and consultation
J. Analysis of air quality, health, welfare, economic, energy,
and social effects of plan and alternatives considered
III. Additional requirements for control strategies with attainment
after 1982
A. Analysis of alternative sites, sizes, production process, and
environmental control technique for new sources which demonstrates
benefits outweigh environmental and social costs
B. Inspection/maintenance
1. Legal authority—6/3D/79
a. Exceptions—demonstrate that:
(1) Insufficient opportunity to conduct technical
analysis
(2) Legislature no opportunity to consider enabling
legislation between 8/7/77 & 6/30/79—Legal
authori ty-7/1/80
74
-------
I
I
I
I
2. Implementation - AEAP
a. Mandatory inspection/maintenance and mandating repair
no later than 1982 for centralized and 1981 for decentralized systems.
C. Commitment to establish, expand, or improve public transpor-
tation measures for 0 reduction
/\
• D. Commitment to use available transit funds as may be necessary
IV. Sulfur Dioxide Plan Requirements
I A. Regulations submittal 1979
B. 1982 attainment
I V. Nitrogen Oxide Plan Requirements
m A. Regulations and schedules in 1979
B. 1982 attainment
B VI. Particulate Matter Plan Requirements
A. Attainment by 1982
B B. Regulations for control of traditional and fugitive emission
sources
• C. Schedules for non-traditional sources (including demonstrate
projects)
1. Fugitive dust
• a. Guideline for Development of Control Strategy in
• Areas with Fugitive Dust Problems, OAQPS 1.2-071 pp 6-1 to 6-10
• VII. Oxidant and CO Plan Requirements
A. Complete 0 monitoring in major urban areas to characterize
_ problem and require CO monitor if necessary to correct deficiencies
* B. Set forth necessary emission limitations. Obtain significant
control of VOC emissions in all non-attainment areas.
• C. Reducing peak concentrations within major urban areas
1. Solve rural oxidant by minimizing VOC emissions and
m oxidant that may be transported
D. Assume 0 standard will be attained in adjacent States not
— part of a given interstate non-attainment area.
I
I
-------
E. Comprehensive plan
1. Urban plan must provide for demonstration of attainment
of the standard
2. Rural area, no standard attainment demonstration is
required per se as the plan for rural areas depends upon the urban
demonstration plus RACT for all sources >1QO tons/year potential in
rural area
3. Rural areas may, however, submit a plan which provides
for a demonstration if desired.
F, Major urban areas
1. Urbanized population >200,000 (U.S. Census, 1970)
(See Attachment H)
2. Flexible boundary
a. Entire urbanized area
b. Adjacent fringe areas
G. Stationary source control
1. January 1, 1979, submittal
a. Legally enforceable regulations for first 10 CTG and
Stage I guidance that was issued by January 1978.
b. Provide a schedule which calls for adoption and
submittal of RACT on annual basis beginning in January 1980, for CTG's
published by January of proceeding year.
(See Attachment I)
H. Mobi,e sources
1. AL'AP implementation
2. Reasonable TCM's
a. Information available by February 1978
(1) Inspection/maintenance
(2) Vapor recovery
(3) Improved public transit
(4) Exclusive bus and carpool lanes
(5) Areawide carpool programs
b. Information available by August 1978
(1) Private car restrictions
(2) Long range transit improvements
(3) On street parking controls
(4) Park and ride and fringe parking lots
(5) Pedestrian malls
(6) Employer programs to encourage car and van
pooling, mass transit, bicycling, and walking
(7) Bicycle lanes and storage facilities
(8) Staggered work hours
(9) Road pricing to discourage single occupancy
auto trips
(10) Controls on extended vehicle idling
(11) Traffic flow improvement
(12) Alternative fuels or engines and other fleet
vehicle controls
76
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8
O
A
O
O
C\J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
«i
ll
I
S_
(U
+->
ra
ai
rO
CX
o
o.
rO
(U
rr
rx
^^
o ca
1 — I 7
_j y
a. cc
o
a.
t— i — cn^r^l-Lnr^co cnus
CDCMcniniocococo coi—
cr)r^cocor--i.D>x>c'o r— o
< "
*-» >.
^* -^
<• n^
-cr o
~- T 1
X ^i b QJ
1— 1 X E- 00 - 1— 01 I" 0 ro 5-
-»- M ^f ^ j | T^J ^
oo-< "S-^: -s-
•r-CUX^OI— OCU «
«Cr-O4JQ_ 4->X> S-.
WOi — S-l "e3_JQJ
3 4-> T- - O -^ */) QJ ra U— 4-*
E>»- CJ.S~4->TJ.C
^-C3>>S_S~EOS-OI_)
OrOOraOOQJroOOO
rorocococorococoro «^-
r^ co en in in
cn co en r~- co
m r^ o r— in
co cn co CM cn
co i — m «3- CM
in in in in m
i^
O —1
1 Li—
O "_J
X) -r- " 1
i- -0 E —
ro Q) ra DC T-
C X) ro J^ CD >
S_ -r- f= en c
O) to O C - O
QJ ro E- O -^
C > r— S~ S- 0
K3 -r- ^ T- ^Z ra
oo a; o en ec '-j
i — CM co >^- in
co cn vo en
o in r^- co
co i — r^ r^
<^- m r— r^
i — cn en co
i
QJ
QJ
r>. 1
O U-
U
-C r— cn
ej o i- >— '
X) -i T
i — ?y to 1 3C
CD S_ Ul CD
•r- " CD 2:
4- QJ 4-> -
C "b Q- ro X)
• ^ >, x: CD
S_ r — • ro i —
CX O 4-> F O
oo n: oo o \—
vo r^ co crt
in
CM
in
UO
03
i
>^
X)
ro
O
QJ
C
Q)
x:
LJ
i z:
>•
C **
J3 O
r— S-
cC h-
O
LO
o-) O "J-
PX. 1X3 *^J"
i
r~~
*
(— c
^) 0
to
- X3
>! ••-
4-1 „ >
•r- t— ra
cj o cn
QJ "CD
^ XI r—
ro S- i —
_J O T-
lj— ^>
4-> 4-> -!T
rcj ro rc
oo :n 2:
n- CM 0"
^fc CO iQ ^^ CT^ O^ t^*»
cr> w^ *-o ^^~ ^-O cyi *^o
ro tn ro H.O i — ^r CM
-
4J i~ "~ C
3~XJ 0 0 CD O
r— c rx •» -> to
zj o a) 10 3
i — E cn cn u rc
O XI X) '^ fU t/l L_
o •'- r __o ^'a ^
^j* LO to r^« co o~v fTj
LO LO LO LO LO LO IQ
*
o
f— «
O 1—
cn _l
rx
o
CX
<:
UJ
cr.
•-C
o
Ul
URBAN I
z:
o o
»-i z:
r- »-<
O
CL.
co
lO
o
CM
IO
i- .
O 0
>- .
(D C
2: 1-
OJ
•> 4->
.i^ to
i. ro
O QJ
>- XT
4 J
3 s-
OJ O
•
•—
«JD CO
Id (--
CM in
in r-
co r-~
•* »>
CO <Ł>
(
1
CD 4J
C i-
o o
i r
1/1 — J z:
QJ 1 — I « — i
r— en i.
IO rO -i— 1/1
O (1J -C OJ
1 CO «_>;=:
• •
CM ro
to co
O in
r— O
CM r-,
O CTI
«3- CO
•~3
1
a,
*\
ro
•f— 1 — t
cx~~
CD 4->
X> -f-
ro O
i — i-
•r- 4->
-C (U
CX Q
**• u>
O
CO
CO
en
CM
M
X)
c
ra
o
1
o
u
to
o
e
ra
$_
u.
c
ra «=c
oo o
0
a: c
7" O
4->
« cn
c e
O •!-
to to
O o
CM co ro i — • *~f r^ r*^ r— co co
5°ŁŁSSc3™ŁŁ
7Z.
"
CX • Q i — « CD cC
*» OO X QJ <3*
-C C 1— "X « > -CO
cnro oil — QJUJ 10
i~ 4J -S_ QJILUCD"
3 O C O •> -^ CD CD ro
_ni/1OElO3i — •. -r— 4J
l/) QJ 4-* •( — ra ro 4-* •! — Q C
4->Ct04->i — ^4->F -
o
ro
C
c:
o
c
•r-
O
•-
CM
r^« "^ i — co
co cn - r--.
O co -=t- CM
r— CD O O
oo
1
o
** *^C
4-> 2T CD
(_3 " QJ
O - (/t
d i— S_ 0
rO ro QJ --3
i/> V- >
rd 3 CD ra
v: ca Q oo
CM ro ^- in
CXJ CM CM CM
co r-x 10
CM in CM
UD U3 CM
ai co co
=C
— ' ^
« i
C X)
r— X C
S_ -r- ro
CD C ,—
QJ 4 >
3: 0 i-
QJ x: o
2: Q. CX
ID 1^ CO
CM CM CM
CD
in
CM
CO
1
•4— '
QJ
(_J
Z 3
^H 4->
•* ra
to CX
Indianapoli
Providence-
en 0
CM CO
ra
4->
4->
rO
c:
o
c
TD
O)
4J
rO
C
CD
•r-
-------
ATTACHMENT H (Continued)
Urbanized Areas with Population Greater than 200,000
POPULATION
RANKING
61.
62.
63.
64.
65,
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.'
90.'
91.
*92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
URBANIZED AREA
Tampa, FL
Al 1 entown-Bethl ehem-
Easton, PA-NJ
Grand Rapids, MI
New Haven, CT
El Paso, TX
Tacoma, WA
Flint, MI
Orlando, FL
Wichita, KS
Albuquerque, MM
Tucson, AZ
South Bend, IN-MI
West Palm Beach, FL
Charlotte, NC
Trenton, NJ-PA
Newport News-Hampton, VA
Davenport-Rock Island-
Moline, IA-IL
Austin, TX
Fresno, CA
Mobile, AL
Des Koines, IA
Baton Rouge, LA
Worcester, MA
Peoria, IL
Oxnard-Ventura-Thousand
Oaks, CA
Canton, OH
Columbia, SC
Harris burg, PA
Las Vegas, NV
Shreveport, LA
Aurora-Elgin, IL
Spokane, WA
Lansing, MI
Charleston, SC
Fort Wayne, IN
Chattanooga, TN-GA
Wilkes-Sarre,PA
Little Rock-North Little
Rock, AR
Corpus Christi, TX
Columbus,GA-AL
Rockford, IL
Madison, WI
Colorado Springs, CO
Scranton, PA
Lawrence-Haverhill .MA-NH
1970
POPULATION
368,742
363,517
352,703
348,341
337,471
332,521
330,128
305,479
302,334
297,451
294,184
288,572
287,561
279,530
274,148
268,263
266,119
264,499
262,908
257,816
255,824
249,463
247,416
247,121.
244,553
244,279.
241,781.
240,751
236,681
234,564
232,917
229,620
229,518
228,399
225,184.
223,580
222,830
222,616
208,616
208,616
206,084
205,457
204,766
204,205
200,280
*Has not been designated non-attainment.
78
-------
ATTACHMENT I
POLLUTANT
S02
N°x
Particulate
Matter
Ox
CO
ATTAINMENT
DATE
1982
1982
1982
1982/1987
1982/1987
1979 SUBMITTAL
REGS.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Traditional
Source(includes
fugitive)
Yes
Stationary Source
(10 CTG)
Yes
Stationary Sources
SCHEDULES
No
Yes
Yes
Non-Traditional
Yes
1. later CTG 's issued
after Jan. I978
2. I/M
3. TCM
4. other measures
Yes
1.1/M
2. TCM
3. other measures
79
-------
(13) Retrofit on other than light duty vehicle
(14) Extreme cold start emission reduction programs
3. Prompt analysis
a. If analysis demonstrates that certain measures would
be unnecessary or ineffective, a decision not to implement such
measures may be justifiable.
b. Decisions not to implement measures should be care-
fully reviewed to avoid broad rejections of measures based on prelimi-
nary assertions of infeasibility
4. Implementation activities must proceed
a. Not all should wait until the comprehensive analysis
of control measures are completed
b. Demonstration studies are important and should
accompany or precede full scale implementation of the comprehensive
strategy.
c. Each area should be required to schedule a represen-
tative selection of reasonable transportation measures (as listed
above) for implementation at least on a pilot or demonstration basis
prior to the end of 1980.
5. Implementation of TCM can be complicated and lengthy
a. Very extensive TCM implementation in areas with
severe carbon monoxide and oxidant problems, may call for completion
of some of the adopted measures beyond 1982.
b. Implementation of even these very extensive trans-
portation measures, however, must be initiated before 12/31/82.
6. 1979 plan revision submittals that justify extension
beyond 1982 should:
a. Contain procedures and criteria by which a determi-
nation can be made whether the outputs of DOT transportation plan
process conform to the SIP.
b. Provide for the expeditious implementation of cur-
rently planned reasonable transportation control measures. This
includes reasonable but unimplemented transportation measures in
existing SIPs and transportation controls with demonstrable air
quality benefits developed as part of the transportation process
funded by DOT.
c. Present a program for evaluting a range of alter-
native packages of transportation options that includes, as a
minimum, those measures listed above for which EPA will develop
information packages. The analysis must identify an optimum package
of transportation control measures to attain the emission reduction
target ascribed to it in the SIP.
d. Provide for the evaluation of long range (post-1982)
transportation and growth policies.
e. Include a schedule for analysis and adoption of
transportation control measures as expeditiously as practicable.
(1) The comprehensive analysis of alternatives
should 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.
80
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(2) Adopted measures must be implemented as expedi-
tiously as practicable and on a continuous schedule that demonstrates
reasonable further progress unless it can be demonstrated that a
longer time for implementation is required for individual control
measures.
(3) Determinations of the reasonableness of a
schedule will be based on the nature of the existing or planned
transportation system and the complexity of implementation of an
individual measure
VIII. SIPs for unclassified areas redesignated non-attainment
A. 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 which provides for attainment.
B. During plan development, the State will be required to imple-
ment the offset policy for that area.
C. Because of previous plan revisions or adoption of previous
control regulations, the baseline for offsets will be more restric-
tive and thus offsets may be more difficult to obtain.
D. Statewide 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 applicable plan
for the newly designated non-attainment area. This would constitute
an approvable SIP per the above criteria and growth could be accommo-
dated.
IX. Time Schedule of Plan Activities (see Attachment J)
81
-------
ATTACHMENT J
SCHEDULE FOR PLANNED ACTIVITIES
JANUARY
1973
GROUP I CTG ISSUED (10)
STAGE I GUIDANCE ISSUED
GROUP I (5) RTCM GUIDANCE ISSUED (FEE, 1Q73)
JULY
1978
GROUP II CTG ISSUED
GROUP II (14) RTCM GUIDANCE ISSUED (AuG, 1978)
JANUARY
1979
SUV-REGS
TSP—REGS (TRADITIONAL)
SCHEDULES (NON-TRADITIONAL)
NOX—REGS
SCHEDULES
QX& REGS (STATIONARY) GROUP I CTG AND STAGE I
CO— SCHEDULES—I/M
TCn
OTHER MEASURES
GROUP III CTG ISSUED (DEC, 1978)
JULY
1979
PLAN APPROVAL/DISAPPROVAL
LEGAL AUTHORITY—I/M (JUNE 30, 1979)
LAST CTG's ISSUED (GROUP IV)
JANUARY
1980
— SUBMISSION OF REGS FOR GROUP II & III CTGs (15)
m
ISSION OF LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE P[
CONTINUES AS INDICATED IN THE
•DURES FOR
3 SCHEDULES
— ANNUAL REPORT ON PROGRESS TOWARD MEETING SCHEDULES
82
-------
ATTACHMENT J (Continued)
JULY — LEGAL AUTHORITY J/M (LEGISLATE NO OPPORTUNITY
1980 BETWEEN 8/7/77 VID C/30/79)
— ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE TCil SHOULD BE COMPLETED*
JANUARY — REGULATIONS FOR GROUP IV CTGs
1981 ~ REPRESENTATIVE LIST OF RTCM IMPLEMENTED ON PILOT
OR DEMONSTRATION BASIS
— ANNUAL REPORT ON PROGRESS TOWARD MEETING SCHEDULES
JULY — CONTINUED SUBMITTAL OF LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE PROCEDURES
1981 FOR RTCMs AS MAY HAVE BEEN INDICATED IN 1979 SCHEDULES
JANUARY — I/M IMPLEMENTED FOR DECENTRALIZED SYSTEM (PRIVATE
1982 GARAGE)
— LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE PROCEDURES FOR ALL RTCM TO BE
SUBMITTED
JULY -- SUBMISSION OF ALL NECESSARY MEASURES TO PROVIDE
1982 FOR ATTAINMENT (CO, 0 ) STANDARDS BY NO LATER THAN
DEC, 31, 1987
DECEMBER ~ SO^, TSP, NOX STANDARDS ATTAINED
1982 — I/M IMPLEMENTATION FOR CENTRALIZED SYSTEM (STATE)
~ RICH IMPLEMENTED (FULL IMPLEMENTATION FOR SOME OF
THE MORE DIFFICULT MEASURES MAY EXTEND BEYOND 1982)
— RUT IMPLEMENTED
UNLESS DEMONSTRATED THAT ANALYSIS OF SOME COMPONENTS (E,G, LONG
RANGE IMPROVEMENTS) MAY REQUIRE ADDITIONAL TIME,
83
-------
REFERENCES
1. Guidelines for Determining the Need for Plan Revisions to
the Control Strategy Portion of Approved State Implementation
Plans, OAQPS No. 1.2-011.
2. Control Strategy Preparation Manual for Photochemical Oxidant,
OAQPS No. 1.2-047, January, 1977.
3. Interim Guideline on Air Quality Models, OAQPS No. 1.2-080,
October, 1977.
4. Control Strategy Preparation Manual for Particulate Matter,
OAQPS No. 1.2-049, September, 1977.
5. Uses, Limitations, and Technical Basis of Procedures for
Quantifying Relationships Between Photochemical Oxidants
and Precursors, EPA-450/2-77-021a, November, 1977.
6. A1r Quality Analysis Workshop, Vol. I - Manual, EPA-450/3-75-
080a, November 1975.
7. Technical Guidance for Control of Industrial Process Fugitive
Particulate Emissions, EPA-450/3-77-010, March, 1977.
8. Guideline for Development of Control Strategies in Areas
with Fugitive Dust Problems, OAQPS No. 1.2-071.
9. Controlled and Uncontrolled Emission Rates and Applicable
Limitations for Eighty Processes, the Research Corporation
of New England, September, 1976.
10. SIP Preparation Manual for NO. OAQPS No. 1.2-048.
/\
84
-------
Transportation — Related Issues
85
-------
There Is no narrative text that accompanies the visuals for
this topic. The main points concerning this topic are covered
1n the visuals themselves.
86
-------
.ANNING PROCESS
1
GENERALIZED ACTIVI
PROJECTION!
AND PL AM
DEVELOP-
MENT
IMPLEMENTA
TION AND
CONTINUING
PLANNING
FUTURE LAND USE,
LAND ACTIVITY AND
ECONOMIC ACT! VI TV
FUTURE
TRAVEL
DEMAND
Relationship of TSM and Long Range
Elements to TIP
Transportation
Plan
Elements
TSM
Transportation
Improvement
Program
TIP
87
-------
LIST OF SELECTED REASONABLY
AVAILABLE TRANSPORTATION
CONTROL MEASURES
VEHICLE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
VAPOR RECOVERY FROM FUEL TRANSFER
AND STORAGE AND FROM SOLVENT
OPERATIONS
IMPROVED PUBLIC TRANSIT
EXCLUSIVE BUS AND CARPOOL LANES
AREAWIDE CARPOOL PROGRAMS
RESTRICTIONS ON PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE
USE
LONG-RANGE TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS
ON-STREET PARKING CONTROLS
PARK-AND-RIDE AND FRINGE PARKING LOTS
PEDESTRIAN MALLS
EMPLOYEE PROGRAMS TO ENCOURAGE CAR
AND VAN POOLING, MASS TRANSIT USE,
BICYCLING, AND WALKING
BICYCLE LANES AND STORAGE FACILITIES
STAGGERED WORK HOURS
ROAD PRICING TO DISCOURAGE SINGLE
OCCUPANCY AUTOMOBILE USE
-------
CONTROLS ON EXTENDED VEHICLE IDLING
TRAFFIC FLOW IMPROVEMENTS
FLEET VEHICLE CONTROLS INCLUDING
ALTERNATIVE FUELS AND ENGINE USE
VEHICLE RETROFITS FOR OTHER THAN
LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES
EXTREME COLD START EMISSION REDUCTION
PROGRAMS
SELECTED KEY DATES FOR
TRANSPORTATION PORTIONS OF REVISED
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
FEBRUARY 7,1978
APRIL 1,1978
JANUARY 1,1979
JUNE 30,1979
JOINTLY DETERMINED DIVISION OF
RESPONSIBILITIES
LEAD PLANNING ORGANIZATION NOMIN-
ATED BY LOCAL OFFICIALS
GOVERNOR CERTIFIES OR DESIGNATES
LEAD PLANNING ORGANIZATION
STATE SUBMITS REVISED PLAN
LEGAL AUTHORITY FOR INSPECTION/
MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS REQUIRED
SELECTED KEY DATES FOR
TRANSPORTATION PORTIONS OF REVISED
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
(cent.)
JULY 30,1980
DECEMBER 31,1981
JULY 1,1982
COMPLETION OF COMPREHENSIVE
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
DECENTRALIZED INSPECTION/MAINTEN-
ANCE PROGRAMS IN PLACE
SECOND STATE SUBMITTAL OF REVISED
PLAN IF EXTENSION GRANTED
89
-------
SELECTED KEY DATES FOR
TRANSPORTATION PORTIONS OF REVISED
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
(cent)
DECEMBER 31,1982
DECEMBER 31.1987
STANDARDS ATTAINMENT DEADLINE
WHERE NO EXTENSION GRANTED
CENTRALIZED INSPECTION/MAINTEN-
ANCE PROGRAMS IN PLACE
INITIATION OF EXTENSIVE TRANSPOR-
TATION MEASURES
STANDARDS ATTAINMENT DEADLINE
WHERE EXTENSION GRANTED
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS
GUIDELINES DEVELOPMENT
SCHEDULE
NOVEMBER 28,1977 FIRST DRAFT CIRCULATED
NOVEMBER 28-29,1977 REVIEW BY MPO STEERING GROUP
(NARC GRANT)
FEBRUARY 1.1978
END OF COMMENT PERIOD ON FIRST
DRAFT
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS
GUIDELINES DEVELOPMENT
SCHEDULE
(cont.)
FEBRUARY 9,1978
FEBRUARY 16,1978
MARCH 1,1978
REVIEW BY PANEL OF TRANSPOR-
TATION "EXPERTS"
SECOND DRAFT CIRCULATED
BRIEFING FOR EPA REGIONAL
OFFICES ON SECOND DRAFT
90
-------
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS
GUIDELINES DEVELOPMENT
SCHEDULE
(cont)
MARCH 2-3,1978
MARCH IB, 1978
MAJOR ERA-DOT WORKSHOP ON
SECOND DRAFT (NARC GRANT)
EPA AND DOT JOINTLY ISSUE
PLANNING PROCESS GUIDELINES
POST-MARCH 15.1978 JOINT EPA-DOT REGIONAL MEETINGS
MODIFICATION OF FHWA-UMTA
REGULATIONS TO REFLECT
GUIDELINES
TRANSPORTATION-RELATED PLAN ELEMENTS
REQUIRED IN JANUARY 1979 PLAN REVISION
PLANS PROVIDING FOR ATTAINMENT BY 1982
ADOPTED TRANSPORTATION MEASURES OR SCHEDULES
EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM TRANSPORTATION
MEASURES
CONTINGENCY STRATEGIES
REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS - CONTINUOUS
PHASED IMPLEMENTATION OF TRANSPORTATION
MEASURES
ALLOWABLE GROWTH RATE FOR TRANSPORTATION
MEASURES
PLANS PROVIDING FOR ATTAINMENT BY 1982 (CONT.)
SYSTEM FOR MONITORING GROWTH RATES FOR
TRANSPORTATION SOURCES
ANNUAL REPORTING ON PROGRESS IN MEETING
SCHEDULES
COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES - INCLUSION IN
DOT PLANS AND PROGRAMS
DOCUMENTATION OF PUBLIC, LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
AND LEGISLATIVE INVOLVEMENT
IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS OF
ALTERNATIVES: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENT
91
-------
TRANSPORTATION-RELATED PLAN ELEMENTS
REQUIRED IN JANUARY 1979 PLAN REVISION
(CONT.)
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR POST-1982 ATTAINMENT
COMMITMENT TO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
MEASURES
DEMONSTRATION AND PILOT STUDIES
IMPLEMENTATION OF CURRENTLY PLANNED
REASONABLE MEASURES
PROGRAM FOR EVALUATING RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES
• SINGLE AND COMBINED REASONABLE MEASURES
• LONG RANGE MEASURES AND GROWTH POLICIES
SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
PROGRAM AND ADOPTING MEASURES
I/M SCHEDULE
1. INITIATION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAM.
2. DECISION ON TYPE OF SYSTEM TO BE IMPLEMENTED.
3. DEVELOPMENT AND ISSUANCE OF RFP*.
4. AWARD TO CONTRACTOR(S).
6. INITIATION OF CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES.
6. COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES.
7. COMPLETION OF EQUIPMENT PURCHASE.
8. ADOPTION OF QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES AND
GUIDELINES.
9. ADOPTION OF CUTPOINTS.
10. INITIATION OF HIRING AND TRAINING OF INSPECTORS
OR LICENSING OF GARAGES.
11. INITIATION OF PILOT PROGRAM.
12. MECHANICS TRAINING AND/OR INFORMATION
PROGRAM.
13. INITIATION OF MANDATORY MAINTENANCE.
14. INITIATION OF MORE STRINGENT PHASES OF THE
PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE).
92
-------
Emission Inventory
93
-------
emission
inventories
WHAT ARE THE
CLEAN AIR ACT
REQUIREMENTS FOR
EMISSION INVENTORIES
WHAT ARE THE CLEAN AIR ACT
REQUIREMENTS FOR EMISSION
INVENTORIES?
• CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 172 (b) (4)
• COMPREHENSIVE, ACCURATE, CURRENT
INVENTORY
94
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
WHAT IS THE
PURPOSE OF
AN EMISSION
INVENTORY
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF AN EMISSION INVENTORY?
• PLAN DEVELOPMENT
• REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS EVALUATION
WHAT AREAS
NEED TO
BE
INVENTORIED
o
95
-------
WHAT AREAS NEED TO BE INVENTORIED?
• NONATTAINMENTAREA
• SIGNIFICANT SOURCES
NONATTAINMENT
AREAS
ALL SOURCES WITHIN AN
IDENTIFIED NONATTAINMENT
AREA MUST HAVE THEIR
EMISSIONS QUANTIFIED
NON-
>4nAINMENT
y^AINMENT
96
-------
LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE
POLLUTANT
S02
PM
N02
LO
AVERAGING TIME
ANNUAL
1/ig/m3
1 p 9/m 3
1 ^/ml
24-HOUR
5^g/m3
5,9/m3
8 HOUR
0 6 mQ/m3
3 HOUR
25 /*g/m3
) HOUR
2 nWm3
WHAT SOURCES OF
EMISSIONS SHOULD
BE INVENTORIED
WHAT SOURCES OF EMISSIONS
SHOULD BE INVENTORIED?
• NEED ACCURATE ACCOUNTING
• SOURCES GREATER THAN 100 TONS
PER YEAR POTENTIAL
97
-------
APPENDIX C
4O CFR
PART 51
WHAT SOURCES OF EMISSIONS
SHOULD BE INVENTORIED?
• NEED ACCURATE ACCOUNTING
• SOURCES GREATER THAN 100 TONS
PER YEAR POTENTIAL
• MOBILE SOURCES
MOBILE SOURCE
EMISSIONS
98
-------
WHAT INFORMATION
NEEDS TO BE
INCLUDED
WHAT INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED?
• DATA MUST BE SUFFICIENT FOR
PLAN DEVELOPMENT
• INFORMATION GENERALLY NEEDED
- EMISSION POINTS
- TYPE OF PROCESS
- TYPE AND QUANTITY OF EMISSIONS
-STACK PARAMETERS
WHAT YEAR
SHOULD THE
INVENTORY
BE FOR
o
99
-------
WHAT YEAR SHOULD THE
INVENTORY BE FOR?
• CONSISTENT WITH AIR QUALITY DATA
• GENERALLY WILL BE 1977
WHAT FORMAT
SHOULD THE
INVENTORY
BE IN
WHAT FORMAT SHOULD THE INVENTORY BE IN?
. SUMMARY INVENTORY FOR BASE YEAR
AND PROJECTED ATTAINMENT DATE (TSP, SO2. NOX. CO)
. REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS REPORTING
100
-------
1
1.
1
1
I
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
•
1
SotlPM UU 1N> '*OJ«CTIO ALL 0*0 AIL! EMIttlONI
SSL.T.O. rsi."""" ffiHMSSig^ - ••" "a*"" ssf™
•"""r '""' lit1 --- SF- ""
TOTAL ~ ~
""^ Kri3
TOTAL |
MmjBTMAL AMTHHAC'VE COAL AEfA 1
"JWttK • •"'ISG — 1 ~^W_~''
s:.ftrtiru»»^ ~ ' -^S-H
ffiWl ^f
^S^^SE
•OTAl — ^
COMMHG' ^C > Itrr
iin im IMI mi IHI mi mi mi 1111 1111 1111 mi
TOTAL
• iiiklii irntl •Spnlllc Miliiiii IFP'i
•IT riMfci iin riMrthii
WHAT FORMAT SHOULD THE
INVENTORY BE IN? cent.
• DEFINITION ACTUAL EMISSIONS
• DEFINITION OF ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS
101
-------
ACTUAL EMISSIONS
THOSE EMISSIONS (DETERMINED
BY SOURCE TEST, EMISSION FACTOR,
ETC.) WHICH ARE PHYSICALLY
EMITTED TO THE ATMOSH4EP.E
ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS: the emission rate calculated
using the maximum rated capacity and the most stringent
of the following:
A. Applicable new source performance
standards set forth in 40 CFR Part 60,
B. Applicable emission limitations, or
C. The emission rate agreed to by the source
as a permit condition.
VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUND INVENTORIES
102
-------
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND INVENTORIES
• SUMMARY INVENTORY FOR BASE YEAR
AND PROJECTED ATTAINMENT DATE
• EXEMPTED COMPOUNDS MAY
BE EXCLUDED
SOURCES OF
VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS
(VOC)
SUMMARY FORMAT FOR voc
SOURCE
OTHER
STORAGE TRANSPORTATION lo'L f. <> \s PRODUCTION FIFID^,
"s 'm ^ '•!" ' ^ *C-RU"F °'L p (T<^^GE -
BASE YEAR
EMISSIONS
1977
1982 (19871 PROJECTED ALLOWABLE EW
EMISSIONS FROM 1
SOURCES EXISTING GROWTH SINCE
IN 1977 1977
1
• —
SSIONS
TOTAL
- —
103
-------
EXEMPTED VOLATILE
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Federal Register
Vol. 42, No. 131
July 8,1977
SEPARATE INVENTORY
MUST BE SUBMITTED
FOR EACH NONATTAINMENT
POLLUTANT
FULL EMISSION
INVENTORY MUST BE
SUBMITTED TO
NATIONAL AIR
DATA BRANCH
104
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SUMMARY
THE INVENTORY MUST BE COMPREHENSIVE, ACCURATE,
AND CURRENT.
THE PURPOSE OF THE INVENTORY MUST BE OUTLINED.
THE AREA TO BE INVENTORIED MUST BE IDENTIFIED.
ALL SOURCES AFFECTING THE NON-ATTAINMENT AIR
QUALITY SHOULD BE INCLUDED REGARDLESS OF
LOCATION.
THE INVENTORY MUST CONTAIN SUFFICIENT DATA TO
ENSURE PROPER PLAN DEVELOPMENT.
THE YEAR OF THE INVENTORY MUST BE KNOWN.
APPROPRIATE, CONSISTENT FORMATS SHOULD BE USED.
105
-------
EMISSION INVENTORIES
I. What are the Clean Air Act requirements for emission
inventories?
* Requirements for emission inventories are stated in
Section 172(b)(4) of the Clean Air Act.
* Requires that emission inventories be comprehensive,
accurate, and current.
II. What is the purpose of the emission inventory?
* To provide the emission information necessary to develop
a control strategy.
* To provide a basis for and a means to evaluate reasonable
further progress required under Section 172(b)(3).
III. What area needs to be inventoried?
* The nonattainment area is of primary concern.
* Significant sources affecting nonattainment outside the
nonattainment area should be included.
IV. What sources should be inventoried?
* Need an accurate accounting of all emission sources in
the nonattainment area.
* Sources greater than 100 tons per year potential should
be identified as point sources.
* Mobile sources contribute significant emissions of all
pollutants.
* Fugitive dust, fugitive emissions, and resuspended dust
should be included where they contribute to the problem.
V. What information should be included in the inventory?
* Data must be sufficient for proper plan development.
* Information that is generally needed
- Emission points
106
-------
- Type of process
- Type and quantity of emissions
- Stack parameters
VI. What year should the inventory be for?
* Should accurately reflect the emissions corresponding to
the air quality data used.
* 1977 current inventory will be sufficient in most cases.
VII. What format should be used to summarize the inventory for
plan submittal?
* Summary format (TSP.SOp.NO ,CO) for base year and for
projected attainment date included.
* Summary format for reasonable further progress evaluation
included.
* Actual emissions - those emissions (determined by source
test, emission factor, etc.) which are physically emitted
to the atmosphere.
* Allowable emissions - the emission rate calculated using
the maximum rated capacity and the most stringent of the
following;
a. Applicable New Source Performance Standard as set forth
in 40 CFR Part 60,
b. Applicable emission limitation, or
c. the emission rate agreed to by the source as a permit
condition.
VIII. Inventories for volatile organic compounds.
* There is a different summary format for VOC inventories with
source categories consistent with RACT requirements.
* Compounds exempted from control in Volume 42, No. 131,
July 8, 1977, 35314-35316 of the Federal Register need
not be included in the inventory.
IX. Additional points
* Separate inventory for each nonattainment pollutant.
* Reporting requirements of 40 CFR 51.7 should be met.
107
-------
X. Summary
* The inventory must be comprehensive, accurate, and current.
* The purpose of the inventory must be outlined.
* The area to be inventoried must be defined.
* All sources affecting the non-attainment air quality should be
included regardless of location.
* The inventory must contain sufficient data to ensure proper
plan development.
* The year of the inventory must be known, and
* Appropriate, consistent formats should be used.
108
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C-MAJOR POLL UTANT SOURCES
CHEMICAL PROCESS INDUSTRIES
Adipte acid.
Ammonia.
Ammonium nitrate.
Carbon Mack.1
Charcoal.1
Chlorine.
Detergent and soap.
Explosives (TNT and nitrocellulose).
Hydrofluoric acid.1
Nitric acid.
Paint and varnish manufacturing.
Phosphoric acid.1
Phthalic anhydride.
Plastics manufacturing.
Printing ink manufacturing.
Sodium carbonate.
Sulfuric acid.1
Synthetic fibers.
Synthetic rubber.
Terephthalic acid.
FOOD AND AGRICULATURAL INDUSTRIES
Alfalfa dehydrating.1
Ammonium nitrate.
Coffee roasting.
Cotton ginning.
Feed and grain.
Fermentation processes.
Fertilizers.1
Fish meal processing.
Meat smoke houses.
Starch manufacturing.
Sugar cane processing.
MINERAL PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES
Asphalt roofing.
Asphaltic concrete batching.
Bricks and related clay refractories.
Calcium carbide.1
Castable refractories.1
Cement.
Ceramic and clay processes.
Clay and fly ash sintering.
Coal cleaning.
Concrete batching.
Fiberglass manufacturing.
Frit manufacturing.
Glass manufacturing.
Gypsum manufacturing.
Lime manufacturing.
Mineral wood manufacturing.
Paperwood manufacturing.
Perlite manufacturing.
Phosphate rock preparation.
Rock, gravel, and sand quarry!, j and proc-
essing.
PETROLEUM REFINING AND PETRO-
CHEMICAL OPERATIONS 1
••^•••ViViBiHH^^^HHsiHsiHHifl^L^LILHiVLIL^HHL^i^HL^LVHB^-'' *
WOOD PROCESSING 1
PETROLEUM ORAGE (Storagr tan'
and bulk tes als*
MISCELLANEOUS
Fossil fuel stream electric powerplants.
Municipal or equivalent incinerators.
Open burning dumps.
METALLURGICAL INDUSTRIES
Primary metals industries:
Aluminum ore reduction.
Copper Smelters.
Ferroalloy production.
Iron and steel mills.1
Lead smelters.1
Metallurgical coke manufacturing.
Zinc.1
Secondary metals industries:
Aluminum operations.
Brass and bronze smelting.
Ferroalloys.
Gray iron foundries.
Lead smelting.1
Mangesium smelting.
Steel foundries.
Zinc processes.
Major sources of sulfur oxide* and/or
participate matter.
109
-------
Source
FUEL
COMBUSTION
EXTERNAL
FUEL
COMBUSTION
INTERNAL
RESIDENTIAL
ELECTRIC
GENERATION
(POINT)
INDUSTRIAL
FUEL
COMMERCIAL
INSTITUTIONAL
FUEL
te$(DŁ*L "^
WOOD ~ —
TOTAL
ANTMU ICIT6 COAL
5ffiTOt|'oV
OS**"
SOLID WASTE COAL
TOTAL
ANTHRACITE COAL
BITUMINOUS COAL
h'fflfcLOIl
DISTILLATE OIL
NATURAL GAS
PROCESS GAS
WOOD
LIQUID PETRO GAS
TOTAL
ANTHRACITE COAL
'BITUMINOUS COAL
RESIDUAL OIL
DISTILLATE OIL
NATURAL GAB
WOOD
TlQUID PETROL GAS
OTHER
TOTAL
OTHER
TOTAL EXTERNAL COMBUSTION
ELECTRIC
GENERATION
INDUSTRIAL
FUEL
COMMERCIAL
INSTITUTIONAL
fA
1*
A-
-MM-
AflEA
POINT
POINT
POINT
POINT
AREA
^iS—
A«IA
POINT
t*
-»HH
iw
-R5JBT —
~POtNT
POINT
AREA
-SAn**"^
§TAL
iTILLATE OIL
GASOLINE
OTHER
TOTAL
DIESEL
TOTAL
TOTAL INTERNAL COMBUSTION
TOTAL FUEL COMBUSTION
INDUSTRIAL
PROCESS
(POINT)
SOLID
WASTE
DISPOSAL
TRANSPORTATION
(AREA)
Q HAND TOTAL
AREA
•OOD/ AGRICULTURE
•CONDAHY METALS
PETROLEUM INDUSTRY
METAL FABRIC
LEATHERPffOD
OTHER/NOT CL
TOTAL
GOVERNMENT
(POINT)
(AREA)
INSTITUTIONAL
DISPOSAL
LAND
VEHICLES
_MUNIC INCIN
OPEN BURNING
TOT At
OPEN BURNING
TOTAL
^P^URNING
APARTMENT
TOTAL
ERAT ON
TOTAL
GASOLINE
DIESEL
AREA
-58rr-
fO
ra\in —
AR
PO
PO
_*" A
-TOBT —
B4W 1M2 r-ROJtCTEO ALLOWMLI IMIIMOM
},"" CMISUOM OHOWTH TOTAL
FROM SIMCI
•OUBCf* »77
EXISTING IN
1t77
Lla DUTY
OFF HlCHviaV
I§F^TO=
TOTAL
MILITARY
Ąo*TALESC'~
DIBrt!'puiŁLCOA^--
TOTAL
TOTAL TRANSTORATION
OUST CAUSED
BY HUMAN AOI-
CAUSED BY
NATURAL
WINDS
STRUCTURAL
SLA^tB^RNtNo'
AGRICULTURAL
{ffi»fli<.feM
PAVED ROADS
TILLING AC IVITIBS
iSfc.
ARM
110
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.Maximum
RFP Schedule
Annual Report
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983
SUMMARY FOR YEAR 1981
TOTAL
RFP
Milestone
1979
1980
1981
Actual
Emissions
*
1979
1980
1981
Maximum
Emissions
*
1979
1980
1981
Growth
>1977
1979
1980
1981
includes growth
•Specific nonlinear RFP's
may require more reporting
ill
-------
I
SOURCES OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC)
PETROLEUM REFINERIES NON-INDUSTRIAL SURFACE COATING
Refinery Fugitives (leaks) Architectural Coatings
Miscellaneous Sources Auto R«*'ni$hing
a) Process Drains and Waste Others
Water Separators
b) Vacuum Producing Systems OTHER SOLVENT USE
c) Process Unit Blowdown Degreasing
Other DrV Cleanm9
Graphic Arts
STORAGE, TRANSPORTATION AND Adhesives
MARKETING OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS Cutback Asphalt
Oil and Gas Production Fields Otner So1*61* u$e
Natural Gas and Natural Gasoline
Processing Plants OTHER MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES
Gasoline and Crude Oil Storage1 Fuel Combustion
Ship and Barge Transfer of Gasoline and ^^ Wa$te D'SP0*8'
Crude Oil Fore$t' Agricultural, and
Bulk Gasoline Terminals2 O*" °Pen Burning
Gasoline Bulk Plants3
Service Station Loading (Stage I) MOBILE SOURCES
Service Station Unloading (Stage 11) Highway Vehicles
Others a' Lignt Duty Automobiles
b) Light Duty Trucks
INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES c) HeavV DutY G*o"ne Trucks
Organic Chemical Manufacture d> Heaw* Dut* Die$el Trucks
Paint Manufacture e) Motorcycles
Vegetable Oil Processing Off-Highway Vehicles
Pharmaceutical Manufacture Rail
Plastic Products Manufacture Aircraft
Rubber Products Manufacture Vessels
Textile Polymers Manufacture
Othen TOTAL VOC EMISSIONS FROM MOBILE SOURCES
INDUSTRIAL SURFACE COATING TOTAL VOLATILE ORGANIC EMISSIONS
Large Appliances 1
Magnet Wire Includes all storage facilities except those at
Automobiles service stations and bulk plants.
Cans y
Metal Coils Emissions from loading tank trucks and rail cars.
Paper ~
pa|jrjc Emissions from storage and transfer operations.
Metal Furniture
Wood Furniture
Flat Wood Products
Other Metal Products
Others
112
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SUMMARY FORMAT FOR VOC
SOURCE
PETROLEUM REFINERIES
STORAGE, TRANSPORTATION
& MARKETING OF PETROLEUM
PRODUCTS
INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES
INDUSTRIAL SURFACE
COATING
NON-INDUSTRIAL SURFACE
COATINGS
OTHER SOLVENT USE
OTHER MISCELLANEOUS
SOURCES
REFINERY FUGITIVES (leaks)
MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES
a) Process Drains and Waste
h) Vacuum Producing Systems
c) Process Unit B'oi/vdown
OTHER
OIL & GAS PRODUCTION FIELDS
NATURAL GAS AND NATURAL
GASOLINE PROCESSING
PLANTS
GASOLINE & CRUDE OILSTORAGE1
SHIP AND BARGE TRANSFER OF
GASOLINE & CRUDE OIL
BULK GASOLINE TERMINALS 2
GASOLINE BULK PLANTS3
SERVICE STATION LOADING (stage 1)
SERVICE STATION UNLOADING (stage II)
OTHER
ORGANIC CHEMICAL MANUFACTURE
PAINT MANUFACTURE
VEGETABLE OIL PROCESSING
PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURE
PLASTIC PRODUCTS MANUFACTURE
RUBBER PRODUCTS MANUFACTURE
TEXTILE POLYMERS MANUFACTURE
OTHERS
LARGE APPLIANCES
MAGNET WIRE
AUTOMOBILES
CANS
MET \L COILo
PAPER
FABRIC
METAL FURNITURE
WOOD FURNITURE
FLAT WOOD PRODUCTS
OTHER METAL PRODUCTS
OTHERS
ARCHITECTURAL :OATINGS
AUTO REFINISHING
OTHERS
DECREASING
DRY CLEANING
GRAPHIC ARTS
ADHESI VES
CUTBACK ASPHALT
OTHER SOLVENT USE
FUEL COMBUSTION
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
FOREST, AGRICULTURAL, AND OTHER
OPEN BURNING
TOTAL VOC EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY SOURCES
MOBILE SOURCES
HIGHWAY VEHICLES
a) Light Duty Automobiles
b) Light Duty Trucks
c) Heavy Duty Gasoline Trucks
d) Heavy Duty Diesel Trucks
e) Motorcycles
OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES
RAIL
AIRCRAFT
VESSELS
TOTAL VOC EMISSIONS FROM MOBILE SOURCES
TOTAL VOLATI LE ORGANIC EMISSIONS
BASE YEAR
EMISSIONS
1977
1982 (1987) PROJECTED ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS [
EMISSIONS FROM
SOURCES EXISTING
IN 1977
GROWTH SINCE
1977
1 - -
TOTAL
1
[
1
|
I
j
1
j
I
Includes all storage facilities except those at service stations and bulk plants.
3
Emissions froi
Emissions from storage and transfer operations.
113
>m loading tank trucks and rail cars.
-------
EXEMPTED VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Table 1
Volatile organic compounds of negligible photochemical reactivity
that should be exempt from regulations under State Implementation Plans
Methane
Ethane
1,1,1- Trichloroethane (methyl chloroform)
Trichlorotriflouroethane (freon 113)'
The compounds have been implicated as having deletorious effects on
stratospheric ozone and, therefore, may be subject to future controls
Table 2
Volatile organic compounds of low reactivity*
Propane
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methanol
Isopropanol
Methyl benxoate
Tertiary alkyl alcohols
Methyl acetate
Phenyl acetate
Ethyl amines
Acetylene
n, n - dimethyl formanide
-Only yield significant oxidants during multi-day stagnations
Federal Register, Vol. 42, No: 131; July 8, 1977,35314-35316
114
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
References on Emission Inventories
1. Procedures for the Preparation of Emission Inventories for
Volatile Organic Compounds - Volume I - EPA-450/2-77-028,
December, 1977.
2. Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis
Volume 7: Projecting County Emissions, Second Edition -
EPA-450/4-74-008.
3. Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis-
Volume 13: Allocating Projected Emissions to Sub-County
Areas - EPA-450/4-74-014, November, 1974, and Appendices
A & B - EPA-450/4-74-014-a, March, 1975.
4. AEROS Manual Series
(a) Volume I: AEROS Overview, EPA-450/2-76-001,
February, 1976.
(b) Volume II: AEROS Users Manual, EPA-450/2-76-029,
December, 1976.
(c) Volume III: Summary and Retrieval (Second Edition),
EPA-450/2-76-009a, July, 1977.
115
-------
Emissions — Air Quality Relationships
117
-------
DETERMINING
REQUIRED
EMISSION
REDUCTIONS
DETERMINING REQUIRED EMISSION REDUCTIONS
• ESTABLISH BASELINE AIR QUALITY
• ESTABLISH BASELINE EMISSION INVENTORY
• MODELING
• CALCULATE REQUIRED REDUCTIONS
DETERMINING REQUIRED EMISSION REDUCTION
t
Total
Emissions
Ambient
Concentrations
1975
1995
118
-------
1
1
1
1
•
1
1
1
1
•
1
1
•w
1
1
1
1
1
1
DETERMINING REQUIRED EMISSION REDUCTIONS
. Baseline
Baseline ' Air Quality
Inventory x
Attainment
Inventory"*
\
vvw Oxidant
\^
^s^ NAAQS
1979 1987
Establish
•
Baseline
Air Quality
1
Jf
— w
m
?. Averaging
Jal^ Time*
li
I
1
-------
HIGHEST
2nd HIGHEST
Use the HIGHEST, Not the average
ESTABLISHING OXIDANT BASELINE (A)
AIR
QUALITY
2ND HIGH *\
OXIDANT LEVELS I
IN PPM J
NO SIGNIFICANT IN CHANGE IN VOC INVENTORY
76
77
120
-------
ESTABLISHING OXIDANT BASELINE (B)
AIR
QUALITY
/• 2ND HIGH >
I OXIDANT LEVELS)
\^ IN PPM J
EMISSION
INVENTORY
75
INCREASING VOC INVENTORY
• •
76 77
ESTABLISHING OXIOANT BASELINE (C)
AIR
QUALITY
f 2ND HIGH "\
I OXIDANT LEVELS]
y^ IN PPM J
75
SIGNIFICANT DECREASE
IN VOC INVENTORY
76 77
Site
Selection
121
-------
KCEPTUU 2IH Fll SIlKt ISP KIII1HS
IS.
tl.
2.
ZONE A
(Unacceptable)
ZONE B
(acceptable)
X s ii is a H
liitNti hn mini (ii iitml
REFERENCE:
APPENDIX S
SAMWG GUIDANCE
"NETWORK DESIGN IN SITING FOR
STATE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING'
EPA. OAQPS. NOV. 25,1977
IMPACT OF
ADMINISTRATIVE
BOUNDARIES
122
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
ONE NONATTAINMENT AREA DIVIDED INTO
TWO PORTIONS BY INTERVENING STATE LINE
j NON ATTAINMENT
' AREA
' STATELINE
THE BASELINE AIR QUALITY FOR BOTH
PORTIONS OF THE NONATTAINMENT AREA
BECOMES .28 PPM
USE OF CIRCLE TO DETERMINE
APPLICABLE OXIDANT DESIGN VALUES
.2* PPM
USE THE HIGHEST OXIDANT VALUE WITHIN
THE APPLICABLE CIRCLE
.30 PPM
.29 PPM
.21 PPM
BASELINE INVENTORY
• USE 1977 OR MOST RECENT AVAILABLE
• ALL ELEMENTS OF INVENTORY MUST
BE IN CONSISTENT UNITS, EITHER ALL
NMHC OR ALL TOTAL HC
• USE MOST ACCURATE INVENTORY
ATTAINABLE
• DO NOT GROW THE 1977 INVENTORY TO
DATE OF SUBMITTAL
123
-------
El 77
El 87
79
Using '77 Emission
Inventory to Establish
the Reasonable Further
Progress Line.
NAAQS
87
Using 79 Emission
Inventory to Establish
the Reasonable Further
Progress Line.
El 87
SELECT BEST MODEL FOR
SPECIFIC POLLUTANT
2. SELECT BEST MODEL CONSISTENT
WITH AVAILABLE RESOURCES
3. APPLY MODELS ACCURATELY
4. AVAILABLE RESOURCES
(emission inventory & modeling capability)
124
-------
Use of
Best
Model
MODELS WHICH ŁV|E|BjjgTJ^TJE| THE
NEED FOR CONTROL CAN BE EXPENSIVE
• MONEY
• CREDIBILITY
MODELS WHICH UNDERESTIMATE THE
NEED FOR CONTROL CAN BE EXPENSIVE.
• MONEY
• CREDIBILITY
• MANPOWER
• TIME
125
-------
NONREACTIVE POLLUTANTS
(TSP S02 NOX CO)
USE
AQDM • COM • CDMQC • TCM
Use of
Rollback
Hot Appropriate
REACTIVE POLLUTANTS
(HYDROCARBONS • OXIDANTS)
USE
• SAI • LIRAQ
• EKMA
LINEAR ROLLBACK • APPENDIX J
126
-------
REVIEW FOUR STEPS
* ESTABLISH BASELINE AIR QUALITY
0 ESTABLISH BASELINE EMISSION INVENTORY
V •MODELING
•CALCULATE REQUIRED REDUCTIONS
CALCULATE
REQUIRED
REDUCTIONS
140
12O
1OO
O
60
4O
20
O
DEMONSTRATION OF ATTAINMENT
FOR PM (Primary)
NAAOS
BACKGROUND
B
t t" I I I
79 8O 81 82 83
127
-------
~r Calculating
f Required
Reductions
For
-T- Oxidants
EMISSION INVENTORY
200,000
AIR QUALITY
-.28 PPM
55,000
.08 PPM
79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 8~7
Transport
and
Background
128
-------
(A) Base Condition (B) Controlled Condition
0.12 ppm O3
CITY
0.04 ppm (r
CITY
0.28 ppm O3 0.08 ppm O3
Conceptual view of base and controlled states
ADJUSTING FOR TRANSPORT
1. ADDITIVITY (A)
NORMALLY BETWEEN 20% and 70%
2, NATURAL BACKGROUND
02 ,06ppm
3 MAN MADE BACKGROUND
4. REDUCIBLE TRANSPORT
ORIGINAL TRANSPORT (Tol MINUS FINAL TRANSPORT (Tp)
AQ ADJUSTED = AQ DESIGN - A (REDUCIBLE TRANSPORT)
24 = 28 _ 50 I 12 - 04 I
ADJUSTING FOR BACKGROUND
AND
TRANSPORT USING LINEAR ROLLBACK
PART CONTROL BACKGROUND
AQADJUSTED - AQ STANDARD
AQADJUSTED - A (BACKGROUND)
.24 - .08
.24 - .5(.04)
.22
= 73%
129
-------
CALCULATING REQUIRED EMISSION INVENTORY REDUCTIONS
FOR ATTAINMENT OF OXIDANT STANDARD
El 77 200,000
55,000
REQUIRED REDUCTION
OR 145
73%
El 87
79 87
EI77 - REQUIRED REDUCTION = Elg7
200 - 145 = 55
EMISSION INVENTORY
200,000
55,000
AIR QUALITY
-.28 PPM
.08 PPM
79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87
130
-------
EMISSIONS-AIR QUALITY RELATIONSHIPS
DETERMINING REQUIRED EMISSION REDUCTIONS
I. Overview - 4 steps 1n this process:
A. Establishing baseline air quality
B. Establishing baseline inventory
C. Modeling
D. Determining reductions necessary to achieve standard
II. Establishing baseline air quality
SIP-related emission limits should be based on representative con-
centration estimates which result in the most stringent control
requirements. In all cases these concentration estimates are assumed
to be a sum of the concentration contributed by the source and an
appropriate background concentration.
A. Variations with time
1. Averaging time—The standard which is exceeded by the
greatest percentage is considered the restrictive standard and will
determine the appropriate averaging time for establishing baseline air
quality.
2. Variations by year—Select the highest of the three annual
second high values (or annual averages) from the field of monitors
during the last three years unless a lower value from among those three
can be justified on the basis of recent inventory reductions. See
Figure (1).
Figure (1)
EXAMPLE:
Establishing Oxidant Baseline
Second High Monitored Oxidant Levels (in ppm)
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
No Change in VOC Increase in VOC Reduction in VOC
Year Inventory Inventory Inventory
1975
1976
1977
131
-------
Figure 2
RECOMMENDED ACCEPTABLE ZONE FOR SITING TSP MONITORS
15..
10..
5..
2.:
ZONE A
(Unacceptable)
ZONE B
(acceptable)
X 5
Edge of roadway
10
15
20
25
30
35
Distance from roadway (in meters)
40
132
-------
In the preceding example, the lower oxidant value (.24)
can be used only where it can be justified on the basis of inventory
reductions during that time period. Otherwise, the highest (.26) of
the three second highs must be used.
B. Variations with monitor location
1. Monitor siting—Representative monitors are selected using
basic guidance from § 51.17. However, where TSP monitors are felt to
be unduly Influenced by re-entrained road dust and the monitor is not
located in accordance with the recent SAMWG guidance (as shown in
Figure 2), the concentration given by these monitors need not be used to
establish baseline air quality. See Figure (2).
2. Impact of administrative boundaries—Where a non-
attainment area is divided into two or more portions because of
intervening state boundaries, the baseline air quality will be estab-
lished on the basis of highest second high value from the entire
non-attainment area. See Figure (3).
EXAMPLE:
Figure (3)
One Non-Attainment Area Divided into
Two Portions by Intervening State Line
1
1
1
1
1
1
u
V
.28 ppm \\
.24 ppm
Non-attainment area
'State line
The baseline air quality for both portions
of the non-attainment area becomes .28 ppm
3. Overlapping non-attainment areas—where nonattainment areas
are so close that there may be considerable transport of oxidant precursors
from one to the other, it is frequently difficult to establish the true
baseline oxidant air quality. See Figure (4). In such circumstances, the
baseline air quality can normally be determined by taking the highest
second high within the area of principal influence.
133
-------
Figure 4.
+ .28 ppm
+ .28 ppm
• 24 ppm
A + . 30 ppm
+. 29 ppm
OXIDANT NONATTAINMENT AREAS
IN CLOSE PROXIMITY
134
-------
Reference to Figure (5) provides one method of predicting the
boundaries of the area of-principal influence. This curve can be used
in estimating the distance from urbanized areas where NO approaches
undetectable levels. It appears that for smaller urbanised areas and
for distances in excess of the indicated radius that the urbanized plume
does not maintain its integrity and high precursor concentrations long
enough for the formation of photochemical oxidants. For purposes of
establishing baseline air quality, a circle (Figure (6)) way be drawn
around the center of an urbanized area using the appropriate radius
taken from the curve in Figure (5).
This procedure will thus enable the user to establish a
maximum radius for the area of principal influence surrounding any major
urbanized area. Therefore, even when the circles drawn following this
procedure do overlap, as in Figure (7), there will still be only one
highest second high monitored reading within each circle. That is the
reading that should be used in establishing baseline air quality. Mnre
detailed information on this subject can be found in the foil owing
publication: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards; "Effectiveness of Organic Emission
Control Programs as a Function of Geographic Location," April 1977.
III. Establishing Baseline Inventory
The format for this inventory has already been fully described.
A. Use 1977 or most recent inventory available
B. All elements of inventory must be in consistent units. Either
all NMHC or all total HC.
C. Do not grow the 1977 inventory to date of submittal. This is
no more accurate and likely to be much more confusing. See Figure (8).
D. (Credit will be allowed for any reduction between 1977 and 1979.
E. The target is a new emission level based on a percentage reduc-
tion in 1977 emissions inventory not on a flat reduction in current
emissions.
IV. Modeling
A. Use the best model consistent with available resources
B. For non-reactive pollutants
1. These include TSP, SO , NO*, CO
2. Use AQDM, COM, CDMQC, or comparable model
3. Use of rollback is not appropriate unless specifically
approved by the RA
*
Actually reactive, but for purposes of this modeling activity it
is treated as a non-reactive pollutant.
135
-------
Figure 5
DISTANCE FROM URBANIZED AREAS WHERE NOX
APPROACHES UNDETECTABLE LEVELS
4,00^,000
3,500,000
ABOVE 4,000,000 USE 85 MILES
g
H-
15
Q.
LLJ
cc
<
n
UJ
m
cc
2 "Of 30C -
: ,000,000
,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
200 300
I
20 40 60
ESTIMATED RADIUS (MILES)
80
100
136
-------
Figure 6.
DRAW CIRCLE OF APPROPRIATE RADIUS AROUND THE
CENTER OF THE URBANIZED AREA. SEE FIGURE 7 TO
DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE RADIUS.
137
-------
Figure 7
USE OF CIRCLE TO DETERMINE
APPLICABLE OXIDANT DESIGN VALUES
,28 PPM
A
B
C
.30 PPM
.28 PPM
.28 PPM
USE THE HIGHEST 2nd HIGHEST OXIDANT VALUE
WITHIN THE APPLICABLE CIRCLE
138
-------
Figure 8
El 77
El 79
Using 79 Emission
Inventory to Establish
the Reasonable Further
Progress Line.
El 87
iimmimiiiimimmiimmmimmmiimmim
139
-------
C. For reactive pollutants--oxidants
1. This relates to HC emissions
2. Use:
a. SAI, LIRAQ if available
b. EKMA (Empirical Kinetic Modeling Approach)
c. Linear rollback and Appendix J (non-linear rollback)
D. When using any rollback model, it is important to select
appropriate background levels
1. Non-anthropogenic sources
2. Reading on upwind perimeter
3. Estimate of upwind reading if upwind sources were controlled
V. Determining reductions necessary to achieve standard
A. TSP Example (See Figure 9)
1. AQ from last three years
a. worst year-1977
b. AQ was 125 ug/m3
2. NAAQS primary standard, 75 yg/m3
3. Background, 30 ug/m3
4. First cut rollback indicates 53% overall reduction needed
5. Given an emission inventory reduction of 53%, AQDM could
yield three different results, depending on specific
reduction locations
a. AQ projected is below NAAQS
b. AQ projected is at NAAQS
c. AQ projected is above NAAQS
B. Oxidant Example
Given: Baseline air quality
Baseline inventory
Ambient standard
Find: Estimated emission level equivalent to ambient standard
1. Model
a. Use SAI or LIRAQ or equivalent where ever possible
b. Where more sophisticated models are not available,
use city specific EKMA
c. Where city-specific EKMA is not available, use the
standard isopleth version of EKMA
d. Rollback
140
-------
Figure 9
14O
120
1OO
§°
pg/nv*
6O
4O
2O
AQ 1977
DEMONSTRATION OF ATTAINMENT
FOR PM (Primary)
BACKGROUND
79
8O
81
82 83
141
-------
E. The target is an emission level based on a percentage reduc-
tion in 1977 emissions inventory not on a flat reduction in current
emissions.
IV. Modeling
A. Use the best model consistent with available resources
B. For non-reactive pollutants
1. These include TSP, S02, NOX* CO
2. Use AQDM, COM, CDMQC, TCM, or comparable model
3. Use of rollback is not appropriate unless approved by
the RA
C. For reactive pollutants--oxidants
1. This relates to HC emissions
2. Use:
a. SAI, LIRAQif available
b. EKMA
c. Linear rollback and Appendix J (non-linear rollback)
D. When using any rollback model, it is important to select
appropriate background levels
1. Non-anthropogenic
2. Reading on upwind perimeter
3. Estimate upwind reading if sources were controlled
V. Determining reductions necessary to achieve standard
A. TSP Example (See Figure 6)
1. AQ from last three years
a. worst year-1977
b. AQ was 125 yg/m3
2. NAAQS primary standard, 75 yg/m3
3. Background, 30 yg/m3
4. First cut rollback indicates 53% overall reduction needed
5. Using emissions inventory reduced by 53% and AQDM, three
cases can result
a. AQ projected is below NAAQS
b. AQ projected is at NAAQS
c. AQ projected is above NAAQS
*
Actually reactive but for purposes of this modeling activity, it is
treated as a non-reactive pollutant.
142
-------
2. Adjusting for Background and Transport (See Figures 11 & 12)
a. Additivity (A)—normally between 20% and 70%
(That portion of background concentration which is not
scavenged and therefore contributes to the urban oxidant
problem)
b. Natural background--.02-.06 ppm
c. Man-made background
d. Reducible transport
--original transport (Tn) minus final
transport (Tp) u
e. Adjusted air quality
AQ adjusted = AQ design - A (reducible transport)
.24 = .28 - .50(.12-.04)
3. Adjusting for background and transport using linear
rollback
AQ adjusted - .08
AQ adjusted - A (final transport)
.24 - .08
.24 - .50 (.04)
.16 = 73% reduction
722
Calculate required reductions
Baseline inventory —f"^-^ Figure 10
emissions equivalent —
to standard
Baseline Emission level equivalent
Average additional = inventory - to standard
control required Baseline inventory
More detailed information on this subject can be found in the
following publication: EPA, Uses, Limitations and Technical Basis of
Procedures for Quantifying Relationships between Photochemical Oxidants
and Precursors, EPA-450/2-77-021a. November 1977.
143
-------
Figure 11
(A) Base Condition (B) Controlled Condition
I
I
I
I
I
I
0.12 ppm 03
0.04 ppm 03
CITY
CITY
0.28 ppm 03 0.08 ppm 03
Conceptual view of base and controlled states
144
-------
Figure 12
ADJUSTING FOR TRANSPORT
1. ADDITIVITY (A)
NORMALLY BETWEEN 20% and 70%
2, NATURAL BACKGROUND
.02 --.06ppm
3. MAN MADE BACKGROUND
4. REDUCIBLE TRANSPORT
ORIGINAL TRANSPORT (To) MINUS FINAL TRANSPORT (Tp)
AQ ADJUSTED = AQ DESIGN - A (REDUCIBLE TRANSPORT)
.24
.28
- .50 ( .12 - .04 )
145
-------
Definition of RACT
147
-------
REASONABLY
AVAILABLE
CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY
I. REQUIREMENTS
A. SECTION 172 (b) (2) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
II. APPLICABILITY OF DISCUSSION
A. RACT
B. STRINGENT BUT REASONABLE MEASURES
RACT
"THE LOWEST EMISSION LIMIT THAT A
PARTICULAR SOURCE IS CAPABLE OF
MEETING BY THE APPLICATION OF
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY THAT IS
REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONSIDERING
TECHNOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY'
148
-------
III. DEFINITION OF RACT
A. TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE
B. ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE
C. APPENDIX B, 40 CFR PART 51
DOES NOT REPRESENT RACT
IV. TECHNOLOGICAL FEASIBILITY
A.STRINGENT,EVEN
"TECHNOLOGY FORCING"
B.SIMILARITY OF SOURCES
V. ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY
A. SOURCE SPECIFIC
B. ECONOMIC WEIGHING OF BENEFITS
C. PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS
149
-------
NOT ECONOMICALLY
FEASIBLE
ECONOMICALLY
FEASIBLE
BENEFITS
OF
REMAINING
OPEN
VI. TYPES OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE
A. NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARD (NSPS)
SUPPORT DOCUMENTS
B. NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARD FOR HAZARDOUS
AIR POLLUTANTS (NESHAPS) SUPPORT DOCUMENTS
C.CONTROL TECHNIQUE DOCUMENTS FOR SPECIFIC
POLLUTANTS
D.EXISTING STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS
E.CONTROL TECHNOLOGY GUIDELINE DOCUMENTS
FOR VOC.
VII. CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINE DOCUMENTS
FOR VOC SOURCES
A.CURRENTLY 10 DOCUMENTS
B.STAGE I GASOLINE TRANSFER
C. REGULATIONS SUBMITTED BY JAN. 1979
150
-------
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS FOR
STATIONARY SOURCES OF VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS
VIII. EMISSION LIMITATIONS
A. PRESUMPTIVE RACT
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED
EMISSION LIMITATIONS
FOR
STATIONARY VOC SOURCES
151
-------
VIII. EMISSION LIMITATIONS con't
B. JUSTIFICATION REQUIRED FOR DEVIATION
C.MOBILE SOURCES
D.ATTAINMENT IS THE OVERRIDING CONCERN
E.RACT REQUIRED FOR ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION
FOR CO & OXIDANT
SUMMARY OF POSSIBLE
PERCENT EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM
RTCMs
IX. FORM OF THE REGULATION
A.VARY FROM ADD ON CONTROL EQUIPMENT
TO PROCESS CHANGES
B.QUANTIFICATION OF EMISSIONS ON A TIME
BASIS IS REQUIRED IN THE INVENTORY
152
-------
X. CLEARING HOUSE
A.OAQPS WILL PROVIDE ASSISTANCE
B. RACT, BACT, LAER DETERMINATIONS
C. UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES
XI SUMMARY:
+ RACT MUST BE TECHNICALLY AND ECONOMICALLY F EASIBLE
• TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY CAN REQUIRE STRINGENT AND EVEN
"TECHNOLOGY FORCING" CONTROL MEASURES.
4 PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS IS THE RECOMMENDED METHOD
FOR DETERMINING ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY
* THERE ARE NUMEROUS SOURCES OF INFORMATION TO
ASSIST STATES IN DETERMINING STRINGENT YET
REASONABLE CONTROLS.
• CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR A
NUMBER OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND SOURCE
CATEGORIES
• RACT IS REQUIRED FOR AN EXTENSION TO 1987 TO BE
GRANTED FOR CO AND/OR OXIDANT PLANT PLANS.
153
-------
REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
(RACT)
I. Requirements
A. Section 172(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act states the
requirements for implementation of RACT.
II. Applicability of Discussion
A. Discussion deals with determination of RACT.
B. Information to be presented also applies to the
determination of any stringent yet reasonable
measure.
III. Definition of RACT
A. Definition of RACT is found in a December 9, 1976,
memorandum from the Assistant Administrator of
OAWM.
B. RACT - the 1owefit emission limit that a particular
source is capable of meeting by the application of
control technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic feasibility.
C. Two key points
* Technical Feasibility
* Economic Feasibility
D. Appendix B, 40 CFR Part 51 no longer represents
RACT.
IV. Technological Feasibility
A. Requires stringent and even "technology forcing"
control measures.
B. Equipment need not be applied to an identical source
only to a similar source to represent RACT.
V. Economic Feasibility
A. Economic feasibility may be very source specific.
B. Economic feasibility depends upon the weighing of the
benefits of remaining open against those of closing.
C. Present value analysis is the recommended procedure
for determining economic feasibility.
154
-------
VI. Types of Information Available
A. New Source Performance Standards documents (SSEIS)
B. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPS)
C. Control Techniques documents for specific pollutants.
D. Existing State and Federal regulations should be
considered the minimum achievable level of control
for each individual State.
E. Control Technology Guideline Documents for Volatile
Organic Compounds.
VII. Control Technology Guideline (CTG) Documents for Sources of
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
A. There are currently 11 CTGs available (see appended
list).
B. Bulk storage gasoline transfer - Stage I
C. Regulation for these 12 sources must be submitted in
January, 1979, if extension beyond 1982 is necessary.
VIII. Emission Limitations
A. EPA has issued presumptive values for several sources.
These represent the norm achievable by industry.
B. 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 CTG.
Deviations from the use of CTG should be adequately
documented.
C. Reasonably available control measures for mobile sources
have been discussed in the presentation on Transporta-
tion Related Issues.
D. It should be noted that attainment of the particular
National Ambient Air Quality Standard is the over-
riding concern.
155
-------
E. Full application of all RACM (RACT, RTCM) will be
required for extension of the attainment date to
"1987 for CO and photochemical oxidant.
IX. Form of the Regulation
A. The form of the regulations will vary from add on
control technology to process changes.
B. A quantification of the emissions on a time basis
is required by the inventory.
X. Clearinghouse
A. OAQPS will provide assistance in the determination of
achievable levels of control.
B. This assistance will be in the form of RACT, BACT,
LAER determinations.
C. This assistance should only be requested for
unusual circumstances where the agency does not
have the in-house expertise,or in a situation where
a State desires to know what another State has done
in defining RACT, BACT, LAER for a particular source.
D. Summary of determinations made to date, with appropriate
updates, will.be provided on a periodic basis to the
Regional Offices and State and local agencies.
XI. Summary
A. RACT must be technically and economically feasible.
B. Technical feasibility can require stringent and even "tech-
nology forcing" control measures.
C. Present value analysis is the recommended method for
determining economic feasibility.
D. There are numerous sources of information to assist States in
determining stringent yet reasonable controls.
E. Control techniques guidelines have been issued for a number
of VOC source categories.
F. RACT is required for an extension to 1987 to be granted for
CO and/or oxidant plans.
156
-------
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS FOR
STATIONARY SOURCES OF VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS
GROUP I
Large Appliance Manufacture
Magnet Wire Insulation
Gasoline Bulk Plants
Metal Furniture Manufacture
Petroleum Liquid Storage,
Fixed Roof Tanks
Degreasing
Bulk Gasoline Terminals
Petroleum Refinery Vacuum Systems,
Waste Water Separators and
Process Unit Turnaround
Service Stations, Stage I
Cutback Asphalt Paving
Surface Coating of Cans,
Coils, paper,fabric,
automobiles and Light-duty
trucks May 1977
DATE OF ISSUANCE
December 1977
December 1977
December 1977
December 1977
December 1977
October 1977
October 1977
DATE OF SUBMITTAL
January 1979
January 1979
January 1979
January 1979
January 1979
January 1979
January 1979
October 1977 January 1979
Documentation has January 1979
been widely distributed
October 1977 January 1979
January 1979
157
-------
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS FOR
STATIONARY SOURCES OF VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS
GROUP II
Petroleum Refinery Fugitive
Emissions (leaks)
Surface Coating of Other Metal
Products - Industrial
Pharmaceutical Manufacture
Rubber Products Manufacture
Paint Manufacture
Vegetable Oil Processing
Graphic Arts (Printing)
Flat Wood Products
Service Stations, Stage II
Petroleum Liquid Storage
Floating Roof Tanks
GROUP III
Ship and Barge Transport of
Gasoline and Crude Oil
Organic Chemical Manufacture
Process Streams
Fugitive (Leaks)
Dry Cleaning
Wood Furniture Manufacture
Architectural and Miscellaneous
Coatings
GROUP IV
Organic Chemical Manufacture
Waste Disposal
Storage and Handling
OTHERS
Natural Gas and Crude Oil
Production
Adhesives
Other Industrial Surface
Coatings
Auto Refinishing
Other Solvent Usage
DATE OF ISSUANCE
June 1978
June
June
June
June
June
June
June
June
1978
1978
1978
1978
1978
1978
1978
1978
June 1978
December 1978
December
December
December
December
1978
1978
1978
1978
December 1978
June 1979
June 1979
DATE OF SUBMITTAL
January 1980
January 1980
January 1980
January 1980
January 1980
January 1980
January 1980
January 1980
January 1980
January 1980
January 1980
January 1980
January 1980
January 1980
January 1980
January 1980
January 1981
January 1981
158
-------
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED EMISSION LIMITATIONS
FOR STATIONARY VOC SOURCES
Recommended Limitation
Surface Coating
Can Coating
Sheet basecoat
Two-piece can exterior 0.34 kg/1 of coating (minus water)
Two- & three-piece can
interior body spray 0.51 kg/1 of coating (minus water)
Two-piece end exterior
Side-seam spray 0.66 kg/1 of coating (minus water)
End sealing compound 0.44 kg/1 of coating (minus water)
Coil Coating 0.31 kg/1 of coating (minus water)
Fabric Coating 0.35 kg/1 of coating (minus water)
Vinyl Coating 0.45 kg/1 of coating (minus water)
Paper Coating 0.35 kg/1 of coating (minus water)
Auto & Light Duty Truck Coating
Prime 0.23 kg/1 of coating (minus water)
Topcoat 0.34 kg/1 of coating (minus water)
Repair 0.58 kg/1 of coating (minus water)
Metal Furniture Coating 0.36 kg/1 of coating (minus water)
Magnet Wire Coating 0.20 kg/1 of coating (minus water)
Large Appliance Coating 0.34 kg/1 of coating (minus water)
Bulk Gasoline Terminal
Truck Loading 80 mg/1 of gasoline loaded
Bulk Gasoline Plants
159
-------
Vapor balance system
Vapor balance system
Storage Tank Filling
Truck Loading
Service Stations
Storage Tank Filling (Stage I) Vapor balance system
Fixed-Roof Storage of Petroleum
Liquids
Petroleum Refining
Vacuum Systems
Wastewater Separators
Process Unit Turnarounds
Cutback Asphalt Paving
Degreasing
Internal floating roofs
Vent noncondensables to boiler/
heater firebox
Install tight covers over
separators
Vent gases to a flare or other
combustion device during depressurization
Substitute water emulsions for solvent
cutback asphalt applications
Combination of control equipment and
operating requirements to minimize
solvent evaporation and solvent
carryout. Requirements differ for
cold cleaners, open top vapor degreasers
and conveyorize'd degreasers.
160
-------
SUMMARY OF POSSIBLE
PERCENT EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM
RTCMs
MEASURES % Emission Reduction
Inspection/maintenance
Vapor recovery
Improved public transit
Exclusive bus and carpool lanes
Areawide carpool programs
Private car restrictions
Long-range transit improvements
On-street parking controls
Park and ride and fringe parking lots
Pedestrian malls
Employer programs to encourage car and van polling,
mass transit, bicycling and walking
Bicycle lanes and storage facilities
Staggered work hours
Road pricing to discourage single occupancy
auto trips
Controls on extended vehicle idling
Traffic flow improvements
Alternative fuels or engines and other fleet
vehicle controls
Other than light duty vehicle retrofit
Extreme cold start emission reduction programs
161
-------
REFERENCES
Final CTGs documents as of 1-1-78
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary
Sources Volume V: Surface Coating of Large Appliances -
EPA-450/2-77-034.
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary
Sources Volume IV: Surface Coating for Insulation of Magnet
Wire - EPA-450/2-77-033.
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Bulk Gasoline Plants -
EPA-450/2-77-035.
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary
Sources Volume III: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture -
EPA-450/2-77-032.
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Storage of Petroleum
Liquids in Fixed-Roof Tanks - EPA-450/2-77-036.
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Solvent Metal Cleaning -
EPA-450/2-77-022.
Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals
EPA-450/2-77-026.
Control of Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Wastewater Separa-
tors, and Process Unit Turnarounds - EPA-450/2-77-025.
Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Use of Cutback
Asphalt.
Control Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary
Sources Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics,
Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks - EPA-450/2-77-008.
Design Criteria for Stage I Vapor Control Systems - Gasoline
Service Stations.
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary
Sources Volume I: Control Methods for Surface-Coating Operations
EPA-450/2-76-028
162
-------
EPA 450/2-73-002 A Technique for Calculating Overall Efficiencies of
Particulate Control Devices. 8/73.
EPA 450/2-74-002A Background Information for New Source Performance
Standards: Primary Copper, Zinc, and Lead Smelters.
Vol. 1 - Proposed Standards. 10/74.
EPA 450/2-74-008 Air Pollution Control Engineering and Cost Study
of the Ferroalloy Industry. 5/74.
EPA 450/2-74-009A Background Information on National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Proposed Amendments to
Standards for Asbestos and Mercury. 10/74.
EPA 450/2-74-017A Background Information for Standards of Performance:
Electric Arc Furnaces in the Steel Industry. Vol. 1 -
Proposed Standards. 10/74.
EPA 450/2-74-017B Background Information for Standards of Performance:
Electric Arc Furnaces in the Steel Industry.
EPA 450/2-74-018A Background Information for Standards of Performance:
Electric Submerged Arc Furnaces Producing Ferroalloys.
Vol. 1: Proposed Standards. 10/74.
EPA 450/2-74-018B Background Information for Standards of Performance:
Electric Submerged Arc Furnaces for Production of
Ferroalloys. Vol. 2: Test Data Summary. 10/74.
EPA 450/2-74-018C Background Information for Standards of Performance -
Electric Submerged Arc Furnaces for Production of
Ferroalloys. Vol. 3 - Supplemental Information.
4/75.
EPA 450/2-74-019A Background Information for Standards of Performance:
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry. Vol. 1 - Proposed
Standards. 10/74.
EPA 450/2-74-019B Background Information for Standards of Performance:
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry. Vol. 2: Summary of
Test Data. 10/74.
EPA 450/2-74-020A Background Information for Standards of Performance:
Primary Aluminum Plants. Vol. 1 - Proposed Standards.
10/74.
EPA 450/2-74-020B Background Information for Standards of Performance:
Primary Aluminum Plants. Vol. 2: Summary of Test
Data. 10/74.
163
-------
EPA 450/2-77-005 Control of Fluoride Emissions from Existing Phosphate
Fertilizer Plants: Final Guideline Document.
EPA: OAQPS 1977.
EPA 450/2-77-007A Standards Support and Environmental Impact Statement:
Vol. 1 - Proposed Standards of Performance for Lime
Manufacturing Plants. EPA: OAQPS 1977.
EPA 450/2-^7-008 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing
Stationary Sources: Vol. II - Surface Coating of
Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabric, Automobiles and Light
Duty Trucks. EPA: OAQPS 1977.
EPA 450/2-77-017A Standards Support and Environmental Impact Statement:
Vol. 1 - Proposed Standards of Performance for
Stationary Gas Turbines. EPA: OAQPS 1977.
EPA 450/2-77-019 Final Guideline Document: control of Sulfuric Acid
Mist Emissions from Existing Sulfuric Acid Production
Units. EPA: OAQPS 1977.
EPA 450/2-77-022 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Solvent
Metal Cleaning.
EPA 450/2-77-025 Control of Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems - Waste-
water Separators: Process Unit Turnarounds.
EPA 450/2-77-026 Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline
Loading Terminals
EPA 450/2-77-032 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions - Surface Coating
Vol. III.
EPA 450/2-77-033 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions - Magnetic Wire
Vol. 4
EPA 450/3-73-003A Emissions Control in the Grain and Feed Industry, Vol. 1,
Engineering and Cost Study. 12/73. Midwest Research
Inst. 1973.
EPA 450/3-73-003B Emissions Control in the Grain and Feed Industry.
Vol. 2. Emission Inventory. 9/74. Midwest Research
Inst. 1974.
EPA 450/3-73-004A Air Pollution Control in the Primary Aluminum Industry.
Vol. 1 of 2 (Sections 1 through 10). 7/73. Singmaster
and Breyer. 1973.
165
-------
EPA 450/3-73-004B Air Pollution Control in the Primary Aluminum Industry.
Vol. 2 of 2 (appendices). 7/73.
EPA 450/3-74-002 Evaluation of the Controllability of Power Plants
Having a Significant Impact on Air Quality Standards.
2/74.
EPA 450/3-74-015 Factors Affecting Ability to Retrofit Flue Gas
Deaulfurization Systems. 12/73. Radian Corp. 1973.
EPA 450/3-74-036A Investigation of Fugitive Dust: Vol. I - Sources,
Emissions, and Control. PEDCo Env. Specialists.
1974.
EPA 450/3-74-036B Investigation of Fugitive Dust: Vol. II - Control
Strategy and Regulatory Approach. PEDCo Env.
Specialists. 1974.
EPA 450/3-74-060 Air Pollution Control Technology and Costs - Seven
Selected Emission Factors. 12/74, Indust. Gas
Cleaning Inst. 1974.
EPA 450/3-74-063 Particulate Emission Control Systems for Oil-Fired
Boilers. 12/74. Geomet. 1975
EPA 450/3-75-046A A Study of Vapor Control Methods for Gasoline
Marketing Operations. Vol. 1 - Industry Sruvey
and Control Techniques. 4/75. Radian Corp. 1975.
EPA 450/3-75-046B A Study of Vapor Control Methods for Gasoline
Marketing Operations. Vol. 2 - Appendix. 4/75.
Radian Corp. 1975.
EPA 450/3-75-047 Comparison of Flue Gas Desulfurization Coal Liquefaction
and Coal Gasification for Use at Coal-Fired Power Plants.
Kellogg MS Co. 1975.
EPA 450/3-76-005 Control of Particulate Matter from Oil Burners and
Boilers. Aerotherm Corp. 1976.
EPA 450/3-76-013 Cost of Retrofitting Coke Oven Particulate Controls.
Vulcan Cincinnati. 1974.
EPA 450/3-76-036 Evaluation of Methods for Measuring and Controlling
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Petroleum Storage Tanks.
Battelle Memorial Inst. 1976.
EPA 450/3-76-038A Background Information on Hydrocarbon Emissions from
Marine Terminal Operations: Vol. I - Discussion.
Radian Corp. 1976.
166
-------
EPA 450/3-76-038B Background Information on Hydrocarbon Emissions from
Marine Terminal Operations: Volume II - Appendices
Radian Corp. 1976.
EPA 450/3-76-042
EPA 450/3-77-010
Economic Impact of Stage II Vapor Recovery Regulations:
Working Memoranda. Little Ad. 1976.
Technical Guidance for Control of Industrial Process
Fugitive Particulate Emissions. PEDCo Env. Specialists.
1977.
EPA 450/3-77-026 Atmospheric Emissions from Offshore Oil and Gas
Development and Production. Energy Resources Co.
1977.
EPA 450/3-77-046
Screening Study to Determine Need for SO and Hydro-
carbon NSPS for FCC Regenerators. X
167
-------
Public Participation
and Intergovernmental Consultation
169
-------
The presentation on public participation and Intergovernmental
consultation at the actual workshops did not Include the use of
visual material or written text. The presentation covered material
that was still under development and will be the subject of forth-
coming regulations. Readers are advised to consult those regula-
tions when they appear for a fuller treatment of the material.
Therefore, no visual or text materials on public participation
and intergovernmental consultation are presented here.
The discussion on public participation and Intergovernmental
consultation covered the following section of the Clean A1r Act:
121, 172(b)(l) and (9), 174, and 175.
170
-------
Reasonable Further Progress
171
-------
REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS (RFP)
AND
NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR)
• MECHANISMS TO ENSURE ATTAINMENT
• FEEDBACK TO AVOID SANCTIONS
RFP
• 2 Part Process
Schedule development
Yearly Tracking
• Important Role
Adjustments to Strategy and NSR
NSR
• Instantaneous RFP
• Additional Cleanup
• New Technology
enable
Further
Progress
i i i i i ^^g_...i i V
-\ r-
172
-------
RFP
PART D REQUIREMENTS
171(a) DEFINITION
• Annual Incremental Reductions
• Substantial Early Reductions
—Regular Thereafter
• Provides for Attainment
172(b)(3) PLAN REQUIREMENT
• Require RFP Including RACT
173 (I) NSR Permits
• Consistent With RFP
IMPORTANCE OF RFP
IF PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED:
• NEW RFP SCHEDULE
• NEW ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION
• AMENDED NONATTAINMENT DESIGNATION
• El ADJUSTMENTS
IMPORTANCE OF RFP
IF PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED. cont.
• ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
• INCREASED ENFORCEMENT
• NSR STRATEGY AMENDED
• GROWTH SANCTIONS IMPOSED
173
-------
RFPSCHEDULES
USED FOR TRACKING El CHANGES
GENERAL :
PRIMARY STANDARDS - AEAP
SECONDARY STANDARDS - REASONABLE TIME
SHORT-TERM VIOLATIONS - SELECTIVE El
(TSP, S02 - ONLY)
POST'82 SIP's - RACM, FMVCP
RFP SCHEDULES
LINEAR PRESUMPTION
Simpliest Design
Early Reductions
Not Rollback
1982 Attainment
1979 Submittal - Initially
1979 80
83
Exceptions to Linear
Case - by - case determinations
-RA and State
More resource intensive
1979
174
-------
Exceptions to Linear
Case - by - case determinations
-RA and State
More resource intensive
• Secondary NAAQS
• Special cases
POST '82 SIP'S / AGGREGATE RFP
Cl
•77
El
NAAQS
Aro/Mlnor
•Aggregate Schedule
Mobile - FMVCP, RACM
Major/Stationary -
RACT until 1983
Area/minor - Linear
l»7t SO SI «2 S3 «4 SS (6 S7 M
POST '82 SIP'S / AGGREGATE RFP
El
'77
Ł
i-
• Aggregate Schedule
Mobile - FMVCP, RACM
Major/Stationary -
RACT until 1983
Area/minor - Linear
»S7t SO SI S2 S3 S4 SS SS S7
175
-------
POST '82 SIP'S / AGGREGATE RFP
•Aggregate Schedule
Mobile - FMVCP, RACM
Major/Stationary -
RACT until 1983
Area/minor - Linear
1»T9 *0 tl S2
«T M
POST '82 SIP'S / AGGREGATE RFP
•Aggregate Schedule
Mobile - FMVCP, RACM
Major/Stationary -
RACT until 1983
Area/minor - Linear
1979 to tl S2 «3 §4 IS •• (7 M
RFP AND SECONDARY NAAQS
[•RMT 0» LINEA» UNTIL 1913
•IEUONULE TIME - LMEII
•60»%3TSP CUIIELINE
• SKOIT-TEIM - SELECTIVE El
NON-ITTIINMENT HSR C1NIINUES
176
-------
RFP AND SECONDARY NAAQS
[HUD! OR LINEAR UNTIL 1913
•REASONAIIE TIME - LINEAR
•IO'%>TSP GUIDELINE
• SHORT-TERM - SELECTIVE El
NON ATTAINMENT NSR CDNTINUES
1979 10 II 12 13 14
IE 87
RFP AND SECONDARY NAAQS
IACT 01 LINEAR UNTIL 1913
•REASONABLE TIME - LINEAR
•80"%3TSP GUIDELINE
SNORT-TERM - SELECTIVE El
• NON-ATTAINMENT NSR CONTINUES
1979 II II 12 13 14 15 16 17
IFF SINNAir HUE
TIM if IFP
CASE
1982 ATTAINMENT
1979 to 1983
LINEAR (MIN )
EPA- approve) RfP
1983 TO ATTAINMENT
NA
177
-------
IFF1 SiMNtlY UILE
TIM if IFF seiliilt
CASE
1982 ATTAINMENT
POST '82 SIPs
(oxidant/CO)
197» to 1983
LINEAR (MIN )
untoM dctwtod,
EPA.«pf>rov«JRFP
AGGREGATE SCHEDULE
MOBILE - FMVCP, RACM
MAJOR STATIONARV -
RACT (mm )
MINOR AREA -LINEAR
1963 TO ATTAINMENT
NA
MOBILE -FMVCT. OTHER
MAJOR STATIONARY - OTHER
MINOR AREA - LINEAR
IFP SIHMIIT HUE
TIM if IFP
CASE
1982 ATTAINMENT
POST-82SIPI
Io
S€CONDARV NAAOS
(TSP/S02)
1179 mm
LINEAR (MIN 1
EPA •M>ro«IRFP
AOOREGATE SCHEDULE
MOBILE - FMVCP. RACM
MAJOR STATIONARY -
RACT litim 1
MINOR AREA - LINEAR
LINEAR OR RACT
1983 TO ATTAINMENT
NA
MOBILE - FMVCP, OTHER
MAJOR STATIONARV - OTHER
MINOR AREA - LINEAR
REASONABLE TIME
- LINEAR
RFP TRACKING
3 MECHANISMS
•annual emission trends
•Ad trends - qualitative
•NSR instantaneous
178
-------
ACTUAL EMISSIONS - MANDATORY REPORTING
ACTUAL E. i REQUIRED
1979 CONTROL STRATEGY
LINKED TO AQ TRENDS
RFP EMISSION TRACKING
f I 77 . :
KtollT'
El
HUMS
1171
II
II
12
RFP EMISSION TRACKING
• ACTUAL EMISSIONS
• MANDATORY TRACKING AREAWIDE TRACKING
,„ , • TOTAL EMISSIONS
•M-.I T^ -REDUCTIONS AS OCCUR
•GROWTH AS OCCURS
• RFP MILESTONES
RFP -REDUCTIONS
schedule S|NCE AUGUST1977
1979
90
II
12
13
179
-------
RFP EMISSION TRACKING
• iiuimt [iissnis
UIWI1IH |UK. I
OMItlll IUCIIII imiMill il
(F Mil. "Ill 5 111
RFP EMISSION TRACKIN6
• mini uinnn
• IIIIIIIIII III |llll nilnli. ilr(ill)
> indicium im
• mum iiinm
hliclUii ii imi
TRACKING RFP
Specific Source Example
itiitii
tiRilinci
f
un n
in sir
[lllllllillS
Siurci
H«|liUCt
W/ ClIllllS
• i r~
n 11 ii
f
Simce Units
Opinliit tiws
f .
12 13
MSB TPV 760 TPV
1000 T? v 1000 Try
MM H>V MM TPY
NC NC 200 TPV 200 TPV -JkCTUAt IMIOIIM
2SO TTIf NC DC 220 TPV -*UOW*tlt EMISSIONS
W NC MT TPV in TPV -MAXIMUM MISSIONS
Annual Report
1 -~_-Kinii«ni
RFP Schedult
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983
SUMMARY FOR YEAR 1931
MANBITOir
TOTAL
RFP
Milestone
1979
1930
1981
Actual
Emissions
1979
1980
1981
4. '
•*f
Allowable
Emissions
I979||980|I9S1
Maximum
Emissions
1979
I9SI1
1981
Growth
>1977
1979
1980
1981
180
-------
1
1
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
1
1
AIK DUALITY TRI:NDS
Qualitative check -
only Kl trends mciininKful 1
No special reporting •
40 ( I'R Part 51 already 1
1
All nonattainment monitors
PROILEMS: t^*,,™
Inadtquitt ,. ^\
EmlMlon . . - is^
••auctions
i)n ii ii i: ii
PROILEMS: f^^c,,,
^X^ ifp
Emission " - ~ ^Ssv.
••Aietleiii "IS
f Illllllllf
nn ii ii ii u
UNI
t**r AQ Tr«ltf>
II ^v
IMS ~
tin H u n u
181
-------
PROBLEMS:
_/J
uus
AIR MUTT
Inadequate ^
Emission uit*t
Reductions
W
mi 10 n
Poor AQ Trends
[I
mm
Poor Maximum
Emission Trend
fl
•IMS
It?) II
iw 10
RESOLUTION OF RFP PROBLEMS
ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS
EXCESSIVE GROWTH
CONTROL EQUIPMENT LAG
CORRECTIVE MEASURES
POOR AO TREND
El ADJUSTMENTS
INCREASED ENFORCEMENT
AMEND NONATTAINMENT DESIGN,
STRICTER NSR POLICY
182
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS
1. General Intent
Both reasonable further progress (RFP) and new source review (NSR)
are intended to play essential roles in ensuring that the NAAQS will be
met on time. They are feedback mechanisms designed to identify possi-
ble errors made in developing the control strategy or in selecting
the area and sources of concern. The language from Part D of the new
Amendments sets forth the RFP requirement which was not present in
the previous 1970 Clean Air Act as amended.
RFP is essentially a two-part process in which a schedule is first
developed (typically linear) and then a yearly tracking exercise is
performed. The schedule is intended only as a guideline but failure
to meet the designated milestones must be explained and could well
result in adjustments to: the control strategy, the geographic bound-
aries of the designated non-attainment area, or the approach taken to
review new sources. An annual report for RFP is to be submitted by
the State. This report is intended to be a brief but effective exer-
cise in (1) tracking the emission reductions accomplished and (2)
verifying that these decreases, taking into account growth, are consis-
tent with the RFP goal of attainment.
2. Reasonable Further Progress - Part D Requirements
Section 171 (1) defines the term "reasonable further progress" as
annual incremental reductions in emissions of the applicable air pol-
lutant (including substantial reductions in the early years following
approval or promulgation of plan provisions under Part D and Section
110(a)(2)(I) and regular reductions thereafter) which are sufficient
in the judgment of the Administrator, to provide for attainment of the
applicable national ambient air quality standard by the date required
in Section 172(a).
Section 172(b)(3) states that the "non-attainment" SIP submittal
shall require, in the interim, reasonable further progress (as defined
.above) including such reduction in emissions from existing sources in
the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of
reasonably available control technology.
Finally, one option under Section 173 to allow new major construc-
tion requires that total allowable emissions (SIP at new source applica-
tion) will decrease so as to represent reasonable further progress.
183
-------
3. Importance of RFP
Before discussing how the RFP schedules are to be developed, 1t
is proper to reemphasize that RFP is an important requirement for SIPs
in non-attainment areas. The significance of the RFP requirement
logically increases as the uncertainties associated with the attainment
demonstration increase. If problems with meeting the RFP requirement
are identified, then one of several actions may be needed. The precise
choice of corrective measures taken will be left to the State subject
to the approval of the Regional Administrator. It should be noted that
the last measure cited below is what RFP seeks to avoid. Only after
all other options are discarded should the need to impose sanctions be
seriously considered.
List of possible corrective measures:
a. new RFP schedule
b. new attainment demonstration
c. amended non-attainment designation
d. emission inventory adjustment
e. additional reductions required
f. increased enforcement
g. NSR strategy amended
h. growth sanctions imposed
4. Development of RFP Schedules
The purpose of an RFP schedule is to verify that the emission
reductions obtained are being accomplished at a reasonable and effi-
cient rate so that attainment by the prescribed time will take place.
Where only violations of the annual primary NAAQS are Involved then
RFP is intended to represent the application of good controls as
expeditiously as practicable (AEAP). RFP schedules to correct
violations of the secondary standards are again intended to depict
an AEAP timetable but with the connotation of "a reasonable time."
Where attainment of the oxidant or carbon monoxide NAAQS can not be
accomplished by 1982, then an RFP schedule reflecting application of
reasonably available control measures will be acceptable as long as
attainment is accomplished by the agreed upon date (not to exceed
1987). Finally, the proceeding general statements also apply to
short-term NAAQS violations except that a selective emissions inven-
tory with respect to source inclusion may be tracked in accordance
with RFP.
For the majority of cases, EPA expects that RFP schedules will
be linear in nature. Figure #1 illustrates the simple design of a
linear RFP schedule which starts from the 1977 emissions inventory
184
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
and ends before 1983* at the emissions Inventory predicted as being
adequate to demonstrate attainment. No additional resources are
typically required to develop such linear timetables.
A linear RFP schedule 1s thought to be completely within the
Intent of the Section 171 definition. That 1s, such a line would
effect substantial reductions 1n the early going and not put off
accomplishing most of the required reductions until the last year(s).
A linear schedule 1s also thought to be a stringent timetable to
accomplish emission reductions 1n light of the lag time In the real
world for Installing control technology. 1977 emissions Inventory
starting point 1s consistent with EPA's Intent to acknowledge all
reductions accomplished since the August 7, 1977, date of enactment
1n accomplishing RFP. This position is intended to assist the States
in meeting the aspect of the RFP requirement that calls for substan-
tial progress 1n the early years. A linear RFP schedule should not
be in any way confused with the similarly shaped linear rollback
technique. RFP schedules do not relate to the amount of controls
needed but rather to the rate that the necessary emission reductions
are to be accomplished. Typically, a linear RFP will refer to the
rate that controls determined necessary through non-linear techniques
(such as air quality dispersion modeling) must be Installed.
In terms of answering the 1979 plan requirement to show RFP
the submission of a linear RFP schedule will be acceptable even
if a linear timetable would be even initially thought to be
inappropriate. Unless the State on its own chooses to submit a detailed
nonlinear RFP, a linear schedule for 1982 attainment SIPs will be accept-
able to EPA. Such a schedule is thought to reflect a reasonable rate of
progress considering the relatively short timeframe allotted for attain-
ment (maximum of 4 to 5 years). To routinely require a detailed RFP may
direct critical resources from accomplishing the actual attainment.
Only in certain cases where the controls necessary for attainment cannot
be reasonably applied as quickly as required by a linear RFP would it be
in the best Interest of the State to develop and submit a "less-than-
Hnear" RFP schedule.
The linear assumption is initially acceptable for all 1979 plan
submlttals. Of course, some of the plans particularly those attaining
standards after 1982 may have to amend their schedules over the year
following the 1979 submittal 1n order to make RFP more meaningful.
Where the linear assumption is thought to be inappropriate, the State
*EPA, of course, encourages states to demonstrate attainment before
1983 and to submit corresponding RFPs.
185
-------
must submit an acceptable alternative RFP schedule to the Regional
Administrator. Such nonlinear schedules should be developed over the
year following the 1979 plan submission. It 1s acknowledged that
developing such RFP's 1s more resource Intensive and should be attempted
only when absolutely necessary. Table #1 summarizes the type of RFP
schedules that are expected.
A non-linear RFP will typically be developed 1n the case of
carbon monoxide or oxidant plans which fail to attain by 1982 but
do so not later than 1987. Herein, the aggregate nature of the
emission inventory must be considered. Figure #2 shows that indi-
vidual RFP schedules for each general component of the 1977 emissions
inventory (i.e., mobile, major stationary, and minor/area sources)
must be developed. For post 1982 oxidant and CO SIPs, reductions
from mobile sources until 1983 are expected to follow as a minimum
a schedule consistent with the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program
(FMVCP)and the application of RACM. Beyond 1982 until attainment,
the reductions from mobile sources will be reflect the imposition of
other measures (as necessary) as well as the continuing cleanup
accomplished by the FMVCP. Major stationary sources correspondingly
must be controlled until 1982 at least as effectively as they would
under an RFP schedule exhibiting the application of RACT. After
1982 and until attainment (no later than 1987) the schedule for
reductions will reflect the application of other control measures.
A linear assumption can be made for the portion of the RFP schedule
beyond 1982. Finally, a linear assumption is appropriate throughout
the RFP schedule for controlling minor and area (other than mobile)
source growth.
Specific non-linear RFP milestones may also be necessary 1n the
case of secondary NAAQS violations. Figures #3 and 4 illustrate the
case where both the primary and secondary standards are violated.
In general, only where a RACM-based RFP would not demonstrate attain-
ment of at least the primary NAAQS by 1982 would a linear RFP be
chosen in preference. Since both RACM RFP's Identified in Figures
#3 and #4 meet this criteria, they would be chosen in preference to
the linear presumption. The RFP schedule after 1982 until attainment
is governed by the reasonable time assumption. For at least initial
planning purposes, linear reductions over time can be assumed to be
reasonable until attainment.
As was the case of 1972 SIP submissions, the 60 ug/m3 TSP
guideline is to generally be used as a standard in assessing RFP.
Also, it should be noted that the non-attainment review for new
sources will continue in full effect until the secondary standards
are met. This includes the possibility of major new source sanctions
when RFP for these standards is not being met.
186
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
U
FIGURE 1
RFP SCHEDULES
El.
'77
El
NAAQS
NAAQS
1-
1979 80
81
82
83
187
-------
TABLE 1
RFP SUMMARY TABLE
Type of RFP schedule
CASE
1979 to 1983
1983 TO ATTAINMENT
1982 ATTAINMENT
POST '82 SIPs
(oxidant/CO)
SECONDARY NAAQS
(TSP/S02)
LINEAR (MIN.)
unless detailed,
EPA-approved RFP
AGGREGATE SCHEDULE
MOBILE - FMVCP, RACM
MAJOR STATIONARY -
RACT (min.)
MINOR AREA-LINEAR
LINEAR OR RACT
NA
MOBILE - FMVCP, OTHER
MAJOR STATIONARY - OTHER
MINOR AREA-LINEAR
REASONABLE TIME
-LINEAR
188
-------
FIGURE 2
POST '82 SIP'S / AGGREGATE RFP
•Aggregate Schedule
Mobile - FMVCP, RACM
Major/Stationary -
RACT until 1983
Area/minor - Linear
"^/or/Station
1979 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88
189
-------
FIGURE 3
RFP AND SECONDARY NAAQS
CO
liiiar prcsinptin
primary NAAQS
secondary NAAQS
H
•1 1
1979 80 SI 82 83 84 85 86 17
190
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE 4
RFP AND SECONDARY NAAQS
RACT RFP
liiear pnsiiptiii
primary NAAQS
secondary NAAQS
—I—I—I—I—
1979 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97
191
-------
5. RFP Tracking
RFP is to be tracked primarily by a yearly assesCi7:ent of the net
reductions to actual emissions (including growth) that have taken
place. A summary of these reductions will be submitted as an annual
report (Table #3). RFP as reported in terms of actual emission reduc-
tions must be interpreted in context with actual air quality improve-
ments. Although not formally required in the annual report, emission
reductions should be tracked with the results from quarterly air quality
reports. NSR v/ill perform an instantaneous check on RFP. The specific
results of NSR will not be a formal part of the annual report but will
be sublet to insjj"':t'i
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
creditable toward meeting RFP; (6) total actual TRY emissions are
generally to be reported unless a specific non-linear RFP schedule
has been developed (then tracking of the specific emission inventory
components may be required); and (7) the net yearly reduction ( or
even increase) in actual emissions is not itself critical for any
one year as long as the RFP schedule is met and attainment is not
jeopardized (good reduction years can therefore compensate for ones
of less cleanup).
There is also a competing need to confirm that actual emissions
will not increase to levels so as to prevent attainment and/or main-
tenance of the ambient standards. Allowable emissions are defined as
the most emissions a source can emit and still ccnfrom to the most
stringent of the following; (1) an applicable NSPS, (2) an applicable
SIP limit; and (3) any enforceable permit condition including those
restricting hours of operation and utilization of production capacity.
The typical analysis for controls needed in 1979 assumes that the 1977
actual emissions from large point sources will not increase appreciably
due to voluntary increases in hours of operation and utilization of
production capacity not otherwise constrained by enforceable permit
conditions. That is, many sources in the present SIP's do not have
Ibs/hour or TPY emission limits and their emissions can be greatly
influenced by voluntary changes in the capacity usage and hours operated.
This means sources without constrained capacity usage or hours of
operation (enforceable by EPA) must be assumed to operate at full
capacity for the entire year.
The only requirement therefore with respect to RFP and allowable
emissions is that this inventory be reduced at or below the emissions
inventory used to demonstrate attainment by the prescribed time (typi-
cally 1982 or 1987). Conceivably sanctions could still be imposed
in those areas who reach their attainment goal but cannot guarantee
that it will be maintained.
The yearly tracking of allowable emissions is optional with respect
to ensuring RFP. For those States who wish to do so (presumably to
better ensure that allowable emissions will be at or below those
showing attainment) should keep the following in mind: (1) allowable
emissions are to be tracked on a cumulative total TPY basis throughout
the entire designated non-attainment area (only in the case of short-
term violations for S0? and/or TSP would deviations with respect to
source inclusion be acceptable); (2) reductions in allowable emissions
occur as enforceable regulations are adopted into the SIP (consequently
one expects that allowable emissions will take a large initial drop
in 1979 as several general regulations are incorporated into the SIP--
fluctuations thereafter will occur as specific enforceable permit
193
-------
conditions are negotiated); (3) the 1977 allowable emissions inventory
should be the starting point for tracking allowable emissions--all
cleanup since August 7, 1977,1s creditable (where Ibs/ton, Ibs/MBTU,
or Ibs/gal type limits are apparent, an estimate of the maximum emis-
sions allowed under the SIP should be made as required in the 1979
control strategy demonstration); (4) major point source growth is
assumed to Increase allowable emissions as it is approved (correspond-
ingly, offsets legally tied to the construction of a major source are
also assumed to occur at the same time); and (5) allowable emissions
from minor stationary, area, and mobile sources are assumed to be the
same as actual emissions.
A third type of emissions inventory is also important with respect
to making RFP. Maximum emissions, are the most emissions that a source
could emit considering in place controls and enforceable permit condi-
tions tions restricting a source's hours of operation and use of
production capacity. Thus, maximum emissions would differ from allow-
able ones only to the extent a source is out of compliance with an
effective emission limit and/or permit condition. The optional yearly
tracking of maximum emissions therefore is a valuable enforcement tool
to assess how much real progress has been made toward attainment. The
difference between the attainment emissions inventory and maximum
emissions at any point in time represents the real non-attainment
driving force. Consequently, maximum emissions should equal to be less
than allowable emissions at attainment (assuming full compliance).
As mentioned, the tracking of maximum emissions is optional in
terms of ensuring that RFP 1s being accomplished. For those States
who wish to do so then the following criteria should be followed:
(1) maximum emissions are to be tracked on a TPY areawide basis
throughout the designated non-attainment area (with same exceptions
as noted under "actual" emissions); (2) maximum emissions are reduced
as existing sources install new controls or comply with new permit
conditions restricting the hours of operation or use of production
capacity; and (3) maximum emissions are assumed to increase as major
proposed construction is approved (as in the case of allowable emis-
sions, offsets legaly tied to the construction of a major source are
also assumed to occur at the same time).
Figures #5, #6, and #7 show the concept of tracking of various
types of areawide emissions from a graphic standpoint. Figure #8 and
Table #2 have been included to illustrate how new source approvals are
taken into account in determining if RFP is met. Figure #9 is included
to clarify when certain emission level changes are creditable toward
RFP. This figure uses a single source non-attainment problem to illus-
trate how and when emission reductions are applicable.
The annual report (shown as Table #3) must contain a summary
of how total actual emissions have been reduced relative to the
194
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(9
Z
tf)
tf)
Figure 5
(Adi) SNOISSIN3
195
-------
Figure 6
C5
(A
tf)
u
0.
u.
09
CX9
(Adi) SNOISSIH3
196
-------
Figure 7
O
O *a ,_
tf)
tf)
-1^—^
i «oi I
(Adll SMOISSIH3
197
-------
Figure 8
S
DC
a.
u.
cc
CD
00
ir
4
s s
° j; a
*"
4
§
O
in
o
CM
,01 *\dJ.) SNOISSIIAI3
(cOL>
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE #2
RFP AND GROWTH
MAXIMUM ACTUAL ALLOWABLE
EMISSIONS EMISSIONS EMISSIONS
YEAR ACTION (TPY) (TRY) (TPY)
1975 50,000 40,000 50,000
#1 Approval (w/o offsets) + 5,000 — + 5,000
1976 55,000 40,000 55,000
#2 Approval (w/o offsets) + 2,500 — + 2,500
6% Increase in capacity -— + 3,000
1977 57,500 43,000 57,500
#3 Shutdown - 2,500 - 2,500 - 2,500
6% Decrease In capacity — - 2,850
1978 55,000 38,000 55,000
#5 Approval w/#4 offsets
6% Increase in capacity --- + 2,850
1979 55,000 40,850 55,000
#7 Approval w/#6 offsets
RFP cleanup -11,000 - 9,020 -36,500
1980 44,000 31,830 18,500
RFP cleanup -10,000 - 8,200
4% Increase in capacity — + 1,060
#1 Operation at 15% approval - 4,250 + 750 - 4,250
1981 29,750 25,460 14,250
RFP cleanup - 8,000 - 7,000
10% Decrease in capacity ~- - 1,350
#2 Operation at 15% approval - 2,125 + 375 - 2,125
#4 Offsets occur — - 2,500
#6 Offsets (beyond attainment
occur) --- - 2,500
1982 19,625 12,465 12,125
RFP cleanup - 7,500 - 5,625
#5 Operation at 15% approval - 2.125 + 300 - 2,125
5% Decrease in capacity — - 300
1983 10,000 6,840 10,000
#7 Operation — + 2,500
5% Increase in capacity — 300 —
1984 10,000 9,640 10,00
aA 10,000 TPY ET is assumed to show attainment
bUntil 1979 maximum emissions are assumed to equal allowable ones (i.e., SIP
limits coincide with maximum source emissions and they are fully complied with)
cAll cleanup performed to accomplish RFP is identified in the 1979 plan sub-
mission and is expressed in terms of allowable emissions
dAllowable emission reduction for RFP are translated into actual emission
reductions by the following:
Actual Emissions - Allowable emissions - Total = Change to
Before Cleanup before cleanup Cleanup Actual Emissions
199
-------
Figure 9
cv»
(Adi) SNOISSIW3
(A
5 UJ Uj
* ffl 5
-J < 3
O CM CM
CM CM CM
U U U
z z z
g§g
|Łl
So p
o o
l> T- r-
200
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(Adi) suoissjui]
Growth
>1977
Maximum
Emissions
*
Allowable
Emissions
*
I
00
en
r*.
en
I
00
r— •
ii
«n
en
o>
CO
CO
€0
0>
III
O
u.
»
t+
•M
O
Q
\\
to
Ł
•3.2
3 (/) #
-------
applicable RFP milestones. Only where special non-linear RFP's
are applicable will Table #3 be more specific than reporting total
actual emissions (i.e., mobile, major stationary, and minor/area).
Although not formally required, a State might also report or at least keep
track of how maximum and allowable emissions have changed over the same
time period.
Section 171(1) defines RFP in terms of annual emission reduc-
tions and does not mention changes in air quality directly. It is
our position that air quality changes should be taken into account,
at least qualitatively, in determining if RFP is being accomplished.
That is, the intent of reviewing air quality changes with the associ-
ated emission reductions is to ensure that the reductions accomplished
are meaningful in terms of actual air quality improvement.
No special reporting of air quality data is necessary on the part
of the State since 40 CFR Part 51 already requires quarterly reporting
(45 days thereafter) to be submitted to EPA. Only non-attainment
monitors in the designated area should be considered in qualitatively
assessing RFP.
6. Problems and[Adjustments
It is to be expected that the annual report for RFP or the air
quality trends data will identify from time to time the existence
of some control strategy or implementation problems. In fact, this
is precisely the intended function of RFP. That is, the RFP report
attempts to identify problems so that they can be resolved without
jeopardizing attainment by the prescribed date.
Figure #11 illustrates three types of problems that may well occur.
The fir of these problems is simply failing to obtain sufficient
actual emission reductions to meet the specific RFP milestone. Here
we are talking about deviations of more than 5% from the defined RFP
schedule. Such a problem could be the result of excessive growth
(major and/or minor area growth), enforcement problems, or the lag
time to install control equipment.
The second problem identified is poor air quality improvement
despite the accomplishing of all the emission reductions called for
under RFP. Conceivably, this problem could be caused by the persis-
tence of unusual meteorological conditions, overestimating the
value for cleaning up certain emissions sources (bad emission factors),
or the omission of key sources from the inventory altogether. The
latter more specifically refers to the lack of control on key sources
which have not been included in the initial emissions inventory
developed for the non-attainment area.
202
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The third and final problem identified by Figure #10 is the
inability for maximum emissions to decline at an acceptable rate
notwithstanding that actual emissions have been reduced in accordance
with the RFP schedule. This problem will likely be noticed by only
those States who track trends in maximum emissions. The problem may
occur due to delays in converting SIP allowable emission limits which
far exceed what a source could physically emit to more realistic emis-
sion rates or the failure to constrain the operating hours and/or
capacity utilization of key sources as appropriate.
In general, no sanction penalties will be imposed when problems
such as those mentioned are identified if a justification is presented
which demonstrates that attainment by the prescribed date is not
jeopardized. However, in many cases some additional corrective action(s)
may be necessary. Table #4 provides a summary of problem types, their
possible causes, and candidate measures for addressing them.
203
-------
Figure 10
I?
E Ł
•2 o e
Us
tf)
o e
O.J
• •
o
o
a.
204
exs
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 4
RESOLUTION OF RFP PROBLEMS
PROBLEMS
INADEQUATE EMISSION
REDUCTIONS
:AUSES
POOR AQ TREND
POOR MAXIMUM
EMISSION TREND
ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS
EXCESSIVE GROWTH
CONTROL EQUIPMENT LAG
KEY SOURCES UNCONTROLLED
METEOROLOGICAL VARIATIONS
SLOW TPY CONVERSION
SLOW SIP TIGHTENING
205
CORRECTIVE MEASURES
ADDITIONAL MEASURES
INCREASED ENFORCEMENT
NEW RFPSCHEDULE
NEW ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION
STRICTER NSR POLICY
El ADJUSTMENTS
INCREASED ENFORCEMENT
AMEND NONATTAINMENT DESIGNATE
STRICTER NSR POLICY
INCREASED ENFORCEMENT
STRICTER NSR POLICY
ACCELERATED SIP TIGHTENING
-------
Procedural Requirements
207
-------
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
• PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORTS
• RULES, REGULATIONS, AND SCHEDULES
• COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES
• RESOURCES REQUIRED
• MISCELLANEOUS PART 51 REQUIREMENTS
PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORTS
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO
ALL AREAS
SUMMARY OF 1979 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
SCHEDULES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MEASURES —
RECOMMENDED MILESTONES
I/M SCHEDULE
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABLE TO ALL AREAS
Air Quality Data
Emission Data ~""\
Plan Enforcement \
X
Substantive Revisions f
Plan Prescribed Action!/
(Milestones) _/
Enforcement Orden, and
Other State Actions
EXISTING
Quarterly
Semi— Annually
PROPOSED
Before 1/81
Quarterly
After 1/81
Selected stations-Quarterly
All stations'Annuatly
Annually
Within 60 days
of issuance or adoption
208
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
POLLUTANT
S02
No,
Paniculate
Matter
0,
ATTAINMENT
DATE
1982
1982
1982
1982/1987
CO ' 1982/1987
1979 SUBMITTAL
REGS
Yei
Yes
Yes
Traditional
Sourcetincludes
fugitive)
Yes
Stationary Source
(IOCTGI
Yes
Stationary Sources
SCHEDULES
No
Yes
Yes
Non-Traditional
Yes
1 later CTG's issued
after Jan. 1978
2. I/M
3 TCM
4 other measures
Yes
1. I/M
2 TCM
3 other measures
SCHEDULE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MEASURES
NOT APPLICABLE TO
SO,
APPLICABLE TO
NOX
TSP (Non-traditional TSP (Traditional Sources)
sources)
Ox / HC( I/M, TCMs, other) 0X/HC (stationary sources
1st lOCTGs)
CO( I/M, TCMs, other) CO (stationary sources)
RECOMMENDED MILESTONES
- Evaluate Alternative Measures
— Select Alternative Measures
- Hold Public Hearing
- Adopt Regulations and/or Measures
— Submit Regulations and/or Measures
to EPA
I /M SCHEDULE
1. INITIATION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAM.
2. DECISION ON TYPE OF SYSTEM TO BE IMPLEMENTED.
3. DEVELOPMENT AND ISSUANCE OF R FPs.
4. AWARD TO CONTRACTOR(S).
5. INITIATION OF CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES
6. COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF FACII m ES.
7. COMPLETION OF EQUIPMENT PURCHASE.
8. ADOPTION OF QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES AND
GUIDELINES.
9. ADOPTION OF CUTPOINTS.
10. INITIATION OF HIRING AND TRAINING OF INSPECTORS
OR LICENSING OF GARAGES.
11. INITIATION OF PILOT PROGRAM.
12. MECHANICS TRAINING AND/OR INFORMATION
PROGRAM.
13. INITIATION OF MANDATORY MAINTENANCE.
14. INITIATION OF MORE STRINGENT PHASES OF THE
PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE).
209
-------
RULES, REGULATIONS, AND SCHEDULES
REQUIREMENTS
• § 172 (b) (8), (10)
0 SIP CRITERIA MEMO
APPLICABLE DEFINITIONS
• EMISSION LIMITATIONS
• SCHEDULES AND TIMETABLES OF COMPLIANCE
RULES, REGULATIONS, AND SCHEDULES
PLAN PROVISIONS
• "WRITTEN EVIDENCE" OF ADOPTION OF RULES,
REGULATIONS, AND SCHEDULES
• "COMMITMENTS" TO ENFORCE PLAN PROVIS-
IONS
• "LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE PROCEDURES"
OTHER THAN EMISSION LIMITATIONS
• SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO MEET A SCHED-
ULE OR "COMMITMENT"
I. Two Options for Nonattainment SIP Revisions
• Submit Future Effective Regulations and
Schedule of Compliance
• Submit Immediately Effective Regulations and
Provide for Compliance Schedules in
form of:
* Variances; or
* Delayed Compliance Orders
210
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RESOURCES REQUIRED ( § 172(b) (7)
REQUIREMENT ( §172(b)(7)
SUGGESTED FORMAT
"COMMITMENT" OF RESOURCES
RESOURCE ESTIMATES 6Y FUNCTION
A 95 Cleai
House
Trans agencies Other
(MPO s) agencit
MISCELLANEOUS PART 51 REQUIREMENTS
• PUBLIC HEARINGS (§ 51.4)
• SUBMISSION OF PLANS ( § 51.5)
• SOURCE SURVEILLANCE (§ 51.19)
• RULES AND REGULATIONS ( § 51.22)
211
-------
PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORTS
Under the Act and the SIP criteria memorandum, the 1979 SIP
revision need not contain all the legally enforceable measures
called for by a control strategy for all cases. A previous dis-
cussion indicated that certain plan revisions required adopted
measures and other revisions need only contain schedules for adop-
tion of measures. This discussion will expand on this requirement.
Where schedules are submitted, however, the State must annually
report on the progress made in achieving the milestones set forth
in those schedules. Also the State must demonstrate in its annual
report that "reasonable further progress" has been made 1n reducing
emissions 1n the nonattainment area; a discussion of what consti-
tutes "reasonably further progress" has also been presented pre-
viously. Failure to meet the milestones in a revision for a non-
attainment area or failure to achieve reasonable further progress
in reducing emissions can result in the imposition of sanctions
concerning growth of major sources and Federal grant monies.
212
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABLE TO ALL AREAS
I. A1r Quality
A. After 1/81
1. NAMS (SAROAD format)
2. SLAMS (summary format)
B. Before 1/81
All air quality data -
SAROAD format
II. Emissions
Source sizes covered:
—PM,SOX,HC,NOX—100
T/Y actual
-CO—100 T/Y actual
—CO—1000 T/Y actual
Existing Reporting
quarterly (45
days after period)
semi-annually (45
days after period)
ditto
ditto
(NA)
Emission points within facility covered:
ditto
(NA)
ditto
—PM.SOx.HC.NOx—25
T/Y actual
—CO—250 T/Y actual
—CO—25 T/Y actual
Format:
—PM,SOx,CO,HC,NOx—NEDS
Sources covered:
—Those that achieve compliance
--New or modified sources approved or
that have begun operation
—Those that cease operation
Reporting to
be Proposed
Quarterly (90
days after
period)
Annually, calen-
dar year (6 mos.
after period)
Annually, calen-
dar year (6 mos.
after period)
ditto
(NA)
ditto
ditto
ditto
(NA)
213
-------
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO ALL AREAS (cont'd)
III. Plan Enforcement
Existing Reporting
semi-annually
--Achievement of Increments
of progress 1n compliance
schedules
--Enforcement actions
Area sources—% 1n compliance
IV. Substantive Revisions
V- Enforcement Orders and
Othcristate Actions
VI. PIan-prescribed Actions
Including;
—Obtaining resources
—Adopting new laws or
regulations
--Conducting studies
—Initiating or expanding
programs
ditto
within 60 days of
issuance or adop-
tion
semi-annually
Reporting to
be Proposed
Annually
Annually
within 60 days
of issuance or
adopti on
Annually
214
-------
1
1
1
SUMMARY OF 1979 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
Attainment 1979 Submittal
1
"
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Pollutant Date Regs.
S02 1982 Yes
NOX 1982 Yes
TSP 1982 Yes
Traditional
Source (Includes
Fugitive)
Ox 1982/1987 Yes
Stationary
Source (10 CTG)
CO 1982/1987 Yes
Stationary
Sources
215
Schedules
No
Yes
Yes
Non-Traditional
Yes
1. Later CTGs issued
after Jan. 1978
2. I/M
3. TCM
4. Other measures
Yes
1. I/M
2. TCM
3. Other measures
-------
THE VEHICLE INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE
Congress called for a "specific schedule of implementation"
for inspection/maintenance. As a part of the schedules for imple-
mentation then, the specific goals listed below will have to be
included. Those that are dependent on the type of system chosen
(state-run centralized, contractor centralized, or garage-based)
are denoted by an asterisk(*).
1. Initiation (or continuation) of public information pro-
gram including publicizing the inspection maintenance program in
the media, meeting and speaking with affected interest groups,
etc.
2. Decision on type of system to be implemented.
3. Development and issuance of RFPs.*
4. Award to contractors).*
5. Initiation of construction of facilities.*
6. Completion of construction of facilities.*
7. Completion of equipment purchase.
8. Adoption of quality control procedures and guidelines,
including emission analyzer requirements.
9. Adoption of cutpoints.
10. Initiation of hiring and training of Inspectors .or
licensing of garages.*
11. Initiation of pilot program (voluntary maintenance)
with either voluntary or mandatory inspection.
12. Mechanics training and/or information program.
13. Initiation of mandatory maintenance by initiating regis-
tration prohibition for non-complying vehicles or similarly
effective enforcement mechanism.
14. Initiation of more stringent phases of the program (if
applicable).
Schedules should be accompanied by a statement as to the
stringency planned plus a brief description of the degree of
mechanic training intended.
216
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RULES, REGULATIONS AND SCHEDULES
(S
I. REQUIREMENTS
A. Clean A1r Act
S 172(b)(8): "The plan provisions... shall... (8) contain
emission limitations, schedules of compliance and such other meas-
ures as may be necessary to meet the requirements of this sub-
section..."
S 172(b)(10): "The plan provision. ..shall. ..(10) Include
written evidence that the State, the general purpose local govern-
ment or governments, or a regional agency designated by general
purpose local governments for such purpose, have adopted by
statute, regulation, ordinance, or other legally enforceable docu-
ment, the necessary requirements and schedules and timetables for
compliance, and are committed to Implement and enforce the appro-
priate elements of the plan..."
II. APPLICABLE DEFINITIONS
A. The terms "emission limitation" and "emission standard"
mean a requirement established by the State or the Administrator
which limits the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of
air pollutants on a continuous basis, including any requirement
relating to the operation or maintenance of a source to assure con-
tinuous emission reduction. (S 302(k) of the Clean Air Act.)
B. The term "schedule and timetable of compliance" means 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. (S 302(p)
of the Clean A1r Act.)
217
-------
WRITTEN EVIDENCE OF ADOPTION AND COMMITMENTS
BY STATES, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES
Section 110(a)(3)(D) and 110(c)(5)(B) of the Clean A1r Act
require that plans with post-1982 attainment dates under section
172(b), and plans where bridge tolls were eliminated under section
110(c)(5)(A)f shall-
for the purpose of 1roplementat1ng...[the] comprehensive
public transportation measures [referred to in section
110(c)(5)(B)(ii|], include requirements 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. [Emphasis added.]
Sections 172(b)(7) and (10) provide that the plan revisions
required for nonattainment areas shall--
(7) Identify and commit the financial and man-
power resources necessary to carry out the plan pro-
visions 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, regulation, ordinance, or other legally
enforceable document, t h ene ces s ary req ui rements an d
schedules and timetables for cpmpllance, ahcl"are com-
mitted to Implement and enforce thVappropriate ele-
ments of the plan; lEmphasis added.]
A. WHAT CONSTITUTES WRITTEN EVIDENCE THAT REQUIREMENTS AND
SCHEDULES AND TIMETABLES FOR COMPLIANCE HAVE BEEN ADOPTED?
Section 172(b)(10) provides that each requirement or schedule
and timetable for compliance must be adopted by the State or a
local government or regional agency, by means of statutes, regula-
tions, ordinances, or other legally enforceable documents.
The Governor should Include copies of all such documents with
his SIP subnvittal, and he should certify (]} that each of the
included documents has been duly adopted by^ the State, local
government, or regional agency; (2.) that adoption of these docu-
ments constitutes adoption of all of the requirements and schedules
218
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
and timetables for compliance provided for 1n the SIP; and(Ł)
that the State, local governments, and regional agencies had
legal authority to adopt the requirements and schedules and time-
tables for compliance set forth In the documents.
B. WHAT CONSTITUTES WRITTEN EVIDENCE OF A COMMITMENT TO
IMPLEMENT AND ENFORCE A PLAN PROVISION, AND WHAT CONSTITUTES A
REQUIREMENT AND COMMITMENT TO USE RESOURCES TO CARRY OUT THOSE
PROVISIONS?
Under sections 110(a)(3)(D), 110(c)(5)(B), and 172(b)(7) and
(10), each State must Include with Its SIP subnrfttal written
evidence that the State and any local governments or regional
agencies responsible for carrying out plan elements are committed
to Implementing and enforcing those elements, and must 1n addi-
tion include requirements and commitments for the use of identified
resources to carry out those plan elements.
The State, local governments, and regional agencies respon-
sible for carrying out any elements of the SIP should each execute
an enforceable document containing the following:
1. a certification that the resources identified in the SIP
submission for carrying out the elements of the SIP for which the
State, local government, or regional agency is responsible, are,
in the judgment of the officer or officers signing the document,
adequate to implement and enforce those elements of the SIP;
2. a statement that the State, local government, or regional
agency enters into a commitment (enforceable to the extent allowed
under enforcement provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable
State law) to do the following: (.a) implement and enforce the
plan elements for which the StateT local government, or regional
agency is responsible under the SIP; (bj use, insofar as necessary,
the resources identified 1n the SIP for carrying out those SIP
elements; and (c) on the schedule specified 1n the SIP, apply for
resources and legislative authority that are not yet available to
the State, local government, or regional agency; and
3. a certification that the officer or officers signing the
document are authorized to execute 1t on behalf of the State,
local government, or regional agency. Ordinarily, the Governor,
Mayor, or other chief executive officer should be one of the
signatories.
In some instances, a State, local government, or regional agency
may be responsible under a SIP for controlling pollution generated
by use of property or facilities owned or operated by the State or
Its subdiv1sions--for example, a town responsible for paving roads
219
-------
to control dust, or a state responsible for instituting transpor-
tation controls to reduce emissions on public highways. In such
instances, the cormritment made under paragraph 2 will constitute
the legally enforceable "requirement" or "schedule and timetable
for compliance" called for by section 172(b)(10) of the Act.
Copies of all of these documents should be included with the
SIP submittals, and the Governor should include a statement certi-
fying that each has been duly executed, and that the signatories
had legal authority to enter into the commitments and agreements
set forth in the documents.
220
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ENFORCEABILITY OF SIPs
PREPARED BY DIVISION OF STATIONARY SOURCE ENFORCEMENT
In determining whether a SIP is enforceable, the emission
limiting and other regulatory parts of each plan will be reviewed
for clarity and specificity. EPA will consider in this review such
questions as whether emission limitations and other controlling
terms are well defined; whether it is clear who is being regulated
and whether the dates on which actions are required to be taken are
clearly stated.
SIP REVISION REQUIREMENTS - TEST METHODS
Many State implementation plans (SIPs) as originally submitted
did not adequately prescribe the test methods which would be used
when determining compliance with the emission limitations adopted
by the States. Compliance determinations and enforcement proceed-
ings made apparent that this weakness existed in some SIPs. To
correct this deficiency, EPA promulgated in S 52.12(c) a require-
ment which states that,
"(S)ources subject to plan provisions which do not
specify a test procedure and sources subject to provi-
sions promulgated by the Administrator will be tested by
means of the appropriate procedures and methods prescribed
in Part 60 of this chapter, unless otherwise specified in
this Part."
This does not solve all the problems which arise when a State
fails to designate a specific test method. A source category could
be regulated under a SIP for which none of the procedures and
methods promulgated in Part 60 would be appropriate.
Another problem which has arisen, deals with the specificity
of the emission limitation. While a certain regulation may apply
to a specific source category or group of categories (process
weight), it is often difficult to ascertain the scope of the
requirement. For example, does the emission limit apply only to the
stack emissions, or are the fugitive emissions and stack emissions
combined in order to determine compliance? A specific emission
limit and test method that applies to it will help to clarify how
compliance is to be determined.
221
-------
For these reasons, 1t 1s essential that when developing emis-
sion limitations, each requirement must specify the appropriate test
method and how compliance 1s to be determined. Since so much SIP
analysis depends on an accurate Interpretation of the emission limi-
tation and Its associated test method, 1t is extremely Important
that a clear understanding of both be realized.
Test methods which are included with SIPs should be evaluated
to determine their accuracy and consistency. States are encouraged
to use EPA reference methods whenever possible.
Another option which States should be encouraged to pursue is
the utilization of continuous monitors as the reference or compli-
ance test method. It is EPA's Intent to require, in addition to
the four source categories now covered in appendix P, additional
sources to install continuous monitors. Attainment and maintenance
of NAAQS require that sources continuously operate their control
equipment in a satisfactory manner. To maintain such compliance,
an effective way to Insure this would be to utilize continuous
monitors as the compliance method thus providing continuous com-
pliance data which can be used 1n an appropriate enforcement action.
Where technically feasible, the SIP revision must Include the
following for each emission limitation in the SIP that is expressed
as a limit on mass per unit of time or production or on mass con-
centration; these criteria do not apply where the control measure
does not specify this kind of limit:
1. A specifically designated method for each emission limita-
tion on mass per unit of time or production or on mass concentra-
tion. The test method cannot be left to the discretion of the
enforcing authority on a case-by-case basis.
2. Sufficient specificity in the regulation to define which
emission points are and are not included (e.g., whether an emis-
sion limitation for a process applies only to the stack emissions
or to both stack and fugitive emissions).
3. Sufficient description of the applicable test methods to
evaluate the accuracy of the methods, analyze the associated emis-
sion limit and thus assess the stringency of the emission limit
and Its Impact on attainment. States that use Part 60 methods and
procedures need not submit additional documentation.
4. The establishment of conversion factors or other parameters
and the monitoring of these parameters, which will be used to trans-
form test data into units of the applicable standard.
5. The procedures that will be used to conduct the test
(e.g., does a test consist of the average of three one-hour runs?).
222
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES
1. Each plan must contain legally enforceable compliance sche-
dules setting forth dates by which all sources or categories of
sources must be 1n compliance with an applicable requirement of the
plan. Each compliance schedule must contain Increments of progress
as defined 1n S 51.1(q) except as provided 1n 4 below.
2. Compliance schedules as defined in S 51.1(q) shall be sub-
mitted with the plan and shall provide for final compliance as
expedltlously as practicable but 1n no case shall extend beyond
the attainment date of the plan.
3. Each compliance schedule of 6 months or less 1n duration
from the date of Its adoption must contain at least the following
Increments.
a. Date of initiation of a contract or activity
which will result 1n final compliance.
b. Date of final compliance with the emission
limitation.
4. Generally States are encouraged to negotiate Individual
compliance schedules for sources subject to categorical schedules
submitted with the plan.
223
-------
DSSE GUIDANCE FOR NONATTAINMENT WORKSHOPS
RULES, REGULATIONS AND COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES
A State may submit either future effective or immediately
effective regulations as part of its n on attainment plan revision.
Regardless of the type of regulations submitted, the plan must
include "emissions limitations, schedules, and timetables for com-
pliance with such limitations" to satisfy the requirements of S 110
(a)(2)(B) of the Act. The term "schedule and timetable for com-
pliance" is defined at S 302(p) of the Act. These schedules and
timetables must set forth increments of progress, indicating the
steps the source must take to achieve final compliance with the
regulations. (See 40 CFR S 5l.l(q) for minimum increments of
progress.)
Appropriate schedules of compliance may be submitted in several
forms. If the State adopts future effective regulations, schedules
must be incorporated directly into the plan. If the State submits
immediately effective regulations, schedules may be submitted at a
later date in the form of variances, delayed compliance orders, or
categorical schedules amending the SIP. Future effective regula-
tions provide significant advantages and EPA recommends the adop-
tion of this procedure.
A. Future Effective Regulations
Future effective regulations must be accompanied by schedules
of compliance at the time of submittal. These schedules will be-
come part of the SIP upon approval, making all sources subject to
enforceable schedules Immediately. This im»diate incorporation
of the schedule into the SIP provides a bef^lt to the source. If
the source adheres to the terms of the schedule it will be in
compliance with the regulations, and will not be subject to civil
or criminal action, or administrative noncompliance penalties under
S 120 of the Act. This is the only option that provides such pro-
tection from penalties to complying sources.
Future effective regulations may also benefit the State by
allowing it to conserve its resources. Specifically, future effec-
tive regulations allow the State to develop the required schedules
without having to resort to time consuming enforcement proceedings.
Additionally, the State has the option of submitting compliance
224
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
schedules that have been developed either on a source specific or
categorical basis. EPA encourages the States to develop source
specific schedules to the greatest extent possible. Source spe-
cific schedules enhance the enforceabillty of the plan by reducing
broad regulations to terms specifically designed for particular
sources. Source specific schedules do, however, require a greater
expenditure of resources by the State. For this reason, the State
might choose to submit categorical schedules to a certain extent
and to modify the categorical schedules for Individual sources as
necessary later.
B. Immediately Effective Regulations
The second approach a State may follow 1n submitting Its non-
attainment plan revision would be to make Its regulations Immediate-
ly effective. Immediately effective regulations require the source
to comply at once and may be enforced both judicially and adminis-
tratively (Including imposition of penalties) at once. Ordinarily,
a source is not actually expected to comply at once and the State
will desire to Include appropriate schedules 1n the SIP to protect
the source from enforcement action until it 1s able to achieve
expeditious final compliance. Schedules may be submitted in the
form of variances which become part of the SIP under S 110(a)(3),
in the form of a delayed compliance order, under § 113(d) of the
Act, or as categorical schedules amending the original requirement.
Each of these results 1n several disadvantages, both to the indi-
vidual source and to the State.
Because the regulations will be effective immediately, many
sources will be out of compliance as soon as the nonattalnment plan
revision 1s approved. Any such source that 1s not 1n compliance
with these regulations will be subject to noncompHance penalties
as provided by S 120 and civil or criminal action as set forth 1n
S 113(b) and (c). Section 120 penalties are mandatory and must be
assessed against any major source 1n violation after mid-1979.
If the State chooses to formulate a compliance schedule 1n the
form of a variance submitted sometime after approval of the under-
lying immediately effective emission limit, it will protect the
source from enforcement action and noncompHance penalties to a
limited degree. Any variance submitted pursuant to S 110(a)(3)
of the Act will become part of the SIP upon approval. Thus, a
source in compliance with the schedule contained in the variance
will not be subject either to enforcement,action or noncompHance
penalties. NoncompHance penalties must be assessed, however, for
225
-------
any period prior to approval of the variance since the source will
be violating the SIP during this time. For each source to be
Issued a separate variance could take a year or more. Sources would
be subject to substantial noncompliance penalties, 1n addition to
the possibility of other enforcement action, until their variances
are effective.
The protection against penalties provided by a State Issued
Delayed Compliance Order (DCO) 1s even more limited. Compliance
with the terms of a State DCO will Insulate the source from other
enforcement action but 1t will not ordinarily protect the source
from noncompliance penalties. Delayed compliance orders are addi-
tions to the SIP which place a violator on a remedial compliance
schedule. They do not modify the underlying SIP provisions. Be-
cause the underlying SIP provisions are preserved, a source will
be subject to noncompliance penalties after mid-1979, even if 1t
is operating pursuant to a DCO that extends beyond that date. In
such an instance, the only grounds for Immunity from S 120 would be
if the source obtains an exemption in accordance with S 120(a)(2)
(B) or (C).
A State may develop schedules for particular sources through
resort to judicial action. A source complying with the court
imposed schedule would remain subject to the noncompliance penalty
provisions of § 120 for violation of the underlying immediately
effective regulation. Further, unless the court's decree 1s sub-
mitted as a SIP revision, the source would not be Insulated from
other enforcement action.
Immediately effective regulations may also be disadvantageous
to the State. Schedules submitted for sources subject to immediate-
ly effective regulations normally are source specific and require
observance of certain procedural requirements, not only at the State
level, but also 1n the EPA approval process. Development of sche-
dules through judicial action could take even longer. Where sche-
dules are developed at the same time as the underlying emission
limit and are submitted as part of the initial requirement, notice,
comment and opportunity for hearing can be provided simultaneously
on the emission limit and the schedule or schedules implementing it.
II. Status of Existing Regulations
A State which submits revised more stringent emission limits
as part of Us nonattalnment SIP generally may not revoke pre-
existing emission limits applicable to the affected sources unless
1t also requires that all sources continue to meet Interim emis-
sions limitations at least as stringent as the emission limitations
contained 1n the pre-existing regulations. In most cases, a
226
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
source may not be allowed to operate without controls, or under less
stringent controls, while 1t 1s moving towards compliance with the
new regulations. A plan that does not continue existing control
requirements normally would fall to provide for reasonable further
progress towards attainment of the air quality standards as required
by the Act. New requirements Imposed by the plan revisions should
normally be treated as being 1n addition to, rather than 1n lieu
of, those Imposed by existing regulations. In such cases failure
of the source to meet applicable pre-existing standards will lead
to appropriate enforcement action, Including assessment of appro-
priate noncompHance penalties under S 120 of the Act.
There 1s one major exception to this rule. If the new regula-
tions are "Inconsistent" with those currently in effect, the State
may (and should), to the extent necessary, exempt the source from
the pre-existing regulations. To obtain an exemption, a source
should be required to demonstrate that it cannot physically meet the
new requirements and continue to comply with the pre-existing
requirement. Only the period during which such physical Impossi-
bility exists may be covered by an exemption. For example, 1n the
design and contract phases of a new compliance schedule, there
should normally be no exemption from the pre-existing emission limit.
If the State expects to grant such exemptions 1t should esta-
blish an appropriate procedure as part of its nonattainment plan
revision. The procedure must guarantee that no exemption shall be
granted unless the new regulations require controls totally 1mcom-
patlble with those established by the old regulations. Furthermore,
the review procedures established must be sufficiently stringent
to ensure that any exemption granted will not jeopardize the
reasonable further progress required by the Act. Requests for
exemptions must be reviewed and, if approved, submitted individually
as SIP revisions so that every exemption will be drawn as narrowly
as possible.
EPA will approve exemptions 1n such cases only 1f the new
regulations are Inconsistent with the old ones for the source
Involved. Thus, a source that previously was uncontrolled because
1t failed to comply with the pre-existing limit applicable to 1t
may not claim that the regulations are inconsistent. Similarly,
a source that will meet Its new emissions limitation by Installing
additional equipment or "fine-tuning" equipment already 1n place
should not be granted an exemption except for any limited period
of time during which the existing equipment truly cannot be operated
while construction or "fine-tuning" is 1n process. Even a source
that must eventually shut down Its existing controls will not be
eligible for an exemption if it can continue to operate those
227
-------
controls while the new equipment 1s Installed. Only when the con-
struction or Installation of the new equipment can no longer proceed
while existing controls remain 1n operation may an exemption be
granted.
The State should determine on a source by source basis the
extent to which the new regulations are Inconsistent. Sources
subject to the same requirements may have different physical charac-
teristics and may be able to Install new equipment more expedltlously
or keep existing equipment operational for a longer period of time.
Any exemptions granted should take Into account such differences.
Additionally, 1t may be proper for the State to repair Interim
control measures 1n certain Instances, even though an exemption 1s
granted.
228
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NONATTAINMENT PLAN REVISIONS
MALFUNCTION AND EXEMPTION PROVISIONS
Several of the existing State ir'nlernertation plans (STp) prc-
. .dc i. an uJtGf',«it1c ei.i* s.jlon 11 iri Ballon t/empt'ion during periods
of excess emissions due to start-up, shutdown, or malfunction.
Generally, EPA agrees that the Imposition of a penalty for sudden
and unavoidable malfunctions caused by circumstances entirely be-
yond the control of the owner and/or operator 1s not appropriate
under certain conditions. However, 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, onrit any provision on malfunctions.)
I. AUTOMATIC EXEMPTION APPROACH
If a nonattainment plan revision contains a malfunction pro-
vision, 1t cannot be the type that provides for automatic exemp-
tion where a malfunction is alleged by a source. Automatic
exemptions might aggravate air quality so as to result in not pro-
viding for attainment of the ambient air quality standards as
required by Section 172 of the Clean Air Act, as amended. Addi-
tional 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 will disapprove any nonattainment plan revision that provides
for an automatic exemption in those Instances where a source claims
excess emissions were caused by start-up, shutdown, or malfunction.
II. ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION APPROACH-SIP EMISSION LIMITATION
ADEQUATE TO ATTAIN AMBIENT STANDARDS
EPA could approve nonattainment plan submittals which incor-
porate the "enforcement discretion approach." Such plans could
Include a requirement that places the burden on the source of
demonstrating to the appropriate State agency's satisfaction that
the excess emissions though constituting a violation were due to
an unavoidable malfunction. For nonattainment plan revisions that
provide for attainment of the ambient air quality standards for a
pollutant by 1982, any malfunction provisions must provide for
the commencement of a proceeding to notify the source of its viola-
tion and to determine whether enforcement action should be under-
taken for any period of excess emissions, whether due to malfunc-
tions or otherwise. (The term "excess emission" means air emis-
sion rate which exceeds any applicable emission limitation.)
229
-------
Commencement of such a proceeding could be by Issuance of a
notice of violation (or some equivalent State mechanism) with the
source being provided the opportunity to establish that the viola-
tion was due to an unavoidable malfunction. The malfunction pro-
vision should provide that the burden is entirely upon the source
to establish that the excess emissions resulted from a true mal-
function. (A malfunction is defined as a sudden and unavoidable
breakdown of process or air pollution control equipment.)
Based on Information submitted by the source, the State
must determine whether additional enforcement action is necessary.
The following factors must, at a minimum, be considered:
1. The air pollution control equipment, process equipment,
or processes were at all times maintained and operated, to the
maximum extent practicable, 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 insure that such repairs were made
as expeditlously as possible;
3. The amount and duration of the excess emissions (includ-
ing 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.
The malfunction provision must provide that only if the State
determines that each of these criteria are satisfied, no additional
course of action could reasonably have been expected of the owner
or operator. In such situations, the malfunction provision could
provide that the State would not follow the initial notice of vio-
lation with any further enforcement action.
III. SOURCE DEMONSTRATION APPROACH--RACT LIMITATION NOT ADEQUATE
TO ATTAIN AMBIENT STANDARDS
Section 172 requires that those nonattainment submittals for
photochemical oxldants and carbon monoxide that will not be able
to demonstrate attainment by December 31, 1982, must provide for
Implementation of all reasonably available control measures (RACT).
230
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In a recent Federal court decision (Marathon Oil Co. y. EPA,
F.2d (9th Cir., November 21, 1977) [a decision on malfunction
provisions in certain water pollution requirements]), the court
distinguishes requirements that are technology based (e.g., non-
attainment plans based on RACT rather than attainment of ambient
standards) from requirements that are health based (e.g., SIP emis-
sion limitations for attainment of the ambient standards). The
enforcement discretion approach could be approved in RACT SIPs 1f
modified as set forth below. A State may choose, however, as
part of the RACT submittal not to provide a malfunction provision
(i.e., Section 116). An acceptable malfunction provision for
per.iods of excess emissions could require a source exceeding
applicable emission limitations to report the five categories of
information set forth 1n II above. The source could be given the
opportunity to demonstrate that the excess emissions resulted from
an unavoidable breakdown of process or control equipment, or from
unavoidable production problems. Until such information is evalua-
ted by the State, issuance of a notice of violation (or some
equivalent State mechanism) wbuld not be required. An approvable
malfunction provision should specify that if the source does not
sustain its burden of proof to the State's satisfaction, the
excess emissions are a SIP violation and appropriate enforcement
proceedings will be initiated by the State. If the source is
able to demonstrate that the malfunction was genuinely unavoidable,
it will not constitute a violation of the emission limitation.
It should be understood that if over a period of time, appli-
cation of either the enforcement discretion approach or the source
demonstration approach does not significantly curtail malfunctions
to the extent that they are the cause of ambient violations, the
malfunction portion of the SIP will either have to be further
revised by the State or EPA will have to disapprove the SIP.
IV. PHASING IN AND OUT OF EQUIPMENT, ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, BYPASS
PROVISIONS, AND PRODUCTION PROCESS EXCESS EMISSIONS
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 avoided by better maintenance procedures is not a mal-
function. In such cases, the control agency must enforce for
violations of the emission limitation. Two such common events are
phasing in and out of equipment, and routine maintenance.
Phasing in and out of process equipment is part of the normal
operation of a source and should be accounted for 1n 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
231
-------
during such periods. If excess emissions should occur during
routine phasing in and out of such equipment, the excess emis-
sions will not be considered as having resulted from a malfunc-
tion unless the source can demonstrate that such emissions were
actually caused by a sudden and unforeseeable breakdown in the
equipment.
Routine maintenance is a predictable event, which can be
scheduled at the discretion of the operator, and which can there-
fore be made to coincide with maintenance on production equipment,
or other source shutdowns. Most sources have the ability to
build and maintain inventory upon which the source can draw during
periods of shutdown for routine maintenance. Consequently, no
excess emissions may be allowed for periods of routine maintenance.
It is recognized that in certain circumstances, it is neces-
sary to bypass control equipment to avoid endangering life or
sustaining severe property damage. Such bypassing will not be con-
sidered a violation of a RACT SIP under the source demonstration
approach if the source sustains its burden of proof in the excess
emissions report, but will be considered a violation of the attain-
ment SIP under the enforcement discretion approach.
In addition to malfunctions, it is recognized that excess
emissions may occasionally occur during normal production pro-
cesses, even when the control equipment is well designed, operated
and maintained. If the source can demonstrate, in its required
excess emissions report, that it was operating the plant according
to the above malfunction criteria, and that it was scheduling
operations to preclude fluctuations, but that the emission limita-
tion was nevertheless violated for production reasons beyond the
control of the source, the excess emissions will not be considered
a violation of the RACT SIP under the source demonstration
approach, but will be considered a violation of the attainment SIP
under the enforcement discretion approach.
232
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IDENTIFICATION OF RESOURCES
(§ 172(b)(7))
—RECOMMENDED FORMAT--
(Found in 40 CFR 51)
ArpKNDix R.—Agency functions for air quality innintrnnncc area plans fur Ilir,
AQMA in 1hc State of . for *7ic year
State air pol- Local air pol- Tniplrinenta- Transpor- Other (water
Control measures Agencies' Jution lution tion plan re- Planning tation control, pub-
control control view agencies agendas ngencic.1 lie works,
agencies ngoncies (A-95, 3-C) etc.)
TTJND ESTIMATES BY TUNCTIOH
Measure n
Measure b
Total funds'..
If AN-TIAB I8TIMATIS BY rONCTIOM
Measure »..
Measure n..
Measure m..
Total.
i Specific agencies should be Identified In a narrative attachment.
> Report funds In thousands of dollars.
233
-------
MISCELLANEOUS PART 51 REQUIREMENTS—SUMMARY
1. S 51.4 Public hearings (also required under S 172(b)
(1))—Before a State submits the plan, a compliance schedule or
a plan revision to EPA, it must hold a public hearing on the plan,
schedule, or revision. The State must also give proper public
notice for the hearing at least 30 days prior to the hearing.
Although this section specifies formal requirements for the
notice and holding of public hearings, a State can obtain EPA
approval to use alternative procedures that EPA deems adequate.
2. S 51.5 Submission of plans; preliminary review of plans--
The State must submit at least five copies of the plan revision
to the appropriate Regional Office.
3. S 51.19 Source surveillance—The plan must provide for
monitoring the status of compliance with any rules and regulations
that constitute the control strategy. As a minimum, the plan must
provide ~
--Procedures for requiring owners or operators of sources
to maintain records of emissions and report periodically to
the States;
--Periodic testing and inspection of sources;
--A system of detection of violations of rules and regu-
itwns through enforcement of a visible emission limitation
and for investigating compliants;
--Procedures for obtaining and maintaining data on
emissions reductions achieved through transportation control
measures; and
--Procedures to require sources to Install and use emis-
sion monitoring devices.
4. S 51.22 Rules and regulations—The State must adopt all
rules and regulations necessary for attainment and maintenance of
the national standard. The plan must contain copies of all such
rules and regulations.
234
-------
New Source Review
235
-------
NSR
* COMPLEMENTARY DRIVING FORCE
ADDITIONAL CLEAN UP
NEW TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
* CONSISTENT WITH RFP
* INSTANTANEOUS "WATCHDOG"
RFP AND ATTAINMENT
PART D NSR REQUIREMENTS
1979 PLAN MUST:
1. ATTAIN ON TIME - AVOIDS SANCTIONS
2. IDENTIFY ALLOWABLE GROWTH
3. CONTAIN NSR REGULATIONS
*LAER (as defined)
*STATEWIDE COMPLIANCE
*2 OPTIONS -- case-by-case offsets
accomodative SIP
*SIP CARRIED OUT
POST '82 ATTAINMENT
4. CONTAIN NSR EVALUATION PROGRAM
236
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REGULATORY NSR REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABILITY
* Major Sources - 100 TPY Potential
July 1,1979 Preconstruction
* Entire Nonattainment (case by case exception) Area
* Date of Application
* Late Designations
* External Sources
REGULATORY NSR REQUIREMENTS
LOWEST ALLOWABLE EMISSION RATE (LAER)
* 171 Definition
* Best SIP
* In Practice
* NSPS Minimum
LAER
BEST SIP
CONSIDER
* PROMULGATIONS
* APPROVED REGULATIONS
*"ON BOOKS" - NOT IN EFFECT
* BACT REGS - NOT IN ABSTRACT
* VISIBLE OR EQUIPMENT STANDARDS
ACHIEVABILITY "-TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE
237
-------
LAER
IN PRACTICE
* LIMITED TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
Same gas strearryfacilities
*OTHER DETERMINATIONS
Constant Changes
National Clearing House
State Reporting
STATEWIDE COMPLIANCE
if COMPLIANCE BY APPROVAL
* APPLICABILITY
Existing SIP Limits
*MAJOR EXISTING SOURCES
NEW SOURCE REVIEW OPTIONS
case-by-case
offsets
accomodative
SIP
238
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
CASE - BY - CASE OFFSETS
MORE RESTRICTIVE IR
OFFSET MINOR/MAJOR
CONSISTENT RFP/ATTAINMENT
APPLICABLE El
CASE-BY-CASE OFFSETS
* SOURCE OPERATION
*TPY BASIS
* ACTUAL EMISSIONS (Historical)
* EXCEPTION
• Short Term - SO2 and TSP
Ibs/hr basis
•NET A Q BENEFIT
ACCOMODATIVE SIP
PROGRAM OFFSET - GROWTH ALLOWANCE SYSTEM
*SIZABLE INITIAL DEPOSIT
Below 1977 El
Beyond Attainment
^IMPLEMENTATION
Running Account
Actual TPY Basis
Debit New Source Approvals
Credit Reductions As Occur
Overrun - Option A
239
-------
NSR Growth Allowance Option
1979 80 81
NSR Growth Allowance Option
1979 80 81
NSR Growth Allowance Option
77
t/i
.a
RFP
1'79 BO ai 82 U
240
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
New Source Review 1n 1979 SIPs
1. General Intent
The role of RFP in nonattainment area SIPs has already been
discussed. NSR will also carry on a very important function which
will complement and perhaps facilitate the cleanup of existing sources.
It will likely be the principal mechanism in many areas by which
advances in control technology are made and new opportunities to
control existing sources are identified. NSR will also provide an
instantaneous check on RFP. That is, the reductions obtained to
offset new source growth must be consistent with the RFP schedule and
the overall attainment requirement.
2. New Source Review - Part D Requirements
Section 172 identifies several.1979 plan requirements for non-
attainment areas which are related to growth and NSR. Section 172(a)(l)
states that SIP demonstrating attainment by the prescribed date is a
prerequisite to approving major construction after July 1, 1979.1
Section 172(b)(5) requires such 1979 plans to expressly identify and
quantify the emissions allowed for the operation and construction of major
sources in the area. Section 172(b)(6) calls for the development of an
appropriate permit system for new major sources. (The details of this
permit system are spelled out in more detail below in the Section 173
requirements.) Finally, Section 172 (b)(ll)(A) requires that the 1979
plan develop a special new source evaluation program when attainment
beyond 1982 (not to exceed 1987) is allowed for photochemical oxidants
or carbon monoxide violations. This special program is to weigh the
benefits ,and analyze the alternatives to approving this source rela-
tive to the need for attaining the oxidant and carbon monoxide NAAQSs
as expeditiously as practicable.
Section 173 outlines the details of the NSR system called for in
172(b)(6). Section 173(1) identifies the two options for approving
major construction without jeopardizing attainment. Section 173(1)(A)
states that by new source operation total allowable emissions from
existing sources, new minor sources, and the proposed source are less
than those allowed under the SIP at the time of new source application
so as to be consistent with RFP, Section 173(1)(B) alternatively allows
ISection 110(a)(2)(I) further states that this sanction is only applicable
to those sources/facilities which cause or contribute (emphasis added)
to the relevant ambient violation.
241
-------
approval of major construction if it would not cause or contribute to
violating the Section 173(b)(5) allowance for growth. Section 173 also
requires that major construction in a non-attainment area must meet the
lowest achieveable emission rate (LAER), all other major sources under
common ownership within the State must be in compliance with the appli-
cable SIP, and the State must otherwise be carrying out the applicable
SIP. Section 171(3) defines the term "lowest achieveable emission rate"
for any source as that rate of emissions which reflects:
(A) the most stringent emission limitation which is contained in
the implementation plan of any State for such class or category of source,
unless the owner or operator of the proposed source demonstrates that
such limitations are not achievable, or
(B) the most stringent emission limitation which is achieved in
practice by such class or category of source, whichever is more stringent.
In no event shall the application of this term permit a proposed
new or modified source to emit any pollutant in excess of the amount
allowable under applicable new source standard of performance.
3. Comprehensive NSR System
In general, EPA will not require submittals of comprehensive NSR
packages as part of the 1979 SIP package. By a comprehensive precon-
struction review, we mean a streamlined integration of all applicable
air permit requirements including those for the Prevention of Signifi-
cant Deterioration (PSD), Standards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources (NSPS), review for New Sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP), and the 40 CFR 51.18 review against the ambient standards.
Comprehensive NSR rulemaking is not likely to be completed in the near
future, but Figure #1 has been included to provide those who wish to
develop NSR regulations in the interim with EPA's best estimate to a
comprehensive one-air permit NSR system. Only regulations requiring
(1) LAER, (2) Statewide compliance, (3) alternative site evaluation
within post-1982 attainment areas, and (4) NSR rules that maintain RFP
will be required in the January 1, 1979, submittal. However, such regu-
lations must be developed in conformance with the existing 40 CFR 51.18
requirements (i.e., mandatory public comment period and ability to require
sufficient information from sources to determine their approvability).
Figure #1 shows that all new and modified sources except those
specifically exempted will undergo at least some type of NSR. Minor
sources (less than 100 TPY potential emissions) are identified under
an initial engineering analysis (Box #A) and receive only an analysis
to verify their anticipated compliance with the applicable SIP emis-
sion limits. Minor sources which will comply with such limits can,
therefore, be granted construction approval without further delay.
242
-------
PD
243
-------
Major sources (100 TRY and more of increased potential emissions)
must face a more detailed analysis. Box #B is primarily a geographic
area screen ("107" area designations unless new air quality monitoring
data required under Section "165" shows ambient violation(s)). Jh1s
test essentially determines if the major source construction must
apply LAER, BACT, or simply meet the applicable SIP. The specifics
of what applicable limit(s) the source must meet are identified under
the group of boxes labeled Emission Limitation Analysis. As mentioned
in the next section, a source can opt to demonstrate his lack of impact
to a nonattainment problem and avoid the automatic LAER requirement.
This 1s thought to be the exception, however, and the geographic
applicability screen will 1n most cases define the type of emission
limitation that is appropriate for a major source.
Assuming that "potential" continues to be defined in terms of a
source's uncontrolled emissions, EPA is considering the possibilities
for not requiring analysis for certain major sources who after con-
trol would not have an emission rate of concern. Such a screen
(identified by #C) might consist of an emission cutoff (perhaps 50 TPY)
and a requirement for the source to use a good engineering practice
stack height (as appropriate). An alternative type of screening
approach is to use a standard and conservative air quality screening
model. Sources below a certain specified air quality Impact would receive
an expedited review and perhaps even be exempted from further analysis.
All "exempted" sources regardless of the screening technique employed
would then face only an abbreviated public participation requirement (e.g.,
30 days public comment) before gaining approval to construct.
For those major sources not qualifying for such exemptions (or
all major sources if the exemptions are not allowed), an ambient air
quality impact analysis would be necessary. Herein the ambient review
requirements of PSD have been incorporated with those of 51.18 to
safeguard the ambient standards and increments. The ambient review
requirements pertinent to identified non-attainment areas are discussed
later.
After a source has undergone the air quality review, it must be
subjected to considerable public participation. A 30-day comment is
expected to be the normal occurrence, although an opportunity for
public hearings and extended public comment would be afforded. In no
event will the entire review process delay construction by more than
one year after a completed application has been received.
It should be emphasized that the preceding discussion is only
presented for the benefit of those wishing to develop their Part D regu-
lations in advance of the forthcoming comprehensive NSR regulations.
244
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
4. Applicability of Nonattainment NSR Requirements
In general, all major construction proposed after July 1, 1979, for
any portion of a non-attainment area will be assumed to be subject to
the full NSR requirements under Part D. Major construction means any
new source or modification which would increase the potential for emis-
sion release by 100 TRY or more, regardless of reductions achieved
elsewhere.
The NSR preconstruction requirements identified in Part D are to
be implemented until the designated nonattainment area actually realizes
the attainment mandate. This applies to violations of both the primary and
secondary standards. These requirements are generally not applicable retro-
actively to recent major construction approvals issued before July 1,
1979. Such approvals were likely governed by EPA's Interpretative
Ruling (offset policy) and were to have been taken into account in demon-
strating attainment.
All NSR requirements are presumed applicable for the entire
designated nonattainment area. This is consistent with the concept of
areawide tracking of RFP. However, if a proposed source can make a
firm demonstration that it would not cause or contribute to a non-
attainment problem then such source could be exempt from the NSR re-
quirements and the RFP accounting procedures. This demonstration may
consist of a monitoring study to show that the proposed location or
modification site is in a clean portion of the designated non-attainment
area and a modeling study to show that the proposed construction would
not impact on adjacent portions of the designated non-attainment area.
A slightly different NSR procedure is appropriate for those areas
of proposed construction which are later identified as being non-attainment.
That is, the preconstruction review under regulations for the prevention
of significant deterioration (PSD) will typically require preconstruction
monitoring data from prospective major sources. The data from these and
other monitors (either existing or newly established by the State) can
lead to the further identification of non-attainment areas not classified
as such in 1978. After the formal non-attainment designation is made,
States have up to nine months to develop appropriate attainment plans
including the NSR requirements of Part D. However, until the time that
a plan is approved, EPA's Interpretative Ruling of December 21, 1976,
(as amended) is to be applied in the review of new sources.
Finally, EPA's Interpretative Ruling would apply to external con-
struction that significantly impacts the non-attainment problem. Such
external construction must be major, be proposed for areas outside the
geographic boundaries of the designated non-attainment areas, and impact
significantly through transport on the adjacent non-attainment area.
If offsets for such a source are secured from the designated non-
attainment area, they will not also count toward making RFP.
245
-------
5. LAER Guidance
As mentioned, Section 171(3) defines LAER in terms of the "best
SIP" limit or "best in practice" control that is achievable by the
source undergoing review -- not to be less stringent than an applicable
NSPS. Some guidance will now be given as to what regulations are to
be considered as being the "best SIP" and what"in practice"control
experiences are transferable for the proposed construction.
"Best SIP" means that limit of the highest stringency that the
source is capable of meeting considering all plan limits "on the books."
That is, if a plan has extraordinary regulatory measures incorporated
into its SIP designed to preclude a certain source type from ever
constructing, these need not define LAER. In addition, plans with best
available control technology (BACT) requirements are not applicable in
the abstract. Only where specific limits exist within these regulations
or where a BACT-type regulation has been implemented for a similar source
would this type of regulation be applicable. EPA promulgated require-
ments are, of course, part of the applicable SIP. Finally, "equipment
standards" can substitute for emission limitations where the latter
has typically not been prescribed. Note that the limits need only to
have been prescribed for a source and existing in a SIP to be eligible
for consideration. However, if a limit has not yet been tested through
source operation, "achievability" may be more difficult to prove.
"In practice" means controls that have been demonstrated for that
exact source type or one of similar general function with extreme
similarities of gas stream, economics, etc. This interpretation
does not preclude use of "control technology transfer." However,
EPA feels that the need to offset new source emissions consistent with
RFP will often persuade sources to voluntarily advance the "state-of-
the art" for control technology. Thus, control transfer is not likely
to be needed in most cases.
Considerable comment has been raised as to the need for an effective
national clearinghouse to promote consistent LAER determinations and to
provide a quick reference vehicle as to what represents good control of
a specific source type. Most feel that such a system is necessary to
keep the NSR community advised of the continual advances in regulations
and field determinations that govern future LAER decisions. OAQPS already
has a limited operation to provide this service on technology determina-
tions including BACT and RACT as well as LAER. EPA is considering the
possibilities for expanding this function primarily through contractor
services. Such expansion would consist of a concentrated effort to estab-
lish an initial bank of information on many source types (including a
compilation of recent field determinations, applicable SIP regulations,
and general information obtained from the literature and industry on
state-of-the-art controls) and arrange to update the bank on a continual
basis. Such a data bank would serve to advise those desiring information
concerning other LAER determinations and would help overcome the diffi-
cult problems of deciding when controls are achieveable (technically
feasible). In order to help maintain an up-to-date clearinghouse,
246
-------
assistance will be needed from State and local agencies regarding their
LAER decisions. In addition to maintaining such a system, OAQPS would
be available to assist States in making unique determinations where
available information is inadequate. Comments are welcome on such an
idea, especially those with ideas for best procuring the necessary
information on an initial basis and a regular basis thereafter.
6. Statewide Compliance
Section 173(3) requires that all other major sources (100 TRY
potential) owned or operated in the same State by the applicant are in
compliance with the applicable emission limits and standards under
the Act. In responding to this requirement, EPA intends that reviewing
agency ensure that major sources under common ownership or operation
control with the proposed one in the same State be in compliance (or on
enforceable schedules) with all established SIP limits at the time of
new source approval. There is no need to establish limits beyond those
necessary to ensure attainment.
7. NSR Regulatory Options
Section 173(1) outlines two options for accommodating major source
growth in SIPs without jeopardizing the attainment mandate. Section
173(1)(A) allows a form of offset policy to be conducted on a case-by-
case basis. In general, this offset regulation is decidedly more re-
strictive than is EPA's present Interpretative Ruling. In addition
to subjecting sources on the basis of their increased emission potential,
new major sources are required to offset not only their emissions but
also those of the minor point sources which have come into the area
since 1979 (which have not already been offset). More importantly, the
decrease in allowable emissions that Section 173(1)(A) calls for must
be consistent with RFP. This effectively changes the baseline for off-
sets from the stated SIP at the time of application to the attainment
SIP since RFP can in no way jeopardize attainment.
In implementing the Section 173(1)(A) option, a reviewing authority
must therefore keep the following criteria in mind. He must verify
that: (1) the proposed reductions are not otherwise needed to provide for
or maintain attainment; (2) the offsets would be transacted on a TPY
actual basis; (3) the offsetting reductions will be accomplished on
or before the time of new source operation; (4) the reductions come
from sources in the emissions inventory used for approved control
This is consistent with how RFP is primarily tracked and will require
the establishment of new enforceable TPY limits on the reducing sources.
An exception to this is when only short-term violations of the TSP or
SOg standards are at stake. Then maximum emissions on a Ibs/hour basis
should be used together with a new air quality benefit criteria. Note
that in the general case of TPY transactions does not have a net air
quality benefit constraint. However, a reviewing authority would be
ill-advised to approve new sources that worsen air quality trends since
making RFP and attainment status are linked with air quality trends.
247
-------
2
strategy; and (5) the amount of the proposed reductions is sufficient
to offset both the emissions reductions directly associated with the
proposed source construction and those emissions attributed to minor
point sources that have come into the area since the last RFP milestone
was met.
Utilization of the case-by-case offsets NSR option will not affect
the shape of the RFP schedule as the next NSR option does. However, the
permitting of new major growth in a non-attainment area does complicate
the tracking procedures for RFP. In general, when satisfactory offsets
under "173" are obtained, emission tracking will not be affected until the
new sources come into operation or the offsetting reductions actually occur.
This is true since no actual emissions would have occurred, nor would the
SIP have allowed any net increase in emissions to occur. Figure 2 and
Table 1 have been included to illustrate how new source approvals are to
be taken into account when tracking RFP. It should be noted that when
RFP is not being met, sanctions could be imposed that would override the
permitting authority of systems developed under Section 173(1)(A) or
Section 173(1)(B).
A second option open to the States for allowing major construction is
described under Section 173(1)(B). A growth allowance system can be set
up and major sources can be.approved so long as they would not exceed the
available growth allowance.
Several requirements are inherent to implementing this program
accomodation of new sources: (1) there must be a sizable amount of reduc-
tions accomplished by the time of system operation (note that reductions
from 1977 to 1979 can be used toward the establishment of an initial growth
account); (2) the reductions in the account must all be beyond those needed
for attainment; (3) no major growth can be permitted beyond that acconmo-
datedcWithin the growth allowance available at the time of source applica-
tion; (4) reductions as accomplished are eligible for addition to the
growth allowance, whereas new sources as approved reduce the amount of
allowance available for approving future new sources; (5) the available
growth allowance is consumed or augmented on an actual TPY basis; and
(6) no further major construction approvals can be issued when RFP is not
otherwise met.
Many States which elect to operate the growth allowance system may
also wish to plan for a specific amount (or even type) of growth over
a certain period of time. A good mechanism for doing so is shown in Figure 3.
Herein the dotted line shows the timely aquisition of additional reductions
from existing sources (beyond attainment) so as to allow for a specified
o
Conceivably, the reviewing agency could accept offsets from non-
inventoried sources overlooked in the 1977 emissions inventory, but as
a minimum these offsets must be discounted in value by the overall
percent control needed for attainment.
It should be noted that EPA, if forced to promulgate a plan, will typi-
cally not set up such an allowance.
5
Consequently, the plan should allow for the approval of new major sources
to continue under the case-by-case offset option previously discussed.
248
-------
TABLE #1
RFP AND GROWTH
MAXIMUM ACTUAL ALLOWABLE
EMISSIONS EMISSIONS EMISSIONS
YEAR ACTION (TPY) (TPY) (TPY)
1975 50,000 40,000 50,000
#1 Approval (w/o offsets) + 5,000 — + 5,000
1976 55,000 40,000 55,000
#2 Approval (w/o offsets) + 2,500 — + 2,500
6% Increase 1n capacity --- + 3,000
1977 57,500 43,000 57,500
#3 Shutdown - 2,500 - 2,500 - 2,500
6% Decrease 1n capacity — - 2,850
1978 55,000 38,000 55,000
#5 Approval w/#4 offsets
6% Increase in capacity — + 2,850
1979 55,000 40,850 55,000
#7 Approval w/#6 offsets — —
RFP cleanup -11,000 - 9,020 -36,500
1980 44,000 31,830 18,500
RFP cleanup -10,000 - 8,200
4% Increase in capacity — + 1,060
#1 Operation at 15% approval - 4,250 + 750 - 4,250
1981 29,750 25,460 14,250
RFP cleanup - 8,000 - 7,000
10% Decrease in capacity -— - 1,350
#2 Operation at 15% approval - 2,125 + 375 - 2,125
#4 Offsets occur — - 2,500
#6 Offsets (beyond attainment
occur) — - 2,500
1982 19,625 12,465 12,125
RFP cleanup - 7,500 - 5,625
#5 Operation at 15% approval - 2.125 + 300 - 2,125
5% Decrease in capacity — - 300 —
1983 10,000 6,840 10,000
#7 Operation -— + 2,500
5% Increase in capacity — 300 —
1984 10,000 9,640 10,00
aA 10,000 TPY El is assumed to show attainment
bUntil 1979 maximum emissions are assumed to equal allowable ones (i.e., SIP
limits coincide with maximum source emissions and they are fully complied with)
cAll cleanup performed to accomplish RFP is identified in the 1979 plan sub-
mission and is expressed in terms of allowable emissions.
dAllowable emission reduction for RFP are translated into actual emission
reductions by the following.
Actual Emissions - Allowable emissions - Total = Change to
Before Cleanup before cleanup Cleanup Actual Emissions
249
-------
Figure 2
•o
is
Q.
10
00
a
O 3
0
O O
in
,OL>
-------
Figure 3
NSR Growth Allowance Option
RFP
1979
83
251
-------
amount of desired growth. Note that the RFP schedule itself does not
change when a growth allowance scheme is built in. The milestones of
the RFP schedule must still be met, but now in terms of total actual
emissions from existing and new sources. Tracking of new source emis-
sions will proceed as described under the case-by-case NSR option.
8. NSR Program for Post 1982 SIPs
Where the 1979 plans fail to demonstrate attainment by 1982 (but
no later than 1987), a special NSR requirement applies. Pursuant to
Section 172(b)(ll)(A), a preconstruction program must be established
to weigh the benefits of new sources relative to their social and
economic impacts. Included in this analysis is to be an evaluaton of
the alternative sites, controls, and source processes that are available
and reasonable. Although the 1979 plan must contain this special NSR
evaluation program, EPA believes that the reasons for approving or disap-
proving the source under this requirement can best be decided by the
reviewing authority. Thus, as long as attainment by the extended dead-
line is not jeopardized, EPA will in most cases defer to the State's
judgment.
252
-------
Miscellaneous Topics
253
-------
MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS
The actual workshops that were given from February 28 through
March 10 and the previous edition of this compilation covered a
number of miscellaneous topic* concerning requirements for SIP
revisions not directly associated with the nonattainment area
plans. The topics were—
—Tall stacks,
—Permit fees,
—Assurance of plan adequacy, (SIP dependency on clean fuels)
—State board composition,
— Interstate pollution,
—Public notification,
—Maintenance of pay,
—A1r pollution episode reporting, and
—Prevention of significant deterioration.
These requirements are 1n the formative stages as compared
to the other material presented at the workshop and thus contain
a number of Issues that have not yet been resolved. EPA wanted
to provide preliminary Ideas concerning those topics and obtain
reactions to them. Material on these topics have been deleted
from this edition of this compilation and from the videotape of
the workshop. EPA will 1n the future circulate additional guidance
on these topics.
254
-------
Summary of
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977
255
-------
Summary of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977
Title I
Part A
Section 103 - Training is amended to prevent EPA from charging air
pollution control agencies for training and to provide for accelera-
tion of training efforts.
Section 105 - Grants_ is amended to provide each State with a minimum of
1/?% of the total grant funds appropriated annually; to prevent the
loss of grant funds if a general, non-selective reduction 1n expendi-
tures is made in a State budget; and to prevent disapproval, revoca-
tion, or reduction of funds without prior notice and an opportunity
for public hearing in the affected State.
Section 107 - Air Quality Control Regions is amended by adding new
subsections which require each State to submit to EPA within 120
days a list identifying the status of each AQCR with respect to
compliance with NAAQS. It further requires EPA to promulgate such
lists 60 days later with whatever modifications EPA deems necessary.
Provision is made for revision of the 11st and for redesIgnation of
AQCR's within the State.
Section 108 - Air Quality Criteria and Control Techniques is amended to
require EPA to consider cost of installation and operation, energy
requirements, emission reduction benefits, and environmental Impact
of emission control technology in the preparation of control techniques
documents. EPA is further required to revise and reissue criteria
relating to short-term NO? concentrations within six months. EPA
must also publish within T80 days information on procedures for
reducing pollutant emissions - including inspection and maintenance,
vapor controls, public transit and carpool programs, on-street
parking control, and retrofit of heavy duty vehicles - and must
assess the relative effectiveness and the energy and economic
impact of these measures.
Section 109 - National Ambient Air Quality Standards is amended to
require EPA to establish an independent scientific committee to
review air quality criteria and the NAAQS not later than December 31,
1980 (and at subsequent intervals not exceeding five years) and
recommend revisions in the criteria and standards as may be appro-
priate. EPA must also promulgate a short-term primary standard for
N02 (less than 3 hour) within one year.
256
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 110 - Implementation Plans is amended:
1. To require SIP's to include permit programs to prevent signifi-
cant deterioration and non-attainment of standards and also to
include air quality maintenance requirements.
2. To prohibit EPA from requiring indirect source review programs,
except with respect to Federally funded projects. Such existing
programs, however, may remain in effect at the discretion of
the States. It also authorizes Governors of States to tempor-
arily suspend SIP regulations which restrict on-street parking.
3. To restrict land use regulations to those needed to assure
attainment and maintenance of NAAQS and prevent significant
deterioration of air quality.
4. To require the owners and operators of major stationary sources
to pay any fees required to obtain a permit.
5. To authorize EPA to delegate enforcement authority to local
governments for plans promulgated by EPA.
6. To allow revision, upon a Governor's request, of strategies
requiring tolls on bridges located entirely in one city with
alternate strategies providing for equivalent emission reductions
to be submitted to EPA within one year.
7. To allow suspension of SIP requirements (not to exceed four
months) for fuel burning sources if necessitated by an energy
or economic emergency.
Section 111 - Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources is
amended to require the best system of continuous emission reduction
on new or modified fossil fuel fired steam generators regardless of
fuel quality. EPA must promulgate a complete list of major station-
ary source categories within one year and standards of performance
for the entire list no later than four years thereafter. Before
promulgating a list or standards, EPA must consult with the States.
The Governor of a State has authority to petition to compel the
Administrator to issue new source performance standards for Indus-
tries which have not yet been covered by such standards, to revise
priorities for standard setting, to issue revised standards when
better technology becomes adequtely demonstrated, or to Issue
standards for unregulated hazardous pollutants. If an emission
standard is not feasible, EPA may prescribe a design, equipment,
work practice, or operational standard. EPA promulgations for
designated pollutants under Section lll(d) must consider the
257
-------
remaining useful life of such sources. Stationary sources owned
and operated by the Federal government are no longer exempt from
State enforcement. A source owner may apply for a waiver to use
innovative continuous emission control technology. A waiver may
not extend beyond seven years after the date granted or four years
after operation is commenced.
Section 112 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
is amended to allow EPA to prescribe a design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standard to protect public health from
hazardous materials where an emission standard is not feasible.
Section 113 - Enforcement is amended:
1. To allow EPA to issue orders prohibiting construction or
modification of major stationary sources in non-attainment
areas and to authorize the courts to impose civil penalties of
up to $25,000 per day for violations of the Act.
2. To authorize a State (or EPA after 30 days notice) to issue
enforcement orders which extend beyond the date specified for
attainment of the NAAQS. Such orders shall require compliance
as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than July 1,
1979, unless the order establishes a delayed compliance penalty.
Orders are limited to not more than a three year delay, except
in cases of innovative technology (five years), coal conversion
extension, or smelter orders. The State retains primary
responsibility for enforcement. The issuance of a delayed
compliance order serves as a notice for purposes of noncompllance
penalties if the affected source does not comply by the applicable
date. A source receiving an order must comply with all interim
requirements which the Administrator deems reasonable and
practicable. The Administrator may revoke an order if he
determines that the conditions upon which the order was based
no longer exists or that the source is in violation of interim
requirements. Where a source wishes to comply by replacing
the facility, terminating operations or completely changing
the production process it may receive an extension requiring
no interim steps before final compliance if it agrees to post
a bond or surety equal to the cost of compliance had the owner
decided to comply by installing control equipment.
3. To incorporate the provisions of former Section 119 (Energy-
related Authority) for sources which cannot meet SIP requirements
because of a coal conversion order and to provide an extension
in compliance orders to December 31, 1980. Additional authority
258
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
is available for extensions up to December 31, 1985. Sources
ordered to convert can begin to burn coal only when they can
do so without causing or contributing to concentrations of any
pollutant in excess Of primary air quality standards and in
compliance with the applicable SIP.
Section 114 - Inspections is amended to require the Administrator to
give reasonable notice to the States prior to carrying out an
entry, inspection or monitoring, when the Administrator intends to
check on compliance with a standard adoped by the State and approved
by the Administrator. The Administrator must also inform the State
of the purpose for his action but the Administrator's failure to
comply will not be a defense in an enforcement action; nor would it
make evidence obtained in violation of this provision Inadmissible.
Section 115 - International Air Pollution is added to allow the Adminis-
trator to trigger a revision of an SIP under Section 110(a)(2)(H)
upon the petition of an international agency or the Secretary of
State if he finds that emissions originating in a State endanger
the health or welfare of persons in a foreign country, provided
said country has given the U.S. the same rights.
Section 118 - Control of Pollution from Federal Facilities is added to
require Federal facilities to comply with all applicable State and
local substantive and procedural (i.e., permit requirements) air
pollution requirements. Suits brought under the Section may be
removed to Federal court, and no judicial review of an EPA action
in State courts 1s authorized. Exemptions may be granted by the
President in the interest of national defense.
Section 119 - Primary Nonferrous Smelter Orders is added to authorize
the use of supplementary control strategies on a temporary basis
for existing nonferrous smelters. Existing nonferrous smelters may
be granted up to two extensions (not exceeding five years each) for
the use of intermittent control systems if the Administrator finds
that Imposition of continuous emission controls would result in a
cessation of smelter operations. During the first five year extension,
a smelter using supplemental controls on the date of enactment need
not employ additional continuous controls. In addition, public
hearings are not required before issuance of the extension, except
in certain circumstances. Prior to granting the second five year
extension, there must be notice and a public hearing to determine
whether ultimate emission limitations are reasonably available.
Section 120 - Non-compliance Penalty is added to require the States or
the Administrator to assess and collect non-compliance penalties.
259
-------
Using the variables set forth in the Amendment, the non-compliance
penalty would be calculated on the basis of the costs a non-complying
source avoids by delaying compliance. Specifically, the calculation
of the non-compliance penalty must consider the capital costs of
compliance and debt service over a normal amortization period not
to exceed ten years, operation and maintenance costs foregone, and
any additional economic value of a delay. In essence, the penalty
would reflect financial savings realized by the firm as a result of
non-compliance with the law.
Section 121 - Consultation is added to require a State to consult with
a local government prior to adoption of SIP requirements or enforce-
ment provisions which would affect that local government. The
consultation must be done in accordance with regulations promulgated
by EPA.
Section 122 - Unregulated Pollutants is added to require the Administrator
to determine within one year (two years for radioactive pollutants)
whether or not emissions of radioactive pollutants, cadmium, arsenic
and polycyclic organic matter may endanger public health and, if
so, to list the substance in accordance with Section 108(a)(l)
(Criteria Pollutant), 112(b)(l) (NESHAPS), or lll(b)(l)(A) (NSPS).
For radioactive pollutants, the Administrator must coordinate with
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. EPA is further directed to
study the effects of these unregulated pollutants and, in particular,
the formation of sulfates.
Section 123 - Stack Heights is added to specify that the amount of
emission reduction required under the SIP shall not be affected in
any way by stack heights that exceed good engineering practice (not
to exceed two and one-half times the height of the source) or by
any other dispersion technique, Including Intermittent or supplemental
controls that vary with atmospheric conditions. Exempt from this
provision are stack heights or dispersion techniques 1n use before
the date of the 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments. Also, for Federally-
owned coal-fired steam electric generating units in operation
before July 1, 1957, the entire stack height may be taken Into
account if its construction contract was awarded before February 8,
1974. The Administrator must within six months promulgate regulations
to carry out these provisions.
Section 124 - Assurance of Adequacy of State Plans is added to require
that, not later than one year after enactment, each State review
its SIP relating to major fuel burning sources to determine the
extent to which its plan is dependent upon petroleum products,
natural gas, and coal not locally available and submit its findings
to the Administrator. EPA must review these submissions and require
the SIP to be revised if the Act's requirements will not be met;
the Governor must be consulted.
260
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 125 - Measures to Prevent Economic Disruption or Unemployment
is added to prevent economic disruption by authorizing the President,
the Administrator, or the Governor to require major fuel-burning
stationary sources not in complaince with an implementation plan,
or which are under a coal conversion order, to use local or regional
coal while still complying with requirements necessary to assure
compliance with the Clean Air Act.
Section 126 - Interstate Pollution Abatement is added (partially as a
replacement for Section 115) to prevent major sources in one State
from interfering with attainment and maintenance of air quality
standards in another Stats,, Notice rc.'.'st ha given to adjacent
"' ' ''"r "" r • '""•-'"'•'j "'"-'' - - §•".'.- '>..,,<; in advoi ^6 air
quality impact and such States or political subdivision may petition
EPA that the source would cause interference. EPA then has 60 days
to respond and if a violation is discovered, EPA must proceed to
abate the pollution as a violation of the host State's SIP. A
delayed compliance order would be available to a source unable to
comply with the requirements of this provision after three years,
with a delayed compliance penalty.
Section 127 - Public Notification is added to require the States to
include in their SIP's measures to notify the public of air pollution
levels and to educate the public as to the hazards of such levels
and measures which can be taken to improve air quality. EPA may
make grants to States and localities to implement this Section.
Section 128 - State Boards is added to require each State to include in
its SIP, by August 7, 1978, requirements that any board which
approves permits or enforcement orders must consist of a majority
of members who represent the public interest and do not derive a
significant portion of their income from persons subject to the
board's actions.
Part B
Sections 150-159 - Ozone Protection is added to require EPA to study
the cumulative effects of substances, practices and processes which
may affect stratospheric ozone and to contract with the National
Academy of Sciences to submit a report on this subject to Congress
by Janaury 1, 1978. Other Federal agencies are also required to
participate in activities relating to research and monitoring with
reports to EPA and Congress required by Janaury 1, 1978, and
biennially thereafter. EPA must promulgate regulations if any
substance, etc. may reasonably be anticipated to affect the strato-
sphere and endanger public health or welfare and must report to
Congress by January 1, 1978, (interim) and by January 1, 1980,
(final) on regulatory progress. States - and other political
261
-------
subdivisions - may regulate halocarbons as propel!ants in aerosol
spray containers as they see fit but are preempted from regulating
other aspects of ozone or agents causing stratospheric harm unless
their regulations are identical to Federal regulations.
Part C
Sections 160-169 - Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air
Quality is added to establish tnree land classifications for allowable
increases of TSP and SO, in areas where air quality is cleane^ than
required by ambient air*"quality standards. All clean air areas
would initially be designated Class TI, with the creation of
certain areas which would receive the increased protc-ciiOfi of
Class I designation. Class I would include all international
parks; national wilderness area; and national memorial parks larger
than 5,000 acres; and each national park larger than 6,000 acres 1n
existence on August 7, 1977. In addition, the Federal land manager
is required to review national monuments, national primitive areas
and national preserves and recommend redesignation to Class I where
appropriate to protect air quality-related values.
States, after consulting with the Federal land manager, could
redesignate Class II lands to Class I or to the less restrictive
Class III. National monuments, national primitive areas, national
preserves, national wild and scenic rivers, national wildlife
refuges, national lakeshores, national seashores, new national
parks, national wilderness areas and any other new areas created in
these categories after enactment could not be redesignated to Class
III if the area in question is larger than 10,000 acres.
Allowable increments of pollution above baseline concentration are
set by statute for sulfur dioxide and particulates. Within two
years States must submit plans establishing increments or other
means of preventing significant deterioration from nitrogen oxides,
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and oxidants. EPA must approve the
plan within four months if it meets applicable requirements; other-
wise, EPA must propose a plan for the rejected State within four
months of the disapproval. States may exempt certain emissions
from coal conversions, natural gas curtailments, temporary construc-
tion, and foreign sources from being counted against the increment.
Permits would be required for construction of facilities falling
into one of 28 source categories listed if the source has the
potential to emit more than 100 tons per year of an air pollutant,
and for any other source which could emit more than 250 tons per
year.
Specific increments for S02 and particulates are as follows (all
numbers in micrograms per cubic meter): Class I S09--annual arithmetic
262
-------
mean, 2; 24-hour Hnaximum, 5; three-hour maximum, 25; Class I
particulates—annual geometric mean, 5; 24-hours, 10; Class II
S0?--annual, 20; 24-hour, 91; three-hour; 512; Class II particulates—
annual, 19; 24-hour, 37; Class III S0?—annual, 40; 24-hour, 182;
three-hour, 700; Class III particu1ates--annua1, 37; 24-hour, 75.
In no case could pollutants exceed ambient standards.
Section 169A - Visibility Protection for Federal Class I Areas is added
to prevent any future, or remedy any existing, impairment of visibility
in mandatory Class I areas which result from man-made air pollution.
The Secretary of the Interior is to identify, within six months,
all mandatory Federal Class I areas where visibility is an important
value of the area. The Administrator shall within one year after
the date of enactment, and after consultation with the Secretary of
the Interior, promulgate a list of such areas to receive visibility
protection provided by this Section.
The Administrator is required to report to Congress, within eighteen
months, the results of a study to: (1) establish methods for deter-
mining and measuring visibility impairment; (2) establish modeling
techniques or other methods for determining contribution of man-
made air pollution to visibility impairment; (3) report on methods
for controlling air pollution which results in visibility impairment;
(4) identify categories of sources and types of air pollutants
which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute signifi-
cantly to impairment of visibility.
Within 24 months the Administrator is required to promulgate regula-
tions to assure reasonable progress toward meeting the national
goal. The regulations shall provide guidelines to the States for
the revisions of implementation plans taking into account the
recommendations of the report to Congress on techniques and methods
for implementing this Section. Each State will identify the sources
that impair visibility and fall within the requirements of this
section.
For sources which significantly impact upon visibility in Federal
Class I areas, the States must require the "best available retrofit
technology," taking into account the cost of compliance, energy
impacts, existing controls at the source, etc., and establish the
appropriate emission limitation on a source-by-source basis. EPA
will provide guidelines for "best available retrofit technology"
for all power plants over 750 megawatts.
Part D
Sections 171-178 - Plan Requirements for Non-attainment Areas is added
to specify the following provisions:
263
-------
1. The existing EPA emissions offset policy remains in effect
until July 1, 1979, unless States qualify for a waiver.
Requirements for a waiver include RACT for existing sources,
LAER for new sources, and a demonstration that there will be
reductions in emissions equivalent to what would be achieved
by EPA's offset ruling.
2. SIP revisions are required for all non-attainment areas desig-
nated under Section 107(d).
3. After July 1, 1979, States must revise their SIP's to assure
that areas will meet national ambient air quality standards
for all pollutants by December 31, 1982, or by December 31,
1987, for photochemical oxidants or CO if the 1982 date
cannot be met using all reasonably available measures. A
second plan revision must be submitted by July 1, 1982, to
require the implementation of enforceable measures to ensure
attainment by 1987; such measures include a mandatory Inspec-
tion and maintenance program.
4. The SIP revision must specify the amount of new source growth
which will be permitted; new sources must achieve the lowest
achievable emission rate, reflecting the most stringent emission
limitation which is contained 1n the SIP of any State for such
class or category or source or the most stringent emission
limitation which is achieved in practice, whichever is more
stringent. SIP must require RACT for existing sources which
will result in annual incremental reductions in emissions
sufficient to attain the applicable NAAQS by the specified
attainment date. The SIP would also have to contain emission
limitations, schedules and other measures to assure compliance
by the applicable dates.
5. Within six months after enactment, for each AQCR which would
not attain CO or photochemical oxidant standards by July 1,
1979, the State and elected officials of affected local govern-
ments must jointly determine which elements of the revised SIP
will be planned and implemented by the State and which by the
local governments or regional agencies, or combination thereof.
The locals have six months from enactment to designate an
organization of local governments and get it certified by the
State to carry out the planning; if no such designation is
made within the six months, the Governor shall designate an
areawide agency or a State agency to do the planning. Preference
is expressed for local planning, and that the local planning
organization be the agency handling areawide transportation
planning or air quality planning, or both. There also is a
requirement for coordiantion and interrelating air quality
planning and transportation planning.
264
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6. EPA may make TOO percent grants to local government agencies
with transportation or air quality planning responsibilities
to pay for the cost of transportation control planning, to
supplement funding already available from Federal programs.
7. There are sanctions for noncompliance so that a State would
lose its highway funds (except for transit, safety, or air
quality related transportation projects) where the Governor
has not submitted a revision by July 1, 1979, or that reasonable
efforts toward submitting such a SIP are not being made; this
also applies to the 1982 SIP revision. Where the State or
local governments are not implementing a SIP, they cannot
receive any grants under the Act. There is a requirement for
Federal agencies not to take any action including making any
grant that does not conform to an approved SIP, nor can any
transportation planning agency give approval to anything which
does not conform to the SIP. Priority must be given for
programs with air quality transportation consequences to the
implementation of SIP's necessary to achieve and maintain air
quality standards.
8. Non-attainment States may adopt California car standards,
provided that California and such States adopt such standards
at least two years before the model year, in accordance with
EPA regulations.
9. Within nine months of enactment, EPA has to publish guidance
documents to assist States in implementing the requirements
regarding lowest achievable emission rates; these must be
revised at least every two years.
Title II
Section 202 - Establishment of Standards is amended to specify the
following provisions:
1. Establishes interim automotive emission standards and requires
final standards by 1981 as shown in the following table:
Automotive Emissions Standards
(grams/mile)
1970 Act 1977 Amendment
1975(a) 1977(b) 1978-79 1980 1981
HC 0.41 1.5 1.5 0.41 0.41
CO 3.40 15.0 15.0 7.00 3.40(c)
N0Ą 0.40 2.0 2.0 2.00 l.OO(d)
J\
(a) Originally mandated standards amended in 1974 to
become final in 1978.
(b) Interim standards as a result of extensions.
(c) With possible two-year waiver to 7.0 gpm.
(d) With 0.4 as a research goal.
265
-------
2. Requires as a condition of certification of new motor vehicles
or engines that the manufacturer establish to the satisfaction
of the Administrator that emission control systems used will
not cause or contribute to an unreasonable risk to public
health, welfare or safety.
3. Requires auto manufacturers to develop cars which demonstrate
the technology for 0.4 grams/mile NO standard.
A
4. Authorizes EPA to prescribe fill pipe standards for new motor
vehicles to assure effective connection with certified vapor
recovery systems.
5. Requires EPA to consider use of onboard hydrocarbon control
technology on new vehicles to minimize the necessity for vapor
recovery requirements, and to promulgate such standards 1f It
makes certain findings. The provision authorizing the Secretary
of Transportation to disapprove EPA regulations under this
Section is deleted.
6. Requires the Administrator of EPA to revise for model year
1978 the existing evaporative emission test procedures to
measure hydrocarbon emissions for the vehicle as a whole. If
such a revision is not feasible by 1978 for heavy duty engines
and vehicles, it may be delayed until it becomes feasible.
7. Requires EPA to develop emission regulations for heavy duty
vehicles. For the years 1979-1982 Interim standards for HC
and CO are established with statutory HC and CO standards
becoming effective in model year 1983. The statutory NO
standard becomes effective in model year 1985. The statutory
standards mandate a 9(3% reduction from baseline for HC and CO
and a 75% reduction from baseline for NO .
n
8. Requires a nonconformance penalty to be set at a level which
1 "11 eliminate the competitive advantage, 1f any, for the
manufacturer of a nonconforming heavy duty vehicle or engine.
9. Requires the achievement of statutory standards by motorcycles,
but requires the Administrator to consider the need for achieving
equivalency of emission reductions or emission standards
between motorcycles and other new motor vehicles. Thus motorcycles
could adhere to the required percentage reductions for HC and
CO but meet the same emission standards in grams per mile of
NO as automobiles.
Section 203 - Prohibited Acts is amended to broaden the prohibition
against removal or tampering with emission controls to cover Indepen-
dent auto repair operations.
Section 205 - Penalties is amended to establish a civil penalty of
$2,500 for any tampering by an independent repair operation.
266
-------
Section 206 - Testing and Certification is amended to allow the Adminis-
trator to exempt vehicle manufacturers with projected annual U.S.
sales of 300 vehicles or less from the requirement for 50,000 mile
certification testing of such vehicles. Also suspended until 1981
is the implementation of high altitude regulations. Cars produced
in 1981-83 must meet standards based on percentage reduction no
greater than those for all cars based on high altitude emissions
from 1970 model cars operating at high altitudes. For 1984 and
thereafter cars must meet statutory emission standards at all
altitudes.
Section 207 - Compliance by Vehicles and Engines in Actual Use is
amended to:
1. Set the 207(b) performance warranty at 24 months or 24,000
miles. During this warranty period, the vehicle manufacturer
would be required to bring into compliance with emission
standards, any car which failed an inspection and maintenance
test. The warranty could be invalidated only upon a showing
by the manufacturer that the owner did not perform the required
maintenance or repair as set forth in the owner's manual or
abused the vehicle in its operation. Requisite repairs and
maintenance could be performed by an establishement (including
an independent garage or service station) that uses parts
certified in accordance with Section 207(a). After the 24
months or 24,000 mile warranty terminates, the performance
warranty on the emission control system under Section 207(b)
would require the repair or replacement only of an "emission
control device" or "component designed for emission control."
The vehicle manufacturer's warranty after 24,000 miles, thus,
would be limited to the catalytic converter, thermal reactor,
or other component installed on or in a vehicle for the sake
or primary purpose of reducing vehicle emissions and would be
invoked in the event of failure of the vehicle to meet emission
standards at any time up to 60 months. Such limitation does
not apply to Section 207(a) warranties or to Section 207(c)
recall actions.
2. Clarify that it is a prohibited act for new motor vehicle
manufacturers to fail to comply with the terms of a warranty
required by this Act.
3. Require that the dealer furnish to the purchaser of any new
vehicle a certificate that such vehicle conforms to the emission
standards applicable to it. This Section also requires that
if at any time within the duration of the warranty period
under Section 207(b) a motor vehicle fails an in-use emission
test such nonconformity shall be remedied by the manufacturer
267
-------
at the cost of the manufacturer. Such in-use emission test
may be adopted by any State as part of its SIP and may be
applied for purposes of this Section at any time from immediately
after sale to the end of the specified warranty period.
Section 209 - State Standard is amended to:
1. Authorize the Administrator to grant the State of California a
Section 209 waiver from Federal preeemption for a set of
standards which he determines are in the aggregate as protective
of public health and welfare as the Federal standards.
2. Specify that whenever a parts certification program 1s promulgated
by the Administrator, States and political subdivisions will
be preempted from adopting or enforcing any parts testing or
certification program. This provision does not apply to
California if it has more stringent emission standards than
Federal requirements.
Section 210 - State Grants is clarified to allow reimbursement to
States for money expended on inspection and maintenance programs
prior to approval of the State grant.
Section 211 - Regulation of Fuels is amended to ensure that no gasoline
additives which have been introduced in recent years will impair
the effectiveness of emission control systems, by calling for the
removal (by September 15, 1978) of any additive Introduced into
gasoline or increased 1n concentration after January 1, 1974, but
prior to March 31, 1977. The Administrator may waive this prohibi-
tion on additives if he determines that an applicant has established
that such a fuel or additive or a given concentration of such
additive will not cause or contribute to a failure of the emission
control device or system to meet the appropriate emission standard
over its useful life. If the Administrator finds that the additive
or a given concentration of such additive will cause or contribute
to the failure of an emission control device or system to meet the
appropriate emission standards over its useful life he shall prohibit
such additive or restrict its concentration during the period from
six months after enactment of September 15, 1978. Because of the
particular concern over the adverse effects of MMT on the performance
of emission control systems, this provision limits the maximum
concentration of manganese in a gallon of gasoline to .0625 grams
after November 30, 1977. Without a waiver the use of manganese 1n
gasoline will be prohibited as of September 15, 1978. Also under
this provision, various classes of small refineries will, until at
least October 1, 1982, be exempt from any lead phasedown regulation
requiring reductions in the average lead content of their total
gasoline pool below the levels specified. The specified levels
268
-------
decline inversely with size of the refinery. For the purposes of
this provision, a small refiner is defined as a refiner with a
total combined crude oil or bonafide feed stock capacity (as deter-
mined by the Administrator) of 137,000 barrels per day or less. A
small refinery of a small refiner is defined as only that fraction
of the capacity of a refinery with 50,000 barrels per day or less
crude oil or bonafide feed stock capacity (as determined by the
Administrator), which was in operation or for which a significant
portion of the construction had been completed as of October 1,
1976. After October 1, 1982, the Administrator may promulgate
regulations reducing the average lead content of the total gasoline
pool of small refineries below those levels prescribed in the
legislation.
Section 214 - Study of Particulate Emissions from Motor Vehicles is
added to require EPA to study and report to Congress on the effects
of particulate emissions from mobile sources including fugitive
dust (e.g., tire debris) on health and welfare. The report must
include recommended standards and/or control techniques.
Section 215 - High Altitude Performance Adjustments is amended to
provide that adjustments to automobiles are not to be prohibited by
Section 203(a) if they are performed in accordance with manufacturer
instructions which have been approved by the Administrator. Such
instructions shall insure an emission control performance for each
pollutant which is at least equivalent to that wh^'ch would result
if no adjustments had been made. With regard to used automobiles,
the baseline for determining equivalent emission performance shall
be an automobile which has been properly maintained and restored.
High altitude adjustments are permitted only in high altitude
States. Furthermore, after January 1, 1981, adjustments are
permitted only in those high altitude States which have implemented
inspection and maintenance programs in t.-eir non-attair ,ient areas.
Section 226 - Carbon Monoxide Intrusion into Su tained Use Vehicle* is
added to require EPA together with DOT to report within one year on
carbon monoxide levels inside sustained-use vehicles such as school
buses, taxis, and police cruisers including the sources and means
of control of such pollutants.
Section 231 - Aricraft Emission Standards is amended to authorize the
DOT to disapprove any aircraft emission standard promulgated by
EPA if the standard would create a hazard to aircraft safety upon
a finding by the Secretary of the Department of Transportation.
Title III
Section 302 - Definitions is amended to include a series of meanings
for new terms used throughout the Act including:
269
-------
-^^n^^-r-rLu^-:-^^=^^—- The Secretary of the Department which
has authority over any specific Federal land.
2- t'MLr_Sta^qnary_SŁu_rce_: Any stationary source with an annual
potential to emit 100 tons of any pollutant (same for major
emitting facility).
3- Emission Limitation: The requirement that limits the quantity,
rate or concentration of emissions on a continuous basis.
i- ;„ l!f lt?Im.aJJ?Jt: ^eans continuous emission reduction,
- ',.' -, operation dnd maintenance,
;ectioi- 3G.> - Emergency Powers is amended to authorize the Administrator
to commence~a civTl action" in an emergency situation to protect
public health and require that suit must be brought within 24 hours
of the issuance of an order and the court must uphold such order
within 48 hours. EPA must consult with State and local governments
in order to confirm the correctness of the information on which
action proposed to be taken is based and to ascertain the action
which such authorities are or will be taking.
Section 304 - Citizen Suits is amended to allow suits for failure to
obtain permits for construction of major facilities under Part C
(Significant Deterioration) or Part D (Non-attainment) and to allow
State and local authorities to bring suit against the Federal
government and its agencies in relation to air pollution control
and abatement.
Section 305 - Representation in Litigation is amended to direct the
Department of Justice to use the memorandum of understanding with
EPA dated June 13, 1977, as the basis for Justice representing EPA
in court.
Section 307 - Administrative Procedures is amended to establish, effective
November 14, 1977, procedural guidelines for EPA rulemaking relating
to standards, implementation plans, penalties, etc.
Section 316 - Sewage Treatment Plants is added to provide EPA with the
authority to withhold or condition grant approvals for treatment
plant construction if such plants do not comply with NSPS and
NESHAPS requirements or if an increase in plant capacity may result
in new source emissions (direct or indirect) not in conformance
with provisions of the SIP.
Section 317 - Economic Impact Assessment is added to direct EPA to
prepare an economic impact assessment on various proposed regulations
convering at least five points, but this is not a requirement
creating any new rights in court other than a suit to complete an
impact statement.
270
-------
Section 318 - Financial Disclosure - Conflicts of Interest is added to
cover potential conflicts of interest of EPA employees and members
of the National Commission on Air Quality. All such persons must
report annually any known financial interest in any person subject
to the Act or who applies for or receives financial assistance
under the Act. The Commission membership must be equitably distributed
and no more than one-third of the non-congressional members may be
associated with persons subject to the Act. Each EPA employee is
prohibited from having financial interests which would conflict
with the official duties of the employee, and the Administrator is
to issue regulations specifying what types of financial interests
would conflict with certain categories of positions. Persons who
have any official or contractual relationship to organizations
party to litigation on air quality matters; or who lobby, educate
or provide information on air quality matters could not be employees
of EPA.
Section 319 - Air Quality Monitoring is added to specify that EPA shall
promulgate regulations establishing a standard air quality index
for monitoring and reporting of air quality data by State and local
governments. It also requires the Administrator to supplement
State and local monitoring stations with Federal stations where
necessary.
Section 320 - Standardized Air Quality Modeling is added to provide for
periodic (minimum, every three years) conferences on air quality
modeling, with the first by February 7, 1978. The conferences are
to include an appropriate technical staff of Federal, State, and
local agencies.
Sections 321-322 - Employment Effects -^Employee Protection are added
to authorize EPA to conduct evaluations of plant closings and
employment losses alledgedly resulting from administration or
enforcement of the Act. An employee or representative of an employee
threatened with or adversely affected because of the Act, including
from State or local requirements, may request EPA to conduct a full
investigation, including subpoena and contempt authority. No
authority is given to modify or withdraw any requirement. Also
employees who are fired or discriminated against because they have
testified or brought suit under the Act may apply to the Seceretary
of Labor to review the case; the Seceretary can order reinstatement
and may order compensatory damages.
Section 323 - Na t i ona1 Commission on A ir Qua 1ity is added to establish
a National Commission, comparable to those created for water quality
and transportation, to study air quality. The Commission shall be
composed of eleven members. The President is to appoint seven
public members.
271
-------
Sections 324-325 - Vapor Recovery are added to require that the cost of
vapor recovery equipment is to be borne by the retailer, who may
pass it on to the consumer. No station which is owned by an independent
marketer and which has a monthly throughput of less than 50,000
gallons may be required by EPA to install vapor recovery equipment,
but State and local governments may so require. A three-year
phase-in for independent marketers with stations with greater
than 50,000 gallons per month throughput is provided, but
State and local governments can require earlier effectiveness.
Section 325 - Appropriations is added to provide for:
1. Seventy five million annually for transportation-related
planning.
2. Four million annually for the public notification grants to
States.
3. Two hundred million annually for all other functions through
fiscal year 1978-81.
4. One hundred fifty seven million for fiscal year 1978 to EPA
for studies and reports.
5. One hundred twenty million for research, development and
demonstration, for fiscal year 1978.
6. Seven and one-half million for training through fiscal year
1981.
Title IV
Section 401 - Basis of Administrative Standards amends Section 108 to
establish as the basis for regulation emissions which in the Adminis-
trator's judgment "cause or contribute to air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."
Section 402 - Interagency Cooperation on Prevention of Environmental
Cancer, Heart and Lung Disease is added to require an interagency
task force to be established within three months of enactment under
EPA lead to include EPA; the National Cancer Institute; the National
Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; the National Institute of Occupa-
tional Safety and Health; and the National Institute on Environmental
Sciences.
Section 403 - Studies is added to specify the following study requirements:
272
-------
1. The Administrator is required to study and report to Congress
within eighteen months on the health hazards and means of
controlling fine particulates. The National Academy of Sciences
shall also participate in this study.
2. The Administrator is required to conduct a study and report to
Congress no later than January 1, 1979, on the public health
and welfare effects of odorous emissions, their sources, and
measures available to control such emissions.
3. The Administrator is required to publish a list of all known
chemical contaminants resulting from environmental pollution
which have been found in human tissue within twelve months
after enactment. Within eighteen months, the Administrator
shall publish an explanation of the origin of these chemicals.
The Administrator shall, also, if feasible, conduct an epidemio-
logical study on the relationship between levels of chemicals
in the environment and in human tissue.
4. The Administrator is required to make an analysis of the
composition of fine particulate matter in the Gulf Coast
Region and other areas and the contribution of such substances
to visibility and public health problems.
5. EPA, the Department of Transportation, and the Federal Energy
Administration are required to report annually on fuel economy
in relationship to emission standards.
Section 404 - Railroad Emission Study is added to require the Adminis-
trator to conduct a study and report to Congress on the effect of
pollutants emitted from railroad locomotives and rolling stock on
air quality and the current state of technology for controlling
such emissions.
Section 405 - Report Concerning Economic Approaches to Controlling
Air Pollution is added to require the Administrator and the Counci1
of Economic Advisors to jointly define and evaluate economic measures
which can provide an incentive to greater control of air pollution.
This report must be submitted to Congress not later than two years
after enactment. Within one year after enactment, the Administrator
must study and report to Congress on the efficacy and feasibility
of establishing a system of penalties for stationary sources on NO
emissions.
Section 406 - Effective Dates is added to specify that, except as
otherwise expressly provided, all States must submit required SIP
revisions within one year after enactment or nine months after the
promulgation of necessary technical guidance by EPA.
273
-------
I
I
I
Memorandum,
"Criteria for Approval of 1979
SIP Revisions'9
275
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
FE8 24 1978
OFFICE OF
AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
SUBJECT: Criteria for Approval of
FROM: The Administrator (A- 100)
TO: Regional Administrators, I-X
9 IP Revisions
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, 1982. However, for carbon monoxide (CO) and
oxidants (Ox) , if the State can demonstrate attainment
is not possible by 1982 despite the implementation, of all
reasonable stationary source and transportation 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 the State must
fulfill the other statutory requirements.
It is the intent of the Agency to establish reasonable
and achievable goals for SIP submissions and to take a firm
posture on the imposition of sanctions where the reasonable
goals are not achieved. Accordingly, while the policy
requires a commitment to many specific strategies in the
1979 submissions (e.g., RACT on stationary sources, inspec-
tion/maintenance programs where attainment for carbon
monoxide or oxidants extends beyond 1982, other reasonable
transportation control measures, etc.) the memo also
requires (for carbon monoxide and oxidants) a commitment
to a continuing process. This process must be one which
extensively involves the public as well as State and local
elected officials and which ambitiously pursues a wide
range of alternatives.
276
-------
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
to 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 Clean 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. EPA 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).
277
-------
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)
3. 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)
6. 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 §110 relating to reduction of on-street parking, bridge
tolls, and other measures.
The development of the January 1979 SIPs to meet the
minimum requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977 is a complex and demanding program. It will require
the commitment of significant resources on the part of the
air programs staff of the Regional Office to ensure that
the States develop and submit a comprehensive and
approvable plan. We are working with your staff to develop
the necessary guidance and follow-up programs which will
assist your office and the State to carry out this very
difficult but important part of the overall air program.
278
-------
Attachment
cc: Air § Hazardous Division Directors
Air Branch Chiefs
279
-------
Criteria for Approval of 1979 State Implementation Plan Revisions
for Non-Attainment 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 the Primary Ambient
Air Quality Standards (primary standards) for all 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
must demonstrate attainment as expeditiously 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 should 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 SIP revision must contain the following:
1. A definition of the geographic areas for which control
strategies have been or will be developed. Consideration should be
given to the practical benefits of defining areas which correspond
whenever possible to those substate districts established pursuant
to Part IV, Attachment A of OMB Circular No. A-95.
280
-------
2. An accurate, comprehensive, and current (1977 calendar year)
inventory of existing emissions.
3. A determination of the level of control needed to demonstrate
attainment by 1982 (including growth). This demonstration should be
made by the application of modeling techniques as set forth in EPA's
Guideline on Air Quality Models. For oxidants, any legitimate modeling
technique (e.g., those referenced in "Use, Limitation and Technical
Basis of Procedures for Quantifying Relationships Between Photochemical
Oxidants and Precursors." EPA 450/2-77-021a. 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 that the standard
will be attained in adjacent states.
If a state can demonstrate that the level of control necessary for
attainment of the primary standards for carbon monoxide and/or oxidant
is not possible by 1982 despite the application of all reasonable
measures, an extension past 1982 (but not beyond 1987T is authorized.
4. Adoption in legally enforceable form! of all measures necessary
to provide for attainment by the prescribed date or, where adoption of
all such measures by 1979 is not possible, (e.g., certain transportation
control measures, and certain measures to control the oxides of nitrogen
and total suspended particulate) a schedule for expeditious development,
adoption, submittal, and implementation of these measures. The
situations in which adoption of measures may be scheduled after 1979
are discussed in the pollutant specific sections of this document. Each
schedule must provide for implementation of all reasonably available
control measures as expeditiously as practicable. During the period
prior to attainment, these 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 or 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 timetables for compliance,
and are committed to implement and enforce the 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 where growth shall and shall not
take pl$ce," 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.
281
-------
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, EPA 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 rate"
are not 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 accommodate 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.
282
-------
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 not
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], HUD Section 701, FHWA 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)(D).
10. An identification of and commitment to the financial and
manpower resources necessary to carry out the plan. The commitment
should be made at the 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
budgets and intend to continue to do so in future years for which budgets
have not yet been finalized, to the extent necessary.
283
-------
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 effect:, of the plan revisions and of the alternatives
considered by the SMte, s»^ r< summary of the public comment on such
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 allthe
general requir_e_m_ejrts_Vi_sted above:
1. A program which 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) the 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 such legal authority by
January 1, 1979. In no case can the schedule submitted provide for
obtaining legal authority later than July 1, 1980.
284
-------
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 program. In no case
may implementation of the orograr, i,p. , man'Jc-tory ins!)ect,io'-i and
>,;ar;di.iv.j repair of failed .ehicies oe 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).
285
-------
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 ^or a short,
term N02 standard and expects to promulgate such a standard during
1978. If such a standard for air quality is promulgated, a new and
separate SIP revision will be required for this pollutant.
Particulate Matter
The January 1979 plan revisions dealing with particulate matter
must 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-
ditiously 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 sufficient
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 be directed toward reducing the peak
concentrations within the major urbanized areas to demonstrate attainment
as expeditiously as practicable but in no case later than December 31, 1987.
This should also solve the rural oxidant problem by minimizing VOC
emissions and more importantly oxidants that may be transported from
urban 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.
286
-------
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 (RACTp 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 published by January of the proceeding 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. Each of the measures for which EPA will publish
information documents during 1978 is a reasonably available control
measure. These measures are listed on the following page:
2As defined by the U.S. Bureau of Census, urbanized area generally
include core cities plus any closely settled suburban areas.
3while it is recognized that 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.
287
-------
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 malls
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 conclusory 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
288
-------
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
planned reasonable transportation control measures. This includes
reasonable but unimplemented transportation measures in existing SIPs
and transportation controls with demonstrable air quality benefits
developed as part of the transportation process funded by DOT.
3. Present a program for evaluating a range of alternative
packages of transportation options that includes, as a minimum, those
measures listed above for which EPA 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 growth 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.
289
-------
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 demonstrates
reasonable further progress from 1979 to the attainment date. Deter-
minations of the reasonableness of a schedule will be based on the
nature of the existing or planned transportation system and the com-
plexity of implementation of an individual measure.
Additional Carbon Monoxide and Oxidant Monitoring Requirements
It is EPA's policy to require that all SIPs which provide for
attainment of the oxidant standard after December 31, 1982, must con-
tain commitments 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 for 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 applicable plan for the newly designated
non-attainment area. This would normally constitute an approvable SIP
per the above criteria and could essentially accommodate the proposed
growth within the previously submitted state plan and not require
offsets once the area is designated as non-attainment.
. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1978 -7kO -26V US'* REGION NO. 4
290
-------
EPA 450/2-77-005 Control of Fluoride Emissions from Existing Phosphate
Fertilizer Plants: Final Guideline Document.
EPA: OAQPS 1977.
EPA 450/2-77-007A Standards Support and Environmental Impact Statement:
Vol. 1 - Proposed Standards of Performance for Lime
Manufacturing Plants. EPA: OAQPS 1977.
EPA 450/2-^7-008 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing
Stationary Sources: Vol. II - Surface Coating of
Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabric, Automobiles and Light
Duty Trucks. EPA: OAQPS 1977.
EPA 450/2-77-017A Standards Support and Environmental Impact Statement:
Vol. 1 - Proposed Standards of Performance for
Stationary Gas Turbines. EPA: OAQPS 1977.
EPA 450/2-77-019 Final Guideline Document: control of Sulfuric Acid
Mist Emissions from Existing Sulfuric Acid Production
Units. EPA: OAQPS 1977.
EPA 450/2-77-022 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Solvent
Metal Cleaning.
EPA 450/2-77-025 Control of Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems - Waste-
water Separators: Process Unit Turnarounds.
EPA 450/2-77-026 Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline
Loading Terminals
EPA 450/2-77-032 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions - Surface Coating
Vol. III.
EPA 450/2-77-033 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions - Magnetic Wire
Vol. 4
EPA 450/3-73-003A Emissions Control in the Grain and Feed Industry, Vol. 1,
Engineering and Cost Study. 12/73. Midwest Research
Inst. 1973.
EPA 450/3-73-003B Emissions Control in the Grain and Feed Industry.
Vol. 2. Emission Inventory. 9/74. Midwest Research
Inst. 1974.
EPA 450/3-73-004A Air Pollution Control in the Primary Aluminum Industry.
Vol. 1 of 2 (Sections 1 through 10). 7/73. Singmaster
and Breyer. 1973.
165
-------
EPA 450/3-73-004B Air Pollution Control in the Primary Aluminum Industry.
Vol. 2 of 2 (appendices). 7/73.
EPA 450/3-74-002 Evaluation of the Controllability of Power Plants
Having a Significant Impact on Air Quality Standards.
2/74.
EPA 450/3-74-015 Factors Affecting Ability to Retrofit Flue Gas
Deaulfurization Systems. 12/73. Radian Corp. 1973.
EPA 450/3-74-036A Investigation of Fugitive Dust: Vol. I - Sources,
Emissions, and Control. PEDCo Env. Specialists.
1974.
EPA 450/3-74-036B Investigation of Fugitive Dust: Vol. II - Control
Strategy and Regulatory Approach. PEDCo Env.
Specialists. 1974.
EPA 450/3-74-060 Air Pollution Control Technology and Costs - Seven
Selected Emission Factors. 12/74, Indust. Gas
Cleaning Inst. 1974.
EPA 450/3-74-063 Particulate Emission Control Systems for Oil-Fired
Boilers. 12/74. Geomet. 1975
EPA 450/3-75-046A A Study of Vapor Control Methods for Gasoline
Marketing Operations. Vol. 1 - Industry Sruvey
and Control Techniques. 4/75. Radian Corp. 1975.
EPA 450/3-75-046B A Study of Vapor Control Methods for Gasoline
Marketing Operations. Vol. 2 - Appendix. 4/75.
Radian Corp. 1975.
EPA 450/3-75-047 Comparison of Flue Gas Desulfurization Coal Liquefaction
and Coal Gasification for Use at Coal-Fired Power Plants.
Kellogg MS Co. 1975.
EPA 450/3-76-005 Control of Particulate Matter from Oil Burners and
Boilers. Aerotherm Corp. 1976.
EPA 450/3-76-013 Cost of Retrofitting Coke Oven Particulate Controls.
Vulcan Cincinnati. 1974.
EPA 450/3-76-036 Evaluation of Methods for Measuring and Controlling
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Petroleum Storage Tanks.
Battelle Memorial Inst. 1976.
EPA 450/3-76-038A Background Information on Hydrocarbon Emissions from
Marine Terminal Operations: Vol. I - Discussion.
Radian Corp. 1976.
166
-------
EPA 450/3-76-038B Background Information on Hydrocarbon Emissions from
Marine Terminal Operations: Volume II - Appendices
Radian Corp. 1976.
EPA 450/3-76-042
EPA 450/3-77-010
Economic Impact of Stage II Vapor Recovery Regulations:
Working Memoranda. Little Ad. 1976.
Technical Guidance for Control of Industrial Process
Fugitive Particulate Emissions. PEDCo Env. Specialists.
1977.
EPA 450/3-77-026 Atmospheric Emissions from Offshore Oil and Gas
Development and Production. Energy Resources Co.
1977.
EPA 450/3-77-046
Screening Study to Determine Need for SO and Hydro-
carbon NSPS for FCC Regenerators. X
167
-------
Public Participation
and Intergovernmental Consultation
169
-------
The presentation on public participation and Intergovernmental
consultation at the actual workshops did not Include the use of
visual material or written text. The presentation covered material
that was still under development and will be the subject of forth-
coming regulations. Readers are advised to consult those regula-
tions when they appear for a fuller treatment of the material.
Therefore, no visual or text materials on public participation
and intergovernmental consultation are presented here.
The discussion on public participation and Intergovernmental
consultation covered the following section of the Clean A1r Act:
121, 172(b)(l) and (9), 174, and 175.
170
-------
Reasonable Further Progress
171
-------
REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS (RFP)
AND
NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR)
• MECHANISMS TO ENSURE ATTAINMENT
• FEEDBACK TO AVOID SANCTIONS
RFP
• 2 Part Process
Schedule development
Yearly Tracking
• Important Role
Adjustments to Strategy and NSR
NSR
• Instantaneous RFP
• Additional Cleanup
• New Technology
enable
Further
Progress
i i i i i ^^g_...i i V
-\ r-
172
-------
RFP
PART D REQUIREMENTS
171(a) DEFINITION
• Annual Incremental Reductions
• Substantial Early Reductions
—Regular Thereafter
• Provides for Attainment
172(b)(3) PLAN REQUIREMENT
• Require RFP Including RACT
173 (I) NSR Permits
• Consistent With RFP
IMPORTANCE OF RFP
IF PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED:
• NEW RFP SCHEDULE
• NEW ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION
• AMENDED NONATTAINMENT DESIGNATION
• El ADJUSTMENTS
IMPORTANCE OF RFP
IF PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED. cont.
• ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
• INCREASED ENFORCEMENT
• NSR STRATEGY AMENDED
• GROWTH SANCTIONS IMPOSED
173
-------
RFPSCHEDULES
USED FOR TRACKING El CHANGES
GENERAL :
PRIMARY STANDARDS - AEAP
SECONDARY STANDARDS - REASONABLE TIME
SHORT-TERM VIOLATIONS - SELECTIVE El
(TSP, S02 - ONLY)
POST'82 SIP's - RACM, FMVCP
RFP SCHEDULES
LINEAR PRESUMPTION
Simpliest Design
Early Reductions
Not Rollback
1982 Attainment
1979 Submittal - Initially
1979 80
83
Exceptions to Linear
Case - by - case determinations
-RA and State
More resource intensive
1979
174
-------
Exceptions to Linear
Case - by - case determinations
-RA and State
More resource intensive
• Secondary NAAQS
• Special cases
POST '82 SIP'S / AGGREGATE RFP
Cl
•77
El
NAAQS
Aro/Mlnor
•Aggregate Schedule
Mobile - FMVCP, RACM
Major/Stationary -
RACT until 1983
Area/minor - Linear
l»7t SO SI «2 S3 «4 SS (6 S7 M
POST '82 SIP'S / AGGREGATE RFP
El
'77
Ł
i-
• Aggregate Schedule
Mobile - FMVCP, RACM
Major/Stationary -
RACT until 1983
Area/minor - Linear
»S7t SO SI S2 S3 S4 SS SS S7
175
-------
POST '82 SIP'S / AGGREGATE RFP
•Aggregate Schedule
Mobile - FMVCP, RACM
Major/Stationary -
RACT until 1983
Area/minor - Linear
1»T9 *0 tl S2
«T M
POST '82 SIP'S / AGGREGATE RFP
•Aggregate Schedule
Mobile - FMVCP, RACM
Major/Stationary -
RACT until 1983
Area/minor - Linear
1979 to tl S2 «3 §4 IS •• (7 M
RFP AND SECONDARY NAAQS
[•RMT 0» LINEA» UNTIL 1913
•IEUONULE TIME - LMEII
•60»%3TSP CUIIELINE
• SKOIT-TEIM - SELECTIVE El
NON-ITTIINMENT HSR C1NIINUES
176
-------
RFP AND SECONDARY NAAQS
[HUD! OR LINEAR UNTIL 1913
•REASONAIIE TIME - LINEAR
•IO'%>TSP GUIDELINE
• SHORT-TERM - SELECTIVE El
NON ATTAINMENT NSR CDNTINUES
1979 10 II 12 13 14
IE 87
RFP AND SECONDARY NAAQS
IACT 01 LINEAR UNTIL 1913
•REASONABLE TIME - LINEAR
•80"%3TSP GUIDELINE
SNORT-TERM - SELECTIVE El
• NON-ATTAINMENT NSR CONTINUES
1979 II II 12 13 14 15 16 17
IFF SINNAir HUE
TIM if IFP
CASE
1982 ATTAINMENT
1979 to 1983
LINEAR (MIN )
EPA- approve) RfP
1983 TO ATTAINMENT
NA
177
-------
IFF1 SiMNtlY UILE
TIM if IFF seiliilt
CASE
1982 ATTAINMENT
POST '82 SIPs
(oxidant/CO)
197» to 1983
LINEAR (MIN )
untoM dctwtod,
EPA.«pf>rov«JRFP
AGGREGATE SCHEDULE
MOBILE - FMVCP, RACM
MAJOR STATIONARV -
RACT (mm )
MINOR AREA -LINEAR
1963 TO ATTAINMENT
NA
MOBILE -FMVCT. OTHER
MAJOR STATIONARY - OTHER
MINOR AREA - LINEAR
IFP SIHMIIT HUE
TIM if IFP
CASE
1982 ATTAINMENT
POST-82SIPI
Io
S€CONDARV NAAOS
(TSP/S02)
1179 mm
LINEAR (MIN 1
EPA •M>ro«IRFP
AOOREGATE SCHEDULE
MOBILE - FMVCP. RACM
MAJOR STATIONARY -
RACT litim 1
MINOR AREA - LINEAR
LINEAR OR RACT
1983 TO ATTAINMENT
NA
MOBILE - FMVCP, OTHER
MAJOR STATIONARV - OTHER
MINOR AREA - LINEAR
REASONABLE TIME
- LINEAR
RFP TRACKING
3 MECHANISMS
•annual emission trends
•Ad trends - qualitative
•NSR instantaneous
178
-------
ACTUAL EMISSIONS - MANDATORY REPORTING
ACTUAL E. i REQUIRED
1979 CONTROL STRATEGY
LINKED TO AQ TRENDS
RFP EMISSION TRACKING
f I 77 . :
KtollT'
El
HUMS
1171
II
II
12
RFP EMISSION TRACKING
• ACTUAL EMISSIONS
• MANDATORY TRACKING AREAWIDE TRACKING
,„ , • TOTAL EMISSIONS
•M-.I T^ -REDUCTIONS AS OCCUR
•GROWTH AS OCCURS
• RFP MILESTONES
RFP -REDUCTIONS
schedule S|NCE AUGUST1977
1979
90
II
12
13
179
-------
RFP EMISSION TRACKING
• iiuimt [iissnis
UIWI1IH |UK. I
OMItlll IUCIIII imiMill il
(F Mil. "Ill 5 111
RFP EMISSION TRACKIN6
• mini uinnn
• IIIIIIIIII III |llll nilnli. ilr(ill)
> indicium im
• mum iiinm
hliclUii ii imi
TRACKING RFP
Specific Source Example
itiitii
tiRilinci
f
un n
in sir
[lllllllillS
Siurci
H«|liUCt
W/ ClIllllS
• i r~
n 11 ii
f
Simce Units
Opinliit tiws
f .
12 13
MSB TPV 760 TPV
1000 T? v 1000 Try
MM H>V MM TPY
NC NC 200 TPV 200 TPV -JkCTUAt IMIOIIM
2SO TTIf NC DC 220 TPV -*UOW*tlt EMISSIONS
W NC MT TPV in TPV -MAXIMUM MISSIONS
Annual Report
1 -~_-Kinii«ni
RFP Schedult
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983
SUMMARY FOR YEAR 1931
MANBITOir
TOTAL
RFP
Milestone
1979
1930
1981
Actual
Emissions
1979
1980
1981
4. '
•*f
Allowable
Emissions
I979||980|I9S1
Maximum
Emissions
1979
I9SI1
1981
Growth
>1977
1979
1980
1981
180
-------
1
1
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
1
1
AIK DUALITY TRI:NDS
Qualitative check -
only Kl trends mciininKful 1
No special reporting •
40 ( I'R Part 51 already 1
1
All nonattainment monitors
PROILEMS: t^*,,™
Inadtquitt ,. ^\
EmlMlon . . - is^
••auctions
i)n ii ii i: ii
PROILEMS: f^^c,,,
^X^ ifp
Emission " - ~ ^Ssv.
••Aietleiii "IS
f Illllllllf
nn ii ii ii u
UNI
t**r AQ Tr«ltf>
II ^v
IMS ~
tin H u n u
181
-------
PROBLEMS:
_/J
uus
AIR MUTT
Inadequate ^
Emission uit*t
Reductions
W
mi 10 n
Poor AQ Trends
[I
mm
Poor Maximum
Emission Trend
fl
•IMS
It?) II
iw 10
RESOLUTION OF RFP PROBLEMS
ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS
EXCESSIVE GROWTH
CONTROL EQUIPMENT LAG
CORRECTIVE MEASURES
POOR AO TREND
El ADJUSTMENTS
INCREASED ENFORCEMENT
AMEND NONATTAINMENT DESIGN,
STRICTER NSR POLICY
182
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS
1. General Intent
Both reasonable further progress (RFP) and new source review (NSR)
are intended to play essential roles in ensuring that the NAAQS will be
met on time. They are feedback mechanisms designed to identify possi-
ble errors made in developing the control strategy or in selecting
the area and sources of concern. The language from Part D of the new
Amendments sets forth the RFP requirement which was not present in
the previous 1970 Clean Air Act as amended.
RFP is essentially a two-part process in which a schedule is first
developed (typically linear) and then a yearly tracking exercise is
performed. The schedule is intended only as a guideline but failure
to meet the designated milestones must be explained and could well
result in adjustments to: the control strategy, the geographic bound-
aries of the designated non-attainment area, or the approach taken to
review new sources. An annual report for RFP is to be submitted by
the State. This report is intended to be a brief but effective exer-
cise in (1) tracking the emission reductions accomplished and (2)
verifying that these decreases, taking into account growth, are consis-
tent with the RFP goal of attainment.
2. Reasonable Further Progress - Part D Requirements
Section 171 (1) defines the term "reasonable further progress" as
annual incremental reductions in emissions of the applicable air pol-
lutant (including substantial reductions in the early years following
approval or promulgation of plan provisions under Part D and Section
110(a)(2)(I) and regular reductions thereafter) which are sufficient
in the judgment of the Administrator, to provide for attainment of the
applicable national ambient air quality standard by the date required
in Section 172(a).
Section 172(b)(3) states that the "non-attainment" SIP submittal
shall require, in the interim, reasonable further progress (as defined
.above) including such reduction in emissions from existing sources in
the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of
reasonably available control technology.
Finally, one option under Section 173 to allow new major construc-
tion requires that total allowable emissions (SIP at new source applica-
tion) will decrease so as to represent reasonable further progress.
183
-------
3. Importance of RFP
Before discussing how the RFP schedules are to be developed, 1t
is proper to reemphasize that RFP is an important requirement for SIPs
in non-attainment areas. The significance of the RFP requirement
logically increases as the uncertainties associated with the attainment
demonstration increase. If problems with meeting the RFP requirement
are identified, then one of several actions may be needed. The precise
choice of corrective measures taken will be left to the State subject
to the approval of the Regional Administrator. It should be noted that
the last measure cited below is what RFP seeks to avoid. Only after
all other options are discarded should the need to impose sanctions be
seriously considered.
List of possible corrective measures:
a. new RFP schedule
b. new attainment demonstration
c. amended non-attainment designation
d. emission inventory adjustment
e. additional reductions required
f. increased enforcement
g. NSR strategy amended
h. growth sanctions imposed
4. Development of RFP Schedules
The purpose of an RFP schedule is to verify that the emission
reductions obtained are being accomplished at a reasonable and effi-
cient rate so that attainment by the prescribed time will take place.
Where only violations of the annual primary NAAQS are Involved then
RFP is intended to represent the application of good controls as
expeditiously as practicable (AEAP). RFP schedules to correct
violations of the secondary standards are again intended to depict
an AEAP timetable but with the connotation of "a reasonable time."
Where attainment of the oxidant or carbon monoxide NAAQS can not be
accomplished by 1982, then an RFP schedule reflecting application of
reasonably available control measures will be acceptable as long as
attainment is accomplished by the agreed upon date (not to exceed
1987). Finally, the proceeding general statements also apply to
short-term NAAQS violations except that a selective emissions inven-
tory with respect to source inclusion may be tracked in accordance
with RFP.
For the majority of cases, EPA expects that RFP schedules will
be linear in nature. Figure #1 illustrates the simple design of a
linear RFP schedule which starts from the 1977 emissions inventory
184
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
and ends before 1983* at the emissions Inventory predicted as being
adequate to demonstrate attainment. No additional resources are
typically required to develop such linear timetables.
A linear RFP schedule 1s thought to be completely within the
Intent of the Section 171 definition. That 1s, such a line would
effect substantial reductions 1n the early going and not put off
accomplishing most of the required reductions until the last year(s).
A linear schedule 1s also thought to be a stringent timetable to
accomplish emission reductions 1n light of the lag time In the real
world for Installing control technology. 1977 emissions Inventory
starting point 1s consistent with EPA's Intent to acknowledge all
reductions accomplished since the August 7, 1977, date of enactment
1n accomplishing RFP. This position is intended to assist the States
in meeting the aspect of the RFP requirement that calls for substan-
tial progress 1n the early years. A linear RFP schedule should not
be in any way confused with the similarly shaped linear rollback
technique. RFP schedules do not relate to the amount of controls
needed but rather to the rate that the necessary emission reductions
are to be accomplished. Typically, a linear RFP will refer to the
rate that controls determined necessary through non-linear techniques
(such as air quality dispersion modeling) must be Installed.
In terms of answering the 1979 plan requirement to show RFP
the submission of a linear RFP schedule will be acceptable even
if a linear timetable would be even initially thought to be
inappropriate. Unless the State on its own chooses to submit a detailed
nonlinear RFP, a linear schedule for 1982 attainment SIPs will be accept-
able to EPA. Such a schedule is thought to reflect a reasonable rate of
progress considering the relatively short timeframe allotted for attain-
ment (maximum of 4 to 5 years). To routinely require a detailed RFP may
direct critical resources from accomplishing the actual attainment.
Only in certain cases where the controls necessary for attainment cannot
be reasonably applied as quickly as required by a linear RFP would it be
in the best Interest of the State to develop and submit a "less-than-
Hnear" RFP schedule.
The linear assumption is initially acceptable for all 1979 plan
submlttals. Of course, some of the plans particularly those attaining
standards after 1982 may have to amend their schedules over the year
following the 1979 submittal 1n order to make RFP more meaningful.
Where the linear assumption is thought to be inappropriate, the State
*EPA, of course, encourages states to demonstrate attainment before
1983 and to submit corresponding RFPs.
185
-------
must submit an acceptable alternative RFP schedule to the Regional
Administrator. Such nonlinear schedules should be developed over the
year following the 1979 plan submission. It 1s acknowledged that
developing such RFP's 1s more resource Intensive and should be attempted
only when absolutely necessary. Table #1 summarizes the type of RFP
schedules that are expected.
A non-linear RFP will typically be developed 1n the case of
carbon monoxide or oxidant plans which fail to attain by 1982 but
do so not later than 1987. Herein, the aggregate nature of the
emission inventory must be considered. Figure #2 shows that indi-
vidual RFP schedules for each general component of the 1977 emissions
inventory (i.e., mobile, major stationary, and minor/area sources)
must be developed. For post 1982 oxidant and CO SIPs, reductions
from mobile sources until 1983 are expected to follow as a minimum
a schedule consistent with the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program
(FMVCP)and the application of RACM. Beyond 1982 until attainment,
the reductions from mobile sources will be reflect the imposition of
other measures (as necessary) as well as the continuing cleanup
accomplished by the FMVCP. Major stationary sources correspondingly
must be controlled until 1982 at least as effectively as they would
under an RFP schedule exhibiting the application of RACT. After
1982 and until attainment (no later than 1987) the schedule for
reductions will reflect the application of other control measures.
A linear assumption can be made for the portion of the RFP schedule
beyond 1982. Finally, a linear assumption is appropriate throughout
the RFP schedule for controlling minor and area (other than mobile)
source growth.
Specific non-linear RFP milestones may also be necessary 1n the
case of secondary NAAQS violations. Figures #3 and 4 illustrate the
case where both the primary and secondary standards are violated.
In general, only where a RACM-based RFP would not demonstrate attain-
ment of at least the primary NAAQS by 1982 would a linear RFP be
chosen in preference. Since both RACM RFP's Identified in Figures
#3 and #4 meet this criteria, they would be chosen in preference to
the linear presumption. The RFP schedule after 1982 until attainment
is governed by the reasonable time assumption. For at least initial
planning purposes, linear reductions over time can be assumed to be
reasonable until attainment.
As was the case of 1972 SIP submissions, the 60 ug/m3 TSP
guideline is to generally be used as a standard in assessing RFP.
Also, it should be noted that the non-attainment review for new
sources will continue in full effect until the secondary standards
are met. This includes the possibility of major new source sanctions
when RFP for these standards is not being met.
186
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
U
FIGURE 1
RFP SCHEDULES
El.
'77
El
NAAQS
NAAQS
1-
1979 80
81
82
83
187
-------
TABLE 1
RFP SUMMARY TABLE
Type of RFP schedule
CASE
1979 to 1983
1983 TO ATTAINMENT
1982 ATTAINMENT
POST '82 SIPs
(oxidant/CO)
SECONDARY NAAQS
(TSP/S02)
LINEAR (MIN.)
unless detailed,
EPA-approved RFP
AGGREGATE SCHEDULE
MOBILE - FMVCP, RACM
MAJOR STATIONARY -
RACT (min.)
MINOR AREA-LINEAR
LINEAR OR RACT
NA
MOBILE - FMVCP, OTHER
MAJOR STATIONARY - OTHER
MINOR AREA-LINEAR
REASONABLE TIME
-LINEAR
188
-------
FIGURE 2
POST '82 SIP'S / AGGREGATE RFP
•Aggregate Schedule
Mobile - FMVCP, RACM
Major/Stationary -
RACT until 1983
Area/minor - Linear
"^/or/Station
1979 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88
189
-------
FIGURE 3
RFP AND SECONDARY NAAQS
CO
liiiar prcsinptin
primary NAAQS
secondary NAAQS
H
•1 1
1979 80 SI 82 83 84 85 86 17
190
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE 4
RFP AND SECONDARY NAAQS
RACT RFP
liiear pnsiiptiii
primary NAAQS
secondary NAAQS
—I—I—I—I—
1979 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97
191
-------
5. RFP Tracking
RFP is to be tracked primarily by a yearly assesCi7:ent of the net
reductions to actual emissions (including growth) that have taken
place. A summary of these reductions will be submitted as an annual
report (Table #3). RFP as reported in terms of actual emission reduc-
tions must be interpreted in context with actual air quality improve-
ments. Although not formally required in the annual report, emission
reductions should be tracked with the results from quarterly air quality
reports. NSR v/ill perform an instantaneous check on RFP. The specific
results of NSR will not be a formal part of the annual report but will
be sublet to insjj"':t'i
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
creditable toward meeting RFP; (6) total actual TRY emissions are
generally to be reported unless a specific non-linear RFP schedule
has been developed (then tracking of the specific emission inventory
components may be required); and (7) the net yearly reduction ( or
even increase) in actual emissions is not itself critical for any
one year as long as the RFP schedule is met and attainment is not
jeopardized (good reduction years can therefore compensate for ones
of less cleanup).
There is also a competing need to confirm that actual emissions
will not increase to levels so as to prevent attainment and/or main-
tenance of the ambient standards. Allowable emissions are defined as
the most emissions a source can emit and still ccnfrom to the most
stringent of the following; (1) an applicable NSPS, (2) an applicable
SIP limit; and (3) any enforceable permit condition including those
restricting hours of operation and utilization of production capacity.
The typical analysis for controls needed in 1979 assumes that the 1977
actual emissions from large point sources will not increase appreciably
due to voluntary increases in hours of operation and utilization of
production capacity not otherwise constrained by enforceable permit
conditions. That is, many sources in the present SIP's do not have
Ibs/hour or TPY emission limits and their emissions can be greatly
influenced by voluntary changes in the capacity usage and hours operated.
This means sources without constrained capacity usage or hours of
operation (enforceable by EPA) must be assumed to operate at full
capacity for the entire year.
The only requirement therefore with respect to RFP and allowable
emissions is that this inventory be reduced at or below the emissions
inventory used to demonstrate attainment by the prescribed time (typi-
cally 1982 or 1987). Conceivably sanctions could still be imposed
in those areas who reach their attainment goal but cannot guarantee
that it will be maintained.
The yearly tracking of allowable emissions is optional with respect
to ensuring RFP. For those States who wish to do so (presumably to
better ensure that allowable emissions will be at or below those
showing attainment) should keep the following in mind: (1) allowable
emissions are to be tracked on a cumulative total TPY basis throughout
the entire designated non-attainment area (only in the case of short-
term violations for S0? and/or TSP would deviations with respect to
source inclusion be acceptable); (2) reductions in allowable emissions
occur as enforceable regulations are adopted into the SIP (consequently
one expects that allowable emissions will take a large initial drop
in 1979 as several general regulations are incorporated into the SIP--
fluctuations thereafter will occur as specific enforceable permit
193
-------
conditions are negotiated); (3) the 1977 allowable emissions inventory
should be the starting point for tracking allowable emissions--all
cleanup since August 7, 1977,1s creditable (where Ibs/ton, Ibs/MBTU,
or Ibs/gal type limits are apparent, an estimate of the maximum emis-
sions allowed under the SIP should be made as required in the 1979
control strategy demonstration); (4) major point source growth is
assumed to Increase allowable emissions as it is approved (correspond-
ingly, offsets legally tied to the construction of a major source are
also assumed to occur at the same time); and (5) allowable emissions
from minor stationary, area, and mobile sources are assumed to be the
same as actual emissions.
A third type of emissions inventory is also important with respect
to making RFP. Maximum emissions, are the most emissions that a source
could emit considering in place controls and enforceable permit condi-
tions tions restricting a source's hours of operation and use of
production capacity. Thus, maximum emissions would differ from allow-
able ones only to the extent a source is out of compliance with an
effective emission limit and/or permit condition. The optional yearly
tracking of maximum emissions therefore is a valuable enforcement tool
to assess how much real progress has been made toward attainment. The
difference between the attainment emissions inventory and maximum
emissions at any point in time represents the real non-attainment
driving force. Consequently, maximum emissions should equal to be less
than allowable emissions at attainment (assuming full compliance).
As mentioned, the tracking of maximum emissions is optional in
terms of ensuring that RFP 1s being accomplished. For those States
who wish to do so then the following criteria should be followed:
(1) maximum emissions are to be tracked on a TPY areawide basis
throughout the designated non-attainment area (with same exceptions
as noted under "actual" emissions); (2) maximum emissions are reduced
as existing sources install new controls or comply with new permit
conditions restricting the hours of operation or use of production
capacity; and (3) maximum emissions are assumed to increase as major
proposed construction is approved (as in the case of allowable emis-
sions, offsets legaly tied to the construction of a major source are
also assumed to occur at the same time).
Figures #5, #6, and #7 show the concept of tracking of various
types of areawide emissions from a graphic standpoint. Figure #8 and
Table #2 have been included to illustrate how new source approvals are
taken into account in determining if RFP is met. Figure #9 is included
to clarify when certain emission level changes are creditable toward
RFP. This figure uses a single source non-attainment problem to illus-
trate how and when emission reductions are applicable.
The annual report (shown as Table #3) must contain a summary
of how total actual emissions have been reduced relative to the
194
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(9
Z
tf)
tf)
Figure 5
(Adi) SNOISSIN3
195
-------
Figure 6
C5
(A
tf)
u
0.
u.
09
CX9
(Adi) SNOISSIH3
196
-------
Figure 7
O
O *a ,_
tf)
tf)
-1^—^
i «oi I
(Adll SMOISSIH3
197
-------
Figure 8
S
DC
a.
u.
cc
CD
00
ir
4
s s
° j; a
*"
4
§
O
in
o
CM
,01 *\dJ.) SNOISSIIAI3
(cOL>
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE #2
RFP AND GROWTH
MAXIMUM ACTUAL ALLOWABLE
EMISSIONS EMISSIONS EMISSIONS
YEAR ACTION (TPY) (TRY) (TPY)
1975 50,000 40,000 50,000
#1 Approval (w/o offsets) + 5,000 — + 5,000
1976 55,000 40,000 55,000
#2 Approval (w/o offsets) + 2,500 — + 2,500
6% Increase in capacity -— + 3,000
1977 57,500 43,000 57,500
#3 Shutdown - 2,500 - 2,500 - 2,500
6% Decrease In capacity — - 2,850
1978 55,000 38,000 55,000
#5 Approval w/#4 offsets
6% Increase in capacity --- + 2,850
1979 55,000 40,850 55,000
#7 Approval w/#6 offsets
RFP cleanup -11,000 - 9,020 -36,500
1980 44,000 31,830 18,500
RFP cleanup -10,000 - 8,200
4% Increase in capacity — + 1,060
#1 Operation at 15% approval - 4,250 + 750 - 4,250
1981 29,750 25,460 14,250
RFP cleanup - 8,000 - 7,000
10% Decrease in capacity ~- - 1,350
#2 Operation at 15% approval - 2,125 + 375 - 2,125
#4 Offsets occur — - 2,500
#6 Offsets (beyond attainment
occur) --- - 2,500
1982 19,625 12,465 12,125
RFP cleanup - 7,500 - 5,625
#5 Operation at 15% approval - 2.125 + 300 - 2,125
5% Decrease in capacity — - 300
1983 10,000 6,840 10,000
#7 Operation — + 2,500
5% Increase in capacity — 300 —
1984 10,000 9,640 10,00
aA 10,000 TPY ET is assumed to show attainment
bUntil 1979 maximum emissions are assumed to equal allowable ones (i.e., SIP
limits coincide with maximum source emissions and they are fully complied with)
cAll cleanup performed to accomplish RFP is identified in the 1979 plan sub-
mission and is expressed in terms of allowable emissions
dAllowable emission reduction for RFP are translated into actual emission
reductions by the following:
Actual Emissions - Allowable emissions - Total = Change to
Before Cleanup before cleanup Cleanup Actual Emissions
199
-------
Figure 9
cv»
(Adi) SNOISSIW3
(A
5 UJ Uj
* ffl 5
-J < 3
O CM CM
CM CM CM
U U U
z z z
g§g
|Łl
So p
o o
l> T- r-
200
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(Adi) suoissjui]
Growth
>1977
Maximum
Emissions
*
Allowable
Emissions
*
I
00
en
r*.
en
I
00
r— •
ii
«n
en
o>
CO
CO
€0
0>
III
O
u.
»
t+
•M
O
Q
\\
to
Ł
•3.2
3 (/) #
-------
applicable RFP milestones. Only where special non-linear RFP's
are applicable will Table #3 be more specific than reporting total
actual emissions (i.e., mobile, major stationary, and minor/area).
Although not formally required, a State might also report or at least keep
track of how maximum and allowable emissions have changed over the same
time period.
Section 171(1) defines RFP in terms of annual emission reduc-
tions and does not mention changes in air quality directly. It is
our position that air quality changes should be taken into account,
at least qualitatively, in determining if RFP is being accomplished.
That is, the intent of reviewing air quality changes with the associ-
ated emission reductions is to ensure that the reductions accomplished
are meaningful in terms of actual air quality improvement.
No special reporting of air quality data is necessary on the part
of the State since 40 CFR Part 51 already requires quarterly reporting
(45 days thereafter) to be submitted to EPA. Only non-attainment
monitors in the designated area should be considered in qualitatively
assessing RFP.
6. Problems and[Adjustments
It is to be expected that the annual report for RFP or the air
quality trends data will identify from time to time the existence
of some control strategy or implementation problems. In fact, this
is precisely the intended function of RFP. That is, the RFP report
attempts to identify problems so that they can be resolved without
jeopardizing attainment by the prescribed date.
Figure #11 illustrates three types of problems that may well occur.
The fir of these problems is simply failing to obtain sufficient
actual emission reductions to meet the specific RFP milestone. Here
we are talking about deviations of more than 5% from the defined RFP
schedule. Such a problem could be the result of excessive growth
(major and/or minor area growth), enforcement problems, or the lag
time to install control equipment.
The second problem identified is poor air quality improvement
despite the accomplishing of all the emission reductions called for
under RFP. Conceivably, this problem could be caused by the persis-
tence of unusual meteorological conditions, overestimating the
value for cleaning up certain emissions sources (bad emission factors),
or the omission of key sources from the inventory altogether. The
latter more specifically refers to the lack of control on key sources
which have not been included in the initial emissions inventory
developed for the non-attainment area.
202
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The third and final problem identified by Figure #10 is the
inability for maximum emissions to decline at an acceptable rate
notwithstanding that actual emissions have been reduced in accordance
with the RFP schedule. This problem will likely be noticed by only
those States who track trends in maximum emissions. The problem may
occur due to delays in converting SIP allowable emission limits which
far exceed what a source could physically emit to more realistic emis-
sion rates or the failure to constrain the operating hours and/or
capacity utilization of key sources as appropriate.
In general, no sanction penalties will be imposed when problems
such as those mentioned are identified if a justification is presented
which demonstrates that attainment by the prescribed date is not
jeopardized. However, in many cases some additional corrective action(s)
may be necessary. Table #4 provides a summary of problem types, their
possible causes, and candidate measures for addressing them.
203
-------
Figure 10
I?
E Ł
•2 o e
Us
tf)
o e
O.J
• •
o
o
a.
204
exs
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 4
RESOLUTION OF RFP PROBLEMS
PROBLEMS
INADEQUATE EMISSION
REDUCTIONS
:AUSES
POOR AQ TREND
POOR MAXIMUM
EMISSION TREND
ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS
EXCESSIVE GROWTH
CONTROL EQUIPMENT LAG
KEY SOURCES UNCONTROLLED
METEOROLOGICAL VARIATIONS
SLOW TPY CONVERSION
SLOW SIP TIGHTENING
205
CORRECTIVE MEASURES
ADDITIONAL MEASURES
INCREASED ENFORCEMENT
NEW RFPSCHEDULE
NEW ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION
STRICTER NSR POLICY
El ADJUSTMENTS
INCREASED ENFORCEMENT
AMEND NONATTAINMENT DESIGNATE
STRICTER NSR POLICY
INCREASED ENFORCEMENT
STRICTER NSR POLICY
ACCELERATED SIP TIGHTENING
-------
Procedural Requirements
207
-------
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
• PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORTS
• RULES, REGULATIONS, AND SCHEDULES
• COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES
• RESOURCES REQUIRED
• MISCELLANEOUS PART 51 REQUIREMENTS
PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORTS
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO
ALL AREAS
SUMMARY OF 1979 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
SCHEDULES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MEASURES —
RECOMMENDED MILESTONES
I/M SCHEDULE
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABLE TO ALL AREAS
Air Quality Data
Emission Data ~""\
Plan Enforcement \
X
Substantive Revisions f
Plan Prescribed Action!/
(Milestones) _/
Enforcement Orden, and
Other State Actions
EXISTING
Quarterly
Semi— Annually
PROPOSED
Before 1/81
Quarterly
After 1/81
Selected stations-Quarterly
All stations'Annuatly
Annually
Within 60 days
of issuance or adoption
208
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
POLLUTANT
S02
No,
Paniculate
Matter
0,
ATTAINMENT
DATE
1982
1982
1982
1982/1987
CO ' 1982/1987
1979 SUBMITTAL
REGS
Yei
Yes
Yes
Traditional
Sourcetincludes
fugitive)
Yes
Stationary Source
(IOCTGI
Yes
Stationary Sources
SCHEDULES
No
Yes
Yes
Non-Traditional
Yes
1 later CTG's issued
after Jan. 1978
2. I/M
3 TCM
4 other measures
Yes
1. I/M
2 TCM
3 other measures
SCHEDULE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MEASURES
NOT APPLICABLE TO
SO,
APPLICABLE TO
NOX
TSP (Non-traditional TSP (Traditional Sources)
sources)
Ox / HC( I/M, TCMs, other) 0X/HC (stationary sources
1st lOCTGs)
CO( I/M, TCMs, other) CO (stationary sources)
RECOMMENDED MILESTONES
- Evaluate Alternative Measures
— Select Alternative Measures
- Hold Public Hearing
- Adopt Regulations and/or Measures
— Submit Regulations and/or Measures
to EPA
I /M SCHEDULE
1. INITIATION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAM.
2. DECISION ON TYPE OF SYSTEM TO BE IMPLEMENTED.
3. DEVELOPMENT AND ISSUANCE OF R FPs.
4. AWARD TO CONTRACTOR(S).
5. INITIATION OF CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES
6. COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF FACII m ES.
7. COMPLETION OF EQUIPMENT PURCHASE.
8. ADOPTION OF QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES AND
GUIDELINES.
9. ADOPTION OF CUTPOINTS.
10. INITIATION OF HIRING AND TRAINING OF INSPECTORS
OR LICENSING OF GARAGES.
11. INITIATION OF PILOT PROGRAM.
12. MECHANICS TRAINING AND/OR INFORMATION
PROGRAM.
13. INITIATION OF MANDATORY MAINTENANCE.
14. INITIATION OF MORE STRINGENT PHASES OF THE
PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE).
209
-------
RULES, REGULATIONS, AND SCHEDULES
REQUIREMENTS
• § 172 (b) (8), (10)
0 SIP CRITERIA MEMO
APPLICABLE DEFINITIONS
• EMISSION LIMITATIONS
• SCHEDULES AND TIMETABLES OF COMPLIANCE
RULES, REGULATIONS, AND SCHEDULES
PLAN PROVISIONS
• "WRITTEN EVIDENCE" OF ADOPTION OF RULES,
REGULATIONS, AND SCHEDULES
• "COMMITMENTS" TO ENFORCE PLAN PROVIS-
IONS
• "LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE PROCEDURES"
OTHER THAN EMISSION LIMITATIONS
• SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO MEET A SCHED-
ULE OR "COMMITMENT"
I. Two Options for Nonattainment SIP Revisions
• Submit Future Effective Regulations and
Schedule of Compliance
• Submit Immediately Effective Regulations and
Provide for Compliance Schedules in
form of:
* Variances; or
* Delayed Compliance Orders
210
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RESOURCES REQUIRED ( § 172(b) (7)
REQUIREMENT ( §172(b)(7)
SUGGESTED FORMAT
"COMMITMENT" OF RESOURCES
RESOURCE ESTIMATES 6Y FUNCTION
A 95 Cleai
House
Trans agencies Other
(MPO s) agencit
MISCELLANEOUS PART 51 REQUIREMENTS
• PUBLIC HEARINGS (§ 51.4)
• SUBMISSION OF PLANS ( § 51.5)
• SOURCE SURVEILLANCE (§ 51.19)
• RULES AND REGULATIONS ( § 51.22)
211
-------
PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORTS
Under the Act and the SIP criteria memorandum, the 1979 SIP
revision need not contain all the legally enforceable measures
called for by a control strategy for all cases. A previous dis-
cussion indicated that certain plan revisions required adopted
measures and other revisions need only contain schedules for adop-
tion of measures. This discussion will expand on this requirement.
Where schedules are submitted, however, the State must annually
report on the progress made in achieving the milestones set forth
in those schedules. Also the State must demonstrate in its annual
report that "reasonable further progress" has been made 1n reducing
emissions 1n the nonattainment area; a discussion of what consti-
tutes "reasonably further progress" has also been presented pre-
viously. Failure to meet the milestones in a revision for a non-
attainment area or failure to achieve reasonable further progress
in reducing emissions can result in the imposition of sanctions
concerning growth of major sources and Federal grant monies.
212
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABLE TO ALL AREAS
I. A1r Quality
A. After 1/81
1. NAMS (SAROAD format)
2. SLAMS (summary format)
B. Before 1/81
All air quality data -
SAROAD format
II. Emissions
Source sizes covered:
—PM,SOX,HC,NOX—100
T/Y actual
-CO—100 T/Y actual
—CO—1000 T/Y actual
Existing Reporting
quarterly (45
days after period)
semi-annually (45
days after period)
ditto
ditto
(NA)
Emission points within facility covered:
ditto
(NA)
ditto
—PM.SOx.HC.NOx—25
T/Y actual
—CO—250 T/Y actual
—CO—25 T/Y actual
Format:
—PM,SOx,CO,HC,NOx—NEDS
Sources covered:
—Those that achieve compliance
--New or modified sources approved or
that have begun operation
—Those that cease operation
Reporting to
be Proposed
Quarterly (90
days after
period)
Annually, calen-
dar year (6 mos.
after period)
Annually, calen-
dar year (6 mos.
after period)
ditto
(NA)
ditto
ditto
ditto
(NA)
213
-------
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO ALL AREAS (cont'd)
III. Plan Enforcement
Existing Reporting
semi-annually
--Achievement of Increments
of progress 1n compliance
schedules
--Enforcement actions
Area sources—% 1n compliance
IV. Substantive Revisions
V- Enforcement Orders and
Othcristate Actions
VI. PIan-prescribed Actions
Including;
—Obtaining resources
—Adopting new laws or
regulations
--Conducting studies
—Initiating or expanding
programs
ditto
within 60 days of
issuance or adop-
tion
semi-annually
Reporting to
be Proposed
Annually
Annually
within 60 days
of issuance or
adopti on
Annually
214
-------
1
1
1
SUMMARY OF 1979 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
Attainment 1979 Submittal
1
"
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Pollutant Date Regs.
S02 1982 Yes
NOX 1982 Yes
TSP 1982 Yes
Traditional
Source (Includes
Fugitive)
Ox 1982/1987 Yes
Stationary
Source (10 CTG)
CO 1982/1987 Yes
Stationary
Sources
215
Schedules
No
Yes
Yes
Non-Traditional
Yes
1. Later CTGs issued
after Jan. 1978
2. I/M
3. TCM
4. Other measures
Yes
1. I/M
2. TCM
3. Other measures
-------
THE VEHICLE INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE
Congress called for a "specific schedule of implementation"
for inspection/maintenance. As a part of the schedules for imple-
mentation then, the specific goals listed below will have to be
included. Those that are dependent on the type of system chosen
(state-run centralized, contractor centralized, or garage-based)
are denoted by an asterisk(*).
1. Initiation (or continuation) of public information pro-
gram including publicizing the inspection maintenance program in
the media, meeting and speaking with affected interest groups,
etc.
2. Decision on type of system to be implemented.
3. Development and issuance of RFPs.*
4. Award to contractors).*
5. Initiation of construction of facilities.*
6. Completion of construction of facilities.*
7. Completion of equipment purchase.
8. Adoption of quality control procedures and guidelines,
including emission analyzer requirements.
9. Adoption of cutpoints.
10. Initiation of hiring and training of Inspectors .or
licensing of garages.*
11. Initiation of pilot program (voluntary maintenance)
with either voluntary or mandatory inspection.
12. Mechanics training and/or information program.
13. Initiation of mandatory maintenance by initiating regis-
tration prohibition for non-complying vehicles or similarly
effective enforcement mechanism.
14. Initiation of more stringent phases of the program (if
applicable).
Schedules should be accompanied by a statement as to the
stringency planned plus a brief description of the degree of
mechanic training intended.
216
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RULES, REGULATIONS AND SCHEDULES
(S
I. REQUIREMENTS
A. Clean A1r Act
S 172(b)(8): "The plan provisions... shall... (8) contain
emission limitations, schedules of compliance and such other meas-
ures as may be necessary to meet the requirements of this sub-
section..."
S 172(b)(10): "The plan provision. ..shall. ..(10) Include
written evidence that the State, the general purpose local govern-
ment or governments, or a regional agency designated by general
purpose local governments for such purpose, have adopted by
statute, regulation, ordinance, or other legally enforceable docu-
ment, the necessary requirements and schedules and timetables for
compliance, and are committed to Implement and enforce the appro-
priate elements of the plan..."
II. APPLICABLE DEFINITIONS
A. The terms "emission limitation" and "emission standard"
mean a requirement established by the State or the Administrator
which limits the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of
air pollutants on a continuous basis, including any requirement
relating to the operation or maintenance of a source to assure con-
tinuous emission reduction. (S 302(k) of the Clean Air Act.)
B. The term "schedule and timetable of compliance" means 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. (S 302(p)
of the Clean A1r Act.)
217
-------
WRITTEN EVIDENCE OF ADOPTION AND COMMITMENTS
BY STATES, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES
Section 110(a)(3)(D) and 110(c)(5)(B) of the Clean A1r Act
require that plans with post-1982 attainment dates under section
172(b), and plans where bridge tolls were eliminated under section
110(c)(5)(A)f shall-
for the purpose of 1roplementat1ng...[the] comprehensive
public transportation measures [referred to in section
110(c)(5)(B)(ii|], include requirements 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. [Emphasis added.]
Sections 172(b)(7) and (10) provide that the plan revisions
required for nonattainment areas shall--
(7) Identify and commit the financial and man-
power resources necessary to carry out the plan pro-
visions 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, regulation, ordinance, or other legally
enforceable document, t h ene ces s ary req ui rements an d
schedules and timetables for cpmpllance, ahcl"are com-
mitted to Implement and enforce thVappropriate ele-
ments of the plan; lEmphasis added.]
A. WHAT CONSTITUTES WRITTEN EVIDENCE THAT REQUIREMENTS AND
SCHEDULES AND TIMETABLES FOR COMPLIANCE HAVE BEEN ADOPTED?
Section 172(b)(10) provides that each requirement or schedule
and timetable for compliance must be adopted by the State or a
local government or regional agency, by means of statutes, regula-
tions, ordinances, or other legally enforceable documents.
The Governor should Include copies of all such documents with
his SIP subnvittal, and he should certify (]} that each of the
included documents has been duly adopted by^ the State, local
government, or regional agency; (2.) that adoption of these docu-
ments constitutes adoption of all of the requirements and schedules
218
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
and timetables for compliance provided for 1n the SIP; and(Ł)
that the State, local governments, and regional agencies had
legal authority to adopt the requirements and schedules and time-
tables for compliance set forth In the documents.
B. WHAT CONSTITUTES WRITTEN EVIDENCE OF A COMMITMENT TO
IMPLEMENT AND ENFORCE A PLAN PROVISION, AND WHAT CONSTITUTES A
REQUIREMENT AND COMMITMENT TO USE RESOURCES TO CARRY OUT THOSE
PROVISIONS?
Under sections 110(a)(3)(D), 110(c)(5)(B), and 172(b)(7) and
(10), each State must Include with Its SIP subnrfttal written
evidence that the State and any local governments or regional
agencies responsible for carrying out plan elements are committed
to Implementing and enforcing those elements, and must 1n addi-
tion include requirements and commitments for the use of identified
resources to carry out those plan elements.
The State, local governments, and regional agencies respon-
sible for carrying out any elements of the SIP should each execute
an enforceable document containing the following:
1. a certification that the resources identified in the SIP
submission for carrying out the elements of the SIP for which the
State, local government, or regional agency is responsible, are,
in the judgment of the officer or officers signing the document,
adequate to implement and enforce those elements of the SIP;
2. a statement that the State, local government, or regional
agency enters into a commitment (enforceable to the extent allowed
under enforcement provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable
State law) to do the following: (.a) implement and enforce the
plan elements for which the StateT local government, or regional
agency is responsible under the SIP; (bj use, insofar as necessary,
the resources identified 1n the SIP for carrying out those SIP
elements; and (c) on the schedule specified 1n the SIP, apply for
resources and legislative authority that are not yet available to
the State, local government, or regional agency; and
3. a certification that the officer or officers signing the
document are authorized to execute 1t on behalf of the State,
local government, or regional agency. Ordinarily, the Governor,
Mayor, or other chief executive officer should be one of the
signatories.
In some instances, a State, local government, or regional agency
may be responsible under a SIP for controlling pollution generated
by use of property or facilities owned or operated by the State or
Its subdiv1sions--for example, a town responsible for paving roads
219
-------
to control dust, or a state responsible for instituting transpor-
tation controls to reduce emissions on public highways. In such
instances, the cormritment made under paragraph 2 will constitute
the legally enforceable "requirement" or "schedule and timetable
for compliance" called for by section 172(b)(10) of the Act.
Copies of all of these documents should be included with the
SIP submittals, and the Governor should include a statement certi-
fying that each has been duly executed, and that the signatories
had legal authority to enter into the commitments and agreements
set forth in the documents.
220
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ENFORCEABILITY OF SIPs
PREPARED BY DIVISION OF STATIONARY SOURCE ENFORCEMENT
In determining whether a SIP is enforceable, the emission
limiting and other regulatory parts of each plan will be reviewed
for clarity and specificity. EPA will consider in this review such
questions as whether emission limitations and other controlling
terms are well defined; whether it is clear who is being regulated
and whether the dates on which actions are required to be taken are
clearly stated.
SIP REVISION REQUIREMENTS - TEST METHODS
Many State implementation plans (SIPs) as originally submitted
did not adequately prescribe the test methods which would be used
when determining compliance with the emission limitations adopted
by the States. Compliance determinations and enforcement proceed-
ings made apparent that this weakness existed in some SIPs. To
correct this deficiency, EPA promulgated in S 52.12(c) a require-
ment which states that,
"(S)ources subject to plan provisions which do not
specify a test procedure and sources subject to provi-
sions promulgated by the Administrator will be tested by
means of the appropriate procedures and methods prescribed
in Part 60 of this chapter, unless otherwise specified in
this Part."
This does not solve all the problems which arise when a State
fails to designate a specific test method. A source category could
be regulated under a SIP for which none of the procedures and
methods promulgated in Part 60 would be appropriate.
Another problem which has arisen, deals with the specificity
of the emission limitation. While a certain regulation may apply
to a specific source category or group of categories (process
weight), it is often difficult to ascertain the scope of the
requirement. For example, does the emission limit apply only to the
stack emissions, or are the fugitive emissions and stack emissions
combined in order to determine compliance? A specific emission
limit and test method that applies to it will help to clarify how
compliance is to be determined.
221
-------
For these reasons, 1t 1s essential that when developing emis-
sion limitations, each requirement must specify the appropriate test
method and how compliance 1s to be determined. Since so much SIP
analysis depends on an accurate Interpretation of the emission limi-
tation and Its associated test method, 1t is extremely Important
that a clear understanding of both be realized.
Test methods which are included with SIPs should be evaluated
to determine their accuracy and consistency. States are encouraged
to use EPA reference methods whenever possible.
Another option which States should be encouraged to pursue is
the utilization of continuous monitors as the reference or compli-
ance test method. It is EPA's Intent to require, in addition to
the four source categories now covered in appendix P, additional
sources to install continuous monitors. Attainment and maintenance
of NAAQS require that sources continuously operate their control
equipment in a satisfactory manner. To maintain such compliance,
an effective way to Insure this would be to utilize continuous
monitors as the compliance method thus providing continuous com-
pliance data which can be used 1n an appropriate enforcement action.
Where technically feasible, the SIP revision must Include the
following for each emission limitation in the SIP that is expressed
as a limit on mass per unit of time or production or on mass con-
centration; these criteria do not apply where the control measure
does not specify this kind of limit:
1. A specifically designated method for each emission limita-
tion on mass per unit of time or production or on mass concentra-
tion. The test method cannot be left to the discretion of the
enforcing authority on a case-by-case basis.
2. Sufficient specificity in the regulation to define which
emission points are and are not included (e.g., whether an emis-
sion limitation for a process applies only to the stack emissions
or to both stack and fugitive emissions).
3. Sufficient description of the applicable test methods to
evaluate the accuracy of the methods, analyze the associated emis-
sion limit and thus assess the stringency of the emission limit
and Its Impact on attainment. States that use Part 60 methods and
procedures need not submit additional documentation.
4. The establishment of conversion factors or other parameters
and the monitoring of these parameters, which will be used to trans-
form test data into units of the applicable standard.
5. The procedures that will be used to conduct the test
(e.g., does a test consist of the average of three one-hour runs?).
222
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES
1. Each plan must contain legally enforceable compliance sche-
dules setting forth dates by which all sources or categories of
sources must be 1n compliance with an applicable requirement of the
plan. Each compliance schedule must contain Increments of progress
as defined 1n S 51.1(q) except as provided 1n 4 below.
2. Compliance schedules as defined in S 51.1(q) shall be sub-
mitted with the plan and shall provide for final compliance as
expedltlously as practicable but 1n no case shall extend beyond
the attainment date of the plan.
3. Each compliance schedule of 6 months or less 1n duration
from the date of Its adoption must contain at least the following
Increments.
a. Date of initiation of a contract or activity
which will result 1n final compliance.
b. Date of final compliance with the emission
limitation.
4. Generally States are encouraged to negotiate Individual
compliance schedules for sources subject to categorical schedules
submitted with the plan.
223
-------
DSSE GUIDANCE FOR NONATTAINMENT WORKSHOPS
RULES, REGULATIONS AND COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES
A State may submit either future effective or immediately
effective regulations as part of its n on attainment plan revision.
Regardless of the type of regulations submitted, the plan must
include "emissions limitations, schedules, and timetables for com-
pliance with such limitations" to satisfy the requirements of S 110
(a)(2)(B) of the Act. The term "schedule and timetable for com-
pliance" is defined at S 302(p) of the Act. These schedules and
timetables must set forth increments of progress, indicating the
steps the source must take to achieve final compliance with the
regulations. (See 40 CFR S 5l.l(q) for minimum increments of
progress.)
Appropriate schedules of compliance may be submitted in several
forms. If the State adopts future effective regulations, schedules
must be incorporated directly into the plan. If the State submits
immediately effective regulations, schedules may be submitted at a
later date in the form of variances, delayed compliance orders, or
categorical schedules amending the SIP. Future effective regula-
tions provide significant advantages and EPA recommends the adop-
tion of this procedure.
A. Future Effective Regulations
Future effective regulations must be accompanied by schedules
of compliance at the time of submittal. These schedules will be-
come part of the SIP upon approval, making all sources subject to
enforceable schedules Immediately. This im»diate incorporation
of the schedule into the SIP provides a bef^lt to the source. If
the source adheres to the terms of the schedule it will be in
compliance with the regulations, and will not be subject to civil
or criminal action, or administrative noncompliance penalties under
S 120 of the Act. This is the only option that provides such pro-
tection from penalties to complying sources.
Future effective regulations may also benefit the State by
allowing it to conserve its resources. Specifically, future effec-
tive regulations allow the State to develop the required schedules
without having to resort to time consuming enforcement proceedings.
Additionally, the State has the option of submitting compliance
224
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
schedules that have been developed either on a source specific or
categorical basis. EPA encourages the States to develop source
specific schedules to the greatest extent possible. Source spe-
cific schedules enhance the enforceabillty of the plan by reducing
broad regulations to terms specifically designed for particular
sources. Source specific schedules do, however, require a greater
expenditure of resources by the State. For this reason, the State
might choose to submit categorical schedules to a certain extent
and to modify the categorical schedules for Individual sources as
necessary later.
B. Immediately Effective Regulations
The second approach a State may follow 1n submitting Its non-
attainment plan revision would be to make Its regulations Immediate-
ly effective. Immediately effective regulations require the source
to comply at once and may be enforced both judicially and adminis-
tratively (Including imposition of penalties) at once. Ordinarily,
a source is not actually expected to comply at once and the State
will desire to Include appropriate schedules 1n the SIP to protect
the source from enforcement action until it 1s able to achieve
expeditious final compliance. Schedules may be submitted in the
form of variances which become part of the SIP under S 110(a)(3),
in the form of a delayed compliance order, under § 113(d) of the
Act, or as categorical schedules amending the original requirement.
Each of these results 1n several disadvantages, both to the indi-
vidual source and to the State.
Because the regulations will be effective immediately, many
sources will be out of compliance as soon as the nonattalnment plan
revision 1s approved. Any such source that 1s not 1n compliance
with these regulations will be subject to noncompHance penalties
as provided by S 120 and civil or criminal action as set forth 1n
S 113(b) and (c). Section 120 penalties are mandatory and must be
assessed against any major source 1n violation after mid-1979.
If the State chooses to formulate a compliance schedule 1n the
form of a variance submitted sometime after approval of the under-
lying immediately effective emission limit, it will protect the
source from enforcement action and noncompHance penalties to a
limited degree. Any variance submitted pursuant to S 110(a)(3)
of the Act will become part of the SIP upon approval. Thus, a
source in compliance with the schedule contained in the variance
will not be subject either to enforcement,action or noncompHance
penalties. NoncompHance penalties must be assessed, however, for
225
-------
any period prior to approval of the variance since the source will
be violating the SIP during this time. For each source to be
Issued a separate variance could take a year or more. Sources would
be subject to substantial noncompliance penalties, 1n addition to
the possibility of other enforcement action, until their variances
are effective.
The protection against penalties provided by a State Issued
Delayed Compliance Order (DCO) 1s even more limited. Compliance
with the terms of a State DCO will Insulate the source from other
enforcement action but 1t will not ordinarily protect the source
from noncompliance penalties. Delayed compliance orders are addi-
tions to the SIP which place a violator on a remedial compliance
schedule. They do not modify the underlying SIP provisions. Be-
cause the underlying SIP provisions are preserved, a source will
be subject to noncompliance penalties after mid-1979, even if 1t
is operating pursuant to a DCO that extends beyond that date. In
such an instance, the only grounds for Immunity from S 120 would be
if the source obtains an exemption in accordance with S 120(a)(2)
(B) or (C).
A State may develop schedules for particular sources through
resort to judicial action. A source complying with the court
imposed schedule would remain subject to the noncompliance penalty
provisions of § 120 for violation of the underlying immediately
effective regulation. Further, unless the court's decree 1s sub-
mitted as a SIP revision, the source would not be Insulated from
other enforcement action.
Immediately effective regulations may also be disadvantageous
to the State. Schedules submitted for sources subject to immediate-
ly effective regulations normally are source specific and require
observance of certain procedural requirements, not only at the State
level, but also 1n the EPA approval process. Development of sche-
dules through judicial action could take even longer. Where sche-
dules are developed at the same time as the underlying emission
limit and are submitted as part of the initial requirement, notice,
comment and opportunity for hearing can be provided simultaneously
on the emission limit and the schedule or schedules implementing it.
II. Status of Existing Regulations
A State which submits revised more stringent emission limits
as part of Us nonattalnment SIP generally may not revoke pre-
existing emission limits applicable to the affected sources unless
1t also requires that all sources continue to meet Interim emis-
sions limitations at least as stringent as the emission limitations
contained 1n the pre-existing regulations. In most cases, a
226
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
source may not be allowed to operate without controls, or under less
stringent controls, while 1t 1s moving towards compliance with the
new regulations. A plan that does not continue existing control
requirements normally would fall to provide for reasonable further
progress towards attainment of the air quality standards as required
by the Act. New requirements Imposed by the plan revisions should
normally be treated as being 1n addition to, rather than 1n lieu
of, those Imposed by existing regulations. In such cases failure
of the source to meet applicable pre-existing standards will lead
to appropriate enforcement action, Including assessment of appro-
priate noncompHance penalties under S 120 of the Act.
There 1s one major exception to this rule. If the new regula-
tions are "Inconsistent" with those currently in effect, the State
may (and should), to the extent necessary, exempt the source from
the pre-existing regulations. To obtain an exemption, a source
should be required to demonstrate that it cannot physically meet the
new requirements and continue to comply with the pre-existing
requirement. Only the period during which such physical Impossi-
bility exists may be covered by an exemption. For example, 1n the
design and contract phases of a new compliance schedule, there
should normally be no exemption from the pre-existing emission limit.
If the State expects to grant such exemptions 1t should esta-
blish an appropriate procedure as part of its nonattainment plan
revision. The procedure must guarantee that no exemption shall be
granted unless the new regulations require controls totally 1mcom-
patlble with those established by the old regulations. Furthermore,
the review procedures established must be sufficiently stringent
to ensure that any exemption granted will not jeopardize the
reasonable further progress required by the Act. Requests for
exemptions must be reviewed and, if approved, submitted individually
as SIP revisions so that every exemption will be drawn as narrowly
as possible.
EPA will approve exemptions 1n such cases only 1f the new
regulations are Inconsistent with the old ones for the source
Involved. Thus, a source that previously was uncontrolled because
1t failed to comply with the pre-existing limit applicable to 1t
may not claim that the regulations are inconsistent. Similarly,
a source that will meet Its new emissions limitation by Installing
additional equipment or "fine-tuning" equipment already 1n place
should not be granted an exemption except for any limited period
of time during which the existing equipment truly cannot be operated
while construction or "fine-tuning" is 1n process. Even a source
that must eventually shut down Its existing controls will not be
eligible for an exemption if it can continue to operate those
227
-------
controls while the new equipment 1s Installed. Only when the con-
struction or Installation of the new equipment can no longer proceed
while existing controls remain 1n operation may an exemption be
granted.
The State should determine on a source by source basis the
extent to which the new regulations are Inconsistent. Sources
subject to the same requirements may have different physical charac-
teristics and may be able to Install new equipment more expedltlously
or keep existing equipment operational for a longer period of time.
Any exemptions granted should take Into account such differences.
Additionally, 1t may be proper for the State to repair Interim
control measures 1n certain Instances, even though an exemption 1s
granted.
228
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NONATTAINMENT PLAN REVISIONS
MALFUNCTION AND EXEMPTION PROVISIONS
Several of the existing State ir'nlernertation plans (STp) prc-
. .dc i. an uJtGf',«it1c ei.i* s.jlon 11 iri Ballon t/empt'ion during periods
of excess emissions due to start-up, shutdown, or malfunction.
Generally, EPA agrees that the Imposition of a penalty for sudden
and unavoidable malfunctions caused by circumstances entirely be-
yond the control of the owner and/or operator 1s not appropriate
under certain conditions. However, 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, onrit any provision on malfunctions.)
I. AUTOMATIC EXEMPTION APPROACH
If a nonattainment plan revision contains a malfunction pro-
vision, 1t cannot be the type that provides for automatic exemp-
tion where a malfunction is alleged by a source. Automatic
exemptions might aggravate air quality so as to result in not pro-
viding for attainment of the ambient air quality standards as
required by Section 172 of the Clean Air Act, as amended. Addi-
tional 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 will disapprove any nonattainment plan revision that provides
for an automatic exemption in those Instances where a source claims
excess emissions were caused by start-up, shutdown, or malfunction.
II. ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION APPROACH-SIP EMISSION LIMITATION
ADEQUATE TO ATTAIN AMBIENT STANDARDS
EPA could approve nonattainment plan submittals which incor-
porate the "enforcement discretion approach." Such plans could
Include a requirement that places the burden on the source of
demonstrating to the appropriate State agency's satisfaction that
the excess emissions though constituting a violation were due to
an unavoidable malfunction. For nonattainment plan revisions that
provide for attainment of the ambient air quality standards for a
pollutant by 1982, any malfunction provisions must provide for
the commencement of a proceeding to notify the source of its viola-
tion and to determine whether enforcement action should be under-
taken for any period of excess emissions, whether due to malfunc-
tions or otherwise. (The term "excess emission" means air emis-
sion rate which exceeds any applicable emission limitation.)
229
-------
Commencement of such a proceeding could be by Issuance of a
notice of violation (or some equivalent State mechanism) with the
source being provided the opportunity to establish that the viola-
tion was due to an unavoidable malfunction. The malfunction pro-
vision should provide that the burden is entirely upon the source
to establish that the excess emissions resulted from a true mal-
function. (A malfunction is defined as a sudden and unavoidable
breakdown of process or air pollution control equipment.)
Based on Information submitted by the source, the State
must determine whether additional enforcement action is necessary.
The following factors must, at a minimum, be considered:
1. The air pollution control equipment, process equipment,
or processes were at all times maintained and operated, to the
maximum extent practicable, 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 insure that such repairs were made
as expeditlously as possible;
3. The amount and duration of the excess emissions (includ-
ing 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.
The malfunction provision must provide that only if the State
determines that each of these criteria are satisfied, no additional
course of action could reasonably have been expected of the owner
or operator. In such situations, the malfunction provision could
provide that the State would not follow the initial notice of vio-
lation with any further enforcement action.
III. SOURCE DEMONSTRATION APPROACH--RACT LIMITATION NOT ADEQUATE
TO ATTAIN AMBIENT STANDARDS
Section 172 requires that those nonattainment submittals for
photochemical oxldants and carbon monoxide that will not be able
to demonstrate attainment by December 31, 1982, must provide for
Implementation of all reasonably available control measures (RACT).
230
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In a recent Federal court decision (Marathon Oil Co. y. EPA,
F.2d (9th Cir., November 21, 1977) [a decision on malfunction
provisions in certain water pollution requirements]), the court
distinguishes requirements that are technology based (e.g., non-
attainment plans based on RACT rather than attainment of ambient
standards) from requirements that are health based (e.g., SIP emis-
sion limitations for attainment of the ambient standards). The
enforcement discretion approach could be approved in RACT SIPs 1f
modified as set forth below. A State may choose, however, as
part of the RACT submittal not to provide a malfunction provision
(i.e., Section 116). An acceptable malfunction provision for
per.iods of excess emissions could require a source exceeding
applicable emission limitations to report the five categories of
information set forth 1n II above. The source could be given the
opportunity to demonstrate that the excess emissions resulted from
an unavoidable breakdown of process or control equipment, or from
unavoidable production problems. Until such information is evalua-
ted by the State, issuance of a notice of violation (or some
equivalent State mechanism) wbuld not be required. An approvable
malfunction provision should specify that if the source does not
sustain its burden of proof to the State's satisfaction, the
excess emissions are a SIP violation and appropriate enforcement
proceedings will be initiated by the State. If the source is
able to demonstrate that the malfunction was genuinely unavoidable,
it will not constitute a violation of the emission limitation.
It should be understood that if over a period of time, appli-
cation of either the enforcement discretion approach or the source
demonstration approach does not significantly curtail malfunctions
to the extent that they are the cause of ambient violations, the
malfunction portion of the SIP will either have to be further
revised by the State or EPA will have to disapprove the SIP.
IV. PHASING IN AND OUT OF EQUIPMENT, ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, BYPASS
PROVISIONS, AND PRODUCTION PROCESS EXCESS EMISSIONS
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 avoided by better maintenance procedures is not a mal-
function. In such cases, the control agency must enforce for
violations of the emission limitation. Two such common events are
phasing in and out of equipment, and routine maintenance.
Phasing in and out of process equipment is part of the normal
operation of a source and should be accounted for 1n 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
231
-------
during such periods. If excess emissions should occur during
routine phasing in and out of such equipment, the excess emis-
sions will not be considered as having resulted from a malfunc-
tion unless the source can demonstrate that such emissions were
actually caused by a sudden and unforeseeable breakdown in the
equipment.
Routine maintenance is a predictable event, which can be
scheduled at the discretion of the operator, and which can there-
fore be made to coincide with maintenance on production equipment,
or other source shutdowns. Most sources have the ability to
build and maintain inventory upon which the source can draw during
periods of shutdown for routine maintenance. Consequently, no
excess emissions may be allowed for periods of routine maintenance.
It is recognized that in certain circumstances, it is neces-
sary to bypass control equipment to avoid endangering life or
sustaining severe property damage. Such bypassing will not be con-
sidered a violation of a RACT SIP under the source demonstration
approach if the source sustains its burden of proof in the excess
emissions report, but will be considered a violation of the attain-
ment SIP under the enforcement discretion approach.
In addition to malfunctions, it is recognized that excess
emissions may occasionally occur during normal production pro-
cesses, even when the control equipment is well designed, operated
and maintained. If the source can demonstrate, in its required
excess emissions report, that it was operating the plant according
to the above malfunction criteria, and that it was scheduling
operations to preclude fluctuations, but that the emission limita-
tion was nevertheless violated for production reasons beyond the
control of the source, the excess emissions will not be considered
a violation of the RACT SIP under the source demonstration
approach, but will be considered a violation of the attainment SIP
under the enforcement discretion approach.
232
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IDENTIFICATION OF RESOURCES
(§ 172(b)(7))
—RECOMMENDED FORMAT--
(Found in 40 CFR 51)
ArpKNDix R.—Agency functions for air quality innintrnnncc area plans fur Ilir,
AQMA in 1hc State of . for *7ic year
State air pol- Local air pol- Tniplrinenta- Transpor- Other (water
Control measures Agencies' Jution lution tion plan re- Planning tation control, pub-
control control view agencies agendas ngencic.1 lie works,
agencies ngoncies (A-95, 3-C) etc.)
TTJND ESTIMATES BY TUNCTIOH
Measure n
Measure b
Total funds'..
If AN-TIAB I8TIMATIS BY rONCTIOM
Measure »..
Measure n..
Measure m..
Total.
i Specific agencies should be Identified In a narrative attachment.
> Report funds In thousands of dollars.
233
-------
MISCELLANEOUS PART 51 REQUIREMENTS—SUMMARY
1. S 51.4 Public hearings (also required under S 172(b)
(1))—Before a State submits the plan, a compliance schedule or
a plan revision to EPA, it must hold a public hearing on the plan,
schedule, or revision. The State must also give proper public
notice for the hearing at least 30 days prior to the hearing.
Although this section specifies formal requirements for the
notice and holding of public hearings, a State can obtain EPA
approval to use alternative procedures that EPA deems adequate.
2. S 51.5 Submission of plans; preliminary review of plans--
The State must submit at least five copies of the plan revision
to the appropriate Regional Office.
3. S 51.19 Source surveillance—The plan must provide for
monitoring the status of compliance with any rules and regulations
that constitute the control strategy. As a minimum, the plan must
provide ~
--Procedures for requiring owners or operators of sources
to maintain records of emissions and report periodically to
the States;
--Periodic testing and inspection of sources;
--A system of detection of violations of rules and regu-
itwns through enforcement of a visible emission limitation
and for investigating compliants;
--Procedures for obtaining and maintaining data on
emissions reductions achieved through transportation control
measures; and
--Procedures to require sources to Install and use emis-
sion monitoring devices.
4. S 51.22 Rules and regulations—The State must adopt all
rules and regulations necessary for attainment and maintenance of
the national standard. The plan must contain copies of all such
rules and regulations.
234
-------
New Source Review
235
-------
NSR
* COMPLEMENTARY DRIVING FORCE
ADDITIONAL CLEAN UP
NEW TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
* CONSISTENT WITH RFP
* INSTANTANEOUS "WATCHDOG"
RFP AND ATTAINMENT
PART D NSR REQUIREMENTS
1979 PLAN MUST:
1. ATTAIN ON TIME - AVOIDS SANCTIONS
2. IDENTIFY ALLOWABLE GROWTH
3. CONTAIN NSR REGULATIONS
*LAER (as defined)
*STATEWIDE COMPLIANCE
*2 OPTIONS -- case-by-case offsets
accomodative SIP
*SIP CARRIED OUT
POST '82 ATTAINMENT
4. CONTAIN NSR EVALUATION PROGRAM
236
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REGULATORY NSR REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABILITY
* Major Sources - 100 TPY Potential
July 1,1979 Preconstruction
* Entire Nonattainment (case by case exception) Area
* Date of Application
* Late Designations
* External Sources
REGULATORY NSR REQUIREMENTS
LOWEST ALLOWABLE EMISSION RATE (LAER)
* 171 Definition
* Best SIP
* In Practice
* NSPS Minimum
LAER
BEST SIP
CONSIDER
* PROMULGATIONS
* APPROVED REGULATIONS
*"ON BOOKS" - NOT IN EFFECT
* BACT REGS - NOT IN ABSTRACT
* VISIBLE OR EQUIPMENT STANDARDS
ACHIEVABILITY "-TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE
237
-------
LAER
IN PRACTICE
* LIMITED TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
Same gas strearryfacilities
*OTHER DETERMINATIONS
Constant Changes
National Clearing House
State Reporting
STATEWIDE COMPLIANCE
if COMPLIANCE BY APPROVAL
* APPLICABILITY
Existing SIP Limits
*MAJOR EXISTING SOURCES
NEW SOURCE REVIEW OPTIONS
case-by-case
offsets
accomodative
SIP
238
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
CASE - BY - CASE OFFSETS
MORE RESTRICTIVE IR
OFFSET MINOR/MAJOR
CONSISTENT RFP/ATTAINMENT
APPLICABLE El
CASE-BY-CASE OFFSETS
* SOURCE OPERATION
*TPY BASIS
* ACTUAL EMISSIONS (Historical)
* EXCEPTION
• Short Term - SO2 and TSP
Ibs/hr basis
•NET A Q BENEFIT
ACCOMODATIVE SIP
PROGRAM OFFSET - GROWTH ALLOWANCE SYSTEM
*SIZABLE INITIAL DEPOSIT
Below 1977 El
Beyond Attainment
^IMPLEMENTATION
Running Account
Actual TPY Basis
Debit New Source Approvals
Credit Reductions As Occur
Overrun - Option A
239
-------
NSR Growth Allowance Option
1979 80 81
NSR Growth Allowance Option
1979 80 81
NSR Growth Allowance Option
77
t/i
.a
RFP
1'79 BO ai 82 U
240
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
New Source Review 1n 1979 SIPs
1. General Intent
The role of RFP in nonattainment area SIPs has already been
discussed. NSR will also carry on a very important function which
will complement and perhaps facilitate the cleanup of existing sources.
It will likely be the principal mechanism in many areas by which
advances in control technology are made and new opportunities to
control existing sources are identified. NSR will also provide an
instantaneous check on RFP. That is, the reductions obtained to
offset new source growth must be consistent with the RFP schedule and
the overall attainment requirement.
2. New Source Review - Part D Requirements
Section 172 identifies several.1979 plan requirements for non-
attainment areas which are related to growth and NSR. Section 172(a)(l)
states that SIP demonstrating attainment by the prescribed date is a
prerequisite to approving major construction after July 1, 1979.1
Section 172(b)(5) requires such 1979 plans to expressly identify and
quantify the emissions allowed for the operation and construction of major
sources in the area. Section 172(b)(6) calls for the development of an
appropriate permit system for new major sources. (The details of this
permit system are spelled out in more detail below in the Section 173
requirements.) Finally, Section 172 (b)(ll)(A) requires that the 1979
plan develop a special new source evaluation program when attainment
beyond 1982 (not to exceed 1987) is allowed for photochemical oxidants
or carbon monoxide violations. This special program is to weigh the
benefits ,and analyze the alternatives to approving this source rela-
tive to the need for attaining the oxidant and carbon monoxide NAAQSs
as expeditiously as practicable.
Section 173 outlines the details of the NSR system called for in
172(b)(6). Section 173(1) identifies the two options for approving
major construction without jeopardizing attainment. Section 173(1)(A)
states that by new source operation total allowable emissions from
existing sources, new minor sources, and the proposed source are less
than those allowed under the SIP at the time of new source application
so as to be consistent with RFP, Section 173(1)(B) alternatively allows
ISection 110(a)(2)(I) further states that this sanction is only applicable
to those sources/facilities which cause or contribute (emphasis added)
to the relevant ambient violation.
241
-------
approval of major construction if it would not cause or contribute to
violating the Section 173(b)(5) allowance for growth. Section 173 also
requires that major construction in a non-attainment area must meet the
lowest achieveable emission rate (LAER), all other major sources under
common ownership within the State must be in compliance with the appli-
cable SIP, and the State must otherwise be carrying out the applicable
SIP. Section 171(3) defines the term "lowest achieveable emission rate"
for any source as that rate of emissions which reflects:
(A) the most stringent emission limitation which is contained in
the implementation plan of any State for such class or category of source,
unless the owner or operator of the proposed source demonstrates that
such limitations are not achievable, or
(B) the most stringent emission limitation which is achieved in
practice by such class or category of source, whichever is more stringent.
In no event shall the application of this term permit a proposed
new or modified source to emit any pollutant in excess of the amount
allowable under applicable new source standard of performance.
3. Comprehensive NSR System
In general, EPA will not require submittals of comprehensive NSR
packages as part of the 1979 SIP package. By a comprehensive precon-
struction review, we mean a streamlined integration of all applicable
air permit requirements including those for the Prevention of Signifi-
cant Deterioration (PSD), Standards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources (NSPS), review for New Sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP), and the 40 CFR 51.18 review against the ambient standards.
Comprehensive NSR rulemaking is not likely to be completed in the near
future, but Figure #1 has been included to provide those who wish to
develop NSR regulations in the interim with EPA's best estimate to a
comprehensive one-air permit NSR system. Only regulations requiring
(1) LAER, (2) Statewide compliance, (3) alternative site evaluation
within post-1982 attainment areas, and (4) NSR rules that maintain RFP
will be required in the January 1, 1979, submittal. However, such regu-
lations must be developed in conformance with the existing 40 CFR 51.18
requirements (i.e., mandatory public comment period and ability to require
sufficient information from sources to determine their approvability).
Figure #1 shows that all new and modified sources except those
specifically exempted will undergo at least some type of NSR. Minor
sources (less than 100 TPY potential emissions) are identified under
an initial engineering analysis (Box #A) and receive only an analysis
to verify their anticipated compliance with the applicable SIP emis-
sion limits. Minor sources which will comply with such limits can,
therefore, be granted construction approval without further delay.
242
-------
PD
243
-------
Major sources (100 TRY and more of increased potential emissions)
must face a more detailed analysis. Box #B is primarily a geographic
area screen ("107" area designations unless new air quality monitoring
data required under Section "165" shows ambient violation(s)). Jh1s
test essentially determines if the major source construction must
apply LAER, BACT, or simply meet the applicable SIP. The specifics
of what applicable limit(s) the source must meet are identified under
the group of boxes labeled Emission Limitation Analysis. As mentioned
in the next section, a source can opt to demonstrate his lack of impact
to a nonattainment problem and avoid the automatic LAER requirement.
This 1s thought to be the exception, however, and the geographic
applicability screen will 1n most cases define the type of emission
limitation that is appropriate for a major source.
Assuming that "potential" continues to be defined in terms of a
source's uncontrolled emissions, EPA is considering the possibilities
for not requiring analysis for certain major sources who after con-
trol would not have an emission rate of concern. Such a screen
(identified by #C) might consist of an emission cutoff (perhaps 50 TPY)
and a requirement for the source to use a good engineering practice
stack height (as appropriate). An alternative type of screening
approach is to use a standard and conservative air quality screening
model. Sources below a certain specified air quality Impact would receive
an expedited review and perhaps even be exempted from further analysis.
All "exempted" sources regardless of the screening technique employed
would then face only an abbreviated public participation requirement (e.g.,
30 days public comment) before gaining approval to construct.
For those major sources not qualifying for such exemptions (or
all major sources if the exemptions are not allowed), an ambient air
quality impact analysis would be necessary. Herein the ambient review
requirements of PSD have been incorporated with those of 51.18 to
safeguard the ambient standards and increments. The ambient review
requirements pertinent to identified non-attainment areas are discussed
later.
After a source has undergone the air quality review, it must be
subjected to considerable public participation. A 30-day comment is
expected to be the normal occurrence, although an opportunity for
public hearings and extended public comment would be afforded. In no
event will the entire review process delay construction by more than
one year after a completed application has been received.
It should be emphasized that the preceding discussion is only
presented for the benefit of those wishing to develop their Part D regu-
lations in advance of the forthcoming comprehensive NSR regulations.
244
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
4. Applicability of Nonattainment NSR Requirements
In general, all major construction proposed after July 1, 1979, for
any portion of a non-attainment area will be assumed to be subject to
the full NSR requirements under Part D. Major construction means any
new source or modification which would increase the potential for emis-
sion release by 100 TRY or more, regardless of reductions achieved
elsewhere.
The NSR preconstruction requirements identified in Part D are to
be implemented until the designated nonattainment area actually realizes
the attainment mandate. This applies to violations of both the primary and
secondary standards. These requirements are generally not applicable retro-
actively to recent major construction approvals issued before July 1,
1979. Such approvals were likely governed by EPA's Interpretative
Ruling (offset policy) and were to have been taken into account in demon-
strating attainment.
All NSR requirements are presumed applicable for the entire
designated nonattainment area. This is consistent with the concept of
areawide tracking of RFP. However, if a proposed source can make a
firm demonstration that it would not cause or contribute to a non-
attainment problem then such source could be exempt from the NSR re-
quirements and the RFP accounting procedures. This demonstration may
consist of a monitoring study to show that the proposed location or
modification site is in a clean portion of the designated non-attainment
area and a modeling study to show that the proposed construction would
not impact on adjacent portions of the designated non-attainment area.
A slightly different NSR procedure is appropriate for those areas
of proposed construction which are later identified as being non-attainment.
That is, the preconstruction review under regulations for the prevention
of significant deterioration (PSD) will typically require preconstruction
monitoring data from prospective major sources. The data from these and
other monitors (either existing or newly established by the State) can
lead to the further identification of non-attainment areas not classified
as such in 1978. After the formal non-attainment designation is made,
States have up to nine months to develop appropriate attainment plans
including the NSR requirements of Part D. However, until the time that
a plan is approved, EPA's Interpretative Ruling of December 21, 1976,
(as amended) is to be applied in the review of new sources.
Finally, EPA's Interpretative Ruling would apply to external con-
struction that significantly impacts the non-attainment problem. Such
external construction must be major, be proposed for areas outside the
geographic boundaries of the designated non-attainment areas, and impact
significantly through transport on the adjacent non-attainment area.
If offsets for such a source are secured from the designated non-
attainment area, they will not also count toward making RFP.
245
-------
5. LAER Guidance
As mentioned, Section 171(3) defines LAER in terms of the "best
SIP" limit or "best in practice" control that is achievable by the
source undergoing review -- not to be less stringent than an applicable
NSPS. Some guidance will now be given as to what regulations are to
be considered as being the "best SIP" and what"in practice"control
experiences are transferable for the proposed construction.
"Best SIP" means that limit of the highest stringency that the
source is capable of meeting considering all plan limits "on the books."
That is, if a plan has extraordinary regulatory measures incorporated
into its SIP designed to preclude a certain source type from ever
constructing, these need not define LAER. In addition, plans with best
available control technology (BACT) requirements are not applicable in
the abstract. Only where specific limits exist within these regulations
or where a BACT-type regulation has been implemented for a similar source
would this type of regulation be applicable. EPA promulgated require-
ments are, of course, part of the applicable SIP. Finally, "equipment
standards" can substitute for emission limitations where the latter
has typically not been prescribed. Note that the limits need only to
have been prescribed for a source and existing in a SIP to be eligible
for consideration. However, if a limit has not yet been tested through
source operation, "achievability" may be more difficult to prove.
"In practice" means controls that have been demonstrated for that
exact source type or one of similar general function with extreme
similarities of gas stream, economics, etc. This interpretation
does not preclude use of "control technology transfer." However,
EPA feels that the need to offset new source emissions consistent with
RFP will often persuade sources to voluntarily advance the "state-of-
the art" for control technology. Thus, control transfer is not likely
to be needed in most cases.
Considerable comment has been raised as to the need for an effective
national clearinghouse to promote consistent LAER determinations and to
provide a quick reference vehicle as to what represents good control of
a specific source type. Most feel that such a system is necessary to
keep the NSR community advised of the continual advances in regulations
and field determinations that govern future LAER decisions. OAQPS already
has a limited operation to provide this service on technology determina-
tions including BACT and RACT as well as LAER. EPA is considering the
possibilities for expanding this function primarily through contractor
services. Such expansion would consist of a concentrated effort to estab-
lish an initial bank of information on many source types (including a
compilation of recent field determinations, applicable SIP regulations,
and general information obtained from the literature and industry on
state-of-the-art controls) and arrange to update the bank on a continual
basis. Such a data bank would serve to advise those desiring information
concerning other LAER determinations and would help overcome the diffi-
cult problems of deciding when controls are achieveable (technically
feasible). In order to help maintain an up-to-date clearinghouse,
246
-------
assistance will be needed from State and local agencies regarding their
LAER decisions. In addition to maintaining such a system, OAQPS would
be available to assist States in making unique determinations where
available information is inadequate. Comments are welcome on such an
idea, especially those with ideas for best procuring the necessary
information on an initial basis and a regular basis thereafter.
6. Statewide Compliance
Section 173(3) requires that all other major sources (100 TRY
potential) owned or operated in the same State by the applicant are in
compliance with the applicable emission limits and standards under
the Act. In responding to this requirement, EPA intends that reviewing
agency ensure that major sources under common ownership or operation
control with the proposed one in the same State be in compliance (or on
enforceable schedules) with all established SIP limits at the time of
new source approval. There is no need to establish limits beyond those
necessary to ensure attainment.
7. NSR Regulatory Options
Section 173(1) outlines two options for accommodating major source
growth in SIPs without jeopardizing the attainment mandate. Section
173(1)(A) allows a form of offset policy to be conducted on a case-by-
case basis. In general, this offset regulation is decidedly more re-
strictive than is EPA's present Interpretative Ruling. In addition
to subjecting sources on the basis of their increased emission potential,
new major sources are required to offset not only their emissions but
also those of the minor point sources which have come into the area
since 1979 (which have not already been offset). More importantly, the
decrease in allowable emissions that Section 173(1)(A) calls for must
be consistent with RFP. This effectively changes the baseline for off-
sets from the stated SIP at the time of application to the attainment
SIP since RFP can in no way jeopardize attainment.
In implementing the Section 173(1)(A) option, a reviewing authority
must therefore keep the following criteria in mind. He must verify
that: (1) the proposed reductions are not otherwise needed to provide for
or maintain attainment; (2) the offsets would be transacted on a TPY
actual basis; (3) the offsetting reductions will be accomplished on
or before the time of new source operation; (4) the reductions come
from sources in the emissions inventory used for approved control
This is consistent with how RFP is primarily tracked and will require
the establishment of new enforceable TPY limits on the reducing sources.
An exception to this is when only short-term violations of the TSP or
SOg standards are at stake. Then maximum emissions on a Ibs/hour basis
should be used together with a new air quality benefit criteria. Note
that in the general case of TPY transactions does not have a net air
quality benefit constraint. However, a reviewing authority would be
ill-advised to approve new sources that worsen air quality trends since
making RFP and attainment status are linked with air quality trends.
247
-------
2
strategy; and (5) the amount of the proposed reductions is sufficient
to offset both the emissions reductions directly associated with the
proposed source construction and those emissions attributed to minor
point sources that have come into the area since the last RFP milestone
was met.
Utilization of the case-by-case offsets NSR option will not affect
the shape of the RFP schedule as the next NSR option does. However, the
permitting of new major growth in a non-attainment area does complicate
the tracking procedures for RFP. In general, when satisfactory offsets
under "173" are obtained, emission tracking will not be affected until the
new sources come into operation or the offsetting reductions actually occur.
This is true since no actual emissions would have occurred, nor would the
SIP have allowed any net increase in emissions to occur. Figure 2 and
Table 1 have been included to illustrate how new source approvals are to
be taken into account when tracking RFP. It should be noted that when
RFP is not being met, sanctions could be imposed that would override the
permitting authority of systems developed under Section 173(1)(A) or
Section 173(1)(B).
A second option open to the States for allowing major construction is
described under Section 173(1)(B). A growth allowance system can be set
up and major sources can be.approved so long as they would not exceed the
available growth allowance.
Several requirements are inherent to implementing this program
accomodation of new sources: (1) there must be a sizable amount of reduc-
tions accomplished by the time of system operation (note that reductions
from 1977 to 1979 can be used toward the establishment of an initial growth
account); (2) the reductions in the account must all be beyond those needed
for attainment; (3) no major growth can be permitted beyond that acconmo-
datedcWithin the growth allowance available at the time of source applica-
tion; (4) reductions as accomplished are eligible for addition to the
growth allowance, whereas new sources as approved reduce the amount of
allowance available for approving future new sources; (5) the available
growth allowance is consumed or augmented on an actual TPY basis; and
(6) no further major construction approvals can be issued when RFP is not
otherwise met.
Many States which elect to operate the growth allowance system may
also wish to plan for a specific amount (or even type) of growth over
a certain period of time. A good mechanism for doing so is shown in Figure 3.
Herein the dotted line shows the timely aquisition of additional reductions
from existing sources (beyond attainment) so as to allow for a specified
o
Conceivably, the reviewing agency could accept offsets from non-
inventoried sources overlooked in the 1977 emissions inventory, but as
a minimum these offsets must be discounted in value by the overall
percent control needed for attainment.
It should be noted that EPA, if forced to promulgate a plan, will typi-
cally not set up such an allowance.
5
Consequently, the plan should allow for the approval of new major sources
to continue under the case-by-case offset option previously discussed.
248
-------
TABLE #1
RFP AND GROWTH
MAXIMUM ACTUAL ALLOWABLE
EMISSIONS EMISSIONS EMISSIONS
YEAR ACTION (TPY) (TPY) (TPY)
1975 50,000 40,000 50,000
#1 Approval (w/o offsets) + 5,000 — + 5,000
1976 55,000 40,000 55,000
#2 Approval (w/o offsets) + 2,500 — + 2,500
6% Increase 1n capacity --- + 3,000
1977 57,500 43,000 57,500
#3 Shutdown - 2,500 - 2,500 - 2,500
6% Decrease 1n capacity — - 2,850
1978 55,000 38,000 55,000
#5 Approval w/#4 offsets
6% Increase in capacity — + 2,850
1979 55,000 40,850 55,000
#7 Approval w/#6 offsets — —
RFP cleanup -11,000 - 9,020 -36,500
1980 44,000 31,830 18,500
RFP cleanup -10,000 - 8,200
4% Increase in capacity — + 1,060
#1 Operation at 15% approval - 4,250 + 750 - 4,250
1981 29,750 25,460 14,250
RFP cleanup - 8,000 - 7,000
10% Decrease in capacity -— - 1,350
#2 Operation at 15% approval - 2,125 + 375 - 2,125
#4 Offsets occur — - 2,500
#6 Offsets (beyond attainment
occur) — - 2,500
1982 19,625 12,465 12,125
RFP cleanup - 7,500 - 5,625
#5 Operation at 15% approval - 2.125 + 300 - 2,125
5% Decrease in capacity — - 300 —
1983 10,000 6,840 10,000
#7 Operation -— + 2,500
5% Increase in capacity — 300 —
1984 10,000 9,640 10,00
aA 10,000 TPY El is assumed to show attainment
bUntil 1979 maximum emissions are assumed to equal allowable ones (i.e., SIP
limits coincide with maximum source emissions and they are fully complied with)
cAll cleanup performed to accomplish RFP is identified in the 1979 plan sub-
mission and is expressed in terms of allowable emissions.
dAllowable emission reduction for RFP are translated into actual emission
reductions by the following.
Actual Emissions - Allowable emissions - Total = Change to
Before Cleanup before cleanup Cleanup Actual Emissions
249
-------
Figure 2
•o
is
Q.
10
00
a
O 3
0
O O
in
,OL>
-------
Figure 3
NSR Growth Allowance Option
RFP
1979
83
251
-------
amount of desired growth. Note that the RFP schedule itself does not
change when a growth allowance scheme is built in. The milestones of
the RFP schedule must still be met, but now in terms of total actual
emissions from existing and new sources. Tracking of new source emis-
sions will proceed as described under the case-by-case NSR option.
8. NSR Program for Post 1982 SIPs
Where the 1979 plans fail to demonstrate attainment by 1982 (but
no later than 1987), a special NSR requirement applies. Pursuant to
Section 172(b)(ll)(A), a preconstruction program must be established
to weigh the benefits of new sources relative to their social and
economic impacts. Included in this analysis is to be an evaluaton of
the alternative sites, controls, and source processes that are available
and reasonable. Although the 1979 plan must contain this special NSR
evaluation program, EPA believes that the reasons for approving or disap-
proving the source under this requirement can best be decided by the
reviewing authority. Thus, as long as attainment by the extended dead-
line is not jeopardized, EPA will in most cases defer to the State's
judgment.
252
-------
Miscellaneous Topics
253
-------
MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS
The actual workshops that were given from February 28 through
March 10 and the previous edition of this compilation covered a
number of miscellaneous topic* concerning requirements for SIP
revisions not directly associated with the nonattainment area
plans. The topics were—
—Tall stacks,
—Permit fees,
—Assurance of plan adequacy, (SIP dependency on clean fuels)
—State board composition,
— Interstate pollution,
—Public notification,
—Maintenance of pay,
—A1r pollution episode reporting, and
—Prevention of significant deterioration.
These requirements are 1n the formative stages as compared
to the other material presented at the workshop and thus contain
a number of Issues that have not yet been resolved. EPA wanted
to provide preliminary Ideas concerning those topics and obtain
reactions to them. Material on these topics have been deleted
from this edition of this compilation and from the videotape of
the workshop. EPA will 1n the future circulate additional guidance
on these topics.
254
-------
Summary of
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977
255
-------
Summary of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977
Title I
Part A
Section 103 - Training is amended to prevent EPA from charging air
pollution control agencies for training and to provide for accelera-
tion of training efforts.
Section 105 - Grants_ is amended to provide each State with a minimum of
1/?% of the total grant funds appropriated annually; to prevent the
loss of grant funds if a general, non-selective reduction 1n expendi-
tures is made in a State budget; and to prevent disapproval, revoca-
tion, or reduction of funds without prior notice and an opportunity
for public hearing in the affected State.
Section 107 - Air Quality Control Regions is amended by adding new
subsections which require each State to submit to EPA within 120
days a list identifying the status of each AQCR with respect to
compliance with NAAQS. It further requires EPA to promulgate such
lists 60 days later with whatever modifications EPA deems necessary.
Provision is made for revision of the 11st and for redesIgnation of
AQCR's within the State.
Section 108 - Air Quality Criteria and Control Techniques is amended to
require EPA to consider cost of installation and operation, energy
requirements, emission reduction benefits, and environmental Impact
of emission control technology in the preparation of control techniques
documents. EPA is further required to revise and reissue criteria
relating to short-term NO? concentrations within six months. EPA
must also publish within T80 days information on procedures for
reducing pollutant emissions - including inspection and maintenance,
vapor controls, public transit and carpool programs, on-street
parking control, and retrofit of heavy duty vehicles - and must
assess the relative effectiveness and the energy and economic
impact of these measures.
Section 109 - National Ambient Air Quality Standards is amended to
require EPA to establish an independent scientific committee to
review air quality criteria and the NAAQS not later than December 31,
1980 (and at subsequent intervals not exceeding five years) and
recommend revisions in the criteria and standards as may be appro-
priate. EPA must also promulgate a short-term primary standard for
N02 (less than 3 hour) within one year.
256
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 110 - Implementation Plans is amended:
1. To require SIP's to include permit programs to prevent signifi-
cant deterioration and non-attainment of standards and also to
include air quality maintenance requirements.
2. To prohibit EPA from requiring indirect source review programs,
except with respect to Federally funded projects. Such existing
programs, however, may remain in effect at the discretion of
the States. It also authorizes Governors of States to tempor-
arily suspend SIP regulations which restrict on-street parking.
3. To restrict land use regulations to those needed to assure
attainment and maintenance of NAAQS and prevent significant
deterioration of air quality.
4. To require the owners and operators of major stationary sources
to pay any fees required to obtain a permit.
5. To authorize EPA to delegate enforcement authority to local
governments for plans promulgated by EPA.
6. To allow revision, upon a Governor's request, of strategies
requiring tolls on bridges located entirely in one city with
alternate strategies providing for equivalent emission reductions
to be submitted to EPA within one year.
7. To allow suspension of SIP requirements (not to exceed four
months) for fuel burning sources if necessitated by an energy
or economic emergency.
Section 111 - Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources is
amended to require the best system of continuous emission reduction
on new or modified fossil fuel fired steam generators regardless of
fuel quality. EPA must promulgate a complete list of major station-
ary source categories within one year and standards of performance
for the entire list no later than four years thereafter. Before
promulgating a list or standards, EPA must consult with the States.
The Governor of a State has authority to petition to compel the
Administrator to issue new source performance standards for Indus-
tries which have not yet been covered by such standards, to revise
priorities for standard setting, to issue revised standards when
better technology becomes adequtely demonstrated, or to Issue
standards for unregulated hazardous pollutants. If an emission
standard is not feasible, EPA may prescribe a design, equipment,
work practice, or operational standard. EPA promulgations for
designated pollutants under Section lll(d) must consider the
257
-------
remaining useful life of such sources. Stationary sources owned
and operated by the Federal government are no longer exempt from
State enforcement. A source owner may apply for a waiver to use
innovative continuous emission control technology. A waiver may
not extend beyond seven years after the date granted or four years
after operation is commenced.
Section 112 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
is amended to allow EPA to prescribe a design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standard to protect public health from
hazardous materials where an emission standard is not feasible.
Section 113 - Enforcement is amended:
1. To allow EPA to issue orders prohibiting construction or
modification of major stationary sources in non-attainment
areas and to authorize the courts to impose civil penalties of
up to $25,000 per day for violations of the Act.
2. To authorize a State (or EPA after 30 days notice) to issue
enforcement orders which extend beyond the date specified for
attainment of the NAAQS. Such orders shall require compliance
as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than July 1,
1979, unless the order establishes a delayed compliance penalty.
Orders are limited to not more than a three year delay, except
in cases of innovative technology (five years), coal conversion
extension, or smelter orders. The State retains primary
responsibility for enforcement. The issuance of a delayed
compliance order serves as a notice for purposes of noncompllance
penalties if the affected source does not comply by the applicable
date. A source receiving an order must comply with all interim
requirements which the Administrator deems reasonable and
practicable. The Administrator may revoke an order if he
determines that the conditions upon which the order was based
no longer exists or that the source is in violation of interim
requirements. Where a source wishes to comply by replacing
the facility, terminating operations or completely changing
the production process it may receive an extension requiring
no interim steps before final compliance if it agrees to post
a bond or surety equal to the cost of compliance had the owner
decided to comply by installing control equipment.
3. To incorporate the provisions of former Section 119 (Energy-
related Authority) for sources which cannot meet SIP requirements
because of a coal conversion order and to provide an extension
in compliance orders to December 31, 1980. Additional authority
258
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
is available for extensions up to December 31, 1985. Sources
ordered to convert can begin to burn coal only when they can
do so without causing or contributing to concentrations of any
pollutant in excess Of primary air quality standards and in
compliance with the applicable SIP.
Section 114 - Inspections is amended to require the Administrator to
give reasonable notice to the States prior to carrying out an
entry, inspection or monitoring, when the Administrator intends to
check on compliance with a standard adoped by the State and approved
by the Administrator. The Administrator must also inform the State
of the purpose for his action but the Administrator's failure to
comply will not be a defense in an enforcement action; nor would it
make evidence obtained in violation of this provision Inadmissible.
Section 115 - International Air Pollution is added to allow the Adminis-
trator to trigger a revision of an SIP under Section 110(a)(2)(H)
upon the petition of an international agency or the Secretary of
State if he finds that emissions originating in a State endanger
the health or welfare of persons in a foreign country, provided
said country has given the U.S. the same rights.
Section 118 - Control of Pollution from Federal Facilities is added to
require Federal facilities to comply with all applicable State and
local substantive and procedural (i.e., permit requirements) air
pollution requirements. Suits brought under the Section may be
removed to Federal court, and no judicial review of an EPA action
in State courts 1s authorized. Exemptions may be granted by the
President in the interest of national defense.
Section 119 - Primary Nonferrous Smelter Orders is added to authorize
the use of supplementary control strategies on a temporary basis
for existing nonferrous smelters. Existing nonferrous smelters may
be granted up to two extensions (not exceeding five years each) for
the use of intermittent control systems if the Administrator finds
that Imposition of continuous emission controls would result in a
cessation of smelter operations. During the first five year extension,
a smelter using supplemental controls on the date of enactment need
not employ additional continuous controls. In addition, public
hearings are not required before issuance of the extension, except
in certain circumstances. Prior to granting the second five year
extension, there must be notice and a public hearing to determine
whether ultimate emission limitations are reasonably available.
Section 120 - Non-compliance Penalty is added to require the States or
the Administrator to assess and collect non-compliance penalties.
259
-------
Using the variables set forth in the Amendment, the non-compliance
penalty would be calculated on the basis of the costs a non-complying
source avoids by delaying compliance. Specifically, the calculation
of the non-compliance penalty must consider the capital costs of
compliance and debt service over a normal amortization period not
to exceed ten years, operation and maintenance costs foregone, and
any additional economic value of a delay. In essence, the penalty
would reflect financial savings realized by the firm as a result of
non-compliance with the law.
Section 121 - Consultation is added to require a State to consult with
a local government prior to adoption of SIP requirements or enforce-
ment provisions which would affect that local government. The
consultation must be done in accordance with regulations promulgated
by EPA.
Section 122 - Unregulated Pollutants is added to require the Administrator
to determine within one year (two years for radioactive pollutants)
whether or not emissions of radioactive pollutants, cadmium, arsenic
and polycyclic organic matter may endanger public health and, if
so, to list the substance in accordance with Section 108(a)(l)
(Criteria Pollutant), 112(b)(l) (NESHAPS), or lll(b)(l)(A) (NSPS).
For radioactive pollutants, the Administrator must coordinate with
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. EPA is further directed to
study the effects of these unregulated pollutants and, in particular,
the formation of sulfates.
Section 123 - Stack Heights is added to specify that the amount of
emission reduction required under the SIP shall not be affected in
any way by stack heights that exceed good engineering practice (not
to exceed two and one-half times the height of the source) or by
any other dispersion technique, Including Intermittent or supplemental
controls that vary with atmospheric conditions. Exempt from this
provision are stack heights or dispersion techniques 1n use before
the date of the 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments. Also, for Federally-
owned coal-fired steam electric generating units in operation
before July 1, 1957, the entire stack height may be taken Into
account if its construction contract was awarded before February 8,
1974. The Administrator must within six months promulgate regulations
to carry out these provisions.
Section 124 - Assurance of Adequacy of State Plans is added to require
that, not later than one year after enactment, each State review
its SIP relating to major fuel burning sources to determine the
extent to which its plan is dependent upon petroleum products,
natural gas, and coal not locally available and submit its findings
to the Administrator. EPA must review these submissions and require
the SIP to be revised if the Act's requirements will not be met;
the Governor must be consulted.
260
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 125 - Measures to Prevent Economic Disruption or Unemployment
is added to prevent economic disruption by authorizing the President,
the Administrator, or the Governor to require major fuel-burning
stationary sources not in complaince with an implementation plan,
or which are under a coal conversion order, to use local or regional
coal while still complying with requirements necessary to assure
compliance with the Clean Air Act.
Section 126 - Interstate Pollution Abatement is added (partially as a
replacement for Section 115) to prevent major sources in one State
from interfering with attainment and maintenance of air quality
standards in another Stats,, Notice rc.'.'st ha given to adjacent
"' ' ''"r "" r • '""•-'"'•'j "'"-'' - - §•".'.- '>..,,<; in advoi ^6 air
quality impact and such States or political subdivision may petition
EPA that the source would cause interference. EPA then has 60 days
to respond and if a violation is discovered, EPA must proceed to
abate the pollution as a violation of the host State's SIP. A
delayed compliance order would be available to a source unable to
comply with the requirements of this provision after three years,
with a delayed compliance penalty.
Section 127 - Public Notification is added to require the States to
include in their SIP's measures to notify the public of air pollution
levels and to educate the public as to the hazards of such levels
and measures which can be taken to improve air quality. EPA may
make grants to States and localities to implement this Section.
Section 128 - State Boards is added to require each State to include in
its SIP, by August 7, 1978, requirements that any board which
approves permits or enforcement orders must consist of a majority
of members who represent the public interest and do not derive a
significant portion of their income from persons subject to the
board's actions.
Part B
Sections 150-159 - Ozone Protection is added to require EPA to study
the cumulative effects of substances, practices and processes which
may affect stratospheric ozone and to contract with the National
Academy of Sciences to submit a report on this subject to Congress
by Janaury 1, 1978. Other Federal agencies are also required to
participate in activities relating to research and monitoring with
reports to EPA and Congress required by Janaury 1, 1978, and
biennially thereafter. EPA must promulgate regulations if any
substance, etc. may reasonably be anticipated to affect the strato-
sphere and endanger public health or welfare and must report to
Congress by January 1, 1978, (interim) and by January 1, 1980,
(final) on regulatory progress. States - and other political
261
-------
subdivisions - may regulate halocarbons as propel!ants in aerosol
spray containers as they see fit but are preempted from regulating
other aspects of ozone or agents causing stratospheric harm unless
their regulations are identical to Federal regulations.
Part C
Sections 160-169 - Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air
Quality is added to establish tnree land classifications for allowable
increases of TSP and SO, in areas where air quality is cleane^ than
required by ambient air*"quality standards. All clean air areas
would initially be designated Class TI, with the creation of
certain areas which would receive the increased protc-ciiOfi of
Class I designation. Class I would include all international
parks; national wilderness area; and national memorial parks larger
than 5,000 acres; and each national park larger than 6,000 acres 1n
existence on August 7, 1977. In addition, the Federal land manager
is required to review national monuments, national primitive areas
and national preserves and recommend redesignation to Class I where
appropriate to protect air quality-related values.
States, after consulting with the Federal land manager, could
redesignate Class II lands to Class I or to the less restrictive
Class III. National monuments, national primitive areas, national
preserves, national wild and scenic rivers, national wildlife
refuges, national lakeshores, national seashores, new national
parks, national wilderness areas and any other new areas created in
these categories after enactment could not be redesignated to Class
III if the area in question is larger than 10,000 acres.
Allowable increments of pollution above baseline concentration are
set by statute for sulfur dioxide and particulates. Within two
years States must submit plans establishing increments or other
means of preventing significant deterioration from nitrogen oxides,
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and oxidants. EPA must approve the
plan within four months if it meets applicable requirements; other-
wise, EPA must propose a plan for the rejected State within four
months of the disapproval. States may exempt certain emissions
from coal conversions, natural gas curtailments, temporary construc-
tion, and foreign sources from being counted against the increment.
Permits would be required for construction of facilities falling
into one of 28 source categories listed if the source has the
potential to emit more than 100 tons per year of an air pollutant,
and for any other source which could emit more than 250 tons per
year.
Specific increments for S02 and particulates are as follows (all
numbers in micrograms per cubic meter): Class I S09--annual arithmetic
262
-------
mean, 2; 24-hour Hnaximum, 5; three-hour maximum, 25; Class I
particulates—annual geometric mean, 5; 24-hours, 10; Class II
S0?--annual, 20; 24-hour, 91; three-hour; 512; Class II particulates—
annual, 19; 24-hour, 37; Class III S0?—annual, 40; 24-hour, 182;
three-hour, 700; Class III particu1ates--annua1, 37; 24-hour, 75.
In no case could pollutants exceed ambient standards.
Section 169A - Visibility Protection for Federal Class I Areas is added
to prevent any future, or remedy any existing, impairment of visibility
in mandatory Class I areas which result from man-made air pollution.
The Secretary of the Interior is to identify, within six months,
all mandatory Federal Class I areas where visibility is an important
value of the area. The Administrator shall within one year after
the date of enactment, and after consultation with the Secretary of
the Interior, promulgate a list of such areas to receive visibility
protection provided by this Section.
The Administrator is required to report to Congress, within eighteen
months, the results of a study to: (1) establish methods for deter-
mining and measuring visibility impairment; (2) establish modeling
techniques or other methods for determining contribution of man-
made air pollution to visibility impairment; (3) report on methods
for controlling air pollution which results in visibility impairment;
(4) identify categories of sources and types of air pollutants
which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute signifi-
cantly to impairment of visibility.
Within 24 months the Administrator is required to promulgate regula-
tions to assure reasonable progress toward meeting the national
goal. The regulations shall provide guidelines to the States for
the revisions of implementation plans taking into account the
recommendations of the report to Congress on techniques and methods
for implementing this Section. Each State will identify the sources
that impair visibility and fall within the requirements of this
section.
For sources which significantly impact upon visibility in Federal
Class I areas, the States must require the "best available retrofit
technology," taking into account the cost of compliance, energy
impacts, existing controls at the source, etc., and establish the
appropriate emission limitation on a source-by-source basis. EPA
will provide guidelines for "best available retrofit technology"
for all power plants over 750 megawatts.
Part D
Sections 171-178 - Plan Requirements for Non-attainment Areas is added
to specify the following provisions:
263
-------
1. The existing EPA emissions offset policy remains in effect
until July 1, 1979, unless States qualify for a waiver.
Requirements for a waiver include RACT for existing sources,
LAER for new sources, and a demonstration that there will be
reductions in emissions equivalent to what would be achieved
by EPA's offset ruling.
2. SIP revisions are required for all non-attainment areas desig-
nated under Section 107(d).
3. After July 1, 1979, States must revise their SIP's to assure
that areas will meet national ambient air quality standards
for all pollutants by December 31, 1982, or by December 31,
1987, for photochemical oxidants or CO if the 1982 date
cannot be met using all reasonably available measures. A
second plan revision must be submitted by July 1, 1982, to
require the implementation of enforceable measures to ensure
attainment by 1987; such measures include a mandatory Inspec-
tion and maintenance program.
4. The SIP revision must specify the amount of new source growth
which will be permitted; new sources must achieve the lowest
achievable emission rate, reflecting the most stringent emission
limitation which is contained 1n the SIP of any State for such
class or category or source or the most stringent emission
limitation which is achieved in practice, whichever is more
stringent. SIP must require RACT for existing sources which
will result in annual incremental reductions in emissions
sufficient to attain the applicable NAAQS by the specified
attainment date. The SIP would also have to contain emission
limitations, schedules and other measures to assure compliance
by the applicable dates.
5. Within six months after enactment, for each AQCR which would
not attain CO or photochemical oxidant standards by July 1,
1979, the State and elected officials of affected local govern-
ments must jointly determine which elements of the revised SIP
will be planned and implemented by the State and which by the
local governments or regional agencies, or combination thereof.
The locals have six months from enactment to designate an
organization of local governments and get it certified by the
State to carry out the planning; if no such designation is
made within the six months, the Governor shall designate an
areawide agency or a State agency to do the planning. Preference
is expressed for local planning, and that the local planning
organization be the agency handling areawide transportation
planning or air quality planning, or both. There also is a
requirement for coordiantion and interrelating air quality
planning and transportation planning.
264
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6. EPA may make TOO percent grants to local government agencies
with transportation or air quality planning responsibilities
to pay for the cost of transportation control planning, to
supplement funding already available from Federal programs.
7. There are sanctions for noncompliance so that a State would
lose its highway funds (except for transit, safety, or air
quality related transportation projects) where the Governor
has not submitted a revision by July 1, 1979, or that reasonable
efforts toward submitting such a SIP are not being made; this
also applies to the 1982 SIP revision. Where the State or
local governments are not implementing a SIP, they cannot
receive any grants under the Act. There is a requirement for
Federal agencies not to take any action including making any
grant that does not conform to an approved SIP, nor can any
transportation planning agency give approval to anything which
does not conform to the SIP. Priority must be given for
programs with air quality transportation consequences to the
implementation of SIP's necessary to achieve and maintain air
quality standards.
8. Non-attainment States may adopt California car standards,
provided that California and such States adopt such standards
at least two years before the model year, in accordance with
EPA regulations.
9. Within nine months of enactment, EPA has to publish guidance
documents to assist States in implementing the requirements
regarding lowest achievable emission rates; these must be
revised at least every two years.
Title II
Section 202 - Establishment of Standards is amended to specify the
following provisions:
1. Establishes interim automotive emission standards and requires
final standards by 1981 as shown in the following table:
Automotive Emissions Standards
(grams/mile)
1970 Act 1977 Amendment
1975(a) 1977(b) 1978-79 1980 1981
HC 0.41 1.5 1.5 0.41 0.41
CO 3.40 15.0 15.0 7.00 3.40(c)
N0Ą 0.40 2.0 2.0 2.00 l.OO(d)
J\
(a) Originally mandated standards amended in 1974 to
become final in 1978.
(b) Interim standards as a result of extensions.
(c) With possible two-year waiver to 7.0 gpm.
(d) With 0.4 as a research goal.
265
-------
2. Requires as a condition of certification of new motor vehicles
or engines that the manufacturer establish to the satisfaction
of the Administrator that emission control systems used will
not cause or contribute to an unreasonable risk to public
health, welfare or safety.
3. Requires auto manufacturers to develop cars which demonstrate
the technology for 0.4 grams/mile NO standard.
A
4. Authorizes EPA to prescribe fill pipe standards for new motor
vehicles to assure effective connection with certified vapor
recovery systems.
5. Requires EPA to consider use of onboard hydrocarbon control
technology on new vehicles to minimize the necessity for vapor
recovery requirements, and to promulgate such standards 1f It
makes certain findings. The provision authorizing the Secretary
of Transportation to disapprove EPA regulations under this
Section is deleted.
6. Requires the Administrator of EPA to revise for model year
1978 the existing evaporative emission test procedures to
measure hydrocarbon emissions for the vehicle as a whole. If
such a revision is not feasible by 1978 for heavy duty engines
and vehicles, it may be delayed until it becomes feasible.
7. Requires EPA to develop emission regulations for heavy duty
vehicles. For the years 1979-1982 Interim standards for HC
and CO are established with statutory HC and CO standards
becoming effective in model year 1983. The statutory NO
standard becomes effective in model year 1985. The statutory
standards mandate a 9(3% reduction from baseline for HC and CO
and a 75% reduction from baseline for NO .
n
8. Requires a nonconformance penalty to be set at a level which
1 "11 eliminate the competitive advantage, 1f any, for the
manufacturer of a nonconforming heavy duty vehicle or engine.
9. Requires the achievement of statutory standards by motorcycles,
but requires the Administrator to consider the need for achieving
equivalency of emission reductions or emission standards
between motorcycles and other new motor vehicles. Thus motorcycles
could adhere to the required percentage reductions for HC and
CO but meet the same emission standards in grams per mile of
NO as automobiles.
Section 203 - Prohibited Acts is amended to broaden the prohibition
against removal or tampering with emission controls to cover Indepen-
dent auto repair operations.
Section 205 - Penalties is amended to establish a civil penalty of
$2,500 for any tampering by an independent repair operation.
266
-------
Section 206 - Testing and Certification is amended to allow the Adminis-
trator to exempt vehicle manufacturers with projected annual U.S.
sales of 300 vehicles or less from the requirement for 50,000 mile
certification testing of such vehicles. Also suspended until 1981
is the implementation of high altitude regulations. Cars produced
in 1981-83 must meet standards based on percentage reduction no
greater than those for all cars based on high altitude emissions
from 1970 model cars operating at high altitudes. For 1984 and
thereafter cars must meet statutory emission standards at all
altitudes.
Section 207 - Compliance by Vehicles and Engines in Actual Use is
amended to:
1. Set the 207(b) performance warranty at 24 months or 24,000
miles. During this warranty period, the vehicle manufacturer
would be required to bring into compliance with emission
standards, any car which failed an inspection and maintenance
test. The warranty could be invalidated only upon a showing
by the manufacturer that the owner did not perform the required
maintenance or repair as set forth in the owner's manual or
abused the vehicle in its operation. Requisite repairs and
maintenance could be performed by an establishement (including
an independent garage or service station) that uses parts
certified in accordance with Section 207(a). After the 24
months or 24,000 mile warranty terminates, the performance
warranty on the emission control system under Section 207(b)
would require the repair or replacement only of an "emission
control device" or "component designed for emission control."
The vehicle manufacturer's warranty after 24,000 miles, thus,
would be limited to the catalytic converter, thermal reactor,
or other component installed on or in a vehicle for the sake
or primary purpose of reducing vehicle emissions and would be
invoked in the event of failure of the vehicle to meet emission
standards at any time up to 60 months. Such limitation does
not apply to Section 207(a) warranties or to Section 207(c)
recall actions.
2. Clarify that it is a prohibited act for new motor vehicle
manufacturers to fail to comply with the terms of a warranty
required by this Act.
3. Require that the dealer furnish to the purchaser of any new
vehicle a certificate that such vehicle conforms to the emission
standards applicable to it. This Section also requires that
if at any time within the duration of the warranty period
under Section 207(b) a motor vehicle fails an in-use emission
test such nonconformity shall be remedied by the manufacturer
267
-------
at the cost of the manufacturer. Such in-use emission test
may be adopted by any State as part of its SIP and may be
applied for purposes of this Section at any time from immediately
after sale to the end of the specified warranty period.
Section 209 - State Standard is amended to:
1. Authorize the Administrator to grant the State of California a
Section 209 waiver from Federal preeemption for a set of
standards which he determines are in the aggregate as protective
of public health and welfare as the Federal standards.
2. Specify that whenever a parts certification program 1s promulgated
by the Administrator, States and political subdivisions will
be preempted from adopting or enforcing any parts testing or
certification program. This provision does not apply to
California if it has more stringent emission standards than
Federal requirements.
Section 210 - State Grants is clarified to allow reimbursement to
States for money expended on inspection and maintenance programs
prior to approval of the State grant.
Section 211 - Regulation of Fuels is amended to ensure that no gasoline
additives which have been introduced in recent years will impair
the effectiveness of emission control systems, by calling for the
removal (by September 15, 1978) of any additive Introduced into
gasoline or increased 1n concentration after January 1, 1974, but
prior to March 31, 1977. The Administrator may waive this prohibi-
tion on additives if he determines that an applicant has established
that such a fuel or additive or a given concentration of such
additive will not cause or contribute to a failure of the emission
control device or system to meet the appropriate emission standard
over its useful life. If the Administrator finds that the additive
or a given concentration of such additive will cause or contribute
to the failure of an emission control device or system to meet the
appropriate emission standards over its useful life he shall prohibit
such additive or restrict its concentration during the period from
six months after enactment of September 15, 1978. Because of the
particular concern over the adverse effects of MMT on the performance
of emission control systems, this provision limits the maximum
concentration of manganese in a gallon of gasoline to .0625 grams
after November 30, 1977. Without a waiver the use of manganese 1n
gasoline will be prohibited as of September 15, 1978. Also under
this provision, various classes of small refineries will, until at
least October 1, 1982, be exempt from any lead phasedown regulation
requiring reductions in the average lead content of their total
gasoline pool below the levels specified. The specified levels
268
-------
decline inversely with size of the refinery. For the purposes of
this provision, a small refiner is defined as a refiner with a
total combined crude oil or bonafide feed stock capacity (as deter-
mined by the Administrator) of 137,000 barrels per day or less. A
small refinery of a small refiner is defined as only that fraction
of the capacity of a refinery with 50,000 barrels per day or less
crude oil or bonafide feed stock capacity (as determined by the
Administrator), which was in operation or for which a significant
portion of the construction had been completed as of October 1,
1976. After October 1, 1982, the Administrator may promulgate
regulations reducing the average lead content of the total gasoline
pool of small refineries below those levels prescribed in the
legislation.
Section 214 - Study of Particulate Emissions from Motor Vehicles is
added to require EPA to study and report to Congress on the effects
of particulate emissions from mobile sources including fugitive
dust (e.g., tire debris) on health and welfare. The report must
include recommended standards and/or control techniques.
Section 215 - High Altitude Performance Adjustments is amended to
provide that adjustments to automobiles are not to be prohibited by
Section 203(a) if they are performed in accordance with manufacturer
instructions which have been approved by the Administrator. Such
instructions shall insure an emission control performance for each
pollutant which is at least equivalent to that wh^'ch would result
if no adjustments had been made. With regard to used automobiles,
the baseline for determining equivalent emission performance shall
be an automobile which has been properly maintained and restored.
High altitude adjustments are permitted only in high altitude
States. Furthermore, after January 1, 1981, adjustments are
permitted only in those high altitude States which have implemented
inspection and maintenance programs in t.-eir non-attair ,ient areas.
Section 226 - Carbon Monoxide Intrusion into Su tained Use Vehicle* is
added to require EPA together with DOT to report within one year on
carbon monoxide levels inside sustained-use vehicles such as school
buses, taxis, and police cruisers including the sources and means
of control of such pollutants.
Section 231 - Aricraft Emission Standards is amended to authorize the
DOT to disapprove any aircraft emission standard promulgated by
EPA if the standard would create a hazard to aircraft safety upon
a finding by the Secretary of the Department of Transportation.
Title III
Section 302 - Definitions is amended to include a series of meanings
for new terms used throughout the Act including:
269
-------
-^^n^^-r-rLu^-:-^^=^^—- The Secretary of the Department which
has authority over any specific Federal land.
2- t'MLr_Sta^qnary_SŁu_rce_: Any stationary source with an annual
potential to emit 100 tons of any pollutant (same for major
emitting facility).
3- Emission Limitation: The requirement that limits the quantity,
rate or concentration of emissions on a continuous basis.
i- ;„ l!f lt?Im.aJJ?Jt: ^eans continuous emission reduction,
- ',.' -, operation dnd maintenance,
;ectioi- 3G.> - Emergency Powers is amended to authorize the Administrator
to commence~a civTl action" in an emergency situation to protect
public health and require that suit must be brought within 24 hours
of the issuance of an order and the court must uphold such order
within 48 hours. EPA must consult with State and local governments
in order to confirm the correctness of the information on which
action proposed to be taken is based and to ascertain the action
which such authorities are or will be taking.
Section 304 - Citizen Suits is amended to allow suits for failure to
obtain permits for construction of major facilities under Part C
(Significant Deterioration) or Part D (Non-attainment) and to allow
State and local authorities to bring suit against the Federal
government and its agencies in relation to air pollution control
and abatement.
Section 305 - Representation in Litigation is amended to direct the
Department of Justice to use the memorandum of understanding with
EPA dated June 13, 1977, as the basis for Justice representing EPA
in court.
Section 307 - Administrative Procedures is amended to establish, effective
November 14, 1977, procedural guidelines for EPA rulemaking relating
to standards, implementation plans, penalties, etc.
Section 316 - Sewage Treatment Plants is added to provide EPA with the
authority to withhold or condition grant approvals for treatment
plant construction if such plants do not comply with NSPS and
NESHAPS requirements or if an increase in plant capacity may result
in new source emissions (direct or indirect) not in conformance
with provisions of the SIP.
Section 317 - Economic Impact Assessment is added to direct EPA to
prepare an economic impact assessment on various proposed regulations
convering at least five points, but this is not a requirement
creating any new rights in court other than a suit to complete an
impact statement.
270
-------
Section 318 - Financial Disclosure - Conflicts of Interest is added to
cover potential conflicts of interest of EPA employees and members
of the National Commission on Air Quality. All such persons must
report annually any known financial interest in any person subject
to the Act or who applies for or receives financial assistance
under the Act. The Commission membership must be equitably distributed
and no more than one-third of the non-congressional members may be
associated with persons subject to the Act. Each EPA employee is
prohibited from having financial interests which would conflict
with the official duties of the employee, and the Administrator is
to issue regulations specifying what types of financial interests
would conflict with certain categories of positions. Persons who
have any official or contractual relationship to organizations
party to litigation on air quality matters; or who lobby, educate
or provide information on air quality matters could not be employees
of EPA.
Section 319 - Air Quality Monitoring is added to specify that EPA shall
promulgate regulations establishing a standard air quality index
for monitoring and reporting of air quality data by State and local
governments. It also requires the Administrator to supplement
State and local monitoring stations with Federal stations where
necessary.
Section 320 - Standardized Air Quality Modeling is added to provide for
periodic (minimum, every three years) conferences on air quality
modeling, with the first by February 7, 1978. The conferences are
to include an appropriate technical staff of Federal, State, and
local agencies.
Sections 321-322 - Employment Effects -^Employee Protection are added
to authorize EPA to conduct evaluations of plant closings and
employment losses alledgedly resulting from administration or
enforcement of the Act. An employee or representative of an employee
threatened with or adversely affected because of the Act, including
from State or local requirements, may request EPA to conduct a full
investigation, including subpoena and contempt authority. No
authority is given to modify or withdraw any requirement. Also
employees who are fired or discriminated against because they have
testified or brought suit under the Act may apply to the Seceretary
of Labor to review the case; the Seceretary can order reinstatement
and may order compensatory damages.
Section 323 - Na t i ona1 Commission on A ir Qua 1ity is added to establish
a National Commission, comparable to those created for water quality
and transportation, to study air quality. The Commission shall be
composed of eleven members. The President is to appoint seven
public members.
271
-------
Sections 324-325 - Vapor Recovery are added to require that the cost of
vapor recovery equipment is to be borne by the retailer, who may
pass it on to the consumer. No station which is owned by an independent
marketer and which has a monthly throughput of less than 50,000
gallons may be required by EPA to install vapor recovery equipment,
but State and local governments may so require. A three-year
phase-in for independent marketers with stations with greater
than 50,000 gallons per month throughput is provided, but
State and local governments can require earlier effectiveness.
Section 325 - Appropriations is added to provide for:
1. Seventy five million annually for transportation-related
planning.
2. Four million annually for the public notification grants to
States.
3. Two hundred million annually for all other functions through
fiscal year 1978-81.
4. One hundred fifty seven million for fiscal year 1978 to EPA
for studies and reports.
5. One hundred twenty million for research, development and
demonstration, for fiscal year 1978.
6. Seven and one-half million for training through fiscal year
1981.
Title IV
Section 401 - Basis of Administrative Standards amends Section 108 to
establish as the basis for regulation emissions which in the Adminis-
trator's judgment "cause or contribute to air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."
Section 402 - Interagency Cooperation on Prevention of Environmental
Cancer, Heart and Lung Disease is added to require an interagency
task force to be established within three months of enactment under
EPA lead to include EPA; the National Cancer Institute; the National
Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; the National Institute of Occupa-
tional Safety and Health; and the National Institute on Environmental
Sciences.
Section 403 - Studies is added to specify the following study requirements:
272
-------
1. The Administrator is required to study and report to Congress
within eighteen months on the health hazards and means of
controlling fine particulates. The National Academy of Sciences
shall also participate in this study.
2. The Administrator is required to conduct a study and report to
Congress no later than January 1, 1979, on the public health
and welfare effects of odorous emissions, their sources, and
measures available to control such emissions.
3. The Administrator is required to publish a list of all known
chemical contaminants resulting from environmental pollution
which have been found in human tissue within twelve months
after enactment. Within eighteen months, the Administrator
shall publish an explanation of the origin of these chemicals.
The Administrator shall, also, if feasible, conduct an epidemio-
logical study on the relationship between levels of chemicals
in the environment and in human tissue.
4. The Administrator is required to make an analysis of the
composition of fine particulate matter in the Gulf Coast
Region and other areas and the contribution of such substances
to visibility and public health problems.
5. EPA, the Department of Transportation, and the Federal Energy
Administration are required to report annually on fuel economy
in relationship to emission standards.
Section 404 - Railroad Emission Study is added to require the Adminis-
trator to conduct a study and report to Congress on the effect of
pollutants emitted from railroad locomotives and rolling stock on
air quality and the current state of technology for controlling
such emissions.
Section 405 - Report Concerning Economic Approaches to Controlling
Air Pollution is added to require the Administrator and the Counci1
of Economic Advisors to jointly define and evaluate economic measures
which can provide an incentive to greater control of air pollution.
This report must be submitted to Congress not later than two years
after enactment. Within one year after enactment, the Administrator
must study and report to Congress on the efficacy and feasibility
of establishing a system of penalties for stationary sources on NO
emissions.
Section 406 - Effective Dates is added to specify that, except as
otherwise expressly provided, all States must submit required SIP
revisions within one year after enactment or nine months after the
promulgation of necessary technical guidance by EPA.
273
-------
I
I
I
Memorandum,
"Criteria for Approval of 1979
SIP Revisions'9
275
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
FE8 24 1978
OFFICE OF
AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
SUBJECT: Criteria for Approval of
FROM: The Administrator (A- 100)
TO: Regional Administrators, I-X
9 IP Revisions
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, 1982. However, for carbon monoxide (CO) and
oxidants (Ox) , if the State can demonstrate attainment
is not possible by 1982 despite the implementation, of all
reasonable stationary source and transportation 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 the State must
fulfill the other statutory requirements.
It is the intent of the Agency to establish reasonable
and achievable goals for SIP submissions and to take a firm
posture on the imposition of sanctions where the reasonable
goals are not achieved. Accordingly, while the policy
requires a commitment to many specific strategies in the
1979 submissions (e.g., RACT on stationary sources, inspec-
tion/maintenance programs where attainment for carbon
monoxide or oxidants extends beyond 1982, other reasonable
transportation control measures, etc.) the memo also
requires (for carbon monoxide and oxidants) a commitment
to a continuing process. This process must be one which
extensively involves the public as well as State and local
elected officials and which ambitiously pursues a wide
range of alternatives.
276
-------
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
to 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 Clean 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. EPA 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).
277
-------
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)
3. 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)
6. 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 §110 relating to reduction of on-street parking, bridge
tolls, and other measures.
The development of the January 1979 SIPs to meet the
minimum requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977 is a complex and demanding program. It will require
the commitment of significant resources on the part of the
air programs staff of the Regional Office to ensure that
the States develop and submit a comprehensive and
approvable plan. We are working with your staff to develop
the necessary guidance and follow-up programs which will
assist your office and the State to carry out this very
difficult but important part of the overall air program.
278
-------
Attachment
cc: Air § Hazardous Division Directors
Air Branch Chiefs
279
-------
Criteria for Approval of 1979 State Implementation Plan Revisions
for Non-Attainment 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 the Primary Ambient
Air Quality Standards (primary standards) for all 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
must demonstrate attainment as expeditiously 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 should 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 SIP revision must contain the following:
1. A definition of the geographic areas for which control
strategies have been or will be developed. Consideration should be
given to the practical benefits of defining areas which correspond
whenever possible to those substate districts established pursuant
to Part IV, Attachment A of OMB Circular No. A-95.
280
-------
2. An accurate, comprehensive, and current (1977 calendar year)
inventory of existing emissions.
3. A determination of the level of control needed to demonstrate
attainment by 1982 (including growth). This demonstration should be
made by the application of modeling techniques as set forth in EPA's
Guideline on Air Quality Models. For oxidants, any legitimate modeling
technique (e.g., those referenced in "Use, Limitation and Technical
Basis of Procedures for Quantifying Relationships Between Photochemical
Oxidants and Precursors." EPA 450/2-77-021a. 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 that the standard
will be attained in adjacent states.
If a state can demonstrate that the level of control necessary for
attainment of the primary standards for carbon monoxide and/or oxidant
is not possible by 1982 despite the application of all reasonable
measures, an extension past 1982 (but not beyond 1987T is authorized.
4. Adoption in legally enforceable form! of all measures necessary
to provide for attainment by the prescribed date or, where adoption of
all such measures by 1979 is not possible, (e.g., certain transportation
control measures, and certain measures to control the oxides of nitrogen
and total suspended particulate) a schedule for expeditious development,
adoption, submittal, and implementation of these measures. The
situations in which adoption of measures may be scheduled after 1979
are discussed in the pollutant specific sections of this document. Each
schedule must provide for implementation of all reasonably available
control measures as expeditiously as practicable. During the period
prior to attainment, these 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 or 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 timetables for compliance,
and are committed to implement and enforce the 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 where growth shall and shall not
take pl$ce," 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.
281
-------
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, EPA 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 rate"
are not 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 accommodate 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.
282
-------
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 not
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], HUD Section 701, FHWA 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)(D).
10. An identification of and commitment to the financial and
manpower resources necessary to carry out the plan. The commitment
should be made at the 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
budgets and intend to continue to do so in future years for which budgets
have not yet been finalized, to the extent necessary.
283
-------
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 effect:, of the plan revisions and of the alternatives
considered by the SMte, s»^ r< summary of the public comment on such
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 allthe
general requir_e_m_ejrts_Vi_sted above:
1. A program which 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) the 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 such legal authority by
January 1, 1979. In no case can the schedule submitted provide for
obtaining legal authority later than July 1, 1980.
284
-------
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 program. In no case
may implementation of the orograr, i,p. , man'Jc-tory ins!)ect,io'-i and
>,;ar;di.iv.j repair of failed .ehicies oe 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).
285
-------
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 ^or a short,
term N02 standard and expects to promulgate such a standard during
1978. If such a standard for air quality is promulgated, a new and
separate SIP revision will be required for this pollutant.
Particulate Matter
The January 1979 plan revisions dealing with particulate matter
must 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-
ditiously 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 sufficient
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 be directed toward reducing the peak
concentrations within the major urbanized areas to demonstrate attainment
as expeditiously as practicable but in no case later than December 31, 1987.
This should also solve the rural oxidant problem by minimizing VOC
emissions and more importantly oxidants that may be transported from
urban 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.
286
-------
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 (RACTp 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 published by January of the proceeding 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. Each of the measures for which EPA will publish
information documents during 1978 is a reasonably available control
measure. These measures are listed on the following page:
2As defined by the U.S. Bureau of Census, urbanized area generally
include core cities plus any closely settled suburban areas.
3while it is recognized that 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.
287
-------
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 malls
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 conclusory 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
288
-------
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
planned reasonable transportation control measures. This includes
reasonable but unimplemented transportation measures in existing SIPs
and transportation controls with demonstrable air quality benefits
developed as part of the transportation process funded by DOT.
3. Present a program for evaluating a range of alternative
packages of transportation options that includes, as a minimum, those
measures listed above for which EPA 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 growth 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.
289
-------
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 demonstrates
reasonable further progress from 1979 to the attainment date. Deter-
minations of the reasonableness of a schedule will be based on the
nature of the existing or planned transportation system and the com-
plexity of implementation of an individual measure.
Additional Carbon Monoxide and Oxidant Monitoring Requirements
It is EPA's policy to require that all SIPs which provide for
attainment of the oxidant standard after December 31, 1982, must con-
tain commitments 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 for 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 applicable plan for the newly designated
non-attainment area. This would normally constitute an approvable SIP
per the above criteria and could essentially accommodate the proposed
growth within the previously submitted state plan and not require
offsets once the area is designated as non-attainment.
. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1978 -7kO -26V US'* REGION NO. 4
290
-------
EPA 450/2-74-020C Background Information for Standards of Performance:
Primary Aluminum Industry. Vol. 3 - Supplemental
Information. 1/76.
EPA 450/2-74-021A Background Information for Standards of Performance:
Coal Preparation Plants. Vol. 1: Proposed Standards.
10/74.
EPA 450/2-74-021B Background Information for Standards of Performance:
Coal Preparation Plants. Vol. 2 - Summary of Test
Data. 10/74.
EPA 450/2-74-021C Background Information for Standards of Performance:
Coal Preparation Plants. Vol. 3 - Supplemental
Information. 1/76.
EPA 450/2-75-009 Standard Support and Environmental Impact Statement -
Emission Standard for Vinyl Chloride. 10/75.
EPA 450/2-75-009B Standard Support and Environmental Impact Statement:
Volume 2 Promulgated Emission Standard for Vinyl
Chloride. 1976.
EPA 450/2-76-002 State Implementation Plan Emission Regulations for
Sulfur Oxides - Fuel Combustion. 3/76.
EPA 450/2-76-012 Field Evaluation of Red Jacket Vapor Control System.
1976.
EPA 450/2-76-014A Standard Support and Environmental Impact Statement:
Vol. 1 Proposed Standards of Performance for Kraft
Pulp Mills. 1976.
EPA 450/2-76-OivA Standards Support and Environmental Impact Statement:
Vol. 1 Proposed Standards of Performance for Petroleum
Refinery Sulfur Recovery Plants. 1976.
EPA 450/2-76-028 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing
Stationary Sources: Vol. 1 - Control Methods for
Furface Coating Operation. 1976.
EPA 450/2-76-030A Standards Support and Environmental Impact Statement:
Vol. 1 - Proposed Standard of Performance for Lignite-
Fired Steam Generators. EPA: OAQPS 1976.
EPA 450/2-77-001A Standards Support and Environmental Impact Statement:
Vol. 1 - Proposed Standards of Performance for the
Grain Elevator Industry. EPA: OAQPS 1977
164
------- |