EPA-450/2-89-019
SO Guideline
Appendices
by
Doug Grano (EPA)
Jill Vitas (EPA)
Susan Templeman (Radian)
Richard Pandullo (Radian)
Contract No. 68-02-4392
Work Assignment No. 44
Radian Corporation
P.O. Box 13000
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Air Quality Management Division
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
October 1989
-------
APPENDIX A
S02 GUIDELINE REFERENCES
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.1
-------
PN 107-83-04.21-C
t
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
? WASHINGTON. O.C 254SO
APR I \ 1533
Offict or
AIM. MQlSC. AND 4AOIATIOM
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Section 107 Designation Policy Summary
FROM: Sheldon Meyers, "Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (ANR-443)
TO: Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Regions II-IV, VI-VIII, X
Director, Air Management Division
Regions f, V, IX
On February 3, 1983, the Agency published a Federal Register notice
regarding the status of all areas designated nonattainment under Part D
of the Clean Air Act. This notice indicated that for a significant
number of nonattainment areas States are anticipated to be able to
demonstrate attainment of the primary national ambient air quality standards.
Accordingly, for those areas, States have been encouraged to update their
Section 107 designations. In addition, a number of nonattainment areas were
identified in the February 3, 1983, notice as "unlikely to attain standards."
The Federal Register also stated that the basic existing policy will generally
be continued for redes 1 gnat ion. This memorandum summarizes and clarifies
existing policy for reviewing designations and provides new guidance on
processing these actions.
Policy For Reviewing 107 Designations
1. Data: In general, all available information relative to the attainment
status of the area should be reviewed. These data should include the most
recent eight (8) consecutive quarters of quality assured, representative
ambient air quality data plus evidence of an implemented control strategy
that EPA had fully approved. Supplemental Information, including air
quality modeling emissions data, etc., should be used to determine if
the monitoring data accurately characterize the worst case air quality
in the area. Also, the following Items can be considered in special
situations.
.An attainment designation can be made using only the most recent four (4)
quarters of ambient data if an acceptable state of the art modeling analysis
(such as city-specific EKMA for ozone) is provided showing that the basic
SIP strategy 1s sound and that actual, enforceable emission reductions are
responsible for the recent air quality improvement.
107
S-l
-------
For nonattainment designations which were originally based solely on
nodding, redesignation to attainment 1s possible even if less than four (4}
quarters of ambient data are available provided that a reference modeling
analysis considering the sources' legal emission limits shows attainment of
the standards. Information must also be presented showing that the sources
causing the problem are In compliance with the enforceable SIP measures.
Although the current ozone standard Implies the need for three years
of data for attainment designations, two years of data with no exceedances
Is an acceptable surrogate. As discussed previously, this should be
accompanied by evidence of an Implemented control strategy that EPA had
fully approved.
2. Projected Future Violations; Projections of future violations can
provide the basis for continuing nonattainment designations. This
concept 1s'particularly Important because of the current economic downturn.
Information submitted to support i*tainment redes1 gnatIons must adequately
and accurately reflect anticipates operating rates. Areas should remain
nonattainment where such projections reveal air quality violations.
3. Modeling; In most 502 cases, monitoring data alone will not be
sufficient for areas dominated by point sources. A small number of ambient
monitors usually 1s not representative of the air quality for the entire
area. Dispersion modeling employing the legally enforceable SO? SIP limits
will generally be necessary to evaluate comprehensively the sources' Impacts
as well as to Identify the areas of highest concentrations. If either the
modeling or monitoring Indicates that SO? air quality standards are being
violated, the area should remain nonattainment.
4. Boundaries; Current policies on appropriate boundaries for designation
of nonattainment areas by EPA remain in effect, i.e., generally political
boundaries such as city or county for TSP and SO?, county as a minimum for
rural ozone, entire urbanized area and fringe areas of development for
urban ozone, and urban core area for CO. When States redes1 gnate, EPA
will continue to accept reasonable boundaries which are supported by
appropriate data, such as specific new monitoring and/or modeling data or
evidence of improvement due to control strategy Implementation. Nonattain-
ment areas for ozone should include the significant VOC sources.
5. Dispersion Techniques; Areas which are projected to attain the TSP
or SO? standards because of the use of unauthorized dispersion techniques
should continue to be designated as nonattainment.
107
8-2
-------
Policy for Processing 107 Redeslgnations
1. SIP Review Actions: Section 107 designations have generally been
classified as minor actions, with only a few of the more significant
ones being processed as moderate. In the future, redesignations of Tier II
nonattainment areas should be classified as major actions so that they
can receive a comprehensive review to help ensure regional consistency.
Redesignation of Tier I nonattainment areas should continue to be handled
as minor or moderate actions, as appropriate.
2. "Unclassifiable" Areas; Since EPA and the States have had nearly five
years to resolve discrepancies for nonattainment designations, it 1s now
inappropriate to redesignate any area from nonattainment to unclassi-
fiable. There has been ample time since the first designations were made
in 1978 to thoroughly study each nonattainment area. Sufficient data
should now exist to either make a redeslgnatlon to attainment or to keep
the nonattainment designation.
If you have any questions, please contact Tom Helms at (FTS) 629-5525.
cc: Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I-X
107
8-3
-------
• ^K .
» Km ^
isSS?;
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Offic* of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
2 3 DEC 1983
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Section 107 Questions and Answers
From: G. T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch (MO-15)
To: Air Branch Chief
Regions NX
The April 21, 1983 memo from Sheldon Meyers on Section 107 Redes i gnat ion
Policy has generally resulted in more consistent redeslgnation packages.
However, a number of questions have developed since then and it seems
worthwhile now to share with everyone the responses that have been developed.
These questions have arisen in a number of areas.
1. Is air quality data alone sufficient for a redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment?
Answer: No. Valid air quality data showing no NAAQS violations must be
supplemented with a demonstration that the eaproved SIP control strategy
which provides for attainment has been implemented. The April 21 memo
describes the requirements in detail. In most cases the submittal will
Include the most recent eight quarters of data showing attainment and
evidence of an implemented control strategy that EPA had approved. This
demonstration need not necessarily be quantitative. Rather, it need
simply confirm that the control strategy approved in the SIP to address
the problem has indeed been implemented. Where only the most recent four
quarters of data showing attainment are available, a state-of-the-art
modeling analysis must be provided which quantifies that the SIP strategy
is sound and that actual enforceable emission reductions are responsible
for the air quality improvements.
2. Are the same requirements discussed in answer number 1 applicable to
secondary TSP redes i gnat ions?
Answer: Yes. As for primary standards, some reason has to be shown for
the improvement in air quality. This can consist of an implemented
control strategy, some other Federally enforceable statewide regulations,
or a well -documented explanation that the circumstances which resulted in
the initial designation have changed or were incorrect. The integrity of
the designation process should be preserved, for both primary and secondary
pollutants. Further, it should be noted that States are not penalized by
remaining secondary nonattainment. Therefore, a control strategy or
other demonstration needs to be included with thes? redesignation requests.
209
-------
3. Can a control strategy that has not been approved by EPA as part of
the SIP be used -to* support a redes ignati on?
Answer: In general, no. However, an exception will be made if the
physical circumstances and long-term economic factors are such that the
implemented measures have the same weight as a SIP: for example, the
permanent closing of the major emitting sources, road paving to eliminate
fugitive emissions, or other irreversible measures. Submittals including
such changes, even though not formally approved as SIP revisions, have
the practical impact of an EPA approved strategy and can be the basis for
approval of the redes ignati on.
4. Are the same criteria required to reduce the size of a nonattainment
area as are required for redesignating the entire area?
Answer: In general, yes. However, if a sound case can be made that the
State "overdesignated" initially •• that is, designated a larger area
than EPA required -- then the area can be reduced. The remaining nonattain-
ment area must be compatible with EPA boundary requirements (see April 21,
1983 memo) and.it must be convincingly demonstrated that the area going
from nonattainment to attainment should not have been designated non-
attainment. Other than this specific kind of exception, however, boundary
changes require the same analysis as any nonattainment to attainment
redes ignati on. When a portion of a nonattainment area is redes i gnat ed
attainment, it would help the public if a statement was included in the
notice which explains that a nonattainment portion remains.
5. What criteria are used in redesignating from unclassifiable to attainment
for TSP and "
Answer: Redes i gnat ions from unclassifiable to attainment generally require
the most recent eight consecutive quarters of air quality data demonstrating
attainment. No control strategy demonstration is required since there
would have been no SIP requirement for an unclassifiable area. The $03
redes Ignati ons will generally continue to require dispersion modeling.
6. What is required for reel assifi cat ions from unclassifiable to attainment
for ozone, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides?
Answer: Redes ignati ons from unclassifiable to attainment do not involve
any regulatory change. If a State wishes to make such a redes ignati on, it
should be sent forward as a brief explanatory Federal Register notice
documenting the information. However, the formal table containing the
designation status is not changed since the attainment and unclassifiable
designations are combined for these pollutants.
7. Is there, or has there ever been, a 50 km policy for ozone nonattainment
areas?
Answer: No, this was only discussed'as an option some years ago but it
never achieved the status of Agency policy.
210
-------
issues
cc: B. Bauman
0. White
R. Campbell
S. Meiburg
J. Ulfelder
211
-------
EPA-450/2-78-027R
Guideline On Air Quality Models
(Revised)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Radiation
Offiea of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Rasaarcn Triangia Park, NC 27711
Ju.y 1986
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
SEP 0 3 i98t
Mr. Ralph C. Pickard
Technical Secretary
Indiana Air Pollution Control Board
P. 0. Box 1964
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206
Dear Mr. Pickard:
This is in response to your letter of July 9, 1981 to
Mr. Valdas V. Adamkus regarding the use of ambient monitoring data
in making Section 107 area designations. I am also providing comments
on the use of modeling in setting of source emission limits.
I am in agreement with your position that, when available, adequate
aabiert monitoring data should be given preference over modeling results
in designating areas as attainment/nonattainment under Section 107 of
the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA has always held this position and has
promoted this approach in the guidance we have issued on the subject. A
model letter prepared by my staff in October 1977 that was sent by the
Regional Administrators of EPA to the various State governors or environ-
mental agency heads emphasized the use of monitoring data for designation
purposes.
A follow-up memorandum issued on January 12, 1978 from my staff to
tns £"A Regional Offices responded to various questions regarding Part D
plan requirements. It contained the following response to the question
of whether preference should be given to either monitored ambient data
or dispersion modeling results in designating areas under Section 107.
"If there is a conflict between adequate monitoring data and modeling
results, monitored values should be used. However, if the monitoring
data are inadequate, the modeling results should be used."
It is the desire of the Agency to base Section 107 designations on
the best possible data that are reasonably obtainable. In most cases,
especially for isolated point sources, it is difficult for a few ambient
monitors to adequately reflect the true air quality conditions surrounding
the source, especially the areas of maximum impact or hotspots. In many
such situations, dispersion modeling would be an alternative to the
total reliance upon a limited monitoring network.
-------
With regard to the referenced Indiana designations, there is not,
in an administrative sense, a significant difference between unclassified
and attainment. However, as I understand it, there exists in these
counties a more significant issue; that is, setting of new emission
limitations for power plan.ts.
The use of diffusion modeling is now the accepted way of establishing
emission limits for individual sources such as power plants. Host air
pollution control agencies have accepted modeling as the only practical
alternative of establishing emission limits for large sources such as
power plants. The courts have also recognized the validity of using
modeling in setting emission limits even where monitoring data are also
available. Recent data indicate that a number of nodeIs are proving
to be reasonable predictors of ambient impact. One recent study has
shown that the EPA reference model for rural power plants, CRSTER,
appears to have no inherent bias; it neither over- nor underestimates
air quality levels routinely.
It is EPA's belief that, in most cases, the use of models is the
most effective and efficient way to properly represent the impact of
varying meteorology. To properly evaluate a prospective emission limit
solely by the use of monitoring, a very extensive and costly air quality
anc meteorological monitoring network would have to be established.
This network ray have to be operated for a long time to ensure that the
various meteorological conditions were actually experienced during each
cf the various operating regimes. I do not believe the situation
surrounding the Indiana power plant emission limit changes argues for
an exception to the use for modeling contained in current EPA guidance.
I trust this response adequately explains EPA's considerations in
b:th the Section 107 area designation process and the requirement for
mods'!ing wren- setting new emission limits.
Sincerely
Walter C. Bar
Director
Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Harry D. Williams
-------
UN'TED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
SE? 1 8 J982
OFFICE Of
Am. NOISE. AND WAOIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Milwaukee SO-Nonattainment Designation
£x^kt*Arw ^vv^f^u^x
FROM: Sheldon Meyers, Director
. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (ANR-443)
TO: David Kee, Director-
Air Management Division, Region V
Thank you for your August 9, 1982, memorandum to Assistant
Administrator Bennett regarding Wisconsin's request for a redesig-
r.ation to attainment of the sulfur dioxide (S02) standard for the
Milwaukee area.
You asked four (4) separate questions >n your memo. Those questions
are repeated in full below along with my responses.
Q) In nonattainment areas with no emission limits, what is required to
support a redesignation to attainment? (It does not appear to be
sufficient to accept eight'quarters of data showing no violations, even
if the r.snitors were located in the expected high concentration areas.)
A) The fact that no Federally enforceable emission limits are in place
does not effect the criteria applied in determining the area's attain-
ment status. In general, Section 107 designatio.-i changes should utilize
all available data, including both monitor-ink ?:*.d modeling data.
Whatever is available should certainly be ussrd. Monitoring data should
be used only within the limits of being representative for a specific
geographic area. The object of any designation should be to make the
best decision based upon the maximum amount of available information.
Q) What is the role of modeling in redesignations?
A) The need for dispersion modeling for Section 107 designation
purposes is especially important when dealing with areas dominated by
point sources of S02- In these cases, a small number of ambient air
107
7-1
-------
quality monitors will not be able to tell the whole story. Modeling Is
essential to evaluate comprehensively and thoroughly the sources'
impacts as well as identify the areas of highest concentrations. It
must be included in a redesignation analysis where feasible.
For all other areas, if modeling already exists, it should be
considered. However, dispersion modeling is generally not required to
be performed strictly for the purposes of Section 107 redesignation
requests for such areas.
Q) Is a redesignation to attainment acceptable if there are eight.
quarters of monitored data showing no violations but there is modeling
that predicts violations? (Note, this 1s not to say that the modeling
contradicts the monitoring since the modeling shows attainment at the
monitor locations, but nonattainment at other, nonmonitored locations.)
A) There is no answer that fits all possible situations. However,
where valid dispersion modeling has been performed, such modeling
results should set the designation status. When the appropriateness
of the model is of some concerr Regional Offices must exercise judgment
after considering such things as how many monitors-are in the network;
is complex terrain (terrain greater than stack height) involved; what
model is being used; is it a guideline model, if not, has it been
demonstrated to be appropriate; does the model tend to over- or under-
predict for the situation at hand?
Again, it should be emphasized that the objective is to make the
best determination possible using all relevant information as to what
the attainment status of an area really is.
Q) Mr. Barber's letter says that adequate monitored data are necessary.
How is "adequate" defined? (We suggest that a determination of adequate
monitoring data involve reference modeling. That is, monitors must be
located -in the areas of expected high concentrations, based on a
reference modeling analysis.)
A) Your suggestion is what ideally should be required. However,
monitors are seldom sited at the locations shown by later dispersion
modeling to be those of maximum impact.
Again, the responsibility lies with the Regional Office to make the
necessary judgments as to whether or not the existing monitor locations
are sufficient both in number and spetial arrangement to allow them to
be representative of the air quality for the area. Some judgment as to
whether the potential problem is of a localized or more general areawide
nature should be made. This judgment will influence whether modeling or
monitoring should be given preference in the particular situation in
question. How much information is needed before such a judgment can be
made is subject to the complexity of the situation.
107
7-2
-------
I would like to add the following contnents regarding the particular
situation in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, as described in the background portion
of your August 9, 1982, memo.
In a situation where an area was originally designated nonattainment
based on measured violations but subsequently has air quality measure-
ments less than the ambient air quality standard, common sense would
recognize the need for a study of the situation, including modeling. It
could not reasonably be expected that violations would disappear by
themselves. If a source has voluntarily made some emission reduction
changes that eliminate violations, these changes need to be embodied
into regulation and then be made part of the approved State Implementa-
tion Plan (SIP) control strategy. The approval of such emission limits
as part of a SIP must be based on an adequate demonstration that ambient
air quality standards will be protected. Such a demonstration must
include a dispersion modeling analysis under worst case conditions.
If you have any other questions, please let me know.
107
7-3
-------
>*
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
rrp « - ryjr.
orncc or
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Redes ignat ions That Would Change, •the SIP
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Director (/i »•; MM v—' *" jr ***
division >-
Peter H. Wyckoff, Assistant General.Counsel
Air and Radiation Division V^ferfj. teae**^
TO: Air Division Directors, Regions I-X
Our staffs recently discovered, in reviewing a Federal
Register package that embodied a redesignation from nonattain-
mer.t to attainment, that the redesignation would have relaxed
the relevant SIP, because the SIP specified one set of control
requirements for "nonattainraent" areas and; a less stringent set
for "attainment" areas. The package, however, treated the
redesignation merely as a redesignation and not also as a SIP
relaxation.
We therefore ask you in the future (1) to examine each
redesignation to determine whether it would have a .substantive
effect on the stringency of the relevant SIP and (2) to state
your conclusion in the Action Memorandum for the Federal Register
package. If the redesignation would have such an effect, you
should treat it as a SIP revision and draft the package in accord-
ance with the relevant Agency guidance, including guidance on SI?
relaxations and attainment demonstrations. Please forewarn your
state counterparts that EPA will be treating redesignations that
would affect SIP stringency as SIP revisions. Thank you.
cc: Air Branch Chiefs, Reg ions.. I-X
Regional Counsel Regions I-X
Bill Seal
Gerry Smison
Tom Helms
Betsy Home
Joan La Rock
Bill Pedersen
John Topping
John Ulfeider
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.2
-------
MM 23-60-12-T 9-301
Q£C 1 9 1S80
Honorable Jefmines Randoloh
Chairman, Comritte* on Environment
and Public Works
United States Senate
Washington, O.C. 20510
3ear Mr. Chairman:
Thar.it you for your letter of Octcfcer 2*. 19CH exoressirm -/our continued
interest in the Agency's definition of "ambient air." Ourinn the tine
since Oavid Hawkins, ay Assistant Adim'nistritor for Air. Noise, and
Radiation, net with you last February, the definition nas been extensively
reviewed and debated.
After reviewing the Issues and alternatives* I have determined that
no shanga frea the exlstlno policy is necessary, l/a are rctainlno the
:o»1cy that tfta* exesrotlon frcn ambient air fs available only for the
stsosnneri over land owned or controlled fey the source and to which
sublic access is Drecluded by a fence or other nnysical tarri«rs. S?."
will continue to review individual situations on a case-bv^rase basis
ts ensure that the public is adequately protected and that ther* 1s ra
attestot by sources to circumvent the reouirarent of Section 123 of the
Clean Air Act.
I hope that this has been responsive to your needs.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Douglas it. Costl»
3ouolas f*. Cast I e
-------
_
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 2771 1
2 7 JUL 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Ambient A1r Issue frooi New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
FROM: G.T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch
TO: William S. Baker, Chief
A1r Branch, Region II
In response to your request, we have reviewed your position with
respect to a determination of ambient air applicability In the vicinity
of the proposed EF Ken 11 worth. Inc. (EFKI) cogeneratlon unit 1n Union
County, New Jersey. As we understand 1t, EFKI will build and operate the
plant on property leased (long-term lease) from Schering Corporation. As
we see It the EFKI operator will be completely separate from the Schering
operation and except for the land owned and operated by a different
Company. The fact that EFKI has entered Into a contract to supply
electricity/ steam to Schering is not really relevant to the ambient air
Issue.
We agree with your position that all property outside of the property
leased and controlled by EFKI would be considered ambient air. The word
"controlled" is emphasized since nothing is said in either your memorandums
or New Jersey's letter to Region II about what, if any, fence or other
physical barrier would be installed to prevent public access to the EFKI
leased property. If such physical barrier 1s not erected, then all land
Including the leased site would have to be considered as ambient air.
If you have any questions, please contact Sharon Reinders,
at 629-5255.
cc: 0. Tyler
J. Tlkvart
0. Wilson
G. HcCutchen
-------
PN 110-83-Q3-18-063
MAR 18 1983
Mr. Harry H. Hovey, JP. P.E.
Direct OP, Division of Aip
New Yoptc State Oept. of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New YOP!C 12233
Deap MP. Hovey:
In response to your letter of January 11, please be advised that
there has been no major change in EPA policy with regard to ambient air
and the associated requirements of a SIP demonstration. We have defined
"ambient air" at 40 CFR §50.1(e) to include "that portion of the atmosphere,
external to buildings, to which the general public has access." Our general
policy is that the only exemption to compliance with the provisions of
ambient air is for the atmosphere over land owned OP controlled by the
source and to which public access 1s precluded by a fence OP othep physical
bappieps.
The national ambient air quality standards are designed to protect
the public health and welfare and apply to all ambient air which does include
the rooftops and balconies of buildings accessible by the public. While
EPA has the responsibility to develop the air quality standards, the
States have the initial responsibility to implement them. In effect, the
States have the prime responsibility.to protect public health and welfare.
While EPA considers ambient air to include elevated building receptor
sites, it is not practical to analyze the air quality at every such existing
location. Therefore, both EPA and the States must exercise their best
technical judgment as to when such sites must be evaluated so as to
protect public health and welfare. Thus, we do not expect States, in
most circumstances, to evaluate the impact on elevated building receptors.
However, if the State has reason to believe that such an evaluation is
necessary to protect public health and welfare, then it is incumbent upon
the State to conduct such an analysis.
110
63-1
-------
cc: R. Campbell
J. Schafcr
you desire.
Sincerely yours,
Kathleen H. Bennett
Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation
110
63-2
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20450
OFFICE OF THE GEKSRAT. COUNSEL
yi.i.v: September '27 , 197JVr""'
A> • / » /« : I i c I us :.• 1 7s . Ji\m" £', !.'• v 1 1 o r r. r y
/!.•/->,'. ,-^j- cvulity and Radiation Division
Ji.-;L:«rr- Attainment of National Standards in Open Air Tarkincj Lots
Conccv" nim-jn, Chief
Air Tree; rams Branch
Region II
HEMOUAI.'DUH OF LAW
FACTS
•
Your memorandum of September 1, 1972 raisen the issue
cf the air pollution impact of a proposed nports corn p.1 c.:-: to
be VJjnnl.ruetcd in the llnc!:enn..ick fic-iidfr.-:l,-iru-r, in Nr'v; .irrscy.
You vt.u.c- Lh'ji: the iinnlysis of ovnil-nblw* d.M-a indie-"1 i.o~
thr.t Vhe national one-hour stondard for cuvbon luonnxi-.'o x\ti\
be f:-:c'.:c:"r.id in the parkin:? lot of the cer?.ple>: each t-i;nu it
ir ur;ed for a nwijor event.
QUnSTIOU
J!s the at::nosphere above an ^open-air parking lot v.'hich
is part of a sports complex "ambient air" undur the CDunn
Air Act and EPA regulations?
ANSWER
Yes. Under thi? dcfjnit-.ion of ".T.rb.i'-ni: oir" in )'VA
rcvi-'lal:J.cp.r;, n-.iticn.il ;T.'.b.ient -nix- qua'it.v .'-i.ic'.ndarcU: *.:->uld
arr!.y tc ti'at portier. :jf the a'.rori.-hcirc r; ncc it i? c::tern-.-.
to 1-uildings and the general public has acccus to it:.
DISCUSSION
1. IT-A hac prcscrihetf the applicability of the nacxonal
priv'.iry 'ind secondary ^tr!•>.•• cnt air qiuilaty sl-.andardr; !••/
'J-jTvi/ii-: the term "»'.rt:i--nt nir." Pitction 10 CFP. i>0.1(r>} o:
ni'/v i:c::;ulat:iTTT. defines "nirbicnt air" to ;:'.c.->n "that. |-ortio:
cf '••;!'. •:.tnc"p:ie.':o, oxternal to buildingr., \~c wliicU '"he
•?moral public harj acc:c.r?r:. " Tlior^ is n^ q;H«r;tion l.h-'iL '".lie
-------
- 2 -
air which .\j; Lho r.uhjv-:t of y«»yr inquiry is a portion of
the '•••trosplK-vc extern^.1 to IniilcHnq:;. A r.omewhat more
difficult tjucM-Aon » •> vho tiic general public is and whether
il can be raid to Jur-.\: «-:ccer.:i IP Lhiu facility.
2. The dictionary t'vf incs "pMbjjc" to mean "the people
as a whole", and note* that ti«-- terra may contemplate "a
grany "of people distir-julsbiul 'oy common interests or
characteristics" (V7cbsVer ' n Third Now .international Dic-
tionary (1900)). Sin-re; J?j0.j(,;) attach?::: the modifier
"^CRcr-ai" , it incic;iLv^ that i :v: broader definition v:cs
in':rniJ'.»'J by thr requlotion. Ti".» t«rm "access" is defined
*».- meaning "Permission, libcrrt.y, or ability to enter...."
(Krb'-t-cr's Thj rd Ncv/ ] nl.otn.'.tii'M.il Dic'.:.:.onary (1966)).
v:hilc tlic narking lot in quf;: i--.i may bo fenced and/or
gu-".r-.?od srj ni: to prcv-jn*; tlv -MI: » ance o£ the general public
dui:i. TIT nil times cxcopt .tho-i •. L::modiatcly preceding, during/
mv.1 iruT.^diately follov;.|.iin ntiii .-. ; i.c cvonty, it is clear that
the qcnc'.ral public m-ny rcacli ly i-:iter the lot on foot or by
vehicle dur.inrr the p«»r.ir»»j oi' iii.-jlic::t pollution levels. The
cs'^ntial character of thia c--"- -I ox i:; public, and it is
! ionshin v.-iUli the property
cvr'^r, or h.i.-- agents or J esr.r • •• . ,u-c ab,lc Lo gain entrance
t-.o tlic proper':-/, ».-:hilc tlic fi-..-.)?1' t.L public's entrance is
p.lv/.~irr:lly barred in soiiic •••:;»•/.
3. I;.-ivi:r.j rcnclu::c'J V'tuif. l:h • •: '• r above: Ll»e parking lot is
-r'vrnt air, i:c ?:c« no )».ir.i.-- t'-.-:-. ct:-:c3 ii.JJ.ncj it from coverafje
by l lie St'itc'rj irplcn-.r-ni-.-ir ion p*;m. li-r-v.: seems to be no
Ic'.'J C.T! :l.i rfrrcnc'j bcl"..'..-.:n r:.!.i'i' the ; "•]»! 'Mi»ent.al:i.on plan
p" .\CTblc tr. Llr.^ porkitv:- '": t- 1 r.nkin | i ': apply to concjcs; tod
dc»«f; l:<:»v/n at.'Ci'u: v.'hert* rMil»rm »-":i:>;: :.'!'_' C'vi'-c.-n'-.rat.ionr. flue Lo
he ;'•;/ tr,-i(' r.i'.- cir»: a]""o •'» i'-''oV!i • ... As yc;i:- nmmorancluin sug-
cj'.:?; t::-. , even j t' Uhc aLrv>v.j !::TI: ,!-.,-•:> l.lv: f'.ivking lot were
not '.'ctnbienl; ;ijr" it v.»yiM b" IK" -^."rivy ('.if uhe State'"
ii"[)l •.•;•. '.:r. '..-.! i; ' en ;>l«np. U'.' c:v:iM'.'' ' ' i.-: if"'%<. . of cm.i C~iori3 ot
Lh" f ••!<•• j] i.1 y r.p-.in th« r« :. • i.:-pu- . . ;,,-:yoini i.h:j lot's fence line.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
UAY 1 6
SUBJECT. ^itBt Air
. K
: Region*1 Meteorologists, Regions X-X
•••v.-e
7181 Joseph Tikvart, Chief (MD-U)
Source Receptsr Analysis Branch
At the recent Regional Meteorologists1 neeting in Dallas, we Identified
inconsistencies among the Regional Offices on what areas are to be
considered as snoient air for regulatory purposes. The existing incon-
sistency on aaoient air is due to both the lack of clear National
guidance and the allowed Regional Office discretion. A standardized*
approach is necessary both to satisfy the consistency requirements of
Section 3Q1 of the Clean Air Act and in order for thes»
"
Regional nodding activities to pro vide "effective and efficient review
of and guidance on modeling analyses. Accordingly, the Regional Meteor-
ologists have decided to address the problen at the working level
through the use of a consistent modeling approach.
4-0 CFR Part SO.l(e) defines arab lent air as "... that portion of the
aTOo sphere, external to buildings, to which the general public has
access." A letter dated Decanter 19, 1980, from Douglas Cos tie to
Senator Jennings Randolph, clarified this definition by stating that
the exemption froet ambient air is available only for the atmosphere
over land owned or controlled by the source and to which public access
is precluded by a fence or other physical barriers.' The codified
definition plus the 1980 clarification essentially constitute the
National policy on ambient air.
The Regional *«teorologists propose that for modeling purposes the air
everywhere ojt*-:s» of contiguous plant property to which public access
is precluaeo :y a fence or other effective physical barrier should be
considered ir. locating receptors. Specifically, for stationary source
modeling, re:s:tars should be placed anywhere outside inaccessible plant
property. For example, receptors should be included over bodies of
water, over in fenced plant property, on buildings, over roadways, and
over property owned by other sources. -For aobile source modeling (i.e.,
CO modeling), receptors should continue to be sited in accordance with •
Volume 9 of the "Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning*.
Unless you dis«;ree with our position, we will require new actions with
modeling analyses submitted to EPA after January 1, 1986, to conform to
this modeling policy. Please note that all 10 Regional Meteorologists
have reviewed and concur with this. memo.
cc: Regional Meteorologists, Regions I-X
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
3 •" • •• - .
i ••
ECMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Ambient A1r
FROM: 6. T. Helms, Chief A*
Control Programs Operations Branch (MD-15)
TO: Steve Rothblatt, Chief
A1r Branch, Region V
My staff and I have discussed the five ambient air cases which you
submitted for our review on January 16, 1987. The following comments are
our Interpretation of the ambient air policy . However, this memorandum
1s not a discussion of the technical Issues Involved 1n the placement of
receptors for modeling.
Our comments on each of the cases follow:
Case 1 (Dakota County, NN): This case Involves two noncontiguous
pieces of fenced property owned by the same source, divided by a public
road. We agree that the road 1s clearly ambient air and that both fenced
pieces of plant property are not.
Case 2 (UarHck County, IN): This case Involves two large sources
on both sides of the Ohio River. We agree that receptors should be located
over the river since this Is a public waterway, not controlled by the
sources. We also agree that the river does Indeed fora a sufficient
natural boundary/barrier and that fencing 1s not necessary, since the
policy requires a fence or other physical barrier. However, some con-
ditions-must be met. The rlverbank must be clearly posted and regularly
patrolled by plant security. It must be very clear that the area 1s not
public. Any areas where there 1s any question— 1.e., grassy areas, etc.—
should be fenced and marked, even 1f there 1s only a very remote possi-
bility that the public would attempt to use this property.
However, we also feel that;current policy requires that receptors
should be placed 1n ALCOA and SI6ECO property for modeling the contribu-
tion of each source's emissions to the other's ambient air. Thus,
ALCOA'S property—regard!ess of whether 1t 1s fenced—1s still 'ambient
air" 1n relation to SISECO's emissions and vice-versa.
-------
-2-
Case 3 (Wayne County, MI): This-case Involves the air over the
Detroit River, the Rouge River and the short-cut Canal. We agree that
the air over all three of these Is ambient air, since none of the companies
owns them or controls public access to them. Note, however, that one
source's property—regardless of whether 1t Is fenced—Is the "ambient
air' relative to another source's emissions.
Case 4 (Cuyahoga County, OH): This cast Involves LTV Steel's Iron
and steel mill located on both sides of tht Cuyahoga River.
We do not feel that LTV Sttel •controls" tht river traffic 1n that
area sufficiently to txcludt tht public from tht river, whether It be
rtcrtatlonal or Industrial traffic. Tht fact that there 1s little or no
recreational traffic In that area Is not sufficient to say that all river
traffic there 1s LTV traffic. The public also Includes other Industrial
users of the river that are not associated with LTV.
It 1s difficult to tell from tht map whether tht railroad line 1s a
through line or not. If tht railroad yard stnrts only tht plant then 1t
would not be ambient air but tht railroad entrance to 'the plant would
havt to bt clearly marktd and patrolled. However, 1f the line 1s a
through line then that would bt ambient air. We would nttd additional
Information to make a final determination.
The unfenced river boundaries should meet the same criteria as in
Case 2 above.
Case 5 (Involves the placement of receptors on another source's
fences-property): As mentioned above 1n Case 2, we feel that present
policy does require that receptors be placed over another source's property
to measure the contribution of tht outside source to Its neighbor's
ambient air. To reiterate, Plant A's property 1s considered "ambient
air" in relation to Plant B's emissions.
I Hope that.these commtnts are helpful to you and your staff. This
memorandum was also reviewed by the Office of General Counsel.
cc: 5. Schnttbtrg
P. Wyckoff
R. Rhoads
0. Stontfltld
Air Branch Chiefs, Region I-X
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
x Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
22JAK1936
William F. O'Keefe, Vice President
American Petroleum Institute
1220 L Street Northwest
Washington, D. C. 20005
Dear Mr. O'Keefe:
Mr. Elk 1ns has asked me to respond to your letter of December 18, 1985,
1n which you perceive a change 1n our policy with regard to the location of
receptors for air quality dispersion modeling.
Let me assure you there 1s no change 1n our long-standing national
policy with regard to the definition of ambient air. That policy 1s based
on 40 CFR Part 50.1 (e) which defines ambient air as ". . . that portion
of the atmosphere, external to buildings, to which the general public has
access." A letter dated December 19, 1980, from Douglas Costle to Senator
Jennings Randolph, reaffirmed and clarified this definition by stating the
exemption from ambient air 1s available only for the atmosphere over land
owned or controlled by the source and to which public.access 1s precluded
by a fence or other physical barriers. A copy of Mr. Costle1s letter 1s
enclosed. The codified definition plus the 1980 clarification essentially
constitute the national policy on ambient air.
The Regional Meteorologists' memorandum to which you refer does not
Imply any change in this national policy and simply harmonizes modeling
procedures with our long-standing policy. It 1s Intended to ensure con-
sistent Regional implementation of that policy and to dispel any questions
about pollutant concentrations at locations where the general public has
access.
Thus, since the Regional Meteorologists' memorandum does not Imply any
change in our policy, I do not believe there 1s any need for policy review
at this time.
Sincerely,
Cerald A. Orison
D1rector
Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards
Enclosure
cc: W. Quanstrom
C. Elkins
-------
* af\
(mj
-X
PN 110-87-04-30-:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
3 C *~'
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Ambient A1r
FROM: 6. f. Helm, Chief
Controlled Programs Operations Branch (MD-15)
TO: Bruce Miller, Chief
A1r Programs Branch, Region IV
My staff and I have discussed the five situations Involving the
definition of a*b1ent air that you sent on December 18, 1986. The
following comments represent our Interpretation of the ambient air
policy. However, this memorandum 1s not a discussion of the technical
Issues Involved 1n the placement of receptors for modeling. Our comments
on each scenario follow:
Scenario One: We agree with you that the road and the unfenced
property are ambient air and could be locations for the controlling receptor
Scenario Two: We agree with your determination' 1n this case also.
•
Scenario Three: We agree with" you that the road Is ambient air.
However, Area B 1s not ambient air; 1t 1s land owned or controlled by the
company and to which public access 1s precluded by a fence or other
physical boundary.
Scenario Four: We do not think that any of the barriers mentioned
here are sufficient to preclude public access so as to allow the source
to dispense with a fence. An- example of an unfenced boundary that would
qualify 1s.a property line along a river that 1s clearly posted and
regularly patrolled by security guards. Any area, such as grassy areas
that might even remotely be used by the public, would have to be fenced
even in this situation. We would not think that a drainage ditch would
meet these criteria.
Scenario Five: Both fenced pieces of plant property, even though
noncontiguous, would not be considered ambient air (see Scenario Three).
The road, of course, would be ambient air. Again, ownership and/or
control of the property and public access are the keys to ambient air
determination.
-------
-2-
I hope
; ^'su!"*Off1ce °fto
«: 3. Schneeberg
P. Kyckoff
R. Rhoads
D. Stonefleld
Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I-x
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
»usjecTOefinition of Ambient Air for>Lead
™°1)arryl D. Tyler, Direct or ,
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
TOA11yn Davis, Director
Air & Waste Management Division, Region VI
This is in response to your memorandum of May 23, 1983, to
Sheldon Meyers. In that memorandum, you indicated that the Texas Air
Control Board. (TACB) believes that an ambient lead monitor in El Paso
1s not located in the ambient air, and therefore the data from that
monitor should not be used to develop a control strategy for lead.
The monitor is located at the International Boundary Water
Commission's (IBWC) property, about 1000 feet from the edge of the property
of ASARCO's primary lead smelter. TACB believes that the monitor is not
in the ambient air because public exposure at the IBWC property wou'.d at
most be only daily for a period of not more than eight hours, and there-
fore no one person is expected to be at the IBWC site continuously for a
full three months, the exposure time inherent in the lead standard.
TACB's logic runs counter to EPA's policy on ambient air. In
40 CFR 50.1(e), ambient air includes "that portion of the atmosphere,
external to buildings, to which the general public has access." "hat
definition does not account for any time limitation or averaging time.
Regardless of whether any member of the public is expected to remain at
a particular place for a specific period of time, ambient air is defined
in terms of public access, not frequency of access, length of stay, age
of the person or other limitations. The only exemption in EPA policy to
compliance with the provisions of ambient air is for the atmosphere over
land owned or controlled by the source and to which public access" is
precluded by a fence or other physical barriers. Since ASARCO does not
own the site of the IBWC monitor, it clearly falls within our definition
of ambient air.
Furthermore, any monitor can give only an estimate of the actual
maximum concentration of a pollutant in the vicinity of the monitor.
There"may actually be higher concentrations of lead in the area oetween
ASARCO's boundary and the IBWC monitor, such as on the highway that runs
between the ASARCO smelter property and the IBWC property. The general
public may have more frequent or longer access to this location than to
the IBWC property itself. Therefore, the fact that the general public
may not be expected to remain at the IBWC site itself continuously for
three months is no reason to disallow tne use of the monitor's data for
developing a control strategy.
fo.m 1320.4 (H... 3-74)
-------
J- Calcagni
J. Divita
K. Sreer
T. Helms
J. Silvasi
D. Stonefield
J. Ulfelder
Ojvis1on 1f
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE: DEC 1 8 198S
SUBJECT. gpA ^f inition of Anbient Air
0 /
Bruce P. Miller, Chief ci' ' *f ' '
Air programs Branch
Air, Pesticides & Toxics Management Division
Tom Belns, Chief
Control Programs Operation Branch (MD-15)
SDMMABg
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management has asked
for a clarification of ambient air in regards to a certain source
located in North Carolina. The Regional Meteorologist's memorandum
dated May 16, 1985, provides that for modeling purposes receptors
are located everywhere outside of the contiguous property of a
plant to which the public is precluded due to a fence, -or other
effective physical barriers. Attached are a number of scenarios
for the source where we request a response on whether the receptors
at certain locations are considered ambient air and whether the
calculated modeling result at these receptors are to be considered
in establishing an emission limit if one or more of these receptors
is controlling. The Region IV opinion for each scenario is provided.
Most of the scenarios we believe are dealt with adequately in the
May 16, 1985 memorandum, however, there is a major concern on our
part about how to interpret the modeling results in scenario numbers
three, four and five.
Please provide us with a written response by January 27, 1987. Please
contact me or Mr. Lewis Nagler of my staff at PIS 257-2864 if you re-
quire additional information.
Enclosure (1)
cc: Joseph Tikvart (MD-14)
REP, NC
Form 13204 («•«. 3-74)
-------
NORTH CAROLINA AMBIENT AIR SCENARIOS
Scenario One
The plant property is divided by a public road. The portion >f the
property on which a point source is located (Area A) is conpletely
fenced. The property on the other side of the road (Area B) is
unfenced.
The Region IV position is that the road and the unfenced property
are ambient air and if air quality modeling locates the control-
ling receptor in Area B, the emission limit will be determined
based on the calculated concentration at that receptor*
Scenario TWO
This scenario is the same as scenario one except that Area B is
fenced except for the property along the public road.
The Region IV position is identical to that provided in scenario
one.
Scenario Three
This scenario is the same as scenario one except that *i\ of
Area B is fenced.
The Region IV position is that the road is ambient air and that
Area B should have receptors located there for modeling purposes.
We also believe that since Area B is not contiguous to that prop-
erty that is needed for plant operation, even though fencedp Area B
is ambient air. We further believe that if a receptor located in
Area B is found to contain the controlling receptor'for establishing
the source emission rate then that receptor value must be used.
There is a concern'on our part that the May 16, 1385 .memorandum
could be interpreted to allow the Air Quality Management officials
to discard the-calculated concentrations within Area B. We believe
a clarification of the ambient air policy on this point is needed.
-------
Scenario Pour
Area A is fenced except for the property along the public road.
The Region IV position is that Area A is anbient air unless the
source can demonstrate that the public is precluded to entry by an
effective physical barrier. However, since a physical" barrier
other than a fence is subject to various interpretation, we are
seeking advise on what we can accept at meeting-that requirement.
For instance, a drainage ditch alongside a road with no shoulder
for parking or the use of "NO PAHONG" signs could be'considered
an effective barrier. As you can see, the concept can be quite
subjective and we require additional guidance in.this area.
For this actual situation, would you concur or nan concur that no
parking signs in association with no shoulder to park upon consti-
tute a physical barrier? The Region IV position is that this
situation does not constitute an effective physical barrier, but
the addition of a drainage ditch would constitute an effective
barrier.
Scenario Five (Hypothetical)
The entire plant is fenced. As a result of the county or state's
power of eminent domain, a road is built through the property.
Does the area that is no longer contiguous to the plant operation
area lose its exemption from the anbient air definition even if
the source fences off the area taken by the road?
The Region IV position is that the area should be grandfathered in
that situation.
-------
135-34-06-11-014
Mil l> > I \ p> i:\\ IKi>\ M|..\ | \| ITU
tt \»lliMil.'»\.!).«.
4JNI I
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Applicability of PSD Increments to Building
Rooftops
FROM:
TO:
nnn^N
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation
Charles R. Jeter
Regional Administrator, Region IV
The following is in response to your letter of November 10,
1983, concerning issues which you felt required review for national
consistency relating to a new source- review for an Alabama Power
facility in downtown Birmingham, Alabama.
On September 29, 1983, your office inforared the State of
Alabama that a new source's compliance with the PSD increments
must be measured on the tops of buildings, as well as at ground
level. Since then we have discussed the question extensively
among ourselves and with representatives of the State of Alabama
and the company. For the reasons that follow, I do not believe
we are in a position to definitively assert that PSD increments
apply to rooftops without further information as to the conse-
quences for the PSD system as a whole. Accordingly, I recommend
that we inform Alabama that we do not now require that compliance
with PSD increments be measured at the tops of buildings. A
State may, of course, adopt such an approach if it so desires.
Between 1970 and 1983, it appears to have been general EPA
practice to determine compliance with both NAAQS and PSD increments
at ground level, not at roof level. On March 18, 1983, however,
Kathleen Bennett, in a letter to the State of New York, determined
that the- 'national ambient air quality standards are designed to
protect the public health and welfare and apply to all ambient
air which does include the rooftops and balconies of buildings
accessible by the public.*
I believe this conclusion was correct. Apartment balconies,
rooftop restaurants, and the like present a potential for human
exposure that the primary ambient air quality standards should be
interpreted to address.
-------
-2-
Given this conclusion, one could argue, based on the text
of the relevant regulations and the Clean Air Act, that the PSD
increments apply wherever the NAAQS apply, and that both must
apply throughout the "ambient air.* However, the PSD system,
unlike the NAAQS system, does not aim at achieving.one single
goal. Rather it represents a balance struck first by Congress
between a given level of protection against degradation and a
given potential for economic growth. It appears that the
calculations on which that balancing judgment was based all
assumed that PSD increments would be measured at ground level.
A number of 'State officials who are now administering PSD
have argued to me that by measuring PSD increments on rooftops
as well as at ground level, EPA would make the PSD system
appreciably more stringent than Congress contemplated. Although
major urban areas are all Class II areas, this approach, it is
argued, could result in constraints on growth comparable to
those that apply in Class 7 areas - national parks and wilderness
areas. Such an outcome would not, it is argued, be consistent
with Congressional intent.
In these circumstances, I think that preserving the status
quo is particularly advisable because:
• It is likely that Alabama did not contemplate adopting a
•rooftops* approach to PSD when it took over the PSD program.
That expectation, though not decisive, does provide some reason
not to change the situation without formal rulemaking.
• The consequences of an erroneous decision to consider
increment consumption on rooftops will be more severe than those
of an erroneous decision not to consider them. The adoption of
such an approach will present at least a procedural, and, probably
a substantive obstacle to development in urban areas, while in
its absence air quality will still be protected by the NAAOS, by
the PSD increments applied at ground level, and by the other
aspects of PSD review such as Best Available Control Technology.
Therefore, I have concluded that since the State of Alabama
has authority under an approved implementation plan for adminis-
tering the PSD program within Alabama, it is their responsibility
to apply this principle of maintaining the status quo to this
case,, taking all the relevant facts into account.
Please advise the State of Alabama of the Agency's position
on these .points as our response to the issues which they raised
in meetings with both of us.
-------
cc: A. Aim
P. Ang«ll
T. D«vine
G. Emison
w. Ped«rs«n
P. Wyckoff
S. Mciburg
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
s?R/7 5 Office of Air Quality Planning and Scandaros
•v-'V'V--j'' ' Researcr, Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
APR 7
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Wyoming—Definition of Ambiefit) Ai r
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
TO: Irwin Dickstein, Director
Air and Toxics Division, Region VIII
This memorandum confirms and clarifies our recent conversation on
Wyoming's proposed change to their definition of ambient air. After our
conversation, my staff further reviewed the proposal and your office's
assessment of it. While we agree with the final position you take--viz.,
opposition to the change--my staff believes that several other points
should be made in comments to Wyoming.
1. In Christine Phillips' memorandum of March 20, 1987, two reasons
are given to oppose the revision. While we agree with the thrust of the
first reason (ineffectiveness of exterior fencing to exclude public
access because of the public highway and towns in the enclosed area),
there may be a problem in boldly stating the second reason. We have
never either flatly stated that land acquisition in general is acceptable
or unacceptable under section 123 of the Clean Air Act. As the memorandum
points out, the December 19, 1980, letter from Douglas Costle to the
Honorable Jennings Randolph indicates that we will review individual
situations on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, I believe we should not
automatically categorize land acquisition as proposed in Wyoming as a
dispersion technique prohibited by section 123, although further analysis
may in fact lead us to that conclusion. In at least two instances, we have
tolerated land acquisition to "contain" modeled violations of national
ambient air quality standards. We have, however, avoided formulating
criteria for acceptability of land acquisition, although such criteria
(such as size of area and relevance to operation) were at one time con-
sidered.
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.1
-------
UMted States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/4-87-007
May 1987
Air
Ambient Monitoring
Guidelines for
Prevention of
Significant
Deterioration (PSD)
RADIAN LIBRARY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK. NC
-------
fl. S/. Apr- A 40 C» Ch. I (7-l-M idllUn)
SCMEOUU DO—PERMANENT WAIVED FROM (MTCWM CoNinots TES»—Continued
t Ctmvf* tBfctfMl Vwlu*
MM
WDM
KXXX
MUU
MUM
f
Jj
MXX XXM
XXM I moot
MM
KXXX
SCHEDULE O.7—NOMION VALUE OF CASH FLOWS
A. MpracMtoivkM konion v«lo».
I MM 0*1 *)• >K
( OqmcMtan Ian
_
c TM ••*«•
a Nmnrt aoe«i nluM
k I MO**
t AMrag*..
I D«jMcMafr*M tanran vaki*
» 1
4
t ToM
il HI
mait el
MXI
MM
MM
nan
MM
MM
MM
now
HonnnirMi*
IMI INI IM3 IM4
MM
now
MM
MM
XMX
MM
MM
KMX
MM
XMX
MM
XMX
MM
MM
XMX
MM
MM
MXX
MM
XMX
MM
MM
XMX
MXX
MM
MM
MM
XXXX
KXXX
r All M
Mf Nt AM QUAUf V
MMVUUANCI
Sec
•1.1 Ueiliiltione.
HI Furpaec.
M.I AppHeabUlly.
lufcpwt a— «UnMeri*fl Criteria
IS. 10 Quality aaaurance.
Mil Monltorln* method*.
M.ll Sltlns ol InalrumenU or Inatrumant
Mil BLAU8melhodolosy.
M.ll MonUorlns network completion
MI« IReaervedl
MU Byelem modlllcallon.
M.M Annual SLAMS aumraary report.
Mil Compliance date lor air quality i
reportlns.
M.M Reslonal Ollke SLAMS data acquW
I Air I
Mil Opcretlns Khcdule.
M.ll Bpeclal purpOM monllon.
(NAMS)
M.M HAMS network eatabllahmenl.
M.ll NAMS network description.
M.II HAMS approval.
M.II NAUB methodolosy.
M.I4 NAUB network completion.
M.ll NAM8 data lubmltlal.
MM Byilem modlllcallon
Air quality aunreUlutc*: PUn con-
Unl.
IS II SLAMS nelwoik de»lf n.
»S4S Index reporllnf
128
Af «ncy
8ec.
-Tedetell
M.M Federal monitor)!*.
M.II Monitoring other polluUnU.
ArriMBii A-QUALITV AIIURANC* RCQUIM-
Mtine ro« Bran ana Local A» MOM-
TOimg Bf atiOMi I8LAM8I
Arruoii B-Quaurv AMURAMCC RMUMC-
H(HT* rOB PlCTKHTIOH or SlOlllriCAin
DnuioUTioM (P8D) Aia MomraaiHQ
ArrnBiK C-Aunorr Aia QUAUTV MOMI-
Toaina UITHOPOUMT
ArrnBic D— NnwoiB DnioH MB 8tan
an* LOCAL Aia MONITORUM BTanom
(8LAM8I AH» Nario*aL'Aia MoniToaiM
BtatlOMlNAMBt
ArrtMMi E-P»oe§ Bniira Caitaia raa
Ajuiairr AH Quaurr MOMITOIIM
ArriMMl F— AMHUaL BLAMB Au Quautv
liiroi MATIO*
ArrcMMB O— tlMiroiu Aia Quaurv !••*•
ana D»ii¥ RUOBTIIM
AUTNOIITV: Bee*. II*. MIUI. III. and II*
•f the Clean Air Act <4I VM.C. f«l*.
IMI(a). 1«ll. 1*1*1.
Bouicc 44 FR Hill. May I*. 1*1*.
oihervbe noted.
S«*i)pe)rf A — Oana««l
IM.I
. As used In this part, all terms not de-
fined herein have the meaning given
them In the Act:
(a) "Act" means the dean Air Act as
amended (49 U.8.C. 1401. et aeq.).
"SLAMS" means State or Local
Air Monitoring 8latton(a>. The
SLAMS make up the ambient air qual-
ity monitoring network which to re-
quired by | M.M to be provided for In
the State's Implementation plan. This
definition places no restrictions on the
use of the physical structure or facili-
ty housing the SLAMS. Any combina-
tion of SLAMS and any other moni-
tors (Special Purpose. NAMS. PSD)
may occupy the same facility or struc-
ture without affecting the respective
definitions of those monitoring sta-
tion.
(c) "NAMS" means National Air
Monitoring Stattonts). Collectively the
NAMS are a subset of the SLAMS am-
bient air quality monitoring network.
(d> "PSD station" means any station
operated for the purpose of establish-
ing the effect on air quality of the
emissions from a proposed source for
purposes of prevention of significant
IM.I
deterioration as required by I tl.a«(n>
of Part 61 of this chapter.
(e> "SO," means sulfur dioxide.
(f) "NO," means nitrogen dioxide.
(g) -CO" means carbon monoxide.
"Regional Administrator" means
the Administrator of one of the ten
EPA Regional Offices or his or her au-
thorised representative.
(I) "Stale agency" means the air pol-
lution control agency primarily re-
sponsible for development and Imple-
mentation of a plan under the Act,
(m> "Local agency" means any local
government agency, other than the
State agency, which la charged with
the responslblllly for carrying out a
portion of the plan.
(n) "Indian Reservation" means any
Federally recognized reservation es-
tablished by treaty, agreement, execu-
tive order, or act of Congress.
(o) "Indian Governing Body" means
the governing body of any tribe, band.
or group of Indians subject to the Ju-
risdiction of the United States and rec-
ognised by the United States a* pos-
sessing power of self-government.
(p) "Storage and Retrieval of Acre-
metric Data (SAROAD) system" to a
computerised system which stores and
reports Information relating to ambi-
ent air quality.
(q» "BAROAD alt* Identification
?£r"loato,^or ltw Bev«ral lon"* »
the SAROAD system. It to the form
which provides a complete description
of the sit* (and Its surroundings) of an
ambient air quality monitoring sta
(r) "Traceable" means that a local
•tandard has been compared and certi-
fied, either directly or via not more
than one Intermediate standard to a
primary standard such as a National
Bureau of Standards Standard Refer
«*" Material (NB8 8RM) or a
USEPA/NBS approved Certified Ref-
erence Material 4CRM).
(s) "Urban area population" means
the population defined In the most
120
-------
I Sill
l«-ve! of llmt monitoring tile concen-
tration with respect to the level of the
controlling standard. For UIOM area*
In which the ahortterm (34-hour)
standard U controlling- I.e.. ha* the
hlihcil ratio, the (elective sampling
requirements are Illiulraled In Figure
I. If the operating agency were able to
demonstrate, by a combination of his-.
torical TOP data and at least one year
of PMi. data that there were certain
periods of the year where condition*
preclude violation of the PMM 24-hour
standard, the Increased sampling fre-
quency for those periods or seasons
may be exempted by the Regional Ad-
ministrator and revert back to once In
six days. The minimum sampling
schedule for all other sites In the area
would be once every six days. For
those areas In which the annual stand-
ard U the controlling standard, the
minimum sampling schedule for all
monitors In the area would be once
every sla days. During the annual
review of the BLAM8 network, the
most recent year of data must be con-
sidered to estimate the air quality
status for the controlling air quality
standard 124-hour or annual). Statisti-
cal models such as analysis of concen-
tration frequency distributions as de-
scribed In "Guideline for the Interpre-
tation of Oune Air Quality Stand-
ards." EPA 450/411 001. U.8. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Research
40 CM Cli. I (7-l-M
Triangle Park. N.C.. January 1979.
should be used. Adjustments to the
monitoring schedule must be made on
the basis of the annual review. The
site having the highest concentration
In the most current year must be given
first consideration when selecting the
site for the more frequent sampling
schedule. Other factors such as major
change In sources of PM» emissions or
In sampling site characteristics could
Influence the location of the expected
maximum concentration site. Also, the
use of the most recent three years of
data might In some cases, be Justified
In order to provide a more representa-
tive data base from which to estimate
current air quality status and to pro-
vide stability to the network. This
multlyear consideration would reduce
the possibility of an anamalous year
biasing a site selected for accelerated
sampling. If the maximum concentra-
tion alt* based on the most current
year ls not selected for the more fre-
quent operating schedule, documenta-
tion of the justification for selection
of an alternate site must be submitted
to the Regional Office for approval
during the annual review process. It
should be noted that minimum data
completeness crltlerla. number of
yean of data and sampling frequency
for Judging attainment of the NAAQ8
are discussed In Appendix K of Part
BO.
|sivlro«Monlsj| Protection Agency
Every Sixth Day
fSI.M
>
f
Every Other Osy
1
L
Every Day
1
>
0.8 .0.9 1.0 I.I |.l |.j 1.4
Ratio to Standard
144 PR mil. May 10. 1010. as amended at
II n» 141*0. July I. 10*11
• U.I4 B*«ckl
(at Any ambient air quality monitor-
ing station other than a SLAMS or
PSD station from which the State In-
tends to use the data as part of a dem-
onstration of attainment or nonattaln-
ment or In computing a design value
for control purposes of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQ8) must meet the requirements
for SLAMS described In I M.22 and.
after January I. IBM. must also meet
the requirements for SLAMS u de-
scribed In IM.12 and Appendices A
and B to this part.
Provide for meeting the require-
ments of Appendices A. C. D. and C to
this part.
(c) Provide for the operation of at
least one SLAMS per pollutant except
Pb during any stage of an air pollution
episode aa defined In the contingency
plan.
(d) Provide for the review of the air
quality surveillance system on an
annual basis to determine If the
system meets the monitoring objec-
tives defined In Appendix D to this
part. Such review must Identify
needed modifications to the network
such as termination or relocation of
unnecessary stations or establishment
of new stations which are necessary.
132
133
-------
oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/4-8T-C:2
June 1987
Air
On-Site Meteorological
Program Guidance for
Regulatory Modeling
Applications
ENVIRfci "
AUG ;.«-> uo.
LIBRARY SERvltu
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.2
-------
ft. S», ..pp. A
40 C« Ch. I (7-l-M Edlllen)
SCHEDULE 0.6— PERMANENT WAIVER FROM INIEFNM CON mots Tesi- Continued
• Cum* Mfcts* «*u»
I*
IOU1I
low
SCHEDULE D7—HOWZON VAIUC OF CAIH Ftowt
I. IM CM* *M
OtpwMorvk** horiran o«ui
lM
ri»ui« tiki* ol IM Mv«9>
ToUl pmrt «•*• •! IM M
C Ho.t»m Vtkj*.
Ini
•I
FMtortCMI
MM
MM
XXXX
MM
XXXX
MM
WOW
now
MM
MM
Horirai|Mra
ie*i itat IMI i»t4
MOM
loom
MM
nan
MM
MM
MM
MM
XXM
MM
MM
XMX
xxxx
XMX
XXXX
XXXX
XMX
XXM
XXM
XXM
XMX
XXXX
XXM
MM
XXXX
XMX
MM
MM
XXM
XXM
IM*
XMX
XXM
XXM
MM
XMX
XXXX
MM
XXXX
M— AMIIENI AW QUAUf V
IIIRVilUANCt
l PnvUlMW
8cc.
U.I Dellnltfcma.
Ill Purpose.
M.I Applicability.
tiAfmt • M»«Mirfai« OUtttu
M.II Quality auurance.
III! Monltorlni melhndi.
II II Sltlni of InilrumcnU or Instrument
Bcc.
Mil SLAMSOMlhodolofy.
M.M Uonllorlni network completion.
Ml* IReservedl
IIU System modification.
M.M Annual BLAM8 tumnuiry teport.
M.n Compliance date lor air quality data
reporting.
M.tt Regional Office SLAMS data acquUI
•I. II Operatlnt schedule.
II 14 Special purpose monitors.
— !*•«• •** l««l Ak
ItatfMW (UAMI)
Ilia Air quality sunrrlllance: Plan con-
trnt.
II 21 8UAU8 network d«l|n.
(MAM!)
MM HAMS network etUbllshment.
MII NAM8 network description.
M.II MAMS approval.
M.II NAMSmelhodoloiy.
M.I4 MAMS network completion.
Mil NAM8datesubmltlal.
M.M System modification
|»>p««t I—Afc Qwrflly lnrf«»
IIII Index reporting.
128
lnvk*nm«nl*l f r«Uctlt>n Af •rtcy
Bte.
ederal «U
MM Federal monllorlni.
M.II Monltorlni other pollutant*.
ArriMMi A-Qo»tifV AatocancB
MUTTS ro« ST*TI »n» Vocu. AM Mom-
toaiHo 8T*Tiom ISLAM8)
ArriHdx B-QUM.ITV AHUIUNCI Rnuiar
M»rn ro« Pkivciinoii or Biamncttn
DmaioiATioM (P8DI AM MoniToaiM
Attain* C— Alma*? AM QUALITT Mom-
TOBIHQ MaTHOMIMMT
ArrniMi D— Nirwoia Otaioii ro» 0r*n
an* VOCAL AM MOHITORIH* Sratiom
(8LAM8I AM* NATIOHAL AM MoMlwum
arATiom (NAM8I
ArroiiK B-Pmoei 8itm« CaimiA roa
AtuMHt AM Quaun MoHiToaiH*
ArrciwiB f— Annual SLAMS AM QUALITY
Arra»iB O— UniroaM AM Qoaurr Inaci
an* Daitv Rntmrin*
Avnioairr: Sea. lit. Mllal. 111. and lit
of the Clean Air Act Ml VAC. Kit.
SOUICK «4 FR Mill. May It. int.
otherwbe noted.
A— 99M
IM.I DeflnHlMM.
At uted In thlt part, all terma not de-
fined herein have the meaning given
them In the Act:
(a) "Act" meant the Clean Air Act at
amended <4» O.fl.C. 1401, et teq.).
"8LAIIS" meant State or local
Air Monitoring SUtlorrfi). The
SLAMS make up the ambient air qual-
ity monitoring network which to re-
quired by | N.M to be provided for In
the State-t Implementation plan. Thto
definition placet no rettrlctloni on the
me of the phyiteal ttructure or facili-
ty houtlng the SLAMS. Any combina-
tion of SLAMS and any other moni-
tor* (Special Purpose. HAMS. PSD)
may occupy the tame facility or ttruc-
ture without affecting the respective
definition* of thote monitoring tta-
tlon.
"PSD elation" mean* any ttatton
operated for the purpoce of eatablMt-
Ing the effect on air quality of the
emission* from a proposed touree for
purpose* of prevention of *lgnlfkant
J.1
deterioration a* required by I 5I.J4(n)
of Part (I of this chapter.
"CO" mean* carbon monoxide.
(h) "O," mean* ocone.
(I) "Plan" mean* an Implementation
plan, approved or promulgated pursu-
ant to Mctlon 110 of the Clean Air Act.
"AdmlnUlrator" meant the Ad-
mlnlttrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) or hit or her au-
thorised representative.
(k) "Regional Administrator" meant
the AdmlnUlrator of one of the ten
EPA Regional Office* or hit or her au-
thorized representative.
(I) "State agency" meant the air pol-
lution control agency primarily re-
tpontlhle for development and Imple-
mentation of a plan under the Act.
(m) "Local agency" meant any local
government agency, other than the
State agency, which to charged with
the responsibility for carrying out a
portion of the plan.
(n) "Indian Recervallon" meant any
Federally recognised reservation es-
tablished by treaty, agreement, execu-
tive order, or act of Congress.
(o) "Indian Governing Body" means
the governing body of any tribe, band.
or group of Indians subject to the ju-
risdiction of the United Slate* and rec
ogntoed by the United State* at pos-
sessing power of *elf-government.
(p) "Storage and Retrieval of Airo-
metrtc Data (8AROAD) ayttem" to a
computerised *y*lem which ttoret and
reports Information relating to ambi-
ent air quality.
(q) "8AROAD tlte Identification
form" to one of the teveral forme In
the 8AROAD ty*tem. U to the form
which provides a complete description
of the tlte (and Its surroundings) of an
ambient air quality monitoring sta-
tion.
(r) "Traceable" means that a local
standard hat been compared and certi-
fied, either directly or via not more
than one Intermediate standard, to a
primary standard such at a National
Bureau of Standards Standard Refer-
ence Material (NB8 8RM) or a
USEPA/NB8 approved Certified Ref-
erence Material (CRM).
(s) "Urban area population" means
the population defined In the most
129
-------
ri. s§, A??. A
velopment ol a Quality Assurance Program
lor SLAMS automated analyser*. Many spe-
cific quality control checks and specifies
lions tor manual method* are Included hi
the respective reference method* described
In Part U ol this chapter or hi the respec-
tive equivalent method description* avail-
able from EPA (see Reference I). Similarly.
quality control procedures related to specifi-
cally designated reference and equivalent
analyzer* ar* contained hi the respective op-
eration and Instruction manuals associated
with those analyser*. This guidance, and
any other pertinent Information from ap-
propriate sourceii. should be used by the
Slate* In developing their quality assurance
program*.
A* a minimum, each qualHy assurance
program must Include operational proce-
dures for each of the following actlvHtea:
(I) Selection til methods, analysers, ar
samplers;
(I) Training;
(I) Installation sf equipment;
l«> Selection and control ol calibration
standards;
(II Calibration:
(•) Zero/span check* and adjustment* of
automated analysers;
(1) Control checks and their frequency;
(•) Control llrolte for sero. (pan and other
control check*, and respective corrective aa-
llons when such limit* are surpassed:
(•I Calibration and aeru/span check* tor
multiple range analysrra tare Section l.« of
Appendix C ol this part):
(!•> Preventive and remedial mainte-
nance;
(III QualHy control procedure* lor air
pollution episode monitoring:
III) Recording and validating data:
III) Date qualHy assessment (precision
and accuracy K
(U) Documentation of quslUy control In-
formation.
II PoHalaaf Concentration •»* **•»
JUU JMsNdants.
1.1.1 Gaseous pollutant concentration
standard* (permeation device* ar cylinder*
ol compressed gs*) used to obtain test con-
centration for CO. SO,, and NO, must be
traceable to eHher a National Bureau at
Standards (NB8) Standard Reference Mate-
rial ISRMI or an NBS/EPA approved com-
mercially available Certified Reference Ma-
terial ICRMI. CRM'* are described In Refer-
ence I. and a list ol CRM sources to avail-
able from the QualHy Assurance Division
(MD 11). Environmental Monitoring Sys-
tems Laboratory. U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. Research Triangle Park. NC
Hill.
General guidance and recommended tech-
niques lor eerlllylng gaseous working stand-
ards against an 8HM or CRM are provided
In section * • 1 ol Relerence I Direct use ol
a CRM as a wurilng standard to acceptable.
40 UR Cli. I (7-t-M MM**)
but direct use ol an NOB SRM as a working
standard Is discouraged because ol the limit-
ed supply and eipensc of SRMs.
I.I.I Test concentrations lor O, must be
obtained hi accordance with the UV photo-
metric calibration procedure specified In Ap
pendli D of Part M of this chapter, or by
mean* of a cerlllled ozone transfer stand-
ard. Consult Helerences • and 1 tor guid-
ance on primary and transfer standards for
OH
t.l.l Plow rate measurement* must be
made by a flow measuring Instrument that
la traceable to an authoritative volume or
other standard. Guidance for certifying
some type* of flowmelers la provided In Ref-
erence I.
14 National Performance and System
Audit Programs
Agende* operating SLAMS network sta-
tions thall be subject to annual EPA ays-
Ums audit* of their ambient air monitoring
program and are required to participate n
EPA'* National Performance Audit Pro
gram. These audits are described In section
I.4.M of Reference I snd section It.ll of
Reference I. Por Instruction*, agencies
abouM contact either the appropriate EPA
Regional Quality Assurance Coordinator or
the QualHy Assurance Division (MD-11BI.
Environmental Monitoring Systems Labora-
tory, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park. NC 17111.
I. Data Qmlily JIMSIIH«I| Jl«f Nlmncitls
AM ambient monitoring method* or ana-
lyser* used to SLAMS shall be toted peri
odkatly. aa described In this section I. to
quantitatively asses* the qualHy ol the
•LAMS data being routinely produced.
Measurement accuracy and predawn are es-
timated for both automated and manual
methods. The Individual result* ol these
testa lor each method or analyser shall be
reported to EPA as specified In aeetlon «.
EPA WIN then calculate quarterly Integrat-
ed estimates of precision and accuracy appal-
eakl* to the SLAMS date a* described hi
•oeUon I. Date assessment result* should k*
reported to EPA only lor method* and ana-
lyser* approved lor use In SLAMS monitor-
mg under Appendix C ol this Part.
The Integrated data qualHy assessment es-
timate* will be calculated on the bails of
-reporting organisations." .A reporting orga-
nisation la defined as a Stale, subordinate
organisation wlthm a Stale, or other organi-
sation that la responsible lor a set of •la-
lion* that monitor the cam* pollutant and
for which precision or accuracy assessment*
can be pooled. Stele* must define one or
more reporting organizations tor each pol-
lutant such Ihsl esch monitoring station hi
the State 8I.AM8 network ls Included In
one. and only one. reporting organisation.
138
invh-onmonlwl Pra
Afjwncy
Each reporting organisation ahaB bo de-
nned aueh that precision or accuracy among
all atelhNM m the organisation can be ex-
pected to he reasonably homogeneous, aa a
result of common factor*. Common factor*
that should be considered by State* m de-
fining reporting organisations unhide: til
operation by a common team of NeM opera-
tors. (I) common calibration fadHUea. and
tl) support by a common laboratory ar
headquarter*. Where there to uncertainly hi
defining the reporting organisation* or hi
assigning apedfie sHes to reporting organi-
sation*. State* shall eonsuH wHh the i
prlate EPA Regional Office for
All definition* at reporting
•hall b* subject to fhial approval by the ap-
propriate EPA Regional Of Ike.
Assessment resulta ahall b* reported! aa
flew standards must be aa •pedfled hi aee-
tlon* I.I or M. In addition, working stand-
arda and aquvpmcn
audits must not b* Ih* i
PI. M. A»f>. A
•Betted by the amodaled operation or m-
•trucUon manual, a CO analyser maybe
paint aibcr lhan Ilia naviiial aampla Inlet.
•MovHsWnf cnaf (IM anaiyacf a vaflponaa ni naft
Mkely to he aHered by these devntllon* from
the normal ope
check b made hi conjunction wHh • sero or
such aaro or span adjuetmenla. Rjuideenhn-
Man of the precision check wHh respect to
time of day. day of week, and routine •ervtce
and adjustment* to encouraged where posst-
of he
analysers ar analytical systems It
concentrations) shouM he baaed on Btakie
reaesnp* snej must us derived wy masna sv
mg syttem used to obtain the jroJhMi ato
ng date is
and Reference I. seeUon I.v.t.l.Mdl).
A-l provMei a Mimmary of
ps««n.
)). Tahh)
whteh aro described
•omwiiig sections.
• i
S.B
ths actual coneenti
check gas and the •
concentrations Indicated by ths analyser.
Ths percent difference* between thess con-
•BMtratfons sre used to assess ths pre^etoisn
of ths BMmHoring date aa described m see-
UonsM.
1.1 Accuracy at Automated Methods.
Each calendar quarter (during which ana-
town are operated). audH at wast t» per-
cent af ths SLAMS analysers that monHor
for BO* NO*, Ob or CO such that each ana-
lyser b audited at bast ones per year. It
there are fewer than tour analysers lor a
pollutant wHhto) a reporting organisation.
randomly reaudH one or more analysers as
that at least on* analyser lor that pollutant
'A strongly encourage* more tre-
eut at bast once every two weeks en each
automated analyser used to measure BOk.
NO*, O, and CO. Ths precision check b
mad* by chaHengmg the analyser wHh a
Kcbton check ga* of known eoneentratbn
ween ••» and t.lt ppm tar SO* NO*,
and O. analysers, and between • and It ppm
far CO analysers. Ts check ths preiblsn of
SLAMS analyser* operating an rang**
hhjher than • to M ppm SO* NO., and O..
ar t to Iws ppss tar CO. us* praclab*) ahscli
aa approved by the appropriate Regional
Administrator or hto deslgnee. However, the
faauHa ant precision cnactu at concanttTBtton
leveto other than those shown show need
not b* reported to EPA. The standards f raa*
audHmg. up to an audit frequency of
per quarter for each SLAMS analyser.
TheaudHtomadebychalknglngtheana
lyssr wHh at least one audH ga* of known
eontBntiaUon tram each af ths tsMewIng
range* thai taM wHhm ths
rants a* ths analyser being aw
MfeMl
1 -
1 —
t
*...__
•ft.0.
•es-oai
• W-SM
• M*«t
•at-* SB
NO,
eggsas
• H-e>*
•ts-a.ei
00
Mg*
at-w
ga-at
et the •pedtlealloM of
HOb audH gaa lor i
NO, analyser*
• M ppm NO.
NO eoncentratloM
(type
are obtained mu
section f .».
Except lor certain CO analysers described
below. analyser* must operate m their
normal sampHng mode during the prackdon
check, and the test atmosphere must pas*
through *H filter*, acrubbera. conditioner*
and other component* used during normal
ambient sampling and aa much of the amM-
enl air Inlet system a* to practicable. II per-
higher than *.M ppm. a* may occur when
using aome gas phase IHrallon (OPT) tech-
nMjtMa» may tvad to audit cffara In CnCtnMii*
mmescence analyser* due to Inevitable
mhwr NO-NO, channel Imbalance. Such
error* may be atypical of routine monHor-
b* •nor* to the extent that auch NO eon
ccntratmna exceed typical ambient NO con-
centration* at the site. These errors may be
minimised by modifying the OPT technique
139
-------
ft. 51, App. A
to lover the NO concentration* remaining
In the NO, audit gas to leveli closer to typi-
cal ambient NO concentration* at the ille.
To audit 8I.AM8 analysers operallnt on
range* hither than • to 1.0 ppm for SO,.
NO,, and O. or t to 100 ppm for CO. uae
audit gases of appropriately higher concen-
tration a* approved by the appropriate Be
•tonal Adrahiltlralor or hU deslgnee. The
results of audit* at concentration level*
other than thoae *hown In the above Uble
need not be reported to EPA.
The standard* from which audit ft* test
concentration* are obtained roiul meet the
•predications of Mellon 1.1. Working or
Iranifer standards and equipment wed for
auditing mint not be the aame a* the stand-
ardi and equipment u*ed for calibration and
•panning, but may be referenced to MM
*ama NBS 8RM. CUM. or primary OV pho-
tometer- The auditor should not be the op-
erator or analyst who conduct* the routine
monitoring, calibration, and analysis.
The audit ihall be carried out by allowing
the analyser to analyse the audit teat at-
monphere In H* normil sampling mode *uch
that the leit almoiphere paate* through all
tiller*. *crubben. conditioner*, and other
•ample Inlet component* used during
normal ambient sampling and a* much of
the ambient air Inlet *y*tem M I* practica-
ble. The eicepllon given In Mellon 1.1 for
certain CO analyser* doe* not apply for
audit*.
Report both the audit teal concentration*
and the corresponding concentration mess-
uremenl* Indicated or produced by the ana-
lyser being tested. The percent difference!
between Iheae concentration* are used to
auew the accuracy of the monitoring data
a* deacrlbed In aeetlon ».l.
1.1 Precision of Manual Method*. For
each network of manual method*, select one
or more monitoring *lte* within the report-
Ing organisation tor duplicate, collocated
sampling a* follow*: for I to I rite*. Mitel I
•Ite: tor • to 10 *lte*. (elect 1 sites; and for
over 10 cite*, (elect 1 sites. Where posslbk.
additional collocated sampling la encour-
aged. For parlkulaU matter, a network for
meararlng PM» (hall be separate from •
TOP network BHei having annual mean
parllculate matter concentration* among
the highest M percent ot the annual mean
concentration* for all the tile* hi the net-
work mud be (elected or. If *uch sites are
Impractical, alternate tltei approved by the
Regional Administrator may be selected.
In determining the number of collocated
•Ite* required, monitoring network* tor Pb
•hould be treated Independently from net-
works tor psrlkulale mailer, even though
the separate networks msy share one or
more common samplers. However, a single
pair ot samplers collocated at a common-
sampler monitoring Mr that meets the re-
quirements tor both a collocated lead site
40 CfR Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
and a collocated partlculale matter site may
serve as a collocated site for both networks.
The two collocated samplers must be
within 4 meters ot each other, and parllcu-
late matter samplers must be at least 1
meters apart to preclude airflow Interfer-
ence. Calibration, sampling and analysis
must be the same for both collocated ssm-
plers and the same as lor all other samplers
tot the network.
For each pair ol collocated sampler*, des-
ignate one sampler as the primary sampler
•hose samples will be used to report air
quality tor the site, and designate the other
a* the duplicate sampler. Each duplicate
•ampler must be operated concurrently with
It* assoclsled routine sampler at least once
per week. The operation schedule should be
•elected so that the sampling days are dis-
tributed evenly over the year and over the
•even day* ot the week. The every g-day
schedule used by many monitoring agencies
I* recommended. Report the measurements
from both samplers at each collocated sam-.
pllng site. Including measurements falling
below the limits specified In I.I.I. The per-
cent differences In messured concentration
(pg/ml between the two collocated sam-
plers are used to calculate precision as de-
acrlbed In section 1.1.
1.4 Accuracy of Manual Methods. The
accuracy of manual sampling methods Is as-
sessed by auditing a portion ot the measure-
ment process. Tot parllculate matter meth-
ods, the flow rate during sample collection
to audited. For SO. and NO, methods, the
analytical measurement Is audited. For Pb
methods, the flow rate and analytical meas-
urement are audited.
1.4.1 Parlkulale matter methods. Each
calendar quarter, audit the trow rate ot at
leail M percent ot the samplers such thsl
each sampler I* audited at kast once per
year. It there are fewer than four sampkrs
wllhin a reporting organization, randomly
reaudlt one or more samplers so that on*
sampler I* audited each calendar quarter.
Audit each sampler at It* normal operating
flow rale, using a flow rate transfer stand
ard a* described In section 1.1.1. The flow
rate standard used for auditing must not be
the aame flow rate standard used to csH-
brate the sampler. However, both the esU
•ration standard and the audit standsrd
•nay be referenced to the same primary flaw
rate standard. The flow audit should bt
scheduled so as to avoid Interference with s
scheduled sampling period. Report the audit
flow rates and the corresponding flow rales
Indicated by the sampler's normally used
flow Indicator. The percent differences be-
tween these flow rales are used to calculate
accuracy as described In section 1.4.1.
Great care must be used In auditing high-
volume parlkulate matter ssmplers having
flow regulators because the Introduction ol
140
Envlronmonlejl Protoclton Afjmcy
resistance plate* In the audit flow standard
device can cause abnormal flow pattern* at
the point of flow sensing. For this reason.
the flow audit standard should bt used with
a normal filler In place and without resist-
ance plate* m auditing flow regulated high-
volume samplers, or other steps (hould be
taken to assure that flow pattern* are not
perturbed at the point of flow sensing.
1.4.1 SO, Methods. Prepare audit solu-
tion* from • working aultlte-tetraehloromcr-
curate (TCMI solution aa described fa sec-
tion 10.1 of the BO, Reference: Method«Ap-
pendix A ot Part N ot this chapter). These
audit asmplea mutt be prepared Independ-
ently from the standardised Mlflte solu-
tions used In the routine calibration proce-
dure. Sulfltc TCM audit samples must be
ttared between • and I *C and esplrt M
day* after preparation.
Prepare audit samples m each ol tht con-
centration range* of 0.1-41.1.0.1-0.0. Mid 0.0-
OJ M MX/Ml. Analyse an audit sample In
each of Hit three ranges at kast ones tack
day that aamplet art analysed Mid at kast
twice per calendar quarter. Report MM audit
concentration* (m ft fMVml) and tht cor-
8O,/mli. The percent dlffereneos between
the** concentration* art used to calculate
accuracy M deacrlbed hi section 1.4.1.
1.4.1 NO, Methods. Prepare audit aoht-
tlont from • working sodium nitrite sohiihm
at described hi tht appropriate eqwtvaknt
method tact Reference 4). These audit sam-
ple* must bt prepared Independently from
Hit standardised nitrite solutions used fa
Hit roiitfat calibration procedure. Sodium
nitrite audU samples tsplre to 1 month*
after preparation. Prepare audit aampka fa
tack of the concentration range* of 0.1-0.1.
0.1-0 0. and 0.1-0.0 M NO./ml. Analyse MI
audit sample to each of tht three range* at
kast once each day that samples an ana-
lysed and at kast twice per calendar quar-
ter. Report the audit concentrations (to M
N0,/mll and tht corresponding Indicated
concentrations (to ft NO,/ml>. Tht percent
difference* between the** eoneentraUont
art used to calculate accuracy aa described
hi section 1.4.1.
1.4.4 Pb Methods. For th* Pb Reference
Method (Appendli Q of Part M ot Into
chapter!, the flow rates of tht high volume
Pb samplers shall be audited a* part of Hi*
T8P network using Hie same procedure* de-
scribed fa Section 1.4.1. For agencies operat-
ing both TBP and Pb networks. U percent
of tht total number of high-volume sam-
plers art to be audited each quarter.
Each caknder quarter, audit tht Pb Ret
erence Method analytical procedure using
glsss fiber filter strips containing a known
quantity ot Pb. These audit sampk strips
are prepared by depositing a Pb solution on
1.0 cm by M.I cm IK Inch by 0 Inch) unei
posed glass fiber filler strips and allowing
n. St. App. A
them to dry thoroughly. Tht audit samples
must be prepared using batches of reagents
different from those used to calibrate the
Pb analytical equipment being audited. Pre-
pare audit samples In the following concen-
tration ranges:
•• •*<*** « It mlmm ft» 14 l_
a* ai M»> M tic* •»<• ISM ttv.
mst bt eslracted using the
i estractkm procedure used for tsposad
titters.
AdftlVM thrCtt ftHluMft aWlaaUklwM •• aMMtll faff
tht two range* each quarter samples art
analysed. Tht audit sampk analyse* shall
be distributed a* much a* possible over the
entire calendar iiiarter. Report the audit
concentration* (fa pg Pb/strlp) and the cor
responding measured concentration* (fa M
Pb/atripl using unit code 11. Tht percent
difference* between the concentrations art
used to eakulate analytical accuracy as de-
scribed fa section 1.4.1.
Tht accuracy of an equivalent Pb Method
to assessed fa the same manner a* for tht
reference method. Tht How auditing device
and Pb analysis audit samples must be com-
IMUMt with tht speclllc requirements of tht
equivalent method.
4. ffeporfiNf ftetsjlremesite
For each pollutant, prepare a list of all
monitoring sites and their 8AROAD site
Identification codes to each reporting orga-
nisation and submit the list to the appropri-
ate EPA Regional Office, with a copy to the
Environmental Monitoring Systems Labora-
tory IMO-1II. VM. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency. Research Triangle Park. North
Carolina mil (EM8L/RTPI. Whenever
there to a change In this list of monitoring
•lie* fa a reporting organisation, report this
change to the Regional Office and to
EMBL/RTP.
4.1 quarterly Report*. Within IM cakn-
dar days after the end of each calendar
quarter, each reporting organization shall
report to EMSI./RTP via the appropriate
EPA Regional Offke the results of all valid
precision and accuracy tests H has carried
out during the quarter. Report all collocat-
ed measurements Including those falllnt
below the kvek specified to section I.I.I Do
not report results from Invalid tests, from
teats carried out during a lime period for
which ambient data Immediately prior or
subsequent to the tests were Invalidated for
141
-------
PI. si. AM. A
appropriate reeaona. «r from letU ol meth-
od! or analyser* not approved for tat hi
SlJlMB'monltorlng network* under Appen-
dli C of Ihb part.
Quarterly report! an tpecllled herein shall
commence not later than the r»port pertain-
Ini to the lint calendlar quarter ol IM1. al
Ihouih euch reporU will be accepted begin-
nlni with the report pertalnlm to the third
calendar quarter ol I Me.
The Information ahouM be reported In a
formal almllar to that ehown In Figure* A-l
and A-l. The daU may be reported (II via
magnetic computer tape according to dato
format apeclllcatlona provided by the Re-
gional Olikei. Ill by direct. Interactive com-
puter entry via • data terminal and the
PAR8 dato entry ii'ilera. or 111 on the
lorroi Uliutratcd In Figure* A-l and A-l.
Minor variation! of theie form* (to faclU-
talc local luel or computer-generated (lac-
almllel forme may aH*o be uied. provided
they follow the aam« general format. UM
the Mme block number*, and are clear and
completely legible. Instruction! for u*4ng
thcM fomuj arc ptovUted to aecllon «.I.
WMhto Mt daye altor UM end of UM re-
porting quarter. ETA will cakulato Integrat-
ed predawn and accuracy aueumenU for
each reporting organ ballon aa apecttkd In
•rctlon • and tetum. through the Regional
Office*. reporU of Ui* reipectlvg uaeai-
menu to each reporting organisation.
1.1 Annual Report*. When predawn Mid
accuiacy estimate* loir a reporting organba-
lion have been cakulaled for all tour quar-
ten of the calendar y«ar. EPA wHI cakulale
the properly weighted probability NmMi for
precblon and accuracy for the entire calen-
dar year. Theae Hmllii will then be aaaocM-
ed with the dato lutmUlled In UM annual
SIMM repart nqulriid by I MM
Bach reporting orgnntullon ihaH nibmlt.
along with Ma annual SLAMS report. • Hat-
ing by poMutont of nil monitoring alto* to
the reporting organtenlWB.
41 ImtrucUoni lor Uamg Dato QuaNly
Anrumenl Reporting Forma. Suggested
formi for reporting data quality assessment
Information are provided In Figure A-l ifor
reporting accuracy data) and Figure A-l
(lor reporting predawn datal. The forma
may be uaed to a "unlvenal" way to report
dsla lor dlllerent polluUnU and lor differ
ent illea on tht lami form. Or. either form
may be uaed aa a slle-ipedlk or pollulant-
ipeellk lorn (where all entrki on the lorn
are lor a common situ, a common pollutant.
or bolhl by IIIHng In llhe alte or polhitonl In-
formation In the appropriate boi In the
upper kit corner ol the form Detailed In
•Iruclloni lor Individual block! are aa foj-
lowi:
Instructions common lo both forma:
40 CM Ch. I (7-l-M tdltlon)
DMCI fton
If
M
a-l.
g
•Mr DM ta» •*• SAHOAO ftato cow
ftapoMf Ckswvlon AimqMlAMCad*
on>ono4 or Mch NoM M Mdi ot at
IMPOCK* ropoKn* oiomuMoni
VM»: IMI km do* ol IM tttidm r*«
~ M
Ouofto. into I. ». J. « 4 to nto M *M
•Mttaf *HM, •Ndl IM dM
Into -«- to
» IMM OmmiMnt «|U pOMOMrf MB-
MM. • ~tr to oitoto pirHou^r tUwa
to! MMMmnl *U wlwi ! -*- M «
MIM\ «f*r ****• I to M KM! k* cow
AkM) enter the name ol the reporting orga-
ntoatlon. the date the form la mbmltted.
and (optionally I the name ol the peraon
who prepared the form on the blank* pro-
vided.
•I-M..
•4
H-ag...
g!K Into *<• gAWMO «••
c*e* KkM • «•» ertrl • •• wMM ••
CM tomi tw to tw MM «m. tntoi *•
•M CO* tnt •*• MMtMMM M t«
<**m ton MIIWI el M lam MM dw*
O* Mo«* to e> eon* •! •» ko« •*
HIM IM •ew Modn I! M II •! ft* •
Cost CnM «w I.HI.IIHK
d» ken IM hoc* ol IM ton
Abo onto IM ODSuto* •r"*ot to*, grx
CO. fgf. ok I M IM Ms* to CM toll ol
•took N». (I • si onhM on *• torn on
M ••
eia»
el
tlto
M M to toio M«A
eii^lim -«- « a •*".
f «toi •<• mar* w>t «M el •» to*
Additional kKtructlont lor Accuracy fora*
(Figure A-ir.
M
tttt
• Into tM M
toed •nrnvy itanMi! UM4. »•« M M
•rtewtof*
IM n«« into e» mN cod> run«Mr Mr»
IM «• cod* tot on IM (arm M* •*» *•
codMMWI AIM »nto ti I* IMI •» *•
MM* to •» Ml of Uod II
142
on Aflwncw
4I-4F.
M-el.
f r«it IM actoal oMI
m to M« MMI ft, I
1 tn* « 01 *j««cMM| Ox IM i
PI. M. A**. A
•da arc cakulatcd Irom the reauHa of M
weekly predawn check! aa apecllkd hi ace-
Uon 1.1. At the end of roch calendar quar-
ter, an Integrated predawn probability In-
terval for all 8MM8 analyaera tot the orga
mutton to cakulaled for each pollutant.
•.I.I Single Analyser Freetown. The per-
centage difference (d,f lor each prectolon
•chock to calculated ualng equation I. where
T, to UM concentration mdkaled by the ana-
lymtr lor the I th prectolon check and X, to
UM known concentration lor the I In pred
' *<
J\ J^hm^^^ • • •^•••J>1^^» f^tA dljhi, • mtmMm r»
JMMwfMlWl HMinoCtHMW tOf ITtClilOn
-ll:
K 100
(1)
(Ml Coo*. Into VM MNI eta) IMMMI IN
I c*o« M •» IM to* |w* eta/ (
MMI Atot «•* M I* Ml on I
WMlyaer. In* quarterly average
ley to calculated with equation >. and UM
atandard devtollon (8,1 with equation 1.
WltCft H IB tlW wMNWoWf Off pWClBlOO CwlCCeVal
t*) UM kMtrvmeM made during UM calendar
quarter. For eiampk. n ihouhf be • or 1 M
prectolon check! are made biweekly during •
n
2
(2)
i. OskaJoHaiM/tr OaU QaaHfr/ Jiammnil *j * A/SnllJl
CakutotUn of tattmatoa ot Iniegtatodjtro- * Jf L *
etoton and accuracy are carried owl by BFA
according to the loMowmg proeidurea. Ho. •.!.« Fintolin lor
porting organisation! ahouM report UM r«- *Mn. Fiar eoeh poHM
fMlM*l Bssf BIBBIIIstallBBMIsftl BtWlSlCBIISIIBIBl glffjsl BssMttsMVjklllV
Idota M apedfkd ha accUoM I and 4 oven
»•_ _ev A*> « - -
.
tach pollutant. UM average of
(Ol and UM pontod itandard devl-
T.I 'rr'ictolan of Automated Methods, b-
Umato* of the predawn of automated meth-
n
whore k to the number of anal
wMhtn'the reporting organisation for
143
-------
PI. SI, Ara>. A
O.i I -j
k J-l
nsdt * ...
40 CM Ch. I (7-1-M f dlllon)
Mi-
nt * no « ... * n
(5)
... *
Equation* 4 and I are uicd when the aame
number ol precUkm checks are made for
each analyier. Equation* la and la are uied
to obtain a velf hied averaie and a weighted
•tuidard deviation when different number*
of precision check* are made for the analys-
er*.
For each pollutant, the •» Percent Proba
blllty Umlt* for the precision of a reporting
organization are calculated mini equation*
• and 7.
« ... « iij « ... « nh - • (S*)
1.1.1 Accuracy for Reporting Organiza-
tion. Por each audit concentration kvel. th*
average ID) ol the Individual percentage dif-
ference* Id,) for all n analysen measuring a
given pollutant audited during the quarter
to cakulated using equation I.
n
(8)
|
Upper M Percent Probability
Umll-D« I.N 8. ..........................
Lower M Percent Probability
Uralt-D I M 8. ..........................
<•»
<1>
Por each concentration kvel. the standard
deviation 18.) ol all the Individual percent-
age difference* tor all analyser* audited
during the quarter to calculated, for each
pollutant, using equation ».
11 Accuracy of Automated Method*. •*•
llmatea of the accuracy of automated meth-
od* are calculated from the result* of Inde-
pendent audlU a* described In section I.S At
the end of each calendar quarter, an Inte-
grated accuracy probability Interval for all
fil-AMS analyser* audllrd In the reportlni
uriantaallon I* calculated for each pollut-
ant. Separate probability HmlU are calculat-
ed for each audit concentration level In sec-
tion 11
»1.1 Smile Analyser Accuracy. The per-
crnlace difference Id,) for each audit con
rrnlrallon Is cskulsted using equation I.
win-re Y, Is the analyzer's Indicated concen-
li niton meaiiurement from the I th audit
rlirrk and X, Is the ai-liiftl concentration ol
ilir audit gas used fur the I In audit check.
for reporting organisations having four or
tewer analysers for a partkular pollutant.
only one audit to required each quarter, and
the average and ilandard deviation cannot
be calculated. Por such reporting organisa-
tions. the audit results of two consecutive
quarters are required to calculate an aver-
age and a standard devlsllon. using equs
tlons • and •. Therefore, the reporting ol
probability limits shall be on a semiannual
(Instead of a quarterly ) basis.
144
Invtronmonlol Protoctl«Hi Atjmcy
Por each pollutant, the f I Pei
blllty UmlU for the accuracy of a reporting
organisation are cakulated at each audit
concentration kvel using equation* • and 1.
1.1 Precision of Manual Method*. Bill-
mate* of precision of manual method* are
calculated from the results obtained from
collocated samplers a* described In section
1.1. Al the end of each calendar quarter. MI
Integrated precision probability Interval for
all collocated sampler* operating hi the re-
porting organisation to cakulated tor each
manual method network.
I.I.I Single Sampler Precision. At tow
concentrations, agreement between the
measurement* of collocated aamplen. ••-
preased as percent differences, may be rela-
tively poor. Por thto reason, collocated
measurement pain arc aelected for use In
the precision calculation* only when both
meeaurementa are above the following
limit*
T8P: MM/HI*.
NO.: MM/HI*.
Pb:t.ll|4/m*.and
Por each selected measurement pair, the
percent difference Id,) to calculated, using
equation It,
(Y *
x 100
(10)
Where y, to the pollutant concentration
measurement obtained from the duplicate
•ampler and X, to th* concentration meas-
urement obtained from th* primary (ampler
designated tor reporting air quality for the
alto. Por each alto. MM quarterly avarag*
percent difference t«\> at calculated from
equation I and th* standard deviation 48,) to
calculated from equation 1. where n-the
nunber of aelected meaMirement pain at
the alto.
•.1.1 Precision for Reporting Organisa-
tion. Por each pollutant, the averag* per-
centage difference ID) and the pooled
•tandard deviation IS.) are calculated, using
equations 4 and I, or using equation* 4a and
la If different number* of paired measure-
ments are obtained at the collocated site*.
For these calculations, the k of equation* 4.
4a. I and la to the number of collocated
sites.
The M Percent Probability UmlU for the
Integrated precision for a reporting organi-
sation are calculated using equations 11 and
U.
Upper tl Percent Probability
Umlt - DI I.M 8./X/1
Ill)
ft. St, Ap». A
Lower M Percent Probability
Umlt-D I M8./X/1 nil
1.4 Accuracy of Manual Methods. Esti-
mates of the accuracy of manual methods
arc calculated from the results of Independ-
ent audit* a* described In Section 1.4. At the
end of each calendar quarter, an Integrated
accuracy probability Interval to calculated
for each manual method network operated
by the reporting organisation.
1.4.1 Partlculale Matter Samplers (In-
cluding reference method Pb samplers).
41) Single Sampler Accuracy. For the flow
rate audit described m Section 9.4.1. the
percentage difference id,) for each audit to
calculated using equation I. where X, repre-
sent* the known flow rale and Y, represent*
the flow rate Indicated by the sampler.
4b) Accuracy /or JteporHitf Orawnteajlton.
Por each type of partkulate matter meas-
ured le-g, TSP/Pb). the average ID) of the
Individual percent differences for all similar
partlculate matter samplers audited during
the calendar quarter to calculated using
equation I. The *landard deviation 18.1 of
the percentage difference* for all of the
similar partkulate matter samplers audited
during the calendar quarter to ealulated
using equation I. The H percent probability
llmlU tor the Integrated accuracy for the re-
porting organization are calculated using
equations • and 1. Por reporting organisa-
tion* having four or fewer partlculate
•natter (ampler* of one type, only one audit
to required each quarter, and the audit re-
sult* of two consecutive quarters are re-
quired to calculate an average and a stand-
ard deviation. In that case, probability
limit* ihall be reported aeml-annually
rather than quarterly.
1.4.1 Analytical Methods tor SO,. NIX
andPb.
la) Single Analysis-Day .Accuracy. Por
each of the audit* of the analytical method*
for 80* NO,, and Pb described In section
1.4.1.1.4.1. and 1.4.4. the percentage differ-
ence Id,) at each concentration level to calcu-
lated using equation I. where X, represents
the known value of the audit sample and Y,
represent* the value of SO. NO,, and Pb In-
dicated by the analytical method.
Ib) Accuracy for Rrportinf Orp«ni*«fio*.
for each analytkal method, the average ID)
of the Individual percent differences at each
concentration kvel for all audit* during the
calendar quarter to cakulaled using equa
tlon •. The standard deviation 18.) of the
percentage differences at each concentra-
tion level for all audits during the calendar
quarter to cakulaled using equation 0. The
M percent probability limits for the accura-
cy for the reporting organisation are r»lcu
lated using equations g and 1.
145
-------
ft. St. App. A
•e/ereneee
I. Rhode*. R.C. OuMcllne on MM Meanto*
and UM cl Preclelon Mid Accuracy Data Rt-
•jilred k>y «t CPR rut M Appendtce* A MM!
B. EPA-MO/4 M/MI. U8. Environmental
Protection Afency. Research Trlariile Park.
NC S11II. June. liu.
•."Quality Assurance Handbook lor Air
Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume
I-Principle*." EPA MO/I II Ml. Muck
Itlt. Available Iron. UB. Environmental
Protection Aiency. CnvlronmenUI Monllor-
taK Bydeml Uborclory (MD-TII. ReMtrch
Trlwiita Pwk. NC11711.
». -quality AMurancc Handbook lor Air
Pollution UcMurcmcnl Byrtenu. Volurot
II-Ambient Air 0pccllk Mclhodi." EPA
•e*/«-n-«n». May im. AvaHaMa (row
VM. BnvlronmcnUl Protection Aicncy. En-
vironmental Honllorlni aytlcma laborato-
ry (UD~m Rcotarch Trlancl* Park. NC
mil.
40 Cfi Cfc. I (7-l-M ItocHM AftMcy
T«ou A-l—MMMUM Oav*
PI. M, AM». A
e*-MwT>
fJi
Omael
I OiMkeMliOj
MI* e« a* ran
Id*In Ml
l*»M«-Wei
I. fa*
Ow» *•!•«••.
I On
IE*
I OK* *•*••>.
f iaisi «*nii*»j e.
I kioM* •*!•••.
•weti
lN»h»OO
147
-------
W. 5t, App. A
40 OF* Ch. I (7-l-M
cc
§
II!
D-
t IB
us: B B 0 0
I I I I I I
%a« a a a a
•-a« a a a a
'IP'
I|O«
II I
I!
,l
lilfl
148
n. u,
a
i:
fllMK
I
in
D-
IB
!
a I
!
H&
iHFFmmnFFmFFmirm
i mi mi mi mi INI
nDDHlEEffl^a^B
ifflragraB^E^ffl
gfflfflffll
Illlll
II
i
149
-------
rt. st. AP«. A
40 era di. i (M-M MM**)
[g{
1
91!
iiesifiifi iiiiiill Sli.lliai
1111
!H
ii
«stMli
ii..... ...^...2
*U
2*.
ii
1 iiihii!!!
B •»
!g| iil iSSill.liiiil lilSliSilliilii I | 3
160
Invlronmontol FtolocHon Agoncy
Arrgnpix B-QUALITV AUUMHCB Rg-
«uiaui«rTa roil PB.BVBNTION or
SioNincANT DBTMIOMTIOM IP8DI
Ala MONITOaiNQ
rt. si.
lenw) to allow each organisation to develop
a quality control lyslem that to moat elll-
dent and effective for Ha own clrcum-
Thto Appendla apeclllea the
quality aiiuranc* requirements lor the con-
trol and assessment ol the quality ol UM
PSD ambient air monitoring date lubmMted
to EPA by an organtaatlon operating a net-
work ol PSD elation*. Such organtoatlam
are encouraged to develop and maintain
quality awurane* program* more eitenoive
than the required minimum.
Qusllly assurance of a'
ten* Include* two distinct and Important
Interrelated lunctloni. On* lunctlon b the
through the Implementation of
procedure*, and corrective action*. Th*
ether lunctlon to the aaveaanMnt af UM
quality of the monitoring data . Accordingly, amssiaiiils of
PSD monitoring data quality are required to
be made and reported periodically by th*
monitoring organisation.
To provide national uniformity m Ih* as-
and reporting of data quaNty
all PSD networks, spedfto ease**-
and reporting procedure* are pre-
scribed to detail In Sections I. 4. a. end g of
thto Append!!.
In contrail, th* control lunellon ineim
•sue* a variety of poNctea. procedurea. ape*-
ifkallona. standards, and corrective meas-
ures which affect the quality of UM result-
Ing date. The selection and Client of the
quaNty control actlvlltea-aa well aa addi-
tional quality assessment actlvNIe* used by
• monitoring organisation depend eo> a
number of local factor* such aa th* ftoM
and laboratory conditions, th* objectives of
the monitoring, the level of the date quaNty
needed, the esperttoe of assigned personnel.
the cost ol control procedure*, pollutant
concentration levels, etc. Therefore, the
quaNty assurance requirements, m Section >
ol thto Appendix, are specified m general
Pbr purpoin of thto Appendla. "ortantoa-
Uon" to delhwd aa a eource owner/operator.
a iovernment atency. or their contractor
that operate* an ambient air pollution mon-
itoring network lor P8O purpoae*.
I. Quollly 4Maraiic* Metulremeali
S.I Bach artantaatlon moat develop and
i quality a**urance progr
atottaf of pollctei. procedure*, opedllcatlon*.
atandardi and documenlallon neccaaary to:
III Provide data ol adequate quality to
meet monHorlm objcellvea and quality aa-
aurance requirement* ol UM permit grant-
Ing authority, and
»» Mhwmtee taa* of ate quaMty data, owe to
Thb ejuaNly aaturance program mwat bo
geatrlbcd m detail. nritaMy documented.
and approved by the permit granting au-
thority. The QuetHy Amirance Program
wtN be reviewed during the ayatem audit*
S.I Primary guidance for developing th*
QuaNty Aaeurence Program b contained m
Reference* I and 1. which also contain
many suggested procedure*, checks, and
control apectlIcaUona. Section J.«.t of Refer-
ence * describes specific guidance lor the de-
velopment ol a Quality Assurance Program
for automated analyaera. Many specific
quaNty control checks and apectfteatlona for
manual method* arc Included In the respec-
tive reference method* described m Part M
of thto chapter or In the respective equiva-
lent method description* svslIsM* from
BPA lace Reference 41. Similarly, quality
control procedurea related to speetneally
designated reference and equivalent analys-
er* are contained In Inch respective oper-
ation and Instruction manual*. Thto guid-
ance, and any other pertinent knlormatton
from appropriate sources, should be used by
the organisation In developing Ha quality si
suranc* program.
Aa a minimum, each quality assurance
program must Include operational proce-
durea for each of the following activities:
III Selection of methods, analyaera. or
III Training;
III InotaHallon of equipment;
Ml Selection and control ol eaHbralkM
atandarda:
(IICallbrBllon;
(g» Zero/span check* and adjustment* of
automated analysers;
151
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.3
-------
... 57. Apft. A 40 CW CM. I (7-1-M EdHleN)
SCHEDULE D.A—PERMANENT WAIVER FROM tNIEMM CONTROLS TSST —Continued
U» IM4
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
XXX*
MM
MM
SCHEDULE D.7-—HORIZON VALUE or CASH FLOW*
M
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
IMI
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
»AII St—AMMINI AM QUAU1V
SUiVIIUANCf
lutfTft * tt ••-.J.I —
Sec.
Ml Deflnltlona.
Ml Purpoaa.
Ill Applicability.
Sec.
M.II SLAMS methodolasy.
M.II Monltorlni network completion.
Mil IRctcncdl
Mil Syttemmodification
M.M Annual SLAMS summary report.
M.II Compliance dale lor air quality data
rcportln*.
M.M Region*! Ollloe SLAMS data aequW-
M IS Quality auurance.
M.II Monllorlns method*
M.I I SHIns of ImtruinenU or Instrument
probe*.
Mil Operallni Khcdulc.
lilt Special purpoee monitor*.
ftMUM (IIAMI)
Mia Air quality lurvclllance: PUn con
tent.
M II SLAMS network deilin.
(HAMS)
MM HAMS network eaUblbhrnent.
M.II NAM8 network description.
M.1I HAMS approval.
Mil NAM8 methodology.
M.l« MAMS network completion.
M.II HAMS data •ubralllal.
M.M Syilem modllkellon.
y !••*• •*•*•**
M.M Indei reportlni.
128
Federal monitoring.
Monltorlnt other polli
lUl
Af titcy
Sec.
M.M
Mil
ArrsHMx A—Qvautr
MSMTS roa Stats *na Local Am Mom-
toaiHO Btatiom (8LAM8I
Arrsmix B—QUALITY Aaauaancs RsqvMS-
Mom roa PHvsHtion or Sramncavt
DsTasioaaiioH (PSD) Aia Monitoauw
Arrsmix C—AMaiant AM Quautv MOM-
roaiiM MarwwouMV
ArrsMsix D—Nttwoax Onion roa Stats
ma Local Ais MoniToain* Stations
(8LAM8I am National AM Monitoain*
Stationa INAMS)
Arrsnsix E-Paoaa Sitine Cainaia roa
AMaisnt Aia Qoaurv Monnoame
Arrsmix f—Annual SLAMS AM Quaurr
ArrtHMX O-U»iro«M AM Quturv
un D*IL* ItaromiM
Avraoorrr: Sea. II*. MU«I. III. MM! II*
•f the CfeM Air Act Ml UAC. 1«M.
SODMK 44 m mil. M»y I*.
otherwUe noted.
• Ml DeftaHWM.
Ai uwd In UtU part, all Urma not de-
fined herein have Ihe meanlnt tlven
them In the Act:
(•> "Act" mean* the Clean Ah* Act u
amended MI UJB.C. 14*1. et ieq.1.
of Part 61 of this chapter.
"SO." means sulfur dioxide.
"NO." means nitrogen dioxide.
(gl "CO" means carbon monoxide.
(hi "O," meMis ocone.
(I) "Plan" means an Implementation
plan, approved or promulgated pursu-
a.it to section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
(|l "Administrator" means the Ad-
ministrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) or his or her au-
thorized representative.
(k) "Regional Administrator" means
the Administrator of one of the ten
EPA Regional Office* or his or her au-
thorised representative.
(I) "State agency" means the air pol-
lution control agency primarily re-
sponsible for development and Imple-
mentation of a plan under the Act.
(m) "Local agency" means any Meal
government agency, other than the
State agency, which w charged with
the responsibility for carrying out a
portion of the plan.
(n) "Indian Reservation" means any
Federally recognized reservation es-
tablished by treaty, agreement, execu-
tive order, or act of Congress.
(o) "Indian Governing Body" means
the governing body of any tribe, band.
or group of Indians subject to the Ju-
risdiction of the United States and rec-
ognised by the United States u pos-
sessing power of self-government.
(p> "Storage and Retrieval of Airo-
metrlc Data (SAROAD) system" Is a
computerised system which stores and
reports Information relating to ambi-
ent air quality.
(q) "SAROAD site Identification
form" to one of the several forms hi
the SAROAD system. It Is the form
which provides a complete description
of the site (and Ite surroundings) of an
ambient air quality monitoring sta-
tion.
(r) "Traceable" means that a local
standard has been compared and certi-
fied, either directly or via not more
than one Intermediate standard, to a
primary standard such as a National
Bureau of Standards Standard Refer-
ence Material INB8 SRM) or a
USEPA/NBS approved Certified Ref-
erence Material (CRM).
(s) "Urban area population" means
the population defined In the most
129
-------
PI. »•, App. A
velopment ol a Quality Assurance Program
lot SLAMS automated analyaer*. Many ape-
elfk quality control check* and specific*
llona lor manual method* are Included hi
th* respective reference method* described
In Part N of thto chapter or to the respec-
tive equivalent method descriptions avail-
able Irom BPA tare Reference 41. Similarly.
quality control proceduic* related to •peclfl-
eally dedgmlcd reference and equivalent
analyaer* are contained hi Ihe respective op
eialhm and Instruction manual* amodaled
with Ihea* analyser*. Thl* guidance, and
any other pertinent Information Irom ap-
pioprlaU aoureca. should be need by the
State* to developing their quality amuranc*
program*.
A* • minimum, each quality amuranc*
program must Include operational proce-
dure* lor each of th* following acllvhle*:
II) Selection of method*. knalyier*. or
•ampler*;
III Training;
II) Installation of equipment:
II) Selection and control of calibration
standard*;
(II Calibration:
I*) Zero/span check* and ad|u*tmcnte of
automated analyser*;
11) Control check* and their frequency;
(4» Control llmlte lor icro. apan and other
control check*, and respective corradlv* ac-
tion* when Mich limit* are *urpa**ed;
!•) CaNbrallon and atro/apan check* for
mulllpl* rang* analyien l*e* Section 1.4 of
Appendl* C ol thto partK
ll«) Prevenllv* and remedial malnte
nance;
III) Quality control proecduro* for **r
pollution eptood* monitoring;
III) Recording and validating data:
till Data quaHUy isiessment lpi»ctoto*i
and accuracy K
114) Documentation of quaHty oontrol to-
lormalloox
1.1 PoHolanf CoMeolrolton and flow)
Jt*lc Standard*.
1.1.1 Oaaeou* pollutant concentration
atandardi lpm*M*Uon devke* or cylinder*
ol compresaed gai) used to oktato test eon-
contratkMi lor CO. SO,, and NO. must b*
Iraoeabl* to eHher a NcHonal *)ure*u of
Standard* INBS) Standard fteforcne* Mate-
rial I8RM) or an NBS/EPA approved com
merctaMy available Certlllcd Reference Ma-
terial ICRM). CRM'a are deacrlbed to Refer-
ence t. and a M*t ol CftM source* to avail-
able from the Quality Assurance Division
111. environment*! Monitoring By*
terns laboratory. If 8 Environmental Pro-
ledlm Agency. Research Trlangl* Park. NC
mil
flrneral guMancc and recommended tech-
niques lor cerlllyln* ganeou* worktaig stand-
•rib a«*ln*t an 8HM or CIIM are provided
In section I • 1 of Reference 1 Direct use ol
a I'ltM a* a working standard to acceptable.
40 CM Ch. I (M-ft MMton)
but direct u*e ol an NB8 8RM a* a working
atandard I* discouraged becauic ol the HmH-
ed aupply and eipcnse ol SRHa.
I.I.I Te*l concentration* lor O, muit be
obtained In accordance with the UV phot*
melrk calibration procedure specified to Ap-
pendli D ol Part 10 ol thl* chapter, or by
mean* ol a certified otone tramfer atand-
ard. Commit Rclercnce* 4 and 1 lor gtiM-
anee on primary and transfer atandardi lor
O,.
I.I.I Plow rat* meaiurcmenU muat be
made by a Oam measuring Imlrumenl that
to traceable to an aulhorllallve volume or
other standard UuManc* lor certifying
aome type* ol llov/mcter* I* provided to Ref-
orence I.
It National Perlormanc* and Syatcm
Audit Program*
Agencle* operallnt SLAMS network eta-
lion* ahall be aublect to annual EPA aya
tern* audit* ol their ambient air monitoring
program and are required to ptrtklpate to)
•PA'* National Perlormanc* Audit Pro-
gram. Theae audH* are described m eecllon
I.4.M ol Rtlerence I and aecUon l.i.ll of
Reference I. Por Instruction*, agenclea
ahouM contact either the approprtaU EPA
Regional Quality Aiiurance Coordinator or
Uv* QuaHty Aaturanc* Division tMD-TIBfc
Environmental llonHorlng 8y*Um* labor*-
lory. OS Environment** ProUcUoii
Agency. Reaearch Triangle Park. NC mil.
I. Data QumlUw Au*ttm**l Hnutmuut*
All ambient monitoring method* or ana-
lyaera «*ed m 8LAM8 (hall be toaUd peri-
odically, oa deacrlbed In thto aeclloii *. to
quantitatively awe** the quaJMy of the
SLAMS data being routinely produced.
Measurement accuracy and practokM are eo-
llmated lor both automated and manual
method*. The Individual reeuMa of Utea*
teat* for each method or analyaer *haM be
reported to EPA a* •peelMed to) eecllon 4.
BPA vjlH then calculate quarterly Integral-
od eolfcnatae ol procMon and accuracy appH-
eabt* to the SLAMS date a* deocrmed m
Mrtlon •- Data amewmenl reaulte ahouM be
reported to CPA only lor method* and ana
lyaera approved fa* UK In SLAMS monitor-
Ing under Append!* C ol Ihl* Part.
The Integrated data quality amemmenl **-
Ibnale* v»UI be caJculiled on the bail* of
-taporttoig Mgantaatloni." A reporting orga-
nhatlon to defined a* a State, lubordmate
organisation v/Hhln a Slat*, or other organl-
cation that to reiooiulble lor a art ol ata-
ttona that inonltor the tame pollutant and
lor »hkh prcculon or accuracy aiaemmenla
can be pooled. State* muil delme one or
more reporting organization* lor each pal
Hrianl *uch that each monitoring elation m
the Slate 8I.AM8 network to Included m
one. and only one. reporting organtoatton.
138
Each reporting organisation *haH b* de-
fined inch that prectolon or accuracy among
aw atotlon* to the organhaUon can b* ••-
ported to be reasonably homogmeou*. M •
thai obouM tot considered by State* to de-
fining reporting organbatton* totted*: II)
operation by a common team of ftoM opera-
tor*. Ill common calibration laeUHk*. MM!
Ill oupoort by • common laboratory or
headquarter*. When there to uncertainty to
defining th* reporting organkaUon* or to
aaslgntog apeelfk *IU* to reporting organ!-
gallon*. State* chall oorwuH with the appro-
priate EPA Regional Oflko for guidance.
AU definition* of reporting organkaUona
*h*H b* lubjcct to final approval by the ap-
propriate EPA Regional Office.
Amemmenl reeull* *hall b* reported a*
•podfted to Mdlon 4. Concentration and
flow atandwd* muet b* a* *p«*ifl*d to Mo-
tion* S.S or 1.4. In addMlon. worktog eland-
oudH* must not b* UM
PI. M, An*. A
mHled by the amocnted operation or eft-
atmctlon manual, a CO analyte* may bo
temporarily modified during the procioton
check to reduce cent or purge Itowa. or the
loot almoepher* may enter the analyaer al a
point other than the normal (ample Inlet.
provided Wei the analjxer'a rteponat If not
Hkely to be altered by theae devlatMru) I
the normal operational i
analyaera or analytical gyttemg Itodkated
concenUallon*) ohould ha baaed eo ataMa
check to made to conjunction wltto a **r* or
Uon of the prectolon check with reopcct to
Urn* ol day. day of week, and routine aervk*
and adjustment* b encouraged when poml-
M*.
Report th* actual concentration* of th*
•Bdju^jpA^htdOd*! d)>*)ffjfM*g|l ****** Ifafroasl find* djqffasi>gltfglfll*ll*iwaAlli*Jb*Bt
concentration* Indicated by th* analyaer.
TMw ^pCfCCIM Qlf fCgTWrCCa) *vC%WVqNt (nCOT «9*Nt*
otntratlon* are uaed to a***** th* prettoten
of th* monitoring data aa deacrlbed to *ee
Uonl.l.
I.S Accuracy of Automated Method*.
Each calendar quarter (during which ana
rjrwtr* *r* operated). audH at lead M per-
cent of th* SLAMS analyaera that i
to* ayatem
monitoring data lee* Reference I. pace •*.
•ltd Reference I. aretlon l.t.M.Wdl). Table
A-l provide* a aummary of
Automated Method*. A
out M leaat once every two week* on each
fllll l\f*% •^•^AOKOMaOjlfPi dAa^b.
O. and CO. The pi»*tol*a) ehoek to
g)*masi
WwW
lor KV NOb. Ob. or CO *uch that each ana-
ryotr b audited *t leaat one* per year. If
there an fewer than four analywm for •
pollutant wNhto a reporting organtoatlon,
randomly rciudH on* or MOT* analyicra a*
that M teaot on* analyvrr for that poltatant
to OudMed each calendar quarter. Whore
EPA oUongly «ncourag»* more fre-
qjMHt audttmg. up to an audN lr*qu«nty of
one* per quarter for *aeh SLAMS M*Jy**r.
TK*audHtomad*bych*HenglngUb***ia-
lyaer wHh at Moot on* *udH ga* of known
concentration tram each of i
range* that faH wMhto th*
rang* of the analyaer betas audit*
between «.M end •.!• ppm for «V *KK.
and C% analyom. and between • and It ppm
for CO analyaera. To check the prutoleu of
SLAMS analyaera operating on rangaa
higher than • to 14 ppm SO* NO*, and Ob.
or • to lot ppm lor CO. uoe prectolon check
of appropriately higher concentration.
Admtototrator or hto dedgne*. However, th*
reauM* of prectolon check* at coneenlrallon
leveto other than Ihoa* ohown abov* need
not h* reported to EPA. Th* *tandard* from
whkh prtclslan chock teat concentration*
ar* obtained must meet the *pecMlcaUon* of
aectlon 11.
Except for aertato CO analyacra d**crg»td
below. aiMlyaera must operate to their
check, and Ihe teat atmosphere muet pam
through aN liken, •crabber*. condHUnen
and other component* used during: normal
ambient MmpMng *nd M much of the ambi-
ent air Inlet system a* b practicable. If per
•OkOb
•M-ee*
*M4«
*•*-••»
•*a-*m
• M-*M
• M-OOi
00
I*-1*
etyp*
NOb MkNt gag for cti*vjkw*vj*dn*acei
NO, analyien muat abo contain M
04* ppm NO.
Norr NO concentratlom eubatantlaHy
higher than •*• ppm. a* may occur when
using earn* gas phase IHrallon IOPTI tech-
nlquea. may lead to audH error* to chemlnj
mtoeacence analyaera due to toevNabb)
minor NO NO. channel Imbalance Such
error* may be atypical ol routine monitor-
tog error* to Ihe client that aueh NO coo
centrallon* eicced lypkal ambltnt NO eon
centrallon* at the rite. Theae error* may be
minimised by modifying Ihe OPT technique
139
-------
PI. St. Aa>». A
to lover the HO concentrations remaining
hi Ih* HO, audit iu to levels closer lo typi-
cal ambient NO concentrations at UK ilte.
To audit SLAMS analyser* operating on
range* higher than 0 to I • ppm for SO,.
NO,, and O, of • lo 100 ppm lor CO. use
audit gase* ol appropriately higher concen-
tration M approved by the appropriate Re-
llonal Administrator or hit detlgnee. The
reeulU of audlU at concentration kveb
other than thoie shown In the above table
need not be reported lo EPA.
The standards from which audit gat tot
concentration! are obtained muil meet the
apeclHcallona of tecllon 1.1. Worklni or
Iranifer itandardi and equipment tued lor
audltlni muit not be the tame at the stand-
ardi and equipment uwd for calibration and
•panning, but may be referenced lo the
aame NB8 8RM. CRM. or primary UV pho-
tometer. The auditor should not be the op-
erator or analyst who conduct* the routine
monitoring, calibration, and analysis.
The audit shall be cairled out by allowing
the analyxer lo analyse the audit test at-
mosphere In IU normal sampling mode such
that the teat atmosphere pasaea through all
Illlcrs. scrubbers, conditioners, and other
sample Inlet component* used during
normal ambient sampling and aa much of
the ambient air Inlel system aa to practica-
ble. The eiceptkm given In section 1.1 for
certain CO analysers does not apply lor
Report both the audit teal concentrations
and the corresponding concentration meat-
tirementa Indicated or produced by the ana-
lyser being tested. The percent differences
between these concentrations are used to
asses* I he accuracy of the monitoring data
at described In section 1.1
1.1 Precision ol Manual Methods, for
each network of manual methods, selert one
or more monitoring altet within the report-
Ing organisation for duplicate. eoincalcd
sampling at Mlowr. lor I to I the*, select I
site; f or g to M altet. select } sites: and for
over M tiles, sckct 1 sites Where possible,
additional collocated sampling to encour-
aged. For parllculale matter, a network for
measuring PM. shall be separate from •
T8P network. Sites having annual mean
pertlcuMl* matter concentrations among
the highest II percent of the annual mean
concentrations for all the sites In the net-
work mutt be selected or. If such sites are
unpractical, alternate tiles approved by tha
Regional Administrator may be selected.
In determining the number of collocated
tllet required, monitoring network! for Pb
should be treated Independently from net-
works for parlkulate matter, even though
the separate networks may share one or
more common ssmplers. However, a single
pair of samplers collocated at a common-
sampler monitoring site that meets the re-
quirements for both a collocated lead site
40 CM Ch. I (7-l-M fdllUn)
and a collocated parllculale matter tile may
serve at a collocated site for both networks.
The two collocated samplers must be
within 4 meters of each other, and parlku-
lalc mailer samplers must be at least 1
meters apart lo preclude airflow Interfer-
ence. Calibration, sampling and analysis
mutt be the same lor both collocated asm-
plert and the tame as for all other samplers
In the network.
For each pair of collocated samplers, des-
ignate one sampler at the primary sampler
Whose samples will be used lo report air
quality for the site, and designate the other
at the duplkate sampler. Bach duplicate
sampler mutt be operated concurrently with
IU associated routine sampler at least once
per week. The operation schedule should be
•elected to that the sampling dayt are dis-
tributed evenly over the year and over the
aeven dayt of the week. The every (day
schedule used by many monitoring agencies
to recommended. Report the measurements
from both samplers at each collocated sam-
pling site. Including measurements falling
below the llmlU specified In I.I.I. The per-
cent differences In measured concentration
Ipg/m*) between the Iwo collocated ssm-
plers are used to calculate precision M de-
scribed In section I.I.
1.4 Accuracy ol Manual Methods. The
accuracy of manual sampling methods to at-
teased by auditing a portion of the measure-
ment process, fat parlkulate mailer mclh-
ods. the flow rale during sample collection
to audited. For SO, and NO, methods, the
analytical measurement to audited. For Pb
methods. Ihe flow rale and analytical mess
uremenl are audited.
1.4.1 ParlkulaU mailer methods. Each
calendar quarter, audit Ihe flow rale of at
least U percent of Ihe ssmpkrs such that
each sampler to audited al least once per
year. If there are fewer than four tampkrt
within a reporting organisation, randomly
naudll on* or more samplers to thai one
sampler to audited each calendar quarter.
Audit each sampler al IU normal operating
flow raU. using a How rale transfer eland
ard aa described In section 11.1. The flow
rat* standard used for auditing mutt not be
the aame flow rale standard used lo call-
brat* Ihe sampler. However, both the caH
•ration standard and Ihe audit standard
may be referenced lo the same primary flow
rat* standard. The How audit should be
scheduled to at to avoid Interference with a
scheduled sampling period. Report the audit
flow rales and the corresponding flow rale*
Indicated by the sampler's normally used
flow Indicator The percent differences be
tween these How rales are used lo calculate
accuracy as described In section >.4.l.
Great care must be used In auditing hl|l>-
volume parlkulale mailer samplers hsvmi
flow regulators because the Introduction «
140
InvbwiMwwititjl rrwlwdhi
•••*>cy
PI. St, Ap*. A
resistance plates toi Ihe audit flow standard
device can cause abnormal flow patUms at
Ihe polnl of flow tenting. For Into reason.
Mi* flow audit ttandard thould be used with
• normal filler In place and without resist
ance plates In auditing now regulated high-
volume tampler*. or other steps should be
taken to assure that flow patient! ar« not
perturbed al Ihe polnl of flow tensing.
1.4.1 80, Methods. Prepare audit *ohi-
Uont from • working suit lie Utrachloromer-
eurat* ITCM) solution at described In sec-
tion U-l of Ih* 80, Reference Method Mfc 11* M* fkM MM, MM
Audi) sample* must be eatracted using Ihe
aame extraction procedure used lor eiposed
flllcra.
Analyse three audit sample* to each ef
the Iwo range* each quarter sample* an
analysed. The audit sample analyse* shall
be distributed aa much aa possible over the
entire calendar quarter. Report the audit
concentrations (to ft Pb/strlpl and the cor-
responding measured concentration! (to «g
Pb/ttripl using unll code 11. The percent
difference* between the concentrations are
used to calculate analytical accuracy aa de
scribed to tecllon 1.4.1.
The accuracy of an equlvaknl Pb method
to assessed In the same manner aa for lh*
reference method. The flow auditing device
and Pb analysis audit sample* must b* com-
patible with Ihe specllk requlremenU of Ihe
equivalent method.
4. fteporfiiiv ftrenlnrawtjt*
For cash pollutant, prepare a list ef all
monitoring altet and then- 8AROAO an*
Identification codes to each reporting erga
ntaatlon and submit the 11*1 to the appropri-
ate EPA Regional Office, with a copy to Ihe
environmental Monitoring Systems Labora-
tory «MD-1II. OS Environmental Protec
Uon Agency. Research Triangle Park. North
Carolina mil IEMSL/RTPI. Whenever
there to a change to this Hat of monitoring
sites to a reporting organisation, report this
change to Ih* Regional Office and to
EMSt/RTP.
4.1 Quarterly Report*. WHhta IM calen
dar dayt alter the end ef each calendar
quarter, each reporting organisation shall
report lo BM8L/RTP via the appropriate
EPA Regional Office Ihe resuHa of sll valid
precision and accuracy teaU It has carrkd
out during the quarter. Report all collocat
ed mcasuremcnU Including those falling
below the levels specified to section 1.11 Do
not report retulU from Invalid lesU. liora
tesU carried out during a lime period for
whkh ambient data Immediately prior or
subsequent lo the lesu were Invalidated for
141
-------
n.
AS>S>. A
appropriate reasons, or from test* of meth-
ods or analysers not approved for use In
BLAMB monitoring network* under Appen
disc of this part.
Quarterly report* us specified herein shsll
commence not later (than the report pertain-
ing to the first calendar quarter of IM1. al-
though *uch reports will be accepted begin-
ning with the report pertaining to Ih* third
calendar quarter of I'M
The Information should be reported to a
formal similar to that shown to Figures A-l
and A-I. The data may be reported III via
magnetic computer (tape according to data
f01 mat specifkallomi provided by the Re-
gional Offices, til by direct. Interactive com-
puter entry via • dots terminal Mid the
PARS data miry system, or III on Ih*
form* Illustrated to Figures A-l and A 1
Minor variation* of these forms «lo facili-
tate local uatl or computer generated •lac-
simile* forms may slso be used, provided
they follow the same general format, us*
Ih* same Mock number*, and arc clear and
completely legible. Instruction* for using
the** forms an provided to section 4.1.
Within I4o days alter the end of Ih* re-
porting quarter. BFA will calculate Integral
ed precision and accuracy assessment* for
each reporting organisation M specified to
section t and return, through the Regional
Office*, report* of lihe respective assess-
menl* to each reporting organisation.
41 Annual Reports When precision and
accuracy estimates for a reporting organisa-
tion have been calculated for all four quar-
ter* of the calendar year. EPA will calculate
the properly weighted probability MmUs for
precision and accuracy foe Ih* entire calen-
dar year. The** UmlU will then be associat-
ed with the data submitted In the annual
8I.AMS report required by | U.M.
Each reporting organisation shall aubmtl.
along with Ma annual 8LAM8 report. • Hot-
tog by pollutant of all saonltortog altea to
the reporting organisation.
41 Instructions for Using Daw QualMy
Assessment Rcporllni Form*. Suggested
forms for reporting dsla quality assessment
Information are provldlcd to Flgur* A-l Ifor
reporting accuracy dstal and Flgur* A-l
Ifor reporting precision dstal. The forms
msy be used to a "universal" way to report
dala tor different pollulanU and tor differ-
ent site* on the same form. Or. either form
may be used a* a site specific or pollutant-
specific form Iwhere all entries on the form
are for a common site, a conimun pollutant.
or bothl by filling to the site or pollutant In
formation to the appropriate bos to the
upper kit corner ol the form Detailed In
tliiKltons for Individual blocks arc as lot
40 CM Ch. I (7-t-M
11
11
* r
•
• ...
lows:
lull ruction* common to both forms:
*. M. Ap*. A
SUM Iks KM **< SAHOAO SM*
HMOTHM, IkamMian A tn«M 1 *W>
s» seek SUM k>
»MOSC
C»»
*4-*l
Asm enter the name of the reporting orga-
nsmllosx the date the form Is submitted.
and (optionally! the name of the person
who prepared In* form on Ih* blank* prav
,ut~<
N>W...
n-n.
*•• fMsi *• SAMMO M
CMS am * «o« erfr) • a* enMss m
ex km •**>*• Mm* sM. *MW *•
ss* eoes **« si* Miioinskiii • *•
•**•> Mi o»M.m wo** k>*. wok.
co. far. *K| •* CM kh>* « *M M st
ktosk Ms tl • a* •**•* e* SM km a*
dllfereiKc Id,* for each ayeclslos)
check Is calculated using squat ton I. where
T, to Ih* concentration Indicated by Ih* am-
Irser for the I Ih prccMon chock Mid X, to
Ih* known concentration for Ih* l-th pred
MOM cote*!.
ii 100
(1)
Fwr each analyser, the quarterly average
1*^1 to calculated wrth equation I. and the
standard deviation 18,1 wMh equation I.
where n to the number of precWon check*
ggj the Instrument made during the calendar
quarter. Fwr essmple. n should be • or 11f
n gj • g p. •• — *-- •- — A*»A *— SV*~- • *
pfTCTMOfl *.••*•.••• ".raw •—
km kM * •» it** Msemti eta*
*MB M» at** As MX* •> SM MMB st
*» to. aw IMM BM **Mi MMM II »
*>••»• km klsi*
MMM •« an "A" • e "•".
OtM: !<•• *• «MH*I SMJ «v •» SM iMt
.. CMrwafIon* Jtr 0*t* Qoafff • tutttmtml fj
CaJewtetlon of estlmste* of tolegraled pr«-
ctstao) and accuracy an* carried out by EPA
accoidsng to Ih* following procedure*. Re- •
porting organisation crtould report MM ro- M*
gulla off indi»i«s».»i ——•-•--
"i • * ,2 n
J n l«i d|
*lA 1 -1 CA '•'
Addttlsnal Inatructlona for Accuracy fora
lFlguroA-11:
m
•.I Procto-on of Automated Methods. •>
••*••« «f «L^ ——•-*
• *M
i sudi an* ski* eMMd *•
••I-**MMp»t
snisf "»" I CM su* MS m eaneuck* sv
S f Mm *M OM> •*• Si IM MIK* SI IM
Mcsl frtnvv slMdve UMA koM *M M
I CO*, f fltai CM 1.4 cod. IMMMf ksM
a>M.Wtoo) MUMI..,!
HofS k) IM Ml ol Uoct Jl
I •"* I ••"•.! "I"
142
143
-------
f I. St. Apt*. A
0.1 '
k J-l
40 Cft Cfc. I (7-l-M IdltUn)
(4)
n,d| » nada * ...» n.d. «... * n^
... * n. •»...* n.
(5)
(n, -
(*v, -
Equation* 4 and t arc used when the MOM
number ol precUlon check* are mad* lor
each analyser. Equations 4a and la arc uaed
U obUlo a weighted average and a weighted
•Undard deviation when dllfcrcnl number*
of precUlon check* arc made tor the analys-
er*.
for each pollutant, the M Percent Proba-
bility IJmlU lor the precUlon of • reporting
organization are calculated mine equation*
• andl.
1.1.1 Accuracy lor Reporting Organisa-
tion, for each audll concentration level, the
average «D> ol the Individual percentage dll
lerence* and the pooled
standard deviation 18.1 arc calculated, using
equation* 4 and I. or using equations 4a and
•a U different number* ol paired measure
menu are obtained at the collocated sues.
Por these calculation*. Ih* k ol equation* 4.
4a. • and la Is the number ol collocated
•lie*.
The M Percent Probability UmU* lor Ih*
Integrated precision lor a reporting organl-
sallon are calculated using equations II and
II.
Upper M Percent Probability
Untll-Dl I MS./V1
(Ill
PI. M, A*a>. A
Lower M Percent Probability
Until-D I MeVVl
(Ill
•.« Accuracy of Manual Method*. Esti-
mate* ol the accuracy ol manual methods
are calculated Irom the resulu of Independ-
ent audlU as described In Section 1.4. At UM
and of each calendar quarter, an Integrated
accuracy probability Interval la calculated
for each manual method network, operated
by the reporting organization.
1.4.1 Paniculate Matter Sampler* (In-
cluding reference method Pb samplers*.
-------
rt. st, A**. A
I. Rhode*. R.C. OuMclln* on MM Meuilnt
end UMI o( PtecUlon end Accuracy D«U Re-
quired by «• CPU Pert M Appendfcee A *JM)
0. EPA 404/4 4J/4H. UA. bwtoonmenUI
Protection Atcncf. RcM*rch Tiltnile Park.
NC mill. June. 1111.
•."Quality Ajeurance HuMlbook for Ah
Pollution Measurement Byelema, VoluoM
I -Principle." EPA •*•/•-» tot. Much
Itlt. Avftltabto from II B. CntlroiiaMnUl
rroUcllon Atcncy. Bivlnnmtnlal Monitor-
bi« ByittiM Ubor»tory lMD-m. ItocMch
TtUntkPuk.NCailll.
I. -QtiaWy AMUIUW* Handbook for Air
rolluUoM UcMUICHWnl SlmUM. VOlUlM
Il-Ambknl Ab Spccllla Method*.- KPA-
•M/4-n-dn*. M*y l»7t. AralUM* from
OA Bnrlronmcnlkl PfOUctlon Ateney. to-
vlronmcnUI MonHotbif ByiUn* Laborato-
ry -m HcMUch TrUntto fuk. NC
mil.
40 Cf* Ck. I {/-I-M l«Mo«)
4. "LM of DeslciMlcd Reference *n4
Eajirrakn! Melhodi" A»»IUMe from UA
EnvtronnunUI Protection Afcncy. Deport-
•MM B IMDtit. Rucwch TrUntle Puk.
NCnill.
•. Huihu. EG. Mid J. MuMkl. A Pioee
duit for EtUblUhlnt TrkcecMIHr of Q*t
Mlilurn U CerUIn NillontJ Bureau «|
BUndwdi 8RM-*. EPA tOt/1 tl^lt. UA
•ntlronmenUI ProUclioo Ateocy. Re
«e«rch TllMilU Put. HC mil. M*y. INI.
IJolnl HB8/EPA PuMluthml
» P«ur. R J uid P.P. McElroy. TeehnJea
A«l*Unc< Document for the CMIbrtllon of
Ambient Ocone Monitor*. EPA tot/4 It-
Mi. UA EnvlronmenUI ProUctlon Atency.
ReMUch TtUrujIt P»tk. NC mil, Beptem-
bor. ltt».
V. McBroy. PP. Trenifcr BUndvdi for
Utt Gkllbntlon of Ambient Air MonMorim
AMlywn for Own*. EPA-40t/4-1t 444.
UA. EarlronmenUI Protection Agency. Re-
•Mtcli TrtentU Puk. NC mil. September.
IMt.
146
MMM P>ej44«flMI
TAM A-I-MMMUM fMM AttM
•*-»•»«»«
I M* (•!-»!
tfKWt-MOl
*Mee>Me>
t»»el
147
-------
n. si Aff. A
- t
40 CfR Cfc. 1 (M-M MM*.)
?
G
E
C
C
G
t
«
3
f
S
1
a
j
*4
1!
3
3
^
0 Q G
3 E
3 C
3 C
I 1
a G
t
-
3 3
-
i
- S -
] J
3
p
3
3 El
3
i
3
a
i
i
t
,!!,!
ijlli
11
Hi
,jj|
IB.
HI
1
i|
|
!i!
D-
IB:
1
!
«
_
L-*
i
j
'i5
«
p]
n«j
Us
i
Ld
H*
1*
X
Pi
is
r
^%JwWC|P f •• **i ^*Jr*
Inc ~ir 1C! T t~
_
.1
1,
n_
i
i
H_
i
n
M_
i
i
N_
_
in
in
M_
liifcuuj ifeiii&i&i i&ni&i&J i&lftiftiftj m&i&ui
n_
H_
n
n
H_
148
149
-------
ft. M, Apa..
M
A 4fl Cfft Ck. I (7-1-li MM**)
ii.oiiiiio iiiiiiii •liiiii.i
a
f I !"'i;!r
1 j liilliiSl
iSiiiiBiiBiii liiiiiiiiiiiiei i
WlllWul
MMM
IRQ
ot frolocMoii Agency
ArrBNM* B— Qtuurv AMUMNCB R«-
«ui*mnrra ro« PiKvumon or
8igMiric*Nf DnnioBATioM (PSDI
Am MoHiToima
Thta Appendli epecMla Ike
mieJHy ••imnee rowrfremenU for the con-
trol Mid •Mcomient of the «MlMy ot the
PSD MHktent eJr monllorlne *«U enkmNtetf
to BPA ky MI •riuilwtkm operallnt • net-
work ot I*8O eUllone. Such on MI!M||OM
•re encowrMed to develop Mid nwlnUw
quality •wurMiee profrMm more eilcmlve
UIMI Ike required minimum.
Quctlty UMinutce of «lr monllorkif §re-
lemi Include* two dMtnct Mid Imporlint
kiterretaud furtctloni. One lunette* b the
control of the mtMurtmenl
thratiflh the ImptemenUlkm ot
proeeduree. Mid corrective teHon*. The
mwlHy ol the monUorin* d*U like product
ot the meeoarement proeeml. In
teneraL
emw of
Ike meter the effort Mid etfecUvemw
UM contfM w • five*! iMNiitoniif •yitaM**
the keller wIN ke the reraHInc mwHty ot
Ike monHorln* eVtta. The reMrito of daU
ejualHy uoemmenU kidteit* wnether Ike
control •( lorU need to be nwreurd.
Documcnlatlon of the ejueJIly
of Ike monMorlm dale. If Important to data
MMM. who can then eenelder In* Impael of
the data ejuaMly to epeetfle appHeatmn* IOM
Keference II. Aecordlnily. Motmmento ot
MB monltorku data ejutlky are ttinkad to
ke made and reported periodically ky Ike
To pr
cia
enl Mid reportlnt
amor* all PSD network*, epedfle
ojent and reportlnt niecedure* are ore-
•erlked In delaN In Stctlon* I. «. •. and • of
Ihl* Appendli.
In contract. UM control function
••MM
Nteat
tMM. Handard*. and corrective me**-
nre* whkh atleet the ejualNy ot Ik* reeuH-
kw data. The atketlon and eitent of the
•uaHty conlrol actlvHIe*-** well a* addi-
tional quality awemment actlvHIoi-mwd ky
a monHorlnf orcanhallon depend on •
number of total taetora *uek a* Ike fMd
and laboratory eondlllon*. the objective* ot
Ik* monHotlnt. the tevd ol the date «uaHty
ncedtd. the eipcrluc of amltned penonnet.
the coat of control procedure*, poUalani
coneenlratlon kvek). etc. Therefore, the
•jtmlky amurance requirement*. In Section I
of Ihb) Appendli. are apedlled m lenrral
n. $•. AS*. •
term* to *llow each ortantaallo* to develop
a quaMty conlrol *y*lem that k) moot ettl-
dent and elleettve for II* own ebcum-
•tance*.
Par purpoae* of Into Appendix, "ortantoa-
lion" to defined a* a *ource owner/operator.
a •overnmen! Meney. or their contractor
that operate* an ambient ate pollution man-
Morlnt network for PSD pwrpooc*.
1. Quality Atnmmet Metulremeaif* i
1.1 Each ortantaallon muot develop and
Implement a quality auurance program con-
(totteif ot poUele*, procedure*, epeclflcallon*.
•tandard* and documentation necemary to:
III Provide data of adequate quality to
meet monkorMfl objective* and quality a*-
•urance requlremenl* of the permit trent-
Ins authority, and
(II Mimmbe IOM of ate quaMty data due to
malfunction* or out-of-control condition*.
Tkto quaHly aaturancc protrant muet k*
detail. auHaMy documented.
ky the permJt-tranUna; an-
IkorMy. The QuaMty Amurance Protram
wttl be reviewed durMf Iho lyetem audit*
1.1 Primary fukkwee far devcloplnc the
QuaMty Amur ante Protram to contained In
Reference* I and a. whack MM contain
••any auaaeeted pexedurea, check*, and
control apeclfkaUoni. Section It.t ot Refer-
ence 1 deotrroe* apedlte tuldant* tor the de-
vilipmial ot a QuaHty Amurance Protram
for automated analyaera. Many opecMIe
quaMty control chock* and apedftealloM far
manual method* are Included In the reapec-
Mve reference mHhod» dmilbid to Part M
of Into chapter or In Iho reapecUvo nul»a
lent method d**cilptloiM avaMabat from
•PA laee Reference 41. Stmllarty. quaMty
dcakmaled reference and eqwhatont analya-
ere are contained In Ihete rcapectlv* eper-
•lion and Malruetlon manual*. Thto tuM-
e. and any olner pertinent tolormallon
tram appropriate aource*. ahould ke uotd by
the ortanteaUon to devclopkM M* quality a<-
At a minimum, nek quality
dure* for each of the foNewkii acUvMlee: .
Ill Selection of metnod*. analyaen. or
<>ITr*lnlnt:
ill ImUltotton of equlpnunt:
««» Selection Mid control of calibration
atandarda;
III Calibration:
<•! Zero/apan check* MM! MUuotmenU of
automated analyaera;
1S1
n 111 it m
-------
IS..I3
level of (hat monltorlnc site concen-
tration with respect to the level of the
controlling standard. For those area*
In which the short term (14- hour)
standard Is controlling I.e.. has the
highest ratio, the selective sampling
requirement* are Illustrated In Figure
I. H the operating agency were able to
demonstrate, by a combination of his-
torical TOP data and at least one year
of PMi. data that there were certain
periods of the year where conditions
preclude violation of the I'M,. 34-hour
standard, the Increased sampling fre-
quency for those perlodii or seasons
may be exempted by the Regional Ad-
ministrator and revert back to onrt In
six days. The minimum sampling
schedule for all other slten In the area
would be once every sin days. For
tliorie areas In which the annual stand-
ard Is the controlling standard, the
minimum sampling schedule for all
monitors In the area would be one*
every si* days. During the annual
review of the SLAMS network, the
most recent year of data must be con-
sidered to estimate the air quality
status for the controlling air quality
standard 4>4-hour or annual). Statisti-
cal models such aa analysis of concen-
tration frequency distributions aa de-
scribed In "Guideline for the Interpre-
tation of Ozone Air Quality Stand-
ards." ePA-450/«7g 003. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Research
40 CM Ch. I (7-l-«f IdlHon)
Triangle Park. N.C.. January It7a
should be used. Adjustments to the
monitoring schedule must be made on
the basis of the annual review. The
site having the highest concentration
In the most current year must be given
first consideration when selecting the
site for the more frequent sampling
schedule. Other factors such as major
change In sources of PMM emissions or
In sampling slU characteristics could
Influence the location of the expected
maximum concentration site. Also, the
use of the most recent three years of
data might In some cases, be Justified
In order to provide a more representa-
tive data base from which to estimate
current air quality status and to pro-
vide stability to the network. This
multlyear consideration would reduce
the possibility of an anamalous year
biasing a alto selected for accelerated
sampling. If the maximum concentra-
tion alto baaed on the most current
year Is not selected for the more fre-
quent operating schedule, documenta-
tion of the Justification for selection
of an alternate alto must be submitted
to the Regional Office for approval
during the annual review process. It
should be noted that minimum data
completeness critleria. number of
yean of data and sampling frequency
for Judging attainment of the NAAQ8
are discussed hi Appendix K of Part
Evary Stfttk Day
>
f
Every Other Day
1
1 1
1 Every Day
1
>
O.I 0.9 1.0 I.I
Ratio to Standard
l«4 m mil. May I*. Itie. as
MPHM1M.Jolrl.IM1l
(a) Any amMent air quality monitor*
big; station other than a SLAMS or
PSD station from which the SUM In-
tends to uae the data aa part of a dem-
onstration of attainment or nonattaln-
ment or In computing a design value
for control purposes of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQ8) must meet the requirements
for SLAMS described hi IM.JI and.
after January I. IMS. must also meet
the requlrementa for SLAMS aa de-
scribed In IM.II and Appendices A
and B to this part.
(b) Any ambient air quality monitor-
Ing station other than a SLAMS or
PSD station from which the Stale In-
tends to uae the data for SIP related
functions other than aa described In
paragraph (a) of this section Is not
necessarily required to comply with
the requlrementa for a SLAMS station
under paragraph (a) but must be oper-
ated In accordance with * monitoring
schedule, methodology, quality assur-
ance procedures, and probe dr Instru-
ment-siting specifications approved by
the Regional Administrator.
14«rR ««!•«. Sept. I. IMII
C-ttato oxttf l**sj Air
(HAMS)
• M.M Ah-qaoWy
•y Jamaary I. ItM. the State ehaM
adopt and submit to the Administrator
• revision to the plan which wilt:
(a) Provide for the establishment of
an air quality surveillance system that
eonaMa of a network of monitoring
stations designated aa State and Local
Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS)
which measure ambient concentra-
tions of those pollutanU for which
standards have been established hi
Part M of this chapter.
(b) Provide for meeting the require-
ments of Appendices A. C. D. and B to
this part.
(c) ProvWa for the operation of at
least one SLAMS per pollutant except
Pb during any stage of an air pollution
episode aa defined HI the contingency
plan.
(d) Provide for the review of the air
quality surveillance system on an
annual bash) to determine If the
system meets the monitoring objec-
tives defined hi Appendix D to this
part. Such review must Identify
needed modifications to the network
such aa termination or relocation of
unnecessary stations or establishment
of new stations which are necessary.
132
133
-------
UMted States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450'4-87.007
Way 1987
Air
Ambient Monitoring
Guidelines for
Prevention of
Significant
(PSD)
RADIAN LIBRARY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK. NC
-------
PI. st.
3.*.3.3 A bllel statement of belief con
ccmlitfl the extent to which the modifica-
tion will or may affect the performance
characteristics of the method; and
II. 1. 4 Such further Information a* may
be necessary lo explain and lupport the
statement* required by sections 1111 and
1111.
114 Within II dayi after receiving a re-
quest for approval under thli Kctloh 11.11
and Mich further Informalton a* he may re-
quest for purposes of hU decision, the Ad-
mlnUtralor »lll approve or disapprove the
modification In question by letter to the
reran or Mency requesting such approval.
lit A temporary modification that will
or ml|hl alter the performance characteris-
tics of a reference, equivalent, or alternative
method may be made without prior approv-
al under this section (3.1) It the method to
not functlonlnc or I* malfunctioning, pro-
vided that parta necessary for repair In ac-
cordance with the applicable operation
manual cannot be obtained within 41 daye.
Unleai euch temporary modification la later
approved under section 1 1.4. the temporari-
ly modified method shall be repaired In ac-
cordance with the applicable operation
manual aa quickly as practicable but In no
event later than 4 months after the tempo-
rary modification waa made, unless an ex-
tension of lime to tranled by the Adminis-
trator. Unless and until the temporary
modification Is approved, air quality data
obtained with the method as temporarily
modified must be clearly Identified as such
when submitted In accordance with I II M
or | M.It of this chapter and must be ac-
companied by a report containing the Infor-
mation specified In section 1 1.1. A request
that the Administrator approve a tempo-
rary modification may be submitted In ac-
cordance with sections 111 Ihrouih 1.14.
In such cases the request will be considered
as If a request for prior approval had been
made.
1.0 NiMmtml Mr Monitoring SfattoM
(HAMS)
1.1 Methods usrd In those SLAMS which
are also designated as NAM8 to measure
BO* CO. NO., or O. must be automated ref-
erence or equivalent methods {continuous
•nalyxers).
4.0 Puttlcultle Mftttt Eptiode
40 CH Ch. I (7-l-M
4.1.3.1 Whkh has a measuremenl rang*
or ranges appropriate to accurately measure
air pollution episode concentration of PMN
4.1.3.3 Whkh has a sample period appro-'
priate for short-term PM,. measurements
and '
4.1.3.1 For whkh a quantitative relation.
•hip to a reference or equivalent method for
PMW ha* been established at the use site.
Procedure* for establishing a quantitative
•lie specifk relationship are contained In
reference I.
4.3 Quality Assurance. PM,. methods
other than Ihe reference method are not
covered under the quality assessment re-
quirements of Appendix A. Therefore.
Stales must develop and Implement then1
own quality assessment procedures for
those methods allowed under thb section 4.
These quality assessment procedure* should
be similar or analogous lo those described In
section 1 of Appendix A for Ihe PM* refer-
ence method.
I.* Kt/ertneei
•.I Pelton. DJ. Guideline for Paniculate
Episode Monitoring Methods. QEOMET
Technologies. Inc.. Rockvllle. MD. Prepared
lor ITS. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park. NC. EPA Contract
No. MM 1114. EPA 4SO/4 11-00*. Febru-
ary 1*13.
144 PR 31*11. May 10. Ill*, a* amended at
44 PR 31*1*. June 3*. 1*1*: 44 PR 15070.
No*. *. 1*1*: II PR 11*1. Mar. I*. IN*: II
PR 34141. 34143. July I. 11*11
ArrgMDix D—NKTWOMK DMION ro*
STATC AND LOCAL AIM MOHITOMINQ
STATION* (SLAMS) AND NATIONAL
Aia MONITOPINO STATION* (NAMS)
.
4 I For short term measurements of
PM.. during air pollution episodes (see
| II. 181 of this chapter! the measurement
mrlliod must be:
4.1 I Klllter the "Staggered PM,."
mrlliod or the "I'M.. Sampling (iver Short
Sampling Times" method, both ol which are
liased on the refrrence ni'lhml for PM» and
air described In reference I. or
411 Any othrr method for measuring
PM,.:
I. SLAMS Monitoring Objectives and
Spatial Scale*
3. SLAMS Network Design Procedure*
3.1 Background Information for Eilab-
llshlng SLAMS
3.3 IReservedl
3.3 Sulfur Dioxide (SO.) Design Criteria
for SLAMS
3.4 Carbon Monoxide les
The purpose ol Ihb appendix b to de-
scribe monitoring objectives and general cri-
teria to be applied In esUbllshlng Ihe Slate
tnd Local Air Monitoring Slallona (SLAMS)
oelwork* and lor choosing general location*
for new monitoring slallona. It also de-
scribe* criteria lor determining Ihe number
and location of National Air Monitoring
SUllona (NAMS). These criteria will also be
used by EPA m evaluating the adequacy ol
SLAM8/NAM8 network*.
The network ol itatlon* whkh comprise
SLAMS should be designed to meet a mini-
mum of four back monitoring objective*.
The** bask Monitoring objective* are: ID
t To determine highest concentrations ex-
pected to occur hi the area covered by MM
network: 13) to determine representative
concentrations In area* ol high population
density: (1) to determine the Impact on am-
bient pollution kveb ol significant source*
or source categories; and 14) to determine
general background concentration kveb.
To a large extent, the existing State Im-
plementation Plan (SIP) monitoring net-
~; work* have been designed with these lour
• objective* hi mind. Thua. they can serve aa
th* ngkal starting point for establishing
Ih* SLAMS network. This will, however, re-
quire a careful revkw ol each existing SIP
ambient network to determine the principal
objective* ol each nation and Ihe extenl to
whkh th* location criteria presented herein
are being met It should be noted that Ihb
appendix contain* no criteria lor determin-
ing the total number ol slaUon* m SLAMS
network*, except that a minimum number
el lead SLAMS b prescribed. Th* optimum
•be ol a particular SLAMS network Involve*
trade olts among data needs and available
resource* whkh EPA belkves can best be re-
solved during the network design process.
Thb appendix focuses on the relallonshtp
belween monitoring objectives and Ihe geo-
graphical location of monitoring stations.
Included are a rationale and set of general
criteria lor Identifying candidate station lo-
cations In terms of physical characteristics
whkh mosl closely match a specific moni-
toring objective The criteria for more spe-
cifically slllng Ihe monitoring station In-
cluding spacing from roadways and vertical
and horizontal probe placement, are de-
scribed In Appendix E of Ihb part.
To clarify the nature of the link between
general monitoring objectives and Ihe phys-
ical location of a particular monitoring ila
fl. St, Aa>*>. O
lion. Ihe concept of spatial scale of repre-
sentativeness of a monitoring station to de-
fined. The goal In siting stations to to cor-
rectly match the apallal scale represented
by Ihe sample of monitored air with the
spatial scale mosl appropriate for the moni-
toring objective of the station.
Thus, spatial scale of representativeness to
described In terms of the physical dimen-
sion* of the air parcel nearest lo a monitor-
ing station throughout whkh actual pollul-
ant concentrations are reasonably similar.
The leak of representativeness of mosl In-
terest for the monitoring objectives defined
above are a* follow*:
Mlcroscole-dellne* the concentrations In
air volumes associated with area dimensions
ranging from several meters up to about 100
meter*.
•fiddle *c«le-deflnes the concentration
typical of area* up to several dty blocks hi
•be with dimension* ranging from about 10*
meter* to *.* kilometer.
Jvefgntornood Scale-define* concentra-
tions within some extended area ol the cHy
that ha* relatively uniform land me with dl
•tension* hi the t.l to 4.0 kilometer* ran*e.
t/rtan Scale-define* the overall. dlywM*
condition* with dimension* on the order ol
4 to M kilometer*. Thto *cak would usually
require more than on* site lor definition.
Jtrgtoaaf Scale—define* usually a rural
area of reasonably homogeneous geography
and extends from lens to hundreds of kilo
meter*.
MaltoMl and Ototwf Scafn-lheae meas-
urement scales represent concentration*
characterising the nation and the globe as a
whole.
Proper siting of • monitoring station re-
quire* precise specification ol Ihe monitor-
Ing objective whkh usually Includes a de-
cked spatial seak ol representativeness. For
example, consider the case where the objec-
tive b to determine maximum CO concen-
trations hi area* where pedestrians may rea-
sonably be exposed. Such area* would mosl
likely be located within major alreel can
yon* ol large urban areas and near traflk
corridor*. Stations located In these areas are
most likely lo have a mkroscak ol repre-
sentativeness since CO concentrations typi-
cally peak nearest roadway* and decrease
rapidly as the monitor b moved from the
roadway. In Ihb example, physical location
was determined by consideration of CO
emission pal terns, pedestrian activity, and
physical characteristics affecting pollutant
dispersion. Thus, spatial scale of representa-
tiveness was not used In the selection proc-
ess but was a rrtull of station location.
In some cases, lite physical location of a
station b determined from Joint consider-
ation of both the bask monitoring objective.
and a desired spatial M-ale of representative
ness. For emtiniilr. In drlrrmlne t'O conrrn
158
159
-------
ft. 51 Aa>t». 0
be predicted by ambient mtr quality model
tnt. a large fined nelvork of CO monitor* U
not required. Long-term CO monltorlnt
•hould be confined to a limited number of
micro «nd neighborhood scale •Ulloru In
large metropollUn area* to measure mail-
mum pollution level* and to determine the
effectiveness of control strategies.
JflcnMcafe-Measurements on Into scale
would represent distributions within alreel
canyons, over sidewalks, and near major
roadways. The measurements at a particu-
lar location In • street canyon would be typ-
ical of one hlih concentration area which
can be shown to be a representation of
many more areas throufhout the street
canyon or other similar locations In • city.
This la • scale of measurement that would
provide valuable Information for devising
and evaluating "hot spot" control measures.
Middle Jcafe-Thls category coven dimen-
sions from 100 meten to O.C kilometer. In
certain cases discussed below. It may apply
to regions that have a total length of sever-
al kilometers. In many cases of Interest.
sources and land use may be reasonably ho-
mogeneous for long distances along a street,
but very Inhomogeneous normal to the
street. This la the case with strip develop-
ment and freeway corridon. Included In
this category are measurements to charac-
terize the CO concentrations along the
urban features Just enumerated. When a lo-
cation Is chosen to represent conditions In a
block of street development, then the char-
acteristic dimensions of this scale are ten*
of meters by hundreds of melen. If an at-
tempt Is made to characterize street side
conditions throughout the downtown area
or along an extended stretch of freeway, the
dimensions may be lens of meters by kilo-
meter.
The middle scale would also Include the
parking lots and feeder streets associated
with Indirect sourrrs whlrh attract signifi-
cant numbers of pollutant emitters, particu-
larly autos. Shopping centers, stadia, and
offkr buildings are example* of Indirect
sources
/vXoAoorhoorf Srolr Measurements In
this category would represent conditions
thronalioiil some reasonably homogeneous
urban subrrglorw. with dimension* of a few
kilometers and griirrally more regularly
shaped than Ihr mliMIe male. Homogeneity
refers to CO ronrenl ration, but II probably
also applies to land tar. In some cases, a lo-
cation carefully rhosrn to provide neighbor-
hood scale data, mlehl represent not only
the Immediate neighborhood, but also
neighborhoods of the name type In other
part* of the city. These kinds of stations
would provide Information relating to
health effects became they would represent
conditions In arras whrre people live and
•ork Neighborhood srsle dais would pro-
vide valuable Information lor developing.
«0 CM Oi. I (7-l-U CdltUn)
testing, and revising concepts and models
that describe the larger scale concentration
pattern*, especially those models relying on
spatially smoothed emission fields f0"
Inputs. These type* of measurements could
•lao be used for Inleroelghborhood compart-
sons within or between cities.
After the spatial scale has been deter-
mined to meet the monitoring objectives for
each location, the location selection proce-
dure*, a* shown In reference I should be
used to evaluate the adequacy of each exlal-
Ing CO station and must be used to relocate
an existing station or to locate any new
8LAM8 stations. The background material
necessary for these procedures may Include
the average dally traffic on all streets In the
•rea, wind rose* for different hours of the
day. and map* showing one way streets.
•treat width*, and building heights. If the
station Is to typify the area with the highest
concentrations, the streets with the greatest
dally traffic should be Identified. If some
streets are one-way, those streets that have
the greatest traffic during the afternoon
and evening houn should be (elected as ten
tatlv* locations, because the periods of high
traffic volume are usually of greatest dura-
lion through the evening houn. However.
the strength of the morning Inversion has
to be considered along with the traffic
volume and pattern when seeking areas
with the highest concentrations. Traffic
counten near the stations will provide valu-
able data tor Interpreting the observed CO
Concentrations.
Mention should not be placed In the vi-
cinity of possible anomalous source areas.
Example* of such area* Include toll gate* on
turnpike*, melered freeway ramps, and
drawbridge approaches. Additional Informa-
tion on network design may be found In ref-
erence 1.
1.1 Otone to.) Design Criteria for
SLAMS
Oaone to not directly emitted Into the at-
mosphere but results from complex photo-
chemical reaction* Involving organic com-
pounds, oxide* of nitrogen, arid solar radi-
ation.
The relationships between primary emis-
sions (precursors) and secondary pollutants
(O.I lend to produce large separations spa-
tially and temporally between the major
sources and the areas of high oxldanl pollu-
tion. This suggest* that the meteorological
transport process and the relationships be-
tween sources and sinks need to be consid-
ered In the development of the network
design criteria and placement of monitoring
stations, especially In measuring peak con
centrallon levels.
The principal spatial scales for 8I.AM8
purposes based on the monitoring objectives
are neighborhood, urban, regional, and to a
lesser extent, middle scale. Since ozone re
Iitvkwfimwntal PrwtoctUn Afwitcy
quire* appreciable formation time, the
mixing of reactanta and products occun
over large volume* of air. and this reduce*
the Importance of monitoring small scale
apatlal variability.
Miatdf* Scale-Measurement In Ihto scale
would represent condition* close to sources
of NO. such a* roada where H would be en-
peeled thai suppression of O. concentra-
tions would occur. Trees also may have a
strong scavenging effect on O. and may lend
to suppress O. concentration* m their Imme-
diate vicinity. Measurement* at these (to-
Uons would represent conditions over rela-
tively small portions of the urban area.
MrlfAborftood 5cal«-Measuremenla In
this category represenl conditions through-
out torn* reasonably homogeneous urban
•ubreghm, with dimension* of a tew kilome-
ters. Homogeneity refen to pollutant con-
centrations. Neighborhood scale data will
provide valuable Information for developing.
testing, and revising concepts and models
that describe urban/regional concentration
patterns. They will be useful to the under-
standing and definition of processes thai
lake period* of houn to occur and hence In-
volve considerable mixing and transport.
Under stagnation conditions, a station locat-
ed In the neighborhood scale may also expe-
rience peak concentration levels within the
urban area*.
C/rfcsK *cef*-Measurement In this scale
will be used to estimate concentration* over
large portion* of an urban area with dimen-
sions of several kllometen to M or more kil-
ometer*. Such measurements will be used
tor determining trend*, and designing area-
wide control strategies. The urban scale sta-
tion* would also be used to measure high
concentrations downwind of the area having
the highest precursor emissions.
Ktffiontl Seste-Thl* scale of measure-
ment will be used to typify concentration*
over large portions of a metropolitan area
and even larger area* with dimensions of a*
much aa hundred* of kilometer*. Such
measurements will be useful for assessing
the osone that I* transported Into an urban
area. Data from such stations may be useful
In accounting for the ozone that cannot be
reduced by control strategies In that urban
area.
The location selection procedure contin-
ues after the spatial scale la selected baaed
on the monitoring objectives. The appropri-
ate network design procedures as found In
reference 4. should be used to evaluate the
adequacy of each existing O. monitor and
must be used to relocate an existing station
or to locate any new O. 8I.AM8 stallons.
The lint step In the siting procedure would
be to collect the necessary background ma-
terial, which may consist of maps, emission
Inventories for noiunelhsne hydrocarbons
and oxides of nitrogen INO.I. rllmalologlcal
ft. 51. Ap*. 0
data, and existing air quality data for oaone.
nonmethane hydrocarbons, and WVNO.
For locating a neighborhood scale station
to measure typical city concentration*, a
reasonably homogeneous geographical area
near the center of the region should be se-
lected which I* also removed from the Influ-
ence of major HO. sources, for an urban
scale station to measure the high concentra-
tion area*, the emission Inventories should
be used to define the extent of the area of
Important nonmelhane hydrocarbon* and
NO. emissions. The most frequent wind
speed and direction for periods of Important
photochemical activity should be deter-
mined. Then the prospective monitoring
area should be selected In a direction from
the city thai Is most frequently downwind
during period* of photochemical activity.
The distance from the alalton to the upwind
edge of the city should be about equal to
the distance traveled by air moving for » to
1 houn at wind speeds prevailing during pe-
riods of photochemical activity. Prospective
area* for locating O. monlton should
always be outside the area of major NO,.
In locating • neighborhood scale station
which to to measure high concentration*.
the same procedures used for the urban
scale are followed except that the station
should be located closer to the area* border-
ing on the center city or (lightly further
downwind In an area of high density popula-
tion.
For regional scale background monitoring
stations, the most frequent wind associated
with Important photochemical activity
should be determined. The prospective mon-
itoring area should be upwind tor the moat
frequent direction and outside the area of
city Influence.
Since ozone levels decrease significantly hi
the colder parts of the year hi many areas.
osone to required to be monitored al NAM8
and SLAMS monitoring site* only during
the "osone season" as designated In the
8AROAO files on a Slate by State basis and
described below:
OZONE MOMTOMNO SEAgoN BY STATE
Ariion*
Color «to
Conrwetc*
Fknta
Dm*.
OcMMf
OK
OcHtWi
162
163
-------
ft. M, Ayp. D
found to represent the mteroscale and
middle eea,le dimension. For area* where
predominant lead leveb come from point
•oaten, the category *a> ilatlon tenerallr
represent* the mkroscsle or middle acale
Impact of the point aource. However. In a
few caaee, aufflclenl mlilnf may occur
dm lit* IraiMport of the emissions from the
aource to the around to that the ealcf ory
(at station represent* a neighborhood acale.
The required category lb» elation muat be a
neighborhood acale station fine* the micros-
cale and middle acale station would not rep-
resent the air quality over large geographi-
cal areas and frequently may not be located
ki hUhlv txw.iii.i~* ..— •• • • -
«« Cn Cfc. I (7-l.»i ItMMon) tovlrwiiinwrilejl frelocHon Atency
to highly populated areas. It la recognized
that In certain areas, a middle scale station
may be located at schools or playgrounds
near malor roadways. Ifowever. In most
eases, they are not located In such areas and
since children station gen-
erally represents a neighborhood scale
Impact of the point aource.
To locate monitoring stations. II will be
necessary to obtain background Information
such as stationary and mobile source emis-
sions Inventories, morning and evening traf-
fic patterns, cllmalologlcal summaries, and
local geographical characteristics. Such In-
formation should be used to Identity areas
that are most suitable to the particular
monitoring objective and spatial scale of
representativeness desired. Reference t pro-
vides additional guidance on locating site*
to meet specific urban area monitoring ob-
jectives and must be used In locating new
stations or evaluating the adequacy of exist-
ing stations.
After locating each Pb station, and. to the
extent practicable, taking Into consideration
the collective Impact of all Pb sources and
surrounding physical characteristics of the
siting area, a spatial scale of representative-
ness must be assigned tu each station.
Outdance on locating mnnllorlng'statlona
In the vicinity of stationary lead sources I*
lltrn In reference 10 This reference pro-
vMes assistance In designing a network to
meet the monitoring nblrrtlve of determln-
In* the Impact of point sources on ambient
Pb levels
lg f>U,. Dfltv* Crtlrrt* for SLAMS
As with other pollutants measured In the
HIJtMS nelwmk, the first strp In designing
Ilir PM» network Is to collect the necessary
background Information. Various stud-
Irs" " " '• " "have documented I lie major
source categories of partk-ulatc matter and
their contribution to •mblriil levels In varl
oui location* throughout the
cause the sources for PM* are slmliar~Z,
those for TOP. the procedures lor collecting
the necessary background Information for
PMM are also similar. Sources of back
ground Information would be regional and
traffic map* and aerial photograph* show
tog topography, settlements, major Indus
Irk* and highway*. These map* and photo-
graph* would b* used to Identify area* ol
th* type that are ot concern to the particu-
lar monitoring objective. After potentially
suitable monitoring areas for PMM hav*
been Identified on a map. modeling may b*
used to provide an estimate ot PM» concen-
tration* throughout the area ot Interest
After completing the first step, exbtln*
TOP SLAMS or other paniculate matter
stations should be evaluated to determln*
their potential as candidates tor SLAMS
designation. Stations meeting one or more
of th* four basic monitoring objective* de-
scribed to section I of thb Appendix must
be classified Into on* of the five scale* of
representativeness (micro, middle, neighbor-
hood, urban and regional) If the atatlont arc
to become SLAMS. In ailing and classifying
PM» *tatlona, the procedure* In reference
IT should be used.
If cabling TOP samplers meet th* quality
assurance requirements of Appendix A. the
PMw iltlng requirement* ot Appendix E.
and are located to area* of suspected maxi-
mum concentrations are described In section
I of Appendix D. and It the TOP leveb are
below the ambient PMn standard*. TOP
samplers may continue to be used a* substi-
tutes tor PM» SLAMS samplers under the
provisions of Section 3.1 of Appendix C.
The moat Important spatial wales to effec-
tively characterize the emissions ol PM»
from both mobile and stationary source* are
the micro, middle and neighborhood scales.
For purpose* of establishing monitoring sta-
tions to represent large homogenous areas
other than the above scales of represents-
tlvenea*. urban or regional scale station*
would also be needed.
Mlcroscale—Thta scale would typify areas
such as downtown street canyon* and traffic
corridor* where the general public would be
exposed to maximum concentrations from
mobile sources. Because of the very steep
ambient PM» gradient* resulting from
mobile sources, the dimensions of the ml-
croscale for PM» generally would not
extend beyond II meters from the roadway,
but could continue the length ot the road-
way which could be several kilometers. Ml
croscale PMN sites should be located near
Inhabited buildings or locations where the
general public can be expected to be ex-
posed to the concentration measured. Emis-
sions from stationary source* such as pri-
mary and secondsry smelters, power plants,
and other large Industrial processes may.
M, Apgt. D
under certain pram* condition*. Itkewkw
result to high ground level concentration*
at the mtcroacale. In the latter ease, the ml-
croacal* would represent an area Impacted
by the plum* with dimension* extending up
to approximately IM meter*. Data collected
at mkroacal* stations provide Information
tor evaluating and developing "hotapot"
control measures.
MU4U Scab-Much of MM measurement
of short-term public exposure to PM» I* on
this scale. People moving through down-
town area*, or living near major roadway*.
encounter particle* that would be adequate-
ly characterised by measurement* of thl*
spatial icale. Thus, measurementa of thl*
type would bo appropriate lor the •valua-
tion of possible ihort term public health el-
fed* of partlculal* matter pollution. Thta
•cat* also Include* the characteristic concen-
tration* tor other area* with dimension* of
a taw hundred meter* *uch a* the parking
lot and feeder atrcct* associated with shop-
ping center*, stadia, and office building*. In
the case of PMN. unpaved or seldom (wept
parkin* tot* associated with these •ource*
could b* an Important source to addition to
th* vehicular emission* themselve*.
WeffAvomoocT Scale-Meamiremente IN
Ihb) category would represent condition*
throughout some reasonably homogeneou*
urban subregkm with dimension* ol a few
kilometer* and ol generally more regular
•hap* than the middle scale. Homogeneity
refer* to the PM« concentration*, aa well aa
the land use and tend surface characteris-
tic*. In some case*, a location carefully
chosen to provide neighborhood acato data
would represent not only th* Immediate
neighborhood but also neighborhood* of the
same type hi other part* of the city. Sta-
tion* of this kind provide good Information
about trend* and compliance with standards
because they often represent conditions hi
area* where people commonly live and work
for period* comparable to those specified to
the NAAQ8. This category also Include* In-
dustrial and commercial neighborhood*, aa
well aa residential.
Neighborhood *cale date could provide
valuable Information for developing, testing.
and revising models that describe the larger-
scale concentration pattern*, especially
those model* relying on spatially smoothed
emission fields for Input*. The neighbor-
hood scale measurements could also be used
tor neighborhood comparisons within or be-
tween cities. This b the most likely acale of
measurement* to meet the needs of plan-
ner*.
Urban Scale—Thta class-of measurement
would be made to characterize the PMM con-
centration over an entire metropolitan area.
Such measurements would be useful for as-
sessing trends In city-wide air quality, and
hence, the effectiveness of large scale air
pollution control strategics.
aente
fteftonel Scale—Theae ___._....
would characterise condition* over area*
with dimensions ot a* much a* hundred* of
kilometer*. A* noted earlier, using repre-
sentative conditions tor an area Implies
come degree of homogeneity to that area.
For thb reason, regional scale measure-
ments would b* most applicable to sparsely
populated area* with reasonably uniform
ground cover. Data characteristic* of Ihb
•cat* would provide Information about
larger acale processes ol PM» emissions.
toasts and transport.
I. /refworft DtHtn for frafloMl Air Moni-
toring Sfaf ton* (NAMSI
The MAMS must be station* selected from
the SLAMS network with emphaab given to
urban and multbouree area*. Area* to b*
monitored mint be (elected based on urban-
bed population and pollutant concentration
levels. Generally, a larger number ol NAM8
are needed to more polluted urban and
multbourc* areas. Th* network design crite-
ria discussed below reflect the** concept*.
However. It should be emphasised that devi-
ation* Irom the NAM8 network design crite-
ria may be necessary to a tew cases. Thu*.
the** design criteria are not a act of rigid
rule* but rather a guide for achieving a
of monl
propi
distribution i
•onltoring cite* on a
national acale.
Th* primary objective for HAMS b to
monitor hi the area* where the pollutant
concentration and the population exposure
are expected to be the highest consistent
wHh the averaging time of the NAAQ8. Ac-
cordingly, the NAM8 fall Into two catego-
ric*:
Category tafc Station* heated to areatal of
expected maximum concentration* (general-
ly mkroacate for CO. mlcroacale or mMdl*
•cat* lor Pb and PM» neighborhood acale
for 80.. and N(K and urban arate for
-------
ft. 3«. Aa,». D
the data Iron 8MM8 should be uaed prl
marlly lot nonatlalrtmenl decision*/ amir
•e* m specific geogiaphleal areas. Since the
NAM8 MC stations from the 8I.AM8 net-
•oik. elation locating procedure* (or NAM8
•re part or the 8LAM8 network design proc-
CM.
*.l IReaenredl
II Sulfur Dioxide (SO.) Design CrlterU
lor NAM8
It to desirable to have • greater number ol
NAM8 In the more polluted and densely
populated urban and mulltoource area*. The
data In Table I show I he approximate
number ol permanent Italian* needed In
urban area* to characterize the national and
reflonai BO, air quality trendi and geo-
graphical pattern*. Thece criteria require
that the number ol NAM8 In area* where
urban population* exceed 1.000.000 and con-
centration* aUo exceed the primary NAAQ8
may ranie from « to It and that In area*
where the 8O, problem I* minor, only one or
two lor no) monitor* *r« required For lho*e
f«»fs where more than one station to re-
quired lor an urban area, there ihouM be at
least one atatlon for category e mix ol category (•) and ibl Malton* to
determined on • cue by cur bail*. The
actual number and location nf the MAMS-
mint be determined by EPA neflonal Of-
fice* and the Slate atienry. >ub)ect to the
approval of EPA Headquarter* (OANfU.
TMU 3-SO, National Ak MonHorlng Station
CtMeito
>I.OMOIK
MO age ID
t so* «x
itt.«o*t»
900.000
tin ooo M
ttO.OO*
•-M
4 •
l-f
4*
I •
t 2
• I
t-4
I t
•) «•*• »t»« oral octal wi*tot over larte geographl-
The category CM (middle acala or a»b>
borhood ac*J*> ahould b* located to
with a *UWe, high poputaUon denrity
jscted eonllnulty of neighborhood at
tor. and hl«h traffic density. The ataUm
ahottld b* located when no major
chance*, new highway*. «r new
WfMqYtt) w BCntf COMMMVV* TIM
ahouM b* when a algnlflcant CO MMlM
problem ntala, but not b* unduly taflav
ancajd, wy ttny wno Mn* eourtf*1* lfatlMrv M
•houM b* mow repre*entatl»* of the o**raN
•tfoet of the aowrcea In • atanlfleant portion
of the urban are*.
Becati** CO to femrally aaiortaU* wttk
heavy iraffie and popunttlon durtwa. an «*>
bantoed area wttn • population greater than
KM.Ot* to the principal crUertlon for McnU-
fykMj UM urban ana* for which pain of
NAM8 for thto pothjtant will b* required.
Uon* hi urban area* with mater HIM
•M.wM population would prorid* Mlflclont
data for national analyito and nallanal ro-
portlnt to ConfTce* Mid UM puWte. Atoo. It
IMW (enerally been chown that ma|or CO
ar* found m area* ireater than
M. M, Act). 0
buildup of peak O. levetowlth UM need to
•taUan (category (b). neighborhood acatol.
jpaa llajf; farbwSfxMl fghff 111 at d*d*M
tral wuabuM dtoUM along th* prtdowunw*
•ummer/fall dayllm* wmd direction. Thto
latter •taUon ahouM meaiwr* peak O, leveto
wnder Hght and vartabto ar *tegn*nt wind
condHtBn*. Two ooon* HAMS •taUon* wtM
•• MlffftCMfM HI MMOC VJfMMI MTMal MiKNI tsfMI*
•harpMlwottmcrlterMpolnitante.
*.» HMrogen DtoxM* (HO.) Criteria far
HAMS. HHrogen dtoxM* HAMS wm b* re-
quired to) thoa* area* at UM country which
ka*a a population greater than l.aga.ap*.
Thcat area* wm hav* two HO, MAMS. It b
frit that Mathm* to the** major metropoli-
tan area* would provide outflclent data for a
national analyato of UM data, and aba bo-
NO. problem* occur to. area* of great-
er than l.aaa.aoa population.
WUhto urban area* requMnt HAMS, two
•jaraaanant kaonltota arc auff blent. Tht flrat
•taUon (category (at, middle acaJa ar neigh-
borhood *CBM> wouM be to mea*ur* Ine
i ol HO. and would
. t of UM nrban
ana wher* th* imbilon denstty of MO. b
UM naihcat. Tht aeeond otatlon (category
(b> nrban acalai. would be to nwaoiir* UM
HO, produced from UM reaction of HO wHh
O. and ahouM bo downwind of UM area of
PVVQKMM
M*.M*pi
M Ooon*
lalton cut oft to uaed *me* the Murcw of hy-
drocarbon* ar* both mobile and •Uttonary
and ar* more dlvcrae. Atoo. beeaua* of total
and national control otraletle* and th* com-
plex chemical proce** of oaone formation
and Iranoporl. more MmpHn* *UUom than
for CO ar* needed on a national eeale to
better Mndentand the own* problem. Thto
•election criterion to baaed entirely on popu-
lation and wm Include thoee relatively
highly populated area* where moot of th*
oiMant precursor* originate.
Each urban area will generally reottke
only two oaone HAMS, One elation would be
representative of maimmni oaone concen-
tration* (category (at, urban arale) under
the wind tranrport condition* a* dbcuued
In (ectlon t.l. The exact location ihould bal-
>.• lead (Pbl Dedgn Criteria for MAMS.
In ardor to achieve UM national monNortnt
abtoctlvo. two of UM SLAMS located In ur-
bantoed area* wHh poputo.tl*ni greater than
Ma.«0a wtM b* dMhmated a* HAM& On* of
Utat BilsutBiMBgl aTMaiTal. ••• •> ffaBfeMHs^Bll*% alan? •••^Llldt
acato category (a) •tattaet. tacatod adjacent
to a major roadway <>9a.*M ADD or near
UM roadway wMh th* huvett traffto votwm*
If th* vofum* to leoi than M.«aa AOT. A ml-
croocaw tocaUon to preferred, bwt a i
cat* location cannot b* found.
TtM MCOfMl rtallttMl NMM& %• ft I
hood Mat* category ibl ataUM toaad'd In a
highly populated residential «»rtl*n of UM
I area where tralllc demNy b high.
preferably oH.aoa ADT) or near UM road-
way wHh the largeot traffic volume M the
volume to tea* than tMo* ADT.
In certain nrbanbed area* greater than
M0.M* population, pomt WMircea may have
a rignrfkant Impact on ak ajuaHty lead
HI 0O0MlvltCo sVCvW. TO NMtyM*W WM
frf tMSCtl OOMfC*7t\ OCfMi* NMtlnOTO III
the SLAMS network would normally be
1.1 Mf.. Onion Criteria for HAMS
Table 4 Indlralei the approximate number
of permanent •lalloiu required In ban
168
ion
-------
PI. Si. A.,. 0
area* to characterize national and regional
PM» air quality trends and geographical
pattern*. The number of tUlloru In area*
where urban populations exceed 1,000.000
mutt be In the ranee from J to 10 stations.
while In low population urban areas, no
more than two stations are required. A
rtnie of monltorlni stations Is specified In
Table 4 because source* of pollutant* and
local control efforts can vary from one part
of the country to another and therefore.
some flexibility Is allowed In selecting the
actual number of stations In any one locale.
ft Is recognbed that no I'M,, sampler* will
be designated as PMn reference or equiva-
lent methods until, at the earliest, approxi-
mately six months after promulgation of
PMM NAJIQ8 and the reference and equiva-
lent method requirements. Even though
non-designated PM,. samplers will have
been commercially available, and a small
number of samplers will have been In use by
EPA. other agencies, and Industry, there
will not be enough ambient PM,. data to de-
termine ambient PM» levels for all areas of
the country. Accordingly. EPA has provided
guidance" on converting ambient IP,, data
la ambient PM* data. Ambient IP., data are
data from high volume samplers utilizing
quarts filler* or dlchotomous sampler*, both
with Inlet* designed to collect particle*
nominally It um and below. Also Included
In the guidance are procedures for calculat-
ing from ambient T8P data the probability
that an area will be nonattalnment for PM»
Pnr determining the appropriate number of
NAM8 per area, the converted IP,, data or
the probabilities of PM» nonatlalnment are
used In Table 4. unless ambient PM* data
are available. If only one monitor Is re-
quired In an urbanised area. It must be a
category la) type. Since emissions associated
with the operation of motor vehicles con-
tribute to urban area parllculate matter
levels, consideration of the Impact of these
source* must be Included In the design of
the NAM8 network, particularly In urban
area* greater than 600.000 population. In
certain urban areas parlkulste emissions
from motor vehicle dlesel exhaust currently
40 Cm Ch. I (7-l-fl fdltlon)
Is or Is expected to be a significant source of
PMW ambient levels. If an evaluation of the
source* of PM» as described In section 2.1
Indicate* that the maximum concentration
area Is predominantly Influenced by road-
way emissions, then the category (a) station
should be located adjacent to a major road
and should be a mlcroscale or middle scale.
A mlcroscale Is preferable but a middle scale
Is also acceptable If a suitable mlcroscale lo-
cation cannot be found. However. If the pre-
dominant Influence In the suspected maxi-
mum concentration area Is expected to be
Industrial emissions, and/or combustion
product* (from other than an Isolated single
source!, the category (a) station should be a
middle wale or neighborhood scale. A
middle scale exposure Is preferable to a
neighborhood scale In representing the
maximum concentration Impact from multi-
ple sources, other than vehicular, but a
neighborhood scale Is acceptable, especially
In large residential areas that burn oil.
wood, and/or coal for space healing.
for those case* where more than one sta-
tion Is required for an urban area, there
should be at least one station for category
la) and one station for category Ib) neigh-
borhood scale objectives as discussed In Sec-
lion S. Where three or more stations are re-
quired, the mix of category la) and Ib) sla
lions to to be determined on a case-by-case
bash. The actual number of NAM8 and
their location* must be determined by EPA
Regional Offices and the State .agencies.
subject to the approval ol the Administrator
a* required by | >•.*>. The Administrator's
approval ta necessary to Insure that Individ-
ual station* conform to the NAM8 selection
criteria and that the network as a whole Is
sufficient In terms of number and location
for purposes of national analyses. As re-
quired under the provisions of section 1.1 of
Appendix C. all PM, HAMS that were pre-
viously designated as T8P NAM8 must con
currently collect ambient TSP and PMW
data for a one-year period beginning when
each NAM8 PM« sampler Is put Into oper-
ation.
InvlrwiiMiifd Prof •cfton Agency
TAME 4-PM.. NATIONAL AM MoMiomNO STATION CRITERIA
-.1000000
500.000 1000.000
JV1000 SOO.OOO
100.000 ISO 000
Hod
ttattnlHtlan'
•-to
4-SJ
14
II
ttetfum
nmcMMon-
4 S
It
1 J
0-1
lOT
conc«n»Mo»<
*-4
1 »
SI
0
, al WMom p.. «« •• *»l»IMy **.,«*»«• b« tPA >^ So SIM. ^.ocy
"%«.. NAAUS b, JO f»cmm a mam.
Ms. k»
n. M, A**, o
• 4Ms sv sn*4M4 V« oils oonvsrtss* to PMU sfcow snsjliHi
• fw (toMMir M Ml. nonoannriiint cJualiliS ftom f tf
.
•U» «onc»n>s»»B ••*• M tm* k> «•**: AiiMwl PM. «Ms sr smbM V. «Mi C
0MOonfe*ftns loss ew 10 Mfconl •! flw HylM NAAOft • IM nb^aw •! ttt nM^^^k
MM *isn CffpMonl
• Piw**ns hr n»i«oSii| snvtonl «*, ajneonkoSons taM **« mititit rir mnamxum •> k, i
4. Mtmtmtm There may also be some situation*. M dis-
Table • show* by pollutant, all of the spa- cussed later In Appendix E, where addltton-
for SLAMS al scale* may be allowed for NAM8 pur
Ual scales that ar* applicable for SLAMS
and the required spatial acale* for NAM&
TABU 6—SUMMARY OF SPATIAL SCALM FOR SLAMS AND Rcoumto SCALE* FOR
MAMS
laiiOi
Uta
•0,
00
CO
NO.
I. Ludwlg. P. U, J. H. 8. Kealoha. and E.
Shelar. Selecting 0IU* for Monitoring Total
Suspended Partkulatea. Stanford Research
Institute. Menlo Park. CA. Prepared lor
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Re-
search Triangle Park. NC. EPA Publication
No. EPA-4M/I-T?-«U. June 1*11. revised
December 1911.
I. Ball. R. J. and O. E. Anderson. Opti-
mum Site Exposure Criteria for SO, Moni-
toring. The Center lor the Environment and
Man. Inc., Hartford. CT. Prepared for 114.
Environmental Protection Agency. Re-
search Triangle Park. NC. EPA Publication
No. EPA-4M/I-T1-«II. April lOTf.
1. Ludwlg. P. L. and J. H. 8. Kealoha. Se-
lecting Sites for Carbon Monoxide Monitor-
ing. Stanford Research Institute. Menlo
Park. CA. Prepared for (1.8. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park.
NC. EPA Publication No. EPA-4M/S-lt-
07T. September I til.
4. Ludwlg. P. L. and E. Shelar. Site Select.
kit for the Monitoring of Photochemical
Air Pollutant*. Stanford Research Institute.
Menlo Park. CA. Prepared for OS. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Research Trian-
gle Park. NC. EPA Publication No. EPA-
4M/I 7( Oil. April 1*11.
t. Guideline on Air Quality Models.
OAQP8, 0.8. Environment*! Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park. NC.
OAQP8 No. I.*-OH. April ItTO.
g. Control Techniques for l«ad Air Emto-
slons. OAQP8. OS Environmental Prolee
tlon Agency. Research Triangle Park. NC.
EPA 4SO/1 77 Oil. December I*T».
V. Air Quality Criteria for Lead. Office of
Rsatauh and Development. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Washington. DC.
EPA-OM/f 7T-OI7. December ItTI.
•. Johnson. D. E.. *t al. EpMendologte
Study of the Effect* of Automobile Traffic
on Blood Lead Level*. Southwest Research
Institute. Houston. TX. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Re-
search Triangle Park. NC. EPA MM/1 1g-
•M. August I»M.
». Optimum Site Exposure Criteria for
Lead Monitoring. PEOCo Environmental.
Inc.. Cincinnati. OH. Prepared for 11.8. En
vtronmenUI Protection Agency. Research
Triangle Park. NC. EPA Contract No. M M-
Mll. (May INI.)
I*. Outdance for Lead Monitoring hi the
Vicinity of Point Source*. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, and Envi-
ronmental Monitoring System* Laboratory.
VJB. Environmental Protection Agency. Re-
•earch Triangle Park. NC. EPA-4M/4 •!-
•Og. January INI.
II. Cooper. J.A.. et. al. Summary of the
Portland Aerosol Characterization Study.
(Presented at the int Annual Ah- Pollution
Association Meeting. Cincinnati. OH. A PC A
fTO-14.4).
IS. Bradway. RM. and P.A. Record. Na-
tional Assessment of the Urban Paniculate
Problem. Volume I. Prepared for O.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency. Research Tri-
angle Park. NC. EPA 450/1 7« 014. July
int.
II. IIS. Rwlioninenlal Prolrrllon
Agency. Air Qnsllly Criteria for Partlrulslr
Matter and Sulfur Ox'ldrs. Volume 1. Envl
170
171
-------
«. Si.
ronmenlal Criteria and) Awrranrnt Office
Research Triangle Park. NC. December
14 Watson. JO., el al. Analysis of Inhala-
ble and Fine ParllcuhUe Mailer Measure
menU. Prepared lor U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park
NC. EPA 4M/4 11-0)1. December INI.
II. Record. P.A. and L.A. Bacl. Evaluation
on Contribution of Wind Blovn Dust from
the Deiert Level* of Paniculate Matter In
Desert Communities. OCA Technology DM
tlon. Bedford. MA. Prepared lor U.8. Envi-
ronmental Protection Aiency. Research Trl-
anile Park. NC. EPA 450/3 M 071 Au(uit
I *>IO.
It. Oohtoleln. B.A. and Paly M. The Diesel
Problem In New York City. Project on the
Urban Environment. Natural Resources De-
fense Council. Inc., New York. NY. April
I lit.
17. Kteh. R.C. and H.E. Rector. Optimum
Network Design and Site Exposure Criteria
for Parlkulatc Matter. OEOMCT Techno!
otlea. Inc.. Rockvllle. MD. Prepared lor If*.
Environmental Protection Agency. Re-
search Triangle Park. NC. EPA Contract
No. ••01 ISM. EPA 110/4 11001. May
I Ml.
II. Pace. T. et at Procedures for Estimat-
ing Probability of NonalUlnmenl of • PM»
Data. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park. NC EPA-
4IO/4-M-OI1. December I»N.
141 PR ai*7l. May I*. l»7r. 44 PR 73113.
Dec. 14. 1071. aa amended at «• PR 44IM.
8-pl. *. INI; II PR Mil. Mar. It. IMg; U
PR 11143-33744. July I. IM7; I* PR 37311.
July 10. 10171
ArrgMDix E—PROM 8m NO Cuimiu
roa AMBIENT AIM QUAUTY MOMITOBIHO
I. Introduction
3. IReservedl
I. Sulfur Dioxide ISO.I
II Horlsontal and Vertical Probe Place-
ment
I 3 Spacing from Obslniirllons
1 3 Spacing; from trees and other ronsM-
ersilons.
4 Carbon MonoxMr ICTM
41 Hiwhwntal and Vertical Probr Place-
ment
4 t Spacing from Obstrurllois
41 Spacing from Road*
44 Spacing from trrr* and other consM-
eratlona.
I Otonc «O.I
II Vertical and llorrwmlsl Probe Place-
ment
I a Spacing from Obstructions
11 Spacing from Rosds
t 4 Sparing from trrr* and ollrrr conild
erallons.
40 <*• Ch. I (M-M fdrffon)
i. Nitrogen Dioxide < NO.)
•.I Vertical and Hortsonlal Probe Place-
IfMfll
•.a Spacing from Obstructions
•.a Spacing from Roads
•.4 Spacing from trees and other consid-
erations.
1. UadtPbl
1.1 Vertical Placement
7. a Spacing from Obstructions
U Spacing from Roadways
1.4 Spacing from tree* and other consid-
erations.
0. Parlfciilate Matter «PMM>
•.I Vertical Placement
•.t Spacing from Obstructions
•J Spacing from Roadways
•.4 Other Considerations
». Probe Material and Pollutant Sample
Residence Time
It. Waiver Provisions
11. Discussion and Summary
la. References
I. fsjfnNfswflosj
This appemtU contains probe siting ertte-
rla to be applied to ambient air quality mon-
itor* or monltor'probes after the general
station location ha* been selected based on
the monitoring objectives and spatial scale
of representativeness as discussed In Appen-
dli D of this part. Adherence to these siting
criteria Is necessary to ensure the uniform
collection of compatible and comparable air
quality data.
The probe ailing criteria as discussed
below must be followed to the maximum
••tent possible. It b recognised that there
may be situations when the probe siting cri-
teria cannot be followed. If the dtlng crite-
ria cannot be met. this must be thoroughly
documented with a written request for a
waiver which describes how and why Ing
siting criteria differs. This documentation
should help to avoid later questions about
the date. Conditions under which EPA
would consider an applkallon for waiver
from these siting criteria are discussed m
Section It of this appendix.
The spatial scales of representativeness
used m thai appendli. I.e.. micro, middle.
neighborhood, urban, and regional are de-
fined and discussed m Appendix D of this
part. The pollutant specific probe siting cri-
teria generally apply to all spatial scales
except where noted otherwise. Specific
siting criteria that are prefaced with a
"must" are defined as a requirement and ex-
ceptions must be approved throirgh the
waiver provisions. However, siting criteria
that are prefaced with a "should" are de-
fined as a goal to meet for consistency but
are not a requirement.
a. IReservedl
3. 5*V*r DlotUe tSO,t
ft. M, Ape). I
1.1 Horbontal and Vertical Prob* Pmee-
ment. A* wtthTSP monitoring, the mod de-
drabb height for an SO. monitor Met
prob* to near the breathing height. Various
factor* enumerated before may require that
UM bust prob* b* elevated. Therefore, the
Inlet probe mud k* located 3 to II meter*
above ground level. If the Inlet prob* b k>
ahould k* located on the windward dd* of
In* bulkMng retotlv* to
winter wind direction. The I
•too be located more than I meter vertically and I meter provide* adequate leeway to
or hortaonlally away from any supporting
dructura and also away from dirty, dusty
ton require that the mtot probe kg higher.
•sTaVkA B>SB^BOaW»a^ai' * -- St— •>-• __* Agj.— gBKl^J --- »-— *^~.
Tit* ratiwrtQ itffiifvti 01 in* viici pfOM for
CO >MM.4tortng to ihtrtlort 9* H m**r far •
•tMCVMCqllw MW« WMctl to • M"M|WWMtoC OtV*
tween representative breathing height ami
JiTqWrqilfWOwl 9t wBwQMvMM* • iww IvCMHIIvVCtlOCv
I meter rang* «f height* I* atoo a eompro-
aslat to *om* extent. Por oonatotency ami
an mlete at exactly the same height, but
-**>*^-*- jgi^^j-^,,* g^ava,.
PIIVIV prvvcm HIM.
•J Spacing (MM Obstruction*. No far-
Meg gr Indneratloa) fluea. or athar mkMr
•ouross o» SO. should b* nearby. TIM ggpa-
raAlasi sUstanesr ss dsoondant an Uia BMsiha
•f the tluea. lypa of waste qe fwal kmrxg.
and MM quality of In* fuel (aul/ur eontentl.
If the Inlet prob* Is located 0*1 • roof at
other otructure. N mu*t b* at lead I meter
from walla, parapete. psnthouaaa. ete.
Tho mlet probe w--' b* located
from obstadw and bu, lamtamTamsl Ussaml UfnV ••••«* i^iTV**^**
Ssjapllng stations that are locate*] eloosr to
obstoda* than thai criterion allow* should
not b* classified a* a neighborhood seat*.
i the measurement* from such
tion from any supporting *trveture.
Ct apadng from Obstrwctlona. Airflow
•too kg smreatrtcted m an ar« of at
would closely represent mMdb scot* d*>
llon*. Therefor*, dattons not meeting UM
criterion should k* daadtled aa mMdto
•cab. Airflow mud atoo k* unrestricted m
an are of at bad fir ground the Met
probe grid the predominant win
•Of UM ipVwMOfV) qW fPCqlvCiN (MVnM*Mlqt 4
wind direction for UM i
Ual mud b* Included m the tir era. If the
prob* to located on the dd* of a bunding.
life*
4J
and traffic
Iratfan potential must b*
air are. If In* probe b located en In* dd*
of a building. I IT clearance to required. Ad-
ditional Information on SO. probe elUng ert-
teria may be found m reference II.
1.1 Spacing from trees and other eonatd-
orallana. Trees can provlds surfaces for SO,
adsorption and act aa an obstruction to
normal wind flow pattern*. To muumbw Ing
offecte of tree* on the
SO, level*, the sampler should b* plaetd at
least at meter* from the drip line of trees.
However, m situations where tree* could b*
classified a* an obstruction. I.e.. the distance
between the IreeUI and the (ampler b leas
than twice the height that the Ireetil pro-
trudes above the sampler, the sampler mint
be placed at lead It meter* from the drip
line of the obstructing tredsl.
4. Car6oH*VonozMe«COI
4.1 Horbonlal and Vertical Probe Place-
ment Because of the Importance of measur-
ing population exposure to CO concentra-
tions. air should be sampled at average
breathing heights. However, practical fae-
VUvOT CMI]TqMI
•ittUofnt f MferoMi»l*> §»•
imlHfVflOV qn UM iWi^lllqlQwtWqt 99H999 4MI UM
po flatten *xposure of the poputaUsn. in
order to provide gam* reason«bb esmlsten-
ey and egmparaktuty ka UM ah- qwalKy data
frwm*uchdatlof«amMmumdbUnceof3
fMCiUWiV qUow • iMftstHIIIMN *ipMl*mflOvT 91 IV
gseten from the edge of UM nearad Iraffb
ten* mud ke^mamtalned far the** CO monl-
tar Iran pttMcv. Into gMNNiM gytrv c0n0totciv
cytoth* date, yet dltl allow fbimUMy of
Street eanyon/corrMor tnOrreacmbl Met
probe* mud be located at lead It saetere
from an wit c i aec t Ion and preferably at •
preferable to Interaectton location* because
Intersection* represent a much smaller por-
tion of downtown apace than do the drecte
between them. Pededrian exposure to prob-
ably atoo greater In street canyon/corridors
than at Intersection*. Abo. the practical dif-
ficulty of positioning sampling Mete b teas
•t mbMock locations than at the Intersec-
tion. However, the final siting of the moni-
tor must meet the objective* and mtent of
Appendix D. Sections 3.4. 3. 3.3 and Appen-
dix E. Section 4.
In determining the* minimum separation
between a neighborhood scale monitoring
173
-------
Ur.ited States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
ftesearcn Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/4.87-007
May 1987
Air
Ambient Monitoring
Guidelines for
Prevention of
Significant
(PSD)
RADIAN LIBRARY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK. NC
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.5
-------
States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Pain HC 27711
6PA-4 50/4-87-007
May 1987
Air
Ambient Monitoring
Guidelines for
Prevention of
Significant
Deterioration (PSD)
RADIAN LIBRARY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK. NC
-------
ft. »,. Apr A 40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-M Edition)
STMtnuik O6--PEMMANENF WAIVCN FROM iNicmM CONIMMS TE8i-Co«Un«Md
• CwnM Mint* nfc*
u»
ir
i»
IW4
wuu
MM
IM*
MM
MM
IM*
MM
MM
IMF
MM
MM
.Ml
MM
MM
MXI
MM
SCHCOUIE D.7—HomzoN VALUC OF CASH Flow*
t Ownctatan IM Mvtngr
Mrtrannrio*
I
I
4
t fIM
t foUl
MM* •) IM M«MJI
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
INI INI ltd l»*4 MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
(Ml
MM
MM
law
MM
MM
MM
MM
f At? S»—AMMNT AM QUAUTY
MMVUUANCt
Btc.
M.I Definition*.
Ill Punxw*.
M.I Applicability.
ID*,*.* a—>l.iilt«iii.i CHNrfa
It I* Qucllly auursnee.
Mil Monitoring method*.
M.I> Blllns ol Instrument* or Inilrumcnl
probe*.
Mil Operallnt tchedule.
1114 BpeclkJ purpose monllon.
i.»»M4 C—»!•»• «•* t«««l AW M«n»»rlm
Il.ri.ni (IIAMS)
II2O Mr quality *urvelll*nce: Plan eon
lent.
IIII 81>AM8 network design.
M.I* SLAMS melhodoloey.
Mil Monltorlni network completion
MM (Reserved)
MM Systemmodlllcmtlon.
MM AnniwlSLAMSlumiruuy report.
M.tl ComplUnof d*te lor *Jr quality d*U
reporting.
M.M Regional OMIot 8LAM8 d*U BcquM
(NAM*)
MM HAMS network establishment
M.ll HAMS network description.
M.ll NAM8 •pprovd.
Mil NAM8 methodoloiy.
M 14 HAMS network completion.
MM HAMS d*U lubmllKJ.
M.M Byilcm modllkatlon.
I— Ak QwMy M»
tl 40 Index reporting.
128
Invlronin*inl*j| f r*l«dl«n
See.
MM Federal monllorlnc.
M.ll Monltorlni other potluUnU.
Arrn**iB A— Quniitr AMUMHCB RMVIM-
Mnm ro> 8t*T« **• Local. AM Mom-
TOIIMO flTAtlON* <8LAM8)
ArraidK B-Qu*urv AUUMIIC* RMVIH-
Mom roa P»nt»Tio* or 8i«ninc*NT
DcmioMTion (P8DI AIM MomtoRiiM
Armmi C-Amiorr AH QVAIITT Mom-
TOOIM MBTMODOMMT
Arromc D-H«rwo»« Dnian raa OTAIB
4H> LOCAL At* MouinwiM BrtTiom
(8LAM8) «•» H»f IOHM. All MoiilTOlllM
8T*TIOH*(NAM8>
ArrniMB B-Pnoii SITIM C*imu MM
Amum AM QIMUTT Monin»iM
Arm»n r— Annual. SLAMS AM Qvaurr
Arrni»» a-Uniro«H AM QVMJTT Inm
*m> DAILY RVOBTIIM
Avraoarrr: See*. II*. Mllti. III. knd II*
of th« Cteut Air Act (41 U.B.C. 141*.
1MIOI. TCII. 1*l*>.
SOVBCK 44 FR Hill. Miy I*. 1*1*.
otherwkM noted.
IM.I DtftaMwM.
Ai UMd In thto part, all term> not de-
lined herein have the meinlni flven
them In the Act:
(•) "Act" mearu the Clean Air Act aa
amended (49 UJB.C. 1401. et aeq.).
(b) "BLAM8" meam State or Local
Air Ifonltorlnt Statlonfa). The
BLAIfB make up the ambient air qual-
ity monltorlnt network which M re-
quired by 1 61.10 to be provided for to
the State'! Implementation plan. Thto
definition place* no icttrrcttona on the
use of the phjrelcal atructure or facili-
ty homing the SLAMS. Any combina-
tion of SLAMS and any other moni-
tor* (Special Purpose. HAMS, P8DI
may occupy the tame facility or struc-
ture without affecting, the respective
definition! of those monitoring sta-
tion.
(c) "HAMS" meani National Air
Monitoring Station!!). Collectively the
NAMS are a subset of the SLAMS am-
bient air quality monitoring network.
"PSD station" means any station
operated for the purpose of establish-
ing the effect on air quality of the
emissions from a proposed source for
purposes of prevention of significant
deterioration as required by 18I.J4(n)
of Part »l of this chapter.
"SO," means sulfur dioxide.
(f I "NO," means nitrogen dioxide.
or his or her au-
thorized representative.
(k) "Regional Administrator" means
the Administrator of one of the ten
EPA Regional Offices or his or her au-
thorized representative.
(I) "Stale agency" means the air pol-
lution control agency primarily re-
sponsible for development and Imple-
mentation of a plan under the Act.
(m) "Local agency" means any local
government agency, other than the
State agency, which Is charged with
the responsibility for carrying out a
portion of the plan.
(n) "Indian Reservation" means any
Federally recognized reservation e*>
tabllshed by treaty, agreement, execu-
tive order, or act of Congress.
(o) "Indian Governing Body" means
the governing body of any tribe, band.
or group of Indiana subject to the Ju-
risdiction of the United Statea and rec-
ognized by the United States aa pos-
sessing power of self-government.
(p) "Storage and Retrieval of Atro
metrle Data (8AROAD) system" to a
computerized system which store* and
report* Information relating to ambi-
ent air quality.
4q> "8AROAD rite Identification
form" to one of the several form* In
the 8AROAD system. It to the form
which provides a complete description
of the site (and Its surroundings) of an
ambient air quality monitoring sta-
tion.
(r) "Traceable" mean* that a local
standard has been compared and certi-
fied, either directly or via not more
than one Intermediate standard, to a
primary standard such aa a National
Bureau of Standards Standard Refer-
ence Material (NBS 8RM) or a
USEPA/NBS approved Certified Ref-
erence Material (CRM).
(si "Urban area population" means
the population defined In the moat
129
-------
ft. So, A»s>. I
lonmenUI Cflleili end Assessment Olllce,
Rrsrsirh Triangle Perk. NC. December
1*11
H Watson. JO. cl el. Analysis ol Inhela
Me MM! Fine Parlkulale Miller Measure-
menti. Prepared lor US Environment*!
Prelection Agency. Research Triangle Park,
NC. EPA 4M/4 II Oil. December IMI.
la. Record. P.A. and UA. Bacl. Evaluation
on Contribution ol Wind Blown Dust from
the Desert Level* ol Parlkulale Matter In
Desert Communities. OCA Technology Divi-
sion. Bedlord. MA. Prepared lor U.fl. Envl
ronmental Protection Agency. Research Tri-
angle Park. NC. EPA 410/2 10 Oil. August
ItM.
Ig Ooldsleln. E.A. and Paly M. The Diesel
Problem In New York City. Project on the
Urban Environment. Natural Resources De-
lense Council. Inc.. New York. NY. April
IMI.
II. Koch. R.C. and HE Rector. Optimum
Network Design and Site Exposure Criteria
lor Paniculate Mailer. OEOMET Technol-
ogies. Inc.. Rockvllle. MD. Prepared lor US.
Environmental Protection Agency. Re-
•earth Triangle Park. NC. EPA Contract
No. M 0> 1»*4. EPA 4*0/4 gl 00*. May
IMI
10. Pace. T.. et al Procedures lor Estimat-
ing Probability ol Nonattalnmenl ol a I'M..
Data. U 8. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Tilangle Paik. NC. EPA
460/4 00 Oil. December I0g«.
144 FR 21111. May 10. 1010. 44 PR 12M1.
Drc. 14. 1010. as amended al 40 PR 44IM.
Sept 1 1001; II FR 0101. Mar 10. IOM: II
m 14142-21144. July I. IMI. 12 PR 212M.
July 20. 10011
ArrcHDii E- Paoac SiTiNn CBJTIRI*
roaj AMOIEMT Ai« QUALITY MONITORING
I. Intiwductlon
I I Reserved!
I Sulfur Dioxide 48O.I
II Hortoontal and Verlkal Probe flare-
Mirnt
II flpaclng Irom ClbslriRllons
II Spacing Irom trees and other eonaM-
erellont.
4 Carbon Monoslde tCOl
4 I HoiUonUI and Vertkal Probe Place-
ment
4 I Spacing Irom Obstructions
4.1 Spacing Irom Roads
44 Spacing Irom trees and other consid-
erations.
I Otone IO.>
01 Veitlcal and llorlsonlal Probe Place-
ment
11 Spacing Irom Obstructions
11 Spacing Irom Roads
I 4 Spacing Irom liees and other consid-
erations.
40 CM Ch. I (7-1 M
0. Nitrogen Dioxide
-------
n. sa,
station and • specific line tourer, the pre-
•umpllon U nude filial measurement*
should not be unduly Influenced by uiy one
roadway. Compulations wrrc nude to deter
mine Ihr separation dbUnrn. end I able I
provides the required minimum' sr|>srsllon
distance between roadwsys siul neighbor
hood scale station*. Sampling sUlloiu that
arc taeiled closer lo roads I lien Ihli erlle
lion •llow« (hould not br classified u •
neighborhood Kilt, since lite measurement*
Irom tuch • tUlkm would closely repteienl
the middle sesle Therefore. stations not
meeting I III* etllerloii iliould In- russified u
middle Kile. Addition!) Inhumation on CO
probe iltlni may be loumd In reference 12.
TABU I— MMMUM SCFAMAIION OUIANCC Bt-
IWf f N Nf KMHOflHOOO SCAIE CO StAIIONg
AMI ROADWAYS (Eoot o» NCAREM T«A»HC
LANC)
•O, ttt, k««C. MhclM
usos
It WO
JOOOO
40000
MOOD
.,•000*
II*
II*
,U*
40 CM Ch. I (7-1 M Edition)
(wren the obstacle* end Ibr Inlet probe to at
least twice the height that the obstacle pro-
trude* above the (ampler. Airflow muil be
unreilrkled In on «rc of at least nr around
lh< mlet probe, end the prrdomhwnl wind
direction lor the season of greatest pollul
ant concentration potential mint be Includ-
ed In the no* arc. It the probe li located on
the ilde of a building. 110- clearance U re-
quired.
1.1 Spacing Irom Road*. It to Important
In the nrobe siting proceu to minimise de-
structive Interferences • Irom source* of
nHrlc tsMe (NOI since NO resdlly reeds
with atone. Table I provide* the required
minimum separation distance* between
roadway*) and otone monltorlnf stations
These distances were baited on reeekula-
Mora ualnc the methodology In reference II
and validated mini more recent ambient
data, collected near a major roadway. Bam
pllng stations that are located closer lo
road* than this criterion allow* should not
be claasllkd a* nelf hborhood or urban scale.
•Mice Iht measurement* Irom such stations
would moie closely represent the middle
scale. Accordingly, such stations should be
classified M middle scale. Additional Infer
mallon on ocone probe sltlni criteria may
be found hi reference II.
TAMX f-MamwM SEMRAIION DntMsct Be-
TWCCN Nf HMKWHOOO AND UfftAN SCAlt
OlONf SlAtKMW AND ROADWAYS (EDO* Of
NEAREST TDA»W LAME)
«.4 Spacing Irom trees and other cortsM-
erellona. Since CO to retatlvcly non-reactive.
Ihe mate* factor concerned trees to as ob-
structions to normal wind flow patterns. For
middle and neighborhood scale stations.
trees should not be located between the
malor source* of CO. usually vehicle* on a
heavily traveled road, and Ihe sampler. The
sampler must be al least II melers Irom the
drip line of a tree whkli to between the sam-
pler and Ihe road ami e> lends at toait I
meter* above Ihe sampler For mkroaeal*
stations, no trees or shrubs should be locat-
ed between the sampling Inlel probe and Ihe
road.
I 0«onr(O.)
11 Veitkal and Iliwlsonlal Probe Place
menl The Inkl probe lor ozone monitors
should br a* ctnsr as pwislblr lo lite breath-
ing wine Tltr roinpHrslIng lartors discussed
previously, howrver. require that the probe
br elevated The helajit ol Ihr Ink! probe
must br mrsted a lo II nteleit shove ground
k«rl The probe must slm br located more
titan I meter verllrally or lmiir.o frimi obslarks
• in! biillililigx Miili that Ihr ilMsnrr br
.MOOS..
uses
MOOS
«*.***
ItSSB .
. |M.*S*
IS
MS
..MS
• 4 flBOcmg Irom tree* and other consld
eratlona Tree* can provide surfaces lor O.
adsorption and/or reactions and obstruct
normal wind Mow pattern*. To minimise the
possible effect of tree* on measured O,
levels, the probe should be placed at least N
meter* Irom the drip line of tree*. Since the
scavenging effect of tree* Is greater for
oxone than for the other criteria pollutants.
strong consideration of this effect must be
given In locating the O, Inlel probe lo avoid
Ihl* problem. Therefore, the sampler must
be at least II melers from Ihr drip line of
tree* that are located between Hie urban
rlly core area and the sampler along the
•WrV
174
day tbM wmd dsree-
•. J»Wrs»w*)INas«*t«-
****«. Tka helghl of MM NO. Mel probe
••at be I to II BMters above the ground.
This Is • esssprossls* between msaaorirn m
the breathing aone Mid avoManoa ol vandal-
•WJ*. finding sultaM* altos, etc. For NOw the
helghl does not appear to be a critical lactor
etnos Ihe NO. should b* fairly mil mlsed
aad saasewhat uniform In In* tettleal dkee-
Uom. TIM dlrtanc* of In* Inlet probe lr*m
any sispportlng structure smsst be greater
Uiao I meter vertically or horlaonUlly.
•nd •Uiet obstacles may possibly acaivenge
NO» la> seder to avoid Mils kmd «f Intorfer-
"- ' mat be locatod v*y ••my
i so thai the dMane* be-
n. M.
TABU 1 M»»MUM ScrAstAitoH Dm AMCC
MO, SfATIONI AND ROAOWAVI {EOOg OF
NlANf >T TMAmC LANt)
iirsm obstacle* and~th* Inlet probe Is •!
SMS* Iwtoe MM helghl Ihst the obsUd* pr*>
Irwdssj sbois the probe. Sampling station*
thai are located closer to obsUrtes than IMS
wtteriosi •UOM shouM stot bt classified to)
the Mlghborhood or urbasi acalea. sknt Ikt
[ irtas Irtet and ttntr ctflsssV
i can provide surf sees far NO.
M bt classified at MM**
reasons, •
_ t vertical waN Is i
*Jr tMVtnf slang Uial •*•) may bs svbtoc*
i bt unrestrieteTslr7low"1n^ii are'of al
leaat Sir around Ihe Met probe, and Iht
predammanl wind dtrerHtm for Iht season
tf greatest nellulenl uamtmralton pottsv
IMsBUst bt Included hi Iht «r art. If Ikt
••v QsMiTMIM mff VCGjIHsnM.
•J Spacbig irom Heads. M It
oiMasof nNrogen
normal wind flow patterns. Tt i
poastbl* acavtntjngj effect tf tree* on Iht
Bttasured toveto of NO. the probe *houM bt
placed al toast M meters from Iht drip MM.
Far trees thai protruds above Iht helghl tf
Iht probe br I meters tr more. Iht sampler
asust b* M teas! II meters from Iht drip Hnt
tf the trees.
1.
.
••t *4f»**
ty hidlctlt mrge gradients wMhbt IK* Ilrs4 t
!• 1 meton *b<
_
tndl to alto* Urn* tor stn>*rsl*n IttttUantl
•I MO tsatoalon* to NO» Further. UM tllsets
dhat ••mSVaftmnftt* mMmfsfMtBTsB sm^BBmt aVm tmllmVmmkftlBdatI mTstaf
qnv sTVeBaVTaTV^T sv^PomTV^W VMVm*Vf> Vs^sT g^*JIIWB>lwvVlmT>vi vgy
(•anc separation distance* 1st- neighborhood
and urban tetlt stations towid hi Tab** I.
vert baaed on reealeult-
l Iht nMthodotogy hi relerence 19
t bt S-1 meters above ground
Bk B^ShBBBt
• WimT*
•remto* between east tt servicing the
ptor and Iht desire to tvttd unrepres
data; collected near t ma|er roadway. The
mmbuum separation dtotonc* must also b*
•sasnUsned between an NO. probe and any
other similar volume of automotive traffic
such tt parking tots. Sampling atotmns thai
art tooled eraser to roads than Into crite-
rion allows •hould not generally be rtoavl-
Heel at neighborhood tr urban scale*, smct
the measurements from such stations would
Itvt ejtndMhNia dut to it-cv)lrahMnenl frtas
dusty eurfaces. The upper NntH represent* a
SuchsUtlo
uld i
ale
alto
aHy be classified
as middle scale. Additional Information on
NO. probe siting criteria may be found hi
reference II.
. between the desire to have
mea«urem«nU which are moot represent*-
Uve of population exposures and • consider-
alton tf the praclkal factors noted above.
For middle or larger spatial scale*. In-
creased diffusion result* hi vertical concen-
tration gradients whkh are not as great aa
for the small scales. Thus. Iht required
height of Ihe air Make for middle or larger
scales to I-II meters.
1.1 Spacing from Obstructions. The sam-
pler must he located away from obstacles
such a* buildings, so Ihsl the distance be-
tween obstacles and Ihe sampler to at kast
175
-------
PI. »•. A.p. I
twice the het«hi thai Ilic obstacle protrudes
•Hove the samplei.
A minimum ol I meters of separation
Itnm walb. parapet*, and penthouses b re-
quired lor rooftop sample**. No furnace or
Incinerator fluri iliould be -nearby. The
height and type of lluei and the type. qual-
ity, and quantity of waste or fuel burned de
lermlne the separation dblance*. For eiam-
pie. If Ihe emissions from the chimney have
high lead content and there b • high proba-
bility that the plume would Impact on Ihe
•ampler durlni moat of the sampling period.
then other buildings/locations In Ihe area
that are free from the described aourcei
•hould be chosen for Ihe monltorlni lite.
There must be unrestricted airflow In an
arc of at least 170* around the sampler.
Since the Intent of Ihe eatefory la> site b lo
measure Ihe mailmum concentrations from
a road or point source, there must be no sig-
nificant obstruction between a road or point
source and Ihe monitor, even though other
spacing from obstruction criteria are met.
The predominant direction for Ihe season
with the iresltsl pollutant concentration
potential must be Included In the fir arc.
It Spacing Irom Roadways. Numbcroua
studies have shewn that ambient lead leveb
near mobile source are a function of Ihe
ttafflc volume and are most pronounced at
ADT *M.MM within Ihe first It meters, on
Ihe downwind side of Ihe inadway*. II. It-
It) Therefore, stations hi measure Ihe peak
concentration from mobile source* should
be located at Ihe dbtancr most likely to
produce the highest concentrations, for Ihe
nilciowale station. Ihe local Ion must be be-
tween t and II meters Irom the major road-
way. For the middle scale station, a range of
acceptable distances from Ihe malor road-
way Is shown In Table I. This table also In-
clude* separation distances between a road-
way and neighborhood or larger scale sta-
tion* These distances are based upon Urn
ilaia of refeience It wlurh Illustrates that
lead Icveb remain falily constant after cer-
tain horlaoKtil distances from the roadway.
As depleted In Ihe above reference, thb db
lanre b a function of Ihe traffic volume.
lAOU 4—SCrAHAtlON OlSIANCC BETWEEN P»>
SlAIIOH* AND ROAOWAVS (EOOE Of NEAN-
ESI TRAFFIC tANE)
HovtMf *•*••!• <•«<»
, IOOOO
70000
,a«*» is n
40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M lollies))
TAOIE 4—SEPARAIION OISIANCC BE fWEEN Pa
SlAHONS AND ROADWAYS (EDGE Of- NEAR-
Hi TRAFFIC LAME)-Continued
S«f>«M»n dnunc*
>Mtf»*rl end MWont.
Mcio
S-IS
>iet
1.1. Spacing from tree* and other consid-
eration*. Tree* can provide surface* for dtp
oslllon or adsorption of lead particles and
obstruct normal wind flow pattern*, for ml-
eroacale and middle scale category lal road-
way sites there must not be any treefs) be-
tween the source of the lead. I e.. the vehi-
cle* on Ihe roadway, and Ihe sampler. For
neighborhood scale category lb» sites. Ihe
•ampler should be at leaal M meter* from
the drip line ol trees. The sampler must.
however, be placed at least I* meters from
Ihe drip line of tree* which could be classi-
fied as an obstruction. I.e.. the distance be-
Iwecn the trceUI and the sampler b teas
than Ihe height that the tree protrudes
above Ihe sampler.
fj. rartiCKMl* Matter II*MUI
•.I Vertical Placement - Although there
are limited studies on the PM» eoncenlta
Uon gradient* around roadways or other
ground level sources. Reference* I. 1, 4. II
and I* of thb Appcndli show • dbllncl var-
iation In Ihe distribution of TOP and Pb
leveb near roadways. T8P. which b greatly
affected by gravity, has large concentration
gradients, both horizontal and vertical. Im-
mediately adjacent lo roads. Lead, being
predominately sub micron In she. behave*
more like a gas and eihlblU smaller vertical
and horbonlal gradients than T8P. PM*.
being Intermediate In site between these
two eilreme* eihlblls dispersion properties
of both gas ami sclllesble particulars and
doe* show verlksl and horbontal gradl
ente." Similar to monitoring for other pol
lutanls. optimal placement of the sampler
Inlet for PM. monitoring should be st
breathing height level However, practical
factor* such a* prevention of vandalism, se-
curity, and safely precautions must also be
considered when siting a PM« monitor.
Given these considerations, the sampl"
Inlet for mkroacale PMM monitor* must **
>-t meters above ground level. The lower
limit was based on a comprombe between
ease ol aervlclng the sampler and-the deslK
to avoid rC>entraliimenl from dusty sur
faces. The upper limit represent* a compf*
mbe between the desire lo have measure
t»vlro4M»oirM ProlocMon Agency
•Mot* which arc moat representative ol pop-
ulation exposure* and • consideration ol the
practical factor* noted above.
For middle or larger spatial ecale*. In-
creased diffusion result* In vertical concen-
tration gradient* that an not M great as lor
the asJcroacalr Thu*. th* required height at
the ahr Intake for middle or larger acaka b
a-IKaeten.
t.l Spacing Irom Obstruction*-!! UM
sampler to located on a roof or other •true-
lure, then there must b* a minimum ol I
•Mian eeparaUon Irom walls, parapet*,
penthouse*, etc. N* furnace er Inejnentlon
Ihiea ahouM be nearby. Thb aeparalkm db-
lanee Irom flue* I* dependent an the height
of the fluea. type el watte or fuel burned.
and quality of the luel «ash content*. In th*
caa* of emiasJona Irom a chimney resulting
Irom natural ga* combustion. •» a precast.
I least • metere Irom the chimney.
On the other hand. H luel od. coal, or
aolM waste b burned and the Mack b man
ctently ehort eo that the plum* conM raa-
aoneMy ba eipected to bapact on the •am-
pler nlake a significant part ol the time.
-.••„_ n-.-la.u •• •• "- "
dd
are Iroe Irom these types of aounm ammo
be oonoldereel lor ((sapling.. Trecg provide
eurloom for partkulate deapoelUon and abo
reel rid airflow. Therefore, the (ampler
•hould be Placed at least M meten Irom Ihe
•Upline Mid mutt be It metera Irom the drt-
pUne wb*n Ihe treetel ecu a* an obstrue-
• I^K
The sampler must abo he located away
Irom obstacle* such a* buildings. *o that the
rtblancs between obstacle* and the (ampler
b at kaat twice the height that the obstacle
protrude* above the (ampler eicept for
(treet canyon rite*. Sampling elation* that
are located closer to obstacle* than thb cri-
terion allow* (houM not be classified M
neighborhood, urban, or regional (east.
rinee Ihe measuremente Irom eueh a atatton
__ . » & K .. - _---
lion*. Therefore. *taUon* not meeting the
Jcted airflow In an
are of at least »r around th* sampler
CBcept for street canyon rile*. Sine* the
PI. St. Apy>. I
Intent of the cdrgory la) rite b to measure
the maximum concentration* from a road or
point MHirce. there must be no significant
obstruction between a road or point aource
and the monitor, even though other spacing
Irom obstruction criteria are met. The pre-
dominant direction for the season with th*
greatest pollutant concentration potential
must be Included hi the nr arc.
II Spacing from Road* -Since emission*
esaoctaled with the operation ol motor vehi-
cle* contribute lo urban area paniculate
matter ambient leveb, (pacing Irom road-
way criteria are necesssry lor ensuring na-
tional con*bteney hi PMw sampler riling
The Intent b to locale category ta) NAMS
rite* m area* of highest concentrations
whether M be from mobile or multiple sta
Uonary sources. If the area b primarily al-
lotted by mobUe sources and th* maximum
concentration area**) b fudged to be a traf-
fic corridor or street canyon location, then
the monitor* ohould be located near road-
way* with the highest traffic volume and at
•eparatlon dbtance* moat likely to produce
*»^ ».i_i—» .—• - —
the hig
trations. Por the micro*
cole traffic corridor Mellon, the location
must b* between I and II Meters from the
malor roadway. For the mlcroacale Mreet
canyon rite the location mini be between I
and It meter* Irom the roadway. For the
middle ecale station, a range of acceptable
distance* from Ihe roadway b shown In
Figure I. Thb figure abo Include* separa-
tion distances between a roadway and
neighborhood or larger scale Motion* by de-
fault. Any station. I to II meten high, and
further back than the middle scale require
mcnte will generally be neighborhood.
urban or regional scale. For example, ac-
cording to Figure I. If a PMM (ampler b pri-
marily Influenced by roadway emissions and
that (ampler b act back II meten from a
M.OM ADT road. Ihe station should be claa
rifled a* a micro ecale. If Ihe (ampler height
b between 1 and 1 meten. II the sampler
height b between 1 and II meten. the sta-
tion (hould be classified a* middle (tale. II
th* (ample b M meten Irom the same road.
M will be classified a* middle wale: M II
meten. neighborhood scale: and II lit
meten. an urban scale.
176
177
-------
n. si. AM». f
»•"*
1
40 Cm Oi. I (7-l-M f ditteii)
£0l x spoon
|o AOV
178
Pratecfton Agwncy
dtotanee* *hown In Figure I are meaeured
tram the edit el (he neareet traffic tent of
UM roadway preaumed to h*vt the MO* In
fluence MI UM rile. In general. Ihto pre-
•umptlon to MI everrimpHflcaUea) of UM
ueual iwbMi eettlng* which normally have
•everal *tr*eU that Impact • given ilta. TIM
effect* af eurrounding *treeU. wind «pt«d.
VllMi fMftCtlMv) aWMl •OpOfl'wVpfty MvOMMl 99
eoraldered along wHh figure S before a
flMl deetokm to niMte MI UM meet *#aeaprl.
ate epallal Mate aMkjned to UM
MtMthaveai
nple
ft. SI. App. I
•ktrncr lime ten UIMI
M Other C*
area* UMI are primarily mlra*need ky *to-
Uonary »ource tmlmlone M *ppMtd to UMl-
tuMute* hi
•nut nwy k* Ioun4 In UM nMcMnt
OpUmwn Nttwwt Otrnm Mrf Uto
CitUtta l«r PMttMMta Htltor.**
Button* itevM M* M} located In M M*
MWMl alM Wllcai UMn li *t|CtoU*« (TMNltf
•erar FMT twin*. M> thai UM Impact •!
I*.
It to keMeved that mod •ampMng prake* ar
monitor* can ke totaled to that they meet
the requirement* of thto appendU. New eta-
Uen* with tare CMepUon*. can be totaled
wtthm UM HmH* al thto append!*. However.
•em* citoUng eUllon* may not Meet theee
•weaMBaVtMaWaeMaflai •••••» MAO) *at IM •!• «*jnaa*»al M*ao*fMl
•TVV^WIvVllvCn**l wMflV jTC* *nlH iniPinKV "JBCifawJ
data lor tome purpoee*. EPA win camrtder a
written reaueet from the Stale Agency to
waive an* ar more elllng criteria for eem*
monHoimg etaUom providing that the Stale
can adequately demonetrale the need (pur-
POM) lor monHarlng ar eetohttohhtg a moni-
toring MaUan at that location. For eatab-
Itohlng a new eUthm. • welver may he
granted only M both al the following crite-
ria are eaet:
The *M* can be demenetrated to ke ea rep-
reMnlallM al the monitoring area M It
wauM ha N the *Hlng criteria were hebig
and fMlatanl
MIICM! Ma**
!«••-•• iwvt
0. ftoto
JU*W**M Tim*
rw UM mrthr* •••«. >-^ NO.
HMterlal MM* kt
keen conducted to
UM MritabllHr ol Matorlato Men M n«l|pi«-
•FMM. MjlycUirMIM. MrirvtnlTMllMtfcM.
lr( w4*m HWM
ke ecc*pt*kle rcMam far •raitUnt a waiver.
WrMlen rtoatel* far w*4ver* muet k* *wk-
only aeceplakhj probe m*tiil*to I
big Met atmeapnerc* hi the detenahMUen
al reference or tquH«l*nt mtihooa. TKere-
lore. kareallkate gl*a*. PEP telton. ar their
•Mmanlwfdi*mMmt •mtgmvl *mw> *mm*M*l few* ***la*imTla* aUngt
WfwevVWenVv> eVIlaaFqi aW •Jmva»wj| paaaj nj*ae*wwavleqy *awW
new NAMS or SLAMS.
probe Material to MtMMy. alter a period al
nee reactive paniculate BMtler to depeeNed
an the probe walto. Therefore. Ihe Urn* II
lake* the gea to Iramler from UM pi ok*
Own* In the preeenee al NO wHI ehew **j°
nltlcant IOOM* even hi the meel Inert prake
material when Ihe reridenee time eicced* M
• Other etudte." " fcxHnte that a
It Mcand ar km reridtnee lime to eeeNy
•chlcreM*. Therefore. eempHng prake* far
reaeUv* gM Monitor* al SLAMS at NAMS
nritted to the Regional Admlntolretor. Par
theee SLAMS atoa dcalgnated ea NAMS. the
reque*t wUI he lorwarded to the Admlnbtra-
tor.
II. gUcoMfon and »ammar>
Take* • preeente • aummary at Ihe re-
vftNeTfniMfltel NHT pOtpf iHJIH CvfltClitt vrflll !*•*
•pect to dtotance* and hehjhte. II to appar-
ant Irani Tajkh> • thai dllleicnt elevation
dtolMirie »hove Ihe groundare ahawn lor
tell far each at the poHutanU deecribed
reaeom far elevathig the monitor ar probe.
The dlllcrcnce* hi the opectflod range af
height* are bated an the vertical concentra-
tion gradient*. Par CO. the gradient* hi the
vertical direction are very large let the ml-
erearaJ*. *o a *m*H rang* al helghte he*
keen ueed. The upper Nmtt al It meter* we*
and to altaw the nee af a amiM Manifold far
MonltorlMJ more than one poHutanl.
•• "See Meference* al end of Into Appen-
«*.
170
-------
ft St. App
40 C« Ch. I (/-!-•• fdltlon)
IAOIC 5 -SUMMAHV or PROM SiiwaCTOICRM
CO,
CO
NO,
IvMkfJpfi^
1 IS
J 15
1 It
» It
• I
2 IS
CkMsncs kom suvpoiknt
MnjckM. mown
Vontto)
>t
O*OI woe** cntoiio
I (houM to >W mown torn Iho *«ono tnt
•Ml to It mown kom IM *vSno «hon IM
k*o|i| pel *• « otokucHn
I DMoncs bsm MM ptoks to obotocls, MEli M
bwttngs. must to M to»M kMO> As toitM IM
aWUds praMdM «bovo IM Hoi pioto •
> MuM IMM inMtncto* wmw »Wr OIOUM Sw
••M pioto. •> IW » pioto •> on IM su» ol s
btfkkns
4 N> kinoco • kMMiplol tuM otiouM to iMoikr'
I MuM to > M) mMorl kom IkoM MonocMm SIMJ
MnuM to M • cMdbtoct kjcokgn
t MuM to t- It IMtoll kom •»»• of IMOIOM komc
•VMJ
MuM toM «raoikKto4 «Mkm ISO" otounl iM
kPMPfoto
I MuM !««• wvoMnctoil m»am t?f •ou« do
nM p,oto. • ISO- 4 pioto • on IM oik ol s
I fhouM to >M HlMoil kom IM *o*n« «•)
Ml to It motoii kom IM a«*no IMMH M
I rMtone* kom «oM pioto to obttocto. me* M
ou**v>. muM to M kwM taws «M toi|M M
tfotj tntal piovM*
1 MuM hoM Mmmctoo1 Irtov I
•M pioto. n (If 4 pioto • on IM so* ol S
I ShoukJ to >lt HMIOII kom
muM to It motoii kom •» *«*ns tton IM
ktoM od as sn skuncikio
f MUtKO kom rtol pioto to obMoCto. suck M
MM to M IMM kn
tamts skovo »M WM pnto*
1 MuM IMM moUKtod oMkxi t»r ,
Wot pnto. • IIO- t pioto is on IM ov> ot S
m MOM «oriM Mk kolkc IMO IM*
I (houM to >lt mown kom I
•Ml to M motoil kom tM «o*n* «*o» *M
koolil id M on obuucwi
I DMonco kom mnitoi to skilotto. lu* P>
MUM to PI kMM taics |M M|M M
1 MuM RSM moMikto* orffc- »»»' sraun« •*
4 No Mnoto • kiunoisigli SUM MMuM ks
"*•*•' _^__
t MuM to * to It HMMil kom mo)» iso*»of
I «houM to >M motors kom IM *«*• sml
•Ml to It motoii kom IM *«*n. otan n>
k«o|i| ta M m obtkucKn
kwMnai. muM to M tooil *">» *o "** w
Mulocto piokiidM obovo *M u«pMf •
1 MuM IMM WOWKK* sMb. IW sramm SM
4 Wo lunoco
t "£%* kom raoik ..-• -*> »•"« •»* '
180
tNVHl
froltxHofi Afljoncy ft. 59,
T/uxi 9—SwmvMHv or PHOM SITINO CmitmA—Convnuod
*«•»....
I-M
>f
Onn »)ioc«!• mini torn tl* *toln« on*
muM to W motes kom t» Ototns ««ion t«
' trr
4 N> toMco • modian IUM HiauM to m»k|
I iplilm kom HM«I wnn •*• k»me too* rtow*
4 Mcopl «0« MioM unran MM •«•<* Muot to
konlto M Moton ton •» od»o •! (to
•• > N HMJIiVV (MM VMjl (l^iVMI •Net
•MM to M mown torn Ko SMptn* ««Mn •»
kooto) od « on MMkucson
muM to M tooM tain !• hm|M «•
t toon* kom 10001 <,•>•> tmk komc
•IMM •*• •) kxMO* OR
•OMme* k) «•»••>»< on Mri« •) •
•A « too* MnoM| IN» • to OMri •<
I. Bnr-A, RJ.. R J. Oordan. MM! M.
Mtnck. f^npwltvii of Hhjh VohMM Air
niter *a*lt» m Very to* Dtotenoc* from
UM Aitf*lc* rrccwuy. UnlvcnHy •» South-
tro Ckllfwnta. School ol Mcdktat. la» A»-
tclM, CA. iPrCMnted M MUl AIUIIM! Mect-
bw of Air Pollution CWilral AmwcbtUon.
ChkMO. IL.. Jum M-M. 1*1*. APCA 71-
IM.I
IL T«er. B.H. Atmospheric trad Ooncmi-
Uollon Abo*t M Urbui 8U«ct. Muter ol
Sdcnet Thata. WMhbKton UnlvcnMr. St.
Loul*. MO. Jumvr Itll.
1. Brwtoair. R.M.. P.A. Record, uid W.C.
BcNuwjcr. MonHorlnc Mid Modeltawj ol R«
MMpended Rokxlw.r Durt New Otbkji Arte-
tUI*. OCA Techimtoiy DlvWon. Bedford,
MA. (PreMnUd »t Hit Annual Meellnf ol
TnniporUUon Reoc.rch Bowd. Wuhlnc
Un. DC. Jwiuwy int.t
4. P»ce. T.O.. W.P. r>cM. «nd B.M. Allfr-
QuutUfkatlon of Retatlonihlp Between
Monitor Height uid Meuured Pkrtlcutate
Uveb In8e*en U.8. Urbui Areti. US Bn*l-
ronmenUI Protection Afency. RcMmrch Trl-
•ncle PMk. NC. I Presented tit 7Mh Annual
Meelln« of Air Pollution Control Anocl.
Uon. Toronto. Cankda. June M »«. Itll.
APCA 11 n.t.t
•> kmt kjum*.
». Harriton. P.R. Conilderadora for Bltlnt
Air Qualltr Monitor! In Urban Area*. CH»
of ChkMO. Department of Environmental
Control. Chlcaio. IL. iPretented at Mth
Annual Meeting of Air Pollution Control
AModatlon. Chkaio. IL.. June M-M. Mil.
•. Studr ol Suapended Parltculale Meai
uremenU at Varying HelfhU Above
Ground. TCIM Stale Department ol Health.
Air Control Section. Auttln. TX. It7«. p.7.
1. Rodea. C.B. and Of. Etana. Summary
ol LACS Inlef rated Pollulanl Data. In: Loa
Anielet Catalyat Study Sympoalum. UM.
EnvlronmenUI Protection Agency. Re
tearch Triangle Path. NC. EPA Publication
No. EPA MC7« 77-034. June 1*77.
• Lynn. D.A. rl of National Aaaeument
of the Urban Paniculate Problem: Volume
I. National Aaseument. OCA Technology
Dltrblon. Bedford. MA. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park.
NC. EPA Publication No. EPA 4M/1-71
•»«. June in*.
». Pace. T.O. Impact ol Vehicle Related
Parllculatet on T8P Concentration! and
Rationale for Siting III Vote to the Vicinity
of Roadway*. OAQP8. US. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park.
NC. April 1*71
181
-------
n. St. ApP. «
It |jid»l(. Fl.. Jll Kraluhi. and E.
Bltrter. Srlrcllnf 811 ti lor Monllorlnc Total
Sutpendfd Parllculnlrr Blanlord Remrch
liulllulr. Mcnlo I'srk. CA. Prepared lor
U.S. Environmental Proimion Aiency. Re-
irarch Triangle Park. NC rPA Publlcallon
No EPA 4M/3 17 Oil. June Itll. rcvbed
December Itll.
II. Ball. H.J. and UE Anderson OrHI
mum Bite Eipoeure CtllriU lor BO. Monl
lorlnc. The Center lor Ilir Eiivlronmenl and
Man. Inc.. llarllord. CT. Pirparrd lor U.S.
Environmental Prolcrlloii Acency. Re-
•earch Trlanfle Park. NC EPA Publlcallon
No. EPA «M/1 71 •!!. April 1*77. •
II. l.udwta. PU and Jll 8 Keatoha Be
lecllni Bllea for Carbon Monoilde Monllor-
Int. Stanford Re«>arrh Institute. Menlo
Paik. CA. Prepared for U 8. Environmental
Protection Agency, R«warrh Park. NC. EPA
Publlcallon No. EPA U071 71 077. Septem-
ber IMI.
II. Ludwlt. PL. and E. Bhrlar. Bile Selee
tlon for the MonlUiirlni ol Photochemical
Air PollulanU. Stanford Research Institute.
Mrnlo Park. CA. Prepared for OJI. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Research Trian-
gle Park. NC EPA Publication No. EPA
450/1 71 •». April ing
U. toad Analytln lor Kama* CHy and
Cincinnati. PEUCci Environmental. Inc..
Cincinnati. OH. Prepared for US. Environ
mental Protection Agency. Research Trian-
gle Park. NC. EPA Contract No M M Mil.
June Itll.
It. Barltrap. O. and C. O. Blreraw.
Weslway Nursery Testing Protect. Report
to the Oreater Uondon Council. August
.
U. Dalnea. R II.. H Moto. and D. M.
Chllko. Almosplierlc l«ad: Ita Relationship
to Traffic Volume and Proilmlly to High-
ways Environ. Bel. and Techno!.. 4:110.
.
17. Johnson. D E. tt ml EpMemlologk
Study of the ElledU of AulomoMte Tralfk
on Blood Lead Levels. Southwest Research
Institute. Houston. TX. Prepared for US.
Environmental PioUcll.m Agency. Re-
search Triangle Pnrk. NC EPA gOO/l 70
•66. August 1*70
10 Air Quality Criteria lor l«ad Office of
Research and Development. US Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Washington. DC
EPA 000/0 77 017 December 1077.
10 Lyman. D R. The Atmospheric Dlftu-
slim of Carbon Moniol*- and Lead from an
E«pres«»ay. PhD. IHiwrrlallon. University
ol trlnclnnatl. Cincinnati. OH 1071.
70 Wechlrr. 8(1. Pteparsllon of Stable
Pollutant Oas Rlarulards Uxlng Treated Alu-
minum Cyllnib-rs. A8TM 8TP. t00:40 S4.
trig
21. WohKri. II r. II Nrwsteln and D.
Itaunls. Carbiin Moiioihlr and Sulfur Dlos
Mr Adsorption Oni and Urtcrlpllon Prom
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1 M CsHllon)
Olass, Plaslk and Mrlal Tubings. J. Air
Poll Con. Assoc n 763 I tig
11. Hfers. LA. FtrU Operating Oukfe far
Automated Air Monitoring Equipment US.
NTI8.P. 101.141.1071.
11. Hughes. E.E. Development ol Standard
Reference Material for Air Quality Men
urement. ISA Transactions. 14:101 101.
1171.
14. AlUhuller. AD. and AO Warlburg.
The Interaction of Oume with Plaslk and
Metallic Materials In a Dynamic Plow
System. Intern. Jour. Air and Water Poll.
4:70 70. IMI.
M. CPR Title 40 Part II11. July 1070.
10. Butcher. 8.8. and RE Ruff. Effect of
Inlet Residence Tune on Analysis ol Atmos-
pheric Nitrogen Oikles and Oume. Anal.
Chen... 41:IIM. 1071.
17. Blowlk. A.A. and E B Sansont. DUtu-
skm Losses of Sulfur Dtoikte In Sampling
Manifolds J. Air. Poll. Con. Assoc.. 14:141.
1074.
M. Yamada. V.M. and R.J. Chartson.
Proper Siting ol the Sampling Inlet Una for
a Continuous Air Monitoring Station. Envl
ran. Bel. and Technol.. 1:411. IM0.
n. Koch. R.C. and HE Rector. Optimum
Network Design and Site Exposure Criteria
tor Partkulsle Matter. OEOMET Technol
egka. Inc.. Rocavllle. MD. Prepared for U*
Environmental Protection Agency. Re-
search Triangle Park. NC. EPA Contract
N*. 00-01-1104. EPA 410/4 07 OM. May
IM7.
M. Burton. R.M. and J.C. Suggs. PhHadcl
phla Roadway Study. Environmental Monl
torsno Systems Laboratory. US. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Research Trian-
gle Park. N.C. EPA-0M/4-04 070 September
IM4.
144 PR 17171. May 10. 1070; 44 PR 7MM.
Dee. 14. 1070. M amended at 40 PR 44110.
Sept. I. IMI; II PR OS00. Mar. 10. IOM; II
PR 14144-14140. July I. 1007; It Pit «»*•.
July M. 10071
ArrtMMl r-ANNUM. SLAMS AM
QUALITY iHroammon
I. General
I. Required Information
1.1 Sulfur DtoiMc »8O.I
1.1.1 Site and Monitoring Information
1.1.1 Annual Summary Statistics
11 Total Suspended Parlkulates (TBPl
1.1.1 Site and Monitoring Information
I.I.I Annual Summary StatlsUcs
11.1 Episode and Other Unscti
Sampling Data
1.1 Carbon Monoxide tCOl
1.1.1 Site and Monitoring Information
111 Annual Summary Btallslka
1.4 Nitrogen Dioxide . UM ctiUmbj of
UM (LAMB MMMMl report rtMN k« (MrtlfM
ky UM senior ah- pollution central officer to)
UM BUM to be accurate to the best of hto
knowledge. In addition. UM •MJUMT to
which UM data wsreeoltocted must ke MTU-
IWv !• MftwC CBnfOVIMMl
•rtUusistle MCM lppm». HlghMt and aectrnd
kkjhstt M-how averagea (J» tppml and
date* •< •ccwrence. Hlghaat and aecond
highest I how averages (ppml MM!
•MM Mid UMM III (ending howl ol
^hA ^fc • MIA
•»•**• •»•••••» »»• vBt^vikvmxv vi UM JTO*
hew prlMwy NAAQ& Ul NuMber «f eieee-
tfMMH e* UM I how Mcondary NAAqo. U»
«f M hew averaae caneanUmttoM
prabe »Mln« critotta t1«M to Ap-
A.C.aMKtoUifap*rt.Ae«tine4
to Uito elleet niMt be
•MU>»M
•at» a it
• n s>*M,.
| M.MI«I. UM report iratt ke MbmHte4 ky
July I •( each rmr for d*U eoltcctod dvrtnf
UM perta4 jMMMry I to December II tt UM
•rtvtousye
•tta>*M..
•M»aM
PA
eantrol ag«
•lypul
lalrqual-
Ky ttatlstkal tusMnarka and Interpretive M-
porta. EPA encowages State i
1.1 *•*•' •—TT
t.11 Btto and
CMS to eonUsMM publkallen of aueh reparta
and recommends thai they be eipanded.
•hat* appropriate, to Include analysbi of aw
gjvaJHy trends, poputatlon eiposure. and
•olhrtant dMrlkulloM. At their dtstrsllon.
•tote and local agendee may wMi to kito-
arale the 81 JIMS report mto routine agency
Inr^matWn,
I. Required tnfnmuHon
Thto paragraph describes air quality
taring Information and summary statlstka
which must be Included m the SLAMS
annual report. The required mlormatlon to
'Remised below ky pollutant. Throughout
this appendix, the lime of occurrence refers
to the ending how. Por esampk. the ending
—, . 11 Viii ••in, cwwmy imwM
and atreet addrtm sit atto tocatMn. BAROAD
-*• *- •*—»-T Tl ihttr atui .iilana.
1.11 Annual Summary BtattoUca. AMMM!
arttlMMUemean«M/as>lMapecWtedtaAp-
avMHi K of Part M Daaly TSP «MMM ea
ceedsng UM level of the 14 how PM.
NAAQ8 Mid dales of occwrenco. II more
than 10 occurrences. Hal only UM It highest
dally values Sampling schedule waod awch
M one* every eta days, once every three
daya. ate. Number of addMtoMl aswi>lln0
days beyond sampUiMj schedule uaed.
Number of 14 hour avera«e concentratlona
183
•tin o st
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.7
-------
(e) Provide for having a SLAMS net-
work, description available for public
Inspection and submission to the Ad-
mlnUtralor upon requeit. The net-
work description must be available at
the lime of plan revision submlttal
except for Pb which must be available
by December I. 1011 and for PM«
monitor* which must be available by 8
month* after the effective date of pro-
raulittlon and must contain the fol-
lowing Information for each SlJiMS:
(II The 8AROAD site Identification
form for existing stations.
(I) The proposed location for ached-
uled stations.
(I) The sampling and analysis
method.
(4) The operating schedule.
(6) The monitoring objective and
spatial scale of representativeness a*
defined In Appendix D to this part.
(•> A schedule for: (I) Locating, plac-
ing- Into operation, and making avail-
able the SAROAO site Identification
form for each SLAMS which Is not lo-
cated and operating at the time of
plan revision submlltal. (II) Imple-
menting quality assurance procedure*
of Appendix A to this part for each
SLAMS for which such procedure* are
not Implemented at the lime of plan
revision submlltal. and (III) resiling
each SLAMS which does not meet the
requirement* of Appendix B to this
part at the time of plan revision sub-
mlttal.
144 fR mil. Msy It. 1*11. u amended at
41 PR 44li4. Sept. I. 1*11: la PR 1414*.
July I. IMTI
IIIII 8I.AM8 network design.
The deilgn criteria for 81 .A MS con-
tained In Appendix D to this part
must be used In designing the SLAMS
network. The Stale shall consult with
(he Regional Administrator during the
nr I work design process. The final net-
work design will to subject to the ap-
proval of the Regional Administrator.
I H.lt HI.AMS m*lhodol«|]r.
Eai-h SLAMS must meet I he moni-
toring methodology requirements of
Appendix C to tills part at (he time
I In- station la put Into operation as a
SLAMS.
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
I M.1I Monitoring network completion.
By January I, 1»83. with the excep-
tion of PMi. samplers whose probabili-
ty of nonatlalnmenl of the PM,, ambi-
ent standard Is greater than or equal
to 20 percent which shall be by I year
after the effective date of promulga-
tion and the remaining PM,. sampler*
which shall be by a years after the ef-
fective date of promulgation:
(a) Bach station In the SLAMS net-
work must be In operation, be sited In
accordance with the criteria In Appen-
dix E to this part, and be located as
described on the station's SAROAO
•lie Identification form, and
(bl The quality assurance require-
ment* of Appendix A to this part must
be fully Implemented.
144 PR tllll. May 10. 1110.' as amended at
•I PR 14140. July I. IM1I
IM.I1 (Reserved)
IMS* Bysteai modlflcallon.
The State shall annually develop
and Implement a schedule to modify
the ambient air quality monitoring
network to eliminate any unnecessary
stations or to correct any Inadequacies
Indicated by the result of the annual
review required by I Sa.3. The
State shall consult with Ihe Regional
Administrator during the development
of the schedule to modify the monitor-
Ing program. The final schedule and
modification* will be subject to the ap-
proval of the Regional Administrator.
Nothing In this section will preclude
the State, with the approval of the Re-
gional Administrator, from making
modifications to the SLAMS network
for reason* other than those resulting
from the annual review.
I 11.11 Annual SLAMS summary report.
(a) The State shall submit to Ihe Ad-
ministrator (through the appropriate
Regional Office) an annual summary
report of all the ambient air quality
monitoring data from all monitoring
stations designated Slate and Local
Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS).
The annual report must be submitted
by July I of each year for data collect-
ed from January I to December 31 of
the previous year.
InvtronmonM Protection Agency
(b) The annual aummary report
must contain:
(I) The Information specified In Ap-
pendix F.
(3) The location, date, pollution
aouroe, and duration of each Incident
of air pollution during which ambient
level* of a pollutant reached or ex-
ceeded the level specified by | St.lMa)
of thl* chapter a* a level which could
cause significant harm to the health
of person*.
(c) The senior air pollution control
officer In the State or hi* deslgnee
•hall certify that the annual aummary
report I* accurate to the beat of hi*
knowledge.
Ill PR Xltll. May I*. Itll. as amended at
II PR MM. Mar. It. I*MI
IM.tT Compliance dale for air qualMy
date reporting.
The annual air quality data report-
Ing requirement* of 158.11 apply to
data collected after December II.
IMO. Data collected before January 1.
IMI. must be reported under the re-
porting procedure* In effect before the
effective date of Subpart C of thl*
part.
IM.M Regional Office BLAM8 data ac-
The State ahall submit all or a por-
tion of the SLAMS data to the Region-
al Administrator upon his request.
StoMons (MAMS)
IMJt NAM8 network cetaklhlimcnC
(a) By January I. 1910. with the ex-
ception of Pb. which shall be by De-
cember 1. IMI. and PM» samplers.
which shall be by • month* after the
effective date of promulgation, the
State shall:
(I) Establish, through the operation
of station* or through a schedule for
locating and placing stations Into oper-
ation. that portion of a National Ambi-
ent Air Quality Monitoring Network
which Is In that State, and
(1) Submit to the Administrator
(through the appropriate Regional
Office) a description of that Slate's
portion of the network.
JS8.W
(b) Hereinafter, the portion of the
national network In any Stale will be
referred to as the NAMS network.
(c) The stations In the NAMS net-
work must be stations from the
SLAMS network required by | 58.20.
(d) The requirement* of Appendix D
to IhU part must be met when design-
Ing the NAMS network. The process of
designing the NAMS network must be
part of the process of designing the
SLAMS network a* explained In Ap-
pendix D to this part.
144 PR mil. May 10. 1*11. a» amended at
40 PR 4414)4. Sept. 1. 1*11; 13 PR 14140.
July I. III1I
• 18.11 NAMS network description.
The NAMS network description re-
quired by 158.30 must contain the fol-
lowing for all stations, existing or
scheduled:
(a) The 8AROAD ilte Identification
form for existing stations.
(b) The proposed location for sched-
uled stallons.
(c) Identity of the urban area repre-
sented.
(d) The sampling and analysis
method.
(e) The operating schedule.
(t) The monitoring objective and
spatial scale of representativeness a*
defined In Appendix D to thU part.
(g> A schedule for.
(1) Locating, placing Into operation,
and aubmlttlng the 8AROAD site
Identification form for each NAMS
which la not located and operating at
the time of network description sub-
mlttal.
(J) Implementing quality assurance
procedure* of Appendix A to thl* part
for each NAMS for which such proce-
dure* are not Implemented at the tune
of network description aubmlttal, and
(3) Resiling each NAMS which doea
not meet the requirements of Appen-
dix E to this part at the lime of net-
work description submlttal.
8M.I1 NAMS approval.
The NAMS network required by
158.30 I* subject to Ihe approval of
Ihe Administrator. Such approval will
be contingent upon completion of the
nelwork description as outlined In
I 58.31 and upon conformance to the
134
135
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
JUL 12 1989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Boilerplates for Block Averaging and Grandfathering
Modeling Analyses
FROM: Robert 0. Bauman, Chief
SO2/Particulate Matter Programs Branch (MD-15)
TO: Chief, Air Branch
Regions I-X
Based upon EPA's June 1, 1989 denial of NRDC's petition for
reconsideration of the use of block averaging in an Ohio SIP
revision (attached), we recommend that the Regional Offices use
language similar to the following boilerplate in future Federal
Register notices and/or TSD's in which the S02 averaging method
is a relevant factor, and which involve otherwise appro vable
actions :
The State based the SIP revision on a (block or
running) interpretation of the national ambient air
quality standards. Under the decision in NRDC v.
845 F.2d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 1988), the D.C
Circuit determined that a state is free to submit a SIP
revision using either block or running averages. As a
result, EPA finds the State's choice to utilize (block
or running) averaging to be fully acceptable.
The EPA policy for grandfather ing modeling analyses is
contained in a January 2, 1985 memorandum from Joseph Tikvart,
Chief, Source Receptor Analysis Branch, to the Regional Modeling
Contact, Regions I-X. Boilerplate to assist in implementing this
policy has previously been informally distributed. However, at
this time we request that where grandf athering occurs the
Regional Office should incorporate language into the Federal
Register and/or TSD similar to .the following:
The modeling techniques used in the demonstration
supporting this revision are based on modeling guidance
in place at the time that the analysis was performed
(cite "old" guidance document). Since that time, the
modeling guidance has been changed by EPA (cite "new"
guidance document) . Because the modeling analysis was
substantially complete prior to issuance of the revised
guidance, EPA accepts the analysis. If for some reason
-------
this, or any other, analysis must be redone in the future,
then it should be redone in accordance with current modeling
guidance .
If you have any questions regarding these policies, please
contact Doug Grano of ay staff at 8-629-5255.
Attachment
cc: Ron Campbell, OAQPS
John Calcagni, AQMD
Pat Embrey, OGC
Eric Ginsburg, AQMD
Dean Wilson, TSD
Regional Modeling Contact, Regions X-X
bcc : *\ Grano
J. Vitas
-------
ft. 5f. APR. A 40 CHt Ch. I (/-I-M Edition)
SCHEDULE D.O—PERMAMEM WAIVER FROM INIERIM CONIROiS l£SI—Continued
lu.
« Cum* MtolS* Mb* I If
1 MM praMM wk« 1 1*
IM4
«»««
MM
IMI
•KM
XWUC
«M*
MM
MM
IMI
MXM
MM
I(M 1 IM»
MXX 1 «M«
MM 1 xxxx
IMO
MM
XJOUI
low
SCHEDULE D 7—HORIIOM VAUJC Of CASH FLOWS
ISnwMi A
f Ail 5»— AMtlf NT All QUALITY
SUIVHUANCI
8cc.
M.I Definitions.
M.I Purpose.
M.I Applicability.
Beo.
Mil SLAMSmethodology.
M.ai Monitoring network compteilorL
MJI (Reserved)
M.U System modification.
M.M Annual SLAMS iiunmary report.
MM Compliance dale for air quality data
reporting.
MM Retlonal Office 8LAM8data acquM-
Ill* Quality assurance.
Mil Monitoring methods.
M.I 1 Biting of Instruments or Instrument
probes.
Mil Operating schedule.
M.I 4 Special purpose monitors.
lntp.it C— (Me «•*
IMteM (UAMI)
MM Air quality lurvcllluice: Plan eon-
Irnt.
M 21 SLAMS network deilin.
1NAMI)
M.M NAM8 network establishment.
II II NAM8 network deicrlptlon.
ilia HAMS approval.
111! HAMS methodology.
M.ll NAU8 network completion.
M.ai NAM8 data •ubmlltal.
M.M System modification.
fvbpw* •— Afc Q»«Mly i»4»
II 40 Inde* reporting.
128
lnvlr*>nment>l Protection Agency
6ec.
•I Metering
M.M Federal monitoring.
MJI Monitoring other pollulanU.
Arru<»ii A— QUALITV ASSURING* Rmuiar
luirra roa STATS AM* LOCAL Aia Mom-
TOIIMO BTATIOMS
Arrusii B— QUALITT AiiuatNcs Riquiar
Mum roa PHVKHTIOH or SiomriCAirt
DntaioaATioH (PSDI Aia UONITOIIMO
ATTBIBII C— AMiinrr AH QUAUTV lloHi-
TOBINO UKTHODOUMT
ArranBK D— H«rwoa« Duian MB STATS
AH* LOCAL An MomnMum STATIOHI
48LAM8* AH* NATIONAL An UoMiToaino
STATIOM (NAM8I
ArrnoiH B-Paoii SITIHO CainaiA roa
AMBIBKT Aia QUALITY MomToaiM
Arm»» f— AHHUAL 8LAM8 Aia QUALITT
l>roaiiATio>
AnranaiB O— Umroaii Aia QUAUTV biau
uia OAILV RBTOBTIM
AOTMOBITT: Scca. lit. MKal. ail. and *!•
•f the Clean Air Act <4l UAC. 14lt.
IMKal. Mia. 7«l*».
SouacK 44 PR ailll. May !•. IM». unlCM
olherwlM noted.
Omor •!
IM.I
As used In this part, all term* not de-
fined herein have the meaning given
them In the Act:
(a) "Act" means the Clean Air Act a*
amended 449 U.8.C. 7401. et seq.K
(b) "SLAMS" means State or Local
Air Monitoring Statlonta). The
SLAMS make up the ambient air qual-
ity monitoring network which Is re-
quired by 1 61.20 to be provided for In
the Stale's Implementation plan. This
definition places no restrictions on the
use of the physical structure or facili-
ty housing the SLAMS. Any combina-
tion of SLAMS and any other moni-
tors (Special Purpose. NAMS. PSD)
may occupy the same facility or struc-
ture without affecting the respective
definitions of those monitoring sta-
tion.
(c) "NAMS" means National Air
Monitoring StatkMtU). Collectively the
NAMS are a subset of the SLAMS am-
bient air quality monitoring network.
(d) "PSD station" mean* any nation
operated for the purpoae of ealablUh-
Ing the effect on air quality of the
emlulona from a propoaed aourcc for
purpose* of prevention of •IgnKlcant
(M.I
deterioration as required by I 6l.34
of Part 61 of this chapter.
(el "SO." means sulfur dloKlde.
(f) "NO." mean* nitrogen dioxide.
(g) "CO" mean* carbon monoxide.
(h) "O." meMU ozone.
(I) "Plan" mean* an Implementation
plan, approved or promulgated pursu-
ant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
U> "Administrator" means the Ad-
ministrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) or his or her au-
thorized representative.
(k) "Regional Administrator" means
the Administrator of one of the ten
EPA Regional Offices or hut or her au-
thorized representative.
(I) "State agency" mean* the air pol-
lution control agency primarily re-
sponsible for development and Imple-
mentation of a plan under the Act.
(m) "Local agency" means any local
government agency, other than the
State agency, which Is charged with
the responsibility for carrying out a
portion of the plan.
(n> "Indian Reservation'.' mean* any
Federally recognized reservation ea-
tabllshed by treaty, agreement, execu-
tive order, or act of Congress.
(o) "Indian Governing Body" means
the governing body of any tribe, band.
or group of Indians subject to the Ju-
risdiction of the United States and rec-
ognized by the United States as pos-
sessing power of self-government.
(p) "Storage and Retrieval of Airo-
metrle Data (SAROAD) system" Is a
computerized system which stores and
report* Information relating to ambi-
ent air quality.
(q> "SAROAD site Identification
form" h one of the several forms In
the SAROAD system. It I* the form
which provides a complete description
of the site (and Its surroundings) of an
ambient air quality monitoring sta-
tion.
(r) "Traceable" means that a local
standard has been compared and certi-
fied, either directly or via not more
than one Intermediate standard, to a
primary standard such as a National
Bureau of Standard* Standard Refer-
ence Material (NBS SRM) or a
USEPA/NBS approved Certified Ref-
erence Material (CRM>.
(s) "Urban area population" mean*
the population defined In the moat
120
-------
IM.M
NAMS design criteria contained In Ap-
pendix D to till* part.
I MM NAMS methodology.
Each NAMS mutt meet the monitor-
Ing methodology requlremenU of Ap-
pendix C to thU part applicable to
NAMS at the time the station U put
Into operation a* a NAMS.
I M.I4 NAMB atlwurk completion.
By January I. 1081, with the excep-
tion of Pb. which shall be by July 1.
1012 and PMM aamplen. which shall
be by I year after the effective date of
promulgation:
(a) Each NAMS must be In oper-
ation, be sited In accordance with the
criteria In Appendix E to this part.
and be located as described In the sta-
tion's 8AROAO site Identification
form; and
The quality assurance requlre-
menU of Appendix A to this part must
be fully Implemented for all NAMS.
144 PR mil. May 14). Ill*, a* amended at
It PR 44IS4. Sept. I. Illl; II PR 14740.
July I. IM1I
IM.U NAMS ssU tubmllUl.
(a) The requirements of this section
apply only to those stations designat-
ed as NAMS by the network descrip-
tion required by 161.30.
(b) The State shall report quarterly
to the Administrator (through the ap-
propriate Regional Office) all ambient
air quality data and Information speci-
fied by AERO8 Users Manual (EPA-
460/2-10-020. OAQF8 No. 1.3-030) to
be coded Into the 8 A ROAD Air Qual-
ity Data forms. Such air quality data
and Information must be submitted on
either paper forms, punched cards, or
magnetic tape In the format of the
8AROAD Air Quality Data forms.
(c) The quarterly reporting periods
are January 1-March 31. April I-June
30. July l-September 30. and October
1-December 31. The quarterly report
must:
(It Be received by the National Aero-
metric Data Bank within 120 days of
the end of each reporting period, after
being submitted by the Slates to the
Regional Offices for review ;
(2) Contain all data and Information
gathered during the reporting period.
40 CM Ch. I (M-M EdllUn)
(d» For T8P. CO. SO.. O,. and NOb
the first quarterly report will be due
on or before June 30. IMI. for data
collected during the first quarter of
1081. For Pb. the first quarterly report
will be due on December 31, 1883. for
data collected during the third quarter
of 1*82. For PM,. samplers, the first
quarterly report will be due 120 days
after the first quarter of operation.
(e> Air quality data submitted in Hie
quarterly report must have been
edited and validated so that such data
are ready to be entered Into the
8AROAD data tiles. Procedures for
editing and validating data are de-
scribed In AEROS Users Manual
(EPA-460/3-10-020. OAQPS No. 1.2-
030).
(f> This section does not permit a
State to exempt those SLAMS which
are also designated as NAMB from all
or any of the reporting requlremenU
applicable to SLAMS In I 68.20.
144 PR 27111. May ID. 1111. a* amended at
41 PR 44IS4. Sept. 1. IMI: II PR MM. Mar.
It. IMS; 13 PR 24740. July I. IM7I
061.3* Srslcm modlficalloa.
During the annual SLAMS Network
Review specified In 168.20. any
changes to the NAMS network Identi-
fied by the EPA and/or proposed by
the State and agreed to by the EPA
will be evaluated. These modifications
should address changes Invoked by a
new census and changes to the net-
work due to changing air quality
levels, emission patterns, etc. The
Bute shall be given one year (until
the next annual evaluation) to Imple-
ment the appropriate changes to the
NAMS network.
Ill PR MM. Mar. II. IMII
Swttpsut I—Air Qv*)Uly.lnde*
••porting
6 M.4I lad*« reporting
(a) The State shall report to the
general public on a dally basis through
prominent notice an air quality Index
In accordance with the requlremenU
of Appendix O to this part.
(b) Reporting must commence by
January I. 1081. for all urban areas
with a population exceeding 600.000.
136
»le4 PrwtecMen Agency
and by January 1, 1083. for all urban
area* with a population exceeding
100.000.
(e) The population of an urban area
for purposes of Index reporting U the
most recent U.S. census population
figure as defined In 1 60.1 paragraph
(a).
144 PR aim. May It. 1171. as amended at
•I PR MM. Mar. II. IIM)
fcihpswt f — » Defend MenMerlng
0I8.H Federal monitoring.
The Administrator may locate and
operate an ambient air monitoring sta-
tion If the State falls to locate, or
schedule to be located, during the Ini-
tial network design process or as a
result of the annual review required
by 1 68.3(Md>:
(a) A SLAMS at a site which Is nec-
essary In the Judgment of the Region-
al Administrator to meet the objec-
tives defined In Appendix D to this
•part, or
(b) A NAMS at a alto which la neces-
sary In the judgment of the Adminis-
trator for meeting EPA national data
needs.
0U.II M«*HorlMe4it*rB«NiiUs>U.
The Administrator may promulgate
criteria similar to that referenced In
Subpart B of this part for monitoring
• pollutant for which a National Am-
bient Air Quality Standard does not
exist. Such an action would be taken
whenever the Administrator deter-
mines that 'a nationwide monitoring
program Is necessary to monitor such
• pollutant.
ArrtMDix A—QUALITY ASSVMMCB Rg-
qoiBBMUiTS roa STATB AND LOCAL
Aia MOHITOBIHO STATIONS
(SLAMS)
I. General lnA»rm««oi».
ThU AppendlM specific* the minimum
quality assurance requlremenU applicable
to SLAMS air monitoring data nibmllted to
EPA. Bute* are encour*sed to develop and
maintain quality assurance prosrami more
eileiulve than the required minimum.
Quality assurance ol air monitoring *yi-
temi Includes two distinct and Important
Interrelated function*. One function Is the
control of the measurement process
ft. M, AW A
through the Implementation of poUclys.
procedure*, and corrective actions. The
other function to Hie u*eument of the
quality of the monltorlns dau (the product
of the meaauremenl process*. In general.
the greater the elforl ellecllvencH of the
control of a given monitoring ty*tem. the
belter will be Hie resulting quality of the
monitoring data. The rcnilla of data quality
aueumenU Indicate whether the control ef-
forts need to be IncreMcd.
Documentation of the quality assessments
of the monltorlns data It Important to dau
men. who ran then consider the Impact of
the dau quality hi spcclllc applications Minimise loss of air quality data due to
malfunction* or out-ot control condition*.
This quality assurance program must be
described In detail, suitably documented.
and approved by the appropriate Regional
Administrator, or hi* deilgnee. The Quality
Assurance Program will be reviewed during
the annual system audit described In section
a.2 Primary guidance for developing the
quality assurance program Is contained In
References 2 and J. which also contain
many suggested procedures, check*, and
control specification*. Section 2.0.1 of Refer-
ence 1 describes specific guidance for the de
137
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.8
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE: S6P1 1981
.' .
SUBJECT: Ambient Monitoring Networks for Model Evaluations
PROM:
TO:
Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division
Ronald C. Campbell, Assistant Director
for Program Operations, OAQPS
Under favorable conditions our available air quality models can
provide errors of from ±10 to ±40 percent. Under unfavorable conditions
the errors can be much worse. For these reasons, we have been consi-
dering how to use ambient monitoring data to supplement or improve
model estimates on a case-by-case basis.
It 1s generally not feasible to establish emission limits for
point sources based solely on monitoring data. Thfs 1s because current
programs require that emission limits be based upon a fairly rare event
(i.e., the second maximum concentration anywhere in the area, at anytime,
and with the facility operating at full capacity) and to capture that
event on a monitor would normally require a prohibitively large and
expensive network.
An alternative approach is to establish a monitoring network of
reasonable size, use the resulting monitored data to evaluate the models
for applicability to those particular conditions, and then use the result-
ing "best available" model to establish the emission limitation.
One problem with this approach is defining the "network of reasonable
size" which would be used to evaluate the models. If the network is too
small, the data would be inadequate to distinguish between models and the
evaluation would have no validity. If the network is too large, the cost
would be excessive.
Although our experience with evaluations of this nature is very limited,
I have recently recommended to Region V that, for a variety of power plants
in the Midwest, networks consisting of approximately 15 monitors each should
be considered. This recommendation was based upon the following knowledge:
•
• My staff and the technical modeling staff of Region V estimate
that, in-moderate terrain, a network of 25-30 monitors would be desirable
to obtain "reasonable scientific credibility."
• The Electric Power Research Institute has conducted one phase of
a major model evaluation study (called Plume Model Validation) around the
Kincaid Power P'lant. The PMV network consisted of 30 ambient monitors
supplemented by several hundred tracer monitors for special study's.
«. 3.761
-------
• The model evaluation program around the Westvaco Luke Mill 1n
Maryland 1s using nine monitors. The Issue at Luke Mill Involves only
one wind direction (quadrant): If all wind directions were pertinent,
a larger network would have been necessary.
* The model evaluation program around the Ashland 011 facility In
Kentucky used a network consisting of 18 monitors. The Issue Involved
complex terrain in a valley situation.
* The model evaluation program around the Simplot acid plant in
Idaho used a network consisting of five monitors. The issue at Simplot
Involved only one wind direction and one set of meteorological conditions.
* The model evaluation program around the B1g Bend Power Plant on
the coast of Florida used a network consisting of eight monitors supple-
mented by sophisticated plume measurements. The issue at Big Bend
involved only a single wind direction.
Based on our experienc with these programs (all of-which were reasonably
successful but, with the exception of EPRI, none of which were "data rich"), I
believe that approximately 15 monitors operating for one year is probably the
minimum network size to obtain a valid data base under normal circumstances.
Fifteen would probably be too few in rugged, complex terrain; fifteen would
probably be too many if the Issue Involved only a single specific location
(e.g. a single Isolated hilltop) or single meteorological condition.
It is necessary to minimize the number of monitors because the cost of i
network of 15 monitors, plus an adequate meteorological station, plus emission.,
monitoring, could range from S300K to over $1 million. The wide range in costs
is influenced primarily by the availability of power at the monitoring sites, b;
the ease of servicing the monitors, and by the complexity of both the terrain
and the meteorological conditions. Based on preliminary discussions between
Region V staff and electric utility representatives, I believe that most large
utilities would be willing and able to bear this cost if they perceive that the
evaluation would result in a relaxation of stringent emission limitations.
In the past many utility representatives held a strong opinion that the
CRSTER model (most commonly used to evaluate power plants in level to moderate
terrain) tended to overestimate the magnitude of concentrations, i.e. that the
model had a strong conservative bias. The preliminary data from the EPRI
model evaluation disprove that opinion: the EPRI results indicate no signi-
ficant bias (at least In level terrain).
*
Also the preliminary data from Westvaco (Involving the SHORTZ model),
the results from Ashland Oil (involving the VALLEY model), and the results
from Big Bend (involving the CRSTER model), all tend to confirm the model
predictions, although Ashland Oil showed VALLEY to be somewhat conservative
as expected. I would classify the Simplot results as "inconclusive."
-------
cc: ^T Tikvart
R. Neligan
accurac/of th« -od«is or J^bll^ason.b!, c^b???^ wTtS SKt*.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE: AUG 7 1981
SUBJECT: Monitoring Around Mid-Western Power Plants
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads,
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division (MD-14)
10 : David Kee, Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region V
We have previously discussed the requests of several utilities to
conduct air quality monitoring around their power plants located in
Illinois, Indiana and Ohio. The purpose of the monitoring would be to
provide a data base suitable for evaluating air quality models and to
select the most reliable model for setting emission limits.
No widely accepted performance standards are available with which
to judge the acceptability of a single model. Thus, to determine the
best model for a specific application, we must rely on a comparison of
the relative performance of two or more models using a variety of
statistical tests. Such an approach has been recommended by the American
Meteorological Society and is incorporated in an OAQPS report entitled
"Interim Procedures for Evaluating Air Quality Models" that was provided
to your staff last week (see attached memorandum).
These interim procedures are the best available basis for discussions
with the utilities on the monitoring programs and subsequent analyses.
The procedures involve (1) identification of applicable models; (2) selection
and weighting of statistical performance measures; and (3) determination of
an appropriate ambient monitoring program. I suggest that you forward this
information to the utilities and set up meetings where these issues can
be discussed.
At such meetings it will be necessary for the utility representatives
to propose alternative models that they believe to be more reliable than
the standard EPA models. Statistical tests and performance measures must
be agreed upon to determine the relative performance of the models under
consideration. These performance measures must be adequate to evaluate
the entire range of meteorological conditions which affect the source
area, as well as appropriate averaging times. While these meetings will
involve highly technical issues, management personnel may be required to
make decisions relative to the most important evaluation tests and the
best measures of uncertainty.
-------
It will be necessary to agree on an adequate air quality monitoring
network composed of continuous monitors with quality assurance meeting
the requirements of 40 CFR 58. Although our experience with networks
for this purpose is limited, we believe that an appropriate balance
between the technical requirements of the analyses and the costs would
result in approximately 15 monitors, depending upon the type of terrain,
meteorological conditions, prior knowledge of air quality in the area,
etc. For the specific case of the Baldwin plant which you mentioned,
it is likely that 11 monitors would be adequate 1f the monitors were
carefully located at predicted points of maximum Impact under the full
range of meteorological conditions. (Location of the monitors at points
of maximum impact only under unstable conditions would not provide
adequate coverage.)
It will be necessary to agree on an adequate on-site meteorological
data collection program. As a minimum, these measurements should be
similar to those available from National Weather Service Stations and
should be consistent with the PSD Monitoring Guideline requirements.
It may be necessary to collect additional data in order to satisfy
the input requirements of proposed alternative models.
It will be necessary to agree on an adequate program to collect
plant operating data. Ideally, this would consist of continuous in-stack
emission monitors supplemented by routine operating characteristics. Many
plants'are willing to install emission monitors for a variety of purposes.
However, if continuous emission monitors are considered to be too expensive,
it is usually possible to construct adequate emissions data from a carefully
planned as-fired fuel sampling program.
We assume that the utility will be responsible for all data collection,
data reduction, and quality assurance. Once a protocol for the specific
statistical performance measures and their weighting are established,
we further assume that the utility will also be responsible for all calcu-
lations and model evaluations. Once the analysis is complete, we can jointly
review the results with the utility and come to a reasoned decision as to
the most appropriate model for setting emission limits for that source.
Thus, the crucial part of this exercise is establishing in a written
protocol the data to be collected, the procedures to be followed, and the
basis for judging the relative performance of the models being considered.
-------
We must emphasize that the general procedures which are proposed
are interim. They will evolve in future applications as we gain
experience with developing protocols. We expect, though, that useful
and meaningful protocols can result at this time from good faith
negotiations between EPA and the utility and its consultants. My
staff will be happy to provide you with technical support in developing
protocols and in analyzing the model comparisons. Please contact
Joe Tikvart or me if you desire further assistance.
Attachment
cc: W. Barber
T. Devine
R. Smith
E. Tuerk
S. Wassersug
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE: 7/30/81
SUBJECT: Interim Procedures for Evaluating Air Quality Models
FROM: Joseph A. Tikvart, Chief
Source Receptor
TO: Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I - X
Attached is a report entitled "Interim Procedures for Evaluating
Air Quality Models." The purpose of the report is to provide a general
framework for the quantitative evaluation and comparison of air quality
models. It is intended to help you decide whether a proposed model, not
specifically recommended in the Guideline on Air Quality Models, is
acceptable on a case-by-case basis for specific regulatory application.
The need for such a report is identified in Section 7 of "Regional
Workshops on Air Quality Modeling: A Summary Report."
An earlier draft (Guideline for Evaluation of Air Quality Models)
was provided to you for comment in January 1981. We received cornnents
from four Regional Offices and have incorporated many of the suggestions.
These comments reflected a diversity of opinion on how rigid the pro-
cedures and criteria should be for demonstrating the acceptability of a
nonguideline model. One Region maintained that EPA should establish
minimum acceptable requirements on data bases, decision rationale, etc.
Others felt that we should be more flexible in our approach. This
report defines the steps that should be followed in evaluating a model
but leaves room for considerable flexibility in details for each step.
The procedures and criteria presented in this new report are con-
sidered interim. They are an extension of recommendations resulting
from the Woods Hole Workshop in Dispersion Model Performance held in
Setpember 1980. That workshop was sponsored under a cooperative agree-
ment between EPA and the American Meteorological Society. Thus, v^hile
some of the performance evaluation procedures may be resource intensive,
they reflect most of the requirements identified by an appropriate
scientific peer group. However, since the concepts are relatively new
and untested, problems may be encountered in their initial application.
Thus, the report provides suggested procedures; it is not a "guideline."
We'recommend that you begin using the procedures on actual situations
within the context of the caveats expressed in the Preface and in Section
5.2. Where suggestions are inappropriate, the use of alternative techniques
to accomplish the desired goals is encouraged. Feedback on your experience
and problems are important to us. After a period of time during which
experience is gained and problems are identified, the report will be
rm 12~ 6 'B»v 3-76)
-------
updated and guidance will gradually evoiua
ss^-ScSairirisf r »- - i* the
An example of the^cetr™' p ^oT™ t'ST K"""
oped under contact and should bV lipped ?,! SrtyfJSzI1
Attachment
' X
D. Fox
T. Helms
W. Keith
M. Muirhead
L. Niemeyer
R. Smith
F. White
-------
EPA-450/4-84-023
Interim Procedures for Evaluating Air
Quality Models (Revised)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
September 1984
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTIONS 4.1 AND 4.2
-------
2138
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 12 / Thursday. January 19. 1989 / Proposed Rules
Authority: Sees. 1-19. 48 Slat. 31. as
: 7 L'-S.C 801-674.
2. Section 959.229 is added to read as
follows:
$ 959.229 Expanse* and assessment rate.
Expenses of $379.675 by the South
Texas Onion Committee are authorized
and an assessment rate of $0.055 per 50-
pound container or equivalent quantity
of regulated onions is established for the
fiscal period ending July 31. 1989.
Unexpended funds may be earned over
as a reserve.
: |«n!-ary 13. 1989.
William). On ID.
; s.u i ::- 0" ';;•';• 3iT*i-:tir.
C dB-1.30 Filed 1-78-49: 8:45 an|
COOt MlO-ia II
DCPA3TMENT OF THE TREASURY
31 CFH Part 103
E ttension of Tim* for Comment* on
P i oposed Ban* Secrecy Act
Regulations
AGENCY: Departmental Offices.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
•.:=iiioiving. extension of comment
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
:rv Department of the Treasury is
•• sending the comment period on the
A tvance Notice of Proposed
- iemaking Relating to Identification
.•quircmen'.s Required to Purchase
!' :P.R Checks. Cashier's Checks.
i veler's Checks and Money Orders.
L. ,:;iished in the Federal Register on
' )-<:pmber 23. 1988 (53 FR 51846). The
Ti^asury Department has determined
•"it more time is needed for the public
!<> review and comment on the proposal.
DATE: Comments now will be accepted
rhrough February 15. 1989.
AOORCSS: Comments should be
••'/dressed to Amy G. Rudnick. Director.
Office of Financial Enforcement.
"/epartmem of the Treasury. Room 4320.
1 500 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW..
" U .ishington. DC 20220.
FOR FURTMf M INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathleen A. Scott. Attorney Advisor.
Office of the Assistant General Counsel
(Enforcement). (202) 566-9947.
Unleci: January 13. 1989.
Sdiv«tort R. MartodM.
•• ^ 'Stan: Secretary /Enforcement).
KR Ooc. 8B-1J04 Filfti l-ie-afc 145 amj
9-wUWO COCK «10 M •
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40CFRPartS1
(FML-M3»-2]
State tmoMtmantatkMi Plan
Compieteneaa Review
AOCNCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
SUMMARY: This notice describes the
procedure for assessing whether a State
implementation plan (SIP) mtbmittal is
adequate to trigger the Clean Air Act
requirement that EPA review, and take
action the submittal. The nonce
describes, among other things, the
criteria for determining the
"completeness" of the submittal. EPA is
concerned that uncertainty and
excessive delays in reviewing SIPs
frustrate the development of an optimum
State/Federal partnership, cause
confusion for sources regarding
applicable regulations, and generally
dampen initiative in State regulatory
programs. Prompted by this concern.
EPA is instituting a wide range of SIP
processing reforms as described
elsewhere in this Federal Register. The
proposed ruiemaking described below is
one of these reforms.
EPA's previous SIP processing
procedures provided no mechanism to
reject or otherwise eliminate essentially
unrevtewable SIP subnuttals (i.e.. those
missing information necessary to make
a reasonable decision as to their
procedural and environmental
adequacy]. Heretofore. SIP submittais
that lacked required basic information
such as evidence of legal authority or of
properly conducted public hearings, or
technical support information sufficient
to describe a proposed change, generally
went through full notice and comment
ruiemaking (proposed and final) before
being rejected. Today's proposal
provides a procedure and screening
criteria :o enable States to prepare
adequate SIP submittais. and to enable
EPA reviewers to promptly screen SIP
'submittais. identify those that are
incomplete, and return them to the State
for corrective action without having to
go through ruiemaking.
EPA believes thdt this change.
together with those described elsewhere
in this Federal Register, should enable
SIP submittais to be prepared and
processed more efficiently and. overall
should improve the quality of SIP
submittais.
OATC All comments should be
submitted to EPA at the address shown
below by March 6.1989.
AOORC&5CS: Interested parties m«y
submit written comments in duam. .i! u>
Public Docket No. A-flfl-l<5 at: Central
Docket Section (A-130). South
Conference Center. Room 4. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Attention: Docket No. A-68-18. 401 M.
Street. SW.. Washington. DC 20460.
Materials relevant to this rulerr.;iking
have been placed in Docket No. A-88-18
b.v EPA and ar«» a\3:!<*ble for inspection
at th*» above address r>*'ween 8:00 a.m.
an'd 3:30 p.m.. Monday th.-ough Friday.
The EPA may chsrj- a rt»,nnnr>\v fet-
ter copying.
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. lames Wesg-1"- Office of Air
Quality P!snr:r.2 n.-.c: S^r-dards (MD-
II). U.S. Env.rcnrrcrtcii Protection
Agency. Researcr. Triangle Park. North
Carolina 27711: Telephone (919) 541-
5642 or (FTS) 529-5642.
•UPPLCMIMTANV INFORMATION:
Background
The 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA)
established the air quality management
process as a basic philosophy for air
pollution control in this country. Under
this system. EPA establishes air quality
goals (National Ambient Air Quality
Standards— N'AAQS) for common
pollutants. There are now standards for
6 pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide.
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide.
paniculate matter (PM,o. and lead.
States then develop control programs to
attain and maintain these N'AAQS.
These programs are defined by State
Implementation Plfins (SIPs) which are
approved formally by EPA and are
legally enforceable by the Agency.
Under section 110|a!(2;. a SIP must
demonstrate attainment, describe a
control strategy contain legally
enforceable regulations, include an
emission inventory and procedures for
new source review, ou'.line a program
for monitoring. jn«j shov. adequ
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 12 / Thursday. January 19. 1989 / Proposed Rules
2139
and local agencies. SIP processing at
EPA hat a schedule goal of 5/2-5/2 for
final action. That is. the Regions
nominally have 5 months to review
submittals in both the proposal and
promulgation phases: Headquarters
nominally has 2 months in each phase.
However. SIP actions often take
considerably longer than the total 14
months allocated to publish a final
decision.1
The lengthy decision process has
resulted in strong criticism from sources
both inside and outside the EPA. In
response, the Deputy Administrator
commissioned in July 1987 a senior level
task group to assess the problems
inherent in the process and to
recommend solutions. The task group
conducted its assessment and presented
recommendations to the Deputy
Administrator. The recommendations
were approved fully and are described
in a companion notice in today's Federal
Register. One of these recommendations
concerns a procedure and criteria for
identifying a "complete" SIP package.
thereby providing States with guidance
on preparing adequate SIP revisions and
EPA with a clearly defined mechanism
to keep essentially unreviewable SIP
revisions out of the review process.
This is important because if a State
submits a SIP change without properly
stated emission limits, legal authority'or
compliance schedules, or which
contains other obvious deficiencies, it
can enter the full EPA review system.
Such a SIP either will be eventually
disapproved, or languish while the State
is required (perhaps months later) to
supply essential data. Heretofore. EPA's
procedures did not provide in any
comprehensive way prompt rejection for
incompleteness. Independently,
however, some Regional Offices have
. tned to deal with this problem, and have
developed procedures wherein SIP
submittals are judged against a set of
completeness criteria. The purpose of
these procedures has been to keep
incomplete packages out of the more
extensive review system, thereby saving
both EPA and the State valuable time
and resources. Today. EPA is proposing
to institute an EPA-wtde procedure for
1 Null- mat section 1101 a H2I of the Of in Air AI.I
"quires that 'The Administrator snail, within four
"••-..-< jt'ter the 0*(e required for suumiuion of*
'•s'i'! .i"-rcv«. or disapprove such |SIP| for each
r ~i--n Thereof." Under me Agency s preteni
BTOcei'inii workload, aucfl a tMM limit ta literally
imt>o$i.,i)ie to meet for aij but We most trivial of
•(-iions. OA maintains thai this deadline doe* not
«fr>u 'n SIP revisions, but rather only to 'he imtui
^P s >mmed after EPA promuliates a NAAQS.
• t-jurts have supported EPA s position, other
1 - nave n»id irui a 4-month review penoo
•'• '-stun SlPrev.sion
completeness review of all SIP
submittals.
CompletaaeM Review
In order to free EPA resources that
would otherwise be consumed in
processing incomplete and inherently
unapprovable SIPs, EPA has created a
completeness review process. Under this
process. EPA will review a SIP for
completeness when it is initially
submitted to determine if all the
necessary components have been
included to allow the agency to properly
review and act oa the substance of the
SIP revision. This will be a quick screen
that will assess the reviewability of a
SIP submittai. not its ultimate
apprevability. EPA will then promptly
inform the submitting State whether the
agency will proceed to process the SIP
revision or if it must be modified by the
State bet e it is incomplete.
There are several benefits to an early
determination of completeness. First the
State is informed promptly as to the
reviewability of the submittai a current
source of uncertainty in the SIP process.
Second. SIP submittals that are
inadequate for processing are returned
to the State to be corrected, rather than
going through the review process only to
be disapproved because of a lack of
information. Third, unreviewable SIPs
are removed from the process early so
that resources at the Federal level are
allocated to processing only SIPs that
are adequate for review. Finally, the
completeness criterial provide the States
with guidelines on how to prepare'
reviewable SIPs. It is expected that once
the agencies involved (State and local
EPA) become accustomed to the
completeness review process, the
number of unreviewable submittals will
diminish sharply.
Screening criteria have been
developed that define the essential
elements of an acceptable package, that
will avoid obvious inadequacies, and
that can be applied uniformly with
limited subjective judgement and
review. The criteria were developed by
EPA Regional Offices already using a
list of criteria to determine completeness
of SIP packages in an informal way. On
March 18.1988 a policy for determining
completeness of SIP submittals was
issued by Gerald A. Emison. Director.
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPSJ. to the Regional
Offices (a copy has been placed in the
docket as item II-B-»). The policy
includes basic criteria for determining
completeness, and sample letters for
accepting and rejecting SIP submittals.
This policy will be followed by EPA
until today's proposed regulation is
made final.
As pan of this action, the
Administrator is proposing to add these
criteria for determining the
completeness of State submittals to 40
CFR Part 31 as Appendix V. In addition.
EPA proposes to modify { S1.103(a) such
that State submissions that do not meet
the criteria are not considered official
plan submissions for purposes of
meeting the requirements of Part 51. In
order to be considered as a complete SIP
submission or an official submission for
Part 51. each plan must meet the criteria
described below and in Appendix V.
The basic criteria are adaptable for use
in parallel processing of State
regulations by EPA.*
EPA is creating this completeness
review process under the authority of
Section 301 of the Clean Air Act which
authorizes the Administrator to
prescribe such regulations as are
necessary to carry out his functions
under the Act EPA is interpreting the
terms -plan" in section 110(a)(l) and (2)
and "revision" in Section H0(a)(3) to be
only those plans and revisions that
contain all of the components necessary
to allow EPA to a adequately review
and take action on such plan or revision
under section 110 (and. where
applicable. Part D). EPA believes that
Congress would not have intended to
require EPA to review and take action
on SIP submittals that were simply not
reviewable because they were lacking
important components. Therefore, the
Administrator concludes that Section
llOfa) requires him to act only on
complete State submittals.
Completeness Criteria
The criteria for determining whether a
submittai by the State is complete have
been separated Into two categories: (a)
Administrative information and (b)
technical support information.
Administrative information includes the
documentation necessary to
demonstrate that the basic
administrative procedures have been
adhered to by the State during the
adoption process. Technical support
information includes the documentation
that adequately identifies all of the
required technical components of the
plan submission.
Administrative Information
The administrative information
required by the criteria are those basic
»Parallel processing is » procedure by which EPA
processes. «s a proposal. Suite rut« which nave not
yet been fully adopted oy the State in order to
axpetliw me final review prows*.
-------
2140
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 12 / Thursday. January 19. 1989 / Proposed Rules
document! that demonstrate that the
State has properly followed the
administrative requirements called for
by the Clean Air Act for the adoption of
State implementation plans. These
include a letter from the Governor or his
designee requesting that EPA approve
the SIP revision, and evidence that the
revision has been adopted by the State
in final form, either as part of the State
code if the revision is a regulation, or as
appropriate source specific
documentation in the form of a permit
order, or a consent agreement. The State
also must provide documentation that
the necessary legal authority exists
within the State to adopt and implement
the plan revision, must include the
requisite copies of the actual revision
(regulation, permit order, etc.). and must
indicate that the revision is enforceable
by the State. Finally, the State must
submit information indicating that the
program administrative procedures have
been followed, including evidence of
public notice and hearings, a
compilation of the public comments, and
the State's response to these comments.
Technical Support
The purpose of the technical support
information is to identify the State's
view of the impact of the revision on the
environment. The components are
intended to demonstrate that the
applicable requirements, such as those
for attainment and maintenance of
ambient standards, increment
consumption, and control technology.
are in conformance with basic statutory
and EPA requirements. In order for EPA
to make a reasonable decision
concerning the adequacy of a proposed
SIP revision, certain information at a
minimum must be included in each
submittal. Therefore, for purposes of
determining the completeness of a SIP
submission the implementation plan
revision must include an adequate
description of the:
(aI Pollutants involved:
(b) Source location and attainment
status of the area:
(c) Emissions chances:
(d) Demonstration that standards/
increments are protected;
(c) Information used for any modeling
demonstration:
if) Evidence of continuous emissions
controls:
(g) Evidence of emissions limitations
ana other restrictions necessary to
ensure emission levels:
(h) Compliance strategies: and
(i) Technological and economic
justification for the change where
applicable.
L'pon receipt of the plan revision, the
Regional Office will objectively examine
the revision for inclusion of the
administrative and technical support
information. When the revision is
determined complete, the formal review
of the adequacy of the information and
the approvability of the revision will
proceed In those situations where the
submission does not meet the basic
criteria as discussed above and set forth
in Part 51. Appendix V, the submission
will be returned to the State with a letter
indicating the deficiencies found. In
accordance with the change proposed in
40 CFR 51.103(a), any submission that
does not meet the criteria of Appendix V
will not be considered an official
submission triggering the Act's
requirements for EPA review and action.
Hie basic requirements are similar for
sequential and parallel processing.
varying only in form dictated by the
method of processing. In order to be
effective, the determination of
completeness should be made
expeditiously. The Regional Office
generally will make • determination of
completeness within 45 days of
receiving a SIP revision, using the
criteria to make an objective decision.
After the decision has been made on
completeness, the Regional Offices will
process the SIP revision if the
submission is complete, or return the SIP
revision to the State if it is incomplete.
A letter will be sent to the State.
informing the State of the completeness
status of the SIP revision. If a SIP
submittal is incomplete, the deficiencies
will be detailed in the letter to the State.
If a SIP submittal is complete, the
Regional Office will include EPA's
expected processing schedule in the
letter to the State.
Administrative Requirement*
The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information
considered by EPA in the development
of these SIP processing changes. The
docket is a dynamic file because
material is added throughout the notice
preparation and comment process. The
docketing system is intended to allow
members of the public and industries
involved to identify and locate
documents so that they can effectively
participate in the process. Along with
the statement of basis and purpose of
the SIP processing changes and EPA
responses to significant comments, the
contents of the docket, except for
interagency review materials, will serve
as the record in case of judicial review
(see Clean Air Act. section 307(d)(7)(A).
42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7KA).
Section 317(a) of the Gean Air Act. 42
U.S.C. 7617(a). states that economic
impact assessments are required for
revisions to standards or regulations
when the Administrator determines such
revisions to be substantial. The changes
described today do not change the
substantive requirements for preparing
and submitting an adequate SIP
package. No increase in cost as a result
of complying with the changes described
today is expected; moreover, the
monitoring, recordkeeping. and reporting
requirements have been determined to
be insubstantial. Because the expected
economic effect of the changes is not
substantial, no detailed economic
impact assessment has been prepared.
The information collection
requirements of these changes are
considered to be no different than those
currently required by the Clean Air Act
and EPA procedures. Thus, the public
reporting burden resulting from today's
notice is estimated to be unchanged
from existing requirements. The public
is invited to send comments regarding
the burden estimate or other aspect of
information collection, including
suggestions for reducing any burden, to
the docket and the following: Chief.
Information Policy Branch. PM-223. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M
Street SW.. Washington. DC 20460: and
to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs. Office of
Management and Budget Washington.
DC 20503. marked "Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA."
Under Executive Order 12291. EPA is
required to judge whether an action is
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a regulatory impact
analysis (RIA). The Agency has
determined that the SIP processing
changes announced today would result
in none of the-significant adverse
economic effects set forth in section l(b)
of the Order as grounds for a finding of
"major." The Agency has. therefore.
concluded that this action is not a
"major" action under Executive Order
12291.
This rule was submitted to OMB for
review consistent with section 307(d) of
the Clean Air Act. A copy of the draft
rule as submitted to OMB. any
documents accompanying the draft, any
written comment received from other
agencies (including OMB), and any
written responses to those comments
have been included in the docket.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of I960,
5 U.S.C. 601-612. requires the
identification of potentially adverse
impacts of Federal actions upon small
business entities. The Ac: requires the
completion of a regulator}* flexibility
analysis for every action unless the
Administrator certifies that the action
will not have a significant economic
impact on u substantial numDer of small
-------
Fextoral Reguter / Vol. 54. No. 12 / Thursday. January 19. 1989 / Proposed Rules 2111
entities. For reasons described above. I
hereby certify that the final rule will not
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Date: January 9.1989.
Lee M. Thomas.
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble. 40 CFR Part 51 is proposed to
be amended as follows:
PART 51-{ AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 51
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Thi» rulemaking is promulgated
under Authority of Sections 10l(b)(l). 110.
160-69. m-178. and 301(i) of the dean Air
Act 42 U.S.C. 7401 (b)(l). 7410. 7420-7429.
7501-7506. and 7801(«).
2. Section 51.103 is proposed to be
amended by revising paragraph (a)
introductory text to read as follows:
} 31.103 gubmieelon of psam. prettnsnary
review of psene»
(a) The State makes an official plan
submission to EPA when the plan
conforms to the requirements of
Appendix V to this part and the State
delivers five copies of the plan to the
appropriate Regional office, with a letter
giving notice of such action. The State
must adopt the plan and the Governor or
his design** must submit it to EPA as
follows:
• • • • •
3. Part 51 is proposed to be amended
by adding Appendix V to read as
follows:
Appendix V—Criteria for Determining
the Completeness of Plan Submissions.
1.0. Purpose
This Appendix V teti forth the minimum
criteria for determining whether a State
implementation plan submitted for
consideration by EPA it an official
submission for purpose of review under
{ 51.103.
1.1. The EPA shall return to the submitting
official any plan or revision thereof which
fails to meet the criteria set forth in this
Appendix V. or otherwise request corrective
dctiun. identifying the componemlsl absent
or insufficient to perform a review of the
submitted plan.
1.2. The EPA shall inform the submitting
official when a plan submission meets the
requirements of this Appendix V. tuch
determination resulting in the plan being an
nffi'.ial submission for purposes of J 51.103.
2.0 Criteria
The following shall be included in plan
•".^missions for review by EPA:
2.1. Administrative Materials
lai A formal letter of submittal from the
Governor or his designee. requesting EPA
approval of the plan or revision trterwof
;rvi!
-------
EPA-450/2-78-027R
Guideline On Air Quality Models
(Revised)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. NC 27711
July 1986
-------
EPA-450/2-78-027R
SUPPLEMENT A
JULY 1987
SUPPLEMENT A
TO THE
GUIDELINE
ON
AIR QUALITY MODELS (REVISED)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office Of Air And Radiation
Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
PN
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
January 2, 1985
f€HORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regional Implementation of Modeling Guidance
FROM: Joseph A. Tilcvart, Chief
Source Receptor Analysis Branch, MOAO {MD-14)
TO: Regional Modeling Contact, Regions I-X
Attached for your use is information on the implementation of modeling
guidance. Attachment 1 is an excerpt of a memorandum from J. Wilburn to 0. Tyler
(dated November 13. 1984) which identifies several issues. Attachment Z
provides our response to these issues.
It is our intent that the response merely reiterate the way in which we
understand modeling guidance to be routinely implemented by all Regional Offices.
however, having formalized that understanding, we believe that its circulation
is desirable. If you have any questions, please call me.
Attachments
»
cc: Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions, I-X
B. Turner
,/D. Wilson
-------
Attachment 1
(Excerpt of Memorandum from J. Wilburn to D. Tyler. Dated November 13. 1984)
As discussed in this memo, we are quite concerned as to our credibility
regarding the development and approval of SIP revisions and bubbles which
consider complicated and involved modeling. While our Armco experience may
be viewed by some as atypical, we feel that the problem is real enough to the
point that we request guidance on the following three .questions:
1. When do changes in EPA modeling procedures become official Agency
policy? Do such forms as informal modeling protocols and consensus
opinions developed at meteorologist meetings and workshops constitute
official Agency policy? If so, how is management at the regional
division and branch level informed of those decisions (i.e., are such
decisions communicated by policy memorandum or must regional manage-
ment be dependent upon regional participants at such meetings and
workshops to accurately convey OAQPS's policy decisions)?
2. How do changes in Agency modeling policy affect in progress modeling
analyses? Do policy changes In modeling procedures invalidate
modeling protocols which accurately reflected modeling policy at the
initiation of ongoing modeling analyses? If so, we would appreciate
copies of all policy memorandums which communicated such policies.
3. Will it be necessary in order for Armco's bubble application to be
concurred with by OAQPS, for Region IV to require Armco to submit a
fourth revision to their modeling procedures which would provide an
analysis of the 46 days with more than 6 hours of calm which have
thus far been deleted for the submittal pursuant to the original
protocol? If so, we would like an explanation of the rationale for
this requirement in light of our discussion in this inemo.
-------
Attachment 2
(Excerpt of Memorandum from R. Rhoads to J. Wllbum, Dated December 24, 1984)
Regarding your first question: Changes In EPA modeling procedures
become official Agency guidance when (1) they are published as regulations
or guidelines, (2) they are formally transmitted as guidance to Regional
Office managers, (3) they are formally transmitted to Regional Modeling
Contacts as the result of a Regional consensus on technical Issues, or
(4) they are a result of decisions by the Model Clearinghouse that effec-
tively set a national precedent. In the last case, such issues and deci-
sions are routinely forwarded to all of the Regional Modeling Contacts.
In order for this system to work, the Regional Modeling Contacts must be
actively involved in all Regional modeling Issues and they must be con-
sulted on modeling guidance as necessary by other Regional personnel.
Regarding your second question: The time at which changes in
modeling guidance affect on-going modeling analyses 1s a function of the
type of agreement under which those analyses are being conducted. On-going
analyses should normally be "grandfathered" if (1) there 1s a written pro-
tocol with a legal or regulatory basis (such as the Lovett Power Plant) or
(2) the analysis 1s complete and regulatory action 1s imminent or underway.
If the analysis is based on a less formal agreement and is underway, the
Regional Office should inform the source operators of the change and deter-
mine whether the change can be Implemented without serious disruption to
the analysis. If for some reason any previous analysis must be redone,
then 1t should be redone in accordance with current modeling guidance. In
any event, consequences of falling to Implement current guidance should be
discussed with the OAQPS staff (Helms/Tikvart) to ensure that Inappropriate
commitments are not made by the Regional Office.
Regarding your third question: As previously discussed with your
staff, the recent Armco modeling analysis is technically inadequate and
not approvable so long as the approximately 46 days with calms are
ignored. At the time the original protocol was developed, the deletion
of calms was common practice because we had no consensus on technically
valid procedures for addressing calms. However, (largely due to the
assistance of RO IV staff In developing a technical solution to the
calms issue) this practice was discontinued by consensus of the Regional
Modeling Contacts who recommended*immediate implementation of the new
procedures (see Joe Tlkvart's June 13, 1983, memo to Regional Modeling
Contacts). The subsequent Armco analysis which ignored calms was, there-
fore, deficient since there is no rationale for "grandfather!ng" an analy-
sis which was Initiated after the new calms guidance was disseminated.
This issue is no longer an issue since Armco has already submitted a
reanalysis that addresses the calms Issue.
-------
June 7, 1988
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT Revised Model Clearinghouse Operational Plan
FROM: Joseph A. Tikvart, Chief
Source Receptor Analysis Branch (MO- 14)
TO: Chief, Air Branch, Region VII
Chief, Technical Support Branch, Region I
Chief, Air and Radiation Branch, Region V
Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions II, III, IV, VI, VIII, IX, X
On February. 9, 1988 I notified you of the expansion of the Model
Clearinghouse to include all criteria pollutants. That memorandum
explained briefly how the expanded Clearinghouse would operate and
identified individuals in the Technical Support Division and in the Air
Quality Management Division who would be Involved in resolving Agency
regulatory modeling issues. The memorandum also promised that we would
be revising the 1981 Operational Plan for the Model Clearinghouse to reflect
the current operation. Attached is a copy of that revised plan.
To highlight major functions of the operational plan which you should
become most familiar with, please note the structure of the Clearinghouse
contained in Section 3, particularly Figure 1. Also you should become
familiar with the procedures for referring modeling issues to the
Clearinghouse, described in Section 4. Appendix B identifies the contacts
in the Regions for various types of modeling problems. Please check over
these lists for accuracy and keep us informed of any changes of these
personnel in your Region.
It should be remembered that the Model Clearinghouse is a service
we provide to the Regional Offices. We do not normally deal directly with
the State/local agencies or with industry since this would compromise our
function as second level reviewers and would interfere with your function.
However we have discussed access by States to Clearinghouse expertise
through the Regional Offices. Where a State wishes such a contact, we
urge your staff to work closely with their State counterparts to establish
a mutally agreed-upon position on the issue-.
Finally, for purposes of responding to questions from States and local
agencies about the Clearinghouse and its operation, we have no problem if
you wish to furnish them with a copy of this plan. For questions from the
public we would prefer that you instead provide them with a copy of Appendix C,
a separate copy of which is attached. This Appendix is a revised version
of a flyer we have distributed for a number of years at the EPA booth at
the annual APCA meeting.
-------
EPA Model Clearinghouse
Summary
The Model Clearinghouse is the single EPA focal point for reviewing the use of
modeling techniques for criteria pollutants In specific regulatory applications.
The Clearinghouse also serves to compile and periodically report for Regional
Office benefit Agency decisions concerning deviations from the requirements of the
"Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised).'
Need for the Model Clearinghouse
The Guideline states that when a recommended model or data base is not used,
the Regional Administrator may approve the use of other techniques that are demon-
strated to be more appropriate. However, there is also a need to provide for a
mechanism that promotes fairness and consistency In modeling decisions among the
various Regional Offices and the States. The Model Clearinghouse promotes this
fairness and uniformity and also serves as a focal point for technical review of
"nonguideline" techniques proposed for use/approval by a Regional Administrator.
Functions of the Model Clearinghouse
The major function of the Clearinghouse Is to review specific proposed actions
which involve interpretation of modeling guidance, deviations from strict interpre-
tation of such guidance and the use of options In the guidance, e.g., Regional
Office acceptance of nonguideline models and data bases. This is handled in two
ways: (1) the Clearinghouse, on request from the Regional Office, will review the
Region's position on proposed (specific case) use of a nonguideline model for tech-
nical soundness and national consistency, and (2) the Clearinghouse will screen
Federal Register regulatory packages for adherence to modeling policy and make
recommendations for resolution of any Issues identified.
A secondary function of the Model Clearinghouse is to communicate to regu-
latory model users in EPA significant decisions Involving the Interpretation of
modeling guidance. This is accomplished through an annual "Clearinghouse Report"
which itemizes the significant decisions that have been made and the circumstances
involved. This report serves to improve consistency in future decisions and as
a source of technical information for the Regional Offices. In addition to the
annual report the Clearinghouse informs users on a contemporary basis of signi-
ficant decisions through copies of written decisions and briefings at various
meetings and workshops.
Structure of the Clearinghouse
The Clearinghouse is formally located in the Source Receptor Analysis Branch
(SRAB) of OAQPS. However, the Air Quality Management Division (AQMD) also parti-
cipates in Clearinghouse matters involving SIP attainment strategies and other
regulatory functions.
The primary responsibility for managing the Clearinghouse and ensuring that
all of its functions are carried out is performed by a person full-time within
SRAB. The responsibility for responding to requests for review of modeling
issues is assigned, on a pollutant/program basis to three SRAB individuals. In
.addition, AQMO supports the Clearinghouse with staff who are also knowledgeable in
modeling policy. These individuals are responsible for screening SIP submittals
and related documents, referring modeling issues to SRAB through the Clearinghouse
and documenting the final (and any significant interim) decision on disposition of
tne issues.
Communi cati on Chai n
The Model Clearinghouse functions within the organizational structure of EPA.
As such the Clearinghouse serves the EPA Regional Offices. It coordinates with
and communicates decisions to the Regional Offices. Any coordination with State
and local agencies and individual sources on Clearinghouse activities is a function
of t.u.e EPA Regional Offices.
Cl
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4.3
-------
EPA-450/2-78-027R
Guideline On Air Quality Models
(Revised)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. NC 27711
July 1986
-------
*»-
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
February 15, 1989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Modeling Requirements for Pennsylvania Power and Light
(PP&L), Martins Creek, Pennsylvania
FROM: Robert D. Bauman, Chief
SO,/Particulate Matter Programs Branch (MD-15)
TO: Joseph Tikvart, Chief
Source Receptor \nalysis Branch (MD-14)
This is in response to a memorandum dated January 4, 1989 from
Al Cimorelli, Region 3, to Dean Wilson of your branch. Since this
appears to be more of a policy than a technical issue, my branch
agreed to prepare a response.
Region 3 is asking if EPA policy would allow PP&L's modeling
analysis to address only the designated nonattainment area in
Warren County, New Jersey. If so, it might be possible to
reclassify the Warren County area to attainment without an
evaluation of PP&L's impact outside the Warren County nonattainment
area. Additionally, the Region has asked if a redesignation for
Warren County could proceed independent of any revision to the
Pennsylvania SIP, in the event the modeling analysis shows Warren
County to be attainment but shows a modeled violation in
Pennsylvania.
The Guideline on Air Quality Models fRevised^ ( Guideline 1 on
page 1-3 states that the current guidance should be followed in all
air quality analyses relative to State implementation plans and in
analyses required by EPA, State and local agency air programs. This
policy is consistent with stack height implementation policy and
general guidance found in a January 2, 1985 memorandum from SRAB
to the regional modeling contacts. Guidance contained in the
Guideline recommends on page 9-8 that "all sources expected to
cause a significant concentration gradient in the vicinity of the
source or sources under consideration for emission limit(s) should
be explicitly modeled." On page 3-4, the Guideline states that
"Receptor sites for refined modeling should be utilized in
sufficient detail to estimate the highest concentrations and
possible violations of a NAAQS or a PSD increment."
-------
I believe that application of guidance noted above does not
allow a partial modeling analysis. If a modeling analysis is
required for any reason, that analysis must meet the requirements
of the Guideline.
Redesignation policy is generally contained in the April 21,
1983 memorandum from Sheldon Meyers to the Regional Air Directors.
That policy includes requirements for a modeling analysis
demonstrating attainment and evidence of implementation of the
approved SIP. As noted by Region 3, PPtL's analysis may show
violations at locations outside of the designated nonattainment
area, while demonstrating an absence of violations within the
nonattainment area. In such an event, the existing SIP may be
judged adequate to demonstrate attainment in Warren County and an
action to redesignate the area to attainment could proceed before
the State completes the necessary effort to resolve the violations
outside the nonattainment area. While separate rulemaJcing actions
are possible, it may be more efficient to consolidate the
redesignation and SZP revision actions whenever possible.
I trust that this memorandum is responsive to Region 3's
concerns. If you need any additional information, please call me.
cc: A. Cimorelli, Region 3
uJK^Ginsburg, OAQPS/AQMD
D. Grano, OAQPS/AQMD
S. Sambol, Region 2
D. Wilson, OAQPS/TSD
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4.7
-------
EPA-450/2-78-027R
Guideline On Air Quality Models
(Revised)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. NC 27711
July 1986
-------
REFEn£NCES FOR SECTION 5.1
-------
2T8S2 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 130 / Monday. July 8. 1985 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 51
Stack Height Regulation
AGENCY: Er.-. .ror.ner,' i! Proicr.non
Aocr.c;. (EPA).
ACTION: Final rulerr.akmg
SUMMARY: Section 123 of the Clean Air
Art. as amended, requires EPA to
promulgate regulations to ensure that
t.'.e aearee of emission limitation
required for tne control of any air
pollutant under an applicable State
implementation plan (SIP) is not
affected by that portion of any suck
height which exceeds euod engineering
practice (CEP', or by any other
dispersion technique. A regulation
implementing section 123 was
prornviigstetl on February a. 1982. at 47
FR 5664. Revisions to the regulation
were proposed on November 9. 1964. at
49 FR 44878. Today's action incorporates
changes to '.he proposal and adopts this
regulation in final form.
iFMcnvt OATt: This regulation
becomes effective on August 7. 1985.
TOM njNTMffJt INFORMATION CONTACT:
Eric O. Ginsburg. MEM 5. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. EPA,
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
27711. Telephone (919) 541-5540.
, SUPPUMINTANV INFORMATION:
Docket Stati
Pertinent information concerning this
regulation is included in Docket Number
A-83-49. The docket is open for public
inspection between the hours of 8KJO
a.m. and 4:00 p.m.. Monday through
Friday, at the EPA Central Docket
Section. West Tower Lobby. Gallery
One. 401 M Street. SW.. Washington,
D.C. Background documents normally
available to the public, such as Federal
Register nonces and Congressional
reports, are not included in the docket
A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying uocumenis.
Background
States
Section 123. which was added to the
Clean Air Act by the 1977 Amendments.
regulates the manner in which
techniques for disperson of pollutants
from a source may be considered in
setting emission limitations. Specifically,
section 123 requires that the degree of
emission limitation shall not be affected
by that portion of a stack which exceeds
CEP or by "any other dispersion
technique." It defines CEP. with respect
to stack heights as:
thi height ntc«*Mry to insure that emissions
from the tuck do not result in excesxve
concentrations of any air pollutant ia the
immediate vicinity of the source as a renult of
atmospheric downwash eddies or wakes
which may be created Sy the source itself.
nearby structures or nearby terrain obstacles
. . . (Section UBIcll
Section 123 further provides that CEP
stack height shall not exceed two and
one-halt times the heigh! of the source
(2.5H) unless a demonstration is
performed showing that a higher stack is
needed to avoid "excessive
concentrations." As the legislative
history of section 123 makes clear, this
reference to a two and one-half times
test reflects the established practice of
using a formula for determining the GEP
stack height needed to avoid excessive
downwash. Finally, section 123 provides
that the Administrator shall regulate
only stack height credits—that is. the
portion of the stack height used in
calculating an emission limitation—
rather than actual stack heights.
With respect to "other dispersion
techniques" for which emission
limitation credit is restricted, the statute
is less specific. It states only that tne
term shall include intermittent and
supplemental control systems (ICS.
SCS). but otherwise leaves the definition
of that term to the discretion of the
Administrator.
Thus the statute delegates to the
Administrator the responsibility for
defining key phrases, including
"excessive concentrations" and
"nearby." with respect to both
structures and terrain obstacles, and
"other dispersion techniques." The
Administrator must also define the
requirements of an adequate
demonstration justifying stack height
credits in excess of the 2.5H formula.
Rule/rating and Litigation
On February 8.1982 (47 FR 5864). EPA
promulgated final regulations limiting
stack height credits and other dispersion
techniques. Information concerning the
development of the regulation was
included in Docket Number A-79-01 and
is available for inspection at the EPA
Central Docket Section. This regulation
was challenged in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C Circuit by the
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. Incj the
Natural Resources Defense Council Inc.:
and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
in Sierra Club v. EPA. 719 F. 2d 436. On
October 11.1983. the court issued its
decision ordering EPA to reconsider
portions of the stack height regulation.
reversing certain portions and upholding
other portions. Further discussion of the
court decision is provided later in th:s
notice.
Administrative Proceedings Subseqiir-n
to the Conn Decision
On December 19.1933. EPA held a
public meeting to take comments to
assist the Agenry m implementing the
mandate of the court. This meeting was
announced in the Federal Register on
December 8.1983. at 48 FR 54999.
Comments r*ce;ved by EPA are
included in Docket NUT.:.*: A-33-J9 On
Februar. iB. 1984. the eiectr.c power
industry filed a petition f j: a \i nt of
cerforar with the U.S Suprem* Court
While the petition was per,.':r.g before
the court, the mandate frj.r. the U.S.
Court of Appeals was stayed. On Juiv 2,
1964. the Supreme Cour denied the
petition (104 S.Ct. 3571). and on July 18.
1964. the Court of Appeals mandate
was formally issued, implementing the
court's decision and requiring EPA 10
promulgate revisions to the stack height
regulations within 6 months. The
promulgation deadline was ultimately
extended to June 27.1985. in order to
provide additional opportunities for
public comment to allow EPA to hold a
public hearing on January 8,1985. and to
provide additional time for EPA to
complete its analysis of rulemaking
alternatives.
Documents
In conjunction with the 1982
regulation and this revision. EPA
developed several technical and
guidance documents. These served as
background information for the
regulation, and are included in Dockets
A-79-01 and A-83-49. The following
documents have been or will be placed
in the National Technical Information
Service (NTIS) system and may be
obtained by contacting NTIS at 5285
Port Royal Road. Springfield. Virginia
22161.
(1) "Guideline for Use of Fluid
Modeling to Determine Good
Engineering Stack Height." )uly 1981.
EPA. Office of Air Quality Plannin; and
Standards. EPA-450/4-81-003 (NTIS
PB82 145327).
(2) "Guideline for Fluid Modeling of
Atmospheric Diffusion." April 1981.
EPA. Environmental Sciences Research
laboratory. EPA-600/8-01-009 (NTiS
PB81 201410).
(3) "Guidance for Determination of
Good Engineering Practice Stack Height
(Technical Support Document for the
Stack Height Regulation)." Me 1985
EPA. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. EPA-«SO/4-*)-o:3R.
(4) "Determination of Good
Engineering Practice Stack Height—A
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 130 / Monday. July 8. 1985 / Rules and Regulations
27893
Fluid Model Demonstration Study for a
Power Plant." April 1983. EPA.
Environmental Sciences Research
Laboratory. EPA-600/ 3-83-024 (NT1S
PB83 207407).
(5) "Fluid Modeling Demonstration of
Cood-Engineenng-Practice Stack Height
in Complex Terrain." April 1985. EPA
Atmospheric Sciences Research
Laboratory. EPA/600/3-85/022 (NTiS
PB85 203107).
In addition, the following documents
are available in Docket A-83-49.
"Economic Impact Assessment for
Revisions to the EPA Stack Height
Regulation." June 1985.
"Effect of Terrain-Induced Downwash
on Determination of Good-Enginering-
Practice Stack Height" July 1984,
Central
The problem of air pollution can be
approached in either of two ways:
through reliance on a technology-based
program that mandates specific control
requirements (either control equipment
or control efficiencies) irrespective of
ambient pollutant concentrations, or
through aa air quality based system that
relies on ambient air quality levels to
determine the allowable rates of
emissions. The .dean Air Act
incorporates bod) approaches, but the
SIP program under section 110 uses an
air quality-based approach to establish
emission limitations for sources.
Implicitly, this approach acknowledges
and is based on the normal dispersion of
pollutants from their points of origin into
the atmosphere prior to measurements
of ambient concentrations at ground
level
There are two general methods for
preventing violations of the national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
and prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) increments.
Continuous emission controls reduce on
a continuous basis the quantity, rate, or
concentrations of pollutants released
into the atmosphere from e source. In
contrast dispersion techniques rely on
the dispersive effects of the atmosphere
to carry pollutant emissions away from
the source in order to prevent high .
concentrations of pollutants near the
source. Section 123 of the Clean Air Act
limits the use of dispersion techniques
by pollution sources to meet the NAAQS
or PSD increments.
Tall stacks, manipulation of exhaust
gas parameters, and varying the rate of
emissions based on atmospheric
conditions (ICS and SCS) are the basic
types of dispersion techniques. Tall
stacks enhance dispersion by releasing
pollutants into the air at elevations high
above ground level, thereby providing
greater mixing of pollutants into the
atmosphere. The result is to dilute the
pollutant levels and reduce die
concentrations of the pollutant at ground
level without reducing the total amount
of pollution nleased Manipulation of
exhaust gas parameters increases die
plume rise from die source to achieve
similar results. ICS and SCS vary a
source's rate of emissions to take
advantage of meteorologic conditions.
When conditions favor rapid dispersion.
the source emits pollutants at higher
rates, aad whea conditions an adverse.
emission rates are reduced Use of
dispersion techniques in lieu of constant
emission controls results ia additional
atmospheric loadings of pollutants aad
can iacnase die possibility that
pollution will travel bag distances
befora nechiag the ground
Although ovemiiance oa dispersion
techniques may produce edverse effects.
some use of die dispersive properties of
. the atmosphere has loag been aa
important factor ia air pollution control
For example, some stack height is
needed to prevent excessive pollutant
concentrations near a source. When
wind meets aa obstacle such as a hill or
a building, a turbulent region of
downwash. wakes, aad eddies ia
created downwind of die obstacle as the
wind passes over and around it This
caa force a plume rapidly to die ground
resulting in excessive concentrations of
pollutants near dw source. As discussed
previously, section 123 TMgnirtt tiiese
phenomena and responds by allowing
calculation of emiesioa limitation with
explicit consideratioa of that portion of
a source's stack diet is needed to ensun
that excessive concentrations due to
downwash will not be created near die
source. This height is called CEP stack
Summary of tin Court Aeasmn
Petitions for review of EPA's 1982
regulation wen died in the D.C Circuit
within the statutory time period
following promulgation of the regulation.
On October 11.1983. the court issued its
decision ordering EPA to reconsider
portions of the stack height regulation.
ravening certain portions and upholding
others. The following is a summary of
the court decision.
The EPA's 1982 rale provided three
weys to determine CEP stack height
One wey was to calculate the height by
using a formula based on the
dimensions of^nearby structures. The
other two wen a dt tniniaiii height of 85
meters, and die height determined by e
fluid modeling demonstration or field
study. The court endorsed the formula
as a starting point 10 determine CEP
height However, it held that EPA has
not demonstrated that the formula was
aa accurate predictor of the stack heigh
needed to avoid "excessive
concentrations of pollutants due to
downwash. Accordingly, the court
directed EPA to re-examine in three
ways the conditions under which
exceptions to the general rule of formula
reliance could be justified
Tint the 1982 rule allowed a source to
justify raising its stack above formula
height by showing a 40-percent increase
in concentrations due to downwash.
wakes, or eddies, on die ground that this
waa Ute percentage increase that the
formula avoided The court found this
hiatification insufficient and reminded
the definition to EPA with instructions
> to make It directly responsive to health
aad welfan considerations.
Similarly, the 1982 rule allowed a
source that built a stack to less than
formula height to raise it to formula
height automatically. Once agem. the
court required more justification that
such a step was needed to avoid
advene heelth or welfan effects.
Finally, the court directed EPA either
to allow the authorities administering
dM stack height regulations to require
modeling by sources in other cases as a
check oa possible error ia die formula.
or explaiB why die accuracy of the
formula made such a step unnecessary.
The 1982 rule provided two formulae
to calculate CEP stack height For
sourcejs coBemcted OB or before
January 12,1979. the date of initial
propeaa4 of the stack height regulations.
die applicable formula wee 24 times the
height of die source or odier nearby
structure. For sources constructed after
that data, the- nde specified e newer.
refined formula, the height of the source
or other nearby stnictun plus 1.5 times
die height or width of that structure.
whichever ia lew (H+14L). The EPA
baaed Its decision- to include two
formulae oa die unfairness of applying
the new formula retroactively. In its
examination of this issue, the court
specified four factors mat influence
whether aa agency has a duty to apply t
rule retroactively. They are:
t. Whether th« new rale reprtMnis in
abrupt departure from wtil established
precaceor merely attempts to fill • void >n an
UBMttibd 4tfM of 1*1 W.
2. The extent to which the party against
whom the new ntie ia applied relied on the
former nil*.
1 The degree of burden which • retroactive
order Imposes on a parry, and
4. The statutory interest In applying • new
rule despite the rehejwe of a party on the oi
-------
27M4
Fadwal
/ Vol SO. No. 130 f Monday, fury a. 1965 / Rajes and RaguJariona
719 Fid «l 467 (citatiotu oautted).
Applying this analysis to the two
formulae, tba court upheld EPA's baste
decision.
However, the court also held that
sources constructed on or be/ore
January 12.1979. should not be
automatically entitled to fufl credit
calculated under the Z.5H formula unless
they could demonstrate reliance on that
formula. The court remanded this
provision- for revision to tafc* actual
reliance* on the 2.5H formula into
account.
The statute limits stack height eredH
to that needed to avoid excessive
concentrations doe ta> dowiiwssli ceased
tdthia
by "nearby" stiacturae or tetreiD
feature*. The 19K regv
"nearby* for GEPforaraia apoMeaffoae
as five tinea the lataar of striker tbe
height or projected width at the
structuio rsusing. dowawaak oat la
exceed naa self na*. Nosudi dartaaca
limitation waa placed aa structures or
terraia feature* whose effects ware
being considered in Quid -^^^-f
demonstrations or field stadias. The
court held that secuoa 123 explicitly
applies the "aearby" limitation to
demonstrations and studies aa weft aa
formate applications. sad ~*"»Hy* tha
rule to ETA to appty tha Umttatfea ia
both contexts.
The 198T rule defined "dTspenioo
techniques" aa those techniques which
attempt to effect poflutant
concentrations ay esiBg mef portfoa of a
stack exceeding GEP. by varying
emission ratee actmdlag te> aBuueyfceih.
conditiofia or pollutant conceatretiene,
or by the eddlttoa of a fan or roaoeterto
obtain a tees suiiigiim sauseiea
limitation. The court found this
definition too narrow becaoae an*
technique "agnficandy ataOTatad ay aa)
intent to gain emissions credit for
greater dispersion" should be barred
T19 F.2d 462. As a result, the caart
directed EPA to develop nissa
disallowing credit for ail each dtsaenioa
techniques unless die Agencp
adequately jasOfied cxcepsssaa oa the
basis of administrative nai ssairy or eoa>
mmimis result
The CEP formulae established ia tba
1982 rule do not consider pssaaa risa.«a
the ground that plume nse is not
significant under downwash conditions.
In its review of this provision, tha court
affirmed this judgment by EPA.
The 1982 rule addressed pollutant
concentrations estimated to occur whan,
a plume impacts elevated terrain by
allowing credit for stack height
necessary to avoid ait quality vialatiooa
in such cases. However, tha caurt ruled
that section 123 did not allow EPA to
grant credit for plume impaction in,
setting eauaaioa
part of the regulation.
Tha prsasahie ta the 19«2 regukbea
provided a 22 sooth pracaaa tar Stale
iaaplameatatioo of tha ngulaliatt The
court found this period to ba contrary to
secaoa 4D64dK2> of tha Cloaa Aar Act
and reversed it
The regulatioa. following the statute.
excluded stack* "ta i
before December 31. lam from tbe CEP
requirements. However, the reguietioa
did not prohibit seurceacoastructed
after December tt. 1970. fresa sacasviat
credit foe tying iato>pra-un stacka.
Although, tha court upheld EPA's
dsuaidoo of "ta existence." ii aatad- thai
EPA had faaad to addfeas taa UOHB
issaa. Accntrliaajy the caurt reaaaadad:
this issue to SPA me juaaficaaaa.
One other arortaioa of the isaulalsna
was challenged ia tha Siena C/uo suit
The exclusioa el flares froea tha
defiaiaea of "alack," Ia Ua review of that
previaiaa. tha caurt held that HPA baa}
acted properly.
Other proviaioaa of the stack assfbi
regulatioa. such, aa the da mi'nimts stack
height estahrfsheii iiader i SLIPMI).
were not chellengari in tha suit east thua
Lia affect.
Summary of £*e> M>vew*er
to tha November 9k lata, aottca
responding, to tfn enact daciaififl,
propoasdtoredanaa&aambarof
techniques,- "nearby," aasiotbat
importaaLcoacapts. aad ptnpnsari u
Tba
dataflDiaiotl Ga7 staak haii
foQowjag ia a auaiaMcy of
that ware proposed
Tha Court of Appeals held that EPA
srred la denaiag "^sosQeeaive^
coBceasnaeoa" due taeawa.weaa.far
purposes of justifying a ssack greater
thaa formuU heighl aa aothiag more
thaa a 40-oercaat iacraaaa ia poilusaat
coacaatratBoaa ever what weald occur
in the absence of eowawaak II
i to EPA to relate tba
defiaiaoato
abaoiata lawei of ear
ba iatsraseted to
endanger health sad welfare.
to be "excaaarwa."
The EPA proposed two alternative
concentrationa." Fleet. EPA raneaatert
comment oa whether the ul asruaa
speroach adapted aa pert oitba Mat
reguladoa id feet arotecta
dangers a> aaakb aad wekmnr
secnoa ia. bi UMkeweat that sueb a
showmg could not be made. EPA
proposed a two-pett dafiaitioa of
the rfnwnwasi, wakas. or eddies
induced by nearby structures or terrain
level paiiataat eoocaa tattoos thak
(») Cause or mauibute to an
exceedanee of e NAAQ5 or spptieabie
(b) Are at least 40 percent in excess of
concentrationa projected to occur in the
absence of such structures or terrain.
features,
Definition ofGEPStudt Hnght
EPA pcoaosed to fiod that the
traditional (UH> aad refiaed {H4-1JL)
formulae ramaued proper methods for
calculating GEP stack height except EPA
prapoaad to revise its regulation to
allow EPA. tha State or local air
pollution control agency discretion to
require a farmer demonstration, using e
flekf study or fluid modal to
demonstrate GET stack height for a
source tea case where i! waa believed
that me formats may not re&afily predict
CEP height m> the case of structures that
are porous or aerodynaau*eaQy smoother
thaa block-shaped structures. R would
require a source to demoastrate the
downwasb effects of such structures
ii«jM ( ffeJdl study orffufd model before
racaiimg credft for stack height based
OB the structures. EPA also proposed
generally to aflow sources to raise
existing, stacks up to formula GEP height
without tether damonstrarlnna with tha
exception noted above fat discretionary,
Ae/iixnee oa th» iSH Formula
Inital9«fulea,EPAi
bndt before ^sutfryUMn. the date OB
which it propesed tha reaaadi H^l A
fonaulae. to calculate their cnMstea
UmUa haaad oa the tradeaaaai 2JH
forsaula that seaatad pseviousiy. The
court approved taia dJsarMiTiao but
ruled mat it shoaid be Uautaa la soateee
that "reaed" oa the tradibaeas foraoia.
that had ciaMed craail for stacka far
taller tha» thexlanasua provMed «*id
not bo saki to have "raked" oa it.
,EPA
i far stacks ta i
January 12,1879. sourcaa <
that taay aernaUy tauad oa the 2JH
f ormaai ia tha aaaosa of their ssacaa
before recatnaa] credit aw teal keajat ia
proposakEPA la^aeaaed eaaaaeat to
what ft should eeaaadee aa aeoaassale
-------
/ VoL 90. No. uo / Monday. July & IMS / Rule* tnd Regulation*
In its 196 rales. EPA allowed WUTCM
that modtlad the effects of tamio
obstacles on downwaata to iaeluda any
tirrain features in thair modal without
limiting thair distinct from the slack.
Tha court though parsuadad thai thi*
was a sansibla approach, siact it
•llowad tha modal to btst Approximate
reality, ruled that Congress had
intended • different result namely that
terrain features beyond H mile from the
stack should not be included in tha
modal
In response. EPA proposed, to revise
i 5U(UX3) of its regulation to limit tha
consideration of downwasa. wakes. and
eddy effects of structures and tetraia
features to theaa naturae "UMi*rf aa
batttf laaafbjr aa oafiaad ia I SLIOJ).
Under this proposal, structures and
tetraia feature* would be considered to
be "nearby-tf they occur within a
distance of not more than 04 km (H
mile): terrain features that extend
beyond waye ef
limiting terrain in the modal beyond the
proposed '*»•'•'**• limitations.
To establish a beeetina for
comparison, two alternatives woaid
initially modal tha steck on e flat plane
with no structure or terrain influences.
To analyze downwesh effects, the first
approach would then insert nearby
terrain, with aUlerrain beyond tha
distance ttmtt "eat off" horizontally. The
second approach would gradually
smooth end slope the terrain beyond the
distance limit down to the elevetion of
the base of the stack.
The third approach would proceed in
a somewhat different manner. A
baseline would be established by
modeling all terrain beyond the distance
limit smoothing and sloping nearby
terrain to nunimiae it* influence. To
analyse downwaah effects, the nearby
terrain would then be inserted into the
model and the dUference in effect
measured to determine appropriate
downwaah credit for stack height
Definition of "TUtpunoa TtduuquM"
In the 1992 rale*, EPA identified two
CEP and 1CS/SC8. aa havteg no purpose
that had the result of mcreaatag
dispersion. The court oonduded that
Congress «d intended at a *«•«—"-
to forbid my diapersinn enhancement
practice that was significantly
luotlvaenl by an intent to obtain
additional credit for greater dispersion.
and remanded the question to EPA for
10 IwVteW IV
The EPA
of "dupen
generally to tadada, a addftfen to JCS.
SCSaodstacx heights ia excess of CSP.
any tsrhnlqess nat have aa effect of
m
wherra ncffity was originally <
and i
sttaanaa or wnora ma i
with the mataDatten of additional
OOBVDlaf ywMlflf 9 0sfft fVQBCtiflB IB tOtV
imlieiiins of tha effected ooflotnat The
EPA retained excrastons Bom its
definition of prohibited dieeantoa
tecttttkfuea for smoke managamant hi
agricultural and suvteulnnl prescribed
burning programs and also proposed to
exclude episodic restrictions on
residential woodbuming and debris
burning.
Niw Sourtm Tifd into Pr+tsn Stodtt
Section ia exempts stacks In
existence" at the end of 1970 from its
requirements, EPA's general approach to
implementing this language was upheld
by the court However, to its 1982 rale
EPA had also allowed this credit to
sources built after tnat date that had
tied into stack* built before that date.
EPA failed to respond to comments
objecting to this allowance, and so the
court remanded tha question to EPA for
the agency to address.
Upon raaxammathm. EPA saw no
convincing justification for granting
credit to these sources. Consequently.
for sources constructed after December
31.19m with emissions ducted into
dfatfaered stacks of greater than
CEP I
1 height and for sources constructed
before that date but for which major
modifications or reconstruction have
bean carried out subsequently. EPA
proposed to limit stack height credit to
only so much of the actual stack height
as conforms to CEP* Sources
constructed prior to December 31.19ra
for which modifications are carried out
that are not dasstfisd as "major" under
40 CFR Sl.lft(jXi). 31 J4(6)(2)(n. and
S1.2M0M2X1) woaid be allowed to retain
Adi credit for their existing stack
heights.
Plum* lapoctioa
b Ha 19K rules. EPA sllowed steck
height credit far "plume hnpaetien." a
pnenosBeBon tnat is distinct from
downwaah, wakes and eddies. The
court though sympathetic to EPA's
policy position, reversed this judgment
aa beyond tha scope of the statute.
Accordingly. EPA proposed to delete the
allowance of plume impactian credit
from, its regulation ia compliance with
the court derision However. EPA also
Lin complex
t to conduct
EPA
result from the appttcatton of revised
CEP stack henmt assumptions and if so.
how each aBowanee should be made.
Slate letpitamtatio* Plan Asoiuraewnu
EPA's 1992 raJa* gave state* a total of
22 months to revise their rules and to
establish source emission limitations
baaed on new stack height credits. The
court found this. too. to go beyond the
language of the statute. In response.
EPA stated ia the proposal thai States
would be required pursusnt to section
405(d)(2)fb) of the dean Air Act to
review their rake end existing emission
limitettona. revising them as needed to
comply wita the new rsgaiauaa within 9
months of the date ef its promulgation.
-------
27896 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 130 / Monday. July 8. 1985 / Rules and Regulations
Response to Public Comments on the
November A 1984. Proposal
The EPA received over 400 comments
during the public comment period and at
the public hearing, addressing a number
of aspects of the proposed
reguiation.These comments have been
consolidated according to the issues
raised and are discussed, along with
EPA's responses, in a "Response to
Comments" document included in the
ruiemaking docket Certain comments
can be characterized as "major" in that
they address issues that are
fundamental to the development of the
final regulation. These comments are
summarized below, along with EPA's
responses. Additional discussion of the
issues raised and further responses by
EPA can be found in the "Response to
Comments" document
I. Maximum Control of Emissions in Lieu
of Dispersion
A central legal and policy question
addressed in this ruiemaking was raised
in the comments of the Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC] and
the Sierra Quo. They contend that
section 123 requires all sources to install
the m«»imimi feasible control
technology before receiving any credit
for the dispersive effects of a stack of
any height or for other practices that
may enhance pollutant dispersion.
The NRDC argument is summarized
fully in die Response to Comments
document together with EPA's response.
Very briefly. NRDC contends that
litigation prior to the 1977 Clean Air Act
Amendments had established that
dispersion can never be used as an
alternative to emission control, and that.
this understanding was carried forward
and strengthened in the 1977 Clean Air .
Act Amendments. Accordingly, no rule
that does not require full control of
emissions ea a prerequisite to any stack
height credit would bit consistent with.
Congressional intent
EPA disagrees. During the • years
between 1977 and NRDCa comments, a
period covering two Administrations
and three Administrators. NRDCs
position has never been either adopted
by EPA or seriously advocated before it
The pre-1977 cases cited by NRDC-do
not bar all stack credit but only credit
for stacks beyond the historical norm.
Finally, the text and legislative history
of section 123 contain essentially no
support for NRDCs "control first"
position.
II. Discussion of Other Major Issues
The EPA's* position on the "control
first" comments provides the necessary
background against which the remaining
major issues in this ruiemaking are
discussed. These issues are: the
definition of "excessive concentrations-
due to downwash. wakes, and eddies:
the definition of "nearby:" and the
definition of "dispersion technique." A
question that affects several of these
decisions, and that is addressed where
it arises, concerns the extent to which
any changes made in the stack heights
regulations should be applied
prospectively rather than retroactively.
This discussion of "excessive
concentrations" is in turn divided into a
discussion of the physical characteristics
of downwash. followed by a discussi
of the significance of those
characteristics aa they pertain to the
CEP formulae, to stacks above formal
height to stacks being raised to formula
height and to stacks at formula height
being modeled at the choice of the
administering authorities.
Definite, of "Excessive
Concentrations''
The Physical Nature of Downwash. A
number of commenters. including the
Utility Air Regulatory Croup (UAftG).
have argued that the court decision does
not obligate EPA to reviae the definition
adopted in the 1982 regulation, but only
directs EPA to ensure that the 40»
percent criterion protects •ffg<*M*
concentrations due to downwash that
could be related to health and welfare
concerns. They point oat that when
In the wake region produced by the
source itself or upwind structures and
terrain features, those p-**-*"**- are
brought rapidly to earth, with little
dilution. T^ia» the conuncntors argue*
can produce short-term peek
concentrations at groundlevel that are
many times greater thai the
concentration levels of tba NAAQS.
Because their duration is relatively
short averaaini theee concent
over the tones specified by the NAAQS
doee not result in NAAQS violations.
Nonetheless, the-conunenters argue that
these concentrations should be regarded
as nuisance* that section 123 was
specifically enacted to avoid.
Accordingly, the commenters held that
EPA would be justified in retaining the
40-percent criterion without requiring
that such increases result in
exceedances of the NAAQS.
These same commenters argoed that
severe hardships would result if EPA's
second proposed definition of
"excessive concentrations" is adopted.
and that by limiting suck height credit
to that just necessary to avoid
exceedance of NAAQS or PSD
increments, the definition would act to
limit actual (tack design and
construction in a way that would
increase the likelihood of NAAQS or
PSD exceedances. This would occur.
they argue, because, by building only so
tall a stack as they can receive credit
for. sources would be eliminating a
"margin of safety" that would normally
be provided otherwise. Furthermore, it
was argued that due to the changing
nature of background air quality.
inclusion of absolute concentrations
such as the NAAQS or PSD increments
in the definition would render
determinations of CEP stack height
constantly subject to change.
NRDC argued on the other hand that
only a violation of air quality standards
can bo considered the type of
"excessive concentration" for which
downwash credit can be justified, the
EPA had failed to specify the health or
welfare significance of the short-term
peake that it might consider as meeting
this description, and mat in any event
UARC'a attempt to show that short
stacks could cause a large number of
short-term peaks waa technically flawed
in several different ways.
Response, Extensive discussion of the
downwash phenomenon, as well aa the
aerodynamic effects of buildings and
terrain features on windflow patterns
and tarboJeoce. is contained in the
technical and guidance documents
previously listed in this notice. To
summarize briefly, numerous studies
have shown that the region of
turbulence created by obstacles to
windflow f ''*!ff* to a height of
approximately 24 times the height of the
obstacle. Pollutants emitted into this
region can be rapidly brought to the
ground, with United dilution. Though
thia tendency decreases the higher
vertically within the downwash region
that the phone la released, because of
the highly unpredictable nature of
downwash and the lack of extensive
quantitative data, it is extremely
difficult to reliably predict plume
behavior within the downwash region.
As noted in the comments submitted.
the «ti««"sjyift«Mt| features of downwash
do not show up well over an averaging
time aa long aa 1 hour or more. Pollutant
concentrations resulting from
downwash can arise and subside very
quickly aa meteorological conditions.
fpeed and atmospheric
stability vary. Thia can result in short-
term peaks, lasting up to 2 minutes or so.
recurring intermittently for up to several
hours, that significantly exceed the
concentrations of the 3- and 24-hour
NAAQS. Little quantitative information
is available on the actual levels of these
peaks, or on the frequency of their
occurrence since most stacks have been
-------
•
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 130 / Monday. July 8. 1985 / RuJes and Regulations
designed to, avoid down wash and
because downwash monitoring ia not
typically conducted.
A number of modeling and monitoring
studies in the record assess the
significance of downwash when plumes
are released into the downwash region.
The moat important of these are a
number of studies cited in the November
9 proposal showing that for sources with
sulfur dioxide (SOi) emission rates of 4
to a pounds per million British Thermal
Units (Ib./mmBTU). stacka releasing the
plume into the downwash region can
significantly exceed the 3-hour NAAQS.
The utility industry submitted
monitoring results from four sites
snowing that facilities with abort stacks
(ranging from 23 to M percent of formula
height) generated many short-term
peaks in the vicinity of dM plant at
concentrations at least X times the
highest concentration of the 3-hour SOi
standard. Lsw 1 ppm for up to 10
minutes. Those concentrations are the-
maximun that could be recorded by the
monitors used. There ia no wey to
determine from these data the true peak
ground-level concentration*
The NRDC. ia commenting on this
subject has argued thet dowawaaa- • •
related concentrations are largely
theoretical since stacka have generally
been built to avoid downwash. and that
actual concentration* occur under other
meteorological conditions such as
"inversion breakup fumigations'* and
"looping plums," that can equal theee
"theoretical'' concentrations predicted
under downwaah.' The NRDC also
criticized the utility data oa auneroa*
technical grounds.
EPA's studies indicate Oat. whan
stacka are significantly leaa than GBP
formula height high short-term
concentrations can indeed occur due to
downwash that are in the range of the
values reported by me utility industry.
Concentrations produced by the other
conditions cited by NRDC. tough high.
may be lower by an order of magnitude.
and occur less frequently by as much as
two orders of magnitude, than those
produced by downwash. * As stack *
1 In "iavenNM breakup fuaiieotioa." M iBiemoa
layer OIMIPCCH OH* to hMuoj of Hit fomd. temai
the polkiunu Uut were trapped ia it detcead
suddenly to pound Itvti. In looping ptume*.' •
piumt •« brM«hi down to tht pauad dew
the range and variation of<
m9lm*&^ ^J^^^^^^^jl |M ^^^^^Bfc AtaMU^^
eaten ooeerveQ IB recent sn«uea>
However, no information haa been
presented which would convince EPA to
abandon dM present CEP formulae in
favor of any alternative.
The health aad welfare significance of
downwash concentrations that result la
violations of the ambient standards are
documented aad acknowledged in tht
standards themselves. The significance
of short-term peaks at the levels that
EPA's analyses predict la more
judgmental. However, e number of
studies cited in EPA's "Review of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
rOovM & Hewktaa. MtDC M
WillUm r. Pedenen. lr. ORIet of General
•MrmonndiMi from Alan H. Hvtar. ASM. »
DivKl Siont fitld. OAQPS. |UM n. IBM.
for Sulfur Oxide* Assessment of
Scientific and Technical Informs
(EPA-WO/S-82-007. November IW.,.
indicate that concentrations of one p;
sustained for durations of 5 minutes c
more can product bnmchoconstrictic
in asdunatics accompanied by
symptoms such as wheezing and
coughing. Such concentrations are we
within the range of concentrations tha
can result from downwash. When
sources meet tht ambient standards.•
frequency of occurrence for these
concentrations under me other
conditions died by NRDC Is
substantially lower than for down was
whan stacks art lest than CEP.
GSP Formula Stock Hvght Some
mramanttra. tad tiding NRDC stated
that EPA cannot justify retention of thi
traditional (iSH) and refined (H+1.5L
CEP formulae beted simply oa their
relationahip-to dM 40-percent criterion.
and argued that tfae formulae provide
too much credit la many or moat cases.
Thia, may argue, results ia allowing
sources to obtain unjustifiably lament
emission umitations.
Other eonanentars argued that
Cangrsss oapBdUy raafflmMd the
traditional' GEPforauaia. and that EPA
ihmild allow •M«f-M«» reiiaace on i<
(and. by kmniieadon, on UM refiner
fomda that waa subsequently der,
froatt).
Kmponm. Tit ate of EPA's refined
formula at a suuiiusj point for
determining CEP waa not called Into
question by any Utlgant m theS/erro
Club caae. Tht court's opinion likewise
dote not quettion DM use of the formul*
at a starting point A detailed diseussio
of OM court's treatment of the formula.
showing bow it endorsed the formula's
presumptive validity, it contained tn the
Response to Comments document
DatpUt Qua limited endorsement EP/<
migkt attd to ravittt tat formula on its
own if its ~~**m*****~ of the
"exceetivt cuni.entratitc" and modeling
Issues indicated that nM formula dearly
and typically misstated tat degree of
stack height needed to avoid downwaih
concentrations Out caatt health or
However, no such result haa emerged
from ourrertamtnafion Stacks below
fonnaia height art aaeooated with
downwaah-rdattd violations of the air
quality standardt thamseivea when
emiaaion rates significantly exceed the
levels specified by NSPS. Even where
emissions are low. downwesh
conditions at stacka below formula
height can be expected, unlike othe.
condition*, to generate numerous *ht.
term peaks of air pollution at high levels
-------
2789S Federal Register / Vot. 50. No. 130 / Monday. July 8. 1965 / Rules and Regulation
that niM • real prospect of local health
or welfare impacts.
As EPA stated in the proposal, it is
impossible to rely primarily on fluid
modeling to implement the stack height
regulations, particularly under the
timetable established by the court 49 PR
44883 (November 9.1964). No
commenter other than NRDC even
suggested a different formula that in
their eyes would be better, and NRDCs
suggestions were premised on their
"control first" position, which EPA has
found inconsistent with the statute and
has rejected. EPA considers the refined
formula to be the state-of-the-art for
determining necessary stack height
Given the degree of presumptive
validity the formula already poetesses
under the statute and the court opinion.
we believe that this record amply
supports its reaffirmatioa.
Stack* Abon CEP Formula Height
The EPA's 1978 stack height guidelines
(rite) imposed special conditions oa
stacks above formula height—the
installation of control technology—that
were net imposed on lower stacks.
Similarly. EPA's 1973 proposal had
made credit above formula fcught
subject to a vaguely defined "detailed
investigation" (36 FR 25700). The
legislative history of the 1977 dean Air
Act Amendments cautioned that credit
for stacks above formula height should
be granted only in rare cases, and the
Court of Appeals adopted this as oaa of
the keystones of its opinion. The court
also condnded that Congress
deliberately adopted very strict
requirements for sources locating in
hilly terrain.
For these reasons. EPA la requiring
sources seeking credit .for stacks above
formula height and credit for any stack
height justified by terrain effects to
show by field studies or fluid THHrMng
that this height is needed to avoid a 40-
percent increase in concentrations due
to downwash and that such an increase
would result in exceedance of sir
quality standards or applicable PSD
increments. This will restrict stack
height credit in this context to cases
where the downwash avoided is at
levels specified by regulation or by act
of Congress as possessing health or
welfare significance.
To conduct a demonstration to show
that an absolute air quality
concentration such as NAAQS or PSD
increment will be exceeded, it is
necessary to specify an emission rate for
the source in question.* The EPA
If *• MM Of*
- tevotnd • aapte
ttara •uuM b« •> aMd ta qpafy u
rra. one* UM IBCTMM in <
believes that ia cases where greater
than formula height may be needed to
prevent excessive concentrations.
source* should first attempt to eliminate
such concentrations by reducing their
emission*. For this reeson EPA ia
requiring that the emission rate to be
met by a source seeking to conduct •
demonstration to justify stack height
credit above the formula be equivalent
to the emission rat* prescribed by NSPS
applicable to the industrial SOUR*
category. In doing this. EPA is making
the presumption that this limit can be
met by ail sources seeking to justify
stack heights above formula height
Source* may rebut this presumption.
establishing an alternative emission
limitation, oa a ease by-case basis, by
demonstrating to th* reviewing
authority mat the NSPS emission
limitation may not feasibly be mat given
the characteristics of th* particular
source.* For example, it may be poaaibi*
for a source presently emitting SO* at a
rat* of 1.8 lb,/mmBTU to show that
meeting th* NSPS rat* of 14 Ib./mmBTU
would be prohibitive in that it would
require scrapping existing scrubber
equipment for th* purpose of installing
higher efficiency scrubbers. Similarly, a
source may be able to show that due to
space constraints and plant
configuration, it ia not poaaibi* to install
the necessary equipment to meet die
NSPS •mission rat*. In th* event that a
source believ** that dowawmsk-will
continue to result in excessive
concentrations when the source-
•mission rat* is consistent with NSPS
requirements, additional stack height
credit may be justified through fluid'
modeling at that emission rate.
A source, of course, always remain*
free to accept th* emission rat* that ia
associated with a formula height stack
rather than relying on a demonstration
under th* conditions described beta.
The third alternative mentioned in the
propose I using the actual emission
limit for th* source has been rejected
because, to the extent dtat limit relied
oa greater than formula height it would
amount to using a tall stack to justify
itself.
The EPA's reliance on exceedance*.
rather than violations of the NAAQS
and PSD increments, ia deliberate. Fluid
modeling demonstrations are extremely
complicated to design and carry out
even when th* meet simple
demonstration criteria—that ia, a
percentage increase in concentration*,
rum.
•Tht »A «tO nty M IU SMI Araibbto ftMafti
a iwnrwnj t*r r»b>rtil«
with no consideration of absolute
values are assumed. Adding
consideration of an absolute
concentration such ss a NAAQS or PSD
increment substantially complicates this
effort further and introduces the
scientific uncertainties associated with
predicting an exceadance of a 3-hour or
24-hour standard based on 1 hour or less
of modeling data. Using an hour or less
of modeling values, based on one set of
meteorological data, to draw the
distinction between only one
exctedance of the standard during the
6780 hours ia a year, and the two or
more that constitute s violation pushes
that uncertainty beyond reasonable
limits. EPA therefore does not find the
additional difficulties that would be
created by requiring violations instesd
of exceedances to be warranted. That is
particularly so here, given that the
regulations require sources seeking
credit above the formula to be well-
controlled aa a condition of obtaining
such credit
Us* of an absolute concentration in
the test of "excessive concentrations"
can lead to problems of sdministering
the program, in that it can have a
"zoning" effect Since a source can only
get stack height credit to the extent that
it is needed to avoid a PSD increment or
NAAQS exceedance. an emissions
increase in the area of that source may
increase concentrations beyond the
controlling limit thereby making it
difficult for new sources to locate in the
are*, or for sequential construction of
additional emitting units at the source in
tad •iMnutrM
Thia effect cannot be avoided under
any taet for "excessive concentrations''
thai ia tied to absolute concentrations.
Howevez. that effect will be mitigated
by th* fact that the us* of this approach
ia voluntary and limited to sources
wishing' to rely on fluid modeling to
justify stack height credit Moreover, the
effects of downwash tend to occur very
near th* source, usually on fenced .
company property. Since concentrations
measured at such locations an not used
to evaluate NAAQS attainment or PSO
increment consumption, new sources
wishing to locate in the area are less
likely to be affected.
Sources planning sequential
construction *f new emitting units st
on* nation or contemplating future
expansion can reduce the uncertainties
noted above by initially obtaining
permits for th* total number of units
anticipated and by planning for
expansion in the calculation of
necessary physical stack height In the
latter instance, only the allowable itack
height credit would be revised as
-------
Federal Register / Vol. SO. No. 130 / Monday. July & 19S5 / Roles and Regulations 27899
expansion is carried out—not actual
stack height
An additional theoretical
complication is presented when an
absolute concentration is wed where
meteorological conditions other than
downwash result in the highest
predicted ground-level concentrations in
the ambient air. In such cases, a source
that has established CEP st a particular
height assuming a given emission rats.
may predict a NAAQS violation at that
stack height and emission rate under
some other condition. e.g~ atmospheric
stability Class 'A.' Reducing the
emission rate to eliminate the predicted
violation would result in stack height
credit greater dun absolutely necessary
to avoid an excessive concentration
under downwash. However, reducing
stack height places the source back ia
jeopardy of a NAAQS violation under
the other meteorological condition, and
so on. "ratcheting" stack height credit
and emission rates lower and lower. The
EPA has eliminated this "ratcheting"
potential in the CEP guideline by
providing that once CEP is established
for a source, adjusting the emission rate
to avoid a violation under other
conditions does not require
recalculation of a new CEP stack height
EPA is making this part of the
regulations retroactive to December 31.
1970. In the terms of the court's
retroactivity analysis, stacks greater
than formula height represent a situation
that Congress did affirmatively "intend
to alter" in section 123. Moreover. EPA
regulatory pronouncements since 1970
have placed a stricter burden on sources
raising stacks above formula height than
on others.
No source is precluded from building
a stack height greater than formula
height if such height is believed to be
needed to avoid excessive downwash.
However, the design and purpose of
section 123 prohibit SIP credit for that
effort unless a relatively rigorous
showing can be made.
Given the ability of sources to avoid
modeling and rely on validity of the CEP
formulae and requirement for farther
control of emissions in conjunction with
stack heights in excess of formulae
height the result predicted by UARG—
exceedanees of the NAAQS or PSD
increments due to inadequate stack
height—is highly unlikely.
The potential effect of changes in
background air quality on stack height
credit is not substantially different from
the effect that such changes in
background can have on source
emission limitations ia nonattainment
ireas. In the first case, however, sources
may be able to address these effects
through greater stack height if such
changes affect the concentrations under
downwash. Moreover, the possibility
that shifting background air quality can
yield different calculations of CEP is
significantly limited by the fact that
consideration of background in CEP
calculations is restricted to those cases
where credit for greater than formula
height ia being sought or sources are
seeking to raise stacks to avoid
excessive concentrationa.
Raiting Stack* Mow Formula fffight
to Formula HtigtA b response to EPA's
proposal to allow automatic credit for
CEP formula height several i
have argued that EPA baa failed to
adequately respond to the court's
directive to "rei misider whether, in light
of its now "***">M*"""'iej of 'excessive
concentrationa. demonstrations are
necessary before stock heights may be
raised, even if the final height wul not
exceed formula height"
Raising a stack below
height to formula height ia not
forma
in EPA's judgment subject to the same
statutory reservations aa building stacks
greater than formula height However.
as the court has cautioned, it may still
be necessary for these sources to show
that raising stacks is necessary to avoid
"excessive concentrations" that raise
health or. welfare concerns,
For theee reasons, sources wishing to
raise stacks subsequent to October 11
1983. the data of the aCdrcatt
opinion, moat provide evidence that
additional height ia necessary to avoid
downwaah-reiated concentrations
raising health ""^ welfare coocerns.
Theee rales allow sources to do dtis m
two ways.
The first way is to rebut the
presumption that the short stack was
built high enough to avoid dewawash
problems: Le, to show, by site specific
information such aa monitoring data or
citizen "irrfffliinft. that die short stack
had ia foot caused a local nuisance and
most be raised for this reason. The EPA
believes dut both the historical
experience of the industry and the data
on short-term peaks discussed eartter
show that short stacks can.caueo local
nuisances due to downwash. However.
where e source has built a short stack
rather than one at formula height it has
created e presumption that this is not
the case. General data on short-term
peaks may not be strong enough to
support by themselves sad ia the
abstract a conclusion dut the stack
must be raised nrevoid local adverse
effects. Instead, that proposition must be
demonstrated for each particular source
involved.
In the event that a source cannot
make such a showing, the second wey to
justify raising a suck is to demonstrate
by fluid modeling or field study an
increase in concentrations due to
downwash that is at least 40-percent in
excess of concentrations in the absence
of such downwash aad la excess of the
applicable NAAQS or PSD increments.
In making this demonstration, the
emission rate in existence before the
stack is raised must be used.
Since raising stacks to formula height
ia not subject to the same extraordinary
reservations expressed by Congress and
the court with respect to stacks being
raiaed above formula height EPA does
not believe that the use of presumptive
"wefl-coatrejled" emission rate is
appropriate ben. Aa discussed ia EPA's
response to NRDCa "control first"
argument the basic purpose of section
123 wee to take sources as it found them
aad. baaed on those circumstances, to
aeeore that they did not avoid control
requirements through additional
dispersion. Use-of a source's actual
emission rate ia this instance is
coaaistoBt with that basic purpose and.
absent special indications of a different
iatant should be used ia suck height
calculations.
The EPA believes dut it is moat
unlikely that any source with e current
eniseioB Umitatioo ***f failed to *!•'"»
roll formula credit for a stack of formula
••igjin Accordingly, the question
whether a source ^u receive stack
height credit up to formula height will
involve only sources that want to
actually raise their physical stack not
sources dut simply waat to claim more
credit for a stack already ia existence. A
source will presumably not go to die
trouble of raisiag aa existing stack
widtoot some reason, ff a source cannot
show that the reason was in fact the
desire to avoid a problem caused by
downwash, thrti the inference that it
waa instead a desire for more dispersion
credtt is hard to avoid. A nuisance
caused by dowawashed emissions could
iadade dtfatea or employee complaints
or property damage. A source would be
expected to show that complaints of this
nature were reasonably widespread
before letting credit oadar this section.
The EPA doee aot intend to make this
rule retroactive to stacks dut
modificatioes diet would raise them to
formula height prior to October 111983.
Applying the court's recroectivity
analysis, it appears:
1-The now rale does depart from prior
practice. The EPA's 1973 proposed rule
affirmatively encouraged sources with
shorter stacks to raise them to formula
-------
27900 Federal Register / Vol 50. No. 130 / Monday. July 8. 1965 / Rule« and Regulation*
height 'Though EPA's 1978 guidtliot
can bt rtid M imposing a "control first"
requirtmtnt on somt suck height
increases. its general thrust gave
automatic credit for all stacks that met
the "13" times formula.* Automatic
permission was similarly set forth in the
1979 proposal in the 1981 reproposaL
and in the 1982 final rule. Only a notice
published in 1980. but later withdrawn.
departs {ram this trend, requiring the use
of field studies or fluid modeling
demonstratioos to justify stack height
increases op to CEP formula height*
Even then, the notice would have made
this policy prospective in its application.
2. Sources that raised stacks a
reliance on this past EPA guidance
assuming the availability of dispersion
credit cannot be distinguished from the
sources, in the example approved by the
court that built stacks to the traditional
formula in an identical expectation of
dispersion credit
3. It cannot be said mat the raising of
stacks to formula height is a practice
that Congress "affirmatively sought to
end." It is not mentioned in the text of
the statute or its legislative history.
Further, as the court has already noted,
the statute attributes a degree of
presumptive validity to the formula on
whJcn sowcoe that raiao their stack*
will have relied.
Attention to Aeoum FhM MooMJhf.
Several ooementers argued that EPA's
proposal to allow ageoeiea to require me
use of fiutd •"MJ^Mnsi wae unnecessary.
since EPA haw already dossnenlBd the
validity of the GSP
that due allow
modeling the rale, rather thaa the
exception. This would reaafc tha>
ro^m^t^r ,utfc because it waa their
expectation that agenda* or
environmental groups would nearly
alwas fm^ for fluid "»«<"<
always fm^ for fl
demonstrations during the permit
application and review proceea.
Other commenters itatert that
providing the discretion to require fluid
modeling was appropriate, since EPA
had failed to demonstrate that me CEP
formulae represented the «"*»<•""«'
height necessary to avoid excessive
concentrations.
fatpotu*. The Court of Appeals
directed EPA to reexamine whether its
rules should allow State*, as a matter of
discretion, to require even sources that
iti|in««nin
i» mcourasrt by ITA to
to ivtwi tool MUMCM." iae n. jsrasi
•« ft MSI (F«bnj«ry is. israk r,,,t\»\*t
scettMM ax aim can
• U PH 4gCT (H»» »L ISSBMndfle iHtet
planned to rely on the formula to show
instead by fluid modeling that a stack
this high was required to avoid dangers
to health and welfare caused by
downwash. The court suggested that
EPA should include such a provision
unless it could find that the formula was
so accurate, or tended so much to err on
the low side, as to m*kt discretionary
authority to adjust formula height
downward unnecessary.
The EPA believes that the court was
mistaken in its conclusion that a stack
at formula height is likely to generate
downwash concentrations as great as 40
percent only in uncommon situations. la
fact EPA's observations indicate that
when stacks are built to CEP formula
heisat an i&creeee i& conceBttattona
due to downwaaa can still be expected
to occur that ia between 20 and to
percent greater than the concentration
that would occur in the absence of
building influences.1*
Nevertheless, in response to the
court's remand. EPA ia mHudlng in tins
final rule a provision for the authority
administering these rules to require field
studies or fluid modeling
damoostrationa. even for stacks built to
formula height in caaea when it
believes that the formula nay
significantly overstate the appropriate
stack baigat credit"
While EPA believes the formula to a
reasonable nsla of thumb indicating ths>
stack height aisdsd te avead sosae
probability of a standard* violation and
« npificaatb gnaftar probability of a
local
attempted to amnaiie this possibility
withatehmtoofavatlabsfdetaby.
identifying two partteuiar etraattoa* ia
which it believes that the i
rat be raoabte indicators of <
si
are
which the finsaalss are baaed•
4 Corf
Tkfcto
However. EPA acknowledges that other
situations, of which the Agency is not
presently aware, may arise wherein tfat
formulae may not be adequate.
The EPA intends to "grandfather any
source that relied on the formula in
building its stack before the dete of
EPA's 1979 proposal from the effect of
this discretionary reexaminatton
requirement
Only in that proposal did EPA first
suggest that such a discretionary
reexamination provision might be
included in the final rule. The
retroactivity analysis set out earlier
therefore supports exempting stacks
built ia reliance on EPA guidance before
that *^*T from discretionary
reexamination. Indeed, a failure to
"grandfather" these sources would lead
to the paradoxical result that a source
ttut had built a l-V,t> t^tck TH** the
traditional EPA formula would have its
direct reliance intasaeU protected by the
"grandfather" provision previously
upheld by the court but could then lose
that "granoiathered" credit through s
rasa speriflr aesaonatmtion requirement
showing that the traditional formula was
somewhat inaccurate the very saason
bates! the change ia me formula
properly found oon-rettoeetive by EPA
Gli
. EPA believes
I9S*. Slnci EPA fanUr-a BM M«
for poraw fO«ct«M. DM rwOeiM* t> tkM nl* te
that the eflect on emissions of including
or of exdodtaf a provision for
diseretitaary determinations from this
rale to likary to be very smafl. Building
stada above fasania height and raising
stacks below *ir*^"*a height to formula
height are covered by regulatory
provisions already discussed. The only
determmations to address is the building
of stacks at formula height ia the post*
197* period. However, all major sources
built smce that ttm* are already
controled to SO* -M»
-------
Federal Register / Vol. SO. No. 130 / Monday. July 8. 198S / RuJts tnd Regulations 27901
If such Murctt had to show that use
of a formula htight stack was ncedtd to
avoid txcttdances of the NAAQS or
PSD increments, that might prove
difficult for many of them. The
likelihood of such exceedances tends to
decrease as the emission rate for the
source decreases. By the same token.
the incremental emission reductions
available from the sources that are at
issue here tend to be small and among
the most expensive available. In terms
of emission reductions, little is at stake
where these sources are concerned.
Accordingly, the rules will require
such sources, if a reviewing authority
calls for a demonstration, to the rules
show that the us* of a formula stack
height is needed to avoid a 40-percent
increase in concentrations due to
downwash. This will provide a rough
check on whether die formula, as
applied in the particular case at issue.
produces the result it was designed to
produce.
The EPA is not providing here for
sources to justify their formula height
stacks by arguing that the height in
excess of that needed to avoid NAAQS
violations is needed to avoid a local
nuisance. The discretionary modeling
requirement is designed for application
to stacks before they were built Beyond
that there is no way to determine based
on the-ooMAc* of a local nuisance that a
formula height stack is not too tall in
the way that me pntvtct of a nuisance
shows that a stack under formula height
in fact is too short Accordingly, there
will be no way. aa there was with short
stacks being raised, to determine from
actual experience whether a local
nuisance would occur at a shorter stack
height Though avoiding local nuisance
is a legitimate purpose for which stacks
are built it would be very difficult to
show by modeling what stack height
was needed to avoid it
Some commenters have
misunderstood EPA's allowance of
discretion to require fluid modeling aa
requiring such modeling whenever any
individual or entity called forsuch a
demonstration. This discretion nets
explicitly with the reviewing agenda*
who have always had the prerogative to
require more stringent analyses in tbr
SIP process.-and no obligation is implied
for these agencies to require fluid
modeling simply because it has been
called for by some individual during the
permit review process. It is EPA's
expectation that technical decisions to
require such additional demonstrations
would be based on sound rationale and
vaiid data to show why the formulae
may not be adequate in a given
situation. In any case, given the burden
of reviewing a fluid modeling
demonstration, an agency is not likely to
exercise this option absent sufficient
justification. Consequently. EPA
disagrees with the •commenters'
contention that fluid modeling will
supplant the use of the GEP formulae,
except in what EPA believes will be
unusual instances.
Rtlianct on thf iSH Formula. In
limiting the applicability of the ZJH
formula to those cases where the
formula was actually relied upon, the
November 9 proposal defined such
reliance in terms of stack design. A
number of comments indicated diet
actual stack design and construction
may ultimately be control not by the
2JH engineering role, but by .
construction materials specifications
Consequently, while 2JH rale Bay have
provided an initial starting point in
stack design, the rale may not have
dictated final stack height In other
cases, it was argued that a number of
source owners may have constructed
their stacks in excess of what was
determined to be minimum GEP for
precautionary reasons, for process
requirements, or in anticipation of
additional growth In the area
surrounding the facility, even though
emission limitations for these sources
would heve been limited then, aa now.
to formula height Consequently, it wee
argued that EPA should allow sources to
demonstrate reliance on the formula hi
the calculation of emission limits aa well
as in the design of the stack.
In response to EPA's request for
comments on what evidence should be
considered acceptable in determining
reliance on the 2JH formula, seaee
commenters urged EPA to consider
reconstructed evidence, ej. affidavits
from design engineers or copies of
correspondence indicating peat reliance
on EPA guidance. Other commenters
stated that "reliance" should be very
strictly construed that EPA should be
circumspect in Its review of reliance
demonstrations, and thet only
contemporaneous documentary
evidence, such as blueprints and facility
design plans, be accepted aa evidence.
Aespent*. The EPA is in general
agreement with the view that reliance
should be considered in relation to the
emission limitation for the source, not
the design. Since section 123 specifically
prohibits EPA from regulating actual
stack heights and rather regulates stack
height credits used in setting emission
limitations, it would be illogical to
require diet sources demonstrate
reliance on the ZJH formula for actual
stack design. Moreover, such an
approach would contradict principles of
sound planning, in that it would penalize
those sources that have built taller
stacks in anticipation of facility
expansion or other growth in the area
that could influence GEP
determinations.
If a stack has been built taller than
2JH formula provides, while the
emission limitation has been calculated
sssnmtng ZJH credit e convincing
stion has been made that the
source properly relied on the formula.
Conversely, if the emission limitation for
the source is based on some other stack
t credit such as 2JH. 3JH or some
other number, it would be difficult to
show that the GEP formula had in fact
been relied on.
In seeee cases the tmitthm limit
information may be unavailable or
incooduaive. In such cases. EPA will
allow reliance on reconstructed
evidence of construction intent
In comments submitted during the
public «""•»*•» period and in response
to questions raised by EPA at the public
healing held on January 8. 198S, industry
representatives repeatedly stated that
contemporaneona evidence of reliance
on the 2JH formula, such as facility
design plena, dated engineering
rarely, if ever, retained for more than a
few yean after constraction of the
facility to completed Consequently, they
argued that moat cases of legitimate
reliance would be denied if
contanporaneous evidence were
required in order to retain for the 2JH
formula.
The EPA agrees. Additionally, credit
afforded by the Z5H formula in excess
of that resulting from the nee of the
H+tS. derivative is likely to be small
except when the building on which
stack height credit is based is
substantially ••M*» **»•• it is wide.
Finally, it to EPA's view that the court
did not intend that sources be subject to
e rigorous or overly stringent of reliance.
but only that they be eecorded a
rteeoBablt opportunity to show reliance
on the 2JH formula. For these reasons.
EPA will allow the submission of
reconstructed La. noncontemporaneous
documentary evidence to demonstrate
reliance on the ZJH formula.
Dffiaition of "Ntaror". Comments
were submitted by UARG and others.
arguing that effectively, no limitation
should be placed on the consideration of
terrain-induced downwash.
Alternatively, some of these
commenters argued that the court
decision requires mat a limitation be
adopted that does not apply any
distance restriction of * mile in
modeling terrain effects such «• >•
-------
27902 F«torml lUgjttnr / Vol. 50. No. 130 / Monday. July a. 1966 / Rales and Regulations
applied to itructurae in tha use of CEP
formulae, but rathe* aOowi
consideration of tfl terrain that'results
in the MIM downwash affect u thoM
itractuiM within Vi mile of the tuck.
Other commenters have argued that
tht court decision and legislative history
preclude EPA frooi auowing
consideration of any terrain btyond a
distance of H milt. regardless of wfatrt
itbegtaa.
Response, for tht rtasona
summarized below. EPA dot* not acctpt
either tat interpretation that tht eawt
(MCUMOB •tttnofBM EPA to noopt •
definition baaed solely oa effect OP that
it limits eontidantton exehisrverjr to
ttmin features felling entirely within H
Whan Congnaa diaeaaaad the
allowance of credt I far atack height to
addnaa downwaab, it stated that th»
tam "nearby" wae to bo "sMctiy
construed." noting that if tha tam
to be interpreted "to apply to nv
structures or tamin ftetutm * to V*
mil* away from tha sources or man. the
matt could bt a* opoa invitation to
raiaa stack heights to unreasonably high
elevation ad to defeat tha baric
underlying "—w**t- mtenf»«
IB its opiniOB, thaumrt held that HPA
could not grve anttmited credit
modoJingb
i that
rmnlrt mnfltrt with tha rmajraaainnal
intmnHr*) tg impooo artificial limits OB
that credit The cowl wea not presented
with, and did not addreee, the queation
of what to do abomt terrain faataraa that
"Tisgaii" niliia It aiili mil mlmiasil
outside it The approach adopted by
EPA caniad out thte i faigrsatkaisl
purpose to impose aa artificial UmM bat
at tha same time reflects tha real facts
own closely than an abaolute Vb mile
limitation.
Unlike man-made streets
ftatnraa do not hava readily «WlinMj
dimanatona othar than haiajkt For thia
rtaaon. EPA haa dafinad "Baaroy" aa
ganarafly allowing inchirion of
consideration of tarrain faatnraa that tafl
within a distance of % nula of the atack.
EPA's definition wiO paoBtt
considaration of such temin that
extenda btyond tha M mila Omit if tha
terrain begins within % alia, ailowinf
that portion within 10 time* tha .
heiflht of tha feature, not to
exceed 2 miles, as described In tha
proposal
To define when a terrain feature
"beams" within V* mila, EPA has related
terrain height at the to mila distance to
(he »M«i»ni'n« (tick height that could be
justified under tha other two methods
for daterminini CEP. Aceordinfly. EPA
will require that tarrain features reach t
height at tha ft mila distance limit of
either 28 matara (La. 83 matan divided
by 15) or 40 percent of tha stack height
determined by tha <-^*) formulae applied
to nearby buildinga.
TnaGMnt ofNiw ramw Existing
Sourett Uadtr tht Dtfiaitua of
"Ntarby". In tha propoaaL EPA
requested comment on whether new
sources should be treated differently
from existing sources and presented two
options for addressing them.
Few ('.liniments wart received on
these options. Several questioned tha
logic of distinguishing between new and
existing sour
ergflaa
uWbot
In the regulations. One
that new and existing
both be subject to the
•trietVti
option for aew sourcee only. Thia haa
already bean discusead under EPA'a
raspor »to comments on tha general
definition of "nearby* and la not
addressed further hat*.
Aeaponae. New sources an initially
subject to more stringent control
requirements than many existing
sources. Consequently, it ia leea likely
that tha emission linutationa and atack
height credits for thaaa sources wilt be
affected by terrain featuree.
Furthemora, SPA beUavea that tha
diatanea hmttation will be maigniflcant
ana wUI reenlt only m minor ehangee hi
>*HJL
thadefinitkMof
EPA ia giving thia deatnitton of
"nearby rattoactiva appUoation to
Dacambav n. Iflm The oowfa <
makaa cioar ita conoiHaiosj thaift Conajnaa
afBtmattvely focuaed OB thia iaaa* and
daddad thoa making application aa of
tha ~—*TM-I data proper.
Dtfjoitiaa of Othst Dupmiaa
r«canieuaa. Tha EPA received many
commanta oa die proper scope of tha
definition of "dispersion *~*>m4Tr*.**
and perhaps more onTthe approphata
boanda of ^h^ excluaionai Induatty
commantars generally argued that EPA
had improperly piopoeed to deny
consideration for plume enhanrp""***
effects that are "coinddentar with
techniques and practicaa routinaiy
caniad out for sound engineering and
economic reasons. They argaad that
EPA should prohibit credit only whan a
technique or practice waa decisively
motivsted by a desire for dispersion
credit Such en approach would create a
"but for* teat using the intent of tha
source owner or operator as the beats
for EPA's decisions.
Othar eommenters argued that EPA
must aaa a teat baaed purely on iffocu.
prohibiting credit whan a technique or
practice haa tha affect of enhancing
dispersion, rtgardlaas of any othar
justification.
flaaponse. IB the final regulation. EPA
haa rejected tha polar poaitiona
diecusaad above. Tha argument that
dispersion effect* an forbidden
regardlaaa of motive is discussed and
rejected aa a part of the general
response to tha argument that only
"well-controlled" sources can receive
any diapanion credit
Conversely, a pun "but for" test runs
the risk of creating exclusions that
effectively swallow tha rule itself. The
EPA judge* that few, if any.
dmrni stances an likely to arise in
which some othar benefit or justification
cannot he assarted aa tha basis for a
practice, and thonfon for such an
Where prospective evaluation of
merged gaa streams, or combined
stacks, ia nonrarned. there is no reason
to assume the serious administrative
burden
itigatingsuchdi
igflt
entail The court directed EPA to apply
an intent teat "at a «•<«<«'»"''''* •««< i«ft
free to take an approach that may be
leea generous toward credit for
combined stacks. ^*IT* sources in the
fuono wul be able to plan against the
background of rules that define
patBuaaibia credits precisely. little
unfaimaaa reeulta from a restrictive
Won retmapadlve application is
analyaai apaOad oat by tha court directs
that an intent-baaed teat be employed as
deacribad later. '
Accordingly, after conaidaring tha
record on theae matters. EPA has
oetacBdned to teJta a "middle-ground"
approach to thia qnastton. The final
regulation retains tha same broad
prohibitton found in the proposal on
mcnaaiaf exhaust gaa plume rise by
manipulation of parameters, or the
<"M"'r'iT<*t of exhaust gaaaa from several
jBto one stack, with
sevenl classes of exclusions. These
errhninna recognize tha existence of
independent justifications based on
«H*.««4i.g ud/or economic factors.
(t) DaiiMinsliarlnn of original facility
deaign and construction with merged
(2) Damonatration that merging after
July g, 1988 Ia part of a change in
optrtfjon that indwf** the installation
of pollution controls and results in a net
reduction m allowable emissions of the
pollutant for which credit is sought or
-------
Federal Register / VoL SO. No. 130 / Monday. July
(3) Demonstration that merging before
July a. 1915 was part of a chaafa to
oparatioa that included the installation
of control equipment or was carriad oat
for sound tconomic or engineering
reasons. An allowabla emissions
increase creates the .presumption that
the merging was not carried out for
sound economic or engineering
reasons.11
Of these exclusions, the first is identical
to the proposal, and the second and
third are modifications of the second
exclusion included in the itrtttMTsali with
a refinement based on prospective/
retroactive application.
The first exclusion was retained for
the reasons suted in the proposal After
reviewing the comments submitted. EPA
determined that its previous
conclusion • ihst standard practice in
routinely includes venting emissions
multifiued stack—is correct Sound
based on costs of constructing and
maintaining separate sucks, availability
of land, and coat savings for pollution
control equipment support facility
design and construction considerations.
Even if air pollution requirements did
not exist at all sources would have
incentives to aae aa tew stacks aa
poaaibla.
Since ioenofutg plume rise, rather
than plume rise itsaU is a "dispersion
techniqtie" and original design and
construction >'»**'* the *rft*** bees. •~*h
original design and construction of
merged gaa streams to not considered a
dispersion technique. Moreover, in
designing the facility, a source can
usually choose to build one larger unit
rather than several smaller urita.
Tnerefore. proAioitug credit for original
design generally only affect the design
of units and not the plume rise.
Objections hava been raised to
applying this logic to sources which are
constructed over a period of time, but
use a single suck. However. uSa same
factual arguments just Usted would
apply is the same, if the original design
included provision for the additional
units in the plans for the fealty, end in
the design and construction of the stack.
In such a case, the later marts merged .
into the suck would be included within
the exclusion.
In addition, it would be totjcalfy very
difficult to apply a mle denying eredif to
original design sucks. EPA or the State
would have to assume bow many sucks
would have been built absents desire
for dispersion credit where they would
hava bean located, and how high they
would have been. Since these
alterative sucica would be purely
hypothetical then would be no clear
way of answering dieae questions; the
answer would simply hava to be
selected arbitrarily from the wide rang*
of possible answers. This problem is
absent when existing sucks have been
COOIOlAiML
In contrast EPA finds changaa from
the original design of a facility in order
to include merged stacks to require a
narrower judgment The EPA ooodadad
that where piuspecflve application is
available) only to sources **>v comMaa
ft^ffaf redncee allowabla omissloas of
the pollutant Car which the credit is
granted. There are obvious
bean aOowed to increase their preview
emissions as a result of the combining '
stacks. EPA does not judge the statute
interest to be overriding in this instance.
since the mle even to its retrospective
version only exempts sources that can
show a reasonable non-dispersion
enhancement ground far combining
stacks, and thereby implements the
"Intent" test suggested by the court. On
the other hand EPA has never suggested
that combined sucks that cannot meet
such a teat are proper. Sources whose
actual emissions are increased or
whose emission limitations are relaxed
m ooBDectloB with the combining of
II I ".^^ ...w WWW^^VWO^M^ »•
ate a strong presumption that
the) comMnsjtton was carried out in
order to avavo the installation of
oaattom. Such combinations would
to the sUtutory
active application
:S=?tty=sa!^*i tt***sss**azi«.
reduce the number of
unite thatmuat be purchaeed. m
addition, the '**•** Of tffit of poittooa.
control for the jrHretant in question
provides substantial assurance that the
purpose of the combination is not to
receive a more lenient emiaatoa omit
However, given past EPA guidance OB
merging of stacks. EPA has concluded
that retroactive application of this tear
would not be proper. The EPA guidance
documents uniformly took the view that
merging of separate stacks into a single
suck "is generality not considered a
dispersion technique" abeeni other
factors such aa excessive use of fane or
other device*» Each docament
provided guidance to a source of a
Regional Offlce regarding the proper
treatment of merged stacks to
fai/^tfrMrtf amiaaioB Umitetfona.
Coasidermg these statements, EPA must
conaidar the tundards expressed by the
court aa previously discussed to thia
notice, m judging the propriety of a
differing standard for retroactive.
application. Given the nature and
applications of the guidance which H
issued ta the past EPA judges the first
two criteria—that la. whether the new
rule represents an abrupt departure from
weU-esttbhahed practice, and whether
the parties against whom the new rule is
applied relied on the former rule—to be
satisfied, hi addition, applying me
prospective criteria to past practice
would require significant changes in foal
and/or control equipment for parties
whose emission limits were based on
previous guidance. Finally, and
particalariy where sources have not
Sumption* from At Definition of
Difpmioa Ttefuuyutt. The EPA
recaivBB numerous comments in
fiipuuse to its request for input on what
consideration, if any, should be given to
excluding sources from the definition of
Tjjsperasmi TerJiiifques whose
i are below a specified level or
* i are leas than the d*
\ commenters
in
f^tt^fa ~Amm h~t M^^MUli*
justification independent of its effects
on Jspsratoe. and therefore ahould not
be ganemJrf forbidden. Omar comments
ftaflaMf ttmtfc IB coQcktMnf any racb
•XCuMMIL aKPA awOUQ COD0OaV taM
effect en total atmospheric loadings.
Some hmitatioB on the
number of sources affected by the
definittnB ft dispersion techniques
necessary for EPA to carry out the stack
height program. There are currently
estimated to be over OJ30O sources of
SO, to the (Mtad States with actual
emissions exceeding 100 tons per year. It
woold not be poaaibla for EPA or Stetes
to review the emission limits of event
significant fraction of thia number
within a reasonable time period.
Twenty-two thousand of these sources
hava eariautans leas than MOO tons per
year and contribute a total of less than
13 percent of the total annual SO*
i."Par thn reaaon. and for
i of administrative aecesarty
diseased eerier. EPA is adopting an
option from BrohtMttons
i rise for fttilf Htt
manipulating pta
with aUowabia SOk emtanons below
RMkfalMt Atfmt m TSSB. 9M •!•• toflw *i
Bvtar frM How4 Ota, OewtarC IMS. <
OmrM StoMfltM » )RM** niM. fm» 9.
lW«M
-------
P«d«CTl Reflate* / Vol SO. No. 130 / Monday. July a. 1965 / Rules and Regulation
5.000 tooa per year. Th« EPA believes
the efltct of this exemption on total SOi
eoiaaiooa to bo de minimi* in nature.
Evtn if these sources wen abla to
increase their emission rates as the
result of an exemption from the
definition of dispersion techniques, their
combined effect would not be
significant Indeed, because these
sources are exempt on the basis of their
annual emissions, there exists an upper
limit to the extent to which they may
obtain relaxed emission limitations. Le^
to tnmfatmii) vLcxemption. the **MTVI*
emissions of e soorce may never exceed
&000 tone per year. For these reasons.
the 5.000 ton limit passes a ov ounimii
teat even more clearly than the as-meter
limit included without challenge in the
prior version of tola miss. Moreover. SPA
beiievea that a large majority of these
source* would not be inclined to seek
less stringent emission limitations, in
part because e substantial portion of
them an hodted by State and local hwl
use raise.
Th*> EPA beUevee at Ola time that a
atsaeaauf snte exemption is justified
only faraourcee of SOi and that the
number of small sources for which.
i for other pollutants
i would not
support a similar exemption. The EPA
will continue to review the need for each
will
fff. .
rtuatt
them for review and
at a bUerdata.
The EPA received »
credit far plume inunction be, retained
on the grounds that eHmfnafmg suds
credit would have seven impact* on
existing source*. Several approach**
wen offered for overcoming phun*
impactton effects m modeling to
determine emission limit
CEP stack height Generally, the** „
approach** focused on modifying th*
•tack-terrain relationship repneeutsd •
the models. Several commsntan
along the** line* that th* court
recognized and approweoVof ERA'S
attempt to avoid th* efisjcts-ef phoM
impertfcm. but only dtaniprovad of
EPA's regulatory inslhsJ III sflnnliig
source* to avoid i
commenters argued that the court dfci
not preclude EPA from auowufcradtt
to avoid plum* impactioa. but euty from
allowmg credit for stack height in
excess of GZPt thia. it waa argued, could
be remedied in a way that was
consistent with the court dadaion by
incorporating impaction avoidance
within the definition of CEP. It wee_*ian
suggested the! EPA give its "interiel
•ppreval" to the use of certain rsfTnsil'
complex terrain modeia, in particular the
Rough Terrain Display Model (RTDM),
to calculate emission limitations for
sources affected by changes to the stack
height regulation.
Rggpom*. Th*.EPA agrees that th*
court was cognizant of me problem of
plum* unpaction and noted that then
was much to recommend EPA's
allowance of credit for impaction
avoidance. However, th* allowance of
credit for plume imp*ctioo was not
remanded to EPA for revision or
reconsideration, but we* reversed by
the court aa exceeding EPA's authority.
The EPA does not egree that it would
be possible to redefine GEP in a manner
that allowed credit for evoidtog
wake*, and eddiee. Plume impaction is a
posBomonott completely onretateo to
J^^^^MMMPAaW Bd^t ^Ai&^M SM A JM^MA^MMM^MM^M
oownwBSB em* zuinsr. la e ooneequenc*
of vffnifiil gesee being emitted at as
insuffidestt height toe void their striking
downwind hillsides, difla, or
rr^mjjtt^rt^ii^fm ptiOt tO dUtttiOB.
Manipulation or "adjustment" of
modeling parameters to avoid p
theoretical plume impaction where
actual stacks have been constructed
above CEP would be tantamount to
granting the same impaction credit that
wee invalidated by thai court
Furthermore. gPAbeievee that the
{OF no other FM
the
undeairahle result is
Hie EM lam tha
Aoumbero/i
the gridaitoe have teepaefed that EPA
approve the nee of &* BUM model aa a
of this Issue canoe found IB <
associated with EPA's action on th*
modeling guideline (Docket No, A-W-
4»V Win respect to the revised stack
height regulation. EPA has not reacted
the uee of KTfJU. To the extent that
appropriate and complete data bees*
available. BPA may approve the use of
RTOM on a caae-by-case basia when
executed m accordance with the)
applicatione of the modaL Whesi such
support is received end reviewed by '
EPA. consideration win be frveatp
allowing more general uee of RTDM in
regulatory activities such ea compHence
with the (tack height rule.
TlattabltforSt
A number of
tatioa.
iters stated that it
was not possible to conduct the
necessary analyse* prepare and submit
revised State rules and source-sptofic
emission limitations within the 9-monti
timeframe referred to in the November 9
proposal A variety of alternative
schedule* wen proposed by these
coomientmfv consideration by EPA.
Aesponae. Aa with EPA's previous
allowance of credit far plume impection,
the timetable tot preparation and
submirtal of revised SIP'S was not an
issue remanded by the court The EPA is
in agreement that these revisions to the
stack height regulation will require
it efforts by State and local
agencies, individual emission source
owners aad EPA Regional and
Headquarters offices in order to comply
within the 9*montt timeframe required
by section 40B(d)(2J of the 1S77 dean
Air Act Amendments. It waa based on
this concern that EPA originally
pro video? a two*etep process for States
to follow m revising their plans and
submitting them to EPA for approval
However, the court found that this effort
waa explicitly contrary to section
4M(dX2f end ordered EPA to follow the
9«aadi schedule provided in the dean
Air Act
f Tltdinto Pn-OTtt,
Stack* As indicated eariter. in response
tO tDO COttTt OpBMBa d*A pfOpOMG to
deny "grandfethered" status to post-
1870 sources tying ue»pn»197l stacks.
. Some commanters stated that EPA was
in no way prohibrtad from allowing
credit far new sources ducted into pre-
Rathar. they
had 10
GBP height
that EPA simply
forsach
general
support fl* EPA'e propoeal with respect
i or datnVatioM be
provided, moat notably that in addition
tB BgiW aMmrf tUsll*^ MfMrflgwi MNlfWiL
greater than OP stack height cndlt
when tying into greater than CEP stacks.
/Uspomw. ID further review of this
Issue. EPA can final no convincing
rationale to allow eewcee constructed
after December 3L1S70, to aveid CEP
Mybydwdnf their
lintoastaekthatia
'under section UX On
ant of section 123 to
E height in excess of.
i that EPA should not allow
oedtt for
tack height except to
its made prior
to the end of 1STO. Sources in existence
«fter that date should be treated equally
under the regulation and not allowed to
avoid legitimate control requirement*
-------
FadaraJ Register / Vol SO, No. 130 / Monday. July 8. 1965 / Rules and Regulations
through tha UM of "grandfathered" stack
heights.
Sourcaa uadartakiag major
modification, or raconstructioa bacoma
subjaet to additional control
raquiramantt uadar tha Clean Air Act
and ara traatad •• "naw lourcaa" for tha
purpoaa of naw source raviaw and PSD
rtquirtme-.u. EPA finds it appropriata
that CEP requirements should ba
invoked at tha Una that othar
raquiramants for naw. modified, or
raconstructad soureaa baeoma
applicable
Summary of Modification* to SPA'»
Proposal Resulting from Paalie
tha public comment parted, EPA haa
mada a numbar of revisions to ita
propoaad regulation ia addittoa to thoaa
discussed abova. These revisions ara
summarized below.
Settlor Sl.XhhfcXBXii) of tha
regulation has bean clarified to require
sources ""•"I*"*, gaa streams a/tar July a.
1969 to achieve a not redocdoa la
ailowabia tmrit^ifti This change) waa
mada to make tt daar that tha effects of*
merging shooid not ba need aa a way of
achieving compliance witfi present
emission Umita and to avoid peaaUztnf
sources who ara peasantry emitting at
less than allowable levels.
credit for a source that merged gas
streams ia a change of operettas) at tha
facility prior to July 8. IMS that iadadad
the installation of control equipment or
had other sound siiglneeilug or
economic reasons. Any Increase hi tha
emission limitation, or in the previous
actual emissions where no emission
limitation existed created a presumption
that those sound reasons ware not
present
Section SLXhhMfE) has been added
to exclude from the definition of
prohibited "dispersion techniques" tha
use of techniques affecting final trhanat
gas plume rise where tha raanltlng total
allowable emissions of SOb from tha
facility do not exceed 5.000 tons par
year.
Section SJ.l(ii)fl) has bean revised to
specify that the 63 meter dt minima
height is to be measured as in othar
determinations of CEP stack height
from the ground-level elevation at the
base of the stack. This does not
represent a substantive change in tha
rule or in its application relative to past
practices, but rather a simple
clarification.
Section S*.l(ii)(2) has bean revised to
require that source owners demonstrate
that tha 2JH formula was relied on ia
establishing the emission limitation,
Section 51.1(ii)(3) haa been revised aa
discussed elsewhere ia this notice to
specify mat aa emission rate equivalent
to NSPS moat ba oat before a source
may conduct fluid modattng to justify
stack height credit ia excess of that
permittad by the CEP formulae.
Section SLXti) BOW defines -nearby"
for purposes of conducting Bald studies
or fluid modeling damonattationa aa OJ
km (H mile), but allows limited
consideration of terrain features
extending beyond that distance a* such
featm^"begm"wHhtoOJkm.aa
defined ia the regulation.
Section tafkMJ haa bean revteed to
provida separata OjsBQasioBa 01
separata situations discussed earttar in
this preamble. As that discussion makes
daar. EPA believes that tha differing
categories of soorcaa suofect to this nla
ara boat addressed by requirements that
vary somewhat with thoaa
This ^*****t1iTB Tfitfn<1iaa
that approach.
Sactron SlUflt) haa baa* corrected to
provida that tha provisions of | SU2U)
shaO not apply to ttadt Aaajnci ia
existence before December 31. 1970. The
propoaal had meorrecdy stated that
1 51.12 shall not apply to stodb
Thia regulation does not narit tha
physical stack height of soy i
thaactaaJaae
IB*
1C
specific stack height for say i
Instead, it sets limits oa tha i
credit far stack height aad other
dispersion tachniquee to ba used hi
ambient air modeling for tha parpoea of
setting aa emiastoa limitation aad
caJculatmg the sJr quality impact of a
soorea. Source* ara modalad at their
mvtnmf physical stack height unlace that
height exceeds their CEP stack height
Tha regulation appliea to all stacks ia
existence and all dispersion techniques
implemented since December n. 1970.
iPlaa
Pursuant to section 408(dK2) «**•
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.
EPA ia requiring that all States (1)
review and revise, as necessary, their
SIP'S to include provisions that limit
stack height credits and dispersion
techniques in accordance with this
regulation and (2) review all existing
emission limitations to determine
whether any of these limitations have
been affected bv stack height credits
lion
abova CEP or by any other dispersia
technique*. For any limitations that
have been so affected. States must
prepare revised limitations consistent
with their revised SIF.. All SIP
revisions and revised emission
limitations moat ba submitted to EPA
within 9 ITT**** of promulgation of thit
Ia ita proposal EPA stated that it
would oaa tha propoaad regulation to
govara stack height credits during the
parted bate* promulgation of tha final
regulattOB. Tha EPA further stated that
aay stack height credits that are granted
baaed oa tins interim guidance would be
subject to review against tha final rules
aao ssay aaao to oa raviaad*
f, with theee %"f rales.
EPA ia raqWmg that aay actions that
were tafcaa aa stack heights end stack
height credfta during this intern period
be re via wad aad raviaad aa needed to
ba coaasstaat with this regulation.
Ponaaat to tha provtsiona of 5 U AC
809(0). I haraby certify that tha attached
rule win aa* have significant ecoaoaHc
impacta oa a sabataatiaJ numbar of
snail entities. Tma rale is structured to
apply OBly, to larga sewcaa: La, those
with stacks abova « matan (213 feet).
or wttBaaajaaJ SO^ aauaaioaa ia eTrcstt
of 5400 toes, as further no ted in the rule.
Based oa aa aaaJysis of impacts, electric
utility plaats aad several smelters and
pulp and paper miOs will be
sigBtficaatiy affected by this regulation.
Und« Executive Order 12291. EPA
anal judge whether a regulation is
"mater" aad therefore subject to the
requirement of a regulatory impact
analysis. EPA's aaaJysis of economic
impacts predicts a potential coat to
emisateo source owners add operators
fTfTfng tlOO million: therefore, this is
a mater rule uadar Executive Order
12291. However, due to the promulgation
deadline imposed by the court EPA did
not have sufficient tune to develop a fuU
analysis of coats and benefits as
required by the Execute Order.
Consequently, it is not possible to judge
tha annual effect of t&j rule on the
economy. A prattminarv economic
impact analysis and i-jrwjuent revision
were prepared and a.-' i i* docket
For aay facility, the a.' sn»Uiy and
economic impact of ub.« »uck height
regutafloo generally dtttr.lt on the
extent to which the sc?*;«! stack at that
facility conforms to GET1 mck height
-------
27906
Federal Register / VoL sa No. 130 / Monday. July 8, 1985 / Rules and Regulation!
Thus, when tbt regulation is applied to
large sources. La. tboM with stack
height greater than CEP and tminion*
greater than 5.000 torti per year, it will
have the potential for producing
•mission reductions and increased
control costs.
A preliminary evaluation of the
potential air quality impacts and a cost
analysis of the regulation wes
performed at the time of proposal The
impacts identified were established in
isolation of other regulatory
requirements. The report predicted a
range of impacts, from a "low impact"
scenario that presumed that many
potentially affected sources would be
able to justify their existing stack
heights, configurations, aad emisaioo
limitations to a "high impact" scenario
which assumed that all of the potentially
affected sources would be required to
reduce their emissions to some degree.
In the development of its final
rulemakiag action, EPA refined its-
evaluation of potential impacts,
producing revised estimates of the
probable coats of the changes to the
regulation and expected reductions in
SOi emissions. As a result of this
refinement EPA estimates that me rale
will yield reductions in SOt emissions of
approximately 17 million teas per year.
The snrmallxed coat of achieving these
reductions will be aproximately J730
million. »»H the capital coat is expected
to be approximately $700 million.
This regulation waa reviewed by the<
Office of Management and Budget aad
their written comments aad any
responses are contained in Docket A-
DsHd.-June2r.lBtl
fudidal Review
The EPA believes that this rule is
based on determinations of nationwide
scope and effect Nothing in section 123
limits its applicability to a particular
locality. Slate, or region. Rather, section
123 applies to sources wherever located
Under section 307(b)(l) of me dean Air
Act [42 U.S.C reonbKDl judicial
review of the actions taken by this
notice is available only by the filing'of a
petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia and within 00 days of the. date
of publication.
list of Subiecta m 44 CTR Part 51
Air pollution control. Ozone, Sulfur
dioxide. Nitrogen dioxide. Lead.
Psrticuiata matter. Hydrocarbons.
Carbon monoxide.
Adaiutittntor.
PART 81-mOUWCMDfTS POM
TON.
SUMNTTAI. OP mPt£MENTAT)ON
PLANS
Part Si of Chapter I Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 31
continues to read aa fellows: |
Amaeilrf See, no. 301(a). aad m. Oeaa
Air Act aa sasndsd (4» UAC Hltt 7B01(a)
and 7423).
2. Section 31.1 la amended by revisiag
pamgrapha (ha), (ii). (Jfl. aad (kk) aa
follows:
lit.!
(hhHl) "Dispersion technique" meaaa
any technique which attempts to affect
the concentration of a pollutant in the
ambient air by:
(i) Using that portion of a stack which
exceeds good engineering practice stack
height;
(ii) Varying the rate of emission of a
pollutant according to atmospheric
fmu^ii^ijf^ of ambient "'"^'••f* *r^*1"*v of
that pollutant or
(ill) Increaaing final exhaust gaa
plume riee by manipulating source
process parameters, exhaust gaa
parameters, stack parameters, or
ibniaff exhaust gaeea from severe!
existing stacks into one stack or otiMr.
•elective handling of exhanat gaa
streams so aa to increaao the exhaust .
gaa plume rise.
(2) Tbe riri ri ting saotence doea not
include*
(i) The reneating of e gaa stream.
following use of a poOutioaomtroi
system for the purpose of returning the
gee to the temperature at which it waa
originally discharged from the facility
(ii) The merging of exhaust jaa
streams where:
(A) The source owner or operator.
demonstrates that die facility waa
originally designed aad constructed with
such merged gas streams;
(B) After jjy a, 1963. such merging is
part of a change in operation at the
facility that includes the tntttllal^ of
pollution controls and is accompanied
by a net redaction in the allowable
•missions of a pollutant This exclusion
from the definition of "dispersion
.techniques" shall apply only to die
'•mission limitation for the pollutant
affected by such change in operation: or
(Q Before July 8.1990. aoch mergisg
was part of a change in operation at the
facility that included the installation of
emissions control equipment or wss
carried out for sound economic or
engineering reasons. Where there wst
an increase in the emission limitation or.
in die event diet no emission limitation
waa ia existence prior to ue merging, an
increase ia the quantity of pollutants
actually emitted prior to die merging, the
reviewing agency shall presume that
merging was significantly motivated by
aa intent to gain emissions credit for
greater dispersion. Absent a
demonstration by the source owner or
operator diet merging was not
significantly motivated by such intent
die reviewing agency shall deny credit
for the effects of such merging ia
««Ui.u*t^f, die allowable emissions for
(ui) Smoke management in
agricultural or suvicuitural prescribed
burning programs;
(hr) Episodic restrictions on
residential woodbaning and open
(v) Techniques under f 31.1(hb)(l)(iii)
which increase final exhaust gas plum*
rise where die resulting allowable
emisakma of sulfur dioxide from the
facility do net exceed 3JJOO tons per
year.
(H) -Good eagtaoeriag practice" (CEP)
stack height means the greater oft
(1) 68 meters, measured from the
ground-level etovetioa at the base of the
stack
(2f(i) For stacks m existence on
Jewry <1Z 197* end for which the
owner or operator bad obtained all
applicable permits or approvals required
under 40 CPU Parts 81 aad 32.
H.-XW.
provided die owner or operator
produces evidence that this equation
waa actually relied on in establishing an
emieeiaci liaiitatioas
(U) For all other stacka.
H.-aeoa' ii^mssrtnt pnctto* rta
smeared froeuhe sraund-tovai
•ievettee at the base of tha itaek.
H«heifhl of iisaiby «ractara(i) Bwaiurtd
boat th* gBiuirl Isval «tavatton at th«
base of tbe Mack.
L«laeaer diaMBSiae. aeiatt or profKtwi
widttL e/ aaarby sowture(s)
provided mat the SPA. State or local
control agency may require the use of a
field study or fluid modal to verify CEP
stack height for die source; or
(3) Tbe height demonstrated by s fluid
model or e field study approved by the
EPA State or local control agency, which
ensures diet the Maiasions from a stack
do not result in excessive
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 130 / Monday. July «. 1965 / Rules and Regulations
concentrations of any air polluttnt as •
result of atmospheric downwaah. wakes,
or tddy effects created by tbt source
itself, nearby structures or nearby
terraia features.
(jj) -Nearby" as used in I Sl.l(ii) of
this pert is defined for a specific
structure or terrain feature and
(1) for purposes of applying the
formulae provided in I Sl.l(ii)(2) means
that distance up to five times the lesser
of the height or the width dimension of a
structure, but not greater than 04 km (to
mile), and
(2) for conducting demonstrations
under 131.1(iiH3) means not greater •
than 04 km (Vt mile), except that the
portion of a terrain feature may be
considered to be nearby which falls
within a distance of up to 10 times the
maximum height (HJ of the feature* not
to exceed 2 miles if such feature
achieves a height (HJ 04 km from the
stack that is at least 40 percent of the
CEP stack height determined by the
formulae provided in I S1.1(U)(2XU) of
this part or 28 meters, whichever is
greater, as measured from the ground*
level elevation at the base of the stack.
The height of the structure or terraia
feature is measured from the ground-
level elevation at the base of the stack.
(kk) "Excessive concentration" is*'
defined for the purpose of determining
good engineering practice stack height
under | 5l.l(ii)(3) and means:
(1) for sources seeking credit for stack
height exceeding that established i
i SLl(iiX2). a maximum ground-level
concentration due to emissions from a
stack due in whole or part to downwaea,
wakes, and eddy effects produced by
nearby structures or nearby terrain
restores which individually is at least 40
percent in excess of the maximum
concentration experienced in the
absence of such downwaah. wake*, or
eddy effects and which contribute* to a
total concentration due to emissions
from all sources that is greater than aa
ambient air quality standard. For
sources subject to the prevention of
(40
131JM and 5Z21). an excessive
concentration alternatively means a
maximum ground-level concentration
due to emissions from a stack due in
whole or part to downwash. wakes, or
eddy effects produced by nearby
structures or nearby terraia features
which individually is at least 40 percent
ia excess of the maximum concentration
experienced m the absence of the
maximum concentration experienced in
the absence of such downwash, wakes,
or eddy effects and greater than a
prevention of significant deterioration
increment Ifee allowable emission rate
to be used m making demonstrations
under this part shall be prescribed by
the aew source performance standard
that is applicable to the source category
unlees the owner or operator
demonstrates that this emission rats is
infeaaibla. When such demonstrations
an approved by the authority
admin) cring the State implementation
plan, an alternative emission rate shall
be established ta consultation with the
•OUTCet OWBetf Of OpeVBtOR
(2) for sources seeking credit after
October 1.1983. for increases m existing
stack heights up to the heights
established under 131.1(iiM2). either (I)
a *»••*•«•» grauad-levol oooftentiatton
duem whole or part to downweah,
wakes or eddy effects aa provided m
paragraph (kkXDof this section, except
that the emission rats specified by any
epplicabl* State implementation plan
(or. ia the absence of such a omit the
actual emission rats) shall be used, or
(11) the actual presence of a weal
nuisance caused by the existing stack.
aa determined by the authority
administering the State implementation
films** £Bt£
(3) for sources seeking credit after
January U1979 for a stack height
determined-under f SLKUX2) when the
euthority administering the Stats
implementation plan requires the use of
a field study or fluid model ta verify
GBP stack height for sources seeking
stack height credit after November 9.
1864 besed on the aerodynamic
influence of cooling towers, aad for
sources seeking stack height credit ai
December 31.1970 based on the
aerodynamic faflwra of structures not
adequately represented by the equations
in 181.1(11X2). a maximum ground-level
concentration das in whole or part to
downwash, wakes or eddy effects that
is st least 40 percent in excess of the
maxftmrm concentration experienced in
the absence of such downwash. wakes.
or eddy effects.
3. Section SL1 Is further amended by
lemoriag paragraphs 01) sad (mm).
lltt*
4. Section SLU is amended by
1 Section n.UTJ) is amended by
removing "aad (fl" from the first
•. Section SLUM ia revised as
follows:
(k) The provisions of I S1.12(j) shall
not apply to (1) stack heights in
existence, or dispersion techniques-
implemented on or before December 31
1970, except where pollutants are being
emitted from such stacks or using such
dispersion techniques by sources, as
defined ta secttoa Ul(aK») of the desn
Air Act which wen constructed, or
reconstructed, or for which major
modifications, as denned m
and
carried out after
December 3L itm or (2) coal-fired
atsam electric generating units subject
to the provisions of Section tlf of the
Qeen Air Act. which commenced
operation before jutyVMBr. aad whose
stacks wen constructed under s
construction confract awarded before
February «, 1974.
lilts
r. Sectien SLletl) is amended by
"end (I)" bom the first
i.
(FROee.!
-------
Port SI
40 CHI Oi. I (7-1-M fdUlon)
•AM 31-*fOUiMM«m KM PMP-
AlATtON. ADOPTION, AND SUB-
MITTAl Of IMPIIMEN1ATION
PtANS
C-f ••M*V«4l|
Sec.
•1.4* Scope.
AQMA ANALTIIS
•l.«l AQMA analysis: Bubmlttal date.
•1.41 AQMA analysis: Analysis period.
• I. 41 AQUA analysis: Guideline*.
tl.44 AQMA analysis: Projection of emM
•ton*.
11.41 AQMA analysis: Allocation of emls
•Ion*.
•1.4* AQMA analysis: Projection of air
quality concentration*.
11.47 AQMA analysis: Description of data
source*.
•1.4* AQMA analysis. Database*.
•1.4* AQMA analyst*: Technique* descrlp-
Uon.
•IM AQMA analysis: Accuracy factor*.
tl.lt AQMA analysis: SubmltUI of calcula
tkmt.
AQMA PLAN
•Ml AQMA plan: Oeneral.
•I II AQMA plan: Demonstration of ade-
quacy.
•I.M AQMA plan: Strategic*.
II It AQMA plan: Legal authority.
II M AQMA plan: Future strategies.
II .11 AQMA plan: Future legal authority.
tl.M AQMA plan: Intergovernmental co-
operation.
Ill* I Reserved I
II M AQMA plan: Resource*
it 81 AQMA plan: Submntal lonnat.
11*1 AQMA analyst* and plan: Data avail-
ability.
II «3 AQMA analysis and plan: Alternative
procedures.
«d|
• I IM Peflnltloni.
II 101 Stipulation*.
•1101 Public hearings
1 1. 101 Submission of plant: preliminary
review of plan*.
• I 104 Revisions.
1 1 . 1 01 Approval of plan*.
81.11* Attainment and maintenance of na-
tional standards.
tl. 111 Description of control meaiurea.
11.111 Demomtratlon of adequacy.
II.Ill Time period for demonstration of
adequacy.
II 114 Emission* data and protection*.
tl. I It Air quality data and protections.
11.11* Data availability.
II 117 Additional provision* for lead.
II III Stack height provision*.
tl.llt Intermittent control system*.
II.IM Classification of regloni for episode
plant.
11.111 Significant harm level*.
II 111 Contingency plan*.
11.111 Reevaluatlon of episode plan*.
tvfow of New Imrsts and
tl.lM Legally enforceable procedure*.
II.UI Public availability of Information.
II.Ill Identification of responsible
agency.
II.UI Administration procedure*.
11.1*4 Black height procedure*.
II.UI Permit requirement*.
II.IM Prevention of significant deterio-
ration of air quality.
lAJrCMMv
II.IM Ambient air quality monitoring re-
quirement*.
11.110 Oeneral.
•Mil Emission report* and reoardkeeptng.
11.111 Testing. Inspection, enforcement.
and complaint*.
11.111 Transportation control measures.
II114 Continuous emUslon monitoring.
II.1M Requirement* for all plans.
11.111 Identification of legal authority.
tl.Ul Assignment of legal authority to
local agencies.
AOENCY DUIONATION
II .140 Oeneral plan requirement*.
•1.141 Nonaltalnment areas for carbon
monoxide and ozone.
• 1.141 I Reserved I
712
Envlf*niii*nlal Protection A§oncy
| SI .40
COMTIHUIHO CONIUtTSTIOH PlOCEM
tl .141 Consultation process oblectlvea.
•1.144 Plan element* affected.
•I.14S Organizations and official* to be
consulted.
tl.!4« Timing.
11.147 Hearing* on consultation process
violations.
RsumonsHir or PLAM TO Omca PL*miiira
AND MANAGEMENT PBOORAM*
11.141 Coordination with other program*.
tl.M IReservedl
tl.lM Transmlttal of Information.
II 111 Conformity with Executive Order
11371.
11.111 Summary of plan development par-
ticipation.
11.MO Legally enforceable compliance
schedule*.
11 .M I final compliance schedule*.
11. Ml E*t*n«lm, beyond on* year.
HIM Resources.
11.111 Copies of rule* and regulation*.
II.UI Public notification.
•1.100 Purpose and applicability.
tl.101 Definition!.
•1.101 Implementation control strategies.
II .101 Exemptions from control.
11.104 Identification of Integral vista*.
11.101 Monitoring.
•MM Long-term strategy.
•1.107 New source review.
A» QUALITY DM* lUrosmsw •
II.1M Annual air quality data report.
Somes Esiisaioiis *m> Bran ACTION
Riro*T»a
11.111 Annual source emlstlon* and State
action report.
•1.111 Source* sublect to emissions report-
Ing.
•1.111 Reportable emissions data and In-
formation.
•I .114 Progress In plan enforcement.
11.111 Contingency plan action*.
11.110 Reportable revisions
• 1.117 Enforcement order* and other State
actions.
11.111 IReservedl
•1.140 Request for 1 year extension.
11.141 Request for 11-month extension.
ArruiMcc* A—K-IRan«t»l
ArrCNsm L—ExAMru REOULATIONS roa
PREVENTION or A» POLLUTION EMERGEN-
CY ErisoD**
ArriM»ix M—IRocavn)
ArrtNoix N-EHIMION* RtvucrioN*
ACHIEVABLE THROUOH iNsrccrioN. MAIN-
TENANCE ANB RETROTIT Or L.IOHT DllTY
VEHICLE*
ArrcHBix O-IRE*ERVED|
ArrtNBix P—MINIMUM EMIMION MONITOR
INO REAUIREMENT*
ArrENDicE* Q-R-IRamvEDl
ArrEHDiE 8-EMISSION OTTSET lirrtursrTA
TIVE ROLINO
ArTEHDIE T— IREtERVEDl
ArrxnBix tl—CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 174
GUIDELINE*
AUTHORITY: This rulemaklng • promul-
gated under authority of sections lOllbMI).
110. IM-IIO. 171-171. and JOI(a) of the
Clean Air Act 41 Ufl.C. 740l(bMl). 7410.
7470-741*. 7IOI-7SO*. and 7*OI(a>.
SOURCE: M PR 111*1. Nov. IS. 1*71. unless
otherwise noted.
EDITORIAL NOTE Nomenclature change*
affecting Part II appear at 44 FR IH1. Feb.
I. 1*1* and II PR 4OM1. Nov. 7. IM*.
A-C—{•otorvodl
SOORCE: 41 PR HIM. May 1. 1*7*. unless
otherwise noted.
111.10 Be***.
(a) Applicability. The requirement*
of thto •ubpart apply to air quality
maintenance area* (AQMA*) Identi-
fied under I SI.IIOXl) and to any area*
Identified under I Bl.llOd).
(b) AQUA 4n«lv*ig. Under thta MID-
part> procedure* are given for the
analy*!* of the air quality Impact of
•peclfled pollutant emission* from en-
UUni lource* and embwlon* associated
with projected trowlh and develop-
ment In areas Identified under para-
iraph* (II and AQMA Plan. Under this subpart.
the Administrator will require a revi-
sion to the State Implementation plan
for areas Identified under I 5I.IKHI) or
151.11(HU when necessary to prevent a
national amblrnl air quality standard
713
-------
ISI.I17
40 CM Ck. I (7-1-M IdttUn)
estimated amounts of emissions and
the mniounU of such emlMlom allow-
able under the applicable emission
limitations or other measures.
1 11.117 AMItUul rr».Ut»M
In addition to other requirement* In
|| SI. 100 throuth 61. !!• the following
reqiilremenU apply to lead. To the
estent they conflict, there require-
ments are controlling over thoae of
the proceeding section*.
(a) Control ttratem demontlraUon.
Bach plan must contain a demonstra-
tloo showing that the plan will attain
and maintain the standard In the fol-
io wlnt area*:
Area* In the vicinity of the fol-
lowing point aourcea of lead: Primary
lead smelter*. Secondary lead smelt-
era. Primary copper ameltera. Lead
gasoline additive plante. Lead-acid
storage battery manufacturing planU
that produce 2,000 or more batteries
per day. Any other stationary aource
that actually emIU 26 or more ton*
per year of lead or lead compound!
measured as elemental lead.
(2) Any other area that ha* lead air
concentrations In excess of the nation-
al ambient air quality standard con-
centration for lead, measured since
January 1. 1*74.
(b) Time perio for emoiufrafioM o/
a eouacy. The demonstration of ade-
quacy*of the control strategy required
under 161.112 may cover a longer
period If allowed by the appropriate
EPA Regional Administrator.
Special modeling provisions, II)
Pur urbanized areas with measured
lead concentrations In excess of 4.0
ji«/m*. quarterly mran measured since
January I. 1974. the plan must employ
the modified rollback model for the
demon*! ration of attainment as a min-
imum. but may IMC an atmospheric
dbperslon model If desired. If a pro-
portional model Is UBCd. the air quality
rtaU should be the saire year as the
eintiulona Inventory required under
Ihf paragraph e.
(2l For each poliil aource listed In
|61.U7(a>. that plan must employ an
•Unosphertc dispersion model for dem-
onstration o( attainment.
(3 1 For each area In the vicinity of
•n air iiiiallly monitor that has record-
ed lead concentrations In excess of the
lead national standard concentration.
the plan must employ the modified
rollback model as a minimum, but may
use an atmospheric dispersion model If
desired for the demonstration of at-
tainment.
(d) Mr gualltv data and projection*.
<1> Each State must submit to the ap-
propriate EPA Regional Office with
the plan, but not part of the plan, all
lead air quality data measured since
January I. 1974. This requirement
doe* not apply If the data ha* already
been submitted.
<» The data must be submitted In
accordance with the procedures and
data form* specified In Chapter >.4.0
of the "AEROS User's Manual" con-
cerning storage and retrieval of aero-
metric data (BAROAD) except where
the Regional Administrator waives
thl* requirement.
(J) If additional lead air quality data
are desired to determine lead air con-
centrations In area* suspected of ex-
ceeding the lead national ambient air
quality standard, the plan may Include
data from any previously collected fil-
ters from partlculate matter high
volume samplers. In determining the
lead content of the filter* for control
strategy demonstration purposes, a
State may use. In addition to the refer-
ence method. X-ray fluorescence or
any other method approved by the Re-
gional Administrator.
JTmiMioiu data. (1) The point
source Inventory on which the summa-
ry of the baseline lead emissions In-
ventory I* based must contain all
sources that emit five or more tons of
lead per year.
431 Each State must submit toad
emission* data to the appropriate EPA
Regional Office with the original plan.
The submission must be made with
the plan, but not a* part of the plan.
and must Include emissions data and
Information related to point and area
source emissions. The emission data
and Information should Include the In-
formation Identified In the Hazardous
and Trace Emissions System (HA-
TREMS) point source coding forms
for all point sources and the area
source coding forms for all sources
that are not point sources, but need
not necessarily be In the formal of
those forms.
728
litvlr*iMnenl«l frotectlen Agency
9 51.11*
1 61.111 Black k
(a) The plan must provide that the
degree of emission limitation required
of any source for control of any air
pollutant must not be affected by so
much of any source'* (lack height that
exceed* good engineering practice or
by any other dispersion technique.
except as provided In 1 61.1 1Mb). The
plan must provide that before a State
submits to EPA a new or revised emis-
sion limitation that I* based on a good
engineering practice stack height that
exceed* the height allowed by
161.100(11) (1) or (2). the State must
notify the public of the avaUabllty of
the demonstration study and must
provide opportunity for a public hear-
big on It. This section doe* not require
the plan to restrict. In any manner.
the actual stack height of any source.
(b> The provisions of |6l.ll6(a)
•hall not apply to (I) stack heights in
existence, or dispersion techniques Im-
plemented on or before December II.
1970. except where pollutant* are
being emitted from such stack* or
using such dispersion techniques by
sources, a* defined In section lll(aKI)
of the Clean Air Act, which were con-
structed. or reconstructed, or for
which major modifications, a* defined
In ||6t.l6t1.10MbK2KI)
and 62.21(bM2Kl). were carried out
after December 31. 1970; or (2) coal-
fired Meant electric generating unit*
•ubject to the provision* of section 111
of the Clean Air Act. which com-
menced operation before July 1. 1967.
and whose stacks were construced
under a construction contract awarded
before February 8. 1974.
• 61.119 InlcmllUal cmitrol syslesM.
(a) The me of an Intermittent con-
trol system (ICS) may be taken Into
account In establishing an emission
limitation for a pollutant under a
State Implementation plan, provided:
(1) The ICS was Implemented before
December il. 1970. according to the
criteria specified In 1 61.1 1Mb).
(2) The extent to which the ICS Is
taken Into account Is limited to reflect
emission levels and associated ambient
pollutant concentrations that would
result If the ICS was the same as It
was before December 31. 1970. and was
operated as specified by the operating
system of the ICS before December 31.
1970.
(3) The plan allows the ICS to com-
pensate only for emission* from a
source for which the ICS was Imple-
mented before December 31.1970. and.
In the event the source ha* been modi-
fied, only to the extent the emission*
correspond to the maximum capacity
of the aource before December 31.
1970. For purposes of this paragraph.
a source for which the ICS was Imple-
mented b any particular structure or
equipment the emissions from which
were subject to the ICS operating pro-
cedures.
(4) The plan requires the continued
operation of any constant pollution
control system which was In use
before December 31. 1970. or the
equivalent of that system.
(6) The plan clearly defines the
emission limit* affected by the ICS
and the manner In which the ICS I*
taken Into account In establishing
those llntlte.
(6) The plan contains requirements
for the operation and maintenance of
the qualifying ICS which, together
with the emission limitations and any
other necessary requirements, will
assure that the national ambient air
quality standard* and any applicable
prevention of significant deterioration
Increments will be attained and main-
tained. These requirement* shall In-
clude, but not necessarily be limited
to. the following:
(I) Requirement* that a source
owner or operator continuously oper-
ate and maintain the components of
the ICS specified at 161.ll9(bM3> (II)-
(Iv) In a manner which assures that
the ICS Is at least a* effective as It was
before December 31. 1970. The air
quality monitors and meteorological
Instrumentation specified at
161.ll9(b> may be operated by a local
authority or other entity provided the
source has ready access to the date
from the monitors and Instrumenta-
tion.
(II) Requirements which specify the
circumstances under which, the extent
to which, and the procedures through
which, emissions shall be curtailed
through the activation of ICS.
(Ill) Requirements for recordkeeplng
which require the owner or operator
729
-------
131.153
III.IU R*«*aluatlo* «rf «»fa»4c pteM.
(a) States should periodically re-
evaluate priority classifications of all
Rrglnns or portion of Regions within
tlielr border*. The reevaluatlon muat
consider the three most recent yean
ol air quality data. If the evaluation
Indicates a chance to a hither priority
classification, appropriate changes In
the episode plan must be made aa ex-
pedltlously as practicable.
Sutpori I—Review «f N«w S*vrce*
•nd M Each plan must set forth legally
enforceable procedures that enable
the State or local agency to determine
whether the construction or modifica-
tion of a facility, building, structure or
Installation, or combination of these
will result In-
(1) A violation of applicable portions
of the control stratecy: or
Interference with attainment or
maintenance of a national standard In
the State In which the proposed
source (or modification) Is located or
In a neighboring State.
(b) Such procedures must Include
means by which the State or local
agency responsible for final decision-
making on an application for approval
to construct or modify will prevent
such construction or modification If—
(I) It will result In a violation of ap-
plicable portions of the control strate-
gy: or
(1) It will Interfere with the attain-
ment or maintenance of a national
standard.
(c) The procedures muni provide for
the submission, by the owner or opera-
tor of the building, facility, structure.
or Initallallon to be constructed or
modified, of such Information on—
< 1) The nature and amounts of emis-
sions to be emitted by It or emitted by
awoHated mobile sources;
(2) The location, design, construc-
tion, and operation of such facility,
bulletin*., structure, or Installation as
may be necessary to permit the State
or local agrnry to makr I he dcterml-
40 en Ch. I (7-1-M IdllUn)
nation referred to In paragraph (a) of
this section.
(d) The procedures must provide
that approval of any construction or
modification must not affect the re-
sponsibility to the owner or operator
to comply with applicable portions of
the control strategy.
The procedures must Identify
types and sires of facilities, buildings.
structures, or Installations which will
be subject to review under this section.
The plan must discuss the basis for de-
termining which facilities will be sub-
ject to review.
(f) The procedures must discuss the
air quality data and the dispersion or
other air quality modeling used to
meet the requirements of this subpart.
• II.UI Public availability of lafenna-
(a) The legally enforceable proce-
durea In 161.160 must also require the
State or local agency to provide oppor-
tunity for public comment on Informa-
tion submitted by owners and opera-
tors. The public Information must In-
clude the agency's analysis of the
effect of construction or modification
on ambient air quality. Including the
agency's proposed approval or disap-
proval.
For purposes of paragraph (a) of
this section, opportunity for public
comment shall Include, as a mini-
mum—
U> Availability for public Inspection
In at least one location In the area af-
fected of the Information submitted
by the owner or operator and of the
State or local agency's analysis of the
effect on air quality:
(J> A 30-day period for submlttal of
public comment; and
of
this section would conflict with exist-
ing requirements for acting on re-
quests for permission to construct or
modify, the State may submit for ap-
proval a comment period which la con-
732
Invln
Mitel PraUctUn Agency
f 51.U5
alatent with such existing require-
ments.
(d) A copy of the notice required by
paragraph (b) of this section must also
be aent to the Administrator through
the appropriate Regional Office, and
to all other State and local air pollu-
tion control agencies having Jurisdic-
tion In the region In which such new
or modified Installation will be locat-
ed. The notice also must be aent to
any other agency In the region having
responsibility for Implementing the
procedures required under this sub-
part. Por lead, a copy of the notice la
required for all point sources. The def-
inition of point for lead Is given In
I Bl.l
• 61.161 UcaUflcallosj of
Bach plan muat Identify the State or
local agency which will be responsible
(or meeting the requirements of this
subpart In each area of the State.
Where auch responsibility rests with
an agency other than an air pollution
control agency, such agency will con-
sult with the appropriate State or
local air pollution control agency In
carrying out the provisions of this sub-
part.
• 51.161 AMakiralH-e praccatosa.
The plan must Include the admlnls-
tratlve procedures, which will be fol-
lowed In making the determination
specified In paragraph (a) of 151.160.
• 11.164 Black height BtMfdane.
Such procedures muat provide that
the degree of emission limitation re-
quired of any source for control of any
air pollutant must not be affected by
so much of any source's stack height
that exceeds good engineering practice
or by any other dispersion technique.
except as provided In I CI.HWb). Such
procedures must provide that before a
State lusues a permit to a source based
on n good engineering practice stack
height that exceeds the height al-
lowed by 151.100(11) (1) or (1). the
State must notify the public of the
availability of the demonstration
study and must provide opportunity
for public hearing on It. This section
does not require such procedures to re-
strict In any manner the actual stack
height of any source.
111.165 Permit rcaalrramria.
(a) State Implementation Plan pro-
visions satisfying sections HMbMt)
and 171 of the Act shall meet the fol-
lowing conditions:
(1) All such plans shall uae the spe-
cific definitions. Deviations from the
following wording will be approved
only If the state specifically demon-
strates that the submitted definition Is
more stringent, or at least M strin-
gent. In all respects aa the correspond-
ing definition below:
(I) "Stationary source" means any
building, structure, facility, or Installa-
tion which emits or may emit any air
pollutant subject to regulation under
the Act.
(II) "Building, structure, facility, or
Installation" means all of the pollut-
ant-emitting activities which belong to
the same Industrial grouping, are lo-
cated on one or more contiguous or ad-
jacent properties, and are under the
control of the same person (or persona
under common control) except the ac-
tivities of any vessel. Pollutant emit-
ting activities shall be considered as
part of the same Industrial grouping If
they belong to the same "Major
Group" (I.e.. which have the same two-
digit code) as described In the Stand
crd Indtutrial CtanWcatto* Manual.
t9V2. as amended by the 1*77 Supple-
ment (UA Government Printing
Office stock numbers 4101-0065 and
001-009 00176-0. respectively).
(Ill) "Potential to emit" means the
maximum capacity of a stationary
source to emit a pollutant under Its
physical and operational design. Any
physical or operational limitation on
the capacity of the source to emit a
pollutant. Including air pollution con-
trol equipment and restrictions on
hours of operation or on the type or
amount of material combusted, stored.
or processed, shall be treated aa part
of Its design only If the limitation or
the effect It would have en emissions
la federally enforceable. Secondary
emissions do not count In determining
the potential to emit of a stationary
source.
733
-------
f St. II
monitoring or communications por-
tions of a contingency plan, but de-
tailed critiques ol such portions are
provided to the State.
(c) Where a State plan does not pro-
vide for public announcement regard-
ing air pollution emergency episodes
or where the State falls to give any
such public announcement, the Ad-
ministrator will Issue a public an-
nouncement that an episode stage has
been reached. When making such an
announcement, the Administrator will
be guided by the suggested episode cri-
teria and emission control actions sug-
gested In Appendix L of Part II of thto
rhapter or those In the approved plan.
117 PR 10*4*. May II. 1*73. as amended at
1? PR IM07. Sept. 33. 1*711
lll.lt floarce Mrvelllaace.
(a) Each subpart Identifies the plan
provisions for source surveillance
which are disapproved, and seta forth
the Administrator's promulgation of
necessary provisions for requiring
sources to maintain records, make re-
ports, and submit Information.
(b) No provisions are promulgated
for any disapproved State or local
agency procedures for testing. Inspec-
tion, Investigation, or detection, but
detailed critiques of such portions are
provided to the Stale.
(c> For purpose of Federal enforce-
ment, the following test procedure*
shall be used:
(1) Sources subject to plan provi-
sions which do not specify a test pro-
cedure and sources subject to provi-
sions promulgated by the Administra-
tor will be tested by means of the ap-
propriate procedures and methods pre-
scribed In Part N of thto chapter;
unless otherwise specified In thto part.
(1) Sources subject to approved pro-
visions of a plan wherein a test proce-
dure to specified will be tested by the
specified procedure.
137 PR IM4*. May II. 1*73. as amended at
«• PR 3*011. June 3*. 1*7*1
• It.ll Air •nail!? MrvrUlaare; w,
Intergovernmental cooperation.
Disapproved portions of the plan re-
lated to the air quality surveillance
system, resources, and Intergovern-
mental cooperation are Identified In
40 CM Ch. I (7-l-f • IdMon)
each subpart. and detailed critiques of
such portions are provided to the
State. No provisions are promulgated
by the Administrator.
111.14 State ambient air avattty etand-
aid*.
Any ambient air quality standard
submitted with a plan which to less
stringent than a national standard to
not considered part of the plan.
• lt.ll PvMfc availability orates*.
Bach State shall make available for
public Inspection at least one copy of
the phut In at least one city In each
region to which such plan to applica-
ble. All such copies shall be kept cur-
rent.
• Ill* Sabmlesloa to Admlalotrator.
All requests, reports, applications.
submlttato. and other communications
to the Administrator pursuant to thto
part shall be submitted In duplicate
and addressed to the appropriate Re-
gional Office of the Environmental
Protection Agency, to the attention of
the Director. Enforcement Division.
The Regional Offices are as follows:
Regton I (Connecticut. Main*. Mamachu-
selta. New Hampshire. Rhode Island. Ver-
mont). John P. Kennedy Federal Building.
Boston. Mae*. 03101.
Region II (New York. New Jersey. Puerto
Rico. Virgin Wands) Federal Office Bund-
ing. M Federal Plan (Poley Square). New
York. NY 1*007.
Region HI (Delaware. DMrfct of Columbia,
Pennsylvania. Maryland. Virginia. Wort
Virginia) Curtis Building. Sixth and
Walnut Streets. Philadelphia. PA 1*10*.
Region IV (Alabama, Florida, Georgia. afb>
dailppl. Kentucky. North Carolina. South
Carolina. Tennemee) Suite 100. 1431
Peaehtree Street. Atlanta. OA 3010*.
Region V (Illinois. Indiana. Minnesota,
Ohio, WlaoonaJn) Federal Building. S3*
South Dearborn. Chicago. Illinois MM*.
Region VI (Arkamas. Louisiana. Ni
UA»|MM rtfci.*.- ••« "• -- ~ •
fcAens..**.. protection Agency
California Street. San Frandno. CA
__— .. ..— .-.i.-.. UIUHUOIW. New
Mexico. Oklahoma. Texas) 1*00 Patenon
Street. Dallas. TX 7*1*1.
Region VII (lows, KanMs. Mlanuri. Nebras-
ka) 1711 Baltimore Street. Kama* City,
MO 0410*.
Region VIII (Colorado. Montana. North
Dakota. South Dakota, Utah. Wyoming)
•I* Uneoln Towers, 1*00 Uneoln Street.
Denver. CO *0301.
Region IX (Artaona. California. Hawaii.
Nevada. Ouara. American Samoa) 100
X (Washington. Oregon. Idaho.
Alaska) 1*0* SUth Avenue. Seattle. WA
M10I.
|H FR !••»•. Sept. a*, 1*71. as amended at
MPRtngf.Oet.tt. 1*741
IU.I7 Be.ara.Btty of areviiliaa.
The provisions promulgated In this
part god the various applications
thereof are distinct and severable. If
•ny provision of this part or the appli-
cation thereof to any person or cir-
cumstances Is held Invalid, such inva-
lidity shall not affect other provisions
or application of such provision to
other personal or circumstances which
can bo given of feet without the Invalid
provision or application.
in PR I****. Sept. 33. 1*711
I till
Abbreviations used tat ">ls part shall
be those set forth In t ^.t M of this
chapter.
IM PR II***, May 14,1*711
IU.W lUtiaiia of
After notice and opportunity for
hearing m each affected State, the Ad-
ministrator may revise any provision
of an applicable plan. Including; but
not limited to provisions specifying
compliance schedules, emission Umltsv
Uons. end date* for attainment of na-
tional standards; If:
(a) The provision was promulgated
by the Administrator, and
(b) The plan, as revised. wOJ be con-
sistent with the act and with the re-
quirement* applicable to Implement*/-
Uon plan* under Pert •! of thto chap-
ter.
IM PR Its**. May 14.1*7*1
•I M *.•% AMtamwaAwBtwrf dwBBRsM*. Bmw?
Bach subpart contains a section
which specifies the latest date* by
which national standards are to be at-
tained In each region In the State. An
attainment date which only refers to a
month and a year (such as July in»)
shall be construed to mean the last
day of the month In question. Howev-
er, the specification of attainment
dates for national standards doe* not
relieve any State from the provisions
of Subpart N of thai chapter which re-
quire all sources and categories of
source* to comply with applicable re-
quirements of the plan—
(a) As eipedrtlously as practicable
when the requirement to part of a
control strategy designed to attain a
primary standard, and
(b) Within a reasonable time whet*
the requirement Is part of a control
strategy designed to attain a second-
ary standard.
1*7 PR 1MM. Sept. 33. 1*7*. as I
M PR MIU. Sept. M. 1*74: II FR 40*7*.
Nov. 7.104*1
• MJI
of otgaUVaat deterle-
(a) ffm disapproval The provisions
of thto section are applicable to any
State tanplementaUon plan which has
been disapproved with respect to pre-
vention of significant deterioration of
air quality In any portion of any State
when the existing air quality to better
than the national ambient air quality
standards. Specific disapprovals are
listed where applicable. In Subparts B
through ODD of thto part. The provi-
sions of thto section have been Incor-
porated by reference Into the applica-
ble Implementation plans for various
States, as provided to Subparts B
through ODD of thto part. Where thto
section to so Incorporated, the provi-
sions shall also be applicable to all
lands owned by the Federal Cover-
ment Mid Indian Reservations located
to such State. No disapproval with re-
spect to a State's failure to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality
•hall Invalidate or otherwise affect the
obligations of States, emission sources.
or other person* with respect to all
portion* of plans approved or promul-
gated under thto part.
(b) Oe/lniflons. For the purpose* of
thto section:
(I Ml) "Major stationary source-
means:
(a) Any of the following stationary
sources of air pollutants which emits,
or has the potential to emit. 100 tons
per year or more of any pollutant sub-
ject to regulation under the Act: Fossil
fuel-fired steam electric plants of more
18
19
-------
9 51.fl
than MO million Britten thermal unite
per hour heat Input, coal cleaning
plante (with thermal dryen). kratt
pulp mills. Portland cement plante,
primary alne smelters. Iron and steel
mill plante. primary aluminum ore re-
duction plante. primary copper smelt-
ers, municipal Incinerators capable or
charting more than MO tons or refuse
per day. hydrofluoric, sulfurlc. and
nitric acid plante. petroleum refiner-
ies, lime plante. phosphate rock proc-
essing plante. coke oven batteries.
sulfur recovery plante. carbon black
plante (furnace process), primary lead
smelters, fuel conversion plante. sin-
tering plante, secondary metal produc-
tion plante. chemical process plante.
fossil fuel boilers (or combinations
thereon totaling more than MO mil-
lion British thermal unite per hour
heat Input, petroleum storage and
transfer unite with a total storage ca-
pacity exceeding SOO.OOO barrels, laco-
nlte ore processing plante, glass fiber
processing plants, and charcoal pro-
duction plante:
(ft) Notwithstanding the stationary
source sice specified In paragraph
(bxixl) of this section, any stationary
source which emits, or has the poten-
tial to emit, mo Ions per yaw or more
of any air pollutant subject to regula-
tion under the Act; or
(e> Any physical change that would
occur at a stationary source not other-
wise qualifying under paragraph (bXI)
of this section, as a major stationary
source. If the changes would constitute
a major stationary source by Itself.
A major stationary source that Is
major for volatile organic compounds
shall be considered major for own*.
(Ill) The fugitive emissions of a sta-
tionary source shall not be included In
determining for any of the purposes of
this section whether It Is a major sta-
tionary source, unless the source be-
longs to one of the following catego-
ries of stationary sources:
(•» Coal cleaning plante (with ther-
mal dryers):
(b) Kraft pulp mills:
(c) Portland cement plants:
(d> Primary *lnc smelters:
(•) Iron and steel mills;
(/) Primary aluminum ore reduction
plante:
<9> Primary copper smelters:
40 era Ch. I (7-l-M ldMen)
(»> Municipal Incinerators capable of
charging more than MO tons or refuse
Per day;
(f) Hydrofluoric, aulfurlc. or nitric
add plants;
(/> Petroleum refineries;
(fc) Lime plants;
(I) Phosphate rock processing plants;
(m) Coke oven batteries:
(N) Sulfur recovery plants;
(o) Carbon black plante (furnace
process);
(p) Primary lead smelters;
<«) Fuel conversion plants:
(r) Sintering plants;
(•) Secondary metal production
plante;
((> Chemical process plants;
•m*
fft.II
(H) Fossil-fuel boilers (or combina-
tion thereof) totaling more than MO
million British thermal unite per hour
heat Input;
(»> Petroleum storage and transfer
unite with a total storage capacity ex-
ceeding MO.OOO barrels;
(is) Taeonlte ore processing plants:
Or) Glass fiber processing plante:
(?) Charcoal production plants;
(•) Fossil fuel fired steam electric
plante of more that MO million British
thermal unite per hour heat Input."
and
(••) Any other stationary source cat-
egory which, as or August 1. 1000. to
being regulated under section 111 or
lit of the Act.
(SMI) ••Major modification" means
any physical change In or change to
the method or operation of a major
stationary source that would result m
• significant net miilssluns Immssn of
My pollutant subject to regulation
under the Act.
(H) Any net emissions Increase that
to significant for volatile organic com-
pounds shall be considered significant
foroaone.
(Ill) A physical change or change to
the method of operation shall not In-
clude:
(a) Routine maintenance, repair and
replacement;
(ft) Ose of an alternative fuel or raw
material by reason of an order under
sections I (a) and (b) of the feiergy
Supply and Environmental Coordina-
tion Act or 1074 (or any superseding
legislation) or by reason of a natural
Federal Po
Act:
to the
for the i
(e) Use of an alternative fuel by
reason of an order or rule under sec-
tion IN of the Act;
(«•> Oes of an alternative tad at a
•team generating unit to the extent
that the tad to generated from muiue-
kwl solid waste;
(•) Use of an alternative tad or raw
sjaiertal by a stationary source which:
(f I The souroa waa capable of MBMS-
before January 0. 1071,
i change would be prohlbK-
federally enforceable
which
Hanoi
any
I alter January 0. 1070
to 40 CFR Oi.il or under regulations
approved punuant to 40 CFR Subpart
I or 40 CFR 11.100: or
(f) The source to •nprovofl is) use
nodsr any petmhtosuud under 40 CFR
pursuant to 40 CFR 01.100;
ifl An tocrease to the hours off
atlon or m the production rate.
such change would be
under any federally
•action, which permit to tat effect when
the particular change occurs.
(hr) An Increase or decrease tat actual
emissions of 1111110 dioxide or parttou-
mte matter which occurs before the
applicable baseline date to creditable
•Mft.lv 1st ftwl Inl OJ^MMOffJ^bdfl AjOj Abel sMMOJiiBMlflawMMw!
available.
Cv) Att faflfiaaaa In actiial avafa^oni la
oredUable only to the extent that the
•aw laval of actual avilavlojna •xcaaoa
thooMtovd.
(vl) A dteisass In actual omissions to
endttsMo only to the extent that:
(a) The old wvd of actual i
or the eld levd of allowable <
(ft) It b federally enforceable at and
•fter the ttose that actual constrnctlon
ontheparUcutojchajybegmcaiid
bWMd after January 0. 1070.1
to 40 CFR Oi.il or under i
•nuiOTod pursuant to to CFR Subpart
I or 40 CFR 01.100.
(f 1 Any change tat ownership at a
HMD "Met amhslens tocreaot"
means the amount by which the sum
of the foUowmg exceeds
(•I Any
from a particular physical change or
change In method of operation at a
stationary source; and
(ft) Any other
source that are contemporaneous wtth
the particular change and are other-
wise creditable.
(U) An Increase or decrease to actual
emissions to contemporaneous with
the Increase from the particular
change only If It occurs between:
(o) The date five years before eon-
atructton on the particular change
(ft) The date that the tocrease from
the particular change occurs.
(Ill) An Increase or decrease to actual
emissions to creditable only If the Ad-
ministrator has not relied on It In Issu-
to the
ire as that attributed
from the particular
physical or operational limitation on
Uio capacity of the source to emit a
pollutant. Including air pollution con-
trol equipment and restrictions on
hour* of operation or on the type or
amount of material combusted, stored.
or prnnmatd. shall be treated as part
of Its design If the limitation or the
effect H would have on nmtoalnns to
federally enforceable. Secondary emis-
sions do not count to determining the
potential to emit of a stationary
(0) "Stationary source" means any
building, structure, facility, or Instatta-
20
21
-------
fS3.ll
tlon which emit* or may emit any air
pollutant subject to refutation under
the Act.
(6) "Building. itructure. facility, or
Installation" mean* all of the pollut-
ant emlttlnt activities which belong to
the tame Industrial grouping, are lo-
cated on one or more contiguous or ad-
jacent properties, and are under the
control of the same person (or persons
under common control) except the ac-
tivities of any vessel. Pollutant-emit'
ting activities shall be considered as
part of the same Industrial grouping If
they belong to the same "Major
Oroup" (I.e.. which have the same first
two digit code) as described In the
Standard InduttHal CloJ*t/1ca/lo«
MantuO. 1972. as amended by the 1*77
Supplement (U. 8. Government Prlnt-
tiig Office stock numbers 4I01-4X)M
and 003-40S-OOI70 0. respectively).
(7) "Emissions unit" means any part
of a stationary source which emits or
would have the potential to emit any
pollutant subject to regulation tinder
the Act.
(•> "Construction" means any physi-
cal change or change In the method of
operation (Including fabrication, erec-
tion. Installation, demolition, or modi-
fication of an emissions unit) which
would result In a change In actual
emissions.
(» "Commence" ai applied to con-
struction of a major stationary source
or major modification means that the
owner or operator has all necessary
preconstructlon approvals or permits
and either has:
(I) Begun, or caused to begin, a con-
tinuous program of actual on-slte con-
struction of the source, to be complet-
ed within a reasonable tune; or
(II) Entered Into binding agreements
or contractual obligations, which
cannot be cancelled or modified with-
out substantial loss to the owner or
operator, to undertake a program of
actual construction of the source to be
completed within a reasonable time.
(10) "Necessary preconstructlon ap-
provals or permits" means those per-
mits or approvals required under fed-
eial air quality control laws and regu-
lations and those air quality control
laws and regulations which are part of
the applicable Slate Implementation
flan.
I
«0 CM Oi. I (7-1-M MHlMt) IsjvwwMi«iit«l PratectUn Asjency
(II) "Begin actual construction"
means. In genersl. Initiation of physi-
cal on-slte construction activities on an
emissions unit which are of a perma-
nent nature. Such activities Include,
but are not limited to. Installation of
building supports and foundations.
laying underground pipework and con-
struction of permanent storage struc- >
tures. With respect to a change In
method of operations, this term refers
to those on-slte actlvltes other than
preparatory activities which mark the
Initiation of the change.
(13) "Best available control technol-
ogy" means an emissions limitation
(Including a visible emission standard)
based on the maximum degree of re- ,
ductlon for each pollutant subject to
regulation under Act which would be I
emitted from any proposed major sta- |
tlonary source or major modification
which the Administrator, on a case-by- ,
case basis, taking Into account energy. •
environmental, and economic Impacts ;
and other costs, determines Is achieva-
ble for such source or modification
through application of production
processes or available methods, sys-
tems, and techniques. Including fuel
cleaning or treatment or Innovative
fuel combustion techniques for control
of such pollutant. In no event shall ap-
plication of best available control
technology result In emissions of any
pollutant which would exceed the
emissions allowed by any applicable
standard under 40 CFR Parts §0 and
•1. If the Administrator determines
that technological or economic limita-
tions on the application of measure-
ment methodology to a particular
emissions unit would make the Impos-
tlon of an emissions standard Infeasl-
ble. a design, equipment, work prac-
tice, operational standard, or combina-
tion thereof, may be prescribed In-
stead to satisfy the requirement for
the application of best available con-
trol technology. Such standard shall.
to the degree possible, set forth the
emissions reduction achievable by Im-
plementation of such design, equip-
ment, work practice or operation, and
shall provide for compliance by means
which achieve equivalent results.
(13KI) "Baseline concentration"
means that ambient concentration
level which exists In the baseline area
*t the time of the applicable baseline
date. A baseline concentration U deter-
mined for each pollutant for which a
baseline date Is established and shall
Include:
(•) The actual emissions representa-
tive of sources In existence on the ap-
plicable baseline date, except as pro-
vided In paragraph (bM 13X11) of this
section:
(b> The allowable emissions of major
•tatlonsry sources which commenced
construction before January •. 1978.
but were not In operation by the appli-
cable baseline date.
(II) The following will not be Includ-
ed In the baseline concentration and
will affect the applicable maximum al-
lowable IncreaseU):
(•) Actual emissions from any major
stationary source on which construc-
tion commenced after January •. 107B;
and
(D) Actual emissions Increases and
decreases at any stationary source oc-
curring after the baseline date.
(14X1) "Baseline date" means the
earliest date after August 7. 1*77. on
which the first complete application
under 40 CFR B3.31 Is submitted by a
major stationary source or major
modification subject to the require-
ments of 40 CFR 63.31.
(II) The baseline date to established
for each pollutant for which Incre-
ments or other equivalent measures
have been established If:
<•) The area In which the proposed
source or modification would construct
Is designated as attainment or unclas-
sUlsble under section 107 or
(B) of the Act for the pollutant on the
date of Its complete application under
40 CFR Ba.ai; and
(6) In the case of a major stationary
source, the pollutant would be emitted
In significant amounts, or. In the case
of a major modification, there would
be a significant net emissions Increase
of the pollutant.
(UNI) "Baseline area" means any
Intrastate area (and every part there-
of) designated as attainment or unclas-
slflabte under section l07(dKl> (D) or
(B) of the Act In which the major
source or major modification estab-
lishing the baseline date would con-
struct or would have an air quality
Impact equal to or greater than 1 jig/
§3X11
m» (annual average) of the pollutant
for which the baseline date Is estab-
lished.
(II) Area redeslgnattons under sec-
tion lOI(dXl) (D) or (E> of the Act
cannot Intersect or be smaller than
the area of Impact of any mjaor sta-
tionary source or major .'-modification
which:
(«) Establishes a baseline date; or
(6) Is subject to 40 CFR 63.31 and
would be constructed In the same state
as the state proposing the redesigns-
tlon.
"Allowable emissions" means
the emissions rate of a stationary
source calculated using the maximum
rated capacity of the source (unless
the source to subject to federally en-
forceable limits which restrict the op-
erating rate, or hours of operation, or
both) and the most stringent of the
following:
(I) The applicable standards as set
forth In 40 CFR Parts 60 and 01;
(II) The applicable State Implemena-
tlon Plan emissions limitation. Includ-
ing those with a future compliance
date; or
(III) The emissions rate specified as a
federally enforceable permit condi-
tion. Including those with a future
compliance date.
(17) "Federally enforceable" means
all limitations and condtUons which
an enforceable by the Administrator.
Including those requirements devel-
oped pursuant to 40 CFR Parts 00 and
01. requirements within any applicable
State Implementation Plan, and any
permit requirements established pur-
suant to 40 CFR B2.3I or under regula-
tions approved pursuant to 40 CFR
Subpart I and 40 CFR •1.100.
(10) "Secondary
emissions which would occur as a
result of the construction or operation
of a major stationary source or major
modification, but do not come from
the major stationary source or major
modification Itself. Secondary emis-
sions Include emissions from any off-
site support facility which would not
be constructed or Increase Ms emis-
sions except as a result of the con-
struction or operation of the major
stationary source or major modifica-
tion. Secondary emissions do not In-
clude any emissions which come dl-
22
23
»IM aw
-------
f 51.11
rectly from a mobile aouroe. such a*
emlailofM from the tailpipe of a motor
vehicle, from a train, or from a vea*el.
(I) Emissions from ships or train*
coming to or from the new or modified
•tattonarjr aource; and
(II) Emissions from any ofMtc tup-
port facility which would not other-
wise be constructed or Increase IU
emlMloM as a result of the construc-
tion or operation of the major station-
ary source or major modification.
(!•> "Innovative control technology"
means any system of air pollution con-
trol that has not been adequately
demonstrated In practice, but would
have a substantial likelihood of
achieving greater continuous emis-
sions reduction than any control
system In current practice or of
achieving at least comparable reduc-
tions at lower cost In terms of energy.
economics, or nonalr quality environ-
mental Impacts.
(M» "Fugitive emissions" means
those emissions which could not rea-
sonably pass through a stack, chim-
ney, vent, or other functionally equiv-
alent opening.
Ill Ml) "Actual emissions" means the
actual rate of emissions of a pollutant
from an emissions unit, as determined
In accordance with paragraphs (bMll)
through (Iv) of this section.
(U) In general, actual emissions as of
a particular date shall equal the aver-
age rate. In tons per year, at which the
unit actually emitted the pollutant
during a two-year period which pre-
cedes the particular dale and which Is
representative of normal source oper-
ation. The Administrator shall allow
the use of a different time period upon
a determination that It Is more repre-
sentative of normal source operation.
Actual emissions shall be calculated
using the unit's actual operating
hours, production rates, and types of
materials processed, stored, or com-
busted during the selected time period.
Oil) The Administrator may presume
that source-specific allowable emis-
sions for the unit are equivalent to the
actual emissions of the unit.
(Iv) For any emissions unit which
has not begun normal operations on
the particular date, actual emissions
shall equal the potential to emit of the
unit on that date.
40 era a., i (r-i-«* idMoii)
(U) "Complete" means, m reference
U> an application for a permit, that
the application contains all of the In-
formation necessary for processing the
application.
(Ill (I) "Significant" mean*, m refer-
ence to a net emissions Increase or the
potential of a source to emit any of
the following pollutant*, a rate of
emissions that would equal or exceed
any of the following rates:
foUvtmnt mtf gmOrioat Mate
Carbon monoiMa: I** tons per vow (tpy)
MllrotM oildcc 4* Ipr
Bulfur dioxide: 4* tpy
PartleulaUmatUr
M Ipy of partlculaU matter sauestom;
U tp> of PH. emMone
Osono: 4* tpy of volatile orsanle oompeuiMls
Lead: *.* Ipy
Asbestos: 0.0*1 tpr
Berylmua: O.M04 tpy
Ueretuy: 0.1 tpr
VmylehtorldKltpy
Fluorides: I tpy
Bulfmte add Brisk 1 tpy
Brdroeen eulflde (HJBK 10 tpy
Total reduced eulfur dnehtdln*- RUBfc I* tpr
Reduced sulfur eompoundj (Ineludln* BJBfc
10 tpr
(U) "Significant" means, m referenc*
to a net emissions btcrease or the po-
tential of a source to emit a pollutant
subject to regulation under the Act
that paragraph (bXUMI) of this sec-
tion, does not list, any emissions rate.
(Ill) Notwithstanding paragraph
(bXlIMI) of thto section, "significant"
mean* any emissions rate or any net
•mission* Increase associated with a
major stationary source or major
modification, which would construct
within 10 kilometer* of a Class I area,
and have an Impact on such area equal
to or greater than 1 pg/m* (14-hour
average).
(14) "Federal Land Manager" means.
with respect to any land* In the
United State*, the Secretary of the de-
partment with authority over such
lands.
(16) "High terrain" mean* any area
having an elevation 000 feet or more
above the base of the stack of a
source.
(10) "Low terrain" means any area
other than high terrain.
(17) "Indian Reservation" means
any federally recognized reservation
m i, ,j,
gS)VWI
established by Treaty. Agreement, ex-
ecutive order, or act of Congress.
(10) "Indian Governing Body"
means the governing body of any
tribe, band, or group of Indiana sub-
ject to the Jurisdiction of the United
State* and recognized by the United
State* as possessing power of self gov-
ernment.
(It) "Advene Impact on visibility"
means visibility Impairment which
Interfere* with the management, pro-
tection, preservation or enjoyment of
the visitor's visual experience of the
Federal Class I area. Thto determina-
tion muat be made on a case-by-cas*
basis taking Into account the geo-
graphic extent. Intensity, duration,
frequency and Urn* of visibility Im-
pairment, and how these factor* corre-
late with (U time* of visitor use of th*
Federal Claa* I area, and (1) the fre-
quency and tuning of natural comM-
Uons that reduce risibility.
(c) Ambient air Increments, In area*
designated as Class I. II or III. In-
creases bn pollutant concentration over
th* baseline concentration shall be
limited to the following:
MAMMUM AIUMMBUI INCMAM
ISX.H
M-Conwwod
rsr
For any period other than an annual
period, the applicable maximum allow-
able Increase may be exceeded during
one auch period per year at any one m-
(d) JmMenf air cettfuf*. No concen-
tration of a pollutant ahall exceed:
(I) Th* concentration permitted
under th* national secondary ambient
air quality atendard. or
(X) Th* concentration permitted
th* national primary ambient
air quality standard, whichever con-
centration I* lowest for the pollutant
for a period of exposure.
(*) Jtssfrteftoiu on an** dasrt/lca-
ttoua, (1) All of th* following area*
which wan m existence on August 7.
1077. ahall be Claas I area* and may
not b* redeaignated:
(I) International parka.
(II) National wfldemes* ana* which
•xcead •,•00 acra* In *tse,
(HI) National memorial park* which
exceed 1.000 acre* In ate. and
(r») National park* which exceed
at awAaw. • nsraiai 4W saBaa*
VaVW wweTW HI wMasW*
(1) Areas which were redeaignated a*
Ctaaa I under regulation* promulgated
si
•it
CUM ai
i?
71
before August 7. 10T7. ahan
CAsftnV I*. tMSt sftMaJF 1M raoCeVl|tlw*toMl M
provided hi this section.
(1) Any other area, unless othenris*
specified In the tegtelaUon creating
ouch an area, to Initially designated
Cut** II, but may be redeaignated a*
provided ui thto eectlon.
(4) The following area* may be re-
designated only a* Class I or II:
(I) An area which a* of August 7.
1077. exceeded 10.000 acre* in state and
was a national monument, a national
primitive area, a national preserve, a
national recreational area, a national
wild and scenic river, a national wild-
life refuge, a national lakeshore or sea-
shore; and' •
(II) A national park or national wil-
derness area established after August
25
-------
9 3J.JI
to the redrslgnatlon which was dlsap-
proved.
(•> If the Administrator disapprove*
any proposed redeslgnatkm. the State
or Indian Governing Body. M appro-
priate, may remibtnlt the proposal
after correcting the deficiencies noted
by the Administrator.
The decree of
emission limitation required for con-
trol of any air pollutant under this
section shall not be affected In any
manner by—
(I) So much of the stack height of
any source as exceeds food engineer-
Ing practice, or
(II) Any other dispersion technique.
(3) Paragraph of this section
shall not apply with respect to stack
height* In existence before December
II. 1970. or to dispersion techniques
Implemented before then.
Review a/ major (taffentry
•onrce* and major motfUlcafiotu—
Source applicability and exemptions,
(I) No stationary source or modifica-
tion to which the requirements of
paragraphs (J) through (r) of this sec-
tion apply shall begin actual construc-
tion without a permit which state*
that the stationary source or modifica-
tion would meet those requirements.
The Administrator has authority to
Issue any such permit.
»3> The requirement* of paragraphs
through lr> of this st-llon shall
apply to any major stationary source
and any major modlflratlon with re-
spect to each pollutant subject to reg-
ulation under the Act that It would
emit, except as this section otherwise
provides.
(3) The requirements of paragraph!
through of this section apply
only to any major stationary source or
major modification that would be con-
structed In an area designated as at-
tainment or unclasslflable under sec-
tion l07(dMIKD)or (B) of the Act.
(4) The requirements of paragraphs
(Jl through of this section shall not
apply to a particular major stationary
source or major modlllcatlon. If;
(I) Construction commenced on the
source or modification before August
7. 1977. The regulations at 40 CPR
62.21 as In effect before August 7.
1977. shall govern the review and per-
28
40 CM di. I (7-1-il MHton)
mlttlng of any such source or modifi-
cation; or
(II) The source or modification was
subject to the review requirements of
40 CTR 03.31 as In effect before
March 1. I97S. and the owner or oper-
ator:
(•) Obtained under 40 CFR 83.31 a
final approval effective before March
1.1978;
(ft) Commenced construction before
March 19.1979; and
(e) Did not discontinue construction
for a period of !• months or more and
completed construction within a rea-
sonable time; or
(III) The source or modification was
subject to 40 CPR 83.31 as In effect
before March I. 1979. and the review
of an application for approval for the
stationary source or modification
under 40 CPR 83.31 would have been
completed by March 1. 1971. but for
an extension of the public comment
period pursuant to a request for such
an extension. In such a case, the appli-
cation shall continue to be processed.
and granted or denied, under 40 CPR
•3.11 as In effect prior to March I.
1979; or
(Iv) The source or modification was
not subject to 49 CPR 93.31 aa hi
effect before March 1. 1971. and the
owner or operator!
(e> Obtained all final Federal, state
and local preconatructlon approvals or
permlta necessary under the applica-
ble State Implementation Plan before
March 1.1971;
(6) Commenced construction before
March 19.1979: and
(c) DM not discontinue construction
for a period of 19 months or more and
completed construction within a rea-
sonable time: or
(v> The source or modification was
not subject to 40 CPR 83.11 aa In
effect on June 19. 1978 or under the
partial stay of regulations published
on February 8. 1980 (48 PR 7800). and
the owner or operator
(•) Obtained all final Federal, state
and local preconstructlon approvals or
permits necessary under the applica-
ble State Implementation Plan before
August 7.1980:
(6) Commenced construction within
18 months from August 7. 1980. or any
earlier tune required under the appli-
cable State Implementation Plan; and
(el DM not dhcontlnuue construc-
tion for a period of 18 months or more
and completed construction within a
reasonable tune; or
(vl) The source or modification
would be a nonprofit health or non-
profit educational Institution, or a
major modification would occur at
such an Institution, and the governor
of the state In which the source or
modification would be located requests
that It be exempt from those require-
ments; or
(vtl) The source or modification
would be a major stationary source or
major modification only If fugitive
emissions, to the extent quantifiable.
are considered tot calculating the po-
tential to emit of UM stationary source
or modification and the source does
not belong to any of the following cat-
egorloK
(a) Coal cleaning plants (with ther-
mal dryers);
(») Kraft pulp mlllc
(e) Portland cement plants;
(d) Primary mine ametten:
(«) Iron and steel mills;
) Primary aluminum or* reduction
pUnta;
(0) Primary copper smelters;
(JO Municipal Incinerators capable of
charging more than MO tons of refuse
per day.
(I) Hydrofluoric, sulfurle. or nttrte
acM plants;
O> Petroleum refineries;
(ft) Ume plant*:
(I) Phosphate rock processing plant*;
(at) Coke oven batteries;
la) Sulfur recovery plant*;
(o> Carbon Mack plant* (fumaeo
(p) Primary lead •meltem;
(9> Fuel conversion plants;
(ri Sintering plants;
(•> Secondary metal production
Plant*;
(f) Chemical process plants;
(a) Fossil-fuel boilers (or
Uoo thereof) totaling more than MO
million British thermal unite per hour
heat Input;
(«) Petroleum storage and transfer
unite with a total storage capacity ex-
ceeding 100.000 barrels;
(w) Taconlte ore processing plant*;
fsrii
(a) Glass fiber processing plant*;
(y) Charcoal production plant*;
(*> Fossil fuel-fired steam electric
plant* of more than MO million Brit-
ish thermal unite per hour heat Input;
(aa) Any other stationary source cat-
egory which, a* of August 7. 1980. I*
being regulated under section 111 or
113 of the Act; or
(vill) The source I* a portable sta-
tionary source which ha* previously
received a permit under this section.
(•) The owner or operator propose*
to relocate the aource and emlastons of
UM Bourca at the new location would
be temporary; and
(ft) The emissions from the source
wouM not exceed It* allowable emis-
sions; and
(e) The emtoaloni from the source
wouM Impact no dam I area and no
area where an applicable Increment to
known to be violated: and
M) Reasonable notice to given to the
Administrator prior to the relocation
Identifying UM proposed new location
and UM probable duration of oper-
ation at the new location. Such notice
•hall be given to UM Administrator
not lam than It day* In advance of UM
proposed relocation unless a different
Urn* duration to '
by the ^
(lx> The source or modification
not subject to 183.31. with respect to
parUcutate matter, aa In effect before
July 81.1987. and the owner or opera-
tor:
(*) Obtained an final Federal, State.
ruction approvals or
under UM appUca-
mptementetton plan before
July It,Ll84ff^ ^ ^^
It month* after July II. 1987. or any
earlier Urn* required under UM State
l)*M9Al*BaBBi«amkflaawil4a*m omlaagm* m.*wl
(c) DM not discontinue comtructlon
for a period of 18 month* or more and
completed construction within a rea-
sonable period of Ume.
(x) The aource or modification was
•object to 40 CPR 83.31. with respect
to parUculato matter, a* m effect
before July II. 1987 and UM owner or
operator submitted an application for
a permit under tflto section before that
date, and the Administrator subae-
29
-------
J 51.21
quently determine! that the applica-
tion a* lubmltted wai complete with
respect to the partlculate matter re-
quirement* then In effect In this sec-
tion. Imtcad. the requirement* of
paragraph* (J) through (r) of thU aec-
tlon that were In effect before July 31.
1987 shall apply to such source or
modification.
(6) The requirements of paragraphs
through (r) of this section shall not
apply to a major stationary source or
major modification with respect to a
particular pollutant If the owner or
operator demonstrates that, aa to that
pollutant, the source or modification
Is located In an area designated aa
nonattalnment under section 107 of
the Act.
(6) The requirements of paragraphs
, (m) and (o) of this section shall
not apply to a major stationary source
or major modification with respect to
a particular pollutant. If the allowable
emissions of that pollutant from the
source, or the net em talons Increase
of that pollutant from the modifica-
tion:
(I) Would Impart no Class I area and
no area where an applicable Increment
Is known to be violated, and
III) Would be temporary.
<7> The requirement* of paragraphs
(k). , 14-hour average:
Beryllluin-*.0ol pg/m*. 14 hour average;
Fluoride*-*.!! pc/m*. 14-hour average;
Vinyl chloride—II pg/m*. 14-hour average;
Total reduced *ulfur-IS pg/m*. 1-hour av-
erage;
Hydrogen culflde-• 1 pg/m* 1-hour aver-
age:
Reduced sulfur compound*—It pg/m*. I-
hour average: or
(II) The concentrations of the pollut-
ant In the area that the source or
modification would affect are less
than the concentrations listed In para-
graph (1X8X1) of thla section, or the
pollutant la not luted In paragraph
(1X8X1) of thl* section.
(8) The requirements for best avail-
able control technology hi paragraph
(J) of thl* section and the require-
ment* for air quality analyses In para-
graph (mXl) of thla section, shall not
apply to a particular stationary source
or modification that waa nibject to 40
CFR Ba.ai aa In effect on June 19.
1978. If the owner or operator of the
source or modification submitted an
application for a permit under those
regulations before August 7.1980. and
the Administrator subsequently deter-
mine* that the application a* submit-
ted before that date was complete. In-
stead, the requirement* at 40 CFR
Sa.ai(J) and (n) as In effect on June 19.
1978 apply to any such source or modi-
fication.
(10X1) The requirements for air
quality monitoring In paragraphs
(mXl) (II) through (Iv) of this section
shall not apply to a particular source
or modification that waa subject to 40
CFR Ba.ai a* hi effect on June 19.
1979. If the owner or operator of the
source or modification submits an ap-
plication for a permit under thla sec-
tion on or before June 8.1981. and the
»t*iocti** Agency
•No «* minimi* air quality level to provid-
ed for owMM. However, any act merea** of
IOO ton per year or more of volatile organic
compound* subject to PSD would b* re-
quired to perform an ambient Impact analy-
•H Including the gathering of ambient air
quality data.
Administrator subsequently deter-
oUnea that the application as submit-
ted before that date waa complete
irlth respect to the requirements of
this section other than thoae In para-
graphs (mMl) (II) through (Iv) of this
faction, and with respect to the re-
: aulremenU for such analyses at 40
CTR M.ai(mxa) aa In effect on June
|9. 1979. Instead, the latter require-
ments shall apply to any such source
or modification.
(II) The requirement* for air quality
monitoring In paragraph* (mXl) (II)
through (Iv) of this section shall not
•pply to a particular source or modifi-
cation that waa not subject to 40 CFR
|I.ai as hi effect on June 19. 1979. If
j the owner or operator of the aouroe or
modification submits an application
1 for a permit under this section on or
before June 9. 1991. and the Adminis-
trator subsequently determines that
the application aa submitted before
that date waa complete, except with
respect to the requi tents In para-
graph* (mXlHIl) through (Iv).
(11X0 At the discretion of the Ad-
ministrator, the requirements for air
quality monitoring of PMH In para-
graphs (mXl) (l)-
-------
g SMI
provide an analysis of the Impact on
vegetation having no significant com-
mercial or recreational value.
(J) The owner or operator shall pro-
vide an analyst* of Ihe air quallljr
Impact projected for Ihe area a* a
result cf general commercial, realden-
llal. Industrial and other trowth aaso-
clated with the source or modification.
(3) Vitibilitv monitoring. The Ad-
ministrator may require monitoring of
visibility In any Federal class I area
near Ihe proposed new stationary
source for major modification for such
purposes and by such means as the
Administrator deems necessary and
appropriate.
(p) Source* impacting Federal Class
f area*—additional requirement*—(1)
Notice to Federal land managen. The
Administrator shall provide written
notice of any pe.-mlt application for a
proposed major stationary source or
major modification, the emissions
from which may affect a Class I area.
to the Federal land manager and the
Federal official chained with direct re-
sponsibility for management of any
lands within any such area. Guch noti-
fication shall Include a copy of all In-
formation relevant to the permit ap-
plication and ahull be given within 10
days of receipt and at least 60 days
prior to any public hearing on the ap-
plication for a penult to construct.
Such notification shall Include an
analysis of the proposed source's an-
ticipated Impacts on visibility In the
Federal Class I area. The Administra-
tor shall also provide the Federal land
manager and such Federal officials
wllh a copy of Ihe preliminary deter-
mination required under paragraph
(q) of this section, and shall make
available to them any materials used
In making that determination, prompt-
ly after the Administrator makes such
determination. Finally. Ihe Adminis-
trator shall also notify all affected
Federal land managers within 30 days
of receipt of any advance notification
of any such permit application.
(3) Federal Land Manager. The Fed-
eral Land Manager and Ihe Federal of-
ficial charged wllh direct responsibil-
ity for management of such lands
have an affirmative responsibility to
protect the air quality related values
(Including visibility) of such lands and
34
40 CFR CM. I (7-l-M EdHUn)
to consider. In consultation with the
Administrator, whether a proposed
source or modification will have an ad-
verse Impact on such values.
<3I Vitibilitv anaiviit. The Adminis-
trator shall consider any analysis per-
formed by the Federal land manager,
provided within 30 days of the notifi-
cation required by paragraph Cfoss / variances. The owner or
operator of a proposed source or modi-
fication may demonstrate to the Fed-
eral Land Manager that the emissions
from such source or modification
would have no adverse Impact on the
air quality related values of any such
lands (Including visibility), notwith-
standing that the change In air quality
resulting from emissions from such
source or modification would cause or
contribute to concentrations which
would exceed the maximum allowable
Increases for a Class I area. If the Fed-
eral Land Manager concurs with such
demonstration and he so certifies, the
State may authorize the Administra-
tor Provided, That the applicable re-
invlr»nment«l Protection Agency
qulremente of this section are other-
wise met. to Issue the permit with such
emission limitations as may be neces-
sary to assure that emissions of sulfur
dioxide and partlculate matter would
not exceed the followng maximum al-
lowable Increases over baseline concen-
tration for such pollutants:
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE INCREASE
•t
(•) Sulfur dioxide variance by Gov-
ernor with Federal Land Manager*
concurrence. The owner or operator of
a proposed source or modification
which cannot be approved under para-
graph of this section may dem-
onstrate to the Governor that the
source cannot be constructed by
reason of any maximum allowable In-
crease for sulfur dioxide for a period
of twenty-four hours or teas applicable
to any Class I area and. In the case of
Federal mandatory Class I areas, that
a variance under this clause would not
adversely affect the air quality related
value* of the area (Including visibili-
ty). The Governor, after consideration
of the Federal Land Manager's recom-
mendation (If any) and subject to his
concurrence, may. after notice and
public hearing, grant a variance from
such maximum allowable Increase. If
such variance la granted, the Adminis-
trator shall Issue a permit to such
source or modification pursuant to the
requirements of paragraph (qM7> of
this section: Provided, That the appli-
cable requirements of this section are
otherwise met.
(7) Variance bt the Governor with
the Preiident'i concurrence. In any
ease where the Governor recommends
a variance In which the Federal Land
Manager does not concur, the recom-
mendations of the Governor and the
Federal Land Manager shall be trans-
mitted to the President. The President
15Z.21
may approve the Governor's recom-
mendation If he finds that the vari-
ance Is In the national Interest. If the
variance Is approved, the Administra-
tor shall Issue a permit pursuant to
the requirements of paragraph (qM7>
of this section: Provided. That the ap
pllcable requirements of this section
are otherwise met.
(•) ffmlMlon limitation* for Preti-
dential or gubernatorial variance. In
the case of a permit Issued pursuant to
paragraph (q) (5) or (•) of this section
the source or modification shall
comply with such emission limitations
as may be necessary to assure that
emissions of sulfur dioxide from the
source or modification would not
(during any day on which the other-
wise applicable maximum allowable In-
creases are exceeded) cause or contrib-
ute to concentrations which would
exceed the following maximum allow-
able Increases over the baseline con-
centration and to assure that such
emissions would not cause or contrib-
ute to concentrations which exceed
the otherwise applicable maximum al-
lowable Increases for periods of expo-
sura of 94 hours or less for more than
II days, not necessarily consecutive.
during any annual period:
MAMMUM ALLOWABLE INCHEASC
•i
(q) Public participation. The Ad-
ministrator shall follow the applicable
procedures of 40 CFR Part 134 In
processing applications under this sec-
tion. The Administrator shall follow
the procedures at 40 CFR B3.31(r> as
In effect on June 10. l*7t. to the
extent that the procedures of 40 CFR
Part 134 do not apply.
(r) Source obligation. (1) Any owner
or operator who constructs or operates
a source or modification not In accord-
ance with the application submitted
pursuant to this section or with the
terms of any approval to construct, or
any owner or operator of a source or
36
-------
f SJ.JI
modification subfrrl to this eectton
who commence* corutructlon after the
effective date of the»e refutation*
without applying for and receiving ap-
proval hereunder. shall be mibject to
appropriate enforcement action.
(9) Approval to construct ehall
become Invalid If construction to not
commenced within in month* after re-
»—•• " - •
,-... wiinin m month* after re-
ceipt of *uch approval. If construction
I* discontinued for a period of !•
month* or more, or If construction I*
not completed within a reasonable
time. The AdmlnUtrator may extend
the 11-month period upon a satlafac-
tory showing that an extension I* JIM-
llfled. Thl* provision doe* not apply to
the time period between construction
of the approved phase* of a phased
construction project; each phase must
commence construction within It
month* of the projected and approved
commencement date.
19) Approval to construct shall not
relieve any owner or operator of the
responsibility to comply fully with ap-
plicable provisions of the State Imple-
mentation plan and any other require-
ments under local, State, or Federal
law.
«> At such tune that a particular
source or modification becomes a
major stationary source or major
modification solely by virtue of a re-
laxation In any enforceable limitation
which was established after August 7.
I MO, on the capacity of the source or
modification otherwise to emit a pol-
lutant, such a* a restriction on hour*
of operation, then the requirements or
paragraphs through Is) of this sec-
tion shall apply to the source or modi-
fication a* though construction had
not yet commenced on the source or
modification.
(s) Environmental Impact slato-
menlt. Whenever any proposed source
or modification to suhjrct to action by
a Federal Agency which might necessi-
tate preparation of an environmental
Impact statement pursuant to the Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act 149
II.S.C. 4391). review by the Adminis-
trator conducted pursuant to this sec-
tion shall be coordinated with the
broad environmental reviews under
that Act and under section JOf of the
Clean Air Act to the maximum extent
feasible and reasonable.
36
(t) Ditpute* permit* or ndttiynm-
MOM. If any Stale affected by the re-
deslgnatlon of an area by an Indian
Governing Body, or any Indian Gov-
erning Body of a tribe affected by the
redeslgnatlon of an area by a State.
disagrees with such redeslgnatlon. or
If a permit to proposed to be Issued for
any major stationary source or major
modification proposed for construc-
tion In any State which the Governor
of an affected State or Indian Govern-
ing Body of an affected tribe deter-
mines will cause or contribute to a cu-
mulative change to air quality In
excess of that allowed tat this part
within the affected Stale or Indian
Reservation, the Governor or Indian
Governing Body may request the Ad-
ministrator to enter mto negotiation*
with the parties Involved to resolve
such dispute. If requested by any
State or Indian Governing Body In- I
volved. the Administrator shall make a
recommendation to resolve the dispute I
and protect the air quality related .
values of the tends Involved. If the
parties Involved do not reach agree-
ment, the Administrator shall resolve
the dispute and hi* determination, or
the result* of agreements reached .•
through other mean*, shall become '
part of the applicable State baplemen- '
tatlon plan and shall be enforceable a*
part of *ueh plan. In resolving such
dispute* relating to area redeslgnatlon.
the Administrator shall consider the
extent to which the lands Involved are
of sufficient she to allow effective air
quality management or have air qual-
ity related values of such an area,
(u) DeUtutio* o/ muOtorttf. The
Administrator shall have the author-
ity to delegate hto responsibility for
conducting source review pursuant to
this section, to accordance with para-
graph* <9> and (I) of Into section.
(9> Where the Administrator dele-
gate* the responsibility for conducting
•ource review under this section to any
agency other than a Regional Office
of the Environmental Protection
Agency, the following provisions shall
apply:
(I) Where the delegate agency to not
an air pollution control agency. It
•hall consult with the appropriate
State and local air pollution control
agency prior to making any determina-
„„.. under thto section. Similarly.
where the delegate agency doe* not
have continuing responsibility for
managing tend use. It shall consult
ylth the appropriate State and local
agency primarily responsible for man-
aging tend use prior to making any de-
termination under thto section.
Ill) The delegate agency shall aend a
oopy of any public comment notice re-
quired under paragraph Ir) of thto sec-
tion to the Administrator through the
appropriate Regional Office.
19) The Administrator's authority
for reviewing a aouree or modification
located on an Indian Reservation •hall
pot be redelegated other than to a Re-
gional Office of th* Environmental
Protection Agency, except where the
Slate has assumed jurisdiction over
such tend under other law*. Whan UM
fltaffr DM A4VUOM4I alUCh JltttewavOtlQQL
the Administrator may delegate hto
authority to the State* to accordance
with paragraph lvK9) of thto section.
14) In the ca*e of a aouree or modUl-
•atton which proposal to construct In
a das* III arm. emtoslons from which
would cause or contribute to air qual-
ity exceeding the maximum allowable
•urea** applicable If the area were
designated a clam II area, and whan
no standard under section 111 of UM
act has been promulgated for aueh
source category, the Administrator
must approve the determination of
best available control technology a*
set forth In the permit.
Iv) fnnovoMM eoMfrof fecMotoni
-------
veislon of IhU aectlon shall remain In
effect, unless and until It expire*
under paragraph (•> of this section or
Is rescinded.
(2) Any owner or operator of a sta-
tionary source or modification who
holds a permit for the source or modi-
fication which was Issued under 40
CFR 62.21 as In effect on July 30.
1087. or any earlier version of this sec-
tion, may request that the Administra-
tor rescind the permit or a particular
portion of the permit.
(9) The Administrator shall grant an
application for rescission If the appli-
cation shows that this section would
not apply to the source or modifica-
tion.
(4) If the Administrator rescinds a
permit under this paragraph, the
public shall be given adequate notice
of the rescission. Publication of an an-
nouncement of rescission In a newspa-
per of general circulation In the affect-
ed region within 00 days of the rescis-
sion shall be considered adequate
notice.
[«> FH 3*403. Juttt II. ISIS, as mended at
44 FR »»1I. May I*. IMS; 41 FR 12731.
Am. 1. ISM; 41 FR 27MI. June M. IM* 4t
FR 43Mt. Oct. M. !••«: M FR MtM. July
II. ISS6; II FR 40S1i. 40*77. No*. 1. IfSS: U
FR 24714. July I. IM1; M FR 3*4*1. July
14. IM1; »» FR a»S. Jan, *. ItSSI
• M.SZ
•f mllmial •»••<
(a) Subsequent to January II. 1079.
the Administrator reviewed again
Stale Implementation plan provisions
for Insuring the maintenance of the
national standards. The review Indi-
cates that Stale plans generally do not
contain regulations or procedures
which adequately address this prob-
lem. Accordingly, all State plans are
disapproved with respect to mainte-
nance because such plans do not meet
the requirements of | SI.I2(g) of this
chapter. The disapproval applies to all
States listed In SubparU B through
ODD of this part. Nothing In this sec-
tion shall Invalidate or otherwise
affect the obligations of States, emis-
sion sources, or other persons with re-
spect to all portions of plans approved
or promulgated under this part.
(b) Regulation for review of new or
modified indirect tourcet. (I) All
40 CFR Oi. I (7-l-M IdllUn)
terms used In this paragraph but not
specifically defined below shall have
the meaning given them In 162.01 of
this chapter.
(I) The term "Indirect source" means
a facility, building, structure, or Instal-
lation which attracts or may attract
mobile source activity that results in
emissions of a pollutant for which
there Is a national standard. Such In-
direct sources Include, but are not lim-
ited to:
(a) Highways and roads.
(ft) Parking facilities.
(c) Retail, commercial and Industrial
facilities.
( A site plan showing the location
of associated parking areas, points of
motor vehicle Ingress and egress to
and from the site and Its associated
parking areas, and the location and
height of buildings on the site.
(e) An Identification of the principal
roads, highways.' and Intersections
that will be used by motor vehicles
moving to or from the Indirect source.
38
39
-------
WORKSHOP ON IMPLEMENTING THE STACK
HEIGHT REGULATIONS
(REVISED)
OCTOBER 29 TO 30, 1985
by
PEI Associates, Inc.
505 South Ouke Street, Suite 503
Durham, North Carolina 27701-319£
CONTROL PROGRAMS DEVELOPMENT DI9ISION
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT-ieM AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27711
October 1985
-------
I 51.117
40 CM Ck. I (7-l-W
estimated amounts of emissions and
the amounta of such emissions allow-
able under the applicable emlailon
limit atioua or other measures.
111.111 AMIUoMl)
In addition to other requirements In
1161.100 through 61.116 the following
requirement* apply to lead. To the
eitent they conflict, there require-
ments are controlling over those of
the proceeding sections.
(a) Control ttratem demonttration.
Bach plan must contain a demonstra-
tion showing that the plan will attain
and maintain the standard In the fol-
lowing areas:
(1) Areas In the vicinity of the fol-
lowing point sources of lead: Primary
lead smelters. Secondary lead smelt-
era. Primary copper smelter*. Lead
gasoline additive plant*. Lead-add
storage battery manufacturing plants
that produce 1.000 or more batteries
per day. Any other stationary source
that actually emits 16 or more tons
per year of lead or lead compounds
measured as elemental lead.
(1) Any other area that has lead air
concentrations In excess of the nation-
al ambient air quality standard con-
centration for lead, measured since
January 1.1874.
(b> Time perio tor emonttration of
• eaiuicy. The demonstration of ade-
quacy*of the control strategy required
under I (1.111 may cover a longer
period If allowed by the appropriate
RPA Regional Administrator.
tc> Special modeling provision* (1)
l>r urbanized areas with measured
lead concentrations In excess of 4.0
lig/m*. quarterly mean measured since
January 1. 1014. the plan must employ
the modified rollback model for the
demonstration of attainment as a mln-
Imiun. but may use an atmospheric
dispersion model If dolled. If a pro-
Itortlonal model Is used, the air quality
data should be the same year as the
emissions Inventory required under
the paragraph e.
(]) For each point source lUted In
16I.U7(a>. that plan must employ an
atmospheric dispersion model for dem-
onstration of attainment.
(3> For each area In the vicinity of
an air quality monitor that has record-
ed lead concentrations In excess of the
lead national standard concentration,
the plan must employ the modified
rollback model as a minimum, but may
use an atmospheric dispersion model If
desired for the demonstration of at-
tainment.
The data must be submitted hi
accordance with the procedures and
data forms specified In Chapter 1.4.0
of the "ACROS User's Manual" con-
cerning storage and retrieval of aero-
metric data (BAROAD) except where
the Regional Administrator waives
this requirement.
(!) If additional lead air quality data
are desired to determine lead air con-
centrations In areas suspected of ex-
ceeding the lead national ambient air
quality standard, the plan may Include
data from any previously collected fil-
ters from partlculate matter high
volume samplers. In determining the
lead content of the filters for control
strategy demonstration purposes, a
State may use. In addition to the refer-
ence method. X-ray fluorescence or
any other method approved by the Re-
gional Administrator.
The provisions of |61.1l8(a>
shall not apply to <1> stack height* In
existence, or dispersion techniques Im-
plemented on or before December II.
1870. except where pollutant* are
being emitted from such stacks or
using such dispersion techniques by
sources, as defined In section lll(aMI)
of the Clean Air Act. which were con-
structed, or reconstructed, or for
which major modifications, as defined
to IIBI.ieMaXlMvMA). Bl.lWbXlXD
and fl.ll(bX!MI). were carried out
after December 11. 1870: or (1) coal-
fired steam electric generating unit*
subject to the provisions of section 118
of the Clean Air Act. which com-
menced operation before July 1, 1887.
and whose stacks were construced
under a construction contract awarded
before February 8.1874.
661.116 UUmUUnl mitral irrtciM.
(a) The use of an Intermittent con-
trol system (ICS) may be taken Into
account In establishing an emission
limitation for a pollutant under a
State Implementation plan, provided:
(1) The ICS was Implemented before
December 11. 1870, according to the
criteria specified In I 6l.ll8(b).
(1) The extent to which the ICS Is
taken Into account Is limited to reflect
emission levels and associated ambient
pollutant concentrations that would
result If the ICS was the same as It
was before December 11. 1870, and was
operated as specified by the operating
IS1.I1*
system of the ICS before December 11.
1870.
(1) The plan allows the ICS to com-
pensate only for emissions from a
source for which the ICS waa Imple-
mented before December 11. 1870. and.
In the event the source has been modi-
fied, only to the extent the emissions
correspond to the maximum capacity
of the source before December II.
1870. For purposes of this paragraph.
a source for which the ICS was Imple-
mented Is any particular structure or
equipment the emissions from which
were subject to the ICS operating pro-
cedures.
(4) The plan requires the continued
operation of any constant pollution
control system which was hi use
before December 31. 1870. or the
equivalent of that system.
(6) The plan clearly defines the
emission limit* affected by the ICS
and the manner In which the ICS Is
taken Into account In establishing
those limit*.
(8) The plan contains requirement*
for the operation and maintenance of
the qualifying ICS which, together
with the emission limitations and any
other necessary requirement*, will
assure that the national ambient air
quality standards and any applicable
prevention of significant deterioration
Increment* will be attained and main-
tained. These requirements shall In-
clude, but not necessarily be limited
to. the following:
(I) Requirement* that a source
owner or operator continuously oper-
ate and maintain the component* of
the ICS specified at | Bl.llttbXl) (II)-
(iv) In a manner which assures that
the ICS Is at least a* effective a* It was
before December II. 1870. The air
quality monitors and meteorological
Instrumentation specified at
161.11Mb) may be operated by a local
authority or other entity provided the
source has ready access to the data
from the monitors and Instrumenta-
tion.
(II) Requirement* which specify the
circumstances under which, the extent
to which, and the procedures through
which, emissions shall be curtailed
through the activation of ICS.
(Ill) Requirement* for recordkeeplng
which require the owner or operator
729
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.2
-------
EPA-450/4-80-023R
Guideline for Determination of Good
Engineering Practice Stack Height
(Technical Support Document for the
Stack Height Regulations)
(Revised)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. NC 27711
June 1985
-------
r«tf si
40 CfI Ot. I (7-1-M frflrUn)
MIT 51—IfQUMfMINTS KM HWf-
AtAnoM, AooriioM, AND su§-
MitTAL Or IMTLlMfNTATrON
MANS
!.»•«* A-C-ja.tOT.dl
See.
•I.M Scop*.
AQUA ANALTII*
•141 AQMA analysis: Submlttal date.
1142 AQMA analysis: Analysis period.
11.41 AQMA analysis: Guidelines.
11.44 AQMA analysis. Projection of eml*
don*.
11.4* AQMA analysis: Allocation of eml.
•lone.
»t t* AQMA analysis: Projection of Ur
quality concentration*.
II 47 AQMA analysis: Description of data
•I.M AQMA analytic Data bate*.
•1.4* AQMA analyst* Technique* deacrip-
•I.M AQMA analyst*: Accuracy facton.
11.11 AQMA analytic Submlttal of calcula
Uom.
AQMAPtAH
III! AQMA plan: General.
IIII AQMA plan: Demonstration of ade-
quacy.
•I.M AQMA plan: Strategic*.
II.M AQMA plan: Legal authority.
II M AQMA plan. Putur. strategic*
•1.11 AQMA plan: Putur* letal authority.
II M AQMA plan: Intergovernmental co-
operation.
II M (Reserved!
MM AQMA plan: Resource*.
Illl AQMA plan: Subnuttal formal.
ll«l AQMA analyato and plan. Data avail-
ability.
II M AQMA analysis and plan: Alternative
procedure*.
MID
II IM Definition*.
11. lilt Stipulation*.
• 1.101 Public hearing*.
II lit Bubnilaaton of plan*: preliminary
rrvlew of plan*.
II 104 Revisions.
II 101 Approval of plant
•I.I It Attainment and maintenance of na-
tional atandardi.
•Mil Detcrlpllon of control meaturet.
11.111 Demonttrallon of adequacy.
I I.I II Time period for demonstration of
adequacy.
II 114 Emissions data and projections.
•I.III Air quality data and projection*.
II IK Data availability.
11.111 Additional provision* for lead.
II 111 Black height provisions
11.11 • Intermittent control tyslems.
-4V.»satls«j •> Air f>«*MlM
•I.IM Classification of region* for epUode
plan*.
•1.1(1 Significant harm level*.
ll.lll Contingency plan*.
II.Ill Reevaluatlon of episode plan*.
Fit*
Ml
11. IM Legally enforceable procedure*.
11.1(1 Public availability of Information.
ll.lll Identification of reapontlble
Mency.
•I.IM AdmlnbiUatlon procedure*.
•I.IM Stack height procedure*.
•I.IM Permit requirement*.
•I.IM Prevention of slgnlltcant deterio-
ration of air quality.
howrfj
•I.IM Ambient air quality monitoring re-
quirement*.
ll.lll General.
ll.lll Emission report* and recordkeeplng.
•1.111 Testing, inspection, enforcement,
and complaint*.
ll.lll Transportation control measure*.
tl.lU Continuous emltslon monitoring.
HIM Requirement* for all plan*.
II .111 Identification of legal authority.
•1.1*1 Assignment of legal authority to
local agencies.
Aoancv DB*KU»TIOII
11.140 General plan requirement*.
11.141 Nonattalrunent areas for carbon
monoxide and ozone.
11.141 IReterved]
712
f nvkonMonlol Protection Afjoncy
951.40
CONTINUING CONSULTATION Paoccss
11.141 Consultation process objective*.
•1.144 Plan elemenU affected.
11141 Organizations and official* to be
consulted.
•1.141 Timing.
•1.141 Hearing* on consultation process
violation*.
RBLATioNSHir or Pun TO Drum PLANNINO
AM* MAHAOnfEMT PHOOBAH*
•I .141 Coordination with other programs.
11.141 (Reserved!
I1.1M Trantmlttal ol Information.
II 111 Conformity with Executive Order
11111.
tl.lll Summary of plan development par-
ticipation.
11.200 Legally enforceable compliance
schedule*.
II.MI Plnal compliance schedules.
•l.Ml Extension beyond one year.
•I.IM Reaourceax
H.ltl Copies of rule* and regulations.
•I.MB Public notification.
•I.IM Purpose and applicability.
11.101 Definition*.
tl.Ml Implementation control strategies.
•1.101 Exemption* from control.
•1.104 Identification of Integral vtatas.
•I. 10* Monitoring.
II. MM) Long term strategy.
(1.101 New source review.
Aia QUALITY DAM R«TOBTI»O (
•MM Annual air quality data report.
BOOBCI BMiMion Ana Srtn ACTIOH
Rarowriira
•1.111 Annual source emission* and State
action report.
•1.111 Source* subject to emissions report-
Ing.
•1.111 Reportable emissions data and In-
formation.
•1.114 Progress In plan enforcement.
•I.IM Contingency plan action*.
•I.IM Reportable revisions
11.111 Enforcement orders and other State
action*.
(1.121 I Reserved I
11.141 Request for II month extension.
ArrcMDicc* A-K -IRBSEavcol
ArrcMBiv I.- EXAMM.C RECULATIOM* TOO
PBIVKNTION or Aia POLLUTION EMCROEN
cv EricoDi*
ArrtHDix M— IRucavrol
ArrKNDix N- EMISSIONS RKDUCTION*
ACHIIVABLI THBOUGH iHartcTioH, MAIH-
TKNANCC AND RBTBOriT or LjOHT DUTV
VKHICLIS
ArrCNDIX O— IRUCBVKDl
ArrtNoix P— MINIMUM EMISSION MONITOB
ArruiDicE* Q-R-f Racavnil
ArrtMDix S-EMimon Orrsn
TIVK RULINO
AmMMi T-IRisxavral
ArmiMB U— CLCAH A IB ACT SCCTIOH 114
OUIDKLINU
AUTHORITY-. This rulemaklng la promul-
gated under authority of sections lOI(bMI).
110, 1M-IM. Ill-Ill, and lOUal of the
Clean Air Act 41 U.S.C. 140l(bMI>. 1410.
1410-1411. 1601 1501. and IMIIal.
8ouB.cc M PR MM*. Nov. ». ttll. unless
otherwise noted.
EBITOBIAI. Norm: Nomenclature change*
affecting Part (I appear at 44 PR Mil. Feb.
I. Itl* and tl PR 40MI. Nov. 1. IM*.
|) — MtjInltMMnct) of NcjHonejl
11.340 Request for 1-year extension.
SOOBCC 41 PR HIM. May 1. UK. unless
otherwise noted.
I II.M Scope.
(a) Applicability. The requlremenU
of thU gubpart apply to air quality
maintenance areas (AQMA*) Identi-
fied under | SI.110(11 and to any area*
Identified under 151.1IOU).
-------
40 CM Ch. I (7-1-M IdHIm)
lll.lt AQUA eaabrtk sad atsa: Data III.IM Deflaluea*.
(a) The State «hall retain all de-
tailed data and calculation* used In
the preparation of AQMA analyses
and plait*, make them available for
public Inspection, and submit them to
the Admlnlatrator at hla request.
The detailed data and calcula
tljnk uwd In the preparation of the
AQUA analyses and plans shall not be
coDsldeted a part of the AQMA plan.
I II II AQMA aaaljrds and •!••: Allcraa-
(a) At the request of a State, or
uuiler hla own Initiative, the Admlnla-
trator, where he determines It appro-
pi late. may approve alternative
AQUA analysis and plan development
procedures as allowed under II 51.42.
51 44. 11.45. SMC. 51.4Kb). and
51 JOia). He may consider all relevant
factors Including but not limited to air
quality problems, financial and man-
power limitations, administrative fea-
sibility. and existing commitments by
the State.
(b) The Administrator shall act upon
4 request for modification within 45
days after receipt of a properly pre-
pared and filed request. Unless a State
ls notified of a denial, or the Admlnla-
trator requeata additional Information.
each a request la automatically ap-
prdved on the forty-sixth day.
(c) The Admlnlatrator shall publish
In the PBDCXAL Raoisna a description
of each modification made.
A public hearing on an AQUA
plan does not fulfill the public hearing
requirements of this part If. subse-
nt to the hearing, any alternative
lures are approved under this
an.
. II*. 111. n«(»). »•!<•>. Clcui Air Act.
emted «4J UJJ.C. 141V. 1411. 1M4. «nd
ia»Ka)»
141 FR 161U. May I. »1«. u uncndcd •! 44
nt MI7V. June
Subpari 1— {Ratarvad)
f — Procedural RaejMlraaMitts
OODBCB: II FH 406SI. N»«. 1. KM. unlm
otlicrwUr noted.
As used In this part, all terms not de-
fined herein will have the meaning
given them In the Act:
(a) "Act" means the Clean Air Act
(43 U.S.C. 7401 et teg., as amended by
Pub. U •I-M4. M Stat. I61« Pub. L.
MM. ffl Stat.. 6M and Pub. L. 95100.
•1 Stat.. 1 W.>
"Administrator" means the Ad-
mlnlatrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) or an authorised
representative.
(c) "Primary standard" means a na-
tional primary ambient air quality
standard promulgated pursuant to sec-
tion 109 of the Act.
(d) "Secondary standard" means a
national secondary ambient air quality
standard promulgated pursuant to sec-
tion 10* of the Act.
(e) "National standard" means
either a primary or secondary stand-
ard.
(f) "Owner or operator" means any
person who owns, leases, operates, con-
trols, or supervises a facility, building.
structure, or Installation which direct-
ly or Indirectly result or may result In
emissions of any air pollutant for
which a national standard la In effect.
(g) "Local agency" means any local
government agency other than the
State agency, which Is charged with
responsibility for carrying out a por-
tion of the plan.
(h) "Regional Office" means one of
the ten (10) EPA Regional Offices.
(I) "State agency" means the air pol-
lution control agency primarily re-
sponsible for development and Imple-
mentation of a plan under the Act.
(J) "Plan" means an Implementation
plan approved or promulgated under
section 110 of 112 of the Act.
(a) "Point source" means the follow-
ing:
(1) For partteulate matter, sulfur
oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile or-
ganic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen
dioxide—
(I) Any stationary source the actual
emissions of which are In excess of
•0.1 metric tons (100 tons) per year of
the pollutant hi a region containing an
area whose 1*80 "urban place" popula-
tion, as defined by the U.S. Bureau of
718
rtactUH Agency
the Census, waa equal to or greater
than 1 million.
(II) Any stationary source the actual
emissions of which are In excess of
M.1 metric tons (35 tons) per year of
the pollutant In a region containing an
area whose 1950 "urban place" popula-
tion, as defined by the U.S. Bureau of
the Census, waa less than l million: or
(1) For lead or lead compounds
measured aa elemental lead, any sta-
tionary source that actually enalta a
total of 4.5 metric tons (5 tons) per
year or more.
(I) "Area source" means any amali
residential, governmental. Institution-
al, commercial, or Industrial fuel com-
bustion operations: onslte solid waste
disposal facility: motor vehicles, air-
craft vessels, or other transportation
facilities or other miscellaneous
sources Identified through Inventory
techniques similar to UIOM deaerlbed
In the "AKROS Manual aeries. Vol. II
AEROS User's Manual." EPA-460/t-
1«-Oa» December IfM.
(m) "Region" means an area desig-
nated aa an air quality control region
(AQGR) under section 101(c) of the
(n) "Control strategy" means a <
Mnatlftn of measure* designated to
achieve the aggregate reduction of
necessary for attainment
IfUfUM^ of national stand-
ards Including, but not limited to.
measure* such aa:
(1)1
(» Federal or
or texes or other economic Ineenttvea
or disincentives.
<•) Closing or relocation of real don-
Mai. commercial, or Industrial taeUI-
(4) Changes In schedules or I
of operation of commercial or Indawtri-
al faculties or transportation H stems.
Including, but not limited to. short-
term changes made In accordance with
standby plans.
(5) Periodic Inspection and testing of
motor vehicle emission control sys-
tems, at such time aa the Administra-
tor determines that such programs are
feasible and practicable.
(•) Emission control measures appli-
cable to In-use motor vehicles. Includ-
ing, but not limited to. measures such
as mandatory maintenance. Installs-
J 51.100
tlon of emission control devices, and
conversion to gaseous fuels.
(1) Any transportation control meas-
ure Including those transportation
measures listed In section 108(f) of the
Clean Air Act as amended.
(5) Any variation of. or alternative
to any measure delineated herein.
(•) Control or prohibition of a fuel
or fuel additive used In motor vehicles.
If such control or prohibition Is neces-
sary to achieve a national primary or
seconary air quality standard and la
approved by the Admlnlatrator under
section 21KCM4KC) of the Act.
(o) "Reasonably available control
technology" (RACT) means devices.
systems process modifications, or
other apparatus or techniques that are
reasonably available taking Into ac-
count (1) the necessity of Imposing
such controls In order to attain and
maintain a national ambient air qual-
ity standard. (2) the social, environ-
mental and economic Impact of such
controls, and (I) alternative mean* of
providing for attainment and mainte-
nance of such standard. (This provi-
sion defines RACT for the purpose* of
II 51.110(cM2) and 51.»41(b> only.)
(p) "CompUai
the date or dates by which a source or
category of sources la required to
comply with specific emission ItmH*-
Uons contained In an bnplementatlan
plan and with any Increment* of
progress toward such compliance.
(q) "Increments of progress'* aaaant
steps toward oompHanoe which will be
taken by a specific source. Including:
O) Date of submlttal of the source's
final control plan to the appropriate
air pollution control agency;
(1) Date by which contract* for
•mission control systems or process
modifications will be awarded; or date
by which orders will be Issued for the
purchase of component parta to ac-
complish emission control or process
modification;
(I) Date of Initiation of on site con
atructlon or Installation of emission
control equipment or process change:
(4) Dal« by which on-slte construc-
tion or Installation of emission control
equipment or process modification la
to be completed: and
(5) Date by which final compliance
Is to be achieved.
719
-------
191.100
(rl "Transportation control meas-
ure" means any meaaure that la direct-
ad toward reducing emlaalona of air
pollutant* from tranaporUtlon
source*. Such measure* Include, but
are not limited to. thoae lotted In sec-
tlon lOMf) of the Clean Air Act.
(aMw) I Reaervedl
(x> "Time period" mean* any period
of time dealcnated by hour, month.
aeaaon. calendar year, averaging time.
or other aultable characteristic*, for
which ambient air quality la eatlmated.
(yl "Variance" meana the temporary
deferral of a final compliance date for
an Individual source subject to an ap-
proved regulation, or a temporary
chance to an approved regulation a* It
applies to an Individual source.
(a) "Emission limitation" and "emis-
sion standard" mean a requirement ee-
Ubllshed by a State, local government.
or the Administrator which limits the
quantity, rate, or concentration of
emlaatona of air pollutant* on a contin-
uous baals. Including any requirement*
which limit the level of opacity, pre-
acrlbe equipment, set fuel apectflce-
ttotia. or prescribe operation or main-
tenance procedure* for a aource to
aanue continuous emlnalon reduction,
"Capacity factor" meana the
ratio of the average toad on a machine
or equipment for the period of time
considered to the capacity rating of
the machine or equipment.
(bb) "Excess emlMlonir meana emto-
atona of an air pollutant In eieeae of
an entlealon alandard.
"Nitric add plant" meana any
facility producing nitric add M to 10
percent In atrength by either the pree-
aure or atmo*pherlc pressure process.
(dd) "Sulfurlc add plant" meana any
facility producing sulfurk add by the
contact proceaa by burning elemental
aulfur. alkylatlon acid, hydrogen aul-
fide, or add aludge. but doe* not In-
elude facilities where conversion to
aulfurlc add Is utilized primarily aa a
meana of preventing emission* to the
atmosphere of sulfur dioxide or other
aulfur compound*.
"Dispersion technique"
means any technique which attempt*
to affect the concentration of a pollut-
ant In the ambient air by:
(I) Oalng that portion of a atack
which exceed* good engineering prac-
tice ateck height:
(U) Varying the rate of emission of a
pollutant according to atmospheric
condition* or ambient concentration*
of that pollutant; or
(III) Increasing final exhaust gee
plume rise by manipulating aource
proceaa parametera, exhaust gas pa-
rameters, atack parametera. or combin-
ing exhaust gaaee from several exist-
ing atack* Into one *tack; or other se-
lective handling of exhaust gaa
atreama so a* to Increase the exnauat
gaa plume rise.
The preceding sentence dose not
Include:
(I) The reheating of a gaa atream.
following use of a pollution control
system, for the purpose of returning
the gaa to the temperature at wMch It
waa originally discharged from the fa
dHty generating the gaa stream;
(U) The merging of exhaust gaa
(A) The aource owner or operator
demonstrate* that the facility waa
originally designed and constructed
with such merged gas streams;
(B) Alter July t. IMft such merging
la part of a change tot operation at the
facility that Includes the Installation
of pollution controls and to accompa-
nied by a net reduction In the allow-
able emissions of a pollutant. This ex-
clusion from the definition of "diaper
alon technique*" shall apply only to
the etnlatlon limitation for the pollut-
InvlreiMsjenteJ ProtecHon Agency
ant affected by such change In oper-
ation; or
(C> Before July I. IMS. *uch merg-
ing waa part of a change In operation
at the facility that Included the Instal-
lation of emissions control equipment
or waa carried out for Bound economic
or engineering reasons. Where there
waa an Increase In the emission umttav
tton or. In the event that no emlaalon
limitation was In existence prior to the
merging, an Increase In the quantity of
pollutant* actually emitted prior to
the merging, the reviewing agency
ahall presume that merging waa sig-
nificantly motivated by an Intent to
gain emtaalona credit for greater dto-
Persian. Abeent a demonstration by
the aource owner or operator that
merging waa not significantly motivat-
ed by Buch Intent, the reviewing
agency ahall deny credit for the *f-
fecte of euch merging la calculating
the allowable emtaalona for the aouroe:
(111)
"Oood engineering practtee-
(OEP) atack height mean* the greater
of:
(1) M meter*, meaaured from Uw
ground-level elevation at the baae of
the ateck:
<1MI> For stack* hi existence en Jan-
uary 11.1070. and for which the owner
or operator had obtained all applicable
permit* or approval* required under 40
CPR Part* SI and SI.
H.-1.BH.
provided the owner or operator pro-
ducea evidence that thto equation waa
actually relied on In establishing an
emission limitation:
The height demonatrated by a
fluid model or a Held atudy approved
by the EPA State or tocal control
agency, which ensures that the emhv
atona from a atack do not result hi ex-
ceaalve concentrattone of any ah* pol-
lutant ae a reeult of atmospheric
downwaah. wake*, or eddy effed* cre-
ated by the aource Itself, nearby etruc-
turea or nearby terrain feature*.
"Nearby- aa need hi Itl.lOOfll)
of thto part to defined for a specific
atructure or terrain feature and
(1) For purpose* of applying the for-
mulae provided hi I Ol.MOfMKl) mean*
thai distance up to five ttaaea the
•Baser of Uw height or Uw width dl-
aVMlMlOII Of 0%. aVlaTIIOliaVVe bill HOC fTTValtaSr
than 0.0 kaMHmUe). and
under I al.lOOIIlMS) means not greater
than OJ km (H mile), except that the
portion of a terrain feature may be
GOHNOtfeTMa! lO Do) IMetfvy WlUCll flUM
within a dtoteme of up to 10 Umea the
maximum height <«,» of Uw feature.
not to exceed 1 mile* If euch feature
aduevea • height (H,) 0.0 km from the
ataek that to at toaat 40 percent of the
GBP •tack height determined by the
formulae provided hi I •I.IOMUXINU)
of thto part or M meter*, whichever to
fiOMaMT* M MMMinra fran uio ftrottno-
level elevation at Uw baae of Uw atack.
TM height of Uw atructure or terram
feature to ajweeured now Uw ground-
level elevation at the baae of Uw ataek.
"Exeeestv* concentration" to de-
good engineering practice atack height
under I II.IOMIIXJ) and mean*.
Ill For aource* Backing credit for
atack height exceeding that eatab-
llehed under | ftl.lOOtllMl) a maximum
ground-level concentration due to
emission* from a atack due hi whole or
part to downwaah. wake*, and eddy ef-
fect* produced Jby nearby structure* or
nearby terrain featurea which Individ-
ually to at least 40 percent In excess of
720
721
-------
(51.100
the maximum concentration experi-
enced In the absence ol such down-
waah. wakes, or eddy effect* and
which contributes to a total concentra-
tion due to emissions from all sources
that la creater than an ambient air
quality standard. For sources subject
to the prevention of significant dete-
rioration program (40 CFR SI.166 and
62.21). an excessive concentration al-
ternatively means a maximum ground-
level concentration due to emissions
from a slack due In whole or part to
downwaah. wakes, or eddy effects pro-
duced by nearby structures or nearby
terrain features which Individually Is
at least 40 percent In excess of the
maximum concentration experienced
In the absence of such downwaah.
wakes, or eddy effects and greater
than a prevention of significant dete-
rioration Increment. The allowable
emission rate to be used In making
demonstrations under this part shall
be prescribed by the new source per-
formance standard that Is applicable
to the source category unless the
ownei or operator demonstrates that
this emission rale Is Infeaslble. Where
such demonstrations are approved by
the authority administering the State
Implementation plan, an alternative
emission rate shall be established In
consultation with the source owner or
operator.
(3) For sources seeking credit after
October II. 1983. for Increases In exist-
ing stack heights up to the heights es-
tablished under | 51. IO To preclude a State from employ-
Ing techniques other than those speci-
fied In this part for purposes of esti-
mating air quality or demonstrating
the adequacy of a control strategy.
provided that such other techniques
are shown to be adequate and appro-
priate for such purposes.
(d) To encourage a State to prepare.
adopt, or submit a plan without taking
Into consideration the social and eco-
nomic Impact of the control strategy
set forth In such plan. Including, but
not limited to. Impact on availability
of fuels, energy, transportation, and
employment.
(e) To preclude a State from prCpar-
big. adopting, or submitting a plsn
which provides for attainment tad
maintenance of a national staMMsud
through the application of a vontrol
strategy not specifically Identified or
described In this part.
(I) To preclude a State or political
subdivision thereof from adopting or
enforcing any emission limitations or
other measures or combinations there:
of to attain and maintain air quality
better than that required by a nation-
al standard.
(g> To encourage a State to adopt a
control slralegy uniformly applicable
throughout a region unless there Is no
§ 51.101
satisfactory alternative way of provid-
ing for attainment and maintenance of
a national standard throughout such
region.
HUM Public bearings.
(a) Except as otherwise provided In
paragraph (c) of this section. States
must conduct one or more public hear-
ings on the following prior to adoption
and submission to EPA of:
(1) Any plan or revision of It re-
quired by 181.104(a>.
(8) Any Individual compliance sched-
ule under (161.200).
(3) Any revision under 161.104(d).
(b) Separate hearings may be held
for plans to Implement primary and
secondary standards.
(c) No hearing will be required for
any change to an Increment of
progress In an approved Individual
compliance schedule unless such
change to likely to cause the source to
be unable to comply with the final
compliance date In the schedule. The
requirements of 1161.104 and 61.106
wlU be applicable to auch schedules.
however.
(d) Any hearing required by para-
graph (a) of this section will be held
only after reasonable notice, which
will be considered to Include, at least
10 days prior to the date of such
heartng(s):
(1) Notice given to the public by
prominent advertisement In the area
affected announcing the date(s>.
tlmeCa). and placets) of such
hearlngts);
(2) Availability of each proposed
plan or revision for public Inspection
In at least one location In each region
to which It will apply, and the avail
ability of each compliance schedule
for public Inspection In at least one lo-
cation In the region In which the af-
fected source to located;
(3) Notification to the Administrator
(through the appropriate Regional
Office):
(4) Notification to each local air pol-
lution control agency which will be
significantly Impacted by such plan.
schedule or revision;
(6) In the case of an Interstate
region, notification to any other
Stales Included. In whole or In part. In
722
723
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.3
-------
Port SI
40 CM Ck. I (7-l-M
FAIT SI-«iQUMfJMINTS K>t plip.
AlAIKNi ADOPTION. AND SUi-
MITTAl Of IMPUMiNTATrON
HANS
Sec.
II M Scop*.
AQMA ANU.TSI*
•141 AQMA analyala: Submlttal daU.
II 41 AQMA analysis: Analyst* period.
1141 AQUA analyst*: Guidelines.
II 44 AQMA analyabK Projection of emle-
•lons,
•1.41 AQMA analysis: Allocation of emis-
•I.M AQMA analysis: Projection of air
qu*Uty oonceotraUoas.
II 47 AQMA analyala: Dewrtptlon of data
•I.M AQMA analyala: Data baMa.
11.4* AQMA analysis: Techniques deacrlp-
Uon.
•I.M AQMA analysts: Accuracy factor*.
•Ul AQMA analysU: SubmltUl of calcula-
AQMAPuui
•Ul AQMA ptew OeneraL
•Ul AQMA plan: Demonstration of ade-
quacy.
II M AQMA plan: fllratetrtca.
•I.M AQMA plan: l««al authority.
•I.M AQMA plan: Putur* atraletrw*.
•Ul AQMA plan: Future lecal authority.
•I.M AQMA plan: InUrsovemmental eo-
operaUon.
II M IReaervadl
II M AQMA plan: Resource*.
•Ill AQMA plan: Submltlal format.
IIII AQMA analyvl* and plan: Data avail-
ability.
II U AQMA analyata and plan: Alternative
procedure*.
i»l«.*»4i lie**r»ed|
•I.11* Attainment and maintenance of na-
tional standards
II.Ill Description of control meamree.
II 111 Demonstration of adequacy.
II.III Time period for demonstration of
adequacy.
•1114 Emissions data and projection*.
•I.Ill Air quality data and projections.
•I.I I* Data availability.
II 117 Additional provision* for lead.
II III Stack hel*ht provisions.
11.11* Intermittent control systems.
•I.IM Claaslflcallon of ration* for episode
plans.
•1.1*1 Oirnlflcant harm levels.
II.Ill Contingency plan*
•I.IM Reevaluatlon of episode plaru.
•I.IM U«ally<
i of New
•1.1*1 Publk availability of Information.
•I.IM Identification of responsible
•sency.
•I.IM Administration procedures.
II.IM Stack bclsht procedures.
•I.IM Permit requirement*.
•I.IM Prevention of al«nlflcant dsterto-
raUoo of air quality.
•I.IM Ambient air quality monltorins re-
quIremenU.
•l.ll* Oeneral.
•111!
reporta and reoardkeeplng.
InsBwctlon. enforcement.
•1.111 Teatlng.
and ftffffijrlalnl
Hill Transportation control meaaurea.
11.114 CootlniKHSiemUeloamonlUirtng.
HIM RequlremenU for all plan*.
•I.MI Identification of letal authority.
11.111 Assignment of lesal authority to
local Mendea.
II IM DefbiHIona.
11.1*1 Stipulations.
111*1 Public hearins*.
II l«l HubraHaion of plans; preliminary
review of plans.
II IIM Revisions.
HIM Approval of plans.
ADDICT DUIOHATION
11.14* General plan requlremenU.
11141 NonalUlnment areas for carbon
monoilde and oxone.
11141 IReservedl
712
f 51.40
CONTINUUM CONSULTATION Paocus
II Ml Consultation process objective*.
11144 Plan elemenU •fleeted.
II141 Oraanlzattons and officials to be
omuulted.
11.14* Tlmlnc.
•1.147 Hearings on coniulUllon process
violations.
RlUTIONSHir or PUH TO OlMHI PLANNING
AN» UANAOSMOTT PaooaAMs
11.141 Coordination with other proa-rams.
II 141 IRcMrvedl
HIM Tranamltlal of Information.
•I.MI Conformity with Executive Order
11171.
•I.Ill Summary of plan development per-
il.M« Legally enforceable compllanoe
II Ml final compliance schedules.
•I.MI KiUnalon beyond on* year.
•I.I*
II Ul Copies of rule* and regulation*.
II.1M PubUe notification.
-rv.Ndi.ii el viiii»»r
H.M* Purpoee and applicability.
II.MI Definitions.
II. Ml Implementation control etratetlea.
II.MI exemption! from control.
11.1*4 Identification of Integral vlata*.
II Ml Monltorim.
•I.M* Long-term atralety.
• I .Ml New aource review.
epe*
Aia QVAUTV DAT* RsrosTtiM .
•I.IM Annual air quality data report.
Somes EMISSIONS *•• STATS ACTION
RsroaTiM
•I.MI Annual source emissions and StaU
Action report.
11.111 Sources subject to emissions report
11.111 Reportable emissions data and In-
fortiutlofi.
•1.114 Progress In plan enforcement.
•1.111 Contingency plan action*.
HIM Reportable revision*.
11.117 Enforcement order* and other State
action*.
•I.IM IReservedl
fsteiMMHU
11.140 Request lor 1 year extension.
•1.141 Request lor II month extension.
ArriNDicu A- K--IHiucavKDl
ArrtNoix L - Ex«Mri« REGULATION* roa
pacviNTioN or Aia POLLUTION EMMGCN
CT EruoDt*
ArrcNMx M IHisMviol
ArrcNDiv N EMISSIONS RCDVCTION*
ACHIKVASLI THaUUOH iNsriX-TION. MlIN
TKNUNCC AND RnaoriT or IJOMT DVTT
VlHICI^S
AmitDii O IRuuvcol
ArruiDix P -MINIMUM EMISSION MoHrroa-
IHO RCQUIKMCNTS
ArruiBicu Q- R-IRncavnl
ArrcMMS 8 -EMISSION Orrarr InTBuraar*.
TIVI RULING
Arrntan T-IRnnvnl
ArroiMB U-Cu«N Aia ACT SCCTIOH 174
AOTHOBITV: This rulemaklnc la promul
•atcd under authority of aecllon* lOKbNll.
II*. IM-IW. Ill-Ill, and lOI(a) of the
Clean Air Act 42 U.8.C. 140libNI». 74 1».
747^747*. 1*01 -IftM. and 7«OI(a»
Souacc M PR HIM. Nov. M. 1171. unless
otherwise noted.
EDITORIAL Note Nomenclature chance*
affectlruj Part tl appear at 44 FR 1117. Feb.
I. in* and II PR 40MI. Nov. 7. I*M.
Sown: 41 PR HIM. May 1. l*7«. unteas
otherwlae noted.
• 11.4* Scope.
(•> >tppfica6ififr The requlremenU
of thU •ubpart apply to air quaJlly
maintenance areu (AQMAal Mentl-
fled under | •I.IIOdl and to any areas
Identified under I tl. 110(1).
AQUA Analttit. Under this sub-
part, procedures are ilven for the
analysis of the air quality Impact of
specified pollutant emissions from ex-
isting sources and emissions associated
with projected growth and develop-
ment In areas Identified under para-
graphs and (II of 161.110. This
analysis Is referred to In this subpart
as an AQMA analysis.
AQMA Plan. Under this subpari.
the Administrator will require a revi-
sion to the State Implementation plan
for areas Identified under I 61.110(1 lor
I 51.110411 when necessary to prevent a
national ambient air quality standard
71.1
-------
151.100
the maximum concentration experi-
enced |n the absence of iuch down-
wash, wake*, or eddy effect* and
which contribute* to a total concentra-
tion due to emission* from all source*
that U greater than an ambient air
quality standard. For sources subject
to the prevention of significant dete-
rioration program (40 CFR Bl.iaa and
•3.31). an excessive concentration al-
ternatively mean* a maximum ground-
level concentration due to emission*
from a stack due In whole or part to
downwaah. wakes, or eddy effect* pro-
duced by nearby structures or nearby
terrain feature* which Individually I*
at least 40 percent In excess of the
maximum concentration experienced
In the absence of such downwash.
wake*, or eddy effect* and greater
than a prevention of ilgnlflcant dete-
rioration Increment. The allowable
emission rate to be used In making
demonstration* under this part shall
be prescribed by the new source per-
formance standard that I* applicable
to the source category unless the
ownei or operator demonstrate* that
this emission rate I* Infeaslble. Where
iuch demonstration* are approved by
the authority administering the State
Implementation plan, an alternative
emission rate shall be established In
consultation with the source owner or
operator.
(3) For sources seeking credit after
October II. IM3. for Increases In extot-
tng stack height* up to the height* es-
tablished under I SI.HXHIIHa). either
(!) a maximum ground-level concentra-
tion due In whole or part to down-
wash, wake* or eddy effect* a* provid-
ed In paragraph (kkMI) of this section.
except that the emission rate specified
by any applicable State Implementa-
tion plan (or. In the absence of Mich a
limit, the actual emission rate) shall
be used, or "PMM" means partlculate
matter with an aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to a nominal 10 mi-
crometer* ss measured by a reference
method based on Appendix J of Part
BO of thl* chapter and designated In
accordance with Part B3 of this chap-
ter or by an equivalent method desig-
nated In accordance with Part B3 of
this chapter.
(IT) "PMM emissions" means finely
divided solid or liquid material, with
an aerodynamic diameter leas than or
equal to a nominal 10 micrometers
emitted to the ambient air as meas-
ured by an applicable reference
•nvlrw
»te* PretecHe
method, or an equivalent or alterna-
tive method, specified In thl* chapter
or by a test method specified In an ap-
proved State Implementation plan.
(ss) "Total suspended partlculate"
means partlculate matter as measured
by the method described In Appendix
B of Part BO of this chapter.
Ill FA 40MI. Nov. 1. ISM. ss snsndsd at It
PR Mill. July 1.1M7I
MUSI Mrslaltoas.
Nothing In this part will be con-
strued In any manner:
(a) To encourage a State to prepare.
adopt, or submit a plan which does not
provide for the protection and en-
hancement of air quality so as to pro-
mote the public health and welfare
and productive capacity.
(b) To encourage a State to adopt
any particular control strategy with-
out taking Into consideration the eost-
effecUveness of such control strategy
In relation to that of alternative con-
trol strategies.
(e) To preclude a Stale from employ-
Ing techniques other than those speci-
fied In this part for purposes of esti-
mating air quality or demonstrating
the adequacy of a control strategy.
provided that such other techniques
are shown to be adequate and appro-
priate for auch purposes.
(d) To encourage • State to prepare.
adopt, or submit a plan without taking
Into consideration the social and eco-
nomic Impact of the control strategy
set forth In such plan. Including, but
not limited to. Impact on availability
of fuels, energy, transportation, and
employment.
(e) To preclude a State from prepar-
ing, adopting, or submitting a (Man
which provides for attainment end
maintenance of a national stssMaid
through the application of a tMitrol
strategy not specifically Identified or
described In this part.
(f) To preclude a Stale or political
subdivision thereof from adopting or
enforcing any emission limitations or
other measure* or combination* there1
of to attain and maintain air quality
better than that required by a nation-
al standard.
(g) To encourage a State to adopt a
control strategy uniformly applicable
throughout a region unless there Is no
fsi.m
satisfactory alternative way of provid-
ing for attainment and maintenance of
a national standard throughout such
region.
• •MM f«Mk
(a) Except as otherwise provided In
paragraph (c) of this section. States
must conduct one or more public hear-
ings on the following Prior to adoption
and submission to EPA of:
(I) Any plan or revision of It re-
quired by |Bl.l04(a).
(3) Any Individual compliance sched-
ule under (I •!. 300).
(3) Any revision under | •l.lO4(d>.
(b) Separate hearings may be held
for plan* to Implement primary and
secondary standards.
(c) No hearing will be required for
any change to an Increment of
progress In an approved Individual
compliance schedule unless such
change Is likely to cause the source to
be unable to comply with the final
compliance date In trie schedule. The
requirements of || 11.104 and «1.10>
will be applicable to auch schedules.
however.
(d) Any hearing required by para-
graph (a) of this section will be held
only after reasonable notice, which
will be considered to Include, at -least
30 days prior to the date of such
heartngU*
(1) Notice given to the public by
prominent advertisement In the area
affected announcing the datets).
timed). and placets) of such
hearingis);
(3) Availability of each proposed
plan or revision for public Inspection
In at least one location In each region
to. which It will apply, and the avail-
ability of each compliance schedule
for public Inspection In at least one lo-
cation In the region In which the af-
fected source Is located;
(3) Notification to the Administrator
(through the appropriate Regional
Office);
(4) Notification to each local air pol-
lution control agency which will be
significantly Impacted by such plan.
schedule or revision;
(B) In the case of an Interstate
region, notification to any other
States Included, In whole or In part. In
722
723
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.4
-------
Attachment A
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
APR 2 2 588
or
kAMAT)
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Interim Policy on Stack Height Regulatory Actions
for A1r and Radiation (AflR-443)
TO: Director, A1r Management Division
Regions I, III, I*
Director, A1r and Vk^te Management Division
Region II
Director, A1r, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
Regions IV, VI
Director, Air and Radiation Division
Region V
Director, A1r and Toxics Division
Regions VII, VIII, X
On January 22, 1988, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Issued 1ts«deds1on in NRDC v. Thomas. 838 F. 2d 1224 (D.C. C1r.
1988), regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) stack height
regulations published on July 8, 1985 (50 FR 27892). Subsequent petitions
for rehearing were denied. Although the court upheld most provisions of the
rules, three portions were remanded to EPA for review:
1. Grandfather! ng pre-October 11, 1983 w1 thin-formula stack height
Increases from demonstration requirements [40 CFR 51.100(kk)(2)3»
2. .Dispersion credit for sources originally designed and constructed
with merged or tnultlflue stacks [40 CFR 5l.lOO(hh)(2)(11)(A)]; and
3. Grandfather! no of pre-1979 use of the refined H * 1.5L formula
[40 CFR 51. 100(11) (2)].
A number of pending State Implementation plan (SIP) and other rulemaklng
actions may be affected by this decision 1n advance of EPA's promulgation of
further revisions of the stack height regulations. This Includes not only
rulemaking packages developed to respond to the 1985 stack height regulations,
but also such actions as issuance of new source review (NSR) and prevention
of significant deterioration (PSD) permits, permit modifications, SIP revisions
-------
dealing with specific source emission limitations, and redesignatIons under
section 107 of the Clean Air Act. Consequently, until resolution of litigation
and completion of any rulemaking activity to respond to the court decision,
the following policy will be applied.
In general, actions to approve States' rules may proceed provided appropriate
caveat language 1s inserted which notes that the action Is potentially subject
to review and modification as a result of the recent court decision. Actions
addressing State permitting authority should require States to provide notice
that permits are subject to review and modification If sources tre later
found to be affected by revisions to stack height regulations. Where States
currently have the authority to Issue ptnrtts under fully-approved or delegated
NSR and PSD programs, any permits Issued prior to EFA's promulgation of
revised stack height regulations should provide notice as described above
that they may be subject to review and modification. Regional Office staff
are requested to contact their State officials and notify then accordingly.
Where EPA has retained authority to Issue permits, 1t should also Insert
appropriate cautionary language in the permit.
The EPA will try to avoid taking source-specific actions that may need
to be retracted later. Such actions may Include certain emission limitations
and good engineering practice demonstrations which reflect dispersion credit
affected by the remand. The EPA may approve these State subarfttals on a
case-by-case basis, with the explicit caution that they and the sources
affected by them may need to be evaluated for compliance with any later
revisions to the stack height regulations, as a result of the litigation.
The EPA will continue to process, under normal procedures, any source-specific
actions which do not involve the remanded provisions.
Requests for redesi gnat ion of areas from nonattalnaent to attainment
which are affected by any of the remanded provisions of the stack height
regulations will be put on hold until EPA has completed any rulemaklng
necessary to comply with the court's remand. This 1s due to the Issue of
whether EPA has authority to unilaterally change attainment designations.
During this interim period, the Regional Office staff should review with
their States all regulatory actions involving dispersion credits and identify
those actions or sources affected by the remanded provisions. The Region
should consult with their States on appropriate action for all such packages,
consistent with this policy.
If you have any questions regarding the application of this policy,
please contact Doug Grano at FTS 629-0870 or Janet Metsa at FTS 629-5313.
cc: 0. Clay
A. Edcert
J. Emison
0. Grano
J. Metsa
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
MAY 1 ? IS55
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Appliwt^flfe^the Interim Policy for Stack Height
lons
FROM: JprmXaTcagiHY 01 rector
r Quality'Management Division (MD-15)
e,
TO: I/ Chief, Air Branch
Regions I-X
On April 22, 1988, J. Craig Potter, Assistant-Administrator for Air
and Radiation, issued a memorandum entitled, "Interim Policy on Stack
Height Regulatory Actions" (Attachment A). The memorandum requests that
the Regional Offices review with their States all regulatory actions
Involving dispersion credits and determine the appropriate action consistent
with the policy. The purpose of today's memorandum is to provide guidance
in carrying out the Interim policy.
In general, actions taken at this time to approve or disapprove
statewide stack height rules which are affected by the remand must include
the qualification that they are subject to review and modification on
completion of EPA's response to the court decision. Permits issued under
the prevention of significant deterioration or new source review programs
should also contain caveat language for sources which may be affected by
the remand. Attachment B contains example boilerplate language to be
Inserted into permits and regulatory packages. Note that States must
commit to including the caveat before EPA will take final action on packages
affecting permitting authority. Those actions not involving the remanded
provisions may proceed as usual.
In contrast to our policy regarding the processing of stack height
rules, our policy for source-specific State Implementation plan (SIP)
revisions is to avoid proceeding with actions which may need to be
retracted later. You are advised to consult with my staff and the Office
of General Counsel staff prior, to submitting such rulemaklng packages.
Affected sources must be deleted from negative declaration packages prepared
under the 1985 stack height regulations before EPA can proceed with action
on them.
-------
My staff has applied the policy when reviewing packages currently in
Headquarters (Attachment C). While proposals to approve (or disapprove)
State rules will remain on the Headquarters clock, the Regional Offices are
requested to review these packages and provide appropriate boilerplate as
soon as possible. Negative declaration packages and final actions on State
rules are being returned to the Regional Office clock as *ore substantial
revisions and commitments may be required. The redesignation packages
currently in Headquarters which contain sources affected by the remand are
being placed on formal hold.
If you have any questions regarding the April 22 policy, today's
guidance, or disposition of the SIP's, please contact Janet Metsa
(FTS 629-5313} or Doug Grano (FTS 629-0870).
Attachments
cc: R. Bauraan
R. Campbell
C. Carter
G. McCutchen
J. Pearson
J. Sableski
bcc: B. Armstrong
P. Embrey
G. Foote
E. Ginsburg
0. Grano
N. Mayer
J. Metsa •
I^SC Reinders
R. Rocs-Collins
SOa SIP Contacts
Stack Height Contacts, Regions I-X
-------
Attachment A
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C 20460
"«t,
APR 22588
LAMDKAMAn
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Interim Policy on Stack Height Regulatory Actions
FMH:
I) for A1r and Radiation (AflR-443)
TO: Director, A1 r Management Division
Regions I, III, IX
Director, A1r and Waste Management Division
Region II
Director, A1r, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
Regions IV, VI
Director, A1r and Radiation Division
Region V
Director, A1r and Toxics Division
Regions VII, VIII, X
On January 22, 1988, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Issued Its-decision 1n NRDC v. Thomas. 838 F. 2d 1224 (D.C. C1 r.
1988), regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) stack height
regulations published on July 8, 1985 (50 PR 27892). Subsequent petitions
for rehearing were denied. Although the court upheld most provisions of the
rules, three portions were remanded to EPA for review:
1. Grandfather!ng pre-October 11, 1983 w1thin-formula stack height
Increases from demonstration requirements [40 CFR 51.100(kk)(2)];
2. .Dispersion credit for sources originally designed and constructed
with merged or multlflue stacks [40 CFR 51.100(hh)(2)(1 i)(A)]; and
3. Grandfathering of pre-1979 use of the refined H * 1.51 formula
[40 CFR 51.100(11) (2) ].
A number of pending State Implementation plan (SIP) and other rulemaking
actions may be affected by this decision 1n advance of EPA's promulgation of
further revisions of the stack height regulations. This Includes not only
rulemaking packages developed to respond to the 1985 stack height regulations,
but also such actions as issuance of new source review (NSR) and prevention
of significant deterioration (PSD) permits, permit modifications, SIP revisions
-------
dealing with specific source emission limitations, and redes 1 gnatIons under
section 107 of the Clean A1r Act. Consequently, until resolution of litigation
and completion of any rulemaking activity to respond to the court decision,
the following policy will be applied.
In general, actions to approve States' rules may proceed provided appropriate
caveat language 1s Inserted which notes that the action Is potentially subject
to review and modification as a result of the recent court decision. Actions
addressing State permitting authority should require Statts to provide notice
that permits are subject to review and modification If sources are later
found to be affected by revisions to stack height regulations. Where States
currently have the authority to Issue permits under fully-approved or delegated
NSR and PSD programs, any permits Issued prior to EPA's promulgation of
revised stack height regulations should provide notice as described above
that they may be subject to review and modification. Regional Office staff
are requested to contact their State officials and notify them accordingly.
Where EPA has retained authority to Issue permits, It should also Insert
appropriate cautionary language 1n the permit.
The EPA will try to avoid taking source-specific actions that may need
to be retracted later. Such actions may Include certain emission limitations
and good engineering practice demonstrations which reflect dispersion credit
affected by the remand. The EPA may approve these State submlttals on a
case-by-case basis, with the explicit caution that they and the sources
affected by them may need to be evaluated for compliance with any later
revisions to the stack height regulations, as a result of the litigation.
The EPA will continue to process, under normal procedures, any source-specific
actions which do not involve the remanded provisions.
Requests for redesignation of areas from nonattainment to attainment
which are affected by any of the remanded provisions of the stack height
regulations will be put on hold until EPA has completed any rulemaking
necessary to comply with the court's remand. This 1s due to the issue of
whether EPA has authority to unilaterally change attainment designations.
During this Interim period, the Regional Office staff should review with
their States all regulatory actions involving dispersion credits and Identify
those actions or sources affected by the remanded provisions. The Region
should consult with their States on appropriate action for all such packages,
consistent with this policy*
If you have any questions regarding the application of this policy,
please contact Doug Grano at FTS 629-0870 or Janet Metsa at FTS 629-5313.
cc: D. Clay
A. Eckert
J. Emison
D. Grano
J. Metsa
-------
Attachment B
The following boilerplate, or variations tailored to suit particular
situations, should be used in rulemaking actions affected by the stack
height remand.
General Addition
"The EPA's stack height regulations were challenged 1n NRDC v.
Thomas. 838 F.2d 1224 (D.C. C1r. 1988). On January 22, 1988, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Issued Us decision affirming the
regulations in large part, but remanding three provisions to the EPA for
reconsideration. These are:
1. Grandfathering pre-October 11, 1983 w1thin-formula stack height
increases from demonstration requirements [40 CFR 51.100(kk)(2)];
2. Dispersion credit for sources originally designed and constructed
with merged or multiflue stacks [40 CFR 5l.lOO(hh)(2)(1i)(A)]; and
3. Grandfathering pre-1979 use of the refined H + 1.5L formula
[40 CFR 51.100(ii)(2)]."
Addition for Stack Heights Rules Packages
"Although the EPA generally approves [State's] stack height rules on
the grounds that they satisfy 40 CFR Part 51, the EPA also provides notice
that this action may be subject to modification when EPA completes
rulemaking to respond to the decision in NRDC v. Thomas. 838 F.2d 1224
(D.C. C1r. 1988). If the EPA's response to the NRDCTemand modifies the
July 8, 1985 regulations, the EPA will notify the~STate of [ ] that its
rules must be changed to comport with the EPA's modified requTrements.
This may result in revised emission limitations or may affect other
actions taken by [State] and source owners or operators.*
Additions for Stack Negative Declaration Packages
"The EPA Is not acting on sources (identified In table form or by
asterisk) because they currently receive credit under one of the provisions
remanded to the EPA 1n NRDC v. Thomas. 838 F.2d 1224 (D.C. C1r 1988).
The [State] and EPA will review these sources for compliance with any
revised requirements when the EPA completes rulemaking to respond to the
NRDC remand."
-------
Additions for Stack Height Emission Limitation Changes or
Good Engineering Practice Demonstration
The OAQPS and OGC will provide language on a case-by-case basis when
the EPA is acting on a source-specific package which Is affected by the
remand.
Language for Proposed NSR and PSO SIP Approvals
•Under this program, [State] will be Issuing permits and establishing
emission limitations that may be affected by the court-ordered reconsideration
of the stack height regulations promulgated on July 8, 1985 (50 PR 27892).
For this reason, EPA requires that the State Include tht following caveat
in all potentially affected permit approvals until the EPA completes Its
reconsideration of remanded portions of the regulations and promulgates any
necessary revisions:
'In approving this permit, [name of agency] has determined that the
application complies with the applicable provisions of the stack
height regulations as revised by EPA on July 8, 1985 (50 PR 27892).
Portions of the regulations have been remanded by a panel of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the O.C. Circuit In NRDC "V. Thoaas. 838 P.2d
1224 (O.C. Cir. 1988). Consequently, this permit may be subject to
modification if and when EPA revises the regulation In response to
the court decision. This may result in revised emission limitations
or may affect other actions taken by the source owners or operators.'
[State] must make an enforceable commitment to Include this caveat in
all affected permits before the EPA can take final action approving the
[NSR or PSO] prog&am.*
Language for Final NSR and PSO SIP Approvals
"Under this program, [State] will be Issuing .permits and establishing
emission limitations that may be affected by the court-ordered reconsideration
of the stack height regulations promulgated on July 8, 1985 (50 PR 27892).
Por this reason, the EPA has required that the State Include the following
caveat in all potentially affected permit approvals until the EPA completes
its reconsideration of remanded portions of the regulations and promulgates
any necessary revisions:
'In approving this permit, [name of agency] has determined that the
application compiles with the applicable provisions of the stack
height regulations as revised by the EPA on July 8, 1985 (50 PR
27892). Portions of the Regulations have been remanded by a panel of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the O.C. Circuit in NRDC v. Thomas. 838
P.2d 1224 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Consequently, this penalt may be subject
to modification if and when the EPA revises the regulations 1n
-------
response to the court decision. This may result in revised emission
limitations or may affect other actions taken by the source owners
or operators.'
[State] has made an enforceable commitment to include this caveat in
all affected permits by letter dated [ ]. This commitment is being
incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations for the State of [ ] as
part of EPA's approval action."
See Attachment 0 for sample CFR amendment.
The Regional Offices are requested to contact those States that
currently have permitting authority and request that they include similar
language in any permits issued until EPA has .completed Its reconsideration
of the stack height regulations and has promulgated any necessary revisions,
-------
Attachment C
State
AZ/CA/NV
AZ/CA/NV
SC
MS
NJ/NY/YI
WA
MO
AR
OH
TX
LA
DE
OH
SO
CO
AQMD 1
3059
321Q
3243
3330
3418
3480
3543
3548
3570
3572
3592
3600
3334
•
3618
3623
Description
Promulgation of Stack Height Regs.
App. and Disapp. of Stack Height Req.
Negative Declaration
Mississippi's Negative Declaration
Stack Height Revisions
Stack Height Rules
Negative Declaration
Stack Height Rules
Stack Height Regulations
Stack Height Regulations
Revisions to Stack Height Rules
Stack Height Regulations
Redes Ignati on of Galia County to
Attainment
Administrative Rules
Negative Declaration
Disposition
HQ
RO
RO
RO
RO
HQ
RO
HQ
HQ
HQ
HQ
HQ
Hold
RO
RO
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
| Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
* Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711-
12 NCV
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Incorporation by Reference
FROM: G. T. Helms, ChieM^"~
Cont-ol Programs Operations Branch
TO: Chief, A1r Branch
Regions I-X
The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) has recently advised us
that commitment letters are not acceptable for Incorporation by reference
because they are not regulatory in nature.
Instead, the OFR has informed us that the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) can be amended by adding a new section or amending an existing section
to add the commitment; the "Identification of Plan" paragraph should not
be amended.
Attached 1s an example of a CFR page that the OFR has reviewed and
approved and the commitment letter from the State of Minnesota that was
the basis for this sample regulatory text. Please note that the core
paragraph from the letter should be quoted In the new section that 1s
being added to the CFR.
If you have any questions on Incorporation by reference procedures,
call Denise Gerth at 629-5550. Thank you for your cooperation.
Attachments
-------
cc: Betty Abramson
Walter Bishop
Ted Creekmore
Tom Dlggs
Pat Embrey
Greg Foote
Denise 3*rth
Dean 6111 am
Laurie Krai
Carol LeValley
Sandy McLean
Bob Miller
Rich Osslas
Carolyn Payne
Sharon Relnders
Julie Rose
John Sllvasl
Hard a Spink
Rebecca Taggart
Paul Truchan
-------
40 CFR Part 52, Subpart Y, 1s amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows
AUTHORITY: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7642
2. A new Section 52.1237 1s added as follows:
§52.1237 Stack Height Regulations
The State of Minnesota has committed to conform to the Stack
Height Regulations as set forth in 40 CFR Part 51. In a letter to
Mr. David Kee, EPA, dated January 14, 1987, Mr. Thomas J. Kalltowskl
of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency stated:
Minnesota does not currently have a stack height rule,
nor do we Intend to adopt such a rule. Instead, we will
conform with the Stack Height Regulation as set forth
in the July 8, 1985 federal Register 1n Issuing permits
for new or modified sources. In cases where that rule
1s not clear, we will contact U.S. EPA Region V and
conform to the current federal Interpretation of the
Item In question.
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.5
-------
5864 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 28 / Monday. February 8.1982 /Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 51
f AD-fRt 2010-1; Docket No. A-7V-01]
Stack Height Regulation*
AOKNCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)..
ACTION: Final rulemaJong.
SUMMANV: Section 123 of the Clean Air
Act requires EPA to promulgate
regulations to assure that the degree of
emission limitation required for the
control of any air pollutant under an
applicable State Implementation Plan
(SIP] is not affected by that portion of
any stack height which exceeds good
engineering practice (CEP) or by any
other dispersion technique. Regulations
to implement Section 123 were proposed
on January 12.1979 at 44 PR 2808 and
reproposed October 7.1961 at 46 FR
. 49814. Today's action incorporates
changes to the reproposai and finalizes
these regulations.
DATE These rules are effective March
10.1982.
: Docket A-79-01. containing
material relevant to this action, is
located in the Central Docket Section
(A-130), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 401M Street SW., Washington,
D.C 20460.
ICOHTACT:
Mr. Bruce Polkowaky, MD-15, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards!
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
27711. Telephone: (919) 541-5540.
SUPPLKMDfTAMY MKMUT1QN!
Docket Statement
All pertinent information concerning
the development of these regulations is
included in Docket No. A-79-01. The
Docket is open for inspection by the
public between the hours of 8.-00 eon.
and 4.-00 pan.. Monday through Friday,
at the EPA Central Docket Section. West
Tower Lobby. Gallery One, 401M
Street. SW.. Washington. D.C.
Background documents normally
available to the public, such as Federal
Register notices and Congressional
reports, are not included in the docket
A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying documents.
I. Background
A. Statute
Section 123 was added to the Clean
Air Act by the 1977 Clean Air Act
Amendments. It prohibits stacks taller
than good engineering practice (GEP)
height and other dispersion techniques
from affecting the emission limitations
required-to meet the national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS) or
prevention of significant deterioration
air quality increments (PSD increments).
Section 123 requires EPA to promulgate
regulations which define GEP stack
height and which restrict the use of
other dispersion techniques, including
intermittent or supplemental control
techniques. This rulemaking fulfills this
requirement In the near future. EPA
also intends to propose rules on the use
of intermittent control techniques.
On January 12. 1979 (44 FR 2808), EPA
published a notice proposing limitations
-on stack height credit and other
dispersion techniques. The aotiea
proposed specific rules to be used m
determining GEP stack height for any
source and specific requirements for
State Implementation Plaa (SIP)
revisions. EPA provided an extended
period for the submission of public
comments on these proposed
regulations. EPA held a public hearing
on May 31. 1879 followed by a 39-day
period for. the submisaian of additional
comments (44 FR 24328. April 25.1979).
EPA provided fat comments on
additional technical mformatiom (44 IK
40359, July 11. 1979 and 49 FR 24696.
May 1, 1961). Finally. EPA recently
repronoaed the regulations with changes
*** ***• *""""*-*"
received (4* FR 49814. October 7.1961).
Forty individuals and groups
commented OB the October 1981
propose! EPA hae considered aD
comments aatd- bee nmie a number of
changes in the regulations in response to
these comments. Moat of these changes
simply clarify the proposed rules. The
revisions an outlined in Section IV:
"Changes in the Regulations from the
October 1961 Proposal- In addition.
EPA has prepared a document entitled
"Summary of Comments and Responses
on the October 7.1961 Piopueal of the
Stack Height Regulations." This
document has been placed in Docket A-
79-01. and. depending upon available
supplies, copies may also be obtained
from: EPA Ubrary (MD-3S). US.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park. N.C. 27711. A
copy of this document will be sent to all
persons who submitted comments on the
October 1981 proposal
C Documents
In conjunction with the regulations.
EPA developed several technical and
guidance documents. These served as
background information for the
regulations and all are included in
Docket No, A-79-01. The following
documents have been placed in the
National Technical Information Service
(NTIS) system and may be obtained by
contacting NTIS at 5285 Port Royal Rd.
Springfield. Virginia 22161.
(1) "Guideline for Determination of Good
Engineering Practice Suck Height (Technical
Support Document for Stack Height
Regulation*)." July 1961. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Office of Air Quality
PUnnrng sad Standard*. EPA-450/4-80-023
(NTIS PBBZ145301)
(2) "Guideline for Use of Fluid Modeling to
Determine Good Engineering Practice Stack
Height" July 1961. UA Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
PUnninf sad Standarae».BPA-«50/4-«i-oo3
(NTTSntZ 145327) .
PI -GaMeline far FtaM Modeling of
Atmospheric DUfuiion," April 1981. U.S.
vBflnrODDeBtu Pfotsctio& Agency.
BBvtraraeBtal'ScieneM Research
Laboratory. EPAXOO/S-et-008. (NTIS PB81
91410)
0. Program Overview
A. The Problem
There are two general methods for
preventing violations of the NAAQS and
PSD increments. Emission controls
reduce, on a continuous basis, the
quantity, rate, or concentrations of
pollutants released into the atmosphere
from a source. In contrast dispersion
techniques rely on the dispersive effects
of the atmosphere to carry pollutant
emissions away from a source and to
prevent high concentrations of
pollutants near the source. The Clean
Air Act requires pollution sources to
meet the NAAQS and PSD increments
by complying with emission limitations
instead of relying on dispersion
techniques.1 Section 123 defines stack
height exceeding GEP as a dispersion
technique.
Tall stacks and intermittent or
supplemental control systems (ICS or
SCS) are the two basic types of
dispersion, techniques. Tall stacks
enhance dispersion by releasing
pollutants into the air at elevations high
above ground level increasing the
volume of air through which pollutants
must travel to reach the ground.
Releasing pollutants from a tall stack
allows a source to reduce the ambient
levels of its pollution as measured at
ground level without reducing the
amount of pollution it releases.
Intermittent and supplemental control
systems vary a source's rate of
emissions to take advantage of
'Sea Section* UOfaMZXB). 121 JOZfk). md 302m)
of UM Act 42 U.S.C mOfeKHB). 7423. TflOSk). >nd
TeOSmJ. The Notice of Propoeed Rulenuking
contain* a mora detailed di*cua*>on o( the Act t
preaibtttofl of the uee of diipenion technique*. Sec
-------
/ Vet 47. No. 26 / Monday, February 8, 1982 / Rules and Regulation* 5B85
meteorological conditions. When
atmospheric conditions do not fevor
dispersion snd an NAAQS may be
violated, the source temporarily reduces
its pollutant emissions. When conditions
favor rapid dispersion, the source emits
pollutants at higher rates:
Use of dispersion techniques insteed
of constant emission controls can result
in additional atmospheric loadings
which may contribute to undesirable
environmental effects. The use of tall
stacks increases the possibility that
pollution will travel long iP«*-iitT
before it settles to the groaad.
Although dispersion techniques may
produce advene effect* some stack
height to needed to pnveotaxcessive
concentrations of pollntant emission*
created by airflow disruptions caused
by structures, terrain features, and
ground-level meteorological phenomena.
These excessive concentrations result
from interference with the plume.
Section 123 responds to this problem by
allowing EPA to give a source credit for
that portion of it* stack height needed to
prevent excessive concentrations near
the source. This H»i»h^ jg called <-m*
stack height
The regulations promulgated today
define "excessive concentrations,"
"nearby." end other ^ippT**'** "rrti-
They also esubliahmethodj for
determining the GEP stack height for aQ
stationary sources to which these
regulations apply.
TheW regulations do not omit the
physical stack height of any source, nor
requin any specific stack height for any
source. Insteed. they set limits'on the
maximum stack height credit to be used
in ambient sir quality modeling for the
purpose of setting an emission limitation
and calculating the air quality impact of
a source. Sources are modeled at the
physical stack height unless that height
exceeds then- GEP stack height The
regulations apply to all stacks
constructed and all dispersion
techniques implemented since December
31.1870.
1. Method* of Determining GEP Stack
Height. The regulations estataitob three
bssic methods of calculating a source'•
CEP stack height
(a) De minimi* height—EPA is
adopting 65 meters as the-minimum GEP
stack height for all sources regardless of
the size or location of any structures or
terrain feature!. Sixty-five meters
represents a reasonable estimate of the
height needed to insure thst emissions
will not be affected by common ground-
level meteorological phenomena which
may produce excessive pottuUnt
coacentretions. Typio*! <
phenomena include surface roughness
and the temperature changes caused by
the solar heating and terrestrial cooling
cycle (see page 26 of the Technical
Support Document).
Virtually all significant sources of SO»
can Justify stack height credits greater
than 65 meters. Accordingly, this de
minimis height will have little effect on
stmospheric leadings of sulfur dioxide.
(b) Mathematical Formulas—
Excessive concentrations may be
produced by downwash. wakes, and
eddies caused by structures located
the stack. EPA to adopting two formula
with which to calculate the GBP stack
height! One for stacks in ffr'i^T OB
lanuaiy U, 1079 (the date of pubUeatioo
of EPA original proposed rules), and one
tot stacks constructed after that date.
For •*"^« in existence on January 12.
1979, EPA has adopted the traditional
engineering formula of two and one half
times the height of the nearby structure
fH.-iSH) as the formula for
determining the GEP stack height For
stacks constructed after January 12.
187B. EPA has established a refined
formula of the height of the nearby
structure plus one and one-half times me
height or width of the structure,
whichever is leae (rV-H+lJL) ae the
(c) Physical Demonstration -fa some
cases, a source may need a stack Jailer
than the height predicted by the
formulas to pceieut excessive
concentrations of a pollutant due to
downwash. wakes, or eddies created by
structures or terrain obstacles. la such
cases. Section 129 provides that a source
may obtain credit for afl of the stack
height necessary to avoid excessive
concentrations provided it demonstrates
to the satisfaction of the reviewing
authority that the additional height to
accessary.
EPA is requiring such s source to
demonstrate that mi
rations caused by the
emissions from its proposed stack
height without consideration of nearby
structures or terrain obstacles.-will
increase by at least 40 percent when the
effects of the structures or terrain
obstacles era considered. This
difference in concentrations must be
shown either by a fluid model study
conducted in accordance with guidelines
published by EPA or by a field study
which has been approved by the
reviewing authority.
Before a source can obtain credit for a
GEP alack height determined by a fluid
model or field study demonstration.
Section 123(c) requires that the
reviewing authority anet nottfjr the
«faa^r«>aWlt»«f«»e. MSB
demonstration study and must provide
an opportunity for a public hearing.
2. Method of Admitting GEP Stack
Height for Elevated Terrain Areas. Aa
traditionally defined, plume impaction
occurs when e plume emitted from a
stack interacts with terrain that is taller
than the stack. The contact between the
plume and the terrain can produce high
pollutant concentrations. EPA is
establishing a procedure which will
allow sources to edfust their GEP stack
height to avoidmodeled plume
impaction OB elevated terrain causing
one to pradkt-violation* of the NAAQS
or appucaeseJBe> increments which will
not omar^fMda*ayuceUui e to explained
m Section IV.O) The predicted
violations wifl not occur because the
physical stackheight to sufficient to
ensure mat the plume passes over the
elevated terrain.
Before a source can obtain credit for a
GEP stack height based on allowances
for terrain impaction. the reviewing
authority must notify the public of the
availability of the source's
demonstration study v^ must provide
an opportunity for a public hearing.
3. Grandfathend Stack Height. The
1970 Clsan Air Act became effective on
nberin. 1970. Prior to that date
i had constructed stacks
taller than their GBP height In Section
123, Congrass-ranngnJied this and
exempted those sources' stack heights.
Section 123 allows credit for stack
••iji>i in existence on December 31.
1970. A source's steck to considered to
be "in existence" if met stack was part
of the design of a facility on which
construction commenced prior to
December 31.1970.
4. Other Ditpenion Techniques. The
regulations prohibit the use of other
dispersion techniques to attain or
tMimaft. my NAAQS or protect s PSD
increment Those techniques include
major alteration of prune characteristics
each as the manipulation of exhaust
flow rates or temperatures for the
purpose of enhancing plume rise. The
regulation defines three types of
dispersion techniques: (1) tall stacks. (2)
use of ICS or SCS. end (3) addition of a
fan or reheater to obtain a less stringent
emission limitation. However, the
regulations exempt (1) reheating of a ga*
stream following the us* of s pollutant
control system. (2) smoke management
in agricultural or ailvtcultural proerami.
and (3) combining exheuat gaae* from
several stacks into one *tack.
m. State I lasser'-*— "•»
-------
Federal Bagistar / VoL 47. No. 28 / Moaday. February 8. 1982 / Rales and Regulations
nguiationa. All Statea i
revise. M necessary, their StPi to
include provisions that Emit stack height
credits and dispersion tachaiqiieB in
accordance with theM ngnlatioaa.
Section 406(d)(2) of the Cleaa Air Act
Amendments of 1977 requires that the**
SIP tensions be submitted witaia niae
months at pranmigaaoa of the**
regulation*.
After EPA approves a State's suck
height rates, the State mast review
existing limit •Unas to •etsnxae
whether tfaew hmttatkms have been
affected by stack height cndH above
GEPleiukor any other dispersion
tecbaiqae-If so. the State must revise
the emission limttatfaps to be cauristmt
with its sevieadSP.
IV. Changes io the Regulations From the
October 7,1981 Proposal
EPA has made several changes in the
proposed reguiations as a rnanft of the
public comments on the reproposed
regulations, These changes an noted
below.
A. Prospective Application of At New
GEP Formula
On February 1* IK* HI PR 3430),
EPA published tha -Stack Height
Increase T-iis'ittna" which previdad
guidance on its poJtaf lor ta* use ef (all
stacks. Tha gaidelma pemittad audit
for stacks ap to two aad ma half toes
the height of the facility it served. OB
Novembead, 1977, after passage of the
Qeaa Airylct Ameadmeats ei 1877.
EPA proasftbjated a final ruleoaveoau
changes taats prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) program {42 FR
57450). As part of the preamble to that
notice. EPA defined GEP as "two and
one-half times the height of tha source"
(2.SH).
On January 12,1879 (44 FR 2006), EPA
proposed regulations to implement
Section 123 which refined tha two and
one-half times rule by tUfl"i*fl GEP
stack height as the height of a nearby
structure plus one and one-half times tha
iesser of the height or width of the
nearby structure (H+1.5L). That
proposal and the repropoaal of that
regulation on October 7.1881 (40 FR
49814) would have made the new
iormuia retroactive to December 31.
1970.
Four commeoters argued that EPA's
iefialtion of GEP. until January 12,1979,
had been based OB two and one-half
'..met the building height and that
komrces in good faith had constructed
stack* in accordance wfth that
definition. Applying the new formula
retroactively would be unfair to those
sources. The rnmnmnters argued that
the new fernola should be Bppbed
IB response to these comments, EPA
has developed twe formulas for
determining GEP stack height (l) For
stacks ta existence on January 12.1879.
the farmmk is H.-rsH; (2) for all other
stack*, the formate iaH,«H+1.5L.
B. Definition of "in ax/ateacv "
Section 19 does not effect stack
heights Tn existence" on December 91,
19mm October 1881. EPA proposed to
define "to existence" to mean that the
owner or operator of a staek aad
obteteoti an necessary proconstrucuOB
permne or approvals raojoirad DJT
Pedenl, State or local air pathrflon
eontrai agencies, and eflber (1J actoaBy
•fitrfllfflfftaC'ITO CODaftl^CtiOIa* O1***J VBfCTOQ
into * bf&Ao^ conunitxnffnt
Comments on the reproposed
definition stated that this new definition
would discriminate unfairly •g«
-------
Federal Register / Vol 47. No. 28 / Monday. February A 19B2 / Rule* and Regulation*
Rep. No. 95-294.95th Cong. 1st Seas, at
93 (1977). Therefore. EPA has carefully
tailored impaction credit procedures to
provide only the minimum stack height
credit needed to avoid high
concentrations * produced by impaction.
These procedures are described in more
detail below.
EPA is convinced thet its narrowly
drawn rales represent a reasonable
solution for e plume effect that closely
resemble* the phenomena of downwaah.
wakes, and eddies. Credits for plume
impaction. when carefully limited.
should not be regarded es e dispersion
technique. Although the promulgated
procedure allows for the use of some
stack height to evoid high pollutant
concentration* on elevated terrain, it
does not permit excessive dispersion
^^^-~ftteM
creaiis.
(2) Explanation offmctdunt
EPA has developed e three-etep
procedure for determining the amount of
stack height credit appropriate for a
source with e predicted tmpactioo
concentration violating an NAAQS or
applicable PSO tn^n^m^n*
First a source must determine its
downwash GEP height die amount of
stack height that can be Mined based
OB downwssh. wakes. or4Mdiee«HBriBg
anyoftheAreemetnodedaecrlbedui
Section ILB. above. Using tale GEP
height die source moat show that its
plume would come into contact with •
elevated terrain (defined as terrain taller
man mis GEPfeeight) end together with
background concentrations cenee e
violation of aa NAAQS or applicable
PSD mcremesjt If the soeree cannot
show that a violation would occur, tt
cannot claim any impaction credit Its
stack height credit would be licitrd ts
the GEP height already calculated.
If a violation is modeled, the second
step is to determine the source's
mair^mnm allowable emission limitation.
In thi* step the source would model its
air quality impact using the previously
determined GEP height and • fuming
that the terrain feeture(s) causing
impaction is no taller than its
downwash GEP height Using the
appropriate martmum concentration
from this modeling scenario, the source
'EPA oooddcn "Ugh eoocntntion*' to b» •
viobtioa of u NAAQS or •pplieabi* PSD
iacnmML Unllk* 'iMmhn eaeoMHttoB*-
wuMd by dcwn»«««h. Ufh eonentnttont cmtd
by plum* imp«cUon occur tm dtfitmi
BMUoniociuJ eaadtnoM thu dowawuh ud «n
long* a daraooa. Htfh coMMonoau du* to
plum* tmpKtiQB cu b* canpwwl MMty to in
NAAQS or «ppUc«bU PSD taCNMat. Thmbn.
EPA (MI ra«urad (hat tfa* caoecnmaae cniMd by
plume imp»cnon mini b« to cum* of u NAAQS or
«pplieabi« PSD mmaont t»bm •
•diujl iU
would calculate an emission limitation
which would become its «".^m«m
allowable emission limitation.
The third step allows the source to
adjust its GEP *tacl height to account
for the plume inspection on actual
terrain features above the downwash
GEP suck height The source cannot
adjust its «"««<«»tiii> allowable vrriitirii**1
limitation. The source would model its
air quality impact again, thi* time using
actual terrain elevations, but limiting its
emissions to the rate fixed by the
emission Umitation developed in step
two. The source would increase the
height of the stack m the model to the
height at which the maximum
coocentt'eticn.ptediclad to <
elevated tenate equaled the i
ijoiifentiaUon predicted to occur i
two. This increased stack height is the"
source's maifiiinnn GEP * **gJF* to avoid
Like die downwaah CEP height thi*
stack height will represent maximum
allowable credit The source would not
be able to data thi* credit if its physios!
(actual or proposed) stack height weee
not as tail aa its maximam creditable
height In that ease, the source would be
able to claim only its physical stack
height A source with physical stack
height lower than its allowable GBP
height would have to adjust its anilseinn
Umitation downward to prevent a
violation of aa NAAQS orappUcaUe
rfoy
(3)M6dtfi
The electric otilitts
tested Out
EPA assume, during the Step two
modeling, that all terrain features are no
taller man ground elevation at the base
of the suck or. in other word*, that the
source is located hi absolutely flat
terrain. The utilities believe that this
assumption is necessary to ensure
equity between sources located hi
elevated terrain and sources in fiat
terrain.
EPA has decided not to make this
change to its procedure. EPA's objective
is to provide the minimum stack height
credit needed to allow a source to avoid
high concentrations caused by plume
impaction. A source in assumed flat
terrain would obtain a less restrictive
emission limitation than a source to
terrain assumed to be as tall as its
downwash GEP height The flat terrain
assumption would thus allow a source
to obtain more stack height credit than
needed to prevent impaction. It would
also have a greater negative impact on
air quality by allowing taller stack* and
more relaxed emission limit*.
D. Ditpenion Ttchniqu*
EPA received numerous comment* or
the definition of the term "dispersion
technique.'* Most of these comment*
stated that wording concerning the
enhancement of plume rise wes vague.
Comments specifically mentioned that
many changes hi operation or equipmer.
made for engineering purposes, to
improve reliability or efficiency, could
be construed ae a disperison technique.
This is not the intent of the definition.
EPA has changed the definition of
dispersion technique to prevent the
addition el a fan or refceater to obtain a
lees stringent emission limitation. The
purpose of this change to to prevent onh
the installation of equipment clearly
intended to enehance phone rise. The
new definition should not prevent
equipment changes intended to improve
reliability •*"* efficiency.
E. Definition of-Stock"
Comments on. the January 1979
proposal urged EPA to exempt "flare*"
from the definition of -stack." EPA
egresrt thai flares, wmch are designed to
dispense heat and vent emissions
mtermitteady for safety purposes, dc
not serve the same purpose as stacks;
which are typically a source's major aoc
BMiet constant emiesioos point EPA
enaminffied mat it would exempt flare*
from die stack height regulations in the
preamble to the October 1981
reproposaL New comments urged EPA
regulation* tbemsehr*.
potential for
to eliminate any
or
ID response to these
comments, EPA is incorporating a
specific exemption for flare* into the
definition of "stack."
P. Station 133 and Physical Stack
Hfight
EPA received several comments on
the October 1981 reproposal which
indicated that the commenters'believed
that the proposed regulations would give
EPA authority to limit a source'* actual
stack height EPA did not intend to
create this impression. In fact EPA
stated in the preamble to the repropotal
that Section 123 expressly prohibit* the
Agency from limiting physical stack
height Section 123 limits only the
theoretical stack height used in
determining a source's emission
limitation. However, to eliminate this
confusion. EPA is adding a statement U
ii 51.12U) and 51.18(1) of the regulations
stating that these regulation* do not
restrict in any H1*""** the actual height
of any stack at any source.
-------
j*edand fcafiitg •/ Vbi 4ft Wa*» f--Mooti«y. February 8. 1982 / Rules and Reguhrtkms
C. Measurement of Stack Height
In the proposed definition of a
"stack." EPA stated that the "stack
height is the distance from the ground-
level elevation of the plant to the
elevation of the stack outlet* Several
commenters requested clarification in
the establishing the ground-level
elevation of the plant For tnmt»nr», (he
commenters noted that where a plant
was built oh a slope the regulation could
have varying interpretations. Also, some
commenters asked whether (he entire
plant site should be included or just the
portion of the plant site considered
"nearby" the stack.
clarify tKfo point EPA d»uw from the
definition of a "stack," the statement
I stack ^*'B^* However. EPA
clarified the methods for deter
GEP stack height by stating that aO
stack and structure heights are
measured from the grouad-tacel
elevation at the baae*«f ifce stack
If a stack is on lop of a building, tha
grcmad-leval aievafiaa of that buikitog je
used as the base akvation. to«rdar In
appropriately •*•••• to* ie*aaHi«f .
neaaby sttucnoae oat this) -"— Irf iglil
tfa* hetgkt ol atnwtauaa at sJaet
determined t elartire I
elevation of thai i
H. Minor Wording Quage*
^•MIsBfJWa^VVfVfltWPIltapBejl W^BBBBBBBsl
typographical i
minor weeding!
regulations. Tbeae and i
changes have been mad* to <
to clarify the regulations. Theae changes
did not have any significant effect «a
the regulations.
V. Impact Analysis
"EPA has prepared a series of impact
analyses on these regak«tiena.Tteea
analyses are in Docket A-I9-M. The
analyses show the* the expected •wore*.
case" national amraaJ costs to fanfi-niel
filed power plants shoold be lees taaa
$45 miffion per year. These costs reseJt
from conservative estimates
purchases of lower sulfur coal and
estimates of required letiufM of
electrostatic precipitators at some plants
which purchase the lower snlfor cool
The worst-case analyses show that the
expected reduction in SO* emissions is
less than 20OOOO tons per year.
Nationally, these coets could increase
ejectnc utility rate charges
approximately 0.1 to 0-2 percent
Increases for individual power company
rates could range from 0.5 to 30 peiueaL
VI Kegonrtory FfadbiBty Analysis
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 LLS.C
a05(b], I hereby certify that the attached
rule will not have significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule applies only to large
sources. The impact assessment
predicted that these regulations would
not hare significant impact on any smaD
suQties. Based upon our ftnpm*
analysis, only electric utffity plants and
possibly one smarter wul be
significantly affected by these
vn.
Under Executive Oder 12»1. BPA
must toslgowfaate a regulation is
"m«tor- aael thenfas. noto* to tk.
beoaaas) st doaei not reaoct to an i
effect OB ska aconenry of SlOO mi
nordemttsavvftmamajarinctMsein
costs or BDoas Car ooaammca. FadaraL
State, cc local governments or individual
fa»«h«Jb«fl the eiactric powaar
flu! this rule is tesadea
oetermtnarkas of amtkatwide scope aad
efiect.lZafl)2nsai8»ctIonl29BmiU!ta
* aspticabQltr w ^particular localfiyt
State, or tattaa. OB flu eontniy, SecOon
123 eppBes to sotaoss waarever located
' BecaoM of flw rule's "••Vmsl
applicability. Section 3o7(b] {42 U5.C
review of the promulgated rule be filad
only in the United States Court of *
Appeals fcr toe Dblrlct of Columbia and
within 88 daye of the date of
(Sees. UO. 12X 301. OMB Air Act as
amead*4 (42 TJ.&C 7Ott 7423. and 7001)
Dated; Janaarjr 31. 19K.
loBaW.Hsmsnitsa.il.
AcOagAduiaiftator.
PART 51— KEQUmEMErfTS FOft
PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND
SUBMTTAL OF nsTUgMBfT ATOM
PIAMS
Part 54 of Chapter L THl* 40 of the
Code af Federal Kaguiationa ia amended
as follow*:
1* S^^*«^B 51.1 jj amended by revising
paragraph (z) and by adding paragraphs
(SI, (ggl. (hh). (ii). U)). (kk). (lU. and (mm)
as follows;
§51.1 Oeflnmona.
t • • • •
(z) "Emission limitation" and
"emisnon standard" mean a
requirement established by a State, local
government or the Administrator which
limits the quantity, rate, or
concentration of emissions of air
pofiutants on a continuous basis.
including any requirements which limit
the level of opacity, prescribe
equipment set fuel specifications, or
prescribe operation or maintenance
procedures for a source to assure
continuous emission reduction.
• .**••
(fi) "Stack" means any point in a
source ditsignnd to emit solids, liquids.
or gases into **** *»», including a pipe or
duct but not including flares.
(ggj "A •*M""V in «
-------
Federal
/ VbL If, Wo. 2*£Monday, February a. 1962 / Rule* and Regulation* 5809
reviewing agency, which ensures that
the emission* from a stack do not result
in excessive concentrations of any air
pollutant as a result of atmospheric
downwash. wakes. M eddy effects
created by the source Itself, structures.
or terrain obstacles.
(jj) "Nearby" as used in 151.100(2) is
that distance up to five times the lesser
of me height or the width dimension of a
structure but not greater than O8 km
(one-half mile). The height of the
•ftructw is leUetmtvu 000 t*u ^pouDo*
level elevation at the base of the stack
Ock) "Excessive concentrations" for
the purpose of determining good
mnfnmmring practice stack height hi a
fluid modal or field study means a
maximum concentration due to
downwash wakes, or eddy effects
produced by structures or terrain
features which is at least 40 percent in
excess of the maximum concentration
experienced in the absence of such
downwaah. wakes, or eddy effects.
01) "Plume impaction" means
concentration* measured or predicted to
occur when die plume interacts with
elevated terrain.
(mm) "Elevated terrain'' means terrain
which exceeds the elevation of die good
engtnserlni practice stank as oaiooiated
under paragraph (il) of thie eeotion.
2, Section 51.12 is amended by adding
paragraph* (]). (k). and 0) ** feOowc
|it« Control s«nk>0rOeMnL
pollutant must not be affected by so _
much of any source's stack height that
exceeds good engineering practice or by
any other dispersion technique* except
as provided in §51.1200 and (!)• The
plan must provide mat before a State
submits to EPA a new or revised
emission limitation that is based on a
good engineering practice stack height
that exceeds the height allowed by
I Si-l(U) (1) or (2), the State must notify
the public of the availability of the
demonstration study and most provide
opportunity for publk hearing on it This
Section does not require the plan to
restrict, m any «""»««^» the actual stack
K»lfM nt mmm mffmgm,
(k) The provisions of II51.120) and
51.180) shaD not apply to (1) alack
techniques implemented prior to
December 91.1970, or (2) coal-fired
•team electric generating unit*, subject
to the provisions of Section 111 of the
Clean Air Act which commenced
ition Hfar* )uly 11957. and whose
ict awarded before
Febreary*. 1974.
(1) The good engineering practice
(CTP) stack height for any
•MldngcredUT
(])Th< plan must provide mat the
degree of emission limitation required of
any source for control of any air
•inspection which results ni
coBcaotratiow in violation of national
ambtent air quaiitf standards or
•ppUcable prerenttoo of significant
deteriorafion increments can be
ad justed by determining me stack height
necessary m predict the same maximum
air pollutant concentration 00 any
elevated terrain feature as the maximum
itratton associated with the
emission limit which results from
modeling the source using the CEP stack
height as determined in f SM(ii) and
aamiming the elevated terrain features U
be equal in elevation to the CEP stack
height If tins adjusted CEP stack height
1s greater than the stack height the
source proposes to use. the source's
emission limitation and air quality
impact shall be determined using the
proposed stack height and the actual
terrain heights.
3. Section 51.18 is amended by adding
paragraph (1) as follows:
f 11.18
(I) Such procedures must provide that
the degree of emission limitation
required of any source for control of any
air pollutant must not be affected by so
much of any source's stack height that
exceeds good engineering practice or by
any other dispersion technique, except
as provided in i 51.12(k) and (I). Such
procedures must provide that before a
State issues a permit to a source based
on a good engineering practice stack
height diet exceeds the height allowed
by | tUffi) (1) or (2). tiM State must
notify the pubUc of the availability of
the demonstration study and must
provide opportunity for public hearing
OB it This section does not require such
procedures to restrict in any manner.
the actual stack height of any source.
(PtO
-------
EPA-450/2-89-019
SO Guideline
Appendices
by
Doug Grano (EPA)
Jill Vitas (EPA)
Susan Templeman (Radian)
Richard Pandullo (Radian)
Contract No. 68-02-4392
Work Assignment No. 44
Radian Corporation
P.O. Box 13000
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Air Quality Management Division
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
October 1989
-------
APPENDIX A
S02 GUIDELINE REFERENCES
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.1
-------
PN 107-83-04-El-c-
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C 2S450
APR 2 l 1533
AIM. MOlSC. AND «AOlATlON
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Section 107 Designation Policy Summary
FROM: Sheldon Meyers, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (ANR-443)
TO: Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Regions II-IV, VI-VIII, X
Director, A1r Management Division
Regions f. V, IX
On February 3, 1983, the Agency published a Federal Register notice
regarding the status of all areas designated nonattainwent under Part D
of the Clean Air Act. This notice indicated that for a significant
number of nonattainment areas States are anticipated to be able to
demonstrate attainment of the primary national ambient air quality standards.
Accordingly, for those areas, States have been encouraged to update their
Section 107 designations. In addition, a number of nonattainment areas were
identified in the February 3, 1983, notice as "unlikely to attain standards."
The Federal Register also stated that the basic existing policy will generally
be continued for redesignatlon. This memorandum summarizes and clarifies
existing policy for reviewing designations and provides new guidance on
processing these actions.
Policy For Reviewing 107 Designations
1. Data: In general, all available information relative to the attainment
status of the area should be reviewed. These data should include the most
recent eight (8) consecutive quarters of quality assured, representative
ambient air quality data plus evidence of an implemented control strategy
that EPA had fully approved. Supplemental Information, Including air
quality modeling emissions data, etc., should be used to determine if
the monitoring data accurately characterize the worst case air quality
in the area. Also, the following items can be considered in special
situations.
An attainment designation can be made using only the most recent four (4)
quarters of ambient data if an acceptable state of the art modeling analysis
(such as city-specific EKMA for ozone) is provided showing that the basic
SIP strategy is sound and that actual, enforceable emission reductions are
responsible for the recent air quality improvement.
107
S-l
-------
For nonattainment designations which were originally based solely on
modeling, redesignation to attainment is possible even if less than four (4)
quarters of ambient data are available provided that a reference modeling
analysis considering the sources' legal emission limits shows attainment of
the standards. Information must also be presented showing that the sources
causing the problem are in compliance with the enforceable SI? measures.
Although the current ozone standard Implies the need for three years
of data for attainment designations, two years of data with no exceedances
is an acceptable surrogate. As discussed previously, this should be
accompanied by evidence of an Implemented control strategy that EPA had
fully approved.
2. Projected Future Violations: Projections of future violations can
provide the basis for continuing nonattainment designations. This
concept is-particularly important because of the current economic downturn.
Information submitted to support attainment redesignations must adequately
and accurately reflect anticipated operating rates. Areas should remain
nonattainment where such projections reveal air quality violations.
3. Modeling: In most $03 cases, monitoring data alone will not be
sufficient for areas dominated by point sources. A snail number of ambient
monitors usually is not representative of the air quality for the entire
area. Dispersion modeling employing the legally enforceable S02 SIP limits
will generally be necessary to evaluate comprehensively the sources' impacts
as well as to identify the areas of highest concentrations. If either the
modeling or monitoring indicates that S02 air quality staneards are being
violated, the area should remain nonattainment.
4. Boundaries: Current policies on appropriate boundaries for designation
of nonattainment areas by EPA remain in effect, i.e., generally political
boundaries such as city or county for TSP and S02» county as a minimum for
rural ozone, entire urbanized area and fringe areas of development for
urban ozone, and urban core area for CO. When States redesignate, EPA
will continue to accept reasonable boundaries which are supported by
appropriate data, such as specific new monitoring and/or modeling data or
evidence of improvement due to control strategy implementation. Nonattain-
mant areas for ozone should include the significant VOC sources.
5. Dispersion Techniques: Areas which are projected to attain the TSP
or S02 standards because of the use of unauthorized dispersion techniques
should continue to be designated as nonattainment.
107
8-2
-------
Policy for Processing 107 Redesignations
1. SIP Review Actions: Section 107 designations have generally been
classified as minor actions, with only a few of the more significant
ones being processed as moderate. In the future, redes1 gnations of Tier II
nonattainment areas should be classified as major actions so that they
can receive a comprehensive review to help ensure regional consistency
Redesignation of Tier I nonattainment areas should continue to be handled
as minor or moderate actions, as appropriate.
2* "Unclassifiable" Areas: Since EPA and the States have had nearly five
years to resolve discrepancies for nonattainment designations, it is now
inappropriate to redesignate any area from nonattainment to unclassi-
.*?!?; ere has been amp1e t1mc s1nce th« fipst designations were made
in 1978 to thoroughly study each nonattainment area. Sufficient data
should now exist to either make a redesignation to attainment or to keen
the nonattainment designation.
If you have any questions, please contact Tom Helms at (FTS) 629-5525.
cc: Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I-X
107
8-3
-------
.,
f r£L "1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
V S5Z£ S OfflCe °f Air QualitV Planning and Standards
\ ^ Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 2771 1
2 3 DEC 1983
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Section 107 Questions and Answers
From: G. T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch (MD-15)
To: Air Branch Chief
Regions I-X
The April 21, 1983 memo from Sheldon Meyers on Section 107 Redesignation
Policy has generally resulted in more consistent redes i gnat ion packages.
However, a number of questions have developed since then and it seems
worthwhile now to share with everyone the responses that have been developed.
These questions have arisen in a number of areas.
1. Is air quality data alone sufficient for a redes ignati on from
n on attainment to attainment?
Answer: No. Valid air quality data showing no NAAQS violations must be
supplemented with a demonstration that the eoproved SIP control strategy
which provides for attainment has been implemented. The April 21 memo
describes the requirements in detail. In most cases the submittal will
include the most recent eight quarters of data showing attainment and
evidence of an implemented control strategy that EPA had approved. This
demonstration need not necessarily be quantitative. Rather, it need
simply confirm that the control strategy approved in the SIP to address
the problem has indeed been implemented. Where only the most recent four
quarters of data showing attainment are available, a state-of-the-art
modeling analysis must be provided which quantifies that the SIP strategy
is sound and that actual enforceable emission reductions are responsible
for the air quality improvements.
2. Are the same requirements discussed in answer number 1 applicable to
secondary TSP redesignations?
Answer: Yes. As for primary standards, some reason has to be shown for
the improvement in air quality. This can consist of an implemented
control strategy, some other Federally enforceable statewide regulations,
or a well -documented explanation that the circumstances which resulted in
the initial designation have changed or were incorrect. The integrity of
the designation process should be preserved, for both primary and secondary
pollutants. Further, it should be noted that States are not penalized by
remaining secondary nonattainment. Therefore, a control strategy or
other demonstration needs to be included with thes? redesignation requests.
-------
3. Can a control strategy that has not been approved by EPA as part of
the SIP be used tff support a redesignation?
Answer: In general, no. However, an exception will be made if the
physical circumstances and long-term economic factors are such that the
implemented measures have the same weight as a SIP: for example, the
permanent closing of the major emitting sources, road paving to eliminate
fugitive emissions, or other irreversible measures. Submittals including
such changes, even though not formally approved as SIP revisions, have
the practical impact of an EPA approved strategy and can be the basis for
approval of the redesignation.
4. Are the same criteria required to reduce the size of a nonattainment
area as are required for redesignating the entire area?
Answer: In general, yes. However, if a sound case can be made that the
State "overdesignated" initially -- that is, designated a larger area
than EPA required -• then the area -an be reduced. The remaining nonattain-
ment area must be compatible with ~ A boundary requirements (see April 21,
1983 memo) and.it must be convincingly demonstrated that the area going
from nonattainment to attainment should not have been designated non-
attainment. Other than this specific kind of exception, however, boundary
changes require the same analysis as any nonattainment to attainment
redesignation. When a portion of a nonattainment area is redesignated
attainment, it would help the public if a statement was included in the
notice which explains that a nonattainment portion remains.
5. What criteria are used in redesignating from unclassifiable to attainment
for TSP and SOg? "~"
Answer: Redesignations from unclassifiable to attainment generally require
the most recent eight consecutive quarters of air quality data demonstrating
attainment. No control strategy demonstration is required since there
would have been no SIP requirement for an unclassifiable area. The S02
redesignations will generally continue to require dispersion modeling.
6. What is required for reclassifications from unclassifiable to attainment
for ozone, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides?
Answer: Redesignations from unclassifiable to attainment do not involve
any regulatory change. If a State wishes to make such a redesignation, it
should be sent forward as a brief explanatory Federal Register notice
documenting the information. However, the formal table containing the
designation status is not changed since the attainment and unclassifiable
designations are combined for these pollutants.
7. Is there, or has there ever been, a 50 km policy for ozone nonattainment
areas?
Answer: No, this was only discussed"as an option some years ago but It
never achieved the status of Agency policy.
210
-------
that ff^^X^l?"£$ r °fP?he '""""'nt issues
or John Calcagni (FTS 629-5665) if Jou S T°\ Please cal1 Bi^ Beal
on Section 107 issues. ' " y°U have fui*ther comments or questions
cc: B. Bauman
D. White
R. Campbell
S. Meiburg
J. Ulfelder
211
-------
EPA-450/2-78-027R
Guideline On Air Quality Models
(Revised)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangie Park, NC 27711
July 1986
-------
- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Off ice of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1
SEP 03 1981
Mr. Ralph C. Pickard
Technical Secretary
Indiana Air Pollution Control Board
P. 0. Box 1964
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206
Dear Mr. Pickard:
This is in response to your letter of July 9, 1981 to
Mr. Valdas V. Adamkus regarding the use of ambient monitoring data
in making Section 107 area designations. I am also providing comments
on the use of modeling in setting of source emission limits.
I am in agreement with your position that, when available, adequate
ambient monitoring data should be given preference over modeling results
in designating areas as attainment/nonattainment under Section 107 of
the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA has always held this position and has
promoted this approach in the guidance we have issued on the subject. A
model letter prepared by my staff in October 1977 that was sent by the
Regional Administrators of EPA to the various State governors or environ-
mental agency heads emphasized the use of monitoring data for designation
purooses.
A follow-up memorandum issued on January 12, 1978 from my staff to
ih= EPA Regional Offices responded to various questions regarding Part D
plan requirements. It contained the following response to the question
of whether preference should be given to either monitored ambient data
or dispersion modeling results in designating areas under Section 107.
"If there is a conflict between adequate monitoring data and modeling
results, monitored values should be used. However, if the monitoring
G'aia are inadequate, the modeling results should be used."
It is the desire of the Agency to base Section 107 designations on
the best possible data that are reasonably obtainable. In most cases,
especially for isolated point sources, it is difficult for a few ambient
monitors to adequately reflect the true air quality conditions surrounding
the source, especially the areas of maximum impact or hotspots. In many
such situations, dispersion modeling would be an alternative to the
total reliance upon a limited monitoring network.
-------
With regard to the referenced Indiana designations, there is not,
in an administrative sense, a significant difference between unclassified
and attainment. However, as I understand it, there exists in these
counties a more significant issue; that is, setting of new emission
limitations for power plants.
The use of diffusion modeling is now the accepted way of establishing
emission limits for individual sources such as power plants. Most air
pollution control agencies have accepted modeling as the only practical
alternative of establishing emission limits for large sources such as
power plants. The courts have also recognized the validity of using
modeling in setting emission limits even where monitoring data are also
available. Recent data indicate that a number of models are proving
to be reasonable predictors of ambient impact. One recent study has
shown that the EPA reference model for rural power plants, CRSTER,
appears to have no inherent bias; it neither over- nor underestimates
air quality levels routinely.
It is EPA's belief that, in most cases, the use of models is the
most effective and efficient way to properly represent the impact of
varying meteorology. To properly evaluate a prospective emission limit
solely by the use of monitoring, a very extensive and costly air quality
arc meteorological monitoring network would have to be established.
This network may have to be operated for a long time to ensure that the
various meteorological conditions were actually experienced during each
of the various operating regimes. I do not believe the situation
surrounding the Indiana power plant emission limit changes argues for
an exception to the use for modeling contained in current EPA guidance.
I trust this response adequately explains EPA's considerations in
b:th the Section 107 area designation process and the requirement for
moceli^c v.^erv setting new emission limits.
Sincerely v,
Walter C. Bai
Director-
Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Harry D. Williams
-------
Si
UNIT^D STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP 1 6 t982
OPFICE or
AIR. NOISE. AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Milwaukee SCLNonattainment Designation
p^la^ficw'Tvu^-tA^.
FROM: Sheldon Meyers, Director
. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (ANR-443)
TO: David Kee, Director
Air Management Division, Region V
Thank you for your August 9, 1982, memorandum to Assistant
Administrator Bennett regarding Wisconsin's request for a redesig-
r. at ion to attainment of the sulfur dioxide ($02) standard for the
Milwaukee area.
You asked four (4) separate questions i-n your memo. Those questions
are repeated in full below along with my responses.
Q) In nonattainment areas with no emission limits, what is required to
support 2 reciesignat-ion to attainment? (It does not appear to be
sufficient to accept eight'quarters of data showing no violations, even
if the monitors were located in the expected high concentration areas.)
A) The fact that no Federally enforceable emission limits are in place
does not affect the criteria applied in determining the area's attain-
ment status. In general, Section 107 designateG.-« changes should utilize
all available data, including both monitor-ir.c ••r.d modeling data.
Whatever is available should certainly be usfrd. Monitoring data should
be used only within the limits of being representative for a specific
geographic area. The object of any designation should be to make the
.best decision based upon the maximum amount of available information.
Q) What is the role of modeling in redesignations?
A) The need for dispersion modeling for Section 107 designation
purposes is especially important when dealing with areas dominated by
point sources of SO?. In these cases, a small number of ambient air
107
7-1
-------
quality monitors will not be able to tell the whole story. Modeling is
essential to evaluate comprehensively and thoroughly the sources'
impacts as well as identify the areas of highest concentrations. It
must be included in a redesignation analysis where feasible.
For all other areas, if modeling already exists, it should be
considered. However, dispersion modeling is generally not required to
be performed strictly for the purposes of Section 107 redesignation
requests for such areas.
Q) Is a redesignation to attainment acceptable if there are eight.
quarters of monitored data showing no violations but there is modeling
that predicts violations? (Note, this is not to say that the modeling
contradicts the monitoring since the modeling shows attainment at the
monitor locations, but nonattainment at other, nonmonitored locations.)
A) There is no answer that fits all possible situations. However,
where valid dispersion modeling has been performed, such modeling
results should set the designation status. When the appropriateness
of the model is of some concern, Regional Offices must exercise judgment
after considering such things as how many monitors-are in the network;
is complex terrain (terrain greater than stack height) involved; what
model is being used; is it a guideline model, if not, has it been
demonstrated to be appropriate; does the model tend to over- or under-
pretiict for the situation at hand?
Again, it should be emphasized that the objective is to make the
best determination possible using all relevant information as to what
the attainment status of an area really is.
Q) Mr. Barber's letter says that adequate monitored data are necessary.
How is "adequate" defined? (We suggest that a determination of adequate
monitoring data involve reference modeling. That is, monitors must be
located in the areas of expected high concentrations, based on a
reference modeling analysis.)
A) Your suggestion is what ideally should be required. However,
monitors are seldom sited at the locations shown by later dispersion
modeling to be those of maximum impact.
Again, the responsibility lies with the Regional Office to make the
necessary judgments as to whether or not the existing monitor locations
are sufficient both in number and spatial arrangement to allow them to
be representative of the air quality for the area. Some judgment as to
whether the potential problem is of a localized or more general areawide
nature should be made. This judgment will influence whether modeling or
monitoring should be given preference in the particular situation in
question. How much information is needed before such a judgment can be
made is subject to the complexity of the situation.
107
7-2
-------
I would like to add the following comments regarding the particular
situation in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, as described in the background portion
of your August 9, 1982, memo.
In a situation where an area was originally designated nonattainment
based on measured violations but subsequently has air quality measure-
ments less than the ambient air quality standard, common sense would
recognize the need for a study of the situation, including modeling. It
could not reasonably be expected that violations would disappear by
themselves. If a source has voluntarily trade some emission reduction
changes that eliminate violations, these changes need to be embodied
into regulation and then be made part of the approved State Implementa-
tion Plan (SIP) control strategy. The approval of such emission limits
as part of a SIP must be based on an adequate demonstration that ambient
air quality standards will be protected. Such a demonstration must
include a dispersion modeling analysis under worst case conditions.
If you have any other questions, please let me know.
107
7-3
-------
5 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
rrn
orricc OP
CCNCHAU COUNSC;
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Redesignations That Would Changex^he SIP
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development
"Division
Peter H. Wyckoff, Assistant ..General. Counsel
Air and Radiation Division f.^iri\> fcv&*••*/I/I
TO: Air Division Directors, Regions I~"A
Our staffs recently discovered, in reviewing a Federal
Register package that embodied a redesignation from nonattain-
mer.t to attainment, that the redesignation would have relaxed
the relevant SIP, because the SIP specified one set of control
requirements for "nonattainment" areas and"a less stringent set
for "attainment" areas. The package, however, treated the
redesignation merely as a redesignation and not also as a SIP
relaxation.
We therefore ask you in the future (1) to examine each
redesignation to determine whether it would have a .substantive
effect on the stringency of the relevant SIP and (2) to state
your conclusion in the Action Memorandum for the Federal Register
package. If the redesignation would have such an effect, you
should treat it as a SIP revision and draft the package in accord-
ance with the relevant Agency guidance, including guidance on SIP
relaxations and attainment demonstrations. Please forewarn your
state counterparts that EPA will be treating redesignations that
would affect SIP stringency as SIP revisions. Thank you.
cc : Air Branch Chiefs, Regions..I-X
Regional Counsei^ Regions I-X
Bill Beal
Gerry Emison
Tom Helms
Betsy Home
Joan La Rock
Bill Pedersen
John Topping
John Ulfelder
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.2
-------
Pf!-123-80-12-19-001
Q£C 1 9 1S8Q
Honorable Jennings Randoloh
Chairman, Committee on Environment
and Public Works
United States Senate
Washington, O.C. 20510
Cear Mr. Chairman:
Than* you for your tetter of October 2", 12Cn exoressinn -/our continued
interest in the Agency's definition of "ambient air." Durinn the tine
since David Hawkins, :ny Assistant Administrator for Air. Noise, and
Radiation, net with you last February, the definition has been extensively
reviewed and debated.
After r«v1ew1no the issues and alternatives, I have determined that
no change frca the existlna policy is necessary. We are reta1n1nn the
:o»icy that the exemption frco -ambient air 1s available only ^or the
2t2!osnner8 over land owned or controlled i:y the source and to which
oublic access is precluded by a fence or other Physical barriers. £?/\
will continue to review individual situations on a case-bv-case basis
to ensure that the public is adenuately protected and that there is no
artaswt by sources to circumvent the requir
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
I 7 JUL 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Ambient Air Issue from New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
FROM: 6.T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch
TO: William S. Baker, Chief
Air Branch, Region II
In response to your request, we have reviewed your position with
respect to a determination of ambient air applicability 1n the vicinity
of the proposed EF Kenilworth, Inc. (EFKI) cogeneratlon unit 1n Union
County, New Jersey. As we understand 1t, EFKI will build and operate the
plant on property leased (long-term lease) from Sc her ing Corporation. As
we see it the EFKI operator will be completely separate from the Schering
operation and except for the land owned and operated by a different
Company. The fact that EFKI has entered into a contract to supply
electricity/ steam to Schering is not really relevant to the ambient air
issue.
He agree with your position that all property outside of the property
leased and controlled by EFKI would be considered ambient air. The word
"controlled" is emphasized since nothing is said in either your memorandums
or New Jersey's letter to Region II about what, 1f any, fence or other
physical barrier would be installed to prevent public access to the EFKI
leased property. If such physical barrier 1s not erected, then all land
including the leased site would have to be considered as ambient air.
If you have any questions, please contact Sharon Reinders,
at 629-5255.
cc: D. Tyler
J. Tikvart
0. Wilson
G. McCutchen
-------
PN 110-83-03-18-063
MAR 18 1983
Mr. Harry H. Hovey, Jr. P.E.
Director, Division of Air
New York State Dept. of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233
Dear Mr. Hovey:
In response to your letter of January II, please be advised that
there has been no major change in EPA policy with regard to ambient air
and the associated requirements of a SIP demonstration. We have defined
"ambient air" at 40 CFR §50.1(e) to include "that portion of the atmosphere,
external to buildings, to which the general public has access." Our general
policy is that the only exemption to compliance with the provisions of
ambient air is for the atmosphere over land owned or controlled by the
source and to which public access is precluded by a fence or other physical
barriers.
The national ambient air quality standards are designed to protect
the public health and welfare and apply to all ambient air which does include
the rooftops and balconies of buildings accessible by the public. While
EPA has the responsibility to develop the air quality standards, the
States have the initial responsibility to implement them. In effect, the
States have the prime responsibility. to protect public health and welfare.
While EPA considers ambient air to include elevated building receptor
sites, it is not practical to analyze the air quality at every such existing
location. Therefore, both EPA and the States must exercise their best
technical judgment as to when such sites must be evaluated so as to
protect public health and welfare. Thus, we do not expect States, in
most circumstances, to evaluate the impact on elevated building receptors.
However, if the State has reason to believe that such an evaluation is
necessary to protect public health and welfare, then it is incumbent upon
the State to conduct such an analysis.
110
63-1
-------
It furthTrTfTou
'" *"" """ il* » ""»»« « discuss
Sincerely yours,
cc: R. Campbell
J. Schafer
Kathleen M. Bennett
Assistant Administrator
for A1r, Noise, and Radiation
no
63-2
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20450
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
; )rt;,: ?, c p t r; \\ b -1: '27, J 9 7 ?.-—
Av/i ;« Mich.-.::! A. J wr.".-'/';'!.'? \ttorr.c y
/liV""•*'•' Aii: CVuiity and Radiation Division
.$,..;,..,,(. Attainment of National fjtandnrd:; in Open Air Parking Lots
Tc: Cone;;-" Himon, Chief
air "rcc/ramc Branch
Re?ion II
MEMORANDUM OF LAV7
FACTS
•
Vcur mcmornnuum of September 1, 1972 raiser, the i<;ruic
of tli1:: air pollution impact o£ a proposed sports c:o:np] nx to
be c.'?;n"'.rucV.C'l in th^ Hnc'.;cnr,..icl: f-ic--.w.lrv.-:liiii^r; in Nr>v; ,Tr!.-?;cy.
You ;:r..uc- Lhyl: the /mn 1 y.r.j.n of civailoblc cl.V.'a J.nd.iC'1 l.o.".
thv.t ihc ri'itional onc-l':our stan«K:ircl for cavljon iiiono:-:i'.'o ;na\
be r:-:c'.;c;V.:d i.n the pai:'/:in:i lot of th.2 cc'^.plcx each tijnu it
ic ur;ccl lor a major event.
QUESTIOU
13 the adriiosphcrc above an open-air parking lot v:h.ich
is part-, of a sports complex "ambient air" under the Clean
Air A'.;t and EPA regulations?
ANSWER
Y-:r;. Under th^ dcf j nit-.i.on of " ri'.i'bi'-•;•>'•. air" in 1'VA
rc:-jula'.:ior.:; , iv.-iticn.il ;';:f.bicnt 'r:r.-hr:rc r. > :icc it is c-xterir.1.
to b-.iil'Jincrs and the aencval public liar; ciccrcua to i1.:.
DISCUSS CON
1. ri'A hos prescribed' the applicability of the n-Miional
nr.i'".i)'y -md secondary t'rrb.icnt air quality s I'.andardr; 1 ••/
:!^j' ; :v: ir; the term " =v.rt:icnt air." r-c-.ction 10 CFR liO.Ko) o"
I31'/. ):;v.'ul-.'. tiopr. dofiner; "nirbicnt air" to P.fvn "that, fortio:.
of '•':'-'- .".t-.ncr,p:\c?:c , •"/itovnnl to bui .1. din-jr. , l-o v.'hicU '"''r--
cT-Mf-jral pulij.ic har; acfrc^n." Tlior^ is n^ .:•[••>( v; tion l.tMl. '-.lie
-------
- 2 -
air which i:; the rui 1-. j :•'.-1 of yci.n- .inquiry is a portion of
the -'. trosphovc cxtcvm1.1 l-.o builc'.i.nq:;. A r-ornewhat: more
cnCriculL quo;; I- ion i •; vlio Liic qc-neral public is and whether
it. can be raid to haw I--.CCXT.:-. LP thi:; facility.
2. 'the cVi ftiinnary i>.-fines "public" to mean "the people
a.s d by th-? requisition. Ti".' term "ucccss" is defined
••is meaning "J'crntinsion, libc:rt.y, or ability to enter...."
(Krb'-tcr ' s Third Nev; J nl.otn.\LU-M.il Dic'/..:.onary (1966)).
vchilc: tlic narking lot .in qu'-:;; .i • •.! way bo fenced and/or
gu-"T-.!od yo nr. to prcv-'.-nf; tlv "ir.» once C'l the ycncral public
duri.n't .ill times cxc^p!; .tlio:. : I:-.:ncu.lately precediny, duriny,
and ir-uTt-diaLely follov.-.i.n't nthi: ; ic nvonit-j, it is clear that
tiic qcncral public may rcadi,'ly t-uter the Lot on foot or by
vchlcle dvn.'.tnr; the prv.io'.l ol )i i-I'.irr.t ]>on»?tion levels. The
CK'-rntiol clii'.vactcr of thia £•;••;• •l-'ix is public:, and it is
d i '.' C j cu! 'c to .i i:;?it|inc tiu't l^.:"1. < -n ':':nncr' of lumbers of the
co:i'."'jn.i.V.y aU lar';o V/IMI].^. be •..:•' '.'ictocl on "qamr» days'1',
\;IK 1. hrv pcr:>onr;. wiio ncv.^i cnl'v ^^ :io to purchase ti.ckcts,
'..•d'.ch crov.-:ir. , or pick pccltevi;. 'l'h.i.a s.i tun.ti on may be con-
triif;ti.:d v/ith v.lv.'t of private; ?,-'.'$r:L-\:y outdoors x-;hcra only
p f j; s c n.". havinq some spoci'iT r.-.-,i .•; i onsl».i p with the property
C'-'n"r, or h.ir. ayentn or .1 (??;r.r • •• . ,M-C a!;»3.c to aain entrance
l:o t!ic [irop-jr'.:•/, v:h.ilc ';lie n-.u-.-•• i.l. public's entrance is
r-lr/r;i.rrilly 1-avred in sch'.-u v;ay .
3. n-'ivin'.; rcnc.l^::c;'j Vha!-. !•;'.• •: ir above: Die parking lot is
_r,,,.r..,u .-,j_r> ,;c ,.>C(, n,_, ],,,r,j_:: <-.-;:; cixc 1 ii«.!;. nr j it from coveracjc
by I h? fjtaLc's j rplrn-r-ti !-••) r inn p'jn. 'li-r-v.: S2t::Tis to be no
Ic'.'.ical cli f fr. rcnc:'.! bcv'.'-.Ti p.. -l.i'i' ' h.o • :-'pl r:n'cnV.a<: i.on plan
npp1. :>.': 'iMc tr Llr.-; j^rirl:-. tv: ^f^. ;> 1 rnlii.n) i i. apply to comjestec!
dc>.'j. Lov.'n nrca:; v/hert1 f.nl>'.in r < -:i:i;:: ,')o C'j'i'-i.-u'-.rat.ionr. due to
he ;•••/ traffic ar<: a.V/o a p.^c'i.!, .1. An yc;ir inumorauduin sug-
cj',:.r; (::• , cvon ,i L tlic al.fvi"., \\:\rc. . !•;•••• I. IT: p,irking lot v/cre
•not '.'anbicnt air" it v/'v\Ui l>" iu" •:;"fivy !<.>r Llic State'"
ii"t)"!••;• «.-.;-.I...: i;i t;i olaii l.'» c:v;)'.'>'.'' ' ' i.1: iir''''r- . of em.i C"iot'»3 Cit
t.h" C .-K-J 3 i.' y v;p'-jn tlT? -> L-;..:-pii' • . i.oyoirJ '.M:.: lot's fence line.
-------
rTED STATS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AG3iCY
REGION V
-.AY 1 6 1£E=
SUEJECT.
e\c yir
: Regional Meteorologists, Regions I-X
• "
•••w-c
705 Joseph Tikvart, Chief (MD-14)
Source Receptor Analysis Branch
At the recent Regional Meteorologists1 meeting in Dallas, we Identified
inconsistencies among the Regional Offices on what areas are to be
considered &s enoient air for regulatory purposes. The existing incon-
sistency on ambient air is due to both the lack of clear National
guidance and the allowed Regional Office discretion. A standardized*
approach is necessary both to satisfy the consistency requirenents of
Section 301 of the Clean Air Act and in order for those
Regional modeling activities to provide effective and efficient review
of and guidance on modeling analyses. Accordingly, the Regional Meteor-
ologists have decided to address the problem at the working level
through the use of a consistent modeling approach.
4-0 CFR Part SO.l(e) defines ambient air as "... that portion of the
atmosphere, external to buildings, to which the general public has
access." A letter dated Decanter 19, 1980, from Douglas Costle to
Senator Jennings Randolph, clarified this definition by stating that
the exemption from ambient air is available only for the atmosphere
over land owned or controlled by the source and to which public access
is precluded by a fence or other physical barriers." The codified
definition plus the 1980 clarification essentially constitute the
National policy on ambient air.
The Regional Meteorologists propose that for modeling purposes the air
everywhere o^tsiie of contiguous plant property to which public access
is preclufleo :>;•• a fence or other effective physical barrier should be
considered in locating receptors. Specifically, for stationary source
modeling, rersrtors should be placed anywhere outside inaccessible plant
property. For example, receptors should be included over bodies of
water, over unfenced plant property, on buildings, over roadways, and
over property owned by other sources. "For aobile source modeling (i.e.,
CO modeling), receptors should continue to be sited in accordance witto
Volume 9 of the "Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning",
Unless you disagree with our position, we will require new actions with
modeling analyses submitted to EPA after January 1, 1986, to conform to
this modeling policy. Please note that all 10 Regional Meteorologists
have reviewed and concur with this. memo.
cc: Regional Meteorologists, Regions I-X
-------
r-N liC-67-0
-------
-2-
Case 3 (Wayne County, MI): This-case Involves the air over the
Detroit River, the Rouge River and the Short-cut Canal. We agree that
the air over all three of these is ambient air, since none of the companies
owns them or controls public access to them. Note, however, that one
source's property—regardless of whether 1t 1s fenced—1s the "ambient
air" relative to another source's emissions.
Case 4 (Cuyahoga County, OH): This case Involves LTV Steel's Iron
and steel mill located on both sides of the Cuyahoga River.
We do not feel that LTV Steel "controls' the river traffic In that
area sufficiently to exclude the public from the river, whether it be
recreational or Industrial traffic. The fact that there 1s little or no
recreational traffic 1n that area Is not sufficient to say that all river
traffic there 1s LTV traffic. The public also Includes other Industrial
users of the river that are not associated with LTV.
It 1s difficult to tell from the map whether the railroad line 1s a
through line or not. If the railroad yard serves only the plant then it
would not be ambient air but the railroad entrance to 'the plant would
have to be clearly marked and patrolled. However, 1f the line 1s a
through line then that would be ambient air. We would need additional
Information to make a final determination.
The unfenced river boundaries should meet the same criteria as in
Case 2 above.
Case 5 (Involves the placement of receptors on another source's
fence4-property): As mentioned above in Case 2, we feel that present
policy does require that receptors be placed over another source's property
to measure the contribution of the outside source to Its neighbor's
ambient air. To reiterate, Plant A's property 1s considered "ambient
air" in relation to Plant B's emissions.
I hope that.these comments are helpful to you and your staff. This
memorandum was also reviewed by the Office of General Counsel.
cc: S. Schneeberg
P. Wyckoff
R. Rhoads
0. Stonefleld
Air Branch Chiefs, Realon I-X
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
2 2 JAN 1936
Mil11am F. O'Keefe, Vice President
American Petroleum Institute
1220 L Street Northwest
Washington, D. C. 20005
Dear Mr. O'Keefe:
Mr. Elklns has asked me to respond to your letter of December 18, 1985,
1n which you perceive a change 1n our policy with regard to the location of
receptors for air quality dispersion modeling.
Let me assure you there 1s no change In our long-standing national
policy with regard to the definition of ambient air. That policy Is based
on 40 CFR Part 50.1 (e) which defines ambient air as ". . . that portion
of the atmosphere, external to buildings, to which the general public has
access." A letter dated December 19, 1980, from Douglas Costle to Senator
Jennings Randolph, reaffirmed and clarified this definition by stating the
exemption from ambient air 1s available only for the atmosphere over land
owned or controlled by the source and to which public access 1s precluded
by a fence or other physical barriers. A copy of Mr. Costle's letter 1s
enclosed. The codified definition plus the 1980 clarification essentially
constitute the national policy on ambient air.
The Regional Meteorologists' memorandum to which you refer does not
imply any change in this national policy and simply harmonizes modeling
procedures with our long-standing policy. It 1s Intended to ensure con-
sistent Regional implementation of that policy and to dispel any questions
about pollutant concentrations at locations where the general public has
access.
Thus, since the Regional Meteorologists' memorandum does not Imply any
change in our policy, I do not believe there 1s any need for policy review
at this time.
Sincerely,
Gerald A. Emison
D1rector
Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards
Enclosure
cc: W. Quanstrom
C. Elklns
-------
PN 110-87-04-30-C
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Plannin'g and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
3 c /--* IS*
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Ambient Air
FROM: 6. T. Helms, Chief
Controlled Programs Operations Branch (MO-15)
TO: Bruce MUler, Chief
Air Programs Branch, Region IV
My staff and I have discussed the five situations Involving the
definition of ambient air that you sent on December 18, 1986. The
following comments represent our Interpretation of the ambient air
policy. However, this memorandum 1s not a discussion of the technical
Issues Involved in the placement of receptors for modeling. Our comments
on each scenario follow:
Scenario One: We agree with you that the road and the unfenced
property are ambient air and could be locations for the controlling receptor
Scenario Two: We agree with your determination in this case also.
Scenario Three: We agree with" you that the road Is ambient air.
However, Area B is not ambient air; it 1s land owned or controlled by the
company and to which public access 1s precluded by a fence or other
physical boundary.
Scenario Four: We do not think that any of the barriers mentioned
here are sufficient to preclude public access so as to allow the source
to dispense with a fence. An- example of an unfenced boundary that would
qualify is. a property line along a river that 1s clearly posted and
regularly patrolled by security guards. Any area, such as grassy areas
that might even remotely be used by the public, would have to be fenced
even in this situation. We would not think that a drainage ditch would
meet these criteria.
Scenario Five: Both fenced pieces of plant property, even though
noncontiguous, would not be considered ambient air (see Scenario Three).
The road, of course, would be ambient air. Again, ownership and/or
control of the property and public access are the keys to ambient air
determination.
-------
-2-
«: S. Schnwberg
P. Wyckoff
R. Rhoads
0. Stonefield
Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
o "^
w-^
»u8JECTOefinition of Ambient Air fotvlead
FPO"Darryl D. Tyler, 01 rector
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
T°Allyn Davis, Director
Air & Waste Management Division, Region VI
This is in response to your memorandum of May 23, 1983, to
Sheldon Meyers. In that memorandum, you indicated that the Texas Air
Control Board. (TACB) believes that an ambient lead monitor in El Paso
1s not located In the ambient air, and therefore the data from that
monitor should not be used to develop a control strategy for lead.
The monitor is located at the International Boundary Water
Commission's (IBWC) property, about 1000 feet from the edge of the property
of ASARCO's primary lead smelter. TACB believes that the monitor is not
in the ambient air because public exposure at the IBWC property wou'.d at
most be only daily for a period of not more than eight hours, and there-
fore no one person is expected to be at the IBWC site continuously for a
full three months, the exposure time inherent in the lead standard.
TACB's logic runs counter to EPA's policy on ambient air. In
40 CFR 50.1(e), ambient air includes "that portion of the atmosphere,
external to buildings, to which the general public has access." ""hat
definition does not account for any time limitation or averaging time.
Regardless of whether any member of the public is expected to remain at
a particular place for a specific period of time, ambient air is defined
in terms of public access, not frequency of access, length of stay, age
of the person or other limitations. The only exemption in EPA policy to
compliance with the provisions of ambient air is for the atmosphere over
land owned or controlled by the source and to which public access' is
precluded by a fence or other physical barriers. Since ASARCO does not
own the site of the IBWC monitor, it clearly falls within our definition
of ambient air.
Furthermore, any monitor can give only an estimate of the actual
maximum concentration of a pollutant in the vicinity of the monitor.
There" may actually be higher concentrations of lead in the area oetween
ASARCO's boundary and the IBWC monitor, such as on the highway that runs
between the ASARCO smelter property and the IBWC property. The general
public may have more frequent or longer access to this location than to
the IBWC property itself. Therefore, the fact that the general public
may not be expected to remain at the IB.^/C site itself continuously for
three months is no reason to disallow tne use of the monitor's data for
developing a control strategy.
t PA farm 1320-6 (R.». 3-74)
-------
t* """ ln
cc: J. Calcagni
J. Divita
K. Greer
T. Helms
J. Silvasi
D. Stonefield
J. Ulfelder
-------
DATE:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DEC 1 8 1986
SUBJECT:
FROM.
TO:
EPA Definition of Anbient Air
Bruce P. Miller, Chief C»—•** '
Air Programs Branch
Air, Pesticides & Toxics Management Division
Tom Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operation Branch (MD-15)
SUMMARY
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management has asked
for a clarification of ambient air in regards to a certain source
located in North Carolina. The Regional Meteorologist's memorandun
dated May 16, 1985, provides that for modeling purposes receptors
are located everywhere outside of the contiguous property of a
plant to which the public is precluded due to a fence, -or other
effective physical barriers. Attached are a number of scenarios
for the source where we request a response on whether the receptors
at certain locations are considered ambient air and whether the
calculated modeling result at these receptors are to be considered
in establishing an emission limit if one or more of these receptors
is controlling. The Region IV opinion for each scenario is provided.
Most of the scenarios we believe are dealt with adequately in the
May 16, 1985 memorandum, however, there is a major concern on our
part about how to interpret the modeling results in scenario numbers
three, four and five.
Please provide us with a written response by January 27, 1987. Please
contact me or Mr. Lewis Nagler of my staff at FTS 257-2864 if you re-
quire additional information.
Enclosure (1)
cc: Joseph Tikvart (MD-14)
RTP, NC
P* Fwm 1320^ (R»». 3-76)
-------
NORTH CAROLINA AMBIENT AIR SCENARIOS
Scenario One
The plant property is divided by a public road. The portion ^f the
property on which a point source is located (Area A) is completely
fenced. The property on the other side of the road (Area B) is
unfenced.
The Region IV position is that the road and the unfenced property
are ambient air and if air quality modeling locates the control-
ling receptor in Area B, the emission limit will be determined
based on the calculated concentration at that receptor*
Scenario Two
This scenario is the same as scenario one except that Area B is
fenced except for the property along the public road.
The Region IV position is identical to that provided in scenario
one.
Scenario Three
This scenario is the same as scenario one except that all of
Area B is fenced.
The Region IV position is that the road is ambient air and that
Area B should have receptors located there for modeling purposes.
We also believe that since Area B is not contiguous to that prop-
erty that is needed for plant operation, even though fenced, Area B
is ambient air. We further believe that if a receptor located in
Area B is found to contain the controlling receptor for establishing
the source emission rate then that receptor value must be used.
There is a concern" on our part that the May 16, 1985 memorandum
could be interpreted to allow the Air Quality Management officials
to discard the -calculated concentrations within Area B. We believe
a clarification of the ambient air policy on this point is needed.
-------
Scenario Four
Area A is fenced except for the property along the public road.
The Region IV position is that Area A is ambient air unless the
source can demonstrate that the public is precluded to entry by an
effective physical barrier. However, since a physical barrier
other than a fence is subject to various interpretation, we are
seeking advise on what we can accept as mooting • that requirement.
For instance, a drainage ditch alongside a road with no shoulder
for parking or the use of "NO PARKING" signs could be'considered
an effective barrier. As you can see, the concept can be quite
subjective and we require additional guidance in this area.
For this actual situation, would you concur or non concur that no
parking signs in association with no shoulder to park upon consti-
tute a physical barrier? Ttr' Region IV position is that this
situation does not constitute an effective physical barrier, but
the addition of a drainage ditch would constitute an effective
barrier.
Scenario Five (Hypothetical)
The entire plant is fenced. As a result of the county or state's
power of eminent domain, a road is built through the property.
Does the area that is no longer contiguous to the plant operation
area lose its exemption from the ambient air definition even if
the source fences off the area taken by the road?
The Region IV position is that the area should be grandfathered in
that situation.
-------
PN 165-84-06-11-014
i \i ii i' >i vr'> i:\\ ii;i ^ MI-.\
JUKI i
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Applicability of PSD Increments to Building
Rooftops
FROM:
TO:
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation
Charles R. Jeter
Regional Administrator , Region IV
The following is in response to your letter of November 10,
1983, concerning issues which you felt required review for national
consistency relating to a new source review for an Alabama Power
facility in downtown Birmingham, Alabama.
On September 29, 1983, your office informed the State of
Alabama that a new source's compliance with the PSD increments
must be measured on the tops of buildings, as well as at ground
level. Since then we have discussed the question extensively
among ourselves and with representatives of the State of Alabama
and the company. For the reasons that follow, I do not believe
we are in a position to definitively assert that PSD increments
apply to rooftops without further information as to the conse-
quences for the PSD system as a whole. Accordingly, I recommend
that we inform Alabama that we do not now require that compliance
with PSD increments be measured at the tops of buildings. A
State may, of course, adopt such an approach if it so desires.
Between 1970 and 1983, it appears to have been general EPA
practice to determine compliance with both NAAQS and PSD increments
at ground level, not at roof level. On March 18, 1983, however,
Kathleen Bennett, in a letter to the State of Mew York, determined
that the- "national ambient air quality standards are designed to
protect the public health and welfare and apply to all ambient
air which does include the rooftops and balconies of buildings
accessible by the public."
I believe this conclusion was correct. Apartment balconies,
rooftop restaurants, and the like present a potential for human
exposure that the primary ambient air quality standards should be
interpreted to address.
-------
-2-
Given this conclusion, one could argue, based on the text
of the relevant regulations and the Clean Air Act, that the PSD
increments apply wherever the NAAQS apply, and that both must
apply throughout the "ambient air." However, the PSD system,
unlike the NAAQS system, does not aim at achieving-one single
goal. Rather it represents a balance struck first by Congress
between a given level of protection against degradation and a
given potential for economic growth, it appears that the
calculations on which that balancing judgment was based all
assumed that PSD increments would be measured at ground level.
A number of 'state officials who are now administering PSD
have argued to me that by measuring PSD increments on rooftops
as well as at ground level, EPA would make the PSD system
appreciably more stringent than Congress contemplated. Although
major urban areas are all Class II areas, this approach, it is
argued, could result in constraints on growth comparable to
those that apply in Class I areas - national parks and wilderness
areas. Such an outcome would not, it is argued, be consistent
with Congressional intent.
In these circumstances, I think that preserving the status
quo is particularly advisable because:
• It is likely that Alabama did not contemplate adopting a
•rooftops* approach to PSD when it took over the PSD program.
That expectation, though not decisive, does provide some reason
not to change the situation without formal rulemaking.
• The consequences of an erroneous decision to consider
increment consumption on rooftops will be more severe than those
of an erroneous decision not to consider them. The adoption of
such an approach will present at least a procedural, and, probably
a substantive obstacle to development in urban areas, while in
its absence air quality will still be protected by the NAAQS, by
the PSD increments applied at ground level* and by the other
aspects of PSD review such as Best Available Control Technology.
Therefore, I have concluded that since the State of Alabama
has authority under an approved implementation plan for adminis-
tering the PSD program within Alabama, it is their responsibility
to apply this principle of maintaining the status quo to this
case, taking all the relevant facts into account.
Please advise the State of Alabama of the Agency's position
on these'points as our response to the issues which they raised
in meetings with both of us.
-------
cc: A. Aim
P. Angell
T. Devine
G. Eraison
w. Pedersen
P. Wyckoff
S. Meiburg
-------
_«t-1 *,f
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
: Office of Air Quality Planning and S:andards
' Researc" Triangle Park, Nonh Carc'i.-.a 27711
APR 7 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Wyoming—Definition of Ambiefit) Ai r
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
TO: Irwin Dickstein, Director
Air and Toxics Division, Region VIII
This memorandum confirms and clarifies our recent conversation on
Wyoming's proposed change to their definition of ambient air. After our
conversation, my staff further reviewed the proposal and your office's
assessment of it. While we agree with the final position you take—viz.,
opposition to the change—my staff believes that several other points
should be made in comments to Wyoming.
1. In Christine Phillips' memorandum of March 20, 1987, two reasons
are given to oppose the revision. While we agree with the thrust of the
first reason (ineffectiveness of exterior fencing to exclude public
access because of the public highway and towns in the enclosed area),
there may be a problem in boldly stating the second reason. We have
never either flatly stated that land acquisition in general is acceptable
or unacceptable under section 123 of the Clean Air Act. As the memorandum
points out, the December 19, 1980, letter from Douglas Costle to the
Honorable Jennings Randolph indicates that we will review individual
situations on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, I believe we should not
automatically categorize land acquisition as proposed in Wyoming as a
dispersion technique prohibited by section 123, although further analysis
may in fact lead us to that conclusion. In at least two instances, we have
tolerated land acquisition to "contain" modeled violations of national
ambient air quality standards. We have, however, avoided formulating
criteria for acceptability of land acquisition, although such criteria
(such as size of area and relevance to operation) were at one time con-
sidered.
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.1
-------
v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/4-87-007
May 1987
Air
Ambient Monitoring
Guidelines for
Prevention of
Significant
Deterioration (PSD)
RADiAN LIBRARY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK.NC
-------
ft. 57, App. A 40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
SCHEDULE D 6—PERMANENT WAIVER FROM INTERIM CONTROLS TEST—Continued
ii
1 MK»e« vohM
mrtmlu*
UM
17
II
IM4
xxxx
xxxx
IM*
xxxx
xxxx
IM*
xxxx
xxxx
IM7 1 I9«a
xxxx 1 xxxx
xxxx I xxxx
IM»
xxxx
xxxx
19*0
xxxx
xxxx
Tow
SCHEDULE 0.7—HORIZON VALUE OF CASH FLOWS
A. 0«pr«ci«hon-li»« hoiuon vMu*.
1 NM cult Sm» propclion*
t Pn««iJ«lion U> wring*
a DcprocMlon and vnoftu-
ftxi
t> Uvgk* lu riM
e. T«M»fae>
a 0*rad**oiv*M IMI cult
lorn
« Nomnd tfo*M vtfuM
b IMO dD>M vMuM
4 Monfort tartor
t Oqx*cMon4*« honion >Hu*
B Otfn&Oon M> Mvingt ov«f IM
horaonpirioa
1 0*f»K*kO. TM Mvfcigi
4 OMCM* hckn
1 PfMM Mkl* 01 H> uvnai
t lout fnmt "PSD station" means any atatlon
operated for the purpose of eatabllsh-
Ing the effect on air quality of the
emissions from a proposed source for
purposes of prevention of significant
deterioration as required by i 61.24(n)
of Part 61 of this chapter.
(e) "SO," means sulfur dioxide.
(f) "NO," means nitrogen dioxide.
(g) "CO" means carbon monoxide.
(h) "O," means ozone.
(I) "Plan" means an Implementation
plan, approved or promulgated pursu-
ant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
(J) "Administrator" means the Ad-
ministrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) or his or her au-
thorized representative.
(k) "Regional Administrator" means
the Administrator of one of the ten
EPA Regional Offices or his or her au-
thorized representative.
(1) "State agency" means the air pol-
lution control agency primarily re-
sponsible for development and Imple-
mentation of a plan under the Act.
-------
level of Ihnl monitoring site concen-
tration with respect to the level of the
controlling standard. For those areas
In which the short term (24-hour)
standard Is controlling I.e., has the
highest ratio, the selective sampling
requirements are Illustrated In Figure
1. If the operating agency were able to
demonstrate, by a combination of his-.
torlcal TSP data and at least one year
of PM,. data that there were certain
periods of the year where conditions
preclude violation of the PM,. 24-hour
standard, the Increased sampling fre-
quency for those periods or seasons
may be exempted by the Regional Ad-
ministrator and revert back to once In
six days. The minimum sampling
schedule for all other sites In the area
would be once every six days. For
those areas In which the annual stand-
ard Is the controlling standard, the
minimum sampling schedule for all
monitors In the area would be once
every six days. During the annual
review of the SLAMS network, the
most recent year of data must be con-
sidered to estimate the air quality
status for the controlling air quality
standard (24-hour or annual). Statisti-
cal models such as analysis of concen-
tration frequency distributions as de-
scribed In "Guideline for the Interpre-
tation of Ozone Air Quality Stand-
ards." EPA 450/479 003. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research
40 CHI Ch. I (/-!-•• idlilon)
Triangle Park, N.C.. January 1979
should be used. Adjustments to the
monitoring schedule must be made on
the basis of the annual review. The
site having the highest concentration
In the most current year must be given
first consideration when selecting the
site for the more frequent sampling
schedule. Other factors such as major
change In sources of PM,. emissions or
In sampling site characteristics could
Influence the location of the expected
maximum concentration site. Also, the
use of the most recent three years of
data might In some cases, be Justified
In order to provide a more representa-
tive data base from which to estimate
current air quality status and to pro-
vide stability to the network. This
multlyear consideration would reduce
the possibility of an anamalous year
biasing a site selected for accelerated
sampling. If the maximum concentra-
tion site based on the most current
year Is not selected for the more fre-
quent operating schedule, documenta-
tion of the Justification for selection
of an alternate site must be submitted
to the Regional Office for approval
during the annual review process. It
should be noted that minimum data
completeness crltlerla, number of
yean of data and sampling frequency
for Judging attainment of the NAAQ8
are discussed-In Appendix K of Part
50.
fnvlroiiMsntol Protection Agency
Every Sixth Day
§58.20
>
f
Every Other Day
r
Every Day
I
>
O.B 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
Ratio to Standard
144 FR 21611. May 10. 1*79. u amended at
IS FR S41M. July 1.1IS11
• M.I4 Special
•Itors.
(a) Any ambient air quality monitor-
Ing station other than a SLAMS or
PSD station from which the State In-
tends to use the data as part of a dem-
onstration of attainment or nonattaln-
ment or In computing a design value
for control purposes of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) must meet the requirements
for SLAMS described In | 68.23 and.
after January 1. 1083. must also meet
the requirements for SLAMS as de-
scribed In 168.13 and Appendices A
and B to this part.
(b) Any ambient air quality monitor-
Ing station other than a SLAMS or
PSD station from which the State In-
tends to use the data for SIP related
functions other than as described In
paragraph (a) of this section Is not
necessarily required to comply with
the requirements for a SLAMS station
under paragraph (a) but must be oper-
ated in accordance with a monitoring
schedule, methodology, quality assur-
ance procedures, and probe or Instru-
ment-siting specifications approved by
the Regional Administrator.
148 FR 441S4, Sept. 3. 18811
Swbport C—Stole and local Air
Monitoring Stations (SLAMS)
• U.M Air quality surveillance: Plan, con-
tent
By January 1, 1980. the State shall
adopt and submit to the Administrator
a revision to the plan which will:
(a) Provide for the establishment of
an air quality surveillance system that
consists of a network of monitoring
stations designated as State and Local
Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS)
which measure ambient concentra-
tions of those pollutants for which
standards have been established In
Part 60 of this chapter.
(b) Provide for meeting the require-
ments of Appendices A, C. D. and E to
this part.
(c) Provide for the operation of at
least one SLAMS per pollutant except
Pb during any stage of an air pollution
episode as defined In the contingency
plan.
(d) Provide for the review of the air
quality surveillance system on an
annual basis to determine If the
system meets the monitoring objec-
tives defined In Appendix D to this
part. Such review must Identify
needed modifications to the network
such as termination or relocation of
unnecessary stations or establishment
of new stations which are necessary.
132
133
-------
vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/4-87-013
June 1987
Air
On-Site Meteorological
Program Guidance for
Regulatory Modeling
Applications
E.WIROI; •;=
AUG ;.'•)
LIBRARY SERvItu urnti
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.2
-------
ft. »r, App. A
40 CM Ch. 1(7-l-tb Edition)
SCHEDULE D.6— PERMANENT WAIVER FROM INTERIM CONTROLS TESI — Continued
ISm«N«i ktankftcakon)
• Cure* uMa> vktu*
J MX f»MOTl nk*
Lira
ir
it
IM4
xxxx
xxxx
IMS
XXXX
xxxx
IM*
XXXX
xxxx
1M7
XXXX
xxxx
1M*
KXXX
XXXX
INI
XXXX
xxxx
IMO
XXXX
xxxx
Taw
SCHEDULE D. 7—HORIZON VALUE OF CASH FLOWS
ISmtv UtnMcMonl
A D*fx«cwfeon k»« hotuon valu*
1 NO c*ih tow prapclioiw
t DtftuctUtfOn ku Mv4ng«:
ft PapfscUMon and •mortu
•on
b MargjkW Iw f«M
c. TuMvtng*
3 D^x*dUkxv*M nn cuh
• Nontfml datv vtfuM
k 18*0 do** V«UM
C. Avtreo*
^ Human Meter
I OtfKKMtoftkM horiian >Mu«
B OwKteton ku Mytogi ov« to
horizon ptfiutj:
1 Otpraciikan tod KnorttMon
4 DkxxMil factor*
ft PliMid valM ol UN Mvmo* . .
t TaW pi*Mnl nlu* ol lu uv
^0*
C Horizon VMu*
Ux
01
u
09
04
04
0*
07
at
OS
10
It
12
13
14
16
It
FlnrikxKMI
t*m
tut
XXXX
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
IMO
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
Hortton y«ar»
INI
XXXX
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
IWJ
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xx/x
IM)
xxxx
xxxx
KXXX
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
IM4
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
in&
xxxx
xxxx
KXXX
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
ToW
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
P AM M—AMMENI AIR QUALITY
SURVEILLANCE
Iu*»«r1 A—0******1 ProvltkMtt
Sec.
61.1 Definition*.
Ml Purpose.
IS.) Applicability
lu>»«rt g—*Wnn*rinfj Criteria
at 10 Quality assurance
6811 Monitoring methods.
II11 Siting of Instrument* or Imtrument
probe*
6H.I3 Operating schedule.
M 14 Special purpose monitor*.
Subpwl C—«•»• MM) l*«rf Ak NUoHwlHf
ItalUns (6LAMS)
btt 20 Air quality surveillance: Plan con-
tent.
&a 21 8LAMS network design
Sec.
68 U
68.23
6814
18.21
68.28
68.27
SLAMS methodology.
Monitoring network completion.
(Reserved)
System modification.
Annual SLAMS summary report.
Compliance date for air quality data
reporting.
68.28 Regional Office SLAMS data acquisi-
tion.
I Air M««H*ring StotUM
(NAMS)
66.30 NAMS network establishment.
68 31 NAMS network description.
68.32 NAMS approval.
68.33 NAMS methodology.
66.34 NAMS network completion.
66 36 NAMS data submlltal.
68.36 System modification
iu»p»it I—Ak QiMrflly ln«l«
66 40 Index reporting.
128
Environmental Protection Agency
Sec.
68.60 Federal monitoring.
68.61 Monitoring other pollutant*.
ArrtMDii A- QUALITY AISUHAHCS RKQUIMK-
Hun* roil STATE AND LOCAL Am Mom
TORINO STATION* (SLAMS)
ArrutDiK B—QUALITY AMUHANCC RMDIM-
HEjm FOR PmvwTiow or SioNincANT
DlTKRIORATION (PSD) AlR MONITOIIHO
Arrnroix C—AHMKNT AIR QUALITY MONI-
TORING MCTHODOLOOV
ArrniDix D—NETWORK DISIQN roR STATI
AMD LOCAL AlR MONITORINO STATION!
(SLAMS) AND NATIONAL AIR MONITORING
STATION* (NAMS)
ArroiDix E-PRoai SITING CRITERIA roR
AkUiuiT AIR QUALITY MONITORING
ArrcNDix P—ANNUAL SLAMS A» QUALITY
iNrORKATION
ArrtNDii O—UNiroRM AIR QUALITY INDEX
AND DAILY RETORTING
AUTHORITY: Sec*. 110. 301C*>. 313. and 318
of the Clean Air Act (42 U.8.C. 1410.
7601(». 7613. 7618).
SOURCE 44 FR 37671. May 10. 1678. unles*
otherwise noted.
Swbp«rt A—O«n«rol PrcvUtont
1(8.1 Dcnnlllon*.
As used In this part, all terms not de-
fined herein have the meanlnt riven
them In the Act:
U) "Act" means the Clean Air Act as
amended (42 U.8.C. 7401. et seq.).
(b) "SLAMS" means State or Local
Air Monitoring SUtlon(s). The
SLAMS make up the ambient air qual-
ity monitoring network which Is re-
quired by 158.20 to be provided (or In
the State's Implementation plan. This
definition places no restrictions on the
use of the physical structure or facili-
ty housing; the SLAMS. Any combina-
tion of SLAMS and any other moni-
tors (Special Purpose. NAMS. PSD)
may occupy the same facility or struc-
ture without affecting the respective
definitions of those monitoring sta-
tion.
(c) "NAMS" means National Air
Monitoring Statlon(s). Collectively the
NAMS are a subset of the SLAMS am-
bient air quality monitoring network.
(d) "PSD station" means any station
operated for the purpose of establish-
ing the effect on air quality of the
emissions from a proposed source for
purposes of prevention of significant
, 3.U
deterioration as required by t S1.24(n)
of Part 51 of this chapter.
(e) "SO," means sulfur dioxide. "
"CO" means carbon monoxide.
"Local agency" means any local
government agency, other than the
State agency, which is charged with
the responsibility for carrying out a
portion of the plan.
-------
§59.33
NAMS design criteria contained In Ap-
pendix D to this part.
I68.M NAMS methodology.
Each NAMS must meet the monitor-
Ui| methodology requlrementa of Ap-
pendix C to thU part applicable to
NAMS at the time the atatlon U put
Into operation as a NAMS.
I 68,14 NAMS network completion.
By January t. 1981. with the excep-
tion of Fb, which aha!) be by July 1.
1982 and PM,. samplers, which shall
be by I year after the effective date of
promulgation:
(a) Each NAMS must be In oper-
ation, be sited In accordance with the
criteria In Appendix E to this part.
and be located as described In the sta-
tion's 8AROAO site Identification
form; and
(b) The quality assurance require-
ments of Appendix A to this part must
be fully Implemented for all NAMS.
141 FH 11611. May 10. 1018. u amended at
46 FR 44164. Sept. J. 1881. 52 FR 24140.
July 1. 1B811
168.36 NAM8 d«U iubmltUl.
(a) The requirements of this section
apply only to those stations designat-
ed as NAMS by the network descrip-
tion required by I 58.30.
(b) The State shall report quarterly
to the Administrator (through the ap-
propriate Regional Office) all ambient
air quality data and Information speci-
fied by AEROS Users Manual (EPA-
4(0/2-76-029. OAQPS No. 1.2-039) to
be coded Into the SAROAD Air Qual-
ity DaU forms. Such air quality daU
and Information must be submitted on
either paper forms, punched cards, or
magnetic tape In the format of the
SAROAD Air Quality DaU forms.
(c) The quarterly reporting periods
are January I March 31. April 1-June
30. July 1-September 30. and October
I December 31. The quarterly report
must:
(I) Be received by the National Aero-
metric Data Bank within 120 days of
the end of each reporting period, after
being submitted by the Stales to the
Regional Offices for review ;
(2> Contain all data and Information
gathered during the reporting period.
40 CFR Ch. I (7 1-88 Edition)
1I. May 10. 101*. as amended at
61 FR 0688. Mar. 10. 1088)
Swbpert F—Federal Meniterlnf
866.60 Federal monitoring.
The Administrator may locate and
operate an ambient air monitoring sta-
tion U the State falls to locate, or
schedule to be located, during the Ini-
tial network design process or as a
result of the annual review required
by 158.20:
(a) A SLAMS at a site which Is nec-
essary In the Judgment of the Region-
al Administrator to meet the objec-
tive* defined 1; ppendlx D to this
•part, or
(b) A NAMS at a site which to neces-
sary In the Judgment of the Adminis-
trator for meeting EPA national data
needs.
I6S.I1 Monitoring other pollutant*.
The Administrator may promulgate
criteria similar to that referenced In
Subpart B of this part for monitoring
a pollutant for which a National Am-
bient Air Quality Standard does not
exist. Such an action would be taken
whenever the Administrator deter-
mines that a nationwide monitoring
program to necessary to monitor such
a pollutant.
ArrcRDix A—QUALITY ASSOMANCB R«-
OUIUCMEMTS roa STATE AND LOCAL
AIK MONITORING STATIONS
(SLAMS)
I. Genera! Information.
This Appendix specifies the minimum
quality assurance requirements applicable
to SLAMS air monitoring data submitted to
EPA. States are encouraged to develop and
maintain quality asturance programs more
extensive than the required minimum.
Quality assurance of air monitoring sys-
tems Includes two distinct and Important
Interrelated function*. One (unction I* the
control of the measurement process
PI. St. App. A
through the Implementation of policies.
procedures, and corrective actions. The
other function Is the assessment of the
quality of the monitoring data (the product
of the measurement process). In general.
the greater the effort effectiveness of the
control of a given monitoring system, the
better will be the resulting quality of the
monitoring data. The results of data quality
assessments Indicate whether the control ef-
forts need lo be Increased.
Documentation of the quality assessments
of the monitoring data Is Important to data
users, who can then consider the Impact of
the data quality In specific applications (see
Reference l>. Accordingly, assessments of
SLAMS data quality are required U> be re-
ported to EPA periodically.
To provide national uniformity In this as-
sessment and reporting of data quality for
all SLAMS networks, specific assessment
and reporting procedures are prescribed In
detail In sections 3. 4. and 8 of this Appen-
dix.
In contrast, the control function encom-
passes a variety of policies, procedures, spec-
ifications, standards, and corrective meas-
ures which affect the quality of the result-
ing data. The selection and extent of the
quality control activities—as well as addi-
tional quality assessment activities—used by
a monitoring agency depend on a number of
local factors such as the field and laborato-
ry conditions, the objectives of the monitor-
Ing, the level of the data quality needed, the
expertise of assigned personnel, the cost of
control procedures, pollutant concentration
levels, etc. Therefore, the quality assurance
requirements. In section 2 of this Appendix.
are specified In general terms to allow each
State to develop a quality assurance system
that Is most efficient and effective for Its
own circumstances.
2. Quality Atturance Requirement*
2.1 Each State must develop and Imple-
ment a quality assurance program consist-
ing of policies, procedures, specifications.
standards and documentation necessary to:
(I) Provide data of adequate quality to
meet monitoring objectives, and
(2) Minimize loss of air quality data due to
malfunctions or out ot control conditions.
This quality assurance program must be
described In detail, suitably documented.
and approved by the appropriate Regional
Administrator, or his deslgnee. The Quality
Assurance Program will be reviewed during
the annual system audit described In section
2.2 Primary guidance for developing the
quality assurance program Is contained In
References 2 and 3. which also contain
many suggested procedures, checks, and
control specifications. Section 2.0.0 of Refer-
ence 3 describes specific guidance for the de-
137
-------
ft. 3«, App. A
velopmenl of a Quality Assurance Program
for SLAMS automated analyzers. Many ape
rifle quality control checks and specific*
llona for manual methods are Included In
the respective reference methods described
In Part 50 of this chapter or In the respec
live equivalent method descriptions avail-
able from EPA (see Reference 4). Similarly,
quality control procedures related to specifi-
cally designated reference and equivalent
analyzers are contained In the respective op-
eration and Instruction manuals associated
with those analyzers. This guidance, and
any other pertinent Information from ap-
propriate sources, should be used by the
Slates In developing their quality assurance
programs.
Aa a minimum, each quality assurance
program must Include operational proce-
dures for each of the following activities:
(1) Selection of methods, analyzers, or
samplers:
(3) Training:
(I) Installation of equipment:
(4) Selection and control of calibration
standards;
(I) Calibration:
(•> Zero/span checks and adjustments of
automated analyzers:
(1) Control checks and their frequency;
(•) Control llmlu for zero, span and other
control checks, and respective corrective ac-
tions when such limits are surpassed:
(9) Calibration and zero/xpan checks for
multiple range analyzers (see Section It of
Appendix C of this part):
(10) Preventive and remedial mainte-
nance;
(11) Quality control procedures for air
pollution episode monitoring;
(11) Recording and validating data:
(13) Data quality aiwessmenl (precision
and accuracy):
(M) Documentation of quality control In-
formation.
13 Pollutant Concentration and flow
Rate Standard!.
13.1 Gaseous pollutant concentration
standards (permeation devices or cylinders
of compressed gas) used to obtain test con-
centration for CO. SO,, and NO, must be
traceable to either a National Bureau of
Standards (NBS) Standard Reference Male-
rial (8RM) or an NBS/EPA approved com
merclally available Certified Reference Ma-
terial (CRM) CRM s are described In Refer
encr 6. and a list of CRM sources Is avail-
able from the Quality Assurance Division
(Ml) 77). Environmental Monitoring Sys-
tems Laboratory, US. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. Research Triangle Park. NC
37711.
General guidance and recommended tech
nlques for certifying gaseous working stand
arils against an SHM or CRM are provided
In section 107 of Reference 3 Direct use of
a CUM as a working standaid Is acceptable.
40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
but direct use of an N11S BUM as a working
standard Is discouraged because of the limit
ed supply and expense of SRMs.
1.3.1 Test concentrations for O, must be
obtained In accordance with the UV photo
metric calibration procedure specified In Ap
pendlx D of Part SO of this chapter, or by
meana of a certified ozone transfer stand-
ard. Consult References 6 and 7 for guid-
ance on primary and transfer standards for
O,.
I.I.I Flow rate measurements must be
made by a flow measuring Instrument that
la traceable to an authoritative volume or
other standard. Uuldame for certifying
some types of flowmetcrs (3 provided In Ref-
erence 3.
1.4 National Performance and System
Audit Programs
Agencies operating S1.AM8 network sta
lions shall be subject to annual EPA sys
terns audits of their ambient air monitoring
program and are required to participate In
EPA's National Performance Audit Pro
gram. These audits are described In section
1.4.11 of Reference 1 and section JO II of
Reference 1. For Instructions, agencies
should contact either the appropriate EPA
Regional Quality Assurance Coordinator or
the Quality Assurance Division (MD 77B).
Environmental Monitoring Systems Labora-
tory. US. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park. NC 17711.
>. Data Quality Aiitument Requirement*
All ambient monitoring methods or ana
lyaers used In SLAMS shall be tested peri-
odically, aa described In this section I. to
quantitatively assess the quality of the
SLAMS data being routinely produced.
Meaaurement accuracy and precision are es-
timated for both automated and manual
methods. The Individual resulla of these
tests tor each method or analyzer shall be
reported to EPA as specified In section 4.
EPA will then calculate quarterly Integrat-
ed estimates of precision and accuracy appli-
cable to the SLAMS data as described In
section I. Data assessment result* should be
reported to EPA only for methods and ana
lyzera approved for use In SLAMS monitor
Ing under Appendix C of this Part.
The Integrated data quality assessment es-
timates will be calculated on the basis of
"reporting organizations." A reporting orga-
nization Is defined as a Slate, subordinate
organization within a Stale, or other organi-
zation that Is responsible for a set of sta-
tions that monitor the same pollutant and
for which precision or accuracy assessments
can be pooled. Stales must define one or
more reporting organizations for each pol-
lutant such thai each monllorlng slallim In
the State SI.AMS network Is Included In
one. and only one. report Ing organization.
138
f nvlr«nm*ntal Protection Agency
Each reporting organization ahall be de-
fined auch that precision or accuracy among
all stations In the organization can be ex-
pected to be reasonably homogeneous, as •
result of common factor*. Common factor*
that ahould be considered by Stale* In de-
fining reporting organization* Include: (1)
operation by a common team of field opera-
tors. (1) common calibration facilities, and
(3) support by a common laboratory or
headquarter*. Where there I* uncertainly In
defining the reporting organization* or In
assigning specific sites to reporting organi-
sations. States shall consult with the appro-
priate EPA Regional Office for guidance.
All definition* of reporting organization*
•hall be subject to final approval by the ap-
propriate EPA Regional Office.
Assessment result* shall be reported M
specified In section 4. Concentration and
now standard* must be aa specified In sec-
tions 13 or 1.4. In addition, working stand-
ards and equipment used for accuracy
audits must not be the same standard* and
equipment used for routine calibration.
Concentration measurement* reported from
analyzer* or analytical system* (Indicated
concentration* > should be based on stable
reading* and mint be derived by meana of
the same calibration curve and data proceas-
Ing system used to obtain the routine air
monitoring data (see Reference I. pace M.
and Reference 1. section 10.a.l.ttd)). Table
A-1 provides a summary of the minimum
data quality assessment requirements.
which are described In more detail In the
following sections.
I.I Precision of Automated Method*. A
one-point precision check must be carried
out at least once every two week* on each
automated analyzer used to measure SO,.
NO,. O. and CO. The precision check to
made by challenging the analyser with •
precision check gas of known concentration
between 001 and 0.10 ppm for SO,. NO,.
and O« analyzers, and between • and 10 ppm
for CO analyzer*. To check the precision of
SLAMS analyzer* operating on ranges
higher than 0 to 1.0 ppm SO,. NO,, and O,.
or 0 to 100 ppm for CO, use precision check
gases of appropriately higher concentration
a* approved by the appropriate Regional
Administrator or his deslgnee. However, the
result* of precision check* at concentration
level* other than those shown above need
not be reported to EPA. The standard* from
which precision check test concentration*
are obtained must meet the specification* of
section 1.3.
Except for certain CO analyzer* described
below, analyzers must operate In their
normal sampling mode during the precision
check, and the test atmosphere must pass
through all filters, scrubbers, conditioner*
and other components used during normal
ambient sampling and as much of the ambi-
ent air Inlet system as Is practicable. If per
Pt. St. App. A
milled by the associated operation or In
atructlon manual, a CO analyzer may be
temporarily modified during the precision
check to reduce venl or purge flow*, or the
lest atmosphere may enter the analyser at a
point other than the normal sample Inlet.
provided thai the analyzer's response la not
likely to be altered by these deviations from
the normal operational mode. If a precision
check I* made In conjunction with a zero or
•pan adjustment. It musl be made prior to
such zero or span adjustment*. Randomiza-
tion of the precision check with respect to
time of day. day of week, and routine service
and adjualmenla I* encouraged where possi-
ble.
Report the actual concentration of the
precision check gas and the corresponding
concentration* Indicated by the analyzer.
The percent differences between these con
eentralkmi are used to asses* the precision
of the monitoring data a* described In sec-
tion B.I.
I.I Accuracy of Automated Methods.
Each calendar quarter (during which ana-
lyzers are operated), audit at least 15 per-
cent of the SLAMS analyzers that monitor
for SO,. NO,. O,. or CO such that each ana-
lyser to audited at lesal once per year. If
there are fewer than four analyzer* for a
pollutant within a reporting organization.
randomly reaudll one or more analyzer* *o
that at leaat one analyzer for that pollutant
I* audited each calendar quarter. Where
possible, EPA strongly encourages more fre-
quent auditing, up to an audit frequency of
once per quarter for each SLAMS analyzer.
The audit I* made by challenging the ana-
lyser with at leaat one audit gas of known
concentration from each of the following
ranges that fall within the measurement
range of the analyzer being audited:
I....
t
*
«
Cone«n»Ma
SO,. 0.
DM 04S
OIO-0*0
tisnf*. ppm
NO,
OM-04S
JS-4S
•o-so
NO, audit gas for chemllumlnescence lype
NO, analyzer* musl also contain at least
0.01 ppm NO.
Note NO concentrations substantially
higher than 0.00 ppm. as may occur when
using some gas phase tllratlon (OPT) tech-
niques, may lead to audit error* In chemllu-
mlnescence analyzers due to Inevitable
minor NO-NO, channel Imbalance. Such
errors may be atypical of routine monitor-
Ing errors to the extent lhal such NO con
centratlon* exceed typical ambient NO con-
centrations at the site. These errors may be
minimized by modifying the OPT technique
139
-------
Ft. 51, App. A
to lower the NO concentrations remaining
In the NCh audit gu to levels closer to typi-
cal ambient NO concentration* at the site.
To audit SLAMS analyzer* operating on
range* higher than 0 to 1.0 ppm for SO,.
NOi. and O, or 0 to 100 ppm for CO, u*«
audit gases of appropriately higher concen-
tration as approved by the appropriate Re-
gional Administrator or hi* deslgnee. The
result* of audit* at concentration level*
other than those shown In the above table
need not be reported to EPA.
The ttandard* from which audit ga* test
concentrations are obtained must meet the
iprcltlcatlona of section 1.3. Working or
transfer standard* and equipment used for
auditing must not be the *ame a* the stand
ards and equipment used for calibration and
•panning, but may be referenced to the
same NBS BRM. CUM. or primary UV pho-
tometer. The auditor should not be the op-
erator or analyst who conduct* the routine
monitoring, calibration, and analysis.
The audit shall be carried out by allowing
the analyzer to analyze the audit test at-
monphere In Us normal sampling mode such
that the test atmosphere passe* through all
filters, scrubbers, conditioners, and other
sample Inlet components used during
normal ambient sampling and as much of
the ambient air Inlet system as Is practica-
ble. The exception given In section 3.1 for
certain CO analyzers does not apply for
audits
Report both the audit test concentrations
and the corresponding concentration meas-
urements Indicated or produced by the ana-
lyzer being tested. The percent differences
between these concentrations are used to
assess the accuracy of the monitoring data
a* described In section 5.2
3.3 Precision of Manual Methods. For
each network of manual methods, select one
or more monitoring sites within the report-
Ing organization for duplicate, collocated
sampling as follows: for I to S sites, select 1
site: for • to 20 sites, select 2 sites: and for
over 20 sites, select 3 sites. Where possible.
additional collocated sampling Is encour-
aged. For partlculale matter, a network for
measuring PM» shall be separate from a
T8P network Sites having annual mean
partlculate matter concentrations among
the highest 26 percent of the annual mean
concentration* for all the site* In the net-
work must be selected or, If such sites are
Impractical, alternate sites approved by the
Regional Administrator may be selected.
In determining the number of collocated
sites required, monitoring networks for Pb
should be treated Independently from net
woiks for pattlculale matter, even though
the separate networks may share one or
more common samplers. However, a single
pair of samplers collocaled at a common-
sampler monitoring site that meets the re-
quirements for both a collocated lead site
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
and a collocaled partlculale matter site may
serve as a collocated site for both networks.
The two collocaled samplers must be
within 4 meters of each other, and partlcu-
late matter samplers must be at leasl 2
meters apart to preclude airflow Interfer-
ence. Calibration, sampling and analysis
must be the same for both collocated sam-
pler* and the same as for all other samplers
In the network.
For each pair of collocaled samplers, des-
ignate one sampler as the primary sampler
whose samples will be used to report air
quality for the site, and designate the other
a* the duplicate sampler. Each duplicate
sampler must be operated concurrently with
It* associated routine sampler at least once
per week. The operation schedule should be
•elected so that the sampling days are dis-
tributed evenly over the year and over the
•even days of the week. The every 6-day
schedule used by many monitoring agencle*
I* recommended. Report the measurements
from both samplers at each collocated sam-
pling site. Including measurement* falling
below the limits specified In 5.3.1. The per-
cent differences In measured concentration
(fig/in') between the two collocated sam
piers are used to calculate precision as de-
•crlbed In section 6.3.
3.4 Accuracy of Manual Methods. The
accuracy of manual sampling methods Is as-
teased by auditing a portion of the measure-
ment process. For partlculate matter meth
ods. the flow rate during sample collection
I* audited. For SO, and NO, methods, the
analytical measurement is audited. For Pb
methods, the flow rate and analytical meas-
urement are audited.
3.4.1 Partlculate matter methods. Each
calendar quarter, audit the flow rate of at
least 26 percent of the samplers such th*t
each sampler la audited at leasl once per
year. If there are fewer than four samplers
within a reporting organization, randomly
reaudlt one or more samplers so that one
sampler Is audited each calendar quarter.
Audit each sampler at Its normal operating
flow rate, using a flow rale transfer aland
•rd aa described In section 2.3.3. The flo«
rate standard used for auditing must not be
the same flow rale standard used to cali-
brate the sampler. However, both the call
bratlon standard and the audit standard
may be referenced to Hie same primary flow
rate standard. The flow audit should be
scheduled so aa to avoid Interference with a
scheduled sampling period. Report the audit
flow rales and Ihe corresponding flow rates
Indicated by the sampler's normally used
flow Indicator. The percent differences be-
tween these flow rales are used to calculate
accuracy as described In section 6.4.1.
Oreal care must be used In auditing high
volume partlculate matter samplers having
flow regulators because the Introduction of
140
Environmental Protection Agency
resistance plate* In the audit flow standard
device can cause abnormal flow pattern* at
the point of flow sensing. For this reason,
the How audit standard should be u*ed with
a normal filter In place and without resist-
ance plate* In auditing flow-regulated high-
volume samplers, or other steps should be
taken to assure that flow pattern* are not
perturbed at the point of flow sensing.
3.4.3 SO, Method*. Prepare audll aolu-
tlons from • working sulflte-lelrachloromer-
curate (TCM) solution a* described In sec-
tion 10.a of the SO, Reference Method (Ap-
pendix A of Part 60 of this chapter). These
audit •ample* mutt be prepared Independ-
ently from the standardised aulflte solu-
llons used In the routine calibration proce-
dure. Sulllte TCM audit samples mutt be
•tored between 0 and 6 *C and expire 30
dayt after preparation.
Prepare audit samples In each of the con-
centration range* of 0.1-O.3.0.8 0.«, and 0.8-
0.» pi f3O,/ml. Analyse an audit aample In
each of the three range* at least once each
day that samples arc analyzed and at leasl
twice per calendar quarter. Report the audit
concentration* (In p| 8O,/ml) and the cor-
responding Indicated concentrations (In pg
8Oi/ml). The percent difference* between
these concentration* are used to calculate
accuracy at described In section 6.4.3.
3.4.3 NO. Methods. Prepare audit solu
lions from a working sodium nitrite solution
at described In the appropriate equivalent
method (see Reference 4). These audit sam-
ples must be prepared Independently from
the standardized nitrite solution* used In
the routine calibration procedure. Sodium
nitrite audit samples expire In 3 month*
after preparation. Prepare audit samples In
each of the concentration ranges of 0.2-0.3,
06-08, and 0.8-0.0 pg NO,/ml. Analyze an
audit aample In each of the three ranges at
least once each day that samples are ana-
lyzed and at least twice per calendar quar-
ter. Report the audit concentrations (In pi
NO,/ml) and the corresponding Indicated
concentrations (In pi NO,/ml>. The percent
difference! between these concentration*
are used to calculate accuracy aa described
In section 6.4.3.
3.4.4 Pb Method*. For the Pb Reference
Method (Appendix O of Part 60 of this
chapter), the flow rate* of the high-volume
Pb (ampler* shall be audited aa part of the
T8P network using the same procedure* de-
scribed In Section 3.4.1. For agencies operat-
ing both T8P and Pb network*. 36 percent
of the total number of high-volume sam-
plers are to be audited each quarter.
Each calendar quarter, audit the Pb Ref-
erence Method analytical procedure using
glass fiber filter strips containing a known
quantity of Pb. These audit sample atrlps
are prepared by depositing a Pb solution on
1.0 cm by 20.3 cm <*. Inch by 8 Inch) unex-
posed glass fiber filter strips and allowing
Pt. 56, App. A
them to dry thoroughly. The audit samples
must be prepared using batches of reagents
different from those used to calibrate the
Pb analytical equipment being audited. Pre-
pare audit samples In the following concen-
tration ranges:
ton,,.
I:::::::::.: :.::::.;
H>
COncMMfS
V
100-300
•00-1000
EqumtoM
amtMrtPb
concent*
•*:**'
OS-I»
30-40
• E4UMStom mtftrt PI, connnkMon •> M""' • b*M4
OK IsmpHnf M I 7 m'/nwi toe 24 tain on • 203 anx2S 4
cm (I Inchx 10 mcht guis MM, Mm
Audit sample* must be extracted using the
same extraction procedure used for exposed
fillers.
Analyze three audll samples In each of
the two ranges each quarter samples are
analyzed. The audll sample analyse* ahall
be distributed aa much as possible over the
entire calendar luarler. Report the audit
concentrations (In pg Pb/slrlp) and the cor-
responding measured concentration* (In pg
Pb/strlp) using unit code 77. The percent
difference* between the concentrations are
used to calculate analytical accuracy aa de-
scribed In section 6.4.2.
The accuracy of an equivalent Pb method
U assessed In the same manner as for the
reference method. The flow auditing device
and Pb analysis audit samples must be com-
patible with the specific requirements of the
equivalent method.
4. Reporting Requirement*
For each pollutant, prepare a list of all
monitoring dies and their SAROAD site
Identification codes In each reporting orga-
nization and submit the list to the appropri-
ate EPA Regional Office, with a copy to the
Environmental Monitoring System* Labora-
tory (MD-76). U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency. Research Triangle Park. North
Carolina 27711 (EMSL/RTP). Whenever
there Is a change In thl* list of monitoring
•lie* In a reporting organization, report this
change to the Regional Office and to
EMSL/RTP.
4.1 Quarterly Reports. Within 120 calen-
dar days after the end of each calendar
quarter, each reporting organization shall
report to EMSL/RTP via the appropriate
EPA Regional Office the results of all valid
precision and accuracy tests It has carried
out during the quarter. Report all collocat-
ed measurements Including those fslllnt
below the levels specified In section 6.3 I Do
not report results from Invalid testa, from
tests carried out during a time period for
which ambient data Immediately prior or
subsequent to the tests were Invalidated for
141
-------
PI. SI. App. A
appropriate reasons, or from lee la of melh
ods or analyzers not approved tor use In
81 .AMS* monitoring networks under Appen-
dix Col this part.
Quarterly report* as specified herein shall
commence not later than the report pertain-
ing to the first calendar quarter of 1981. al
thouih such reports will be accepted begin
nlni with the report pertaining to the third
calendar quarter of IB8«
The Information should be reported In a
formal similar to that shown In Figures A-l
and A 2 The data may be reported (I) via
magnetic computer tape according to data
format specifications provided by the Re-
gional Offices. (3) by direct. Interactive com-
puter entry via a data terminal and the
PARS data entry system, or ()) on the
forms Illustrated In Figures A I and A-2.
Minor variations of these forms (to facili-
tate local use) or computer generated (fac-
simile) forms may also be used, provided
they follow the same general format, use
the same block numbers, and are clear and
completely legible. Instructions for using
these forms are provided In section 4.3.
Within J40 days after the end of the re-
porting quarter. EPA will calculate Integrat-
ed precision and accuracy assessments for
each reporting organization as specified In
section 5 and return, through the Regional
Offices, reports of the respective assess
menu to each reporting organization.
41 Annual Reports When precision and
accutacy estimates for a reporting organiza-
tion have been calculated for all four quar-
ters of the calendar year. EPA will calculate
the properly weighted probability limits for
precision and accuracy for the entire calen-
dar year. These limits will then be associat-
ed with the data submitted In the annual
8I.AM8 report required by I 68 U.
Each reporting organization shall submit.
along with IU annual SLAMS report, a list-
ing by pollutant of all monitoring sites In
the reporting organization.
4.1 Instructions for Using Data Quality
Assessment Reporting Forms. Suggested
forms for reporting data quality assessment
Information are provided In Figure A-l (for
reporting accuracy data) and Figure A-l
(for reporting precision data). The forms
may be used In a "universal" way to report
data for different pollutants and for differ-
ent sites on the same form. Or. either form
may be used as a slle-speclllc or pollutant-
specific form (where all entries on the form
are for a common site, a common pollutant.
or both) by filling In the site or pollutant In-
formation In the appropriate box In the
upper left corner of the form. Detailed In
ilructions for Individual blocks are as fol-
lows:
Instructions common to both forms:
t 2
35
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-08 Edition)
Sltlt Ihe two ckorl SAHOAD Stele cod*
Reporting Oigtnualiori A unique 3 dtgjl coda
•sag"** by ••cti Stall to each ol iU
rerjpeckve leportHig organtialion*
Vetr I Ml MO d>e>l» ol the calender yeer
cormponcbno. lo tie quarter tpecrlied in
Mock I
Quarter Enlx I 2 3 or 4 to reler lo tie
catenae! quarter rJuring which tie dais
quality tivetftmenls were obtained
Enlai "I" lot oiiginal tuessmonl data. "2"
to revise ti*e»ameiil dala previouely tub-
nulled. « 3 to delete previoinry eubmrl
Md aueaiment Jala When a 3 it en
leted. only block* 1 lo 20 need be com
plaled
Also enter the name of the reporting orga
nlzatlon. the date the form Is submitted.
and (optionally) the name of the person
who prepared the form on the blanks pro-
vided.
Stock ND
21-23
24
2S-2*
Oeaci*>»on
SM Enler «rle idenMealnn In Sit
uppef Wt coinet ol Ih* torn) Alao check
tie btoch m tve comer ol the bo* and
leave tie otvar btoikr, 10 to IS on Sie •
torn blank
Method Cod* Enlei tie m»uur*if
codrjd decimal potol
level I IndKiled Enter tv» concert* a«uri
rndKlWd by trt tnth/iat. atrrBHer. or
metiod bemg eudned to trt tppropnaaa
block, wkh itapect lo trt pr*cod*d deci-
mal pant
level J Enter tv> tcturU end mrAcMrjd con
cenlrttont lor eudrl level 2. * SnpfctN*
I even 1 and 4 in eppkcabte) On Ih* tecond
kn*. enter tie ecrual *nd todJctitrl ooncen
ttkont tor aurM level 3 and. t ut*d. euart
knMi J
Additional Instructions for Precision form
(Figure A-3):
31 32 ..
Oeecrrptan
Ural Cad* Enter tie und cod* rrurrrber kam
tM unrl cod* M on tw lorm (me only to
codee toted) MM wnt* m trt irn» an tw
Wenk to trt Ml at block 31.
Adual or Primary Enter trt Mb* of tM
known hMl conrefieakon or Svt oonctnks-
. the prrmrjry HmpkK to
| aporoprujie btockt emt reaped to ti.
IndKeWd or Oupkcsw Enler tw Mkr* ol tie
concenetlron mttttftintnl *VJM t)kf sntV
lyier or Ihe dupkcMe cotected Mmptar to
tv. eppropnete brackt wrt> reeped to tie
precoded dectmel pom)
(. Calculation! for Dala Qualify Atttumtnt
Calculation of estimates of Integrated pre-
cision and accuracy are carried out by CPA
according to the following procedures. Re-
porting organizations should report the re-
sults of Individual precision and accuracy
tests as specified In section* J and 4 even
though they may elect to carry out some or
all of the calculations In this section on
their own.
t.l Precision of Automated Methods, es-
timates of the precision of automated melh-
Pt. 5t, A|*a>. A
ods are ralmlatrd from the results of bl
weekly precision checks as specified In sec-
tion I.I. At the end of rach calendar quar-
ter, an Integrated precision probability In-
terval for all SI^AMS analyzers In the orga-
nization Is calculated foi each itollutant.
t.l.I Single Analyzer Precision. The per-
centage difference (d,) for each precision
•check to calculated using equation I. where
Y, to the concentration Indicated by the ana-
lyser tor the I th precision check and X, to
the known concentration for the I Hi preci-
sion check.
- X;
x 100
(1)
For each analyzer, the quarterly average
(d,) to calculated with equation 2. and the
standard deviation (8,> with equation J.
where n to the number of precision checks
on the Instrument made during the calendar
quarter. For example, n should be 6 or T If
precision checks are made biweekly during a
quarter.
n
^ 2 d
n i=l di
(2)
•.1.1 Precision for Reporting Organiza-
tion. For each pollutant, the average of
averages and the ponied standard devi-
ation (8.) are calculated for all analyzers au-
dited for the pollutant during the quarter.
using either equations 4 and S or 4a and ta.
where k to the number of analyzers audited
within the reporting organization for a
tingle pollutant.
143
-------
ft. Si, App. A
Ke/ereaces
I. Rhode*. B.C. Guideline on the Meaning
and Use ol PrrcUlon and Accuracy DaU Re-
quired by 40 CFR Part 68 Appendices A and
B. EPA-400/4 B3/02J. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Reaearch Triangle Park.
NC 27711. June. 1883.
2."Quallty Assurance Handbook for Air
Pollution Measurement Byatenu. Volume
1-Prlnclples." EPA «00/» 7« COS. March
1878. Available from U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environment*! Monitor-
Ing Syitemi Laboratory (MD-77). Reaearch
Triangle Park. NC 27711.
>. "Quality Assurance Handbook for Air
Pollution Measurement Syatenu. Volume
II-Amblent Air Specific Method*" EPA
6OO/4 77 027a. May 1977. Available from
U.8. Environmental Protection Agency, En-
vironmental Monitoring Syatenu Laborato-
ry (MD-77), Research Triangle Park. NC
27711.
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-M Edition)
4. "List of Designated Reference and
Equivalent Methods." Available from U.8.
Environmental Protection Agency, Depart-
ment E (MD-77). Research Triangle Park.
NC 27711.
I. Hughei, E.E. and J. Mandel. A Proce-
dure for Establishing Traceablllty of Qai
Mixture* to Certain National Bureau of
Standards SRMs. EPA BOO/7-81-010. U.8.
Environmental Protection Agency. Re-
aearch Triangle Park, NC 27711. May. IMI
(Joint NBS/EPA Publication)
8. Paur. R.J. and F.F McElroy. Technical
Assistance Document for the Calibration of
Ambient Ozone Monitors. EPA 600/4 7»
067. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Reaearch Triangle Park, NC 27711. Septem-
ber, 1»7».
7. McElroy, F.F. Transfer Standard! for
the Calibration of Ambient Air Monitoring
Analycer* tor Ozone. EPA-000/4 7B-064.
VS. Environmental Protection Agency, Re-
aearch Triangle Park. NC 27711. September.
146
|nvlr*nm«nl«l Protoctton Agency Pt. SS, App. A
TAatc A-1— MmMuu DATA AMEMMCNT REOOIBEMENTS
torSOtNOk.CV
and CO
Manual matiods
hcajdng toad
Accuracy;
and CO.
KV andNO,
T8P, I
HMponM ctMCk at
OS and
10 ffm toe CO».
Coaocaiad aamplani
RMPOM onsck at
Chack ol analytical
rtard aoMrons.
Chat* ol samp** Row
rala u tor ISP;
Comma*
I oM lor l-l »»M.
I MM > 10 MM.
(MM «•) hghMl oonc 1
l.Ca
t. M% ol annrnra |al
laaii I).
I Each i
I M% ol »aii»
-------
DATA QUAUTV ASSESSMENT MEPONTING FO«M
ACCURACY
- Ll | _— .-JIII.B j--,,,!-^- -,• M __ -_
uMttouTtcoof
l 1 l l l 1 M l
•OUUUOT COM
rm
«•••*••
I«MI MMMMKM
11 I'l Tl
i i i • •
<•*€»•»
mV DJ.5E £-1
•••••"•
3
S
•*
>
i"" ii 11' rm
K> II >l I)
"n mi M rm
ii n 11 M 11. rm
mi 11 M M rm
• M n n 111 rm
E IHI]DD__
irm rrrrum Q
urn mrpm
WM MM M«<
U¥tl«
Eniimm IIIIMM i in i m n i M i LI 111
U Ml* »«• «1 M «ft «> • »t U M MM M-ftt
IfVi ' LfVtL 2
B CUDDD^CDBiiiiy MJ "nun i m i m u 1111 Ll 111
imu > tMt •
MIIIIU III I I I I Ml I I 11 II Ll I I I Illl UNI
_. _______ __ _ H*'-' UKU
B OmPD — CDBllim ll] imuii t 111 i LI 111 1111 111 11
Hi i i M y i n "n u u i n 11 y i iTn 11 m n
B OIDDD _ CD B HMU nTi'iiiuii i 11 M UN iTr
S31111 u 111 Lrrrrn ^"ll
•B rrmnn mm
urn
i! ii y 111 111 m 111
LlMl 1
J^_L
MTU
JuLL
JtL
U««b * ItWt • I
m 111 m ii i i n i ui i i 1111 LI 111 1111 LI i 11 r
DATA (MJAUTYASSCSSMENT REPORTING FOMM
PRECISION ST
*MM>«M
J
•r
Q
I
•0
«•
UH
|
UM
«•
Ml
|
UK
^
>•
••
•r
1
•«
m
!•
•
r
s*
m
i
M
cc
j
(11
em
3-
•o
Cl
B->
«
OT
1
Ml
M
•
*O
301
•
••*
1
1
]
1
«•
•»*
...^.MM
^QLkU-
TAMT
• •
M
O
1
•H
IM
BO
•X
M
90
E
1
14
*
••
M
«
•
a
OH
'M
• J
ni
r
h
Mi
M
1
J
•
T
•h
NW
»•
«
T"
•H
r
M
""^^
m
W
•*
UMt
<•
Mi
n
n-
«
V9t
11
M
aa
•
•
•
M
Ml
r
i
0
M
m
)CI
U
T
•
rut
M
Hi
Ml
»
ID
a
i
M
•
•
•I
0
Ml
«•
Ml
•M
Ml
Ml
41
•
0
4
M
Oil
(
M
10
im
Ml
O1
IB
«
i«
1
M
H r
•
7
••»
1
' «
s
I
-------
Pt. 3«, App. A
40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
Cii IBSSdiilSa iiliiili SiiailiSl
«M
ii§
UA
mum
ii
ii!ll u isiltlli
iii s«« l! 31 f5n
I ||!5ii!ji 1 liiliP.
Illsillcii J) iiiiiiii
iS8iS13!aSisS
l^ir^i
\\l\\lit\
II,
a2i»t
SfSffj
9 2
iijliiiliiliii
f
i
i!5HJS5f:"i I I'lMuiiiiili. ii
iiininii!!! I liliiTimiki! I!
i*
E
150
Environmental Prelection Agency
ArrENDix B—QUALITY ASSURANCE RE-
QUIREMENTS FOR PREVENTION Of
SlGNiriCANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
AlR MONITORINO
I. General Information
This Appendix specifies the minimum
quality assurance requirements lor the con-
trol and assessment of the quality of the
PSD ambient air monitoring data submitted
to EPA by an organization operating a net-
work of PSD stations. Such organizations
are encouraged to develop and maintain
quality assurance programs more extensive
than the required minimum.
Quality assurance of air monitoring sys-
tems Includes two distinct and Important
Interrelated functions. One function Is the
control of the measurement process
through the Implementation of policies.
procedures, and corrective actions. The
other function Is the assessment ol the
quality of the monitoring data (the product
of the measurement process). In general,
the greater the effort and effectiveness of
the control of a given monitoring system.
the belter will be the resulting quality el
the monitoring data. The results of data
quality assessments Indicate whether the
control efforts need to be Increased.
Documentation ol the duality assessments
of the monitoring data Is Important to daU
users, who can then consider the Impact of
the data quality In specific applications (see
Reference I). Accordingly, assessments of
PSD monitoring data quality are required to
be made and reported periodically by the
monitoring organization.
To provide national uniformity In the as-
sessment and reporting of data quality
among all PSD networks, specific assess-
ment and reporting procedures are pre-
scribed In detail In Sections I. 4. 5. and • of
this Appendix.
In contrast, the control function encom-
passes a variety of policies, procedures, spec-
ifications, standards, and corrective meas-
ures which affect the quality ol the result-
ing data. The selection and extent el the
quality control activities—as well as addi-
tional quality assessment activities—used by
a monitoring organization depend on a
number ol local lactors such as the Held
and laboratory conditions, the objectives of
the monitoring, the level of the data quality
needed, the expertise of assigned personnel.
the cost ol control procedures, pollutant
concentration levels, etc. Therefore, the
quality assurance requirements. In Section 2
of this Appendix, are specified In general
PI. 51, App. »
terms to allow each organization to develop
a quality control system that Is most effi-
cient and effective for Its own circum-
stances.
For purposes of this Appendix, "organiza-
tion" Is defined as a source owner /operator.
a government agency, or their contractor
that operates an ambient air pollution mon-
itoring network for PSD purposes.
2. Quality Atiumnce Rtqutrements
2.1 Each organization must develop and
Implement a quality assurance program con-
sisting of policies, procedures, specifications.
standards and documentation necessary to:
(I) Provide data of adequate quality to
meet monitoring objectives and quality as-
surance requirements of the permit grant-
Ing authority, and
(2) Minimize loss of air quality data due to
malfunctions or out of-control conditions.
This quality assurance program must be
described In detail, suitably documented.
and approved by the permit-granting au-
thority. The Quality Assurance Program
will be reviewed during the system audits
described In Section 2.4.
2.S Primary guidance for developing the
Quality Assurance Program Is contained In
References 2 and 3. which also contain
many suggested procedures, checks, and
control specifications. Section 2.0.9 of Refer-
ence 1 describes specific guidance for the de-
velopment ol a Quality Assurance Program
for automated analyzers. Many specific
quality control checks and specifications for
manual methods are Included In the respec-
tive reference methods described In Part 60
of this chapter or In the respective equiva-
lent method descriptions available from
EPA (see Reference 4>. Similarly, quality
control procedures related to specifically
designated reference and equivalent analys-
ers are contained In their respective oper-
ation and Instruction manuals. This guid-
ance, and any other pertinent Information
from appropriate sources, should be used by
the organization In developing Its quality as-
surance program.
As a minimum, each quality assurance
program must Include operational proce-
dures for each of the following activities:
(I) Selection ol methods, analyzers, or
samplers;
(2) Training;
(3) Installation of equipment;
(4) Selection and control of calibration
standards;
(5> Calibration:
(0) Zero/span checks and adjustments of
automated analyzers;
151
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.3
-------
PI. 57. App. A 40 Cn Ch. 1 (7-1-M Edition)
SCHEDULE O.ft— PERMANENT WAIVER FROM INTERIM CONTROLS TEST— Continued
tCun* *.*.,+*
t MMBfCMMVlIu*
Lin*
17
1*
IM4
XXXX
xxxx
IMS
xxxx
xxxx
IMS
KXXX
xxxx
IM7
xxxx
xxxx
IM*
xxxx
xxxx
IM*
xxxx
xxxx
IMO
xxxx
xxxx
ToW
SCHEDULE D.7— HORIZON VALUE of CASH FLOWS
ISrnMur «nmfc.«iion>l l« id*
3 t£ia££i~ "«*'" «-.
SHIM:
IMO do** >«fcm
AiH>9g
llomon toctai
[Mfii«Man.kM honran nkM
• O^.«»»on IM Mvingi OM> •»
tarnw ptnM
O«pi«o*ban and •mnrfciafcon
Itavnd M> >«•
f ^M fa«faM
IMcourtfecUn
Pwaar* v«fcj* gl Ivt Mw^k
InUI p«Mnl nkj> 0) MI uv
•*«•
C Itaaon V«lu>
Ln>
Ot
02
03
04
OS
04
or
M
00
10
II
It
13
14
It
It
Final kmcMi
VMX
IM*
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
IMO
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
KXXX
xxxx
Horaon y«*r«
IMI
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
KXXX
XXXK
IMI
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
IM]
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
IM4
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
XKXX
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
IMS
xxxx
xxxx
KXXX
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
low
xxxx
KXXX
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
XKXX
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
CitvbwMMnlal Pr*>t*)ctl*>n Agency
See.
fAII St— AMBIENT All QUAUTV
SIMVHUANCt
Sec.
Ml Dellnltlotu.
Ml PurpOM.
881 Applicability.
Sec.
Mil SLAMS methodology
61 21 Moiillorlnf network completion.
It 24 (Reserved!
M.U System modulation.
68.20 Annual SLAMS lummary report.
60 21 Compliance date for air quality data
reporting
68.20 Regional Office SLAMS data acquisi-
tion.
6110 Quality assurance.
till Monlloilng methods
66 12 filling of Instrument* or Instrument
probes
61 13 Operating schedule.
61 II Special purpose monitors.
lL*f«rl C — Slat* WH< l»<«» Air M*«ft««t»sj
II.IUM (HAMS)
6S 20 Air quality surveillance: Plan con
tent.
58 21 SLAMS network design
(NAMS)
61.30 NAMS network establishment.
Mil NAMS network description.
61.12 NAMS approval.
61.13 NAMS methodology.
61.14 NAMS network completion.
6816 NAMS data submlttal.
68.10 System modification.
fclfepwt I—Alt Quality In*** ««y.rt4.S)
68.40 Index reporting.
I860 Federal monitoring.
68 61 Monitoring other pollutants.
ArrtNDii A- QUALITY AMUIANCS RMUIIS-
•UMTS roil STATS AI» LOCAL Aia Mom
TORINO STATION* (SLAMS)
ArriMDix B—QUALITY AMUIANC* Rntuiac
Mom ro* PCKVCMTIOII or SramriCAin
DnaioaATion (PSO) An MOIUTOIIIKI
Arrsraii C—Ansion Ai* QUALITY Mom
TOaiRO MnHODOUMT
ArrtflDix D—NiTwoa« OOION ro« STATE
AH* LOCAL An MONITOBIRO STATIONS
(SLAMS) AND NATIONAL A» MONITOIINO
STATIOHS (NAMS)
Arrcnoix E-Pnose SITINO CHITEBIA roa
AJUIKHT An QUALITY MONITOIINO
Ammix P—ANNUAL SLAMS Ala QUALITY
iHroaUATIOH
AmNBix O—UNiroMM A» QUALITY INMX
Am DAILY RBToavrira
AoTHoarrr: See*. 110. MUa>. 111. and Sit
of the Clew Air Act (41 UAC. 1410.
IMI(a). 1013. 1010).
Soimcc 44 KR 21611. May 10. 1010. unless
otherwise noted.
SuOipsirl A—Oontirsjl Provisions
I 10.1 Definitions.
Ao used In this part, all term* not de-
fined herein have the meaning given
them In the Act:
(a) "Act" means the Clean Air Act a*
amended (42 U.8.C. 7401. et seq.l.
(b) "SLAMS" mean* State or Local
Air Monitoring 8Utlon(»). The
SLAMS make up the ambient air qual-
ity monitoring; network which U re-
quired by 168.30 to be provided for In
the State'* Implementation plan. ThU
definition place* no restrictions on the
u*e of the physical structure or facili-
ty houilnt the SLAMS. Any combina-
tion of SLAMS and any other moni-
tor* (Special Purpose. NAMS. PSD)
may occupy the *ame facility or itruc-
ture without affecting the respective
definition* of those monitoring ela-
tion.
(c) "NAMS" mean* National Air
Monitoring Statlond). Collectively the
NAMS are a subset of the SLAMS am-
bient air quality monitoring network.
(d) "PSD station" means any station
operated for the purpose of establish-
ing the effect on air quality of the
emissions from a proposed source for
purposes of prevention of significant
} Ml
deterioration as required by I Sl.J4(n)
of Part 51 of this chapter.
(e) "SO." means sulfur dioxide.
(f) "NO." means nitrogen dioxide.
(g) "CO" means carbon monoxide.
(h) "O," means ozone.
(I) "Plan" means an Implementation
plan, approved or promulgated purau-
a.it to section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
(J) "Administrator" mean* the Ad-
ministrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) or his or her au-
thorized representative.
(k) "Regional Administrator" mean*
the Administrator of one of the ten
EPA Regional Offices or his or her au-
thorized representative.
(I) "State agency" means the air pol-
lution control agency primarily re-
sponsible for development and Imple-
mentation of a plan under the Act.
(m) "Local agency" means any local
government agency, other than the
State agency, which Is charged with
the responsibility for carrying out a
portion of the plan.
(n) "Indian Reservation" means any
Federally recognized reservation es-
tablished by treaty, agreement, execu-
tive order, or act of Congress.
"SAROAD cite Identification
form" I* one of the several form* In
the SAROAD system. H Is the form
which provides a complete description
of the site (and Its surroundings) of an
ambient air quality monitoring sta-
tion.
(D "Traceable" means that a local
standard has been compared and certi-
fied, either directly or via not more
than one Intermediate standard, to a
primary standard such as a National
Bureau of Standards Standard Refer-
ence Material (NBS 8RM) or a
USEPA/NBS-approved Certified Ref-
erence Material (CRM).
(s) "Urban area population" means
the population defined In the most
128
129
-------
v 51.33
NAMS design criteria contained In Ap-
pendix D to IhU part.
IM.M NAMS melhHMlology.
Each NAMS must meet the monitor-
ing methodology requirements of Ap-
pendix C to thla part applicable to
NAMS at the time the station to put
Into operation aa a NAMS.
I 6S.34 NAMS network completion.
By January 1. 1981. with the excep-
tion of Pb, which shall be by July 1.
1982 and FMit samplers, which shall
be by 1 year after the effective date of
promulgation:
(a) Each NAMS must be In oper-
ation, be alted In accordance with the
criteria In Appendix E to thla part.
and be located as described In the sta-
tion's 8AROAO site Identification
form; and
(b) The quality assurance require-
ments of Appendix A to thla part must
be fully Implemented for all NAMS.
144 PR mil. May 10. 1819. u amended at
«• PR 441*4. Sept. 1. 1981; 62 PR 2414*.
July 1. 1M7I
I U.M NAMS data lubmllUl.
(a) The requirements of this section
apply only to those stations designat-
ed aa NAMS by the network descrip-
tion required by | 68 30
(b) The State shall report quarterly
to the Administrator (through the ap-
propriate Regional Office) all ambient
air quality data and Information speci-
fied by AJOtOS Users Manual (EPA-
460/3 78 029. OAQPS No. 1.3-030) to
be coded Into the SAROAD Air Qual-
ity Data forms. Such air quality daU
and Information must be submitted on
either paper forms, punched cards, or
magnetic tape In the format of the
SAROAD Air Quality DaU forms.
The quarterly reporting periods
are January I March 31. April 1 June
30. July I-September 30. and October
1-December 31. The quarterly report
must:
(1 > Be received by the National Aero-
ntelrlc Data Bank within 120 days of
the end of each reporting period, after
being submitted by the States to the
Regional Offices for review :
(2k Contain all dala and Information
gathered during the reporting period.
40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
(d) For TSP. CO. SO.. O,. and NO,.
the first quarterly report will be due
on or before June 30, 1981, for data
collected during the first quarter of
1981. For Pb. the first quarterly report
will be due on December 31, 1982. for
data collected during the third quarter
of 1982. For PM.. samplers, the first
quarterly report will be due 120 days
after the first quarter of operation.
(e) Air quality data submitted In the
quarterly report mast have been
edited and validated so that such data
are ready to be entered Into the
SAROAD data files. Procedures for
editing and validating data are de-
acrlbed In AEROS Users Manual
(EPA 460/2 78 028. OAQPS No. 12
039).
(f) Thla section does not permit a
State to exempt those SLAMS which
are also designated as NAMS from all
or any of the reporting requirements
applicable to SLAMS In I 58.28.
144 PR 21671, May 10, 191*. ai amended at
4g PR 441(4. Sept 3. IvSI. tl PR 95M. Mar.
I*. I9M. M PR 14140. July I. 1981]
I S8.34 Svitem modification.
During the annual SLAMS Network
Review specified In 1 68.20, any
change* to the NAMS network Identi-
fied by the EPA and/or proposed by
the Stale and agreed to by the EPA
will be evaluated. These modifications
should address changes Invoked by a
new census and changes to the net-
work due to changing air quality
levels, emission patterns, etc. The
State shall be given one year (until
the next annual evaluation) to Imple-
ment the appropriate changes to the
NAMS network.
151 PR 9»M, Mar. 19. 19641
fcibport E— Air Quality
••porting
8 68.44) Index reporting.
(a) The Slate shall report to the
general public on a dally basts through
prominent notice an air quality Index
In accordance with the requirements
of Appendix O to this part.
(b) Reporting must commence by
January 1. 1981. for all urban areas
with a population exceeding 500, (MX).
136
f nvIrwiMontal Protection Aflmtcy
and by January 1. 1983. for all urban
area* with a population exceeding
300.000.
(c) The population of an urban area
for purposes of Index reporting U the
most recent U.S. census population
figure as defined In f 58.1 paragraph
<•).
144 PR 21611. May 10. 1919. as amended at
61 PR 96M. Mar. 19.19N1
Stfbpwt F—•••Ural MUnlterlng
868.M Federal monitoring.
The Administrator may locate and
operate an ambient air monitoring sta-
tion If the State falls to locate, or
schedule to be located, during the Ini-
tial network design process or as a
result of the annual review required
by | 68.30(d):
(a) A SLAMS al a site which to nec-
essary In the Judgment of the Region-
al Administrator to meet the objec-
tive* defined f Appendix O to this
•put. or
(b) A NAMS at a site which to neces-
sary In the Judgment of the Adminis-
trator for meeting EPA national data
needs.
11841 MonlUring other polliiUnU.
The Administrator may promulgate
criteria similar to that referenced In
Subpart B of this part for monitoring
a pollutant for which a National Am-
bient Air Quality Standard doe* not
extol. Such an action would be taken
whenever the Administrator deter-
mine* that a nationwide monitoring
program to necessary to monitor such
a pollutant.
ArrcMDix A—QUALITY ASSURANCE Rg-
qoiaKMDTTS roa STATS; AND LOCAL
AIM MONITOBINO STATIONS
(SLAMS)
1. General Information
This Appendix specifies the minimum
quality auurance requirements applicable
to SLAMS air monitoring dala lubmltled lo
EPA. Slate* are encouraged lo develop and
maintain quality auurance program* more
extensive than Ihe required minimum.
Quality auurance of air monitoring ayi-
lenu Include* two distinct and Important
Interrelated function*. One function I* Ihe
control of Ihe measurement proceai
PI. M, Aftg>. A
Ihroufh the Implementation of pollcle*.
procedure*, and corrective action*. The
other function It the aateument of the
quality of Ihe monllorlng dala (Ihe product
of the measurement proceu). In general.
the greater the effort effectiveness oC the
control of a given monitoring lystem. the
belter will be Ihe mulling quallly of Ihe
monitoring data. The reiull* of date quality
assessments Indicate whether Ihe control ef-
fort* need lo be Increased.
Documentation of the quality a**e**menU
of the monltorlnt dala I* Important lo dala
user*, who can then coiulder the Impacl of
Ihe dala quallly In specific application* <*ee
Reference II. Accordingly, assessment* of
SLAMS dala quality are required to be re
ported lo EPA periodically.
To provide national uniformity In this a*-
aeumenl and reporting of dala quality for
all SLAMS network*, specific auewmenl
and reporllni procedure* are prescribed In
detail In section* 3. 4. and 6 of this Appen-
dix.
In contrast, the control function encom-
passes a variety of pollcle*. procedure*, spec-
ification*, standards, and corrective meas-
ures which affect the quality of the result-
ing dala. The selection and extent of the
quallly control activities-** well as addl-
Uonal quallly assessment activities—used by
a monitoring agency depend on a number of
local factor* such a* the field and laborato-
ry condition*, the objective* of the monitor-
ing, the level of the data quality needed, the
eipertlse of assigned personnel, the cost of
control procedure*, pollutant concentration
level*, etc. Therefore, the quality aamirance
requirement*. In tecllon 2 of this Appendix.
are specified In general term* lo allow each
Stale lo develop a quallly auurance *y*tem
lhat b most efficient and effective for II*
own clrcunulance*.
2. Quality Assurance Rtquirtmenlt
2.1 Each State must develop and Imple-
ment a quallly assurance program consist-
Ing of pollcle*. procedure*, specifications.
standards and documentation necessary lo:
(II Provide dala of adequate quality to
meet monitoring objectives, and
(2) Minimize loss of air quality dala due to
malfunctions or out ot control condlllon*.
Thl* quallly assurance program must be
described In detail, suitably documented,
and approved by Ihe appropriate- Regional
Administrator, or hi* deslgnee. The Quallly
Auurance Program will be reviewed during
Ihe annual system audll described In section
2.2 Primary guidance for developing Ihe
quallly assurance program I* contained In
References 2 and 1. which also contain
many suggested procedure*, check*, and
control specifications. Section 2.0.9 of Refer-
ence 3 describes specific guidance for Ihe de-
137
-------
Pt. 5», App. A
velopmenl ol • Quallly Assurance Program
lor SLAMS automated analyzers. Many ape
title quality control check* and specif lea
lion* lor manual methods are Included In
the respective reference method! described
In Part M ol thli chapter or In the respec
tlve equivalent method description* avail
able from EPA Csee Reference 41. Similarly.
quality control procedui rs related to specif!
cally designated reference and equivalent
analyzer* are contained In the respective op
eiatlon and Instrutllon manuals associated
•Ith those analysers This guidance, and
any other pertinent Information from ap-
propriate sources, should be used by the
Stales In developing their quality assurance
programs
Aa a minimum, each quality assurance
program must Include operational proce
durea lor each ol the following activities:
(I) Selection ol methods, analysers, or
samplers;
(31 Training;
(I) Installation ol equipment;
441 Selection and control of calibration
standards;
((> Calibration;
l» Zero/span checks and adjustment* of
automated analysers:
17) Control checks and their frequency;
(•> Control limits for zero, span and other
control check*, and respective corrective ac-
tion* when such limit* are surpassed:
(») Calibration and sero/span check* for
multiple range analyzer* (see Section 1« of
Appendix C ol this part);
CRM's are described In Refer
ence 1. and a Uat ol CRM source* I* avail-
able from the Quality Assurance Division
(Ml> 77). environmental Monitoring By*
temi laboratory. US Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. Research Triangle Park. NC
mil
(irneral guldanre and recommended lech
nlques for certifying gaseous working stsnd
arrU sgaliul an SHM or CflM sre provided
In section 10 T of Reference I Direct use of
a CUM as a working standard la acceptable.
40 CM Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
but direct use of an NHS 8RM as a working
standard Is discouraged because ol the limit-
ed supply and eipense of SRMs.
2.3.1 Test concentrations for O, must be
obtained In accordsnce with the UV photo
metric calibration procedure specified In Ap
pencil» D of Part SO of this chapter, or by
mean* of a certified ozone transfer stand
ard Consult References < and 1 for guid-
ance on primary and transfer standards for
O,
111 Flow rate measurement* must be
made by a flow measuring Instrument that
la traceable to an authoritative volume or
other standard. Guidance for certifying
some types of flowmeterc Is provided In Ref-
erence 1.
3.4 National Performance and System
Audit Programs
Agencies operating SLAMS network sta-
tion* ihall be subject, to annual EPA *y*
lent* audit* ol their ambient air monitoring
program and are required to participate In
EPA'* National Performance Audit Pro-
gram These audits are described In section
I.4.U of Reference 2 and section JO. 11 ol
Reference I. for Instruction*, agencies
should contact either the appropriate EPA
Regional Quality Assurance Coordinator or
the Quality Assurance Division (MD-77BI.
Environmental Monitoring System* Labora-
tory, US. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park. NC 27711.
1. Mrs Qualify Aiitnmtnl fteaMlrrments
All ambient monitoring methods or ana-
lysers used In SLAMS shall be tested peri-
odically, a* described In this section I. lo
quantitatively assess the quality of the
SLAMS data being routinely produced.
Measurement accuracy and precision are es-
timated lor both automated and manual
methods. The Individual results ol these
teat* lor each method or analyser shall be
reported lo EPA a* specllled In section 4.
EPA will then calculate quarterly Integrat-
ed estimates ol precision and accuracy appli-
cable lo the SLAMS data a* described In
section I Data assessment result* should be
reported to EPA only lor method* and ana
lyaen approved for use In 8I.AM8 monitor-
Ing under Appendlk C ol this Part.
The Integrated data quality asseaament es-
timates will be calculated on the basl* ol
"reporting organizations." A reporting orga-
nization Is dellned as a Slate, (ubordlnate
organisation within a Slate, or other organi-
sation that la responsible lor a set of sta-
tion* that monitor the same pollutant and
lor which precision or accuracy asseasment*
can be pooled. States must dellne one or
more reporting organizations for each pol
lutant such Ihat each monitoring station In
the Stale SI.AM8 network Is Included In
one. and only one. reporting organization.
138
fnvvrvfiamnt*! froloction Afjwncy
Each reporting organisation shall be de-
fined such Ihat prectolon or accuracy among
all elation* In the organisation can be e«-
pected to be reasonably homogeneous, a* a
result ol common factor*. Common factor*
Ihat should be considered by Stale* In de
fining reporting organization* Include: (I)
operation by a common team ol field opera-
Ion. tl> common calibration facilities, and
(11 support by a common laboratory or
headquarter*. Where there I* uncertainty In
defining the reporting organization* or In
assigning apeclllc alte* to reporting organi-
sations. State* (hall consult with the appro-
priate EPA Regional Office lor guidance.
All definition* of reporting organisations
(hall be subject to final approval by the ap-
propriate EPA Regional Office.
Assessment results shall be reported M
specified In aecllon 4. Concentration and
flow standard* muat be a* specified an sec-
tion* 1.1 or 1.4. In addition, working *tend
ard* and equipment u*ed lor accuracy
audit* mint not be the same standard* and
equipment used for routine calibration.
Concentration measurement* reported Irom
analyser* or analytical *yatem* (Indicated
concentration*) should be baaed on stable
readings and muat be derived by means of
the same calibration curve and data process-
ing lystem u*ed to obtain the routine air
monitoring data (see Reference I. page n,
and Reference I. section }•• I Md». Table
A-1 provide* a summary ol the minimum
data quality assessment requirement*.
which arc described In more detail to the
following section*.
I.I Prectolon of Automated Method*. A
one-point predated check must be carried
out at toast once every two week* on each
automated analyser used lo measure 8O>.
NO* O. and CO. The precision check la
mad* by challenging the analyser with a
precision check, gas of known concentration
between ••! and •.!• ppm for SO* NO,,
and Oi analyser*, and between I and !• ppm
for CO analysers. To check the precision ol
SLAMS analyser* operating on range*
higher than • to !.• ppm SO.. NO., and O».
or • to IM ppm lor CO. me prectolon check
gases of appropriately higher concentration
a* approved by the appropriate Regional
Administrator or his deslgnee. However, the
results ol prectolon check* at concentration
level* other than those shown above need
not be reported lo EPA. The standard* Irom
which prectolon check test concentration*
are obtained must meet the specifications of
section 11
Except for certain CO analyzers described
below, analysers must operate In their
normal sampling mode during the prectolon
check, and the lest atmosphere must pas*
through all tillers, scrubbers, conditioner*
and other components used during normal
ambient (Ampllng and a* much ol the amM-
enl air Inlet system as to practicable. If per-
ft. 5i. Apr*. A
milled by Ihe associated operation or In
•Iructkm manual, a CO analyser may be
temporarily modified during Ihe precision
check lo reduce vent or purge flows, or the
test atmosphere may enter the analyser at a
point other than the normal sample Inlet.
provided fAsf the analyzer's response Is not
likely to be altered by these deviations Irom
the normal operational mode. If • prectolon
check to made In conjunction with a sero or
span adjustment. It must be made prior to
such sero or apan adjustments. Randomiza-
tion of the prectolon check with respect to
time ol day. day ol week, and routine service
and adjustment* to encouraged where possi-
ble.
Report Ihe actual concenlrallon* of Ihe
prectolon check gas and Ihe corresponding
concenlratloruj Indicated by the analyser.
The percent dlllerence* between these con-
centration* are used lo asses* Ihe prectolon
of the monitoring data a* described In sec-
tion B.I.
3.2 Accuracy ol Automated Method*.
Each calendar quarter (during which ana-
lyzers are operated), audll al least 2ft per-
cent of the SLAMS analyzers that monitor
for SO,. NO,. Oi. or CO such that each ana-
lyser to audited al least once per year. If
there are fewer than four analyzer* for •
pollutant within a reporting organization.
randomly reaudlt one or more analysers so
that at least one analyser for that pollutant
to audited each calendar quarter. Where
possible. EPA strongly encourages more fre-
quent auditing, up lo an audit frequency of
once per quarter for each SLAMS analyser.
The audit to made by challenging the ana-
lyser with at least one audit gas ot known
concentration from each of the following
ranges that fall within the measurement
range of the analyser being audited:
SO,. 0,
(1*020
«*
NO.
*(9-«0*
*I*-OM
OM-O4I
CO
a-(
It-M
NO, audll ga* for chemllumlnescence type
NO, analysers must atoo contain al least
0 og ppm NO.
NOTE NO concentration* substantially
higher than 0 Og ppm. as may occur when
using some ga* phase tltratlon (OPT* tech-
nique*, may lead lo audit error* In chemllu
mlneacence analyser* due to Inevitable
minor NO NO. channel Imbalance. Such
error* may be atypical ol routine monitor-
ing errors to the eitent lhal such NO con
centratkm* exceed typical ambient NO con-
cenlrallon* al Ihe site. These error* may be
minimized by modifying the OPT technique
139
-------
Pi. 5«, Apt). A
lo lower the NO concentrations remaining
In the NO, audit gas In level* clowr to typl
cal ambient NO concentrations at the site.
To audit SLAMS analyser* operating on
ranges higher than O to 10 ppm for SO,.
NO,, and O> or 0 to 100 ppm for CO. use
audit gases of appropriately higher concen
tratlon a* approved by the appropriate Re-
gional Administrator or his deslgnee. The
results of audits at concentration levels
other than those shown In the above table
need not be reported to EPA.
The standards from which audit gas test
concentrations are obtained must meet the
specification* of section 2.3. Working or
transfer standards and equipment used lor
auditing must not be the same a* the stand-
ards and equipment used for calibration and
•panning, but may be referenced to the
same NBS 8RM. CRM. or primary UV ph*
tomeler. The auditor should not be the op-
erator or analyst who conduct* the routine
monitoring, calibration, and analysis.
The audit shall be carried out by allowing
the analyzer to analyze the audit test at-
mosphere In It* normal sampling mode such
that the test atmosphere passe* through all
tiller*, acrubben. conditioner*, and other
•ample Inlet component* used during
normal ambient sampling and a* much of
the ambient air Inlet system a* Is practica-
ble. The CKcepllon given In section 1.1 for
certain CO analysers doe* not apply for
audit*.
Report both the audit te*t concentrations
and (he corresponding concentration meas-
urement* Indicated or produced by the ana-
lyser being tested. The percent differences
between these concentrations are used lo
assess the accuracy of the monitoring data
a* described In section 6.1.
1.1 Precision of Manual Methods. For
each network of manual methods, select one
or more monitoring sites within the report-
ing organisation for duplicate, collocated
sampling u follows: for I U> I site*, select I
site; for t to M sites, select 1 sites: and for
ovei 20 tile*, selecl 1 site* Where possible.
additional collocated campling I* encour-
aged. For parlfeulale matter, a network for
measuring PM» shall be separate from a
T8P network Site* having annual mean
paniculate matter concrntrallons among
the hlghesl 16 percent of the annual mean
concentrations for all the sites In the net-
work must be selected or. If such sites are
Impractical, alternate tiles approved by the
Regional AdminUlralor may be selecled.
In determining the number of collocated
•lie* required, monitoring networks for Pb
should be treated Independently from net-
work* for parllculale matter, even though
the separate networks may share one or
more common samplers. However, a single
pair of samplers collocated at a common
sampler monitoring site that meets the re-
quirements for both a collocated lead site
40 Crt Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
and • collocated parllculale matter site may
serve as a collocated site for both networks.
The two collocated samplers must be
within 4 meters of each other, and parllcu
late matter samplers must be at least 2
meters apart to preclude airflow Interfer-
ence. Calibration, sampling and analysis
must be the same for both collocated sam-
plers and the same as for all olher samplers
In ihe network
For each pair of collocated samplers, des
Ignate one sampler as Ihe primary sampler
whose sample* will be used to report air
quality for the slle. and designate the other
a* the duplicate sampler. Each duplicate
sampler must be operated concurrently with
II* associated routine sampler at least once
per week. The operation schedule should be
•elected so thai Ihe sampling days are dls-
trlbuled evenly over the year and over the
seven days of the week. The every 0 day
schedule used by many monitoring agencies
I* recommended. Report the measurements
from both (ampler* at each collocated sam-
pling slle. Including measurement* falling
below the limits specified In S.I I. The per
cent differences In measured concentration
(|ig/m') between Ihe two collocated sam-
plers are used to calculate precision as de-
scribed In section 6.J.
1.4 Accuracy of Manual Method*. The
accuracy of manual sampling methods Is as
seated by auditing a portion of Ihe measure-
menl process. For parllculale mailer meth
ods, Ihe flow rale during sample collection
Is sudlled. For SO, and NO, method.. Ihe
analytical measurement Is audited. For Pb
methods. Ihe flow rale and analytical meas-
urement are audited.
1.4.1 Paniculate mailer method*. Each
calendar quarter, audit the flow rate of at
least M percent of the samplers such thai
each sampler I* audited si least once per
year. If there are fewer than four samplers
within a reporting organization, randomly
rcaudll one or more samplers so that one
sampler Is audited each calendar quarter.
Audit each sampler al IU normal operallng
flow rale, using a flow rate transfer stand
ard as described In section 11.1. The How
rale standard used for auditing must not be
the same flow rale standard used lo call
brale ihe (ampler. However, both the call
brallon standard and the audll standard
may be referenced to Ihe same primary Ho*
rale standard. The flow audit should be
scheduled so as lo avoid Inlerference with a
scheduled sampling period. Report the audit
flow rates and the corresponding flow rates
Indicated by the sampler's normally used
flow Indicator. The percent differences be-
tween these How rates are used to calculate
accuracy as described In section 5.4.1.
Orcal cafe must be used In auditing htfn
volume paniculate matter samplers havlnf
flow regulators because the Introduction ol
140
Environmental Protection Agency
resUUnce plate* In the audll flow standard
device can cause abnormal flow pattern* at
the point of flow sensing. For this reason.
the How audll standard should be used with
a normal filler In place and without reslsl-
ance plates In auditing now-regulated high-
volume samplers, or other steps should be
taken lo assure that How patterns are not
perturbed at the point of now sensing.
1.4.2 SO, Methods. Prepare audit solu
lions from a working sulflte tetrachloromer-
curate (TCM) solution as described In sec-
tion 10.2 of the SO, Reference Method (Ap-
pendli A of Part 60 of thl* chapter). These
audit samples must be prepared Independ-
ently from the standardized aulflle solu-
tions used In the routine calibration proce-
dure. Sulflle TCM audit samples must be
stored between 0 and i *C and expire M
days after preparation.
Prepare audit samples In each of the con-
centration ranges of 0.2-4.1. 0.0-0.0. and 0.0-
00 ft BOi/ml. Analyse an audit sample In
each of the three ranges at least once each
dsy that samples are analysed and at least
twice per calendar quarter. Report the audit
concentrations tin fig 8O>/ml) and the cor-
responding Indicated concentrations (In ft
8O,/ml). The percent differences between
these concentrations are used to calculate
accuracy as described In section 1.4.1.
1.4.1 NO, Methods. Prepare audit solu-
tions from a working sodium nitrite solution
as described In the appropriate equivalent
method (see Reference 4). These audll sam-
ples must be prepared Independently from
the standardised nitrite solutions used In
the rojllne calibration procedure. Sodium
nitrite audit samples expire In 1 months
after preparation. Prepare audit samples In
each of the concentration ranges of 0.2-O.1.
O.B-0.0. and 0.0-0.0 M NO,/ml. Analyse an
audit sample In each of the three ranges at
least once each day that samples are ana-
lysed and al least twice per calendar quar-
ter. Report the audit concentrations (In pg
NO>/mll and the corresponding Indicated
concentration* (In pg NO,/ml». The percent
difference* between these concentrations
are used to calculate accuracy as described
In section 1.4.2.
1.4.4 Pb Methods. For the Pb Reference
Method (Appendix O of Part 60 of this
chapter), the How rates of the high-volume
Pb samplers shall be audited as part of the
T8P network using Ihe same procedures de-
scribed In Section 1.4.1. For agencies operal-
lng both TSP and Pb network*. 26 percent
of Ihe lotal number of high-volume sam-
plers are to be audited each quarter.
Each calendar quarter, audit the Pb Ref-
erence Melhod analytical procedure using
glass liber filter strips containing a known
quantity of Pb. These audit sample atrip*
are prepared by depositing a Pb solution on
1.0 cm by 203 cm IK Inch by 0 Inch) unex-
po*ed glass liber filter strips and allowing
Pt. St. App. A
them lo dry thoroughly. The audit sample*
must be prepared using batches of reagents
different from those used lo calibrate the
Pb analytical equipment being audited. Pre-
pare audll samples In Ihe following concen-
tration range*:
IOO-300
•00-1000
OS-IS
30-SO
•nsvnstnaM I 7 mVmn te> 24 Mus on • 203 cm«J54
a* (• nch » 10 rent gttu Mm MMT
Audll samples must be extracted using the
same extraction procedure used for exposed
fillers.
Analyze three audit samples In each of
the two ranges each quarter samples are
analysed. The audll sample analyses shall
be distributed as much as possible over the
entire calendar quarter. Report the audit
concentrations and the cor-
responding measured concentrations (In pg
Pb/strlp) using unll code 77. The percent
difference* between the concentrations are
used lo calculate analytical accuracy as de-
scribed In section 6.4.2.
The accuracy of an equivalent Pb method
Is assessed In the same manner as for the
reference method. The flow auditing device
and Pb analysis audll samples must be com-
patible with the specific requirements of the
equivalent method.
4. Jteporfinv Requirement
For each pollutant, prepare a 11*1 of all
monitoring sites and their 8AROAO site
tdenllflcallon codes In each reporting orga-
nisation and submit Ihe list to the appropri-
ate EPA Regional Office, with a copy to the
Environmental Monitoring Systems Labora-
tory (MD-76). U.8. Environmental Prolec-
tlon Agency. Research Triangle Park. North
Carolina 27711 (EMSL/RTP). Whenever
there U a change In this list of monitoring
sites In a reporting organisation, report this
change lo Ihe Regional Office and lo
EMSL/RTP.
4.1 Quarterly Reports. Within 120 calen
dar days after the end of each calendar
quarter, each reporting organization shall
report to EMSL/RTP via the appropriate
EPA Regional Office the result* of alt valid
precision and accuracy tests It has carried
out during the quarter. Report all collocat-
ed measurements Including those falling
below the levels specified In section 6.1 I Do
not report result* from Invalid lest*, from
tests carried out during a time period for
which ambient data Immediately prior or
subsequent to Ihe tests were Invalidated for
141
-------
PI. 51, At>|>. A
appropriate reasons, or from leal* of melh
od* or analyzer* not approved for use In
BLAM8 monitoring networks under Appen
din C ol thb part.
Quarterly report* as specified herein shsll
commence not later than the report pertain
Ing to the first calendar quarter of 1087. al
though luch report* will be accepted begin-
ning with the report pertaining to the third
calendar quarter of IM6.
The Information ahould be reported In a
format similar lo that shown In Figures A I
and A-J The data may be reported (I) via
magnetic computer tape according to data
f01 mat specifications provided by the Re-
gional Office*. or computer generated (fac-
simile) form* may also be used, provided
they follow the same general format, use
the same block number*, and are clear and
completely legible. Instructions for using
these form* an provided In section 4.1.
Within 240 days after the end of the re-
porting quarter. EPA will calculate Integrat-
ed precblon and accuracy assessment* for
each reporting organization as specified In
section S and return, through the Regional
Office*, report* of the respective aaseai-
menta to each reporting organization.
41 Annual Report*. When precblon and
accuracy eatlmales for a reporting organiza-
tion have been calculated for all four quar-
ter* of the calendar year. EPA will calculate
the properly weighted probability limit* for
precision and accuracy for the entire calen-
dar year. These limit* will then be asaoclat
ed with the data submitted In the annual
8I.AM8 report required by I 6l.2f.
Each reporting organization shall submit.
along with II* annual SLAMS report, a list
Ing by pollutant of all monitoring site* In
the reporting organization.
43 Instructions for Using Data Quality
Aaseaament Reporting Forms. Suggested
forms for reporting data quality assessment
Information are provided In Figure A-l (for
reporting accuracy dalal and Figure A-J
(for reporting precision data) The forms
may be uaed In a "universal" way to report
data for different pollutants and for differ-
ent vltea on the same form. Or. either form
may be used as a site specific or pollutant
apeclflc form (where all entries on the form
are for a common site, a common pollutant.
or both) by filling In the site or pollutant In
formation In the appropriate bos In the
upper left corner of the form IVtallrd In
dilution! for Individual block! are aa lol
Iowa:
Instructions common to bottt lorins. 33
142
Block No
I 2
3 S
40 Cm Ch. I (7-l-M edition)
SUM Iho hvo fk|p1 SAflOAD Sloto codo
nopomna O0aw«licM> A UHKIUO 3 dqpl codo
olttgnod by ooch Slilo lo ••eft ol *•
fotpockvo foporfcng ofponu aliani
Vow (Ml IW> *»'• •» do fOtondbl V0*f
conMpondkng lo do ouoftoi niocdWd o»
Invlrwnp)i«nlol frolwctton
Ouonoi Em* I. 1. 3. n 4 to lokv to do
rolondoi laioitoi *««ig «rticn do data
ojMkly OMOtomonli voio obkvnod
fnta I • ta onpnot ououmonl dolo. "2"
to iOtf*a OMottmonl dolo piOMOuoly o^-
IMMd. OJ "3" to
tod MMunwil lUla Whon a "I' • on-
Mod. only Uockt I u 2* nMd bo ax*
Also enter Hie name of the reporting orga
ntzatlon. the date the form Is submitted.
and (optionally) the name of the person
who prepared the form on the blank* pro-
vided.
Oo»ci»ikuii
lonl l AduoJ Entot do octuat conconkMon
doloiiijiod ken d> oi^l ManiHn) to do
opp.upn.» btocki ««i IOOJMCI to do oio-
cododdooo
btocko Md roopoet to do atocadod doet-
Ml port
LOM! 2 Emw do actual ond marnn can
• eonookona far aud» toool 2. * on* otto
3441 I lo>*k) 3 ond 4 *) oookcobtol On do oooonol
kno. ontoi do octool ond oidirolirl ooncon-
Hokono tof •«•• «—• •"-' -
fl. M, A*>|». A
od* are calrulaled from the results of bl
weekly precision checks as specified In sec
lion 3.1. At the end of each calendar quar-
ter, an Integrated precision probability In-
terval lor all SLAMS analyzer* In the orga
nlzallon I* calculated for each pollutant.
t.l.l Single Analyzer Preclalon. The per-
centage difference (d,l tor each precision
check b calculated using equation I. where
Y, I* the concentration Indicated by the ana-
lyzer for the I Ih precision check and X, b
the known concentration for the l-th precl
slon check.
Additional Instruction! for Precision form
(Figure A »>:
x 100
(1)
Mock No
14
MM
Dotcnpkon
S«o EnMf do SAHOAO Mo idoiikbtokmi
coat tfm * <*»'• only) II ol onktot on
do ton* 010 tof do 101110 MO. ontof do
MO cod. and MO •tonbficooon in da
i4¥Mf to! cornw of do term Atoo OMCk
do stock n do conn ol do bm ond
tooM do odd btocM 10 M II on do
ton*btonk
Modod Coda Enloi do immi iin»<
modod codo kom do bock ol do ton*
Abo ontoi do poojom lymbol (oa. SO,.
CO ISP. olc ) on do btar* u do loll ol
btock No 21 I oS onkm on do ton* oro
tof do oomo mdod. ontot do codo.
oymboi ond modod >l»*fc.»U»< n do
too* bo* n do 1(901 loll corn* ol do
ton* AMo chock do btock •> do comoi at
do bo. and too»o do odo> btocM 21 to
13 on do tarn btonk
Flocodod •«* On -A" or 0 f
Ooto Entoi do mond md doy ol do tool
Additional Instructions for Accuracy form
(Figure A I):
Slock Ho
30
31 32
Enloi "I" 4 lio fopurhng Ofgonuikon
conductod do ««ki ond ohx> nrkkod do
ouM uwxted uMd ontoi 2 i nm Ivor1
ng oiaonuokon coxluctad do muM bill
«na ofaani>«kcin
S EnM do oodo lonoi ol do KUCO ol •»
tout primon/ Mmdord UMd kom do tol
on do lorm
um cod. EM«i *. uri cod* <».<>«, kon
d« i»^ coo* ktl on lh« loim (UM only d*
com Iflod) Alto OTIU « •« urM on •«
"«^ u do ton ol Uict 31
f*caoVI wifh • Q • ot • | •
For each analyzer, the quarterly average
(d,» b calculated with equation I. and the
standard deviation (8,1 with equation 1,
where n b the
_..., muouon z, and the
standard deviation (S,) with equation 3,
UM Codo Entot do loot cooo numbot ion where n b the number of precblon check*
do »M codo lot on do km* M* on* do on the Instrument made during the calendar
COON kuod) AIM onto « do MM on do quarter. For example, n should be 4) or 7 If
stank to do to* oi buck 3i precision check* are made biweekly during a
Actual of p«™,. Frojr do MOJO *> do quarter
knoMi to»' <*okon ot do ogncomta-
a Ouokrato. Em
oonconbokon »Mli.omonl ban do ana
*Mf at do dwkcoto coSoctod mi»lli to
do onf»o|»nto btocki wd ni>icl la do
n
M do onmiiy btmptat to I . f y \
do approofioM stocks Mn foapoc* to do - J'/d *£'
n i=l df
(J)
. / r« ^ n
• Cmlcmlmlioiu for Data Qualltt 4iteiiment $« • A/STlliii I - ^ '.* *|'*|
Calculation of estimates of Integrated pre- ' V L1 "1*1 J
cblon and accuracy are carried out by EPA
according to the following procedure*. Re- ••'•> Precblon for Reporting Organtza-
porttng organizations should report the re- "«> for each pollutant, the average of
rail* of Individual precblon and accuracy averages (D) and the pooled standard devl
tests a* specified In section* J and 4 even •««*» <8.l are calculated for all analyzers au
though they may elect lo carry out some or dlled for the pollutant during the quarter.
all of the calculation* In thb section on mine either equation* 4 and S or 4a and 5a,
their own. where k b the number of analyzer* audited
•J Precblon of Automated Method*. Ea- within the reporting organization for a
tunates of the precblon of automated melh- alngle pollutant.
H3
-------
Ft. S*. APp. A
40 CH Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
(4)
nd
,,
nad2
n, *
v-
<4a)
S.
(5)
(n, -
* (nk ' 1)Sk
n, «
Equations 4 and i are used when the tame
number ol precUlon checks are made lor
each analyser. Equations 4a and 6a are used
to obtain a weighted average and a weighted
standard deviation when different numbers
of precision checks are made for the analys-
ers.
For each pollutant, the 95 Percent Proba-
bility Utniu for the precision of a reporting
organization are calculated using equations
• and 7.
- k
S 2.2 Accuracy for Reporting Organiza-
tion. For each audit concentration level, the
average (D) of the Individual percentage dif-
ferences (d,) for all n analyzer* measuring a
given pollutant audited during the quarter
la calculated using equation •.
n
1 I
n 1=1
(8)
Upper M Prrcent Probability
Until = U i I •« 8. ..........................
Lower aft Percent Probability
Until »U IMS. .........................
For each concentration level. Ihe standard
<4> deviation (8.» of all the Individual percent-
age differences for all analyzers audited
(7) during the quarter Is calculated, for each
pollutant, using equation 5.
& 1 Accuracy of Automated Methods. Es
tlmalea ol the accuracy of automated meth-
ods are calculated from the results of Inde-
pendent audits as described In section 3.2 At
Ihr end of each calendar quaiur. an Inle
grated accuracy probability Interval for all
SLAMS analyzers audited In the reporting
omanlzallon Is calculated for each pollul-
uit Separate probability limits are calculat-
ed for each audit concentration level In sec-
tion 32.
S 2.1 Single Analyzer Accuracy. The per
crnlage difference (d,l (or each audit con
n Miration is calculated using equation I.
win-re Y, Is I he analyzer's Indicated concen-
tration measurement from the l-lh audit
rhi-rk and X, Is the actual concentration of
I IK- audit nas used lor the I Ih audit check
For reporting organizations having four or
fewer analyzers for a particular pollutant.
only one audit Is required each quarter, and
the average and standard deviation cannot
be calculated. For such reporting organlza
lions, the audit results of two consecutive
quarters are required to calculate an aver-
age and a standard deviation, using equa
tlonc < and 0 Therefore, the reporting of
probability limits shall be on a semiannual
(Instead of a quarterly) basis.
144
InvkwnaMittal Protection Agoncy
For each pollutant, the •» Percent Proba-
bility Umlls for the accuracy of a reporting
organization are calculated at each audit
concentration level using equations • and 7.
5.3 Precision of Manual Methods. Esti-
mate* of precision of manual methods are
calculated from Ihe results obtained from
collocated samplers as described In section
1.3. Al the end of each calendar quarter, an
Integrated precision probability Interval for
all collocated samplers operating In the re-
porting organization Is calculated for each
manual method network.
5.1.1 Single Sampler Precision. At tow
concentrations, agreement between the
measurements of collocated samplers, em-
pressed a* percent differences, may be rela-
tively poor. For this reason, collocated
measurement pairs are selected for use In
the precision calculations only when both
measurements are above the following
limit*
T8P:30|»g/0i*.
80,: 45 Kg/m •.
NO,: 30 pg/m >.
Pb: • 15 pg/m •. and
For each selected measurement pair, the
percent difference (d,) la calculated, using
equation If.
_
* Xj)/Z
x 100
(10)
Where y( to the pollutant concentration
measurement obtained from the duplicate
sampler and X la the concentration meas-
urement obtained from the primary sampler
designated for reporting air quality for the
site. For each site, the quarterly average
percent difference (d,) Is calculated from
equation 2 and the standard deviation (8,1 Is
calculated from equation I. where n-the
number of selected measurement pain at
the site.
5.3.2 Precision for Reporting Organisa-
tion. For each pollutant, the average per-
centage difference and the pooled
standard deviation <8.) are calculated, using
equations 4 and t. or using equations 4a and
6a If different numbers of paired measure-
menu are obtained at the collocated sites.
For these calculations, the k of equations 4.
4a. I and 6a Is the number of collocated
sites.
The 95 Percent Probability Umlls for the
Integrated precision for a reporting organi-
sation are calculated using equations 11 and
12.
Upper 9& Percent Probability
Umlt = Di I.MS./V2
(Ill
Ft! St, App. A
Lower •& Percent Probability
Umlt.D I.M8./V2
(12)
6.4 Accuracy of Manual Methods. Esti-
mates of the accuracy of manual method*
are calculated from the results of Independ-
ent audits as described In Section 3.4. Al the
end of each calendar quarter, an Integrated
accuracy probability Interval la calculated
for each manual method network operated
by the reporting organization.
5.4.1 Paniculate Matter Samplers (In-
cluding reference method Pb samplers).
(li Single Sampler Accuracy. For the flow
rate audit described In Section 1.4.1. the
percentage difference (d,) for each audit la
calculated using equation I. where X, repre-
sents the known flow rate and Y, repreaenta
the How rale Indicated by Ihe sampler.
(b) Accuracy /or Reporting Organization
For each type of particular mailer meas-
ured
of Ihe Individual percent differences at each
concentration level for all audits during the
calendar quarter Is calculated using equa
tlon 5. The standard deviation (8.) of the
percentage differences at each concentra-
tion level lor all audits during the calendar
quarter Is rale-dialed using equation ft. The
B5 percent probability limits for the accura
cy for the reporting organization are calcu
laled iisliiK equations t and 7
145
-------
ft. St, App. A
Jte/ercncM
I. Rhode*. R.C. Ouldcllne on the Mcuilni
and Use ol Precision and Accuracy Data Re-
quired by 40 CFR Part M Appendlcea A and
B. EPA MO/4 U/OU. US EnvlronmenUI
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park.
NC 27711, June. IBB3.
> •'Quality AMurance Handbook for Air
Pollution Measurement System*. Volume
I-Principle*." EPA «OO/« 7*005 March
l»7i. Available from U.S. environmental
Protection Agency, Environmental Monitor
In* Systems Laboratory (UD 77). Research
Triangle Park. NC 27111.
1. "Quality Aaaurance Handbook for Air
Pollution Measurement System*. Volume
II-Ambient Alt Specific Method!." EPA
•00/4-n «27a. May l§7». Available from
VM. Environmental Protection Agency, en-
vironmental Monitoring Systems Laborato-
ry 77). Research Triangle Park. NC
27711.
40 Crt Cli. I (7-l-M C«rUn)
4. ' U«l of Oeilinated Reference and
Equivalent Method* " Available from (1.8.
Environmental Protection Agency. Depart-
ment E IMD 71 >. Rewarch Triangle Park
NC 27711
t. Hughea. EE. and J Mandel. A Proce-
dure for EilablUhlng Traceablllly of Qai
Mlilurei to Certain National Bureau of
Standard* 8RM • EPA «W/7 II 010. Ufl
Environmental Piolectlon Agency. Re
aearch Triangle Park. NC 27711. May. IMI.
(Joint NBS/EPA Publication)
• Paur. R J. and F P. McElroy. Technical
AatUtance Document for the Calibration of
Ambient Otone Monlton. EPA 600/4-7t-
067. US Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park. NC 27711. Septem-
ber, im
7. McElroy. KK Tranifer SUndard* for
the Calibration of Ambient Air Monitoring
Analysers for Oione EPA-MO/4-7* OM.
UJJ Environmental Protection Agency. Re-
search Triangle Park. NC 27711. September.
1*71.
146
Af*itcy
1 MSSMUM DATA AagcgamcNr Hcoumuf HI*
IOM»toCO|
Cnsoonil Miami
•I
Otacksl
O»ek
no • to t8P.
» One*
I IM Ml-* MM.
tiM>g-MM«.
fat*
I f •£*
f *Ml>
Mnmum kivmqi
• One* p* yMf.
t E«cM cttandx
-------
!«»•>• imCM*
t'-HM Mill
DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORTING FORM
W 9 9 i-:
ACCURACY 2
vo
SSt "5? "ST
(ill I "J" "1 (Til
•• " " "
in 1 11IJ1 nil
MM MM II 11
ill! i nil
MM M Mjl
**** *»1 **"
|A| IjIMlll 1 l|ljo|(T
H »» M» ItJIUMJ
SET
1*1 'II Hi II, I ID WIT
BE
Ul 1J!| IMI 1 [[((PHI
EJCE
I*' Ml! I'll i HIM IF
EH]
ui (irnnn mRm
ELTJ
— ll«L
1 UN 1 1
1 Ui II 1
I U Ml
i*«u
1 UI 1 1 1
1 UI M 1
ILI 1 1
UWL
I U i l
LIM1
1 LI M 1
1L| 1 1
UWl
1 U M 1
, ...
II UI 1
«l M M«
M 1 UI 1
4* *l 4*«
11 1 U 1
i
1 M UI 1
M U 1
M U 1
M U i
I
II Ull
L 1 1 Hi
9
II Ml
1
1
•
I
m
\
1
1
|l
1
U
i»>
»'
I
1
1
1
1
1
— t
UI I
M M
i
y i
i
UI 1 1
l
U 1 1
L
ui i r
k
Ui 1
L
UI If
L
LI 1
t
U 1 1
n
LI 1
,„., _
[ ! Ui 1 1 1
MM »•'
*m*
i ! r UM 11
1MU
1 M UI 1 1 1
. Cli.jjjfi
] CT..UI |l
i 1 1 If M M
•*v, , *
1 1 1 Lu 1 l ^
~i. 5
r i u 1 1 1 p
I«L>
1 1 ii U i i i _
i«i. 7^
1 II UM 1 U
I
DATA OUAUTY ACSESSMfNT NCPOmWC fONM
PRECISION
EMWIM
_J
»
I
J
M
«i
>•
UI
IMi
Ml
|
m
Ml
»•
\
I*
•t
1
imt
m
1
•
r
M
HI
1
M»
M
1
•»
(•
M
a
O-l
!•
«
|
Ml
M
*fi
w
1
MM
I
1
1
1
•M
••*
..«wt«»
^M
fQUU-
Mm
..
Ht
e
i
Mi
IM
n
•»
M
N
1
a
M
f
M
ff
b*
ft
en
-n
J^
••
r
S
Ml
in
i
j
•
T-
^
Ml
!»•
«
T-
^
r
M
ssss.
TT1
V?
IWT
/•
w
EO
II-
«•
Kt
a
m
at
M
«•
•
»
Ml
r
1
4
•
b*
Ml
K1
U
T
•
Ml
m
M
*.<
Ml
M
M
•
a
t
i
Ml
M
•
•
••
0
Mi
UI
•M
•i
4
I
•
e
^
M
Ob
4
W
IA
ItB
W
a
M
41
«
•
«
1
M
M '
m
f
d
l»
••)•
5
» M
1
.8
I
-------
rt. M.
W
M
Kii
A 40 CFI Ch. I (7-l-M tdltlon)
IlfifiaillSa iililill .liailiil
I
2
iil
.8
'ii
It'-
il
i
ifiSiilSla.isi ...sls.Siliiii. I
I!, ii.,]
1:t.tmm'nui
leiiiiiiiihii
150
I nvkcnmontsri f rol*>ctl«n Agjwitcy
ArrgNDix B—QUALITY AMUDANCC Rg>
quiMKMBNTS roM PREVENTION or
SIGNIFICANT DETEHIOMATION
AIM MONITOHINO
1. General In/ormallon
ThU Appendix ipecllle* the minimum
quality assurance requirement* lor the con-
trol and assessment of the quality of the
PSD ambient air monitoring data •ubmltted
to EPA by an organization operating a net-
work of PSD elation*. Such organization*
arc encouraged to develop and maintain
quality assurance program* more extensive
than the required minimum.
Quality aaiurance of air monitoring *ya-
lenu Include* two distinct and Important
Interrelated function*. One function U the
control of the measurement proceat
through the Implementation of policies,
procedure*, and corrective action*. The
other function I* the amument of the
quality of the monitoring data (the product
of the measurement process). In general.
lh« greater the effort and effectiveness of
the control of a given monitoring system.
the better will be the resulting quality of
the monitoring data. The result* of data
quality assessment* Indicate •nether the
control efforts need to be Increased.
Documentation of the quality assessments
of the monitoring data Is Important to data
user*, who can then consider the Impact of
the data quality In specific application* (sec
Reference I). Accordingly, assessments of
PSD monitoring data quality ere required to
be made and reported periodically by the
Bsonltorlng organisation.
To provide national uniformity In the as-
sessment and reporting of data quality
among all PSD networks, specific asses*-
ment and reporting procedures an pre-
scribed In detail In Sections 1. 4.1. and • of
this Appendli.
In contrast, the control function encom-
passes a variety of policies, procedure*, spec-
ifications, standards, and corrective meas-
ure* which affect the quality of the result
Ing data. The selection and eitent of the
quality control activities—a* well a* addi-
tional quality assessment activities-used by
a monitoring organization depend on a
number of local factor* such a* the field
and laboratory conditions, the ob)eetlves of
the monitoring, the level of the data quality
needed, the espertlse of assigned personnel.
the cost of control procedures, pollutant
concentration levels, etc. Therefore, the
quality assurance requirements. In Section 1
of this Appendix, are specified In general
rt. st.
terms to allow each organization to develop
a quality control system that U most effi-
cient and effective for III own circum-
stances.
For purposes of this Appendix, "organiza-
tion" Is defined as a source owner/operator.
a government agency, or their contractor
that operates an ambient air pollution mon
llormg network lor PSD purposes.
1. Qualify Atiurmnce ReoHlremeiifs
2.1 Each organization must develop and
Implement a quality assurance program con
staling of policies, procedure*, specif (cations.
standards and documentation necessary to:
(U Provide data of adequate quality to
meet monitoring objectives and quality as
surance requirements of the permit grant-
Ing authority, and
<2> Minimize loss of air quality data due to
malfunctions or out of control condition*.
Thai quality assurance program must be
described In detail, suitably documented.
and approved by the permit granting au-
thority. The Quality Assurance Program
will be reviewed during the system audits
described In Section 2.4.
2.2 Primary guidance for developing the
Quality Assurance Program Is contained In
Reference* I and 3. which also contain
many suggested procedures, checks, and
control specifications Section 2 0 1 of Refer-
ence S describes specific guidance tor the de-
velopment of a Quality Assurance Program
for automated analyzers. Many specific
quality control checks and specifications for
manual method* are Included In the respec-
tive reference methods described In Part (0
of this chapter or In the respective equiva-
lent method description* available from
EPA (see Reference 4>. Similarly, quality
control procedures related to specifically
designated reference and equivalent analyz-
ers are contained In their respective oper-
ation and Instruction manual*. ThU guid-
ance. and any other pertinent Information
from appropriate sources, should be used by
the organization In developing Its quality as-
surance program.
As a minimum, each quality assurance
program must Include operational proce-
dures for each of the following activities:
III Selection of methods, analyzers, or
samplers;
(21 Training;
111 Installation of equipment;
(4) Selection and control of calibration
standards:
(»> Calibration:
<•• Zero/span checks and adjustments of
automated analyzers:
-------
9 Ml
recent decennial US. Census of Popu-
lation Report.
(t) "TOP" (total suspended partlcu-
lates) mean* paniculate matter aa
measured by the method described In
Appendix B of Pan 50 of this chapter
(u) "PM,," means partlculate matter
with an aerodynamic diameter less
than or equal to a nominal 10 microm-
eters aa measured by a reference
method based on Appendix J of Part
BO of this chapter and designated In
accordance with Part 63 of this chap-
ter or by an equivalent method desig-
nated In accordance with Part 53 of
this chapter.
(v) "Pb" means lead.
11*J? T"1- M*y lo- U7» •* """"led al
J! ™f5?* Jan S0- IM3: 6I FR '5M- Mar.
It. 1988; 62 FR 2473V. July 1. 1087]
IM.S Purpow.
(a) This part contains criteria and
requirements for ambient air quality
monitoring and requirements for re-
porting ambient air quality data and
Information. The monitoring criteria
pertain to the following areas:
(1) Quality assurance procedures for
monitor operation and data handling.
(3) Methodology used In monitoring
stations.
(3) Operating schedule.
(4) Siting parameters for Instru-
ment* or Instrument probes.
(b) The requirements pertaining to
provisions for an air quality surveil-
lance system In the State Implementa-
tion Plan are contained In this part.
(c) This part also acts to establish a
national ambient air quality monitor-
Ing network for the purpose of provid-
ing timely air quality data upon which
to bane national assessments and
policy decisions. This network will be
operated by the States and will consist
of certain selected stations from the
Slates' SLAMS networks. These select-
ed stations will remain as SLAMS and
will continue to meet any applicable
requirements on SI.AMS The stations.
however, will also be designated as Na-
tional Air Monitoring Stations
(NAMS) and will be subject to addi-
tional data reporting and monitoring
methodology requirements as con-
tained In Subpart O of this part.
(d) Requirements for the dally re-
porting of an Index of ambient air
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
quality, to Insure that the population
of major urban areas are Informed
dally of local air quality conditions
are also Included In this part.
IM.3 Applicability.
This part applies to:
(a) State air pollution control agen-
cies.
(b) Any local air pollution control
agency or Indian governing body to
which the State has delegated author-
ity to operate a portion of the State's
SLAMS network.
-------
level ol that monitoring site concen-
tration with respect to the level of the
controlling standard. For those areas
In which the short-term (24-hour)
standard to controlling I.e.. has the
highest ratio, the selective sampling
requirements are Illustrated In Figure
I. If the operating agency were able to
demonstrate, by a combination ol his-
torical TSP data and at least one year
ol PM,. data that there were certain
periods of the year where conditions
preclude violation of the PM,. 24-hour
standard, the Increased sampling fre-
quency for those periods or seasons
may be exempted by the Regional Ad-
ministrator and revert back to once In
•Ix days. The minimum sampling
schedule for all other sites In the area
would be once every six days. For
thofte areas In which the annual stand-
ard Is the controlling standard, the
minimum sampling schedule for all
monitors In the area would be once
evciy six days. During the annual
review of the SLAMS network, the
most recent year of data must be con-
sidered to estimate the air quality
status for the controlling air quality
standard <24-hour or annual). Statisti-
cal models such as analysis of concen-
tration frequency distributions as de-
scribed In "Guideline for the Interpre-
tation of Ozone Air Quality Stand-
ards." EPA 450/419 003. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research
40 CW Ch. I (7-l-li Idlllon)
Triangle Park. N.C.. January 1079
should be used. Adjustments to the
monitoring schedule must be made on
the basis of the annual review. The
site having the highest concentration
In the most current year must be given
first consideration when selecting the
site for the more frequent sampling
schedule. Other factors such as major
change In sources of PM,. emissions or
In sampling site characteristics could
Influence the location of the expected
maximum concentration site. Also, the
use of the most recent three years of
data might In some cases, be justified
In order to provide a more representa-
tive data base from which to estimate
current air quality status and to pro-
vide stability to the network. This
multlyear consideration would reduce
the possibility ol an anamalous year
biasing a site selected for accelerated
sampling. If the maximum concentra-
tion site based on the most current
year Is not selected for the more fre-
quent operating schedule, documenta-
tion of the Justification for selection
of an alternate site must be submitted
to the Regional Office for approval
during the annual review process. It
should be noted that minimum data
completeness crltlerla. number of
years of data and sampling frequency
for Judging attainment of the NAAQS
are discussed In Appendix K of Part
50.
f nvIrwisMntol Protection Asjenty
Every Sixth Oiy
{M.M
>
f
Every Other Day
r
Every Day
I
>
0.9 r.(j m
T.3 I.«
Ratio to Standard
144 PR TIM I. Mar 10. It7». w amended at
»> FR 141M. July 1.1 Mil
IM.I4 Special p«ra«w MMlton.
Any ambient air quality monitor-
ing station other than a SLAMS or
PSD station from which the State In-
tends to use the data as part of a dem-
onstration of attainment or nonattaln-
ment or In computing a design value
for control purposes of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) must meet the requirements
for SLAMS described In f 58.22 and.
after January 1. 1981. must also meet
the requirement* for SLAMS aa de-
scribed In 168.13 and Appendices A
and E to this part.
-------
f I. 58, App. t
10 Ludwlg. PI,. J II Kmlolia. and E.
Slielar Selecting Sites lor MiinUorlnit Total
Suspended Participates. Stanford Research
InslUulr. Mrnlo Park. CA Prepared lor
US Environmental Prolrt lion Agency. Re
search Triangle Park. NC EPA Publication
No El'A 450/3 17 018 June 1811. revised
l>ecember 1977
II Ball. H.J. and OE Anderson. Opll
mum Site Exposure Crllnlii lor SO, Monl
lorlng. The Center lor I In- Environment and
Man. Inc.. Hartford. ("I Prepared for US
Environmental Prolertliin Agency. Re
search Triangle Park. NC EPA Publication
No EPA 450/3 77 013 April 1977
12 l.udwlg. FL. and J IIS Kealoha 8e
lectlng Sites lor Carbon Monoxide Monitor
Ing. Stanford Research Institute. Menlo
Paik. CA. Prepared lor U S Environmental
Protection Agency. HCM arrh Park. NC. EPA
Publication No. EPA 460/3 76 077. Seplem
bet 1*76.
13. l.udwlg. F.U and E. Shclar Site Selec-
tion for the Monitoring ol Photochemical
Air Pollutant*. Stanford Research Institute.
Menlo Park. CA Prepaicd for U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Research Than
gle Park. NC EPA Publication No. EPA
450/3 78 013. April 1971
14. l>ad Analysis lor Kansas City and
Cincinnati. PEI)Co Environmental. Inc..
Cincinnati. OH. Prepared for (IS. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Research Trian-
gle Park. NC. EPA Contract No. 66 02-2515.
June 1*77.
15 Barltrap. O. and C. O. Slrelow.
Westway Nursery Testing Project. Report
lo the Greater London Council. August
1976
16. Dalnes. R II.. II Molo. and D. M.
Chllko. Atmospheric l-r«d Its Relationship
lo Traffic Volume and Proximity to High-
ways Environ. Scl. and Technol.. 4:316.
1970
17. Johnson. D E. fl al Epldemlologlc
Study of the tiler U of Automobile Traflk
on Blood Lead levels. Southwest Research
Institute. Houston. TX Prepared lor U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Re
search Triangle Park. NC EPA 600/1 76
055. August 1976
16 Air Quality Criteria lor l-ead Olflce of
Research and Development. US. Environ
mental Protection Agency. Washington. DC
EPA 6OO/6 77 017 Uecrmtier IB77.
19 Lyman. 11 R The Atmospheric Dlllu
sloii of Carbon Monoxldr and Lead from an
Expressway. Phi). Dissertation. University
of Cincinnati. Cincinnati. OH 1972
10 Wechler. SO Pieparallon of Stable
Pollutant Cits 8landar
2.3.1 Site and Monitoring Information
232 Annual Summary Statistics
24 Nitrogen l>lo»ldc (NO,>
2.4.1 Site and Mould,ring Information
182
tnvlrvnmentari Protection Agency
242 Annual Summary Statistic*
1.6 OaonetO.)
31 I Site and Monitoring Information
1.6.1 Annual Summary Statistic*
1.6 Lead(Pb).
261 Site and Monitoring Information.
1.6.1 Annual Summary Statistic*.
1.1 Partkulale Matter IPM,.)
1.1.1 Site and Monitoring Information
1.1.1 Annual Summary Statistic*
1.1.1 BpUode and Other Unscheduled
Sampling Data
I. General
Thl* appendix de*crlbe* Information to be
compiled and submitted annually lo EPA
for each ambient monitoring itatton In the
SLAMS Network In accordance with 188 24.
The annual lumnuuir statistic* thai are de-
acribed In aectlon 1 below shall be eorutrued
a* only the minimum necessary statistic*
needed by EPA lo overview national air
quality atalue. They will be used by EPA to
convey Information to • variety of tolerat-
ed partle* Including envlronmenUI group*,
Federal agencle*. the Congreas. and private
dfJaena upon requeet. A* the need arlee*.
EPA may leiue modification* lo theae mini
mum requirement* to reflect change* hi
EPA policy concerning the National Ambi-
ent Abr Quality Standard* INAAQS).
A* Indicated hi 168.26XO. the content* of
the SLAMS annual report ihall be certified
by the eenlor air pollution control officer hi
the State to be accurate to the beat of hto
knowledge. In addition, the manner In
which the data were collected mint be certi-
fied to have conformed to the applicable
quality aaauranee. air monitoring methodol-
ogy, and probe siting criteria given In Ap-
pendlce* A. C. and E lo thl* part. A certified
•Utement to thl* effect must be Included
with the annual report. A* required by
166.20Xa>. the report must be submitted by
July I of each year for data collected during
the period January I to December II of the
previous year.
EPA recognise* that most air pollution
control agencle* routinely publish air qual-
ity ataUatlcal summark* and Interpretive re-
port*. EPA encourage* State and local agen-
cle* to continue publication of inch report*
and recommend* that they be expanded.
where appropriate, to Include analysis of air
quality trend*, population exposure, and
pollutant distribution*. At their discretion.
Stale and local agencle* may wish to Inte-
grate the BLAM8 report Into routine agency
publications.
2. Rfqvirtd In/ormflion
Thl* paragraph describe* air quality moni-
toring Information and summary statistics
which must be Included In the SLAMS
annual report. The required Information to
" Itemtaed below by pollutant. Throughout
thl* appendix, the time of occurrence refer*
to the ending hour. For example, the ending
PI. St. App. P
hour of an 8 hour CO average from 12:01
a.m. to 8:00 a.m. would be 8:00 a.m.
For the purpose! of range assignment* the
following rounding convention will be wed.
The air quality concentration should be
rounded to the number of significant digit*
used In specifying the concentration Inter-
vals. The digit to the right of the last slgnll
leant digit determine* the rounding procee*.
If thl* digit to greater than or equal to S. the
last rignlfkant digit to rounded up. The In
significant digits are truncated. For exam-
ple. 1006 ug/m* round* lo 101 ug/m1 and
0.1246 pom round* lo 0.12 ppm.
1.1 Sulfur Dioxide <8O,I
1.1.1 Site and Monitoring Information.
City name (when applkable). county name
and etreet address of site location. 8AROAD
•lie code. 8AROAD monitoring method
code. Number of hourly observation*. {It
Number of dally observation*. 121
1.1.1 Annual Summary Statistic*. Annual
arithmetic mean (ppm). Highest and aecond
hhjheat 14-hour average* «J> (ppm) and
dale* of occurrence. Hlgheat and aecond
hlghect 1-hour average* In i
•**•
• «*M*»I|P|»«|
• •>»••*
•osnats
• IJK9N)
• irisOM
• »*>*M
OnaMilian.M
NUrtMi Ol vriUN
1.1 Tola! Suspended Paniculate* (T8P)
1.1.1 Bite and Monitoring Information.
City name (when applicable), county name
and itreet address of site location. 8AROAD
•lie code. Number of dally observation*.
1.1.1 Annual Summary StatbUca. Annual
arithmetk mean (pg/m •) aa apedfled In Ap-
pendix K of Part SO. Dally T8P value* ex
ceedlnc the level of the 14-hour PMW
NAAQS and dale* of occurrence. If more
than 10 occurrence*, list only the 10 highest
dally value*. Sampling schedule used *uch
as once every six days, once every three
day*, etc. Number of additional aampllng
day* beyond sampling achedule wed.
Number of 24 hour average concentrations
In range*:
183
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.7
-------
(e) Provide for having a SLAMS net-
work description available for public
Inspection and submission to the Ad-
ministrator upon request. The net-
work description must be available at
the time of plan revision submltlal
except for Pb which must be available
by December I. 1981 and for PM,.
monitors which must be available by 6
months after the effective date of pro-
mulgation and must contain the fol-
lowing Information for each SLAMS:
U> The SAROAO site Identification
form for existing stations.
(2) The proposed location for sched-
uled stations.
(3) The sampling and analysis
method.
(4) The operating schedule.
(6) The monitoring objective and
spatial scale of representativeness as
defined In Appendix D to this part.
A schedule for: (I) Locating, plac-
ing Into operation, and making avail-
able the SAROAD site Identification
form for each SLAMS which Is not lo-
cated and operating at the time of
plan revision submlttal. (II) Imple-
menting quality assurance procedures
of Appendix A to this part for each
SLAMS for which such procedures are
not Implemented at the time of plan
revision submlttal, and (III) resiling
each SLAMS which does not meet the
requirements of Appendix E to this
part at the time of plan revision sub-
mlttal.
144 FR 27511. May 10. IB78. u amended at
46 FR 44U4. Sept 3. IBB1; 62 FR 14740.
July I. IBB7I
168.21 SLAMS network dr»icn.
The design criteria for SLAMS con-
tained In Appendix D to this part
must be used In designing the SLAMS
network. The State shall consult with
the Regional Administrator during the
network design process. The final net-
work design will be subject to the ap-
proval of the Regional Administrator.
• 68.22 8I.AMS methodology.
Each SLAMS must meet (he moni-
toring methodology requirements of
Appendix C to this purl nt the time
tin- station Is put Into operation as a
SLAMS.
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
168.23 Monitoring network completion.
By January 1. 1983, wllli the excep
tlon of PMu samplers whose probabili-
ty of nonattalnment of the PM,. ambi-
ent standard Is greater than or equal
to 20 percent which shall be by 1 year
after the effective date of promulga-
tion and the remaining PM,. samplers
which shall be by 2 years after the ef-
fective date of promulgation:
(a) Each station In the SLAMS net-
work must be In operation, be sited In
accordance with the criteria In Appen-
dix E to this part, and be located as
described on the station's SAROAD
site Identification form, and
(b) The quality assurance require-
ments of Appendix A to this part must
be fully Implemented.
144 FR 37671, M»y 10. 1B7B. u emended at
62 FR 24740. July I. IB87I
16814 (Reserved)
168.26 System modification.
The State shall annually develop
and Implement a schedule to modify
the ambient air quality monitoring
network to eliminate any unnecessary
stations or to correct any Inadequacies
Indicated by the result of the annual
review required by 158.20(d>. The
State shall consult with the Regional
Administrator during the development
of the schedule to modify the monitor-
Ing program. The final schedule and
modifications will be subject to the ap-
proval of the Regional Administrator.
Nothing In this section will preclude
the State, with the approval of the Re-
gional Administrator, from making
modifications to the SLAMS network
for reasons other than those resulting
from the annual review.
8 58.2S Annual SLAMS luminary report.
(a) The State shall submit to the Ad-
ministrator (through the appropriate
Regional Office) an annual summary
report of all the ambient air quality
monitoring data from all monitoring
stations designated State and Local
Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS).
The annual report must be submitted
by July 1 of each year for data collect-
ed from January 1 to December 31 of
the previous year.
Environmontot Protection Agency
(b) The annual summary report
must contain:
(1) The Information specified In Ap-
pendix P.
(2) The location, date, pollution
source, and duration of each Incident
of air pollution during which ambient
levels of a pollutant reached or ex-
ceeded the level specified by 151.16U)
of this chapter as a level which could
cause significant harm to the health
of persons.
(c) The senior air pollution control
officer In the State or his deslgnee
shall certify that the annual summary
report to accurate to the best of his
knowledge.
144 FR 27671. May 10. 1B78. as amended at
61 FR B6M. Mar. IB. IB88I
868.27 Compliance .ate for air quality
data reporting.
The annual air quality data report-
Ing requirements of 158.26 apply to
data collected after December 31.
1980. Data collected before January 1.
1981. must be reported under the re-
porting procedures In effect before the
effective date of Subpart C of this
part.
868.28 Regional Office SLAMS data ac-
•Hltltlon.
The State shall submit all or a por-
tion of the SLAMS data to the Region-
al Administrator upon his request.
I Air Monitoring
Slotlont (NAMS)
8 68.36 NAMS network establishment
(a) By January 1, 1980. with the ex-
ception of Pb. which shall be by De-
cember 1. 1981. and PM,. samplers.
which shall be by 8 months after the
effective date of promulgation, the
Stale shall:
(1) Establish, through the operation
of stations or through a schedule for
locating and placing stations Into oper-
ation, thai portion of a National Ambi-
ent Air Quality Monitoring Network
which Is In thai Slate, and
(2) Submit to the Administrator
(Ihrough Ihe appropriate Regional
Office) a description of that Stale's
portion of the network.
558.37
(b) Hereinafter, the portion of the
national network In any State will be
referred to as the NAMS network.
(c) The stations In the NAMS net-
work must be stations from Ihe
SLAMS network required by | 58.20.
(d) The requirements of Appendix D
to this part must be met when design-
Ing the NAMS network. The process of
designing the NAMS network must be
part of the process of designing the
SLAMS network as explained In Ap-
pendix D to this part.
144 FR 27671. M»y 10, IB7B. u amended at
46 FR 44164. Sept. 3, IB8I; 62 FR 24740.
July 1.1BB7I
8 68.31 NAMS network description.
The NAMS network description re-
quired by I 58.30 must contain the fol-
lowing for all stations, existing or
scheduled:
(a) The SAROAD site Identification
form for existing stations.
(b) The proposed location for sched-
uled stations.
(c) Identity of the urban area repre-
sented.
(d) The sampling and analysis
method.
(e) The operating schedule.
(1) The monitoring objective and
spatial scale of representativeness as
defined In Appendix D to this part.
(g) A schedule for:
(1) Locating, placing Into operation.
and submitting the SAROAD site
Identification form for each NAMS
which Is not located and operating at
the time of network description sub-
mlttal.
(2) Implementing quality assurance
procedures of Appendix A to this part
for each NAMS for which such proce-
dures are not Implemented at the tune
of network description submlllal. and
(3> Resiling each NAMS which does
not meet the requirements of Appen-
dix E to this part at the time of net
work description submillal.
858.32 NAMS approval.
The NAMS nelwork required by
| 58.30 Is subject lo the approval of
the Administrator. Such approval will
be contingent upon completion of the
network description as outlined In
| 58.31 and upon conformance to the
134
135
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
S Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
JUL 12 1989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Boilerplates for Block Averaging and Grandfathering
Modeling Analyses
FROM: Robert D. Bauman, Chief PC
SO2/Particulate Matter Programs Branch (MD-15)
TO: Chief, Air Branch
Regions I-X
Based upon EPA's June l, 1989 denial of NRDC's petition for
reconsideration of the use of block averaging in an Ohio SIP
revision (attached), we recommend that the Regional Offices use
language similar to the following boilerplate in future Federal
Register notices and/or TSD's in which the SO2 averaging method
is a relevant factor, and which involve otherwise approvable
actions :
The State based the SIP revision on a (block or
running) interpretation of the national ambient air
quality standards. Under the decision in NRDC v.
Thomas . 845 F.2d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 1988), the D.C.
Circuit determined that a State is free to submit a SIP
revision using either block or running averages. As a
result, EPA finds the State's choice to utilize (block
or running) averaging to be fully acceptable.
The EPA policy for grandfather ing modeling analyses is
contained in a January 2, 1985 memorandum from Joseph Tikvart,
Chief, Source Receptor Analysis Branch, to the Regional Modeling
Contact, Regions I-X. Boilerplate to assist in implementing this
policy has previously been informally distributed. However, at
this time we request that where grandfathering occurs the
Regional Office should incorporate language into the Federal
Register and/or TSD similar to the following:
The modeling techniques used in the demonstration
supporting this revision are based on modeling guidance
in place at the time that the analysis was performed
(cite "old" guidance document). Since that time, the
modeling guidance has been changed by EPA (cite "new"
guidance document) . Because the modeling analysis was
substantially complete prior to issuance of the revised
guidance, EPA accepts the analysis. If for some reason
-------
this, or any other, analysis must be redone in the future,
then it should be redone in accordance with current modeling
guidance.
If you have any questions regarding these policies, please
contact Doug Grano of my staff at 8-629-5255.
Attachment
cc: Ron Campbell, OAQPS
John Calcagni, AQMD
Pat Embrey, OGC
Eric Ginsburg, AQMD
Dean Wilson, TSD
Regional Modeling Contact, Regions I-X
bcc : * Grano
J. Vitas
-------
8M.M
NAMS design criteria contained In Ap-
pendix D to llila part.
I &8.U NAMS methodology.
Each NAMS mufll meet the monitor-
ing methodology requirements of Ap-
pendix C to this part applicable to
NAMS at the time the station U put
Into operation as a NAMS.
I 68.34 NAMS network completion.
By January 1, 19B1. with the excep-
tion of Pb, which shall be by July 1.
1989 and PM,, samplers, which shall
be by 1 year after the effective date of
promulgation:
(a) Each NAMS must be In oper-
ation, be sited In accordance with the
criteria In Appendix E to this part.
and be located a* described In the sta-
tion's 8AROAD site Identification
form; and
(b) The quality assurance require-
ments of Appendix A to thU part must
be fully Implemented for all NAMS.
144 FR 21671. May 10. 1070. u amended at
41 PR 44IM. Sept. 1. 1881: 62 FR 14140.
July 1. 1M7]
• 68.16 NAMS data tubmiiUU.
(a) The requirements of this section
apply only to those stations designat-
ed M NAMS by the network descrip-
tion required by I 68.30.
(b) The State shall report quarterly
to the Administrator (through the ap-
propriate Regional Office) all ambient
air quality data and Information speci-
fied by AEROS Users Manual (EPA-
450/2-76-029. OAQPS No. 1.2-038) to
be coded Into the SAROAO Air Qual-
ity Data forms. Such air quality data
and Information must be submitted on
either paper forms, punched cards, or
magnetic tape In the format of the
SAROAO Air Quality Data forms.
(c) The quarterly reporting periods
are January 1-March 31. April 1 June
30. July 1-September 30. and October
1 December 31. The quarterly report
must:
(1) Be received by the National Aero-
metric Data Bank within 120 days of
the end of each reporting period, after
being submitted by the States to the
Regional Offices for review :
(2> Contain all data and Information
gathered during the reporting period.
40 CFI Ch. I (7-l-tt Edition)
(d) For TSP. CO. SO,. O.. and NO,.
the first quarterly report will be due
on or before June 30. 1081, for data
collected during the first quarter of
1981. For Pb. the first quarterly report
will be due on December 31. 1982, for
data collected during the third quarter
of 1982. For PM,. samplers, the first
quarterly report will be due 120 days
after the first quarter of operation.
(e) Air quality data submitted in the
quarterly report must have been
edited and validated so that such data
are ready to be entered Into the
8AROAD data files. Procedures for
editing and validating data are de-
scribed In AEROS Users Manual
(EPA-460/2 7d 029, OAQPS No. 1.2-
039).
This section docs not permit a
Slate to exempt those SLAMS which
are also designated as NAMS from all
or any of the reporting requirements
applicable to SLAMS In I 58.26.
144 FR 27671. May 10. 1(70. u amended at
41 FR 441(4. Sept. 3. 1*81; 61 FR 96S6. Mar.
1*. 19M; 62 FR 24740. July 1, 18871
I 68.34 System modification.
During the annual SLAMS Network
Review specified In 158.20. any
changes to the NAMS network Identi-
fied by the EPA and/or proposed by
the State and agreed to by the EPA
will be evaluated. These modifications
should address changes Invoked by a
new census and changes to the net-
work due to changing air quality
levels, emission patterns, etc. The
State shall be given one year (until
the next annual evaluation) to Imple-
ment the appropriate changes to the
NAMS network.
(61 FR WSa. Mar. 10. 10881
Swbparl E—Air Quality .Index
••porting
158.40 Index reporting.
(a) The State shall report to the
general public on a dally basis through
prominent notice an air quality Index
In accordance with the requirements
of Appendix O to this part.
(b) Reporting must commence by
January 1, 1981, for all urban areas
with a population exceeding 500.000.
136
f itvlronMontal FrotocHon Agoncy
and by January 1, 1983. for all urban
area* with a population exceeding
200.000.
(c) The population of an urban area
for purposes of Index reporting la the
most recent U.S. census population
figure as defined In I 58.1 paragraph
144 FR 27671. May 10. 1070. as amended at
61 FR 068*. Mar. 19. 10891
Sobpart f—Fodorol Monitoring
168.6* Federal monitoring.
The Administrator may locate and
operate an ambient air monitoring sta-
tion If the State.falls to locate, or
schedule to be located, during the Ini-
tial network design process or as a
result of the annual review required
by I 68.20Xd):
(a) A SLAMS at a site which Is nec-
essary In the judgment of the Region-
al Administrator to meet the objec-
tives defined In Appendix D to this
•part, or
(b) A NAMS at a site which Is neces-
sary In the Judgment of the Adminis-
trator for meeting EPA national data
needs.
168.61 Monitoring other pollutants.
The Administrator may promulgate
criteria similar to that referenced In
Subpart B of this part for monitoring
• pollutant for which a National Am-
bient Air Quality Standard does not
exist. Such an action would be taken
whenever the Administrator deter-
mines that • a nationwide monitoring
program Is necessary to monitor such
• pollutant.
ATPENDIX A—QUALITY ASSURANCE Rg
QOlaEMENTS FOH STATE AND LOCAL
Aia MONITORING STATIONS
(SLAMS)
I. General Information.
This Appendix specifies the minimum
quality assurance requirement* applicable
to SLAMS air monitoring data submitted to
EPA. Stale* are encouraged to develop and
maintain quality assurance program* more
extensive than Ihe required minimum.
Quality assurance of air monitoring sys
tenu Includes two distinct and Important
Interrelated functions. One function Is the
control of the measurement process
Pt. SS, App. A
through the Implementation of policies.
procedure*, and corrective actions. The
other function u Ihe assessment of the
quality of Ihe monitoring data (the product
of the measurement process). In general.
the greater Ihe elforl effectiveness of the
control of a given monitoring system, the
belter will be the resulting quality of the
monitoring data. The results of data quality
assessments Indicate whether Ihe control ef-
fort* need to be Increased.
Documentation of Ihe quality assessments
of the monitoring data is Important to data
users, who can then consider the Impact of
the data quality In specific application* (aee
Reference I). Accordingly, assessment* of
SLAMS data quality are required to be re-
ported to EFA periodically.
To provide national uniformity In this as-
sessment and reporting of data quality for
all SLAMS networks, specific assessment
and reporting procedures are prescribed In
detail In sections I. 4. and 6 of Ihls Appen-
dix.
In contrast. Ihe control function encom-
passes a variety of policies, procedure*, •pac-
ifications, standards, and corrective meas-
ures which affect the quality of the result-
Ing data. The (election and extent of the
quality control acllvllles-as well as addi-
tional quality assessment activities—used by
a monitoring agency depend on a number of
local factors such a* the field and laborato-
ry conditions, the objectives of the monitor-
Ing, the level of the data quality needed, the
expertise of assigned personnel, the cost of
control procedures, pollutant concentration
levels, etc. Therefore, the quality assurance
requirement*. In section 2 of this Appendix
are specified In general terms to allow each
Stale to develop a quality assurance system
that I* most efficient and effective for Its
own circumstances.
2. Quality Auurance Requirement*
2.1 Each Slate must develop and Imple-
ment a quality assurance program consist-
ing of policies, procedures, specification*
standards and documentation necessary to:
(I) Provide data of adequate quality to
meet monitoring objectives, and
(21 Minimize loss of air quality data due to
malfunction* or out ol control condition*.
This quality assurance program musl be
described In detail, suitably documented
and approved by the appropriale Regional
Administrator, or his deslgnee. The Quality
Auurance Program will be reviewed during
the annual system audit described In section
2.2 Primary guidance for developing Ihe
quality assurance program I* contained In
Reference* 2 and 3. which also contain
many suggested procedures, checks and
control specifications. Section 2 0 0 of Refer-
ence 3 describes specific guidance for Ihe de-
137
-------
REFL ;ENCES FOR SECTION 3.8
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE: SEP 1 1981
SUBJECT: Ambient Monitoring Networks for Model Evaluations
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division
TO: Ronald C. Campbell, Assistant Director
for Program Operations, OAQPS
Under favorable conditions our available air quality models can
provide errors of from ±10 to ±40 percent. Under unfavorable conditions
the errors can be much worse. For these reasons, we have been consi-
dering how to use ambient monitoring data to supplement or improve
model estimates on a case-by-case basis.
It is generally not feasible to establish emission limits for
point sources based solely on monitoring data. This is because current
programs require that emission limits be based upon a fairly rare event
(i.e., the second maximum concentration anywhere in the area, at anytime,
and with the facility operating at full capacity) and to capture that
event on a monitor would normally require a prohibitively large and
expensive network.
An alternative approach is to establish a monitoring network of
reasonable size, use the resulting monitored data to evaluate the models
for applicability to those particular conditions, and then use the result-
ing "best available" model to establish the emission limitation.
One problem with this approach is defining the "network of reasonable
size" which would be used to evaluate the models. If the network is too
small, the data would be inadequate to distinguish between models and the
evaluation would have no validity. If the network is too large, the cost
would be excessive.
Although our experience with evaluations of this nature is very limited,
I have recently recommended to Region V that, for a variety of power plants
in the Midwest, networks consisting of approximately 15 monitors each should
be considered. This recommendation was based upon the following knowledge:
• My staff and the technical modeling staff of Region V estimate
that, in moderate terrain, a network of 25-30 monitors would be desirable
to obtain "reasonable scientific credibility."
* The Electric Power Research Institute has conducted one phase of
a major model evaluation study (called Plume Model Validation) around the
Kincaid Power Plant. The PMV network consisted of 30 ambient monitors
supplemented by several hundred tracer monitors for special
•"> 1320-4 (R»». 3-761
-------
* The model evaluation program around the Westvaco Luke Mill in
Maryland is using nine monitors. The issue at Luke Mill involves only
one wind direction (quadrant): If all wind directions were pertinent,
a larger network would have been necessary.
• The model evaluation program around the Ashland Oil facility in
Kentucky used a network consisting of 18 monitors. The issue involved
complex terrain in a valley situation.
* The model evaluation program around the Simplot acid plant in
Idaho used a network consisting of five monitors. The issue at Simplot
involved only one wind direction and one set of meteorological conditions.
* The model evaluation program around the Big Bend Power Plant on
the coast of Florida used a network consisting of eight monitors supple-
mented by sophisticated plume measurements. The issue at Big Bend
involved only a single wind direction.
Based on our experience with these programs (all of .-which were reasonably
successful but, with the exception of EPRI, none of which were "data rich"), I
believe that approximately 15 monitors operating for one year is probably the
minimum network size to obtain a valid data base under normal circumstances.
Fifteen would probably be too few in rugged, complex terrain; fifteen would
probably be too many if the issue involved only a single specific location
(e.g. a single isolated hilltop) or single meteorological condition.
It is necessary to minimize the number of monitors because the cost of a
network of 15 monitors, plus an adequate meteorological station, plus emissio,
monitoring, could range from S30QK to over $1 million. The wide range in costs
is influenced primarily by the availability of power at the monitoring sites, by
the ease of servicing the monitors, and by the complexity of both the terrain
and the meteorological conditions. Based on preliminary discussions between
Region V staff and electric utility r presentatives, I believe that most large
utilities would be willing and able to bear this cost if they perceive that the
evaluation would result in a relaxation of stringent emission limitations.
In the past many utility representatives held a strong opinion that the
CRSTER model (most commonly used to evaluate power plants in level to moderate
terrain) tended to overestimate the magnitude of concentrations, i.e. that the
model had a strong conservative bias. The preliminary data from the EPRI
model evaluation disprove that opinion: the EPRI results indicate no signi-
ficant bias (at least in level terrain).
Also the preliminary data from Westvaco (involving the SHORT! model),
the results from-Ashland Oil (involving the VALLEY model), and the results
from Big Bend (involving the CRSTER model), all tend to confirm the model
predictions, although Ashland Oil showed VALLEY to be somewhat conservative
as expected. I would classify the Simplot results as "inconclusive."
-------
cc: ^JT Tikvart
R. Neligan
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE: AUG 7 1981
SUBJECT: Monitoring Around Mid-Western Power Plants
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads, Di
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division (MD-14)
T0: David Kee, Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region V
We have previously discussed the requests of several utilities to
conduct air quality monitoring around their power plants located in
Illinois, Indiana and Ohio. The purpose of the monitoring would be to
provide a data base suitable for evaluating air quality models and to
select the most reliable .ode! for setting emission limits.
No widely accepted performance standards are available with which
to judge the acceptability of a single model. Thus, to determine the
best model for a specific application, we must rely on a comparison of
the relative performance of two or more models using a variety of
statistical tests. Such an approach has been recommended by the American
Meteorological Society and is incorporated in an OAQPS report entitled
"Interim Procedures for Evaluating Air Quality Models" that was provided
to your staff last week (see attached memorandum).
These interim procedures are the best available basis for discussions
with the utilities on the monitoring programs and subsequent analyses.
The procedures involve (1) identification of applicable models; (2) selection
and weighting of statistical performance measures; and (3) determination of
an appropriate ambient monitoring program. I suggest that you forward this
information to the utilities and set up meetings where these issues can
be discussed.
At such meetings it will be necessary for the utility representatives
to propose alternative models that they believe to be more reliable than
the standard EPA models. Statistical tests and performance measures must
be agreed upon to determine the relative performance of the models under
consideration. These performance measures must be adequate to evaluate
the entire range of meteorological conditions which affect the source
area, as well as appropriate averaging times. While these meetings will
involve highly technical issues, management personnel may be required to
make decisions relative to the most important evaluation tests and the
best measures of uncertainty.
-------
It will be necessary to agree on an adequate air quality monitoring
network composed of continuous monitors with quality assurance meeting
the requirements of 40 CFR 58. Although our experience with networks
for this purpose is limited, we believe that an appropriate balance
between the technical requirements of the analyses and the costs would
result in approximately 15 monitors, depending upon the type of terrain,
meteorological conditions, prior knowledge of air quality in the area,
etc. For the specific case of the Baldwin plant which you mentioned,
it is likely that 11 monitors would be adequate if the monitors were
carefully located at predicted points of maximum impact under the full
range of meteorological conditions. (Location of the monitors at points
of maximum impact only under unstable conditions would not provide
adequate coverage.)
It will be necessary to agree on an adequate on-site meteorological
data collection program. As a minimum, these measurements should be
similar to those available from National Weather Service Stations and
should be consistent with the PSD Monitoring Guideline requirements.
It may be necessary to collect additional data in order to satisfy
the input requirements of proposed alternative models.
It will be necessary to agree on an adequate program to collect
plant operating data. Ideally, this would consist of continuous in-stack
emission monitors supplemented by routine operating characteristics. Many
plants'are willing to install emission monitors for a variety of purposes.
However, if continuous emission monitors are considered to be too exoensive,
it is usually possible to construct adequate emissions data from a carefully
planned as-fired fuel sampling program.
We assume that the utility will be responsible for all data collection,
data reduction, and quality assurance. Once a protocol for the specific
statistical performance measures and their weighting are established,
we further assume that the utility will also be responsible for all calcu-
lations and model evaluations. Once the analysis is complete, we can joint"j
review the results with the utility and come to a reasoned decision as to
the most appropriate model for setting emission limits for that source.
Thus, the crucial part of this exercise is establishing in a written
protocol the data to be collected, the procedures to be followed, and the
basis for judging the relative performance of the models being considered.
-------
are interim. Thev will \™,™ •£[.• LS™**un* ""ich are
we gain
mj «« ? r0171 ?°°d fafth
tscon
__ ;,.-. K, «wW1.ui3 tan result at this time from good fa
negotiations between EPA and the utility and its consultants. My
staff will be happy to provide you with technical support in developing
protocols and in analyzing the model comparisons. Pioac/* ,.«..*---
Joe Tikvart or me if you
Attachment
cc: W. Barber
T. Oevine
R. Smith
E. Tuerk
S. Wassersug
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE: 7/30/81
SUBJECT: Interim Procedures for Evaluating Air Quality Models
FROM:
TO:
Joseph A. Tikvart, Chief1
Source Receptor Analysis
Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I - X
Attached is a report entitled "Interim Procedures for Evaluating
Air Quality Models." The purpose of the report is to provide a general
framework for the quantitative evaluation and comparison of air quality
models. It is intended to help you decide whether a proposed model, not
specifically recommended in the Guideline on Air Quality Models, is
acceptable on a case-by-case basis for specific regulatory application.
The need for such a report is identified in Section 7 of "Regional
Workshops on Air Quality Modeling: A Summary Report."
An earlier draft (Guideline for Evaluation of Air Quality Models)
was provided to you for comment in January 1981. Vie received comments
from four Regional Offices and have incorporated many of the suggestions.
These comments reflected a diversity of opinion on how rigid the pro-
cedures and criteria should be for demonstrating the acceptability of a
nonguideline model. One Region maintained that EPA should establish
minimum acceptable requirements on data bases, decision rationale, etc.
Others felt that we should be more flexible in our approach. This
report defines the steps that should be followed in evaluating a model
but leaves room for considerable flexibility in details for each step.
The procedures and criteria presented in this new report are con-
sidered interim. They are an extension of recommendations resulting
from the Woods Hole Workshop in Dispersion Model Performance held in
Setpember 1980. That workshop was sponsored under a cooperative agree-
ment between EPA and-the American Meteorological Society. Thus, v.hile
some of the performance evaluation procedures may be resource intensive,
they reflect most of the requirements identified by an appropriate
scientific peer group. However, since the concepts are relatively new
and untested, problems may be encountered in their' initial application.
Thus, the report provides suggested procedures; it is not a "guideline."
We "recommend that you begin using the procedures on actual situations
within the context of the caveats expressed in the Preface and in Section
5.2. Where suggestions are inappropriate, the use of alternative techniques
to accomplish the desired goals is encouraged. Feedback on your experience
and problems are important to us. After a period of time during which
experience is gained and problems are identified, the report will be
-arm 13?C 6 'Rev 3-76)
-------
Attachment
D. Fox
T. Helms
W. Keith
M. Mini-head
L. Niemeyer
R. Smith
F. White
-------
EPA-450/4-84-023
Interim Procedures for Evaluating Air
Quality Models (Revised)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
September 1984
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTIONS 4.1 AND 4.2
-------
2138 Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 12 / Thursday. January 19. 1989 / Pi noosed Rules
Authority. Sees. 1-19. 48 Slat. 31. as
ci 7 U.S C. 601-674.
2. Section 959.229 is added to read as
follows:
§ 959.229 Expenses and assessment rat*.
Expenses of $379.675 by the South
Texas Onion Committee are authorized
=md an assessment rate of $0.055 per 50-
pound container or equivalent quantity
of regulated onions is established for the
fiscal period ending July 31.1989.
Unexpended funds may be carried over
as a reserve.
ra;»d: Janna-y 13.1989.
William I. r>u In.
! s.'i .• :> £>-• ',/••: 0;r*".w. rruitcr-i!
', •• •:-,•:.* !Jr si, n.
' - Uoc 89-1JSO Filed 1-1B-89; 8:45 am)
r- Department of the Treasury is
• • v 'ending the comment period on the
A tvance Notice of Proposed
>•• iemaking Relating to Identification
'•• :quiremeni.s Required to Purchase
' ;-* Checks. Cashier's Checks.
.-.eler s Checks and Money Orders.
L . Wished in the Federal Register on
' i-cpmber 23. 1988 153 FR 51846). The
'! luasury Department has determined
'n.it more time is needed for the public
in review and comment on the proposal.
DATE: Comments now will be accepted
rbrough February 15. 1989.
ADDRESS: Comments should be
••iidressed to Amy G. Rudmck. Director.
Office of Financial Enforcement.
'"Apartment of the Treasury. Room 4120.
i VX) Pennsylvania Avenue. NW..
Washington. DC 20220.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Knthleen A. Scott. Attorney Advisor,
Office of the Assistant General Counsel
I Enforcement ]. (202) 566-9947.
Dated: January 13. 1969.
Sdlvatoi* R. MwtodM.
->5.--isran: secretary ( Enforcement /.
KR Doc. 89-1^04 Filed l-lB-afc 8.45 am)
%wUOG COOt
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 51
IFRC-342S-8J
State Imptemerttation Plan
Completeness Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
SUMMARY: This notice describes the
procedure for assessing whether a State
implementation plan (SIP) submittal is
adequate to trigger the Clean Air Act
requirement that EPA revievv and take
action the submittal. The notice
describes, among other things, the
criteria for determining the
"completeness" of the submittal. EPA is
concerned that uncertainty and
excessive delays in reviewing SIPs
frustrate the development of an optimum
State/Federal partnership, cause
confusion for sources regarding
applicable regulations, and generally
dampen initiative in State regulatory
programs. Prompted by this concern.
EPA is instituting a wide range of SIP
processing reforms as described
elsewhere in this Federal Register. The
proposed rulemaking described below is
one of these reforms.
EPA's previous SIP processing
procedures provided no mechanism to
reject or otherwise eliminate essentially
unreviewable SIP submittals (i.e.. those
missing information necessary to make
a reasonable decision as to their
procedural and environmental
adequacy). Heretofore. SIP submittais
that lacked required basic information
such as evidence of legal authority or of
properly conducted public hearings, or
technical support information sufficient
to describe a proposed change, generally
went through full notice and comment
rulemaking (proposed and final) before
being rejected. Today's proposal
provides a procedure and screening
criteria ;o enable States to prepare
adequate SIP submit'.als, and to enable
EPA reviewers to promptly screen SIP
'submittais. identify those that are
incomplete, and return them to the State
for corrpr.tive action without having to
go through rulemaking.
EPA believes thdt this change.
together with those described elsewhere
in this Federal Register, should enable
SIP submittals to be prepared and
processed more efficiently and. overall.
should improve the quality of SIP
submittals.
DATE: All comments should be
submitted to EPA at the address shown
below by March 6.1989.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may
sul/mil written comments in dupiiL-i!* to
Public Docket No. A-88-18 at: Cen!rrt|
Docket Section (A-130). South
Conference Center. Room 4. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Attention: Docket No. A-68-18.401 M.
Street. SW.. Washington. DC 20460.
Materials relevant to this rulem;iking
have been placed in Docket No. A-88-18
b.v EPA and are ava:Uble for inspection
at thf above address hp-ween 8:00 a.m.
and 3:30 p.m.. N!or.da> through Friday.
The EPA may chsrj- a re^sonHrile fet-
ter copying
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. James Weig^d. Office of A:r
Quality P!;inr:r.2 «r,c Standards (MD-
11), U.S. Env,rcnrr:cr:ci Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park. \or:h
Carolina 27711; Telephone (919) 541-
5642 or (FTS) 629-5642.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The 1970 Clean Air Act (CAAI
established the air quality management
process as a basic philosophy for air
pollution control in this country. Under
this system. EPA establishes air quality
goals (National Ambient Air Quality
Standards—NAAQS) for common
pollutants. There are now standards for
6 pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide.
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide.
particulate matter (PMio. and lead.
States then develop control programs to
attain and maintain these NAAQS.
These programs are defined by State
Implementation Phms (SJPs) which are
approved formally by EPA and are
legally enforceable by the Agency.
Under section nO|rt)(2). a SIP must
demonstrate atUi.-ment. describe a
control strategv. contain legally
enforceable regulations, include an
emission inventory and procedures for
new source re\ i«»w. ou'.lir.e a program
for monitoring, and shov. adequate
resources. In adJi'ion there can be
many other requirements specific to the
pollutant being considered. Under
section !10!a;(3;. revisions to a SIP must
not interfere with the SIPs ability to
meet these reuuiremer.ts. The
consequence of S'.aif» failure to get SIP
approval ma> ••- serious: they mciudf
Federal promt:.£.iunn of control
regulations ard economic sanctions.
Affirmative action is required by EPA
on essentially ali aspects of every SIP
and SIP revision. Since EPA's final
decision comes after a regulation
already is adopted and implemented at
the State level, excessive delay in the
review orocess often is a major source
of friction m EPA s relations with State
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 12 / Thursday. January 19. 1989 / Proposed Rules 2139
and local agencies. SIP processing at
EPA has a schedule goal of 5/2-5/2 for
final action. That is. the Regions
nominally have 5 months to review
submittals in both the proposal and
promulgation phases: Headquarters
nominally has 2 months in each phase.
However, SIP actions often take
considerably longer than the total 14
months allocated to publish a final
decision.1
The lengthy decision process has
resulted in strong criticism from sources
both inside and outside the EPA. In
response, the Deputy Administrator
commissioned in July 1987 a senior level
task group to assess the problems
inherent in the process and to
recommend solutions. The task group
conducted its assessment and presented
recommendations to the Deputy
Administrator. The recommendations
were approved fully and are described
in a companion notice in today's Federal
Register. One of these recommendations
concerns a procedure and criteria for
identifying a "complete" SIP package,
thereby providing States with guidance
on preparing adequate SIP revisions and
EPA with a clearly defined mechanism
to keep essentially unreviewable SIP
revisions out of the review process.
This is important because if a State
submits a SIP change without properly
stated emission limits, legal authority'or
compliance schedules, or which
contains other obvious deficiencies, it
can enter the full EPA review system.
Such a SIP either will be eventually
disapproved, or languish while the State
is required (perhaps months later) to
supply essential data. Heretofore. EPA's
procedures did not provide in any
comprehensive way prompt reiection for
incompleteness. Independently,
however, some Regional Offices have
tried to deal with this problem, and have
developed procedures wherein SIP
submittals are judged against a set of
completeness criteria. The purpose of
these procedures has been to keep
incomplete packages out of the more
extensive review system, thereby saving
both EPA and the State valuable" time
and resources. Today. EPA is proposing
io institute an EPA-wioe procedure for
• \ut'' tnat section UOUHC! of the Clean Air fVt
rfouires that The Administrator snaii. wiimn four
"••-.. -« alter the dA maintains that this deadline doe* not
»rr>tv ''i SIP revisions, but rather only to rhe mnul
SIP s 'muted after EPA promulgates a NAAQS
• • -Jurti have supponed EPA » position, other
- nave nttd Ihjt d vmonih review periixi
"'' •—= to a SIP revision
completeness review of all SIP
submittals.
Completeness Review
In order to free EPA resources that
would otherwise be consumed in
processing incomplete and inherently
unapprovable SIP*. EPA hat created a
completeness review process. Under this
process. EPA will review a SIP for
completeness when it is initially
submitted to determine if all the
necessary components have been
included to allow the agency to properly
review and act on the substance of the
SIP revision. This will be a quick screen
that will assess the reviewability of a
SIP submittal. not its ultimate
approvabiliry. EPA will then promptly
inform the submitting State whether the
agency will proceed to process the SIP
revision or if it must be modified by the
State because it is incomplete.
There are several benefits to an early
determination of completeness. First, the
State is informed promptly as to the
reviewability of the submittal. a current
source of uncertainty in the SIP process.
Second. SIP submittals that are
inadequate for processing are returned
to the State to be corrected, rather than
going through the review process only to
be disapproved because of a lack of
information. Third, unreviewable SIPs
are removed from the process early so
that resources at the Federal level are
allocated to processing only SIPs that
are adequate for review. Finally, the
completeness criteria! provide the States
with guidelines on how to prepare
reviewable SIPs. It is expected that once
the agencies involved (State and local
EPA) become accustomed to the
completeness review process, the
number of unreviewable submittals will
diminish sharply.
Screening criteria have been
developed that define the essential
elements of an acceptable package, that
will avoid obvious inadequacies, and
that can be applied uniformly with
limited subjective judgement and
review. The criteria were developed by
EPA Regional Offices already using a
list of criteria to determine completeness
of SIP packages in an informal way. On
March 18.1988 a policy for determining
completeness of SIP submittals was
issued by Gerald A. Emison. Director.
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS), to the Regional
Offices (a copy has been placed in the
docket as item II-B-4). The policy
includes basic criteria for determining
completeness, and sample letters for
accepting and rejecting SIP submittals.
This policy will be followed by EPA
until today's proposed regulation is
made final.
As part of this action, the
Administrator is proposing to add these
criteria for determining the
completeness of State submittab to 40
CFR Part 51 as Appendix V. In addition.
EPA proposes to modify { 51.103(a) such
that State submissions that do not meet
the criteria are not considered official
plan submissions for purposes of
meeting the requirements of Part 51. In
order to be considered as a complete SIP
submission or an official submission for
Part 51. each plan must meet the criteria
described below and in Appendix V.
The basic criteria are adaptable for use
in parallel processing of State
regulations by EPA.2
EPA is creating this completeness
review process under the authority of
Section 301 of the Clean Air Act. which
authorizes the Administrator to
prescribe such regulations as are
necessary to carry out his functions
under the Act. EPA is interpreting the
terms "plan" in section H0(a)(l) and (2)
and "revision" in Section 110(a)(3) to be
only those plans and revisions that
contain all of the components necessary
to allow EPA to a adequately review
and take action on such plan or revision
under section 110 (and. where
applicable. Part D). EPA believes that
Congress would not have intended to
require EPA to review and take action
on SIP submittals that were simply not
reviewable because they were lacking
important components. Therefore, the
Administrator concludes that Section
110(a) requires him to act only on
complete State submittals.
Completeness Criteria
The criteria for determining whether a
submittal by the State is complete have
been separated into two categories: (a)
Administrative information and (b)
technical support information.
Administrative information includes the
documentation necessary' to
demonstrate that the basic
administrative procedures have been
adhered to by the State during the
adoption process. Technical support
information includes the documentation
that adequately identifies all of the
required technical components of trip
plan submission.
Administrative Information
The administrative information
required by the criteria are those basic
' Parallel processing is * procedure by which EPA
processei. at a prooosai Stale rui«s which nave not
yet Been fuliv aoooteo o> the State in order to
expedite 'J»e imai review process.
-------
2140 Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 12 / Thursday. January 19. 1989 / Proposed Ruies
documents that demonstrate that the
State has properly followed the
administrative requirements called for
by the Clean Air Act for the adoption of
State implementation plans. These
include a letter from the Governor or his
dcsignee requesting that EPA approve
the SIP revision, and evidence that the
revision has been adopted by the State
in final form, either as part of the State
code if the revision is a regulation, or as
appropriate source specific
documentation in the form of a permit,
order, or a consent agreement. The State
also must provide documentation that
the necessary legal authority exists
within the State to adopt and implement
the plan revision, must include the
requisite copies of the actual revision
(regulation, permit, order, etc.), and must
indicate that the revision is enforceable
by the State. Finally, the State must
submit information indicating that the
program administrative procedures have
been followed, including evidence of
public notice and hearings, a
compilation of the public comments, and
the State's response to these comments.
Technical Support
The purpose of the technical support
information is to identify the State's
view of the impact of the revision on the
environment. The components are
intended to demonstrate that the
applicable requirements, such as those
for attainment and maintenance of
ambient standards, increment
consumption, and control technology,
are in conformance with basic statutory
and EPA requirements. In order for EPA
to make a reasonable decision
concerning the adequacy of a proposed
SIP revision, certain information at a
minimum must be included in each
submittal. Therefore, for purposes of
determining the completeness of a SIP
submission the implementation plan
revision must include an adequate
description of the:
|a) Pollutants involved:
jb) Source location and attainment
status of the area:
(c) Emissions chances:
[d) Demonstration that standards/
increments are protected;
Ic) Information used for any modeling
demonstration:
if) Evidence of conimuous emissions
controls:
|g) Evidence of emissions limitations
ana other restrictions necessary to
ensure emission levels:
jh) Compliance strategies: and
(ij Technological and economic
justification for the change where
applicable.
Upon receipt of the pian revision, the
Regional Office will obiectiveiy examine
the revision for inclusion of the
administrative and technical support
information. When the revision is
determined complete, the formal review
of the adequacy of the information and
the approvability of the revision will
proceed In those situations where the
submission does not meet the basic
criteria as discussed above and set forth
in Part 51. Appendix V, the submission
will be returned to the State with a letter
indicating the deficiencies found. In
accordance with the change proposed in
40 CFR 51.103(a), any submission that
does not meet the criteria of Appendix V
will not be considered an official
submission triggering the Act's
requirements for EPA review and action.
The basic requirements are similar for
sequential and parallel processing.
varying only in form dictated by the
method of processing. In order to be
effective, the determination of
completeness should be made
expeditiously. The Regional Office
generally will make a determination of
completeness within 45 days of
receiving a SIP revision, using the
criteria to make an objective decision.
After the decision has been made on
completeness, the Regional Offices will
process the SIP revision if the
submission is complete, or return the SIP
revision to the State if it is incomplete.
A letter will be sent to the State.
informing the State of the completeness
status of the SIP revision. If a SIP
submittal is incomplete, the deficiencies
will be detailed in the letter to the State.
If a SIP submittal is complete, the
Regional Office will include EPA's
expected processing schedule in the
letter to the State.
Administrative Requirements
The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information
considered by EPA in the development
of these SIP processing changes. The
docket is a dynamic file because
material is added throughout the notice
preparation and comment process. The
docketing system is intended to allow
members of the public and industries
involved to identify and locate
documents so that they can effectively
participate in the process. Along with
the statement of basis and purpose of
the SIP processmz changes and EPA
responses to significant comments, the
contents of the docket, except for
interagency review materials, will serve
as the record in case of judicial review
(see Clean Air Act. section 307(d)(7)(A).
42 U.S.C. 7607{d)(7)(A).
Section 317(a) of the Clean Air Act. 42
U.S.C. 7617|a), states that economic
impact assessments are required for
revisions to standards or regulations
when the Administrator determines such
revisions to be substantial. The changes
described today do not change the
substantive requirements for preparing
and submitting an adequate SIP
package. No increase in cost as a result
of complying with the changes described
today is expected; moreover, the
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements have been determined to
be insubstantial. Because the expected
economic effect of the changes is not
substantial, no detailed economic
impact assessment has been prepared.
The information collection
requirements of these changes are
considered to be no different than those
currently required by the Clean Air Act
and EPA procedures. Thus, the public
reporting burden resulting from today's
notice is estimated to be unchanged
from existing requirements. The public
is invited to send comments regarding
the burden estimate or other aspect of
information collection, including
suggestions for reducing any burden, to
the docket and the following: Chief,
Information Policy Branch. PM-223. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street SW.. Washington. DC 20460: and
to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs. Office of
Management and Budget. Washington.
DC 20503. marked "Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA."
Under Executive Order 12291. EPA is
required to judge whether an action is
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a regulatory impact
analysis (R1A). The Agency has
determined that the SIP processing
changes announced today would result
in none of the-significant adverse
economic effects set forth in section ifb)
of the Order as grounds for a finding of
"major." The Agency has. therefore.
concluded that this action is not a
"major" action under Executive Order
12291.
This rule was submitted to OMB for
review consistent with section 307(d) of
the Clean Air Act. A copy of the draft
rule as submitted to OMB. any
documents accompanying the draft, any
written comment received from other
agencies (including OMB), and any
written responses to those comments
have been included in the docket.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980.
5 U.S.C. 601-612. requires the
identification of potentially adverse
impacts of Federal actions upon small
business entities. The Ac* requires the
completion of a regulatory flexibility
analysis for every action unless the
Administrator certifies that the action
will not have a significant economic
impact on a s-bsiannai ncmoer of small
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 12 / Thursday. January 19. 1989 / Proposed Rules 21 tl
entities. For reasons described above. I
hereby certify that the final rule will not
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Djte January 9. 1989.
Lee M. Thomas,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble. 40 CFR Pan 51 is proposed to
be amended as follows:
PART 51-{ AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 51
continues to read as follows:
Authoriby: This rulemaking is promulgated
under authority of Sectioni I0l(b)(1). 110.
160-69. 1T1-178. and 301(aj of the Clean Air
Act. 42 U.S.C 7401(b)(l). 7410. 7420-7429.
7501-7506. and 7601(a).
2. Section 51.103 is proposed to be
amended by revising paragraph (a)
introductory text to read as follows:
§ 51.103 SubmiMion of plans, preliminary
review of plan*.
(a) The State makes an official plan
submission to EPA when the plan
conforms to the requirements of
Appendix V to this pan. and the State
delivers five copies of the plan to the
appropriate Regional office, with a letter
giving notice of such action. The State
must adopt the plan and the Governor or
his designee must submit it to EPA as
follows:
« • • • »
3. Pan 51 is proposed to be amended
by adding Appendix V to read as
follows:
Appendix V— Criteria for Determining
the Completeness of Plan Submissions.
1.0. Purpose
This Appendix V sets forth the minimum
crnena for determining wtietner a State
implementation plan submitted for
consideration by EPA 11 an official
submission for purpose of review under
5 51.103.
1.1. The EPA shall return to the submitting
official any plan or revision thereof which
fails to meet the criteria set forth in this
Appundi* V. or otnerwise request corrective
action, identifying the components! absent
or insufficient to perform a review of the
•submitted plan.
1.2. The EPA shall inform the submitting
official when a plan submission meets the
requirements of tnis Appendix V. such
determination resulting in the plan being an
'•>t~fi..,al submission for purposes of § SI. 103.
The following shall be included in plan
kii'imissions for review by EPA:
2.1. Administrative Materials
'a i A formal letter of submittal from the
Governor or his destsnee, requesting EPA
approval of the plan or revision therpnf
:r.."i'dfter "the plan").
(b) Evidence that the Slate has adopted the
plan in the State code or body of regulations:
or issued the permit, order, consent
agreement (hereafter document) in final form.
That evidence shall include the date of
adoption or final issuance as well at the
effective date of the plan if different from the
adoption/issuance date.
(c) Evidence that the State has the
necessary legal authority under State law to
adopt and implement the plan.
(d) A copy of the actual regulation, or
document submitted for approval and
incorporation by reference into the plan.
including indication of the changes made to
the existing approved plan, where applicable.
The submittal shall be a copy of the official
State regulation/document signed, stamped.
dated by the appropriate State official
indicating that it is fully enforceable by the
State. The effective date of the regulation/
document shall, whenever possible, be
indicated in the document itself.
(e) Evidence that the State followed all of
the procedural requirements of the State's
laws and constitution in conducting and
completing the adoption/issuance of the plan.
(f) Evidence that public notice was given of
the proposed change consistent with
procedures approved by EPA. including the
date of publication of such nonce.
(gj Certification that public heahng(s) were
held in accordance with the information
provided in the public notice and the State's
laws and constitution, if applicable.
fh) Compilation of public comments and
the State's response thereto.
2-2. Technical Support
(a) Identification of all regulated pollutants
affected by the plan.
(b| Identification of the locations of
affected sources including the EPA
•ttainment/nonattaiiunent designation of the
locations and the status of the attainment
plan for the affected areas(s).
(c| Quantification of the changes in plan
allowable emissions from the affected
sources: estimates of changes in current
actual emissions from affected sources or.
where appropriate, quantification of changes
in actual emissions from affected sources
through calculations of the differences
between certain baseline levels and
allowable emissions anticipated as • result of
the revision.
(d) The State's demonstration that the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
prevention of significant detenoration
increments, reasonable further progress
demonstration, and visibility, are protected if
the plan is approved and implemented.
(ej Modeling information required to
support the proposed revision, including input
data, output data, models used, justification
of model selections, ambient monitoring data
used, meteorological data used, justification
for use of offsite date {where used), modes of
models used, assumptions, and other
information relevant to the determination of
adequacy of the modeling analysis.
(f) Evidence, where necessary, that
emission limitations are based on continuous
emission reduction technology.
(g) Evidence that the plan contains
emission limitations, work practice standards
and recordkeepmg/reporting requirements.
where necessary, to ensure emission levels.
fh) Compliance/enforcement strategies
including how compliance will be determine J
in practice.
(i) Special economic and technological
justifications required by any applicable EPA
policies.
2.3. Exceptions
2.3.1. The EPA. for the purposes of
expediting the review of the plan, hds
adopted a procedure referred to as "parallel
processing." Parallel processing allows a
State to submit the plan prior to actual
adoption by the State snd provides an
opportunity for the State to corsider EPA
comments prior to submission of a final pidn
for final review and action. Under these
circumstances the plan submitted will n>M be
able to meet all of the requirements of
paragraph 2.1 (all requirements of paraar :ph
2.2 will apply). As s result, the followi-.:
exceptions apply to plans submitted
explicitly for parallel processing:
(a) The letter required by paragraph ;.i i H )
shall request that EPA propose approval of
the proposed plan by parallel processing
(b) In lieu of paragraph 2.l(b) the State
shall submit s schedule for final adoption or
issuance of the plan,
(c) In lieu of paragraph 2.1(d| the plan shdl
include a copy of the proposed /draft
regulation or document.
(d) The requirement* of paragraphs 2.1 u-l-
2.1(h) shall not apply to plans submitted for
parallel processing.
24.2. The exceptions granted in paragraph
2J.1 shall apply only to EPA's determir.dtion
of proposed action and all requirements of
paragraph 2.1 shall be met pnor to
publication of EPA's final determination of
plan approvability.
(FR Doc. 89-1001 Filed 1-18-89: 6:45 am]
SWJJNO COOCUM-W-W
FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Federal Insurance Administration
44 CFR Part 67
[Docket No. FEMA-4M61
Proposed Rood Elevation
Determinations
AGENCY: Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
ACTION: Prono«ed rule.
SUMMARY: Technical information or
comments are solicited on the proposed
base (100-year) flood elevations and
proposed base liood elevation
modifications listed below for_selec:t;d
locations in the nation. These base (100-
year) flood elevations are the basis for
the floodplam management measures
that the community is required to either
adopt or show evidence of being already
in effect in order to qualify or remain
qualified for participation in the
-------
EPA-450/2-78-027R
Guideline On Air Quality Models
(Revised)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
July 1986
-------
EPA-450/2-78-027R
SUPPLEMENT A
JULY 1987
SUPPLEMENT A
TO THE
GUIDELINE
ON
AIR QUALITY MODELS (REVISED)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office Of Air And Radiation
Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
PN no-8?-oi-Q2-o:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
%-s.v
January 2, 1985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regional Implementation of Modeling Guidance
FROM: Joseph A. Tikvart, Chief
Source Receptor Analysis Branch, MDAD (MD-14)
TO: Regional Modeling Contact, Regions I-X
Attached for your use 1s Information on the Implementation of modeling
guidance. Attachment 1 is an excerpt of a memorandum from J. Wilburn to D. Tyler
[dated November 13, 1984) which Identifies several issues. Attachment 2
provides our response to these Issues.
It is our Intent that the response merely reiterate the way in which we
understand modeling guidance to be routinely implemented by all Regional Offices.
however, having formalized that understanding, we believe that its circulation
is desirable. If you have any questions, please call me.
Attachments
cc: Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions, I-X
B. Turner
y D. Wi1 son
-------
Attachment 1
(Excerpt of Memorandum from J. Wilburn to D. Tyler, Dated November 13, 1984)
As discussed in this memo, we are quite concerned as to our credibility
regarding the development and approval of SIP revisions and bubbles which
consider complicated and involved modeling. While our Armco experience may
be viewed by some as atypical, we feel that the problem is real enough to the
point that we request guidance on the following three .questions:
1. When do changes in EPA modeling procedures become official Agency
policy? Do such forms as informal modeling protocols and consensus
opinions developed at meteorologist meetings and workshops constitute
official Agency policy? If so, how 1s management at the regional
division and branch level Informed of those decisions (i.e., are such
decisions communicated by policy memorandum or must regional manage-
ment be dependent upon regional participants at such meetings and
workshops to accurately convey OAQPS's policy decisions)?
2. How do changes in Agency modeling policy affect in progress modeling
analyses? Do policy changes in modeling procedures Invalidate
modeling protocols which accurately reflected modeling policy at the
initiation of ongoing modeling analyses? If so, we would appreciate
copies of all policy memorandums which communicated such policies.
3. Will it be necessary in order for Annco's bubble application to be
concurred with by OAQPS, for Region IV to require Armco to submit a
fourth revision to their modeling procedures which would provide an
analysis of the 46 days with more than 6 hours of calm which have
thus far been deleted for the submittal pursuant to the original
protocol? If so, we would like an explanation of the rationale for
this requirement in light of our discussion in this memo.
-------
Attachment 2
*
(Excerpt of Memorandum from R. Rhoads to J. Wilburn, Dated December 24, 1984)
Regarding your first question: Changes in EPA modeling procedures
become official Agency guidance when (1) they are published as regulations
or guidelines, (2) they are formally transmitted as guidance to Regional
Office managers, (3) they are formally transmitted to Regional Modeling
Contacts as the result of a Regional consensus on technical issues, or
(4) they are a result of decisions by the Model Clearinghouse that effec-
tively set a national precedent. In the last case, such issues and deci-
sions are routinely forwarded to all of the Regional Modeling Contacts.
In order for this system to work, the Regional Modeling Contacts must be
actively involved in all Regional modeling issues and they must be con-
sulted on modeling guidance as necessary by other Regional personnel.
Regarding your second question: The time at which changes in
modeling guidance affect on-going modeling analyses is a function of the
type of agreement under which those analyses are being conducted. On-going
analyses should normally be "grandfathered" if (1) there is a written pro-
tocol with a legal or regulatory basis (such as the Lovett Power Plant) or
(2) the analysis is complete and regulatory action is imminent or underway.
If the analysis 1s based on a less formal agreement and Is underway, the
Regional Office should inform the source operators of the change and deter-
mine whether the change can be implemented without serious disruption to
the analysis. If for some reason any previous analysis must be redone,
then it should be redone in accordance with current modeling guidance. In
any event, consequences of failing to implement current guidance should be
discussed with the OAQPS staff (Helms/Tikvart) to ensure that inappropriate
commitments are not made by the Regional Office.
Regarding your third question: As previously discussed with your
staff, the recent Armco modeling analysis is technically inadequate and
not approvable so long as the approximately 46 days with calms are
ignored. At the time the original protocol was developed, the deletion
of calms was common practice because we had no consensus on technically
valid procedures for addressing calms. However, (largely due to the
assistance of RO IV staff 1n developing a technical solution to the
calms issue) this practice was discontinued by consensus of the Regional
Modeling Contacts who recommended*immediate implementation of the new
procedures (see Joe Tikvart's June 13, 1983, memo to Regional Modeling
Contacts). The subsequent Armco analysis which ignored calms was, there-
fore, deficient since there is no rationale for "grandfather!ng" an analy-
sis which was Initiated after the new calms guidance was disseminated.
This issue is no longer an issue since Armco has already submitted a
reanalysis that addresses the calms issue.
-------
June 7, 1988
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT Revised Model Clearinghouse Operational Plan
FROM: Joseph A. Tikvart, Chief
Source Receptor Analysis Branch (MD-14)
TO: Chief, Air Branch, Region VII
Chief, Technical Support Branch, Region I
Chief, Air and Radiation Branch, Region V
Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions II, III, IV, VI, VIII, IX, X
On February. 9, 1988 I notified you of the expansion of the Model
Clearinghouse to include all criteria pollutants. That memorandum
explained briefly how the expanded Clearinghouse would operate and
identified individuals in the Technical Support Division and in the Air
Quality Management Division who would be involved in resolving Agency
regulatory modeling issues. The memorandum also promised that we would
be revising the 1981 Operational Plan for the Model Clearinghouse to reflect
the current operation. Attached is a copy of that revised plan.
To highlight major functions of the operational plan which you should
become most familiar with, please note the structure of the Clearinghouse
contained in Section 3, particularly Figure 1. Also you should become
familiar with the procedures for referring modeling issues to the
Clearinghouse, described in Section 4. Appendix B identifies the contacts
in the Regions for various types of modeling problems. Please check over
these lists for accuracy and keep us informed of any changes of these
personnel in your Region.
It should be remembered that the Model Clearinghouse is a service
we provide to the Regional Offices. We do not normally deal directly with
the State/local agencies or with industry since this would compromise our
function as second level reviewers and would interfere with your function.
However we have discussed access by States to Clearinghouse expertise
through the Regional Offices. Where a State wishes such a contact, we
urge your staff to work closely with their State counterparts to establish
a mutally agreed-upon position on the issue-.
Finally, for purposes of responding to questions from States and local
agencies about the Clearinghouse and its operation, we have no problem if
you wish to furnish them with a copy of this plan. For questions from the
public we would prefer that you instead provide them with a copy of Appendix C,
a separate copy of which is attached. This Appendix is a revised version
of a flyer we have distributed for a number of years at the EPA booth at
the annual APCA meeting.
-------
EPA Model Clearinghouse
Summa ry
The Model Clearinghouse is the single EPA focal point for reviewing the use of
modeling techniques for criteria pollutants in specific regulatory applications.
The Clearinghouse also serves to compile and periodically report for Regional
Office benefit Agency decisions concerning deviations from the requirements of the
"Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised)."
Need for the Model Clearinghouse
The Guideline states that when a recommended model or data base is not used,
the Regional Administrator may approve the use of other techniques that are demon-
strated to be more appropriate. However, there is also a need to provide for a
mechanism that promotes fairness and consistency in modeling decisions among the
various Regional Offices and the States. The Model Clearinghouse promotes this
fairness and uniformity and also serves as a focal point for technical review of
"nonguideline" techniques proposed for use/approval by a Regional Administrator.
Functions of the Model Clearinghouse
The major function of the Clearinghouse is to review specific proposed actions
which involve interpretation of modeling guidance, deviations from strict interpre-
tation of such guidance and the use of options in the guidance, e.g., Regional
Office acceptance of nonguideline models and data bases. This is handled in two
ways: (1) the Clearinghouse, on request from the Regional Office, will review the
Region's position on proposed (specific case) use of a nonguideline model for tech-
nical soundness and national consistency, and (2) the Clearinghouse will screen
Federal Register regulatory packages for adherence to modeling policy and make
recommendations for resolution of any issues identified.
A secondary function of the Model Clearinghouse is to communicate to regu-
latory model users in EPA significant decisions involving the interpretation of
modeling guidance. This is accomplished through an annual "Clearinghouse Report"
which itemizes the significant decisions that have been made and the circumstances
involved. This report serves to improve consistency in future decisions and as
a source of technical information for the Regional Offices. In addition to the
annual report the Clearinghouse informs users on a contemporary basis of signi-
ficant decisions through copies of written decisions and briefings at various
meetings and workshops.
Structure of the Clearinghouse
The Clearinghouse is formally located in the Source Receptor Analysis Branch
(SRAB) of OAQPS. However, the Air Quality Management Division (AQMD) also parti-
cipates in Clearinghouse matters involving SIP attainment strategies and other
regulatory functions.
The primary responsibility for managing the Clearinghouse and ensuring that
all of its functions are carried out is performed by a person full-time within
SRAB. The responsibility for responding to requests for review of modeling
issues is assigned, on a pollutant/program basis to three SRAB individuals. In
.addition, AQMD supports the Clearinghouse with staff who are also knowledgeable in
modeling policy. These individuals are responsible for screening SIP submittals
and related documents, referring modeling issues to SRAB through the Clearinghouse
and documenting the final (and any significant interim) decision on disposition of
me issues.
Communication Chain
The Model Clearinghouse functions within the organizational structure of EPA.
As such the Clearinghouse serves the EPA Regional Offices. It coordinates with
and communicates decisions to the Regional Offices. Any coordination with State
and local agencies and individual sources on Clearinghouse activities is a function
of t^e EPA Regional Offices.
CI
-------
REF€PrVCES FOR SECTION 4.3
-------
EPA-450/2-78-027R
Guideline On Air Quality Models
(Revised)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 2771'
July 1986
-------
32176 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 174 / Tuesday. September 9. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Pert* 51 and 52
I AH-m-3011-e, Docket No. A-M-M)
Requirements for Preparation,
Adoption, and Submtttal of
Implementation Plana
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: On December 7.1984 (49 FR
48018] EPA proposed to amend 40 CFR
51.24 and 52^1 to substitute by
reference the "Guideline on Air Quality
Models (Revised)," EPA 450/2-78-027R
for the April 1978 version. The guideline
lists the air quality models and data
bases required to assess impact and to
estimate ambient concentrations due to
certain sources of air pollutants. Today's
action establishes those revisions and
incorporates changes as a result of
public comment
emcnvt DATE October 9,1986. The
incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in the regulations is
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register as of October 30.1986.
99* KMRHKft INFORMATION CONTACT.
Joseph A. Tikvart Chief. Source
Receptor Analysis Branch, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, \J&
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
27711; telephone (919) 541-6561 or Jawad
S. Touma. telephone (919) 541-8681.
ADOMMCS: All documents relevant to
development of this rule have been
placed in Docket A-80-46, located in the
Central Docket Section (LE-131), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street SW- Washington. DC 20480. The
docket is available for public inspection
and copying between 8.-00 a-m. and 4:00
PJJU Monday through Friday, at the
address above. A reasonable fee may be
charged for copying.
The "Guideline on Air Quality Models
(Revised)" (1986). Publication No. EPA
450/2-78-027R is for sale from the US.
Department of Commerce, National
Technical Information Service, 5825 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia. 22101.
This document is also available for -
public inspection at the libraries of each
of the ten EPA Regional Offices and at
the EPA library at 401 M Street SW.,
Washington. DC 20*60.
ftUmJEKKMTAHY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 165(e)(3)(D) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) requires the Administrator to
adopt regulations specifying with
reasonable particularity each model or
models to be used to comply with the
Act's prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) requirements. To
carry out these requirements, the
Guideline on Air Quality Models was
incorporated by reference in regulations
promulgated for PSD [40 CFR 51.24].
Because of its incorporation, revisions to
the guideline must satisfy the
rulemaking requirements of section
307(d)oftheAct
In March 1980. EPA issued a notice
soliciting air quality models developed
outside the Agency for potential
inclusion in the planned revisions to the
Guideline on Air Quality Models [45 FR
20157], EPA received nearly 30 air
quality models from private model
developers. These were reviewed for
technical feasibility and for utility to
potential users. In addition to a review
by EPA for technical merit
documentation, validation, and coding,
the submitted models are also subjected
to public review and comment
On December 7,1984 (49 FR 48018],
EPA proposed amendments to its
regulations concerning air quality
models and announced that it would
hold a public hearing on these proposed
amendments and on the revised
guideline.
EPA also invited the public tat
participate and provide advice and
comment on the piopueed revisions to
the Guideline on Air Quality Models. On
December 20,1984 [49 FR 49484). EPA
announced the Third Conference on Air
Quality Modeling to provide a forum for
public review, A transcript of aH oral
comments received at the conference, as
well as a record of all written
comments, is maintained in Docket A-
80-40. The written comment period was
extended to April 1.1985, and the
rebuttal comment period was held open
until April 30,1985.
Specific comments received can be
found in Docket A-60-48, in items IV-O
and FV-H. All comments were
consolidated according to the issues
raised and are discussed, along with full
EPA responses in the "Summary of
Comments and Responses on the
December 1984 Proposed Revisions to
the Guideline on Air Quality Models.
January 1986.- (Docket Item IV-G-26).
Certain comments raised significant
issues that are fundamental to the
development of this guideline. These
issues an summarized below, along
with EPA responses.
A. Consistency and Accuracy
A number of commenters urged that
use of the most accurate models should
be promoted and that the need for
consistency was overstated. They noted
that: (1) The regulatory program should
not require use of a single model, (2) use
of a single model was based on an
arbitrary selection process, and (3) this
selection made the Agency inflexible in
allowing; use of nonguidelme models.
EPA's position reflects Congressional
concerns that permitting different
requirements in different parts of the
country could lead to the inequitable
location of some industries. Section
185(e)(3)(D) of the CAA specifically
requires that EPA ". . . shall specify
with reasonable particularity each air
quality model or models to be used
under specified sets of conditions. . ."
Also, section 301(a)(2)(A) of the CAA
requires EPA "to assure fairness and
uniformity in the criteria, procedures,
and policies applied by the various
regions in implementing and enforcing
the Act" EPA uses the term
"consistency" to mean that the same
model is used in determining emission
limitations for similar sources of air
pollution. The result is a uniform
approach to modeling-based decisions.
Such consistency is not however.
promoted at the expense of model and
data base accuracy. In selecting the
models Usted in Appendix A of the
revised guideline^ EPA conducted
several evaluations of model
performance using air quality monitoring
data, and peer scientific reviews of
^/yfi^ifpa techniques. The findings lead
to a conclusion that the models Usted in
Appendix A are at least as accurate as,
if not better than, other available
models, that these preferred models are
statistically unbiased, and that they are
f«m |0 the modeling community.
Every effort has been made to ensure
within the revised guideline that the
realism, flexibility, accuracy and best
technical judgments, sought by both
regulatory agencies and the regulated
community, can be provided. Suitable
nhaniims have been provided to
assure such accuracy, and flexibility,
and to allow the use of alternate or new
models.
B, Use of Non-Guideline Models in
Particular Anas (The Texas Models)
Many commenters urged EPA to make
provisions in the guideline for use of
new models, for improvements to
existing models, and for models that are
otherwise more appropriate in specific
cases. In particular, the Texas Models
were cited as meeting EPA's criteria for
selection and being more economical to
run. Concern was also expressed that
failure to include these as preferred
models would have an advene effect on
-------
Federal JLeyrtar / Vol. 51. No. 174 / Toeaday. September 9. 198ft / Rules and Regulations 32177
the consistency of PSD pemMaug
analyses in Texas when these
an currently used.
EPA has made provision in CFR 51.24
and SZa and the gsaelaBBai taraahsg
alternative and i»pn)»a»1 •ealik. Ihe
final ndea provide that aamHfifiatlaa er
substitution of en approved model easy
occur on either a case-by-case basis or
on a generic basis within a state's
regulatory piogi an. However, EPA wifl
only give generic approval when a stale
demonstrates that generic in aye ia
appropriate under defined
circumstances. For example, a state may
be able to show that a model is
appropriate tor the entire state or aaeie
portioa thereof baaed on geographic aad
meteorological characteristics. EPA
encourages oW eee ef aheee provisions
and does not intend to piece ea eaaee
burden on states that use alternative
models, or to detey iraeUraentettaa af
scientific sri yearns taai are appeapeiaee
for regulatory use. EPA has discussed
these issues with tapmseatativat af tear
Texas Air Coated Baaed and baa
indicated that it aaay be awaaiUe fat
them to detnoBBCPat
TCM fpraiiMy with eoas
and clarification in tat BM
modds BM applied) asay
for gaaieric mse ia tbair
anticipates that tease caooaiswtii be
teatesl by the State of Texas
protocol developed by tbam
to by EPA. U the davonsfeaaam
requirements ace saMsfiai, EPA will
announce for pablceeaaaat snsha
Federal Bagister its intentiae, to apprev*
these awdels for ganeriruaa by Texas.
For a limited ir^rrim rf**ri. re be }atojbj
agreed to by Texas aad EPA, the Tavaa
Models may ritntiniT to be aaad these
because of kng prior use baaed ca
approval under the previous veaainaaf
the guideline.
C. Urban Airshed Mode/
D. BjorkJv
EPA's proposed use offlu
was opposed by numerous commenters.
Many of these commaoten objected to
the Bforkhnd and Do wen atgoriflnn on
the gruuuuB that ttTras semi-empirical
and that it waa insufficiently tested by
EPA.
EPA it withdrawing its propoeel U
use the Bjorkhsad aad Bawen steck-tip
downwasfa algorithm pendtoej futber
evaJusdasBL BB tbe inarisa. EPA
for those cases whaa the eee af eteck-tip
dowawask ia >ppreariatei.
£. Dcfinxooit tiycnutttoti ABfea*
Many commenters said wt overestimates alt *y«^*y
impact Alternatives such ae using
actual emissions, highest historical ^4,
three yean), or system-vide BndtaHons
on load (for power plants) wea
suggested.
dUEZi vO eraOpt pBJBBHBOB asaflnRQBBB
anelt *
attaii
na1
stetionary sooros
Stetelmplementeti
ei
the ^<""eyf •! rv^jfrf ** ***• -*^* *»«i««*n«
limit mnA {g Beady eawcea thaLbavea
j"int trnpift Thir tmiariim rttr fhr
"
Several
justification for
Airshed Model as the
lor
tora raqsitnlsd
lectifliaf the Ucbea
urban area*.
The Urban Airshed Moeal » Ihe aver
widely applied aad evaiaated
photocbeaical disaeosioa model as
existence. EPA believes tae sialialiiai
naantsant
revised
justification for tae sdsrtinaaftbe
Urban Airshed Model as fee prfseitaj
model for the specified applications.
dffl**^ m fiwgnidaBne.
whJd> genoraOy coBtributo onbr to the .
background has been modffied to
indicate actual mitead of the mextennn,
rate to reflect real production or jQaiag
rate and hours of operations.
F. Length of Record
with the reqvrement for using fire yean
of nBeteoresogicai data frBB Beexvy
Na«oaal Weefter Service (NWQ
stetiens.
The OeeaAfa- Act requites CT^te-
assure that the standards wifi be
attained and maintained. The length of
record must be sufficient to tacrad* tbe
climatetoajcal vanabiaty «eaaed to
determine eoiesioa iiiseliHnns ased to
meet the standards. EPA has pcevioaibj
presented Its analysis on the length «f
record m to 1»M Sumnary of
ComiDenta and Responses oocvsjes tu^1
G-6). Results from recent EPA reseat eh
support the position that five yean of
meteoroloaseel •eta ts apefupUate
nB^MV^Me^Kl *^aWIVBv0ft ^BB AOt pf9i
fseaaa) hJuiiaiauu wbfcfc wmM lead
EPH. to extaTTteyjeeMssL . -
G.U*efCtn mtt Uitttmal^ie^Data
if one year of quality assured aasitt
date is available, the guideline should
require its use and eBntute the
source's option of using the most
beneficial result of either on-site or
NWS data,
EPA agrees with these suggestions
and t»fjanmfnAf that if quality assured
on-sfte data an available, they are
preferable to NWS date and should be
used.
Commenters stated that EPA should
incoipQEste asodel uncertainty when
setting *«n*«f*'"'ti limflaflons based on
estimates: "g*"^"**"" *y>"f Other iacton
such as the uncertainty IB f"'»«
meteorological date *ir*"** «t"mi
aleo
be considered. No viable
rBtOniaPsMKa»t*aailaaal Oft laOUf 2ft
this cosBBfU tveee givea.
EPA has sponsored research on
improving mesaaat to aasees bew
mil isi Isliilj m>gbi bs asasl m ssl
•aitiM)
guideline et this time: such a mathod
willhai "
futut»sl
L Additional Model*
Many commenters recommended mat
tho getdsiliH sacasis ti
tbe Ro^fbTOTSBi Dsfeetua Modal
aad *e CMMsew and Ceastal Disperewa
MedetfOCO).
EPA eygee wtia these
application of these Bodefe BM the
potential to change eniseioa toBJtatj
set far sum ous BMBgcernat models.
EPA. *je>efefB. ia prepefng s
supplemeejtal uettce of prvposeo
rulemaldBj thet seeks pvbBc comment
p
on incraaiee) af mwe three ne
deb
/. Other Comment*
Then was et Isial sea comment on
every section of die proposed revision*.
Many comments hxve been incorporated
in «• revised gntdaace. EPA has
complied with Ihe request of model
developers to withdraw their models
from Appendix B of the guideline The
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 174 / Tuesday. September 9. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
___s«K»CPACT (SklawwL
MB8OBLUMB, and RTDM [venion 34»).
tone* not specifically addressed in the
goideJiBB. tuch M those associated with
new methods or technique* will be
investigated and future guidance issued,
subject to public comment as necessary.
K. Other Issues
Although the December 7 proposal
solicited, in particular, advice and
comment on eight issues, several of
these topics received little or no
comment Both EPA and the commenters
found it easier to include these
comments under appropriate sections in
the guideline instead of listing these
issues separately. Responses to public
comments on the eight issues are
contained in the Summary of Comments
and Responses document (IV-G-28) as
follows:
(1) Specific changes to 40 CFR Parts 51
and 52 (no comment received);
(2) Revised format of the guideline
(Chapters 1 and 3);
(3] Recommendations for ozone
models (Chapter 6);
(4) Proposed changes to preferred
models (Chapters 4. 5, and Appendices
AandBH
(5) Improving performance
evaluations (Chapters 3 and 10);
(6) Modeling uncertainty (Chapter 10)»
(7) Degree to which State or local
regulatory agencies can have authority
to use nonguideone models (Chapters 1
and 3fc and
(8) Degree of oversight or approval
authority retained by EPA (Chapters 1
and 3).
EO. 12291
Under Executive Order 12291. EPA
must judge whether a rule is "maior"
and therefore subject to the requirement
of a Regulatory Impact Analysis. The
Administrator finds this rule not major
because it will not have an annual effect
on the economy of $100 million or more;
it will not result in a major increase in
costs or prices; and there will be no
significant adverse effects on
competition, employment investment.
productivity, innovation or on the ability
of U.S.-based enterprises to compete
with foreign-based enterprises in
domestic or export markets. This
regulation will result in no significant
environmental or energy impacts. Thus,
no Regulatory Impact Analysis was
conducted.
Reguiatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C
6051 a),! hereby certify that the attached
rule will not have a significant impact
on 2 substantial number of small
entities. This rule merely update*
existing technical requirements for air
quality modeling analyses required by ~~
other Clean Air Act programs
(prevention of significant deterioration.
new source review, SlP-revisions) and
imposes no new regulatory burdens.
Economic Impact Assessment
The requirement for performing an
economic impact assessment in section
317 of the Act 42 U.S.C 7617. does not
apply to this action since the revisions
included do not constitute a substantial
change in the regulatory burden imposed
by the regulation. However, since the
guidance includes more sophisticated
models, and addresses the use of site-
specific data (required under a different
section of the PSD regulations), an
analysis of the relative costs of using
some of the 1978 models and data bases
versus the models and data bases
specified In '.'•* 1980 updated guidance
was prepare This report "Cost
Analysis of Proposed Changes to the Air
Quality Modeling Guideline" is
available for inspection in Docket A-60-
48 at the Central Docket Section whose
address is given above; or from the
National Technical Information Service
as NT1S No. PB 83-112177.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain any
information collection requirements
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
U.S.C 3501 et seq. EPA has submitted
this regulation to OMB for review under
Executive Order 12291 and their written
comments on the revisions and any EPA
responses have been placed in the
docket for this proceeding.
List of Subjects
40CFRPartSl
Administrative practice and
procedure. Air pollution control
Intergovernmental relations. Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements. Ozone.
Sulfur oxides. Nitrogen dioxide. Lead.
Participate matter. Hydrocarbons,
Carbon monoxide.
40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control. Ozone. Sulfur
oxides. Nitrogen dioxide. Lead.
This notice of final rulemaking is
issued under the authority granted by
sections 185(e) and 320 of the Clean Air
Act 42 U.S.C. 7475(e). 7620.
Dated: August 18, 1800.
Lee M-Thssasa.
Administrator
PART 51-ftEOUIRCIIENTS FOR
PREPARATION ADOPTION AND
SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION
PLANS
Part 51. Chapter L Title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations, is amended as
follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 51
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C 7475(e). 7620.
2. Section 51.24 is amended by
revising paragraph (1) to read as follows:
C •« tt^
9 9 1«24
deterioration
(1) Air quality models. The plan shall
provide for procedures which specify
that—
(1) All estimates of ambient
concentrations required under this
paragraph shaH be based on the
applicable air quality models, data
base*, and other requirements specified
in the "Guideline- «ff Air Quality Models
(Revised?* tlMBffcllJkJi i* incorporated
by reference. Iris BPA»Publication No.
450/2-78-02711 and f* for sale from the
U.S. Department of Commerce. National
Technical Information Service, 5825 Per*
Royal Road. Springfield, Virginia. 2216'..
It is also available for inspection at the
Office of the Federal Register. Room
8301.1100 L Street NW., Washington.
DC This incorporation by reference was
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on October 9.1980. These
materials are incorporated as they exist
on the date of approval and a notice of
any change will be published in the
Federal Register.
(2) Where an air quality impact model
specified in the "Guideline on Air
Quality Models (Revised)" (1986) is
inappropriate, the model may be
modified or another model substituted.
Such a modification or substitution of a
model may be made on a case-by-case
basis or, where appropriate, on a generic
basis for a specific state program.
Written approval of the Administrator
must be obtained for any modification
or substitution. In addition, use of a
modified or substituted model must be
subject to notice and opportunity for
public comment under procedures
developed in accordance with
paragraph (q) of this section.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 174 / Tuesday. September 9. 1986 / RUJM and Regulation! 32179
PART 52-APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN* -•.
Part 52. Chapter I of TRte 40 of tht
Code of Federal Regulation*, if
amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 52
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C 74751 e). 7620.
2. Section 52.21 is amended by
revising paragraph (1) to read as follows:
§ 5121 Prevention of aionificent
deterioration of air quality.
• * e • •
(1) Air quality models. (1) All
estimates of ambient concentrations
required under this paragraph shall be
based on the applicable air quality
models, data bases; awr<
requirement* specified in the "Guideltatt
on Air Quality Models (Revissdr PWf
which is incorporated by reference, ittt
EPA publication No. 4»^7»-OZ7R an*
is for sale from the U.S. Department of
Commerce. National Technical
Information Service. 5825 Port Royal
Road. Springfield. Virginia. 22181 It is
also available for inspection at the
Office of the Federal Register. Room
8301.1100 L Street NW. Washington.
DC This incorporation by reference was
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on October 9,1986. These
materials are incorporated as they exist
on the date of approval and a notice of
any change will be published in the
Federal Register.
(2) Where an air quality impact model
Qoatoy Models (Revissdr (198Ht»
inappropriate, *e model may be
modified t» aaomwmebei sne*tiftited
Such a modification or substitution of s
model mar Be made on a case-by-case
basis or. when appropriate, on a generic
basis for a specific state program.
Written approval of the Administrator
must be obtained for any modification
or substitution. In addition, use of a
modified or substituted model must be
subject to notice and opportunity for
public comment under procedures
developed in accordance with
paragraph (q) of this section.
[FR Doc 86-19488 Filed 9-8-88: &4S
-------
Part 51
PART SI—REQUIREMENTS FOR PREP-
ARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUft-
MOTAl OP IMP1EMENTATION
PLANS
Sec.
Bt 40 Scope.
AQMA ANAI TSI*
•1 41 AQUA analysis: SubmltUI date.
61.43 AQMA analysis: Analysis period.
61.43 AQMA analyst* Guideline*
61 44 AQMA analyst*: Projection ol emls
•Ion*.
61.46 AQMA analysis: Allocation or emls
•lona.
61.46 AQMA analysis: Projection of air
quality concentration*
61.47 AQMA analysU: Description or data
aourcea.
6 1 41 AQMA analysis: DaU bane*
81 40 AQMA analyiU: Technique* deacrlp
lion.
61.60 AQMA analyiU: Accuracy factor*.
61 61 AQMA analysU: SubmltUI of calcula
tlon*.
AQMA PLAN
61 63 AQMA plan: deneral.
61 63 AQMA plan: Demoiutratlon of ade-
quacy. ,
MM AQMA plan: Strategic*.
61.68 AQMA plan: Legal authority.
61 M AQMA plan: Future strategies.
61 67 AQMA plan: Future legal authority.
61 M AQMA plan: Intergovernmental co-
operation.
61 6( IReaerved)
61 »0 AQMA plan: Resource*
6141 AQMA plan: SubmltUI format.
61 63 AQMA analy*!* and plan: DaU avail-
ability.
61 63 AQMA analyst* and plan: Alternative
piocvdure*.
tummmwt I— (••••rv«4|
SI 100 Definition*.
61 101 Stipulations.
61 102 Public hearing*.
bl 103 BubmlMlon of plans: piellmlnary
review of plan*.
»1 104 Revisions
61106 Approval of plan*.
40 CFR Ch. I (7-14* Edition)
i»bp«r« a—i
61.110 AtUlnment and maintenance of na-
tional itandard*.
61.111 Deocrlptlon of control meaaure*.
61.111 Demonstration of adequacy.
61 113 Time period for demoiutratlon of
adequacy.
6 1 1 1 4 Emission* daU and projection*.
61.1 16 Air quality daU and projection*.
61116 Data availability.
61.117 Additional provision* for lead.
61 111 Stack height provision*.
6 1 . 1 1 0 Intermittent control system*.
Impart H— PravwitUn •» Ah »•*»»••
61.160 Claulflcatlon of region* for episode
plan*.
61.161 Significant harm level*.
81.161 Contingency plan*.
61.163 Reevaluatlon of eptaode plan*.
81.1WI Legally enforceable procedure*.
61.161 Public availability of Information.
81.162 Identification of responsible
agency.
61.163 Administration procedure*.
61.164 Stack height procedures.
61.166 Permit requirements
61.164 Prevention of significant deterio-
ration of air quality.
insjsiart J—AniblsM Ah Qmmtlf l»rvs»1«iic«
81.100 Ambient air quality monitoring re
qulrements
61.110 General.
61.111 Emission report* and recordkeeplng.
61.211 Testing. Inspection, enforcement.
and complalnU.
61111 Transportation control measure*.
61.114 Continuous emission monitoring.
tvmmmt l—4*mmi A»«fc«tHy
81.130 Requirements for all plans
61 .231 Identification of legal authority.
61.231 Assignment of legal authority to
local agencle*.
M
AGENCY DniONATION
81240 General plan requirements.
81.241 Nonattalnment areas for carbon
monoxide and ozone.
51.241 (Reserved)
712
Envlronmontal Protection Agency
§ 51.40
CONTINUING CONSULTATION PROCESS
51.243 Consultation process objectives.
81.244 Plan elements affected
81.245 Organizations and officials to be
consulted.
61.246 Timing.
61.247 Hearing* on consultation process
violations.
RELATIONSHIP or PLAN TO Onus PLANNING
AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM*
81.248 Coordination with other programs.
81.24* (Reserved!
61.250 TransmlUal of Information.
61.281 Conformity with Executive Order
12373.
61.262 Summary of plan development par-
ticipation.
61.160 Legally enforceable compliance
schedule*.
61.261 Final compliance schedule*
61.262 Extension beyond one year.
61260 Resource*
11.281 Cople* ol rule* and regulations.
61.268 Public notification.
t+mmt P—totocttwi ml VMWHty
61.300 Purpose and applicability.
81.301 Definition*.
91.301 ImplemenUtlon control strategic*.
81.103 Exemption* from control.
61.104 Identification of Integral vistas.
81.306 Monitoring.
81.304 bong term strategy.
61.307 New source review.
An QUALITY DATA RKTOBTINO ,
81.310 Annual air quality daU report.
Bounce EMIIIION* AND STATE ACTION
RCTOBTIHO
61.121 Annual source emission* and Slate
action report.
61.333 Source* subject to emissions report-
ing.
61.333 Reportable emissions daU and In-
formation.
81.324 Progres* In plan enforcement
81.325 Contingency plan action*.
61.326 Reportable revisions.
61.327 Enforcement order* and other Slate
action*.
61.328 (Reserved)
lufcpatrt ft—f nt«ml*A*
61.340 Request for 2 year extension.
61.341 Request for 18-month extension.
AFPENDICES A—K -|RE*C«VCD|
APPENDIX L- EXAMPLE REGULATIONS POR
PREVENTION or AIR POLLUTION EMERREN
cv EPISODES
APPENDIX M- (RESERVED)
APPENDIX H—EMISSION* REDUCTIONS
ACHIEVABLE THROUGH INSPECTION. MAIN
TENANCE AND RETROFIT Or LIGHT DUTT
VEHICLES
APPENDIX O {RESERVED!
ArrcHDix P— MINIMUM EMISSION MONITOR
ING REQUIREMENT*
APPENDICES Q—R—(RESERVED)
APPENDIX 8—EMISSION Orpsrr INTBRPRETA
TIVE RULING
APPENDIX T—(RESERVED)
APPENDIX U—CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 174
GUIDELINES
AUTHORITY: This rulemaklng I* promul-
gated under authority of section* lOI(bHI).
110. 140-16*. Ill 118. and 30Ua) of the
Clean Air Act 42 U.8.C. 740KbKI). 7410.
7470-7479. 7601-7608. and 76OI(a>.
Sooacc 34 PR 23304. Nov. 25. 1071. unlesn
otherwise noted.
EDITORIAL NOTE: Nomenclature change*
affecting Part 81 appear at 44 PR (337. Feb.
8. 1610 and 51 FR 40461. Nov. 7. 1086.
Subportt A-C—IRogorvod]
Svbpart D—Mabitonanco of National
Standards
SOURCE: 41 FR 18388. May 3. 1076. unless
otherwise noted.
151.4* Scope.
<•) XppficaOilifV The requirements
of this subpart apply to air quality
maintenance areas (AQMAa) Identi-
fied under I 51.IKKI) and to any areas
Identified under I SI.110U).
(b) AQMA Analyii*. Under this sub-
part, procedures are given for the
analysis of the air quality Impact of
specified pollutant emissions from ex-
isting sources and emissions associated
with projected growth and develop-
ment In areas Identified under para-
graphs (I) and (I) of 151.110. This
analysis Is referred to In this subpart
as an AQMA analysis.
AQUA Plan. Under this subpart,
the Administrator will require a revi-
sion to the State Implementation plan
for areas Identified under I 51.1)0(1) or
I 51.110(1) when necessary to prevent a
national ambient air quality standard
713
-------
§51.111
lematlve control strategies, aa well as
the costs and benefits of each such al
tentative for attainment or mainte-
nance of the national standard.
(h> The plan shall Identify those
areas (counties, urbanized arras.
standard metropolitan statistical
areas, et cetera) which, due to current
air quality and/or projected growth
rate, may have the potential for ex-
ceeding any national standard within
the subsequent 10-year period.
<1> For each such area Identified.
the plan shall generally describe the
Intended method and timing for pro-
ducing the analysis and plan required
by paragraph
of I his section, and make them avail-
able for public Inspection and submit
them to the Administrator at his re
((111 Sl
(4> The State shall notify the Ad
ininlstrator If an area is undergoing an
40 CFR Ch. I (7 I-M fdlllon)
amount of development such that It
presents the potential for a violation
of national standards within a period
of 20 years.
(I) Whenever the Administrator calls
for a plan revision he may, without
publishing the area In Part 62 of this
chapter, require the revision be devel-
oped In accordance with the proce-
dures of Subpart D.
(SI FR 40661 Nov. 1. 1186 u amended at 51
FK 40665. Nov. 7. 1*861
051.111 Description of control meuurei.
Each plan must set forth a control
strategy which Includes the following:
(a) A description of each control
measure that Is Incorporated Into the
plan, and a schedule for Its Implemen-
tation.
(b) Copies of the enforceable laws
and regulations to Implement the
measures adopted In the plan.
A description of the administra-
tive procedures to be used In Imple-
menting each control measure.
(d) A description of enforcement
methods Including, but not limited to:
(1) Procedures for monitoring com-
pliance with each of the selected con-
trol measures.
(2) Procedures for handling viola-
tions, and
(3) A designation of agency responsi-
bility for enforcement of Implementa-
tion.
151.112 Demonstration of adequacy.
(a) Bach plan must demonstrate
that the measures, rules, and regula-
tions Qontalned In It are adequate to
provide for the timely attainment and
maintenance of the national standard
that It Implements. The adequacy of a
control strategy shall be demonstrated
by means of a proporatlonal model or
dispersion model or other procedure
which Is shown to be adequate and ap-
propriate for such purposes.
(b) The demonstration must Include
the following:
<1>A summary of the computations,
assumptions, and Judgments used to
determine the degree of reduction of
emissions (or reductions In the growth
of emissions) that will result from the
Implementation of the control strate
KV
fnvlfonmmttel frotectton Ag«ncy
(2) A presentation of emission levels
expected to result from Implementa-
tion of each measure of the control
strategy.
(3) A presentation of the air quality
levels expected to result from Imple-
mentation of the overall control strat-
egy presented either In tabular form
or aa an Isopleth map showing expect-
ed maximum pollutant concentrations.
(4) A description of the dispersion
models used to project air quality and
to evaluate control strategies.
(5) For Interstate regions, the analy-
sis from each constituent State must.
where practicable, be baaed upon the
aame regional emission Inventory and
air quality baseline. '
951.11*
t f I.III TtaM period for deiMnttratlon of
adequacy.
(a) The demonstration of the ade-
quacy of the control strategy to attain
a primary standard required under
I 61.111 must cover the following peri-
ods:
(1) At leaat three yean from the
date by which the Administrator must
approve or disapprove the plan. If no
extension under Subpart R U granted.
or
(2) At leaat five years from the date
by which the Administrator must ap-
prove or disapprove the plan. If an ex-
tension under Subpart R Is (ranted.
(b) The demonstration of adequacy
to attain a secondary standard re-
quired under 151.112 must cover the
period of time determined to be rea-
sonable under |S1.110(c) for attain-
ment of such secondary standard.
I il.l 14 Emlwlom data and projection!.
(a) Except for lead, each plan must
contain a detailed Inventory of emis-
sions from point and area sources.
Lead requirements are specified In
I 61.117. The Inventory must be based
upon measured emissions or. where
measured emissions are not available,
documented emission factors.
(b) Bach plan must contain a sum-
mary of emission levels projected to
result from application of the new
control strategy.
(c> Each plan must Identify the
sources of the data used In the projec-
tion of emissions.
161.1 It Air ajuallly data and projection..
(a) Each plan must contain a sum-
mary of data shaping existing air
quality.
(b) Each plan must:
(I) Contain a summary of air quality
concentrations expected to result from
application of the control strategy.
and
(2) Identify and describe the disper-
sion model, other air quality model, or
receptor model used.
(c) Actual measurements of air qual-
ity must be used where available If
made by methods specified In Appen-
dix C to Part 58 of this chapter. Esti-
mated air quality using appropriate
modeling techniques may be used to
supplement measurements.
(d) For purposes of developing a con-
trol strategy, background concentra-
tion shall be taken Into consideration
with respect to partlculate nutter. As
used In this subpart. background con-
centration Is that portion of the meas-
ured ambient levels that cannot be re-
duced by controlling emissions from
man-made sources.
(e) In developing an ozone control
strategy for a particular area, back-
ground ozone concentrations and
ozone transported Into an sure* must
be considered. States may assume that
the ozone standard will be attained In
upwind areas.
726
I (I.I I* Data availability.
(a) The State must retain all de-
tailed data and calculations used In
the preparation of each plan or each
plan revision, and make them avail-
able for public Inspection and submit
them to the Administrator at his re-
quest.
(b) The detailed data and calcula-
tions used In the preparation of plan
revisions are not considered a part of
the plan.
(c) Each plan must provide for
public availability of emission data re-
ported by source owners or operators
or otherwise obtained by a State or
local agency. Such emission data must
be correlated with applicable emission
limitations or other measures. As used
In this paragraph, "correlated" means
presented In such a manner as to show
the relationship between measured or
727
-------
EPA-450/4-84-023
Interim Procedures for Evaluating Air
Quality Models (Revised)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
September 1984
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/4.-85-006
July 1985
Air
Interim Procedures
For Evaluating Air
Quality Models:
Experience with
Implementation
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4.4
-------
EPA-450/2-78-027R
Guideline On Air Quality Models
(Revised)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
July 1986
-------
v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/4-87-013
June 1987
Air
On-Site Meteorological
Program Guidance for
Regulatory Modeling
Applications
EMVIRO;-: •=
AU6 ur>
LIBRARY
-------
"EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Ageocy
Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-600 A-82-06C
Fet> 1983
Research and Development
Quality Assurance
Handbook for Air Pollution
Measurement Systems:
Volume IV. Meteorological
Measurements
-------
United States Environmental Monitoring Systems
Environmental Protection Laboratory
Agency Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Research and Development EPA-600/4-82-060 Feb. 1983
v>EPA Quality Assurance
Handbook for Air Pollution
Measurement Systems:
Volume IV. Meteorological
Measurements
Peter L Finkelstein, Daniel A. Mazzarella, Thomas J. Lockhart,
William J. King, and Joseph H. White
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4.5
-------
EPA-450/2-78-027R
Guideline On Air Quality Models
(Revised)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
July 1986
-------
J»'
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
1 6 MAR 1S8S
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO;
Use of Allowable Emissions for National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) Impact Analyses Under the
evention of Significant
Detc
Technic
risiph (MD-15)
'.o/^*-
Support Division (MD-14)
Thomas J. Maslany, Director
Air Management Division, Region III
William B. Hathaway, Director
Air, Pesticides, & Toxics Div., Region VI
This memorandum is in response to recent requests from your
offices for clarification of the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) policy concerning the implementation of the PSD
air quality impact analysis under 40 CFR 51..I66(k) [also
§52.21(k)]. Of specific concern is the question of whether the
required analysis for new major sources and major modifications
is to be based on actual or allowable emissions from existing
background sources. This memorandum sets forth the position that
allowable emissions should generally be used. However, as
explained below, certain allowances may be made, primarily with
respect to the evaluation of impacts on the long term NAAQS, to
consider an existing source's actual annual operations. This
position best resolves the inconsistencies between previous
written guidance for PSD and the guidance applicable to NAAQS
attainment demonstrations for State implementation plans (SIP's).
The PSD regulations at 40 CFR 51.166(k) stipulate that
"allowable emission increases from the proposed source or
modification, in conjunction with all other applicable emissions
increases... would not cause or contribute to air pollution in
violation of [any national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS)]." (Emphasis added.) While this provision clearly
requires the use of allowable emissions for the new or modified
source, it offers no similarly explicit requirement regarding
emissions to be used for existing source contributions.
-------
Nationally, States and EPA Regional Offices have utilized
several interpretations which have lead to a consistency problem
in implementing the requirement for a NAAQS demonstration under
40 CFR 51.166(k). Some States presently accept the use of actual
source emissions for existing background point sources, and
reference EPA guidance to support their position. Regions, on
the other hand, encourage the use of emissions estimates more
closely reflecting legally allowable emissions.
Available EPA guidance for PSD, which dates back to 1980,
supports the use of actual emissions to project the air quality
impacts caused by existing point sources. Specifically, the
"Prevention of Significant Deterioration Workshop Manual" (EPA-
450/2-80-081, October 1980) states that "actual emissions should
be used... to reflect the impact that would be detected by
ambient air monitors" for the PSD NAAQS analysis. However,
because many sources typic^.ly emit at rates well below their
legally allowable emission rate on an annual basis, we now
believe that the use of actual emissions to demonstrate NAAQS
attainment could substantially underestimate the potential air
quality impacts resulting from existing sources.
The EPA's policy for demonstrating stationary point source
compliance with the NAAQS for SIP purposes clearly requires the
use of emissions which are more closely tied to allowable
emissions. The model emission input data requirements for such
SIP demonstrations are contained in Table 9-1 of the "Guideline
for Air Quality Models (Revised)" (GAQM), EPA-450/2-78-02R, July
1986. For "nearby background sources" an adjustment to the
allowable emission rate-1 may be made only for determinations of
compliance with the annual and quarterly NAAQS, and only with
respect to the annual operating factor. For "other background
sources" an adjustment to both the operating level and the
operating factor, as explained in Table 9-1, could be made for
determinations of compliance with the long term and short term
NAAQS.
The referenced model emission input data requirements for
existing point sources are contained in the GAQM which has
undergone rulemaking and is incorporated by reference in EPA's
PSD regulations under Parts 51 and 52. Although a footnote in
Table 9-1 indicates that the model input data requirements may
not apply to PSD NAAQS analyses, we now believe that such
requirements should be applied to PSD rather than using actual
emissions as indicated in the 1980 PSD guidance. Thus,
^•Emission rates for model input consist of three components:
1) the emission limit, e.g., 1/mmBtu; 2) the operating level,
e.g., mmBtu/hour; and 3) the operating factor, e.g., hours/day,
hours/year.
-------
compliance demonstrations for PSD and for stationary source
control strategies under SIP's will be accomplished in a
consistent manner.
In order to apply Table 9-1 in the GAQM to PSD NAAQS
analyses, certain clarifications need to be provided. First, the
proposed major new source or major modification must be modeled
at its maximum allowable emission rate. Second, the existing
facility to which a major modification has been proposed, but
whose actual emissions (not including emissions from the proposed
modification) will remain unchanged, may be considered as the
"stationary point source subject to SIP emission limit(s)..." to
determine the model emission input requirements. Portions of the
existing facility where the emission rate is expected to increase
as a result of the proposed modification should be modeled at the
allowable emission rate. Finally, background point sources l)
having already received their construction permit but not yet in
operation, or 2) with less than two years, of operational history,
should also be modeled at their allowable, emission rate.
Of course, an analysis which demonstrates no contravention
of the standards, based entirely on maximum allowable emissions
rates (including full operation for the entire year) for all
modeled point sources is acceptable. If a violation of any NAAQS
is revealed by this type of analysis, then the adjustments
described above may be made in cases where it can be shown to the
satisfaction of the permit granting agency that historical
operating levels and/or operating factors will be representative
of future conditions.
This use of Table 9-1 of the GAQM for accomplishing the
required PSD NAAQS analysis will supersede the various procedural
interpretations presently being applied. Since different
procedures are currently in use, we believe that it is necessary
to provide a grace period for implementing the required
procedure. Consequently, modeling analyses for any PSD
application submitted to the reviewing agency on or after
October 1, 1989 should be based on legally allowable emissions or
must use the model emission input data requirements contained in
Table 9-1 of the GAQM as clarified above for PSD purposes.
cc: Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
New Source Review Contacts
Regional Modeling Contacts
E. Lillis
J. Tikvart
T. Helms
B. Bauman
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
3 MAY 1989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Ident^t^k^tffjof rlew Areas Exceeding the NAAQS
FROM: jrjWtfT CalcagnTT^DiX.ector
bent Division (MD-15)
TO: William Laxton, Director
Technical Support Division (MD-14)
This is in response to your earlier request for our
consideration of two modeling related State implementation plan
(SIP) issues. Specifically, the two issues are: (1) approval of
a proposed SIP emission limit for a source under consideration
when there are modeled violations of the national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) due to nearby background sources in the
surrounding area, and (2) the resource burden associated with
assembling the data necessary for modeling the background
sources. This memorandum restates the existing policy developed
by the Model Clearinghouse and discusses.limited exceptions to
the policy.
SIP Approvals
our general policy may be summarized as follows:
*
1. Background concentrations are an essential part of the
total air quality concentration to be considered in
determining source impacts. Nearby sources which are
expected to cause a significant concentration gradient
in the vicinity of the source under consideration
should be explicitly modeled (as "background" sources).
2. Under section 110 of the Clean Air Act, each SIP must
provide for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
Where background sources are found to cause or
contribute to a violation, a SIP revision for the
source under consideration generally should not be
approved until each violation in the modeled Region is
prevented or eliminated through the SIP rules. This
policy avoids approval of a SIP revision which does not
provide for attainment throughout the modeled area.
-------
I also recognize that section 110 allows for approval of
portions of SIPS. Therefore, exceptions to the general policy
may be warranted in certain circumstances. Before any exception
will be considered, it must be clearly shown that the SIP would
be improved as a result of the partial approval. As a minimum,
the following factors should be considered in determining
exceptions to the general policy:
l. Approval would not interfere with expeditious
attainment (i.e., emissions from the source under
consideration do not cause or contribute to the modeled
violation).
2. There would be an environmental benefit (i.e., the SIP
revision would result in an actual emissions decrease
and ambient air quality improvement).
3. Enforcement of the SIP would be improved (e.g., without
approval there would be no federally enforceable
measure for the source under consideration or
ambiguities in the previous limit serve to frustrate
enforcement efforts).
Where it is found that an exception should be made based on
the above factors, we expect the proposed approval notice to
specifically identify the background source violations and
clearly state that the State retains an obligation to take action
expeditiously to correct the background violations. The final
approval notice for the source under consideration should not: be
promulgated before the State acknowledges the background
violations and submits an acceptable schedule for corrective
action. The schedule would then be included in the final notice
as the State's response to EPA's identification of violations. A
SIP call pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H) should be issued where
a State fails to acknowledge its obligation and submit a schedule
for resolution of violations during the comment period.
Resources
The resource burden associated with assembling the necessary
data and modeling the background sources has been extensively
discussed through the Model Clearinghouse and annual modelers'
workshops. I believe that the resource burden associated with
modeling background sources using current modeling guidance need
not be as great as it potentially appears.
The Guideline on Air Quality Models (Guideline 1 states that
the nearby (background) source inventory should be determined in
consultation with the local air pollution control agency.
Specifically, the Guideline states that "The number of
(background) sources is expected to be small except in unusual
-------
situations." In this and in other areas, the Guideline
necessarily provides flexibility and requires judgment to be
exercised by the reviewing agency. The resource burden may be
mitigated somewhat by application of this judgement.
In investigating whether more explicit guidance is needed,
my staff has coordinated with the Model Clearinghouse and the
modeling and SO, contacts in each Regional Office. Given the
flexibility that is provided by existing guidance and the
tendency for more explicit policy to reduce this flexibility, no
further guidance was judged necessary. The Regional Offices
generally have been able to work with their States to collect
sufficient data to support the necessary modeling. Consequently,
there was little support for the suggestion to revise the current
policy to more explicitly limit the number of sources that should
be modeled for downwash.
Conclusion
I believe that an exception to the general policy regarding
processing of SIP revisions may be warranted where it is in the
best interests of air quality to approve certain SIP revisions
notwithstanding the existence of violations due to background
sources. However, the affected State retains an obligation to
take corrective action in response to any properly conducted
analyses which demonstrate a violation. This policy is
consistent with the Guideline and Model Clearinghouse actions.
My staff is available to assist in application of this policy on
a case-by-case basis.
If you would like to discuss these issues further, please
call me or have your staff contact Doug Grano at extension 5255.
cc: R. Bauman
R. Campbell
P. Embrey (OGC)
E. Ginsburg
Grano
J. Silvasi
D. Stonefield
J. Tikvart
D. Wilson
Air Division Directors, Regions I-X
-------
f
v
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 2771 1
OCT 1 o 1955
t€MORANDUM
SUBJECT: Questions and Answers on Implementing the
Revised Stack Height Regulation
FROM: 6. T. Helms, Chieff- I U--9-' «-
Control Programs Operations Branch (MD-15)
TO: Chief, A1r Branch, Regions I-X
A number of questions have arisen in several areas of the revised
stack height regulation since Its promulgation on July 8. The following
answers have been developed in response. The questions and answers are
arranged under the general topic headings of Interpretation of the regula-
tion, State Implementation plan (SIP) requirements, and modeling analyses.
Please continue to call Sharon Relnders at 629-5526 1f you have further
comments or additional questions.
Interpretation of the Regulation
1. Q: What criteria should be used to determine when a stack was 'in
existence" with respect to the various grandfather}ng dates in the
regul ation?
A: The recent promulgation of revisions to the stack height regulation
did not change the definition of "in existence." The definition is provided
in 40 CFR 51.1(gg) and includes either the commencement of continuous
construction on the stack or entering into a binding contract for stack
construction, the cancellation of which would result in "substantial
loss" to the source owner or operator. The definition of what constitutes
a "substantial loss" will be the subject of future guidance.
2. Q: What "source" definition should be used in determining whether tie-
ins to grandfathered stacks should be permitted or prohibited?
A: The term "source" in this instance means a single emitting unit.
Thus, credit for tying a single post-1970 unit(s) into a grandfathered
stack serving a number of old units is prohibited under the regulation.
-------
•2-
3. 0: What is meant in the regulation by "facility?
A: For purposes of this regulation, the definition contaifled in
40 CFR 51.301(d) should be used. That definition essentially defines the
term as the entire complex of emitting activities on one property or
contiguous properties controlled by a single owner or designee.
4. 0: Must good engineering practice (GEP) stack height be established
separately for each pollutant? If not, how should it be determined?
A: It is not necessary to calculate a separate GEP stack height for
each pollutant. Since "SEP" is defined by Section 123 of the Clean A1r
Act as the height necessary to ensure against excessive concentrations of
any air pollutant, 1t follows that GEP should be established for each
source based on the pollutant requiring the greatest height to avoid
excessive concentrations.
5. Q: How should "reliance" on the 2.SH formula be determined?
A: First, "reliance" on the 2.5H formula applies only to stacks 1n
existence before January 12, 1979. Credit for "reliance" on the 2.5H
formula, can be granted under the following, cases: (a) Where the stack
was actually built to a height less than or equal to 2.5H; (b) Where the
stack was built taller than 2.5H and the emission limitation reflects the
use of 2.SH 1n the SIP modeling analysis; or (c) Where evidence 1s provided
to show "reliance" as discussed 1n the following paragraph. If no modeling
was used to set the emission limitation for the source, then it cannot be
argued that there was "reliance" on the formula, since EPA's guidance was
specifically aimed at using stack height credit in establishing emission
limitations. Once 1t is determined that the emission limitation was in
fact b&sed on estimates of dispersion from the stack, then the source can
be said to have properly "relied" on .the 2.5H formula. In the event that
it cannot be determined that the emission limit is based on "reliance" on
the 2.5H formula, then the refined H * 1.5L formula must be used.
Where & clear relationship between a 2.5H stack height and the
emission limitation cannot be shown, where the emission limitation was
not calculated based precisely on the 2.5H. height, or where the stack
height used in modeling cannot be verified, then additional evidence will
be needed. Preferred would be written documentation, such as copies of
the original engineering calculations or correspondence between the State
or the «n1s$1on source owner and EPA indicating that the 2.5H formula
should be used to derive the emission limitation. However, recognizing
that such evidence 1s often not retained for more than a few years,
"reconstructed" documentation may be considered, but should only be used
as a last resort. This evidence should include explanations by those
individuals who were involved in designing the facility, calculating
emission rates, and who represented the facility in dealings with the
-------
-3-
State and EPA on how the emission 11rait was derived, including a discussion
of how the formula was originally used in deriving the source emission
limitation, a discussion of the analytical method applied, and a listing
of any contacts or discussions with EPA during that period. This listing
will aid EPA in searching its own files to find any records of communication
or correspondence that may bear on the Issue.
In no case should a source be allowed after January 12, 1979, to
obtain a relaxation in the emission limitation by arguing that it "relied"
on past EPA guidance endorsing the 2.5H formula. In cases where a relaxation
based on GEP formula height 1s sought 1n the future, the refined H + 1.51
formula must be used.
6. Q: The preamble specifically discusses cooling towers as structures to
which the formula should not be applied. Will the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards be specifying other structures that are not well
represented by the formula?
A: The discussion in the preamble and SEP guideline is not Intended to
be all-inclusive; judgment should be used in determining when fluid
modeling should be used to estimate the effects of structures with rounded,
domed, or tapered shapes. Water towers and storage tanks are additional
examples of such structures. As additional Information becomes available
on the aerodynamic effects of specific building shapes and configurations,
we will evaluate the need to revise the GEP guidance. 'However, at present,
there are no plans to Issue a "laundry list* of structures to which the
formulas do not apply.
SIP Requirements
7. Q: Should a compliance averaging time be explicitly stated in a
SIP revision for sulfur dioxide (S02) emission limits that are revised to
meet the stack height regulation?
A: A compliance averaging time need not be specified as an enforceable
SIP provision as long as a stack test compliance method is in place in the
underlying federally approved SIP, EPA's current national policy requires
that SIP's and permits contain enforceable 'short-terra" emission limits
set to limit maximum emissions to a level which ensures protection of the
short-term national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and prevention
of significant deterioration (PSD) increments. EPA relies upon a short-term
stack test provision in the SIP as the method of determining compliance
with the emission limits. In lieu of a stack test, EPA has accepted fuel
sampling and analysis and continuous emission in-stack monitors (CEM's).
When compliance is to be determined from information obtained by fuel
sampling and analysis and CEM's, short-term averaging times should be
specified.
-------
-4-
8. Q: Are all States -equired to have "stack height regulations"?
A: Limitations on creditable stack height and dispersion techniques
impact the SIP program in two areas—SIP emission limits for existing
sources and SIP provisions covering new source review (NSR)/PSD permitting
procedures. For existing sources, State regulations limiting credit for
stack height and other dispersion techniques (stack height regulations)
are not necessary as long as the SIP emission limits are not affected in
any manner by so much of the stack height as exceeds GEP, or any other
dispersion technique. Where a State has stack height regulations, those
regulations must be consistent with EPA's regulation. Where a SIP contains
regulations that are inconsistent with EPA's regulation, the State must
either adopt a stack height regulation that 1s consistent with EPA's or
Incorporate the EPA regulation by reference.
For the NSR/PSD programs, 1t 1s essential that the plan contain
limitations on the amount of creditable stack height and other dispersion
techniques. The following cases have been developed to Illustrate what
act1on(s) may be required of the State since promulgation of the stack
height regul atlon.
CASE AU): A fully or partially delegated PSO program that references but
does not define GEP where the delegation agreement does not contain
a date to define which version of the PSO rule is being "oeTegated.
ACTION: Notify the State that all permits Issued henceforth must be
consistent with EPA's stack height regulation. All permits
previously issued must be reviewed and revised as necessary
within 9 months.
CASE A(2): A fully or partially delegated PSO program that references
but does not define GEP where the delegation agreement
does contain a date to define which version of the PSD rule
is being delegated.
ACTION: Update the delegation agreement to reflect agreement with EPA's
stack height regulation as of July 8, 1985. Notify the State
that all permits issued henceforth oust be consistent with
EPA's stack height regulation. All permits previously Issued
must be reviewed and revised as necessary within 9 months.
CASE B: The current federally approved SIP for NSR/PSO does not
contain a reference to GEP or dispersion techniques, i.e.,
provisions assuring that emission limitations will not be
affected by stack height in excess of SEP or any prohibited
dispersion techniques do not exist in the current SIP.
-------
-5-
ACTION: Notify the State that such provisions must be adopted and
submitted as a SIP revision within 9 months. This can be
accomplished by adopting stack height regulations at the
State level or by adopting the appropriate reference and
conrai twent to comply with EPA's stack height regulation as
promulgated on July 8, 1985. Interim permitting should be
consistent with EPA's stack height regulation.**
CASE C: The current federally approved SIP for NSR/PSD contains
references to, but does not define, SEP or dispersion techniques.
ACTION: Notify the State that a connltnent to comply with EPA's stack
height regulation as promulgated on July 8, 1985, 1s required.
If a State 1s unable to make such a cownitaent, State regulations
must be revised to be consistent and submitted to EPA as a SIP
revision within $ months and interim permitting should be
consistent with EPA's stack height regulation. No "grace
period" will be allowed for sources receiving permits between
July 1985 and April 1986.**
CASE 0; The current federally approved SIP for NSR/PSD contains stack
height regulations that are Inconsistent with EPA's regulation.
ACTION: Notify the State that such regulations must be revised to be
consistent and submitted as a SIP revision within 9 months
and that interim permitting should be consistent with EPA's
stack height regulation.**
CASE E(l): A SIP for NSR/PSD has been submitted to EPA, or will be
submitted to EPA before the due date for stack height revisions.
The submittal contains provisions that conflict with .EPA's
stack height regulation.
ACTION: Notify the State that EPA cannot approve the submittal until
it is revised pursuant to EPA's July 8, 1985, regulation.
**In the event that a State does not have legal authority to comply with
EPA's regulation in the Interim (e.g., because 1t must enforce State
rules that are inconsistent with EPA's regulation) and 1s compelled to
issue a permit that does not meet the requirements of the EPA revised
stack height regulation, then EPA should notify the State that such
permits do not constitute authority under the Clean A1r Act to commence
construction.
-------
-6-
CASE E(2): As in Case £(1), a SIP for NSR/PSD has been submitted to EPA
or will be submitted to EPA before the due date for stack
height revisions. The submittal is not inconsistent with
EPA's stack height regulation, but portions of the existing
approved SIP that relate to the submittal are inconsistent.
ACTION: Approve the SIP submittal based on a commitment by the State
to correct the inconsistencies in its existing SIP to comport
with EPA's July 8 regulation and submit the corrections as a
SIP revision within 9 months. Interia permitting should be
consistent with EPA's stack height regulation.** If the exist-
ing SIP 1s ambiguous, i.e., the SIP references but does not
define terms relating to SEP or dispersion techniques, the
action steps outlined in Case C above should be followed.
CASE F: In nonattainment areas, emission limits or permits do not always
include mod el ins. but rather are based on lowest achievable
emission rate (LAER) and offsets.
ACTION: If no modeling is used in the Issuance of a permit, the emission
requirements for the source are not "affected" by stack heights
or dispersion techniques, and no action 1s needed. However, 1f
modeling was used in the process of preparing and issuing a
permit, such as cases where offsets were obtained offslte, that
modeling must be reviewed for consistency with the stack height
regulation.
9. 0: What must all States do now that EPA's stack height regulation is
promulgated?
A: States must review and revise.their SIP's as necessary to include or
revise provisions to limit stack height credits and dispersion techniques
to comport with the revised regulations, and, in addition, review and
revise all emission limitations that are affected by stack height credit
above SEP or any other dispersion techniques. In accordance with Section
406(d)(2) of the Clean A1r Act, States have 9 months from promulgation to
suomit the revised SIP's and revised SIP emission limitations to EPA.
In an August 7, 1985, memo titled "Implementation of the Revised
Stack Height Regulation-request for Inventory and Action Plan to Revise
SIP's," Regional Offices were requested to begin working with each of
their States to develop States' Action Plans. Each Action Plan should
include the following: (1) An Inventory of (a) all stacks greater than
65 meters (m), (b) stacks at sources which exceed 5,000 tons per year
total allowable $63 emissions; and (2) A reasonable schedule of dates for
significant State actions to conform both State stack height rules and
emission limitations to EPA's stack height regulation. Schedules should
include increments of progress. Regional Offices should be satisfied
that each of their States provide scnedules for completion of the tasks
-------
as outlined in the August meno and report the status of schedule commitments
to them on a monthly basis. Regional Offices have been asked to forward
monthly status reports to the Control Programs Development Division on
the States' progress to meet scheduled commitments and also report the
results of followup with the States on schedules that are not met. In
order to facilitate tracking the States monthly progress, guidance on a
standardized format will be issued shortly.
Modeling Analyses
10. Q: Is there any restriction or prohibition against, or demonstration
required for, raising an existing (or replacing) stack up to 65 m?
A: No, as long as prohibited dispersion techniques are not employed.
11. Q: Are flares considered to be stacks?
A: No, flares are excluded from the regulation.
12. Q: What load should be used for a fluid modeling demonstration?
A:- One hundred percent load should generally be used unless there
is a compelling argument otherwise..
13. Q: Can new or modified sources who have agreed to a case-by-case
best available control technology (BACT) emission rate be required to use
this rate for fluid modeling rather than a less stringent new source
performance standard (NSPS) emission rate?
A: As set forth in 40 CFR 51.1 (kk), the allowable emission rate to
be used in making demonstrations under this part shall be prescribed by
the NSPS that is applicable to the source category unless the owner or
operator demonstrates that this emission rate is.infeasibl e.
U. Q: Must the exceed*nce of NAAQS or PSD increment due to d own was n, wakes,
or eddies occur at a location meeting the definition of ambient air?
A: No, the exceedance may occur at any location, including that to
which the general public does not have access.
15. Q: Is a source that meets NSPS or BACT emission Units subject to
restrictions on plume merging?
A: Yes. However, 1n a majority of such cases, there will be no practical
effect since BACT or NSPS limits will be sufficient to assure attainment
without credit for plume rise enhancement.
-------
-8-
Q: What stack parameters are to be used in modeling when the actual
stac* height is greater than GEP height?
A: Where it is necessary to reduce stack height credit below what is •; r
existence, for modeling purposes, use existing stack gas exit parameters--
temperature and flow rate--and existing stack top diameter and model at
GEP height.
17. 0- How should a stack that 1s less than GEP height be modeled when
dispersion techniques are employed?
A: In order to establish an appropriate mission limitation where a
source desires to construct less than a GEP stack but use dispersion
techniques to make up the difference in plune rise, two cases should be
tested. First, conduct a modeling analysis Inputting the GEP stack
height without enhanced dispersion parameters, then conduct a second
analysis Inputting the less than GEP stack height with the Increased
plume rise. The more stringent emission limitation resulting from each
of the two runs should be the one specified as the enforceable limitation.
18. Q: How are the effects of prohibited dispersion techniques to be exclf
for morfeling purposes?
A: Where prohibited dispersion techniques have been used, modeling to
exclude their effects on the mission limitation will be accomplished by
using the temperature and flow rates as the gas stream enters the stack, anc
recalculating stack parameters to exclude the prohibited techniques
(e.g., calculate stack diameter without restrictions in place, determine
exit gas temperatures before the use of prohibited reheaters, etc.).
19. Q: How are single flued merged stacks and multiflued stacks to be
treated in a modeling analysis?
A: This is a multistep process. First, sources with allowable $03
emissions below b,000 tons/year may be modeled accounting for any plume
merging that has been employed. For larger sources, multiflued stacks
are considered as prohibited dispersion techniques in the same way as
single flued merged gas streams unless one of the three allowable conditions
has been met; i.e., (1) the source owner or operator demonstrates that
the facility was originally designed and constructed with such merged gas
streams; (2) after date of promulgation, demonstrate that such merging is
associated with a change in operation at the facility that includes the
installation of pollution controls and results 1n a net reduction in the
allowable emissions of the pollutant for which credit 1s sought; or (3)
before date of promulgation, demonstrate that such merging did not result
in any increase in the allowable emissions (or, in the event that no
emission limit existed, actual emission level) and was associated with a
change in operation at tne facility that included the installation of
-------
-9-
envissions control equipment OP was carried out for sound economic or
engineering reasons, as demonstrated to EPA. Guidelines on what constitutes
sound economic or engineering justification will be issued shortly.
If plume merging from multiflued stacks is not allowable, then each
flue/liner must be modeled as a separate source and the combined impact
determined. For single flued merged stacks where credit is not allowed,
each unit should be modeled as a separate stack located at the same
point. The exit parameters, I.e. velocity and temperature, would be the
sane as for the existing merged stack conditions and the volume flow rate
based on an apportionment of the flow from the Individual units.
20. 0? What stack height for point sources should be Input to air quality
dispersion modeling for the purpose of demonstrating protection of the
NAAQS and PSO increments?
A: A discussion of the maximum stack height credit to be used in modelir
analyses is provided in the "Guideline for Determination of Good Engineering
Practice Stack Height" and provides that the SEP stack height should be
used as Input to the model assessment. If a source is operating with a
less than GEP stack height, then the actual stack height should be input
to the "model.
21. Q: What stack height should be used for background sources in
modeKag analyses?
A: The GEP-stack height for each background source should
be input to the model assessment. If a background source is operating
with a less than GE? stack height, then the actual stack height should be
input to the model.
22. Q: Can credit for pi me merging due to installation of control
equipment for total suspended particulate (TSP) matter be allowed when
setting the SOj 1imit?
A: To state the question another way, the concern is what impact
the merging and installation of control equipment have on the emission
limit for another pollutant, and whether the merging occurred before or
after July 8, 1985. After July 8, 1985, any exclusion from the definition
of "dispersion techniques" applies only to the emission limitation for
the pollutant affected by such change in operation and 1s accompanied by
a net reduction in allowable emissions of the pollutant. For example, a
source tears down two old stacks and builds one new GEP stack with an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP). This results in a net reduction in TSP
emissions. This source could model using stack gas characteristics
resulting from merging the two gas streams in setting the TSP emission
limit, but may not so model and receive the credit for stack merging when
evaluating the SQj emission limit.
-------
Before July 8, 1985, installation of TSP pollution control equipment
generally justifies the merging of the stacks for TSP. However, if a
source's emission limitation for SOj increased after the merging, then
credit would generally not be allowed since it is presumed that the
merging was to increase dispersion.
A source with no previous SOj emission limit that merges stacks and
installs an ESP for TSP control may consider the effects of merging on
compliance with the TSP NAAQS but may not use merging to justify setting
an S02 emission limit less stringent than Its actual emission rate before
the merging.
23. Q: If, after determining SEP stack height by fluid modeling,
dispersion modeling under other than "downwash" meteorological conditions
shows that a lower emission limit than that from the fluid model G£P
analysis 1s necessary to meet ambient air quality constraints, should a
new stack height be defined for the source?
A: No. GEP stack height is set. Ambient air quality problems
predicted by dispersion modeling at the fluid modeled height means that i
more stringent emission limit 1s necessary.
*»
24. Q: Does EPA intend to issue additional guidance on fluid modeling
demonstrations?
A: See the attached memo from Joseph A. Tikvart, Chief, Source
Receptor Analysis Branch, to David Stonefleld, Chief, Policy Development
Section, on guidance for a discussion of existing and additional guidance
on fluid model demonstrations.
Attachment
cc: Stack Height Contacts
Gerald Emison
Ron Campbell
B. J. Steigerwald
-------
MAR 31 1989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Application of Building Downwash in Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Analyses
FROM: John Calcagni, Director
Air Quality Management Division (MD-15)
TO: William B. Hathaway, Director
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Division (6T)
Region VI
Thank you for your memorandum of March 8, 1989 in which you
urge consideration of changes to EPA's current policy of applying
building downwash to background sources in PSD modeling. Your
memorandum describes problems associated with the collection of
building dimension data necessary for downwash modeling, and you
suggest that EPA might issue rules and provide funding to collect
this building data. Alternatively, you believe that downwash
modeling should not be required for any background sources.
Members of my staff are currently analyzing several
approaches for handling background sources. This will be the
subject of a future conference call with the Regional Offices.
In the interim, some of our concerns regarding this issue and
your specific suggestions are discussed below.
The Guideline on Air Quality Models notes that background
concentrations are an essential part of the total air quality
concentration to be considered in determining source impacts and
therefore requires certain background sources to be fully
modeled. The Guideline indicates that "... all sources
expected to cause a significant concentration gradient in the
vicinity of the source or sources under consideration for
emission limit(s) should be explicitly modeled." This guidance
provides considerable flexibility and requires judgment to be
exercised by the reviewing agency in identifying which background
sources should be fully modeled. The burden of collecting
building dimension data may be mitigated somewhat by application
of this judgment. We are exploring the development of additional
guidance to better assist in this judgment. However, I caution
that it may not be possible to establish many objective "bright
line" tests that will eliminate the need for Regional Office
judgment in individual cases.
-------
I realize that information needed to model background
sources is frequently not contained in the State's existing
emission inventory. In some cases the applicant will need the
reviewing agency to assist in collecting the data. However, I am
not convinced that we must undertake a national effort to issue
regulations or to fund the States/Regional Offices to collect the
data. It is important to note that the PSD rules place this
burden primarily on the proposed source, not the regulatory
agencies.
Your memorandum suggests that the PSD analyses could ignore
building downwash effects. I do not believe that the PSD rules
and the Guideline allow this alternative. Further, since it is
not unusual to find a national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) violation caused by downwash, the PSD analysis must
carefully consider that possibility. If a proposed source
contributes to a NAAQS violation caused by downwash from a
background source, the permit cannot be issued. On the other
hand, not every source potentially subject to downwash must be
evaluated. Therefore, we are pursuing alternatives to better
define the range within which detailed modeling should be
required.
In summary, please be assured that we are sensitive to the
issues raised in your memorandum and that we will coordinate with
Region VI in this effort. If you have any questions, please
contact me or have your staff contact Doug Grano at 629-5255.
cc: R. Bauraan
D. deRoeck
E. Ginsburg
D. Grano
w. Laxton
E. Lillis
J. Tikvart
D. Wilson
J. Yarbrough
AQMD:SDPMPB:DGrano:PFinch:RTF(MD-15):629-5255:3-29-89
DataTech/DOWNWASH.R6
Control Number AQMD-023 Due Date: 3-29-89
Response coordinated with New Source Review Section and Source
Receptor Analysis Branch.
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4.6
-------
EPA-450/2-78-027R
Guideline On Air Quality Models
(Revised)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
July 1986
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
I r4M£? 3 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
^^VlV^ Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
February 15, 1989
SUBJECT: Modeling Requirements for Pennsylvania Power and Light
(PP&L), Martins Creek, Pennsylvania
FROM: Robert D. Bauman, Chief
SO,/Particulate Matter Programs Branch (MD-15)
TO: Joseph Tikvart, Chief
Source Receptor Analysis Branch (MD-14)
This is in response to a memorandum dated January 4, 1989 from
Al Cimorelli, Region 3, to Dean Wilson of your branch. Since this
appears to be more of a policy than a technical issue, my branch
agreed to prepare a response.
Region 3 is asking if EPA policy would allow PP&L's modeling
analysis to address only the designated nonattainment area in
Warren County, New Jersey. If so, it might be possible to
reclassify the Warren County area to attainment without an
evaluation of PP&L's impact outside the Warren County nonattainment
area. Additionally, the Region has asked if a redesignation for
Warren County could proceed independent of any revision to the
Pennsylvania SIP, in the event the modeling analysis shows Warren
County to be attainment but shows a modeled violation in
Pennsylvania.
The Guideline on Air Quality Models ( Revised^ (Guideline^ on
page 1-3 states that the current guidance should be followed in all
air quality analyses relative to State implementation plans and in
analyses required by EPA, State and local agency air programs. This
policy is consistent with stack height implementation policy and
general guidance found in a January 2, 1985 memorandum from SRAB
to the regional modeling contacts. Guidance contained in the
Guideline recommends on page 9-8 that "all sources expected to
cause a significant concentration gradient in the vicinity of the
source or sources under consideration for emission limit(s) should
be explicitly modeled." On page 8-4, the Guideline states that
"Receptor sites for refined modeling should be utilized in
sufficient detail to estimate the highest concentrations and
possible violations of a NAAQS or a PSD increment."
-------
I believe that application of guidance noted above does not
allow a partial modeling analysis. If a modeling analysis is
required for any reason, that analysis must meet the requirements
of the Guideline.
Redesignation policy is generally contained in the April 21,
1983 memorandum from Sheldon Meyers to the Regional Air Directors.
That policy includes requirements for a modeling analysis
demonstrating attainment and evidence of implementation of the
approved SIP. As noted by Region 3, PP&L's analysis may show
violations at locations outside of the designated nonattainment
area, while demonstrating an absence of violations within the
nonattainment area. In such an event, the existing SIP may be
judged adequate to demonstrate attainment in Warren County and an
action to redesignate the area to attainment could proceed before
the State completes the necessary effort to resolve the violations
outside the nonattainment area. While separate rulemaJcing actions
are possible, it may be mor ? efficient to consolidate the
redesignation and SIP revision actions whenever possible.
I trust
concerns.
st that this memorandum is responsive to Region 3's
If you need any additional information, please call me.
cc: A. Cimorelli, Region 3
\_JfrT" Ginsburg, OAQPS/AQMD
D. Grano, OAQPS/AQMD
S. Sambol, Region 2
D. Wilson, OAQPS/TSD
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4.7
-------
EPA-450/2-78-027R
Guideline On Air Quality Models
(Revised)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. NC 27711
July 1986
-------
REFE' NCES FOR SECTION 5.1
-------
278S2
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 130 / Monday. July 8, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGcNCY
40 CFR Part 51
IAD-FRL-2847-6I
Stack Height Regulation
AGENCY: Err. .ror.men: j! Protection
Aatr-.c:- (EPA).
ACTION: Find! ruiemaking
SUMMARY: Section 123 of the Clean Air
Art. as amended, requires EPA to
pror.r.Igate regulations to ensure that
t.-.e aearte of emission limitation
required for tne control of any air
pollutant under an applicable Slate
implementation plan (SIP) is not
affected by lhat portion of any stack
height which exceeds auod engineering
practice (GEP', or by any other
dispersion technique. A regulation
implementing section 123 was
prorr.uig.itcti on February 8. 1982. at 47
FR 5864. Revisions to the regulation
were proposed on November 9. 1964. at
49 FR 44878. Today's action incorporates
changes to the proposal and adopts this
regulation in final form.
CPFCCTtvK OATt This regulation
becomes effective on August 7, 1985.
POM PUHTMCft INFORMATION CONTACT:
Eric O. Gmsburg, MD-15. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. EPA.
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
27711. Telephone (919) 541-5540.
SUPPIC MtNTAKY INFORMATION:
Docket Statement
Pertinent information concerning this
regulation is included in Docket Number
A-83-49. The docket is open for public
inspection between the hours of &00
a.m. and 4.00 p.m.. Monday through
Friday, at the EPA Central Docket
Section, West Tower Lobby, Gallery
One. 401 M Street. SW.. Washington.
D.C. Background documents normally
available to the public, such as Federal
Register nonces and Congressional
reports, are not included in the docket.
A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying cocumenis.
Background
Section 123. which was added to the
Clean Air Act by the 1977 Amendments.
regulates the manner in which
techniques for disperson of pollutants
from a source may be considered in
setting emission limitations. Specifically,
section 123 requires that the degree of
emission limitation shall not be affected
by that portion of a stack which exceeds
GEP or by "any other dispersion
technique." It defines GEP. with respect
to stack heights as:
the height necessary to insure that emissions
from the stack do noi result in excesaive
concentrations of toy air pollutant in the
immediate vicinity of the source is a result of
atmospheric downwash eddies or wakes
which may be created by the source itself.
nearby structures or nearby terrain obttacles
. . (Section I23|c)|
Section 123 further provides that GEP
stack height shal! not exceed two and
one-halt times the heigh! of the source
(2.5H) unless a demonstration is
performed showing that a higher stack is
needed to avoid "excessive
concentrations." As the legislative
history of section 123 makes clear, this
reference to a two and one-half times
test reflects the established practice of
using a formula for determining the GEP
stack height needed to avoid excessave
downwash. Finally, section 123 provides
that the Administrator shall regulate
only stack height credits—that is. the
portion of the stack height used in
calculating an emission limitation—-
rather than actual stack heights.
With respect to "other dispersion
techniques" for which emission
limitation credit it restricted, the statute
is less specific. It states only that the
term shall include intermittent and
supplemental control systems (ICS,
SCS). but otherwise leaves the definition
of that term to the discretion of the
Administrator.
Thus the statute delegates to the
Administrator the responsibility for
defining key phrases, including
"excesaive concentrations" and
"nearby," with respect to both
structures and terrain obstacles, and
"other dispersion techniques." The
Administrator must also define the
requirements of an adequate
demonstration justifying stack height
credits in excess of the 2.5H formula.
Rulemaking and Litigation
On February 8.1982 (47 FR 5864). EPA
promulgated final regulations limiting
stack height credits and other dispersion
techniques. Information concerning the
development of the regulation was
included in Docket Number A-79-01 and
is available for inspection at the EPA
Central Docket Section. This regulation
was challenged in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by the
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. Inc. the
Natural Resources Defense Council Inc.:
and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
in Sierra Club v. EPA. 719 F. 2d 436. On
October 11.1983. the court issued its
decision ordering EPA to reconsider
portions of the stack height regulation.
reversing certain portions and upholding
other portions. Further discussion of the
court decision is provided later in this
notice.
Administrative Proceedings Subscque-n
to the Court Decision
On December 19.19S3. EPA held a
publ.c meeting to take comments to
assist the Agenry m implemtntir.g the
mandate of the court. This meeting was
announced in the Federal Register en
December 8.1963. at 48 FR 54999.
Comments rpce'ved by EPA are
included in Docr.e; Nurr.hfr A-83-49 Or,
Februar. 28. 1984. the eiec'.r c power
industry filed a petition f j: a \-. n; of
certiorate with the L'.S S-premr Court
While the petition was per, '.r.g before
the court, the mandate frjrr. '.ne L'.S
Court of Appeals was stayed. On |ui> 2
1964. the Supreme Cour' denied the
petition (104 S.Ct. 3571). and on |ul> 18
1964. the Court of Appeals' mandate
was formally issued, implementing the
court's decision and requinng EPA to
promulgate revisions to the stack heisht
regulations within € months. The
promulgation deadline was ultimately
extended to June 27.1985. in order to
provide additional opportunities for
public comment to allow EPA to hold a
public hearing on January 8.1985. and to
provide additional time for EPA to
complete its analysis of rulemaking
alternatives.
Documents
In conjunction with the 1982
regulation and this revision. EPA
developed several technical and
guidance documents. These served as
background information for the
regulation, and are included in Dockets
A-79-01 and A-83-49. The following
documents have been or will be placed
in the National Technical Information
Service (NTIS) system and may be
obtained by contacting NTIS at 5285
Port Royal Road. Springfield. Virginia
22161.
(1) "Guideline for Use of Fluid
Modeling to Determine Good
Engineering Stack Height." July 1981.
EPA. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. EPA-450/4-81-003 (NTIS
PB82 145327).
(2) "Guideline for Fluid Modeling of
Atmospheric Diffusion." April 1981.
EPA. Environmental Sciences Researcr.
Laboratory. EPA-600/8-C1-009 (NTIS
PB81 201410).
(3) "Guidance for Determination of
Good Engineering Practice Stack Height
(Technical Support Document for the
Stack Height Regulation)." i-ne 1985
EPA. Office of Air QualiU Planning ar.d
Standards. EPA-450/4-BO-023R.
(4) "Determination of Good
Engineering Practice Stack Height—A
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 130 / Monday, July 6. 1985 / Rules and Regulations 27893
Fluid Model Demonstration Study for a
Power Plant." April 1983. EPA.
Environmental Sciences Research
Laboratory, EPA-600/ 3-83-024 (NTIS
PB83 207407).
(5) "Fluid Modeling Demonstration of
Good-Engineering-Practice Stack Height
in Complex Terrain." April 1985. EPA
Atmospheric Sciences Research
Laboratory. EPA/600/3-85/022 (NTIS
PB85 203107).
In addition, the following documents
are available in Docket A-83-49.
"Economic Impact Assessment for
Revisions to the EPA Stack Height
Regulation." |une 1985.
"Effect of Terrain-Induced Downwash
on Determination of Good-Enginering-
Practice Stack Height" July 1984.
Program Overview
General
The problem of air pollution can be
approached in either of two ways:
through reliance on a technology-based
program that mandates specific control
requirements (either control equipment
or control efficiencies) irrespective of
ambient pollutant concentrations, or
through an air quality based system that
relies on ambient air quality levels to
determine the allowable rate* of
emissions. The .Clean Air Act
incorporates both approaches, but the
SIP program under section 110 uses an
air quality-based approach to establish
emission limitations for sources.
Implicitly, this approach acknowledges
and is based on the normal dispersion of
pollutants from their points of origin into
the atmosphere prior to measurements
of ambient concentrations at ground
level.
There are two general methods for
preventing violations of the national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
and prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) increments.
Continuous emission controls reduce on
a continuous basis the quantity, rate, or
concentrations of pollutants released
into the atmosphere from e source. In
contrast, dispersion techniques rely on
the dispersive effects of the atmosphere
to carry pollutant emissions sway from
the source in order to prevent high .
concentrations of pollutants near the
source. Section 123 of the Clean Air Act
limits the use of dispersion techniques
by pollution sources to meet the NAAQS
or PSD increments.
Tall stacks, manipulation of exhaust
gas parameters, and varying the rate of
emissions based on atmospheric
conditions (ICS and SCS) are the basic
types of dispersion techniques. Tall
stacks enhance dispersion by releasing
pollutants into the air at elevations high
above ground level, thereby providing
greater mixing of pollutants into the
atmosphere. The result is to dilute the
pollutant levels and reduce the
concentrations of the pollutant at ground
level, without reducing the total amount
of pollution released. Manipulation of
exhaust gas parameters increases the
plume rise from the source to achieve
similar results. ICS and SCS vary a
source's rate of emissions to take
advantage of meteorologic conditions.
When conditions favor rapid dispersion.
the source emits pollutants at higher
rates, and when conditions are adverse.
emission rates are reduced Use of
dispersion techniques in lieu of constant
emission controls results in additional
atmospheric loading* of pollutant* and
can increase the possibility that
pollution will travel long distances
before reaching the ground.
Although overreliance on dispersion
techniques may produce adverse effects.
some use of the dispersive properties of
the atmosphere has long been an
important factor in air pollution control.
For example, some stack height is
needed to prevent excessive pollutant
concentrations near a source. When
wind meets an obstacle such as a hill or
a building, a turbulent region of
downwash. wake*, and eddies is
created downwind of the obstacle as the
wind passes over and around it This
can force a plum* rapidly to the ground
resulting in excessive concentration* of
pollutant* near the source. As discussed.
previously, section 123 recognize* these
phenomena and respond* by allowing
calculation of emission limitation* with
explicit consideration of that portion of
a source'* stack that is needed to ensure
that excessive concentration* due to
downwash will not be created near the
source. This height t* called GEP stack
height
Summary of tht Court Decision
Petition* for review of EPA's 1982
regulation were filed in the D.C. Circuit
within the statutory time period
following promulgation of the regulation.
On October 11.1983. the court issued it*
decision ordering EPA to reconsider
portion* of the stack height regulation.
reversing certain portions and upholding
others. The following is a summary of
the court decision.
The EPA'* 1982 rule provided three
way* to determine GEP stack height
One way was to calculate the height by
using a formula based on the
dimensions of, nearby structures. The
other two were a de minimis height of 85
meters, and the height determined by a
fluid modeling demonstration or field
study. The court endorsed the formula
as a starting point to determine GEP
height However, it held that EPA has
not demonstrated that the formula was
an accurate predictor of the stack heigh-
needed to avoid "excessive
concentrations of pollutants due to
downwash. Accordingly, the court
directed EPA to re-examine in three
ways the conditions under which
exceptions to the general rule of formula
reliance could be justified.
First the 1982 rule allowed a source to
justify raising its stack above formula
height by showing a 40-percent increase
in concentrations due to downwash.
wakes, or eddies, on the ground that this
was the percentage increase that the
formula avoided. The court found this
justification insufficient, and remanded
the definition to EPA with instructions
• to make it directly responsive to health
and welfare considerations.
Similarly, the 1982 rule allowed a
source that built a stack to less than
formula height to raise it to formula
height automatically. Once again, the
court required more justification that
such a step was needed to avoid
advene health or welfare effects.
Finally, the court directed EPA either
to allow the authorities administering
the stack height regulations to require
modeling by sources in other cases as a
check on possible error in the formula.
or explain why the accuracy of the
formula made such a step unnecessary
The 1982 rule provided two formulae
to calculate GEP stack height For
source* constructed OB or before
January 12.1979. the date of initial
proposal of the stack height regulations.
the applicable formula was 2.5 times the
height of the source or other nearby
structure. For sources constructed after
that date, the rule specified a newer,
refined formula, the height of the source
or other nearby structure plus 1.5 times
the height or width of that structure.
whichever is less (H-K1.5L). The EPA
bated it* decision- to include two
formulae on the unfairness of applying
the new formula retroactively. In its
examination of this issue, the court
specified four factors that influence
whether an agency has a duty to apply a
rule retroactively. They are:
1. Whether the new nil* represent* in
abrupt departure from well e«tabliihed
pncnce or manly attampu to fill * void m an
unsettled area of law,
2. The extent to which tht party agimst
whom the mw rult if applied relied on me
former nil*.
J. The detrM of burdin which • retroactive
order impoMS on a party, and
4. Th» statutory intemi in applying a new
rule dtspite the«h«nc« of • party on the aid
•tandtrd.
-------
27,84 Pectoral RagstBf / Vol 5O. No. 130 / Monday, fury 8. 1965 / Rates and Regulations
719 F.2d at 487 (citation! omitted).
Applying this analysis to the two
formulae; the court upheld EPA'* basic
decision.
However, the court also held that
sources constructed on or be/ore
January 12.1979. should not he
automatically entitled to full credit
calculated under the 2.5H formula unless
they could demonstrate reliance on that
formula. The court remanded this
provision for revision to I sire actual
reliance on the 2.5H formula into
account.
The sfafate limits slack height credit
to that needed to avoid excessive
concentration* doe to dowirwesh caused
by "nearby" strecturss or terrain
fesrares. The 19*2 refutation defined
"nearby" for CEP formula appKeatione
as Bvs times the leaver at either fee
height or projected widtfc of the
structure rauaing dowowaak. not to
exceed oaa ball cite. No suck daftaaca
limitation was placed oa structures ar
terrain features wbose effects wen
being considered ia Quid •*~4^*tnfl
demonstrations ar field stadia*. The
court held that faction 123 explicitly
applies tha "nearby" limitation to
demonstration! and studies aa weE aa
fornrata applications, and T»""~j*'f tha
rule to EPA to apply the limitation ia
both contexts.
The 19BZ rule defined "dispersion
techniques" ae those techniques which
attempt to affect poflutant
coneentratfems by Ming a*t portton of a
stack exceeding GEP. by veryinf
emission ratee accmdiag te> aBuuspfceih.
conditione or pollutant eoncentretiem.
or by the •ddlttoa of e fan or reneeter to
obtain a less stringent eauesven
• limitation. The court fomnd tkis
definition too narrow because any
technique "sifn»ficaittry Motivated by aa
intent to gain eraiaaiona credit for
greater dispersion" should be barred.
719 F.2d 462. As a resale (he cowt
directed EPA to develop ruts*
disallowing credit for all sack dispersion
techniques onless the Agency
adequately iosnfied excapatass oa (he
basis of administrative naisseilji o> e <*»
rnmimis result
The CEP formulae es tarnished in the
1982 rule do not consider paaaanss.«o
the ground that plume rise is not
significant under downwash conditions.
In its review of thia provision, tha court
affirmed this judgment by EPA.
The 1982 rule addressed pollutant
concentrations estimated to occur whan.
a plume impacts elevated terrain by
allowing credit for stack height
necessary to avoid ait quality violations
in such cases. However, the court ruled
that section 123 did not allow EPA to
grant credit for plume impacn'on in
setting CBMsaioa limits, and revised tkia
part oi tke regulation.
Tha preaf&aie to toe 1982 regulation
provided a 22 sooth ptoceae lor Stale
iBoiaaentation of tha regulation. The
court found tbia period to he? contrary t»
section 406 ftovmiber * JSW.
Notice of Proposed Ralemekinf
In Ae November 9i IMa. notice.
responding to tha court daciaioa. EPA
proposed to redaflne aaumoar of
specific tama.
techniQuea*" "nearby," anav othat
modify
oftbohaaoafer
followugiaa auBmory of tha mriaioria
that ware nmpnsari
Tha Court of Appeals held that EPA
erred hi deftnasj "eaceaaiva
concenttationa." aaa IB eawmv
purpoaee of intiryiag a ssack
than formuU baigkL aa aothiag ntere
than a ^n***"> tocreaao ia> pnlhitsjit
coacaBtratiOBa over what wevld occur
in the aheanre of downwaae. M
remanded tkia kaua to EPA It) relate the
defimooB to sona ebeokt* bvoi of air
pollutioB that could be iassuBtatad to
endanger health and welii
to be "exeaasma."
Tha EPA propoaod two alsamaiive
appcoackae to deruunt "exceaetve
concentranona." FMSA. EPA reqaaatod
commeat OB wbetbar the 4*>aerceast
aDproack adepied aa peat oftko MM
reguiatinB m iact prtneoe
danger* s» v—'-% end weis&ra>
enviimned by Coagreee w
sectiOB 123. !• tba»ereat tket sacs o
showing cooid not be nude. EPA
proposed a two-port defioitioa of
excessive rram tatrahona. reooiriiif that
the dflWBwvab. wakes. 0r eddies
induced by nearby structures or terrain
features rasast in incteesss in arawid-
level poUniam coocMtratioos thar.
(a) Cause or eotrthbcrte to an
exceedaner of e NAAQS or appHcsbhe
PSD memnent and
(b) Are at least 40 percent in excess of
concentrations projected to occur in the
absence of such structures or terrain
features.
Definition of CEP Stack Height
EPA ptoBossd to find that the
traditional (UK} and refined (H 4-1.5*4
formulae remained proper methods for
calculating CEP stack height except EPA
proposed to revise its regulation to
allow EPA the State or local air
pollution control agency discretion to
require a farther demonstration using a
field study or Quid model to
demonstrate GE** stack height for a
source to a ease where ft waa believed
that the formula may not reBaaly predict
CEP height In the case of structures that
are porous or aerodynamieaHy. smoother
than block-shaped structures, it would
require a source to demonstrate the
downwash effects of suck structures
using a field study or fluid model before
receiving credit for stack heigh* baaed
on the structures. EPA also proposed
generally to aflow sources to raise
•yffffM (tacks up to foraula t'-^'P height
WfthOUt further ^mtnmt^t^»tinnm i^th (be
exception Pn>yf above, for diaccsnonary
Reliance on the 23H Formula
rnitsl002rulac.EPAa*awwitoarcM
built befss* laBuary IX MTO, mo dote oa
which it proposed tko rvftaed H+1.SL
formulae, to calculate their eniaaina
limttabaeefl on tko ttarisnonal U5H
fomula that existed praviCMsiy. The
court anofoved tkia dJatoctMa bwJ
ruled ma* it should be tautest to SOMRVS
that "rested" OB tko tradiooaai foramhi.
suopaafiBg. fat axasapie. that sources
that had ckisaad credit for stacks fat-
taller them tb%ioTBUua provided cosld
not bo said to have "reiisd" ost rt.
to respoBso to ma> caaxt deoawo. EPA
proposed as rcviaa i
rosjuir* tkss for atacka bs 11
January 12. 1979. sources <
that tkeraetaaMy relied oa the «H
formmki • the dsstpt of tkasr s*seie«
before recsTvsBsj cfanil for taat asvesN A
proposes, EPA isaaesstd i
whatfcekoaldi
lafi
-------
Federal Register / Vol. so. No. 130 / Monday. July 8. 1988 / Rules and Regulations 27895
Definition of
In iti 1982 rule*. EPA allowed sources
that modeled the effects of terrain
obstacles on downwash to include any
terrain features in their model without
limiting their distance from the stack.
The court, though persuaded that this
was a sensible approach, since it
allowed the model to best approximate
reality, ruled that Congress had
intended a different result, namely that
terrain features beyond H mile from the
stack should not be included in the
model
In response, EPA proposed, to revise
i Sl.l(li)(3) of its regulation to limit the
consideration of downwash. wake*, and
eddy effects of structures and terrain
feature* to thoae feature* "'-""'•*' aa
being "nearby" as defined ia I 51.1/jj).
Under this proposal, structures aad
terrain features would be considered to
be "ne*rby"1f they occur within a
distance of not more than &8 km (Vfc
mile); terrain features that extend
beyond 04 km could be considered if. et
a distance of 0.4 km. they echieved a '
height greater than or equal to 40-
percent of the CEP stack height
calculated by applying the CEP formula
to actual nearby structures. In other
words, a terrain feature would be said to
"begin" within H mile if it reached at
least the height of nearby buildings
within that <<<«*•«"*• Such features g"»«i••«•
equal to 10 timer the maximum height of
the feature, not to nrreerl 2 mike.
The BPA proposed two options for
distinguishing between source*
constructed before and after the date of
promulgation as* these revisions. The-
first optiosi woold treat both categories
of source* the same. The second option
would limit the conatderation of terrain
for new sources to only those portions of
terraia feature* that fall mtinly within
0.8 km. thereby removing the poaaJbiliry
of including features extending beyood
Hail*.
Finally. EPA piopoeed thaw
alternative* for conducting Bead
modeling to evaluate the dowmsaah
effects or nearby terrain f**t*a**. The**
alternatives described venoo«,w*vs of
limiting terrain in the model beyond the
proposed distance limitations.
To establish a baseline for
comparison, two alternatives wovld
initially modei the stack on a flat plane
with no structure or terrain influence*.
To analyze downwash effects, the first
approach would then insert neere*
terrain, with ell terrain beyond the
distance limit "cut off" horizontally. The
second approach would gradually
smooth and slope the terrain beyond the
distance limit down to the elevation of
the base of the stack.
The third approach would proceed in
a somewhat different manner. A
baseline would be established by
modeling all terrain beyond the distance
limit smoothing and sloping nearby
terrain to minimi** its influence. To
analyse downwash effects, the nearby
terrain would then be inserted into the
model and the difference ia effect
measured to determine appropriate
downwash credit for stack height
Definition of "Ditpenioa Techniquet "
Ia the 1963 mis*, EPA identified two
practices, in edditton to stacks above
CEP and 1CS/SCS, ea having DO purpose
other than to obtain a lea* stringent
tmieaion tomtetio*, Ia so doing, it
allowed credit for any other practice
that had the result of increaamg
dispersion. The court concluded that
Congress hed intended, at a •»*"••""•
to forbid any dispersion
practice that was significantly
motivated by en intent to obtain
additional credit for greater dispersion.
and remanded the question to EPA for
revxamination.
The EPA proposed to revise it*
definition of "dispersion techniques"
generally to incrade, ia addrtioo to ECS.
SCS. and stack heights in excess of CEP.
any tedmiqv** mat have th* effect of
exhaoat gas ptasae ris*.
Combining eevenl existing stacks teto
on* new stack can have each en effect.
However, such coBtbiaattoa* eJeo often
hav* ouwpsnrienteconomte tod
engineering hatrfrcetkm. Aocordtegfr.
EPA r*oj***%*d co*JBieat on d*finiBg the
combining of g*s streeme should not be
conewMfed a dispersion tecfanioD*. end
propo**d to allow SOUR** to take cieult
where-e facility was originally <
ana conetrocted with merged gas
sti**9BS or where th* merging OGCVB*
with the installation of additional
controls yieiding e net teUuctlou ta total
eniecions of the effected poihrtwrt The
EPA retained excretion* from its
definition of prohibited dispersion
technique* for smoke management in
agriculture} end sitvicultnru prescribed
burning programs and also proposed to
exclude episodic restrictions on
retidentiel woodbuming and debris
burning.
New Sourctt Titd into Pn-1971 Stodu
Section 123 exempts stacks "tn
existence" at the end of 1970 from Its
requirements, EPA's general approach to
implementing this languege was upheld
by the court However, in its 1962 rule
EPA had also allowed tnis credit to
sources built after that date that had
tied into stacks built before that date.
EPA failed to respond to comments
objecting to this allowance, and so the
court remanded the question to EPA for
the agency to eddrese.
Upon ^examination. EPA saw DO
convincing justification for granting
credit to these sources. Consequently,
for sources constructed after December
31.1070. with emissions ducted into
graodfathend stacks of greater than
CEP height and for sources constructed
before that date but for which major
modifications or reconstruction have
been carried out subsequently. EPA
proposed to limit stack height credit to
only so much of the actual stack height
es conforms to CEP. Sources
constructed prior to December 31.1970.
for which modifications are carried out
that are not classified as "major" under
40 CFR S1.18(])(i). 51-24W(2)(i). and
S1.21(eM2Ht) would be allowed to retain
full credit for their existing stack
heights.
Plume Impoction
In its 1982 rale*. EPA allowed stack
height credit for "plume impaetion." a
phenomenon that is distinct from
downwash. wakes and eddies. The
court though sympathetic to EPA's
policy position, reversed this judgment
aa beyond the scope of the statute.
Accordingly. EPA proposed to delete the
allowance of plume impection credit
from, its regulation in compliance with
the court decision However. EPA also
recognaced that socrces. in cnmpte*
terram fee* additional analytical
difficult!** when aitemptsag to conduct
modeling to determine epannriat*
emieekB limitations. Cones eqentiy, EPA
requests*! comment on whether any
allowance shoold be mad* for
tmptementatio* problem* that may
result from the application of revised
CEP stack height assumptions end, if so.
how such allowance should be made.
Staff Impiemetation Plan Requirements
EPA's 1982 rates gew states s total of
22 months to revise their rules and to
establish source emission limitations
based on new stack height credits. The
court found this. too. to go beyond the
language of the statute. In response.
EPA stated in the proposal that States
would be required, pursuent to section
406(d)(2)(b) of the Clean Air Act. to
review their rd*s and existing emission
limitations, revising them as needed to
comply with the n*w regnleboe within 9
months of the date of its prwnuif auoa.
-------
27896 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 130 / Monday. July 8. 1985 / Rules and Regulations
Response to Public Comments on the
November 9.1984. Proposal
The EPA received over 400 comment*
during the public comment period and at
the public hearing, addressing a number
of aspects of the proposed
regulation.These comments have been
consolidated according to the issues
raised and are discussed, along with
EPA's responses, in a "Response to
Comments" document included in the
rulemaking docket. Certain comments
can be characterized as "major" in that
they address issues that an
fundamental to the development of the
final regulation. These comments are
summarized below, along with EPA's
responses. Additional discussion of the
issues raised and further responses by
EPA can be found in the "Response to
Comments" document
I. Maximum Control of Emissions in Lieu
of Dispersion
A central legal and policy question
addressed in this rulemaking was raised
in the comments of the Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and
the Sierra Club. They contend that
section 123 requires all sources to install
the maximum feasible control
technology before receiving any credit
for the dispersive effects of a stack of
any height or for other practices that
may enhance pollutant dispersion.
The NRDC argument is summarized
fully in the Response to Comments
document together with EPA's response.
Very briefly. NRDC contends that
litigation prior to the 1977 Clean Air Act
Amendments had established that
dispersion can never be used as an
alternative to emission control and that
this understanding waa carried forward
and strengthened in the 1977 Qean Air
Act Amendments. Accordingly, no rule
that does not require full control of
emissions a* a prerequisite to any stack
height credit would be consistent with
Congressional intent
EPA disagrees. During the 8 yean
between 1977 and NRDC a comments, a
period covering two Administrations
and three Administrators, NRDCs
position has never been either adopted
by EPA or seriously advocated before it
The pre-1977 cases cited by NRDC-do
not bar all stack credit but only credit
for stacks beyond the historical norm.
Finally, the text and legislative history
of section 123 contain essentially no
support for NRDCs "control first"
position.
II. Discussion of Other Major Issues
The EPA's* position on the "control
first" comments provides the necessary
background against which the remaining
major issues in this rulemaking are
discussed. These issues are: the
definition of "excessive concentrations"
due to downwash. wakes, and eddies:
the definition of "nearby;" and the
definition of "dispersion technique." A
question that affects several of these
decisions, and that is addressed where
it arises, concerns the extent to which
any changes made in the stack heights
regulations should be applied
prospectively rather than retroactively.
This discussion of "excessive
concentrations" is in turn divided into a
discussion of the physical characteristics
of downwash. followed by a discussion
of the significance of those
characteristics as they pertain to the
GEP formulae, to stacks above formula
height to stacks being raised to formula
height and to stacks at formula height
being modeled at the choice of the
administering authorities.
Definition of "Exceative
Concentrations"
The Physical Nature of Downwash. A
number of commenten. including the
Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG),
have argued that the court decision does
not obligate EPA to revise the definition
sdopted in the 1982 regulation, but only
directs EPA to ensure that the 40-
percent criterion protects against
concentrations due to downwash that
could be related to health aad welfare
concerns. They point oat that whan
emissions from a soure* become trapped
in die wake region produced by the
source itself or upwind structures and
terrain features, those
brought rapidly to earth. with little
dilution. This, the commentars argue.
can produce short-term peak
concentrations at groundlavel that an
many times greater that the
concentration levels of the NAAQS.
Because their duration is relatively
short avenging these concentrations
over the times specified by the NAAQS
does not result in NAAQS violations.
Nonetiielesa. th»commenters argue that
these concentrations should be regarded
as nuisances that section 123 was
specifically enacted to avoid.
Accordingly, the commenten held that
EPA would be justified in retaining the
40-percent criterion without requiring
that such increases result in
exceedance* of the NAAQS
These same commenten argued that
seven hardships would result if EPA's
second proposed definition of
"excessive concentrations" is adopted,
and that by limiting suck height credit
to that just necessary to avoid
exceedance of NAAQS or PSD
increments, the definition would act to
limit actual stack design and
construction in a way that would
increase the likelihood of NAAQS or
PSD exceedancea. This would occur.
they argue, because, by building only so
tall a stack as they can receive credit
for. sources would be eliminating a
"margin of safety" that would normally
be provided otherwise. Furthermore, it
was argued that due to the changing
nature of background air quality.
inclusion of absolute concentrations
such as the NAAQS or PSD increments
in the definition would nnder
determinations of GEP stack height
constantly subject to change.
NRDC argued on the other hand that
only a violation of air quality standards
can be considered the type of
"excessive concentration" for which
downwash credit can be justified, the
EPA had failed to specify the health or
welfan significance of the short-term
peak* that it might consider as meeting
this description, and mat in any event
UARG's attempt to show that short
stacks could cause a large number of
short-term peaks was technically flawed
in several different ways.
Response. Extensive discussion of the
downwash phenomenon, as well as the
aerodynamic effects of buildings and
terrain features on windflow patterns
and turbulence, is contained in the
technical and guidance documents
previously listed in this notice. To
mnmmmritm briefly, numerous studies
have shown that die region of
turbulence created by obstacles to
windflow extends to a height of
approximately 2J times the height of the
obstacle. Pollutants emitted into this
region can bo rapidly brought to the
ground, with limited dilution. Though
this tendency decreases the higher
vertically within the downwash region
that the plume is released, because of
the highly unpredictable nature of
downwash and the lack of extensive
quantitative data, it is extremely
difficult to reliably predict plume
behavior within the downwash region.
As noted in the comments submitted.
the distinguishing features of downwash
do not show up well over an averaging
time aa long aa 1 hour or mon. Pollutant
concentrations resulting from
downwash can arise and subside very
quickly aa meteorological conditions.
including wind speed and atmospheric
stability vary. This can result in short-
term peaks, lasting up to 2 minutes or so.
recurring intermittently for up to several
hours, that significantly exceed the
concentrations of the »• and 24-hour
NAAQS. Little quantitative information
is available on the actual levels of these
peaks, or on the frequency of their
occurrence since most stacks have been
-------
•
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 130 / Monday. July 8. 1965 / Rules and Regulations
designed to. a void downwash and
because downwash monitoring i* not
typically conducted
A number of modeling and monitoring
studies in the record assess the
significance of down wash when plumes
are released into the downwash region.
The most important of these are a
number of studies cited in the November
9 proposal showing that for sources with
sulfur dioxide (SO>) emission rates of 4
to 5 -ounds per million British Thermal
Units (Ib./mmSTU). stacks releasing the
plume into the downwash region can
significantly exceed the 3-hour NAAQS.
The utility industry submitted
monitoring results from four sites
showing that facilities with short stacks
(ranging from 23 to 80 percent of formula
height) generated many short-term
peaks in the vicinity of the plant at
concentration* at leaat 2 time* the
highest concentration of the 3-hour SOi
standard, i.e.. 1 ppm for up to 10
minutes. Those concentrations are the
maximun that could be recorded by the
monitors used. There is no way to
determine from these data the true peak
ground-level concentrations.
The NRDC in commenting on this
subject has argued that downwash- • •
related concentrations are largely
theoretical since stacks have generally
been built to avoid downwash. and that
actual concentrations occur under other
meteorological conditions such as
"inversion breakup fumigations" and
"looping plums," that can equal these
"theoretical" concentrations predicted
under downwash.' The NRDC also
criticized the utility data on numerooe
technical grounds.
EPA's studies indicate that when
stacks an significantly less than CEP
formula height high short-term
concentrations can indeed occur doe to
downwash that are in the range of the
values reported by the utility industry.
Concentrations produced by me other
conditions cited by NRDC. though high.
may be lower by an order of magnitude.
and occur less frequently by as much as
two orders of magnitude, than those
produced by downwash.' As stack *
' In inveraion breakup fuoiieauon." M i
layer diuipaut out to haauna of the ground. lamas
trie poiluunu that were tripped m it descend
suddenly to ground level. In 'looping plume*" •
pfume i« brought down to the ground dote to the,
source in the form ol intermittent paffa under vejry
unstable atmoapnene condiDOM.
1"Comment* on Peak Ground-Level
Concaniranont Due to Building Downwath Relative
'o Pcik Conontntioni Under Aunoaphenc
Onoenton ProceiMi." Alan H. Huber and rVancu
Pooler |r. lune 10.19U.
height approaches the height determined
by the CEP formula, the expected
frequency and seventy of snort-term
peaks due to downwash becomes less
certain. This is to be expected, since it is
the purpose of a formula height stack to
avoid excessive downwash. While it
might theoretically be possible lor EPA
to revise the CEP formula-downward
(e.g.. from H+1.5L to H+1.2L or some
other value), such a revision would have
little purpose. By moving the release
point further into the downwash region.
such a change would increase the
probability of high downwash-caused
peaks. On the other hand such
relatively small changes in suck height
are not likely to appreciably affect the
emission limitation for the sooree. This
is because emission limitations are
calculated based on physical stack
height and associated plume rise under
atmospheric conditions judged most
controling for the source. Increasing or
decreasing stack height by a small
fraction will not greatly change the rate
or extent of dispersion and thus will not
affect the ground-level concentration.
Moreover, as EPA noted in its
November 9 proposal no data presently
exist on which to base e revision to the
formula.
The NRDC submitted data to EPA
which it believed to support the
conclusions that it urged EPA to adopt
concerning short-term peak
concentrations under other
meterological conditions.' However.
these data were not presented in a fora
that could be readtty interpreted and
EPA has thus far been unable to draw
any conclusions from then.*
In reviewing NROCs comments on
building downwash. EPA agrees that
there is great uncertainty ebout oer
present understanding of this
phenomenon, and mis is sopportesl oy
the range and variation of downwash
effects observed in recent studies.
However, no information has been
presented which would convince EPA to
abandon the present CEP formulae m
favor of any alternative.
The health and welfare significance of
downwash concentrations that result la
violation* of the ambient standards are
documented and acknowledged In the
standards themselves. The significance
of short-term peaks at the levels that
EPA's analyses predict is more
judgmental However, a number of
studies cited in EPA's "Review of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
•Memorandum from David C. Hawkma, NRDC to
William F. Pederaen. ]r Office of General CaunaeL
USEPA. May a. 19M.
4 Memorandum from Alan H. Hueer. ASM. lo
David Stonefield. OAQPS. |una n. :SSS.
for Sulfur Oxides: Assessment of
Scientific and Technical Informati^-
(EPA-4SO/S-62-007. November IS
indicate that concentrations of oru ,:
sustained for durations of 5 minutes or
more can produce bronchoconstrictior
in asthmatics accompanied by
symptoms such as wheezing and
coughing. Such concentrations are we!
within the range of concentrations tha:
can result from downwash. When
sources meet the ambient standards, thi
frequency of occurrence for these
concentrations under the other
conditions cited by NRDC Is
substantially lower than for downwash
when stacks are less than CEP.
CEP Formula Stack H fight Some-
coounenters. inclwii^g NRDC stated
that EPA cannot justify retention of the
traditional (ZSH) and refined (H+l.Si.)
CEP formulae based simply on their
reletionsaip-to the 40-percent criterion.
and argued that the formulae provide
too much credit in many or most case*.
This, they argue, results in allowing
sources to obtain unjustifiably lenient
emission limitations-
Other cosamenters argued that
rnngrees explicitly reaffirmed the
traditional CEP formula, and that EPA
should allow maximum reliance on it
(aad by implication, on the refined
foranla that wee subsequently der
from It).
ftttporu* The use of EPA's refined
formula as a starting point for
determining GO wms not called Into
question by any litigant m the Sierra
Club case. The court's opinion likewise
does not question the use of the formula
as a starting point A detailed discussioc
of the court's treatment of the formula.
showing how it endorsed the formula's
presumptive validity, i* contained in the
Response to Comments document
Despite rfriai iitiiu*^ endorsement EPA
might need to revisit the formula on its
own if its n*v*"' of the
"excessive concentratien" and modeling
issues indicated that the formula deariy
and typically misstated the degree of
stack height needed to avoid downwash
concentrations that cause sMith or
welfare concerns.
However, no such result has emerged
from our reexaminatioa Stacks below
formula height are associated with
downwash-relatad violations of the air
quality standards themselves where
emission rates significantly exceed the
levels specified by NSPS. Even when
emissions are low. downwash
conditions at stacks below formula
height can be expected unlike other
conditions, to generate numerous *h
term peaks of air pollution at high le
-------
27898 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 130 / Monday. July B. 1985 / Rulea and Regulations
that raise a real prospect of local health
or welfare impacts.
As EPA stated in the proposal, it is
impossible to rely primarily on fluid
modeling to implement the stack height
regulations, particularly under the
timetable established by the court. 49 FR
44883 (November 9.1964). No
conunenter other than NRDC even
suggested a different formula that in
their eyes would be better, and NRDCs
suggestions were premised on their
"control first" position, which EPA has
found inconsistent with the statute and
has rejected. EPA considers the refined
formula to be die state-of-the-art for
determining necessary stack height
Given the degree of presumptive
validity the formula already possesses
under the statute and the court opinion.
we believe that this record amply
support* it* raafflrmation.
Stadct Abon CEP Formula Height.
The EPA's 1978 stack height guidelines
[cite] imposed special conditions on
•tacks above formula height—the
installation of control technology—that
were net imposed on lower stacks.
Similarly. EPA's 1973 proposal had
made credit above formula fctight
subject to a vaguely defined "detailed
investigation" (38 FR 25700). The
legislative history of the 1977 dean Air
Act Amendments cautioned that credit
for sucks above formula height should
be granted only in rare cases, and the
Court of Appeals adopted this as oaa of
the keystones of its opinion. The court
also conckided that Congress
deliberately adopted very strict
requirements for sources locating in
hilly terrain.
For these reasons, EPA Is requiring
sources seeking credit lor stacks above
formula height and credit for any stack
height justified by terrain effects to
show by field studies or fluid modeling
that this height is needed to avoid a 40»
percent increase in concentrations due
to downwash and that such an increase
would result in exceedance of air
quality standards or applicable PSD
increments. This will restrict stack
height credit in this context to cases
where the downwash avoided is at
levels specified by regulation or by act
of Congress as possessing health or
welfare significance.
To conduct a demonstration to show
that an absolute air quality
concentration such as NAAQS or PSD
increment will be exceeded, it is
necessary to specify an emission rate for
the source in question.*The EPA
believes that in cases where greater
than formula height may be needed to
prevent excessive concentrations.
sources should first attempt to eliminate
such concentrations by reducing their
emissions. For this reason EPA is
requiring that the emission rate to be
met by a source seeking to conduct a
demonstration to justify stack height
credit above the formula be equivalent
to the emission rate prescribed by NSPS
applicable to the industrial source
category. In doing this. EPA is making
the presumption that this limit can be
met by all sources seeking to justify
stack heights above formula height
Sources may rebut this presumption.
establishing an alternative emission
limitation, on a case-by-case basis, by
demonstrating to the reviewing
authority that the NSPS emission
limitation may not feasibly be net, given
the characteristics of the particular
source.1 For example, it may be possible
for a sourca presently emitting SOi at a
rate of 1J Ib./mmBTU to show that
meeting the NSPS rate of 14 lb./mmBTU
would be prohibitive in that it would
require scrapping existing scrubber
equipment for the purpose of induing
higher efficiency scrubbers. Similarly, a
source may be able to show that due to
space constraints and plant
configuration, it is not possible to install
the necessary equipment to meet die
NSPS emission rate. In the event that a
source believes that downwtsb will
continue to result in excessive
concentrations when the source-
emission rate is cqptit**irt with NSPS
requirements, additional stack height
credit may be justified through fluid
modeling at that emission rat*.
A source, of course, always remains
free to accept the emission rat* that i*
associated with a formula height stack
rather than reiving on a demonstration
under the condition* described bat*.
The third alternative mentioned in the
proposal -using the actual emission
limit for the source—ha* been rejected
because, to the extent that limit railed
on greater than formula height it would
amount to using a tall stack to justify
itself.
The EPA's reliance on excaedanca*.
rather than violation* of die NAAQS
and PSD increments, i* deliberate. Fluid
modeling demonstrations an extremely
complicated to design and carry out
even whan the most simple
demonstration criteria—that i*. a
percentage increase in concentration*.
• la ooavwc tf *• tmt of "newt**
concranaoM" la»uN«d • «u»pi« pcmou**
tfa«r* would b* •> a**d la *t*aty IB
rrt*. nut* UM laerwM in coocmnnoa
c*n«d by downwiA to tn4«0a4*M tt iKiinni
ratn.
•Th* EPA wtil raly on It* Bxt Av«i«Mi lUvaflt
TKhnolo0 CwdctSM IB wrwwiaa «« nfcumto
and illMTUOv* WUMIOO Umiuooo*.
with no consideration of absolute
values—are assumed. Adding
consideration of an absolute
concentration such as a NAAQS or PSD
increment substantially complicates this
effort further and introduces the
scientific uncertainties associated with
predicting an exceedance of a 3-hour or
24-hour standard based on l hour or less
of modeling data. Using an hour or less
of modeling values, based on one set of
meteorological data, to draw the
distinction between only one
exceedance of the standard during the
8760 hours in a year, and the two or
more that constitute s violation pushes
that uncertainty beyond reasonable
limit*. EPA therefore does not find the
additional difficulties that would be
created by requiring violations instead
of exceedances to be warranted. That is
particularly so here, given that the
regulation* require sources seeking
credit above the formula to be well-
controlled a* a condition of obtaining
such credit
Use of an absolute concentration in
the test of "excessive concentrations"
can lead to problem* of administering
the program, in that it can have a
"zoning" effect Since a source can only
get stack height credit to the extent that
it I* needed to avoid a PSD increment or
NAAQS exceedance. an emissions
increase in the ana of that source may
increase concentration* beyond the
controlling limit thereby making it
difficult for new source* to locate in the
area, or for sequential construction of
additional emitting unit* at the source in
question.
This effect cannot be avoided under
any teat for "excessive concentrations"
that ia tied to absolute concentrations.
However, diat effect will be mitigated
by the fact that the use of this approach
i* voluntary and limited to sources
wishing to rely on fluid modeling to
justify stack height credit Moreover, the
effect* of downwash tend to occur vary
mar the source, usually on fenced ,
company property. Since concentrations
measured at such location* are not used
to evaluate NAAQS attainment or PSD
increment consumption, new sources
wishing to locate in the are* are less
likely to be affected.
Sourca* planning sequential
construction ef new emitting units at
one location or contemplating future
expansion can reduce the uncertainties
noted above by initially obtaining
permit* for the total number of units
anticipated end by planning for
expansion in the calculation of
necessary physical stack height In the
latter instance, only the allowable stack
height credit would be revised as
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 130 / Monday. July & 1985 / Rules and Regulations
27899
expansion is carried out—not actual
stack height.
An additional theoretical
complication is presented when an
absolute concentration is u->ed where
meteorological conditions other than
downwash result in the highest
predicted ground-level concentrations in
the ambient air. In such cases, a source
that has established GEP at a particular
height, assuming a given emission rate.
may predict a NAAQS violation at that
stack height and emission rate under
some other condition, e.g.. atmospheric
stability Class 'A.' Reducing the
emission rate to eliminate the predicted
violation would result in stack height
credit greater than absolutely necessary
to avoid an excessive concentration
under downwash. However, reducing
stack height places the source back in
jeopardy of a NAAQS violation under
the other meteorological condition, and
so on. "ratcheting" stack height credit
and emission rates lower and lower. The
EPA has eliminated this "ratcheting"
potential in the GEP guideline by
providing that, once CEP is established
for a source, adjusting the emission rate
to avoid a violation under other
conditions does not require
recalculation of a new GEP stack height
EPA is making this part of the
regulations retroactive to December 31.
1970. In the terms of the court's
retroaenvity analysis, stacks greater
than formula height represent a situation
that Congress did affirmatively "intend
to alter" in section 123. Moreover. EPA
regulatory pronouncements since 1970
have placed a stricter burden on sources
raising stacks above formula height than
on others.
N.o source is precluded from building
a stack height greater than formula
height if such height is believed to be
needed to avoid excessive downwash.
However, the design and purpose of
section 123 prohibit SIP credit for that
effort unless a relatively rigorous
showing can be made.
Given the ability of sources to avoid
modeling and rely on validity of the GEP
formulae and requirement for further
control of emissions in conjunction with
stack heights in excess of formulae
height, the result predicted by UARG—
exceedances of the NAAQS or PSD
increments due to inadequate stack
height—is highly unlikely.
The potential effect of changes in
background air quality on stack height
credit is not substantially different from
the effect that such changes in
background can have on source
emission limitations in nonattainment
areas. In the fint case, however, sources
may be able to address these effects
through greater stack height if such
changes affect the concentrations under
downwash. Moreover, the possibility
that shifting background air quality can
yield different calculations of GEP is
significantly limited by the fact that
consideration of background in GEP
calculations is restricted to those cases
where credit for greater than formula
height ia being sought or source* are
seeking to raise stacks to avoid
excessive concentrations.
Raising StacJa Mow Formula Height
to Formula Height In response to EPA's
proposal to allow automatic credit for
GEP formula height several conunenters
have argued that EPA has failed to
adequately respond to the court's
directive to "reconsider whether, is light
of its new understanding of 'excessive
concentrations,' demonstrations are
necessary before stack heights may be
raised even if the final height will not
exceed formula height"
Rtspomt. Raising a stack below
formula height to formula height ia not
in EPA's judgment subject to the same
statutory reservations as building stacks
greater than formula height However.
as the court ha* cautioned, it nay still
be necessary for these source* to show
that raising stacks is necessary to avoid
"excessive concentration*" that raise
health or. welfare concern*.
For these reason*, sources wishing to
raise stacks subsequent to October 11.
1983. the date of the D.C Circuit
opinion, must provide evidence that
additional height I* necessary to avoid
downwaah-reUted concentration*
raising health and welfare concern*.
These rule* allow sources to do mis in
two way*.
The first way i* to rebut the
presumption that the short stack waa
built high enough to avoid dewnwash
problem*: Us, to show, by rite-specific
information such aa monitoring data or
citizen complaint*, that the short stack
had in fact caused a local nuisance ana
must be raised for this reason. The EPA
believe* that both the historical
experience of the industry and the data
on short-term peak* discussed earlier
show that short stacks can .cause local
nuisances due to downwash. However.
where a source has built a short stack
rather than one at formula height It ha*
created a presumption that this is not
the case. General data on short-term
peak* may not be strong enough to
support by themselves and in the
abstract a conclusion that the stack
must be raised to-a void local advene
effect*. Instead, that proposition must be
demonstrated for each particular source
involved. ,
In the event that a source cannot
make such a showing, the second way to
justify raising a stack is to demonstrate
by fluid modeling or field study an
increase in concentrations due to
downwash that i* at least 40-percent in
excess of concentration* in the absence
of such downwash and in excess of the
applicable NAAQS or PSD increments.
In making this demonstration, the
emission rate in existence before the
stack i* raised mtut be used.
Since raising stack* to formula height
i* not subject to the same extraordinary
reservation* expressed by Congress and
the court with respect to stacks being
raised above formula height EPA doe*
not believe that the us* of presumptive
"well-controlled" emission rate is
appropriate here. A* discussed in EPA's
response to NRDCs "control first"
argument the basic purpose of section
123 we* to take sources a* it found them
and. baaed on those circumstances, to
assure that they did not avoid control
requirements through additional
dispersion. Use of • source's actual
emission rate in this instance is
conaUteot with that Baric purpose and.
absent special indications of a different
intent should be used in stack height
calculation*.
The EPA believe* that it ia most
unlikely that any source with • current
emi*aiOB limitation frff failed to claim
full formula credit for a stack of formula
height Accordingly, the question
whether a source can receive stack
height credit up to formula height will
involve only sources that want to
actually raise their physical stack, not
sources that simply want to claim more
credit for a stack already in existence. A
source will presumably not go to the
trouble of raising an existing stack
without some reason. If a source cannot
show that the reason was in fact the
desire to avoid a problem caused by
downwash. then the inference that it
we* Instead a desire for more dispersion
credit i* herd to avoid. A nuiaence
caused by downwashed emission* could
include citizen or employee complaints
or property damage. A source would be
expected to show that complaint* of this
nature were reasonably widespread
before getting credit under this section.
The EPA doe* not intend to make this
rule retroactive to stack* that
"commenced construction" on
modification* that would nice them to
formula height prior to October It 1963.
Applying the court's recroactivity
analysis, it appears:
1. The new rule does depart from prior
practice. The BPA's 1973 proposed rule
affirmatively encouraged sources with
shorter stack* to raise them W formula
-------
27900 Federal Regiatar / Vol. 50. No. 130 / Monday. July 8. 1985 / Rules and Regulations
height.1 Though EPA'i 1978 guideline
can be read a* imposing a "control Graf
requirement on some stack height
increases, its general thrust gave
automatic credit for all stacks that met
the "2.5" times formula.1 Automatic
permission was similarly set forth in the
1979 proposal, in the 1981 reproposal.
and in the 1962 final rule. Only a notice
published in 1980. but later withdrawn.
departs from this trend, requiring the use
of field studies or fluid modeling
demonstrations to justify stack height
increases up to CEP formula height*
Even than, the nonce wouid have made
this policy prospective in its application,
2. Source* that raised stack* in
reliance on this past EPA guidance
assuming the availability of dispersion
credit cannot be distinguished from the
source*, in the example approved by the
court, that built stack* to the traditional
formula in an identical expectation of
dispersion credit
3. It cannot be said that the raiting of
stacks to formula height is a practice
that Congress "affirmatively sought to
end." It is not mentioned in the text of
the statute or it* legislative history.
Further, as the court has already noted.
the statute attributes a degree of
presumptive validity to the formula on
which soereee that raise their stick*
will have relied.
Detention to Rttpun FhM Modeling.
Several oommentas argued that EPA's
proposal to allow agenda* to require the
use of fluid modeiinsj we* uanecesseryt
sine* EPA *»"* already docnxnented *!*•
valient? of the GEP formula*:
Purtbenaare, these coBBnentere ergo*
that this allowance would make fluid
modeling the rale, rather than the
exception. This would feeaty the)
commenters state, because it wa* their
expectation that agenda* or
environmental group* would nearly
always fm^ for fluid T^^mine
demonstrations during the permit
application and review proce**.
Other commenters stated that
providing the discretion to require fluid
modeling was appropriate, since EPA
had failed to demonstrate that the GEP
formulae represented the mfaifrmna
height necessary to avoid excessive
concenfrations. -
Retpoiu*. The Court of Appeals
directed EPA to reexamine whether it*
rules should allow State*, as a matter of
discretion, to require even source* thet
1 'Tr» DM rf «Wdt h**f*W «p » *• <•*•! of foot
en>in««nm pncrtc* it tacour»f*d by IPA to wd«r
10 avoid local BtuaaocM." (3S F» 11700).
• 41 m 74S1 (Ftbntuy IS. l*7*k "niriilln
Section M. C-Jftt Can
• U n «S7» ftw M. USD* WKiflc dbOMtoB <>4
planned to rely on the formula to show
instead by fluid modeling that a stack
this high was required to avoid dangers
to health and welfare caused by
downwash. The court suggested that
EPA should include such a provision
unless it could find that the formula was
so accurate, or tended so much to err on
the low side, as to make discretionary
authority to adjust formula height
downward unnecessary.
The EPA believes that the court was
mistaken in its conclusion that a stack
at formula height is likely to generate
downwash concentrations as great as 40
percent only in uncommon situations. In
fact EPA's observations indicate that
when stack* are built to GEP formula
height as incre*** in concentration*
due to downwash can still be expected
to occur that i* between 20 and 80
percent greater than the concentration
that would occur in the absence of
building influence*. '•
Nevertheless, in response to the
court's *•««•«">, EPA is including in *Mt
final ml* a provision for the authority
administering these rule* to require field
studies or fluid modeling
demonstrations, even for stack* built to
formula height in caae* whew it
believe* that the formula may
significantly overstate the appropriate
stack height credit"
While EPA believe* th* formula to a
reasonable rait of thumb indteatinf the-
stack height needed to avead so**e
probability of a sunduda violation and
a significantly greater probability of •
local nuisance, actul meutts m any
may
on specific ff^giMTyt|
TheBPAaa*
attempted to •*»«•«*«• this possibility
withmta*amttsof*vsBiabs*d*taby
identifying two particular attaafloa* in
which it believe* that the female* awy
not be rababie mdtaaten of GB* Poroe*
structarM and hutlrtlne* who** shape*
staple btock^haped i
which th* formeiee at* I
Ihfcto
idea of Good
|L._t4^_ •aiM^aiBk^BMi a*k
nulflaW tgHaawTMBHl •
SUMS km* Mtkem* M
ofMcttotnSardM
"EarUwBPA
for enula u»«rad itmeMNi tad eoaUai
However. EPA acknowledges thet other
situations, of which the Agency is not
presently aware, may arise wherein the
formulae may not be adequate.
The EPA intend* to "grandfather" any
soure* thet relied on the formula in
building it* stack before the dete of
EPA's 1079 proposal from th* effect of
this discretionary reexamination
requirement
Only in that proposal did EPA first
suggest that such a discretionary
reexamination provision might be
included in the final rule. The
retroactivity analysis set out earlier
therefore supports exempting stacks
built in reliance on EPA guidance before
that date, from discretionary
reexamination. Indeed, a failua to
"grandfather" these sources would lead
to the paradoxical result that a source
that had built a GEP stack under the
traditional EPA formula would have its
direct reliance intacests protected by the
"grandfather" provision previously
upheld by th* court but could then lose
that "gnadfatbered" credit through a
rs** specific demonstration requirement
showing that th* traditional form*!* was
somewhat inaccurate— the very teason
behind the chant* in the formula
property toesttt noo^revoacuv* Dy B* A
AAMU^M
earner,
. Given this background EPA believes
that th* effect on emissions of Including
of of excfadfflsj * provwioB vor
diicrettooary deteRninetions bum this
rale i* likely to be very smell Building
stack* above formula height and raising
stack* betow formula height to formula
height ar* covered by regulatory
provisions already discussed. Th* only
case left for discretionary
d*t*rmm*tions to sddress to the building
of stack* at formula height in the post-
1870 period. However, all major sources
built since that time an already
controlcd to SO* emission rates no
greater than U rb./mmBTU— and. not
iiK/^mimoniy much I***-— under various
EPA regulations. AD new power plants
on which fflnit^ntff^iffn "commenced"
sine* 1071 must meet EPA's NSPS
rat* HO gTMter
rt«Ma IPA Mil fraUmd
ttnietum that w«n maud prtor M Novaebw Si
1SS4. Sine* EPA guidonc* hat an«r ilhioiit o«dtt
for poreu* menm. dM rMtttettoB la tki* rate te
tuck wracMrw •ook« M dl i
than thfe level That standard was
tightened for all power plants on which
rnrtftrtf^fat "CO*9BMBC*d" *ft*f 1079* Itt*
addition, all "mater" source* buih sine*
1077 in ana* subject to the Act's PSD
requirements have had to install be*t
avaUabi* coatrol tachaoioty. That
technology must reaaira th* greatest
degree of smierion coatrol that i*
achievable coandeoni technology.
pr impacts.14
n. isra
it Qa>*a*l As*T AM flMl**s*l Ma)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 130 / Monday. July 8. 1985 / Rules and Regulations 27901
If such sources had to show that use
of a formula height stack was needed to
avoid axceedances of the NAAQS or
PSD increments, that might prove
difficult for many of them. The
likelihood of such exceedances tends to
decrease as the emission rate for the
source decreases. By the same token.
the incremental emission reductions
available from the sources that are at
issue here tend to be small and among
the most expensive available, in terms
of emission reductions, little is at stake
where these sources are concerned.
Accordingly, the rules will require
such sources, if a reviewing authority
calls for a demonstration, to the rules
show that the uae of a formula stack
height is needed to avoid a 40-percent
increase in concentration* due to
downwash. This will provide a rough
check on whether the formula, aa
applied in the particular case at issue,
produces the result it was designed to
produce.
The EPA is not providing here for
sources to justify their formula height
stacks by arguing that the height in
excess of that needed to avoid NAAQS
violations is needed to avoid a local
nuisance. The discretionary modeling
requirement is designed for application
to stacks before they were built. Beyond
that, there ia no way to determine based
on \h* absence of a local nuisance that a
formula height stack is not too tall in
the way that the pretence of a nuisance
shows that a stack under formula height
in fact is too short Accordingly, there
will be no way. a* there was with short
stacks being raised, to determine from
actual experience whether a local
nuisance would occur at a shorter stack
height Though avoiding local nuisance
is a legitimate purpose for which stacks
are built it would be very difficult to
show by modeling what stack height
was needed to avoid it,
Some commenters have
misunderstood EPA's allowance of
discretion to require fluid modeling a*
requiring such modeling whenever any
individual or entity called for such a
demonstration. This discretion nets
explicitly with the reviewing aftncies
who have always had the prerogative to
require more stringent analyses in the-
SIP process.-and no obligation is implied
for these agencies to require fluid
modeling simply because it has been
called for by some individual during the
permit review process. It is EPA's
expectation that technical decisions to
require such additional demonstrations
would be based on sound rationale and
valid data to show why the formulae
may r.oi be adequate in a given
situation. In any case, given the burden
of reviewing a fluid modeling
demonstration, an agency is not likely to
exercise this option absent sufficient
justification. Consequently, EPA
disagrees with thecommenters'
contention that fluid modeling will
supplant the use of the CEP formulae.
except in what EPA believes will be
unusual instances.
Reliance on the 2.5H Formula. In
limiting the applicability of tha 2JH
formula to those cases whan tha
formula was actually relied upon, the
November 9 proposal defined auch
reliance in tarns of stack design. A
number of comments indicated that
actual stack design and conatruction
may ultimately be control not by the
Z.5H engineering rule, but by
construction materials specifications.
Consequently, while 2JH rale may have
provided an initial starting point in
stack design, the rule may not have
dictated final stack height In other
cases, it wtt argued that a number of
source o* ers may have constructed
their stacks in excess of what was
determined to be ""»?'P"M" CEP for
precautionary reasons, for process
requirements, or in anticipation of
additional growth in tha area
surrounding the facility, even though
emission limitations for these sources
would have been limited than, aa now,
to formula height Consequently, it waa
argued that EPA should allow source* to
demonstrate reliance on the- formula in
the calculation of emiaaion limita a* wail
as in tha design of tha stack.
In response to EPA's request for
comments on what evidmc* should be
considered acceptable in determining
reliance on tha ZJH formula, some
commenters urged EPA to consider
reconstructed evidence, e.f~ affidavits
from design engineers or copies of
corrmpondaaca indicating past reliance
on EPA guidance. Other eommantan
stand that "reliance" should be vary
strictly construed, that EPA should be
circumspect in its review of reliance
demonstrations, and that only
contemporaneous documentary
evidence, such as blueprints and facility
design plans, be accepted as evidence.
Responte. The EPA is in general
agreement with the view that reliance
should be considered in relation to the
emission limitation for the source, not
the design. Since section 123 specifically
prohibits EPA from regulating actual
stack heights and rather regulates stack
height credits used In setting emission
limitations, it would be illogical to
require that sources demonstrate
reliance on the 2.5H formula for actual
stack design. Moreover, such an
approach would contradict principles of
sound planning, in that it would penalize
those sources that have built taller
stacks in anticipation of facility
expansion or other growth in the area
that could influence CEP
determinations.
If a stack has been built taller than
2.SH formula provides, while the
emission limitation has been calculated
assuming 2.5H credit a convincing
demonstration has been made that the
source properly relied on the formula.
Conversely, if tha emiaaion limitation for
tha source ia basad on some other stack
height credit auch aa 24H. 3.SH or some
other number, it would be difficult to
show that tha CEP formula had in fact
been rwliad on.
In some cas*s tha amitaion limit
information may be unavailable or
inconduaive. In such case*. EPA will
allow reliance on reconstructed
evidence of conatruction intent
In commenta submitted during the
public comment period and in response
to questions raised by EPA at the public
hearing bald on January ft. 198S, industry
representatives repeatedly stated that
contemporaneous evidence of reliance
on tha 2JH formula, auch aa facility
design plans, dated engineering
calculations, or decision records are
rarely, if ever, retained for more than a
few yean after conatruction of the
facility ia completed. Consequently, they
argued that moat cases of legitimate
reliance would be denied if
contemporaneous evidence wan
required in order to retain for the 2.5H
formula.
Tha EPA agrees. Additionally, credit
afforded by tha ZJH formula in excess
of mat mulling from the uae of the
H+1.SL derivative ia likely to be small
except whan tha building on which
stack height credit Is baaed ia
substantially taller than it ia wide.
Finally, it ia EPA'a view that the court
did not intend that sources be subject to
a rigorous or overly stringent of reliance.
but only that they be accorded a
reasonable opportunity to show reliance
on the 2.5H formula. For these reasons.
EPA will allow the submission of
reconstructed, i.e. noncontemporaneous
documentary evidence to demonstrate
reliance on the ZJH formula.
Definition of "Nearby". Comments
wen submitted by UARG and others.
arguing that effectively, no limitation
should be placed on the consideration of
terrain-induced downwaah.
Alternatively, some of these
commenters argued that the court
decision requires that a limitation be
adopted that does not apply any
distance restriction of H mile in
modeling terrain effecu suci as is
-------
27902 Fadarai Raster / Vol. 5ft No. 130 / Monday. )uly 8, 1968 / Rule* and Regulations
ipplied to structure* in tin UM of CEP
formula*, but rather allowa
consideration of all terrain that' results
in the tame downwash effect as those
itructures within Vt mile of the stack.
Other commenten have argued that
the court decision and legislative history
preclude EPA from allowing
consideration of any terrain beyond a
distance of V4 mile, regardless of where
it begins.
Response, for the reasons
summarised below, EPA does not accept
either the interpretation that the court
decision authorize* EPA to adopt a
definition beeed solely on effect or that
it limits consideration exclusively to
terrain features falling entirely within H
mile.
Whea Congress discaseed tb»
allowance of credit for stack height to
addnea downwash, it staled that th*
term "nearby was to b* -strictly
construed." noting that if the tern were
to be interpreted "to apply to maa-nade
structures or tsmai features to to Vfc
mil* away from die satires* or man. the
result could be an opea invitation to
raise stack heights to unreasonably high
elevations and to defeat the basic
In its opinion, thccoort held that EPA
could not give onlimitad credit when
modeling terrain features because that
would conflict with the Pnnuassinnsl
jntfnflfm to tfflDoee artificial Units on
that credit Tb* coon we* not presented
with, and did not address, th* question
of what to do about terrain feature* that
"begem" within Vfc sail* and extended
outside it The approach adopted by
EPA carried out due congreaeioaal
purpose to impos* as artificial unit \n/m
at the same time reflects thai real facts
more closely than an absolute
limitation,
Unlike mM"-fnt'^t structures,
features do not have readily definable
AimmnminTj^ Other *^^H height POT *****
reason. EPA has defined "nearby" aa
generally allowing inclusion of
consideration of terrain features that faD
within a distance of % mile of the stack,
EPA's definition win peorit
consideration of such terrain that
extends beyond the tt mile Omit if the
terrain begins within )t mil*, allowing
that portion within 10 time* the .
maximum height of the feature, not to
exceed 2 miles, as described In die
proposal.
To define when e terrain feature
"begms" within H mile. EPA has related
terrain height at the ft mile distance to
the maximum stack height that could be
justified under the other two methods
for determining CEP. Accordingly, EPA
will require that terrain features reach a
height at the V4 mile distance limit of
either 20 meters (La. 65 meters divided
by 15) or 40 percent of the stack height
determined by the CEP formulae applied
to nearby building*.
Treatment of New vsnut Existing
Sources Under the Definition of
"Nearby". In the proposal EPA
requested comment on whether new
sources should be treated differently
from existing sources and presented two
options for addressing mem,
Few comments were received on
these options. Several questioned the
logic of distinguishing between new end
existing sources to the regulations. One
commenter argued that new and existing
sources should both be subject to the
strict V% mil* limit proposed under one
option for aew eouices only. This has
already been discussed under EPA's
respona* to comments on the general
definition of "nearby and I* not
addressed further here.
Retpoaee. New aources are initially
subject to more stringent control
requirements than many existing
sources. Consequently, it is leea likely
that the emission limitations and stack
height credits for the** sources will be
affected by terrain features.
Furthermore. EPA believes dut th*
effect of applying a more restrictive
diatafl*^ omitatioa will b* r^g"1**^"'
and will result only in minor change* •
siting, rather th*a «ff>ft«"tH reiocetioa
of eovcee* PCS? this reason. EPA he*
selected the second option, treating new
and exietmt source* Identically aadar
the definitto* of "nearby."
EPA is giving this definition of
"nearby" retroactive application to
December n. l«ra Th* courts dectoioa
makes clear its conclusion that Coagteea
affirmatively focused on this iaau* and
decided thus making application aa of
th* **~***»» date proper.
Defaition of Other Dispentoa
Technique*. Th* EPA received many
comments oa th* proper scope of th*
definition of "dispersion techniques."
and perhaps more otfthe appropriate
bounds of *h^ exclusions, Industry.
'• HX RJVOA. No. 2M. Mia GJO*. lit!
turn-
commenten generally argued that EPA
had improperly proposed to deny
consideration for plume-enhancement
effects that are "coincidenur with
techniques and practices routinely
carried out for sound engineering and
economic reasons. They argued that
EPA should prohibit credit only when a
technique or practice wes decisively
motivated by a desire for dispersion
credit Such en approach would create a
"but for" test using the intent of the
source owner or operator as th* basis
for EPA's decisions.
Other eommenters argued that EPA
must use a teat based purely on effects.
prohibiting credit where a technique or
practice has the effect of enhancing
dispersion, regardless of any other
Response. In the final regulation. EPA
has rejected the polar positions
discussed above. The argument that
dispersion effects are forbidden
regardless of motive is discussed and
rejected as a part of the general
response to the argument the! only
"well-controlled" sources can receive
any dispersion credit
Conversely, a pure "but for" test runs
the risk of creating exclusions that
effectively swallow the rule itself. The
EPA judge* that few, if any.
r4rfnmmtm*i/.mj gfg Hlraly (0 ftfiM U)
which some other benefit or justification
cannot be asserted aa the basis for a
practice, and therefore for such an
Where prospective evaluation of
merged gaa streams, or combined
stacks, is concerned, there is no reason
to assume the serious administrative
burden* investigating such *t«'*«« might
entail The court directed EPA to apply
an t"*«ff* teat "at a m<«iimim»- " «n it
free to take an approach that may be
less geaaroua toward credit for
combined stacks, ^nm sources in the
future win be able to plan against the
background of rales that define
pcrmisaible credits precisely. little
unfairness results from a restrictive
appfoechm
Wham ranaapecdve application is
coooanadt however, the retroactivity
analyst* spelled out by the court directs
that an intent-baaed teat b* employed as
described later.
Accordingly, after considering th*
record on the** matters, EPA has
determined to take a "niiiliTIs ground"
approach to this question. The final
regulation retains the same broad
prohibition found In the proposal on
increasing exhaust gas plume rise by
manipulation of parameters, or the
combining of exhaust gases from several
MiTflqj stacks into one stack, with
several classes of exclusions. These
excluaiona recognize the existence of
independent Justifications based on
engineering and/or economic factors.
,
(1] Demonstration of original facility
design aad construction with merged
(2) Demonstration that merging after
July «. 1965 la part of a change in
operation that includes the installation
of pollution controls and results in a net
1 in allowable emissions of the
pollutant for which credit is sought or
-------
R»g*t*» / Vol. so. No. 130 / Monday. )uly 8. 1965 / Rules and Regulation*
27903
(3) Demonstration that merging before
July 8.1965 wet part of a change in
operation that included the installation
of control equipment, or wai carried out
for aound economic or engineenng
reason*. An allowable emissions
increase creates the presumption that
the merging wes not carried out for
sound economic or engineering
reasons.u
Of these exclusions, the first is identical
to the proposal, snd the second and
third are modifications of the second
exclusion included in the proposal, with
• refinement based on prospective/
retroactive application.
The first exclusion was retained for
the reasons stated in the proposal After
reviewing the comments submitted, EPA
determined that its previous .
conclusion—that standard practice in
designing and constructing facilities
routinely includes venting *Ti"VTTt
from several units into a common or
multiflued stack—is correct Sound
engineering and economic reasons.
based on costs of constructing ""1
maintaining separate stacks, availability
of land, and cost savings for pollution
control equipment support facility
design and construction considerations.
Even if air pollution requirements did
not exist at all sources would have
incentives to use as few stacks as
possible.
Since iacnatiag plume rise, rather
than phune rise itse& la a "dispersion
technique" and original design and
construction define the Initial base, such
original design and construction of
merged gas streams is not considered a
dispersion technique. Moreover, in
designing the facility, a source can
usually choose to build one larger unit
rather than several smaller units.
Therefore, prohibiting credit for original
design generally only effect the design
of units and not the plume rise.
Objections have been raised to
applying this logic to sources which are
constructed over a period of time, but
use a single stack. However, the same
factual arguments fust listed would
apply is the seme, if the original design
included provition for the additional
units in the plans for the facility, and in
the design and construction of the stack.
In such a case, the later units merged .
into the stack would be intruded within
the exclusion.
In addition, it would be logically very
difficult to apply a rule denying credit to
original design stacks. EPA or the State
would have to assume how many stack*
would have been built absent a desire
for dispersion credit, where they would
have been located and how high they
would have been. Since these
alternative stacks would be purely
hypothetical, there would be no dear
way of answering these questions; the
answer would simply have to be
selected arbitrarily from the wide range
of possible answers. Tms problem i*
absent when existing stacks have been
combined.
In contrast EPA finds change* from
the original design of a facility in order
to include merged stacks to require a
narrower judgment The EPA concluded
that where prospective application i*
concerned, the fThiT^uii should be)
available only to source* that combine
stacks reduce* allowable emissions of
the pollutant for which the credit is
granted. There are obvious economic
advanta*)** ia combioiBC stack* to
unit* that must be purchased, la
iltMHjM a! M
addition, the '
control for the pollutant in question
provides substantial assurance thaU the
purpose of the combination is not to
receive a more lenient emission limit
However, given peat EPA guidance OB
merging of stacks, EPA has concluded
that retroactive application of this tear
would not be proper. The EPA guidance
document* uniformly took the view that
merging of separate stacks into a single
stack "Is generally not considered a
dispersion technique" absent other
factors such as excessive use of fans or
other devices. '* Each
provided guidance to a source of a
Regional Office regarding the proper
treatment of merged stack* in
calculating emission limitations.
Considering these statements, EPA must
consider the standards expressed by (ha
court aa previously discussed in this
notice, to fudging the propriety of a
differing standard for retroactive.
application. Given the nature and
applications of the guidance which it
issued hi the past EPA judges the first
two criteria—that is, whether the new
rule represents an sbrupt departure from
well-established practice, snd whether
the parties against whom the new rule is
applied relied on the former rule—to be
satisfied, to addition, applying the
prospective criteria to past practice
would require significant change* in fuel
and/or control equipment for parties
whose emission limits were based on.
previous guidance. Finally, and
particularly where sources have not
been allowed to increase their previoai
emissions as a result of the combining of
stacks. EPA does not judge the itarutor
interest to be overriding in this instant
since the rule even in its retrospective
version only exempts sources that can
show a reasonable non-dispersion
enhancement ground for combining
stack*, and thereby implements the
"intent" test suggestsd by the court. On
the other hand. EPA has never suggested
that combined stacks that cannot meet
such a test an proper. Sources whose
actual emissions are increased, or
whose emission limitations are relaxed
in connection with the combining of
stacks create a strong presumption that
the combination waa carried out in
order to avoid the installation of
ooDtrote. Suflh comotRetions would
indeed ma counter to the statutory
purpose* and teouspectivs application
of a test that forbids them is therefore
koa Ouryl Tytar M
Rothbteft Aiywc a. rasa SM «IM tetwftwi W«K
Bubv tnm Homrt Oh Ocwtorfc UBS. •
Ctertd StaariWrt • Jw^fc Htnc (MM P. ISSB.
Sxtarptfont from the Definition of
Ditpenioa Techniquet. The EPA
fecal ttd numerous comments in
response to it* request for input on what
consideration, if any, should be given to
.vi.tn/HBj Mures* from me definition of
•Disparate* T*chniquesM whose
emissiOB* are below a specified level or
whoee stacks are less than the 4*
mmnros height. Thee* commenters
argaod that eombining gar streams in
particular oftea had aa ecemomie
juatiflcation independent of it* effects
oa dtcpenloa. end Ihetefcae should not
be gecieraffy forbidden. Other comments
stated (act fa coaeldetiag any such
exclusion, BPA should consider the
effect oa tetei atmospheric loadings.
AefnojM. Some Umitatioa on the
number of sources affected by the
definition at "dispersion techniques"
necessary for EPA to carry out the ttack
height program. There are currently
estimated to be over 2X000 sources of
SO» m the United States with actual
emissions exceeding 100 tons per year. It
would not be possible for EPA or States
to review the emission Omits of even s
significant fraction of this number
within a reasonable time period.
Twenty-two thousand of these sources
have eodaeioa* lew than £000 tons per
year and contribute a total of less than
13 percent of the total annual SO*
emissioa." POT this reason, and for
reasons of administrative necessity
discussed earner. EPA i* adopting sh
exemption from prohibitions on
manipulating prome rise for facilities
with allowable SO* emissions below
few Me CiMbuq. OAQPS
-------
2790* Psjda*«i Regular / Vol. 50. No. 130 / Monday. July 6. 1985 / Rulet and Regulation!
5.000 ton* per year. Tha EPA believes
tha affect of this exemption on total Sd
emissions to ba de minima inaatura.
Evan if thata source* ware abla to
increafe their emission rates as tha
result of an exemption from the
definition of dispersion techniques, their
combined effect would not ba
significant Indeed, because these
sources are exempt on the basis of their
annual emissions, there exists an upper
limit to tha extent to which they may
obtain relaxed emission limitation*. La,
to m»'n**ip an.exemption, tha "r1"1^!
emissions of a source may never exceed
5.000 tons par year. For these reasons.
the 5.000 ton limit passes a da minima
teat even more dearly than tha W-matar
limit included without challenge in tha
prior version of this rale. Monovar. SPA
believes that a large majority of thaaa
sources would not ba inclined to seek
less stringent tmlftifrn limitations, in
part because a substantial portion of
them an limited by State and local fuel
usarutaa.
Tha EPA believes at this time that a
de swam;* snta axaaptioa is justified
only for sources of SOi and that the
number of entail source* for which.
mission limitations for other poilutanta
are a significant concern would not
support a similar exemption. The EPA
will continue to review tha need for each
exaaapttone and. if deemed appropriate,
will propoaa them for review and
comment at a tatardata.
PAime Impaction. The EPA received »
number of comments requesting that
credit far phune impaction b* retained
on the (rounds that aUmmatmf sack
credit would have severe impacts OB
existing sources. Several approacnas
ware offered for overcoming plume
impadioo effects in mnrtating to
determine emission limitations baaed on
GEP stack height Generally, thaaa ,
approaches focuaed on modifying tha.
stack-terrain relationship represented a.
tha models. Several
along theae Unas that the court
recognized and spprovaoVof EPA's
attempt to avoid the *fhjcss,ef phone
impaction. but only itlaafaHiiisil of
EPA's regulatory methaw tn allowing
sources to avoid impactton. Thaaa
commanters argued that tha court did
not preclude EPA from allowing cradtt
to avoid plume impaction, but eniy from
allowing credit for stack height in
excess of GEP*. this, it was argued, could
be remedied In a way that waa
consistent with tha court decision by
incorporating impaction avoidance)
within the definition of GEP. It wasjjaao
suggested that EPA giva its "inters*
tpproval" to tha use of certain nftneri
complex terrain models, in particular the
Rough Terrain Display Model (RTDM],
to calculate emission limitations for
sources affected by changes to the stack
height regulation.
Response The.EPA agrees that the
court was cognizant of the problem of
plume impaction and noted that there
was much to recommend EPA's
allowance of credit for impaction
avoidance. However, the allowance of
credit for plume impaction was not
remanded to EPA for revision or
reconsideration, but was reversed by
the court as exceeding EPA's authority.
The EPA does not agree that it would
be possible to redefine GEP in a manner
that allowed credit for avoiding
impaction. since GEP is explicitly
denned tn terms of preventing excessive
concentrations due to duwnwesh,
wakes, and eddies. Phune impaction is a
phenomenon completely unrelated to
dowBwssh and, rather, is a consequence
of effluent gases being emitted at an
insufficient height to avoid their striking
downwind hillsides, rftfhr or
mountainsides prior to dilution.
Manipulation or "adjustment" of
modeling parameters to avoid predicting
theoretical plume iffipa.fitwn where
actual stacks have bean constructed
above GEP would be tantamount to
granting the same tmpaction credit that •
was invalidated by tha court
Furthermore. EPA bellevee that tha
manipulation of modettag parameters
for no other reason than to avoid an
Tha EPA Is In the peoceas at tavfinn*
-'
A number of
the guideline have tequaatad that EPA
approve the use of fie sQDM model aa a
of this issue can be foond m documents
associated with EPA's action on tha
modeling guideline (Docket Mb. A-80-
46). With respect to the revieed stack
height regulation, EPA has not refected
the use of RTDM. To the extent that
appropriate and complete data bases
and information on modal accuracy are
available. EPA may approve the use of
RTDM on a, case-by
-------
F«d«r*J R«gi»t«r / Vol 50, No. 130 / Monday, July 8. 1965 / Rules and Regulation*
27905
through the use of "grandfathered" stack
heights.
Source* undertaking major
modification, or reconstruction become
subject to additional control
requirements under the Clean Air Act
and an treated ai "new sources" for the
purpose ;f new source review and PSD
requirer. "-:s. EPA finds it appropriate
that GEr requirements should be
invoked at the time that other
requirements for new, modified or
reconstructed sources become
applicable.
Summary of Modifications to EPA '«
Proposal Resulting from Public
Comment*
Based oa comments received during
the public comment period. EPA haw
made a number of revisions to itt
proposed regulation in addition to thoee
discussed above. These revisions an
summarized below.
Section Sl.
regulation has been clarified to require
sources merging fas streams after Inly s,
1985 to achieve a net reduction in
allowable emissions. This change was
made to make it dear that the effects of
merging should not be used as a way of
achieving compliance with present
emission limits sad to avoid penalizing.
sources who are presently emitting at
less than allowable levels.
Sect/off 31.1(hhK2)(B)(iii) allow*
credit for a source that merged gas
streams in a change of operation at the
facility prior to July a, IMS that iacraded
the installation of control equipment or
had other sound engineering or
economic reasons. Any increase in the
emission limitation, or in the previous
actual emissions where no emission
limitation existed created a presumption
that those sound reasons were not
present.
Sect/on Sl.l(hh)(2)(E) has been added
to exclude from the definition of
prohibited "dispersion techniques" the
use of techniques affecting final exhaust
gas plume rise where the resulting total
allowable emissions of SOt from the
facility do not exceed 5.000 tons per
year.
Section Sl.lfiijfl) has been revised to
specify that the 85 meter de minima
height is to be measured as in other
determinations of CEP stack height
from the ground-level elevation at the
base of the stack. This does not
represent a substantive change in the
rule or in its application relative to pest
practices, but rather a simple
clarification.
Sect/on St.l(ii)(2) has been revised to
require that source owners demonstrate
that the 2.5H formula was relied on in
establishing the emission limitation.
Section 51.1(ii)(3) has been revised as
discussed elsewhere in this notice to
specify that an emission rate equivalent
to NSPS must be met before a source
may conduct Quid modeling to Justify
stack height credit in excess of that
permitted by the CEP formulae.
Section Sl.l(jj) now defines "nearby"
for purposes of conducting field studies
or fluid modeling demonstrations as 04
km (* mile), but allows limited
consideration of terrain features
extending beyond that distance if such
features "begin'* within OJ km. as
defined in the regulation.
Section 81.1 fUJ has been revised to
provide separate discussions of
"excessive concentrations" for the
separate situations discussed earlier in
this preamble. As that discussion makes
clear. EPA believes that the differing
categories of sources subject to this rule
are best addressed by requirements that
vary somewhat with those
circumstances. This definition embodies
that approach.
Section 31.12(k) has been corrected to
provide that the provisions of 151.12(0
shall not apply to itadt heighti in
existence before December 31.1070. The
proposal had incorrectly stated that
I 51.12 shall not apply to ttada
This regulation doe* not limit the
physical stack height of any some, or
the actual use of dispersioa techniques
at a source, nor does it require any
specific stack height for any source.
Instead it sets limits on the maximum
credit for stack height and other
dispersion techniques to be used in
ambient air TKHHIng for the purpose of
setting an emission limitation and
calculating the air quality impact of a
source. Sources are modeled at their
actual physical stack height miles* that
height exceeds their CEP stack height
The regulation applies to all stacks in
existence and all dispersion techniques
implemented since December 31.1870.
SUto tmpUmantsdon Plan
RaqubeoMota
Pursuant to section 406(d)(2) of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.
EPA is requiring that all States (1)
review and revise, as necessary, their
SIP'S to include provisions that limit
stack height credits and dispersion
techniques in accordance with this
regulation and (2) review all existing
emission limitations to determine
whether any of these limitations have
been affected bv stack height credits
above CEP or by any other dispersion
techniques. For any limitations that
have been so affected States must
prepare revised limitations consistent
with their revised SIP'S. All SIP
revisions and revised emission
'limitations must be submitted to EPA
within 9 months of promulgation of this
regulation.
Interim Guidance
In its proposal. EPA stated that it
would us* die proposed regulation to
govern stack height credits during the
period before promulgation of the final
regulation. The EPA further stated that
any stack height credits that are granted
based on this interim guidance would be
subject to review against the final rules
and may need to be revised
Consequently, with these final rules.
EPA is requiring that any action* that
were taken on (lack heights and stack
height credits during this interm penod
be reviewed and revised as needed to
be "*n>t*f*an* with this regulation.
Regulatocy FisodbUtry Analysis
Pursuant to the provision* of 5 U.S.C.
aOB(b). I hereby certify that the attached
rule will not have significant economic
impacts on a substantial number of
small entities. This rule is structured to
apply only to large sources: Le^ those
with stack* above 68 meters (213 feet),
or with annual SOt emissions in excess
of MOO tana, as further noted in the rule.
Based on an analysis of impact*, electric
utility plants and several smelters and
pulp and paper miDs will be
significantly affected by this regulation.
Under Executive Order 12291. EPA
must Judge whether s regulation is
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a regulatory impact
analysis. EPA's analysis of economic
impacts predicts s potential cost to
emission source owners and open tors
exceeding flOO million: therefore, this is
s major rule under Executive Order
12291. However, due to tie promulgation
deadline imposed by the court EPA did
not have sufficient tune to develop a full
analysis of costs and benefits as
lequired by the Executive Order.
Consequently, it is not possible to judge
the annual effect of th:s rule on the
economy. A preliminary economic
impact analysis and »•>':sequent revision
were prepared and s:-> n n* docket
For any facility, &e *: r:aliry and
economic impact of the suck height
regulation generally dtper.ii on the
extant to which the scv:»! stack at that
facility conforms to CE? mck
-------
27900
Federal Register / Vol 50. No. 130 / Monday, July 8. 1985 / Rules and Regulations
Thus, when the regulation ii applied to
large sources, i-e.. those with stick
height greater than CEP and emissions
greater than 5.000 tons per year, it will
have the potential for producing
emission reductions and increased
control costs.
A preliminary evaluation of the
potential air quality impacts and a cost
analysis of the regulation was
performed at the time of proposal The
impacts identified were established in
isolation of other regulatory
requirements. The report predicted a
range of impacts, from a "low impact"
scenario that presumed that many
potentially affected sources would be
able to justify their existing stack
heights, configurations, and emission
limitations to a "high impart" scenario
which assumed that all of the potentially
affected sources would be required to
reduce their emissions to some degree.
In the development of its final
rulemaking action. EPA refined Its-
evaluation of potential impacts,
producing revised estimates of the
probable coats of me changes to the
regulation and expected reductions in
SOi emissions. As a result of this
refinement EPA estimates that the nde
will yield reductions in SOi emissions of
approximately 1.7 million tons per year.
The annualiiad cost of achieving these
reductions will be aproximately $750
million, and the capital cost is expected
to be approximately $700 million.
This regulation was reviewed by the:
Office of Management and Budget and
their written comments and any
responses are contained in Docket A-
83-48.
Judicial Review
The EPA believes that this rule is
based on determinations of nationwide
scope and effect Nothing in section 123
limits its applicability to a particular
locality. State, or region. Rather, section
123 applies to sources wherever located
Under section 307(b)(l) of the dean Air
Act [42 U.S.C 7607(b)(l)J. judicial
review of the actions taken by this
notice is available only by the filing of a
petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia and within 60 days of the date
of publication.
List of Subjects in 44 C7R Part 51
Air pollution control. Ozone. Sulfur
dioxide. Nitrogen dioxide. Lead.
Paniculate matter. Hydrocarbons,
Carbon monoxide.
Dated-June 27,1918.
Lee M. Itacaae,
Adminittrator.
PART SI-REQUIREMENTS POM
PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND
SUBMTTTAL OP IMPLEMENTATION
Part 51 of Chapter L Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 51
continues to read as follows: i
Authority: Sec, 110.301(a). and 123. Oeaa
Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410. TOl(a)
sad 7423).
2. Section S1.1 la amended by revising
paragraph* (hi), (ii). (jfl. end (kk) as
follows:
111.1
(hh)(l) ••Dispersion technique"
any technique which attempts to affect
the concentration of a pollutant in the
ambient air by.
(i) Using that portion of a stack which
exceeds good engineering practice stack
height
(ii) Varying the rate of emission of a
pollutant according to atmospheric
conditions or ambient concentrations of
that pollutant or
(ill) Increasing fl««i exhaust gaa
plume rise by manipulating source
procese parameters, exhaust gaa
parameters, stack parameters, or
combining exhaust gases froen several
existing stacks into one stack: or other
selective handling of exhaust gaa
streams so aa to increase the exhaust .
gaa piusa rise.
(2) The preceding sentence does not
include:
(i) The reaeating of a gaa stream,
following use of a pollution control
system, for the purpose of returning the
gee to the temperature at which it waa
originally discharged from the facility
generating the gaa stream:
(ii) The merging of exhaustjaa
streams where:
(A) The source owner or operator_
demonstrates that the facility was
originally designed and constructed with
such merged gaa streams;
(B) After July 6, 1963. such merging is
part of a change in operation et the
facility mat includes the installation of
pollution controls and is accompanied
by a net reduction in the allowable
emissions of a pollutant. This exclusion
from the definition of "dispersion
techniques" shall apply only to the
emission limitation for the pollutant
affected by such change in operation; or
(C) Before July ft. 1980. such merging
was part of a change in operation at the
facility that included the installation of
emissions control equipment or was
carried out for sound economic or
engineering reasons. Where there wai
an increase in the emission limitation or.
in the event that no emission limitation
was in existence prior to the merging, an
increase in the quantity of pollutants
actually emitted prior to the merging, the
reviewing agency shall presume that
merging was significantly motivated by
an intent to gain emissions credit for
greater dispersion. Absent a
demonstration by the source owner or
operator that merging was not
significantly motivated by such intent.
the reviewing agency shall deny credit
for the effects of such merging in
, the allowable emissions for
the source:
(iii) Smoke management in
agricultural or siivicultural prescribed
burning programs?
(tv) Episodic restrictions on
residential woodburning and open
burnings ee
(v) Techniques under f Sl.l(hh)(lKui)
which increase final exhaust gas plane
rise where the resulting allowable
emissions af sulfur dioxide from the
facility do not exceed MOO tons per
year.
(ii) "Good engineering practice" (CEP)
stack height means the greater of:
(1) 68 meters, measured from the
ground-level elevation at the base of the
stack
(2)'(i) For stacks in existence on
]enwry
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 130 / Monday. July 8. 1985 / Rule* and Regulations
concentrations of any air pollutant as a
result of atmospheric downwaah. wakes,
or eddy effects created by the source
itself, nearby structures or nearby
terrain features.
(jj) "Nearby" as used in { Sl.l(ii) of
this part is defined for a specific
structure or terrain feature and
(1) for purposes of applying the
formulae provided in i 51.1(ii)(2) means
that distance up to five times the lesser
of the height or the width dimension of a
structure, but not greater than 0.8 km [V»
mile), and
(2) for conducting demonstrations
under | 51.1(ii)(3) means not greater *
than 04 km (V4 mile), except that the
portion of a terrain feature may b«
considered to be nearby which falls
within a distance of up to 10 times the
maximum height (H,) of the feature* not
to exceed 2 miles if such feature
achieves a height (H,) 0.6 km from the
stack that is at least 40 percent of the
CEP suck height determined by the
formulae provided in I 51.1(Ii)(2)(ii) of
this part or 2ft meters, whichever is
greater, as measured from the ground-
level elevation at the base of the stack.
The height of the structure or terrain
feature is measured from the ground-
level elevation at the baae of the stack.
(kk) "Excessive concentration" Is' '
defined for the purpose of determining
good engineering practice stack height
under | Sl.l(ii)(3) and means:
(1) for sources seeking credit for stack
height exceeding that established under
I Sl.l(ii)(2). a maximum ground-level
concentration due to emissions from a
stack due in whole or part to downwash.
wakes, and eddy effects produced by
nearby structures or nearby terrain
features which individually is at least 40
percent in excess of the maximum
concentration experienced in the
absence of such downwash. wakes, or
eddy effects and which contribute* to a
total concentration due to emissions
from all sources that is greater than an
ambient air quality standard. For
sources subject to the prevention of
significant deterioration program (40
CFR 51.24 and 5121). an excessive
concentration alternatively means a
maximum ground-level concentration
due to emissions from a stack due in
whole or pert to downwash, wakes, or
eddy effects produced by nearby
structures or nearby terrain features
which individually is at least 40 percent
in excess of the maximum concentration
experienced in the absence of the
maximum concentration experienced in
the absence of such downwash. wakes,
or eddy effects and greater than a
prevention of significant deterioration
increment The allowable emission rate
to be used in making demonstrations
under this pan shall be prescribed by
the new source performance standard
that is applicable to the source category
unless the owner or operator
demonstrates that this emission rate is
infeasible. Where such demonstrations
are approved by the authority
admir -ering the State implementation
plan. - Alternative emission rate shall
be established in consultation with the
source owner or operator
(2) for sources seeking credit after
October 1.1983. for Increases in existing
suck heights up to the heights
established under { 5U(ii}(2). either (i)
i m«yiminn ground-level concentration
due in whole or part to downwash.
wakes or eddy effects as provided in
paragraph (kk)(l) of this section, except
that the emission rate specified by any
applicable State implemenUtion plan
(or. in the absence of such a bait the
actual emission rate) shall be used, or
(li) the actual presence of a local
nuisance caused by the existing sUck,
as determined by the authority
administering the Sute implemenUtion
plan: and
(3) for sources seeking credit after
January 12.1979 for a suck height
dtunninedunder I 51.1(ii)(2) where the
euthority administering the SUU
implemenUtion plan raquim the use of
a field study or fluid modal to verify
CEP suck height for sources seeking
suck height credit after November 9.
IBM baaed on the aerodynamic
influence of cooling towers, and for
sources seeking stack height credit a,
December 31.1970 based on the
aerodynamic influence of structures not
adequately represented by the equations
in | 31.1(ii)(2), a maximum gnund-levai
concentration due in whole or part to
downwash. wake* or eddy effects that
is at leaat 40 percent in excess of the
maximum concentration experienced in
the absence of such downwash. wakes.
or eddy effects.
3. Section S1.1 is further amended by
removing paragraphs (U) and (mm).
llttt
4. Section 51.12 is amended by
removing paragraph (!)•
S. Section 51.12(0 (• emended by
removing "and (1)" from the first
sentence.
0. Section 51.12(k) is revised as
follows:
(k) The provisions of | 51.12(j) (hall
not apply to (1) suck heights in
existence, or dispersion techniques
Implemented on or before December 31.
1970. except where pollutants are being
emitted from such sucks or using such
dispersion techniques by sources, as
defined in section lll(a)(3) of the Clean
Air Act which were constructed, or
reconstructed, or for which major
modifications, as defined in
H lUKJMDMMi SlJ4(b)(2Ki) and
5Z21(b)(2)(l). were carried out after
December 31.1970: or (2) coal-fired
suarn electric generating units subject
to the provisions of Section 118 of the
Clean Air Act which commenced
operation before July 1.1987, and whose
sucks were constructed under a
construction contract awarded before
February «. 1974.
7. Section 31.18(1) i* amended by
winf "and (I)" torn *e &•*
jnt Dee fft-MOM Filed ?-*-» *« tm|
-------
Port 51
PART 51—REQUIREMENTS FOR PREP.
ARAHON. ADOPHON, AND SUt-
MITTAl Of IMPLEMENTATION
PLANS
Sec.
• 1.40 Scope.
AQMA ANALYSIS
•Ml AQUA analysis: SubmltUI date.
• 1.41 AQMA analysis: Analysis period.
• 1.41 AQMA analysis: Guidelines.
• 1.44 AQMA analyiU: Projection of emto-
•lona.
•1.4B AQMA analyiU: Allocation of emla-
•Ion*.
•1.4« AQMA analysti: Projection of air
quality concentration*.
•1.47 AQMA analysis: Description of data
sources.
•1.4* AQMA analysis: Data bases.
• 1.4* AQMA analysis: Techniques descrip-
tion.
SI 80 AQMA analysis: Accuracy factors.
• I SI AQMA analysis: Submlttal of calcula-
tions.
AQMA FLAM
• III AQMA plan: Oeneral.
81.81 AQMA plan: Demonstration of ade-
quacy.
II.M AQMA plan: Strategies.
II II AQMA plan: Legal authority.
II M AQMA plan: Future strategies.
81.87 AQMA plan: Future legal authority.
• I.M AQMA plan: Intergovernmental co-
operation.
• IB* (Reserved!
81 IK) AQMA plan: Resources
(1.01 AQMA plan: SubmllUI fonnat.
• I n AQMA analyils and plan: Data avail-
ability.
• I »3 AQMA analysis and plan: Alternative
procedure*
• I 100 Definitions.
ft! 101 Stipulation!.
11 I ni Public hearings.
• 1.101 Submission of plans: preliminary
review of plaiu.
61 104 Revisions.
51 I OB Approval of plans.
40 CFR Ch. I (7-141 Edition)
lufcpart O—Central Strategy
•I.110 Attainment and maintenance of na-
tional standards.
BI 111 Description of control measures.
•I.Ill Demonstration of adequacy.
II.III Time period for demonstration of
adequacy.
11.114 Emissions data and projections.
•I.Ill Air quality data and projections.
(1.118 Data availability.
•I.IIT Additional provisions for lead.
II.lit Stack heliht provisions.
II.II* Intermittent control systems.
l»i»a«t H—rr»v»nH«t> •* Ah »•••*•»
l«..re...cv iyh**.
BUBO Classification of reilons for episode
plans.
•l.lll fllcnlfleant harm levels.
81.181 Contlniency plans.
B1.183 Reevaluatlon of episode plans.
•1.160 Legally enforceable procedures.
11.111 Public availability of Information.
11.111 Identification of responsible
agency.
II.161 Administration procedures.
11.164 Stack height procedures.
11.161 Permit requirements.
11.166 Prevention of significant deterio-
ration of air quality.
in*jf«H J AjufcUoJ Air Qoolll; I•>«»•••»•
BUM Ambient air quality monitoring re-
quirements.
•1.110 Oeneral.
•1.111 Emission reports and recordkeeplng.
Bl.lll Testing. Inspection, enforcement.
and complaints.
11.111 Transportation control measures.
11.114 Continuous emission monitoring.
•I.110 Requirements for all plans.
Bl.lll Identification of legal authority.
Bl.lll Assignment of legal authority to
local agencies.
ln»»«il M—Msrajo¥snii»si»M C«ni»*t»rl«ii
AGENCY DESIGNATION
SI.140 Oeneral plan requirements.
BI.24I Nonattalnment areas for carbon
monoxide and ozone.
SI.142 (Reserved!
712
Environmental Protection Agency
§51.40
CONTINUING CONSULTATION PIOCESS
SI.243 Consultation process objectives.
SI.244 Plan elements affected.
SI 245 Organizations and officials to be
consulted.
11.246 Timing.
BI.24T Hearings on consultation process
violations.
RELATioNSHir or PLAN TO Ornn PLANNING
AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
11.248 Coordination with other programs.
11.240 {Reserved!
•I.ISO Transmlttal of Information.
BI.2SI Conformity with Executive Order
11371.
S1.1S1 Summary of plan development par-
ticipation.
B1.16O Legally enforceable compliance
schedules.
812*1 Final compliance schedules.
B1.261 Extension beyond one year.
i flan Cantant
11.160 Resources.
•1.181 Copies of rules and regulations.
SI.285 Public notification.
•1.300 Purpose and applicability.
81.301 Definitions.
51.302 Implementation control strategies.
•I .101 Exemptions from control.
81.104 Identification of Integral vistas.
II. 108 Monitoring.
11.306 Long-term strategy.
11.307 New source review.
AIR QUALITY DATA REROUTING ,
81.320 Annual air quality data report.
Bonnes EMISIIOMS AND STATE ACTION
RETORTING
81.311 Annual source emissions and State
action report.
SI. Ill Sources subject to emissions report-
Ing.
81 323 Reportable emissions data and In-
formation.
II .124 Progress In plan enforcement.
61.328 Contingency plan actions.
81.328 Reportable revisions.
81.327 Enforcement orders and other State
actions.
81.320 (Reserved!
SI.341 Request for 18-month extension.
ArreNDicES A—K—(RESERVED)
ArrENDix L— EXAMrLE REGULATIONS FOR
PREVENTION or AIR POLLUTION EMEHCEN
cv EnsoDES
ArrENDIX M [RESERVED)
ArrcKDix N-EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS
ACHIEVABLE THROUGH iNsrccrioH. MAIN
TENANCE AND RCTROnT or LIGHT DUTY
VEHICLES
ArrEHoix O—(RESERVED)
ArrENDix P—MINIMUM EMISSION MONITOR
ING REQUIREMENTS
ArrENDicES Q—R—1 RESERVED I
ArrENDix S—EMISSION Orrsrr IirrcRrRETA-
TIVE RDLING
ArrcNDix T—(RESERVED!
ArrENDix U—CLEAN Am ACT SECTION 174
GUIDELINES
AUTHORITY: This rulemaklng Is promul-
gated under authority ol sections tOKbXI).
110. 160-160. 171-178. and 301(a> of the
Clean Air Act 41 U.8.C. 7401. 7410.
7470-7470. 7SO1-76OB. and 7S01(a>.
SOURCE: 16 FR 22398. Nov. IS. 1871. unless
otherwise noted.
EDITORIAL NOTE: Nomenclature changes
affecting Part 81 appear at 44 FR 8137. Feb.
8. 1078 and 81 FR 40661. Nov. 7,1086.
Subportt A-C—(Reserved|
Subpart D—MahifenaiK«
Standards
of National
• y|.— — -« • — S
SI. 340 Request lor 2 year extension.
SOURCE: 41 FR 18388. May 3, 1976. unless
otherwise noted.
151.46 Scope.
(a) Applicability. The requirements
or this Bubpart apply to air quality
maintenance areas (AQMAs) Identi-
fied under | 51.110(1) and to any areas
Identified under 151.110X11.
(b) AQMA Analviit. Under this sub-
part, procedures are given for the
analysis of the air quality Impact of
specified pollutant emissions from ex-
isting sources and emissions associated
with projected growth and develop-
ment In areas Identified under para-
graphs U) and (1) of 151.110. This
analysis Is referred to In this subpart
as an AQMA analysis.
(c) AQMA Plan. Under this subpart.
the Administrator will require a revi-
sion to the State Implementation plnn
for areas Identified under I 51.110(1) or
| 61.110(1) when necessary to prevent a
national ambient air quality standard
713
-------
jsi.nr
40 C« Cfc. I (7-l-M Edition)
estimated amounts of emissions and
the amounts of such emissions allow-
able under the applicable emission
limitations or other measures.
111.117 AMItlmul provUloiu for Jc«4.
Ill addition to other requirements In
|| 51 100 through (1.116 the following
requirements apply to lead. To the
extent they conflict, there require-
ments are controlling over those of
the proceeding sections.
(a) Control ttraten drmonitration.
Bach plan must contain a demonstra-
tion showing that the plan will attain
and maintain the standard In the fol-
lowing areas:
(1) Areas In the vicinity of the fol-
lowing point sources of lead: Primary
lead smelters. Secondary lead smelt-
ers. Primary copper smelters. Lead
gasoline additive plants. Lead-acid
storage battery manufacturing plants
that produce 3.000 or more batteries
per day. Any other stationary source
that actually emits 25 or more tons
per year of lead or lead compounds
measured as elemental lead.
(3) Any other area that has lead air
concentrations In excess of the nation-
al ambient air quality standard con-
centration for lead, measured since
January 1, 1974.
(b) Time perto /or emon$tralion of
a equacv- The demonstration of ade-
quacrof the control strategy required
under 161.113 may cover a longer
period If allowed by the appropriate
EPA Regional Administrator.
(c) Special modeling provitlont. (I)
For urbanized areas with measured
lead concentrations In excess of 4.0
jig/m'. quarterly mean measured since
January I. 1074, the plan must employ
the modified rollback model for the
demondration of attainment as a min-
imum, but may use an atmospheric
dlaperslon model If desired. If a pro-
portional model U used, the air quality
rial* should be the satre year as the
emissions Inventory required under
Hie paragraph e.
(2» For each point source listed In
I 61 11KB). that plan must employ an
•Ininspherlc dispersion model for dem-
onstration of attainment.
(3* For each area In the vicinity of
nn Rlr quality monitor that has record-
ed lead concentrations In excess ul the
lead national standard concentration,
the plan must employ the modified
rollback model as a minimum, but may
use an atmospheric dispersion model If
desired for the demonstration of at-
tainment.
(d) Air quality data and projection*.
(1) Each State must submit to the ap-
propriate EPA Regional Office with
the plan, but not part of the plan, all
lead air quality data measured since
January I. 1974. This requirement
does not apply If the data has already
been submitted.
(3) The data must be submitted In
accordance with the procedures and
data forms specified In Chapter 3.4.0
of the "AEROS User's Manual" con-
cerning storage and retrieval of aero-
metric data (BAROAD) except where
the Regional Administrator waives
this requirement.
(3) If additional lead air quality data
are desired to determine lead air con-
centrations In areas suspected of ex-
ceeding the lead national ambient air
quality standard, the plan may Include
data from any previously collected fil-
ters from partlculate matter high
volume samplers. In determining the
lead content of the filters for control
strategy demonstration purposes, a
State may use. In addition to the refer-
ence method. X-ray fluorescence or
any other method approved by the Re-
gional Administrator.
(e) SmUiion* data. (1) The point
source Inventory on which the summa-
ry of the baseline lead emissions In-
ventory Is based must contain all
sources that emit five or more tons of
lead per year.
(3) Each State must submit lead
emissions data to the appropriate EPA
Regional Office with the original plan.
The submission must be made with
the plan, but not as part of the plan,
and must Include emissions data and
Information related to point and area
source emissions. The emission data
and Information should Include the In-
formation Identified In the Hazardous
and Trace Emissions System (HA
TREMS) point source coding forms
for all point sources and the area
source coding forms for all sources
that are not point sources, but need
not necessarily be In the format of
those forms.
728
Environmental Protection Agency
I (I.I 18 Stack height provUloni.
(a) The plan must provide that the
degree of emission limitation required
of any source for control of any air
pollutant must not be affected by so
much of any source's stack height that
exceeds good engineering practice or
by any other dispersion technique.
except as provided In |61.118(b). The
plan must provide that before a State
submits to EPA a new or revised emis-
sion limitation that Is based on a good
engineering practice stack height that
exceeds the height allowed by
151.100(11) (1) or (2). the State must
notify the public of the avallabllty of
the demonstration study and must
provide opportunity for a public hear-
ing on It. This section does not require
the plan to restrict. In any manner.
the actual stack height of any source.
(b) The provisions of |51.118(a)
shall not apply to (1) stack heights In
existence, or dispersion techniques Im-
plemented on or before December 31,
1070, except where pollutants are
being emitted from such stacks or
using such dispersion techniques by
sources, as defined In section llKaXS)
of the Clean Air Act, which were con-
structed, or reconstructed, or for
which major modifications, as defined
In ||51.105(aMlKvKA), 61.1M(bX2MI>
and 63.31. were carried out
after December 31. 1»70; or (3) coal-
fired steam electric generating units
subject to the provisions of section 1 IB
of the Clean Air Act. which com-
menced operation before July 1, 1957,
and whose stacks were construced
under a construction contract awarded
before February S. 1974.
I tl.l I* Intermittent control •7*Unu.
(a) The use of an Intermittent con-
trol system (ICS) may be taken Into
account In establishing an emission
limitation for a pollutant under a
State Implementation plan, provided:
(1) The ICS was Implemented before
December 31, 1970, according to the
criteria specified In | 51.119(b).
(2) The extent to which the ICS Is
taken Into account Is limited to reflect
emission levels and associated ambient
pollutant concentrations that would
result If the ICS was the same as It
was before December 31, 1970. and was
operated as specified by the operating
§51.119
system of the ICS before December 31,
1970.
<3> The plan allows the ICS to com-
pensate only for emissions from a
source for which the ICS was Imple-
mented before December 31.1970. and.
In the event the source has been modi-
fled, only to the extent the emissions
correspond to the maximum capacity
of the source before December 31.
1970. For purposes of this paragraph,
a source for which the ICS was Imple-
mented Is any particular structure or
equipment the emissions from which
were subject to the ICS operating pro-
cedures.
(4) The plan requires the continued
operation of any constant pollution
control system which was In use
before December 31. 1970. or the
equivalent of that system.
(5) The plan clearly defines the
emission limits affected by the ICS
and the manner In which the ICS Is
taken Into account In establishing
those limits.
<6> The plan contains requirements
for the operation and maintenance of
the qualifying ICS which, together
with the emission limitations and any
other necessary requirements, will
assure that the national ambient air
quality standards and any applicable
prevention of significant deterioration
Increments will be attained and main-
tained. These requirements shall In-
clude, but not necessarily be limited
to, the following:
(I) Requirements that a source
owner or operator continuously oper-
ate and maintain the components of
the ICS specified at 151.119(bM3) (II)-
(Iv) In a manner which assures that
the ICS Is at least as effective as It was
before December 31, 1970. The air
quality monitors and meteorological
Instrumentation specified at
I 51.119(b) may be operated by a local
authority or other entity provided the
source has ready access to the data
from the monitors and Instrumenta-
tion.
(II) Requirements which specify the
circumstances under which, the extent
to which, and the procedures through
which, emissions shall be curtailed
through the activation of ICS.
(Ill) Requirements for recordkeeplng
which require the owner or operator
729
-------
(31.153
IIMU Reeialualloii of epliode plan*.
(a) States should periodically re-
evaluate priority classifications of all
Regions or portion of llegloita within
tlielr borders. The revaluation must
consider the three most recent yean
of air quality dat*. If the evaluation
Indicates a change to a higher priority
classification, appropriate chances In
the episode plan must be made as ex-
ppditlously as practicable.
Swfcpart |—Review of New Source*
and Modification*
flomrc tl m 4MS9. No*. 1, 1«B9. unless
othcrvtar noted.
ftl.lt* Legally enforceable procedure*.
(a) Bach plan must set forth legally
enforceable procedures that enable
the State or local agency to determine
whether the construction or modifica-
tion of a facility, building, structure or
Installation, or combination of these
will result In—
(DA violation of applicable portions
of the control strategy; or
(3) Interference with attainment or
maintenance of a national standard In
the State In which the proposed
source (or modification) Is located or
In a neighboring State.
(b) Such procedures must Include
means by which the State or local
agency responsible for final decision-
making on an application for approval
to construct or modify will prevent
such construction or modification If—
(1) It will result In a violation of ap-
plicable portions of the control strate-
gy: or
(2) It will Interfere with the attain-
ment or maintenance of a national
standard.
(c) The procedures must provide for
the submission, by the owner or opera-
tor of the building, facility, structure.
or Initallallon to be constructed or
mortified, of such Information on—
(1) The nature and amounts of emis-
sions lo be emitted by It or emitted by
awM-lated mobile sources;
(2) The location, design, construc-
tion, an.
• It.lM UentuVailoii of
agency.
Each plan must Identify the State or
local agency which will be responsible
for meeting the requirements of this
subpart In each area of the State.
Where such responsibility rests with
an agency other than an air pollution
control agency, such agency will con-
sult with the appropriate State or
local air pollution control agency In
carrying out the provisions of this sub-
part.
I fl.l<3 AdiulnMnure procedure*.
The plan must Include the xtminbu
tratlve procedures, which will be fol-
lowed In making the determination
specified In paragraph (a) of 161.180.
111.1*4 Stack bright procedural.
Such procedures must provide that
the degree of emission limitation re-
quired of any source for control of any
air pollutant must not be affected by
so much of any source's stack height
that exceeds good engineering practice
or by any other dispersion technique.
except as provided In I C1.118(b). Such
procedures must provide that before a
State lusues a permit to a source based
on iv good engineering practice stack
height that exceeds the height al-
lowed by 151.100(11) (1) or (2). the
State must notify the public of the
availability of the demonstration
study and must provide opportunity
for public hearing on It. This section
does not require such procedures to re
8 51.143
strict In any manner the actual stack
height of any source.
tftl.lt* Permit requirement*.
(a) State Implementation Plan pro-
visions satisfying sections 172(bX6)
and 173 of the Act shall meet the fol-
lowing conditions:
(1) All such plans shall use the spe-
cific definitions. Deviations from the
following wording will be approved
only If the state specifically demon-
strates that the submitted definition Is
more stringent, or at least as strin-
gent. In all respects as the correspond-
ing definition below:
(I) "Stationary source" means any
building, structure, facility, or Installa-
tion which emits or may emit any air
pollutant subject to regulation under
the Act.
(ID "Building, structure, facility, or
Installation" means all of the pollut-
ant-emitting activities which belong to
the same Industrial grouping, are lo-
cated on one or more contiguous or ad-
jacent properties, and are under the
control of the same person (or persons
under common control) except the ac-
tivities of any vessel. Pollutant-emit-
ting activities shall be considered as
part of the same Industrial grouping If
they belong to the same "Major
Group" (I.e.. which have the same two-
digit code) as described In the Stand-
ard Industrial Cla»*ificaUon Manual,
/f 72, as amended by the 197? Supple-
ment (U.S. Government Printing
Office stock numbers 4101-0066 and
003-005 001760. respectively).
(Ill) "Potential to emit" means the
maximum capacity of a stationary
source to emit a pollutant under Its
physical and operational design. Any
physical or operational limitation on
the capacity of the source to emit a
pollutant. Including air pollution con-
trol equipment and restrictions on
hours of operation or on the type or
amount of material combusted, stored.
or processed, shall be treated as part
of Its design only If the limitation or
the effect It would have on emissions
Is federally enforceable. Secondary
emissions do not count In determining
the potential to emit of a stationary
source.
733
-------
J 51.1 J
monitoring or communications por-
tion* of a contingency plan, but de-
UUed critiques oj such portions are
provided to the State.
(e) Where a State plan does not pro-
vide for public announcement regard-
ing air pollution emergency episodes
or where the State falls to give any
such public announcement, the Ad-
ministrator will Issue a public an-
nouncement that an episode stage has
been reached. When making such an
announcement, the Administrator will
be guided by the suggested episode cri-
teria and emission control actions sug-
gested In Appendix L of Part 51 of this
chapter or those In the approved plan.
(IT FR 10040. May SI. im. as amended at
IT PR 10SOT. Sept. it. IS72I
ltl.lt Sonrce surveillance.
(a) Each subpart Identifies the plan
provisions for source surveillance
which are disapproved, and sets forth
the Administrator's promulgation of
necessary provisions for requiring
sources to maintain records, make re-
ports, and submit Information.
(b) No provisions are promulgated
for any disapproved State or local
agency procedures for testing. Inspec-
tion. Investigation, or detection, but
detailed critiques of such portions are
provided to the Stale.
(c) For purpose of Federal enforce-
ment, the following test procedures
shall be used:
(1) Sources subject to plan provi-
sions which do not specify a test pro-
cedure and sources subject to provi-
sions promulgated by the Administra-
tor will be tested by means of the ap-
propriate procedures and methods pre-
scribed In Part 60 of this chapter;
unless otherwise specified In this part.
(2) Sources subject to approved pro-
visions of a plan wherein a test proce-
dure la specified will be tested by the
specified procedure.
137 FR 1OS40. May 31. 1*72, M amended at
40 PR 38032. June 20. I01M
I M.I 3 Air quality surveillance; resources;
Intergovernmental cooperation.
IMsapproved portions of the plan re-
Ut*J to the air quality surveillance
system, resources, and Intergovern-
mental cooperation arc Identified In
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-M Idlllon)
each subpart. and detailed critiques of
such portions are provided to the
State. No provisions are promulgated
by the Administrator.
IM.I4 State ambient air quality stand-
ards.
Any ambient air quality standard
submitted with a plan which Is less
stringent than a national standard Is
not considered part of the plan.
I •!.!• FvMIc availability of plan*.
Each State shall make available for
public Inspection at least one copy of
the plan In at least one city In each
region to which such plan Is applica-
ble. All such copies shall be kept cur-
rent.
I IS.IO Submission to Administrator.
All requests, reports, applications.
submlttals. and other communications
to the Administrator pursuant to this
part shall be submitted In duplicate
and addressed to the appropriate Re-
gional Office of the Environmental
Protection Agency, to the attention of
the Director, Enforcement Division.
The Regional Offices are as follows:
Region I (Connecticut, Maine. Massachu-
setts. New Hampshire. Rhode Island. Ver-
mont). John P. Kennedy Federal Building.
Boston. Mass. 01203.
Region II (New York. New Jersey, Puerto
Rico, Virgin Islands) Federal Office Build-
ing. M Federal Plaza (Poley Square). New
York. NT 10007.
Region III (Delaware. Dtotrlct of Columbia.
Pennsylvania. Maryland. Virginia. West
Virginia) Curtis Building. Sixth and
Walnut Streets. Philadelphia. PA 19100.
Region IV (Alabama. Florida. Georgia. Mis-
sissippi. Kentucky. North Carolina. South
Carolina. Tennessee) Suite 300. 1421
Peachtree Street. Atlanta. OA 3030*.
Region V < Illinois. Indiana. Minnesota,
Ohio, Wisconsin) Federal Building. 230
South Dearborn. Chicago. Illinois 00000.
Region VI (Arkansas. Louisiana. New
Mexico. Oklahoma, Texas) l«00 Patenon
Street. Dallas. TX 7B30I.
Region VII (Iowa. Kansas. Missouri. Nebras-
ka) 1738 Baltimore Street. Kansas City,
MO 04100.
Region VIII (Colorado. Montana. North
Dakota. South Dakota. Utah. Wyoming)
010 Lincoln Towers. liiO Lincoln Street.
Denver. CO 00303.
Reston IX I Arizona, California, Hawaii.
Nevada. Ouun. American Samoa) 100
lavw*MN*ntwl rrwtectlwn Agency
CoUfornte Street. Ban Francisco. CA
M (Washhwton. Oregon. Idaho.
Alaska) 1300 Sixth Avenue. Seattle. WA
MIOI.
Ill FR Iteot. Sept M. im, as amended at
WFR "007. Oct. 31. 10741
I U.IT Bstw/awBMy W srwvtsUns.
The provisions promulgated In this
put and the various application
thereof are distinct and aeverable. If
any provision of this part or the appli-
cation thereof to any person or cir-
cumstances Is held Invalid, such Inva-
lidity shall not affect other provisions
or application of such provision to
other persona or circumstances which
can be given effect without the Invalid
provision or application.
137 FR latOO, Sept. M. 10731
dates for national standards does not
relieve any State from the provisions
of Subpart N of this chapter which re-
quire all sources and categories of
sources to comply with applicable re-
quirements of the plan—
(a) As expedltlously as practicable
where the requirement Is part of a
control strategy designed to attain a
primary standard, and
(b) Within a reasonable time where
the requirement Is part of a control
strategy designed to attain a second-
ary standard.
IU.lt
Abbreviations used In this part shall
be those set forth ID Part M of this
chapter.
IM FR 130M. stay 14.10731
IIS.lt Revlstoa wf
by AwsataMra-
After notice and opportunity for
hearing In each affected State, the Ad-
ministrator may revise any provision
of an applicable plan. Including but
not limited to provisions specifying
compliance schedules, emission limita-
tions, and dates for attainment of na-
tional standards: If:
(a) The provision waa promulgated
by the Administrator, and
(b) The plan, as revised, will be con-
sistent with the act and with the re-
quirements applicable to Implementa-
tion plans under Part 61 of this chap-
ter.
(U FR 13000. May 14.10731
HIM Attainment slates for national
Each subpart contains a section
which specifies the latest dates by
which national standards are to be at-
tained In each region In the State. An
attainment date which only refers to a
month and a year (such as July lt7B)
shall be construed to mean the last
day of the month In question. Howev-
er, the specification of attainment
137 FR 10000. Sept. 33. 1073, as I
M FR 34«3». Sept. 30. 1074: tl FR 400TO.
NOV.I.IOM]
ItUl lYevwfttta* ef significant wcterl*.
ratto«Wau-q»aUty.
(a) Plan disapproval The provisions
of this section are applicable to any
State Implementation plan which has
been disapproved with respect to pre-
vention of significant deterioration of
air quality In any portion of any State
where the existing air quality Is better
than the national ambient air quality
standards. Specific disapprovals are
listed where applicable. In Subparts B
through ODD of this part. The provi-
sions of this section have been Incor-
porated by reference Into the applica-
ble Implementation plans for various
States, as provided In Subparts B
through DDD of this part. Where this
section Is so Incorporated, the provi-
sions shall also be applicable to all
lands owned by the Federal Oover-
ment and Indian Reservations located
In such State. No disapproval with re-
spect to a State's failure to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality
shall Invalidate or otherwise affect the
obligations of States, emission sources,
or other persons with respect to all
portions of plans approved or promul-
gated under this part.
(b) Definition*. For the purposes of
this section:
(1HI) "Major stationary source"
means:
(a) Any of the following stationary
sources of air pollutants which emits.
or has the potential to emit. 100 tons
per year or more of any pollutant sub-
ject to regulation under the Act: Fossil
fuel-fired steam electric plants of more
18
19
-------
9 57.11
than 260 million British thermal units
per hour heat Input, coal cleaning
plants (with thermal dryers), kraft
pulp mills, Portland cement plants..
primary nine smelters. Iron and steel
mill plants, primary aluminum ore re-
duction plants, primary copper smelt-
ers, municipal Incinerators capable of
charting more than 360 tons of refuse
per day. hydrofluoric, sulfurlc. and
nitric acid plants, petroleum refiner-
ies, lime planU. phosphate rock proc-
essing plants, coke oven batteries.
sulfur recovery plants, carbon black
plants (furnace process), primary lead
smelters, fuel conversion plants, sin-
tering plants, secondary metal produc-
tion plants, chemical process plants,
fossil fuel boilers (or combinations
thereof) totaling more than 250 mil-
lion British thermal units per hour
heat Input, petroleum storage and
transfer units with a total storage ca-
pacity exceeding 300.000 barrels, taco-
nlte ore processing plants, glass fiber
processing plants, and charcoal pro-
duction plants;
(6) Notwithstanding the stationary
source sice specified In paragraph
(bMlKI) of this section, any stationary
source which emits, or has the poten-
tial to emit. 260 torn per year or more
of any air pollutant subject to regula-
tion under the Act; or
(c> Any physical change that would
occur at a stationary source not other-
wise qualifying under paragraph (bMl)
of this section, as a major stationary
source. If the changes would constitute
a major stationary source by Itself.
(II) A major stationary source that to
major for volatile organic compounds
shall be considered major for ozone.
(Ill) The fugitive emissions of a sta-
tionary source shall not be Included In
determining for any of the purposes of
this section whether It Is a major sta-
tionary source, unless the source be-
long* to one of the following catego-
ries of stationary sources:
(a) Coal cleaning plants (with ther-
mal dryers);
(6) Kraft pulp mills;
(c) Portland cement plants;
Hydrofluoric, sulfurlc, or nitric
acid plants;
O> Petroleum refineries:
(k) LJme plants:
(I) Phosphate rock processing plants;
(m) Coke oven batteries;
(n) Sulfur recovery plants;
(o) Carbon black plants (furnace
process);
(p) Primary lead smelters;
(a) Fuel conversion plants:
(r) Buttering plant*;
(*) Secondary metal production
plants:
(O Chemical process plant*:
(M) Fossil-fuel boilers (or combina-
tion thereof) totaling more than 260
million British thermal units per hour
heat Input:
(o) Petroleum storage and transfer
units with a total storage capacity ex-
ceeding 300.000 barrels;
(to) Taconlte ore processing plants;
(x> Olass fiber processing plant*;
(y> Charcoal production plants;
(*) Fossil fuel-fired steam electric
plant* of more that 260 million British
thermal units per hour heat Input."
and
(o«) Any other stationary source cat-
egory which, as of August 7. 19M. Is
being regulated under section 111 or
112 of the Act.
(2X1) "Major modification" means
any physical change In or change In
the method of operation of a major
stationary source that would result In
a significant net emission* Increase of
any pollutant subject to regulation
under the Act.
(II) Any net emissions Increase that
Is significant for volatile organic com-
pounds shall be considered significant
for ozone.
(Ill) A physical change or change In
the method of operation shall not In-
clude:
(a) Routine maintenance, repair and
replacement;
(6) Use of an alternative fuel or raw
material by reason of an order under
sections 2 (a) and (b) of the Energy
Supply and Environmental Coordina-
tion Act of 1974 (or any superseding
legislation) or by reason of a natural
i..,hei»aei*.l rrevecrtew Aa^ncy
gas curtailment plant pursuant to the
Federal Power Act;
An Increase ta actual nmtortnna to
creditable only to the extent that the
new level of actual emission* exceed*
theoMleveL
(vl) A dturea** ta actual emissions to
creditable only to the extent that:
<«) The old level of actual emissions
or the old level of allowable emissions,
whichever to tower, exceed* the new
level of actual emissions;
(») It to federally enforceable at and
after the ttae that actual construction
on the particular change begins; and
(c) It ha* approximately the aame
qualitative significance for public
health and welfare a* that attributed
to the Increase from the particular
change.
(vU) (Beaervedl
(vUl) An Increase that result* from a
physical change at a source occurs
when the emsanon* unit on which oon-
atructlon occurred become* operation-
al and begin* to emit a particular pol-
lutant Any replacement unit that re-
quire* shakedown become* operational
only after a reasonable shakedown
period, not to exceed 100 day*.
(4) "Potential to emit" mean* the
maximum capacity of a stationary
source to emit a pollutant under Its
physical and operational design. Any
physical or operational limitation on
the capacity of the source to emit a
pollutant. Including ah- pollution con-
trol equipment and restriction* on
houn of operation or on the type or
amount of material combusted, stored,
or processed, shall be treated a* part
of It* design if the limitation or the
effect It would have on emtoalon* to
federally enforceable. Secondary emis-
sion* do not count ta determining the
potential to emit of a stationary
source. .
(6) "Stationary source" means any
building, structure, facility, or Install*
20
21
-------
gsxai
tlon which emits or may emit any air
pollutant subject to regulation under
the Act.
(6) "Building, structure, facility, or
Installation" means all of the pollut-
ant-emitting activities which belong to
the same Industrial grouping, are lo-
cated on one or more contiguous or ad-
jacent properties, and are under the
control of the same person (or person*
under common control) except the ac-
tivities of any vesoel. Pollutant-emit-
ting activities shall be considered as
part of the same Industrial grouping If
they belong to the same "Major
Group" (I.e.. which have the same first
two digit code) as described In the
Standard Industrial CloJli/lcaflon
Manual, 1972. as amended by the 1077
Pufiplement (D) or
(E) of the Act for the pollutant on the
date of Its complete application under
40 CFR 82.21; and
(6) In the case of a major stationary
source, the pollutant would be emitted
In significant amounts, or. In the case
of a major modification, there would
be a significant net emissions Increase
of the pollutant.
(16X1) "Baseline area" means any
Intrastate area (and every part there-
of) designated as attainment or unclas-
slflable under section 107(dMl> (D) or
(E) of the Act In which the major
source or major modification estab-
lishing the baseline date would con-
struct or would have an air quality
Impact equal to or greater than 1 fig/
§5X21
m1 (annual average) of the pollutant
for which the baseline date Is estab-
lished.
(II) Area redeslgnatlons under sec-
tion 107(dXI) (D) or (E) of the Act
cannot Intersect or be smaller than
the area of Impact of any mjaor sta-
tionary source or major .'-modification
which:
(a) Establishes a baseline date; or
(ft) Is subject to 40 CFR 82.21 and
would be constructed In the same state
as the state proposing the redeslgna-
tlon.
(16) "Allowable emissions" means
the emissions rate of a stationary
source calculated using the maximum
rated capacity of the source (unless
the source to subject to federally en-
forceable limits which restrict the op-
erating rate, or hours of operation, or
both) and the most stringent of the
following:
(I) The applicable standards as set
forth In 40 CFR Parts 00 and 91;
(II) The applicable State Implemena-
tlon Plan emissions limitation. Includ-
ing those with a future compliance
date; or
-------
{ 52.21
recUr from a mobile source, such a*
emissions from the tailpipe of a motor
vehicle, from a train, or from a vessel.
(I) Emissions from ships or trains
coming to or from the new or modified
stationary source; and
(II) Emissions from any offalte sup-
port facility which would not other-
wise be constructed or Increase Its
emissions as a result of the construc-
tion or operation of the major station-
ary source or major modification.
(19) "Innovative control technology"
means any system of air pollution con-
trol that has not been adequately
demonstrated In practice, but would
have a substantial likelihood of
achieving greater continuous emis-
sions reduction than any control
system In current practice or of
achieving at least comparable reduc-
tions at lower cost In terms of energy.
economics, or nonalr quality environ-
mental Impacts.
(30) "Fugitive emissions" means
those emissions which rould not rea-
sonably pass through a stack, chim-
ney, vent, or other functionally equiv-
alent opening.
(JIKI) "Actual emissions" means the
actual rate of emissions of a pollutant
from an emissions unit, as determined
In accordance with paragraphs (bXJI)
(II) through (Iv) of this section.
(II) In general, actual emissions as of
a particular date shall equal the aver-
age rate. In tons per year, at which the
unit actually emitted the pollutant
during a two-year period which pre-
cedes the particular date and which Is
representative of normal source oper-
ation. The Administrator shall allow
'.he use of a different time period upon
a determination that It Is more repre-
sentative of normal source operation.
Actual emissions shall be calculated
using the unit's actual operating
hours, production rates, and types of
materials processed, stored, or com-
busted during the selected time period.
(Ill) The Administrator may presume
that source-specific allowable emis-
sions for the unit are equivalent to the
actual emissions of the unit.
(Iv) For any emissions unit which
has not begun normal operations on
the particular date, actual emissions
•hall equal the potential to emit of the
unit on that <|H!P
40 CFR Oi. I (7-1-tt MHUn)
(32» "Complete" means. In reference
to an application for a permit, that
the application contains all of the In-
formation necessary for processing the
application.
(23X1) "Significant" means. In refer-
ence to a net emissions Increase or the
potential of a source to emit any of
the following pollutants, a rate of
emissions that would equal or exceed
any of the following rates:
ffoUtttoiK and gmtottoiu Kate
Carbon raonoilde: 100 ton* per rear (tpr)
Nitrogen oxide*: 40 tpr
Sulfur dloxMe: 40 toy
Partlculatc matter
W tpr of paniculate matter emMon*:
It tpr of PM» emlMloni
OHNM: 40 tpr of volatile organic compounds
Lead: 0.0 tpr
Asbestos: 0.007 tpr
Beryllium: 0.0004 tpr
Mercury: O.I tpr
Vinyl chloride: I tpr
Fluorides: * tpy
Suit uric add mitt: 1 tpr
Hydrogen sulflde (HJB): 10 tpr
Total reduced sulfur (Including HjBI: 10 tpr
Reduced nilfur compound! (Including HJB):
10 tpr
(II) "Significant" means. In reference
to a net emissions Increase or the po-
tential of a source to emit a pollutant
subject to regulation under the Act
that paragraph (bX33XI> of this sec-
tion, does not list, any emissions rate.
(Ill) Notwithstanding paragraph
(bX33XI> of this section, "significant"
means any emissions rate or any net
emission* Increase associated with a
major stationary source or major
modification, which would construct
within 10 kilometers of a Class I area.
and have an Impact on such area equal
to or greater than 1 pg/m', (34-hour
average).
(34) "Federal Land Manager" means,
with respect to any lands In the
United States, the Secretary of the de-
partment with authority over such
lands.
(35) "High terrain" means any area
having an elevation 900 feet or more
above the base of the stack of a
source.
(39) "Low terrain" means any area
other than high terrain.
(37) "Indian Reservation" means
any federally reoonnlr-ed reservation
environmental Protection Agoncy
established by Treaty. Agreement, ex-
ecutive order, or act of Congress.
(38) "Indian Governing Body"
means the governing body of any
tribe, band, or group of Indians sub-
ject to the Jurisdiction of the United
States and recognized by the United
States as possessing power of self gov-
ernment.
(29) "Advene Impact on visibility"
mean* visibility Impairment which
Interferes with the management, pro-
tection, preservation or enjoyment of
the visitor's visual experience of the
Federal Class I area. This determina-
tion must be made on a case-by-case
basis taking Into account the geo-
graphic extent. Intensity, duration,
frequency and time of visibility Im-
pairment, and how these factors corre-
late with (1) times of visitor use of the
Federal Class I area, and (2) the fre-
quency and timing of natural condi-
tions that reduce visibility.
(c) Ambient air Increment*. In areas
designated as Class I, II or III. In-
creases In pollutant concentration over
the baseline concentration shall be
limited to the following:
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE (NCKEASC
9 52.21
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE INCREASE—Continued
CLAM I
TSP. mnmt r-V
1ST.(4-to mB*iun.
140*
tt
17
10
•I
SI2
TSP. <
TSP.;
?«hr
tJ
n
40
1*7
For any period other than an annual
period, the applicable maximum allow-
able Increase may be exceeded during
one ouch period per year at any one lo-
cation.
(d) Ambient air ceiHnp* No concen-
tration of a pollutant shall exceed:
(1) The concentration permitted
under the national secondary ambient
air quality standard, or
(2) The concentration permitted
under the national primary ambient
air quality standard, whichever con-
centration to lowest for the pollutant
for a period of exposure.
(e) JteslHcMons on area cfas*1ca-
llons. (1) All of the following areas
which were In existence on August 7.
1977. shall be Class I areas and may
not be redeslgnated:
(I) International parka.
(II) National wilderness areas which
exceed 5.000 acres In sire.
(Ill) National memorial parka which
exceed 5.000 acres In size, and
(I*) National parks which exceed
6.000 acres In she.
(2) Areas which were redeslgnated as
Class I under regulations promulgated
before August 7. 1077. shall remain
Class I. but may be redeslgnated as
provided In this section.
(9) Any other area, unless otherwise
specified In the legislation creating
such an area, to Initially designated
Class II, but may be redeslgnated as
provided In this section.
(4) The following areas may be re-
designated only as Class I or II:
(I) An area which as of August 7,
1977. exceeded 10.000 acres In she and
was a national monument, a national
primitive area, a national preserve, a
national recreational area, a national
wild and scenic river, a national wild-
life refuge, a national lakeshore or sea-
shore; and '
(II) A national park or national wil-
derness area established after August
24
25
-------
9 52.21
7. 1077. which exceeds 10.000 acres In
size.
(I) Exclusions from increment con-
tump/ion. (1) Upon written request of
the governor, made after notice and
opportunity for at least one public
hearing to be held In accordance with
procedures established In 40 CFR
81.102. the Administrator shall ex-
clude the following concentrations In
determining compliance with a maxi-
mum allowable Increase:
(I) Concentrations attributable to
the Increase In emissions from station-
ary sources which have converted
from the use of petroleum products.
natural gas. or both by reason of an
order In effect under sections 2(a) and
(b) of the Energy Supply and Environ-
mental Coordination Act of 1974 (or
any superseding legislation) over the
emissions from such sources before
the effective date of such an order:
(II) Concentrations attributable to
the Increase In emissions from sources
which have converted from using nat-
ural gas by reason of a natural gas cur-
tailment plan In effect pursuant to the
Federal Power Act over the emissions
from such sources before the effective
date of such plan;
(III) Concentrations of partlculate
matter attributable to the Increase In
emissions from construction or other
temporary emission-related activities
of nsw or modified sources;
(Iv) The Increase In concentrations
attributable to new sources outside
the United States over the concentra-
tions attributable to existing sources
which are Included In the baseline con-
centration; and
(v) Concentrations attributable to
the temporary Increase In emissions of
sulfur dioxide or participate matter
from stationary sources which are af-
fected by plan revisions approved by
the Administrator as meeting the cri-
teria specified In paragraph (f)(4) of
this section.
(2) No exclusion of such concentra-
tions shall apply more than five years
after the effective date of the order to
which paragraph (f)(!)(!) of this sec-
tion, refers or the plan to which para-
graph (fMlXII) uf this section, refers,
whichever Is applicable. If both such
order and plan are applicable, no such
exclusion shall npply more than five
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-99 billion)
years after the later of such effective
dates.
(3) No exclusion under paragraph (f)
of this section shall occur later than B
months after August 7. 1980. unless a
State Implementation Plan revision
meeting the requirements of 40 CFR
81.160 has been submitted to the Ad-
ministrator.
(4) For purposes of excluding con-
centrations pursuant to paragraph
(fKlXv) of this section, the proposed
plan revision shall:
(I) Specify the time over which the
temporary emissions Increase of sulfur
dioxide or partlculate matter would
occur. Such time Is not to exceed two
yean In duration unless a longer tune
Is approved by the Administrator.
(II) Specify that the tune period for
excluding certain contributions in ac-
cordance with paragraph (fM4KI> of
thta section. Is not renewable:
(111) Allow no emissions Increase
from a stationary source which would:
(a) Impact a Class I area or an area
where an applicable Increment Is
known to be violated; or
(6) Cause or contribute to the viola-
tion of a national ambient air quality
standard;
(Iv) Require limitations to be In
effect at the end of the tune period
specified in accordance with para-
graph , and (gX3Xlv)
of this section: and
(II) Such redeslgnatlon Is proposed
after consultation with the 8tate(s) hi
which the Indian Reservation la locat-
ed and which border the Indian Reser-
vation.
(5) The Administrator shall disap-
prove, within 90 days of submission, a
proposed redeslgnatlon of any area
only If he finds, after notice and op-
portunity for public hearing, that such
redeslgnatlon does not meet the proce-
dural requirements of this paragraph
or Is Inconsistent with paragraph (e)
of this section. If any such disapproval
occurs, the classification of the area
shall be that which was In effect prior
26
27
-------
9 51.21
quently determines that the applica-
tion as submitted was complete with
respect to the paniculate matter re-
quirements then In effect In this sec-
tion. Instead, the requirements of
paragraphs (J) through (r) of this sec-
tion that were In effect before July 31.
1087 shall apply to such source or
modification.
(6) The requirements of paragraph*
(j) through (r) of this section shall not
apply to a major stationary source or
major modification with respect to a
particular pollutant If the owner or
operator demonstrates that, as to that
pollutant, the source or modification
Is located In an area designated as
nonattabunent under section 107 of
the Act.
(6) The requirements of paragraphs
(k). and (o) of this section shall
not apply to a major stationary source
or major modification with respect to
a particular pollutant. If the allowable
emission* of that pollutant from the
source, or the net emissions Increase
of that pollutant from the modifica-
tion:
(I) Would Impart no Class 1 area and
no area where an applicable Increment
Is known to be violated, and
Would be temporary.
<7> The requirement* of paragraphs
(k). (m) and (o) of this section aa they
relate to any maximum allowable In-
crease for a Class II area shall not
apply to a major modification at a sta-
tionary source that was In existence
on March 1.1918. If the net Increase In
allowable emissions of each pollutant
subject to regulation under the Act
from the modification after the appli-
cation of best available control tech-
nology would be leu than SO tons per
year.
<8> The Administrator may exempt a
stationary source or modification from
the requirements of paragraph (m) of
this section, with respect to monitor-
Ing for a particular pollutant If:
(I) The emissions Increase of the pol-
lutant from the new source or the net
emissions Increase of the pollutant
from the modification would cause. In
any area, air quality Impacts less than
the following amounts:
Carbon monoxide—B75 pc/m'. (-hour aver-
as*:
Nltrocen dioxide -M pf/m*. annual avrrace:
30
40 CFM Ch. I (7-1-M Edition) Cnvtronm*ntal Protection Agency
Paniculate matter:
10 pg/rn' of TOP. 34-hour average;
10 p«/m« of f»M,.. 24 hour average;
Sulfur dioxide—1} pg/m*. 34-hour average;
Oxone; •
Lead-4.1 ps/m*. 1 month average;
Mercury-O.38 ps/ro". M-hour average:
Berylllum-0.001 pg/m', 34-hour average;
Fluoride*—0.3t tig/in*. 34-hour average;
Vinyl chloride—15 pg/m'. 34-hour average;
Total reduced sulfur—10 pg/m* 1-hour av-
erage;
Hydrogen sulflde—4.3 pg/m*. 1-hour aver*
age;
Reduced sulfur eompound»-10 pg/m'. I-
hour average: or
(II) The concentrations of the pollut-
ant In the area that the source or
modification would affect are less
than the concentrations listed In para-
graph (IK8KI) of this section, or the
pollutant la not listed In paragraph
0X8X1) of this section.
(9) The requirements for best avail-
able control technology In paragraph
(J) of this section and the require-
ments for air quality analyses In para-
graph as In effect on June
19, 1878. Instead, the latter require-
ments shall apply to any such source
or modification.
—
(Iv).
(U) The requirement* for air qulallty
monitoring pf PMM In paragraph*
(mxl). (II) and (Iv) and (mX3) of this
section shall apply to a particular
source or modification If the owner or
operator of the source or modification
submit* an application for a permit
under this section after June 1. 1988
and no later than December 1. 1988.
The data shall have been gathered
over at least the period from February
1. 1988 to the date the application be-
comes otherwise complete In accord-
vice with the provisions set forth
under paragraph (mXlKvtll) of this
section, except that If the Admlnlstra-
9 sa.li
tor determines that a complete and
adequate analysis can be accomplished
with monitoring data over a shorter
period (not to be less than 4 months).
the data that paragraph (mXIXIll) re-
quires shall have been gathered over a
shorter period.
(J) Control technology review. (DA
major stationary source or major
modification shall meet each applica-
ble emissions limitation under the
State Implementation Plan and each
applicable emissions standard and
standard of performance under 40
CFR Part* 80 and 81.
(2) A new major stationary source
•hall apply best available control tech-
nology for each pollutant subject to
regulation under the Act that It would
have the potential to emit In signifi-
cant amount*.
(3) A major modification shall apply
best available control technology for
each pollutant subject to regulation
under the Act for which It would
result In a significant net emissions In-
crease at the source. This requirement
applies to each proposed emissions
unit at which a net emission* Increase
In the pollutant would occur a* a
remit of a physical change or change
In the method of operation In the unit.
(4) For phased construction projects,
the determination of best available
control technology shall be reviewed
and modified a* appropriate at the
latest reasonable tune which occur* no
later than 18 month* prior to com-
mencement of construction of each In-
dependent phase of the project. At
such tune, the owner or operator of
the applicable stationary source may
be required to demonstrate the ade-
quacy of any previous determination
of best available control technology
for the source.
(k) Source impact analytic. The
owner or operator of the proposed
source or modification shall demon-
strate that allowable emission In-
crease* from the proposed source or
modification. In conjunction with all
other applicable emissions Increases or
reductions (Including secondary emis-
sions), would not cause or contribute
to air pollution In violation of:
(1) Any national ambient air quality
standard In any air quality control
region: or
31
-------
9 53.71
(2) Any applicable maximum allow-
able Increase over the baarllne concen-
tration In any area.
(I) Air quality modelt. (I) All esti-
mates of ambient concentration* re-
quired under this paragraph Khali be
baaed on the applliable air quality
models, data bases, and other require-
ments specified In the "Guideline on
Air Quality Models (Revised)" (1086)
and Supplement A (1081) which are
Incorporated by reference. The guide-
line (EPA publication No. 460/2-78-
027R) and Supplement A (1987) are
for sale from the U.S. Department of
Commerce. National Technical Infor-
mation Service, 6825 Port Royal Road,
Springfield. Virginia 22161. They are
also available for Inspection at the
Office of the Federal Register Infor-
mation Center. Room 8301. 1100 L
Street. NW., Washington. DC 20408.
Thla Incorporation by reference was
approved by the Director of the Feder-
al Register on February 6. 1988. These
materials are Incorporated as they
exist on the date of approval and a
notice of any change will be published
In the FKDKKAL REOISTCH.
(2) Where an air quality Impact
model specified In the "Guideline on
Air Quality Models (Revised)" (1988)
and Supplement A (1987) are Inappro-
priate, the model may be modified or
another model substituted. Such a
modification or substitution of a
model may be made on a case-by-case
basis or. where appropriate, on a ge-
neric basis for a specific state pro-
gram. Written approval of the Admin-
istrator must be obtained for any
modification or substitution. In addi-
tion, use of a modified or substituted
model must be subject to notice and
opportunity for public comment under
procedure* developed In accordance
with paragraph of this section.
(m) Air quality analvilt—(1) Preatt-
plicalton analv»lf. Any application
for a permit under this section shall
contain an analy*ln of ambient air
quality In the arm I hat ttir major sta-
tionary source or major modification
would aftrcl for each of the following
pollutants:
(a) For the source, each pollutant
that It would have the potential to
omit In a significant amount;
40 CFt Oi. I (7-141 Edition) environmental Protection Agency
(6) For the modification, each pol-
lutant for which It would result In a
significant net •••nlnslons Increase.
(II) With respect to any such pollut-
ant for which no National Ambient
Air Quality Standard exists, the analy-
sis shall contain such air quality moni-
toring data as the Administrator de-
termines Is necessary to assess ambi-
ent air quality for that pollutant In
any area that the emissions of that
pollutant would affect.
(Ill) With respect to any such pollut-
ant (other than nonroethane hydro-
carbons) for which such a standard
does exist, the analysis shall contain
continuous air quality monitoring data
gathered for purposes of determining
whether emissions of that pollutant
would cause or contribute to a viola-
tion of the standard or any maximum
allowable Increase.
(I*) In general, the continuous air
quality monitoring data, that Is re-
quired shall have been gathered over a
period of at least one year and shall
represent at least the year preceding
receipt of the application, except that.
If the Administrator determines that a
complete and adequate analysis can be
accomplished with monitoring data
gathered over a period shorter than
one year (but not to be less than four
months), the data that Is required
shall have been gathered over at least
that shorter period.
(v) For any application which be-
comes complete, except as to the re-
quirements of paragraphs (mMl) (III)
and (Iv) of this section, between June
8. 1981. and February 9. 1982. the data
that paragraph (mMlKIII) of this sec-
tion, requires shall have been gathered
over at least the period from February
9. 1981. to the date the application be-
comes otherwise complete, except
that:
(a) If the source or modification
would have been major for that pollut-
ant under 40 CFR S2.21 as In effect on
June 19, 1978, any monitoring data
shall have been gathered over at least
the period required by those regula-
tions.
(b> If the Administrator determines
that a complete and adequate analysis
can be accomplished with monitoring
data over a shorter period (not to be
less than four months), the data that
paragraph (mXIMill) of this section,
requires shall have been gathered over
at least that shorter period.
(c) If the monitoring data would
relate exclusively to ozone and would
not have been required under 40 CFR
SI 31 as In effect on June 19. 1978. the
Administrator may waive the other-
wise applicable requirements of this
paragraph (v) to the extent that the
applicant shows that the monitoring
data would be unrepresentative of air
quality over a full year.
(vt) The owner or operator of a pro-
posed stationary source or modifica-
tion of vtolalUe organic compounds
who satisfies all conditions of 40 CFR
Part 61 Appendix 8. section IV may
provide post-approval monitoring data
for ocone In lieu of providing precon-
structlon data as requried under para-
graph (mXl) of this section.
(vll) For any application that be-
comes complete, except as to the re-
quirements of paragraphs (mMl) (III)
and (Iv) pertaining to PM«. after De-
cember 1. 1988 and no later than
August 1. 1989 the data that para-
graph (mXIXlll) requires shall have
been gathered over at lerst the period
from August 1. 1988 to the date the
application becomes otherwise com-
plete, except that If the Administrator
determines that a complete and ade-
quate analysis can be accomplished
with monitoring data over a shorter
period (not to be less than 4 months),
the data that paragraph (mMlKill) re-
quires shall have been gathered over
that shorter period.
(vlll) With respect to any require-
ments for air quality monitoring of
PMM under paragraphs (1X11) (I) and
(U) of this sectlonm the owner or oper-
ator of the source or modification
shall use a monitoring method ap-
proved by the Administrator and shall
estimate the ambient concentrations
of PMM using the data collected by
such approved monitoring method In
accordance with estimating procedures
approved by the Administrator.
(2) Post-construction monitoring.
The owner or operator of a major sta-
tionary source or major modification
shall, after construction of the station-
ary source or modification, conduct
such ambient monitoring as the Ad-
ministrator determines Is necessary to
9 59.91
determine the effect emissions from
the stationary source or modification
may have, or are having, on air quality
In any area.
(3) Operations of monitoring sta-
tions. The owner or operator of a
major stationary source or major
modification shall meet the require-
ments of Appendix B to Part 68 of this
chapter during the operation of moni-
toring stations for purposes of satisfy-
ing paragraph (m) of this section.
(n) Source information. The owner
or operator of a proposed source or
modification shall submit all Informa-
tion necessary to perform any analysts
or make any determination required
under this section.
(1) With respect to a source or modi-
fication to which paragraph* (J). (1),
(n) and (p) of this section apply, such
Information shall Include:
(I) A description of the nature, loca-
tion, design capacity, and typical oper-
ating schedule of the source or modifi-
cation. Including specifications and
drawings showing Ite design and plant
layout;
(II) A detailed schedule for construc-
tion of the source or modification;
(III) A detailed description as to what
system of continuous emission reduc-
tion Is planned for the source or modi-
fication, emission estimates, and any
other Information necessary to deter-
mine that best available control tech-
nology would be applied.
(2) Upon request of the Administra-
tor, the owner or operator shall also
provide Information on:
(I) The air quality Impact of the
source or modification. Including me-
teorological and topographical data
necessary to estimate such Impact; and
(II) The air quality Impacts, and the
nature and extent of any or all general
commercial, residential. Industrial, and
other growth which has occurred sine*
August T. 1977. In the area the source
or modification would affect.
(o) Additional Impact anafiwe*. (1)
The owner or operator shall provide
an analysis of the Impairment to visi-
bility, soils and vegetation that would
occur as a result of the source or modi-
fication and general commercial, resi-
dential. Industrial and other growth
associated with the source or modifica-
tion. The owner or operator need not
32
33
-------
9 51.21
provide an analysis of the Impact on
vegetation having no significant com-
mercial or recreational value.
(2) The owner or operator shall pro-
vide an analysis of the air quality
Impact projected for the area as a
result cf general commercial, residen-
tial. Industrial and other growth asso-
ciated with the source or modification.
(3) Viability monitoring. The Ad-
ministrator may require monitoring of
visibility In any Federal class I area
near the proposed new stationary
source for major modification for such
purposes and by such means as the
Administrator deems necessary and
appropriate.
(p) Source* impacting Federal Clot*
I area*—additional requirement*—(I)
Notice to Federal land manager*. The
Administrator shall provide written
notice of any pe;mlt application for a
proposed major stationary source or
major modification, the emission!
from which may affect a Class I area,
to the Federal land manager and the
Federal official charged with direct re-
sponsibility for management of any
lands within any such area. Cuch noti-
fication shall Include a copy of all In-
formation relevant to the permit ap-
plication and shall be given within 30
days of receipt and at least 60 days
prior to any public hearing on the ap-
plication for a penult to construct.
Such notification shall Include an
analysis of the proposed source's an-
ticipated Impacts on visibility In the
Federal Class I area. The Administra-
tor shall also provide the Federal land
manager and such Federal officials
with a copy of the preliminary deter-
mination required under paragraph
(q) of this section, and shall make
available to them any materials used
In making that determination, prompt-
ly after the Administrator makes such
determination. Finally, the Adminis-
trator shall also notify all affected
Federal land managers within 30 days
of receipt of any advance notification
of any such permit application.
(2) Federal Land Manager. The Fed-
eral Land Manager and the Federal of-
ficial charged with direct responsibil-
ity for management of such lands
have an affirmative responsibility to
protect the air quality related values
(Including visibility) of such lands and
34
40 CM Ch. I (7-1-M Edition) fnvlronmwilol Protection Ag«ncy
to consider. In consultation with the
Administrator, whether a proposed
source or modification will have an ad-
verse Impact on such values.
(3) Vliibilltv analyii*. The Adminis-
trator shall consider any analysis per-
formed by the Federal land manager, i
provided within 30 days of the notifi-
cation required by paragraph (PX1) of
this section, that shows that a pro-
posed new major stationary source or
major modification may have an ad-
verse Impact on visibility In any Feder-
al Class I area. Where the Administra-
tor finds that such an analysis does
not demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the Administrator that an adverse
Impact on visibility will result In the
Federal Class I area, the Administra-
tor must. In the notice of public hear-
ing on the permit application, either
explain his decision or give notice as to
where the explanation can be ob-
tained.
(4) Denial—impact on air quality re-
lated value*. The Federal land Man-
ager of any such lands may demon-
strate to the Administrator that the
emissions from a proposed source or
modification would have an adverse
Impact on the air quality-related
values (Including visibility) of those
lands, notwithstanding that the
change In air quality resulting from
emissions from such source or modifi-
cation would not cause or contribute
to concentrations which would exceed
the maximum allowable Increases for
a Class I area. If the Administrator
concurs with such demonstration.
then he shall not Issue the permit.
(5) Cla»i I variance!. The owner or
operator of a proposed source or modi-
fication may demonstrate to the Fed-
eral Land Manager that the emissions
from such source or modification
would have no advene Impact on the
air quality related values of any such
lands (Including visibility), notwith-
standing that the change In air quality
resulting from emissions from such
source or modification would cause or
contribute to concentrations which
would exceed the maximum allowable
Increases for a Class I area. If the Fed-
eral Land Manager concurs with such
demonstration and he so certifies, the
State may authorize the Administra-
tor: Provided, That the applicable re-
quirements of this section are other-
wise met. to Issue the permit with such
emission limitations as may be neces-
sary to assure that emissions of sulfur
dioxide and partlculate matter would
not exceed the followng maximum al-
lowable Increases over baseline concen-
tration for such pollutants:
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE INCREASE
in. raftiun...
I*
17
tl
315
(6) Sulfur dioxide variance by Gov-
ernor with Federal Land Manager'!
concurrence. The owner or operator of
a proposed source or modification
which cannot be approved under para-
graph (qM4) of this section may dem-
onstrate to the Governor that the
source cannot be constructed by
reason of any maximum allowable In-
crease for sulfur dioxide for a period
of twenty-four hours or less applicable
to any Class I area and. In the case of
Federal mandatory Class I areas, that
a variance under this clause would not
adversely affect the air quality related
values of the area (Including visibili-
ty). The Governor, after consideration
of the Federal Land Manager's recom-
mendation (If any) and subject to his
concurrence, may. after notice and
public hearing, grant a variance from
such maximum allowable Increase. If
such variance Is granted, the Adminis-
trator shall Issue a permit to such
source or modification pursuant to the
requirements of paragraph (qM7) of
this section: Provided, That the appli-
cable requirements of this section are
otherwise met.
(7) Variance ay the Governor with
the Pnttdent'* concurrence. In any
case where the Governor recommends
a variance In which the Federal Land
Manager does not concur, the recom-
mendations of the Governor and the
Federal Land Manager shall be trans-
mitted to the President. The President
§ 52.21
may approve the Governor's recom-
mendation If he finds that the vari-
ance Is In the national Interest. If the
variance Is approved, the Administra-
tor shall Issue a permit pursuant to
the requirements of paragraph
of this section: Provided, That the ap-
plicable requirements of this section
are otherwise met.
(8) ffmlMlon limitation* for Presi-
dential or gubernatorial variance In
the case of a permit Issued pursuant to
paragraph (q) (6) or (6) of this section
the source or modification shall
comply with such emission limitations
as may be necessary to assure that
emissions of sulfur dioxide from the
source or modification would not
(during any day on which the other-
wise applicable maximum allowable In-
creases are exceeded) cause or contrib-
ute to concentrations which would
exceed the following maximum allow-
able Increases over the baseline con-
centration and to assure that such
emissions would not cause or contrib-
ute to concentrations which exceed
the otherwise applicable maximum al-
lowable Increases for periods of expo-
sure of 24 hours or less for more than
18 days, not necessarily consecutive,
during any annual period:
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE INCREASE
. im cut*
N
130
•t
221
(q) Public participation. The Ad-
ministrator shall follow the applicable
procedures of 40 CFR Part 124 In
processing applications under this sec-
tion. The Administrator shall follow
the procedures at 40 CFR B2.21(r) as
In effect on June 19, 1979, to the
extent that the procedures of 40 CFR
Part 124 do not apply.
(r) Source obligation. (1) Any owner
or operator who constructs or operates
a source or modification not In accord-
ance with the application submitted
pursuant to this section or with the
terms of any approval to construct, or
any owner or operator of a source or
35
-------
9 5121
modification subject to this section
who commences roiutructlon after the
effective date of these regulation*
without applying for and receiving ap-
proval hereunder. shall be subject to
appropriate enforcement action.
(3) Approval to construct shall
become Invalid If construction Is not
commenced within ID months after re-
ceipt of inch approval. If construction
Is discontinued for a period of IS
month* or more, or If construction to
not completed within a reasonable
time. The Administrator may extend
the 19-month period upon a satisfac-
tory showing that an extension Is Jus-
tified. This provision does not apply to
the time period between construction
of the approved phases of a phased
construction project; each phase must
commence construction within It
months of the projected and approved
commencement date.
<3) Approval to construct shall not
relieve any owner or operator of the
responsibility to comply fully with ap-
plicable provisions of the State Imple-
mentation plan and any other require-
ments under local. State, or Federal
law.
(4) At such time that a particular
source or modification becomes a
major stationary source or major
modification solely by virtue of a re-
laxation In any enforceable limitation
which was established after August 7.
1980. on the capacity of the source or
modification otherwise to emit a pol-
lutant, such as a restriction on hours
of operation, then the requirements or
paragraphs (J) through (») of this sec-
tion shall apply to the source or modi-
fication as though construction had
not yet commenced on the source or
modification.
(s) Environmental impact itate-
mentt. Whenever any proposed source
or modification Is subject to action by
a Federal Agency which might necessi-
tate preparation of an environmental
Impact statement pursuant to the Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act (42
IIBC. 4321). review by the Adminis-
trator conducted pursuant to this sec-
tion shall be coordinated with the
broad environmental reviews under
that Act and under section 30V of the
Clean Air Act to the maximum extent
feasible and reasonable.
(I) Disputed permit* or redetigna-
lion*. If any State affected by the re-
deslgnatlon of an area by an Indian
Governing Body, or any Indian Gov-
erning Body of a tribe affected by the
redeslgnatlon of an area by a State,
disagrees with such redeslgnatlon. or
If a permit to proposed to be Issued for
any major stationary source or major
modification proposed for construc-
tion In any State which the Governor
of an affected State or Indian Govern-
ing Body of an affected tribe deter-
mines will cause or contribute to a cu-
mulative change In air quality In
excess of that allowed In this part
within the affected State or Indian
Reservation, the Governor or Indian
Governing Body may request the Ad-
ministrator to enter Into negotiations
with the parties Involved to resolve
such dispute. If requested by any
State or Indian Governing Body In- ,
volved, the Administrator shall make a j
recommendation to resolve the dispute I
and protect the air quality related i
values of the lands Involved. If the
parties Involved do not reach agree-
ment, the Administrator shall resolve
the dispute and his determination, or
the results of agreements reached :
through other means, shall become '
part of the applicable State tanplemen- '
tatlon plan and shall be enforceable as
part of such plan. In resolving such
disputes relating to area redeslgnatlon.
the Administrator shall consider the
extent to which the lands Involved are
of sufficient atee to allow effective air
quality management or have air qual-
ity related values of such an area.
and (3) of this section.
C2> Where the Administrator dele-
gates the responsibility for conducting
source review under this section to any
agency other than a Regional Office
of the Environmental Protection
Agency, the following provisions shall
apply:
(I) Where the delegate agency to not
an air pollution control agency. It
shall consult with the appropriate
State and local air pollution control
agency prior to making any determlna-
36
Ijon under this section. Similarly.
where the delegate agency does not
have continuing responsibility for
managing land use. It shall consult
trith the appropriate State and local
•gency primarily responsible for man-
iglng land use prior to making any de-
termination under this section.
01) The delegate agency shall send a
copy of any public comment notice re-
quired under paragraph (r) of this sec-
tion to the Administrator through the
sppropriate Regional Office.
(S) The Administrator's authority
for reviewing a source or modification
located on an Indian Reservation shall
not be redelegated other than to a Re-
gional Office of the Environmental
protection Agency, except where the
State has assumed Jurisdiction over
such land under other laws. Where the
State has assumed such jurisdiction.
the Administrator may delegate his
authority to the States In accordance
with paragraph (vN2) of this section.
(4) In the case of a source or modifi-
cation which proposes to construct In
a class III area, emissions from which
would cause or contribute to air qual-
ity exceeding the maximum allowable
Increase applicable If the area were
designated a class II area, and where
no standard under section 111 of the
act has been promulgated for such
source category, the Administrator
must approve the determination of
best available control technology as
set forth in the permit.
(v) Innovative control technology.
(1) An owner or operator of a proposed
major stationary source or major
modification may request the Adminis-
trator In writing no later than the
close of the comment period under 40
CFR 124.10 to approve a system of In-
novative control technology.
(J) The Administrator shall, with
the consent of the governors) of the
affected stated), determine that the
source or modification may employ a
system of Innovative control technolo-
gy. If:
(I) The proposed control system
would not cause or contribute to an
unreasonable risk to public health.
welfare, or safety In Its operation or
function;
(II) The owner or operator agrees to
achieve a level of continuous emissions
9 52.11
reduction equivalent to that which
would have been required under para-
graph (JK2) of this section, by a date
specified by the Administrator. Such
date shall not be later than 4 years
from the time of startup or 7 years
from permit Issuance;
(III) The source or modification
would meet the requirements of para-
graphs (J) and (k) of this section.
based on the emissions rate that the
stationary source employing the
system of Innovative control technolo-
gy would be required to meet on the
date specified by the Administrator:
(Iv) The source or modification
would not before the date specified by
the Administrator
(«) Cause or contribute to a violation
of an applicable national ambient air
quality standard; or
(o) Impact any Class I area; or
(e) Impact any area where an appli-
cable Increment Is known to be violat-
ed; and
(v> All other applicable requirements
Including those for public partldpa-
lion hsMf*B been met.
(I) The Administrator shall with-
draw any approval to employ a system
of Innovative control technology made
under this section. If:
(I) The proposed system falls by the
specified date to achieve the required
continuous emissions reduction rate;
or
(II) The proposed system falls before
the specified date so as to contribute
to an unreasonable risk to public
health, welfare, or safety; or
The Administrator deckles at
any time that the proposed system to
unlikely to achieve the required level
of control or to protect the public
health, welfare, or safety.
(4) If a source or modification falls
to meet the required level of continu-
ous emission reduction within the
specified time period or the approval
to withdrawn In accordance with para-
graph
-------
552.22
veislon of this section shall remain In
effect, unless and until It expires
under paragraph (s) of this section or
Is rescinded.
(3) Any owner or operator of a sta-
tionary source or modification who
holds a permit for the source or modi-
fication which was Issued under 40
CFR 62.31 as In effect on July 30.
IB87. or any earlier version of this sec-
tion, may request that the Administra-
tor rescind the permit or a particular
portion of the permit.
(3) The Administrator shall grant an
application for rescission If the appli-
cation shows that this section would
not apply to the source or modifica-
tion.
(4) If the Administrator rescinds a
permit under this paragraph, the
public shall be given adequate notice
of the rescission. Publication of an an-
nouncement of rescission In a newspa-
per of general circulation In the affect-
ed region within 00 days of the rescis-
sion shall be considered adequate
notice.
t4S FR 38403. June II. 1*78. a* amended at
44 PR 37871. May 10. 1MB; 45 FR 83738,
Aut. 1. 1080: 47 FR 37561. June IS. INI; 41
FR 43308. Oct. 38. 1084; 50 FR 31560. July
13. 1085; SI FR 40875. 40877. Nov. 7. 1888: S3
FR 34714. July I. 1887; 53 FR 38401. July
14. 1087; 51 FR 308. Jui. 8. 10881
853.32 Maintenance of nalkmal (tan*-
aHi.
(a) Subsequent to January 31, 1973,
the Administrator reviewed again
State Implementation plan provisions
for Insuring the maintenance of the
national standards. The review Indi-
cate* that State plans generally do not
contain regulations or procedures
which adequately address this prob-
lem. Accordingly, all State plans are
disapproved with respect to mainte-
nance because such plans do not meet
the requirements of |SI.I2(g) of this
chapter. The disapproval applies to all
States listed In Subparts B through
DDD of this part. Nothing In this sec-
tion shall Invalidate or otherwise
affect the obligations of States, emis-
sion sources, or other persons with re-
spect to all portions of plans approved
or promulgated under this part.
(b) Regulation for review of new or
modified indirect tourers. (1) All
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-M Edition)
terms used In this paragraph but not
specifically defined below shall have
the meaning given them In f 82.01 of
this chapter.
(I) The term "Indirect source" means
a facility, building, structure, or Instal-
lation which attracts or may attract
mobile source activity that results In
emissions of a pollutant for which
there ls a national standard. Such In-
direct sources Include, but are not lim-
ited to:
(a) Highways and roads.
(b) Parking facilities.
(c) Retail, commercial and Industrial
facilities.
(if) Recreation, amusement, sports
and entertainment facilities.
(«) Airports.
(S) Office and Government building*.
(0) Apartment and condominium
buildings.
(A) Education facilities.
(II) The term "Administrator" means
the Administrator of the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency or his designat-
ed agent.
(Ill) The term "associated parking i
area" means a parking facility or fa- '
cllltlea owned and/or operated In con- I
junction with an Indirect source.
(Iv) The term "aircraft operation" I
means an aircraft take-off or landing.
(v> The phrase "to commence con-
struction" means to engage In a con-
tinuous program of on-slte construc-
tion Including site clearance, grading,
dredging, or land filling specifically
designed for an Indirect source In
preparation for the fabrication, erec-
tion, or Installation of the building
components of the Indirect source. For
the purpose of this paragraph. Inter-
ruption* resulting from act* of Ood.
strikes, litigation, or other matters
beyond the control of the owner shall
be disregarded In determining whether
a construction or modification pro-
gram Is continuous.
(vl) The phrase "to commence modi-
fication" means to engage In a contin-
uous program of on-slte modification.
Including site clearance, grading,
dredging, or land filling In preparation
for a specific modification of the Indi-
rect source.
(vll) The term "highway section"
means the development proposal of a
highway of substantial length between
Protection Agoncy
logical termini (major crossroads, pop-
ulation centers, major traffic genera-
tor*, or similar major highway control
elements) as normally Included In a
ilnfle location study or multi-year
highway Improvement program a* set'
forth In 33 CFR 770.201 (38 FR 31677).
(vlll) The term "highway project"
means all or a portion of a highway
section which would result In a specif-
ic construction contract
(U) The term "Standard Metropoli-
tan Statistical Area (8MSAV meads
such areas as designated by the U.8.
Bureau of the Budget In the following
publication: "Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area." Issued In 1M7. with
subsequent amendments.
(I) The requirements of this para-
graph are applicable to the following:
(I) In ah 8M8A:
(a) Any new parking facility, or
other new Indirect source with an as-
sociated parking area, which has a
new parking capacity of 1.000 cars or
more; or
(b) Any modified parking facility, or
any modification of an associated
parking area, which Increases parking
capacity by 500 cars or more; or
(c) Any new highway project with an
anticipated average annual dally traf-
fic volume of 20.000 or more vehicle*
per day within ten years of construc-
tion; or
(if) Any modified highway project
which will Increase average annual
dally traffic volume by 10,000 or more
vehicle* per day within ten year* after
modification.
(U) Outside an 8MSA:
(a) Any new parking facility, or
other new Indirect source with an as-
sociated parking area, which ha* a
parking capacity of 2.000 can or more;
or
(b) Any modified parking facility, or
Miy modification of an associated
parking area, which Increase* parking
capacity by 1,000 cars or more.
(Ill) Any airport, the construction or
general modification program of
which Is expected to result In the fol-
lowing activity within ten year* of con-
struction or modification:
(a) New airport: 50,000 or more oper-
ations per year by regularly scheduled
air carriers, or use by 1.600.000 or
more passengers per year.
851.22
(b) Modified airport: Increase of
80.000 or more operations per year by
regularly scheduled air carrier* over
the existing volume of operations, or
Increase of 1,600.000 or more passen-
gers per year.
(Iv) Where an Indirect source Is con-
structed or modified In Increment*
which Individually are not subject to
review under this paragraph, and
which are not part of a program of
construction or modification In
planned Incremental phases approved
by the Administrator, all such Incre-
ments commenced after December 31.
1974. or after the latest approval here-
under, whichever date Is most recent.
•hall be added together for determin-
ing the applicability of this paragraph.
(3) No owner or operator of an Indi-
rect source subject to this paragraph
•hall commence construction or modi-
fication of such source after December
31. 1974. without first obtaining ap-
proval from the Administrator. Appli-
cation for approval to construct or
modify shall be by means prescribed
by the Administrator, and shall In-
clude a copy of any draft or final envi-
ronmental Impact statement which
has been prepared pursuant to the Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act (42
O.8.C. 4321). If not Included In such
environmental Impact statement, the
Administrator may request the follow-
ing Information:
(I) For all Indirect source* subject to
this paragraph, other than highway
project*:
(o) The name and address of the ap-
plicant.
(b) A map showing the location of
the site of Indirect source and the to-
pography of the area.
(c) A description of the proposed use
of the site. Including the normal hours
of operation of the facility, and the
general types of activities to be operat-
ed therein.
<
-------
WORKSHOP ON IMPLEMENTING THE STACK
HEIGHT REGULATIONS
(REVISED)
OCTOBER 29 TO 30, 1985
by
PEI Associates, Inc.
505 South Duke Street, Suite 503
Durham, North Carolina 27701-3196
CONTROL PROGRAMS DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT!OH AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27711
October 1985
-------
EPA-450/4-80-023R
Guideline for Determination of Good
Engineering Practice Stack Height
(Technical Support Document for the
Stack Height Regulations)
(Revised)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Researcn Triangle Park. NC 27711
June 1985
-------
fort 51
PART 51— IfQUMEMfNTS FOR PREP-
ARATION, ADOPTION, AND SIM.
MfTTAl OF IMPIIMENTATION
PtANS
Sec.
• 1.40 Scope.
AQUA ANALYSIS
• 141 AQMA analysis: SubmltUI date.
61 42 AQMA analysis: Analysis period.
5141 AQMA analytic Guideline*.
61.44 AQMA analysis: Projection of eml*
•Ion*.
61.46 AQMA analysis: Allocation of emla-
•Ion*.
61.441 AQMA analyila: Projection of air
quality concentration*.
61.47 AQMA analysis: Description of daU
sources.
61.41 AQMA analyst*: DaU base*.
61 4* AQMA analysis: Techniques deacrlp^
Uon.
61.60 AQMA analytic: Accuracy facton.
61 61 AQMA analyal*: SubmltUI of calcula-
tion*.
AQMA Pun
61.62 AQMA plan: General
61.63 AQMA plan: Demonitratlon of ade-
quacy.
6164 AQMA plan: Strategies.
61.66 AQMA plan: Legal authority.
61M AQMA plan: Future strategies.
61.67 AQMA plan: Future legal authority.
61 68 AQMA plan: Intergovernmental co-
operation.
616* (Reserved)
61M AQMA plan: Resource*.
61(1 AQMA plan: SubmllUl format.
6161 AQMA analyila and plan: Data avail-
ability.
1181 AQMA analysis and plan: Alternative
procedure*.
61 IM Definition*.
61 111! Stipulation*.
61.101 Publk hearings.
61 101 Submission of plan*; preliminary
review of plan*.
61 104 RevUlon*.
&l 105 Approval of plan*.
40 CFR Ch. I (7.141 Edition)
Svfcswri O—Central Strategy
61.110 Attainment and maintenance of na-
tional standard*.
61.111 Description of control measures.
51.113 Demonstration of adequacy.
51.111 Time period for demonstration of
adequacy.
61.114 Emission* data and projection*.
61.116 Air quality data and projection*.
61.11* Data availability.
61.117 Additional provision* for lead.
61.11* Stack height provisions.
61.119 Intermittent control systems.
i •» Air PctMtM
61.160 Classification of region* for epUode
plan*.
61.161 Blgnlllcant harm level*.
61.162 Contingency plan*.
61.161 Reevaluatlon of epbode plan*.
61.1(0 Legally enforceable procedure*.
61.1*1 Public availability of Information.
61.1*2 Identification of responsible
agency.
61.163 Administration procedure*.
61.1*4 Stack height procedure*.
61.1*6 Permit requirement*.
61.18* Prevention of significant deterio-
ration of air quality.
61.190 Ambient air quality monitoring re-
quirement*.
61.110 General.
61.211 Emission report* and recordkeeplng.
61.212 Testing. Inspection, enforcement.
and complaint*.
61.211 Transportation control measure*.
61.214 Continuous emission monitoring.
61.23* Requirement* for all plan*.
61.231 Identification of legal authority.
61.212 Assignment of legal authority to
local agencies.
•••I CMm«M«ttM
AGENCY DESIGNATION
81.240 General plan requirements.
61.241 Nonattalnment areas for carbon
monoxide and ozone.
51.242 IReservedl
712
Environmental Protection Agoncy
§51.40
CONTINUING CONSULTATION PROCESS
51.243 Consultation process objectives.
61 244 Plan elements affected.
61.245 Organizations and officials to be
consulted.
61248 Timing.
61.247 Hearings on consultation process
violations.
RELATIONSHIP or PLAN TO OTHER PLANNING
AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
61.248 Coordination with other programs.
61.24V I Reserved)
61.250 Transmlttal of Information.
61.261 Conformity with Executive Order
12172.
61.252 Summary of plan development par-
ticipation.
61.280 Legally enforceable compliance
schedules.
61.281 Final compliance schedules.
61.282 Extension beyond one year.
issj<«lr«Rj*iits
61.280 Resources.
61.2*1 Copies of rule* and regulations.
61.286 Public notification.
iiRir-arl P-tolKNM s4 VltMtty
61.300 Purpose and applicability.
61.301 Definition*.
51.302 Implementation control strategies.
61.301 Exemption* from control.
61.104 Identification of Integral vista*.
61.106 Monitoring.
61.10* Long-term strategy.
61.307 New source review.
Aia QUALITY DATA RITO*TINO ,
51.320 Annual air quality data report.
SODS.CS EMISSIONS AND STATE ACTION
RtronTiNo
51.321 Annual source emission* and State
action report.
61.322 Source* subject to emissions report-
Ing.
51.121 Reportable emissions data and In-
formation.
61.124 Progress In plan enforcement.
51.326 Contingency plan actions.
61.12* Reportable revisions.
61.327 Enforcement orders and other State
actions.
51.328 IReservedl
Sufcawt •—txUnsum
51 340 Request for 2 year extension.
51.341 Request for 18 month extension.
APPENDICES A — K -(RESERVED)
ArrcNnix I,- EXAMPLE REGULATIONS ro*
PREVENTION or Am POLLUTION EMERCEN
CY EPISODES
APPENDIX M—{RESERVED)
APPENDIX N- EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS
ACHICVASI.I THROUGH INSPECTION. MAIN-
TENANCE AND RETHOPIT OP LIGHT DUTY
VEHICLES
APPENDIX O (RESERVED!
APPENDIX P—MINIMUM EMISSION MONITOR
INC REQUIREMENTS
APPENDICES Q—R-(RESERVED)
APPENDIX S—EMISSION Orrsrr INTERPRETA-
TIVE RULING
APPENDIX T—(RESERVED)
APPENDIX O—CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 174
GUIDELINES
AUTHORITY: This rulemaklng I* promul-
gated under authority of sections lOKbMl).
110. 1W-1M. 171-178, and 30l(a) of the
Clean Air Act 42 U.8.C. 7401(bXl). 7410.
7470-747*. 7S01-7SO*. and 7«Ol(al.
SOURCE 1* PR 22388, Nov. 25. IOT1. unless
otherwise noted.
EDITORIAL NOTE: Nomenclature change*
affecting Part 51 appear at 44 FR 8237. Feb.
I. 1»7» and 51 FR 400*1. Nov. 7. 108*.
Subport* A-C—(Rosorvod)
Support U— Molntononco of Notional
Standard*
Sooner 41 FR 183*8, May 3, 1*76. unless
otherwise noted.
151.4* Scoot.
(a) Applicability- The requirements
of this subpart apply to air quality
maintenance areas (AQMAs) Identi-
fied under 151.110X1) and to any areas
Identified under | 51.110X1).
(b) AQMA Analvti* Under this sub-
part, procedures are given for the
analysis of the air quality Impact of
specified pollutant emissions from ex-
isting sources and emissions associated
with projected growth and develop-
ment In areas Identified under para-
graphs (I) and (I) of 151.110. This
analysis Is referred to In this subpart
as an AQMA analysis.
(c) AQMA Plan. Under this subpart.
the Administrator will require a revi-
sion to the Slate Implementation plan
for areas Identified under I 51.110(1) or
| 51.110(1) when necessary to prevent a
national ambient air quality standard
713
-------
I 31.100
«r) "TrmruporUtlon control meas-
ure" means any measure that Is direct-
ed toward reducing emissions of air
pollutants from transportation
sources. Such measures Include, but
are not limited to. those listed In sec-
tion I08(f> of the Clean Air Act.
(sMw) (Reserved!
(x) "Time period" means any period
of time designated by hour, month.
season, calendar year, averaging time.
or other suitable characteristic*, for
which ambient air quality Is estimated.
(y) "Variance" means the temporary
deferral of a final compliance date for
an Individual source subject to an ap-
proved regulation, or a temporary
chance to an approved regulation as It
applies to an Individual source.
(•) "Emission limitation" and "emis-
sion standard" mean a requirement es-
tablished by a State, local government,
or the Administrator which limits the
quantity, rate, or concentration of
emission* of air pollutants on a contin-
uous basis. Including any requirements
which limit the level of opacity, pre-
scribe equipment, aet fuel specifica-
tions, or prescribe operation or main-
tenance procedure* for a source to
assure continuous emlralon reduction.
"Poanll fuel-fired steam genera-
tor" means a fumance or bloler used
In the process of burning fossil fuel for
the primary purpose of producing
steam by henl transfer.
40 Cri Ch. I (7-1-88 edition)
"Stack" means any point In a
source designed to emit solids, liquids.
or gases Into the air. Including a pipe
or duct but not Including flares.
(gg) "A stack In existence" means
that the owner or operator had (I)
begun, or caused to begin, a continu-
ous program of physical on site con-
struction of the stack or (2) entered
Into binding agreements or contrac-
tual obligations, which could not be
cancelled or modified without substan-
tial loss to the owner or operator, to
undertake a program of construction
of the stack to be completed within a
reasonable time.
(hhXl) "Dispersion technique-
means any technique which attempts
to affect the concentration of a pollut-
ant In the ambient air by:
(I) Dslng that portion of a stack
which exceeds good engineering prac-
tice stack height:
The reheating of a gas stream.
following use of a pollution control
system, for the purpose of returning
the gas to the temperature at which It
was originally discharged from the fa-
cility generating the gas stream:
(II) The merging of exhaust gas
streams where:
(A) The source owner or operator
demonstrates that the facility was
originally designed and constructed
with such merged gas streams;
(B> After July a. 1086 such merging
Is part of a change In operation at the
facility that Includes the Installation
of pollution controls and Is accompa-
nied by a net reduction In the allow-
able emissions of a pollutant. This ex-
clusion from the definition of "disper-
sion techniques" shall apply only to
the emission limitation for the pollut-
fnvlrviimontsil Protection Afoncy
ant affected by such change In oper-
ation: or
(C) Before July B. 1986. such merg-
ing was part of a change In operation
at the facility that Included the Instal-
lation of emissions control equipment
or was carried out for sound economic
or engineering reasons. Where there
was an Increase In the emission limita-
tion or. In the event that no emission
limitation was In existence prior to the
merging, an Increase In the quantity of
pollutants actually emitted prior to
the merging, the reviewing agency
shall presume that merging was Sig-
nificantly motivated by an Intent to'
gain emissions credit for greater dis-
persion. Absent a demonstration by
the source owner or operator that
merging was not significantly motivat-
ed by such Intent, the reviewing
agency shall deny credit for the ef-
fects of such merging In calculating
the allowable emissions for the source;
(III) Smoke management In agricul-
tural or sllvtcultural prescribed burn-
Ing prograrm
(Iv) Episodic restrictions on residen-
tial woodburnlng and open burning; or
(v> Techniques under
f Vl.loofhhKlxill) which Increase
final exhaust gas plume rise when the
resulting allowable emissions of sulfur
dioxide from the facility do not exceed
6,000 tons per year.
(U> "Good engineering practice"
(OEP) stack height means the greater
of:
(1) 86 meters, measured from the
ground-level elevation at the base of
the stack:
(2X1) For stacks In existence on Jan-
uary It, 197V. and for which the owner
or operator had obtained all applicable
permits or approvals required under 40
CPR Parts 81 and 52.
H.-2BH.
provided the owner or operator pro-
duces evidence that this equation was
actually relied on In establishing an
emission limitation:
Oil For all other stacks.
H.-H + I 6L
where
H.^tood engineering practice stack height.
mruured from the ground-level eleva-
tion «l the bane of thr sUck.
J51.IOO
H = height or nearby structured) mewured
from the ground level elevttlon «l the
bate of the *Uck.
L-toner dimension, height or projected
width, of nesrbr structured)
provided that the EPA. State or local
control agency may require the use of
a field study or fluid model to verify
OEP stack height for the source; or
(3) The height demonstrated by a
fluid model or a field study approved
by the EPA State or local control
agency, which ensures that the emis-
sions from a stack do not result In ex-
cessive concentrations of any air pol-
lutant as a result of atmospheric
downwash. wakes, or eddy effects cre-
ated by the source Itself, nearby struc-
tures or nearby terrain features.
(JJ) "Nearby" as used In 161.100X11)
of this part Is defined for a specific
structure or terrain feature and
(1) Ptor purposes of applying the for-
mulae provided In 161.MMKIIX3) means
that distance up to five times the
lesser of the height or the width di-
mension of a structure, but not greater
than 0.8 km (H mile), and
(2) For conducting demonstrations
under 161.100(11X1) means not greater
than 0.1 km (H mile), except that the
portion of a terrain feature may be
considered to be nearby which falls
within a distance of up to 10 tunes the
maximum height (H«> of the feature.
not to exceed 2 miles If such feature
achieves m height (H,) 0.8 km from the
stack that Is at least 40 percent of the
OEP stack height determined by the
formulae provided In 161.100X11X3X11)
of this part or 26 meters, whichever Is
greater, as measured from the ground-
level elevation at the base of the stack.
The height of the structure or terrain
feature Is measured from the ground-
level elevation at the base of the stack.
(kk) "Excessive concentration" Is de-
fined for the purpose of determining
good engineering practice stack height
under 161.100(11X3) and means.
(I) For sources seeking credit for
stack height exceeding that estab-
lished under 161.100X11X2) a maximum
ground-level concentration due to
emissions from a stack due In whole or
part to downwash, wakes, and eddy ef-
fects produced .by nearby structures or
nearby terrain features which Individ-
ually Is at least 40 percent In excess of
720
721
-------
gsi.ioo
the maximum concentration experi-
enced In the absence of such down-
waah. wakes, or eddy effects and
which contributes to a total concentra-
tion due to emissions from all sources
that Is greater than an ambient air
quality standard. For sources subject
to the prevention of significant dete-
rioration program (40 CFR 51.106 and
52.21). an excessive concent ration al-
ternatively means a maximum ground-
level concentration due to emissions
from a stack due In whole or part to
downwash, wakes, or eddy effects pro-
duced by nearby structures or nearby
terrain features which Individually Is
at least 40 percent In excess of the
maximum concentration experienced
In the absence of such downwash.
wakes, or eddy effects and greater
than a prevention of significant dete-
rioration Increment. The allowable
emission rate to be used In making
demonstrations under this part shall
be prescribed by the new source per-
formance standard that Is applicable
to the source category unless the
ownei or operator demonstrates that
this emission rale Is Infeaslble. Where
such demonstrations are approved by
the authority administering the State
Implementation plan, an alternative
emission rate shall be established In
consultation with the source owner or
operator.
(2> For sources seeking credit after
October I1. 1983. for Increases In exist-
ing stack heights up to the heights es-
tablished under I 51.100(11X2). either
(I) a maximum ground-level concentra-
tion due In whole or part to down-
wash, wakes or eddy effects as provid-
ed In paragraph (kkXD of this section,
except that the emission rate specified
by any applicable State Implementa-
tion plan (or. In the absence of such a
limit, the actual emission rate) shall
be used, or (II) the actual presence of a
local nuisance caused by the existing
•tack, as determined by the authority
administering the Stale Implementa-
tion plan; and
(8) For sources seeking credit after
January 12. 1079 for a stack height de-
termined under | 51 100dlM2) where
the authority administering the State
Implementation plan requires the use
of a field study or fluid motlel to verify
OKP stack helfthl. lor sources seeking
40 CFR Ch. I (7-141 Edition)
stack height credit after November 9,
1984 based on the aerodynamic Influ-
ence of cooling towers, and for sources
seeking stack height credit after De-
cember 31, 1970 based on the aerody-
namic Influence of structures not ade-
quately represented by the equations
In I 51.100(11X2), a maximum ground-
level concentration due In whole or
part to downwash, wakes or eddy ef-
fects that Is at least 40 percent In
excess of the maximum concentration
experienced In the absence of such
downwash. wakes, or eddy effects.
(IIMmm) (Reserved]
(nn) Intermittent control system
(IC8) means a dispersion technique
which varies the rate at which pollut-
ants are emitted to the atmosphere ac-
cording to meteorological conditions
and/or ambient concentrations of the
pollutant. In order to prevent ground-
level concentrations In excess of appli-
cable ambient air quality standards.
Such a dispersion technique Is an ICS
whether used alone, used with other
dispersion techniques, or used as a
supplement to continuous emission
controls (I.e., used as a supplemental
control system).
(oo) "Partlculate matter" means any
airborne finely divided solid or liquid
material with an aerodynamic diame-
ter •mailer than 100 micrometers.
(pp) "Partlculate matter emissions"
means all finely divided solid or liquid
material, other than uncomblned
water, emitted to the ambient air as
measured by applicable reference
methods, or an equivalent or alterna-
tive method, specified In this chapter.
or by a test method specified In an ap-
proved State Implementation plan.
(qq) "PMU" means partlculate
matter with an aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to a nominal 10 mi-
crometers as measured by a reference
method based on Appendix J of Part
50 of this chapter and designated In
accordance with Part 63 of this chap-
ter or by an equivalent method desig-
nated In accordance with Part 63 of
this chapter.
(rr> "PM» emissions" means finely
divided solid or liquid material, with
an aerodynamic diameter less than or
equal to a nominal 10 micrometers
emitted to the ambient air as meas-
ured by an applicable reference
Environmental Protection Agency
method, or an equivalent or alterna-
tive method, specified In this chapter
or by a test method specified In an ap-
proved State Implementation plan.
(ss) "Total suspended partlculate"
means partlculate matter as measured
by the method described In Appendix
B of Part 60 of this chapter.
Itl FR 40M1. Nov. 1. IWM. u amended at 81
PR 2471 I.July I. 1987)
1(1.1(1 Stlpalatlonr
Nothing In this part will be con-
strued In any manner:
(a) To encourage a State to prepare.
adopt, or submit a plan which does not
provide for the protection and en-
hancement of air quality so as to pro-
mote the public health and welfare
and productive capacity.
(b) To encourage a State to adopt
any particular control strategy with-
out taking Into consideration the cost-
effectiveness of such control strategy
In relation to that of alternative con-
trol strategies.
(c) To preclude a State from employ-
ing techniques other than those •peel-
fled In this part for purpose* of esti-
mating air quality or demonstrating
the adequacy of a control strategy.
provided that such other techniques
are shown to be adequate and appro-
priate for such purposes.
(d) To encourage a State to prepare.
adopt, or submit a plan without taking
Into consideration the social and eco-
nomic Impact of the control strategy
set forth In such plan. Including, but
not limited to. Impact on availability
of fuels, energy, transportation, and
employment.
(e) To preclude a State from prepar-
ing, adopting, or submitting a plan
which provides for attainment tad
maintenance of a national tUttdard
through the application of a -control
strategy not specifically Identified or
described In this part.
(f) To preclude a State or political
subdivision thereof from adopting or
enforcing any emission limitations or
other measures or combinations there:
of to attain and maintain air quality
better than that required by a nation-
al standard.
(g> To encourage a State to adopt a
control strategy uniformly applicable
throughout a region unless there Is no
951.102
satisfactory alternative way of provid-
ing for attainment and maintenance of
a national standard throughout such
region.
(5I.IM Public hcaringm.
(a) Except as otherwise provided In
paragraph (c) of this section. States
must conduct one or more public hear-
ing* on the following prior to adoption
and submission to EPA of:
(1) Any plan or revision of It re-
quired by 151.104(a).
<2> Any Individual compliance sched-
ule under <| 61.290).
(3) Any revision under | 61.104(d).
(b) Separate hearings may be held
for plans to Implement primary and
secondary standards.
(c) No hearing will be required for
any change to an Increment of
progress In an approved Individual
compliance schedule unless such
change Is likely to cause the source to
be unable to comply with the final
compliance date In the schedule. The
requirements of 1161.104 and 81.106
will be applicable to such schedules.
however.
(d) Any hearing required by para-
graph (a) of this section will be held
only after reasonable notice, which
will be considered to Include, at-least
30 day* Prior to the date of such
heartng(s):
(1) Notice given to the public by
prominent advertisement In the area
affected announcing the date(s>.
tlmets). and placets) of such
hearlng(s);
(2) Availability of each proposed
plan or revision for public Inspection
In at least one location In each region
to which It will apply, and the avail
ability of each compliance schedule
for public Inspection In at least one lo-
cation In the region In which the af-
fected source Is located;
(3) Notification to the Administrator
(through the appropriate Regional
Office):
(4) Notification to each local air pol-
lution control agency which will be
significantly Impacted by such plan.
schedule or revision;
(5) fn the case of an Interstate
region, notification to any other
States Included. In whole or In part. In
722
723
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.3
-------
Part 51
40 CM Ch. I (7-l-M
PART 51—•fQUWIMENTS KM PtlP-
AlATtOM, AOOtntON, AND SU«-
MIHAl OP IMPlIMfOTATtON
PIANS
(IUMrv««|
8ec.
•I M Scop*.
AQUA AntiTaia
1141 AQUA analysis: SubmUUI date.
•I 41 AQUA analyal*: Analyal* period.
•1 4* AQUA analytic: Guideline*.
•I 44 AQMA analyate: Projection of emla-
•lon*.
•>.«• AQMA analyala: Allocation of emls-
•Ion*.
(1.44 AQMA analysis: Projection of air
quality- oonoentraUoo*.
ol 41 AQMA analyala: Description of data
aourcea.
II .41 AQMA analyala: Data baaea.
11.4* AQMA analyate Technique, deacrlp-
Uon.
II M AQMA analytic Accuracy factor*.
11.11 AQMA analytic SubmltUI of calcula-
tion*.
AQMAPuui
11.11 AQMA plan: General
IIII AQMA plan; DnnonatraUon ol ade-
quacy.
II M AQMA plan. Strategic*.
II M AQMA plan: Legal authority.
II M AQMA plan: Future atratecte*.
•1.11 AQMA plan: Future lecal authority.
II .M AQMA plan: Intergovernmental co-
oneraUon,
II W IReaervedl
II M AQMA plan: Reaourcea.
II f I AQMA plan: Bubmlttal format.
IIII AQMA analyaU and plan: Data avail-
ability.
II U AQMA analyala and plan: Alternative
pTOOMtllFM.
ftl 100 Definition*.
II 101 Stipulation*.
11.101 Public hearing*.
II 1O1 Rubrolaalon of plan*; preliminary
review of plan*.
II 104 RevUlon*.
II till Approval of plan*.
11.110 Attainment and maintenance of na-
tional atandard*.
•I.Ill Description of control measure*.
11.111 Demonitrallon of adequacy.
•I.IIS Time period for demonstration of
adequacy.
II 114 Emissions data and projections
•I.Ill Air quality data and projection*.
till* Data availability.
11.11T Additional provisions for lead.
II.Ill Stack helcht provision*.
11.111 Intermittent control *y*tem*.
i *« A* PeaMtM
"•••nr
II IM Claaaltlcatlon of region* for eplaode
pfauns.
•I.Ill Significant harm level*.
•I.lit Contingency plan*.
II .111 Revaluation of eplaode plan*.
II. IM Legally enforceable procedurea.
II 111 Public availability of Information.
II 111 Identification of reaponalble
Mency.
II 111 Admlnlatratlon procedure*.
II. 1*4 Stack height procedurea.
II.IM Permit requirement*.
II.IM Prevention of significant deterio-
ration of air quality.
II.IM Ambient air quality monltorini re-
quirement*.
IIII* Oeoeral.
•Mil
eporta and reeerdkeeplnc.
II 111 Testing. Inspection, enforcement,
and complaint*.
11.111 Tranaporlatlon control meaium.
II114 Contlnuou* emlaalon monitoring.
II ISO Requirement* tor all plan*.
11.111 Identification of lecal authority.
II.Ml Aaalcnraent of lecal authority to
local acencte*.
AOKHCV Danm*TiOH
11140 General plan requirement*.
II141 Nonattalnment area* for carbon
monoxide and ozone.
11.141 I Reserved I
712
Environmental PretectUn
CONTIMUIHC CONSULTATION PBOCCS*
11.143 Contultatlon procea* objective*.
SI 144 Plan element* affected.
II 141 Orcanlzallon* and official* to be
cotuulted
1114* Ttmlnc.
•1.141 Hearing* on coniullatlon procei*
violation*.
RauTioitiHir or PLAH TO Onm PUHIMIMO
*HD MAHAOCMCHT PBOOMM*
II .141 Coordination vlth other program*.
II 141 (Recervedl
11.190 Tranunlttal of Information.
•I. Ml Conformity with Executive Order
11111.
11.111 Summary of plan development par
Uclpatlon.
•P*
II.MO Legally enforceable compliance
schedule*.
II.Ml Plnal compliance achedulea.
II.Ml Eilcnilon beyond one year.
i Ma* C«MiM
•I.MO Reaourcea.
II.HI Coplea of rule* and reguUUon*.
II.UI Public notification.
i«4VWMBfy
II100 Purpoae and applicability.
•I.MI Definition*.
SI.M1 Implementation control itratecle*.
• I .Ml exemption* from control.
II.M4 Identification of Integral vtotaa.
II101 Monitoring.
HIM Lone-termitrategy.
II.Ml Mew aource review.
Aia QOAUTV DATA Rcromira .
HIM Annual air quality data report.
Sooacc EaiiHioiia *HD STATB ACTIOII
RcroiTino
11.111 Annual aource embalona and State
action report.
11.111 Source* nibject to emUakma report-
Ing.
II 111 Reportable emUalona data and In-
formation.
11.114 Progrei* In plan enforcement.
11.111 Contingency plan action*.
HIM Reportable revtelon*.
61111 Enforcement order* and other Stale
action*.
II. 321 IRewrvedl
SI.340 Kequcsl for lyear extension.
$51.40
11.141 Requeil for 18 month entenalon.
ArrCHDicu A K IKescftveol
ArrtNDix I. EKAur-LE HecuutTiOH* ron
PKEVCHTIDH or Ai* I'OLHITIOH EMEHCEM
cv Erisoots
ArrcNDix M IHisenvrul
ArrtHDix N EMISSIOWS RmucTiom
ACHIEVACLI TllllOUCH INSPECTIOH, M4IH-
TCHANCK AND RcTHOriT or IjOHT DUTY
VtMIClIS
ArrwDix O IRuuvcol
ArriNDix P MINIMUM KHIMIOH MOHITOI
Arruinicu Q - R - 1 Rueavco 1
ArrtNDix 8 EMISSION Orrsrr
TIVI RUtINO
ArruiDix T-IRumvcol
ArrcKDix U-CLCAH Aia ACT SCCTIOH 114
GUIDELINE*
AUTHOBITV: Thl* rulemaklng I* promul-
gated under authority of aecllon* tOKbXl).
110. IM-IOO. Ill-lit, and lOKal of the
Clean Air Act 41 U.8.C. 140l(bKll. 1410.
1410-141*. 1SOI 1508. and IMI(a).
Souacc M PR 1»M. Nov. IS. 1*11. unle**
otherwbe noted.
EDITO*IAL NOTE: Nomenclature chance*
affectlnc Part SI appear at 44 FR l»1. Peb.
I. 1*1* and SI PR 40681. Nov. 1. I»M
Subawto A-C— |lwga>rv*>«l)
D— Mainte
ce of N.M*MM|
Standard*
Sooiicc 41 PR 1I1M. May 3. 1*1*. unleai
otherwlae noted.
161.4* Seep*.
(fc> Applicability. The requlremenU
o( this subpmrt apply to air quality
maintenance areas (AQMA*) Identi-
fied under I 51.1 HMD and to any areas
Identified under | Sl.llfKI).
(b) AQMA Analvti*. Under this sub-
part, procedures are given tor the
analysis of the air quality Impact of
specified pollutant emissions from ex-
isting sources and emissions associated
with projected growth and develop-
ment In areas Identified under para-
graphs and (I) of 151.110. This
analysis Is referred to In this subpart
as an AQMA analysis.
when necessary to prevent a
national ambient air quality standard
713
-------
1*1.41
III.U AQMA ana|r«k and plan: Date
•TaUaMllly.
(a) The State shall retain all de-
tailed data and calculation* used In
the preparation of AQMA analyses
and plans, make them available for
public Inspection, and submit them to
the Administrator at his request.
. He may consider all relevant
factors Including but not limited to air
cfueJIty problems, financial and man-
power limitation*, administrative fea-
sfbbtty. and existing commitment* by
the State.
(b) The Administrator shall act upon
a fcquest for modification within 45
day* after receipt of a properly pre-
pared and filed request. Unless a State
I* notified of a denial, or the Adminis-
trator request* additional Information.
•ttch a request I* automatically ap-
prdved on the forty-sixth day.
(c) The Administrator shall publish
In the rtoaua. Raoisra. a description
of each modification made.
A public hearing on an AQMA
plan doe* not fulfill the public hearing
requirement* of this part If. subse-
to the hearing, any alternative
approved under this
(•MS. 110. HI. 174(a). MKa). Clean Air Act.
M emended (43 UBC. 1410. 1411. 1504. and
141 nt MM*. May 1. 1*1*. ai amended at 44
nt nn». June it. m»i
ftwbpwt I— (Reserved)
f— Procedural Requirements
Boimcm: 61 PR 40*61. Nov. 1. 1986. unleu
otherwUe noted
40 CM Ch. I (7-1-88 IdlrUn)
• 6I.IM Definition*.
As used In this part, all terms not de-
fined herein will have the meaning
given them In the Act:
(a) "Act" means the Clean Air Act
(43 U.8.C. 7401 et teg., as amended by
Pub. L. 91-404. 84 Stat. 1679 Pub. U
•6 98. 91 stat.. 686 and Pub. U 96-190.
91 Stat.. U99.)
(b) "Administrator" means the Ad-
mlnlatrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPAl or an authorised
representative.
(c) "Primary standard" means a na-
tional primary ambient air quality
standard promulgated pursuant to sec-
tion 10* of the Act.
(d) "Secondary standard" means a
national secondary ambient air quality
standard promulgated pursuant to sec-
tion 109 of the Act.
(e) "National standard" mean*
either a primary or secondary stand-
ard.
(f) "Owner or operator" mean* any
peraon who own*, leases, operate*, con-
trol*, or •upervise* a facility, building.
structure, or Installation which direct-
ly or Indirectly result or may result In
emission* of any air pollutant for
which a national standard Is In effect.
(gl "Local agency" mean* any local
government agency other than the
State agency, which I* charged with
responsibility for carrying out a por-
tion of the plan.
(hi "Regional Office" mean* one of
the ten (101 EPA Regional Offices.
(I) "State agency" mean* the air pol-
lution control agency primarily re-
sponsible for development and Imple-
mentation of a plan under the Act.
(J> "Plan" means an Implementation
plan approved or promulgated under
section 110 of 173 of the Act.
"Region" mean* an area deslg-
natod a* an air quality control region
(AQCR) under section 107(c) of the
(n) "Control strategy" mean* a eom-
Mnatlon of measure* designated to
achieve the aggregate reduction of
emissions oeceesary for attainment
and maintenance of national stand-
ard* Including, but not limited to.
(1) Emission limitations.
(I) Federal or State emission charge*
or tax** or other econoamlc Incentive*
(•) Closing or relocation of residen-
tial, commercial, or Industrial
(4) Change* hi schedules or I
of operation of commercial or I
al facilities or transportation i
Including, but not limited to. abort-
term change* made In accordance with
standby plan*.
(6) Periodic Inspection and testing of
motor vehicle emission control sys-
tems, at such time as the Administra-
tor determines that such program* are
feasible and practicable. .
(6) Emission control measures appli-
cable to In-use motor vehicles. Includ-
ing, but not limited to. measures such
as mandatory maintenance. Installa-
•51.100
tlon of emission control devices, and
conversion to gaseous fuels.
(7) Any transportation control meas-
ure Including those transportation
measures listed In section 10B(I) of the
Clean Air Act as amended.
(8) Any variation o(. or alternative
to any measure delineated herein.
(0) Control or prohibition of a fuel
or fuel additive used In motor vehicle*.
If such control or prohibition I* necea-
aary to achieve a national primary or
•econary air quality standard and la
approved by the Administrator under
section lll(cM4KC) of the Act.
(o> "Reasonably available control
technology" mean* device*.
systems process modifications, or
other apparatus or technique* that are
reasonably available taking Into ac-
count (1) the necessity of Imposing
such controls In order to attain and
maintain a national ambient air qual-
ity •tandard. (2) the social, environ-
mental and economic Impact of such
control*, and (3) alternative mean* of
providing for attainment and mainte-
nance of *uch *tandard. (This provi-
sion define* RACT for the purpose* of
II »l.ll(KcX» and 81.341(0) only.)
(p) ••Compliance schedule" mean*
the date or date* by which a source or
category of sources I* required to
comply with specific emission limita-
tion* contained hi an Implementation
plan and with any tncremenU of
progress toward men compliance.
(q) "Increment* of progress" mean*
•ten* toward compliance which will be
taken by a specific source. Including:
(1) Date of submlttal of the source'*
final control plan to the appropriate
air pollution control agency.
(3) Date by which contract* for
emission control systems or process
modification* will be awarded; or date
by which orders will be Issued for the
purchase of component part* to ac-
complish emission control or process
modification;
(3) Date of Initiation of on site con-
struction or Installation of emission
control equipment or process change;
(4) Date by which on site construc-
tion or Installation of emission control
equipment or process modification Is
to be completed: and
(6) Date by which flna! compliance
1s to be achieved.
710
-------
191.100
it > '"li•importation control meas-
ure" means any measure that Is direct-
ed toward reducing, emissions or air
pollutants from transportation
sources. Such measures Include, but
are not limited to. those tinted In sec-
tion I08XO of the Clean Air Act.
{Reserved]
(i) "Time period" means any period
or tune designated by hour, month.
season, calendar year, averaging time.
or other suitable characteristic*, for
which ambient air quality Is estimated.
(y) "Variance" means the temporary
deferral or a final compliance date for
an Individual source subject to an ap-
proved regulation, or a temporary
change to an approved regulation as It
applies to an Individual source.
<•> "Emission limitation" and "emis-
sion standard" mean a requirement es-
tablished by a State, local government.
or the Administrator which limits the
quantity, rate, or concentration of
emissions or air pollutants on a contin-
uous basis. Including any requirements
which limit the level or opacity, pre-
scribe equipment, set fuel specifica-
tions, or prescribe operation or main-
tenance procedure* for a source to
assure continuous emission reduction.
(aal "Capacity factor" means the
ratio or the average load on a machine
or equipment for the period or tune
considered to the capacity ratine or
the machine or equipment.
"Excess emissions" means emis-
sions of an air pollutant In excess or
an emission standard.
"Nitric acid plant" means any
facility producing nitric acid 30 to 70
percent In strength by either the pres-
sure or atmospheric pressure process.
(dd) "Sulfurlc acid plant" means any
facility producing sulfurlc acid by the
contact process by burning elemental
sulfur, alky 1st Ion acid, hydrogen sul-
ride. or add sludiie. but does not In-
clude facilities whrre conversion to
sulfuric acid Is utilized primarily as a
means of preventing emissions to the
atmosphere of sulfur dioxide or other
sulfur compounds.
"A stack In existence" means
that the owner or operator had (I)
begun, or caused to begin, a continu-
ous program of physical on site con-
struction of the stack or (3) entered
Into binding agreements or contrac-
tual obligations, which could not be
cancelled or modified without substan-
tial loss to the owner or operator, to
undertake a program or construction
or the stack to be completed within a
reasonable time.
(hhXl) "Dispersion technique"
means any technique which attempts
to affect the concentration of a pollut-
ant In the ambient air by:
(I) Using that portion or a stack
which exceeds good engineering prac-
tice stack height:
(U) Varying the rate of emission of a
pollutant according to atmospheric
conditions or ambient concentrations
or that pollutant; or
(111) Increasing final exhaust gas
plume rise by manipulating source
process parameters, exhaust gas pa-
rameters, stack parameters, or combin-
ing exhaust gases from several exist-
big stacks Into one stack; or other se-
lective handling or exhaust gas
streams so as to Increase the extiaust
gas plume rise.
<» The preceding sentence does not
Include:
The reheating or a gas stream.
following use of a pollution control
system, for the purpose of returning
the gas to the temperature at wftlch It
was originally discharged from the fa-
cility generating the gas stream;
(II) The merging of exhaust gas
streams where:
(A) The source owner or operator
demonstrates that the facility was
originally designed and constructed
with such merged gas streams:
After July i. I"85 such merging
Is part or a change In operation at the
facility that Includes the Installation
of pollution controls and Is accompa-
nied by a net reduction In the allow-
able emissions or a pollutant. This ex-
clusion from the definition of "disper-
sion techniques" shall apply only to
the emission limitation for the pollut-
fnvkwwNmM Protect!** Af ency
ant affected by such change In oper-
ation: or
(C) Before July 8. 1986. such merg-
ing wss part of a change In operation
at the facility that Included the Instal-
lation of emissions control equipment
or was carried out for sound economic
or engineering reasons. Where there
was an Increase In the emission limita-
tion or. In the event that no emission
limitation was In existence prior to the
merging, an Increase In the quantity of
pollutants actually emitted prior to
the merging, the reviewing agency
shall presume that merging was sig-
nificantly motivated by an Intent to
gain emissions credit for greater dis-
persion. Absent a demonstration by
the source owner or operator that
merging was not significantly motivat-
ed by such Intent, the reviewing
agency shall deny credit for the ef-
fects of such merging In calculating
the allowable emissions for the source;
(111) Smoke management In agricul-
tural or sUvtcuUural pi escribed burn-
ing programs;
(Iv) Bplsodlc restrictions on residen-
tial woodbumlng and open burning; or
(V) Techniques
MI.IOMhhNlHlll) which
final exhaust gas plume rise where the
resulting allowable emissions or sulfur
dioxide from the facility do not exceed
•.000 tons per year.
(U> "Good engineering practice"
(OEP) stack height means the greater
or:
(I) M meters, measured front the
ground-level elevation at the base of
the stack:
ONI) For stacks In existence on Jan-
uary I >. in*, and for which the owner
or operator had obtained all applicable
permits or approvals required under 40
CPR Parts 51 and 59.
H.-1.MI.
provided the owner or operator pro-
duces evidence that this equation was
actually relied on In establishing an
emission limitation:
For all other stacks.
H.-H + I M.
where
H.-(ood enslneerlnc practice lUck height,
meanired from the (round level eleva-
tion at the hue of the ilmrk.
J 51.100
H-helshl of nearby •tructureo) measured
from the (round level' elevation aC the
base of the atack. .
L-leaser dimension, helsht or projected
width, of nearby structured)
provided that the EPA. State or local
control agency may require the use or
a field study or fluid model to verify
OEP stack height for the source; or
(» The height demonstrated by a
fluid model or a field study approved
by the EPA State or local control
agency, which ensures that the emis-
sions from a stack do not result In ex-
cessive concentrations or any air pol-
lutant as a result or atmospheric
downwaah. wakes, or eddy effects cre-
ated by the source Itself, nearby struc-
tures or nearby terrain features.
(jj) ••Nearby" aa used In 161.100(11)
of this part Is defined for a specific
structure or terrain feature and
(1) For purposes of applying the for-
mulae provided In I SI.100(11X3) means
that distance up to rive times the
lesser or the height or the width di-
mension of a structure, but not greater
than 0.1 km (H mile), and
(1) for conducting demonstrations
under I BI.IOO means not greater
than 0.0 km (H mile), except that the
portion of a terrain feature may be
considered to be nearby which falls
within a distance of up to 10 time* the
maximum height
-------
} 51.100
the maximum concentration experi-
enced In the absence of such down-
wash, wakes, or eddy effects and
which contributes to a total concentra-
tion due to emissions from all sources
that Is greater than an ambient air
quality standard. For sources subject
to the prevention of significant dete-
rioration program (40 CFR 51.166 and
69.21). an excessive concentration al-
ternatively means a maximum ground-
level concentration due to emission*
from a stack due In whole or part to
downwash. wakes, or eddy effects pro-
duced by nearby structures or nearby
terrain features which Individually Is
at least 40 percent In excess of the
maximum concentration experienced
In the absence of such downwash.
wakes, or eddy effects and greater
than a prevention of significant dete-
rioration Increment. The allowable
emission rale to be used In making
demonstrations under this part shall
be prescribed by the new source per-
formance standard that Is applicable
to the source category unless the
ownei or operator demonstrates that
this emission rate Is Infeaslble. Where
such demonstrations are approved by
the authority administering the State
Implementation plan, an alternative
emission rate shall be established In
consultation with the source owner or
operator.
(» For sources seeking credit after
October 11. 1981. for Increases In exist*
big stack heights up to the height* es-
tablished under I 51.100(11 M 3). either
(I) a maximum ground-level concentra-
tion due In whole or part to down-
wash, wakes or eddy effects as provid-
ed In paragraph 4kkMI> of this section.
except that the emission rate specified
by any applicable State Implementa-
tion plan (or. In the absence of such a
limit, the actual emission rale) shall
be used, or (II) the actual presence of a
local nuisance caused by the existing
stack, as determined by the authority
administering the State Implementa-
tion plan; and
(I) For sources seeking credit after
January 12. 1979 for a stack height de-
termined under 151.10OUIX2) where
the authority administering the State
Implementation plan requires the use
of a field study or fluid model to verify
QKP stark lielnl\t. for sources seeking
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-M fdlHen)
stack height credit after November 9.
1984 based on the aerodynamic Influ-
ence of cooling towers, and for sources
seeking slack height credit after De-
cember 31. 1970 based on the aerody-
namic Influence of structures not ade-
quately represented by the equations
In | 6I.1(MKIIX3>. a maximum ground-
level concentration due In whole or
part to downwash. wakes or eddy ef-
fects that Is at least 40 percent In
excess of the maximum concentration
experienced In the absence of such
downwash, wakes, or eddy effects.
(IIMmm) {Reserved!
(nn) Intermittent control system
(IC8) means a dispersion technique
which varies the rate at which pollut-
ants are emitted to the atmosphere ac-
cording to meteorological conditions
and/or ambient concentrations of the
pollutant. In order to prevent ground-
level concentrations In excess of appli-
cable ambient air quality standards.
Such a dispersion technique la an IC8
whether used alone, used with other
dispersion techniques, or used as a
supplement to continuous emission
controls (I.e., used as a supplemental
control system).
(oo) "Paniculate matter" means any
airborne finely divided solid or liquid
material with an aerodynamic diame-
ter smaller than 100 micrometers.
(pp) "Partlculate matter emissions"
means all finely divided solid or liquid
material, other than uncomblned
water, emitted to the ambient air as
measured by applicable reference
methods, or an equivalent or alterna-
tive method, specified In this chapter,
or by a test method specified In an ap-
proved State Implementation plan.
(qq) "PM»" means partlculate
matter with an aerodynamic diameter
less tluui or equal to a nominal 10 mi-
crometers as measured by a reference
method based on Appendix J of Part
60 of this chapter and designated In
accordance with Part 63 of this chap-
ter or by an equivalent method desig-
nated In accordance with Part 63 of
this chapter.
(rr) "PMM emissions" means finely
divided solid or liquid material, with
an aerodynamic diameter less than or
equal to a nominal 10 micrometers
emitted to the ambient air as meas-
ured by an applicable reference
tnvlrs*MiMfits)l Protection Af sitcy
method, or an equivalent or alterna-
tive method, specified In this chapter
or by a test method specified In an ap-
proved Stale Implementation plan.
(as) "Total suspended partlculate"
means partlculate matter as measured
by the method described In Appendix
B of Part 60 of this chapter.
(•1 PR 40MI. No*. 1. ISM. M amended at IS
PR 1471 J. Julr I. 1*87)
1(1.161 8UrslatloM.
Nothing In this part will be con-
strued In any manner:
(a) To encourage a State to prepare.
adopt, or submit a plan which does not
provide for the protection and en-
hancement of air quality so as to pro-
mote the public health and welfare
and productive capacity.
(b) To encourage a State to adopt
any particular control strategy with-
out taking Into consideration the cost-
effectiveness of such control strategy
In relation to that of alternative con-
trol strategies.
(c) To preclude a State from employ-
Ing techniques other than those speci-
fied In this part for purposes of esti-
mating air quality or demonstrating
the adequacy of a control strategy.
provided that such other techniques
are shown to be adequate and appro-
priate for such purposes.
(d) To encourage a State to prepare,
adopt, or submit a plan without taking
Into consideration the social and eco-
nomic Impact of the control strategy
set forth In such plan. Including, but
not limited to. Impact on availability
of fuels, energy, transportation, and
employment.
(e) To preclude a State from prepar-
Ing, adopting, or submitting a plan
which provides for attainment fend
maintenance of a national stsMMard
through the application of « UMttrol
strategy not specifically Identified or
described In this part.
(f) To preclude a State or political
subdivision thereof from adopting or
enforcing any emission limitations or
other measures or combinations there1
of to attain and maintain air quality
better than that required by a nation-
al standard.
(g) To encourage a State to adopt a
control strategy uniformly applicable
throughout a region unless there Is no
ft 51.102
satisfactory alternative way of provid-
ing for attainment and maintenance of
a national standard throughout such
region.
lil.Uf Public fearing*.
(a) Except as otherwise provided In
paragraph (c) of this section. States
must conduct one or more public hear-
ings on the following prior to adoption
and submission to EPA of:
(1) Any plan or revision of It re-
quired by 151. !04(a>.
(2) Any Individual compliance sched-
ule under (161.200).
(» Any revision under I 6l.l04(d).
(b) Separate hearings may be held
for plans to Implement primary and
secondary standards.
(c) No hearing will be required for
any change to an Increment of
progress In an approved Individual
compliance schedule unless such
change Is likely to cause the source to
be unable to comply with the final
compliance date In the schedule. The
requirements of 1161.104 and 61.106
will be applicable to such schedules.
however.
(d) Any hearing required by para-
graph (a) of this section will be held
only after reasonable notice, which
will be considered to Include, at feast
M days prior to the date of such
hearlngd):
(1) Notice given to the public by
prominent advertisement In the area
affected announcing the datots).
tlme(s>. and place
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.4
-------
Attachment A
r
*i
8 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
jg WASHINGTON, D.C 20460
^/ C*"
APR 2 2 SB8
ADLANDIADUTK
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Interim Policy on Stack Height Regulatory Actions
FROM: t~ J' C.ra19 Poster
" Assistant Adminis
for Air and Radlati
TO: Director, Air Management Division
Regions I, III, IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
Regions IV, VI
Director, Air and Radiation Division
Region V
Director, Air and Toxics Division
Regions VII, VIII, X
On January 22, 1988, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia issued its.decision in NRDC v. Thomas. 838 F. 2d 1224 (D.C. Cir.
1988), regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) stack height
regulations published on July 8, 1985 (50 FR 27892). Subsequent petitions
for rehearing were denied. Although the court upheld most provisions of the
rules, three portions were remanded to EPA for review:
1. Grandfather!ng pre-October 11, 1983 within-formula stack height
increases from demonstration requirements [40 CFR Sl.lOO(kk)(2)3;
2. Dispersion credit for sources originally designed and constructed
with merged or multiflue stacks [40 CFR 5l.lOO(hh)(2)(1i)(A)3; and
3. Grandfather!no of pre-1979 use of the refined H + 1.5L formula
[40 CFR 51.100(H)(2)3.
A number of pending State implementation plan (SIP) and other rulemaking
actions may be affected by this decision in advance of EPA's promulgation of
further revisions of the stack height regulations. This includes not only
rulemaking packages developed to respond to the 1985 stack height regulations,
but also such actions as issuance of new source review (NSR) and prevention
of significant deterioration (PSD) permits, permit modifications, SIP revisions
-------
dealing with specific source emission limitations, and redes1gnat1ons under
section 107 of the Clean Air Act. Consequently, until resolution of litigation
and completion of any rulemaking activity to respond to the court decision,
the following policy will be applied.
In general, actions to approve States' rules may proceed provided appropriate
caveat language is inserted which notes that the action Is potentially subject
to review and modification as a result of the recent court decision. Actions
addressing State permitting authority should require States to provide notice
that permits are subject to review and modification If sources are later
found to be affected by revisions to stack height regulations. Where States
currently have the authority to Issue penults under fully-approved or delegated
NSR and PSD programs, any permits Issued prior to EPA's promulgation of
revised stack height regulations should provide notice as described above
that they may be subject to review and modification. Regional Office staff
are requested to contact their State officials and notify the* accordingly.
Where EPA has retained authority to issue permits, it should also Insert
appropriate cautionary language in the permit.
The EPA will try to avoid taking source-specific actions that may need
to be retracted later. Such actions may include certain emission limitations
and good engineering practice demonstrations which reflect dispersion credit
affected by the remand. The EPA may approve these State submittals on a
case-by-case basis, with the explicit caution that they and the sources
affected by them may need to be evaluated for compliance with any later
revisions to the stack height regulations, as a result of the litigation.
The EPA will continue to process, under normal procedures, any source-specific
actions which do not involve the remanded .provisions.
Requests for redesignation of areas from nonattainment to attainment
which are affected by any of the remanded provisions of the stack height
regulations will be put on hold until EPA has completed any rulemaking
necessary to comply with the court's remand. This 1s due to the Issue of
whether EPA has authority to unilaterally change attainment designations.
During this interim period, the Regional Office staff should review with
their States all regulatory actions involving dispersion credits and identify
those actions or sources affected by the remanded provisions. The Region
should consult with their States on appropriate action for all such packages,
consistent with this policy.
If you have any questions regarding the application of this policy,
please contact Doug Grano at FT3 629-0870 or Janet Metsa at FTS 629-5313.
cc: D. Clay
A. Eckert
J. Emison
0. Grano
J. Metsa
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
MAY 1 V iScS
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Applipatlc^f^the Interim Policy for Stack Height
FROM: JjprfnvCaTcagjMV 01 rector
(ir Quality'Management Division (MD-15)
Chief, Air Branch
Regions I-X
On April 22, 1988, J. Craig Potter, Assistant-Administrator for Air
and Radiation, issued a memorandum entitled, 'Interim Policy on Stack
Height Regulatory Actions" (Attachment A). The memorandum requests that
the Regional Offices review with their States all regulatory actions
involving dispersion credits and determine the appropriate action consistent
with the policy. The purpose of today's memorandum is to provide guidance
in carrying out the interim policy.
In general, actions taken at this time to approve or disapprove
statewide stack height rules which are affected by the remand must include
the qualification that they are subject to review and modification on
completion of EPA's response to the court decision. Permits issued under
the prevention of significant deterioration or new source review programs
should also contain caveat language for sources which may be affected by
the remand. Attachment B contains example boilerplate language to be
inserted into permits and regulatory packages. Note that States must
commit to including the caveat before EPA will take final action on packages
affecting permitting authority. Those actions not involving the remanded
provisions may proceed as usual.
In contrast to our policy regarding the processing of stack height
rules, our policy for source-specific State implementation plan (SIP)
revisions is to avoid proceeding with actions which may need to be
retracted later. You are advised to consult with my staff and the Office
of General Counsel staff prior^to submitting such rulemaklng packages.
Affected sources must be deleted from negative declaration packages prepared
under the 1985 stack height regulations before EPA can proceed with action
on them.
-------
My staff has applied the policy when reviewing packages currently in
Headquarters (Attachment C). While proposals to approve (or disapprove)
State rules will remain on the Headquarters clock, the Regional Offices are
requested to review these packages and provide appropriate boilerplate as
soon as possible. Negative declaration packages and final actions on State
rules are being returned to the Regional Office clock as more substantial
revisions and commitments may be required. The redesignation packages
currently in Headquarters which contain sources affected by the remand are
being placed on formal hold.
If you have any questions regarding the April 22 policy, today's
guidance, or disposition of the SIP's, please contact Janet Metsa
(FTS 629-5313) or Doug Grano (FTS 629-0870).
Attachments
cc: R. Bauman
R. Campbell
C. Carter
G. McCutchen
J. Pearson
J. Sableski
bcc: B. Armstrong
P. Embrey
G. Foote
E. Ginsburg
D. Grano
N. Mayer
J-^etsa
i^SC Reinders
R. Roos-Collins
502 SIP Contacts
Stack Height Contacts, Regions I-X
-------
Attachment A
I'NITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C 20460
APR 2 2 B88
omcxor
AB.AMDIADU.TK>
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Interim Policy on Stack Height Regulatory Actions
J. Craig Potter
Assistant Admi nisi, ami (\ i\
for Air and Radiation (CTR-443)
Director, Air Management Division
Regions I, III, IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
Regions IV, VI
Director, A1r and Radiation Division
Region V
Director, Air and Toxics Division
Regions VII, VIII, X
On January 22, 1988, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia issued its-decision in NRDC v. Thomas, 838 F. 2d 1224 (D.C. Cir.
1988), regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) stack height
regulations published on July 8, 1985 (50 FR 27892). Subsequent petitions
for rehearing were denied. Although the court upheld most provisions of the
rules, three portions were remanded to EPA for review:
1. Grandfathering pre-October 11, 1983 w1thin-formula stack height
increases from demonstration requirements [40 CFR 51.100(kk)(2)3;
2. Dispersion credit for sources originally designed and constructed
with merged or multiflue stacks [40 CFR 51.100(hh)(2)(1i)(A)]; and
3. Grandfathering of pre-1979 use of the refined H + 1.5L formula
[40 CFR 51.100(11) (2) J.
A number of pending State implementation plan (SIP) and other rulemaking
actions may be affected by this decision in advance of EPA's promulgation of
further revisions of the stack height regulations. This Includes not only
rulemaking packages developed to respond to the 1985 stack height regulations,
but also such actions as issuance of new source review (NSR) and prevention
of significant deterioration (PSD) permits, permit modifications, SIP revisions
-------
dealing with specific source emission limitations, and redes1gnat1ons under
section 107 of the Clean Air Act. Consequently, until resolution of litigation
and completion of any rulemaking activity to respond to the court decision,
the following policy will be applied.
In general, actions to approve States' rules may proceed provided appropriate
caveat language is inserted which notes that the action 1s potentially subject
to review and modification as a result of the recent court decision. Actions
addressing State permitting authority should require States to provide notice
that permits are subject to review and modification 1f sources are later
found to be affected by revisions to stack height regulations. Where States
currently have the authority to issue permits under fully-approved or delegated
NSR and PSD programs, any permits issued prior to EPA's promulgation of
revised stack height regulations should provide notice as described above
that they may be subject to review and modification. Regional Office staff
are requested to contact their State officials and notify them accordingly.
Where EPA has retained authority to issue permits, it should also Insert
appropriate cautionary language 'i the permit.
The EPA will try to avoid taking source-specific actions that may need
to be retracted later. Such actions may include certain emission limitations
and good engineering practice demonstrations which reflect dispersion credit
affected by the remand. The EPA may approve these State submittals on a
case-by-case basis, with the explicit caution that they and the sources
affected by them may need to be evaluated for compliance with any later
revisions to the stack height regulations, as a result of the litigation.
The EPA will continue to process, under normal procedures, any source-specific
actions which do not involve the remanded provisions.
Requests for redesignation of areas from nonattainment to attainment
which are affected by any of the remanded provisions of the stack height
regulations will be put on hold until EPA has completed any rulemaking
necessary to comply with the court's remand. This 1s due to the issue of
whether EPA has authority to unilaterally change attainment designations.
During this interim period, the Regional Office staff should review with
their States all regulatory actions involving dispersion credits and identify
those actions or sources affected by the remanded provisions. The Region
should consult with their States on appropriate action for all such packages,
consistent with this policy.
If you have any questions regarding the application of this policy,
please contact Doug Grano at FTS 629-0870 or Janet Metsa at FTS 629-5313.
cc: 0. Clay
A. Eckert
0. Emison
D. Grano
J. Metsa
-------
Attachment B
The following boilerplate, or variations tailored to suit particular
situations, should be used in rulemaking actions affected by the stack
height remand.
General Addition
"The EPA's stack height regulations were challenged in NRDC v.
Thomas. 838 F.2d 1224 (D.C. Cir. 1988). On January 22, 1988, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued Us decision affirming the
regulations in large part, but remanding three provisions to the EPA for
reconsideration. These are:
1. Grandfathering pre-October 11, 1983 w1thin-formula stack height
increases from demonstration requirements [40 CFR 51.10Q(kk)(2)];
2. Dispersion credit for sources originally designed and constructed
with merged or multiflue stacks [40 CFR 51.100(hh)(2)(11)(A)]; and
3. Grandfathering pre-1979 use of the refined H + 1.5L formula
[40 CFR 51.100(ii)(2)]."
Addition for Stack Heights Rules Packages
"Although the EPA generally approves [State's] stack height rules on
the grounds that they satisfy 40 CFR Part 51, the EPA also provides notice
that this action may be subject to modification when EPA completes
rulemaking to respond to the decision in NRDC v. Thomas, 838 F.2d 1224
(D.C. C1r. 1988). If the EPA's response to the NRD(Tremand modifies the
July 8, 1985 regulations, the EPA will notify the~3t"ate of [ ] that its
rules must be changed to comport with the EPA's modified requirements.
This may result in revised emission limitations or may affect other
actions taken by [State] and source owners or operators."
Additions for Stack Negative Declaration Packages
"The EPA 1s not acting on sources (identified 1n table form or by
asterisk) because they currently receive credit under one of the provisions
remanded to the EPA 1n NRDC v. Thomas. 838 F.2d 1224 (D.C. Ci r 1988).
The [State] and EPA will review these sources for compliance with any
revised requirements when the EPA completes rulemaking to respond to the
NRDC remand."
-------
Additions for Stack Height Emission Limitation Changes or
Good Engineering Practice Demonstration
The OAQPS and OGC will provide language on a case-by-case basis when
the EPA is acting on a source-specific package which Is affected by the
remand.
Language for Proposed NSR and PSO SIP Approvals
"Under this program, [State] will be Issuing permits and establishing
emission limitations that may be affected by the court-ordered reconsideration
of the stack height regulations promulgated on July 8, 1985 (50 PR 27892).
For this reason, EPA requires that the State Include the following caveat
in all potentially affected permit approvals until the EPA completes Us
reconsideration of remanded portions of the regulations and promulgates any
necessary revisions:
'In approving this permit, [name of agency] has determined that the
application complies with the applicable provisions of the stack
height regulations as revised by EPA on July 8, 1985 (50 FR 27892).
Portions of the regulations have been remanded by a panel of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the O.C. Circuit 1n NRDC '<. Thomas. 838 F.2d
1224 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Consequently, this permit may be subject to
modification if and when EPA revises the regulation in response to
the court decision. This may result 1n revised emission limitations
or may affect other actions taken by the source owners or operators.'
[State] must make an enforceable commitment to Include this caveat in
all affected permits before the EPA can take final action approving the
[NSR or PSO] progcam."
Language for Final NSR and PSO SIP Approvals
"Under this program, [State] will be Issuing permits and establishing
emission limitations that may be affected by the court-ordered reconsideration
of the stack height regulations promulgated on July 8, 1985 (50 FR 27892).
For this reason, the EPA has required that the State Include the following
caveat in all potentially affected permit approvals until the EPA completes
its reconsideration of remanded portions of the regulations and promulgates
any necessary revisions:
'In approving this permit, [name of agency] has determined that the
application complies with the applicable provisions of the stack
height regulations as revised by the EPA on July 8, 1985 (50 FR
27892). Portions of the regulations have been remanded by a panel of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in NRDC v. Thomas, 838
F.2d 1224 (D.C. Cir. 1988), Consequently, this permit may be subject
to modification if and when the EPA revises the regulations 1n
-------
3
response to the court decision. This may result in revised emission
limitations or may affect other actions taken by the source owners
or operators.'
[State] has made an enforceable commitment to include this caveat in
all affected permits by letter dated [ ]. This commitment is being
incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations for the State of [ ] as
part of EPA's approval action."
See Attachment 0 for sample CFR amendment.
The Regional Offices are requested to contact those States that
currently have permitting authority and request that they include similar
language in any permits issued until EPA has completed its reconsideration
of the stack height regulations and has promulgated any necessary revisions.
-------
Attachment C
State
AZ/CA/NV
AZ/CA/NV
SC
MS
NJ/NY/VI
WA
MO
AR
OH
TX
<-A
DE
OH
SO
CO
AQMD I
3059
3210
3243
3330
3418
3480
3543
3548
3570
3572
3592
3600
3334
*
3618
3623
Description
Promulgation of Stack Height Regs.
App. and Disapp. of Stack Height Req.
Negative Declaration
Mississippi's Negative Declaration
Stack Height Revisions
Stack Height Rules
Negative Declaration
Stack Height Rules
Stack Height Regulations
Stack Height Regulations
Revisions to Stack Height Rules
Stack Height Regulations •
Redes1gnat1on of Gall a County to
Attainment
Administrative Rules
Negative Declaration
Disposition
HQ
RO
RO
RO
RO
HQ
RO
HQ
HQ
HQ
HQ
HQ
Hold
RO
RO
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
3 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
12 NCV \g\
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Incorporation by Reference
FROM: S. T. Helms, Chief^—
Cont-ol Programs Operations Branch
TO: Chief, A1r Branch
Regions I-X
The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) has recently advised us
that commitment letters are not acceptable for Incorporation by reference
because they are not regulatory in nature.
Instead, the OFR has informed us that the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) can be amended by adding a new section or amending an existing section
to add the commitment; the "Identification of Plan" paragraph should not
be amended.
Attached is an example of a CFR page that the OFR has reviewed and
approved and the commitment letter from the State of Minnesota that was
the basis for this sample regulatory text. Please note that the core
paragraph from the letter should be quoted in the new section that is
being added to the CFR.
If you have any questions on incorporation by reference procedures,
call Denise Gerth at 629-5550. Thank you for your cooperation.
Attachments
-------
cc: Betty Abramson
Walter Bishop
Ted Creelcmore
Tom Dlggs
Pat Embrey
Greg Foote
Denlse Sjfrth
Oean Sill am
Laurie Krai
Carol LeValley
Sandy McLean
Bob Miller
Rich Osslas
Carolyn Payne
Sharon Relnders
Julie Rose
John S11vas1
Marcia Spink
Rebecca Taggart
Paul Truchan
-------
40 CFR Part 52, Subpart Y, is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows
AUTHORITY: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7642
2. A new Section 52.1237 is added as follows:
§52.1237 Stack Height Regulations
The State of Minnesota has committed to conform to the Stack
Height Regulations as set forth in 40 CFR Part 51. In a letter to
Mr. David Kee, EPA, dated January 14, 1987, Mr. Thomas J. Kalitowskl
of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency stated:
Minnesota does not currently have a stack height rule,
nor do we intend to adopt such a rule. Instead, we will
conform with the Stack Height Regulation as set forth
in the July 8, 1985 Federal Register in issuing permits
for new or modified sources. In cases where that rule
is not clear, we will contact U.S. EPA Region V and
conform to the current federal interpretation of the
item in question.
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.5
-------
5864 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 26 / Monday. February 8.1982 /Jlules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40CFRPart51
[AO-fRL 2010-1; Docket No. A-79-01]
Stack Height Regulation*
AOEMCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rulemaking.
SUMMARY: Section 123 of the Clean Air
Act requires EPA to promulgate
regulations to assure that the degree of
emission limitation required for the
control of any air pollutant under an
applicable State Implementation Plan
(SIP) is not affected by that portion of
any stack height which exceeds good
engineering practice (GEP) or by any
other dispersion technique. Regulations
to implement Section 123 were proposed
on January 12.1979 at 44 PR 2608 and
reproposed October 7,1961 at 46 FR
49814. Today's action incorporates
changes to the reproposal and finalizes
these regulations.
DATE These rules are effective March
10.1962.
is: Docket A-79-01. containing
material relevant to this action, is
located in the Central Docket Section
(A-130), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401M Street SW.. Washington.
D.C. 20480.
FOftPU
Mr. Bruce Pslkowsky, MD-15. Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
27711. Telephone: (919) 541-5540.
SUPPLEMENTARY MKMWATKMr
Docket Statement
All pertinent information concerning
the development of these regulations is
included in Docket No. A-79-01. The
Docket is open for inspection by the
public between the hours of 8:00 aon.
and 4:00 p.m.. Monday through Friday.
at the EPA Central Docket Section. West
Tower Lobby, Gallery One, 401 M
Street SW.. Washington. D.C.
Background documents normally
available to the public, such as Federal
Register notices and Congressional
reports, are not included in the docket
A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying documents.
I. Background
A. Statute
Section 123 was added to the Clean
Air Act by the 1977 Clean Air Act
Amendments. It prohibits stacks taller
than good engineering practice (GEP)
height and other dispersion techniques
from affecting Ibe emission limitations
requiracUo meet the national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS) or
prevention of significant deterioration
air quality increments (PSD increments).
Section 123 requires EPA to promulgate
regulations which define GEP stack
height and which restrict the use of
other dispersion techniques, including
intermittent or supplemental control
techniques. This rulemaking fulfills *h<«
requirement In the near future. EPA
also intends to propose rules on the use
of intermittent control techniques.
B. Rulemaking
On January 12,1979 (44 FR 2608). EPA
published a notice proposing limitations
-on stack height credit and other
dispersion techniques. The jnotiee
proposed specific rules to be used in
determining GEP stack height for any
source and specific requirements for
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions. EPA provided an extended
period Tor the submission of public
comments on these proposed
regulations. EPA held a public hearing
on May 31.1979 followed by a 39-day
period for the submission of additional
comments (44 FR 24328. April 2fc. 1979).
EPA provided foe comments on
additional technical informatiom (44 1R
40359, July 11.1979 and 48 FR 24596.
May 1.1981). Finally. EPA recently
reproposed the regulations with changes
mad* fcrtapeoMto the commeata
received (44 PR 4W14, October 7.1981).
Forty individuals and groups
OB the October 1981
proposal EPA hae considered aQ
comments and has made a number of
changes in the regulations in response to
these comments. Most of these changes
simply clarify the proposed rules. The
revisions are outlined in Section IV:
"Changes in the Regulations from the
October 1981 Proposal" In addition,
EPA has prepared a document entitled
"Summary of Comments and Responses
on the October 7,1981 Proposal of the
Stack Height Regulations." This
document has been placed in Docket A-
79-01. and, depending upon available
supplies, copies may also be obtained'
from: EPA Library (MD-35). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711. A
copy of this document will be sent to all
persons who submitted comments on the
October 1981 proposal
C. Documents
In conjunction with the regulations.
EPA developed several technical and
guidance documents. These served as
background information for th'e
regulations and all are included in
Docket No. A-79-01. The following
documents have been placed in the
National Technical Information Service
(NTIS) system and may be obtained by
contacting NTIS at 5285 Port Royal Rd..
Springfield. Virginia 22161.
(1) "Guideline for Determination of Good
Engineering Practice Stack Height (Technical
Support Document (or Stack Height
Regulation*}." July 1981. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Office of Air Quality
planolag and Standards, EPA-450/4-8Q-023
(NTIS PB82145301)
(2) '•Guideline for Use of Fluid Modeling to
Determine Good Engineering Practice Stack
Height" July 1981. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Pluming and Staadards.£PA-450/4-«l-003
(NITS KB 145327] .
P) "Guideline for Fluid Modeling of
Aknospberic Diffusion." April 1961. U.S.
Bavironmraul Protection Agency.
EttvironmenUl'Science* Research
Laboratory. EPA-eoo/fr-81-009. (NTIS PBfil
201410)
IL Program Overview
A. The Problem
There are two general methods for
preventing violations of the NAAQS and
PSD increments. Emission controls
reduce, on a continuous basis, the
quantity, rate, or concentrations of
pollutants released into the atmosphere
from a source. In contrast dispersion
techniques rely on the dispersive effects
of the atmosphere to carry pollutant
emissions away from a source and to
prevent high concentrations of
pollutants near the source. The Clean
Air Act requires pollution sources to
meet the NAAQS and PSD increments
by complying with emission limitations
instead of relying on dispersion
techniques.1 Section 123 defines stack
height exceeding GEP as a dispersion
technique.
Tall stacks and intermittent or
supplemental control systems (ICS or
SCS) are the two basic types of
dispersion techniques. Tail stacks
enhance dispersion by releasing
pollutants into the air at elevations high
above ground level increasing the
volume of air through which pollutants
must travel to reach the ground.
Releasing pollutants from a tall stack
allows a source to reduce the ambient
levels of its pollution as measured at
ground level without reducing the
amount of pollution it releases.
Intermittent and supplemental control
systems vary a source's rate of
emissions to take advantage of
•SM Softool MOdtUKB). 123. »2(k). and SOU ml
of tfal Act 42 U.S.C 7410)«H2)(B). 7423. 76021k). and
78021.81). Th* Notice of PnpoMd Rulemaking
contain* a mort d«uU*d ducuMion of the Act i
prohibition of to* UM of dupcrtion techniques Set
44 FR 280S-JB10.
-------
Fadasml tteyater / V»I. 47. No. 26 / Monday. February 8. 1982 / Rules and Regulations 58S5
meteorological conditione. When
atmospheric condition* do not favor
-dispersion and an NAAQS may be
violated the source temporarily reduces
its pollutant emissions. When conditions
favor rapid dispersion, the source emits
pollutants at higher rates:
Use of dispersion techniques instead
of constant emission controls can result
in additional atmospheric i"-^'"gt
which may contribute to undesirable
environmental effects. The us* of tall
stacks increases the possibility that
pollution will travel long rfi •«•!»-•«
before it settles to the ground.
Although dispersion techniques may
produce advene effects, some stack
height is needed to prevent excessive
concentrations of pollutant emissions
created by airflow disruptions caused
by structures, terrain features, and
ground-level meteorological phenomena.
These excessive concentrations result
from interference with the plume.
Section 123 responds to this problem by
allowing EPA to give a source credit for
that portion of its stack height needed to
prevent excessive concentrations near
the source. This height is called GEP
stack height
The regulations promulgated today
define "excessive concentrations."
"nearby." and other important concepts.
They also establish methods for
determining the GEP stack height for all
stationary sources to which these
regulations apply.. " ""
B. Tf^ Program -
Thfee regulations do not Bmit the
physifal stack height of any source, nor
require any specific stack height for any
source. Instead, they set limits on the
maximum stack height credit to be used
in ambient air quality modeling for the
purpose of setting an emission limitation
and calculating the air quality Impact of
a source. Sources are modeled at the
physical stack height unless that height
exceeds their GEP stack height The
regulations apply to all stacks
constructed and all dispersion
techniques implemented since December
31.1870.
1. Methods of Determining GEP Stack
Height. The regulations establish three
basic methods of calculating a source's
GEP stack height.
(a) De minimi* height—EPA is
adopting 85 meters as the-minimum GEP
stack height for all sources regardless of
the size or location of any structures or
terrain features. Sixty-five meters
represents a reasonable estimate of the
height needed, to insure that emission*
will not be affected by common ground-
level meteorological phenomena which
may produce excessive pollutant
concentration*. Typical i
phenomena include surface roughness
and the temperature changes caused by
the solar heating and terrestrial cooling
cycle (see page 26 of the Technical
Support Document).
Virtually all significant sources of SOt
can justify stack height credits greater
than 65 meter*. Accordingly, this de
minimis height will have little effect on
atmospheric loadings of sulfur dioxide.
(b) Mathematical Formulas—
Excessive concentrations may be
produced by downwash. wakes, and
eddies caused by structures located near
the stack. EPA is adopting two formula*
with which to calculate the GEP stack
height: One for stacks in yjt****ce on
January U. 1879 (die date of publication
of EPA original proposed rules), and one
for stacks constructed after that date.
For stacks in existence on January 12,
1078. EPA has adopted the traditional
engineering formula of two and one-half
times the height of the nearby structure
(Hf-iSH) as the formula for
determining the GEP stack height For
stacks constructed after January 12.
1078, EPA has established a refined
formula of the height of the nearby
structure plus one and one-half times the
height or width of the structure,
whichever is leu (H.«H-mL) as the
. formula for determining the GEP stack
height
(c) Physical Demonstration—In some
case*, a source may need a suck taller
than the height predicted by the
formulas to prevent excessive
concentrations of a pollutant due to
downwash. wakes, or eddies created by
structures or terrain obstacles. In such
cases. Section 123 provides that a source
may obtain credit for all of the stack
height necessary to avoid excessive
concentrations provided it demonstrates
to the satisfaction of the reviewing
authority that the additional height is
necessary.
EPA is requiring such a source to
concentrations caused by the source's
emissions from its proposed stack
height without consideration of nearby
structures or terrain obstacles,-will
increase by at least 40 percent when die
effects of the structures or terrain
obstacles are considered. This
difference in concentrations must be
shown either by a fluid model study
conducted in accordance with guidelines
published by EPA or by a field study
which has been approved by the
reviewing authority.
Before a source can obtain credit for a
GEP stack height determined by a fluid
model or field study demonstration.
Section 123(c) requires that the
reviewing authority »uet notify *°*^^.
demonstration study and must provide
an opportunity for a public bearing.
2. Method of Adjusting GEP Stack
Height for Elevated Terrain Anas. As
traditionally defined, plume impaction
occurs when a plume emitted from a
stack interacts with terrain that is taller
than the stack. The contact between the
plume and the terrain can produce high
pollutant concentrations. EPA is
establishing a procedure which will
allow sources to adjust their GEP stack
height to avoid modeled plume
impaction on elevated terrain causing
one to predict violation* of the NAAQS
or appHcaUaJSeVmcremTOti which will
not mini plila>aiiii i iliin is explained
m Section IV.Q) The predicted
violations wiH not occur because the
physical stack-height is sufficient to
ensure that the plume passes over the
elevated terrain.
Before a source can obtain credit for a
GEP stack height based on allowances
for terrain impaction. the reviewing
authority must notify the public of the
availability of the source's
demonstration study and must provide
an opportunity for a public hearing.
3. Grondfathend Stack Height The
1070 Clean Air Act became effective on
Deeember'31.1070. Prior to that date
some sources had constructed stack*
taller than their GEP height In Section
123. Congress recognized this and
exempted those sources' stack heights.
Section 123 allows credit ior stack
height in existence on December 31.
1070. A source's stack is considered to
be "in existence" if that stack was pan
of the design of a facility on which
construction commenced prior to
December 31.1070.
4. Other Dispersion Techniques. The
regulations prohibit the use of other
dispersion techniques to attain or
maintain any NAAQS or protect a PSD
increment Those techniques include
major alteration of plume characteristics
such as the manipulation of exhaust
flow rates or temperatures for the
purpose of enhancing plume rise. The
regulation defines three types of
dispersion techniques: (1) tall stacks. (2)
use of ICS or SCS. and (3) addition of a
fan or reheater to obtain a res* itringent
emission limitation. However, the
regulations exempt (1) reheating of a gas
stream following the use of a pollutant
control system. (2) smoke management
in agricultural or silvicultural programs.
and (3) combining exhau*t gase* from
several stacks into one stack.
m. State ImaJeaeeBtstioo Plan .
EPA. i*
-------
Fedeol atagtater / Vol. 47. No. 2g / Monday. February a 1982 / Rales and Regulations
reguiaiJona. All States aiMt ievie» aaal
revise, n necessary, tier SIPs to
include provisions that toot stack height
credits end dispersion techniques in
accordance with these regnlatiaa*.
Secoon 408(d)(2) of the Oean Air Act
Amendment! of 1877 requires that these
SEP revisions be tubmitted within niae
months of promulgation oi these
regulations.
After EPA approves a State's stack
height rotes, tie State oust review
existing lianrtatioan to detarmne
whether these limitations have been
affected by stack height credit above
GEP levels or aoy other dispersion
tecnniqae. If so, the State must revise
the emission iimrtations to he consists a*
with its «vieed SH».
IV. Changes in (he Regulations From the
October 7,1981 Proposal
EPA has made several changes in the
proposed regulations as a mantl «f the
public comments on the raaroposed
regulations. These changes are noted
below.
A. Prospective Application of the New
CEP Formula
On February IB, 107ft fil HI 7450).
EPA published the •Stack Hoigai
Increase guideline" which provided
guidance on its potter for the use «f tall
stacks. The guideline permitted credit
for stacks ap to two aad net atilf I
the height of the facility it served. On
Novemheal. 1977. after passage of the
Clean Aizytot Ameadaieats of 1077,
EPA promsJgsted a final rule oaveoaM
changes t*mtnri argued that
thenewiatmala should be aapfced
prospecnveiy.
la reapome to these comments, EPA
has developed two formulas for
determining GEP stack height (1) For
stacks in existence on January 12.1979.
the formala is H,-2.5rt (2) for all other
stacks, me formula is H.-H+1.5L.
B. Definition of "in ex/stance **
Section 123 does not affect stack
heights "In existence" on December 31,
1970. to October 1981. BPA proposed to
define "in existence' to mean that the
owner or operator of a stack had
obtaned an necessary precons (ruction
perflnta or aajjiuvals required by
Federal State or focal air pviMon
eonlful agencies, and eMier fl) ecnaBy
commenced constnction. or fZ/ entered
into a bfaufing commitment for'
Comments on the renroposed
definition stated that mis new definition
would discriminate unfairly against
sources located m the few Stales or
local Jurisdictions which required
construction permits for air poBuflon
sources m 1970. (There were so Federal
permit programs In 1970.) EPA agrees
that the repropoaad I**^"fn°n might
operate uuXairry. EPA nas deleted the
requirement for snch approvals or'
permits in determining, whether, a
source's stack is "la existence" as of
December 31. M70.
However, the regulations now apply
the two and ana-half times, formula for
HoKrmininp C1LJP only JQ *iaf]rm M|g
existence" on January 12.1879. federal
requirements for praconstructkm
permits for air pollution sources were
effective well before 1979, Accordingly.
EPA is retaining the permit requirement
for sources which want to claim credit
for stacks "in "rif **•!••?" aa of Jaauary
12.1979. EPA has changed } Sl.lf.ii).
which defines GEP, to require sources
wishing to use the two and one'half
times formula to show that they had
obtained, prior to January 12.1979, all
precoasroction permits required by 40
CFR Parts SI and S2.
The remaining portions of the
definition of "in existence" an identical
to the October 18*1 proposal.
C Impaction CrwSt
Many comments on the January 1979
proposal asked EPA to provide stack
height credit for a source which
experiences plume impaction. Plume
impaction occurs when a plume emitted
from a stack interacts with a terrain
feature that is taller than the stack. The
contact between the plume and the
terrain feature can predace high
pollutant concentraboas. espeaafiy
under stable atmospheric conditions tn
which the phuae disperses slowly.
EPA decided that sources should
receive stack height credit when
impaction produces concentrations high
enough to violate an NAAQS or
applicable PSD increment EPA included
in its October 1981 reproposal a
procedure for determining the amount of
credit needed to prevent plume
impaction.
EPA has received three types of
comments on the proposed impaction
credit Environmental groups claimed
that Section 123 doe* not authorize
impaction credits, Several industrial
commenters askecHBPA to clarify the
proposed procedures for impaction
credits. Finally, some industrial
commenters asked EPA to modify a
portion of Its proposed procedures. To
respond to these comments. EPA is
presenting below a brief description of
its rationale and procedures for
impaction credits. EPA i» also providing
a brief explanation of its reason for
declining to make procedural
modifications.
(1) Rationale
Prame impaction resembles
downwash. wakes, and eddies. In all of
these events, structures or terrain
features interfere with plume dispersion.
If me Interference occurs relatively close
to the stack, before the plume has had
adequate opportunity to disperse, high
concentrations of pollutants can occur.
In enacting Section 123, Congress
decided that sources should be allowed
•nffiriant ftack height credit to prevent
HioK pollutant concentrations caused by
downwash. wakes, and eddies.
Congress called this height "good
engineering practice." Any additional
stack height was to be regarded as a
dispersion technique that might allow a
source to relax its emissions limitations
Section 123 does not mention impactioc.
However, neither the language of the
statute nor the legislative history show
that this omission was deliberate. EPA
considers impaction to be enough like
downwash that the same rationale
should apply. GEP stack height should
include credit needed to evoid high
concentrations caused by impaction.
Accordingly. EPA has decided to
exercise general rulemaking authority to
establish stack height credit needed to
prevent high concentrations caused by
plume impaction.
EPA recognizes Congress did not
want the stack height rules to grant too
much credit to sources locating in
complex terrain, for "the result could be
an open invitation to raise stack heights
to unreasonably high elevations." HR.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 28 / Monday. February A 19B2 / Rulei and Regulation 58£
Rep. No. 95-294. 95th Cong, lit Sett, at
93 (1977). Therefore, EPA hat carefully
tailored impaction credit procedures to
provide only the minimum stack height
credit needed to avoid high
concentrations ' produced by impaction.
These procedures are described in more
detail below.
EPA is convinced that its narrowly
drawn rules represent a reasonable
solution for a plume effect that closely
resembles the phenomena of downwash.
wakes, and eddies. Credits for plume
impaction. when carefully limited
should aot be regarded as ajiispenion
technique. Although the promulgated
procedure allows for the use of some
stack height to avoid high pollutant
concentrations on elevated terrain, it
does not permit excessive dispersion
credits.
(2) Explanation of Procedure*
EPA has developed a three-step
procedure for determining the amount of
stack height credit appropriate for a
source with a predicted impaction
concentration violating an NAAQS or
applicable PSD increment
First a source must determine its
dowowash GEP height—tbe amount of
stack height that can be Justified based
on dowowash, wake*, or eddies ntlng
any of the three methods described in
Section &B. above. Using this GBP
height the source most show that its
plume would come into contact with
elevated terrain (defined as terrain taller
than this GEMeighr) and together with
background concentrations cause a
violation of aa NAAQS or applicable
PSD increment If the source cannot
show that a violation would occur, it
cannot claim any impaction credit Its
stack height credit would be limited to
the GEP height already calculated.
If a violation is modeled, the second
step is to determine the source's
maximum allowable emission limitation.
In this step the source would model its
air quality impact using the previously
determined GEP height and assuming
that the terrain featured) causing
impaction is no taller than its
downwash GEP height Using the
appropriate maximum concentration
from this modeling scenario, the source
'EPA coiuiden "high concentntiont" to be «
violation of «o NAAQS or applicable PSD
increment Unlike '•xetMh* concentrationi"
cau*ed by downwcth. tugb eenomtnboni cauted
by plume Mnpection occur to different
meteorological condition* thu downwuh and are
longer IB duration. High conccotnoou due to
plum* impuctioo can be compared miry to an
NAAQS or applicable PSD mcrwnut. Therefor*.
EPA h*i required that the coecentnoon cauaed by
piume impaction muti be IB exec** of an NAAQS or
Applicable PSD increoMnt before a aource oaa
ediuii it» CEP itack beujnt
would calculate an emission limitation
which would become its maximum
allowable emission limitation.
The third step allows the source to
adjust its GEP stack height to account
for the plume impaction on actual
terrain features above the downwash
GEP stack height The source cannot
adjust its IT"""""" allowable emission
limitation. The source would model its
air quality impact •j»
Tbe electric utilities requested that
EPA assume, during the Step two
modeling, that all terrain features are no
taller than ground elevation at the base
of the stack or, hi other words, that the
source is located in absolutely flat
terrain. Tbe utilities believe that this
assumption is necessary to ensure
equity between sources located in
elevated terrain and sources in flat
terrain.
EPA has decided not to make this
change to its procedure, EPA's objective
is to provide the minimum itack height
credit needed to allow a source to avoid
high concentrations caused by plume
impaction. A source in assumed flat
terrain would obtain a less restrictive
emission limitation than a source in
terrain assumed to be as tall as its
downwash GEP height The flat terrain
assumption would thus allow a source
to obtain more stack height credit than
needed to prevent impaction. It would
also have a greater negative impact on
air quality by allowing taller stacks and
more relaxed emission limits.
D. Dispersion Technique
EPA received numerous comments or
the definition of the term "dispersion
technique." Most of these comments
stated that wording concerning the
enhancement of plume rise was vague.
Comments specifically mentioned that
many changes in operation or equipmer
made for engineering purposes, to
improve reliability or efficiency, couid
be construed as a disperison technique.
This is not the intent of the definition.
EPA has changed the definition of
dispersion technique to prevent the
addition of a fan or rehealer to obtain a
less stringent emission limitation. The
purpose of this change to to prevent only
the installation of equipment deariy
intended to enchance piume rise. The
new definition should not prevent
equipment changes intended to improve
reliability and efficiency.
E> Definition of "Stack"
Comments on the January 1979
proposal urged EPA to exempt "flares"
from the definition of "stack." EPA
agreed that flares, which are designed to
dispense heat and vent emissions
intermittently for safety purposes, do
not serve the same purpose as stack*,
which are typically a source's major &
moat constant emissions point EPA
announced that it would exempt flare*
from die stack height regulations in the
preamble to the October 1981
reproposal New comments urged EPA
to include this exemption in the
regulations themselves to eliminate any
potential for confusion or
misunderstanding. In response to these
comments, EPA is incorporating a
specific exemption for flares into the
definition of "stack."
F. Section 123 and Physical Stack
Height
EPA received several comments on
the October 1961 reproposal which
indicated that the commenten "believed
that the proposed regulations would give
EPA authority to limit a source's actual
stack height EPA did not intend to
create this impression. In fact EPA
stated in the preamble to the reproposal
that Section 123 expressly prohibits the
Agency from limiting physical stack
height Section 123 limits only the
theoretical stack height used in
determining a source's emission
limitation. However, to eliminate this
confusion. EPA is adding a statement to
{ § 51.12U) and 51.18(1) of the regulation
stating that these regulations do net
restrict in any manner the actual height
of any stack at any source.
-------
•l*edend Reyftef / Vol 4ft Tfc.*» f "Monday. February 6. 1982 / -Rides and Reguhrtkms
C. Measurement of Slack Height
In the proposed definition of a
"stack." EPA stated that the "stack
height is the distance from the groond-
level elevation of the plant to the
elevation of the stack outlet." Several
commenters requested clarification in
the establishing the ground-level
elevation of the plant For instance, the
commenters noted that where a plant
was built oh a slope the regulation could
have varying interpretations. Also, some
commenters asked whether (he entire
plant site should be included or )ust the
portion of the plant site considered
"nearby" the stack.
EPA is <*anging the regulations to
clarify rt"« point. EPA ^»Mf^ from the
definition of a "tlaok." rt»«> statexacBl
stack hgjght Hflwevet,EPA
clarified the methods for determining
GEP stack height by stating that aU
stack and structure heights an
measured from the ground-level
elevation at the bas*H»f tee stack,
If a stack is on top of a taiiiriina. the
ground-level elevates* of the hmtrlsag is
used as the base elevation. sa«rdar to
neaxby structuxee OB thie stack hetjM..
the. height of struonues to alee
determined relative !
elevation of the i
cksrirytB*
H. Minor Wording Change*
typographical i
minor wntdhig nhnngee <
regulation*. These and <
changes have been mad* to (
to clarify the regulations. Tone changes
did not have any significant effect «n
the regulations.
V. Impact Analysis
EPA has prepared a series of impact
analyses on these regvJatieae. These
analyses are in Docket A-TO tl. The
analyses show that the expected "mint-
case" national annual cost* to fsnfi-nie!
fired~power plants should be ten nan
$45 miBioa per year. These costs resell
LTtim conservative estimates of fte^tRred
purchases of lower sulfur coal and
estimates of required retrofit of
electrostatic precipitators at some plants
which purchase the lower snlfor coal.
The worst-case analyses show that me
expected reduction in SO* emissions is
less than 200400 tons per year.
Nationally, these costs could increase
ejectnc utility rate charges
apprcrjmatery 0.1 to 0.2 percent.
Increases for individual power company
rates could range from 0.5 to 90 peiueut
VL Rafufannry FfoxfbiBty Analysis
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
aosfb), I hereby certify that the attached
rule win not have significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule applies only to large
sources. The impact assessment
predicted that these regulations would
not hart significant impact on any small
entities. Based upon our impact
analysis, only electric otffity plants and
povsfoiy one smeiter wiD be
significantly effected by these
regulations.
V1L PasuiUve Ocder 12281
Under Executive Order 122*1. EPA
must JeaLje wuesbsa a regulation is
"ȣ''ǥ* theretoe sabjeot to the
resjBB^eansKt of~a Kegus'tory isspact
^ns«>sis This regaletioB is not -BKJOT"
beosnee st does not leeult m an asraial
effect oa eke eoonemy of $100 minion.
nor dees it seevit in e major incteese in
costs or BBoee Car oooeiunecs. Federal
State, at local governments or individual
"^"^"^ the electric power
•EPA oeXevH that this rale is based ea
effect Ifeihlag In Section 123 Hmlts Its
a. particular locality,
State, or ragfon. On the contrary. Section
123 appOes to sources wherever located
' Because of '9* rule's national
applicability. Section 307(b) (42 U.S.C.
TB07(b)) reaaanM thai ay petiboei ior
review of the promulgated ruj* be filed
only in the United States Court of *
Appeals for the District of Columbia and
within 60 daya of the date of
{/uuH^Auvo.
(Sees. 100, 123. 301. dean Air Act ti
•mead** (s2 TJ.&C 7Oa 7423. and 7BOI)
Dated Jannwy 31. 1882.
|nhn W Ilamsniles IT
Acting Adninittmtnr.
PART 51-HEQUIREMENTS FOR
PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND
SUBMTTTAL OF IMPLEIJBfTATION
PLANS
Part 51 of Chapter I Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows;
1. Sortifni ?i-l is amended by revising
paragraph (z) and by adding paragraphs
(ff). (gg). (hh). (u). (Ji). (kk), (11), and (mm)
as follows:
§51.1
(z) "Emission limitation" and
"emission standard" mean a
requirement established by a State, local
government, or the Administrator which
limits the quantity, rate, or
concentration of emissions of air
pollutants on a continuous basis,
including any requirements which limit
the level of opacity, prescribe
equipment set fuel specifications, or
prescribe operation or maintenance
procedures for a source to assure
continuous emission reduction.
• .**••
(ff) "Stack" m»?n« any point in a
source ^•«»g««H to emit solids, liquids.
or gases into the ait. including a pipe or
duct but not ^"fy^rm flares.
(gg) "A stack in-asaslence" means that
the owner or njiassjior had (1) begun, or
caused to beguv*4VDtinuous program
of physical on-eite.flonjtruction of the
stack or (2) eoteced into binding
agreements or contractual obligations,
which could not be cancelled or
modified without substantial less to the
owner or epezator. to undertake a
progcam of cansttuctian of the stack to
be completed io e reaaenable time.
(hh) "DispeBwoa technique" means
any tec&nfcpia which attempts to affect
the concentration of a peUutant in the
ambient air by assng that portion of a
(task wtaoB, exoeeae good engmaenag
practice aterlr hsijht. varying the rate of
eioieaiM4*! a fwiliitaatf aAcaedtaa te
concentmMeae ef then BoUuMM. or by
addition erf aiea or raaeeier to obtaiat a
less strtagent Bisiseinn amiterUa The
Dt indade: (1)
The Bihaeitseg of a gee stnem, rbllewiBg
use of a pollsuiea eaotroi systam. for the
purpose of raenrnissj the gas to the
temperature at which it was eaginaiiy
discharged frees, tec ieaUty geneeatiBg
the gas etreanc (2) the aae of smoke
manaaement in eanctiltnrel or
silviculhiral programs; or (S) combining
the exaauet sases from several stacks
into one •*a*^
(Ml "Good engineering practice (GEP)
stack hshgBt" meens me greater of:
U) 65 laaiais.
(2)(i) For stacks m existence on
January 12, M79 and for which the
owner or operator had obtained ati
applicable preooastmcnon pemats or
approvals required oader tins Parts 51
and K of this Title 4O. H,-i5H
(ii) for ell other stacks.
H.—H+1.SL when
H.»good engineering practice tudc height.
niaasur6
-------
/ Vol ».:Ha at £M°pd*y- February 8. 1962 / Rule* «nd Regulations 5869
reviewing agency, which ensure* that
the'emissions from a stack do not result
in excessive concentrations of uy air
pollutant ti a result of atmospheric
downwash, wakes-or eddy effect!
created by the source itself, structures.
or terrain obstacles.
UJ) "Nearby" as used in I Sl.l(ii)(2) is
that distance up to five time* the lesser
of the height or the width dimension of a
structure but not greater than 0.8 km
(one-half mile). The height of the
structure is measured from the ground-
level elevation at the base of the stack,
(kk) "Excessive concentrations'' for
the purpose of determining good
engineering practice stack height in a
fluid model or field study means a
mmrimiim concentration due to
downwash wakes, or eddy effects
produced by structures or terrain
features which is at least 40 percent in
excess of the maximum concentration
experienced in the absence of such
downwash. wakes, or eddy effects.
(11) "Plume inspection" means
concentrations measured or predicted to
occur when the plume interacts with
elevated terrain.
(mm) "Elevated terrain" means terrain
which exceeds the elevation of the good
engineering practice stack as aaiotdated
under paragraph (ii) of this section.
2. Section 01.12 is amended by adding
paragraphs (J). (k)< «nd (1) as foOow*:
Mttt Control strategy: tenant
(j) The pla» must provide that the
degree of emiasion limitation required of
any source for control of any air
pollutant must not be affected by so -
much of any source's stack height that
exceeds good engineering practice or by
any other dispersion technique, except
as provided in I 51.1200 ud (1). The
plan must provide that before a State
submits to EPA a new or revised
emission limitation that is based on a
good engineering practice stack height
that exceeds the height allowed by
I Sl.l(ii) (1) or (2). the State must notify
the public of the availability of the.
demonstration study and must provide
opportunity for public hearing on it This
Section does not require the plan to
restrict in any manner, the actual stack
height of any source.
(k) The provisions of II 51.120) and
51.180) shaH net apply to (1) stack
techniques implemented prior to
December 91,1970, or (2) coal-fired
steam electric generating units, subject
to the provisions of Section lid of the
Clean Air Act which commenced
operation Y -fore July 1.1857, and whose
stacks wen, constructed under a
construction contract awarded before
February* 1074.
(1) The good •mr'n««-infl pnotice
(CEP) stack height for any source
seeking credit because of plane
•inspection which results to
concentrations in violation of national
ambient air quality-standards or
applicable prevention of «<|pifi*»tit
deterioration increments can be
adjusted by determining the stack height
necessary to predict the same maximum
air pollutant concentration on any
elevated terrain feature as
concentration associated with the
emission limit which results from
modeling the source using the CEP stack
height as determined in I Sl.l(ii) and
assuming the elevated terrain features to
be equal in elevation to the GEP stack
height If this adjusted CEP stack height
is greater than the stack height the
source proposes to use, the source's
emission limitation and air quality
impact shall be determined using the
proposed stack height and the actual
terrain heights.
3. Section 51.18 is amended by adding
paragraph (1) as follows;
|S1.1s Review of new atfcureee and
(1) Such procedures must provide that
the degree of emission limitation
required of any source for control of any
air pollutant must not be affected by so
much of any source's stack height that
exceeds good engineering practice or by
any other dispersion technique, except
as provided in I S1.12(k) and (1). Such
procedures must provide that before a
State issues a permit to a source based
on a good engineering practice stack
height that exceeds the height allowed
by i 51.1(U) (1) or (2). the State must
notify the public of the availability of
the demonstration study and must
provide opportunity for public hearing
on it This section does not require suck
procedures to restrict in any manner,
the actual stack height of any source.
(FR Dec H-JOU W«l J
-------
PN 123-85-10-28-010
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
«oi*cV
OCT 2 8 1985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Determining Stack Heights "^Existence" Before December 31, 1970
// /
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Director//^,;'.-ST
Control Programs Development Di*4sTon (MD-15)
TO: Director, Air Management Division
Regions I-X
The following guidance is provided to'describe how the definition of
"in existence" should be implemented and to assist States and emission
source owners and operators in providing appropriate evidence of commitments
to undertake stack construction on or before December 31, 1970. Please
note that this is guidance; States may submit alternative demonstrations
in support of grandfathering claims, if they feel the circumstances
warrant.
We intend to rely on the general provisions of this guidance to
determine eligibility for grandfathering exemptions from certain other
provisions of the revised stack height regulations: restrictions on the
use of GEP formulae for cooling towers, use of the refined GEP formula,
fluid modeling to justify GEP formula stack height, credit for merged
stacks, credit for new sources tied into grandfathered stacks, and credit
for stacks raised to GEP formula height.
Background
Section 123 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, contains a grandfather
clause intended to exempt stack heights and techniques for pollutant
dispersion that were in existence on or before December 31, 1970, from
general provisions of Section 123 restricting the degree to *hich emission
limitations may be affected by dispersion. When EPA promulgated stack
height regulations pursuant to Section 123 in 1932, it adopted a definition
of "stack heights in existence before December 31, 1970." This definition
allowed the grandfathering of stacks on which construction had not yet
commenced, but for which binding contracts had been signed that could not
be modified or cancelled without substantial loss to the owner or operator.
The EPA's definition was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit in Sierra Club v. EPA. 719 F.2d 436, and has not been modified in
any way by the rule revisions promulgated on Ju.ly S, 1935, except to
restrict its applicability to facilities that have not undertaken major
modifications or reconstruction, and have not ducted the effluent gas
s fron pcst-1970 units into pre-1971 stacks.
-------
Subsequent to the recent revisions, questions have been raisea about
how the definition should be implemented, i.e., what EPA should consider
to be a binding contract, and what should constitute a "substantial loss"
for determining whether a stack should be grandfathered.
General Provisions
The burden of proof for showing that a stack 1s eligible for
grandfathering exemption lies with either the State or the source owner or
operator, as appropriate, and documentation in support of exemptions must
be made available for public review during the rulemaking process. In the
event that no case for exemption under this provision is made, or that
satisfactory support for such a request is not provided, the stack is
presumed not to be grandfatnered, and therefore subject to the requirements
of Section 123 and the stack height regulations promulgated by EPA.
Grandfathering exemptions may be supported in one of three ways: by
showing that the stack was completed or was physically in existence prior
to December 31, 1970; by showing that actual on-site continuous stack
construction activities began on or before December 31, 1970; or by showing
that a binding contract'for stack construction was executed on or before
tnat date.
Documenting Stack Construction
In cases where a stack was completed prior to December 31, 1970, the ,
State may make a summary determination that the stack 1s grandfathered,
but must provide an explanation of the reasons for its determination.
One way in which it can be documented that the'stack was physically in
place before December 31, 1970, 1s to provide a copy of the 1970 Federal
Power Commission report Form 67, which includes stack height, among other
information. Evidence that may be submitted to support the date of
commencement of stack construction can include virtually any contemporaneous
documentation that clearly indicates that construction activities were under
way as of December 31, 1970. This could consist of building inspection
records, construction materials delivery receipts, correspondence,
inter-office memoranda, photographic records, or news clippings. In the
event that documentation is lacking or weak, EPA will consider affidavit
wnich include detailed descriptions of efforts that ware undertaken to
ODtain contemporaneous supporting documentation.
Documenting Contractual Obligations
The date of signature on a contract for stack construction will be
acceptable for applying grandfathering exemptions 1f the contract itself
meets certain minimum qualifications. A "binding contract," under the
previously-discussed provisions is considered to be one that commits the
source owner or operator financially to undertake stack construction and
that did not have in effect on December 31, 1970, an "escape" provision
that allows cancellation by the owner or operator without penalty.
»
-------
In the event that a contract contains provisions for assessing
penalties for modification or cancellation by the owner or operator, and
those provisions were*in effect on December 31, 1970, then the provisions
must be reviewed to determine whether the penalties and other costs of
cancellation would have imposed a "substantial loss" on the owner or
operator. For new facilities, EPA will presume that a substantial loss
would have resulted where the penalties exceed ten percent of the project
cost. Where the project involves only stack construction or replacement,
EPA will review claims on a case-by-case basis.
If a contract does not contain provisions which impose financial
obligations on the owner or operator for contract modification or
cancellation, then any determinations of whether liability to the owner
or operator resulting from such modification would constitute substantial
losses must be made on a case-by-case basis. In general, EPA's rule of
thumb relying on ten percent of the project cost will be used.
If you have any questions regarding application of this guidance in
specific instances, please contact Eric Ginsburg at (FTS) 629-5540 or
Sharon Reinders and (FTS) 629-5526.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
; Research Triangle Pane. North Carolina 27711
OCT 1 0 I9S5
KE.HORANDUM
SUBJECT: Questions and Answers on Implementing the
Revised Stack Height Regulation
FROH: S. T. Helms, Chiefr' L *•*•**-*•
Control Programs Operations Branch (MD-15)
TO: Chief, A1r Branch, Regions I-X
A number of questions have arisen in several areas of the revised
stack height regulation since its promulgation on July 8. The following
answers have been developed in response. The questions and answers are
arranged under the general topic headings of interpretation of the regula-
tion, State Implementation plan (SIP) requirements, ami modeling analyses.
Please continue to call Sharon Reinders at 629-5526 if you have further
ccnnnents or additional questions.
Interpretation of the Regulation
1. Q: What criteria should be used to determine when a stack was "in
existence" with respect to the various grandfathering dates in the
regul ation?
A: The recent promulgation of revisions to the stack height regul atio
did not change the definition of "in existence." The definition 1s provid
in 40 CFR 51.1(gg) and includes either the commencement of continuous
construction on the stack or entering Into a binding contract for stack
construction, the cancellation of which would result in "substantial
loss" to the source owner or operator. The definition of what constitutes
a "substantial loss" will be the subject of future guidance.
2. Q: What "source" definition should be used 1n determining whether tie-
ins to grandfathered stacks should be permitted or prohibited?
A: The term "source" in this instance means a single emitting unit.
Thus, credit for tying a single post-1970 unit(s) Into a grandfathered
stack serving a number of old units is prohibited under the regulation.
-------
-2-
3. Q: What is meant in the regulation by "facility?
A: For purposes of this regulation, the definition contai-ned in
40 CFR 51.301(d) should be used. That definition essentially defines the
term as the entire complex of emitting activities on one property or
contiguous properties controlled by a single owner or designee.
4. Q: Must good engineering practice (SEP) stack height be established
separately for each pollutant? If not, how should it be determined?
A: It is not necessary to calculate a separate 6EP stack height for
each pollutant. Since "SEP* is defined by Section 123 of the Clean A1r
Act as the height necessary to ensure against excessive concentrations of
any air pollutant, it follows that GEP should be established for each
source based on the pollutant requiring the greatest height to avoid
excessive concentrations
5. Q: How should "reliance" on the 2.5H formula be determined?
•
A: First, "reliance" on the 2.5H formula applies only to stacks in
existence before January 12, 1979. Credit for "reliance" on the 2.5H
formula, can be granted under the following cases: (a) Where the stack
was actually built to a height less than or equal to 2.5H; (b) Where the
stack was built taller than 2.5H and the emission limitation reflects t
use of 2.5H in the SIP modeling analysis; or (c) Where evidence 1s provioe
to show "reliance* as discussed in the following paragraph. If no model 1nc
was used to set the emission limitation for the source, then it cannot be
argu-ed that there was "reliance" on the formula, since EPA's guidance was
specifically aimed at using stack height credit 1n establishing emission
limitations. Once it is determined that the emission limitation was in
fact based on estimates of dispersion from the stack, then the source can
be said to have properly "relied" on .the 2.5H formula. In the event that
it cannot be determined that the emission limit is based on "reliance" on
the 2.5H formula, then the refined H * 1.5L formula must be used.
Where a clear relationship between a 2.5H stack height and the
emission limitation cannot be shown, where the emission limitation was
not calculated based precisely on the 2.5H height, or where the stack
height used in modeling cannot be verified, then additional evidence will
be needed. Preferred would be written documentation, such as copies of
the original engineering calculations or correspondence between the State
or the emission source owner and EPA Indicating that the 2.5H formula
should be used to derive the emission limitation. However, recognizing
that such evidence is often not retained for more than a few years,
"reconstructed" documentation may be considered, but should only be used
as a last resort. This evidence should include explanations by those
individuals who were involved in designing the facility, calculating
emission rates, and who represented the facility in dealings with the
-------
-3-
State and EPA on how the emission limit was derived, including a discussion
of how the formula was originally used in deriving the source emission
limitation, a discussion of the analytical method applied, and a listing
of any contacts or discussions with EPA during that period. This listing
will aid EPA in searching its own files to find any records of communication
or correspondence that may bear on the issue.
In no case should a source be allowed after January 12, 1979, to
obtain a relaxation in the emission limitation by arguing that it "relied"
on past EPA guidance endorsing the 2.5H formula. In cases where a relaxation
based on GEP formula height is sought in the future, the refined H * 1.51
formula must be used.
6. Q: The preamble specifically discusses cooling towers as structures to
which the formula should not be applied. Will the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards be specifying other structures that are not well
represented by the formul a?
A: The discussion in the preamble and SEP guideline is not Intended to
be all-inclusive; judgment should be used in determining when fluid
modeling should be used to estimate the effects of structures with rounded,
domed, or tapered shapes. Water towers and storage tanks are additional
examples of such structures. As additional Information becomes available
on the aerodynamic effects of specific building shapes and configurations,
we will evaluate the need to revise the GEP guidance. However, at present,
there are no plans to Issue a "laundry list" of structures to which the
formulas do not apply.
SIP Requirements
7. Q: Should a compliance averaging-time be explicitly stated in a
SIP revision for sulfur dioxide (S02) emission limits that are revised to
meet the stack height regulation?
A: A compliance averaging time need not be specified as an enforceable
SIP provision as long as a stack test compliance method 1s in place in the
underlying federally approved SIP. EPA's current national policy requires
that SIP's and penults contain enforceable "short-tern" emission limits
set to limit maximum emissions to a level which ensures protection of the
short-term national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and prevention
of significant deterioration (PSO) Increments. EPA relies upon a short-term
stack test provision in the SIP as the method of determining compliance
with the emission limits. In lieu of a stack test, EPA has accepted fuel
sampling and analysis and continuous emission in-stack monitors (OEM's).
When compliance is to be determined from Information obtained by fuel
sampling and analysis and CEM's, short-term averaging times should be
specified.
-------
•4-
8. Q: Are all States required to have "stack height regulations"?
A: Limitations on creditable stack height and dispersion techniques
impact the SIP program in two areas—SIP mission limits for existing
sources and SIP provisions covering new source review (NSR)/PSD permitting
procedures. For existing sources, State regulations limiting credit for
stack height and other dispersion techniques (stack height regulations)
are not necessary as long as the SIP emission Units are not affected in
any manner by so much of the stack height as exceeds SEP. or any other
dispersion technique. Where a State has stack height regulations, those
regulations must be consistent with EPA's regulation. Where a SIP contains
regulations that are inconsistent with EPA's regulation, the State must
either adopt a stack height regulation that is consistent with EPA's or
Incorporate the EPA regulation b.< reference.
For the NSR/PSO programs, 1t 1s essential that the plan contain
limitations on the amount of creditable stack height and other dispersion
techniques. The following cases have been developed to Illustrate what
action(s) may be required of the State since promulgation of the stack
height regulation.
CASE All): A fully or partially delegated PSO progran that references but
does not define SEP where the delegation agreement does not contain
a date to define which version of the PSO rule is being "deTegated.
ACTION: Notify the State that all permits Issued henceforth must be
consistent with EPA's stack height regulation. All permits
previously issued must be reviewed and revised as necessary
within 9 months.
CASE A(2): A fully or partially delegated PSO program that references
but does not define SEP where the delegation agreement
does contain a date to define which version of the PSO rule
is being delegated.
ACTION: Update the delegation agreement .to reflect agreement with EPA's
stack height regulation as of July 8. 1985. Notify the State
that all permits issued henceforth must be consistent with
EPA's stack height regulation. All permits previously issued
must be reviewed and revised as necessary within 9 aonths.
CASE B: The current federally approved SIP for NSR/PSO does not
contain a reference to SEP or dispersion techniques, i.e.,
provisions assuring that emission limitations will not be
affected by stack height in excess of SEP or any prohibited
dispersion techniques do not exist in the current SIP.
-------
-5-
ACTION: Notify the State that such provisions must be adopted and
submitted as a SIP revision within 9 months. This' can be
accomplished by adopting stack height regulations at the.
State level or by adopting the appropriate reference and
comraittnent to comply with EPA's stack height regulation as
promulgated on July 8, 1985. Interim permitting should be
consistent with EPA's stack height regulation.**
CASE C: The current federally approved SIP for NSR/PSO contains
references to, but does not define, GEP or dispersion techniques.
ACTION: Notify the State that a comnltaent to comply with EPA's stack
height regulation as promulgated on July 8, 1985, 1s required.
If a State 1s unable to make such a commitment, State regulations
must be revised to be consistent and submitted to EPA as a SIP
revision within 9 months and Interim permitting should be
consistent with EPA's stack height regulation. No "grace
period" will be allowed for sources receiving permits between
July 1985 and April 1986.**
CASE D; The current federally approved SIP for NSR/PSO contains stack
height regulations that are Inconsistent with EPA's regulation.
ACTION: Notify the State that such regulations must be revised to be
consistent and submitted as a SIP revision within 9 months
and that interim permitting should be consistent with EPA's
stack height regulation.**
CASE E(l): A SIP for NSR/PSD has been submitted to EPA, or will be
submitted to EPA before the due date for stack height revisions.
The sucrfttal contains provisions that conflict with EPA's
stack height regulation.
ACTION: Notify the State that EPA cannot approve the submittal until
it is revised pursuant to EPA's July 8, 1985, regulation.
**In the event that a State does not have legal authority to comply with
EPA's regulation in the Interim (e.g., because It must enforce State
rules that are inconsistent with EPA's regulation) and is compelled to
issue a permit that does not meet the requirements of the EPA revised
stack height regulation, then EPA should notify the State that such
permits do not constitute authority under the Clean A1r Act to commence
construction.
-------
-6-
CASt £(2): As in Case E(l), a SIP for NSR/PSO has been submitted to EPA
or will be submitted to EPA before the due date for stack
height revisions. The submittal is not Inconsistent with
EPA's stack height regulation, but portions of the existing
approved SIP that relate to the submittal are inconsistent.
ACTION: Approve the SIP submittal based on a commitment by the State
to correct the inconsistencies in Its existing SIP to comport
with EPA's July 8 regulation and submit the corrections as a
SIP revision within 9 months. Interim permitting should be
consistent with EPA's stack height regulation.** If the exist-
ing SIP is ambiguous, 1.e.v the SIP references but does not
define terms relating to fi£P or dispersion techniques, the
action steps outlined in Case C above should be followed.
CASE F: In nonattalnment areas, emission limits or permits do not always
Include modeling, but rather are based on lowest achievable
emission rate (LAER) and offsets.
ACTION: If no modeling is used 1n the issuance of a permit, the emissiori
requirements for the source are not "affected" by stack heights
or dispersion techniques, and no action is needed. However, 1f
modeling was used 1n the process of preparing and issuing a
permit, such as cases where offsets were obtained offslte, that
modeling must be reviewed for consistency with the stack height
regul ation.
9. 0: What must all States do now that EPA's stack height regulation is
promulgated?
A: States must review and revise.their SIP's as necessary to Include or
revise provisions to limit stack height credits and dispersion techniques
to comport with the revised regulations, and, in addition, review and
revise all emission limitations that are affected by stack height credit
above SEP or any other dispersion techniques. In accordance with Section
4Q6(d)(2) of the Clean A1r Act, States have 9 months from promulgation to
submit the revised SIP's and revised SIP emission limitations to EPA.
In an August 7, 1985, memo titled "Implementation of the Revised
Stack Height Regulation—Request for Inventory and Action Plan to Revise
SIP's," Regional Offices were requested to begin working with each of
their States to develop States' Action Plans. Each Action Plan should
include the following: (l) An inventory of (a) all stacks greater than
65 meters (m), (b) stacks at sources which exceed 5,000 tons per year
total allowable S02 emissions; and (2) A reasonable schedule of dates for
significant State actions to conform both State stack height rules and
emission limitations to EPA's stack height regulation. Schedules should
include increments of progress. Regional Offices should be satisfied
that each of their States provide scnedules fcr completion of the tasks
-------
-7-
as outlined in the August memo and report the status of schedule commitments
to them on a monthly basis. Regional Offices have been asked to forward
monthly status reports to the Control Programs Development Division on
the States' progress to meet scheduled commitments and also report the
results of followup with the States on schedules that are not met. In
order to facilitate tracking the States monthly progress, guidance on a
standardized format will be issued shortly.
Modeling Analyses
10. Q: Is there any restriction or prohibition against, or demonstration
required for, raising an existing (or replacing) stack up to 65 m?
A: No, as long as prohibited dispersion techniques are not employed.
11. Q: Are flares considered to be stacks?
A: No, flares are excluded from the regulation.
12. Q: What load should be used for a fluid modeling demonstration?
A:- One hundred percent load should generally be used unless there
is a compelling argument otherwise..
13. Q: Can new or modified sources who have agreed to a case-by-case
best available control technology (BACT) emission rate be required to use
this rate for fluid modeling rather than a less stringent new source
performance standard (NSPS) emission rate?
A: As set forth in 40 CFR 51.1 (klc), the allowable emission rate to
be used in making demonstrations under this part shall be prescribed by
the NSPS that is applicable to the source category unless the owner or
operator demonstrates that this emission rate is infeasible.
14. Q: Must the exceed
-------
-8-
Q: wnat stack parameters are to be used in modeling when the actual
stack neignt is greater than G£P height?
A: Where it is necessary to reduce stack height credit below what is in
existence, for modeling purposes, use existing stack gas exit parameters--
temperature and flow rate—and existing stack top diameter and model at
GEP height.
17. Q: How should a stack that 1s less than GEP height be modeled when
dispersion techniques are employed?
A: In order to establish an appropriate emission limitation where a
source desires to construct less than a GEP stack but use dispersion
techniques to make up the difference 1n plume rise, two cases should be
tested. First, conduct a modeling analysis Inputting the GEP stack
height without enhanced dispersion parameters, then conduct a second
analysis inputting the less tJu GEP stack height with the increased
plume rise. The more stringent emission limitation resulting from each
of the two runs should be the one specified as the enforceable limitation.
18. Q: How are the effects of prohibited dispersion techniques to be excludes
for modeling purposes?
A: Where prohibited dispersion techniques have been used, modeling to
exclude their effects on the emission limitation will be accomplished by
using the temperature and flow rates as the gas stream enters the stack, and
recalculating stack parameters to exclude the prohibited techniques
(e.g., calculate stack diameter without restrictions in place, determine
exit gas temperatures before the use of prohibited reheaters, etc.).
19. Q: How are single flued merged stacks and multiflued stacks to be
treated in a modeling analysis?
A: This is a multistep process. First, sources with allowable S02
emissions below 5,000 tons/year may be modeled accounting for any plume
merging that has been employed. For larger sources, multiflued stacks
are considered as prohibited dispersion techniques in the same way as
single flued merged gas streams unless one of the three allowable conditions
has been met; i.e., (1) the source owner or operator demonstrates that
the facility was originally designed and constructed with such merged gas
streams; (2) after date of promulgation, demonstrate that such merging is
associated with a change in operation at the facility that includes the
installation of pollution controls and results 1n a net reduction in the
allowable emissions of the pollutant for which credit is sought; or (3)
before date of promulgation, demonstrate that such merging did not result
in any increase in the allowable emissions (or, in the event that no
emission limit existed, actual emission level) and was associated with a
change in operation at the facility that Included the installation of
-------
-9-
missions control equipment OP was carried out for sound economic OP
engineering reasons, as demonstrated to EPA. Guidelines on what constitutes
sound economic OP engineering justification will be issued shortly.
If plume merging fpom nultiflued stacks is not allowable, then each
flue/liner must be modeled as a separate source and the combined impact
determined. For single flued merged stacks where credit is not allowed,
each unit should be modeled as a separate stack located at the same
point. The exit parameters, I.e. velocity and temperature, would be the
same as for the existing merged stack conditions and the volume flow rate
based on an apportionment of the flow from the Individual units.
20. Q: What stack height for point sources should be Input to air quality
dispersion modeling for the purpose of demonstrating protection of the
NAAQS and PSD increments?
A: A discussion of the maximum stack height credit to be used in modeling
analyses is provided in the "Guideline for Determination of Good Engineering
Practice Stack Height" and provides that the 6EP stack height should be
used as input to the model assessment. If a source 1s operating with a
less than SEP stack height, then the actual stack height should be input
to the "model.
21. Q: What stack height should be used for background sources in
modeling analyses?
A: The SEP-stack height for each background source should
be input to the model assessment. If a background source is operating
with a less than GEP stack height, then the actual stack height should be
input to the model.
22. Q: Can credit for plume merging due to installation of control
equipment for total suspended partlculate (TSP) matter be allowed when
setting the SOj 1irait?
A: To state the question another way, the concern is what impact
the merging and installation of control equipment have on the emission
limit for another pollutant, and whether the merging occurred before or
after July 8, 1985. After July 8, 1985, any exclusion from the definition
of "dispersion techniques" applies only to the emission limitation for
the pollutant affected by such change in operation and 1s accompanied by
a net reduction in allowable emissions of the pollutant. For example, a
source tears down two old stacks and builds one new GEP stack with an
electrostatic ppecipitatop (ESP). This results in a net reduction 1n TSP
emissions. This source could model using stack gas characteristics
resulting from merging the two gas streams in setting the TSP emission
limit, but may not so mode! and receive the credit for stack merging when
evaluating the S02 emission limit.
-------
-10-
Be'ore July 8, 1985, Installation of TSP pollution control equipment
generally justifies the merging of the stacks for TSP. However, if a
source's"emission limitation for SOj increased after the merging, then
crecit would generally not be allowed since it is presLined that the
merging was to increase dispersion.
A source with no previous S02 emission limit that merges stacks and
installs an ESP for TSP control may consider the effects of merging on
compliance with the TSP NAAQS but may not use merging to justify setting
an S02 emission limit less stringent than its actual emission rate before
the merging.
23. Q: If, after determining GEP stack height by fluid modeling,
dispersion modeling under other than "downwash" meteorological conditions
shows that a lower emission limit than that from the fluid model 6EP
analysis is necessary to meet ambient air quality constraints, should a
new stack height be defined for the source?
A: No. GEP stack height is set. Ambient air quality problems
predicted by dispersion modeling at the fluid modeled height means that a
more stringent mission limit is necessary.
24. Q: Does EPA intend to Issue additional guidance on fluid modeling
demonstrations?
A: See the attached memo from Joseph A. Tikvart, Chief, Source
Receptor Analysis Branch, to David Stonefleld, Chief, Policy Development
Section, on guidance for a discussion of existing and additional guidance
on fluid model demonstrations.
Attachment
cc: Stack Height Contacts
Gerald Enrison
Ron Campbel 1
B. J. Steigerwald
-------
151.100
"Variance" mean* the temporary
deferral of a final compliance date for
an Individual aource subject to an ap-
proved regulation, or a temporary
chance to MI approved regulation H It
applies to an Individual aource.
<•) "Emission limitation" and "emis-
sion standard" mean a requirement es-
tabllahed by a State, local government.
or the Administrator which UmlU the
quantity, rate, or concentration of
anils»li>ns of air polluUnU on a eontln-
woua basis. Including any requirement*
which limit the level of opacity, pre-
scribe equipment, set fuel specifics-
tlona, or prescribe operation or main-
tenance procedures for a source la
assure continuous emission reduction.
(aa) "Capacity factor" means the
ratio of the average load on a machine
or equipment for the period of time
considered to the capacity rating of
the machine or equipment.
(bb) "Excess emissions" mean* emto-
atons of an air pollutant In excess of
an emission standard.
"Stack" means any point In a
source designed to emit solids, liquids.
or gases Into the air. Including a pipe
or duct but not Including flares.
"A stack In existence" means
that the owner or operator had (I)
begun, or caused to begin, a continu-
ous program of physical on-alte con-
struction of the stack or (J) entered
Into binding agreements or contrac-
tual obligations, which could not be
cancelled or modified without substan-
tial loss to ths owner or operator, to
undertake a program of construction
of the stack to be completed within a
reasonable time.
"Dispersion technique-
means any technique which attempts
to affect the concentration of a pollut-
ant In the ambient air by:
(U Using that portion of a stack
which exceeds good engineering prac-
tice stack height:
(M) Varying the rate of emission of a
pollutant according to atmospheric
conditions or ambient concentrations
of that pollutant; or
(III) Increasing final exhaust gas
plume rise by manipulating source
process parameters, exhaust gas pa-
rameters, stack parameters, or combin-
ing exhaust gases from several exist-
ing stacks Into one stack; or other se-
lective handling of exhaust gas
streams so as to Increase the extiaust
gas plume rise.
in The pfT^ntirg sentence does not
(!) The reheating of a gas stream.
following use of a pollution control
system, for the purpose of returning
the gas to the temperature at which It
waa originally discharged from the fa-
cility generating the gas stream;
The merging of exhaust gas
streams where:
(A) The source owner or operator
demonstrates that the facility was
originally designed and constructed
with such merged gas streams;
IB) After July 0. IOU such merging
to part of a change In operation at the
facility that Includes the Installation
of pollution controls and Is accompa-
nied by a net reduction In the allow-
able emissions of a pollutant. This ex-
clusion from the definition of "disper-
sion techniques" shall apply only to
the emission limitation for the pollut-
•NvweNmeiifeJ PretecMen Agency
ant affected by such change In oper-
ation; or
(C) Before July 0. 1000. such merg-
ing was part of a change In operation
at the facility that Included the Instal-
lation of emissions control equipment
or was carried out for sound economic
or engineering reasons. Where there
waa an Increase In the emission umlla-
tlon or. In the event that no c mission
limitation was In existence prior to the
merging, an Increase m the quantity of
pollutanU actually emitted prior to
the merging, the reviewing agency
shall presume that merging was sig-
nificantly motivated by an kttent to
Oaks amtoslonB credit for greater dfs>
psrstosi. Absent a demonstration by
the source owner or operator that
msrglng was not significantly saotlvat-
•d by such Intent, the isvtswlug
agency shall deny credit for the ef-
fects of such merging In calculating
the allowable emissions for the source;
(III) Smoke management n agricul-
tural or sUvte.il --JU
Ing programs;
(tv) Dttoodte restrictions on i
Ual woodbumlng and open burning; or
(v) Techniques under
Hl.lOOdthXlxlll) which Increase
final exhaust gas plume rise when the
resulting allowable emissions of sulfur
dioxide from the facility do not exceed
0.000 tons per year.
(II) "Good engineering practice"
(OEP) stack height means UM greater
of:
(I) 00 •Mtera. measured from UM
fftHsVMI-ICVH CICVMilOll «M UM IMsW Off
UM alack:
(XNI) For stacks hi existence on Jan-
uary la. 1070. and for which UM owner
or operator had obtained all appHoabto
pennlU or approvals required under 40
CPR Parts II and S3.
B.-I.SB.
provided the owner or operator pro-
duces evidence that Into equation was
actually relied on In establishing an
emission limitation:
411) Por all other stacks,
H.-H » I.»L
fSt.tOs)
H..fOod enslneerlrw practice Mack hetsht.
ncMtired from the •round level «!*»•
Uon »l the l»w ol the «Uck.
H« height of nearby rtnietureUt
from the ground level elevation ft
MM of the MM*
I*™ ICAVCI* ONIMIMlOffl, nCIf it* Of
width, of nearby Mructuredl
provided that the CPA. SUte or local
control agency may require the use of
a field study or fluid model to verify
GBP stack height for the aource; or
(» The height demonstrated by a
HuM model or a field study approved
by the EPA Stale or local control
agency, which ensures that the emis-
sions from a stack do not result In ex-
cessive concentrations of any air pol-
lutant as a result of atmospheric
downwash. wakes, or eddy effects' cre-
ated by the source Itself, nearby struc-
tures or nearby terrain features.
(JJ> -Nearby- aa used hi tOI.IOOflO
of tltto part to defined for a specific
structure or terrain feature and
(I) for purposes of applying UM for-
provided In | sl.tOOdlxa) •Beans
dtaUnee up to five tunes the
of the height or the width dl-
of a structure, but not greater
than 0.0 km
-------
151.100
the maximum concentration experi-
enced In the absence of such down-
wash, wakea. or eddy effect* and
which contribute* to a total concentra-
tion due to emissions from all source*
that Is greater than an ambient air
quality standard. For sources subject
to the prevention of significant dete-
rioration program (40 CFR 51.IM and
02.21 >. an excessive concentration al-
ternatively means a maximum around-
level concentration due to emissions
from a stack due In whole or part to
downwash. wake*, or eddy effect* pro-
duced by nearby structures or nearby
terrain feature* which Individually I*
at least 40 percent In excess of the
maximum concentration experienced
In the absence of such downwash.
wake*, or eddy effects and greater
than a prevention of significant dete-
rioration Increment. The allowable
emission rate to be used In making
demonstrations under this part shall
be prescribed by the new source per-
formance standard that I* applicable
to the source category unless the
owiiei or operator demonstrate* that
this emission rale I* Infeaalble. Where
such demonstration* are approved by
the authority administering the State
Implementation plan, an alternative
embwlon rate shall be established In
consultation with the source owner or
operator.
(I) for sources seeking credit after
October U. 1»«3. for Increase* In eitot-
tng stack height* up to the height* es-
tahllshed under I SI. 100(11X3). either
(I) a maximum ground-level concentra-
tion due In whole or part to down-
wa»h. wake* or eddy effect* a* provid-
ed In paragraph (kkMI > of this section,
except that the emission rate specified
hy any applicable State Implementa-
tion plan (or. In the absence of such a
limit, the actual emission rate) shall
be used, or (II) the actual presence of a
local nuisance caused by the existing
•tack, as determined by the authority
administering the State Implementa-
tion plan: and
(I) for sources seeking credit after
January 13. 1*79 for a stack height de-
termined under I 51KXMIIMJ) where
the authority administering the Slate
Implementation plan requires the use
of a field study or fluid model to verify
QEP slmrk helglil. lor sou ices seeking
40 CM Oi. I (7-l-M MM**)
stack height credit after November 0.
1984 based on the aerodynamic Influ-
ence of cooling towers, and for source*
seeking stack height credit after De-
cember 31. 1970 based on the aerody-
namic Influence of structure* not ade-
quately represented by the equations
In 161.IOOOIM2). a maximum ground-
level concentration due In whole or
part to downwash. wake* or eddy ef-
fect* that I* at least 40 percent In
exce** of the maximum concentration
experienced In the absence of such
downwash. wakes, or eddy effect*.
(UMmm) IRawrvedl
ie rate at which pollut-
ant* are emitted to the atmosphere ac-
cording to meteorological conditions
and/or ambient concentration* of the
pollutant. In order to prevent ground-
level concentration* In exceas of appli-
cable ambient air quality standards.
Such a dispersion technique to an ICB
whether used alone, used with other
dispersion techniques, or used a* a
supplement to continuous emission
control* (I.e.. used a* a supplemental
control system).
(oo) "Partlculate matter" mean* any
airborne finely divided solid or liquid
material with an aerodynamic diame-
ter smaller than 100 micrometer*.
(pp> "Partlculate matter emissions"
mean* all finely divided solid or liquid
material, other than uncomblned
water, emitted to the ambient air a*
measured by applicable reference
methods, or an equivalent or alterna-
tive method, specified In this chapter.
or by a teat method specified In an ap-
proved State Implementation plan.
(qq> "PM,." mean* partlculate
matter with an aerodynamic diameter
teas than or equal to a nominal 10 mi-
crometers a* measured by a reference
method baaed on Appendix J of Part
•0 of thto chapter and designated In
accordance with Part 63 of thto chap-
ter or by an equivalent method desig-
nated In accordance with Part S3 of
thto chapter.
(rr) "PM,. emissions" means finely
divided solid or liquid material, with
an aerodynamic diameter less than or
equal to a nominal 10 micrometer*
emitted to the ambient air as meas-
ured by an applicable reference
few*******!** Protect!** Af)»iKy
method, or an equivalent or alterna-
tive method, specified In thto chapter
or by a teat method specified In an ap-
proved State Implementation plan.
(as) "Total suspended partlculate"
mean* partlculate matter as measured
by the method described In Appendix
B of Part M of thto chapter.
1*1 FR 40*81. No*. 1. IM*. at smmdsd at M
PR Milt, July I. IMl)
• 6l.lt!
Nothing to thto part will be con-
strued to any manner.
(a) To encourage a State to prepare.
adopt, or submit a plan which does not
provide for the protection and en-
hancement of air quality so ss to pro-
mote the public health and welfare
and productive capacity.
(b) To encourage a State to adopt
any particular control strategy with-
out taking Into consideration the eost-
effectlveness of such control strategy
to relation to that of alternative con-
trol strategies.
(c) To preclude a Stale from employ-
tag techniques other than those speci-
fied to thto part for purposes of esti-
mating air quality or demonstrating
the adequacy of a control strategy.
provided that such other technique*
an shown to be adequate and appro-
priate for such purposes.
(d) To encourage a State to prepare.
adopt, or submit * pun without taking
toto consideration the social and eco-
nomic Impact of the control strategy
set forth to such plan. Including, but -
not limited to. Impact on availability
of fuels, energy, transportation, and
employment.
(e) To preclude a State from prepar-
ing, adopting, or submitting a {Man
which provides for attainment Mod
maintenance of a national stsJMfcrd
through the application of a ventral
strategy not specifically Identified or
described to thto part.
(f) To preclude a State or political
subdivision thereof from adopting or
enforcing any emission limitation* or
other measure* or combinations there1
of to attain and maintain ah- quality
better than that required by a nation-
al standard.
(g) To encourage a State to adopt a
control strategy uniformly applicable
throughout a region unless there to no
722
isi.ioa
satisfactory alternative way of provid-
ing for attainment and maintenance of
a national standard throughout such
region.
• 61.1*1 PiiMIc bearings.
(a) Except as otherwise provided to
paragraph (c> of thto section. Bute*
must conduct one or more public hear-
ing* on the following prior to adoption
and submission to EPA of:
(1) Any plan or revision of It re-
quired by | BM04(a).
(3) Any Individual compliance sched-
ule under (| 61.3*0).
(3) Any revision under 161.1O4(d>.
(b) Separate hearings may be held
for plans to Implement primary end
secondary standard*.
(c) No hearing will be required for
any change to an Increment of
piogiea* to an approved Individual
compliance schedule' unless such
change to likely to cause the source to
be unable to comply with the final
compliance date to the schedule. Tbe
requirements of 1161.104 and 81.106
will be applicable to such schedules,
however.
(d> Any hearing required by para-
graph (a) of thto section will be held
only after reasonable notice, which
will be considered to Include, at least
M days prior to the date of such
hearing**):
(I) Notice given to the pubuc by
prominent advertisement to the area
affected announcing the dateta).
time**), and placets) of such
hearing**);
(3) Availability of each proposed
plan or revision for public Inspection
to si least one location to each region
to which It will spply. and the avail-
ability of each compliance schedule
for public Inspection to si least one lo-
cation to the region to which the af-
fected source to located;
(3) Notification to the Administrator
(through the appropriate Regional
Office):
(4) Notification to each local ah- pol-
lution control agency which will be
significantly Impacted by such plan.
schedule or revision:
(B) In the case of an Interstate
region, notification to any other
States Included, In whole or In part. In
723
-------
Monday
July 8, 1985
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 51
Stack Height Regulation; Final Rute
-------
27892 Federal Regiatar / Vol. SO. No. 130 / Monday. July 8. 1985 / Rulei and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40CFRPtft51
technique.* K defines CEP. with respect
to stack hiBgaa as:
Stack Might Regulation
AOKMCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTXMC Final rulemaking. _
SUMMAMV: Section 123 of the Clean Air
Act. aa amended requires EPA to
promulgate regulation! to enaure that
the degree of emission limitation
required for the control of any air
pollutant under an applicable State
implementation plan (SIP) it not
affected by that portion of any stack
height which exceeds good engineering
practice (CEP) or by any other
dispersion technique. A regulation
implementing section 123 was
promulgated on February 8. 1982. at 47
FR SM4. Revisions to the regulation
were proposed on November 9. 1984. at
49 FR 44878. Today's action incorporates
changes to the proposal and adopta this
regulation in final form.
WMCMVI OATC This regulation
becomes effective on August 7, 198S.
fo* WSTTHSJI HSVOMMATIOM CONTACT-
Eric O. Cinaburg, MD-15, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, EPA.
Research Triangle Pack. North Carolina
27711. Telephone (919) SO-*MaX
TAUT OtPOMMATIOSC
Docket StetsiMBl
Pertinent information concerning this
regulation is included in Docket Number
A-43-49. The docket is open for public
inspection botmei die BOW* of lets
a.m. and 4:00 p.m~ Monday through
Friday, at the EPA Central Docket
Section. Weat Tower Lobby. Gallery
One. 401 M Street SW.. Washington.
D.C. Background documents normally
available to the public, such aa Federal
Register notices and Congressional
reports, are not included in the docket
A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying documents.
Background
Statuta
Section 123. which was added to the
Clean Air Act by the 1977 Amendments.
regulates the manner in which
techniques for dispcrson of pollutants
from a source may be considered in
setting emission limitations. Specifically,
section 123 requires that the degree of
emission limitation shall not be affected
by that portion of a stack which exceeds
CEP or by "sny ether dispersion
the height necessary to insure that essJssions
from iht itsck do not result in excesetoe
concentrations of any air pollutant ia> KM
immediate vicinity of the source as a nsull ef
•tmotphenc downwash. eddies or weaas
which may be created by the source itaeat
nesrby structures or nesrby terrain aoatodos
. . . (Sectioa 123(c)|.
Section 123 further provides thai CEP
stack height shall not exceed two sava*
one-half times the height of the save*
(2.5H) unless a demonstration ia
performed showing that a higher stack •
needed to avoid "excessive
concentrations." Aa the legislative
history of section 123 makes clear, taaa)
reference to a two and one-half law*
teat reflects the established anonce of
using a formula for detennottaf tja> GaV
stack height needed to avoid exooooiue
downwash. Finally, tactic* 123 [
that the Administrator shal tcgaifaat
only stack height credits fto* rs. oat
portion of the stack height used la
calculating an emission limitation—
rather than actual stack heights*
With respect to "other disparate
techniques" for which emission
limitation credit la reatricted. the statute
is lesa specific It states only that *Jt*
term shall ioebsd* intermittent aval
supplemental control systems (ICS,
SCS), but otherwise leaves the definition
of that term to the discretion of the
Adnuntatra toe.
The* (fee statute deiegatea to aW
Administrator the responsibility tot
eWkMOf key phraves. including
'exxeoaiv* coaicentrations" and
"nearby," with reepect to both
atructuree and tsjcrain obstacles, and
"other dispersion techniques." The
ArirBJaietTalig nuat also define the
requirements of an adequate
demonstration justifying stack haagfct
credita in excess of the 2.5H forsnia,
RuItmoJung and Litigation
On February 8.1982 (47 FR MB*). EPA
promulgated final regulations lisaiting
stack height credits and other diapansoB
techniques. Information concerning tbe
development of the regulation wo»
included in Docket Number A-Tt-Ol and
is available for inspection at the EPA
Central Docket Section. This regulation
was challenged in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by the
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. lac; the
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc4
and the Commonwealth of Peruwylvana
in Siena Club v. EPA. 719 F. 2d 438, Om
October 11.1983. the court issued Ha
decision ordering EPA to reconasrfer
portions of the stack height regulation.
reversing certain portions and uiifmsrling
other portions. Further discussicai of the
covt decision is provided later in this
BDtJCC.
Administrative Proceedings Subsequent
a» the Court Decision
On December 19.1983. EPA held a
public meeting to take comments to
ist the Agency in implementing the
ndate of the court. This meeting was
1 in the Federal Regiatar on
• 8.1963. at 48 FR 54999.
Comments received by EPA are
bduded in Docket Number A-43-49. On
February 28.1984. the electric power
aaduatry filed a petition for a writ of
esrtiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.
Wkila the petition was pending before
the cassn the mandate from the U.S.
Court of Appeals was stayed. On July 2,
MM. the Supreme Court denied the
petition (104 S.Ct. 3571). and on July 18.
19M. the Court of Appeals' mandate
VSJB formally issued, implementing the
court's decision and requiring EPA to
promulgate revisions to the stack height
sofjilationa within 4 months. The
promulgation deadline was ultimately
extended to June 27.1985. in order to
provide additional opportunities for
potlic comment to allow EPA to hold s
pofalic hearing on January 8.1985. and to
provide additional time for EPA to
complete its analysis of nilemaking
alternatives,
Documents
SB conjunction with the 1982
leojotatson and this revision. EPA
developed several technical and
gaudance documents. These served as
background information for the
rapilation. and are included in Dockets
A-79-01 and A-83-49. The following
documents have been or will be placed
• the National Technical Information
Service (NTIS) system and may be
obtained by contacting NTIS at 5285
Part Royal Road. Springfield. Virginia
22161.
(1) "Guideline for Use of Fluid
Modeling to Determine Good
BBjineering Stack Height" July 1981.
EPA. Office of Air Quality Planning and
EPA-4SO/4-81-003 (NTIS
145327).
(2) "Guideline for Fluid Modeling of
Atmospheric Diffusion." Apnl 1981.
EPA. Environmental Sciences Research
Laboratory. EPA-oOO/8-41-009 (NTIS
PB81 201410).
(3) "Guidance for Determination of
Good Engineering Practice Stack Height
(Technical Support Document for the
Suck Height Regulation)." June 1985.
EPA. Office of Air Quality Planning and
"Isaileuts EPA-450/4-80-023R.
(4) "Determination of Good
Engineering Practice Stack Height—A
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 130 / Monday. July 8. 1985 / Rules and Regulations 27893
Fluid Model Demonstration Study for a
Power Plant." April 1983. EPA.
Environmental Sciences Research
Laboratory. EPA-600/3-43-024 (NTIS
PB83 207407).
(5) "Fluid Modeling Demonstration of
Good-Engineenng-Practice Slack Height
m Complex Terrain.'' April 1965. EPA
Atmospheric Sciences Research
Laboratory. EPA/600/3-35/022 (NTIS
PB85 203107).
In addition, the following documents
are available in Docket A-43-49.
"Economic Impact Assessment for
Revisions to the EPA Stack Height
Regulation." fune 1985.
"Effect of Terrain-Induced Downwash
on Determination of Good-Enginering-
Prtctice Stack Height" fuly 1984.
Pretnm Overview
General
The problem of air pollution can be
approached in either of two ways:
through reliance on a technology-based
program that mandates specific control
requirements (either control equipment
or control efficiencies) irrespective of
ambient pollutant concentration*, or
through an air quality baaed system that
relies on ambient air quality levels to
determine the allowable rates of
emissions. The .Clean Air Act
incorporates both approaches, but the
SIP program under section 110 uses an
air quality-based approach to establish
emission limitations for sources.
implicitly, this approach acknowledges
and is based on the normal dispersion of
pollutants from their points of origin into
the atmosphere prior to measurements
of ambient concentrations at ground
level.
There are two general methods for
preventing violations of the national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
and prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) increments.
Continuous emission controls reduce on
a continuous basis the quantity, rate, or
concentrations of pollutants released
into the atmosphere from e source. In
contrast, dispersion techniques rely on
the dispersive effects of the atmosphere
to carry pollutant emissions awey from
the source m order to prevent high .
concentrations of pollutants near the
source. Section 123 of the Clean Air Act
limits the use of dispersion techniques
by pollution sources to meet the NAAQS
or PSD increments.
Tall stacks, manipulation of exhaust
gas parameters, and varying the rate of
emissions based on atmospheric
conditions (ICS and SCS) are the basic
types of dispersion techniques. Tall
stacks enhance dispersion by releasing
pollutants into the air at elevations high
above ground level, thereby providing
greater mixing of pollutants into the
atmosphere. The result is to dilute the
pollutant levels and reduce the
concentrations of the pollutant at ground
level, without reducing the total amount
of pollution released. Manipulation of
exhaust gas parameters increases the
plume rise from the source to achieve
similar result*. ICS and SCS vary a
source's rate of emissions to take
advantage of meteorologic conditions.
When conditions favor rapid dispersion.
the source emits pollutants at higher
rates, and when conditions are adverse.
emission rates are reduced. Use of
dispersion techniques in lieu of constant
emission controls results in additional
atmospheric loadings of pollutants and
can increase the possibility that
pollution will travel long distances
before reaching the ground.
Although overrtiiance on dispersion
techniques may produce advene affects.
some use of the dispersive properties of
the atmosphere has long been an
important factor in air pollution control.
For example, some stack height ia
needed to prevent excessive pollutant
concentrations near a source. When
wind meets an obstacle such aa a hill or
a building, a turbulent region of
downwash. wakes, and eddies ia
created downwind of the obstacle aa the
wind passes over and around it This
can force a plume rapidly to the ground
resulting in excessive concentrations of
pollutants near the source. Aa discussed.
previously, section 123 recognizes these
phenomena and responds by allowing
calculation of emission limitations with
explicit consideration of that portion of
a source's stack that ia needed to ensure
that excessive concentrations due to
downwash will not be created near the
source. This height ia called CEP stack
height
Summary of tht Court Decision
Petitions for review of EPA'a 1982
regulation were filed in the D.C Circuit
within the statutory tine period
following promulgation of the regulation.
On October It. 1983. the court issued its
decision ordering EPA to reconsider
portions of the stack height regulation.
reversing certain portions and upholding
others. The following is a summary of
the court decision.
The EPA 11982 rule provided three
waya to carerraine CEP stack height
One way was to calculate the height by
using a formula based on the
dimensions o^nearby structures. The
other two were a de mimmis height of AS
meters, and the height determined by a
fluid modeling demonstration or field
study. The court endorsed the formula
as a starting point to determine CEP
height However, it held that EPA has
not demonstrated that the formula was
an accurate predictor of the stack heigm
needed to avoid "excessive
concentrations of pollutants due to
downwash. Accordingly, the court
directed EPA to re-examine in three
ways the conditions under which
exceptions to the general rule of formula
reliance could be justified.
First the 1982 rule allowed a source to
justify raising its stack above formula
height by ahowing a 40-percent increase
in concentrations due to downwash.
wakes, or eddies, on the ground that this
was the percentage increase that the
formula avoided. The court found this
justification insufficient and remanded
the definition to EPA with instructions
to make it directly responsive to health
and welfare considerations.
Similarly, the 1982 rule allowed a
source that built a stack to less than
formula height to raise it to formula
height automatically. Once again, the
court required more justification that
such a step was needed to avoid
advene health or welfare effects.
Finally, the court directed EPA either
to allow the authorities administering
the stack height regulations to require
modeling by sources in other cases as a
check on possible error in the formula.
or explain why the accuracy of the
formula made such a step unnecessary
The 1982 rule provided two formulae
to calculate CEP stack height For
sources constructed on or before
January 12.1079. the date of initial
propoeaJ of the stack height regulations.
tile applicable formula was 2.3 times the
height of the source or other nearby
structure. For sources constructed after
that date, the rule specified a newer.
refined formula, the height of the source
or other nearby structure plus 1.5 times
the height or width of that structure.
whichever is leaa (H-M.SL). The EPA
baaed ita decision- to include two
formulae on the unfairness of applying
the new formula retroactively. In its
examination of this issue, the court
specified four factors that influence
whether an agency has a duty to apply s
rule retroactively. They are:
1. Whether the naw rule represents «n
abrupt departure from wail established
practice or manly attempts to fill a void man
unsettfed area of law.
2. The extent to which the party against
whom the new rule ia applied relied on tne
former rule.
J. Tha detTM of burden which a retroactive
order impoaas on a party, and
4. The statutory interest In apply'"* • new
rule dwpite the reliance of a perry on rfte nd
standard.
-------
27J94 Federal Regis*** / Vol 50. No. 13O / Monday. July B. 1965 / R«fe» and Regulations
719 fid at 48? (citation* omitted).
Applying this aoalyus. to the two
formulae. the court upheld EPA's bane
decision.
However, the court also held that
sources constructed on or before
January IZ 1973. should not be
automatically entitled to fuil credit
calculated under the Z.5H formula unless
they could demonstrate reliance on that
formula. The court remanded this
provision for revision to take actual
reliance on the 2.5H formal* otto
account.
The starate limits site* height eredtt
to that needed to avoid excemiv*
concentration* doe to downwaeik caused
by "nearby" strectune or terrain
festare*. Tee 19*2 reguiatfea defined
"nearby" far CEP formate sppKeatioM
as five tima* the lesser al erther fee
height or projected wtdta of the
structun caueina, dowowesk oat to
exceed HIM half nit*. Na such ejrtuc*
limitation waa placed aa structures or
terrain features waose effects wen
being considered in Ouid •~Wi«tt
demonstration* or field studios. Tb*
court held that section 123 explicitly
applies the "nearby" limitation to
demonstrations and studies aa weE aa
formula applications, and remanded the
rule to EPA to apply the limitation in
both contexts.
The 198T rule defined "dispersion
techniques" ae those techniques which
attempt to affect poflutant
concvfHrotioRS by using (act portfon of a
stack exceeding GEP. by varying
emission mtee accordia* tv atauepheik.
conditions or-pollutant eonceittretiens.
or by the oddltio* of e fan or refceeter tv
obtain e lees suingtiil eaueeiea
• limitation. The court found *is
definition too narrow because any
technique -si§r»*caittty motivated by a*
intent to gain enisaiona credit for
greater dispersion" should be bami
719 F.2d 462. As a result the comrt
directed EPA to develop ruts*
diMllowiaf credit for all saca diapersioa
technique* unless die Agency
adequately justified excapMaav oa the
basis of administrative nacsssrty or sot
rr:nimis result
Tbe CEP formulae estabtiafaed in the.
1962 rule do not consider pcsssa rue. «•
the ground that plume rise is not
significant under downwash conditions.
In its review of this, provision, the court
affirmed this judgment by EPA.
The 1982 rule addressed r^""'*T"
concentrations estimated to occur whan,
a plume impacts elevated temin by
auowmg. credit for stack height
necessary to avoid air qualify violations
.n such cases. However, the court ruled
that section 123 did not allow EPA to
grant credit for plume inspection in.
setting elusion uarfc. and reversed this
part of the regulation.
TaepraaaBbiete the 18U refukoon
provided a 22 south process for State
iBplsoentatioa of the regulation. The>
court found tfai» period to be> coatiwy to
secnan 406(d)(2} of the OMB Air Ad
and reversed it
The regulation. foUowinf the statute.
excluded stack* "i» exatance" oa or
before Oecanber 31. iva froet the- CEP
requirements. However, the reguiabaai
did not prohibit source* constructed
after December 31. 1970. freaai receiving
credit for tying into pre-1971 f*fuT
Although, the court upheld EPA's
defiaitioo of "is existence." it ao4e« tbe4
EP A had faaVad to addieaa tket tte-ia
issae. Acconisagly. the court resBead*4
this issue M EPA for juatifiaatieB.
One other proviatoa of the rafuieanai
waa challenged is the. Siena Ouo iuifc
The evduainsi of uarea froaa the
defiainon of "aUck."u»Ua review afthie
prmviaiao, the court held thM HP A h*si
acted properly.
Other pro vuMau of the stack heigiu
regulatiaa aucha« the, oeavmaMe stack
height eattbiisAed under I SLUiiHlK
were not challenged in Ik* suit aid th«*
remain in effect.
Summary oftti* ftovmint 9
fa Ae November 9k UBe. node*
responding to the court daoaioa, EPA
proposed to redefine a. amber of
gptcific tasma. 'T^'HP*^ "exceaai«a
techniquBe," "Bearby." aaatolha*
important, concept*, aad propoaari ta
modify SABA of tbe haaee, tot
itmtmrtnirtiwt^ Crf3* StaCkbei^L
foOowiig ia a auoaary of the i
that were proposed
The Court of Appeals held that EPA
erred Is defifiiflaj ^DSDeaat^^
concenoation*" erne taeawmwe«kvfai
purpoaee of justifying * stack gteetea
than formul* aeigak aa nothiic OMT*
thaa a «H>efcaat increaae, ia pnllnlaaX
coocaotratoca over waal weald occur
in the shsenre of dowvweaa, It
remaodedi uua. ieaua to EPA M ratal* tbs>
dafiaiao* to soau ebaokt* level of ear
pollutioa that couid be lateraeetad to
endanger health and welfare, aad thaa
to be "exraesiiia."
The EPA irapoeed twe- aisataalive
appnacaa* to deruunf "eacaaeive
concentranona," FitakEPA reojeeated
conimeni oo whether the 4A-Mroee*
appraeca adopted aa port oitk* MM
njjiiliitisi IB fsnpiiiisiia aawael Thai
danger* k> *-—"^ and welaare
enviaiosttd by Coocreee wkeat it'
sectioa 123. !• ta*ev«H thai s«di •
shovrmg caa£d not be made. EPA
proposed a two-part defiaftioo of
excessive coacemtranooe. reoamnf ths i
the dowmwatft, wakaa. or eddies
induced by nearby structuree or terrem
featune reaaft ia inaseses in grvud-
level polhttant concetilrarioae thai:
(*) Ceuee or cotrtribofe to an
exceedanee- of e rVAAQS or apptieathe
PSO mereffient end
(b) Are at least 40 percent in excess of
concentration* projected to occur in the
absence of such structures or terrain
features.
Definition of CEP Stack Hfigfit
EPA pnaoood to find tiuM the
traditional (ZSH} and refined (H-f.l.5L)
formulae remained proper methods for
calculating CEP stack height except EPA
proposed to revise its regulation to
allow EPA the State or local air
pollution control agency discretion to
require a farther demonstration using a
field study or fluid model to
demonstrate CEP stack height for a
source to a case when it waa believed
that the rbrnrda may not refiafiiy predict
CEP height Ia the case of structures that
are porous or sarodynamicaHy smoother
thaa block-shaped structures, it would
require a source to demonstrate the
downwash effects of suca structures
using a field study or fluid model before
receiving credit for stack height baaed
oa the structures. EPA also proposed
generally to aflow sources to raise
existing, stacks up to fbnaula CEP height
without ftirtnar damooatratioaa with the
excepttoo noted abort fat diacratianary
R» lionet on tht iSH Formula
Ia it» latZ nine. EPA aaowwi wore**
built eefere {aauary 12. MW, the date OB
which it proposed tbe reneed H-t-l^L
formulae, to calcalate their araMBioa
limit! hasaii oa tke> trarialanal X5H
forssula tkat aviated pMnouely. Toe
court approved taia distinctiaa, bw)
ruled that it sboald be Ueutoe to sowrcee
that "reaed" oa tae mdittaaas forauia.
nifljarriag, for axaa^iie. that sources
that bad ciaiaied creok for stacks far
taller thaa th*.iorawi« providosi cc«U
not be said, to haw* "relied" oa rt.
to response to tka coot deaawo. EPA
propoeed te reviaa rte ngeJeOoa «•
January It 1879. sources eaeaonetrete
that tberaetaalrf relied ca tbe 13H
foramss ia the daaiss> of taesr stacirs
before recernog cradM far taatleiaM »
proposei, EPA reeawssee) caaeaaeat en
whatitaaaaldi
i el anea reaaoee.
-------
F*d*r*J Ragbtar / Vol. 50. No. 130 / Monday. July 8. 1965 / Rules and Regulations
2789£
DtfinitiofofNfartry"
In iti 1982 rules. EPA allowed sourcaa
that modeled the effects of terrain
obstacles on downwash to include any
terrain features in their model without
limiting their distance from the stack.
The court though persuaded that this
was a sensible approach, since it
allowed the model to best approximate
reality, ruled that Congress had
intended a different result, namely that
terrain features beyond tt mile from the
stack should not be included in tha
model.
In response, EPA proposed to rtviae
i 5U(U)(3) o/itt regulation to limit the
consideration of dowawasa. wakes, aod
eddy effects of structure* aad tarraia
features to those feature* "'"-'"^ aa
being "nearby" as defiaed ia | Stlfjj).
Under this proposal structure* aad
terrain feature* would be considered to
be "n*arby"1f they occur within a
distance of not more than O4 km (V4
mile]; terrain feature* that extend
beyond U km could be considered it at
a distance of 041 km. they achieved a '
height greater than or equal to 40-
percent of the CEP stack height
calculated by applying the CEP formula
to actual nearby structures. la other
words, a terrain feature would be said to
"begin- within V4 mile if It reached at
leest the height of nearby buildings
within that *timtmtu^ ftvi^» features
be considered only out to
equal to 10 times the •••»•»«•» h*«jtit of
the feature, not to exceed 2 mile*.
The EPA proposed two options for
diitinguiabing between source*
constructed before aad aftar the date of
promuigattoa of the** revision*. The
first opted wodd treat both categoric*
of source* the same. The second option
would limit the cooaideradoo of tarraia
for new source* to only those portiooa of
terrain feature* that fall entuv/r within
0.8 km. thereby removing th* p inability
of indudiag features exteadiag beyoad
Finally. EPA proposed
alternatives for conductiaf fhrid
modeling to evaluate the <
effects or oaarby tetraia fe
altemativee d**cnb*d varioo*,w»ye of
limiting terrain in th* modal beyond the
proposed d'«*"f*« limitations.
To establish a baseline for
comparison, two alternative* would
initially model the stack on a flat plane
with no structure or terrain influences.
To analyze downwash effects, the first
approach would then ineert nearby
terrain, with ell terrain beyond th*
distance limit "cut off" horizontally The
second approach would gradually
•moot*) and slope the terrain beyond the
distance limit down to the elevation of
the base of the stack.
Th* third approach would proceed in
a somewhat different manner. A
baseline would be established by
modeling all terrain beyond the distance
limit smoothing and sloping nearby
terrain to minimise its influence. To
analyse downwash effects, the nearby
terrain would then be inserted into th*
model and the difference ia effect
measured to determine appropriate
downwash credit for stack height
Definition of "Ditptnioa Technique*"
Ia th* 19B2 rale*. EPA Identified two
practices, ia addition to stack* above
CEP aad ICS/SCS. a* having no pvrpoa*
otber than to obtaia • IMS stringaut
emtssioB iimitatto*, to so doing, it
allowad credit for any other practice
that had the remit o/increasing
dispersion. The court concluded that
Congress had intended, at a "»•"'"""•
to forbid any dispersion enhancement
practice that was significantly
motivated by aa intent to obtain
additional credit for greater dispersion.
and remanded the question to EPA for
reexamination.
The EPA proposed to revise It*
definition of "dispersion tsehaiqoes"
generally to Indod*. to sddMoa to ICS.
SCS. aad stack height* ia sneaee of CEP.
any terhniip** that hav* IB* effect of
Combining
alt
stacks it
can hav* each aa effect
ejeooftea
How*ver.
haws I
I b.«4IJk^*4«^ AJ^^^M|^»A|M
jimnmoon. Aoconangnr.
» *-m ' ** —
on neiiiniBj me
dii'istnlein*s andar wUcata*
combining of gas stream* sfcovU not b*
gy^^^fag^fl m jMafl^MH^M fM^MiM^A Mw4
proDOMo to allow source* as taw credit
in ensiessoei ozBttatioas ror soch ^fgtff
wherre facility we* origmafly designed
aad cowtrocted with 0j*rg*d gas
*)*M*BMBBS*1 A*l ~ •- --- •*-- ' -
*f leTWaBel Or WlffJIw Ukw UlVIgUa^ vfJdW
witkttw hwtallatiOB of additional
coatrois yi*idiag a B*t redaction ia total
emissions of tav affected poflntant The
EPA retained excrasioas from it*
definition of prohibited dispersion
technique* for smoke management ia
agneultnrar and stiviculturai prescribed
burcmg programs and also proposed to
exciude episodic restrictions oa
residential woodburning aad debris
New Sounm Tied into Prt-tan StocJu
Section 123 exempts stacks "la
existence" at the end of 1970 from its
requirements. EPA't general approach to
implementing this language was upheld
by the court However, in its 1982 nils
EPA had also allowed thir credit to
sources built after that date that had
tied into stacks built before that date.
EPA failed to respond to comments
objecting to this allowance, end 10 the
court remanded the question to EPA /or
the agency to addresa.
Upon reexamination. EPA saw no
convincing justificetion for granting
credit to these sources. Consequently.
for sources constructed after December
31.1970. with emissions ducted into
grandfathered stacks of greater than
CEP height and for sources constructed
before that date but for which major
modifications or reconstruction have
been carried out subsequently. EPA
proposed to limit stack height credit to
only so much of the actual suck height
as conforms to CEP. Sources
constructed prior to December 31.1970.
for which modifications are carried out
that are not classified es "major" under
40 CFR Sl.laXJ}(i). 5U4(8)(2J(i). snd
51-a(«H2Mi) would be allowed to retain
roll credit for their existing stack
heights.
Plutnt latpectiott
IB its 1982 rules. EPA allowed stack
height credit for "plume impart on." a
phenomenon met is distinct from
downwash. wakes aad eddies. The
court though sympathetic to EPA's
policy position, reversed this judgment
as beyond the scope of the statute.
Accordingly. EPA proposed to delete the
allowance of H"**"1 impacttoa credit
from.its regulation ia compliance with
the court d*rj»lnp However, EPA also
recogaicsd that aouca*tn complex
terram fee* additional analytical
.jifK'-iM— whan altemfCBBf to conduct
modciiat to d*t*emia* appscrist*
cauMioB liautationa. Coneaeoendy. EPA
request**! eoanMcrt on whether eny
allowance saoold b* mad* for
imoi*B*at*oon problem* that may
result from the application of reviaed
CEP stack height assumptions end. if so.
how such allowance should b* msde.
Statt UnpitoHtation flan Rt^utnatena
EPA's 1982 ndes geve states a total of
22 months to revise their rules and to
establish source emission limitation
based on new steck height credits. The
court found this. too. to go beyond the
language of the statute. In response.
EPA stated ia the propose! that States
would be required, pursuant to section
406(d)(2)(b) of the Clean Air Act. to
review their rde* end existing emission
limitations, reviaing them aa needed to
comply with the new regBiabM within 9
month* of tha date of its
-------
27896 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 130 / Monday. July 8. 1985 / Rules and Regulations
Response to Public Comments on the
Novembers. 1984. Proposal
The EPA received over 400 comment!
during the public comment period and at
the public hearing, addressing a number
of aspects of the proposed
regulation.These comments have been
consolidated according to the issues
raised and are discussed, along with
EPA's responses, in a 'Response to
Comments" document included in the
rulemaking docket Certain comments
can be characterized as "major" in that
they address issues that are
fundamental to the development of the
final regulation. These comments are
summarized below, along with EPA's
responses. Additional discussion of the
issues raised and further responses by
EPA can be found in the "Response to
Comments" document
I. Maximum Control of Emissions in Lieu
of Dispersion
A central legal and policy question
addressed in this rulemaking was raised
in the comments of the Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and
the Sierra Club. They contend that
section 123 requires all sources to install
the maximum feasible control
technology before receiving any credit
for the dispersive effects of a stack of
any height or for other practices that
may enhance pollutant dispersion.
The NRDC argument is summarized
fully in the Response to Comments
document together with EPA's response.
Very briefly, NRDC contends that
litigation prior to the 1977 Clean Air Act
Amendments had established that
dispersion can never be used as an
alternative to emission control and that
this understanding waa carried forward
and strengthened in the 1977 Clean Air
Act Amendments. Accordingly, no rule
that does not require full control of
emissions as a prerequisite to any stack
height credit would be consistent with.
Congressional intent
EPA disagrees. During the I yean
between 1977 and NRDCa comments, a
period covering two Administrations
and three Administrator*. NRDCs
position has never been either adopted
by EPA or seriously advocated before it
The pre-1977 cases cited by NRDC-do
not bar all stack credit but only credit
for stacks beyond the historical norm.
Finally, the text and legislative history
of section 123 contain essentially no
support for NRDCs "control first"
position.
II. Discussion of Other Major Issues
The EPA • position oa the "control
first" comments provides the necessary
background against which the remaimng
major issues in this rulemaking are
discussed. These issues are: the
definition of "excessive concentrations"
due to downwash. wakes, and eddies:
the definition of "nearby:" and the
definition of "dispersion technique." A
question that affects several of these
decisions, and that is addressed where
it arises, concerns the extent to which
any changes made in the stack heights
regulations should be applied
prospectively rather than retroactively.
This discussion of "excessive
concentrations" is in turn divided into a
discussion of the physical characteristics
of downwash. followed by a discussion
of the significance of those
characteristics as they pertain to the
CEP formulae, to stacks above formula
height to stacks being raised to formula
height and to stacks at formula height
being modeled at the choice of the
administering authorities.
Definition of "Excessive
Concentrations"
The Physical Nature of Downwash. A
number of commenten. including the
Utility Air Regulatory Croup (UARC).
have argued that the court decision doee
not obligate EPA to revise the definition
sdopted in the 1982 regulation, but only
directs EPA to ensure that the 40-
percent criterion protects again*
concentrations due to downwash that
could be related to health and welfare
concerns. They point oat that when
emissions from a source become trapped
in the wake region produced by the
source itself or upwind structures aad
terrain features, those MP^f'Tft are
brought rapidly to earth, with little
dilution. This, the comoentars argue.
can produce short-term peak
concentrations at groundlevoi that are
many times greater that the
concentration levels of the NAAQS.
Because their duration is relatively
short averaging these concentrations
over the times specified by the NAAQS
does not result in NAAQS violations.
Nonetheless, the- commenten argue that
these concentrations should be regarded
as nuisances that section 123 was
specifically enacted to avoid.
Accordingly, the commenten held that
EPA would be justified in retaining the
40-percent criterion without requiring
that such increases result in
exceedancas of the NAAQS
These same commenten argued that
seven hardships would result if EPA's
second proposed definition of
"excessive concentrations" is adopted.
and that by limiting stack height credit
to that just necessary to avoid
exceedance of NAAQS or PSD
increments, the definition would act to
limit sctual stack design and
construction in a way that would
increase the likelihood of NAAQS or
PSD exceedances. This would occur.
they argue, because, by building only so
tall a stack as they can receive credit
for. sources would be eliminating a
"margin of safety" that would normally
be provided otherwise. Furthermore, it
was argued that due to the changing
nature of background air quality.
inclusion of absolute concentrations
such as the NAAQS or PSD increments
in the definition would render
determinations of CEP stack height
constantly subject to change.
NRDC argued on the other hand that
only a violation of air quality standards
can be considered the type of
"excessive concentration" for which
downwash credit can be justified, the
EPA had failed to specify the health or
welfare significance of the short-term
peaks- that it might consider as meeting
this description, and mat in any event
UARG's attempt to show that short
stacks could cause a large number of
short-term peaks was technically flawed
in several different ways.
Response. Extensive discussion of the
downwash phenomenon, as well as the
aerodynamic effects of buildings and
terrain features on windfiow patterns
and turbulence, is contained in the
technical and guidance documents
previously listed in this notice. To
summarize briefly, numerous studies
have shown that the region of
turbulence created by obstacles to
windflow extends to a height of
approximately 2J times the height of the
obstacle. Pollutants emitted into this
region can be rapidly brought to the
ground, with limited dilution. Though
this tendency decreases the higher
vertically within the downwash region
that die plume la released, because of
the highly unpredictable nature of
downwaah and the lack of extensive
quantitative data, it is extremely
difficult to reliably predict plume
behavior within the downwash region.
As noted in the comments submitted.
the distinguishing features of downwash
do not show up well over an averaging
time aa long aa 1 hour or more. Pollutant
concentrations resulting from
downwash can arise and subside very
quickly aa meteorological conditions.
including wind speed and atmospheric
stability vary. This can result in »hon-
tenn peaks, lasting up to 2 minutes or so.
recurring intermittently for up to several
hours, that significantly exceed the
concentrations of the 3- and 24-hour
NAAQS. Little quantitative information
is available on the actual leveis of these
peaks, or on the frequency of taeu*
occurrence since mast itacks have been
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 130 / Monday. July 8. 1985 / Rules and Regulations
designed to. a void downwash and
because downwash monitoring is not
typically conducted.
A number of modeling and monitoring
studies in the record assess the
significance of downwash when plumes
are released into the downwash region.
The most important of these are a
number of studies c:ted in the .Vovember
9 proposal showing that for sources with
sulfur dioxide (SOt) emission rate* of 4
to 3 rounds per million British Thermal
Units (Ib./mmBTU). stacks releasing the
plume into the downwash region can
significantly exceed the 0-hour NAAQS.
The utility industry submitted
monitoring results from four sites
showing that facilities with short stacka
(ranging from 23 to tt percent of formula
height) generated many short-term
peaks in the vicinity of the plant at
concentrations at least 2 times the
highest concentration of the 3-hour SOt
standard. i.a~ l ppm for up to 10
minutes. Those concentrations are the-
maximun that could be recorded by the
monitors used There is no way to
determine from these data the true peak
ground-level concentrations.
The NRDG la commenting on this
subject has argued that downwash- • •
related concentrations are largely
theoretical, since stacka have generally
been built to avoid downwash. and that
actual concentrations occur under other
meteorological conditions such as
"inversion breakup fumigations" and
"looping plums." that can equal these
"theoretical" concentrations predicted
under downwash.' The NRDC also
criticized the utility data on numerous
technical grounds.
EPA's studies indicate that, when
stacks are significantly leas than CEP
formula height high short-term
concentrations can indeed occur dm to
downwash that are in the range of the
values reported by the utility industry.
Concentrations produced by me other
conditions cited by NRDC though high.
may be lower by an order of magnitude.
and occur less frequently by as much as
two orders of magnitude, than those
produced by downwash.' As stack.'
' In mvtnion braaAup fumiaauon.' *• UIVOTM
liytr diiaipatti due 10 hMunc of tftf ground. lamas
the aoiiuiaruj that wtra trappad in it dncaod
luddtflly to ireund Itvtl. In "looping plumaa.* •
p.'umt ii brought down to tna> trouod cloo to th»
lourci in lha form of iniafnmtaw p*Jh under wry
unitablt atmoapnarie eondtMM.
1 Commtnti on Ptak Cround-Lcvtl
Concentration* Out to Buildinf Downwaab ftalauva
10 Pejk Conotnmnoni Undar Atmoaphane
D icenion Proctia**." Alan K Hubcr and Prancii
»oo!«r. fr JUM 10.1M.
height approaches the height determined
by the CEP formula, the expected
frequency and severity of short-term
peaks due to downwash becomes iasa
certain. This is to be expected, since it is
the purpose of a formula height stack to
avoid excessive downwaah. While it
might theoretically be possible for EPA
to revise the CEP formula downward
(e.g.. from H+UL to H+14EL or some
other value), such a revision would have
little purpose. By moving the release
point further into the downwash region.
such a change would increase the
probability of high downwash-caused
peaks. On the other hand such
relatively small changes in stack height
are not likely to appreciably affect the
emission limitation for the sourest Tola
is because emission limitations are
calculated based on physical stack
height and associsted plume rise under
atmospheric conditions )udg*d moat
contrr sg for the source. Increasing or
decre*i ..-if stack height by a email
fraction will not greatly change the rate
or extant of dispersion and thus will net
affect the ground-level concentration.
Moreover, ae EPA noted in its
November 9 proposal no data presently
exist on which to base a revision to the
formula.
The NRDC submitted data to EPA
which it believed to support the
conclusions that it urged EPA to adopt
concerning short-term peak
concentrations under other
meterological conditions.'However.
these data were not presented In e font
that could be nadir/ interpreted and
EPA has thus fa/ been anabJa to draw
any conclusions from then.'
In reviewing NRDC* comments on
building downwaaa, EPA agrees that
there is grant uncertainty about our
present understanding of this
phenomenon, and this is supported by
the rang* and variation of downwash
effects observed in recent stadias.
However, no information has beta
presented which would convince EPA to
abandon the present CEP formulae m
favor of any alternative.
The health and welfare significance of
downwaah concentrations that result in
violations of the ambient standards are
documented and acknowledged in the
standards themselves. The significance
of short-term peaks at the levels that
EPA's analyses predict is more
judgmental. However, a number of
studies cited in EPA's "Review of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Suiftir Oxides: Assessment of
Scientific and Technical Information
(EPA-WO/3-42-007. November 1967).
indicate that concentrations of one ppm
sustained for durations of 5 minutes or
more can produce bronchoconstriction
in asthmatics accompanied by
symptoms such as wheering snd
coughing. Such concentrations are well
within the range of concentrations that
can result from downwash. When
sources matt the ambient standards, the
frequency of occurrence for these
concentrations under the other
conditions cited by NRDC Is
substantially lower than for downwash
whan stacks are kss than CEP.
CEP Formula Stack Hmight, Some
commaotan, '"•'v^i-'g NRDC stated
that EPA cannot justify retention of the
traditional (Z5H) and refined (H+1.5L)
CEP formulae based simply on their
relaoonahip-to the 40-percent criterion.
and argued that the formulae provide
too much credit in many or moat cases.
This, they argue, results in allowing
sources to obtain unjustifiably lament
tfniteifjB limitations.
Other coauneoters argued that
rnngraas explicitly reaffirmed the
traditional CEP formula, and that EPA
should allow maximum reliance on it
(and by implication, on the refined
foranda that was subsequently denvted
from it).
Asseons*. The use of EPA's refined
formula as a starting point for
determining CEP was not called Into
question by any litigant m the Sittra
jCJub case. The court1 s opinion likewise
does not question toe use of the formula
as a starting point A detailed discussion
of the court's treatment of the formula.
showing how it endorsed the formula's
presumptive validity, is contained in the
Response to Comments document.
Despite this limited endorsement EPA
might need to revisit the formula on its
own if its nmamtnarton of the
"excessive concentration" and modeling
issues indicated that me formula cieariy
and typically misstated the degree of
stack height needed to avoid downwash
concentrations that causa sjMtiia or
welfare i
'Mtmofandum from Oavtd G. Hawkma. NRDC to
William F Ptdanan. jr. Offlca of Gtntnl Counaot
L'SEPA, Mar »• 1MB.
•Vtemonn4um from Aim H Hubar. ASM. M
David Slontfieifl. OAQP1 !
However, no such result baa emerged
froaa oar reexaminatioa. Stacka below
formula height are associated with
downwaah-relatad violations of the air
quality standards themselves where
emission rates significantly exceed the
levels specified by NSPS. Even where
emissions are low. downwash
conditions at stacks below formula
height can be expected unlike other
conditions, to ewerste numerous short-
term peeks of air pollution et high leve/»
-------
27896
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 130 / Monday. July a. 1985 / Rules and Reaulations
that raiM a real prospect of local health
or welfare impacts.
As EPA stated in the proposal, it is
impossible to rely primarily on fluid
modeling to implement the stack height
regulations, particularly under the
timetable established by the court. 49 FR
44883 (November 9.1964). No
conunenter other than NRDC even
suggested a different formula that in
their eyes would be better, and NRDCs
suggestions were premised on their
"control first" position, which EPA has
found inconsistent with the statute and
has rejected. EPA considers the refined
formula to be toe state-of-the-art for
determining necessary stack height
Given the degree of presumptive
validity the formula already poaaesaea
under the statute aad the court opinion.
we believe that this record amply
supports its reaffirmation.
Stadu Abovm CEP Formula Height.
The EPA's 1978 stack height guidelines
[cite] impoeed special conditions on
stacks above formula height—the
installation of control technology—that
were ne>t imposed on lower stacks.
Similarly. EPA's 1973 proposal had
made credit above formula height
•object to a vaguely defined "detailed
investigation" (38 FR 25700). The
legislative history of the 1077 dean Air
Act Amendments cautioned that credit
for stacks above formula height should
be granted only in rare cases, and the
Court of Appeals adopted this as one of
the keystones of its opinion. The court
also condaded that Congress
deliberately adopted very strict
requirements for sources locating in
hilly terrain.
For these reasons, EPA la requiring
sources seeking credit for stacks above
formula height and credit for any stack
height justified by terrain effects to
show by field studies or fluid modeling
that this height is needed to avoid a 40-
percent increase in concentrations due
to downwash and that such an increase
would result in exceedanee of air
quality standards or applicable PSD
increments. This will restrict stack
height credit in this context to cases
where the downwash avoided is at
levels specified by regulation or by ect
of Congress as possessing health or
welfare significance.
To conduct a demonstration to show
that an absolute air quality ___
concentration such as NAAQS or PSD
increment will be exceeded, it Is
necessary to specify an emission rate for
the source in question.' The EPA
believes that in cases where greater
than formula height may be needed to
prevent excessive concentrations.
sources should first attempt to eliminate
such concentrations by reducing their
emissions. For this reason EPA is
requiring that the emission rate to be
met by a source seeking to conduct a
demonstration to justify stack height
credit above the formula be equivalent
to the emission rate prescribed by NSPS
applicable to the industrial source
category. In doing this. EPA is making
the presumption that this limit can be
met by all sources seeking to justify
stack heights above formula height
Sources may rebut this presumption.
establishing an alternative emission
limitation, on a case-by-case basis, by
demonstrating to the reviewing
authority that the NSPS emission
limitation may sot feasibly be met given
the characteristics of the particular
source.'For example, it may be possible
for s source presently emitting SO» at a
rate of 1.8 Ib./mmBTU to show that
meeting the NSPS rate of 1.2 Jb./mmBTU
would be prohibitive in that it would
require scrapping existing scrubber
equipment for the purpose of '"«»fi['"g
higher efficiency scrubbers. Similarly, a
source may be able to show that due to
space constraints and plant
configuration, it is not possible? to install
the necessary equipment to meet the
NSPS •mission rate. In the event that a
source believes that downwasar will
continue to result in excessive
concentrations when the i
emission rate ia consistent with NSPS
requirements, additional stack height
credit may be justified through fluid
modeling at that emission rat*.
A source, of course, always remains
free to accept the •""frfrH* rate that ia
associated with a formula height stack
rather than relying on a demonstration
under the conditions described ban.
The third alternative mentioned in the
proposal" using the actual emission
limit for the source has been rejected
because, to the extent that limit relied
on greater than formula height it would
amount to using a tall stack to justify
itself.
The EPA's reliance on exceedancas.
rather than violations of the NAAQS
and PSD increments, is deliberate. Fluid
modeling demonstrations are extremely
complicated to design and cany out
even when the most simple
demonstration criteria—that is, a
percentage increase in concentrations.
• la CMWMC if tk* IMI at -
concfmnoaM" la»oK»a « «••!•
ina-MM. ib«r« «auk) b« ma •*•* to
fffllMIPB r*tl. tOlOt tlM IICTMM IB OOBCnntM*
OHM* by dovnwuk i» indcpadMt of mtaiM*
mm.
•Th* EPA will raly on It. Bni Avcibbto ftmoflt
TKfcaoMfjr GiudcHM IB rvruwiaf 4ay rabMUl*
tnd •Ittnuovt (OUMIOO UaiwnoiM.
with no consideration of absolute
values—are assumed. Adding
consideration of an absolute
concentration such ss a NAAQS or PSD
increment substantially complicates this
effort further and introduces the
scientific uncertainties associsted with
predicting an exceedanee of a 3-hour or
24-hour standard based on 1 hour or less
of modeling data. Using an hour or less
of modeling values, based on one set of
meteorological data, to draw the
distinction between only one
exceedanee of the standard during the
8760 hours in a year, and the two or
more that constitute s violation pushes
that uncertainty beyond reasonable
limits. EPA therefore does not find the
additional difficulties that would be
created by requiring violations instead
of exceedances to be warranted. That is
particularly so here, given that the
regulations require sources seeking
credit above the formula to be well-
controlled as a condition of obtaining
such credit
Use of an absolute concentration in
the test of "excessive concentrations"
can lead to problems of administering
the program, in that it can have a
"zoning" effect Since a source can only
get stack height credit to the extent that
it is needed to avoid a PSD Increment or
NAAQS exceedanee. an emissions
increase in the area of that source may
increase concentrations beyond the
controlling limit thereby making it
difficult for new sources to locate in the
area, or for sequential construction of
additional emitting units at the source in
question.
This effect cannot be avoided under
any test for "excessive concentrations"
that ia tied to absolute concentrations.
However; that effect will be mitigated
by the fact that the use of this approach
is voluntary and limited to sources
wishing to rely on fluid modeling to
justify stack height credit Moreover, the
effects of downwash tend to occur very
near the source, usually on fenced .
company property. Since concentrations
measured at such locations are not used
to evaluate NAAQS attainment or PSD
increment consumption, new sources
wishing to locate in the area are less
likely to be affected
Sources planning sequential
construction of new emitting units at
one location or contemplating future
expansion can reduce the uncertainties
noted above by initially obtaining
permits for the total number of units
anticipated and by planning for
expansion in the calculation of
necessary physical stack height. In the
latter instance, only the aflowable stack
height credit would be revised as
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 130 / Monday. July g. 1985 / Rules and Regulations
27899
expansion is carried out—not actual
stack height
An additional theoretical
complication is presented when an
absolute concentration is wed where
meteorological conditions other than
downwash result in the highest
predicted ground-level concentrations in
the ambient air. In such cases, a source
that has established CEP at a particular
height, assuming a given emission rate.
may predict a NAAQS violation at that
stack height and emission rate under
some other condition, e.g.. atmospheric
stability Class 'A.' Reducing the
emission rate to eliminate the predicted
violation would result in stack height
credit greater than absolutely necessary
to avoid an excessive concentration
under downwash. However, reducing
stack height places the source back in
jeopardy of a NAAQS violation under
the other meteorological condition, and
so on. "ratcheting" stack height credit
and emission rates lower and lower. The
EPA has eliminated this "ratcheting"
potential in the CEP guideline by
providing that once CEP is established
for a source, adjusting the emission rate
to avoid a violation under other
conditions does not require
recalculation of a new CEP stack height
EPA is making this part of the
regulations retroactive to December 31.
1970. In the terms of the court's
retroactivity analysis, stack* greater
than formula height represent a situation
that Congress did affirmatively "intend
to alter" in section 123. Moreover. EPA
regulatory pronouncements since 1970
have placed a stricter burden on sources
raising stacks above formula height than
on others.
N.o source is precluded from building
a stack height greater than formula
height if such height is believed to be
needed to avoid excessive downwash.
However, the design and purpose of
section 123 prohibit SIP credit for that
effort unless a relatively rigorous
showing can be made.
Given the ability of sources to avoid
modeling and rely on validity of the CEP
formulae and requirement for further
control of emissions in conjunction with
stack heights in excess of formulae
height, the result predicted by UARG—
exceedances of the NAAQS or PSD
increments due to inadequate stack
height—is highly unlikely.
Tht potential effect of changes in
background air quality on stack height
credit is not substantially different from
the effect that such changes in
background can have on source
emission limitations in nonattainment
areas. In the first case, however, sources
may be able to address these effects
through greater stack height if such
changes affect the concentrations under
downwash. Moreover, the possibility
that shifting background air quality can
yield different calculation* of CEP is
significantly limited by the fact that
consideration of background in CEP '
calculation* is restricted to those cases
where credit for greater than formula
height is being sought or source* are
seening to raise stacks to avoid
excessive concentration*.
Raising Stada Btlow Formula Height
to Formula Htight. In response to EPA'*
proposal to allow automatic credit for
CEP formula height several commenters
have argued that EPA has failed to
adequately respond to the court's
directive to "reconsider whether, in light
of ita new understanding of 'exeeeaive
concentrations,' demonstration* are
necessary before stack height* may be
raised even if the final height will not
exceed formula height"
Attporut. F using a stack below
formula heigi to formula height is not
in EPA's judgment subject to the same
statutory reservations as building stack*
greater than formula height However.
as the court has cautioned it may still
be necessary for these sources to show
that raising stacks i* necessary to avoid
"excessive concentration*" that raiee
health or. welfare concern*.
For these reasons, source* wishing to
raise stack* subsequent to October 11.
1963. the date of the D.C Circuit
opinion. mu*t provide evidence that
additional height ie necessary to avoid
downwa*h-reiated concentration*
railing health and welfare concern*.
Theee rule* allow sources to do thi* in
twoweys.
The first wey I* to rebut the
presumption that the short stack was
built high enough to avoid dswnwaah
problem*: La. to show, by eite-epedflc
information such a* monitoring data or
dozen complaint*, that the short stack
had in fact caused a local nuisance and
muet be rai*ed for thi* reason. The EPA
believe* that both the historical
experience of the industry and the data
on short-term peak* discussed earlier
show that short stacks can cause local
nuisances due to downwash. However,
where e source has built a short stack
rather than one at formula height it ha*
created a presumption that thi* i* not
the cave. General data on saorMera
peak* may not be strong enough to
support by themselves and in the
abstract a conclusion that the stack
must be raised to-a void local adverse
effect*. Instead that proposition must be
demonstrated for each particular source
involved .
In the event that a source cannot
make such a showing, the second way to
justify raising a stack is to demonstrate
by fluid modeling or field study an
increase in concentrations due to
downwash that i* at least 40-percent in
excess of concentration* in the absence
of such downwesh and in exec** of the
applicable NAAQS or PSD increments.
In making thi* demonstration, the
emission rate in existence before the
•tack i* raited muet be used
Since raising stacks to formula height
i* not cubject to the same extraordinary
reservations expnceed by Congress and
the court with respect to stacks being
rai*ed above formula height EPA does
not believe that the use of presumptive
"well-controlled" emission rate is
appropriate here. A* discussed in EPA's
response to NRDC* "control first"
argument the basic purpose of section
123 we* to take sources a* it found them
and based on those circumstances, to
aaaure that they did not avoid control
requirements through additional
dispersion. Use of a source's actual
emission rate in thi* butane* i*
con*i*tent with that basic purpose and
absent special indications of a different
intent should be used in stack height
The EPA believe* that it is meet
unlikely that any source with a current
emission limitation ha* failed to claim
full formula credit for a stack of formula
height Accordingly, the question
whether a source can receive suck
height credit up to formula height will
involve only source* that want to
actually raise their physical stack not
sources that simply want to claim more
credit for a stack already in existence. A
source will presumably not go to the
trouble of railing an existing stack
without some reason. If a source cannot
•how that the reason was in fact the
desire to evoid a problem caused by
downwash. then the inference that it
we* inateed a desire for more dispersion
credit i* hard to evoid A nui*ance
caused by downwashed emissions could
include dtixen or employee complaints
or property damage. A source would be
expected to show that complaints of this
nature wen reasonably widespread
before getting credit under this section.
The EPA doe* not intend to make this
rule retroactive to stacks that
"commenced con*tructioei on
modification* that would raise them to
formula height prior to October It 1983.
Applying the court's retroactivity
analysis, it appears:
1. The new rule does depart from prior
practice. The EPA1* 1973 proposed rule
affirmatively encouraged sources with
shorter stack* to raise them to formula
-------
27900 Federal Regiatar / Vol. 50. No. 130 / Monday. )uly 8. 1965 / Rules and Regulations
height. 'Though EPA'i 1976 guideline
can be read aa imposing a "control Erst"
requirement oa some stack height
increase!, its general thrust gave
automatic credit for all stacks that met
the "2.5" times formula.' Automatic
permission was similarly set forth in the
1979 proposal, in the 1961 reproposal.
and in the 1982 final rule. Only a notice
published in 1980. but later withdrawn.
departs from this trend, requiring the use
of Raid studiea or fluid modeling
deaonamnooa to justify stack height
increases up to CEP formula height*
Even then, the notice would have made
thia policy prospective in its application.
2. Sources that raiacd stack* in
reliance on thia paat EPA guidance
assuming the availability of dispersion
credit cannot be rtisfinsiiishfl from the
source*, in the example approved by the
court that built atacka to the traditional
formula in aa identical expectation of
dispersion credit
3. It cannot be said that the raising of
stacks to formula height ia a practice
that Congreca "affirmatively sought to
end" It ia not mentioned in the text of
the statute or ita legislative history.
Further, aa the court has already noted,
the statute attributes a degree of
presumptive validity to the formula on
which sources that raise their atacka
will have relied.
Ditentiaii to flecum FhMMbdffinj.
Several commenten argued that EPA'a
proposal to allow ageaciee to require the
use of fluid •»~*»H»»J waa unnecessary.
since EPA had1 alnsurjr documented tha
validity of the GEP foramina.
Furthermore, these coaaaenten argot
that thia allowance would nuke find
modeling tha rale, rather than tha
exception. Thia would raeuiV tha
commanters state, because it waa their
expectation that agendas or
environmental groups would nearly
always call for fluid >*~<«ll"f
demonstrations during tha permit
application and review procaaa.
Other commentera stated that
providing the discretion to require fluid
modeling was appropriate. since EPA
had failed to demonstrate that the GEP
formulae represented tha
height necessary to avoid excessive
concentrations.
Rotpontf. The Court of Appeals -
directed EPA to reexamiae whether ita
rules should allow States, aa a matter of
discretion, to require even sources that
' "Th» UM of MM* hMftn «p • *• (•*•! of food
enginwnni pnctte* n cncaumpfd by OA • i
to *vo>dlocalBUMOCM.' (Mf*isnat
'41 m 7481 (Ftbnury IS, ISTSk "mrlrHr-
Scetton B.I. Clftt CJIZJ.
• U r* 42P9 nu* M. ISSOfc tftetKe tUmmo* W
nick taa*t o«* t* Miraonia *i *a«-».
planned to rely on tha formula to show
instead by fluid modeling that a stack
this high was required to avoid dangers
to health and welfare caused by
downwash. Tha court suggested that
EPA should include such a provision
unless it could find that the formula was
so accurate, or tended so much to err on
the low side, as to make discretionary
authority to adjust formula height
downward unnecessary.
The EPA believes that the court was
mistaken in its conclusion that a stack
at formula height ia likely to generate
downwash concentrations as greet as 40
percent only ia uncommon situations. In
fact EPA'a observations indicate that
whan stacks are built to CEP formula
height aa increase in concentrations
due to downwash can still be expected
to occur that ia between 20 and 80
percent greater than the concentration
that would occur in tha absence of
building influences. '•
Nevertheless, ia response to the
court's remand EPA is including in this
final rule a provision for the authority
•dminiatariag these rules to require field
studies or fluid modeling
demonstrations, even for stacks built to
formula height ia cases where it
believes that the formula may
significantly overstate the appropriate
stack height credit.11
While SPA believes the formula to a
reasonable rule of thumb indicating the
•tack height aeeded to avead soame
probability of a standarda violation and
a signincandy greater probability of a
given ease-may vary eaaanhnl based .
on specific circumstances. The EPA has
attempted to aunianxe this possibility
within the hmita of eveslabae data by
identifying two particular atraaooa* ia
which it believes mat the fonaaiae aaay
notberahabia mdtaetora of Ga» Poraea
rmaa'oo
which me roraaJae are besed"
tote
'"Qwti
SUMS an* MtSMit* M
whwioBiMrt to rauadtrt mount aliowWitoM*
for ecrwla upmd luvaunt «od cooUaa t
"GuuMfc» tar DMMMflM of Go* f
fimaOtf Stock rMsfet.- Wr 1SSS •» JS-a* SOT ft*
. B?A •Ul snmlbaMr «r mm far •*
itruenim IMI «r«r« aruud prior M NovcBftar-e,
1M4. Siaot EPA fiudiuwe h«* MMT IUNM4 oradll
for poroui tnenm. di* rn«eam In thl* rate tar
»udi uraatnm «o»*
31.1STEL
However. EPA acknowledges thai other
situations, of which the Agency is not
presently aware, may arise wherein the
formulae may not be adequate.
The EPA intends to "grandfather" any
source that relied on the formula in
building its stack before tha date of
EPA's 1079 proposal from the effect of
this discretionary ^examination
requirement
Only in that proposal did EPA first
suggest that such a discretionary
reexamination provision might be
included in the final rule. The
retroactivity analysis set out earlier
therefore supports exempting stacks
built in reliance on EPA guidance before
that data, from discretionary
reexamination. Indeed a failuca to
"grandfather" these sources would lead
to tha paradoxical result that a source
that had built a GEP stack under the
traditional EPA formula would have its
direct reliance intmets protected by the
"grandfather" provision previously
upheld by tha court but could then lose
that "graadfathered" credit through a
caaa specific daaaonstration requirement
showing that tha traditional formaia waa
somewhat inaccurate— the very mason
baattad tha change ia the formula
pioperiy faend nonretroactive by EPA
earner.
. Given this background EPA believes
that tae effect oa emissions of including
or oe eHBrBPfnsj a provision for
diacraniDoary determinations from tnis
rale ia likarjr to be vary small Building
stacks ebore formula height and raising
stacks below formaia height to formula
height, are covered by regulatory
provisions already discussed. The only
caaa left for flii^pTfT'^r^
determmations to address la the building
of stacks at formula height In the post-
197* period However, ail major sources
built since that time are already
controled to SOa emission rates no
greater than L2 IbVamBTU— and act
varioue
EPA regulations. Afl new power plants
on which construction "commenced"
since 1971 must meat EPA's NSPS
mandating an miisiHrn rate no greater
than thia level That standard was
tightened for afl power plants on which
construction "conaDanced" after 1979. la-
addition. all "ma^or" sources built smce
1977 ia,araaa subject to the Act's PSO
reqainanaata have had to install best
available control technology. That
technology atuet require the greatest
degree of emission control that ia
achievable coaatdeang technology.
econonucs, end energy impacts."
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 130 / Monday. July a 1983 / Rules and Regulations 27901
If such sources had to show that use
of a formula height stack was needed to
avoid exceedances of the NAAQS or
PSD increments, that might prove
difficult for many of them. The
likelihood of such exceedances tends to
decrease as the emission rate for the
source decreases. By the same token.
the incremental emission reductions
available from the sources that are at
issue here tend to be small and among
the most expensive available. In terms
of emission reductions, little is at stake
where these sources are concerned.
Accordingly, the rules will require
such sources, if a reviewing authority
calls for a demonstration, to the rules
show that the use of a formula stack
height ia needed to avoid a 40-percent
increase in concentration* due to
downwash. This will provide a rough
check on whether the formula, a*
applied in the particular case at isiue.
produces the result it was designed to
produce.
The EPA ia not providing here for
sources to justify their formula height
stacks by arguing that the height in
excess of that needed to avoid NAAQS
violations ia needed to avoid a local
nuisance. The discretionary modeling
requirement ia designed for application
to stacks before they were built Beyond
that, there is no way to determine baaed
on the absence of a local nuisance that a
formula height stack ia not too tail in
the way that the pretence of a nuisance
shows that a stack under formula height
in fact ia too short Accordingly, there
will be no way. aa than waa with short
stacks being raised, to determine from
actual experience whether a local
nuisance would occur at a shorter stack
height Though avoiding local nuisance
is a legitimate purpose for which stacks
are built it would be very difficult to
show by modeling what stack height
was needed to avoid it
Some commenters have
misunderstood EPA s allowance of
discretion to require fluid modeling aa
requiring such modeling whenever any
individual or entity called foreuch e
demonstration. This discretion reels
explicitly with the reviewing agencies
who have always had the prerogative to
require more stringent analyses in thr
SIP process.-and no obligation is implied
for these agencies to require fluid
nadeiing simply because it has been
cabled for by some individual during the
permit review process. It is EPA's
expectation that technical decisions to
require such additional demonstrations
would be based on sound rationale and
vaiid data to show why the formulae
may not be adequate in a given
situation. In any case, given the burden
of reviewing a fluid modeling
demonstration, an agency ia not likely to
exercise this option abstnt sufficient
justification. Consequently. EPA
disagrees with the commenters'
contention that fluid modeling will
supplant the use of the CEP formulae.
except in what EPA believes will be
unusual instance*.
Reliance on the 2.5H Formula. In
limiting the applicability of the 2.SH
formula to those cases where the
formula was actually relied upon, the
November 9 proposal defined such
reliance in terms of stack design. A
number of comments indicated that
actual stack design and construction
may ultimately be control, not by the
Z-5H engineering rule, but by
construction materials specifications.
Consequently, while 2JH rule may have
provided an initial starting point in
stack design, the rule may not have
dictated final stack height In other
cases, it was argued that a number of
source owners may have constructed
their stacks in exceaa of what waa
determined to be minimum CEP for
precautionary reasons, for process
requirement*, or in anticipation of
additional growth in the art*
surrounding the facility, even though
emission limitations for these aourca*
would have been limited then, aa now.
to formula height Consequently. It waa
argued that EPA should allow source* to
demonstrate reliance on the formula in
the calculation of aaiaaion limita aa well
aa in tha daaiga of the stack.
In reeponae to EPA'a requeet far
comment* on what evidence should be
conaidered acceptable in determining
reliance on the 2JH formula, some
commenters urged EPA to conaider
reconstructed evidence, e.g.. affldavita
from decign engineers or copiee of
cormpondeace indicating past reliance
on EPA guidance. Other conunraten
stated that "reliance" should be very
strictly construed, that EPA should be
circumspect in its review of reliance
demonstrations, and that only
contemporaneous documentary
evidence, such as blueprints and facility
design plan*, be accepted aa evidence.
Rnponie. The EPA is in general
agreement with the view that reliance
should be conaidered in relation to the
emission limitation for the source, not
the design. Since section 123 specifically
prohibits EPA from regulating actual
stack heights and rather regulate* stack
height credit* used in setting emission
limitation*, it would be illogical to
require that sources demonstrate
reliance on the 2.5H formula for actual
stack design. Moreover, such an
approach would contradict principles of
•ound planning, in that it would penah:
thoae sources that have built taller
stacks in anticipation of facility
expansion or other growth in the area
that could influence CEP
determination*.
If a stack ha* been built taller than
2.5H formula provide*, while the
emiaaion limitation ha* been calculated
assuming 2.5H credit a convincing
demonstration ha* been made that the
source properly relied on the formula.
Conversely, if the eniaaion limitation for
the source is baaed on some other stack
height credit such as 2JH. 3.5H or some
other number, it would be difficult to
show that the CEP formula had in fact
been relied on.
In some caaea the emiaeion limit
information may be unavailable or
inconclusive. In such caaea. EPA will
allow reliance on reconatructed
evidence of conatruction intent
In comment* submitted during the
public comment period and in response
to quMtion* raised by EPA at the public
hearing held on January 8. 1985, industry
representative* repeatedly stated that
contemporaneou* evidence of reliance
on the 2JH formula, such a* facility
dealfn plan*, dated engineering
calculation*, or dediion record* are
rarely, if ever, retained for more than a
few year* after conatruction of the
facility la completed. Coaaequently. they
argued that meet caaea of legitimate
reliance would be denied If
coBtemporaneou* evidence were
required in order to retain for tha 2.5H
formula.
The EPA agree*. Additionally, credit
afforded by the 2JH formula in excess
of that resulting from the uae of the
H+1.5L derivative i* likely to be small
except when the building on which
•tack height credit ia baaed i*
substantially >•!!•> ^f it ia wide.
Finally. It ia EPA'a view that the court
did not intend that sources be subject to
a rigorous or overly •tringent of reliance.
but only mat they be accorded a
reasonable opportunity to show reliance
on the iSH formula. For these reasons.
EPA will allow the submission of
reconstructed. La, noncontemporaneous
documentary evidence to demonstrate
reliance on the 2JH formula.
Definition of "Nearby". Comments
were submitted by UAP.G and others.
arguing that effectively, no limitation
should be placed on the consideration of
terrain-induced downwaah.
Alternatively, some of the**
commenters argued that the court
decision require* that a limitation be
adopted that doe* not apply any
distance restriction of H mile in
modeling terrain effects such a* is
-------
27908 Federal Register / Vol. SO. No. 130 / Monday. July a. IMS / Rules and Regulations
applied to itcuctum in tht UM of CEP
formulae, but rather allows
consideration of aH terrain that'results
in the Mm* downwath affact u tboac
structures within tt mila of the stack.
Other commenters have argued that
the court decision and legislative history
preclude EPA from allowing
consideration of any terrain beyond a
distance of V* mile, regardless of where
it begins.
Response. For the reasons
summarized below. EPA does not accept
either the interpretation that the court
decision authorizes EPA to adopt a
definition beeed solely on effect or that
it limits consideration exclusively to
terrain features falling entirety within H
mile.
When Congreee dieeasaed the
allowance of credit for stack height to
addnsa dowawaah. it staled that the
term "nearby waa to be -strictly
construed.'' noting that If the tern
to bo amrpretad "to apply to ma.
strucrurea or ttrraitt ftetunt % to H
miia away front the sourcas or mote, the
result could be an opaa invitation to
raise stack heigfata to unreasonably high
elevation* and to defeat the basic
underlying committee infant" **
In iU opnuc*. thejxwrt held that EPA
could not ghre aniimitad credit whan
modeling terrain faatnrae because that
would confliet with the Congraaaaoaai
intention to impose artificial limits OB
that credit Tho cowl waa not presented
with, and did not adriraaa. the oueeooa
of what to do aboat tamia featuree thai
••bsejea" witbsa * auie aad extended
outside it The approach adopted by
EPA carried out tbia rim grass keul
purpose to impose aa artificial limit bat
at the eame time reflects tha real facts
more doaeiy than aa abaoluta % arik*
limitation.
Unlike man-made structures, turaia
feature* do not hava readily definable
Aimmnmiemp QthtT than height. FOT **^
reason. EPA has defined "nearby" aa
generally allowing •••"•fr'ftn of
consideration of terrain faaturea that faO
within a distance of Vs mila of the stack.
EPA's definition wiO psxaft
consideration of such tacrain that
extends beyond the H mile Omit if the
terrain begins within H mila. allowing
that portion within 10 time* the ,
maximum height of the feature, Hot to
exceed Z miles, as described In tha
proposal
To define when a terrain feature
"begins" within H mile, EPA has related
terrain height et the H mile distance to
the maximum stack height that could be
justified under the other two methods
for determining GEP. Accordingly. EPA
will require that terrain features reach a
height at tha Vfc mile 'ti«t or the
combining of exhaust gases from i everai
existing, stacks into one stack, with
several classes of exclusions. These
exclusions recognize the existence of
independent justifications based on
ring and/or economic factors.
include?
(1) Demonstration of original facility
design aad construction with merged
gas stream;
(2] Demonstration that merging after
July S, IMS ia part of a change in
operation that includes the installation
of pollution controia and results in i net
reduction m allowable emissions of the
pollutant for which credit is sought cr
-------
Fedejral Reggae- I Vol. 50. No. 130 / Monday. July a, 1988 / Rules end Relations
27902
(3) Demonstration that merging be/ore
July & 18*5 was part of • change ia
operation that included the installation
of control equipment or wat earned out
for sound economic or engineering
reasons. An allowable emissions
increase creates the .presumption that
the merging was not carried out for
sound economic or engineering
reasons."
Of these exclusions, the first is identical
to the proposal, and the second and
third are modifications of the second
exclusion included in the proposal with
a refinement based on prospective/
retroactive application.
The first exclusion was retained for
the reasons stated in the proposal After
reviewing the comments submitted. EPA
determined thai its previous
conclusion—that standard practice in
designing and constructing facilities
routinely includes venting emissions
from several units into a common or
multiflued stack—4s correct Sound
engineering and economic reasons,
based on costs of constructing and
maintaining separate stacks, availability
of land, and cost savings for pollution
control equipment support facility
design and construction considerations.
Even if air pollution requirements did
not exist at all sources would have
incentives to use as few stacks aa
possible.
Since iaenoting plume rise, rather
than plume rise itsait is a "dispersion
technique" and original design and
construction define the initial base, such
original design fn4 construction of
merged gas streams is not considered a
dispersion technique. Moreover, in
designing the facility, a source can
usually choose to build one larger unit
rather than several smaller units.
Therefore, prohibiting credit for original
design generally only effect the design
of units and not the phase rise.
Objections have been raised to
applying this logic to sources which are
constructed over a period of tana, but
use a single stack. However, the same
factual arguments just listed would
apply is the same, if the original design
included provision for the additional
units in the plans for the facility, and in
the design and construction of die stack.
In such a case, the later units merged .
into the stack would be included wtthta
the exclusion.
In addition, it would be logically very
di,*Sculf to apply a rale denying emttf to
o.-Hnal design stacks. EPA or the State
ld have to assume how many stacks
UaH txtmd for <
would have been built absent a desire
for dispersion credit where they would
have beta located and how high they
would have been. Since these
alternative stacks would be purely
hypothetical then would be no clear
way of answering these questions: the
answer would simply have to be
selected arbitrarily from the wide rang*
of possible answers. This problem is
absent when existing stacks have baa
combined.
In contrast EPA finds rhsnsss from
the original deaJga of a facility ia order
to include merged stacks to require a
narrower judgment The EPA concluded
that where prospective application is
concerned, the exclusion should be
available only to aoareas that combtae
stacks reduces allowable emissions of
the pollutant for which the credit is
grantee* Tnere are obvious ecoaoauc
advantage* ia «"»^'"^g stacks to
reduce the number of emiaaina control
units that nun be purchased. Ia
addition. * ***•*•*** n^g gf pfllhitiCTi
control for U» pollutant ia question
provides substantial assuraaos that thai
purpose of the combination ia not to
receive a more lenient emission ttatit
However, given past EPA f^-ft oa
merging of stacks. EPA has i
that retroactive application of this tear
would not be proper. The EPA guidance
documents uniformly took the view that
merging of separate stacks into a single
stack "Is generally not considered a
dispersion technique" absent other
factors such aa excessive use of fans or
other devices. '* Each
provided guidance to a source of a
Regional Office regarding the proper
treatment of merged stacks ia
i*mimi»tfnm emission limitations. •
Considering these statements. EPA must
consider the standards expressed by (he
coot as previously discussed ia this
notice, m Judging the propriety of a
differing standard for retroactive .
application. Given the nature and
applications of the guidance which It
issued in the past EPA judges the first
two criterie—that is. whether the new
rule represents an abrupt departure from
well-established practice, and whether
the parties against whom the new rule ia
applied relied on the former rale— to be
satisfied to addition, applying the
prospective criteria to past practice
would require significant changes ia niel
and/or control equipment for parties
whose emission limits were baaed oa
previous guidance. Finally, and
particularly where sources have not
been allowed to increase their previoa
emissions as a result of the combining
stacks. EPA don not judge the itstutor,
interest to be overriding in this instance.
since the role even in its retrospective
version only exempts sources that can
show a reasonable non-dispersion
enhancement ground for combining
stacks, and thereby implements the
"latent" test suggested by the court. On
the other hand EPA has never suggested
that combined stacks that cannot meet
such a te*t are proper. Sources whose
actual emissions are increased, or
whose emission limitations are relaxed
ia connection with the combining of
stacks create a strong presumption that
the combination waa carried out in
order to avoid toe installation of
controls. Such combinations would
Indeed run counter to the statutory
purpoee. and raB'uspsctivs application
of s test that rbrbid* them is therefore
proper.
Sxfmptfotu ftwn th» Definition of
Ditptnion Ttchmquu. The EPA
received numerous comments in
response to its request for input on what
consideration. If any. should be given to
excluding sources from the definition of
"Dispenses) Techniques" whose
*"*f***"f are below a specified level or
whew stacks an Jess than the dt
etadtnn height These commenters
anjaad mat cuinbining gar stresms in
particular ofhm had aa economic
justification independent of its effects
oa dUpetsean. and Ibererbn should not
be gaejanfly rororaden. Other comments
staled filet m ooastderiag any such
exduston. EPA should consider the
effect oa Mai atmospheric loadings,
(timitatios oa the
number of sources affected by the
definition at "dispersion techniques''
necessary tar EPA to carry out the stack
height program. There are currently
estimated la be over 2X000 sources of
SO* m toe United States win actual
emissions exceeding 100 tons per year. It
would aot be possible for EPA or States
to review the emission limits of even a
• igniflcant fraction of this number
within a reasonable time period
Twenty-fwo thousand of these sources
have emis*tons leu than 5.000 tons per
year and contribute a total of less than
13 percent of ta* total annual SO*
emissioa. "For (Bis reason, sad for
reasons of ednrinistrstive necessity
discussed earter. EPA is adopting sii
exemption from prohibitions on
manipulating plume rise for facilities
with allowable SO* emissions below
Stm Pirrri Tj-lw TT
RoihMfft A««K m It
fartar Inm Itumttt Ote Omtar e. ISB
D««d StmwMd »*•••* H*M. ftatff.
i fro* Me CiMbvt, OAQW '•>
. •SBMfleiMi of SO, Po«t
-------
27904 Fadarai Refistar / Vol. 50. No. 130 / Monday. July a. 1965 / Rules and Regulation
5.000 toai par year. The EPA believe*
the affect of this exemption on total SO»
emiuioBi to be da minions in nature.
Even if these sourcej were able to
increase their emission rates as the
result of an exemption from the
definition of dispersion techniques, their
combined effect would not be
significant Indeed, because these
sources are exempt on the basis of their
annual emissions, there exists an upper
limit to the extent to which they may
obtain relaxed emission limitations. i.e«
to maintain an,exemption. the annual
emissions of a source may never exceed
5.000 tone per year. For these reasons.
the 5.000 ton limit passes a r'f auiuaia
teat even more clearly than _* M-meter
limit included without challenge in the
prior version of this rule. Monovar. EPA
believes that a large majority of these
sources would not be inclined to seek
lesa stringent emission limitations. In
part because a substantial portion of
them an baited by State and local fuel
usemiea.
The- EPA believes at this time that a
drmmimii size exemption is justified
only for source* of SO» and that the
number of ssneJl sources for which
ealseimi limitations for other pollutants
an a f^gntflnrrt concern would not
support a similar exemption. The EPA
will mnrtmie to review the need for such
exssBpttona and. If deetaed appropriate.
will propose then for review and
consent at a tatar^data.
Phuu ZmpoctroA The EPA received »
number of comments requesting that
credit for plume iapactioa ba retained
on ^i^ grounds that eUnifnathv each
credit would have seven impacts oat
existing source*. Several approachee
wen offend for overcoming plume;
impactton effects in modeling to
determine emission limitations based on
CEP stack height Generally, theee ,
approaches focused on modifying the)
stack-terrain relationship represented to
the models. Several crnnmanters argued.
along theee Unas that the court
recognized and approweaYaf DtA's
attempt to avoid the eflptoaf phone
inspection, but only iflaajpyiiiisj of
EPA's regulatory nislhaa In sllnwliig
sources to avoid imr*"*4Tt Thee*
commenters argued that the court did
not preclude EPA from allowing credit
to avoid plume impactioa, bat esuf from
allowing credit for stack height la
excaae of CEP: this, it waa argued, could
be remedied in a way that waa
consistent with the court decision by
incorporating impaction avoidance)
within the definition of CEP. It wat*bo
snggeeted that EPA give its "Intent
approval" to the use of certain nfTienl'
complex terrain models, in particular the
Rough Terrain Display Model (RTDM).
to calculate emission limitations for
sources affected by changes to the stack
height regulation,
Response The.EPA agrees that the
court wu cognizant of the problem of
plume impaction and noted that then
waa much to recommend EPA's
allowance of credit for impaction
avoidance. However, the allowance of
credit for plume impaction waa not
remanded to EPA for revision or
reconsideration, but was reversed by
the court as exceeding EPA's authority.
The EPA does not agree that it would
be possible to redefine CEP in a manner
that allowed credit for evoiding
impaction. since CEP Is explicitly
denned in terms of preventing excessive
coflftrntr^^iy^ff doe to* uuwnwaen.
wakes, and eddies. Prom* impaction is a
phenomenon completely unrelated to
downwaah and, nther, la a consequence
of effluent gaaea being emitted at an
insufficient height to avoid their striking
downwind hillside* cliffs, or
mountainsides prior to dilution.
Manipulation or "adjustment" of
modeling parameters to avoid predicting
theontical plume impaction when
actual stadia have been constructed
above ^rKH would be tantamount to
granting the same impaction credit that
waa Invatidatad by the court
Furthermore. EPA believes that the
manipulation of modeling pareme tan
for no other naaon than to avoid ss
undertnblt result la tadnacafly
The EPA is in the
iti "Guideline oa Air
A number of
the guideline have eaojMsted that EPA
approve the uae of ma ODM model aa a
Jifir
of nvistas}
.. kaw^l.l. «
of this laeuecaabe found IB documents
associated with EPA's action oo tfaa
modeling guideline (Dockat Kb. A-ao-
<•). With nspact to the revised stack
height ngnlatiocu EPA has not rejected
the use of RTDM, To the extent that
appropriate and complete data bases
and utfbaaation on modal accuracy an
available. EPA may approve the uae of
RTDM oa a. caae-by-caas baaia when
executed m accordance with the
guideline nquinaaaats. Sponsors of
RTDM and presently developing Don
extensive support for broader
appUcatioaa of the modal When such
support la received and reviewed by
EPA. conaidantioo will be given to
allowing mere general use of RTDM in
regulatory activities such aa compliance
with the suck height rale.
Tlaiftobh for Stoat tapbatatatioa.
A number of comaentan stated that it
was not possible to conduct the
necessary analysea. prepare and submit
revised State rules and source-ipecif c
emission limitations within the 9-month
timaframa referred to in the November 9
proposal A variety of alternative
schedule* wan proposed by these
commenters for consideration by EPA
Re$poM*. As with EPA's previous
allowance of credit for plume impaction.
the timetable for preparation and
lubmittal of revised SIFs was not an
issue remanded by the court The EPA is
in agreement that these revisions to the
stack height regulation will require
significant efforts by State and local
agencies, individual emission source
owners and EPA Regional and
Headquarters offices in order to comply
within the 9-monm timafraae required
by section «6(d)(2J of the 1977 Clean
Air Act Amendments. It waa based on
ft^jf concern that EPA originally
pro video* e two-step process for States
to follow aa revising their plans and
submitting them to EPA for approval
However, the court found that this effort
waa explicitly contrary to section
«M(dX2f and ordered EPA to follow the
9-month schedule provided in the Clean
Air Act
Afar Stares* Tifd into Pn-lfTK
Stack*. As indicated earlier, in response
to die court opinion. EPA proposed to
deny "grandfathered" status to post'
1970 sources tying into pre-1971 stacks.
Some cnmreenters stated that EPA was
in no way prohibited from allowing
end*! far new sources ducted into pre-
1971 stacks exceeding CEP height
Rather, they indicated that EPA simply
had to provide justification for such
i Indicated general
support for EPA'a proposal with respect
to new sourcee tying into grandfathered
stacks, bat suggested that several
provided, meet notably that in addition
to new and ma for i
T"^>ir^i?Mt*T'f sourcee not be allowed
greater than CEP stack height oadit
when tying into greater than CEP stacks.
Aasponea. la further review of this
issue. EPA can Bad no convincing
rationale to allow saurces constructed
after December a, taTQ, to avoid CEP
"grand*
ply by dactiag their
stack
into a stack that I*
thend" under section US. On
the contrary, ta intent of section 123 to
limit credit for stack height in excess of.
CEP suggests that EPA should not allow
credit for such stack height except to
honor financial commitments made prior
to the end of 1970. Sources in existence
after that dale should be treated equally
under the regulation and not allowed to
avoid legitimate control requiremeeta
-------
Federal Repsur / VoL 50. No. 130 / Monday, fuly a. 1965 / Ruiet and Regulation*
27905
through tht UM of "grandftthered" alack
heights.
Sources undertaking major
modification, or reconstruction become
subject to additional control
requirements under the Clean Air Act
and are treated ai "new sources" for the
purpose of new source review aad PSD
requirements. EPA finds it appropriate
that CEP requirements should be
invoked at the tine that other
requirements for new. modified, or
reconstructed sources become
applicable.
Summary of Modifications to EPA 'i
Proposal Resulting from Public
Comment!
Based on comments received during
the public comment period, EPA ha*
made a number of revisions to ita
proposed regulation in addition to thoae
discussed above. These revtstons an
summarized below.
Stction SUfMXWBXii} of the
regulation has been clarified to require
sources merging gas streama after July a,
1983 to achieve a net reduction la
allowable emissions. This change was
made to make it dear that tat effects of
merging should not be need aa a way of
achieving compliance witft present
emission limits and to avoid penalizing,
sources who are presently emitting at
leu than allowable levels.
Sect/off SUCMMXBXiii) allow*
credit for a source that merged gas
streams in a change of operation at the
facility prior to Jury 8.1988 that induced
the installation of control equipment or
hed other sound engineering or
economic reason* Any increase in the
emission limitation, or in the previous
actual emissions where no emission
limitation existed created a presumption
that those sound reason* were not
present
Section 31.l(hh)(2)(E) has been added
to exclude from the definition of
prohibited "dispersion techniquea" the
use of techniques affecting final exhaust
gas plume rise where the resulting total
allowable emissions of SO* front the
facility do not exceed 5.000 ton* per
year.
Section 31.1(ii)(ll has been revised to
specify that the OS meter deminimis-'
height i« to be measured, as in other
determinations of CEP stack height
from '£e ground-level elevation at the
base s' the stack. This does not
represent a substantive change in the
rule " in its application relative to past
practices, but rather a simple
clarification.
Section St.l(ii)(2) has been revised to
require that source owners demonstrate
that the 2.5H formula we* relied on in
establishing the emission limitation.
Section 51.1(ii)(31 ha* been rtviaed aa
discussed elsewhere in this notice to
specify that aa emission rat* equivalent
to NSPS must be met before a source
may conduct fluid modeling to justify
stack height credit in excess of that
permitted by the CEP formulae.
Section 51.1(jj) now define* "nearby"
for purposes of conducting field studie*
or fluid modeling demonstrations a* (U
km (V* mile), but allows limited
consideration of terrain feature*
extending beyond that distance if neb
features "begin" within 04 km, aa
defined in the regulation.
Section Sl.l(ki) ha* been revised to
provide} separate diacaaaiona of
"excessive concentrations" for the
separate situations discussed earlier in
this preamble. As that discussion make*
dear. EPA believes that the differing
categories of eoarea* subject to this rale
are beet addressed by requirements that
vary somewhet with those
circumstances. This definition embodies
that approach.
Section Sl.lSflt) ha* beta coittcled to
provide that the provisions of 151.12(0
shall not apply to ttadc hoighti in
existence before December 311970. The
proposal had Incorrectly stated that
ISL12 shall not apply to ttodo
This regulation doee not limit the
physical stack height of any source, or
the actudw of dispersion tachniqnee
at a source, nor doee it require any
specific stack height for any i
Instead it sat* limit* on the i
credit for stack height and other
dispersion technique* to be used la
ambient air i^rWtg for the purpoee of
setting an emission limitation and
calculating the air quality impact of a
source. Source* are modeled at their
actual physical stack height unices that
height exceed* their CEP stack height
The regulation applies to all stack* in
existence and ail dispersion techniques
implemented since December 31. 1070.
State tmpleeaeotatioa Plan
Pursuant to section 406(dK2) of the
dean Air Act Amendments of 1977,
EPA i* requiring that all State* (1)
review and revise, a* necessary, their
SIP'S to include provisions that Unit
stack height credits and dispersion
techniques in accordance with this
regulation and (2) review all existing
emission limitations to determine
whether any of these limitations have
been affected by stack height credits
above CEP or by any other dispersion
technique*. For any limitation* that
have been so affected State* must
prepare revised limitations consistent
with their revised SIP'S. All SIP
revision* and revised emission
limitation* must be submitted to EPA
within 9 month* of promulgation of this
regulation.
Interim Guidance
In it* proposal EPA stated that it
would uae the proposed regulation to
govern stack height credits during the
period before promulgation of the final
regulation. The EPA further stated that
any stack height credits that are granted
based oa this interim guidance would be
subject to review against the final rules
and may need to be revised
Consequently, with theee final rules.
EPA is requiring that any actions that
were taken oa stack heights and stack
height credits during this interm period
be reviewed aad revised ae needed to
be nonaWem with this regulation.
Regulatory FIsadMBty Aaarrei*
Pursuant to the provision* of 5 U.S.C.
608(b), I hereby certify that the attacked
rule will aot have •fr"'*"*"* economic
JHiTMfti on a subetantial number of
•aull entities. Tata rule is structured to
apply only, to large) sources; La- those
with stack* above U meters (223 feet).
or wita aaaual SOi e&isaione in excess
of &000 teas, a* further noted in the rule.
Baaed on aa analysis of impacts, electric
utility plant* and several smelters and
pulp y**f paper *«*n« will be
significantly affected by this regulation.
Executive Order U2S1
Under Executive Order 12291. EPA
must fudge whether a regulation is
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a regulatory impact
analysis. EPA'* analysis of economic
impacts predicts a potential coat to
emission source owner* aad operators
exceeding ROD million: therefore, this is
a major rule under Executive Order
12291. However, due to the promulgation
deadline Imposed by the court EPA did
not have sufficient time to develop s full
analyst* of coat* and ber.efits as
required by the Executive Order.
Consequently, it is not possible to judge
the annual effect of this rule on the
economy. A preliminary economic
impact analysis and *••!. sequent revision
were prepared and a.-' i .ie docket
For any fadliry, the * : ruliry and
economic impact of the suck height
regulation generally cVper. Js on the
extent to which the sc'Md.' stack st that
facility conforms to CEr < .*ck
-------
2790S Fedorai Register / VoL SO. No. 130 / Monday. July 8. 1963 / Rules and Regulation*
Thus, when the regulation ii applied to
large sources. ie~ thoae with stack
height greater than CEP and emissions
greater than 3.000 ton* per year, it will
have the potential for producing
emiuion reduction and increased
control cost*.
A preliminary evaluation of the
potential air quality impacts and a cost
analysis of the regulation was
performed at the time of proposal The
impacts identified were established in
isolation of other regulatory
requirements. The report predicted a
range of impacts, from a "low impact"
scenario that presumed that many
potentially affected sources would be
able to justify their existing stack
heights, configurations, aad emission
limitations to a "Ugh impact" scenario
which assumed that all of the potentially
affected sources would be required to
reduce their emissions to some degree.
In the development of its final
rulemaking action. EPA refined Its
evaluation of potential impacts,
producing revised estimates of the
probable costs of the changes to the
regulation and expected reductions in
SOi emissions. As a result of this
refinement EPA estimates that the rde
will yield reductions in SOi emissions of
approximately 1.7 million tons per year.
The aanualized cost of achieving these
reductions will be aproximately 1730
million, and the capital coat is expected
to be approximately STOP million.
This regulation waa reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget, and
their written comments and any
responses are contained in Docket A-
KM8.
Judicial Review
The EPA believes that this rdi 1.
based on determinations of nationwide
scope and effect Nothing in section 123
limits its applicability to a particular
locality. State, or region. Rather, section
123 applies to sources wherever located.
Under section 307(b)(l) of die Clean Air
Act [42 U.S.C. r607(b)(l); judicial
review of the actiona taken by this
notice is available only by the filing of a
petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia and within 80 days of the date
of publication.
List of Subjects in 4t CFR Part 31
Air pollution control. Ozone. Sulfur
dioxide. Nitrogen dioxide. Lead.
Paniculate matter. Hydrocarbons.
Carbon monoxide.
Dated- June 27. »
Adminutmtor.
PA*T SI-ftEOUWEMCMTS FOP)
PREPARATION, ADOPTION. AND
SUBMITTAL OF IMPl£MCffTATION
PUNS
Part 31 of Chapter L Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 51
continues to read as follows: j
Authority: Sec 110. Wife), and 129. OMB
Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C 7410. reoi(s)
and 7423).
2. Section S1.1 is amended by revising
paragraphs (ha), (ii). (Jfl. and (kk) as
follows:
111.1
(hh)(l) "Dispersion technique" i
any technique which attempts to affect
the concentration of a pollutant in the
ambient air by:
(i) Using that portion of a stack which
exceeds good engineering practice stack
height
(ii) Varying the rate of emission of a
pollutant according to atmospheric
that pollutant or
(ill) Increasing final exhaust gaa
plume rise by manipulating source
proceee parameters, exhaust gaa
parameters, stack parameters, or
combiniag exhaust gases froaa several •
existing stacks into MM stack: or other
selective handling of axhauat gaa
streams so aa to increase the exhaust .
gaa pliUM rise.
(2) The preceding sentence does not
include:
(i) The reheating of a gas stream.
following use of a pollution control
system, for the purpose of returning the
gaa to the temperature at which it waa
originally diacharged from the facility
generating die gaa stream:
(ii) The merging of exhaust jas
streams where:
(A) The source owner or operator.
demonstrates that the facility waa
originally designed and constructed with
such merged gas streams:
(B) After July 8.1963. such merging is
part of a change in operation at the
facility that includes die installation of
pollution controls and is accompanied
by a net reduction in the allowable
emissions of a poUutaaa, This exclusion
from the definition of "dispersion
.techniques" shall apply only to the
emission limitation for the pollutant
affected by such cbsnge m operation: or
(C) Be/ore July & i960, such merging
was part of a change in operation at the
facility that included the instsilation of
emissions control equipment or wss
carried out for sound economic or
engineering reasons. Where there w«i
an increase in the emission limitation 01
in the event diet no emission limitation
was in existence prior to the merging. «r
increase in the quantity of pollutants
actually emitted prior to the merging, the
reviewing agency shall presume that
merging was significantly motivated by
an intent to gain emissions credit for
greater dispersion. Absent s
demonstration by the source owner or
operator that merging was not
significantly motivated by such intent.
the reviewing agency shall deny credit
for the effects of such merging in
calculating the allowable emissions for
the source;
(ill) Smoke management in
agricultural or silviculture! prescribed
burning programs:
(iv) Episodic restrictions on
residential woodbuming and open
burning? e#
(v) Techniques under f 3l.lfhh)(l)(iii)
which increase final exhaust gas plume
rise where the resulting allowable
^fffffr^j of sulfur dioxide from the
facility do not exceed &000 tons per
year.
(ii) "Good engineering practice" (CEP)
stack height means the greater of:
(1) 68 meten, measured from the
ground-level elevation at the base of the
stack:
(2) (i) For stacks in existence on
JaooarytZ isn, and for which the
owner or operator had obtained all
applicable permits or approvals required
under 40 GFR Parts 51 and 32.
H.-JJH.
provided the owner or operator
producea evidence that this equation
waa actually relied on in establishing an
emiaeiao limitations
(ii) For all other stacks.
H.-M+1JL. •
H,«food eagmeerlni practice tuck height.
measured from the irouad-levei
elevation at the base et the *uck.
H-hmjht of aearby structured) measured
from the ground-level eievstion it the
boss of fap stack*
l«loeoor ^ <•>••»«<«'•> belgftt or projected
width, of oearby •tracmred)
provided that the EPA. State or local
control agency may require the use of s
field study or fluid modal to verify CEP
stack height for the source: or
(3) The height demonstrated by a fluid
model or a field study approved by the
EPA State or local control ag«ney. wnich
ensures that the emissions from s itsck
do not result in excessive
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 130 / Monday. July 8. 1985 / Rules and Regulations
2790-
concentrations of any air polluttnt as a
rtsull of atmospheric downwwh. wakes,
or eddy affects created by the source
itself, nearby structures or nearby
terrain features.
(JJ) "Nearby" as used in f 5M(ii) of
this part is defined for a specific
structure or terrain feature and
(1J for purposes of applying the
formulae provided in f 51.1(ii)(2) meana
that distance up to five times the leaser
of the height or the width dimension of a
structure, but not greater than 0.8 km (H
mile), and
(2) for conducting demonstrations
under | 31.1(ii)(3) meana not greater '
than 04 km (Vt mile), except that the
portion of a terrain feature may be
considered to be nearby which falls
within a distance of up to 10 times the
maximum height (HJ of the feature* not
to exceed 2 mile* if such feature
achieves a height (HJ 04 km from the
stack that is at leeat 40 percent of the
CEP stack height determined by the
formulae provided in I 31.1(il)(2)(ii) of
this part or 28 meters, whichever is
greater, as measured Cram the ground-
level elevation at the baae of the stack.
The height of the structure or terrain
feature is measured from the ground-
level elevation at the baae of the stack.
(kk) "Excessive concentration" ia' *
defined for the purpose of determining
good engineering practice stack height
under f Sl.l(ii)O) and meana:
(1) for sources seeking credit for stack
height exceeding that established under
151.1(ii)(2). a maximum ground-level
concentration due to •miMiqnf from a
stack due in whole or part to downwaah.
wakes, and eddy effects produced by
nearby structures or nearby terrain
features which individually is at least 40
percent in excess of the maximum
concentration experienced in the
absence of such downwash. wake*, or
eddy effects and which contributes to a
total concentration due to emissions
from all sources that is greater than an
ambient air quality standard For
source* subject to the prevention of
significant deterioration program (40
CFR 51.24 and SZ21). an excessive
concentration alternatively meana a
maximum ground-level concentration
due to emission! from a stack due ia
whole or pert to downwash, wakes, or
eddy effects produced by nearby
structures or nearby terrain features
which individually is at least 40 percent
in excess of the maximum concentration
experienced in the absence of the
maximum concentration experienced In
the absence of such downwaah, wake*.
or eddy effects and greater than a
prevention of significant deterioration
increment The allowable emission rate
to be used in making demonatrationa
under thia part ahall be prescribed by
the new source performance standard
that ia applicable to the source category
unless the owner or operator
demonstrates that this emission rate ia
in/easible. When such demonstration*
era approved by the authority
administering the State implementation
plan, an alternative emiaaion rate ahall
be established in consultation with the
source owner or operator;
(2) for sources seeking credit a/tar
October 11983. for tncreeaee in existing
stack heights up to the height*
established under f 51.1(0X2). cither (1)
a •»•""""• ground'!*
atratic
due ia whole or pan to downwaah,
wakes or eddy effects aa provided hi
paragraph (kkMD of this section, except
that the emission rate specified by any
applicable State implementation plea
(or. ia the absence of such a limit the
•cruel emiaaioH rate) shall be used or
(ii) the actual presence of e local
nuisance caused by the exiating stack.
a* determined by the authority
admiaiateriag the State implementation.
plan: and
(3) for source* seeking credit after
January 12.1979 for a stack height
determiaeduader 15U(ii)(2) when the
enthority adminiateriag the State
implementation plan requires the use of
a field study or fluid model to verify
CEP suck height, for source* seeking
stack height credit after November 9.
1884 baaed on the aerodynamic
influence of cooling towers, and for
sources seeking stack height credit after
December 31.1970 based on the
aerodynamic influence of structures not
adequately represented by the equations
in | Sl.l(iJ)(2). a maximum ground-level
concentration due in whole or part to
downwaah. wake* or eddy effects that
ia at leeat 40 percent in excess of the
maximum concentration experienced in
the absence of such downwaah. wakes.
or eddy effects.
3. Section Sl.l ie further amended by
removing peragrapha (II) and (mm).
Mitt
4. Section 31.12 is amended by
removing paragraph (1).
5. Section 51.12(j) is amended by
removing "and (1)" from the first
ft. Section 91.12(k) is revised as
follow*:
(k) Toe provisions of f 51.12(j) shall
not apply to (1) stack heights in
existence, or dispersion technique*-
implemented on or before December 31.
1970, except when pollutants are being
emitted from such stacka or using such
dispersion technique* by sources, as
defined to section 111(*X3) of the Clean
Air Act which wen constructed, or
reconstructed, or for which major
modification*, as defined ia
II SL18fJXlX»X«). 3U4(bH2Xi) and
SX21(bK2XO. were carried out after
December 31.197ft or (2) coal-fired
steam electric generating unit* subject
to the prevision* of Section 118 of the
dean Air Act which commenced
operation before Jury 1.1987. and whoee
stack* wen eonaovcted under e
construction contract awarded before
February* 1974.
|lt18 It
7. Section 31.18(1) ia amended by
removing "and (I)" from the first
(Fit Dec aa-teOM filed 7-e-Sfc S.-43 «mj
-------
EPA-450/4-80-023R
Guideline for Determination of Good
Engineering Practice Stack Height
(Technical Support Document for the
Stack Height Regulations)
(Revised)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standaros
Researcn Triangle Par*. NC 27711
June 19S5
-------
PN 123-85-10-28-009
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
j Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
OCT 2 8 198S
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Implementation of Stack Height .Regulations - Presumptive NSPS
Emission Limit for Fluid Mod€Tl/»g StacK "Above Formula GEP Height
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
TO: Director, Air Management Division
Regions I-X
The following guidance is provided to explain the general emission
control requirements for sources conducting fluid modeling to justify stack
height in excess of that provided by the GEP formulae. While some of the
discussion and examples contained herein focus on utility sources, the
procedures outlined in this memorandum are generally applicable to all
stationary source categories. Please note that this 1s guidance. States
may present any other demonstrations that they may feel are warranted in
individual circumstances.
Background
.The revised stack height regulations published on July 8, 1985, define
three methods for determining good engineering practice (GEP) stack
height. These methods include:
1- a 65 meter de minimis GEP height;
2- the height determined by using an applicable formula based on the
dimensions of nearby buildings; and
3- the height necessary to avoid excessive concentrations due to
downwash as shown using a field study or fluid modeling
demonstration.
As the preamble to the regulations points out, the revised definition
of "excessive concentrations," a 40-percent Increase in concentrations
due to downwash resulting in a NAAQS or PSD increment exceedance,
necessitates that an emission rate be specified for purposes of evaluating
fluid modeling. The regulations require that a presumptive emission rate
equivalent to the new source performance standards (NSPS) be established
for the source in question before modeling may be conducted to determine
-------
stack height needed to avoid excessive concentrations due to downwash.*
This emission nte is described as "presumptive" because it is EPA's
presumption that all sources seeking to justify stack heights exceeding
those provided by the GEP formulae are capable of controlling their
emissions to NSPS levels. However,, the regulations also allow source
owners or operators to rebut this presumption, establishing an alternative
emission rate that represents the most stringent level of control that
can feasibly be met by that source in excess of the NSPS level. In the
preamble to the regulations, EPA Indicated that it will rely on the
"Guidelines for Determination of Best Available Retrofit Technology for
Coal-Fired Power Plants and other Existing Stationary Facilities,
EPA-450/3-80-009b" (SART Guidelines) whan reviewing these rebuttals.
If it is infeasible for a source to control Its emissions to NSPS
levels, then an alternative limit representing the lowest feasible emission
limit must be met before obtaining credit for stack height in excess of
GEP formula height. Sources may consider such factors as remaining plant
life and the cost of modifying existing equipment when determining NSPS
feasibility.
Procedures
The general procedure that is described in the BART Guidelines for
analyzing control alternatives should be followed to identify and evaluate
alternatives for sources seeking credit for stack heights In excess of
those produced by the applicable GEP formulae. Because the guidelines
were originally written to address visibility impairment, however, not all
of the analytical steps or applicability criteria—such as analysis of
visibility impairment or exemptions for power plants below 750 megawatts--
will be appropriate, and need not be addressed.
General steps in the analysis described 1n Section 2.0 of the
guidelines can be summarized as follows.
1. Identify a range of control alternatives, including both pre- and
post-combustion controls. In this regard, several fuel substitution and
alternative fuel blends should be considered, as well as technological
alternatives, such as coal cleaning and flue gas desulfurization.
2. Calculate t-.e cos", emissions, and other environmental and energy
impacts of the alternatives ^including those meeting NSPS objectives).
3. Select the alternative that represents the most stringent level
of emissions control feasible.
*Where the HS?S nas been subject to revision, and the source in
question is not subject to the revised NSPS, the earliest standard will be
applied; e.g., for po*er plants a rate of 1.2 Ib/mm3tu would be used.
-------
In perform.}ng these analyses, it Is Important to keep in mind that
EPA's presumption is that the NSPS emission limit is feasible unless
demonstrated otherwise. When carrying out evaluations, source owners or
operators may consider such factors as remaining useful plant life, the
remaining life of any equipment affected by revised emission rates
(including any control equipment), the cost of modifying boilers, control
equipment, and fuel handling facilities, and the cost of modifying or
cancelling existing fuel supply contracts (remaining useful plant life,
if a significant factor in determining NSPS feasibility, may necessitate
restrictions on the period of applicability of less stringent emission
limits). Finally, it is important to analyze, not only a range of alter-
native controls, but several combinations of alternatives, since such
combinations may yield a greater and more cost-effective degree of
emissions control.
Since determinations of the adequacy of any rebuttals of the NSPS
emission limit and the reasonableness of control alternatives considered
must be made on a case-by-case basis, and will be subject to public review
and comment during the rulemaking process, all technical and economic
analyses, as well as any claims of infeasibility, must be fully documented
and supported by any information that may be available.
If you have any questions regarding the application of this guidance
in a particular set of circumstances, please contact Eric Ginsburg at
(FTS) 629-5540 or Sharon Reinders at (FTS) 629-5526.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
APR 2
Mr. John P. Proctor
Bishop, Cook, Purcell and Reynolds
Law Offices
1400 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-3502
Dear Mr. Proctor:
Your letter of February 23, 1989 to Administrator Reilly was
referred to me for response. The issues you describe were
previously raised to the attention of the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) Region III Office. You now question
Region Ill's rejection of your position that the best available
retrofit technology (BART) emission rate used in determining the
creditable stack height can be ignored for purposes of setting
the facility's operating rate as long as the operating rate is
consistent with the national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). The response provided to you by Region III on October
6, 1988 was extensively discussed with this office and with the
Office of General Counsel, and we fully endorse Region Ill's
conclusions and supporting rationale.
In your letter you stated that the sole basis for conducting
a fluid modeling study is to justify credit for stack height
above formula height, and that nothing requires States to rely on
the BART emission rate to determine the appropriate operating
rate. Actually, as noted by Region III, before such credit may
be considered, the preamble to the stack height regulation is
clear that the operating rate must be limited to the BART or new
source performance standards (NSPS) rate. The preamble to the
stack height regulation also notes that an emission limit more
stringent than BART/NSPS may be needed because the sources must
also meet the NAAQS and prevention of significant deterioration
requirements.
We agree with Region Ill's conclusion that NRDC v. Thomas.
838 F.2nd 1224 (D.C. Cir 1988), does not support your position.
In your February 23, 1989 letter to Administrator Reilly, you
raise a new argument not presented to Region III. You argue that
the court recognized that operating emission limitations are to
be determined after stack height credit has been calculated,
based on the court's acknowledgement that Congress imposed
technology-based limits in some situations, and EPA has authority
to mandate such limits for modeling demonstrations to determine
stack height credit. From this you conclude that a technology-
based emission rate used for fluid modeling is relevant only to
that modeiina.
-------
In response, we point out first that the court's discussion
of technology-based emission limitations (838 F.2d at 1241) was
in reference to NRDC's control-first position and not related to
fluid modeling as you suggest. We believe that the opinion
indicates clearly that the court regarded the presumptive NSPS
emission limit as a limit that must be complied with once the
fluid modeling was completed ("We find the attempt of industry to
bar control-first no stronger than NRDC's effort to require it in
the within-formula context." 838 F.2d at 1241; "... industry
petitioners assert that in order to use the NSPS presumption, EPA
must be able to point to substantial evidence that it is attain-
able by most of the affected sources. But as EPA allows any
source to use a higher emissions rate when NSPS is infeasible,
there is no need for any sort of generic demonstration that it is
normally so." id at 1242).
Second, in quoting EPA's statement about the significance of
fluid modeling demonstration the court was merely citing with
approval EPA's rationale for refusing to grandfather demonstra-
tions undertaken and approved prior to adoption of the 1985
regulations. This in no way implies a finding by the court that
the presumptive NSPS requirement (or higher BART limit) is not
the constraining limit. Neither of these references provides
support to your position.
In conclusion, we are in full agreement with the position
taken by Region III that sources seeking credit above formula
height must meet an emission rate consistent with BART/NSPS.
While final action as to any particular source would necessarily
await a State implementation plan revision, I hope the above
responds to your inquiry. Staff in our Region III Office are
available to assist you and your client, and I suggest that you
contact them directly if you have further questions.
Sincerely,
Gerald A. Emison
Director
Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards
cc: Charles Carter. OGC
Thomas Maslany, Region III
Marcia Mulkey, Region III
bcc: Robert Bauman, AQMD Pat Embrey, OGC
Jesse Baskerville, Region III Eric Ginsburg, AQMD
John Calcagni, AQMD Doug Grano, AQMD
SDPMPB:DGrano:DataTech/PROCTOR2:PFinch:RTP(MD-15):629-5255:4-4-89
Control Number OAQPS-46- Due Date: 4-3-89
-------
BISHOP. COOK, PURCELL 6. REYNOLDS
WOO L STREET; N.W
WASHINGTON. D.C. 2OOO5-35O2
(202) 37I-570O
WOlTCR S OIBCCT DI»U 23, 1989 TELEX 44OS74 INTLAW Ul
TELECOPIER: Boa) 37I-59SO
William K. Reilly
Administrator
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Reilly:
The purpose of this letter is to request EPA's
concurrence with a conclusion reached by this firm
pertaining to the setting of emission limitations for
existing sources that receive credit for stack height above
Good Engineering Practice ("GEP") stack height.
Specifically, I am seeking your concurrence with the
following conclusion: that a facility which uses a Best
Available Retrofit Technology ("BART") emission rate in a
fluid model to determine GEP stack height may ultimately
receive a different operating emission rate as long as that
rate is demonstrated by a dispersion model as being
consistent with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
("NAAQS") .. EPA's consideration of this issue and response
is extremely important since the Agency's position will have
an immediate and long-term economic impact on one of our
client's operations. As pertinent here, our client must
make a major business decision regarding equipment
purchases, a possible shutdown of operations and technical
operating requirements. That decision is inextricably
linked to the stack height issues; it will be primarily
determined and affected by your response to this query.
For purposes of this discussion and request, I am
setting forth our analysis and position below as to what
legally appropriate procedures must be followed in
establishing operating emission rates pursuant to
Section 110 of the Clean Air Act for facilities receiving
credit for stack height above GEP formula height. In brief,
I believe this analysis supports our position that a
facility is not required to conduct a dispersion modeling
study that uses the same emission rate for a particular
pollutant that was used by the facility in justifying stack
-------
William X. Re illy
February 23, 1989
Page 2
height above GEP formula height; i.e., fluid and dispersion
modeling emission rates are to be developed and applied
independently. Thus, a state may authorize an emission rate
for a particular pollutant at a facility as long as the
emission rate is demonstrated by a dispersion model as being
consistent with the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
Our analysis follows:
(a) In order to receive credit for stack height above
GEP formula height, a facility must conduct fluid modeling
studies to analyze the effects of terrain obstacles on
downwash, and to show that the additional height is needed
to avoid "excessive concentrations"; i.e., a 40 percent
increase in concentrations due to downwash that cause or
contribute to an increase or.an exceedance of air quality
standards or PSD increments.
(b) To complete the fluid modeling studies and to show
that there will be excessive concentrations, a facility must
obtain a BART emission rate from the applicable state agency
for each source. Although EPA's stack height regulations
initially require a source seeking to conduct a fluid
modeling study to use an emission rate equivalent to that
New Source Performance Standards ("NSPS") applicable to the
industrial source category ("presumptive NSPS emission
limit"), a source is permitted to rebut the applicability
of the presumptive NSPS emission limit.
(c) The sole basis for conducting a fluid modeling
study, and for obtaining an alternative emission rate to
complete the study, is to justify credit for stack height
above GEP formula height. The rate is but one aspect of
justifying stack height above GEP formula height, and GEP
stack height is but one aspect in determining an appropriate
operating emission rate. See Section 123(a)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, 42 U.s.C. § 7423(a)(1). In short, there is
nothing in either the Clean Air Act or the implementing
regulations that requires or advises the states to use or
rely upon the BART emission rate, used for a fluid modeling
!/ 40 C.F.R. § 51(kk).
2/ 50 Fed. Reg. 27892, 27898 (July 8, 1985).
3/ 50 Fed. Reg. 278P2, 27898 (July 8, 1985).
I/ In this section, Congress limits the degree to which tall
stacks may be considered in setting emission limitations. As
is apparent from the statutory language used in Section 123,
Congress intended to allow the states to consider other
factors, in addition to stack height, in setting emission
limitations.
-------
William K. Reilly
February 23, 1989
Page 3
study, in conducting a dispersion study to determine an
appropriate operating emission rate.
(d) States are required to ensure the attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS by establishing emission
limitations for facilities within their boundaries.
Moreover, with respect to existing sources, states have the
discretionary authority to determine and enforce whatever
mix of emission limitations it deems best for these sources,
as long as the overall effect is compliance with the NAAQS.
Train v. N.R.D.C.. 421 U.S. 60,79 (1974).
We believe our analysis and conclusion are supported by
the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals' recent
decision in N.R.D.C. Inc. v. Thomas. 838 F.2d 1224 (D.C.
Cir. 1988) in which the court reviewed EPA's stack height
regulations and the NRDC's argument that a source must apply
all available emission controls before it may justify a
stack height above GEP formula height. The Court of Appeals
rejected NRDC's "control-first" argument fid, at p. 1235)
because it recognized that BART (stack height) emission
rates and source-related emission limitations have
independent purposes: "Although the record does not allow
us to infer exactly the impact of the baseline emissions
rate on the emissions rate that would emerge (after the
stack height credit were calculated and then used to
determine the permissible emissions), all parties agree that
the impact is substantial. Indeed, that is what the issue
is all about. If Congress in Section 123 prescribed the use
of such a baseline emissions rate, with all its implications
for ultimate emission ceilings, it did so in a remarkably
cryptic way." Id. at p. 1236.
As is evident, the Court of Appeals recognized that
operating emission limitations are to be determined after
stack height credit has been calculated pursuant to
Section 123 of the Act. This conclusion is supported by the
Court's consideration of the following facts. First, the
Court observed that Congress imposed technology-based
emission limitations (including NSPS, BACT, LAER, RACT and
BART) in a variety of situations, and that EPA has the
authority to mandate a specific technology-based emission
limit (e.g., the presumptive NSPS limit) for GEP fluid
modeling demonstrations (id. at p. 1241) used for
calculating stack height credit. Second, the Court noted
that a "* * * * fluid modeling demonstration has no
significance apart from showing whether the source qualified
for credit under the stack height guidelines than in
effect.'" (emphasis in original). Id. at p. 1249. As
pertinent here, the Court's analysis supports the conclusion
that a specific technology-based emission rate used by a
facility in a fluid modeling demonstration is significant
only tc the extent that it demonstrates whether a source
-------
William K. Reilly
February 23, 1989
Page 4
should receive credit for stack height above GEP formula
height. A different conclusion; i.e., that the emission
rate used to calculate stack height (either a BART rate or
the presumptive NSPS rate) should be used by a facility,as
its operating emission rate, is contrary to the Court's
holding which rejected the "control-first" argument.
Please be advised that an EPA staff person, contacted by
our firm, appears to have reached a different conclusion.
Specifically, we have been advised by this staff member that
an existing source is required to operate at the lowest
emission rate resulting either from the stack height
demonstration or dispersion study — even though another
(i.e., higher) emission rate will assure compliance with the
NAAQS.
It is our opinion that this position is inconsistent
with Sections 110 and 123 of the Clean Air Act, the stack
height regulations, and existing case law. Therefore, we
are requesting EPA's analysis of this issue and official
agency position. We would appreciate your prompt review of
t.iis issue due to the impact that your response will have on
our client's operations and financial planning.
If you have any questions regarding this issue, please
feel free to contact me directly. Also, I have enclosed an
extra copy of this letter and a stamped, self-addressed
envelope. Would you please stamp this extra copy and return
it to me for our files.
Sincerely,
JPP:cas
John P. Proctor
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
OCT 1 0 I9S5
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Questions and Answers on Implementing the
Revised Stack Height Regulation
FROM: G. T. Helms, Chieff- L \W—*-
Control Programs Operations Branch (MD-15)
TO: Chief, A1r Branch, Regions I-X
A number of questions have arisen in several areas of the revised
stack height regulation since Its promulgation on July 8. The following
answers have been developed 1n response. The questions and answers are
arranged under the general topic headings of interpretation of the regula-
tion, State implementation plan (SIP) requirements, and modeling analyses.
Please continue to call Sharon Reinders at 629-5526 if you have further
comments or additional questions.
Interpretation of the Regulation
1. Q: What criteria should be used to determine when a stack was 'in
existence" with respect to the various grandfatherlng dates in the
regul at ion?
A: The recent promulgation of revisions to the stack height regulatio
did not change the definition of "in existence." The definition is provid
in 40 CFR 51.1(gg) and includes either the commencement of continuous
construction on the stack or entering Into a binding contract for stack
construction, the cancellation of which would result in "substantial
loss" to the source owner or operator. The definition of what constitutes
a "substantial loss" will be the subject of future guidance.
2. Q: What "source" definition should be used in determining whether tie
ins to grandfathered stacks should be permitted or prohibited?
A: The term "source" 1n this instance means a single emitting unit.
Thus, credit for tying a single post-1970 unit(s) Into a grandfathered
stack serving a number of old units is prohibited under the regulation.
-------
-2-
3. Q: What is meant in the regulation by "facility?
A: For purposes of this regulation, the definition contai-ned in
40 CFR 51.301(d) should be used. That definition essentially defines the
term as the entire complex of emitting activities on one property or
contiguous properties controlled by a single owner or designee.
4. Q: Must good engineering practice (GEP) stack height be established
separately for each pollutant? If not, how should it be determined?
A: It is not necessary to calculate a separate SEP stack height for
each pollutant. Since "SEP" is defined by Section 123 of the Clean Air
Act as the height necessary to ensure against excessive concentrations of
any air pollutant, it follows that SEP should be established for each
source based on the pollutant requiring the greatest height to avoid
excessive concentrations.
5. Q: How should "reliance" on the 2.5H formula be determined?
A: First, "reliance" on the 2.5H formula applies only to stacks 1n
existence before January 12, 1979. Credit for "reliance" on the 2.5H
formula, can be granted under the following cases: (a) Where the stack
was actually built to a height less than or equal to 2.5H; (b) Where the
stack was built taller than 2.5H and the emission limitation reflects th
use of 2.5H 1n the SIP modeling analysis; or (c) Where evidence 1s proviv. .
to show "reliance" as discussed in the following paragraph. If no modellnc
was used to set the emission limitation for the source, then it cannot be
argued that there was "reliance" on the formula, since EPA's guidance was
specifically aimed at using stack height credit in establishing emission
limitations. Once it is determined that the emission limitation was in
fact based on estimates of dispersion from the stack, then the source can
be said to have properly "relied" on the 2.5H formula. In the event that
it cannot be determined that the emission limit is based on "reliance" on
the 2.5H formula, then the refined H + 1.5L formula must be used.
Where a clear relationship between a 2.5H stack height and the
emission limitation cannot be shown, where the emission limitation was
not calculated based precisely on the 2.5H height, or where the stack
height used in modeling cannot be verified, then additional evidence will
be needed. Preferred would be written documentation, such as copies of
the original engineering calculations or correspondence between the State
or the emission source owner and EPA indicating that the 2.5H formula
should be used to derive the emission limitation. However, recognizing
that such evidence is often not retained for more than a few years,
"reconstructed" documentation may be considered, but should only be used
as a last resort. This evidence should include explanations by those
individuals who were involved in designing the facility, calculating
emission rates, and who represented the facility in dealings with the
-------
-3-
State and EPA on how the emission limit was derived, including a discussion
of how the formula was originally used in deriving the source emission
limitation, a discussion of the analytical method applied, and a listing
of any contacts or discussions with EPA during that period. This listing
will aid EPA in searching its own files to find any records of communication
or correspondence that may bear on the Issue.
In no case should a source be allowed after January 12, 1979, to
obtain a relaxation in the emission limitation by arguing that 1t "relied"
on past EPA guidance endorsing the 2.5H formula. In cases where a relaxation
based on GEP formula height is sought in the future, the refined H + 1.51
formula must be used.
6. Q: The preamble specifically discusses cooling towers as structures to
which the formula should not be applied. Will the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards be specifying other structures that are not well
represented by the formul a?
A: The discussion in the preamble and GEP guideline Is not intended to
be all-inclusive; judgment should be used 1n determining when fluid
modeling should be used to estimate the effects of structures with rounded,
domed, or tapered shapes. Water towers and storage tanks are additional
examples of such structures. As additional Information becomes available
on the aerodynamic effects of specific building shapes and configurations,
we will evaluate the need to revise the GEP guidance. 'However, at present,
there are no plans to Issue a "laundry list" of structures to which the
formulas do not apply.
SIP Requirements
7. Q: Should a compliance averaging-time be explicitly stated in a
SIP revision for sulfur dioxide (S02) emission limits that are revised to
meet the stack: height regulation?
A: A compliance averaging time need not be specified as an enforceable
SIP provision as long as a stack test compliance method is in place in the
underlying federally approved SIP. EPA's current national policy requires
that SIP's and permits contain enforceable "short-tern" emission limits
set to limit maximum emissions to a level which ensures protection of the
short-term national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and prevention
of significant deterioration (PSD) Increments. EPA relies upon a short-term
stack test provision in the SIP as the method of determining compliance
with the emission limits. In lieu of a stack test, EPA has accepted fuel
sampling and analysis and continuous emission in-stack monitors (CEM's).
When compliance is to be determined from information obtained by fuel
sampling and analysis and CEM's, short-tern averaging times should be
specified.
-------
-4-
8. Q: Are all States required to have "stack height regulations"?
A: Limitations on creditable stack height and dispersion techniques
impact the SIP program 1n two areas—SIP mission limits for existing
sources and SIP provisions covering new source review (NSR)/PSD permitting
procedures. For existing sources, State regulations limiting credit "for
stack height and other dispersion techniques (stack height regulations)
are not necessary as long as the SIP emission limits are not affected in
any manner by so much of the stack height as exceeds G£P, or any other
dispersion technique. Where a State has stack height regulations, those
regulations must be consistent with EPA's regulation. Where a SIP contains
regulations that are inconsistent with EPA's regulation, the State must
either adopt a stack height regulation that 1s consistent with EPA's or
Incorporate the EPA regulation by reference.
For the NSR/PSD programs, 1t is essential that the plan contain
limitations on the amount of creditable stack height and other dispersion
techniques. The following cases have been developed to illustrate what
action(s) may be required of the State since promulgation of the stack
height regul ation.
CASE All): A fully or partially delegated PSD program that references but
does not define GEP where the delegation agreement does not conta.,
a date to define which version of the PSD rule is being oeTegated,
ACTION: Notify the State that all permits issued henceforth must be
consistent with EPA's stack height regulation. AIT permits
previously issued must be reviewed and revised as necessary
within 9 months.
CASE A(2): A fully or partially delegated PSD program that references
but does not define GEP where the delegation agreement
does contain a date to define which version of the PSD rule
is being delegated.
ACTION: Update the delegation agreement to reflect agreement with EPA's
stack height regulation as of July 8, 1985. Notify the State
that all permits issued henceforth must be consistent with
EPA's stack height regulation. All permits previously Issued
must be reviewed and revised as necessary within 9 months.
CASE B: The current federally approved SIP for NSR/PSD does not
contain a reference to GEP or cispersion techniques, i.e.,
provisions assuring that emission limitations will not be
affected by stack height in excess of GEP or any prohibited
dispersion techniques do not exist in the current SIP.
-------
-5-
ACTION: Notify the State that such provisions must be adopted and
submitted as a SIP revision within 9 months. This can be
accomplished by adopting stack height regulations at the
State level or by adopting the appropriate reference and
commitment to comply with EPA's stack height regulation as
promulgated on July 8, 1985. Interim permitting should be
consistent with EPA's stack height regulation.**
CASE C: The current federally approved SIP for NSR/PSD contains
references to, but does not define, 6EP or dispersion techniques.
ACTION: Notify the State that a commitment to comply with EPA's stack
height regulation as promulgated on July 8, 1985, is required.
If a State 1s unable to make such a commitment, State regulations
must be revised to be consistent and submitted to EPA as a SIP
revision within 9 months and Interim permitting should be
consistent with EPA's stack height regulation. No "grace
period" will be allowed for sources receiving permits between
July 1985 and April 1986.**
CASE D; The current federally approved SIP for NSR/PSD contains stack
height regulations that are Inconsistent with EPA's regulation.
ACTION: Notify the State that such regulations must be revised to be
consistent and submitted as a SIP revision within 9 months
and that interim permitting should be consistent with EPA's
stack height regulation.**
CASE E(l): A SIP for NSR/PSD has been submitted to EPA, or will be
submitted to EPA before the due date for stack height revisions.
The submittal contains provisions that conflict with EPA's
stack heigot regulation.
ACTION: Notify the State that EPA cannot approve the submittal until
it is revised pursuant to EPA's July 8, 1985, regulation.
**
In the event that a State does not have legal authority to comply with
EPA's regulation in the interim (e.g., because 1t must enforce State
rules that are inconsistent with EPA's regulation) and is compelled to
issue a permit that does not meet the requirements of the EPA revised
stack height regulation, then EPA should notify the State that such
pern-its do iot constitute authority under the Clean A1r Act to commence
construction.
-------
-6-
CASE £(2): As in Case 1(1) t a SIP for NSR/PSD has been submitted to EPA
or will be submitted to EPA before the due date for stack
height revisions. The submittal is not Inconsistent with
EPA's stack height regulation, but portions of the existing
approved SIP that relate to the submittal are inconsistent.
ACTION: Approve the SIP submittal based on a commitnent by the State
to correct the inconsistencies in its existing SIP to comport
with EPA's July 8 regulation and submit the corrections as a
SIP revision within 9 months. Interim permitting should be
consistent with EPA's stack height regulation.** If the exist-
ing SIP is ambiguous, i.e., the SIP references but does not
define terms relating to SEP or dispersion techniques, the
action steps outlined in Case C above should be followed.
CASE F: In nonattainment areas, emission limits or permits do not always
Include modeling, but rather are based on lowest achievable
emission rate (LAER) and offsets.
ACTION: If no modeling is used 1n the Issuance of a permit, the emission
requirements for the source are not "affected" by stack heights
or dispersion techniques, and no action 1s needed. However, 1f
modeling was used 1n the process of preparing and issuing a
permit, such as cases where offsets were obtained offsite, that
modeling must be reviewed for consistency with the stack height
regul ation.
9. 0: What must all States do now that EPA's stack height regulation is
promulgated?
A: States must review and revise.their SIP's as necessary to include or
revise provisions to limit stack height credits and dispersion techniques
to comport with the revised regulations, and, in addition, review and
revise all mission limitations that are affected by stack height credit
above G£? or any other dispersion techniques. In accordance with Section
4Q6(d)(2) of the Clean A1r Act, States have 9 months from promulgation to
submit the revised SIP's and revised SIP emission limitations to EPA.
In an August 7, 1985, memo titled "Implementation of the Revised
Stack Height Regul ation-.Request for Inventory and Action Plan to Revise
SIP's," Regional Offices were requested to begin working with each of
their States to develop States' Action Plans. Each Action Plan should
include the following: (l) An inventory of (a) all stacks greater than
65 meters (m), (b) stacks at sources which exceed 5,000 tons per year
total allowable 563 emissions; and (2} A reasonable schedule of dates for
significant State actions to conform both State stack height rules and
emission limitations to EPA's stack height regulation. Schedules should
include increments of progress. Regional Offices should be satisfied
that each of tneir States provide schedules for completion of the tasks
-------
-7-
as outlined in the August memo and report the status of schedule commitments
to them on a monthly basis. Regional Offices have been asked to forward
monthly status reports to the Control Programs Development Division on
the States' progress to meet scheduled commitments and also report the
results of followup with the States on schedules that are not met. In
order to facilitate tracking the States monthly progress, guidance on a
standardized format will be issued shortly.
Modeling Analyses
10. Q: Is there any restriction or prohibition against, or demonstration
required for, raising an existing (or replacing) stack up to 65 m?
A: No, as Long as prohibited dispersion techniques are not employed.
11. Q: Are flares considered to be stacks?
A: No, flares are excluded from the regulation.
12. Q: What load should be used for a fluid modeling demonstration?
A:- One hundred percent load should generally be used unless there
is a compelling argument otherwise..
13. Q: Can new or modified sources who have agreed to a case-by-case
best available control technology (BACT) emission rate be required to use
this rate for fluid modeling rather than a less stringent new source
performance standard (NSPS) emission rate?
A: As set forth in 40 CFR 51.1 (kk), the allowable emission rate to
be used in making demonstrations under this part shall be prescribed by
the NSPS that is applicable to the source category unless the owner or
operator demonstrates that this emission rate is infeasible.
14. Q: Must the exceeddnce of NAAQS or PSD increment due to downwash, wakes,
or eddies occur at a location meeting the definition of ambient air?
A: No, the exceedance may occur at any location, including that to
which the general public does not have access.
15. Q: Is a source that meets NSPS or BACT emission Units subject to
restrictions on plume merging?
A: Yes. However, in a majority of such cases, there will be no practical
effect since BACT or NSPS limits will be sufficient to assure attainment
without credit for alume rise enhancement.
-------
-8-
Q: What stack parameters are to be used in modeling when the actual
stack neicnt is greater than G£P height?
A: Where it is necessary to reduce stack height credit below what is in
existence, for modeling purposes, use existing stack gas exit parameters—
temperature and flow rate—and existing stack top diameter and model at
GEP height.
17. Q: How should a stack that 1s less than GEP height be modeled when
dispersion techniques are employed?
A: In order to establish an appropriate emission limitation where a
source desires to construct less than a GEP stack but use dispersion
techniques to make up the difference in plume rise, two cases should be
tested. First, conduct a modeling analysis inputting the GEP stack
height without enhanced dispers* ?n parameters, then conduct a second
analysis inputting the less than GEP stack height with the increased
plume rise. The more stringent emission limitation resulting from each
of the two runs should be the one specified as the enforceable limitation.
18. Q: How are the effects of prohibited dispersion techniques to be excluded
for modeling purposes?
A: Where prohibited dispersion techniques have been used, modeling to
exclude their effects on the emission limitation will be accomplished by
using the temperature and flow rates as the gas stream enters the stack, and
recalculating stack parameters to exclude the prohibited techniques
(e.g., calculate stack diameter without restrictions in place, determine
exit gas temperatures before the use of prohibited reheaters, etc.).
19. Q: How are single flued merged stacks and multiflued stacks to be •
treated in a modeling analysis?
A: This is a multistep process. First, sources with allowable $03
emissions be'tow b,000 tons/year may be modeled accounting for any plume
merging that has been employed. For larger sources, multiflued stacks
are considered as prohibited dispersion techniques in the same way as
single flued merged gas streams unless one of the three allowable conditions
has been met; i.e., (1) the source owner or operator demonstrates that
the facility was originally designed and constructed with such merged gas
streams; (2) after date of promulgation, demonstrate that such merging is
associated with a change in operation at the facility that includes the
installation of pollution controls and results in a net reduction in the
allowable emissions of the pollutant for which credit 1s sought; or (3}
before date of promulgation, demonstrate that such merging did not result
in any increase in the allowable emissions (or, in the event that no
emission limit existed, actual emission level) and was associated with a
change in operation at the facility that Included the installation of
-------
-9-
enissi'ons control equipment or was carried out for sound economic or
engineering reasons, as demonstrated to EPA. Guidelines on what constitutes
sound economic or engineering justification will be issued shortly.
If plume merging from multiflued stacks is not allowable, then each
flue/liner must be modeled as a separate source and the combined impact
determined. For single flued merged stacks where credit is not allowed,
each unit should be modeled as a separate stack located at the same
point. The exit parameters, i.e. velocity and temperature, would be the
same as for the existing merged stack conditions and the volume flow rate
based on an apportionment of the flow from the Individual units.
20. Q: What stack height for point sources should be Input to air quality
dispersion modeling for the purpose of demonstrating protection of the
NAAQS and PSD increments?
A: A discussion of the maximum stack height credit to be used in modeling
analyses is provided in the "Guideline for Determination of Good Engineering
Practice Stack Height" and provides that the GEP stack height should be
used as input to the model assessment. If a source is operating with a
less than GEP stack height, then the actual stack height should be input
to the "model.
21. Q: What stack height should be used for background sources in
modeling analyses?
A: The GEP-stack height for each background source should
be input to the model assessment. If a background source is operating
with a less than GEP stack height, then the actual stack height should be
input to the model.
22. Q: Can credit for plume merging due to installation of control
equipment for total suspended paniculate (TSP) matter be allowed when
setting the SOj 1irait?
A: To state the question another way, the concern is what impact
the merging and installation of control equipment have on the emission
limit for another pollutant, and whether the merging occurred before or
after July 8, 1985. After July 8, 1985, any exclusion from the definition
of "dispersion techniques" applies only to the emission limitation for
the pollutant affected by such change in operation and 1s accompanied by
a net reduction in allowable emissions of the pollutant. For example, a
source tears down two old stacks and builds one new GEP stack with an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP). This results in a net reduction in TSP
emissions. This source could model using stack gas characteristics
resulting from merging tne two gas streams in setting the TS? emission
limit, but may not so nodel and receive the credit for stack merging when
evaluating the SC>2 emission limit.
-------
-10-
Before July 8, 1985, installation of TSP pollution control equipment
generally justifies the merging of the stacks for TSP. However, if a
source's emission limitation for SOj increased after the merging, then
credit would generally not be allowed since it is presumed that the
merging was to increase dispersion*
A source with no previous SOj emission limit that merges stacks and
installs an ESP for TSP control may consider the effects of merging on
compliance with the TSP NAAQS but may not use merging to justify setting
an S02 emission limit less stringent than its actual emission rate before
the merging.
23. Q: If, after determining GEP stack height by fluid modeling,
dispersion modeling under other than "downwash" meteorological conditions
shows that a lower emission limit than that from the fluid model GEP
analysis is necessary to meet ambient air quality constraints, should a
new stack height be defined for the source?
A: No. GEP stack height is set. Ambient air quality problems
predicted by dispersion modeling at the fluid modeled height means that a
more stringent emission limit is necessary.
24. Q: Does EPA intend to issue additional guidance on fluid modeling
demonstrations?
A: See the attached memo from Joseph A. Tikvart, Chief, Source
Receptor Analysis Branch, to David Stonefleld, Chief, Policy Development
Section, on guidance for a discussion of existing and additional guidance
on fluid model demonstrations.
Attachment
cc: Stack Height Contacts
Gerald Emison
Ron Campbell
B. J. Steigerwald
-------
PN 123-85-09-19-006
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 2771 1
September 19, 1985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance ci Fluid Model Demonstrations for Detemining GEP
Stack Height in Complex Terrain
FROM: „ Joseph A. Tikvart, Chief
Source Receptor Analysis Branch, MDAD
TO: David Stonefield, Chief
Policy Developaent Section, CPDD
The recently promulgated stack, height regulation requires that a source
that wishes to receive credit for the effects of wakes, eddies and downwash
produced by nearby terrain for the purpose of calculating GEP stack height
must conduct a fluid model demonstration or a field study. Recent guidance
for fluid modeling these terrain effects is contained in Section 3.6 of the
"Guideline for Determination of GEP Stack Height (Revised)," EPA 450/4-80-023R,
June 1985, available from NTIS as PB 85-225-241. In addition, the report
"Fluid Modeling Determination of Good Engineering Practice Stack Height in
Complex Terrain," EPA 600/3-85-022, available from NTIS PB 85-203-107,
provides an actual case of how EPA conducted a GEP determination, abort of
performing the "excessive concentration" criteria teat. Requests to conduct
field studies in lieu of fluid modeling demonstrations" will be evaluated on
a case-by-case basis; refer to pp. 46-47 of' the GEP Guideline.
Previously, EPA published three documents which form the basis for
conducting fluid model demonstrations, particularly in flat terrain
situations: (1) "Guideline for Fluid Modeling of Atmospheric Diffusion,"
EPA 600/8-81-009, April 1981, available from NTIS aa PB 81-201-410; (2)
"Guideline for Use of Fluid Modeling to Determine Good Engineering Practice
Stack Height," EPA 450/4-81-003, July 1981, available from NTIS aa PB 82-145-
327; and (3) "Determination of Good-Engineering-Practiee Stack Height: A
Fluid Model Demonstration Study for a Power Plant," EPA 600/3-63-024, April
1983, available from NTIS aa PB 83-207407.
Lastly, EPA conducted a 4-day workshop on fluid modeling and GEP
determination at the Fluid Modeling Facility at RTF in February 1981,
attended by ataff from each Regional Office. Although some attendees are
no longer with the Agency, we believe at least one person in each Region
who attended is still "on board," except for Regions II and VIII, and could
serve as a resource person. At the Regional Workshop on the Stack Height
Regulation next month, we will poll the attendees concerning the need for
-------
another fluid modeling workshop for Regional Office and State technical
•taff. If a need is expressed and specific attendees can be identified, we
will request the Meteorology and Assessment Division, ASRL, to present such
a workshop at RIP within the next few months.
The above documents together with staff that have some knowledge of
fluid modeling should enable most Regions to provide initial technical
assistance to the States and enable the States to increase their own level
of expertise. Note that document (2) contains a report checklist in Section
5, outlining what a fluid model report should contain. Additional items
explicitly related to complex terrain studies may be required on a case-by-
case basis, especially after reviewing EPA's example study carefully. More
detailed procedures for implementing the excessive concentration criteria
calculations, using data from a fluid model demonstration, are being developed
and will be provided at the upcoming Regional Workshop.
Should technical questions arise regarding GEP determinations or fluid
model demonstrations, please contact Jim Dicke or Dean Wilson of my staff,
FTS 629-5681. We assume the Regional Office staffs will attempt a first-cut
resolution of technical issues before requesting our assistance.
cc: S. Reinders
R. R&oads
F. Scaleneier
D. Wilson
-------
United State*
{Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/4-B1-003
July 1981
Air
Guideline for Use of
Fluid Modeling to Determine
Good Engineering Practice
Stack Height
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
OCT 30 1981
UBftARY SERVICES OFFICE
-------
UMrtotf Statav Environmental SeiancM Raaaarcfi
•refaction Laboratory
Haaaarcn Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-eoO/3-83-024
April 1983
Rtsaarch and Oavtlopmant
Determination of
Good-Engineering-
Practice Stack
Height
•
A Fluid Model
Demonstration
Study for a Power
Plant
-------
United States EPA-600/8-81-009
Environmental Protection April 1981
Agency
&ERA Research and
Development
OCT 3u 1981
Prepared for
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Prepared by
Environmental Sciences Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Guideline for ^y^ sa^os OFFICE
Fluid Modeling of
Atmospheric Diffusion
-------
Protection
*»»«»reh Trwnvto Par* HC 2771 1
Fluid Modeling
Demonstration of
Good-Engineering-
Practice Stack
Height in Complex
Terrain
NATIONAL
INFORMATION
TIONAL TECHNICAL \ \
DRMATION SERVICE / S
•i ttufmn v cMmncf / ^
9*m**^ ^T ^
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.7
-------
PN 123-85-10-28-008
,i if
° *
. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
3 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
* Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1
~*
CCT 2 * J98S
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Implementation of Stack Helgjtf^Regulatljyis - Exceptions From
Restrictions on Credit for
FROM: Darryl D. iyler, Director
Control Programs Developm
TO: Director, A1r Management Division
Regions I-X
This guidance has been prepared to address two Issues pertaining to
credit for merged stacks prior to July 8, 1985. It establishes a procedure
that should be used to prepare and to review justifications for merging gas
streams for economic or engineering reasons, and to address the presumption
that merging was significantly motivated by an Intent to gain credit for
Increased dispersion. Please note that this 1s guidance; States may submit
alternative demonstrations 1n support of merged stack exemptions 1f they
feel the Individual circumstances warrant.
Background
Recent revisions to EPA's stack height regulations place certain
restrictions on the degree to which stationary sources may rely on the
effects of dispersion techniques when calculating allowable emissions.
One such restriction 1s provided for the merging of gas streams, or
combining of stacks. Several exemptions have been provided 1n the regula-
tion, however. More specifically, 40 CFR Part 5l.l(hh)(2)(11) allows
credit under circumstances where:
A. The source owner or operator demonstrates that the facility was
originally designed and constructed with such merged gas streams;
B. After July 8, 1985, such merging 1s part of a change 1n operation
at the facility that Includes the Installation of pollution controls and 1s
accompanied by a net reduction 1n the allowable emissions of a pollutant.
This exclusion from the definition of "dispersion techniques" shall apply
only to the emission limitation for the pollutant affected by such change
1n operation; or
C. Before July 8, 1985, such merging was part of a change 1n operation
at the facility that Included the Installation of emissions control equip-
ment or was carried out for sound economic or engineering reasons. Where
there was an Increase 1n the federally-approved emission limitation for any
-------
pollutant or, 1n the event that no emission limitation was 1n existence
prior to the merging, an Increase 1n the quantity of any pollutants actually
emitted from existing units prior to the merging, the reviewing agency
shall presume that merging was significantly motivated by an Intent to gain
emissions credit for greater dispersion. Absent a demonstration by the
source owner or operator that merging was not significantly motivated by
such an Intent, the reviewing agency shall deny credit for the effects of
such merging 1n calculating the allowable emissions for the source.
General Requirements
Figure 1 Illustrates a framework for evaluating claims for merged
stack credit. Because merged gas streams are generally regarded as prohibited
dispersion techniques under the regulations, 1t 1s Incumbent on the State
or the source owner or operator to demonstrate that such merging was conducted
for sound economic or engineering reasons, and was not significantly motivated
by an Intent to avoid emission controls. Consequently, the first step
should entail a review of State and EPA files to determine the existence of
any evidence of Intent on the part of the source owner or operator.
Information showing that merging was conducted specifically to Increase
final exhaust gas plume rise serves as a demonstration of dispersion Intent
that justifies a denial of credit for merged gas streams. Demonstrations that
merging was carried out for sound economic or engineering reasons are
expected to show that either the benefits of merging due to reduced
construction and maintenance costs outweigh the benefits relating to lower
emission control costs or that relevant engineering considerations showed
the merging to be clearly superior to other*conf1gurat1ons.
Demonstration Requirements
Several exemptions from prohibitions on gas stream merging are provided
for existing sources 1n the stack height regulations:
1- where sources constructed their stacks before December 31, 1970,
2- where the total facility-wide emissions from the source do not
exceed 5,000 tons per year,
3- where the facility was originally designed and constructed
with merged gas streams, and
4- where the merging was part of a change 1n facility operation that
Included the Installation of pollution control equipment and resulted 1n
no Increase 1n the allowable emissions of any pollutant.* Where there
was an Increase in emissions 1n conjunction with the merging and Installation
of control equipment, the regulations require that source owners also make
an affirmative demonstration that the merging was not motivated by dispersive
Intent.
*Where there was no federally-approved emission limit prior to merging
gas streams, there must be no Increase 1n the actual emissions of any
pollutant. Moreover, 1t 1s Incumbent on the State to demonstrate that there
was a logical relationship between the merging of existing gas streams and
the Installation of controls.
-------
Sources that are not covered under these criteria may still qualify for
exemption if they can show that merging was conducted for sound economic
or engineering reasons. Such demonstrations should Include justifications
for having replaced existing stacks. This may be done, for Instance, by
documenting through maintenance records, correspondence, or other
contemporaneous evidence, that the existing stacks had reached the end of
their useful life, were prematurely corroded, had sustained other damage
making them unservlcable, were of a height less than that regarded as
good engineering practice, thereby causing downwash problems, or that the
addition of new units at the facility necessitated additional stacks and
Insufficient land was available. The absence of any evidence supporting
the need for stack replacement creates a strong presumption that merging
was carried out specifically to avoid the Installation of pollution
controls, I.e., was "significantly motivated by an Intent to gain emissions
credit for Increased dispersion."
No Increase 1n Allowable Emissions
Once this Initial criterion 1s satisfied, demonstrations may show
that merging was based either on sound economic or sound engineering
reasons. Claims based on strict engineering justifications may be more
difficult to show, since the existence of more than one reasonable
engineering solution generally leads to a decision based on economics.
However, 1f 1t can be documented that the merged stack configuration was
clearly superior to other stack configurations for purely engineering
reasons, without consideration of cost, then credit for merging may be
granted.
In order to most reliably Implement the provisions of the regulations
regarding the merging of gas streams for sound economic reasons, 1t would
be necessary to ascertain the actual Intent of the source owner or operator
at the time the decision was made to merge gas streams. Recognizing that
the difficulty of doing so was the basis for EPA's rejection of an "Intent
test" 1n the rule, the following approach provides a surrogate demonstration
of Intent. This approach 1s summarized 1n Figure 2.
Because the potential savings attributable to the avoidance of
pollution controls can significantly Influence decisions to merge stacks,
one way to show the absence of dispersion Intent 1s to conduct an analysis
of the annual1zed capital and maintenance costs for merged stacks and for
Individual stacks, and compare the results to the compliance costs (fuel
and operation and maintenance of any control equipment) calculated based on
the emission limitations derived with and without merged stack credit. If,
when the difference 1n capital and maintenance costs 1s compared with the
difference 1n compliance costs over the period of capital amortization, the
capital and maintenance cost saving 1s greater than the compliance cost
saving, then merging can be accepted as having a sound economic basis.
In establishing this rule of thumb, we are aware that a benefit of as
little as 10-20 percent could be considered "significant" 1n the context of
the court's holding on this matter—I.e., such a benefit could have been
considered to be a relevant factor 1n decisions to construct merged stacks.
-------
However, recognizing that documentation of cost analyses after an extended
period of time— up to 15 years—Is likely to be limited, we believe that
the 50 percent test articulated above would constitute a more reasonable
basis for Initial determinations (that 1s, a level at which we believe that
there was likely a significant Incentive to merge stacks to avoid control
requirements).
Affirmative Demonstrations of Nond1spers1on Intent
In some Instances, a State or emission source owner may not be able to
make a demonstration as described above, or believe that sound economic
reasons existed for merging stacks, regardless of the relationship between
financial savings attributable to reduced emission control requirements
versus lower stack construction cost. In such cases, an opportunity should
be provided to affirmatively demonstrate that merged stacks were not
"significantly motivated by an Intent to obtain emissions credit for
Increased dispersion." The burden of proof rests solely with source owners
or operators attempting to make *i1s showing.
Demonstrations may rely on any relevant evidence, Including but not
limited to the following:
• construction permits, or permits to operate from pollution control
agencies
• correspondence between the source owner or operator and government
agencies
- engineering reports relating to the facility
- facility records
- affidavits
• any other relevant materials
For Instance, such a demonstration could be made by submitting
documentary or other evidence (e.g., Internal company memoranda presenting
the alternative construction opportunities available to the company) that
indicates the Intent of the source owner or operator and shows that
consideration of dispersion advantages was conspicuously absent.
Alternatively, 1t night be shown that either action by the State 1n
approving a revised emission limit followed actual merging sufficiently
later 1n time to suggest that dispersion credit was not considered by the
source at the time of merging or the State approved limit was unrelated to
the merging.
In attempting to make demonstrations, source owners or operators
should present as much evidence as can be located, with the understanding
that demonstrations based on any single category of evidence (such as
affidavits) presented 1n Isolation are less likely to constitute acceptable
showings than demonstrations based on cumulative bodies of evidence.
discussed below, affirmative showings will be required of sources
whose merged stacks were associated with an Increase 1n allowable emissions
as well as some sources whose mergers were not associated with such
-------
Increases. However, EPA expects sources whose emission limits Increased
subsequent to the merging to present stronger showings than those with no
Increase, since the regulatory definition of "dispersion technique" views
such increases as an explicit Indication that the merged stacks were
significantly motivated by an Intent to gain credit for Increased disper-
sion. Sources who do not Increase their emissions, but who have difficulty
making other demonstrations, such as the Installation of pollution controls,
or merging for sound economic or engineering reasons convey a more Implicit
Indication of dispersion Intent that must be rebutted; for such sources,
however, the presumption of Intent 1s not as compelling.
Increases 1n Allowable Emissions
As stated above, 1n cases where the allowable emissions of any
pollutant Increased 1n conjunction with the merging of gas streams, such
an Increase provides even stronger circumstantial evidence that merging
was not carried out for sound economic or engineering reasons, but was
"significantly motivated by an Intent to gain emissions credit for greater
dispersion." This presumption may be rebutted by making one of the
following demonstrations.
1- by showing that the cost savings associated with reduced compliance
costs for merged stacks are less than 50 percent of the total savings due to
merged stacks (I.e., annual compliance savings plus annual 1 zed capital
and maintenance savings), and by making an affirmative showing, as described
above, that there was no significant motivation to gain credit for the
Increased dispersion provided by merged stacks; or
2- by showing that alternatives to stack merging were reasonably
precluded strictly for engineering reasons, and by affirmatively demon-
strating the absence of significant dispersion Intent, as noted above.
In the absence of such a showing, 1t should be presumed that avoidance
of emissions control was a significant factor 1n the decision to merge gas
streams, and credit should be denied.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding the application of
this guidance 1n specific Instances, please contact Eric Glnsburg at
(FTS) 629-5540 or Sharon Relnders at (FTS) 629-5526.
Attachments
-------
FIGURE 1
GUI
Credit
Granted
fTeTl
Credit
Grantad
Pre- 7/8/85
Retrofit Merged Stacks
Record of Intent
for Dispersion
Pur oses
l"TeT
No
Credit
El
Installed
Pollution Controls
Increased
Emissions
Qes
Affirmative
Showlng
No
Reason to
Replace Stacks
run
Credit
E
R
nrn
Cng^
Rea«
No 1 Merg-
neerlng
sons make
Ing Clearly
Credit I No I Superior
ngl neerlng
easons for
Mergl ng
Increased
Emissions
rr<
t^^V
I
Economic
Reasons for
Merglng
See
Figure 2
No
Credit
Engineering Reasons
to Preclude Alternatives
Credit
Granted
Granted
Yes
LNOJ
ftffirmative
Showlng
No
Credit
No
No
Credit
-------
Figure 2
Economic Justification
for Merged Stacks
Savings due to Avoidance
of More Stringent
Emission Limit
Less than 50* of Total
Savings due to Merged
Stack Construction
Exceed 50% of Total
Savings due to Merged
Stack Construction
No Increase
In Emissions
Credit
Granted
Affirmative
Showing
Increase
In Emissions
Affirmative
Showing
No
Credit
-------
4* CM Ck. I (7-l-M MM**)
rAII SI—UQMUMINfS KM Plir-
AiAnoM, AoornoM, AND tuft-
MOTAl O» IMftlMfNTAflON
MANS
A-C-|*Uaer»*|-
II.M
AQUA Aauu.f si*
1141 AQUA analyala: Submit Ul dale.
11.41 AQHA analysis: Analysis period.
•I 41 AQMA analysis: Ouldallnas.
II 44 AQUA analysts: Projection at
II 4* AQMA analysis. Allocation of
IIM AQItA analysis: Projection a( ato-
ll 41 AQUA analysis: Description of data
II U AQItA analysis: Data bases.
II 4* AQMA analysts: Technique* •aterlp-
II H AQMA analysts: Accuracy factors.
Mil AQMA snsljraVj: Bubmtllslolcatoila-
AQMA FLU
III! AQMA plan: General.
•141 AQMA nkMt: Demrmetnllnn ol ads-
II M AQMA plan: MratesM*.
II M AQMA plan: UcaJ authority.
II M AQMA plan: PuUirsstreUde*.
II n AQMA paw Putun M«al sutborHy
IIM AQMA plan: UI*r«o**m*MaUI ca-
ll
II M AQMA plan: Resources
III! AQMA plan: aubasUlal formal.
IIII AQMA snslrsi* and «>*•«; OMa •*•!!-
•UIMy.
II •* AQMA UMly^i tod pteit AlUnuUi*
I *»!!»• U«I»>V«4I
II ion Ocllnltlom.
II 101 8tl|iuUUecUoni
•l.ll* DataavallabUlty
•1111 AddlUonal provWon* for toad.
II III Mtaek helcbt provUlon*.
•1.11* laiaraUtUot control ty.l IBM.
i«IAh
•I.IM
on of ractom for ipamd«
•1.111 •kmlitcant harm !•«•»*
•I IM CttnUrxenry plan*.
•I.IM lUnaluaUon of epUod* plan
HIM Admkttetr
HIM
•I. IN Puramli raqulrcmenta.
•I.IM PnvmUon of
niton of air ««iaUty.
proeeduna.
II 111 Transportation control i
•l.lll OnrtHnuTHSi emission ato
HIM RcqulremenU (or
II Ul UatilUkaUoa of le«*J *uUu>rlty.
•I HI ••ljTi»«Hi-ii HccuuTiOHa roa
PIKVKIITIUH or Aia PULLUTIUH Enaaoan
cv Cri«M»*
ArrcNBin M IKi&»viul
ArriHBix N KHIUIUM* RnoctioiM
AcHiivxif TMIUUBH ln»rumoii. M*m
TBH4MCC «HD RCTBOriT or UOHT DVT*
VKMICLU
ArruiMi O IHuu»u>l
ArravDii P MINIMUM CatiMioM Momroe
lav RK4uiau»nr*
ArwmicuQ- R-IRuBavavl
ArrsMii 8 EMIKIOM Omn Itrraran*-
TIV« RULIHO
ArrauMi T IRuuvavl
Armmi U -CLUH Aia ACT Bmmom 114
OUIMXIHU
AvnK»iTV Thl» rulemaklnc la promul
gated Hmier authority ol aecttona KKbKU.
III. IM-IM. Ill 111. and JOKal of Ihe
Clean Air Act 41 U8C. 14«libNl). 1411.
14W-141*. 1MI 1MM. and IMIlal.
SouacK M PH HIM. Nov. U. 1*11. unleai
other* Ue noted.
EaiToaiu. Nora: Nomenclature chance*
affectlni Part II appear at 44 PR IU1. Pck.
«. in* and H PR 4OMI. Nov. 1. IM«.
A C— (•
II 340 Rel fur 1 year edeiulon.
Booarc 41 PR HIM. May 1. ini. unleaa
oUterwUe noted.
• II.M Scope.
<•> Applicability The requlremenU
of Ihla lubpart apply to air quality
maintenance area* (AQUAa) Mentl-
lled under | M.IIMIl and to any areM
IdcnllCled under I ft 1.110(11.
-
Utlnc aource* and emlaalona aooclated
wllh protected irowlh and develop-
ment In area* Identified under para
•rapru and «l) of I SI 110 ThU
analysis U referred to In this subpart
as an AQMA analysis.
(c) AQHA Han Under this subpart.
the Administrator will require a rev!
slon to the State Implementation plan
for areas Identified under I M IKXDor
I SI 110(1) when ntrceBsary to prevent a
national ambient air quality ttanclard
-------
ISI.IM
"Transportation control meas-
ure" means any measure thai la direct-
ed toward reducing emissions of air
pollutants from transportation
sources. Such measures Include, but
are not limited to, lhaee listed In see-
Uoa 10*n of the Clean Air Act.
(»Mw) I Reserved)
(i) "Time period" mean* any period
of time designated by hour, month,
season, calendar year, averaging time.
or other aultable characteristic*, tor
which ambient air quality to estimated.
tyl "Variance" mean* the temporary
deferral of a final compliance date for
an Individual aouroe subject to an ap-
proved regulation, or a temporary
chance to an approved refutation a* It
applies to an Individual source.
(•I "Emission limitation" and "emis-
sion standard" mean a requirement •*-
UbUahed by a Slate, local government.
or UM Administrator which UmlU the
quantity, rate, or concentration of
•missions of air pollutanU on a contin-
uous basis, Including any requirement*
which limit the level of opacity, pre-
scribe equipment, act fuel spedflea-
Uons. or prescribe operation or maln-
Unancc procedure* for a aource to
arxu« conUniKNM emUalon reduction.
(mat "Capacity factoi" means the
ratio of UM average load on a machine
or equipment for the period of Urn*
considered to the capacity rating of
Ut* machine or equipment.
"Excess emissions" mean* emto-
•toe* of an air pollutant In excess of
SB. avilaalon stxmdard.
foe) "Nitric acid plant" meant any
radUtr producing nitric add M to 71
percent In strength by either the pres-
sure or atmospheric pressure process.
"Sulfuric acid plant" means any
facility producing •ullurlc add by UM
contact process by burning elemental
sulfur, alkylatton acid, hydrogen aul-
Mde. or add sludge, but does not In-
clude facilities where conversion to
sulf uric add Is utilised primarily as a
means of preventing emissions to the
atmosphere of sulfur dioxide or other
sulfur compounds.
"Ftoesll fuel fired sleam genera-
tor" means a furnance or bloler used
In the process of burning fossil fuel for
the primary purpose of producing
•Iran by heat transfer
40 CM CM. I (7-1-
"Stack" means any point In a
source designed to emit solids, liquids.
or gases Into the air. Including a pipe
or duct but not Including flares.
(ggl "A stack In exUtenoe" means
that the owner or operator had (I)
begun, or caused to begin, a continu-
ous program of physical on-slte con-
struction of the stack or (II entered
Into binding agreements or contrac-
tual obligations, which could not be
cancelled or modified without substan-
tial loss to the owner or operator, to
undertake a program of construction
of UM stack to be completed within a
reasonable time.
"Dispersion technique-
means any technique which attempts
to affect the concentration of a pollut-
ant m the ambient air by:
(I) Using that portion of a stack
which exceeds good engineering prat-
tles stack height
Varying the rate of smtoslnii of a
pollutant according to atmospheric
conditions or ambient concentrations
of that pollutant; or
(Hit Increasing final exhaust gas
plume rise by manlf—««»*
ant affected by such change In oper-
ation: or
(0 Before July I. IM*. such merg-
ing was part of a change In operation
at the faculty that Included the Instal-
lation of emissions control equipment
or was carried out for sound fmonornlc
or engineering reasons. Where there
was an Increase m th*<
lion or. to the event that no i
UmltaUon was In existence prior to the
merging, an Increase In the quanUty of
pollutant* actually emitted prior to
the merging, the reviewing agency
shall presume that merging was sJg-
nUlcantly motivated by an mteat to
gam emissions credit for greater dto-
Absent * desaonstraUon by
owner or operator that
t was not signlfteantly mottvatr
ed by such Intent. UM reviewing
•goaty shall deny credit for the ef-
fects of ouch merging to calculating
UM allowable missions for UM souros;
(111) Smok* rfmnagcmcnt m •grtcul-
lural or sllvlcultural
| Sl.ltt
H-hetsht •! nearby Mnictureisl i
from Ihe (round level elevation at UM
taseof IhecUck
L-fewer Mmeiulon. hetsht or protect**
•loth, ol ncmrby •ttvcturds)
provided that the EPA. State or tonal
control agency may require the use of
a field study or fluid model to verify
OEP stack height for the source: or
(II The height demonstrated by a
fluid model or a field study approved
by UM EPA State or local control
agency, which ensure* that UM emto-
i from a stack do not result m ex-
Ive concentrations of any air pol-
• result of atmospheric
wakes, or eddy effects cre-
ated by the source Iteelf. nearby struc-
tures or nearby terrain feature*.
(U) "Nearby" as used to |H.|gOtMI
of thto part to defined for a specific
structure or terrain feature and
(I) fvjr purposes of applying UM for-
provided ta III.ll04UMa> means
distance up to five times UM
of UM height or the width ex-
pa re meters, exhaust gas pa-
rameters, stack parameters, or eombln-
log exhaust gssas from several extot-
Isctlre handling sf exhaust
streams so as to Increase UM *
gas plume rise.
()> The prsnsrtlng sentence
(!) The reheating of a gs
following use of a pollution control
sjatsm. for UM purpose of returning
UM gas to UM temperature at which It
was originally discharged from UM fa-
dlHy generating the gas stream:
(Ml The merging of exhaust gas
streams where:
(A> The source owner or operator
demons!rate* that the fadltty was
originally designed and constructed
with such merged gas streams;
(B) After July •. IMS such merging
to part of a change In operation at the
facility that Includes the Installation
of pollution controls and to accompa-
nied by a net reduction HI the allow-
able emissions of a pollutant. This ex-
duslon from the definition of '•disper-
sion techniques" shall apply only to
the emlMlon limitation for the pollut
Ual woodbumlng and open burning; or
(v) Techniques undsr
tll.lMthhMlMHI) which Increase
final exhaust gas plume rise where tht
resulting allowable emissions of sulfur
dioxide from the faculty do not exceed
•.go* tons per year.
(HI "Oood engineering practtos"
stock height mnens UM greater
oT.
(II W meters, measured from UM
ground-lev*! elevation at UM bats of
UM stock:
(INI) For stacks fen sxtotenee *• Jan-
uary IS, Iflf. and for which UM i
or operator had obtained all a|
permits or approvato required i
CFH Parts!I andII.
sl.-a.Mi.
provided the owner or operator pro-
duces evidence that this equation was
actually relied on In establishing an
emission limitation:
1II> for all other stacks.
H.-H » ML
H,-rood enslncerlns pnctln lUek hri«M,
mtimmd from (he (round level eleva-
tion *1 (he bwe or the *Uck.
i of a structure, but not greelsr
than 0.1 km (H mile), and
(II For conducting demonstrations
under I ll.loatuxSt means not greater
than l.l km (* mile), except that UM
portion of a terrain feature may be
considered to be nearby which falto
within a distance of up to II times the
height (H.) of the feature.
to exceed a mile* If such feature
achieve* a height (H,) l.l km from UM
that to at least «• percent of the
i height determined by UM
formulae provided te lll.HMUxaxil)
of thto part or M meters, whichever to
greater, as measured from the ground-
levet elevation at the base of UM stack.
The height of the structure or terrain
feature to measured from the ground-
level elevation at the base of UM stack.
(kk> "Excessive concentration- to de-
fined for the purpose of determining
good engineering practice stack height
under III.IMMIIM» and means.
(II for sources seeking credit for
•tack height exceeding that estab-
lished under | II.IOMIIM1) a maximum
ground-level concentration due to
emissions from a stack due In whole or
part to downwash. wskes. and eddy ef-
fects produced .by nearby structures or
nearby terrain features which Individ-
ually to at least 40 percent In excess of
720
121
-------
191.100
the maximum concentration experi-
enced |n the absence of such down-
wa*h. wake*, or eddy eflecU and
which contribute* to a total concentra-
tion due to emlMloiu from all sources
that Is greater than an ambient air
Quality standard. For sources subject
to the prevention of significant dete-
rioration program (40 CFR SI.IM and
I).3D. an excessive concentration al-
ternatively means a maximum ground-
level eoncentratlon due to emissions
flora a stack due In whole or part to
downwash. wakes, or eddy effects pro-
duced by nearby structures or nearby
terrain features which Individually la
at least 40 percent In excess of UM
•wubuura concentration experienced
In the absence of such downwash.
wakes, or eddy effects and greater
Utan a prevention of significant dete-
rioration Increment. The allowable
emission rate to be used In making
demonstrations under this part shall
be pieeeribed by the new source per-
formance standard that Is applicable
to the source category unless the
ownei or operator demonstrates that
Into emission rate Is Infeaslble. Where
such demonstrations are approved by
the authority administering the State
Implementation plan, an alternative
emission rate shall be established In
consultation with the source owner or
operator.
(» For sources seeking credit after
October II. I9U. for Increases In exist-
ing stack heights up to the heights es-
tablished under 1 SI.IOOUIM3). either
(l> a maximum around-level concentra-
tion due In whole or part to down-
wash, wakes or eddy effects as provid-
ed In paragraph of this section,
except that the emission rate specified
by any applicable State Implementa-
tion plan (or. In the absence of such a
limit, the actual emission rate! shall
be used, or (ll> the actual presence of a
local nuisance caused by the existing
stack, as determined by the authority
administering the Stale Implementa-
tion plan; and
(I) For sources seeking credit after
January II. 1MB for a slack height de-
termined under I 6I.IOOOIM3I where
the authority administering the State
urplrmenUllon plan requires the use
ot a field study or fluid model to verify
QEP slack height, for sources seeking
40 Cn CK. I (7-1-00 IdMeii)
stack height credit after November 9.
IM4 based on the aerodynamic Influ-
ence of cooling towers, and for sources
seeking stack height credit after De-
cember SI. 1970 based on the aerody-
namic Influence of structures not ade-
quately represented by the equations
In | II.10O(IIM3). a maximum ground-
level concentration due In whole or
part to downwash. wakes or eddy ef-
fects that Is at least 40 percent In
excess of the maximum concentration
experienced In the absence of such
downwash. wakes, or eddy effects.
(IIMmm) {Reserved!
Inn) Intermittent control system
(ICB) means a dtapendon technique
which varies the rate at which pollut-
ants are emitted to the atmosphere ac-
cording to meteorological conditions
and/or amMdnt concentrations of the
pollutant. In order to prevent ground-
level concentrations In excess of appli-
cable ambient air quality standards.
Such a dispersion technique Is an ICB
whether used alone, used with other
dispersion techniques, or used as •
supplement to continuous emission
controls (I.e.. used as a supplemental
control system).
(ool "Partlculate matter" means any
airborne finely divided solid or liquid
material with an aerodynamic diame-
ter smaller than 100 micrometers.
(ppt "Partlculate matter emlsaloM"
means all finely divided solid or liquid
material, other than unoombtned
water, emitted to the ambient air a*
by applicable reference
or an equivalent or alterna-
tive method, specified In this chapter.
or by a test method specified In an ap-
proved BUte Implementation plan.
"PM»" means parOculate
matter with an aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to a nominal 10 mi-
crometers as measured by a reference
method based on Appendix J of Put
•0 of this chapter and designated m
accordance with Part IS of this chap-
ter or by an equivalent method desig-
nated In accordance with Part M of
this chapter.
(rr) "Paf» emissions" means finely
divided solid or liquid material, with
an aerodynamic diameter leas than or
equal to a nominal 10 micrometers
emitted to the ambient air as meas-
ured by an applicable reference
•*vw*4MM«tal fretectWn Agency
method, or an equivalent or alterna-
tive method, specified In this chapter
or by a test method specified In an ap-
proved State Implementation plan.
'Total suspended partlculate"
means partlculate matter as measured
by the method described In Appendix
B of Part M of this chapter.
HI tit 4MWI. NO«. i. IMS. as amended at M
m Mill. July I.
• 11.191
Nothing In this part will be con
•trued In any manner
(a> To encourage a Stale to prepare.
adopt, or submit a plan which does not
provide for the protection and en-
hancement of air quality so M to pro-
mote the public health and welfare
and productive capacity.
(b) To encourage a State to adopt
any particular control strategy with-
out taking Into consideration the eoat-
effecUveness of such control strategy
In relation to that of alternative con-
trol strategies.
To preclude a State from employ-
Ing techniques other than those speci-
fied In this part for purposes of esti-
mating air quality or demonstrating
the adequacy of a control strategy.
provided that such other techniques
are shown to be adequate and appro-
priate for such purposes.
(d) To encourage a State to prepare.
adopt, or submit a plan without taking
Into consideration the social and eco-
nomic Impact of the control strategy
set forth la such plan. Including, bat -
not limited to. Impact on availability
of fuels, energy, transportation, and
employment.
(e) To preclude a BUte from p
tog, adopting, or submitting a ,».
which provides for attainment tad
maintenance of a national stawflard
through the application of « vttUrol
strategy not specifically Identified or
described to this part,
(f) To preclude a State or political
subdivision thereof from adopting or
enforcing any emission limitations or
other measures or combinations there:
of to atteln and maintain air quality
better than that required by a nation-
al standard.
(g> To encourage a Slate to adopt a
control strategy uniformly applicable
throughout a region unless there Is no
| SI.IM
satisfactory alternative way of provid-
ing for attainment and maintenance of
a national standard throughout such
region.
MUM Public atari.!*.
(al Bxcepi as otherwise provided In
paragraph (c) of this section. States
must conduct one or more public hear-
ings on the following prior to adoption
and submission to EPA of:
(l> Any plan or revision of It re-
quired by |Bl.l04(ai.
(» Any Individual compliance ached-'
ule under (| 01.300).
<>» Any revision under I 01.104(d>.
Separate hearings may be held
for plans to Implement primary and
gecondary standards.
(c) No hearing will be required for
any change to an Increment of
progress In an approved Individual
compliance schedule unless ^trh
change la likely to cause the source to
be unable to comply with the final
compliance date In the schedule. The
re«iilremente of 1111.104 and si |M
will be applicable to such schedules.
(d) Any hearing required by pan-
graph (a) of this section will be held
"J" *• considered to Include. 'at'lei*
M days prior to the date of such
hearuigtsk
(1) Notice given to the public by
prominent advertisement hi the are*
•«*eted announcing the del*.).
umetsi, and placets) of BIM^II
boarlngts); ^^
(3> Availability of each proposed
%5»w-H5i5S
oahedule
the region In which the af-
fected source Is located; "«•«•»
th* Aa-nlntotralor
appropriate Regional
<[J»Notlflcallon to each local air pol-
"V^? control agency which will be
•tenlflcanlly Impacted by such plan.
schedule or revision:
(») In the case of an Interstate
region, notification to any other
Steles Included. In whole or In part. In
722
723
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.8
-------
WORKSHOP ON IMPLEMENTING THE STACK
HEIGHT REGULATIONS
(REVISED)
OCTOBER 29 TO 30, 1985
by
PEI Associates, Inc.
505 South Duke Street, Suite 503
Durham, North Carolina 27701-3196
CONTROL PROGRAMS DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT!6M AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27711
October 1985
-------
PN 123-87-10-09-Cl-i
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
9 OCT 7987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Processing of Stack Height Negative Declarations
FROM: G. T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch
TO: Chief, Air Branch
Regions I-X
The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify and revise some points
in my September 3, 1987, memorandum entitled "Technical Support for Stack
Height Negative Declarations." That memorandum included a list of minimum
requirements for determining adequate documentation with three additional
guidance documents attached. One of the attachments was the August 23,
1987, memorandum from Charles Carter of the Office of General Counsel (OGC)
and me to Bruce Miller of Region IV, entitled "Documentary Support for
Deficiencies in Stack Height Review Packages." Because several actions
are being delayed by inadequate documentation, we sent copies of the
August 28 memorandum to all ten Regions as examples to alert them to
these problems.
The Tennessee State implementation plan (SIP) was used as an example
because we believed it had deficiencies that were common to other negative
declaration packages. The use of the Tennessee evaluation as an example
was not intended to single out Region IV as having more problems with
documentation than other Regions, although the tone of the memorandum
might have given- this impression. I am sorry for this misrepresentation.
In a recent conference call with OGC and Region IV, Region IV
suggested three clarifications and revisions to the guidance that we
included in the August 28, 1987, and September 3, 1987, memorandums. We
believe these should be incorporated. They are as follows:
1. The requirement for a list of sources evaluated for
negative declarations applies only to sources greater
than 65 meters.
2. For grandfatheri ng documentation, the date the
source was built is not essential, but the type and
date of the documentation that the source was built
prior to December 31, 1970, must be listed. However,
whenever the actual construction date is submitted
by the State, it should be included.
NOTE: Attachments 1 and 2 are not
included in the Policy and
Guidance Notebook.
-------
3. It is not necessary that a Region give assurances that
they are confident the documentation is adequate; however,
regional management should be satisfied that the State
submission meets the requirements of the stack height
regulation.
We also agreed during the conference call that the Delaware negative
declaration (#3356) (See Attachment 1) includes a good tabular form to
present the good engineering practice (GEP) review in a Federal Register
notice or the accompanying technical support document (TSD).Attachments
2 and 3 present expanded tables for stacks over 65 meters and for sources
over 5000 tons per year. The notice does not have to include tables in
these formats, but the information required in them should be discernable
from the notice and/or TSD. -or example, the Delaware table in Attachment
is a shortened version of Attachment 2, since no stacks exceeded GEP.
I hope this memorandum clarifies my past correspondence and gives
you a better understanding of the documentation necessary for processing
stack height negative declarations. If you have any questions, please
call Ted Creekmore (629-5699) or me (629-5526). Thank you for your
patience during the processing of these complex SIP revisions.
Attachments
cc: Charles Carter
Pat Embrey
Sharon Reinders
Richard Rocs-Collins
Ted Creekmore
Dave Stonefield
- Eric Ginsberg
John Silvasi
-------
/?'
Table 1
A suisaary of 4ppl«able sources 4nd the Ststes review.
S». of eo^nv . Cr.nd;Ith.r.dl m, Sgsa!s&iSiien
'•ii-T.ir.stcn Finishing Company x
2ei.T.arva Power t Light
X
X
Unit *3
unit M
Unit iS
Delaware City
Indian River
Unit *1
Unit *2
Unit f3
Unit *4
Tupcr.t Seaford
Texaco
Sulfur Recovery Hnit
"luid Ccker
Crude Unit
Catalytic Cracker
Sun Olin Chemical Co.
Bciler Stack
Allied Corporation
Boiler Stack'East
Delaware "rust Building
Aaerican International' Building
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3F£RC report ^
FERC report 1S€£
State Air Permit
FERC report 1956
report 1957
FERC report 1959
ISRC reP°rt 1970
State Air Perait
Craving dated
1939
State Air Perr.it
Craving dated
12/2/55
Craving dated
9/28/55
Craving dated
5/10/60
Purchase order
4/6/61
Craving dated
9/28/59
Craving dated
1/12/59
Drawing da.ted
10/8/65
•
Stack was in place or binding contract before 12/31/70.
-------
2
L
Actual
i!°i2!!t GBP
Grand-
jathered
Description of
G'fatherlng Post-70
Documentation Modi floation
Mo. t
Modeled
Stack raised to
ate whlch formula waa used
^e whether modeling waa done at GEP
on
'donee of reliance on 2.5,1 provided
xlelcd at GEP
A .-7
-------
DRA.-T
Sources emitting over 5000 tons per year
Other OT's Need for Stricter
c Merged Stacks used Modeled Grandfathered Controls
planatory Codes
's in existence on 12/31/70
iginal design merged stacks
istalled pollution control equipment
>und economic reasons
>und engineering reasons
.1 credit taken for merging
odeled without merged stack credit
tedit taken for DT's
= Dispersion Technique
-------
PN 123-86-02-11-012
-t UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
; Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
f Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Clarification of Existing Guidance on Dispersion
Modeling Requirements for PlpU With "Tall Stacks
and Other Prohibited Dispersion Techofques
H
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Di recto ri
Control Programs Development Dy^Uion (MD-15)
TO: Director, Air Division, Regions I-X
I !
The purpose of this memo is to clarify EPA's guidance on the dispersion
analysis requirements that are necessary to implement the revised stack
-eight regulations (see EPA's Stack Height Workshop Manual dated October
1985) and, second, to respond to questions on whether dispersion modeling
is required in the context of checking for prohibited dispersion credit
if a source's emission limitation was not developed by means of a case-
specific dispersion analysis.
In cases where stac'k height credit and/or dispersion credit changes
and a dispersion analysis has been performed in any context, that
analysis must to be reviewed to determine if the model inputs reflect
credit for stack heignt(s) above good engineering practice (GEP) or any
otner prohibited dispersion technique(s).(Review of the model inputs
applies to botn the specific source(s) for which the analysis is conducted
and nearby point sources as performed for a new or renewed-permit, a new
source review/ prevention of significant deterioration national ambient
air quality standard attainment or increment analysis, a State plan to
propose revision of its federally approved State implementation plan
(SIP) emission limitations, justification of the current SIP limitations,
or any attainment/nonattainment redesignation(s), etc.)
If the analysis reflects credit for prohibited dispersion techniques,
tnen the source(s) need to be remodeled without the prohibited credit(s)
and revised emission limitation established in tne event that the analysis
shows an attainment or increment problem. If a source's emission limit
was established by ambient air quality considerations such as rollback,
moaeling is required to demonstrate consistency with the stack height
-------
-2-
regulation because credit for prohibited dispersion techniques is reflected
in the monitored value. If a source has never been analyzed for dispersion,
then it is' not necessary to conduct a dispersion analysis now.
It is a State responsibility to demonstrate (!) that the SI? limit
does not consider the results of dispersion analyses, (2) that the source
has never been evaluated for dispersion credit, or (3) that existing or new
analyses are consistent with guidance. Regions are encouraged to provide
assistance to States in this endeavor if the impacted agency so desires.
It is always appropriate for an individual State or Region to request or
initiate a modeling analysis where one does not exist if there is reason
to believe that a source's emission limitation is inconsistent with the
stack height regulations. However, EPA is not calling for an across the
board modeling analysis from every source.
Please pass this information along to your States. If you have any
questions on implementing this cjidance, please call Sharon Reinders at
FTS 529-5526 or Eric Ginsourg c, FTS 629-5540.
cc: Regional Administrator, Regions I-X G. Emison
Chief, Air Branch, Region I-X T. Helms
Regional Stack Height Contact, Regions I-X D. Rhoads
R. Brenner B. J. Steigerwald
R. Campbell J. Tikvart
C. Carter P. Wyckoff
C. Elkins
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.9
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 4. / Thunday. January 7. 1988 / Rules and Regulation
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40CFRP»rtS1
Stack Herifht Emiaaiona Balancing
Final Policy
AOIMCV: EnvirotunentaJ Protection
Agency (EPA).
Acnoic Final policy statement
r Reproduced below 1* a
fflemonndum which MU forth EPA'*
oational policy authorizing u«e of
"emiasion* k*i»***»r (EB) for
compliance with the Agency's reviaed
•tack heiffat regulation promulgated July
8. 1965 (50 FR 27868). Tbia policy
provide* aa alternative compliance
option which can remit in substantial
coat saving* to electric utility or other
sources affected by theae regulations or
to their customers. while aaaurinf
equivalent or greater environmental
benefit!. It makea final and reiponda to
major comment* on a policy propoaed
December 23. 1885 (SO FR $2418). .
MMCTIVI DATK Thia policy ia effective
on January 7, 1901.
ro* nmTMO) **pomiATiOM COWTACR
For information concerning the policy
issues addreeaed herein, contact J.
David Foatar. Office of Air and
Radiation. (202) 479-8900. For
information concerning implementation
and precesaing of emiaaiona balancing
state implementation plan reviaiona,
contact C.T. Helms. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standard*. (919)
541-5527.
Docket Statement
Pertinent information concerning thia
policy la included In Docket Number A-
85-05 which has been eatabliahed aa the
record of theee proceedings. Thia Docket
is maintained in EPA'* Central Docket
Section. South Conference Center. Room
94. 401 M Street SW. Waattagton. DC
and may be inspected between 8*0 a.m.
and 4.-00 pja. on weekday*. A
reasonable fee may be chaffed for
copying materials in thia Docket
L Introduction and Summary
The stack height regulation revisions
promulgated on July ft. 1989 (SO FR
ZT8S2! implement the previsions of
tect.on 123 of the Geaa Air Act which
recvires that the degree of emission
Limitation required for control of any sir
pollutant under an applicable state
irrp'f mentation pian (SIP) shall not be
affected by (1) tfack heights In cxcett of
engineering practice (CEP,, or (2)
any other dispersion technique. For
more detailed discussion, see the July 8.
1965 notice.
Stationary sources of air pollution are
subject to emission limitations to assure
attainment of the national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) and to
protect prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) increment*. These
limitations are derived from prediction*
of ground-level pollutant concentrations
that will occur in the area of majdmua
impact as a result of pollutant emission*
from one or more sources. Dispersion-
enhancing practices, ir^Hing
excessively tall stacks, lower the
predicted ground-level concentrationa
and may result in -rr'fHn limitation
which allow sources to emit greater
total amounts of pollution than if such
practices were not employed.
Under the reviaed stack height
regulation, some sources «ay be subject
to emission limitation* which are more
stringent than those which currently
apply. Today's final policy has been
developed in consideration of the fact
that emission reductiona mandated by
the stack height regulation may be
obtained more coat-effectively by
allowing such a source to secure theae
reduction* at (another sourcefs). la lien
of reducing emiaaiona at it* own facility.
For purposes of thia policy, the source
which is subject to more stringent
emission limit* ia called tht "affected
source": the source which provides the
emission reduction* needed to satisfy
such limits ia called the "providing
source**. Thia joint satisfaction of aa
emission reduction obligation ia referred
to aa aa "emission* balance."
Under dean Air Act section 110 and
40 CTR Part 9t a SIP reviaioa
establishing emission limit* for affected
sources moat provide for full
implementation of (La. ultimata
compliance with) any required emission
reduction a* cxpeditiously aa
practicable but not later than 3 yean
from the data EPA approve* the SIP
revision.
Emission* balance* will also be
approved through this SIP revision
process. To allow sufficient time for
arranging balance* while assuring
prompt ultimate compliance, the final
policy requires EB SIP reviaiona to be
•ubmitted to EPA within 9 month* after
EPA final approval of the stack height
SIP revision for the relevant affected
source. Use of sn emission balance will
not be permitted to delay compliance
beyond 3 yean from the date EPA
approve* the relevant (tack height sip
revision.
The EPA it limiting the period during
which emission balances can be
submitted to avoid delays in compliance
with CEP emission limitations.
Depending on the extent of required
emission reduction*, significant lead
time may be necessary before sctual
compliance can be achieved. If a source
sought to apply for an emission balance
later than 9 months after receiving a
reviaed emission limitation, it might not
be poasible for the balance SIP revision
to be approved and for the providing
source to reduce it* emissions within the
USB* required for ultimate compliance
with the CEP emission limitation.
To ensure that balances will have
environmental effect* equivalent to
atack-by-etack compliance with the July
• regulation, EPA ha* concluded that in
tight of potential complexities involved
la the stack height regulation, the
asniaaioo reductiona from the providing
source must be greater than the
reduction* required of the affected
aourea by the stack height regulation. In
order to facilitate prompt approval of
sound application* for emiasion
balances, without the potential delay
that might otharwiae result from
mtanaive verification of baseline and
other factor* bearing on equivalent
emission reduction*, the final policy
3ulna 20 percent more emission
action* from the providing source
than would have been required from the
originally affected aourea (La. a
"balancing ratio" of 1 to 1.2). on an
annual average basi*.
The proposal would have barred
balance credit from shutdowns or
production curtailment*. The final policy
similarly does not allow general us* in
balance* of emission reductions from
plant shutdowns or operation
curtailment*, but authorise* their
conaideration ia individual eases
employing "lower emissions dispatch"
(LED) where stated criteria arc met The
concept of LED. which explicitly couples
the curtailment of operations at high
emitting fadlltiea with tfa* increased use
of well-controlled facilities, ia currently
being analyzed by various state* under
EPA's State Add Rain (STAR) grant
program, in part to determine whether
that approach could be generally
authorized in future Agency action*.
However, because EPA doe* not yet
know bow reductions from LED could be
adequately calculated, monitored, and
enforced, this approach can only be
considered on a case-by-case basis in
which applicants fully demonstrate that
these concerns will be satisfactorily
addressed. As stated at C3 in the final
policy, sources must submit a
contingency plan that could take effect
If the LCD prooosal is disapproved.
Applicants who elect tc pursue this
c*»e-by-case approach »houio be awar?
-------
Federal Register / Vol. S3. No. 4. / Thursday. January 7. 1988 / Rules and Regulations
that inquiries needed to satisfy such
concerns may add delays to an already
tight timetable, aad that m no case will
these delays be considered a
(unification for extending the 3-year
ultimate compliance deadline.
EPA's December 23. 1965 proposal
considered placing Units on the relative
difference in stack heights of the
providing and affected sources. The
Agency has subsequently determined
that arty such limit would both
unnecessarily increase the policy's
complexity and decrease the
effectiveness of the program. The final
policy therefore imposes no constraints
based on actual or effective suck height
differences.
Because of potential administrative
and enforcement difficulties with
balances that transcend a singje state's
jurisdiction, today's policy generally
limits balance* to facilities within state
boundaries. However, this policy
recognize* a specific exception in the
case of interstate air quality control
regions (AQCR's). In such interstate
areas, states have already developed
enforceable interstate processes for
attaining and maintaining ambient air
quality standards. Therefore, this policy
also allows the balancing of amiaaion
reductions among sources within an
interstate air quality control region.
In brief, today's policy allows aa
affected source to meet more stringent
emission limitations required by the
revised stack height regulation by
securing emission reductions from
another source or sources within the
same state or interstate AQCR. subject
to a "tv«|««nim ratio" of 1 to
other safeguards (sac sections A and B
of the policy) desifned to assure that
reductions at least equivalent to those
expected from ttack-by-stack
compliance will be obtained.
Analyse* of the likely effects of such
emissions K*H**H^g have consistently
indicated that it will produce equal or
greater emission reduction* at
substantial]* IMS eect than conventional
compliance without
EPA received 24 comments addressing
the proposed policy. Minor comments
have bean irsaeiriiilsieii accordjeg to the
uuue* raised and are summarized along
with EPA's responses in a detailed
response to flnrnrpent* document
mended ta the docket Comments whrch
addressed hurae* fandaaeataJ to
dexUipuiem of the finaj policy are
briefly summarized and responded to
below.
A. Legality
Three commenters asserted that use
of emissions balancing would not square
with the statute, claiming that section
123'* bar on crediting "excess" stack
height (La. stack height exceeding CEP)
when developing applicable SIP
emission limit* also requires compliance
with those limits at (ha specific stack.
They additionally died Sierra Chib v.
EPA. 719 F Jd 436 (D.C Or. Utt). which
did not addreaa the issues, bare but
generally cautioned EPA to interpret
section 123 m a manner which errs oa
the side of pratecUai public health.
EPA diaagree* with these
commeaten, It is quite true that excess
suck height may ao< be taken into
account when developing SIP emission
limits; these limits must treat such
sucks exactly as though they wan not
excessively "tall." However, these
comments ignore the fact that once such
limits an property developed, the
requirements of section 123 an fulfilled.
Resulting, emission limits an thereafter
no different than any other SIP emission
limiutton under dean Air Act section
110. and may generally be satisfied in
the same broad range of way*.' That is
particularly true whan. M hare.
balance* may oaly be used in ana*
which have either atuiaed aad an
mainulning the relevant NAAQS aad
PSO i"cr*wiantT or an *i"
EPA-approved plan* for doiag so (see
today's policy section AJ). Section 123
was not written or intended to
physically elimiaate all dispersion of
pollutant*, but nthar to eliminate
reliance oa undue dispanioa when
calculating necessary level* of emisainn
control Thus, beyond the aaed to assure
the prelection of public health aad
welfare from actual air quality level* la
excess of the NAAQS or PSD
increment*, than la no need to nquin
site-specific control since, la conjunction
with the stack height regulation, the
policy aevure* that BO aadae reliance oa
dispanioa exist*.
No different mult is mjuiieU by some
commeoten rebeace OB statutory aad
regulatory Language prohibiting emission
limitations that are " affected m any
manner" by "so much of the stack height
of any source" that exceed* CEP.
Section 123 toctf reran to "the degree of
emission limitation* required for control
of any air poOutnt under aa applicable
implementation plan.* not for eoatrol of
any air pollutant emitted by a specific
source under soea a plan. Moreover, the
Mto v* IT/Chew £0m
K7. Inc. AufBH 1MB. OottM hm >IV-A>1.
1 Co mam 14. Hn*! Ea
II m 4M14 (OK. 4. IBM).
i Trvtfnf Policy.
cited passages uniformly refer to the
process by which initial SIP limitation.
must be developed under section 123—
process which is necessarily source-
specific, since it turn* on such factor* a
the individual source's stack height.
plume rise, and interpley with emission
from other nearby source*. See. e.g.. 40
CFR S1.12TJ) (1985). These provisions
simply dp not nach the question of ho*
such limits, once properly set msy be
satisfied. Once those limit* an properly
eel eninioB balance* change neither
the overall degree of emission limits tioc
nor the amount of total reduction
required under the applicable plan.
ether than to provide greater reduction,
Nor 1* • different result required by
comment* that "grandfathered" suck*
not subject to section 123 should not fcx
allowed to provide reduction* for
emi**ion* balance*. That Congress
nfused to mandate further restriction*
oa *Ucxt constructed before 1871 sayt
nothing about their ab&tty to voluntarily
reduce emiaaion* further a* part of an
emie*ift*t beJence. lasted* securing
further, coat-effective reduction* from
exempted stack* constitute* an
additional hirtificatton for allowing
these aoarcea to be providing sources in
aa eflBfteeioaa balance.
B. Eeusueet Balancing Ratio
The propoeed poncy leijuetud
comment on a range of ntio* between 1
to U end 1 to 2. noting without
explanation that EPA "piefened" the
higher ntio. Two comment* supported
thi* 1 to 2 ratio. Tea comment*
•upportod a 1 to 1 ntio, aaeerting that
EPA leeked authority to require more
than equivalent enuaaioa redaction*.
Three commenter* eupparted 1 to 1J.
•uting that thi* ntio should provide
mon than adequate- emiiunuentaJ
equivalence end that any higher ntio
would denoenge balance* and coald
therefore mult to tee* overall
environmenUJ benefit Sevea
eommenter* *uggested other ntio* or
ntioing technique*.
Providing aoveefa) an* reduce
emieiioM of the eame poDetant.
calculated OB en enaoml average basis,
to en extent U time* (U, twenty
percent mon than) the cBBsaion
reduction required of the effected source
(or U time* that portion of the required
reduction fbrwUcfa the effected atmrce
is seeking an emieeran* beiaace).
Becaoeofthei'-rrrrMlj abort time
available to dtukje. appimt. and
hnpleojent uiiiaena beJance* ender the
three-year deadline, and the potentii!
delay* produced by die detailed
examination needed to aasure
equivalence. EPA believes tr.at the 1 to
-------
4J2 Federal Register / Vol. S3. No. 4. / Thursday. January 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
1.2 ratio if needed to help ensure overall
environmental results at least
equivalent to those which would result if
all emission reductions had occurred at
the affected source. Given that NAAQS
•nd PSD increments are required to be
attained, that real reductions from a
lower-of-tctuals-or-SIP-allowables (or
remodeled SIP allowables, if remodeling
is required) emissions baseline are
required from each providing source.
and that the policy contains other
safeguards. EPA believes that a 1 to 1.2
ratio provides adequate assurance of
equivalence and that DO higher ratio is
required The 1 to 1.2 ratio would also
yield the least costly reductions from the
range of ratios evaluated
C. Credit for Shutdown*. Curtailments
or Lower Emission* Dispatch (LED)
The proposed policy would have
barred balancing credit for these
possible emission-reducing actions at
providing sources, noting potential
monitoring and enforcement problems. It
further noted that assuming constant
demand reduced electricity production
at one providing facility could result in
parallel increases elsewhere.
Eleven of thirteen conunenters of this
issue recommended that emissions
balance credit be given for reductions
derived from lower emissions dispatch
or some other form of enforceable
curtailment of operations at high
emitting facilities. One commenter
suggested that such credit be given on a
case-by-case basis, and one commenter
supported the proposed policy.
"Lower emissions dispatch" is the
term used in this policy to describe a
utility company, holding company, or
powerpool management strategy to
control emissions by decreasing.
electricity production at higher emitting
(e.g.. higher Ibs/10 • Btu) power plants.
and increasing electricity production at.
lower emitting (cleaner) power plants.
rather than distributing (dispatching)
electricity production solar/ oa the basis
of least coat
Creditable emission reductions in this
section 123 context depend not so much
on the production level at a given
facility as on a detailed analysis of the
change in emissions resulting from the
transfer of production from one facility
with one set of controls to another
facility with another set of controls.
Without detailed enforctsble provisions
relating not only to the curtailment of
production at a high emitting facility, but
also to the transfer of production to and
emission l:auU at an identified second
facility, reductions claimed from i-ET>
would not. in general b« sufficiently
reliable.
None of the commenters
demonstrated how these emission
reductions could be reliably enforced.
Without assurance that emission
reductions derived from curtailments at
high emitting facilities would be
enforceabiy coupled with increased
production at low emitting facilities, or
would otherwise assure equivalent or
lower emissions. EPA cannot generally
authorize emissions balances relying
upon curtailment EPA presently does
not know how to calculate reductions
from or how to adequately enforce LED.
However. EPA will review such
proposed methods of achieving
reductions for an emissions balance oa
a case-by physical stack height plus plume
rise) of the providing source be at least
equal to that of the affected source.
Eighteen comments supported no stack
height restriction. One commenter
advocated the meet stringent option
requiring equal or greater effective stack
height citing concerns that hilinring
might otherwise increase long range
transport
The final policy does not restrict the
relative stack heights of affected and
providing sources. The thrust of section
123 is to limit reliance oa undue
dispersion when calculating appropriate
levels of emissions control No
restriction on relative stack height
appears necessary to effectuate mat
purpose, and such restrictions would
likely result in fewer and more costly
emission reductions that balances could
otherwise secure. EPA analyses suggest
that emissions balancing without
additional stack height restrictions
could secure up to 30.000 tpy more SO»
reduction (with savings up to $50 million
per year more) than balancing with
additional stack height restrictions.1
EPA concludes that balances with no
restrictions on relative stack height are
likely to provide greater emission
reduction* and cost savings, as well as
being eatieft to implement and enforce
compared to the other alternatives
evaluated.
£. Geographical Boundaries
The proposed policy would have
limited balances to sources within the
same state or same interstate AQCR.
Twelve comments were received
discussing the geographical boundaries
app'ropriate for emissions balancing.
Five urged interstate balances with few.
if any restrictions. Three favored
allowing balances in bordering states as
well as within the same state. One
favored the EPA proposal. Others
suggested limiting balances to a single
state, or to a geographic area defined to
assure that benefits were obtained in
the airshed of the affected source.
Several of these comments were besed
on assumptions regarding localized
ambient concerns or specialized
transport concerns which are not
relevant here.
The final policy allows balancing as
proposed The language of section 123
refers to "Jtjhe degree of emission
limitation required • • • under an
applicable implementation plan * * *."
(underlining added). EPA believes that
authorizing emissions balancing within
a single state or within a single
interstate AQCR will appropriately
maintain the policy's environmental and
compliance usefulness without
sacrificing administrative feasibility.
More than half the potentially affected
sources are located within interstate
AQCR's and many others offer potential
balances within single states. Allowing
full interstate balancing with no
restrictions as to state lines could result
in undue administrative and
enforcement problems because many
states may not be able to enforce and
implement an interstate balance in a
timely manner. Conversely, limiting
balances to a single AQCR or part of a
state could severely limit the use and
environmental benefits of the policy.
That approach would sharply reduce the
number of potential providing sources.
and could therefore limit the speed and
ease with which an affected source
could meet the conditions of this policy
and of the revised stack height
regulation.
F. Emissions Balancing SIP Revision
Deadline
The proposal requested comment on
the appropriateness of an October 8.
1986 proposed deadline for submittal of
emission balancing (EBJ SIP revisions as
well as alternative approaches. Eleven
comments were received on *-hn topic.
Ten asserted that the October 8.1966
deadline for lubmittal 10 EPA of EB SIP
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 4. / Thursday. January 7, 1988 / Rules and Regulations
revisions was too short to be met in light
of past experience with the SIP revision
process. One eommenter supported th*
proposed deadline. Several of these
comments supported a deadline of nine
months after final policy promulgation.
They further requested clarification that
balances need not be submitted with the
initial stack height SIP revisions and
that this deadline was not for actual
source compliance, but only for SIP
submittal.
EPA has concluded that sufficient
time for development of balances can be
accommodated without delaying
compliance, in a manner different than
that suggested in the proposal To
provide adequate time for development
approval and implementation of
emission balances, states will be
allowed nine months from toe date of
EPA final approval of the relevant stack
height SIP revision to submit the
emissions balancing SIP revision. EB SIP
revisions need not be submitted with the
stack height SIP revisions. However, in
order to assure that required emission
reductions are known, a stack height SIP
revision for an affected source moat be
submitted prior to or coincident with an
EB SIP revision for that source. EPA
agree* that the nine month deadline
only applies to snbmittal of aa EB SIP
revision, not to actual scarce
compliance, which is not later than three
years from the date that EPA approves
the affected source's stack height SZP
revision.
This approach will not delay ultimate
compliance, since the date by which an
affected source must meet its revised
emission limits will not change aa a
result of emissions balancing- EPA
encourages states to submit EB SIP
revisions expeditiously. to provide
affected sources sufficient time to
comply with these requirements.
C. Source Compliance Dots
Two commenters generally stated that
the compliance deadline for a source
should be determined on a case-by
-------
§51.103
the regions which are significantly Im-
pacted by such plan or schedule or re-
vision.
(6) In the case of hearings on AQMA
plans:
(I) Notification to the chief execu-
tives of affected local governments.
planning agencies. transportation
agencies, environmental control agen-
cies, economic development agencies.
and any other affected Stales, and
(ID Public notice of alternative anal-
ysis and plan development procedures
approved under | 51.63.
(e) The State must prepare and
retain, for Inspection by the Adminis-
trator upon request, a record of each
hearing. The record must contain, as a
minimum, a list of witnesses together
with the text of each presentation.
(f) The State must submit with the
plan, revision, or schedule a certifica-
tion that the hearing required by
paragraph (a) of this section was held
In accordance with the notice required
by paragraph (d) of this section.
Upon written application by a
Slate agency (through the appropriate
Regional Office), the Administrator
may approve State procedures for
public hearings. The following criteria
apply:
(I) Procedures approved under this
section shall be deemed to sallsfy Ihe
lequlrcmenl of this part regarding
public hearings.
(2) Procedures dlfferenl from this
part may be approved if they—
(I) Ensure public participation In
matters for which hearings are re-
quired; and
(II) Provide adequate public notifica-
tion of the opportunity lo participate.
(.1) The Administrator may Impose
any conditions on approval he or she
drrms necessary.
«T,I 101 SubmiMlim of plnn». preliminary
rrvirw nl plan*.
(a) The Slate makes an official sub
mission to Ihe Administrator when It
delivers five ropies ol Ihe plan to the
appropriate Regional Office and a
letter ID the Administrator Riving
mil ice ol such act inn The Slate must
nilopl Ihe plan and Ihe Ciiwernnr or
his desience. must submit it lo Ihe Ad
iiiinislriitiu as follows
40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M fdlllen)
(I) For any primary standard, or re-
vision thereof, within 9 months after
promulgation of such standard.
(2) For any secondary standard, or
revision thereof, within 9 months after
promulgation of such secondary stand-
ard or by such later date prescribed or
by such later date prescribed by the
Administrator under Subpart R of this
part.
(b) Upon request of a Stale, the Ad-
ministrator will provide preliminary
review of a plan or portion thereof
submitted In advance of the date such
plan Is due. Such requests must be
made In writing to the appropriate Re-
gional Office and must be accompa-
nied by five copies of the materials to
be reviewed. Requests for preliminary
review do not relieve a Stale of Ihe re
sponslblllly of adopting and submit-
ting plans In accordance with pre-
scribed due dates.
OSI.IM Revision*.
(a) The plan shall be revised from
time to time, as may be necessary, to
take account of:
< 1) Revisions of national standards,
(2) The availability of Improved or
more expeditious methods of attaining
such standards, such as Improved
technology or emission charges or
taxes, or
(3) A finding by the Administrator
that the plan Is substantially Inad-
equate to attain or maintain Ihe na-
tional slandard which II Implements.
or to otherwise comply with any appli-
cable additional requirements estab-
lished under Ihe Clean Air Acl
Amendments of 1977.
(b) The Stale must revise the plan
within 60 days following notification
by the Administrator under paragraph
(aM3> of this section, or by such later
dale prescribed by Ihe Administrator
after consultation with the Stale.
(c> States may revise Ihe plan from
time lo time consistent with the re-
quirements applicable to Implementa-
tion plans under this part.
(d) The States must submit any revl
sion of any regulation or any compli-
ance schedule under paragraph «•> of
this section In Hie Administrator no
later than til) (lays alter its adoption
Environmental Protection Agency
(e) The State must Identify and de-
scribe revisions other than those cov-
ered by paragraphs (a) and (d) of this
section.
(f) EPA will approve revisions only
after applicable hearing requirement*
of | 51.102 have been satisfied.
In order for a variance to be con-
sidered for approval ai a revision to
the State Implementation plan, the
State must submit It In accordance
with the requirements of this section.
• SI.IM Approval of plan*.
The Administrator will approve any
plan, or portion thereof, or any revi-
sion of such plan, or portion thereof. If
he or she determines that It meets the
requirements of the Act. Revisions of
a plan, or any portion thereof, will not
be considered part of an applicable
plan until such revisions have been ap-
proved by the Administrator In accord-
ance with thi* >,rt.
Bounce II PR 40MS. Nov. 1. I9M. unless
otherwise noted.
I (I.I I* Attainment ami
(a) Each plan must set forth a con-
trol strategy that provides the degree
of emission reductions necessary for
attainment and maintenance of the
national air quality standards. The'
emission reductions must be sufficient
lo offsel any Increases In air quality
concentrations thai are expected lo
resull from emission Increases due to
projected growth of population. Indus-
trial activity, motor vehicle traffic, or
other factors.
(b) Each plan providing for the at
lalnmenl of a primary slandard or re-
vision of II musl do so as expedlllously
as practicable. The altalnmenl period
musl nol be longer than three years
afler the date of the Administrator's
approval of the plan, unless the Stale
obtains an extension under Subpart It
of this parl. Each plan musl also pro
vide for the maintenance of the stand-
ard after it has been attained.
(cHI) Kncli plan must provide for
Ihe attainment of a secondary stand-
ard within a reasonable lime afler the
date of I lie Administrator's approval
551.110
of the plan, and must provide for the
maintenance of the standard after It
has been attained.
(2) "Reasonable tune" Is defined In
two ways as follows:
(I) "Reasonable time" for attainment
of a secondary standard must not be
more than three yean from plan sub-
mission unless the State shows that
good cause exists for postponing appli-
cation of the control technology. This
definition applies only In a region
where the degree of emission reduc-
tion necessary for attainment of the
secondary standard can be achieved
through the application of reasonably
available control technology.
"Reasonable tune" will depend
on the degree of emission reduction
needed for attainment of the second-
ary standard and on the social, eco-
nomic, and technological problems In-
volved In carrying; out a control strate-
gy adequate for attainment of the sec-
ondary standard. This definition ap-
plies only In a ration where applica-
tion of reasonably available control
technology will not be sufficient for
attainment of the secondary standard
In three years.
(d) Bach plan providing for the at-
tainment of a primary or secondary
standard must specify the projected
attainment date.
(e) The plan for each Region must
have adequate provisions to ensure
that stationary sources from within
that Region will not:
(1) Prevent attainment and mainte-
nance of any national slandard In any
portion of an interstate Region or any
other Region.
(2) Interfere with measures required
lo be Included In the applicable Imple-
mentation plan for any such Region to
prevent significant deterioration of air
quality or lo prolecl visibility.
(f> For purposes of developing a con-
trol strategy, data derived from meas-
urements of existing ambient levels of
a pollutant may be adjusted lo reflect
the extent lo which occasional nalural
or accidental phenomena, e.g.. dust
storms, forest fires. Industrial acci-
dents, demonstrably affected such am-
bient levels during the measurement
period.
(g) During developing of the plan.
HI "A encomaces States to identify al-
T24
725
-------
§51.111
40 CM Ch. I (7-l-M fdltton)
ternallve control strategies, as well aa
the coaU and beneflU of each such al-
ternative for attainment or mainte-
nance of the national standard.
(h) The plan shall Identify those
areas {counties, urbanized areas.
ulandard metropolitan statistical
arras, el cetera) which, due to current
air quality and/or projected growth
rate, may have the potential for ex-
ceeding any national standard within
the subsequent 10-year period.
(I) For each such area Identified.
the plan shall generally describe the
Intended method and timing for pro-
ducing the analysis and plan required
by paragraph (g) of this section.
(2) The area Identification and de-
scription of method and liming re-
quired by this paragraph shall be sub-
mitted no later than May 10. 1974.
(3) This paragraph covers only plans
to attain and maintain the national
standards for participate matter.
sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, ozone.
VOCS. and nitrogen dioxide.
(I) Based on the Information submit-
ted by the State pursuant to para-
graph of this section, the Adminis-
trator will publish by August 31. 1975.
a list of the areas which shall be sub-
ject to the requirements of paragraph
l this seel ion. and make them avail
:ihlc (in iMililU m:,pr< I u ii i and Milimil
I In MI lo the Ailminislralm al his re
f,u. : I
'•I i I he Slate shall nnlilv the Ail
iniiir.l l :ilni i| :ni [lira is iln
-------
FewtM
40 CFI Ch I (7
SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
PAIf M—MATtONAt PMMAJtY AND
SKONOAtV AJMttiNT AM QUAL-
ITY STANDARDS
Bee.
M.I Definition!.
M.I Scope.
M.I Reference conditions.
M.4 National primary ambient air quality
standards for sulfur oxides (sulfur diox-
ide).
M.6 National secondary ambient air qual-
ity standards for sulfur oxides (sulfur di-
oxide).
M.S National primary and secondary ambi-
ent air quality standards for partlculate
matter.
M.7 (Reserved!
M.S National primary ambient air quality
standards for carbon monoxide.
M.S National primary and secondary ambi-
ent air quality standards for oson*.
M.lo (Reserved]
Mil National primary and secondary am-
bient air quality standard for nltrocen
dioxide.
M.ll National primary and secondary am-
bient air quality standards for lead.
ArranBiB A—RmBEBcE Ifntio* roa nu
DnXBBOBATIOB Of SULTDB OlOXIM M
nu AmosnuBS (P«HSOS«BIUBB
MBTHOB)
Arraaix B— RsnaBBCB Mrraoa roa TUB
DcnaMiBATioB or 8usrons» PASTICC-
I-ATE UATTEB w nu Amosnnas (Hiasj-
Vaunts MSTHOD)
Arronix C-MxAsvuMutT PsiBciru an
CAuaunoM PBOCBDUBE roa TUB MXAS-
OBBMBBT or CASBOB MOHOXIM M nu
AmoanuBB (NoB-DisrxmsrvB umuas*
PBOTOKBTB*)
Arrmix D—MEASUBEMUTT PBIBCIFLE ABB
CAUBBATIOK PBOCEDUBS ros nu MEAS-
traEKBBT or Otom m nu AtMosrans
Arronix E—RETEBEMCS MBTHOB ros DETEB-
MIBATIOB or HYMOCABBOBS COBBXCTEB
rOBMBTHABE
Arramx F—UtAsnanunr PBIBCIFLE ABD
CAUSBATIOB PBOCBDUBS roa nu MEAS-
DHIUBT or NinooCB Dioxira IB nu
Amosnuas (O*s PHASS CHEMILUUIBES-
CBMCE)
ArrEBDix Q—RcnacBCS METHOD roa nu
DETEBMIBATIOB Or LEAD IB SOSrENDED
PABTICOLATE MAma COLLBCTKD raoM
AHIIDIT Ala
ArrEBDix H—iBTEarBETATioH or THE NA-
TIONAL Anaiurr Alt QUALITY STABDABDS
roa Otom
ArrxMDix I—(RESEBVED)
Sec.
ArrsMDix J—RETEBEBCE METHOD roa nu
DETXBMIHATION or PABTICOLATX MATTEB
AS PM,. In the Atmosphere
Armpix K—iNTsarasTATioB or nu NA-
TIOBAL AMBIEBT AIB QUALITY STABDABDS
roB PABTICULATE |(ATTBB
AUTHOSITY: Sees. 109 and JOUa), Clean
Air Act. as amended (42 O.8.C. 740*.
7Ml(a».
SOOBCK 3S FR 113S4. Nov. 16. 1*71. unless
otherwise noted.
I M.I Definition*.
(a) As used In this part, all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them by the Act.
(b) "Act" means the Clean Air Act,
as amended (42 U.8.C. 1857-18071. as
amended by Pub. L. 01-004).
(c) "Agency" means the Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
(d) "Administrator" means the Ad-
ministrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency.
(e) "Ambient air" means that por-
tion of the atmosphere, external to
buildings, to which the general public
has access.
(f) "Reference method" means a
method of sampling and analysing the
ambient air for an air pollutant that Is
specified as a reference method In an
appendix to this part, or a method
that has been designated as a refer-
ence method In accordance with Part
53 of this chapter; It does not Include a
method for which a reference method
designation has been cancelled In ac-
cordance with | 53.11 or 163.10 of this
chapter.
(g> "Equivalent method" means a
method of sampling and analyzing the
ambient air for an air pollutant that
has been designated as an equivalent
method In accordance with Part 63 of
this chapter; It does not Include a
method for which an equivalent
method designation has been can-
celled In accordance with 163.11 or
| 53.10 of this chapter.
(h) "Traceable" means that a local
standard has been compared and certi-
fied either directly or via not more
than one Intermediate standard, to a
primary standard such as a National
ProtectUn Agency
Bureau of Standards Standard Refer-
ence Material (NBS 8RM). or a
DSEPA/NBS approved Certified Ref-
erence Material (CRkf ).
IM PR 2US4. Nov. 16. 1*71. as amended at
41 FR HIM. Mar. 17. 1C7S; 41 PR M20. Jan.
M. 1MJI
IMJ 8cos«.
(a) National primary and secondary
ambient air quality standards under
section 100 of the Act are set forth In
this part.
(b) National primary ambient air
quality standards define levels of air
quality which the Administrator
Judges are necessary, with an adequate
margin of safety, to protect the public
health. National secondary ambient
air quality standards define levels of
air quality which the Administrator
Judges necessary to protect the public
welfare from any known or anticipat-
ed adverse effects of a pollutant. Such
standards are subject to revision, and
additional primary and secondary
standards may be promulgated as the
Administrator deems necessary to pro-
tect the public health and welfare.
(c) The promulgation of national
primary and secondary ambient air
quality standards shall not be consld'
ered In any manner to allow signifi-
cant deterioration of existing air qual-
ity In any portion of any State.
(d) The proposal, promulgation, or
revision of national primary and sec-
ondary ambient air quality standards
shall not prohibit any State from es-
tablishing ambient air quality stand-
ards for that State or any portion
thereof which are more stringent than
the national standards.
IMJ Bcf«
All measurements of air quality are
corrected to a reference temperature
of 26* C. and to a reference pressure of
760 millimeters of mercury (1.013.3
millibars).
I M.4 National primary ambient air qual-
ity standards for sulfur oxides (sulfur
dloxMc).
The national primary ambient air
quality standards for sulfur oxides
measured as sulfur dioxide by the ref-
erence 'method described In Appendix
A to this part, or by an equivalent
method, are:
(a) 80 mtcrograms per cubic meter
(0.03 p.p.m.)— annual arithmetic mean.
(b> 365 mlcrograms per cubic meter
(O.M p.p.m.)— Maximum 24-hour con-
centration not to be exceeded more
than once per year.
IM.C National secondary ambtesjl alt
quality standardi for sulfur oxides
dulfur dioxide).
The national secondary ambient air
quality standard for sulfur oxide
measured as sulfur dioxide by the ref-
erence method described In Appendix
A to this part, or by any equivalent
method Is 1.300 mlcrograms per cubic
meter (0.5 p.p.m.) maximum 3-hour
concentration not to be exceeded more
than once per year.
1M FR 16481. Sept. 14. U7J1
• 6M National primary mat .rrsadarr
ambient air 411811(7 standards for pa*
ttralalc atalUr.
(a) The level of the national primary
and secondary 24-hour ambient air
quality standards for partlculate
matter Is 150 mlcrograms per cubic
meter (ug/m*). 24-hour average con-
centration. The standards are attained
when the expected number of days per
calendar year with a 24-hour average
concentration above 150 i>g/m*. as de-
termined In accordance with Appendix
K to this part. Is equal to or less than
one.
(b) The level of the national primary
and secondary annual standards for
partlculate matter Is 50 mlcrograms
per cubic meter (ug/m*>. annual arith-
metic mean. The standards are at-
tained when the expected annual
arithmetic mean concentration, as de-
termined In accordance with Appendix
K to this part. Is less than or equal to
(c) For the purpose of determining
attainment of the primary and second-
ary standards, partlculate matter shall
be measured In the ambient air as
PMi. (particles with an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to a nomi-
nal 10 micrometers) by:
(DA reference method based on Ap-
pendix J and designated In accordance
with Part 53 of this chapter, or
630
631
-------
EPA-450/2-78-027R
Guideline On Air Quality Models
(Revised)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
July 1986
-------
Part SI
40 CTI C»>. I (7-l-*» I«ttrU«)
PACT SI—MQUMIMfMTS KM Pit P-
ASAItOH, ADOTOOM. AMD MJ»-
MfffAi or
rum
See.
•I.M
1141
11.41
•141
11.44
at
• 1.41
ii a
• I.4T
AQMA ASUI.TSU
AQMA analysis: Submlttal date.
AQMA analysis: Analysis period.
•QMS; analysis' TTiilrtrllnei
AQMA analysis: ProlecUoa of smls-
AQMA analysis: Allocation ol emav
am.
AQMA analysis: Projection of air
AQUA analysis: Description of data
II U AQMA analysto: Data bases.
•1.4* AQMA analysis: Techniques deocrip-
AQMAPI4B
•111 AQMA paw Oeneral
1141 AQMA paw
II M AQMA ansJysav Accuracy factors.
till AQMAanalysis:Sufcmsltalofcmlcala-
Demiiiielistlou of ade-
•144 AQMA paw Strategies.
IIM AQMA *»»JK Legal authority.
II M AQMA plaKPtture strategies.
•IJ1 AQMA phut Puture legal authority.
•IM AQMA paw: lalergovernmenlal eo-
eorratlasv
•I.M mesarrsdj
IIM AQMA plan: Resources.
1I.M AQMA plan: BuhmllUI format.
•I.M AQMA analyau and plan: Data avail
ability.
IIU AQMA analysis and plan: Alternative
• IBeeatvsdl
•I.II* Attainment and maintenance of na-
tional standard*
•I.Ill Description of control mesiures.
•I 111 l>monstratlon of adequacy.
•I.III Time period for demomUatlon of
adequacy.
•I. 114 BulHlom dMa and prajectloiw.
•I.III Air quality data and projection*.
II.IU Data availability.
•I I IT Additional provWom forlead.
•MM Slack hel«bt provbloiw.
•I.II* Intermittent*
itrol •yatenia.
>W Ah
•I.IM Clarification of reflona tor eptood*
•I.Ill «anUlcant harm levela.
•I.IM Contlnceney plana.
•I.IM ftemliuUon of epuod* plan*.
•I.IM Letally mforccable proeedurei.
II.Id Public availability of Information.
•I.IM IdontlfkaUon of T~t"4r
acency.
•I.IM AdmlnMraUon procedural.
•I.IM ataefc belcht procedures.
•I.IM Permit requlreaenta.
•I.IM Prevention of atjnlflranl deterio-
ration of air quality.
•I.IM Ambient ak quality monitoring ro-
ll.ll*
II III Baliilnii reporU and reoerdaeepln».
•MIS Tmtlnc. Inajertlon. enfonament.
and eomplalnU.
II III TnuMportallon control meamna.
•I.III ConUnuom emlmlon monlterlaa.
•I.IM
lequ
i for all planf.
•I.MI Idontlflcatlan of lecal authority.
•I.U1 AmljTimimt of legal authority to
local aaencle*.
II IM Defimttom).
II !•! atlpulalloiM.
• I.IM Public hearin««.
•I.IM Sutml^elon of pluw;
review of plaiM.
II 104 RevWom.
II. IM Approval of plena.
Aaavcv DaioniTioii
preliminary 11.14* Oeneral plan requirement*
• 1.141 Nonattelnmenl area* for
monoxide and ozone.
11.141 IReeervedl
carbon
712
Pretext!**) Agency
151.40
COMTIHUIMd CotMULTATIOH PaOCEM
11.141 Coniultatlon procew oblcctlve*.
11144 Plan element* af I ected.
•I 141 OrcanUattoni and ottlclaU to be
conuilted.
II 141 Ttmlnf
•I.14T Hearino on consultation process
violation!.
RsunoMMir or Pun TO OTMSB
AH* MlMAOOiCMT PSOOSAMS
•1.14* Coordination vlth other programs.
•1.14* IReeervedl
HIM Tranamlttal of Information.
•1.1*1 Conformity with Baacullvo Order
IM11.
•I. 1*1 Summary of plan development par
II.1M Legally enforceable compliance
•I.MI final compliance aehedulea.
•I.MI Bilenalon beyond one year.
•I.SM Resources.
tl.MI Coplee of rule* and regulations.
•I.IM Public notification.
i .apart P-PMMdliii al Vli>a»(
HMO Purpose and applicability.
II.MI Definition!.
•I.MI Implementation control strategies.
•I .MI Exemption* from control.
•I.M4 Identlfleatloo of Integral vistas.
IIM* Monitoring.
•IIM Umg-termstrategy.
•I.MI Mew wurce review.
An QOUJTV D**a RsroatMa i
II.1M Annual air quality data report.
Sooacs EHIUIOIUI »• Btrn Action
Rsmaims
11.111 Annual source emissions and State
action report.
11.111 Sources eubject to emissions report-
ing.
II 1U ReportaMe emualons date and In-
formation.
•1.114 Progrem In plan enforcement.
II m Contingency plan actions.
HIM Reportable revlalons.
•LIU Enforcement orden and other State
action*.
II.1M IReaervedl
11.341 Reaued lor I* month extension.
Arrtnoicu A K lltciiKiivcol
ArriMoiM L ExuurLC RCCUUTIONS roa
PaivtMTMiM or Aia POLLUTION EMUUKM
cv ErisoDi*
ArrCHBii M IKucavcol
ArrsHsu N -EMISSIONS Raoocriom
ACHISVASI.K TH«OOCH Iwsrw-riON. M*IN
rsNANcs *NO RrraoriT or IJOHV Dimr
VSHICUH
ArraNBK O- IHcsnvcnl
ArrCNoix P MINIMUM EMission MONITOB-
Arrui»icu Q- R -IRsscavavl
Arranaii 8 -EMISSION Orrarr
TIVE ROLINO
Arm»l« T-IRaanvavl
Arraaii U-CLavkN Aia ACT Sacrios) 114
OUIMUNSS
AVTMOBITV: ThU rulemaklng la promul-
gated under authority of aecttona lOKbxl).
II*. IM IM. 171 17*. and MtKal of the
Clean Air Act 41 U.8C. 740l(bXI>. 141*.
747*-747*. 7MI 76M. and 7MIUI.
SoUBCC M PR HIM. Nov. ». 1*71. uiueas
otherwise noted.
BsjlTOSiaL More: Nomenclature changes
affecting Part SI appear at 44 PR *3)7. Pen.
*. 1*7* and II PR 4OMI. Nov. 7. IM*.
iufcajavts A-C— (••s*)rv«4(|
11.340 Requeil for 2 year exleiulon.
SooacK 41 PR 1I3M. May 1. IM«. unlem
otherwlee noted.
If I.M Scope.
4a> Applicability The requirement*
of Uito •ubpart apply to air quality
maintenance area* (AQUA*.) Identi-
fied under I Sl.liom and to any area*.
Identified under | 61.110X1).
AQUA Analvitt. Under thU §ub-
part. procedure! are given for the
analycU of the air quality Impact of
apeclfled pollutant emlatlorw from e«-
Utlnc source* and emUiloiu aatoclated
with projected irowth and develop-
ment In areas Identified under para-
graphs (I) and (I) of | SI.110. Thto
analysis ls referred to In this subpart
as an AQMA analysis.
40 AQMA Han. Under this subpart.
the Administrator will require a revi-
sion to the Slate Implementation plan
for area* Identified under I 51.110(1 lor
I Sl.llOd) when necessary to prevent a
national ambient air quality standard
713
-------
|si.i*s
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standard*. (MD-I6) Research Triangle
Park. NC 37711.1)
All emlHlon reduction* claimed
a* off*et credit shall be federally en-
forceable;
(F) Procedure* relating to the per-
missible location of offsetting emis-
sions shall be followed which are at
least as stringent a* those *et out In 40
CFR Part •! Appendix S Becllon IV.D.
(O) Credit for an emission* reduc-
tion can be claimed to the extent that
the reviewing authority IIM not relied
on It In taming any permit under regu-
lation* approved pursuant to 40 CFR
Part •! Subpart I or the State ha* not
relied on It In demonstration attain-
ment or reasonable further progress.
(4) Bach plan may provide that the
provlstons of this paragraph do not
apply to a source or modification that
would be a major stationary source or
major modification only If fugitive
umlsslnii to the extent quantifiable are
considered In calculating the potential
to emit of the stationary source or
modification and the source does not
belong to any of the following catego-
ries:
(I) Coal cleaning plant* (with ther-
mal dryers):
(II) Kraft pulp mills;
till) Portland cement plants:
(Iv) Primary sine smelters:
(v> Iron and steel mills:
(vl) Primary aluminum ore reduction
plants:
(vll) Primary copper smelters:
(vlll) Municipal Incinerators capable
of charging more than 250 tons of
refuse per day;
(U) Hydrofluoric, sulfurlc. or citric
add plants; I
(x) Petroleum refineries:
(xl> IJine plants;
(xll) Phosphate rock processing
plants;
(sill) Coke oven batteries:
Ulv) Sulfur recovery plant*:
Uv> Carbon black plants (furnace
process):
(xri) Primary lead smellers:
(rril) Fuel conversion plants;
(will) Sintering plant*
(xlx) Secondary metal production
plant*;
(xx) Chemical process plants;
40 CHI Ch. I (7-1-M Edition)
(Ml) Fossil-fuel boiler* (or combina-
tion thereof) totaling more than 260
million British thermal units per hour
heat Input;
(xxll) Petroleum storage and trans-
fer units with a total storage capacity
exceeding 100.000 barrels;
(xxlll) Taconlte ore processing
plants;
(xxlv) Qlas* fiber processing plants;
(xxv) Charcoal production plants;
(xxvl) Fossil fuel-fired steam electric
plants of more than 950 million Brit-
ish thermal units per hour heat Input;
(xxvll) Any other stationary source
category which, as of August 7.1980. Is
being regulated under section 111 or
111 of the Act.
(•) Bach plan shall Include enforcea-
ble procedure* to provide that:
(I) Approval to construct shall not
relieve any owner or operator of the
responsibility to comply fully with ap-
plicable provision of the plan and any
other requirements under local. State
or Federal law.
(U) At such time that a particular
source or modification becomes a
major stationary source or major
modification solely by virtue of a re-
laxation In any enforcement limitation
which was established after August 7.
1MO. on the capacity of the source or
modification otherwise to emit a pol-
lutant, such as a restriction on hours
of operation, then the requirements of
regulations approved pursuant to thta
section shall apply to the source or
modification as though construction
had not yet commenced on the source
or modification;
(bXl) Each plan shall Include a pre-
constructlon review permit program or
Its equivalent to satisfy the require-
ments of section UOCaxaxDXI) of the
Act for any new major stationary
source or major modification as de-
fined In paragraphs (aMl) (Iv) and (v>
of this section. Such a program shall
apply to any such source or modifica-
tion that would locate In any area des-
ignated as attainment or unclasslflable
for any national ambient air quality
standard pursuant to section 107 of
the Act. when It would cause or con-
tribute to a violation of any national
ambient air quality standard.
(DA major source or major modifi-
cation will be considered to cause or
738
invlre«imentol Protection Agency
951.IM
contribute to a violation of a national
ambient air quality standard when
such source or modification would, at
a minimum, exceed the following sig-
nificance levels at any locality that
doe* not or would not meet the appli-
cable national standard:
EuaiinK
ath
fM»
NO. „
CO
ttffluf
1 • M/m*
ISM/HI*
" ~
M
• PS/HI* -
•*•"•*
AMngtifl
*
S j H^fnT
kMtxuM
1
29 M«/NI*
1
1
f MM/HI*
(I) Such a program may Include a
provision which allows a proposed
major source or major modification
subject to paragraph (b) of this sec-
tion to reduce the Impact of Its emis-
sions upon air quality by obtaining
sufficient emission reductions to. at a
minimum, compensate for Its adverse
ambient Impact where the major
source or major modification would
otherwise cause or contribute to a vio-
lation of any national ambient air
quality standard. The plan shall re-
quire that. In the absence of such
emission reductions, the State or local
agency shall deny the proposed con-
struction.
(4) The requirement* of paragraph
(b) of thta section shall not apply to a
major stationary source or major
modification with respect to a particu-
lar pollutant If the owner or operator
demonstrates that, as to that pollut-
ant. the source or modification ta lo-
cated In an area designated as nonat-
talnment pursuant to section 107 of
the Act
III PR 40Mt. Mov. 1. Itss. a* amende* at U
FR MTU. July I. IM7; II Fit SMM. Aug 7.
1MT)
I II.IM FreTMUosj W ataHlfkasrt aMcrie-
(aMl) Pun rewiremenfA In accord-
ance with the policy of section
lOKbXI) of the act and the purposes
of section 100 of the Act. each applica-
ble State Implementation plan shall
contain emission limitations and such
other measures as may be necessary to
prevent significant deterioration of air
quality.
(1) «a» Aeetatons. If a State Imple-
mentation Plan revision would result
hi Increased sir quality deterioration
over any baseline concentration, the
plan revision shall Include a demon-
stration that It will not cause or eon-
tribute to a violation of the applicable
IncremenUs). If a plan revision propos-
ing less restrictive requirements was
submitted after August 7. 1077 but on
or before any applicable baseline date
and was pending action by the Admin-
istrator on that date, no such demon-
stration ta necessary with respect to
the area for which a baseline date
would be established before final
action ta taken on the plan revision.
Instead, the assessment described In
paragraph (aX4) of thta section, shall
review the expected Impact to the ap-
plicable IncremenUs).
(1) Required plan nvition. If the
State or the Administrator determine*
that a plan ta substantially Inadequate
to prevent significant deterioration or
that an applicable Increment to being
violated, the plan shall be revised to
correct the Inadequacy or the viola-
tion. The plan shall be revised within
60 days of such a finding by a State or
within 00 days following notification
by the Administrator, or by such later
date as prescribed by the Administra-
tor after consultation with the State.
(4) Plan oMeMment The State shall
review the adequacy of a plan on a
periodic baste and within 00 days of
such time as Information becomes
available that an applicable Increment
b bring violated.
(0) Public participation. Any State
action taken under thta paragraph
•hall be subject to the opportunity for
public hearing In accordance with pro-
cedures equivalent to those estab-
lished In 151.103.
739
-------
J 51.144
(•) Amendment* Any State re-
quired to revise IU Implementation
plan by reason of an amendment to
thb Mctlon. Includlni any amendment
adopted simultaneously with thb
paragraph, shall adopt and submit
•uch plan revision to the Administra-
tor for approval within 9 months after
the effective date of the new amend-
ment*.
(lit Any revision to an Implementa-
tion plan that would amend the provi-
sion* for the prevention of significant
air quality deterioration In the plan
shall specify when and as to what
source* and modifications the revision
Is to take effect.
(III! Any revision to an Implementa-
tion plan that an amendment to thb
section required shall take effect no
later than the date of IU approval and
nay operate prospectlvely.
(b) Definition*. All state plans shall
use the following definitions for the
purposes of this section. Deviations
from the following wording will be ap-
proved only If the state specifically
demonstrates that the submitted defi-
nition to more stringent, or at least as
stringent. In all respects as the corre-
sponding definitions below:
<1MI> "Major stationary source"
means:
<•> Any of the following stationary
sources of air pollutants which emits.
or has the potential to emit. 100 tons
per year or more of any pollutant sub-
ject to regulation under tin- Act: Fossil
fuel-fired steam electric plants of more
than 160 million British thermal units
per hour heat Input, coal cleaning
plants (with thermal dryers), kraft
pulp mills. Portland cement plants,
primary alnc smelters. Iron and steel
mill plants, primary aluminum ore re-
duction plants, primary copper smelt-
ers, municipal Incinerators capable of
charging more than ISO tons of refuse
per day. hydrofluoric, sullurlc, and
nitric add plants, petroleum refiner-
ies, lime plants, phosphate rock proc-
essing plants, coke oven batteries.
sulfur recovery plant*, carbon black
plants (furnace process), primary lead
smelters, fuel conversion plants, sin-
tering plants, secondary metal produc-
tion plants, chemical process plants.
fossil fuel boilers (or combinations
thereof) totaling more than 260 mll-
40 CM Oi. I <7-|-aa feWen)
lion British thermal units per hour
heat Input, petroleum storage and
transfer units with a total storage ca-
pacity exceeding 300,000 barrels. Uco-
nlte ore processing plants, glass fiber
processing plants, and charcoal pro-
duction plants;
(6) Notwithstanding the stationary
source sbe specified In paragraph
(bMlMIKa) of this section, any station-
ary source which emits, or has the po-
tential to emit. 360 tons per year or
more of any air pollutant subject to
regulation under the Act; or
(c) Any physical change that would
occur at a stationary source not other-
wise qualifying under paragraph (bM I >
of thb section, as a major stationary
source If the change would constitute
• major stationary source by Itself.
(U) A major source that b major for
volatile organic compounds shall be
considered major for osone.
(Ill) The fugitive emissions of a sta-
tionary source shall not be Included In
determining for any of the purposes of
thb section whether It b a major sta-
tionary source, unless the source be-
longs to one of the following catego-
ries of stationary sources:
(•) Coal cleaning plants (with ther-
mal dryersK
(6) Kraft pulp mllto;
(c) Portland cement plants:
(4) Primary tine smelters;
(«) Iron and steel mills;
(/) Primary aluminum ore reduction
plants;
(«> Primary copper smelters:
(A) Municipal Incinerators capable of
charging more than 960 tons of refuse
per day;
(O Hydrofluoric, sulfurlc. or nitric
add plants;
U) Petroleum refmerles;
(*) Ume ptanUc
(f) Phosphate rock processing plants:
(M) Coke oven batteries:
(«> Sulfur recovery plants;
(o) Carbon black plants (furnace
process):
(»> Primary lead smelters:
(e) Fuel conversion plants;
(r) Sintering plants:
(s) Secondary metal production
plants;
(f) Chemical process plants:
(M) Possll-fuel boilers (or combina-
tion thereof) totaling more than 260
740
| SUM
million British thermal unlU per hour
•*"•••
with a total storage eapadty ex-
g 100.000 barrels:
Taeonlte ore proo-slng plants;
(*) Olaas fiber processing plants:
,> Charcoal production Ptontej
<,) Possll fuel-fired steam electric
Bllnts ofmore thai MO million British
thermal units per hour heat Input:
(«e) Any other stationary source cat-
egory which, a* of August 7. ItM. b
being regulated under section 111 or
111 of the Act.
OKI) "Major modification" means
any physical change IB or change to
the method of operation of a major
stationary source that would result to
a significant net emissions Increase of
any pollutant subject to regulation
under the Act. '
Any net emissions Increase that
b significant for volatile organic com-
pounds shall be considered significant
for osone.
(ill) A physical change or change In
the method of operation shall not In-
clude:
(a) Routine maintenance, repair, and
replacement;
(») Use of an alternative fuel or raw
material by reason of any order
section a (a) and (b) of
Supply and Environmental
tkm Act of 1074 (or any
legislation) or by reason of a natural
gas curtailment plan pursuant to the
Federal Power Act;
(c) Use of an alternative fuel fey
veAMMfc of nUi ofoev or t*ul0 Mattdttt" 900*
Uon 116 of the Act;
(4) Use of an alternative fuel at •
steam generating unit to the extent
that the fuel b generated from munic-
ipal solid waste:
(•) Use of an alternative fuel or raw
material by a stationary source which:
it ) The source was capable of accom-
modating before January 0. 1076.
unless such change would be prohibit-
ed under any federally enforceable
permit condition which was estab-
lished after January The source b approved to use
under any permit Ist-ued under 40 CPR
62.21 or under regulations
pursuant to 40 CPR 61.104;
(/) An Increase In the hours of oper-
ation or to the production rate, unless
such change would be prohibited
under any federally enforceable
permit condition which was estab-
lished after January 43. 1071. pursuant
to 40 CPR 62.21 or under regulations
approved pursuant to 40 CPR Subpart
I or 161.144.
(f) Any change to ownership at a
stationary source.
HMD "Net embslons
means the amount by which the <
of the following exceeds aero:
(a) Any Increase to actual <
from a particular physical change or
change to the method of operation at
a stationary source; and
(6) Any other increases anal de-
creases to actual emissions at the
source that are contemporaneous with
the particular change and are other-
wise creditable.
(U) An Increase or dtcnasc to actual
•missions It contemporaneous with
the menu,- from the particular
change only If It occurs within a rea-
sonable period (to fee specified fey the
before the date that the to-
from the particular
(UI)Anl
b creditable only If the re-
viewing authorityhas not relied on ft
In •Mutiifj ft peflnit foe HM oMatfov
•note!* iTgjtuhitloiisi approved ptUsMtuii
to thb section, which persslt b to
effect when the Increase to actual
from the particular change
-------
851.16*
whichever la lower, exceeds the new
level of actual emissions;
(6) It Is federally enforceable at and
after the time that actual construction
on the particular chance begins; and
(c) It has approximately the same
qualitative significance for public
health and welfare as that attributed
to the Increase from the particular
change.
(vll) An Increase that result* from a
physical change at a source occurs
when the emissions unit on which con-
struction occurred becomes operation-
al and begins to emit a particular pol-
lutant. Any replacement unit that re-
quires shakedown becomes operational
only after a reasonable shakedown
period, not to exceed 180 days.
(4) "Potential to emit" mean* the
maximum capacity of a stationary
source to emit a pollutant under Its
physical and operational design. Any
physical or operational limitation on
the capacity of the source to emit a
pollutant. Including air pollution con-
trol equipment and restrictions on
hours of operation or on the type or
amount of material combusted, stored,
or processed, shall be treated as part
of IU design If the limitation or the
effect It would have on emissions Is
federally enforceable. Secondary emis-
sions do not count In determining the
potential to emit of a stationary
source.
"Bulldlcg. BJ.ruHure. facility, or
Installation" me--ris all of the pollut-
ant «mlttlng activities which belong to
ti\t seine Industrial grouping, are lo-
cated on one or mere contiguous or ad-
jacent properties, and are under the
control of the same person (or persons
under common control) except the ac-
tivities of any vessel. Pollutant-emit-
ting activities shall be considered as
part of the same Industrial grouping If
they belong to the same "Major
Group'' (I.e.. which have the same two-
digit code) as described In the Stand-
out Industrial Classification Manual.
1912. as amended by the 1077 Supple-
ment (U.S. Government Printing
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
Office stock numbers 4101-OOM and
003-006-00174-0. respectively).
(7) "Emissions unit" means any part
of a stationary source which emits or
would have the potential to emit any
pollutant subject to regulation under
the Act.
(8) "Construction" means any physi-
cal change or change In the method of
operation (Including fabrication, erec-
tion. Installation, demolition, or modi-
fication of an emissions unit) which
would result In a change In actual
emissions.
(0) "Commence" as applied to con-
struction of a major stationary source
or major modification means that the
owner or operator has all necessary
preconstructlon approvals or permits
and either has:
(I) Begun, or caused to begin, a con-
tinuous program of actual on-slte con-
struction of the source, to be complet-
ed within a reasonable time; or
(II) Entered Into binding agreements
or contractual obligations, which
cannot be cancelled or modified with-
out substantial loss to the owner or
operator, to undertake a program of
actual construction of the source to be
completed within a reasonable time.
(10) "Necessary preconstructlon ap-
provals or permits" means those per-
mits or approvals required under fed-
eral air quality control laws and regu-
lations and those air quality control
laws and regulations which are part of
the applicable State Implementation
Plan.
(11) "Begin actual construction-
means. In general. Initiation of physi-
cal on-slte construction activities on an
emissions unit which are of a perma-
nent nature. Such activities Include,
but are not limited to. Installation of
building supports and foundation*,
laying of underground pipework, and
construction of permanent storage
structures. With respect to a change In
method of operation this term refers
to those on-slte activities, other than
preparatory activities, which mark the
Initiation of the change.
(19) "Best available control technol-
ogy" means an emissions limitation
(Including a visible emissions stand-
ard) based on the maximum degree of
reduction for each pollutant subject to
regulation under the Act which would
742
Preterite* Afency
be emitted from any proposed major
stationary source or major modifica-
tion which the reviewing authority, on
a case-by-«ase basis, taking Into ac-
count energy, environmental, and eco-
nomic Impacts and other costs, deter-
mines Is achievable fpr such source or
modification through application of
production processes or available
methods, systems, and techniques. In-
cluding fuel cleaning or treatment or
Innovative fuel combination tech-
niques for control of such pollutant
In no event shall application of best
available control technology result hi
emissions of any pollutant which
would exceed the emissions allowed by
any applicable standard under 40 CFR
Parte 80 and 01. If the reviewing au-
thority determines that technological
or economic limitations on the applica-
tion of measurement methodology to a
particular emissions unit would make
the Imposition of an emissions stand-
ard Infeaslbl*. -. design, equipment.
work practice, operational standard or
combination thereof, may be pre-
scribed Instead to satisfy the require-
ment for the application of best avail-
able control technology- Such stand-
ard shall, to the degree possible, set
forth the emissions reduction achieva-
ble by Implementation of such design.
equipment, work practice or operation.
and shall provide for compliance by
means which achieve equivalent re-
sults.
(11X1) "Baseline concentration"
imam that ambient eoneentratlon
level which exists hi the baseline area
at the time of the applicable baseline
date. A baseline concentration la deter-
mined for each pollutant for which a
baseline date la established and shall
Include:
(a) The actual emissions representa-
tive of sources hi existence on the ap-
plicable baseline date, except as pro-
vided In paragraph (bMllXtl) of this
section;
(b) The allowable emissions of major
stationary sources which commenced
construction before January 0. 1075.
but were not In operation by the appli-
cable baseline date.
(II) The following will not be Includ-
ed In the baseline concentration and
will affect the applicable maximum al-
lowable Incresseia):
J51.144
(a) Actual emission from any major
stationary source on which construc-
tion commenced after January 0. 1076;
and
(6) Actual emissions Increases and
decreases at any stationary source oc-
curring after the baseline date.
(14X1) "Baseline date" means the
earliest date after August 7.1077. that:
(a) A major stationary source or
major modification subject to 40 CFR
69.21 submits a complete application
under that section: or
(b) A major stationary source or
major modlflcatloln subject to regular
Uons approved pursuant to 40 CPU
•1.108 submits a complete application
under such regulations.
(II) The baseline date la established
for each pollutant for which Incre-
ments or other equivalent measures
have been established If:
(a) The area In which the proposed
source or modification would construct
Is designated as attainment or unclas-
•ttlable under section 107(dXl> (D) or
(E) of the Act for the pollutant on the
date of Ma complete application under
40 CFR 61.81 or under regulations ap-
• proved pursuant to 40 CFR 61.108; and
(6) In the caa* of a major stationary
source, the pollutant would be emitted
In significant amounts, or. m the caw
of a major modification, there would
be a significant net emissions Increase
of the pollutant.
(16X1) "Baseline area" means any
mtrastate area (and every part there-
of) designated aa attainment or uncUs-
stflable under section 107(dXl) (D) or
(E) of the Act In which the major
source or major modification estab-
lishing the baseline date would con-
struct or would have an air quality
Impact equal to or greater than I pg/
m* (annual average) of the pollutant
for which the baseline date Is estab-
lished.
(II) Area redeslgnatlona under sec-
tion 107(dXl) (D) or (E) of the Act
cannot Intersect or be smaller than
the area of Impact of any major sta-
tionary source or major modification
which:
(a) Establishes a baseline date; or
(b) Is subject to 40 CFR 69.31 or
under regulations approved pursuant
to 40 CFR 51.166. and would be con
743
-------
1*1.144
structed In the Mune state as the state
proposing the ^designation.
(16) "Allowable emissions" mean*
the emissions rate or a stationary
source calculated using the maximum
rated capacity or the source (unless
the aource U subject to federally en-
rorceable limits which restrict the op-
erating rate, or hour* or operation, or
both) and the mo*t stringent or the
following:
(I) The applicable standards as set
forth In 40 CPU Parts 60 and 61;
(U) The applicable State Implemen-
tation Plan emissions limitation. In-
cluding those with a future compli-
ance date; or
(III) The emissions rate specified as •
federally enforceable permit condi-
tion.
117) "Federally enforceable" means
all limitations and condition! which
are enforceable by the Administrator.
Including those requirements devel-
oped pursuant to 40 CFR Parts M and
•I. requirements within any applicable
Btate Implementation Plan, and any
permit requirements established pu/-
suant to 40 CPU M J! or under refuta-
tions approved pumuant to 40 CFR
•l.UorSl.lM.
(1*) "Secondary emissions" means
efBbwIons which occur as a result of
th« construction or operation of a
mator stationary source or major
modification, but do not com* from
the major stationary aource or major
modification lUelf. For the purposes
of this section, secondary emissions
must be specific, well defined, quanti-
fiable, and Impsrt the same general
area* the stationary source modifica-
tion which causes the secondary emto-
atons. Secondary emissions Include
emissions rrom any of Mte support fa-
cility which would not be constructed
or Increase Its emissions except as •
result of the construction or operation
of the major stationary source or
major modification. Secondary emis-
sions do rot Include any emissions
which come directly from a mobile
source, such as emissions from the
tailpipe of a motor vehicle, from a
train, or from a vessel.
(It) "Innovative control technology"
means any system or air pallutlon con-
trol that has not been adequately
demonstrated In practice, but would
40 CM Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
have a substantial likelihood or
achieving greater continuous emis-
sions reduction than any control
system In current practice or or
achieving at least comparable reduc-
tions at lower cost In terms or energy.
economics, or nonalr quality environ-
mental Impacts.
(30) "Fugitive emissions" means
those emissions which could not rea-
sonably pass through a stack, chim-
ney, vent, or other functionally equiv-
alent opening.
(31X1) "Actual emissions" means the
actual rate or emissions or a pollutant
from an •missions unit, ss determined
In accordance with paragraphs (bxai)
(II) through (Iv) of this section.
(II) In general, actual emissions as of
• particular date n ,'isl the aver-
age rate. In ton* pt i , .... at which the
unit actually emitted the pollutant
during • two-year period which pre-
cedes the particular dale and which to
representative of normal source oper-
ation. The reviewing authority may
allow the use of a different time
period upon a determination that It to
•ton representative of normal source
operation. Actual emissions shall be
calculated using the unit's actual oper-
ating hours, production rates, and
types of materials processed, stored, or
combusted during the selected tune
period.
(Ill) The reviewing authority may
presume that source-specific allowable
eml 'lotta for the unit are equivalent
to the actual emissions of the unit.
-------
151.1*4
part of that application, were avail-
able. Insofar a* was practicable, for
public Inspection prior to any public
hearing on redeslgnatlon of any area
as Class III.
«> The plan shall provide that lands
within the exterior boundaries of
Indian Reservations may be redeslg-
nated only by the appropriate Indian
Governing Body. The appropriate
Indian Governing Body may submit to
the Administrator a proposal to redes-
tonate areas Class I. Class II. or Class
III: Provided. That:
(II The Indian Governing Body has
followed procedures equivalent to
those required of a State under para-
graphs (9). (3XIII). and (»Nlv> of
thto section: and
(H> Such redeslgnatlon to proposed
after consultation with the Statets) m
which the Indian Reservation to locat-
ed and which border the Indian Reser-
vation.
<•» The Administrator shall disap-
prove, within to days of submission, a
proposed redeslgnatlon of any area
only If he finds, after notice and op-
portunity for public hearing, that such
redeslgnatlon does not meet the proce-
dural requirements of thto section or to
Inconsistent with paragraph (e) of thto
section. If any such disapproval
occurs, the classification of the area
shall be that which was hi effect prior
to the redeslgnatlon which was dtaap-
(0) If the Administrator disapproves
any pioposed area designation, the
OUU or Indian Governing Body, as
appropriate, may resubmlt the propos-
al after correcting the deficiencies
noted by the Administrator.
(hi Xtae* heightt The plan shall
proride. as a minimum, that the
degree of emission limitation required
for onntrol of any air pollutant under
the plan shall not be affected In any
manner by—
(II flo much of a stack height, not In
existence before December 31. 1070. as
exceeds good engineering practice, or
I1> Any other dispersion technique
not Implemented before then.
(I) Jtevtew of major tfaflonory
sources and major modification*—
source appfteaoUK* end exemption*.
(I) The plan shall provide that no
major stationary source or major
40 CFft Oi. I (7-1-at edition)
modification shall begin actual con-
struction unless, as a mlnumum. re-
quirements equivalent to those con-
tained In paragraphs (Jl through (r) of
thto section have been met.
(9) The plan shall provide that the
requirements equivalent to those con-
tained In paragraphs (J) through (r> of
thto section shall apply to any major
stationary source and any major modi-
fication with respect to each pollutant
subject to regulation under the Act
that It would emit, except as thto sec-
tion would otherwise allow.
(I) The plan shall provide that re-
quirements equivalent to those con-
tained m paragraphs (Jl through (r) of
thto section apply only to any major
stationary source or major modifica-
tion that would be constructed In an
area which to designated as attainment
or iinrlasslf table under section
107UMIHD) or (B) of the Act; and
(41 The plan may provide that re-
quirements equivalent to those con-
tained In paragraphs (J) through (r) of
thto section do not apply to a particu-
lar major stationary source or major
modification If:
(I) The major stationary source
would be a nonprofit health or non-
profit educational Institution or a
major modification that would occur
at such an Institution; or
(II) The source or modification
would be a major stationary source or
major modification only If fugitive
emissions, to the eitent quantifiable.
are considered In calculating the po-
tential to emH of the stationary source
or modification and such source does
not belong to any following categories:
(«> Coal cleaning plants (with ther-
mal dryers*
(»> Kraft pulp mills:
(c> Portland cement plants;
(d> Primary sine smelters:
(e> Iron and steel mills:
(/) Primary aluminum ore reduction
plants;
(f > Primary copper smelters:
(*) Municipal Incinerators capable of
charging more than 160 tons of refuse
per day.
(O Hydrofluoric, sulfuric. or nitric
add plants:
U) Petroleum refineries;
(ft) Ume plant*
(f) Phosphate rock processing plants;
g,,inM«siilal fists rrtTn *gt—r
Coke oven batteries:
(•) Sulfur recovery plant*:
tot Carbon black plants (furnace
(•> primary lead smelters;
«f) Puel conversion plants:
(f) Sintering plants;
(() Secondary metal production
"uiotemfcal process plant*;
(•) Posall-fusl boilers (or
Uon thereof) totaling more
mUllon British thermal unite per hour
bee* kaput;
(•) Petroleum storage and transfer
•an* with a total storage capacity ex-
cMdtagNO.OOO barrels:
(•» Taconfte ore procemlng plant*;
(x> Glass fiber processing plant*;
(v) Charcoal production plant*;
(•) Porno fuel-fired steam electric
plants of more than 9M million Brtt-
toh Iliismsl unfta per hour heat Input;
(M) Any other stationary source cat-
egory which, as of August 1. 1*40. to
bring regulated under section 111 or
I It of the Act; or
(HI) The source or modification to a
portable stationary source which
previously received a permit r-—
equivalent to
| §1.144
tkm with respect to a particular pol-
lutant If the owner or operator demon-
strates that, as to that pollutant, the
source or modification to located In an
area designated as nonattalnment
under section 107 of the Act.
(0) The plan may provide that re-
quirement* equivalent to those con*
tamed In paragraphs (k). (m). and (o)
of thto section do not apply to a pro-
pond major stationary source or
major modification with respect to a
pollutant. If the allowable
i of that pollutant from a new
of that pollutant from a OMdWcatlon.
would be temporary and Impact no
Clam I area and no area where an ap-
plicable Increment to known to be vie-
tamed to paragraphs (J) through (r) of
Into section. If:
(•) The source pioposm to relocate
and emissions of the source at the new
location would be temporary; and
(ft) The emissions from UM
would not exceed Its allowable
•tons; and
(c) The emissions fiom UM gounie
would Impact no Class I area and no
area where an applicable Inclement to
known to be violated; and
(d> Reasonable notice to given to the
reviewing authority prior to UM relo-
cation Identifying the proposed new
location and the probable duration of
operation at the new location. Such
notice shall be given to the reviewing
authority not less than 10 days In ad-
vance of the proposed relocation
unless a different tune duration to pre-
viously approved by the reviewing au-
thority.
(•> The plan may provide that re-
quirements equivalent to those con-
tained In paragraphs (J) through (r) of
thto section do not apply to a major
stationary source or major modlftca-
(7) The plan may provide that re-
qutrementa equivalent to those con-
tained hi paragraphs (k). (m). and (o)
of thto section aa they relate to any
allowable Increase for a
i II area do not apply to a modlfl-
of a major stationary source
ma hi existence on March 1.
Itft, If the net Increase m allowable
i of each pollutant subject to
inder the Act from the
after the application of
available control technology
i than §* tons per year.
(•) The plan may provide that the
icriewlng authority may exempt a
proposed major stationary source or
major modification from UM requtre-
saente of paragraph (m) of thto sec-
tion, with respect to monitoring for a
particular pollutant. If:
(I) The emlsstom Increase of the pol-
lutant from a new stationary source or
UM net emissions Increase of the pol-
lutant from a modification would
cause, to any area, air quality Impacts
leas than the following amounts:
(*) Carbon monoxide—875 ug/nt'. a.
hour average;
(ft) Nitrogen dioxide-14 ug/m»
annual average;
(c) Paniculate matter-10 M/m»
T8P. 94-hour average.—14) »>•/">'
PMM. 94-hour average.
(d) Sulfur dioxide-13 ug/m*. 94-
hour average;
748
749
-------
9 51.1*4
Ozone;'
(/) Lead-O.I fig/in*. 3-month aver-
age.
(0) Mercury—0.25 ug/m*. 24 hour av-
erage:
Hydrogen *ulfide-0.2 ftg/m*. 1-
hour average:
(m> Reduced milfur compound*—10
ug/m*. 1-hour average; or
The concentration* of the pollut-
ant In the area that the source or
modification would affect are less
than the concentration* lUted In
(IMOMI) of thl* section: or
(III) The pollutant* I* not listed In
paragraph (IX8MI) of thl* section.
(») If EPA approve* a plan revision
under 40 CFR 51.166 a* In effect
before August 7. 1980. any subsequent
revision which meet* the requirement*
of thl* section may contain transition
provlilon* which parallel the transi-
tion provisions of 40 CFR 52.21(1X0).
(1X10) and (mMIMv) a* In effect on
that date, which provision* relate to
requirement* for be*t available control
technology and air quality analyse*.
Any such subsequent revision may not
contain any transition provision which
In the context of the revision would
operate any less stringently than
would It* counterpart In 40 CFR 52.21.
(10) If EPA approve* a plan revision
under I 51.166 as In effect (before July
)1. 10171. any subsequent revision
which meet* the requirement* of thl*
section may contain transition provi-
sions which parallel the transition pro-
visions of 152.21 Ox 11), and (mXl)
(vtl) and (vlll) of this chapter as In
effect on that dale, these provisions
bring related to monitoring require-
ment* for participate matter. Any
•urh subsequent revl»lon may not con-
•No t* minima air quality kirel U provid-
ed fix oconc. However. any net Increaae »f
100 tow per yew or more of volatile organic
compound* sub)rct to PSD would be re-
quited to perform and ambient Impact anal
jrato. Includlnc the (atherlus of ambient air
quality data.
40 Cn Ch. I (7-l-M I4M«n)
tain any transition provision which In
the context of the revision would oper-
ate any less stringently than would It*
counterpart In 152.21 of this chapter.
(J) Control technology review. The
plan shall provide that:
(1) A major stationary source or
major modification shall meet each
applicable emissions limitation under
the State Implementation Plan and
each applicable emission standard*
and standard of performance under 40
CFR Part* 60 and 61.
(2) A new major stationary source
shall apply best available control tech-
nology for each pollutant subject to
regulation under the Act that It would
have the potential to emit In slgnlfl-
cant amount*.
(*) A major modification shall apply
best available control technology for
each pollutant subject to regulation
under the Act for which It would be a
significant net emissions Increase at
the source. This requirement applies
to each proposed emission* unit at
which a net emission* Increase In the
pollutant would occur a* a result of a
physical change or change In the
method of operation In the unit.
(4) For phased construction project*.
the determination of best available
control technology shall be reviewed
and modified as appropriate at the
least reasonable tune which occurs no
later than 18 months prior to com-
mencement of construction of each In-
dependent phase of the project. At
such time, the owner or operator of
the applicable stationary source may
be required to demonstrate the ade-
quacy of any previous determination
of best available control technology
for the source.
(k) Source Impact analyst*. The plan
shall provide that the owner or opera-
tor of the proposed source or modifica-
tion shall demonstrate that allowable
emission Increase* from the proposed
source or modification. In conjunction
with all other applicable emission* In-
crease* or reduction (Including second-
ary emissions) would not cause or con-
tribute to air pollution In violation of:
(I) Any national ambient air quality
standard In any air quality control
region: or
• i i ••sirtol f— *-*»*••
BJSJVW^^"**
Any applicable maximum ellow-
ewaseover the baseline concen-
procedures which specify
AII estimates of ambient concen-
ni required under this Paragraph
b* based on the appHcabto air
and other
* based on
models, data bases, and other
specMk* In the "OuMe-
vised)"
«taments specM n
£.^5? Quality Models (Revised)"
•THoTand Supplement A Utt7> which
are Incorporated by reference. The
guideline (KPA Publication No. 450/8-
76-42TR) and Supplement A (1M7) arc
foe sate from the 0JS. Department of
Commerce. National Technical Infor-
•AsUon Service. 5828 Port Royal Road.
Springfield. Virginia 22161. They an
*Jso available for Inspection at the
Of ftoo of the Federal Register Infor-
DkaUon Center. Room 8801. 1100 L
Street NW.. Washington. DC 20408.
These materials are Incorporated as
they wist on the date of approval and
a notice of any change will be pub-
lished m the FSMUU. Racists*.
(2) Where an air quality Impact
•node) specified In the "Guideline on
Air Quality Models (Revised)- (1888)
and Supplement A (1887) are Inappro-
priate. the model may be modified or
another model substituted. Such a
modification or substitution of a
model may be made on a case-by-csse
basis or. where appropriate, on a ge-
neric basis for a specific state pro-
gram. Written approval of (he Admin-
istrator must be obtained for any
modUfcaUon or substitution. In addi-
tion. use of a modified cr substituted
model must be subject to notice and
opportunity for public coasjnent under
pioeeduies developed in accordance
with paragraph (q) of thto section.
(m) Air qualify analyit«-(l) f>reap-
pMcattoN analyst*. (I) The plan shall
provide that any application for a
permit under regulations approved
Pursuant to this section shall contain
an analysis of ambient air quality In
the area that the major stationary
source or major modification would
affect tor each of the following pollut-
ant*:
nu:
(a) For the source, each pollutant
that It would have the potential to
emit In a significant amount;
{ 51.14*
(6) For the modification, each pol-
lutant for which It would result In a
significant net emissions Increase.
(II) The plan shall provide that, with
respect to any such pollutant for
which no National Ambient Air Qual-
ity Standard extol*, the analysis shall
contain such air quality monitoring
data as the reviewing authority deter-
mines to necessary to assess ambient
air quality for that pollutant to any
area that the emissions of that pollut-
ant would affect.
(Ill) The plan shall provide that with
respect to any such pollutant (other
than nonmethane hydrocarbons) for
which such a standard does exist, the
analysis shall contain continuous air
quality monitoring data gathered for
purposes of determining whether
emission* of that pollutant would
cause or contribute to a violation of
the standard or any maxlumum allow-
able Incresse.
(Iv) The plan ahall provide that. In
general, the continuous air monitoring
data that to required shall have been
gathered over a period of one year and
•hall represent the year preceding re-
ceipt of the application, except that. If
the reviewing authority determines
that a complete and adequate analyst*
can be accomplished with monitoring
data gathered over a period shorter
than one year (but not to be lee* than
four months), the data that to required
•hall have been gathered over at least
that shorter period.
(v) The plan may provide that the
owner or operator of a proposed major
stationary source or major modifica-
tion of volatile organic compounds
who satisfies all conditions of 40 CFR
Part 81 Appendix 8. section TV may
provide postapprovel monitoring data
for ocone In lieu of providing precon-
structlon data as required under para-
graph (mx I) of thto section.
(3) Poat-con«(mc(ton monitoring.
The plan shall provide that the owner
or operator of a major stationary
source or major modification shall,
after construction of the stationary
source or modification, conduct such
ambient monitoring a* the reviewing
authority determine* to necessary to
determine the effect emissions from
the stationary source or modification
750
751
-------
|Sl.te*
may have, or are having, on air quality
many area.
(» Operation of monitoring sta-
tions. The plan shall provide that the
owner or operator of a major station-
ary source or major modification shall
meet the requirements of Appendix B
to Part M of this chapter during the
operation of monitoring stations for
purposes of satisfying paragraph (m)
of this section.
(n Source information. (I) The plan
shall provide that the owner or opera-
tor of a proposed source or modifica-
tion shall submit all Information nec-
essary to perform any analysis or
make any determination required
under procedures established In ac-
cordance with this section.
<» The plan may provide that such
Information shall Include:
(I) A description of the nature, loca-
tion, design capacity, and typical oper-
ating schedule of the source or modifi-
cation. Including specifications and
drawings showing Its design and plant
layout:
(II) A detailed schedule for construc-
tion of the source or modification;
(III) A detailed description as to what
system of continuous emission reduc-
tion to planned by the source or modi-
fication, emission estimates, and any
other Information as necessary to de-
termine that best available control
technology as applicable would be ap-
plied:
(I) The plan shall provide that upon
request of the State, the owner or op-
erator shall also provide Information
ore
(I) The air quality Impact of the
source or modification. Including me-
teorological and topographical ditto
necessary to estimate such Impact; and
(U) The air cuallty Impacts and the
nature and extent of any or all general
commercial, residential. Industrial, and
other growth which has occurred since
August 7, 1*77. In *h« area the source
or modification would effect.
(o) Additional impact analyse*. The
plan shall provide that—
(1) The owner or operator shall pro-
vMe an analysis of the Impairment to
visibility, soils, and vegetation that
would occur as a result of the source
or modification and general coinmnr-
dal. residential, fnduslrlal. and other
40 C« Oi. I (7-l-ii MM**)
growth associated with the source or
modification. The owner or operator
need not provide an analysis of the
Impact on vegetation having no signifi-
cant commercial or recreational value.
(i) The owner or operator shall pro-
vide an analysis of the air quality
Impact projected for the area as a
result of general commercial, residen-
tial. Industrial, and other growth asso-
ciated with the source or modification.
Source* impacting Federal Clan
I art**—additional requirement*—41)
Notice to tPA. The plan shall provide
that the reviewing authority shall
transmit to the Administrator a copy
of each permit application relating to
a major stationary source or major
modification and provide notice to the
Admlnbtrator of every action related
to the consideration of such permit.
(» federal Land Manager. The fed-
eral Land Manager and tlie Federal of-
ficial charted with direct responsibil-
ity for management of Class I lands
have an affirmative responsibility to
protect the air quality related values
(Including visibility) of any such lands
and to consider. In consultation with
the Administrator, whether a pro-
posed aource or modification would
tiara an adverse Impact on such
—i^faa ,—
(» Denial-impact on air qualitt re-
lated values. The plan shall provide a
mechanism whereby a Federal Land
Manager of any such lands may
present to the State, after the review-
Ing authority's preliminary determina-
tion required under procedures devel-
oped In accordance with paragraph The President may approve the
Governor's recommendation If he
finds that such variance Is In the na-
tional Interest; and
(HI) If auch a variance la approved.
the reviewing authority may Issue a
pcraslt In accordance with provisions
developed pursuant to the requlre-
ments of paragraph (qM7) of this sec-
tion: Provided. That the applicable re-
quirements of the plan are otherwise
(7) tmiuion limitation* for Preti-
dcnftel or gubernatorial variance. The
plan shall provide that In the ease of a
permit Issued under procedures devel-
oped pursuant to paragraph (q) (•> or
(•> of this section, the source or modi-
fication ahall comply with emission
limitations as may be necessary to
assure that emissions of sulfur dioxide
from the aource or modification would
not (during any day on which the oth-
erwise applicable maximum allowable
Increases are exceeded) cause or con-
tribute to concentrations which would
exceed the following maximum allow-
able Increases over the baseline con-
centration and to assure that such
emissions would not cause or contrib-
ute to concentrations which exceed
the otherwise applicable maximum al- '
lowable Increases for periods of expo-
sure of 34 hours or less for more than
11 days, not necessarily consecutive.
during any annual period:
753
-------
851.144
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE (NCMEAM
LOT
M
IM
Ml
(q> Public participation. The plan
•hall provide that-
(I) Tlie reviewing authority •hall
notify all applicant* within a specified
time period as to the completeness of
the application or any deficiency In
the application or Information submit-
ted. In the event of such a deficiency,
the date of receipt of the application
•hall be the date on which the review-
Ing authority received all required In-
formation.
(» Within one year after receipt of a
complete application, the reviewing
authority shall:
(I) Make a preliminary determina-
tion whether construction should be
approved, approved with conditions, or
disapproved.
Make a final determination
whether construction should be ap-
proved, approved with conditions, or
disapproved.
(vlll) Notify the applicant In writing
of the final determination and make
such notification available for public
Inspection at the same location where
the reviewing authority made avail-
able preconstructlon Information and
public comments relating to the
source.
(r) Source obligation. (1) The plan
shall Include enforceable procedures
to provide that approval to construct
shall not relieve any owner or operator
of the responsibility to comply fully
with applicable provisions of the plan
and any other requirements under
local. State or Federal law.
<» The plan shall provide that at
such time that a particular source or
modification becomes a major station-
ary source or major modification
solely by virtue of a relaxation In any
enforceable limitation which was es-
tablished after August 7. 1980. on the
capacity of the source or modification
otherwise to emit a pollutant, such as
a restriction on hours of operation.
then the requirements of paragraphs
(J) through <•) of this section shall
apply to the source or modification as
though construction had not yet com-
menced on the source or modification.
(•) Innovative control technology.
«1) The plan may provide that an
owner or operator of a proposed major
stationary source or major modifica-
tion may request the reviewing au-
thority to approve a system of Innova-
tive control technology.
(1> The plan may provide that the
reviewing authority may. with the
consent of the govemoris) of other af-
fected state and (k)
of this section, based on the emissions
rate that the stationary source em-
ploying the system of Innovative con-
trol technology would be required to
meet on the date specified by the re-
viewing authority;
(Iv) The source or modification
would not before the date specified by
the reviewing authority:
(•) Cause or contribute to any viola-
tion of an applicable national ambient
air quality standard; or
(6) Impact any Class I area; or
(c> Impact any area when an appli-
cable Increment to known to be violat-
ed;
(v) All other applicable requirements
Including those for public participa-
tion have been met.
The plan shall provide that the
reviewing authority shall withdraw
any approval to employ a system of In-
novative control technology made
under this section. If:
(I) The proposed system falls by the
specified date to achieve the required
continuous emission* reduction rate;
J 51.1*0
(II) The proposed system falls before
the specified date so as to contribute
to an unreasonable risk to public
health, welfare, or safety; or
(III) The reviewing authority decides
at any time that the proposed system
Is unlikely to achieve the required
level of control or to protect the public
health, welfare, or safety.
(4) The plan may provide that If a
source or modification falls to meet
the required level of continuous emis-
sions reduction within the specified
time period, or If the approval to with-
drawn In accordance with paragraph
(sKl) of this section, the reviewing au-
thority may allow the source or modi-
fication up to an additional 3 years to
meet the requirement for the appllat-
tton of best available control technolo-
gy through use of a demonstrated
system of control.
(Bees. IfMbMll. !!•. 1*0-IS*. I7I-ITS. and
Ml(a>. Clean Air Act, a* amended (410-8.C
740l(bMI>. 7410. 7470-747t. 7MI-7MS, and
7MI(a»; MC. 1MU>. Clean Air Act Amend-
ment* of im (Pub. L. M-tS. tl StaL Mt
(Aug. 7. im>»
141 PR Mill. June It. ing; 41 PR 4MIO.
Sept. g. ir»i. a* amended at 44 PR ITMt.
Mar 10. Hit; 4t PR S37M. Aug. 7. Ittt; 47
PR 17MO, June M. IM1; 40 PR 41Mt, Oct.
M. ItM: II PR M17S. Sept. I, I»M. Rcdeclg-
nated and amended at tl PR 40MO. 40*71.
Nov. 7. IOM: tl FR 14711. Julr I, IS07; II
PR M1M. Aug. 7. Itt7; tl PR 1H. Jan. «.
ISM)
tufcnarl J—As*M*nt Air QwMy
SurveNkmc*
Aomoarrr Sec*, lit. MUa). III. lit.
Clean Air Act (41 U.S.C. 7410. 7MI(a). 7tll.
7«t».
lil.ltO Ambient air amlny •wnlt*rl»g
The requirements for monitoring
ambient air quality for purposes of the
plan are located In Subpart C of Part
58 of this chapter.
144 PR nMt. May 10. It7tl
K — Sourc* Swrvemwtc*
or
SoirncK SI PR 40ST1, Nov. 7. ISM. untem
otherwise noted.
754
755
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 7.3
-------
2138 Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 12 / Thursday. January 19. 1989 / Proposed Rules
Authority: Seci 1-19. 48 Slat *L w
-mended: 7 U.S.C. 801-674.
2. Section 959-229 it added to read as
follows:
§ tSa.229 Expenses and aaaaaament rat*.
Expense* of 079.675 by the South
Texas Oakm Committee are authorised
and an aaseaament rate of KXOS6 per 50-
pound container or equivalent quantity
of regulated oniona is established far the
fiscal period ending July 31.1968.
Unexpended fund* may be earned over
as a reserve.
Dated: )*M*ry 13. Haft
WiUiaai |. Doyle.
Associate Deputy Oinuar. Fran and
IKR Doc. aa-12SO HM l-lA-a* MS »|
•IU.WCOOOC it* m u
DEPARTMENT Of THE TREASURY
31 CFR Part 1«9
ExtenakMi of Tin* tar CaeamenU on
Propoeed Bank Secrecy Act
RegulaUea»
AOCNCV: Departmental Offices.
Treasury.
ACTON: Advance notice of preeoeed
rulemaking. extenaaaai ef oaaunent
period.
SUIMUMV: Notice is hereby given that
the Department of the Treasury is
extending the comment period on the
Advance Notice of Proposed
F-.ilemaking Relating to Identification
Requirements Required to Purchase
R.ink Checks. Cashier's Checks.
reveler's Checks and Money Orders.
D-jblished in the Federal Register on
December 23. 1968 (53 PR 51840). The
Treasury Department has determined
that more time ra needed for the public
to review and comment on the proposal.
DATE: Comments now will be accepted
through February 15. 1988.
ADONKSS: Comments should be
addressed to Amy C. B"^"i<-'' Director.
Office of Financial Enforcement.
Department of the Treasury. Room 4320.
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW..
Washington. DC *»ra>
rmn INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathleen A. Scott. ANoraay Advisor.
Office of the AuMtaat Genera) Counsel
(Enforcement). (202) Mi TO47.
Dated: (anuary 19. 1800.
Salvalora R. MaHsuha.
Aaiitant Secretary tEnfvnjtiiunt).
IFF Doc. aa-iao* Bkd i-u-ajt attt as»|
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40CFRParl51
l«L-»43t-lJ
Con
v. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
tmmurr. This notice describe* the
procedure far aaatsahig whether • Slate
implementation phin (SIP) rabmittal it
adequate to trigger Ae dean Air Act
requirement tart EPA review and take
action the aateiltal. The notice
describes, among ovkertktega, the
criteria far detematratae
"canaOetenese" of me eatommal. B>A ia
concerned
exoaaai
frustrate the daveaeamea* «f aB
State/Federal pamarahip. c*aae
connwon iwaaaajvaa vaaajvdue)
applicable fcaaiMona. and ganaraJI*
dampen Iniliaiisi in Steaa raajaaaaory
programs. Promntad by thia oamoaix.
EPA ia iaaoaunng a wida ra»fea
proceaaaftg rexoraa aa oaaccsbad
elsewhere mtini faataalBafiaaac. The
one of these
EPA's ppavioos
procedwv* aiaowidad oai
reiect ar othenvia* efaaimte
unreviewabte SIP aabaiittaia id and iauj>imuii»ri at
of friction JaBWriila•"aril e*h SU*
-------
Federal EegUter / VoL M. No. 12
i iBew I Pfonejsjsje]
and local agencies. SIP processing at
EPA has • Khedule goal of 5/2-5/2 for
final action. That is, the Region
nominally have S month* to review
submit tali in both the proposal and
promulgation phases; Headquarters
nominally Kan 2 months in each phase.
However. SIP actions often take
considerably hanger than the total M
month* allocated to publiah a fine!
decision.1
The lengthy decision pi
ample tc
i of ail SIP
resulted in strong critaam from sources
both inside and outside the EPA. to
response, the I
commissioned m July 1M7 a r
task group to aaseaa the problem*
UlAvWBt IB tfiff DfQOMM Oftfl 10
recommend solutions. The task group
conducted its asefssmmt and presented
recommendations to the Deputy
Administrator. The reoommendaiions
were approved fully and are fhisrriherl
in a companion notice in today's Federal
Register. One of these ranmimenrielinns
concerns a procedure and criteria for
identifying a -complete" SSP psrrsp
thereby providing States wtthgwiajece
on preparing adequate SIP revision* end
m -rite s rhrsrir defined uiirrtianiim
to keep essentially unrewewabie SIP
revisions out of the review process.
This is important because if a Suite
submits a SEP change without uiupmly
ststed emission limits, legal authority or
compliance schedules, or which
contains; other obvious deficiencies, it
can enter the full EPA review system.
Such a BP either will be eventually
disapproved, or languish while the State
is required (perhaps months later) to
supply essential data. Heretofore. EPA's
procedure* did not provide in any
comprehensive way prompt rejection for
incompleteness. Independently.
however, some Regional Office* have
tried to deei with this problem, and have
developed procedures wherein SIP
submittals are judged against a set of
completeness criteria. The purpose of
these procedures has been to keep
incomplete packages out of the more
extensive review system, thereby saving
both EPA snd the State valuable time
and resources. Today. EPA is proposing
to institute an EPA-wioe procedure for
' Not* UMI MCM 1KUHJ1 rf th* Ocu Air Acf
ik*t Tto AdBMMMior •toil wife* fov
•auhi afar tfct «•<• iwjnrad far
(SIP). «ppfi*^or rtmpprort Midi f5ff]fof«
until today's proposed regulation is
In order lo free EPA
would olfaerwiee he
mat
unapprovable SIPs. BRA has aeated a
ulsii miiieuu Under this
, EPA will review a SB? for
snftfcfcattUOjr
iiiliiiillliil In ilitennlee If si tn
mcjededteeBowmn.
review sjno act eut me>esjoeten0e ef me
SIP revieion. Ttts wfi* bo e quick screen
that will essees me revhtwubgr/ of a
SBPtmbmMaL not its uHnueli
spprorebflHy. EPA wfi teat promptly
inform the sobmttttag Sorts whether the
fwinoB or If it AHsfC vv flMQsWra by tut
SutrbecMN It ft ioaaaplMc.
Second, SIP nbadtmlf thai us
inadequate fari
In tin lisls tn he niaiei lee* nilmr llisn
gesng uvou^h the iwiew nraoees ODQT to
be diaanptoved beemsBteia lack ef
mformatiDB. Thfrd. enrevjewebie SIPs
are cesBoveo frooi the pvoenej enriy so
that resources ai the Federal ieml are
aUocated to processes* only SIP* mat
are adequate far Mview. HsjnUy. the
completeness criteeial pnvioe the Stales
with guidelines on how to prepare
reviewebie SIPs. It i» expected met once
the agencies involved (Stem and local
EPA) become accustomed to the
completeness raview process* the
number of mvevfewcble submittals will
rfiininish sharply.
Screening criteria have been
developed that define the essential
elements of an acceptable package, that
will avoid obvtoee inadequacies, and
that can be applied uniformly with
limited subjective fndgement and
review. The criteria were developed by
EPA Regional Offices already using a
list of criteria to determine compi
of SIP package* in an informal way. On
March 18.1MB a policy for determining
completeness of SIP submittals was
issued by Gerald A. Emiaoo, Director,
Office of Air Quality Planing and
Standards (OAQPSJ. to the Regional
Offices (a copy hn been pUced in the
docket es item B-sV4). The poficy
iBKiudes basic, oMetaa for detemiuung
completeneai. andvampie letters far
accepting and rejecting SIP f"^**'^^^^
This policy will be followed by EPA
As part of this action, tn*
Adnumstretor to proposing to add these
criterUfvdetenmmnglBM
oompletenees of State submittali to «
am Pint 81 as Appendix V. IB addition.
EPA propose* to modify | SU08MMe^ks(kfl a^sBa^nuuuTAnuueffi •• A VMk«me>^f4*v V
TB»«MSC cdseria ate adaptable for use
to paraMsl psooeesipg of State
reguta»JonsbjrEPA.«
EfA ie Greeting this completenesi
review process under me eutbority of
Section «n of the dean Air Act which
Mguietion* es are
necoesury to carry out his functions
under the Act. aPA is inuwuieOng the
"plan" to section nafeXl) «nd (2)
end "revision* m Section 110UK3} to be
only those fimm mil revissani aWt
contain altaf the components necessary
RTaflawEPA to a adequately review
and tike action em such plan or revision
under section 110 (and. where
applicable. Part D). EPA believe* thet
Congress would not have intended to
require EPA to review and take ection
on SO* snbmittals that were simply not
reviewable because they wen lacking
important components. Therefore, the
Administrator conclude* that Section
note) requires him to act only on
complete State submittals.
The criteria for determining whether a
submittal by the State is complete have
been separated into two categories: (a)
Administrative information and (b)
technical support information.
Administrative information includes the
documentation necessary to
demonstrate that the basic
administrative procedures have been
adhered to by the State during the
adoption process. Technical support
information includes the documentation
that adequately identifies all of the
required technical components of the
plan submission.
Admmistratfve Information
n • pnpMBl. Sun Mto «rt** tew •«
-------
2140 P«d«Ml Register / Vol.«. -Ntr-tt /•
-------
Fwfetal afefiateY / VoL 54. No. 12 / Thureday. |>mury 19. IMP / PropoMd Raka
2141
tntitiet. For reasons described above. I
hereby certify that the final role will not
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Dele: January 8. 1880.
La*M. Thomas.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble. 40 CFR Part 51 is propoaed to
be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part SI
continues to read aa follow*
Authority: This mlsmafcing is pmaanlgaiail
under authority of Sections 101(b)m MO,
100-68. 171-171. aad SDl(a) of Ike Own AB-
ACI 42 V3.C. 7«n(b)tl). 7«0. 7420-7428.
7301-7508. and 7801UJ.
2. Section 51.103 is propoaed to be
amended by revising pnnpaph (a)
introductory text to read aa foiiowr
151.103
of p«ana.
(a) The State mates an official plan
submission to EPA whan the pian
conforms to the requirements of
Appendix V to this part and the State
delivers five copies of the plan to the
appropriate Bagicaal office. wra a totter
giving notice of tnch action. Tha Stata
must adopt (he plan and the Gcrvaranr or
his desutnee must submit it to EPA aa
follows:
• • • • •
3. Part 51 is proposed to be amended
by adding Appendix V to read aa
follows:
Appendix V—Criteria far DetennicuBg
the Completenaas of Plan SubuMrtuua.
UO. Purpou
Thii Appendix V **ts fortb th* »ini"»m«
criteria for determining whether • SUM
implementation plan submitted for
consideration by EPA if aa official
lubmiuion for purpoM of review under
I 51.103.
1.1. The EPA thall return to the submitting
official any plan or revision thereof which
tail* lo meet the criteria set forth in mis
Appendix V. or otherwise request conecn>e
action, identifying the coraponent(t) absent
or insufficient to perform a review of the
submitted plan.
1.2. The EPA shall inform the submitting
official when a pian submission meets the
requirements of this Apptnriiw V. such
determination leaultiaf in the plan beinf an
official submission for purposes of I S1.103.
2.0. Criuna
The following ahaO be i~-'-"*H in plan
submissions for review by EPA:
2.1. Administrative Materials
(a) A formal letter of submittal from the
Covwncr ar his aaaajoee. Nqvertttf EPA
approval of the pian or revision thereof
(bersaner the pianT.
(b) Evidence that the State ha* adopted the
plan in the State coda or body of regulations:
or issued the permit, order, consent
agreement (baiaaftai donment) in final fora.
That evidence shall mated* the dele of
edapneej or final iaauaace as wefl aa the
effective data of the plan tf different from the
adopttan/iaeaaaee date.
(c) Evidence Bat the Stale haa me
•seesssry legal authority andar State law to
(h) CoaapltatMie/enfareeinent itrat**j«.
including how oampliance will be determined
in practice.
(i) Special economic sad technological
iustificenon* required by any applicable EPA
(dl-
(d) A copy of the actual regulation, or
submitted lor approval and
by refareace into the plan.
ef Be changes made to
ZJ. Exception*
JLU. The EPA, let the purposes of
expediting the review of the plan, has
adopted e procedure referred to as "parallel
•**M*^a^a»*ki^M ** mam«B*llekJ •aMa*ev*a*MieA AfJoVM •
Tbe enbmmalaball be a copy of the official
Stats lapililliiii/il
Indicating that it is fully attforoaahk by the
State. T»e eneoBve aane of Be legeartton/
doemaent shall whenever possibts. he
(a) Evidence that the Stete fallowed all of
the procedural reeetfraa*aie e* the State's
•V^ eUM OODaratnttOB tv OODanCttaf AOQ
eo ^Mto^theadoptJOB/iaauaaceoftheplatt.
{i i CVIaMBDaT iBatt pBMK AOBBat VM
the proposed chanaen i ii i ill »t with
data of
lbyBPA.iac*adingthe
W Certification that pobbe
aa2maceerdaaeewMidMintematiaa
end the Slate's
|inpajBjijBwnB}> r"jMWen fii in ajpeiaiij euavwai
State to aabort the plan prior to actaal
adoption by •» tote and provide* en
» tartan) State to consider EPA
prior to submit*ion of a final plan
far final review ead action. Under the**
cuTiimaianoas Be pian submitted will not be
able to meet aVtaT the requirements of
paragraph 2.1 (an requlraments of paragraph
1* wtt apply). A* a result the following
exceptions apply to plans submitted
M The letter reoutoed by paragraph 2.1(«)
ahall leqeeat that PA propose approval of
B* propoaed pine by parallel processing.
(W IB iiaa of paragnph »U(b) the Suit
ahaJi submit a schedule for final adoption or
iaMBeUOf Of thlf PaaUL
(el a ttea of pangrapfa lifd) the plan shall
IncMe a copy of the propoaad/draft
-- r
the State's i
*ATe
(alaJanflneaboBotallaaaililiilpoiiatMts
affected by the plan.
b) Identification of the loeationa of
cted aoareas tadudio* the EPA
(b)
affect
locations and the status of the attainment
pian far the affected ersesdJ.
(c) Quantification of the changes to plan
allowable •"'— *"** bom th* afiactad
sourosai eetiaMlas nf rhanjsi in current
actaal enuasiona from aflectad sources or.
when eppropriata. quantifies boa of chances
in actual anission* from afiactad i
through calculations of th* i
between certain baaehne levels end
allowable emissions anticipated a* a result of
th* revision.
(d) The State's demonstration that the
National Ambient Air Quality Standard*.
prevention ef significant dotertorettoa
increments, reasonable further ptapass
demonstration, and visibility, are protected if
the pian is approved and implemented.
(e) Modeling information required to
support th* proposed revision, including input
data, output data, models need. Ratification
of model selectia
(d) The lanaJrsajaili of paragraphs X.l(eK
TIQi) ahall aal ap|M| ts aeana seiasllliil fm
2X2. Th* axaaaaiaM graniad m parafrapb
tU ahall apple only ea EPA's detaraunaoon
of proposed •*'***»• aaviall saqviramants of
paragraph 2.1 shall be met prior to
publication of EPA's final determination of
pianapprovabihty.
(FR Doc- ga-1001 Piled l-le-a», 8:45 am]
FEDERAL BaVROEtlCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Federal Ireturanc* AdmMctrafion
44CPT(Pwt67
[Ooekat Ma. FPU Meg]
Propoej00 Flood Cavwoon
used, meteorological data need, (unification
for use of offsite dele (where eaed). awdea ef
model* used. sesuuipUuus. and other
mformanec relevant to the determination of
adequacy of the modeling analysis.
(f) Evidence, where asceasary, that
emission limitations are based on continuous
emission reduction technology.
(gj Evidence that the plan contain*
emission limitation*, work practice standards
and feoardkeeping/reparttng requirements.
where eeceassry. to ensure emission leveia.
r Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
•cnoae Proooeed rale.
r. Technical information or
ata are solicited on the proposed
bese (100-year) flood elevations and
propoaad baae flood elevation
modificationa listed below for selected
locations in a* nation. These base (100-
year) flood atoeabons are the basis for
the floedpJja» asuaagement maaaares
that the CBBaaaartty to raa)uvad to either
adopt or enow evidence of being already
in effect in order to qualify or remain
qasJtfiad for participation in the
-------
2214
Federal RefMer / Vol. M. No. 12 / Thonday. fanrary 19. HW / Notice*
C*niicu*
dockttNo
O87-22
C»7-23
CI87-24
cw-js
CW7-»
C»7-Z7
CI87-2S1
CI87-261
CIS7-261
CW7-M1
CIB7-261
CI87-261
CM7-261
CI87-ZS1
tfn .
flft , „ .. . ...«. ._,,. ..__ , „ ,
no „ _.._,,..
40.. ... r „ 11,1
40 .. 1 mmmm -M .
do
DO
40
(JO T--
tfo
*ff
00 — «_ ,m, , _, , 1 IMI.I,,, mm. m.
flft., _. .MU.. _ 1 . . nil . , . --!
rum
MMOM
No.
ZT
a
H
a
»
27
28
2>
3*
31
32
33
34
39
Do.
Do
Do.
Do.
00.
Do
Do.
Do
Oft. '
Oo
Do
Do.
Do
Do.
|FR Doc. 8S-U1B Fited 1-18-Btt ft* am)
State Imp*
ENVITONMEItTAt. PROTECTION
AGENCY
rttatton Plan ProcejeaJng
AOiMCr Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION; Notice ol procedural change*.
SUMMARY: This notice detcribes changes
being implemented in the way State
implementation plan* fSXPs) are
processed at EPA. The Act requires
States to develop plans for attaining: and
maintaining the six national ambient air
quality standards established by EPA,
These SIPi. including all revisions to
such plans, are reviewed and approved
or disapproved by EPA, This process-of
State plan preparation, submittal to
EPA. and subsequent EPA review has
been very time-consuming and resource-
intensive. The EPA is concerned that
uncertainty and excetirve delays, i*
processing SIPs frustrate the
development of an optimum State/
Federal partnership, cause confusion tor
sources regarding applicable
regulations, and generally dampen
intitiative in State regulatory programs.
Prompted by this concern, the Deputy
Administrator called for an assessment
by senior officials of the processing of
SIPs at EPA. The purpose of the
assessment was to identify problems
and propose solutions.
The problem* identified centered on
an excessive- cooocn by EPA for the
potential preoedeBt-eettiae; valae of
incuvida*! SIP n-nmtm. ••ntfmiad by
axoaawe
review |
implemented, described in detail below.
focus an. tailoring EPA review to the
significance of the i
to established procedures fas ]
SIPs within EPAJn onies to psaaptly
identify problems with SIP submittsls
and to geneally improve theeerteinty of
the process itself. These cfcaaeBn
include, enweej ethers; review of OP
submitBSe fer«
specific (
modiMcetioBf et i
FeeanDRtyto
EPA RegJanel Adnnaiatratoe* fer e
range ef Sff eosse* wheds are net
nationally sieaificeat ead imivieMig for
eiainst
the optiee to "gMndraihBi" Sff
subnittais tfcat wen esepecea in good
faith by • State but whkfc.na.y become
deficient to some degree because of a
change in EPA pottcy subsequent to
State adoption.
EPA believes thet these changes will
produce a number of important benefits.
SIP submittals should be processed
more efficiently and ie»iew decisiui'is
made more quickly and equitably,
overall the quality of SIP submitul*
should be improved. By working more
dosery. relations between EPA Regional
Offices and State/local agencies will be
improved, enhancing the effectiveness
of air quality management programs
generally. Finally, the chenges shouW
result in e more accessible and
accountable system, enabling parties
outside EPA to determine more easily
the sums, of SIP snhmiltals
OATce This action wiH be effective
January lt.1980. AU comments should
be submitted to EPA at the address
shown below by MarcnA. 10M.
APOMBMejaiJBttresierf parties may .
tahaiil-imiyeii umeiauids-iafJuefieeteh)
many Sff acoeee-ami in uucai leitw;1 on Pubbs Docket Ne. A-«B-ia et- Gentrei
Ehvitoaeaeeita] Protection Agency.
Attention: Docket No. A-88-16.401 M
StreeUSW. \/Vafihington. DC 2M8Q.
Materials relevant to this notice have
been placed ia Docket No. A-86-16 by
EPA and are available for inspection a:
the above address between 8-.00 a.m.
sad 130 pja.. Monday throiajh Friday.
The EPA may charge a reasonable fee
for copying.
•OMPW
TACT.
asta the
Mr. Hows WesgeU. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (XdD-
11). U. S. Eovironmentai Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park. North
Carolina 27711: Telephone (919) 541-
5642 or (FTS) 629-5642.
SuePiflMtNTAKV MFONMATIOM:
Background
The 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA)
established the air qualify management
process as a basic philosophy for air
pollution control in this country. Under
this system. EPA establishes air quality
goals (National Ambient Air Quality
Standards—NAAQS) for common
pollutants. There a re now standards for
6 pollutants: ozone (O>). carbon
monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO:).
nitrogen dioxide, parttcuiate matter
(PMio). and lead. States then develop
control programs to attain and maintain
these NAAQS. These programs are
defined by State Implementation Plans
(StPs) which are approved or
disapproved formally by EPA and. to tht-
extent they are approved, are Legally
enforceable by EPA. A SIP must
demonstrate attainment and
metMeneAce of-theeppricable NAAQS.
describe a control strategy, contain
4ejwily enforceable regulations, include
en emission UW.IMSJQ and procedure*
for the p«~^ff~f«rnrlHrn ie»»w of new
•otfeMen eees'ees. evtHtw-a-•program for
-------
Federal Rageeet / Vol. <4. No. 12 / Tatgtday. "January
Notices
2215
resources for the State to impleaianl the
SIP. In addition. then can be many
other requirements specific to the
pollutant being considered. The
consequence* of State failure to get SIP
approval may be Mhoui. including
Federal promulgation of control
regulations and sanctions.
Affirmative action it required by EPA
on essentially all aspects of every SIP
action. Since EPA's final decision comes
after a regulation already is adopted
and implemented at th* State level
excessive delay in the review process
often is a major source of frinctton in
EPA's relations with State and local
agencies.
There can also be differences of
opinion between EPA's Region! Offices
and Headquarters. Regions provide
guidance and support to Slates in
writing SIPs and then must review them
and recommend approval or
disapproval. The need for flexibility in
dealing with each State and situation is
important to the Regions. On the other
hand. Headquarters' offices have a
major responsibility to entire basic
national consistency on legal, policy,
and technical snaes. Tins, SIP deitisons
are under constant pressure becaeae
meyaa* visible and OBantitattve teats of
the elusive halaara isngil betwwe
State flexibility aad the Bimiieas and
consistency provided by national
directives.
More man 1600 SIP i sastiid actions
have been processed from 1S83 to the
preseat averaging almost 360 par year.
Many of these involved multiple isaues.
About 7S percent of the actons fell into
three categories: attaimaent
demonstrations, single source action*.
and (although technically not SIP
revisions) actions involving
redesignadon of attainment status. Most
of the remainder Involved new aouroe
review actions and eanssion trade*.
A rough assessment has b**n auo> of
the future SIP load. With th«
promulgation of a national aaibiont air
quality standard for PMi*. and the
proposed post-1967 oxone and CO
attainment policy, the number of SIP
submittals will increase significantly
over the next few yean. About 100
attainment SIPs and more than 180
"committal** type actions for PM* will
have to be reviewed. Shortly thereafter.
attainment SIPs for ozone (60-70 areas)
and for CO (mother 50-60 areas) will be
summed Potential revisiona.to-EPA's
IMS stack height regulations resulting
from the cowl deeisiM at NIUJC v.
Thomn. 896 P. 2d.122ntIXCCit.IM6).
of awnicipal waste conWtors will be
o'evefar^ earing tUe ana*. The
precadiag at* la addition to the average
load of 3M subarittafai par year.
The Cunanl Review Process al EP A
A comprehensive system has been act
up for processing SIPs at EPA. Involving
full aonat and com merit rutamakmg.
The major steps are summarized below.
(1) State prepares the SIP. gets
necessary approval under State law.
provides justification aad
documentation, aad submits it to the
Regional Office for the Governor or bis
designee. lie SIP can range in size from
a few to hundreds of pages.
(2) EPA Regions ceaapraheasively
evaluate tas submittal far policy, legal
and technical adequacy, prepare a
Technical ftuptwrt Oscaaecu (TSD). aad
prepare a propose a" ami rak* indicating
appreveUr aasptamal af the action.
The rule is aigassl by the Ragioiml
Admuastteter. if ttisa prupueal, end
sent on for review by EPA
Headquarters. The-Heaa^aattin' efflces
thereupon aaJsiiaiaen evaluation of
the Regional Office-package, regardless
of the Hgntftcanea of the SIP action.
(31 The Office of Air QaaHty Planning
and Standards fOAQPS) to Dorham.
North Caniina manages me
Headquarters' review, coordinating the
technical, policy aad legal evaluation
with all relevant Headquarters offices.
These may Include the Office of General
Counsel end the Office of Policy.
Planning and Evaluation, aa well as
several groups within the Offiaa of Air
and Radiation (OAR).
Each group* concurs with oosmnent. or
nonconcurs. Negotiation with the
Regions over SIP Issues or interpretation
frequently is a part of Headquarters'
review.
(4) Proposals are sent to the Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation for
concuneiKje. Disapprovals and partial
approvals of SIPs must undergo Office
of Management and Budget review
(under Executive Order 12201) before
being sent to the Office of the Federal
Register (OFR) for publication.
(S) After review by the Assistant
Administrator for OAR. all fini'
equ
limits far «a
sources. IB
about 36
go to the Administrator for signature
and then an seat to the OFR.
SIP pBBceasint at EPA hag a
scheduled goal of S/2-t/S far naa<
action. That is. i
havef •e*d»to<
both tas proposal andj
lihaiirr Mr—'Tinman aiiailiMslj a as t
than the total 14 months allocated to
publish a final decision i
The lengthy decision process has
resulted in strong criticism from sources
both inside and outside the EPA. In
response, the Deputy Administrator
commissioned in ]uly. 1987 a senior level
task group to assets the problems
inherent in the process and to
recommend solutions. The task group
conducted its assessment and presented
recommendations to the Deputy
AdmtnifltntOT.' The recommendations
wan approved ftffty and are described
herein. ItoweTai. before discussing the
steps baimjfafoa by EPA to reform its
SIP proceninf procedures, it is useful to
examine IBB approach taken by the task
p. aad the problems uncovered.
Tile project involved a three-level
approach. It included (1) formation of a
sentor-levei task group on SIP
Processing which met throughout the
four-month project (2) direct
discussions with staff intimately
involved in SIP processing, both
individually (or in small groups) and at a
day-tang Headquarters/Regional Office
workshop, and (3) interviews with
senior executives (Deputy Ragional
Administrators. Office Directors) now at
EPA. and former policy makers wuh
EPA and State air agencies. In addition.
a few limited analytical assessments
(e.g. historical SIP activity, number and
distribution of SIPs currently at EPA)
were done to better characterize the
issue.
The task group consisted of senior
officials from EPA's Regional Offices.
Headquarters groups associated with
SIP processing, and State air agencies.
The group nut three times, first to
discuss the general problem to be
addressed, agree on a course of action.
and assign special short-term projects.
The second meeting was primarily
concerned with process update and with
presentations by Regional Office and
State agency representatives to give
their unique prospective* on the issues.
' NoM *M Mcttoa nOUHZ! of (he O«n Air Ad
im»im thai Th* Mmmutmur >MI. mthm (our
•oMteatar Iht «•• raqmmi lot tftnuutn al a
(Sin appravt. ardiHpocovt suck |S1P| for wch
pomoo tbtno/." Under th* Astocy • pmcni
•wttod. MM* • tlmt hmn 11 UtcnMy
» tar «H b* Hit man lmn«l of
. EPA •••HIM UMI thu <*•**» »•" not
tppr> lo SH» n»»M«i. t»i raiav <«*» la iti* irnim!
SIT. wbmirMd altar 0R pnwnMf (tu • NAAQS.
1 EPA i pofilloe; olhcr
lUpon of (ka Taah Oaa^a. SIP I
r tia* A csnU-loealad IB Om dackat i
-------
2216
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 12 / Thursday. January 19. 1988 / Noticet
Finally, at the third meeting, retulu of
analytic studies were presented, and the
range of options for improving the
process was discussed. These meetings
led to the SIP processing changes that
are being announced today.
The work of the task group was
reinforced by discussions with people
directly involved with SIP review in
order to get an operations view of the
issues. This included a comprehensive
one-day workshop attended by
approximately 50 EPA staff personnel.
This group, intimately familiar with the
processing and review of SIP packages,
exchanged ideas on both issues and
potential solutions during the workshop.
To gain yet another perspective, a
series of interviews was conducted with
persons currently or recently involved
with SIP processing from a broader
policy sense. For example, the persons
interviewed included a former EPA
Deputy Administrator, the former heads
of State and local air programs, senior
industry officials, several past EPA
Assistant Administrators, and four
current Deputy Regional Administrators.
(The complete list of persons
interviewed and their summarized views
are contained in an appendix to the task
group report.)
Significantly, there was a noticeable
degree of consistency among those
interviewed both in terms of their
perception of major problems and in
terms of the general thrust of solutions
to be pursued. Almost ail believed that
EPA is too cautious in making SIP
decisions, that SIPs vary widely in
importance and EPA should tailor its
review accordingly, and that the current
SIP review system is operated too
informally. They also believed that the
"moving target" problem (a change in
the technical or policy basis for EPA
decisions after a SIP has been
submitted) needed to be addressed.
Problems Identified
It is clear that the process of
reviewing and judging SIPs has been a
constant struggle for EPA and the State*
and is a source of increasing tension.
Concerns voiced by participants during
the assessment indicated problems at
each level of SIP preparation and
review. Some cited abuse of the system
by the States to relax source limits.
Others believed EPA was too inflexible
and overzealout. resulting in major
processing delays for minor benefits.
It is likely that present problems, if
left unattended, will become worse
because of continuing resource
constraints and plans that call for
significant increase* In SIP activity over
the next few years, particularly in the
complex areas of ozone. CO. and PMt*.
In a relatively recent development, some
enforcement actions have been affected
by courts which have ruled that EPA
cannot enforce the current federally
approved SIP ag'ainst a source for
violations occurring more than four
months after a SIP revision affecting the
source has been submitted to EPA.
unless EPA has finally acted on the
submittaL
As a result of the discussions and
projects described earlier, it was
possible to identify a number of
fundamental problems that appear to be
associated with SIP processing. Some of
these problems are concerned primarily
with the procedural aspects of SIP
review, while others relate more to the
underlying philosophy of the SIP review
process (i.e.. what is the process
supposed to accomplish), and the
attitudes of the SIP reviewers. For
example, there is within EPA a strong
concern for consistency in SIP decisions,
and a fear that each decision may have
important consequences in terms of
establishing national precedent.
However, such concern may be
appropriate for only a small percentage
of actions reviewed. Moreover, it
appears that the SIP process has been
depended upon as a vehicle to identify,
resolve, and articulate national policy
issues, often at the expense of timely
decision fMfctnfl-
The issues identified fall into three
basic categories: inordinate concern for
the consequences of individual
decisions; excessive EPA review,
including full review for minor or clearly
deficient actions: and uncertainty
concerning the outcome of review.
These problem categories are discussed
briefly below.
A, Inordinate Concern for Individual
Action*
As noted, the current process places a
premium on consistency, stemming in
large part from a fear that a decision
statement or explanation concerning a
specific State or source may force
similar decisions in other States for
similar soorces. Although there is a need
for consistency at some level (e.g~
concerning the basic components of an
ozone attainment program or a new
PMt* SIP), it may not be necessary for
the results of all decisions to be similar
State to State and source to source. It
must be remembered that SiPs are
intended to be tailored by the States to
their specific air quality problems, and
the mix of sources from which emissions
reduction can be obtained, within the
constraints of the dean Air Act (such aa
the requirement for reasonably
available control technology in
nonattainment areas). Although it is
important for policy and broad technical
requirements to be applied consistently.
it is not necessary that the result of their
application to localized problems turn
out the same.
Because of the emphasis on
consistency and the fear of setting
precedent with individual decisions. SIP
reviewers have been reluctant to risk
making mistakes on any SIP change:
this, considering the number of actions
EPA must review, inhibits rapid review
and decision making. There needs to be
a greater willingness on the part of all
concerned with the process to risk an
occasional noncritieal mistake in return
for more rapid processing and earlier
identification of the outcome of the
review.
B. Excessive Review
Some SIP packages deserve the full
attention of EPA staff and management;
as noted, certainly the basic State
programs for post-1987 ozone attainment
and programs to achieve the newly
promulgated PM» ambient air quality
standard will need such review.
Similarly, SIP revisions for new
programs that dictate consistent
national implementation, or that involve
complex and evolving policy issues.
such aa generic bubble regulations,
should receive review and sign-off by
EPA Headquarters. But the same cannot
be said for changes to an emission limit
on a local printing plant, composition of
State boards, or negative declarations
under section lll(d). Under EPA's
currant approach to SIP review, all
changes receive Regional Office and
Headquarters' review prior to both
proposal and final approval (except for
those SIPs. aobut 20 percent of the total.
processed as direct final •). All final
actions, no matter bow trivial currently
are signed by the Administrator.
There are several problems with this
multiple review for ail actions: it
inherently takes longer than processing
only at the Regional Office level: it ties
up the scarce Headquarters' resources
available for SIP review (thus making a
long process even longer); and by
introducing more reviewers into the
process, it increases the chance of
rejection for procedural or other reasons
which have no impact on air quality.
There an other aspects to the
' excessive review problem. If a State
•TApublMlMttnngM
* ind»c»t«« uwt uw SIP
•CMP will fa« flnalki SB 4«yi yaW u mwwttd
) OpptMalaWy 10 plUVldf •OVfTtat
. EPA HMB faliOOT Ik* MCMl SIP
-------
/ Voi 84. No. U / Tmmday. )«ntegy 19. IMS / Notice*
i ubmiU • SIP change without pmpedy
stated emresioB limit, ne«j anJeJeity or
compliance schedulea. or which
conum ertber obvious deficiencies, tt
can eater the system and be subject to
complete EPA review end disapproval.
EPA • procedaras did oot provide ia any
comprehensive way for immediate
repectMea for incampieteneas.
Independently, however, some Ramanal
Office* have fiiad to deal wtth law
problem. For example. Region I ha*
developed a set af comntetenaas ctilerie
their SutM maat follow; legsna VD
provides Statea with aa axteaaive
checklist deectebtag ma taearmaiiaa the
Region will laak for ia a wide mage of
SIP actions. The purpoee it to keep
incomplete packages oat of the more
extensive review system.
On the other hane, area if the
suhmtttal is prepared oorrectiy. eoae
ectionj team tmenilart for full rarww.
Exampiee iaehtde mmpfe reeodificBtioa
of regittatiaae. address g*""y«, or
changing modaiing er stack taet ™«*h Unc9rtointy Goftctfimtf thf Outcome
It might be <
.- j .-^j
revision to a SIP. given the EPA's years
of experience, would be a midy roatine
pracass. However, mat often is not the
case. The fata of a given SIP revision, in
terms of both the na tare and timing of
the ultimate decision, can be uncertain
for a aumber of laesoni Important
mformetkm aacassaiy for nacisinn
making may be left ant oi a SEP package.
or the foDiat and.hiatificas1oB.for. the
change nuw to dtficieaxTJus can result
not only from inexperience and lack of
framing at the State and local level but
also from s lack of clear policy guidance
from EPA and timely issue resolution.
Policies important to SIP preparation
and approval may be »•««•»-•< or poorly
documented. Ia same cases, there may
be no poHey stall to address a spedHc
STP issue, and the S7 process itself.
through the aggregation of s series of
similar actions, to used to evolve a
policy. This situation, in part derives
rromsporadhranuMgeBenttevorrement
in the SIP process. Constant attention hi
needed to assure that packages an
moved tfaromjh the system, that
proOaCOaf tt9 proiBptijr iQcntfficB* mo
thtt policy tffoet are dtaantd tad
An overt maniieslation af aaeermiaty
in the outcome of Sn» review is the
moving target syndtema. Under cmreat
practice, a SIP may be under review at
EPA for months and eiaatuaUy be
deemed inappropriate beeswe it doesn't
conform teaaewry evotvtd policy, even
though it oonfetmed «a *e poHcy m
place whaa H was aabminad. Thn net
only frestrate* the State but rasaks m
confuaioB for the soeree because aattt
the State aetaally changes its eubmittal
it often contmoes to imnwmant the
regulations disapproved by EPA.
Another factor ooaMbutmg to
uDcertsmryanddaiayismaralianoson
SIPi.TaaeystmateaaraonaUyaai base
' characterized by i'"f*irtpg not
fudgmenul mteracttans. Haadqaartan
and Bamoaai Office persona*! are
reiHctaat to mrmaMy reject packages.
but rather try to work vim aair
collna avmairacaaaimi cnmn br
phonei
nagpuation.Taaij
reluctance to oseoaramiee eaoass that
may harsarte* ingaad tatrh.Aieo. ma
doeumantation needed to support s
more formal process os s targe number
of 8IP actions can become so excessive
burden. Uniortamnely. in many esses
the informal process proiongi the review
time substantially and results m poor
documentation for ase at simitar
situations. In addition, the informal
process frequently is crin'crxed by States
and sources because they can't
adequately Back the progress of th«
change once tt gets into EPA review.
Solutions Deviead
Baaed an mamak group assessment
niilHiii|iii
-------
2218
Federal Register / VoL M. No. 12 / Thumky. January 19. 1989 / Notices
revision. This will be a quick proem
that will look at the revtewability of an
SIP iubmittal. not its appravability. EPA
will then promptly inform the submitting
State by letter whether EPA will
proceed to process the SIP revision or
whether it must be returned to the Slate
because it ia incomplete.
EPA is creating this completeness
review process under the authority of
Section 301 of the Clean Ah- Act which
authorizes the Administrator to
prescribe such regulations as are
necessary to carry out his functions
under the Act EPA is Interpreting the
terms "plan" in section llOfa) (1) and (2)
and "revision" in section UO(aX3) to be
only those plans and revisions that
contain all of the components necessary
to allow EPA to adequately review and
take action on such plan or revision.
EPA believes that Congress would not
have intended to require EPA to review
and take action on SIP submittals that
were simply not reviewable because
they were lacking important
components. Therefore, the
Administrator concludes that section
llCKa) requires him to act only on
complete State submittals.
EPA recently issued a guidance •
memorandum to the Regional Offices
establishing this completeness review
procedure, including a list of
completeness criteria, on an interim
basis pending notice and comment
rulemaking. See Memorandum, Gerald
A. Emison. Director, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, to
Regional Office Air Division Directors.
March 18.1988 (a copy is included in the
docket as item U-B-4). The Regional
Offices are currently using this guidance
to conduct completeness reviews.
However, elsewhere in today's Federal
Register, EPA is proposing to codify
these criteria in regulatory form to
provide clear benchmarks for States in
preparing complete SIP submittals.
Specifically. EPA proposes to add the
completeness criteria to 40 CFR Part 51
as Appendix V. EPA also proposes to
amend $ 5l.l03(a) to specify that State
submissions will not be considered
official SIP submissions upon which
EPA is required to act under section
I10(a) unless they meet the requirements
of Appendix V. The details of the
completeness criteria are described fully
in the accompanying notice.
2. Letter Notice
EPA is creating a new SIP processing
procedure for relatively insignificant SIP
revisions that the EPA believes an of
essentially no interest to the general
public. Historically EPA has processed
all SIP revisions through full notice and
comment rulemaking in the Federal
r. For Insignificant actions of no
public interest, mis has been costly and
time nonsnnring with no apparent
benefit Under the new letter notice
procedure for such insignificant
revisions. EPA will simply inform the
State and directly effected parties by
letter that the submitted SIP revision has
been approved. The EPA may not
publish a notice of proposed rule making
and opportunity for public comment or
an individual notice of final rulemaking
in the Federal Register.
EPA's duties to publish, proposed and
final rulemaking notice* and provide
tram the Administrative Procedures'Act
(APA). However, the APA specifically
provides that an agency need not
provide notice of proposed rulemaking
or enBortunity for public comment when
the gency for good cause finds that It is
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public Intent See 5 U.S.C. section
653(b). EPA conclude* that it is
unnecessary to provide for comment on
Insignificant SIP revisions because they
an of no Interest to the general public.
Further, m such cases, the delays
associated with piuviaing for comment
when-none would be forthcoming
would be contrary to the public interest
In expediting SIP processing.
The legislative history of section 553
indicates that the good cause exemption
from- notice and comment nquiremantt
appropriately applies to insignificant SIP
revisions. See Senate Comm. on the.
Judiciary. Administrative Procedure Act
Legislative History. S. Doc. No. 246.78th
Cong, 2d Sess. 200 (1946)
("Unnecessary" meant unnecessary so
far aa the public ia concerned, as would
be the case if a minor or merely
technical amendment In which the
public ia not particularly interested wen
involved. "Public interest" supplements
the terms "Impracticable" or
"unnecessary"; it requires that public
rulemaking procedures shall not prevent'
an agency from operating and that on
the other hand, lack of public interest in
rulemaking warrants an agency to
dispense with public procedure). A
number of courts have also held that
notice and comment procedures axe not
required in analogous circumstances.
Set. «.g., National Nutritional Foodt
Auociation v. Kennedy, 572 F.2d 377.
385 (2d Or. 1978); Texaco. Inc. v. FPC
412 F.2d 740, 743 (3d Or. 1979): UniUd
States v. US. Trucking Co* 317 F. Supp.
80. 71 (SJ3.N.Y. 1970).
Although EPA will not seek comment
on letter notice actions or publish
individual notices of final rulemaking. in
order to keep the general public
informed of all SEP actions EPA will
publish periodically in the Federal
Register a summary list of all actions
taken under the letter notice procedure.
The effective date of all letter notice
actions will however, be the date of the
letter Itself rather than that of the
subsequent summary Federal Register
notice.
EPA wul only use the letter notice
procedun for insignificant SIP actions
such as recodifications or minor
technical amendments that EPA feels
confident an of no interest to the
general pubttoV Further discussion of the
SIP catagsrias t» be processed under
letter n*do> as» be found below in the
implementation section of this notice.
BVincnaswd Use of Direct Final
For some time EPA has used a SIP
processing procedun referred to ss
direct final rulemaking. In the peat EPA
has generally used this procedun
mostly for tof'gnlrV'"'* actions that it
considered noncontroversial and on
which EPA did not anticipate receiving
any adverse comment EPA is now
expanding the use of *hif historically
effective direct final procedure to speed
processing for a wider range of such
mjt"i» SIP actions.
Under the direct final procedun EPA
still continues to offer the opportunity
for public comment as required by the
APA. As before, the procedun menly
provides a shortcut for final action
when no comment is expected.
Moreover, moss insignificant SIP
actions which an truly of no interest to
the public will now be processed under
the letter notice procedun described
immediately above. Further discussion
of the potential categories of SIP» to be
processed under the expanded use of
direct final procedures is included
below in the implementation section.
4. SIP Decision Authority
Historically, all SIP revision actions
have been thoroughly reviewed at both
the Regional Offices and Headquarters.
whether or not the action involved was
truly of national significance. This has
led to the greatest delays in the SIP
processing system, and the task group
assessment indicated that overall such
duplicative nview did not appear to
contribute substantially to improved SIP
content in many cases. The EPA has
concluded that all SIP actions that are
not nationally significant and for which
Headquarters has prepared guidance for
SIP processing, will now be reviewed
only at the Regional Offices.
Consequently, the Administrator is
delegating his authority under section
llCKa) of the Clean Air Act to act on
such SIP submittals to the Regional
-------
Fejd»t«l Register / VoL J4. No. U / Thursday, fmuay It, 19M / Notion
221'
Adfflinistraiora. Both proposed and final
Federal Unifier notices for these
actions will henceforth be signed by the
Regional Administrators.
Section 30l(a)(l) of the Act authorizes
the Administrator to delegate any of his
powers and duties under the Act to
other EPA employees except "the
making of regulations." In an early
interpretation of this statutory provision
EPA concluded that while proposed SIP
rulemaking did not constitute "the
making of regulations", any final action
on a SIP would fall within this
prohibition. Upon further reflection. EPA
now concludes that the prohibition on
delegation applies only to regulations
initially promulgated by EPA. not to
plans prepared by States that EPA
merely approves or disapproves.
The natural reading of the statutory
phrase "the making of regulations"
extends only to regulations that the
Administrator himself promulgates.
Although in approving a SIP revision the
Administrator does incorporate State
promulgated regulations into the
federally enforceable SIP. he still cannot
properly be said to be "making"
regulations within the meaning of the
section 301(a) prohibition on delegation.
As a practical matter. EPA has
acquiesced in tfaove judicial decisions
holding that EPA oust follow the
rulemaking procedures of flic
Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5
U.S.C 553. when It-approves or
disapproves State implementation plans.
However, even if SIP review is
"rulemaking" under the APA. EPA
believes these actions do not constitute
"the making of regulations * * *" Thus.
while section 301(t)(l) of the dean Air
Act prohibits the Administrator from
delegating his authority to make federal
regulations, it does not prohibit
delegation of his authority to act upon
regulations made at the State level.
The implementation section of thit
notice contains s detailed listing of
those categories oi SIP actions that the
Administrator currently is delegating to
the Regional Administrators, those
categories the Administrator is
delegating but which should still receive
some input from Headquarters at this
time, and those categories that will
continue to receive full Headquarters
review for the time being. These
categories may change over time ai
Headquarters prepares additional
guidance and Regional Offices become
more familiar with new issues.
B. Improve Certainty ofProceti
The second major focus of EPA's
changes in the SIP processing system is
to improve processing procedures to
that individual actions can be handled
with greater certainty. These changes
involve Increased management control
and clarified processing guidelines.
1. Adherence to Formal Procedures
EPA has for some time had detailed
procedures for processing SIPs through
the existing SIP review system. These
procedures include time schedules.
default provisions, and issue resolution
mechanisms. However, for a number of
reasons these procedures have often not
been followed precisely in the past
With the adoption of the processing
reforms described herein. EPA will be
revising its procedures to establish
guidelines for each type of SIP review
mechanism, When the new guidelines
are issued senior management will
make clear that in the future they are to
be adhered to more rigorously. This will
ensure that State submittals move
quickly through EPA's review process,
with any major issues being raised
promptly lor resolution.
2. Grandfathering Policy
In the past a number of States have
submitted SIP revisions that ware
consistent win EPA requirements
(regulations, policies, lejtal
interpretations, etc.) in effect at the time
of State adoption «f the revision.
However, in some-cases, because of
processing delays and policy evolution.
the applicable requirements would
change before the revisions received
EPA approval. The EPA's?est
procedure was to return the plan to the
State for revision or disapprove the
action. Not only did this add more time
to an already lengthy process, it also
strained EPA/State/local agency
relations. Moreover, there was the basic
question of fairness involved In such
cases, the Stste submitted the revision
in good faith and in accordance with the
rules and policies in effect st the time of
submission, only to see months go by
and find out the change was rejected
due to factors totally beyond its control
EPA has determined that in general it
would better serve the States and the
interests of the SIP processing system to
continue to process most State
submittals based on the requirements in
effect at the time the State adopted the
change to the SIP. To this end EPA
recently issued guidance on
grandfathering entitled "Grandfathering
of Requirements for Pending SIP
Revisions", sent from Gerald Emison.
Director. OAQPS. to EPA Regional
Office Air Division Directors, funs 27.
1966 (a copy is included in the docket as
item 0-8-6).
The guidance provides a structure for
grandfatbering pending SIP actions to
the extent allowed by lew. The law in
this area indicates that whenever a new
requirement is created by Congress (vis
statute) or by EPA (via regulation or
policy), it becomes generally applicable
unless the authority establishing the
requirement provides otherwise. When
Congress enacts a new statute, it applies
to all matters then pending before an
agency unless Congress specifically
provides otherwise in the statute. The
EPA has no authority to grandfather any
matter from tin new ststutory
requirements Without explicit provisions
in the statute.'
Whan EPA Issues new regulation*.
they are also generally applicable unless
the regulations themselves include
grandfathering provisions. If
grandfathering provisions are not
explicit in the regulations, courts will
apply the new rules to matter* pending
before EPA. Thorpe v. Housing
Authority of Durham. 393 U.S. 288
(1969). However, en agency does have
some flexibility to provide
grandfathering provisions in new
regulations. Such previsions are usually
appropriate where they meet s four-part
taet First the new rale represents an
abrupt departure from well-esta bushed
practice. Second affected parties have
relied on the old rule. Third the new
rules impose a large burden on those
affected Fourth, there is no strong
statutory interest in applying the new
rule generally. 5/erro Club v. EPA, 719
FJZd 436 (D.C Cir 1962). cert den. 486
U.S. 1204 (1994). In the past. EPA has
included explicit grandfathering
provisions in new regulations where
appropriate.
An agency has brosd authority to
decide how and when to issue new
guidance, since as s purely legal matter
guidance is not absolutely binding on
subsequent proceedings. Pacific Gas
and Electric Co. v. FTC. 506 F^d 33 (D.C
Cir. 1974). Historically, however. EPA
has provided only limited
grandfathering from significant guidance
primarily due to the importance of the
new guidance to EPA's control
programs.
EPA's expanded grandfathering
guidance states that complete pending
SIP actions generally should be subject
only to the requirements in effect st the
time the State submittal was prepared.
However, the guidance includes a
number of exceptions to the general
rule. The EPA would not grandfather s
pending aetioajvhere a court ruling hai
changed a reonrement where a court
has convinced EPA that a requirement U
no longer supportable, where me
Administrator determines that
-------
2220
Federal Regular / VoL Si. Na 12 / Thursday, January 18. IflBB / Notices
grandfathering is not appropriate, where
an imminent and substantial advene
environmental impact would result
where grandfathering would foreclose
EPA'i ability to exercise its authority
under the Clean Air Act or where the
State has not acted in good faith in
submitting • pian.
The guidance also states the EPA will
analyze the need for grandfathering
provisions in all new EPA requirements.
and will include such provisions in all
cases to the extent appropriate.
3. Improved Guidance and
Communication
In order to facilitate implementation
of the various SIP processing changes
EPA is instituting, existing guidance win
be upgraded and new guidance prepared
wherever needed. Headquarters offices
have committed to provide adequate
guidance to Regional Offices and to be
available for consultation to assist the
Regions in implementing the new
programs.
EPA will also be improving
communications between Headquarters
and Regional Offices, and among
different Regfcmal Office*, to eJfcellvety
implement the deoentraiieee'SP
processing system, improved
communication techniques, described in
the implementation section, include
identifying regional SIP contacts, the
"regional staff expert" concept a SIP
clearinghouse, a computerized tracking
systefe. periodic conference calls, and
national meetings.
4. SIP Processing Management System
The final change EPA is instituting in
the SIP processing system is a new SIP
processing management system. Under
this system EPA managers will maintain
close supervision over the SIP
processing system to ensure that SIPs
move smoothly through the new
procedures. The new management
system, described in full in the final
section of today's notice, includes both
an internal and external audit system.
an expanded computerized tracking
system, and a SIP processing deviation
review system.
Irapfeeaeatatioa of the Chang**
The following discussion focuses on
the more significant aspects of the
implementation of the SIP preoessiag
changes announced today; tbe£nal
portion addresses impcovemenU in the
flyf^* aystssB wh>oh>aKe being
instituted to Assure the snnn>uv«d
changes are property impieottMed.
A. Tatiar Review to Significant* of
Action
l. Completeness Criteria
Screening criteria have been
developed that define the essential
element* of an acceptable SIP package,
that win avoid abvigus inadecfascies.
and that can be applied uniformly with
limited subjective judgment and review.
The criteria were developed by EPA
Regional Office* already using a list of
criteria to determine completeness of
SIP package* in an informal way. The
benefit* of using completeness criteria
to refect deficient package* include
unproved consistency and quality in the
State rabmfnaJ* received for processing.
fewer SIPs disapproved for fundamental
inadequacies, more effective use of
limited resources at both the Federal
and State level and improved guidelines
for new State personnel on how to
prepare adequate SIP*. A» noted earlier,
an interim poticy for determining
completeness of 39 inbmrMais was
issued to the EPA Regional Offices. The
policy includes basic criteria for
determining completeness, and sample
letteca far aeoaptteg eaed selecting SIP
suboutsess.
In a aaejeaaehaMiee ia today's Metal
Register, the A rlinlntetietoi is proposing
to add those criteria and aeoeaidare for
determiaiag the oomatutensss of State
subnitteJ* to «XCHt Part R. EPA will
cootiaoe to BM the interim policy to
eases* SIP submrttais antil final
rulemaicing action is taken on today's
accompanying proposal
The. criteria for determining whether a
submittal by the State is ooaaplete have
been separated into two categories: (a)
Administrative information and (b)
technical support mfonaation.
AdailuiatiaU»e information includes the
documentation necessary to
demonstrate that the basic
administrative procedures have been
adhered to by the State during the
adoption process. Technical support
information include* the documentation
that adequately identifies the technical
components of the plan submission.
2. Letter Notice
Using a letter notice for non-
substantial action*, which EPA will
begin doing after today, is a new
process where EPA will merely inform a
State and directly affected parties by
letter that EPA aa* approved a given SIP
revision. The objective of the letter
notice approach is to achieve prompt
action by EPA on non-aubetaotial
action* waece
-------
/ Voi M. No. 11 / Taanday. |ajuiiy TA, IflBQ / Moncaa
2221
review time by about 50 percent Since
its inception, many revision have been
published ae direct anai raiee with very
few receiving notice boot the public of
the deaire to comment The following
are tome type* of SDPi that have been
proceeted successfully u direct finals:
• A q***tdnwntf to dafzaitioa* to cflnfan8*
to EPA requirement*
• Changes io monitoring/modeling
procedure* to reference aew EPA
guideline*
• Revision* to incorporate aew teat
method* by reiereac*
• Single source SJPreviaioa* mat make
a State's requirements mote
stringent
* Public svauaailiiy o£ etBieaioae data
• Permit fee*
• Compliance schedule* for section
111(0) plan*
• Visibility plan*
• Volatile organic compound (VOQ
consent orders
• Prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) modeling regulations
• Minor change* to inspection and
maintenance (I/M) programs
• New opacity regulations
• Variance*
• Operating permits for lead SJPs.
Of 1M SIP revisions proeeseed most
recently a* ilirerI finals only two
required reoebMaeeayaa. |
because of public Qoeamaal. T&i -
of very little public rmaaianl nn direct
final rules suggested the* EPA could «*»
this effective Mel mete often to spssd ap-
the SIP process.
For this reason. EPA iaeeed a
memerudum dated December 2X. Us?
entitled "Expanded Use of Direct Final
SIP Processing." from Gerald A. Emison.
Director. OAQPS. te EPA's Regions!
Offices (a copy is <~^-«*~< in the docket
as item O-B-2). For taeteasoas stated
above. >hi« memorandum refiftnunffiiried
that the direct final nilsmalnncj
approach could be need more frequently
by the Regional Office*. It t» possible
that EPA's plan to expand the
application of the direct final rulemaking
approach may result in an increase in
the number of SIP* being withdrawn
and subjected to full aetice and
comment nilsmakiap becauee of the
desire by the public to comment
However, any iaaeese in the number of
direct final actions withdraws and
converted to proeoeal* should be
end. the AdministBtor is tadajr
delegating sigmaksre autharirjrfo those
TTT rinrisiane leei •* ant nf natiaaal
signttcaaca se-tae
Eliminating the aariatreetaw by the
Regional and HaBaejaarsif* oRojafof
selected catagonavof SIP* to potentially
the most effective recommenaatiea
med* by the task group. Thi*
recommendattoa to designed to delegate
sgproval/dhaBmii si authority for fie
«*Ai*^^*M fl^B^^h ^M flkm B^^^^^^B!
nia|uruy os sun av ne svvgsseeu
Adtninistra«omA«n**»dearmK.allSIP
Oi rsnselan*tieni end O* attainment plant
(iadttdlng UM pregrems)
' CO attainment plans deanng with area-
wiue prooisatt.
1 CO ledeeiaMUoaa e>cep( those ralating to
pamt-«oare* oaly prooteau or hot spot*
ooas) ialaarling UMM resulting
titalSIPs
t VOC raewation* 1*4. par
. orPox-*7
Officeanellensejimm Isi mthe
put The ReftaMl OBloe woeM i
the Stale cemmMnl eerf prepen a
IsttsimiMnt
> teaa one RsfMmst
EPA Hi i neejensre for eaother roaneUf
terhnirsl lepei, andeemey review.
Except fcrmaeeOlTs.pisceeied ae
direct finai i
rules reoern
and]
thei
jorrevMngSMic-
I *lre;eaJity diesenine node*
. and S9 fevtakms b*itd on
th* as* ef neo-epptwed nodeii or
dsvietieB* fane BPA's eioosting
rarely changmi *» ammi
SIP i • rtslues wfceM BPA Is under * court -
eiderea- stkearie (e*. Irufians SOi STP|
SOi Sutewidt pian* (sU eiemenu)
SPi for new feeerleftate-wide ptogmni
d to oaspty with
with BBuiieut
then offset by the overall improvement
to timely proceaeuig ef total SIP actions.
4. SIP Deci*iea> AMlberUy
A comer* too* of Ihe
recommendation* of the SIP processing.
taek froep is the taflermvW sewiew Jo
Ae
have a i
implementatieei of i
SUCBM!
demonerntiag i
standards. I
prngrem* where a higk level efneneneJ
consistenrytriii|isilaiil or which
involve oavRgHg programs
Issue* on progrem imptetsentation may
as yet be isBfeenlved. Such acaeas
should receive eeei a RagieaeJ Ofltos
anda Heada«ar«ers review: the Utter
will ensure consistent pokey appUoaaoa
for these nationally aignifinaai SIP*. SEP
action* which iniaaHy will oontiaue to
be decided by the Adauaistrator are
listed in Table 1. laia list ead the «4her
lists described below ate not intended
to be psnnaaent thst is. SIP categories
may be shifted among them ever time.
For example, n to EPA's-mmnOoa so
delegate eome of the SIP categories aa
Table 1 to the Regioaal Adauaistrators
as experieaoe wii the newprocees i*
gained aad policiee mature. Conversely.
if the Regional Offices have difficulty
with a delegated category, each SIP
actions may be withdrawn bom
delegation and be subject te aal
Headquartats review.
TABLE 1
blu
Peet-arCVCOpeliey
PaP/NSR Sg> aaaiiillsil te OBsapiy with
AteaemePewer deciBioaf
1 Bahblss whUi uad* eflgrewth alkmaaa
VteMRr pleas that
AayrV
Any actiea pneostai or HQpo«ns •
Aay SV isiislea. eppiovel/diMppnnral of
watch weald stamlAosnur devwi* from
RcfjimslOrfieseedl
wtth(
larvae
A second category of SIP revisions.
listed in Table 2. are actions where
some Headquarters review is deemed
appropriate prior to final action. This
category was developed to sddress
those SIP* where guidance is relatively
new and thus it is prudent for
Headquarter* to monitor the decision
procaas at the Regional Office level
Thta category serve* as a transition
between Headquarters review and
Regional Office review and will provide
an opportunity for Headquarter*
oversight without adding a significant
review requirement Although the
Regional Administrator* will have
deostoa aatharity for the** SIP*, the
Headquarters offices will neve 30 days
from the data ate SIP revision package
(including tbedmft Federal Reflet"
notice ami auaaart material) is received
at tkaii*,eenaat J° prep«re aaa" send
dtD br s veto
but ratherta
-------
2222
Federal Regtotar / Vol. 54. No. 12 / Thunday. January 19. 19M / Notice*
opportunity to provide comments to
Regional Office decUtonmaker*.
TABLE 2
The following SIP actions ire delegated for
Regional Administrator deciiior. and signoff
(proposed and final^ut require a 30-day
opportunity for Heao^jarters' review before
signoff.
• Paniculate matter emissions relaxations
• VOC revisions with extended compliance
schedules affecting nonattainment anas
• CO attainment plans dealing with botspots
• CO redesignationa relating to point-source
only problems and hot spots
• SOj area-wide and source-specific SIP
revisions and redesignations. where the
source(s) or background sources in the
aggregate have allowable emissions of
25.000 TPY or more (except primary
nonferrous smelters or emission trading)
• SOt revisions with (a) averaging times
greater than the short-term SCVNAAQ&
(b) revised emission limits due to
changes in stack height credits
• Visibility SIPs involving regional haze
• Direct final rulemaking in categories
identified for Administrator signoff (see
Table 1)
• Any other action not listed elsewhere
Decision authority for all remaining
SIPs is being delegated to the Regional
Administrator*, with no requirement for
consultation with Headquarters prior to
signoff. The primary criterion u*ed to
judge which SIPs could be delegated to
the Regional Administrator for decision
was the significance of the action.
Another criterion was the availability of
appropriate policy memoranda/
guidance to the Regions for making
decision* on the approvability of a SIP.
The categories of SIPs initially to be
delegated to the Regional Administrator
for Final approval authority are listed in
Table 3. Although these revisions are
being delegated for the Regional
Administrator's signature, the
Headquarters SIP reviewers will be
available for discussions with the
Regional Offices on any of the
categories of SIP revisions. The Regional
Offices also have the option of sending
SIP submissions which come under any
of these categories to Headquarters for
the full review, especially where the
Regional Office reviews indicate that
national issues may be of concern.
TABLES
The following SIP actions are delegated for
Regional Administrator decision and signoff
(proposed and final). Headquarters review is
not required bat nay be requested by the
Regional Office.
• All other bubbles and all other singie-
source regs.
• VCC extended compliance. scbe4ul«
(except those affecting noaattaiaaent
areas)
• PMw Group D and ID SIPs T9P
redecignattons
• Lead attainment plane and revisions
• All other SO> SO*, nchjdmg
ndasignstiona: ambient aranitoring
plans: malfunction rule*: State AAQS
• State stack height regulations and negative
declarations
• All other PSD/NSR SIPs
• All other visibility plans
• lll(d) plans/negative declarations
• All other dirsct final rulemaking
• All letter notice actions
SIP iaaues (and revisions) in
categories of potential national
significance will continue to b*
reviewed in Headquarters and signed by
the Administrator. The categoriecof
SIPs delegated to the Regional
Administrator for decision and sign-off
are inherently localised in scope and do
not have potential for national impact.
(Obviously, an unusual SIP revision in a
delegated category could involve broad
iaaues; the changes in procedure
announced today provide for full
consultation between the Regional
Office and Headquarters, and even for
the forwarding of each an unusual
action for full Headquarters review.)
Thus, except foe unusual cases.
decisions made by a Rational
Administrator will be baaed on local
factors, reflect local ieaoea, and may
indeed yield varying reeahs, although
Regional Offices wUlappiypoliciea
consistently. Such dsjciasQQe are*
therefore, intended to be noa-
transferabla, Lo~ do not set precedents
for other Regions. For example, an
emission limit for a particulate matter
source in a State may require a specific
value to •conform to. the State's
demonstration of attainment The same
type of plant in another State, however.
might have a different limit imposed
based on its location and site-specific
factor*, in abort it is expected that the
outcome of the decision process for
similar SIP actions can vary from Region
to Region. Each such local action must
be judged on its own merits. This is
acceptable, provided that national
policy and guidance applicable to such
action* are applied consistently by all
Regions involved.
To provide the Regional Office with
the necessary support EPA is
completing a comprehensive
compilation of policy statements.
guidance, and memoranda applicable to
those actions where significant
Headquarters review is being
eliminated. Moreover, to nn'"«»'"
oversight of this decentralized process,
EPA will institute more intensive
management systems, designed to
ensure national consistency in policy
application (see diacuaaion on
Management System* later in this
notice).
B. Improve Certainty of the Process
1. Adherence of Formal Procedures
Detailed procedures exist for
processing and reviewing SIP revisions.
Among other things, the procedures
provide for firm schedule*, default
provision*, and mechanisms for issue
resolution. The procedures frequently
are not following for a variety of
reason*. In tome cases, a Regional
Office may believe that infernally
working/negotiating with the State
would provide information or result in
change* to the rthnission that would
enable EPA to tpfhrve the plan
revision*. TUa can occur because there
is to inherent reluctance by reviewer*
to disapprove a plan into which a State
or local agency has put considerable
effort The goal of this informal
approach was to enhance the
relationship with the State, although the
ultimate effect may have been the
opposite.
The current guidance and procedures
for SIP processing are being reviewed.
modified a* necessary to stress the need
for more formal implementation, and
will be repubushed with a clear senior
management directive on their
importance. Further, the management
system decribed below will help ensure
that the reviewing office* follow the
formal procedure*. This, along with
increased management attention to the
SIP process, should enable those
interested in the results of the SIP
review process, internally and
externally to EPA, to follow more
effectively the progress of individual
action*.
2. Crandfathering Guidance
EPA issued grandfathering guidance
to the Regional Office* a* described
earlier. The guidance is to be considered
in each rulemaking action on a SIP
revision and in all new or reviled
requirement* for SIPs issued by EPA.
EPA believe* that it deal* with the
fairness issue, will not have noticeable
environmental impact and will
strengthen EPA's working relationships
with the States and local agencies.
Under the guidance, a SIP revision may
remain subject to the requirements in
effect generally on the date of State
adoption of the change. The decision to
grandfather will be made by either the
Administrator or the appropriate
Regional Administrator where decision
authority baa bea* delegated.
All SIP revision* potentially subject to
grandfatherinj veil be reviewed to
determine to what extant the submission
complies with the new and revised
requirement*. For such revision*. EPA
-------
/ Notice*
wall eddiee* the ieipeet of the
grandiathaciae; eettetoe. (peeiawar
befan ^y tiaaf liuaKiniiBtedL
negative) • the SB" raseateking
In addition. the beess to
future Mibnutiaii will be described ia
new requireaieati isoeeci by EPA.
eddressiag the impact on pisiaeeely
approved, pesiduig, ead new)? sutuaifted
SIPs. Such graadiatheriBg proviaioM
generally will have effective dates
which an 60 day* teat the data of
sigsature to allew autM to have a
reasonable tunt la complete preeosaiag
and submit reviaioaa loJEPA that atey
hi mhjert to granrtfathertag
Although graiiftfatnefine. will ha
considered whenever aeaaiUe. BJancmg
equity onnsidersaons aad short tena
environmental imparts, it is act
automatic and may Dot ba aepvopriete
in ail tircumsteacea. These iadade
•ituatioot wham:
1. The State has not acted ta good faith
m subnattiag a plea:
2. A court ruliag ha« chaagad a Maod
requireaMot or liaa uimimnd BPA
thai a preview reqvneneni if no
longer supportable
• "V nlii'iiiniiiiii dm ..... MII iiiniii
is not eparapaiata to ganenttaar
endar* new BPA pause:
4. A daciatoD in paartAthai n adil hmia
gQ imDUDaflt and anhaouiaiai
adver»« aovironaaaiHai hapact ar
foradoaa tha ahiUly «f BPA t*
axarcwe ia autborMy Mdar (ha
Claa»Air Act (*«. apply aanctina*
undarPartD).
Thit gnidaBca bnalds on trirtag
grandfatharing guidance {«.§, air qaaJity
diipanion modaling] to attahliih the
general nnnrnrt irfpanatiiniaiiin iiaan
equity dictate* aoch acOao.
Where grandfathanBf would render
the SIP at a whole •abaaurttatiy
inadaquata to protect the NAAQS or
otfaerwia* to comarf with the Act
graadfathehng m«r ha ailowad «a*y t*
iuttified by aa iadiwdaal aaalyaia uariar
the four-part Sierra dob teat daacribad
eariier. and the graodfathahag action
would have only a Mmitnd Hie (ganeeally
two yean). Withte that ttoa. (he
grandfatiwred iv*Mon muat terminate
(•4, expinttoa of a taoponry
variance), or the Stale onttt ravmtt-a
csompiete, apaaonbla icvanon ta the SS»
tobnngitimoraUoonpttaaoewtmaJJ
•tatutory
v*of «raot flna* letter
notice to aiMrtrtuiMil actkwK and
rignattre MrthwMr lofth* KegJonal
Adi
nithiinoBce.
far
the
altemabvea tee
•yitaauthr •pannr
between eXA Heesjettarajat
Regi
effective!
more iamooaat with the Jamie
of tne&W palest**! *
toda*. aet oaa>i
problems
shared
the Regioa>«e that
application o£p
be assured, Seearal^
uaderwayia this regaai
The existing Of tracking system "SJP
TT fi T " rrhfrh rrtten% ajilr follow*
SIP safaeailBBs feoea Heir recssat at
Headquarter*, to baiag eaaenriefV to
track a SIP submitta! fan aeceipt by tEe
Regioaal Offios te MtH*!!! ^ dlspaaiaaB
(see furthet olaQuatea aaoat the
"Maaagaaisnt Systasa" below). Oat*
coatamad ta (he system wfll bit refiaed
aad sdtoeted as experience is gained
under the new procedures. In parallel
win thai becking system change,
gieeier eiiiplieirrwflj be placed on the
"key SV contact" peisuus In the
Regional Om^esa. Already m piece, mete
persoas wta have <
respoBjsKiiDty'ee the Regional Offices do
more of thedecis4uuiBekliBi«rSlP
1 Improved •Cuidenee end
Coinmnnn'jflon
«*rtataty in SIP
BubeaMale. R to camveted t
frequent ate of conference cefls.
between some or aB Regions, wffl be
made, aad a workshop on SIP
proceeeatj ieeeaa wui be teetitBteQ ai
JM«M*.MW^fa^ Wflfe ^^B X(^^tfli^^^^^MJ
GDnJUDC^wa OTI1M^BWTmo^vBBcBre/
RegtoaalOOee acr pregraat staff
ixnieeaaaa heat eaanjefly • fear*
Carohaa,
To eeeare *aat efbet*»«Bfogee-iet
place {
eetiblhmmcnt of a Regional Office SIP
Council. Such a Council would be
composed of Regional Office SIP review
•tefl chaired on a rotating besu by one
of the officet. The chair would e»ttbli»h
e meeting freqoency"[1»*teJecon/erence)
which could be monthly or et aome
•iffiflar regular period. The purpose of
the meeting* would be for each Region
to dteeuaa SIP processing activities for
the period, to highlight nneaual issues
that arose, end to identify /resolve
point* of oonieaUuB between Regions.
Headquarters staff-would participate in
these CoteMftjeeeAH* as adviaots and
to paeride aihpsj^aeitir eel expertise.
•ejmlBnnt sesiihsWeech meetings
woolo'be peeled ee aa electronic
bultetia board lor future reference and
guidance.
Other iailieaVas am hang considered
Thee* include creeaon of "policy
hosmae*" eateUUhmg Haedouerten
experts ia versees pcogram arees to
provide quick response to Regional
Office inauries. As en axtansion of tnii
concepL Regional Office "experts" are
ii leeclad toemerge over time who
would eerre the eenw fraction for their
coUeafues.Altagh see rarl scope of
IDpTOVeffl OOeaHaWDCelQOtlg) !<}OtflK|Wf9
haeteit been MydeAaedat this time
(iadaad. eheeid aevar be Baefind since
commiiBsneaqa* fcw Juhei'eBtty ehooid
be detune*); HM to awue of the
importance «f tee faaction end is giving
it high priority.
4. SIP Proceasini Maaai
nentSyateea
it of the SIP
EPA, inehiduig
review by both me-Regional Offices and
Heedqeenars. is vitai to ensure that
implamenuitioa plans sutau'Ued by
Stele* are proteased expeditiousry. As
pert of this action to improve SIP
prnnnsiing watna 2PA. the management
system is being revised to monitor the
prooeeefng of implementation plan
revisions nnder the changes described
today. A baste goal of this revised
management system is 10 ensure an
appropriate degree of consistency
between all leviewers in interpreting
aad implementing the SIP processing
guidance aad air quality msnagemeni
program policy. The management
system wilt also evaluate the reviewers
coaronnaace to established review
procedures. In addition, sn outgrowth of
the maaaeement system will be the
identification oftSMM and problems ia
intplenonttfloa pteieutdance. policies.
and proaaduna '•tieA Headquarters
and RegtonetOfltoe. With each
inform* boa. EPA. caa eaeuze the timely
update of policy and processing
guidance.
-------
2224
Federal Tlagjittnr / VoL 84. No. 12 / Tinnday. January It. 19» / Notioes
The management program is designed
to ensure the adequacy of the processing
procedures and to facilitate the review
of implementation plans. Identification
of program deficiencies is not intended
to result in recriminations but to
improve the process. The effect of the
unproved management program should
be increased public confidence in the air
quality management program, and more
certainty on the part of States and
industry regarding the operation of the
SIP review process.
Audits
A key feature of the management
system is the development of an audit
program. The audit piugiam to designed
to review actions, generally after
processing is complete and final action
is taken, to determine whether
processing procedure* aad program
policy have been adhered to during the
review of the implementation plan. It is
not the intent of the management
program to review, or second-guess,
every SEP action that is processed within
EPA.
The frequency of program audits will
be based upon several factors. One
factor is the total number of
implementation plan revisions
processed by a particular office. This is
important because significant processing
deviations are more likely to result
when the number of actions is high. A
second factor to be considered in
determining the frequency of the audit
cycle is the type of actions processed—
newly implemented programs with a
significant level of complexity should
receive greater attention than programs
which are well established. Another
element in determining the frequency of
audits will be the prior performance o
the reviewing office. Those that have
demonstrated problems should receive
greater attention and thus more frequent
audit than areas with demonstrated
capabilities. As a corollary, in addition
to examining performance of specific
organizations, the audit program will
identify program areas where several
organizations are demonstrating a lack
of understanding, indicating the possible
need for improved guidance.
The audit program must be designed
such that the interval between audits is
not too lengthy. With reasonable-
frequency, the management system must
be able to obtain an overview of the
basic program and the personnel
responsible for implementing the
program. Such a -review is necessary to
ensure that the skills and knowledge to
effectively process all types of plan
revisions are maintained; this is
necessary even where few and/or
routine plan revisions are received.
The audit program will employ two
basic sowcea of information: (1) Records
and documents submitted or prepared
as part of the formal rabmittal and
review process; and (2) discussions with
the individuals in Headquarters and/or
Regional Offices involved with
i with specific SEP actions.
Through review of the processing
documentation and the implementation
plan tubmittaL the auditor can
determine independently the procedures
foil
ap
id, hi
idoonfo
•pacific polk*
to national poUcy
and guidance, etc. Discussion* with the
and review of SB* actions will provlda
information related to aafldandw that
exist in the processing guidance,
QuudMuttC IB OOBZORDMEM to DFOffTUD
policy for specific actions, and elements
r using from EPA guidance that should
i jceive attention at the national level
The Regional Offices wfll need to
maintain, the full documentation and
history of each SIP action processed. In
the majority of cases this will not result
in any extra work load since moat of
this information is contained in the files
already maintained by the appropriate
Regional Office, m addition to the
currently maintained manual records,
EPA intends to expand, an operational
mtaooanputer-baeed system for
maintaining the ststus of currently
active implementation plans. The
current system tracks SIP revisions for
maintaining the StatUS Of SIP SCtiOM
upon receipt of the package by
Headquarters and contains no
information on plan revisions at the
Regional Office; the system will be
expanded to maintain information on
the status of SIP actions under review
by any EPA organizational element This
will permit the rapid transfer of
information between Regional Offices
and Headquarters on the status of all
actions which are active within EPA.
There are two types of sudit functions
anticipated by this program— internal
and external. An internal program audit
involves the routine audit of the SIP
review process by those individuals
within the reviewing organization who
are directly responsible for the review of
the SIP. This internal audit will occur at
both Headquarters and the Regional
Offices on an ongoing basis. Rather than
mandate the procedures to be used by
each Regional Office and appropriate
Headquarters office for the internal
audit each office will establish audit
procedures that are appropriate based
upon resources, capabilities, and the
nature of SEP revisions processed. For
example, it may consist of senior staff
familiar with the program requirements
reviewing a selected portion of the
revisions processed by the SEP review
staff. The Regional Offices will focus
their internal audit efforts on those
actions to be signed by the Regional
Administrators.
The external audit is designed to
obtain an independent overview of the
program. This audit will be conducted
by Headquarters individuals with
experienoa in SIP review but who do not
take an acfc>ijei> in the process. The
external a*e*«p address all facets of
the progra*i
-------
/ V«l Si. Ma. 12 f
? r*»ttc«
826
actions aot eomiaf to Headquarter* and
thus would JMt.be entered in • system
tracking only Headquarters review.
There are several reasons for
maintaining such a system, tit order for
the various Headquartacs offices
responsible for program development to
maintain a sense of the major SUP issues
being addressed, a method of
summarizing S3P actions processed is
necessary. The development of a data
base system that can provide such
information will reduce the resource
burden of soliciting input from Regional
Offices. In addition. EPA is frequently
asked about the specific status of
implementation plan revisions in
process by the public, industries, and
members of Congress. Since the system
will be regularly updated to contain
information on all SO* actions, the data
base will be more complete and.
accurate than one solely relying on
Regional Offices' responses to periodic
inquiries. Overall an integrated system
will allow EPA to determine more
accurately the status of. and time and
resource commitments allocated to, SIP
review wherever it occurs.
In addition to the basic program
oversight an important function of the
audit will be to Identify Otter
here de
circ
fr
processing guidance here occurred
These processing dev4atfee* will be
examined from the perspective of the
potential impact of the action. The
identification of prnressen de
could result in varying responses.
ranging from simple improvements in
the review process to those few cases
expected where the State may be
required to submit a corrective SIP
action to resolve a deficiency. The
specific corrective action to be taken
will be determined on a case by-case
besis.
The majority of implementation plan
revisions submitted by States are
associated with source specific actions,
are administrative in nature, or are in
direct response to EPA mandates to
incorporate explicit regulatory
provisions or language. In most cases,
the environmental effect of SIP
processing deviations are expected to be
insignificant and thus then sbouWbe
no need to require the State to submit
additional information or to make
further revisions to a specific submittal
However, for recurring problems, the
State will be notified that a particular
aspect of submitting impiameotation
plan revisions should he modified to
avoid the problem* iaeotfed.
Mere important devistlens may
include action where the potential
ntal
exists fort
impact As pnroously stated. SIP
action thai are likely to affect the
program on a national basis will receive
full EPA review and decision by the
Administrate*. As a result the actual
number o^ajnvironmentnlly s^nJficent
deviations earniM be Invited.
Nevertoeioee, the ejoot process is
designed to identify each eitiwtions so
that appropnmts tattoos to limit the
impact can be taken promptly, ta then
eases, corrective action will depend on
the problem. For proposed actions. EPA
may need to withdraw the proposal end
reverse the proposed approval/
disapproval action. Alternatively, when
EPA ha» folly proceseed and approved a
revision to the implementation plan, it
may be necessary to iesn e modes of
SEP deficiency requiring the State to
submit a revision IB correct the
identi* 4 problem. The response to each
ease » .e be decided feaaed epon the
specific merits of toe plan stviaion
involved end me potential
environmental impact
T3u docket Is ao otaanliert and
MMflfJ*** fllf ff f || fof jSjfae/Mtrffff
considered by EPA m the development
of these STPoroceeatng COMSM. The
dDcs*teadyiumtaibJeMB«MK . .-•
material is added throughout the notice
members of the public aad mdustriae
involved to identify and locate
documents so mat they can effectively
participate in the process. Along with
the statement of basts and purpose of
the SIP processing rhsnges and EPA
responses to significant comments, the
contents of the docket except for
interagency review materials, will serve
as the record in case of judicial review
(see dean Air Act section 307(dX7)(A).
42 U5.C reond)(7MA)).
The effective date of these changes is
January 19, 1889.
Section 317U) of the dean Air Act 42
U.S.C 7ei7(a). states that economic
impact assessments are required for
revisions to standards or regulations
when the Administrator determines such
revisions to be substantial The changes
described today do not change the
substantive requirements for preparing
and submitting an adequate SIP
package. No increase in the cost as a
result of complying with the changes
described today is expected; moreover,
the monitoring, recordkeeping. and
reporting requirements have been
determined to be insubstantial Because
the expected economic effect of the
changes is net substantial, no detailed
inpec
t has been
The taformstjon collection
requirements of these changes are
considered to be no different than those
currently required by the dean Air Act
•ad EPA procedures. Thus, the public
leporting burden resulting from today's
notice is estimated to be unchanged
from existing requirements. The public
is invited to send comments regarding
the burden estimate or other aspect of
informatieaMieetion. including
easjeettssjVffsfijUiicing any burden, to
the rtorfcenratfrthe following: Chief.
mfatmeUm Mlfci Branch. PM-223. U.S.
bvfrwoMBtal Protection Agency. 401 M
Stteet SW. Washington. DC 20460; and
to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of
u«««j««Mn« wi Budget Washington.
DC 30603, marked "Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA,"
Under Executive Order 12281. EPA it
required' to judge whether an action is
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a regulatory impact
analysis (RIA). The Agency has
determined thai the SIP processing
rhsnges •nommnerl today would result
in none of toe significant adverse
eonenic effects set forth in section l(b)
of the Order eegreuadi tea finding of
flooBkided that mis action is not a
"major" actiooimder Executive Order
TUs-nottoewas submitted to OMB for
review consistent with section 3o7(d) of
the dean Air Act A copy of the draft
notice as submitted to OMB. any
documents eccompanyiag the draft any
written comment received from other
egendes (including OMB), and any
written responses to those comments
have been included in the docket.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,
S V3.C. 801-612. requires the
identification of potentially adverse
impacts of Federal actions upon small
business entities. The act requires the
completion of a regulatory flexibility
analysis for every ection unless the
Administrator certifies that the action
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of imall
entities. For reasons described above. I
hereby certify that the final rule will not
have a significant economic impact on s
substantial member of small entities.
Med !-!»-«* *« SBi
-------
j V«L ML No 12 / Taueedaj, laauurv 10. 1B8C / Moticaa
IER-Fm.-4607'lt
Environmental Impact Statement*;
Availability
Responsible Agency; Office of Federal
Activities. General Information (302)
382-5076 or (202) 3t2-S07i
Availability of Eavironmeatai Impact
Statemaau Filed January 9,1969
Through January 13. I960 Pursuant to 40
CFR 1506.9.
EIS No. 490004. Final. COE. TX.
Applewhite Daw/Reservoir and Leon
Creek Diversion Dare/Cake Water
Supply Project. Penoit Application.
bopienentatioa. Section 404 and M
Persaits, Bear County. TX Dee
FebnMry a. 1988, CoBUot Timothy L
Tandy {U?) »t-a896.
EIS No. 890006. «*et ATS, CA.
EMocado Notional Ferest Lend awd
Reseevee Maitaeemeiit Ptaa, Aieafcf.
Alpine. Eldorado and Placer Counties,
CA, Due February ZL M89, CoeUct:
jecaU N. Huteaios (Bit) «2a-60B1_
EIS No. 69000*, Dreft t»A. LA,
Missieeippi River Getf O«Uet Ooeen
Dredged Material Diapoiel ttte
, Pjcjr
EvaluaBuu, C«>
MevuBiUua; Ertpnilon
TOM fjatiee eaeieaeas the exteasiao
nf I In i !••••!! fieiiiul fur rnip"^-|T
candidates for Tefnietorjr •egottation.
The notice dsrted DewaiBer M. MSB (53
FR MOOS) sfloeunoed the openmf of a 30
day i leaiiiiiil period to •aejarat
mnrtieatei fcir recnktory aejooation
with fct Beiiiooiueaul ProsBetkm
Aeeocy* Tnia suittoB eABoencae tkat oe
ProtBotaDfi Ai^ncy*
SW,
7565.
Regulatory
Kirtz er
> Kelly.
Director. Offict ofSU
Regulation*. .
|FR Doc aa-lJM PUad 1-ia-OR 0:45 am|
: Federal Mine -Safety and
Heatih Review Commission.
f. Trie Coiiuitisakm has adopted
a new method for ealcnlatim 4e rate of
interest apyficaMe to monetary awards
in dzecriirrinetion and conipeneetioe.
cases.
0/rntm: This action is effective for
Commission cases in which decisions
are rneed after November 28. 1988.
Aoomsscs: Requests (or copies of the
Commission's decision soould be
addressed to Richard L. Baker.
Executive Director. Federal Mine Safety
and Health Review Comnissian. 1730 K
Street NW.. fith Floor. Washington. DC
20086.
L Joseph Forars, General rnya«»^
Office of the General Counsel 1730 K
Street NW. BfhFVwr. Washington. DC
20008. telephone 2Q2-B53-SB10 (202-666-
2673 for TDD Relay). These aw not toll-
free numbers.
Federal Mae Safety aad rienith Review
CoauBsat*o aas adnptnd a new raatbod
for calculaliag &* rate of iaieresi
applicable to atoafitary awacds to
prevailing cnnpliiaanu in
dischminatiea and«oapeneatioii caiea
aming aader leouow tOC(e) and ill
respect:-«ty of the Federal Mine Safety
and Healtk Act of 1*77. This acbon was
taken tnioc.V. 3274, UMWA v.
Clinchfield Cool Co.. 10 FMSHRC1493
(November 28.19«). pet tor review
filed. No. 8S-4A73 (D.C. Or. Dec. M.
1988).
Section JOBiiof the Mine Act 30
U.S.C lllHiTllPj*>ni'11 discrimination
against sasveMpr engaging in protected
activities afitSrllfe Mine Act Under
seenoBS 10l(c} ft) and (31 a Biaer who
has been baud le have been
-tiffriminr-H egaiast is statutorily
entitied-te> afpropriete nliet ieduding
back pay aad ie*eteet 39 Ufi£. 8laXcj(2)
and (3). Seenoa 111 of the Mine Act 30
U.S.C. BZL leqeeiits -an operator to pay
miners wfco han* beea idled by a
withdra vat order isewd by -dw
Secretary «f Labor, te a4Qoi6oBtioM
arising under setiSon Itl. the
Commission also amsjea iaierest on
back pay awards. CliochfieJd Cool Co,
supra.
In the past -the Pnaiiiiiiiiiii'i caie ihoimm Ftdcnl
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
JUN 27 IQOo PN 110-88-06-27-095
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: "Grandfathering" of Requiremepts lor Pending SIP Revisions
FROM: Gerald A. Emison, Direct
Office of A1r Quality ^1tnning~"and Standards (MD-10)
TO: Director, Air Management Division
Regions I, III, IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division
Region IV, VI
Director, Air and Radiation Division
Region V
Director, Air and Toxics Division
Region VII, VIII, X
Recommendations for Improving SIP processing generally at EPA were
presented to the Deputy Administrator and approved fully. It is the
intention of the Agency's management that the recommendations be imple-
mented promptly. This is being done by an Intra-Agency Word Group
composed of Headquarters and Regional Office persons. This memorandum
provides guidance on applying previously applicable standards to pending
SIP revisions where the relevant requirements have changed since the
state prepared the SIP submittal (i.e., "grandfathering").
In a number of cases, States have submitted SIP packages that were
consistent with the EPA "requirements" (i.e., standards, regulations,
policies, legal interpretations, guidances, and clarifications) in effect
at the time. As a result of processing delays and policy evolution, the
applicable requirements were revised before the proposed SIP change
received EPA approval. When the revised requirements did not contain an
appropriate grandfathering provision (e.g., a provision allowing SIP
packages to be acted upon based on the requirements,in effect at the time
of State adoption), SIP reviewers assumed that the appropriate action was
to disapprove the SIP revision and/or return it to the State for changes.
Not only can this delay rulemaking, but it also may be inequitable
and serve as an irritant to effective EPA/State/local agency cooperation.
Moreover, such action usually results in an ineffective use of resources
by the State and EPA. Consequently, we are today extending the concept
-------
of grandfathering contained in existing guidance (e.g., for modeling), as
described in the enclosure. It is the intent of EPA management that
grandfathering be applied where it is warranted and appropriate. Today's
guidance was developed in conjunction with the Regional Offices and the
Office of General Counsel. We believe that it deals with the equity
Issue, will not have a noticeable environmental impact overall, will
strengthen the Agency's working relationship with Its State and local
partners, and does not conflict with either the Clean Air Act or the
Administrative Procedures Act.
Attachment
cc: Air Branch Chiefs, Regions NX
Regional Counsel (Air Branch Chiefs), Regions I-X
Don Clay
Alan Eckert
Hike Alushin
John Seitz
Robert Cahill
John Calcagni
Bob Wayland
01ck Wilson
Bill Laxton
Charles Gray
-------
bcc: Work Group Members
Jack Farmer
Rich Osslas
Peter Wyckoff
Bern Steigerwald
-------
GUIDANCE ON GRANDFATHERING OF
REQUIREMENTS FOR PENDING SIP REVISIONS
June 1988
Introduction
EPA is expanding Its guidance on how to apply previously
applicable requirements in two general situations where the issue may
arise: (1) when new or newly revised "requirements" (i.e., standards,
regulations, policies, legal interpretations, guidances, or clarifications)
for SIPs are issued by the Agency and (2) when rulemaking action is taken on
a "SIP revision" (i.e., a State-specific EPA rulemaking under
the Clean Air Act). This guidance will be in effect for complete SIP
revisions submitted to EPA and for requirements issued and/or revised by
EPA after today. In general, all SIP revisions submitted before today
will continue to be reviewed based on EPA's current policy, which is to
decide each SIP revision based on the requirements in existence at the
time of EPA's rulemaking.
Grandfathering is not to be considered mandatory or automatic.
In determining whether grandfathering should apply, and what the appropriate
date should be, the decision maker should keep in mind the thrust of this
guidance, i.e., to' honor good faith effort on the part of the State/local
agency submitting the revision, balancing equity with other considerations.
This guidance expressly is not intended as a vehicle to allow circumvention
of tighter requirements or to facilitate the-avoidance of difficult
decisions.
Legal Background
Whenever a new requirement is established by Congress (via statute)
or by EPA (via regulation or policy), it becomes generally applicable
unless the authority establishing the requirement provides otherwise.
When Congress enacts a new statute, it applies to all matters then pending
before an agency unless Congress specifically provides otherwise in the
statute. The Agency has no authority to grandfather any matter from the
new statutory requirements without explicit provisions in the statute.
i
When EPA issues new regulations, they are also generally applicable
unless the regulations themselves include grandfathering provisions. If
grandfathering provisions are not explicit in the regulations and absent
a contrary interpretation by the Agency, courts will apply the new rules
to matters pending before the Agency. Thorpe v. Housing Authority of
-------
Durham, 393 U.S. 268 (1969). However, an agency does have some
flexibility to provide grandfather!ng provisions in new regulations.
Generally, such provisions are appropriate where they meet a four-part
test. First, the new rule represents an abrupt departure from well-
established practice. Second, affected parties have relied on the
old rule. Third, the new rule Imposes a large burden on those affected.
Fourth, there 1s no strong statutory Interest In applying the new rule
generally. Sierra Club v. EPA. 719 F.2d 436 (D.C. Cir. 1982), cert. den.
468 U.S. 1204 (1984).In the past, EPA has generally included explicit
grandfathering provisions in new regulations where appropriate. Under
this guidance, EPA will affirmatively consider the need for grandfathering
provisions in all new regulations.
An agency has very broad authority to decide how and when to issue
new guidance, since as a purely legal matter guidance is not absolutely
binding on subsequent proceedings. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. FPC,
506 F.2d 33 (D.C. Cir. 1974). Historically, EPA has provided only limited
grandfathering from revised guidance. This document establishes a detailed
framework for grandfathering pending SIP revisions from all future EPA
requirements.
The Guidance
The following will be considered in deciding whether to apply grand-
fathering to an individual SIP revision and in developing appropriate
grandfathering provisions for each 'EPA SIP requirement:
A. General Guidance: A SIP revision generally will remain subject to the
requirements in effect either (a) on the date that the State adopts the
SIP revision (provided a complete, fully adopted revision is submitted
promptly, generally within 60 days of the adoption), or (b) on the date
that the USEPA proposes the SIP revision under the parallel processing
procedure. However, in specific cases, EPA will apply different dates as
appropriate (e.g., see memorandum, J. Tikvart to Regional Modeling
Contacts, January 2, 1985, concerning grandfathering modeling requirements).
A discussion of what constitutes a complete, fully adopted SIP revision is
found in the memorandum, G. Emison to Regional Air Directors, March 18,
1988.
B. There are certain exceptions to the general grandfathering guidance:
1. Grandfathering should not be considered if the State has not acted
in good faith in preparing and submitting a SIP revision. For example,
an incomplete revision hurriedly submitted to avoid coverage under a new or
revised EPA requirement should not be grandfathered. Similarly, grand-
fathering should not be considered when a SIP revision is submitted
-------
substantially In excess of 60 days after State adoption as specified in
paragraph A.
2. Grandfathering of SIP revisions may not be appropriate or possible
when a court ruling has explicitly changed a current federal requirement
or has convinced EPA that a previous requirement Is no longer supportable.
Under these circumstances, the Office of General Counsel (OGC), In consul-
tation with the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring (OECM)
and the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), will define the limits of
the court's decision and how It may affect EPA's requirements and SIP
revisions, Including previously approved SIP revisions, pending SIP
revisions, and SIP revisions which are to be submitted In the future.
OGC will make Its best effort to Issue such an opinion within 60 days
from the date of the court's decision.
Based on this analysis, OAR will Issue a decision on the appropri-
ateness of grandfathering and the continued use of the pre-court ruling
requirement on pending and future SIP revisions. This decision will
generally be issued within 90 days from the date of the court's decision.
OAR will also issue a decision on the appropriate action to take, e.g.,
notice of SIP deficiency or "no action" needed at this time, on previously
approved SIP revisions.
3. The Administrator may determine that grandfathering is not
appropriate under a certain new policy. He could conclude that the old
policy was ill-founded, or simply not wish to grandfather due to the importance
of the new policy to EPA's programs. Where a new policy issued by
the Adnrinistrator specifically states that grandfathering is not appro-
priate or establishes a particular grandfathering provision that differs
from this guidance, such provisions would of course supersede this guidance.
4. Grandfathering of a particular SIP revision or requirement is
not appropriate if a decision to grandfather it would have an imminent
and substantial adverse environmental impact or could permanently foreclose
the continued use of the provisions and/or sanctions of Part D of the
Clean Air Act, e.g., changes in Section 107 designations or the full
approval of Part 0 plans, both of which may foreclose the future use of
sanctions to assure the correction of any deficiency arising from the
change in EPA requirements.
5. Action on a SIP revision which comports with the revised require-
ments but not the original requirements may be based on the revised
requirements.
-------
6. If a SIP revision complies with the original but not the
revised requirements, and such lack of compliance renders the SIP as a
whole substantially inadequate to assure the attainment and maintenance
of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under the revised
requirements, an individual analysis of the appropriateness of grand-
fathering under the four-part test established in the Sierra Club case
discussed above under Legal Background oust be conducted!If the analysis
concludes that grandfathering of the particular SIP revision is appropriate,
action may be based on the original requirements. In such an event*
however, additional actions may be necessary depending upon the nature of
the SIP revision being considered.
a. For SIP revisions (e.g., variances and interim emission
limits) which would have an effective lifetime of 2 years or less from
the date of EPA final rulemaking. no additional action will generally be
taken, because of the length of time it would take for the State and EPA
to change the action to comport with the revised requirements. Any
subsequent requests for the continuation of grandfathering (i.e., beyond
the effective lifetime of the original SIP revision) should be rejected.
b. For SIP revisions which would otherwise have an effective
lifetime of greater than 2 years, other rulemaking actions will be necessary
to assure that the SIP ultimately comports with the revised requirements.
(1) Elements in plans that have been "conditionally"
approved will be approved subject to the further condition that the
plan as a whole be corrected as necessary to assure full compliance with
all requirements of the Clean Air Act. For a discussion of EPA's original
policy on conditional approval, see 44 FR 20372 (April 4, 1979), 44 FR
38583 (July 2, 1979) and 44 FR 67182 (November 23, 1979).
(11) Elements in fully approved plans will be approved with
the simultaneous issuance of a CAA Section 110(a)(2)(H) notice of deficiency.
Under either of these circumstances, the approval of the particular SIP
revision should contain a sunset provision that terminates the effectiveness
of the approval within a predetermined period, generally 2 years. In addi-
tion, the Region should make an affirmative effort to assure that the
time frame (generally 2 years) for complete, fully adopted State rulemaking
action involved with either the notice of SIP deficiency or conditional
approval is strictly adhered to. If a State does not adhere to this
schedule, the Region will Initiate appropriate steps to ensure ultimate
compliance, e.g., performance-based grant actions, sanctions, and EPA
promulgations.
-------
7. Certain classes of changes are only indirectly related to
attainment and maintenance of national ambient air quality standards.
Such changes may involve PSD/NSR rules, stack height provisions, permit
fees and similar generic requirements which are clearly not intended to
be permanently grandfathered. Changes of this type are to be handled as
described in paragraph 6 above.
C. All new requirements issued by OAR or OGC will address their Impact
on SIP revisions previously approved or pending, and SIP revisions to be
submitted in the future. New requirements will contain provisions incor-
porating the general grandfather!ng guidance (paragraph A above) whenever
appropriate and possible. Generally, changes in EPA's requirements will
have effective dates which are 60 days from the date of signature to allow
States to adjust their pending rulemaking actions before they are finally
adopted and submitted. Longer effective dates should be used when the
changed requirements affect fundamental, long-term air quality strategy
development tools and the requirements of the change are resource inten-
sive.
D. SIP revisions framed to meet major requirements currently being recon-
sidered by EPA or currently under litigation should proceed and will not
be held back from rulemaking until the issues are decided. SIP revisions
approved under these circumstances will be addressed, if necessary, as
described in paragraph B(6)(b) above for revised EPA SIP requirements and
by paragraph 8(2) for requirements being changed because of court decisions.
E. Staff personnel making grandfathering decisions should coordinate with
Offices of Regional Counsel or OGC on application of this guidance as appro-
priate, especially in connection with the analysis required under paragraph
B(6) above.
F. Each Federal Register notice for action on a SIP revision will state
the rationale for which requirements were applied.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE J!IN12'380
SUBJECT: Information Required in Federal Register Packages
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads, Director.
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
TO: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-V, and VII
An April 29, 1980 memo from Walt Barber asked that all SIP
revisions dealing with SO- relaxations be submitted through the "special
action" procedures. The purpose of that request was to allow the Agency
to more carefully scrutinize the nature of each relaxation and its
multi-regional impact. A copy of this memo is attached.
In order to allow us to assess the relative impact of each S0?
relaxation more accurately, I ask that the following information be
included in each action memo.
1. Plant name and location.
2. Size of the facility (including the number of boilers) expressed
in megawatts or Btu/hour firing capacity (design).
3. Amount, type, and sulfur content of actual fuel combusted
during the previous year.
4. The revised SO- emission limit, the existing SIP limit,
and the corresponding averaging times for these limits.
5. The "paper" as well as actual increase or decrease in emissions.
The calculations involved in determining the increase of emissions
should assume status quo operating conditions of the source. There is
no need to consider increased or decreased utilization of the source's
capacity.
In addition, because of the ongoing development of policy on the
issue of good engineering practice (GEP) stack height, all Federal
Register packages addressing the stack height issue should be suomitteti
through the "special action" procedures. Furthermore, I ask that
your staff inform Bob Schell (629-5365) of my staff of any Federal
Register packages involving stack height increases which are currently
under development and projected to be forwarded for 14-day review
within the next few weeks.
-------
The following information should be included in each action memo
which involves increased stack height.
1. Height of the old stack as well as that of the new.
2. If GEP stack height is determined, the methodo.logy used to
determine it, and the stack height considered to be GEP.
Your cooperation and assistance in dealing with these sensitive
issues are greatly appreciated.
Attachment
cc: David Hawkins
Walt Barber
Mike James
Ed Reich
-------
40 Cm Oi. I (7-l-M MMwi)
(hrXA) "Major stationary source"
mean*:
(/) Any stationary source of air pol-
lutants which emits, or has the poten-
tial to emit 100 tons per year or more
of any pollutant subject to regulation
under the Act. or
(2) Any physical change that would
occur at a stationary source not quali-
fying under paragraph (aMlMlvMAX/)
as a major stationary source. If the
change would constitute a major sta-
tionary source by lUelf.
(B) A major stationary source that to
major for volatile organic compounds
shall be considered major for ozone
The fugitive emissions of a sta-
tionary source shall not be Included to
determining for any of the purposes of
this paragraph whether It Is a major
stationary source, unless the source
belongs to one of the following catego-
ries of stationary sources:
(1) Coal cleaning plants (with ther-
mal dryers):
(2) Kraft pulp mills;
(J) Portland cement plants;
(*) Primary dnc smelters;
Hydrofluoric. sulfurte. or nitric
•dd plants:
U*> Petroleum refineries;
(fl)Ume plants;
(fl) Phosphate rock r.rocesslng
plants;
(f I) Coke oven butteries;
4) Bulfur recovery plants;
(fS) Carbon black plants (furnace
proce*s>;
(J«> Primary lead smelters;
ill) Fuel conversion nlanU;
«) Sintering plants;
(10) Secondary metal production
plants;
(20) Chemical process plants;
(21) Fossil-fuel tollers (or combina-
tion theieof) totaling more than 160
million British thermal units per hour
heat Input:
(22) Petroleum storage and transfer
units with a total storage capacity ex-
ceeding 300.000 barrels:
<2J> Taconlte ore processing plants;
lass fiber processing plants;
(25) Charcoal production plants;
(2«> Fossil fuel-fired steam electric
plants of more than 350 million Brit-
ish thermal units per hour heat Input:
and
(27) Any other stationary source cat-
egory which, as of August 7. 1080, Is
being regulated under section 111 or
119 of the Act.
(vKA) "Major modification" means
any physical change to or change to
the method of operation of a major
stationary source that would result In
a significant net emissions Increase of
any pollutant subject to regulation
under the Act.
(B) Any net emissions Increase that
ta considered significant for volatile or-
ganic compounds shall be considered
significant for ozone.
(C) A physical change or change to
the method of operation shall not In-
clude:
(1) Routine maintenance, repair and
replacement;
(2) Dse of an alternative fuel or raw
material by reason of an order under
sections 1 (a) and (b> of the Energy
Supply and Environmental Coordina-
tion Act of 1074 (or any superseding
legislation) or by reason of a natural
gas curtailment plan pursuant to the
Federal Power Act;
(1) Dae of an alternative fuel by
reason of an order or rule section 196
of the Act:
(«*> 0u of an alternative fuel at a
•team generating unit to the extent
that the fuel Is generated from munic-
ipal solid waste:
(S) Ose of an alternative fuel or raw
material by a stationary source which:
(O The source was capable of accom-
modating before December 31. 1070.
unless such change would be prohibit-
ed under any federally enforceable
permit condition which was estab-
lished after December 15. 1070 pursu-
ant to 40 CFR 92.91 or under regula-
tions approved pursuant to 40 CFR
Subpart I or 1 61.100. or
«O The source Is approved to use
under any permit Issued under regula-
tions approved pursuant to this sec-
tion:
(•) An Increase In the hours of oper-
ation or In the production rale, unless
such change Is prohibited under any
734
ntol r>»tsctl»«i Afftmcy
I si. MS
federally enforceable permit condition
which was established after December
91. 1070 pursuant to 40 CFR B3.J1 or
regulations approved pursuant to 40
CFR Part 01 Subpart I or 40 CFR
61.100.
(7) Any change In ownership at a
stationary source.
(vIKA) "Net emissions Increase"
means the amount by which the sum
of the following exceeds xero:
(1) Any Increase to actual emissions
from a particular physical change or
change to the method of operation at
a stationary source; and
(9) Any other Increases and de-
creases to actual emissions at the
source that are contemporaneous with
the particular change and are other-
wise creditable.
(B) An Increase or decrease to actual
emissions Is contemporaneous with
the Increase from the particular
change only If It occurs before the
date that the Increase from the par-
ticular change occurs:
(C) An Increase or decrease to actual
emissions Is creditable only If:
(1) It occurs within a reasonable
period to be specified by the reviewing
authority; and
(2) The reviewing authority has not
relied on It to Issuing a permit for the
source under regulations approved
pursuant to this section which permit
to to effect when the Increase to actual
emissions from the particular change
occurs.
(D) An Increase to actual emissions
to creditable only to the extent that
the new level of actual emissions ex-
ceeds the old level.
(E) A decrease In actual nmtoslnns to
creditable only to the extent that:
(J) The old level of actual emission
or the old level of allowable emissions
whichever Is lower, exceeds the new
level of actual emissions;
(2> It Is federally enforceable at and
after the time that actual construction
on the particular change begins; and
(J) The reviewing authority has not
relied on It In Issuing any permit
under regulations approved pursuant
to 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart I or the
state has not relied on It to demon-
strating attainment or reasonable fur-
ther proffresn:
(*) It has approximately the same
qualitative significance for public
health and welfare as that attributed
to the Increase from the particular
change.
(F) An Increase that results from a
physical change at a source occurs
when the emissions unit on which con-
struction occurred becomes operation-
al and begins to emit a particular pol-
lutant. Any replacement unit that re-
quires shakedown becomes operational
only after a reasonable shakedown
period, not to exceed ISO days.
(vll) "Emissions unit" means any
part of a stationary source which
emits or would have the potential to
emit any pollutant subject to regula-
tion under the the Act.
(vlll) "Secondary emlssons" means
emissions which would occur as a
result of the construction or operation
of a major stationary source or major
modification, but do not come from
the major stationary source or major
modification Iteelf. For the purpose of
this section, secondary emissions must
be specific, well defined, quantifiable.
and Impact the same general area as
the stationary source or modification
which causes the secondary emissions.
Secondary emissions Include emissions
from any offstte support facility which
would not be constructed or Increase
Its emissions except as a result of the
construction of operation of the major
stationary source of major modifica-
tion. Secondary emissions do not In-
clude any emissions which come di-
rectly from a mobile source such as
emissions from the tailpipe of a motor
vehicle, from a train, or from a vessel.
(Ix) "Fugitive emissions" means
those emissions which could not rea-
sonably pass through a stack, chim-
ney, vent or other functionally equiva-
lent opening.
(x) "Significant" means, to reference
to a net emissions Increase ft the po-
tential of a source to emit any of the
following pollutions, as rate of emis-
sions that would equal or exceed any
of the following rates:
foUtilmnl ffmUrio* Kale
Carbon monoxide: ISO ton* per year
NMrotrn oxMra: 40 tpy
Sulfur dioxide: 40 tpy
Ocone: 40 tpy of volatile organic compound*
735
-------
85
UMtd: OS tpy
(xl> "Allowable emissions" mean*
the emissions rate of a stationary
source calculated using the maximum
rated capacity of the source (unless
the source Is subject to federally en-
forceable limits which restrict the op-
erating rate, or hours of operation, or
both) and the most stringent of the
following:
(A) The applicable standards set
forth In 40 CFR Part 60 or 61:
In general, actual emissions as of
a particular date shall equal the aver-
age rate. In tons per year, at which the
unit actually emitted the pollutant
during a two-year period which pre-
cedes the particular date and which la
representative of normal source oper-
ation. The reviewing authority shall
allow the use of a different time
period upon a determination that It Is
more representative of normal source
operation. Actual emissions shall be
calculated using the unit's actual oper-
ating hours, production rates, and
types of materials processed, stored, or
combusted during the selected time
period.
(C) The reviewing authority may
presume that the source-specific allow-
able emissions for the unit are equiva-
lent to the actual emissions of the
unit.
(D) For any emissions unit which
has not begun normal operations on
the particular date, actual emissions
shall equal the potential to emit of the
unit on that dale.
dill) "Lowest achievable emission
rate" means, for any source, the more
olrlngent rate of emissions based on
the following:
(A> The most stringent emissions
limitation which Is contained In the
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-M Edition)
Implementation plan of any State for
such class or category of stationary
source, unless the owner or operator
of the proposed stationary source
demonstrate* that such limitations are
not achievable; or
(B) The most stringent emissions
limitation which to achieved In prac-
tice by such class or category of sta-
tionary sources. This limitation, when
applied to a modification, means the
lowest achievable emissions rate for
the new or modified emissions units
within or stationary source. In no
event shall the application of the term
permit a proposed new or modified
stationary source to emit any pollut-
ant In excess of the amount allowable
under an applicable new source stand-
ard of performance.
<«lv) "Federally enforceable" means
all limitations and conditions which
are enforceable by the Administrator,
Including those requirements devel-
oped pursuant to 40 CFR Parts 60 and
61. requirements within any applicable
State Implementation Plan, and any
permit requirements established pur-
suant to 40 CFR 52.21 or under regula-
tions approved pursuant to this sec-
tion, 40 CFR Part 51 Subpart I. or
151.166.
(xv) "Begin actual construction"
means In general. Initiation of physical
on-slte construction activities on an
emissions unit which are of a perma-
nent nature. Such activities Include,
but are not limited to, Installation of
building supports and foundations,
laying of underground pipework, and
construction of permanent storage
structures. With respect to a change In
method of operating this term refers
to those on-slte activities other than
preparatory activities which mark the
Initiation of the change.
(xvl) "Commence" as applied to con-
struction of a major stationary source
or major modification means that the
owner or operator has all necessary
preconstructlon approvals or permits
and either has:
(A) Begun, or caused to begin, a con-
tinuous program of actual on-slte con-
struction of the source, to be complet-
ed within a reasonable time; or
(B) Entered Into binding agreements
or contractual obligations, which
cannot be canceled or modified wlth-
736
Environmental Protection Agency
951.165
out substantial loss to the owner or
operator, to undertake a program of
actual construction of the source to be
completed within a reasonable time.
(xvll) "Necessary preconstructlon ap-
provals or permits" means those Fed-
eral air quality control laws and regu-
lations and those air quality control
laws and regulations which are part of
the applicable State Implementation
Plan.
(xvlll) "Construction" means any
physical change or chAnge In the
method of operation (Including fabri-
cation, erection. Installation, demoli-
tion, or modification of an emissions
unit) which would result In a change
hi actual emissions.
(2) Each plan shall adopt a precon-
structlon review program to satisfy
the requirements of sections 172(bM6)
and 173 of the Act for any area desig-
nated nonattalnment for any national
ambient air quality standard under 40
CFR 81.300 et teg. Such a program
shall apply to any new major station-
ary source or major modification that
Is major for the pollutant for which
the area Is designated nonattalnment.
If the stationary source or modifica-
tion would locate anywhere In the des-
ignated nonattalnment area.
(3MI) Each plan shall provide that
for sources and modifications subject
to any preconstructlon review program
adopted pursuant to this subsection
the baseline for determining credit for
emissions reductions Is the emissions
limit under the applicable State Im-
plementation Plan In effect at the
tune the application to construct Is
filed, except that the offset baseline
shall be the actual emissions of the
source from which offset credit to ob-
tained where;
(A) The demonstration of reasonable
further progress and attainment of
ambient air quality standards to based
upon the actual emissions of sources
located within a designated nonattaln-
ment area for which the preconstruc-
tlon review program was adopted; or
(B) The applicable State Implemen-
tation Plan does not contain an emis-
sions limitation for that source or
source category.
(II) The plan shall further provide
that:
(A) Where the emissions limit under
the applicable State Implementation
Plan allows greater emissions than the
potential to emit of the source, emis-
sions offset credit will be allowed only
for control below this potential;
(B) For an existing fuel combustion
source, credit shall be based on the al-
lowable emissions under the applicable
State Implementation Plan for the
type of fuel being burned at the time
the application to construct to filed. If
the existing source commits to switch
to a cleaner fuel at some future date,
emissions offset credit based on the al-
lowable (or actual) emissions for the
fuels Involved to not acceptable, unless
the permit to conditioned to require
the use of a specified alternative con-
trol measure which would achieve the
same degree of emissions reduction
should the source switch back to a
dirtier fuel at some later date. The re-
viewing authority should ensure that
adequate long-term supplies of the
new fuel are available before granting
emissions offset credit for fuel switch-
es.
-------
f SI. 1*5
Office of Air Quality riamiliiir and
Standard*. (MD-1S) Research Triangle
Park. HC 37711.))
(C) All emtaalon reduction* claimed
M offaet credit ihall be federally en-
forceable:
tft Procedure* relating to the per-
missible location of offsetting emis-
sion* shall be followed which are at
least a* stringent a* those set out In 40
CFR Part II Appendix 8 *ectlon IV.D.
(Cl) Credit for an emissions reduc-
tion can be claimed to the extent that
the reviewing authority ha* not relied
on It In tosulng any permit under regu-
lation* approved pursuant to 40 CFR
Part •! Subpart I or the State ha* not
relied on It In demonstration attain-
ment or reasonable further progress.
(4) Bach plan may provide th«t the
provision* of thl* paragraph do not
Apply to a aource or modification that
would be a major stationary aource or
iBikjor modification only If fugitive
emission to the extent quantifiable are
eonaMered In calculating the potential
to emit of the atatlonary aource or
modi thai 'on and. the source doe* not
belong to any of the following catego-
ries
(II Coal cleaning plant* (with ther-
mal dryer*);
(U) Kraft pulp mill*;
(HI) Portland cement plant*:
4lv) Primary sine ameltcr*;
(») Iron and steel mill*;
(rl) Primary aluminum ore reduction
plaata;
(»»!» Primary copper smelter*;
(vlil> Municipal Inclneralots capable
of charging more than 350 ton* of
refuse per day;
Hydrofluoric, milfurle. or citric
add planU; t
(x) Petroleum refineries;
I Jrae plants;
Phosphate rock proce**lng
plants;
(»HO Coke oven batteries;
Carbon black plant* (furnace
(xvl> Primary lead smellers;
(xvll) Fuel conversion plants;
(xvlll) Sintering plants;
(xlx) Secondary metal production
plants:
(xx) Chemical process plants;
40 CHI Ch. I (7-1-00 Edition)
(xxl) Fossil-fuel boilers (or combina-
tion thereof) totaling more than 360
million British thermal unlU per hour
heat Input;
(xxll) Petroleum storage and trans-
fer unite with a total flotage capacity
exceeding 300.000 barrels:
(xxlll) Taconlte ore processing
planU;
(xxlv) Olas* fiber processing planU:
(xxv) Charcoal production plants;
(xxvl) Fossil fuel-fired steam electric
planU of more than 360 million Brit-
ish thermal unlU per hour heat Input;
(xxvll) Any other stationary source
category which, e* of August 7.1000, U
being regulated under section 111 or
113 of the Act
(0) Bach plan shall Include enforcea-
ble procedure* to provide that:
(I) Approval to construct shall not
relieve any owner or operator of the
responsibility to comply fully with ap-
plicable provtolon of the plan and any
other requlremenU under local. State
or Federal law.
(U> At such time that a particular
•ouree or modification become* a
major •taUonary aource or major
modification solely by virtue of a re-
laxation In any enforcement limitation
which wa* established after August 7.
1000. on the capacity of the source or
modification otherwise to emit a pol-
lutant «uch aa a restriction on hours
of operation, then the requlremenU of
regulation* approved pursuant to thto
section shall apply to the source or
modification as though construction
had not yet commenced on the source
or modification;
(bMl) Bach plan ahall Include a pre-
construcUon review permit program or
IU equivalent to satisfy the requlre-
menU of section 110UM3KDMI) of the
Act for any new major stationary
source or major modification as de-
fined In paragraphs (aNl) (Iv) and (v)
of thto aecUon. Such a program shall
apply to any such aource or modifica-
tion that would locate In any area des-
ignated a* attainment or unclanlflable
for any national ambient air quality
standard pursuant to section 107 of
the Act. when It would cause or con-
tribute to a violation of any national
ambient air quality standard.
(3) A major source or major modifi-
cation will be considered to cause or
738
Environment*! rVolectle
951.14*
contribute to a violation of a national
ambient air quality standard when
such source or modification would, at
a minimum, exceed the following sig-
nificance level* at any locality that
doe* not or would not meet the appli-
cable national standard:
HlllilH I
»o.
NOb
CO
ISM/IB*
1* PS/in*
t •pS'1**
M
• «•/••
(£»•
Am**!
*
»t*qtm'
ton (taunt
1
Tift/m*
1
t Htf/ft**
(» Such a program may Include a
provision which allows • proposed
major aource or major modification
subject to paragraph (b) of thl* sec-
tion to reduce the Impact of IU emis-
sions upon air quality by obtaining
sufficient emission reductions to. at a
minimum, compensate for IU advene
ambient Impact when the major
aource or major modification would
otherwise cause or contribute to a vto-
UUon of any national ambient air
quality •tandard. The plan ahall re-
quire that. In the absence of such
emission reductions, the State or local
agency ahall deny the proposed con-
struction.
(4) The requlremenU of paragraph
(b) of thto section shall not apply to a
major stationary source or major
modification with respect to a particu-
lar pollutant If the owner or operator
demonstrate* that, as to that poUut-
ant, the aource or modification to lo-
cated tai an area designated a* nonat-
talnment pursuant to section 107 of
the Act
III m 40SW. MO*. 1. IfM. at ismistd at 13
PR Mill. July I. ten; M fR 3*100. Aag V.
IMT)
Ifl.lM PMTMtiasj of *lgalflca«4 CtteriV
(ax I) Plan requirement*. In accord-
ance with the policy of section
lOI(bMI) of the act and the purpose*
of section 100 of the Act each applica-
ble SUte Implementation plan ahall
contain emission limitations and such
other measure* as may be necessary to
prevent algnlflcant deterioration of air
quality.
(» Plan Kevitiont. If a State Imple-
mentation Plan revision would result
bi Increased air quality deterioration
over any baseline concentration, the
plan revtoton shall Include a demon-
stration that It will not cause or con-
tribute to a violation of the applicable
IncremenU*). If a plan revision propos-
ing tea* restrictive requlremenU was
submitted after August 7, 1077 but on
or before any applicable baseline date
and waa pending action by the Admin-
istrator on that date, no such demon-
stration to necessary with respect to
the area for which • baseline date
would be established before final
action b taken on the plan revision.
Instead, the assessment described In
paragraph (aM4) of thto section, shall
nvfew the expected Impact to the ap-
plicable IncremenUa).
(3) Kegnlred plan revitton. If the
State or the Administrator determines
that a plan to substantially Inadequate
to prevent significant deterioration or
that an applicable Increment to being
violated, the plan shall be revteed to
correct the Inadequacy or the viola-
tion. The plan shall be revised within
00 days of such a finding by a State or
within 00 day* following notification
by the Administrator, or by such later
date M prescribed by the Administra-
tor after consultation with the State.
(4) Ptmn assessment The State shall
review the adequacy of a plan on a
periodic basis and within 00 day* of
•uch time as Information become*
available that an applicable Increment
to being violated.
(» Public participation. Any State
action taken under thto paragraph
•hall be subject to the opportunity for
public hearing In accordance with pro-
cedures equivalent to those estab-
lished In 101.102.
739
-------
fort SI. App. f
quired report (hall Include, aa a minimum.
the data stipulated In this appendix.
4.3- For opacity measurements, the sum
mary ahall consist of the magnitude In
actual percent opacity of all one minute (or
luch other time period deemed appropriate
by the State) averages of opacity greater
than the opacity standard In the applicable
plan for each hour of operation of the facili-
ty. Average values may be obtained by Inte-
gration over the averaging period or by
arithmetically averaging a minimum of four
equally (paced. Instantaneous opacity mea*-
urernents per minute. Any time period ex-
empted shall be considered before determin-
ing the execs* averages of opacity (e.g..
whenever a regulation allows two minutes
of opacity measurements In excess of the
standard, the State ahall require the source
to report all opacity averages. In. any one
hour. In exceas of the standard, minus the
two-minute exemption). If more than one
opacity standard applies, excess emission*
data must be submitted In relation to all
sucli standards
4.1 For gaseous measurements the sum-
mary shall consist of emission averages. In
the units of the applicable standard, for
each averaging period during which the ap-
plicable standard was exceeded.
«.« The date and time Identifying each
period during which the continuous moni-
toring system was Inoperative, except for
•eio and apan checks, and the nature of
eastern repairs or adjustments ahall be re-
ported. The State may require proof of con-
tinuous monitoring system performance
whenever system repairs or adjustment*
have been made.
4.1 When no excea* emissions have oc-
curred and the continuous monitoring
•ystem(s) have not been Inoperative, re-
paired, or adjusted, such Information ahall
be Included In the report.
4.« The Stale plan shall require owner*
or operator* of affected facilities to main-
tain a file of all Information reported In the
quarterly summaries, and all other data col-
lected either by the continuous monitoring
system or a* necessary to convert monitor-
Ing data to the unit* of the applicable stand-
ard for a minimum of two yean from the
date of collection of such data or submission
of such aiumnarle*.
B.O DaTA REDUCTION
The State plan shall require owner* or op-
erator* of affected facilities to use the fol-
lowing procedure* for converting monitor-
Ing data to unit* of the standard where nec-
essary.
• 1 For fossil fuel-fired steam generator*
the following procedure* shall be used to
convert gaseous emission monitoring data In
part* per million to g/mllllon cal (Ib/mllllon
BTO) where necessary:
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
6.1.1 When the owner or operator of ,
fossil fuel fired steam generator elrcu
under paragraph 2.1.4 of this appendix t0
measure oxygen In the flue gases, the meas-
urements of the pollutant concentration
and oxygen concentration shall each be on a
dry basis and the following conversion pro-
cedure used:
E = CF 120 9/20 9 %O.I
6.1.1 When the owner or operator elects
under paragraph 2.1.4 of this appendix to
measure carbon dioxide In the flue gases.
the measurement of the pollutant concen-
tration and the carbon dioxide concentra-
tion shall each be on a consistent bail* (wet
or dry) and the following conversion proce-
dure used:
E-CF.(IOO/%CO.)
6.1.3 The values used In the equations
under paragraph 6.1 are derived a* follows:
E- pollutant emission, g/mllllon cal (Ib/mll-
llon BTU).
C- pollutant concentration, g/dscm (Ib/
d*cf). determined by multiplying the av-
erage concentration (ppm) for each
hourly period by 4.16x10 • M g/dscm
per ppm (1.64 x 10 • H lb/d*cf per ppm)
where 61 - pollutant molecular weight.
g/g-mole (Ib/lb-mole). M - 64 for sulfur
dioxide and 46 for oxide* of nitrogen.
%O* %CO.-Oxygen or carbon dioxide
volume (expressed a* percent) deter-
mined with equipment specified under
paragraph 4.1.4 of thl* appendix.
F. F.-a factor representing a ratio of the
volume of dry flue gases generated to
the calorific value of the fuel combusted
(F). and a factor representing a ratio of
the volume of carbon dioxide generated
to the calorific value of the fuel com-
busted (P.) respectively. Value* of F and
F. are given In |60.46(f) of Part 60. a*
applicable.
1.1 For sulfuric acid plants the owner or
operator shall;
6.1.1 establish a conversion factor three
time* dally according to the procedure* to
160.64(b) of thl* chapter.
6.1.1 multiply the conversion factor by
the average sulfur dioxide concentration In
the flue gases to obtain average sulfur diox-
ide emissions In Kg/metric ton (Ib/short
ton); and
6.2.1 report the average sulfur dioxide
emission for each averaging period In excess
of the applicable emission standard In the
quarterly summary.
6.1 For nitric acid plant* the owner or
operator ahall;
6.3.1 establish a conversion factor accord-
Ing to the procedure* of |60.73(b) of this
chapter;
I Protection Agoncy
(jj multiply the conversion factor by
.M average nitrogen oxides concentration
JJ, the flue gases to obtain the nitrogen
.jldes emissions In Ihe units of the appllca-
kje standard;
1.3.1 report the average nitrogen oxide*
tp>lulon for each averaging period In excess
01 the applicable emission standard. In the
quarterly summary.
1.4 Any Slate may allow dala reporting
0r reducllon procedure* varying from those
iti forth In thl* appendix If the owner or
operator of a source show* to the latUfac-
tion of the SUle that hi* procedure* are at
leasl a* accurate as those In this appendix.
Such procedure* may Include but are not
limited to. the following:
6.4-1 Alternative procedure* for comput-
ing emission average* that do not require In-
tegration of dala (e.g.. some facllllles may
demonstrate that the variability of their
emission* I* sulflclenlly small to allow accu-
rate reduction of data based upon comput-
ing average* from equally apaced data
point* over the averaging period).
6.4.1 Alternative methods of converting
pollutant concentration measurement* to
the unit* of the emission standard*.
Part 51, App. S
6.3 Alternative monllorlm, i i-qulremenls
may be prescribed when the Slate deter-
mines that the requirement* o( this appen-
dix would Impose an extreme economic
burden on the source owner or operator
6.4 Alternative monitoring requirement*
may be prescribed when the Slate deter-
mine* that monitoring systems prescribed
by this appendix cannot be Installed due lo
physical limitation* at the facility.
140 PR 46241. Oct. 6. IB75. as amended at 61
PR 40676. Nov 7. 19661
APPENDICES Q R— IReserve-Jl
APPENDIX S— EMISSION Orrsrr
INTERPRETATIVE RULING
786
6.0 BraciAL ComiDouvrtOH
The State plan may provide for approval.
on a case-by-ca*e baal*. of alternative moni-
toring requirement* different from the pro-
visions of Parts 1 tiirough 6 of thl* appen-
dix If the provision* of thl* appendix (I.e..
the Installation of a continuous emission
monitoring system) cannot be Implemented
by a aourcc due to physical plant limitations
or extreme economic reason*. To make use
of thl* provision. State* must Include In
their plan ipecltlc criteria for determining
those physical limitation* or extreme eco-
nomic situations to be considered by the
State. In such case*, when the Slate ex-
empt* any aource subject to thta appendix
by use of this provision from Installing con-
llnuou* emission monitoring systems, the
State (hall set forth alternative emission
monitoring and reporting requirements
(e.g.. periodic manual stack tests) to satisfy
the Intent of theae regulations. Example* of
•uch special caw* Include, but are not limit-
ed to. the following:
6.1 Alternative monitoring requirement*
may be prescribed when Installation of a
continuous monitoring system or monitor-
Ing device specified by thl* appendix would
not provide accurate determination* of
emissions (e.g., condensed, uncomblned
water vapor may prevent an accurate deter-
mination of opacity using commercially
available continuous monitoring systems).
6.1 Alternative monitoring requirement*
may be prescribed when the affected facility
Is Infrequently operated (e.g., some affected
facilities may operate less than one month
per year).
.
This appendix sets forth EPA'* Interpre-
tative Ruling on the preconstructlon review
requirements for stationary source* of air
pollution (not Including Indirect source*)
under 40 CFR Subpart I and section l« of
the Clean Air Act Amendment* of 1*17.
Pub. U 66-66. (note under 41 U.8.C. 1601). A
major new aource or major modification
which would locate In an area designated In
40 CPR 61.300 et tea, a* nonattalnment for
• pollutant for which the aource or modifi-
cation would be major may be allowed to
construct only If the stringent condition*
act forth below are met. These condition*
are designed to Insure that the new source's
emissions will be controlled to the greatest
degree possible; that more than equivalent
ottaetttni emission reduction* ("emission
offaeU") will be obtained from existing
^ ««.- > it,.,. — ni ^ Drogre**
OffaeU") Will DC ODUuneu ......
aources; and that there will be progress
toward achievement of the NAAQ8.
For each area designated a* exceeding an
NAAQ8 (nonaltalnment area) under 40
CFR 61.300 el seo.. thl* Interpretative
Ruling will be superseded after June 30.
1916—(a) by precc-nslructlon review provl-
•ton* of the revised SIP. If the SIP meet*
the requirements of Part D. Title I. of the
Act; or by a prohibition on construction
under the applicable SIP and section
UOIaMlMI) of the Act. If Ihe SIP dor* not
meet the requirement* of Part D. The
Ruling will remain In effect to the extenl
not aupeneded under the Act. Thl* prohibi-
tion on major new source construction doe*
not apply to a source whose permit to con-
struct was applied for during a period when
the SIP was In compliance with Part O, or
before the deadline for having a revised SIP
In effect that satisfies Part D.
The requirement of this Ruling shall not
apply to any major stationary source or
malor modification that was not subject lo
787
-------
Port 51. App. S
the Ruling MI In rlferl on January It. IV79.
II the owner ur opnsior
A. Obtained all final Federal. Stale, and
local preconslrurthin approval* or permits
necessary undrr Ihr aiipllcable Slali- Imple-
mentation Plan hrlorc AuKiut 7. 1980.
B Commenced roimtrurllnn within It
months from August 7. IMU). or any earlier
lime required under the applicable State
Implementation Plan; and
('. Old not discontinue construction for a
period of II months or more and completed
construction within a reasonable lime.
II. INITIAL SCBBCHING ANATLSU AMD DBTU-
HIHATIOH or ArrLICASLt RsaUiaEMKMTS
A. Definition* ~Fot the purposes of this
Ruling:
I. "Stationary source" mean* any build-
ing. structure, facility, or Installation which
emlla or may emit any air pollutant subject
'o regulation under the Act.
J. "Building, structure, facility or Installa-
tion" means all of the pollutant emitting ac-
tivities which belong to the same Industrial
grouping, are located on one or more contig-
uous or adjacent properties, and are under
the i ontrol of the same person lor perrons
under common control) except the activities
of any vessel. Pollutant emitting activities
shall be considered aa part of the same In-
dustrial grouping If they belong to the same
"Major Group" (I.e.. which have the same
two digit code) aa described hi the Stanaar,
fiufMsfrtal ClauVtcaHom Manna* 1971. aa
amended by the 1077 Supplement .
40 CM Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
(III) The fugitive emissions of a stationary
source shall not be Included In determining
for any of the purposes ol this ruling
whether It Is a inilor stationary source.
unless the source beltings (o one of the fol-
lowing categories of stationary sources:
(a) Coal cleaning plants (with thermal
dryers);
(»> Kraft pulp mills:
(<•> Portland cement plants;
(if) Primary zinc smelters;
(e) Iron and steel mills;
(/) Primary aluminum ore reduction
plants;
(p> Primary copper smelters;
(ft) Municipal Incinerators capable of
charging more than 250 tons of refuse per
day;
(O Hydrofluoric, sulfurlc. or nitric acid
plants;
Ift Petroleum refineries:
(*) LJme plants:
(f) Phosphate rock processing plants;
(m) Coke oven batteries;
(*) Sulfur recovery plants;
(o) Carbon black plants (furnace process);
(B) Primary lead smelters;
(v) Fuel conversion plants;
(r> Sintering plants;
((> Secondary metal production plants:
(f ) Chemical process plants:
<•) Fossil-fuel boilers (or combination
thereof) totaling more than JftO million
Britis
1. "Potential to emit" mean* the mast-
mum capacity of • stationary source to emit
a pollutant under Its physical and oper-
ational design. Any physical or operational
limitation on the capacity of the source to
emit a pollutant. Including air pollution con-
trol equipment and restrictions on hours of
operation or on the type or amount of mate-
rial combusted, stored, or processed, (hall be
treated as part of It* design only If the limi-
tation or the effect It would have on emis-
sions 1s federally enforceable. Secondary
emissions do not count In determining the
potential to emit of a stationary source.
« III "Major stationary source" means:
(«> Any stationary wture of air pollutants
which emIU. or has HM> potential to emit.
100 tons per year or more of any pollutant
subject to regulation under the Act; or
<»> Any physical change that would occur
at a stationary source not qualifying under
paragraph 1.11X0!) of section II of this ap-
pendix as a major atatlonary source. If the
change would constitute a major stationary
source by Itself.
(II) A major stationary source that Is
major for volatile organic compounds shall
be considered major for ozone.
thereof) totaling more than JftO milli
British thermal units per hour heat Input:
<•>> Petroleum storage and transfer unlla
with a total storage capacity exceeding
100.000 barrels;
(10) Taoonlte ore processing plants:
(z) Glass fiber processing plants;
(») Charcoal production plants;
Is) Fossil fuel-fired steam electric plants
of more than J60 million British thermal
units per hour heat Input:
(aa) Any other stationary source category
which, aa of August 1. I Mo. is being regulat-
ed under section II I or 1 1] of the Act."
•. (O "Major modification" means any
physical change In or change In the method
of operation of • major stationary source
that would result In a significant net emis-
sion* Increase of any pollutant subject to
regulation under the Act
(II) Any net emissions Increase that Is con.
•Mered significant for volatile organic com-
pounds shall be considered significant for
osonc
(III) A physical change or change In the
method of operation shall not Include:
(•) Routine maintenance, repair, and re-
placement;
(6> Use of an alternative fuel or raw mate-
rial by reason of an order under section 2
(a) and (bl of the Energy Supply and Envi-
ronmental Coordination Act of 1(74 (or any
superseding legislation) or by reason of a
788
Protection Agency
natural gas curtailment plan pursuant to
the Federal Power Act:
(el Use of an alternative fuel by reason of
m order or rule under section I SB of the
Act;
(oft Dae of an alternative fuel at a steam
generating unit to the extent that the fuel
fc generated from municipal solid waste;
(e) Use of an alternative fuel or raw mate-
rial by a atatlonary source which:
(I) The source was capable of accommo-
dating before December at. I07t, unless
such change would be prohibited under any
fcocfwuly duorccADiG permit cotHllifofi
which waa established after December 11.
int. puruaant to 40 CFR U.JI or under
regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR
Subpart I or I ll.ltt; or
(1) The source la approved to use under
any permit Issued under this ruling;
(/) An Incitaea In the noun of operation
er to the production rale, unless such
chant* la prohibited under any federally en-
forceable permit condition which waa i
I alter December II. 107t pursuant to
«0 CVM 11.11 er under regulations approved
pursuant to 4t CFR Bubpart I or | SUM;
(*> Any change In ownership at a station-
ary aource.
t. (I) "Net eaolastons Increase" aaeane the
amount by which the sum of the following
exooodaaero:
(a) Any Inmees In actual eesxMfana from
• particular physical change or change In
the method of operation at a stationary
aoum;and
<•) Any other Increases and neeriases hi
actual emissions at the aource thai are con-
temporaneous with the particular change
and are otherwise creditable.
(II) An Increase or decrease an actual emkv
atons la contemporaneous with the Increase
from the particular change only If It occurs
between:
(a) The date five years before construc-
tion on the particular change commences
and
(•I The date that the Increase from the
particular change occurs.
(Ill) An Increase or decrease In actual
emissions to creditable only If the Adminis-
trator has not relied on It hi Issuing a
permit for the source under this Ruling
which permit la In effect when the Increase
In actual emissions from the particular
change occurs.
(Iv) An Increase In actual emissions to
creditable only to the extent that the new
level of actual emissions exceeds the old
level.
(VIA decrease In actual emissions to credit-
able only to the extent that:
(a) The old level of actual emissions or the
old level of allowable emissions, whichever
to lower, exceeds the new level of actual
emissions;
Port 51, App. S
(6) It to federally enforceable at and after
the time that actual construction on the
particular change begins;
(e) The reviewing authority ha* not relied
en It In Issuing any permit under regula-
tions approved pursuant to 40 CFR (I.It;
and
(4) It haa approximately the same qualita-
tive significance for public health and wel-
fare aa that attributed to the Increase from
the particular change.
(vl) An Increase that results from a physi-
cal change at a source occurs when the
emissions unit on which construction oc-
curred becomes operational and begins to
emit a particular pollutant. Any replace-
ment unit that requires shakedown becomes
operational only after a reasonable shake-
down period, not to exceed 100 daya.
7. "Emlaslone unit" means any pert of a
atatlonary aource which emits or would
have the potential to emit any pollutant
subject to regulation under the Act.
t. "Secondary emissions" mean* emissions
which would oacur aa a result of the con-
struction or operation of a major atatlonary
aource or major modification, but do not
come from the major stationary source or
asajor modification (Uelf. For the purpose
of thto Rulbit. aecondary emtoskm* must be
apedfte. well defined, quantifiable, and
Impact the aame general area a* the station-
ary aource or modification which causes the
secondary emissions. Secondary emissions
Include nnkwJons from any offalte support
faelllly which would not be constructed or
Increase IU emissions except a* a result of
the construction or operation of the major
stationary source or major modification.
Secondary emissions do not Include any
which come directly from a
uch as emissions from the
tailpipe of a motor vehicle, from a train, or
from a vessel.
t. "Fugitive emissions" means those etnls-
whteh could not reasonably pass
a stack, chimney, vent, or other
functionally equivalent opening.
It. (I) "Significant" means. In reference to
• net emtaalona Increase or the potential of
a aource to emit any of the following pollut-
ants, a rate of emission* that would equal or
exceed any of the following rates:
Pollutant and emissions Kate
Carbon monoxide: 100 tons per year (tpy)
Nitrogen oxides: 40 tpy
Sulfur dioxide: 40 tpy
Paniculate matter: 2S tpy of paniculate
matter emissions
Ocone: 40 tpy of volatile organic compounds
Lead: t.t tpy
II. "Allowable emissions" mean* the emto-
atom rate calculated using the maximum
rated capacity of the aource (unleas the
source Is subject to federally enforceable
789
-------
Port 51, App. S
HmlU which restrict the operating rate, or
hours of operation, or both) and the most
•trlnient of the following:
(I) Applicable standards aa set forth In 40
CFR Paris 00 and 81;
(II) Any applicable Stale Implementation
Plan emissions limitation. Including those
with a future compliance date: or
(III) The emissions rale specified aa a fed-
erally enforceable permit condition, Includ-
Ini thoae with a future compliance date.
II. "Federally enforceable" means all limi-
tations and conditions which are enforcea-
ble by the Administrator. Including those
requirements developed pursuant to 40 CFR
Parts 00 and 01. requirements within any
applicable State Implementation Plan, and
any permit requirements established pursu-
ant to this Ruling. 40 CFR 62.31. or under
regulations approved pursuant to 40 CPR
Bubpartlor I&1.I08
13. (I) "Actual emissions" means the
actual rate of emissions of a pollutant from
an emissions unit as determined In accord-
ance with paragraphs 10. (lit through -»»tng categories:
(I) Coal clr» ,. i plants (with thermal
dryers):
(1) Kraft pulp mills:
(3) Portland cement plants;
(4) Primary sine smelters:
(S) Iron and steel mills;
(6) Primary aluminum ore reduction
plants;
(1) Primary copper smelters;
(•) Municipal Incinerators capable of
charging more than ISO tons of refuse per
day:
(•) Hydrofluoric, sulturic. or nitric add
plants;
(10) Petroleum refineries;
(11) Ume plants;
(12) Phosphate rock processing plants;
(13) Coke oven batteries;
(14) Sulfur recovery plants;
(15) Carbon black plants (furnace proc-
ess):
(10) Primary lead smellers;
(11) Fuel conversion plants:
(IB) Sintering planls;
(23)'lacoiuvc»..
(24) Olass fiber processing piama.
(26) Charcoal production plants;
(30) Fossil fuel-fired sleam electric plants
of more lhan 350 million British thermal
units per hour heat Input,
(31) Any oilier stationary source category
which, aa of August 1. USD. Is being regulat-
ed under section III or 113 of Ihe Act.
O. Secondary emissions. Secondary emis-
sions need not be considered In determining
whether the emission rates In Section IIC.
above would be exceeded. However. It a
source Is subject to this Ruling on the basis
of the direct emissions from the source, the
applicable conditions of this Ruling must
also be mel for secondary emissions. Howev-
er, secondary emissions may be exempt
from Conditions 1 and 2 of Section IV. Also.
since BPA's authority to perform or require
Indirect source review relating to mobile
sources regulated under Title II of the Act
(motor vehicles and aircraft) has been re-
• • — w. .t.tute. consideration of the In-
.- -•.„.»
sources ream...
(motor vehicles and aircraft) has neen i«=-
stricted by statute, consideration of the In
direct Impacts of motor vehicles and alrcratl
traffic Is not required under this Ruling.
III. Souaccs LOCATING in DnioHATra dun
oa UNCLASsimaLC ABKAB WHICH WOOLS)
CAUSE oa Conmisimt TO A VIOLATION or
a NATIONAL AMBICHT Am QUALITY
STANDARD
A. This section applies only to major
sources or major modifications which would
locate In an area designated In 40 CFR
11.300 el sec. as attainment or unclassltlable
In a slate where EPA has nol yet approved
the state preconstructlon review program
required by 40 CFR 51 t«5(b). If the source
or modification would exceed the following
significance levels at any locality lhal does
nol meel the NAAQ8.
PotUIW*
SO.
NO.
CO
,„ ,*/•«
I 0 !••"•
10 !•«"
24
»(•*""'
05 rm/
791
790
«> IH
-------
Port 51, App. S
R. 8ourcei to »likh «hl» lection applies
must meet Condltloiu I. 1. and 4 of Section
IV.A. of this ruling.1 However, iiich tourer*
may be exempt from Condition 3 of Section
IV.A. of this ruling.
C. Review o/ ipeclfled sources /or air gual-
llt Impact For "stable" sir polluUnU (I.e.
SO., paniculate matter and CO), the deter
mutation of whether a source will cause or
contribute to a violation of ui NAAQS gen-
erally should be made on a case-by-case
basis aa of the proposed new source's start-
up date using the aource'a allowable emis-
sions la an atmoapherlc almulatlon model
(unleai a aource will clearly Impact on a re-
ceptor which exceeds an NAAQS).
For source* of nitrogen oxldea. the Initial
determination of whether a aource would
cause or contribute to a violation of the
NAAQS for NO. ahould be made uslnf an
atmospheric almulatlon model assuming all
the nitric oxide emitted Is ox Mixed to NO,
by the tune the plume reaches around level.
the Initial concentration estimates may be
adjusted If adequate data, are available to
account for the expected oxidation rate.
fat oaone. sources of volatile organic com-
pounds, locatlni outside a designated oaone
nonattaJiunent area, will be presumed to
have no significant Impact on the designat-
ed nonatubunent area. If ambient monitor-
Ing Indicates that the area of source loca-
tion Is In fact nonattalnment. then the
source may be permitted under the provi-
sions of any slate plan adopted pursuant to
section IKXaMIMD) of the Act until the
area Is designated nnnailalnment and a
State Implementation Plan revision Is ap-
proved. If no stale plan pursuant to section
llMaMlND) has been adopted and ap-
proved, then this Ruling shall apply.
Aa noted above, the determination M to
whether • source would cause or contribute
to • violation of an NAAQS ahould be made
as of the new source's start-up date. There-
for*. M • designated nonatUlnment area Is
projected to be an attainment are* as part
of an approved SIP control strategy by the
new source start-up dale, offsets would not
be required If the new source would not
cause a new violation.
D. Source* locating <• "clem* arras." tat
would ravse • new tHofatlnt o/ an NAAQS.
If the reviewing authority finds that the
emissions from • proponed source would
cause a new violation ol an NAAQS. but
would not contribute to an existing viola-
tion, approval may be granted only If both
of the following conditions are met:
40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
Cbnstifton I The new source Is required to
meet a more stringent emission limitation*
and/or the control of existing sources below
allowable levels Is required so that the
source will not cause a violation of any
NAAQS.
Condition 1. The new emission limitations
for the new source as well as any existing
sources affected must be enforceable In ac-
cordance with the mechanisms set forth In
Section V of this appendix.
IV. Bounces THAT Woou> I/ran in *
DcaumsTBD HonATrAinMxnT ASKA
A. Condition* for approval. If the review-
Ing authority finds that the major station-
ary source or major modification would be
constructed In an area designated In 40 CPU
•1.100 el see as nonattalnment for a pollut-
ant for which the stationary source or modi-
fication Is major, approval may be granted
only If the following conditions are met:
Condition I. The new source Is required to
meet an emission Limitation* which specl-
•The discussion In this paragraph Is a
proposal, but represents EPA's Interim
policy until final rulemsklng Is completed.
•If the reviewing authority determines
that technological or economic limitations
on the application of measurement method-
ology to a particular class of source* would
make the Imposition of an enforceable nu-
merical emission standard Infeaslble. the au-
thority may Instead prescribe a design, oper-
ational or equipment standard. In such
cases, the reviewing authority shall make Its
best estimate a* to the emission rate that
will be achieved and must specify that rate
In the required submission to EPA (see Part
V). Any permits Issued without an enforcea-
ble numerical emission standard must con-
lain enforceable conditions which assure
that the design characteristics or equipment
will be properly maintained (or that the
operational conditions will be properly per-
formed) so as to continuously achieve the
assumed dcgiee of control. Such condition*
shall be enforceable as emission limitations
by private parties under section 304. Hereaf-
ter, the tern "emlaslon limitation" shall
also Include such design, operational, or
equipment standards.
•II the reviewing authority determines
that technological or economic limitation*
on the application of measurement method-
ology to a particular class of source* would
make the Imposition of an enforceable nu-
merical emission standard Infeaslble. the au-
thority may Instead prescribe a design, oper-
ational or equipment standard. In such
cases, the reviewing authority shall make Its
best estimate aa to the emission rate that
will be achieved and must specify that rate
In the required submission to EPA (see Part
V). Any permits Issued without an enforcea-
ble numerical emission standard must con-
ComtlHMnt
792
Environmental Protection Agency
lies the lowest achievable emission rate for
such source.*
Condition t. The applicant must certify
that all existing major sources owned or op-
erated by the applicant (or any entity con-
trolling, controlled by. or under common
control with the apppllcanll In the same
State as the proposed source are In compli-
ance with all applicable emission limitations
and standards under the Act (or are In com-
pliance with an expeditious schedule which
Is Federally enforceable or contained In a
court decree).
Condition 3. Emission reductions ("off-
sets") from existing sources* In the area of
the proposed source (whether or not under
the same ownership) are required such that
there will be reasonable progress toward at-
tainment of the applicable NAAQs.'
Only Intrapollutant emission offsets will
be acceptable (e.g.. hydrocarbon Increases
may not be offset against SO, reductions).
Condition 4. The emission offsets will pro-
vide a positive net air quality benefit In the
affected area (see Section 1V.D. below).* At-
tain enforceable conditions which assure
that the design characteristics or equipment
will be prop"' maintained (or that the
operational co».n<.ions will be properly per-
formed) so as to continuously achieve the
assumed degree of control. Such conditions
shall be enforceable as emission Nmltatlons
by private parties under section 3M. Hereaf-
ter, the term "emission limitation" shall
also Include such design, operational, or
equipment standards.
•Required only for those pollutants fo*
whkh the Increased allowable emissions
exceed M tons per year. IOM pounds per
day. or 100 pounds per hour, although the
reviewing authority may addrts* other pol-
lutants If deemed appropriate. The preced-
ing hourly and dally rate* shall apply only
with respect to a pollutant for which a na-
tional ambient air quality standard, lor a
period less than 14 hour* or for a 14-hour
period, as appropriate, ha* been established.
• Subject to the provision* of section IV.C.
below.
•The discussion In this paragraph Is a
proposal, but represent* EPA's Interim
policy until final rulemaklng • completed.
• tt«nilmi only for those pollutants f<
HlCy IUI1.II IIIMM •«••«...»— v
•Required only for those pollutants for
which the Increased allowable emissions
exceed M tons per year. 1000 pound* per
day. or 100 pounds per hour, although the
reviewing authority may address other pol-
lutants If deemed appropriate. The preced-
ing hourly and dally rates shall apply only
with respect to a pollutant for which a na-
tional ambient air quality standard, for a
period less than 14 hours or for a 14-hour
period, ss appropriate, has been established.
Part SI, App. S
mospherlc simulation modeling Is not neces-
sary for volatile organic compounds and
NO.. Fulfillment of Condition 3 and Section
IV.D. will be considered adequate to meet
this condition.
B. exemption* from certain condition*.
The reviewing authority may exempt the
following sources from Condition I under
Section III or Conditions 3 and 4. Section
IV.A.:
(I) Resource recovery facilities burning
municipal solid waste, snd (II) sources whkh
must switch fuels due to lack of adequate
fuel supplies or where a source Is required
to be modified ss a result of EPA regula-
tions (e.g.. lead In fuel requirements) and no
exemption from such regulation Is available
to the aource. Such an exemption may be
granted only If:
I. The applicant demonstrate* that It
made Its best efforts to obtain sufficient
emission offsets to comply with Condition 1
under Section III or Conditions 3 and 4
under Section IV.A. and that such efforts
were unsuccessful;
a. The applicant has secured all available
emission offsets: and
I. The applicant will continue to seek the
necessary emission offsets and apply them
when they become available.
Such an exemption may result In the need
to revise the SIP to provide additional con-
trol of existing sources.
Temporary emission source*, such as pilot
plants, portable facilities whkh will be relo-
cated outside of the nonatUlnment area
after a short period ol time, and emissions
resulting from the construction phase ot a
new source, are exempt from Conditions 3
and 4 of this section.
C. Baseline /or determining credit for
rmUrlon and air oaolifv affteU The base-
line lor determining credit lor emission and
air quality offset* will be the SIP emission
limitation* to effect at the time the applies
Uon to construct or modify a aource I* filed.
Thus, credit lor emission offset purpose*
•lay be allowable for extorting control that
toe* beyond that required by the SIP. Emis-
sion offset* generally should be made on a
pounds per hour basis when all facilities In-
volved fen the emission offset calculations
are operating at their maximum expected or
allowed production rate. The reviewing
agency should specify other averaging peri-
od* (e.g. ton* per year) In addition to the
pounds per hour basis If necessary to carry
out the Intent ot this Ruling. When offset*
are calculated on a ton* per year basis, the
baseline emissions for existing sources pro-
viding the offsets should be calculated using
the actual annual operating hours for the
previous one or two year period (or other
appropriate period If warranted by cyclical
business conditions). Where the SIP re
quires certain hardware controls In lieu of
793
-------
Port SI, App. S
an emlulon limitation (e.g.. floating roof
Unkj for petroleum storage), baseline allow-
able emlHloiu should be based on actual op-
eratlnt oondltlom lor the previous one or
two year period (I.e.. actual throughput and
vapor pressures) In conjunction with the re-
quired hardware controls.
1. No meaningful or applicable SIP re-
quirement Where the applicable SIP doe*
not contain an emlulon limitation for a
source or source category, the emlulon
offset baseline Involving such sources shall
be the actual emissions determined In ac-
cordance with the discussion above regard-
ing operating conditions.
Where the SIP emission limit allow*
greater emission* than the uncontrolled
emission rate of the source (as when a State
has a single paniculate emission limit for all
fuels), emission offset credit wl|l be allowed
only for control below the uncontrolled
emission rate.
J. Combustion o/ fuelt. Generally, the
emissions for determining emission offset
credit Involving an existing fuel combustion
source will be the allowable emission* under
the SIP for the type of fuel being burned at
the time the new source application I* filed
(I e.. If the eilsUng source ha* switched to a
different type of fuel at some earlier date.
any remitting emission reduction lelther
actual or allowable! shall not be used for
emission offset credit). If the existing
source commit* to switch to a cleaner fuel at
aome future date, emission offset credit
baaed on the allowable emissions for the
fuel* Involved to not acceptable unless the
permit I* conditioned to require the use of a
•pacified alternative eonlrol measure which
would achieve the same degree of emission
reduction should the source switch back to a
dirtier fuel at some later date. Ttie review-
Ing authority should ensure that adequate
long-term supplies of the new fuel are avail-
able before granting emission offset credit
for fuel switches.
«. Operating noun and* source thuUown.
A source may be credited with emission re-
duction* achieved by shutting down an ex-
isting source or permanently curtailing pro-
duction or operating hours below baseline
level* (*n Initial discussion to this Section
C) provided, that the work force to be af-
fected ha* been notified of the proposed
shutdown or curtailment. Emission offset*
that Involve reducing operating hour* or
production or source shutdowns must be le-
gally enforceable, as In the case for all emis-
sion offset situations.*
•Source shutdowns and curtailments In
production or operating hours occurring
prior to the dale the new source application
Is filed generally may not be used for emis-
sion offset credit. However, where an appli-
cant can establish that It shut down or cur-
40 CM! Ch. I (7-1-M Edition)
4. Credit for VOC substitution. As set
forth In the Agency's "Recommended Policy
on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds"
(42 PR 353U. July 8. 1977). EPA has found
that almost all non-methane VOCs are pho
tochemlcally reactive and that low reactiv-
ity VOCs eventually form as much ozone a*
the highly reactive VOCs. Therefore, no
emission offset credll may be allowed for re-
placing one VOC compound with another of
lesser reactivity, except for those com-
pounds listed In Table 1 of the above policy
statement.
S. "Banking" of emUiion afftet credit For
new sources obtaining permits by applying
offset* after January 16. IB7>, the reviewing
authority may allow offset* that exceed the
requirement* of reasonable progress toward
attainment (Condition 3) to be "banked"
(I.e.. saved to provide offset* for a source
seeking a permit In the future) for use
tinder this Ruling. Likewise, the reviewing
authority may allow the owner of an exist-
ing source that reduce* It* own emissions to
bank any resulting reductions beyond those
required by the SIP for use under this
Ruling, even If none of the offset* are ap-
plied Immediately to a new source permit. A
reviewing authority may allow these banked
offset* to be used under the preconstrucllon
review program required by Part D. a* long
a* these banked emissions are Identified and
accounted for In the SIP control strategy. A
reviewing authority may not approve the
construction of a source using banked off-
set* If the new source would Interfere with
the SIP control strategy or If such use
would violate any other condition set forth
for use of offset*. To preserve banked off-
set*, the reviewing authority should Identify
them In either a SIP revision or a permit.
and establish rules a* to how and when they
may be u*ed.
•. Offtet credll fat nutting NSPS or NS-
SHtPS. Where a source to subject to an
emlulon limitation established In a New
Source Performance Standard (NSPS) or a
National Emission Standard for Hazardous
Air Pollutant* (NE8HAPS). U*. require-
ment* under sections III and 111. respec-
tively, of the Act), and a different SIP limi-
tation, the more stringent limitation shall
be used a* the baseline for determining
credit for emission and air quality offset*.
The difference In emission* between Ihe
SIP and the NSPS or NESHAPB. for such
Protection Agoncy
Part 51, App. S
tailed production after August 1. 1177. or
leu than one year prior to the date of
permit application, whichever Is earlier, and
the proposed new source to a replacement
for the shutdown or curtailment, credll for
such shutdown or curtailment may be ap-
plied to offset emissions from the new
source.
I**—-
Murce may not be used as offset credit.
However. II a source were nol subject lo an
NSPS or NE8HAPS. lor example If It* con-
struction had commenced prior to Ihe pro-
lotal of an NSPS or NE8HAP8 for that
Source category, offset credit can be permit-
ted lor tightening the SIP to the NSPS or
NE8HAP8 level for such source.
D. location of of/letting emiuions. In the
cue of emission offsets Involving volatile or-
ganic compounds (VOC), Ihe oflsel* may be
obtained from sources located anywhere In
the broad vicinity of the proposed new
source. Generally, offset* will be acceptable
II obtained from within the same AQCR a*
the new source or from olher area* which
may be contributing to Ihe ozone problem
al Ihe proposed new source location. A*
with olher pollutants. U to desirable to
obtain offset* Irom source* located as close
to Ihe proposed new source site as possible.
If Ihe proposed offset* would be from
sources located al greater distances from
the new source, the reviewing authority
should Increase the ratio of the required
offset* and require a showing lhal nearby
oflsel* were Investigated and reasonable al-
ternatives were nol available."
Oltsel* tor NO. sources may also be ob-
tained within the broad vicinity ol the pro-
posed new source. This to because areawlde
ozone and NO, levels are generally not a*
dependent on specific VOC or NO. source
location a* they are on overall area emis-
sions. Since Ihe air quality Impact of SO*
paniculate and carbon monoxide sources to
site dependent, simple areawlde mass emis-
sion offsets are not appropriate. For these
pollutants. Ihe reviewing authority should
consider atmospheric simulation modeling
to ensure that the emission offset* provide a
positive net air quality benefit. However, to
avoid unnecessary consumption of limited.
cosily and lime consuming modeling re-
sources. In most case* It can be auumed
that If the emlulon offsets are obtained
from an existing source on the same prem-
ises or In the Immediate vicinity of the new
source, and the pollutant* disperse from
substantially the same effeellve stack
height, the air quality lest under Condition
4 of Section IV.A. of this appendix will be
met. Thus, when stack emlulon* are offaet
against a ground level source at the same
site, modeling would be required. The re-
viewing authorily may perform this analysts
or require Ihe applicant to submll appropri-
ate modeling result*.
E. Reasonable proaress towards attain-
ment A* long as the emlulon otlsel to great-
er than one-for-one. and the olher criteria
sel forth above are mel. EPA does nol
"The discussion In this paragraph to a
proposal, bul represent* EPA's Interim
policy until final rulemaklng to completed.
Intend to question a reviewing authority's
Judgment as to what commutes reasonable
progress towards attainment as required
under Condition 1 In Section IV.A. of this
appendix. This does not apply to "reasona-
ble further progress as required by Section
17J.
P. Sourer obUpalion Al such time that a
particular source or modification becomes a
major stationary source or major modifies
lion solely by virtue of a relaxation In any
enforceable limitation which was estab-
lished alter August 7. 1980. on the capacity
of the source or modification otherwise to
emit a pollutant, such as a restriction on
hours of operation, then the requirements
of this Ruling shall apply to the source or
modification as though construction had
nol yel commenced on the source or modlfl
cation.
V. ADMIHISTKATIVK Paoccouaca
The necessary emission offset* may be
proposed either by the owner of the pro-
posed source or by the local community or
the State. The emission reduction commit-
ted to must be enforceable by authorized
l aencies and
l»v ww,
ted to must be enforceable by »uiilu. ,,^u
State and/or local agencies and under the
Clean Air Act, and must be accomplished by
the new source's start-up date. If emission
reductions are to be obtained In a State thai
neighbors the Slate In which the new
source to to be located, the emission reduc-
tions commuted lo must be enforceable by
the neighboring State and/or local agencies
and under the Clean Air Act. Where the
new facility to a replacement lor a facility
thai to being shut down In order to provide
the necessary oflsel*. the reviewing author-
ity may allow up to 180 days lor shakedown
ot the new facility before the existing faclll
ly to required lo cease operation.
A. Source Initiated emission offttt*. A
source may propose emlulon offsets which
Involve:
(1) Reductions from sources controlled by
the source owner (Internal emlulon offsets);
and/or (3) reductions Irom neighboring
•ourees (external emlulon offset*). The
source doe* nol have to Investigate all possi-
ble emission offset*. A* long a* the emlulon
offsets obtained represent reasonable
progreu toward attainment, they will be ac-
ceptable. It to Ihe reviewing authority's re
•ponslblllty to assure lhal Ihe emlu'on off
set* will be a* effective a* proposed by the
source. An Internal emluton offset will be
considered enforceable If It' to made a SIP
requirement by Inclusion a* a condition ol
the new source permit and Ihe permit to for-
warded to Ihe appropriate EPA Reglonr*
Office." An external emlulon otfsel will not
"The emission offset will, therefore, be
enforceable by EPA under section 113 as an
Oifllniu-d
794
795
-------
few* SI, Apo>. U
be enforceable unless the affected source**)
providing the emission reductions Is subject
to • new SIP requirement to ensure that IU
emissions will be reduced by a specified
amosuit In a specified lime. Thus. If the
sources) providing the emission reductions
does not obtain the necessary reduction. It
will be In violation of a SIP requirement and
subject to enforcement action by EPA. the
SUte and/or private parties.
The form of the SIP revision may be a
SUte or local regulation, operating permit
condition, consent or enforcement order, or
any other mechanism available to the SUte
that Is enforceable under the Clean Air Act.
If a SIP revision Is required, the public
hearing on the revision may be substituted
for the normal public comment procedure
required for all major sources under 40 CPR
11.10. The formal publication of the SIP re-
vision approval In the FBMOAI. Rsaisra
need not appear before the source may pro-
ceed with construction. To minimize uncer-
tainty that may be caused by theae proce-
dures. EPA will. If requested by the State.
propose a SIP revision for public comment
In the PSDSHAL Rsnisra concurrently with
the State public hearing process. Of course,
any major change In the final perralt/SIP
revision submitted by the State may require
a reproposal by EPA.
B. State or eommanlf* initiates1 emtsttosj
40WU A State or community which desires
that • aource locate In IU area may commit
to reducing emissions from existing sources
(Including mobile sources) to sufficiently
outweigh the Impact of the new aource and
thus open the way for the new source. As
with source-Initiated emission offsets, the
oommltmenl must be something more than
one-for-one. This commitment must be sub-
mitted as a SIP revision by the State.
VI. Poucr WHS»« ArrAiMknorr DATSS IUVB
HOT PASSSD
In some eaves, the dates for attainment of '
primary standards specified In the SIP
under section 110 have not yet passed due to
a delay In the promulgation of a plan under
this section of the Act. In addition the Act
provides more flexibility with respect to the
dates for attainment of secondary NAAQ8
than for primary standards. Rsther than
selling sperlfk deadlines, section 110 re-
quires aeeon'lary NAAQH to be achieved
within a "reasonable lime". Therefore, In
some esses, the dale for attainment of see-
ondary standards specified In the SIP under
section 110 may also not yet have passed. In
such cases, a new source locating In an area
designated In 40 CPR 01.1000 el teg as mm-
attainment (or. where flection III of this
Ruling Is applicable, a new source which
would csuse or contribute to an NAAQ8 vio-
lation) may be exempt from the Condition*
of Section IV. A. so long as the new source
meeU the applicable SIP emissions limita-
tions and will not Interfere with Ihe attain.
merit date specified In the SIP under section
110 of the Act
(Sees. lOl(bMI). 110. 100-100. 171-170. and
WKs). Clean Air Act. as amended (43 U.S.C
740KbMl). 7410. 7470-7470. 7SOI-7SOO. and
7001(a)): see. I30(s>. Clean Air Act Amend
menU of 1077 (Pub. L. OS-OS. 01 Slat. OOS
(Aug.. 7.1077»)
144 PR 1303. Jan. 10.1070. as amended al 41
PR 31111. May 11. 1000: 46 PR B374I. Aug
7. 1080; 4S PR SOI70. Sept. II. 1000; 40 PR
10771. Oct. 14. 1011: 47 PR 37B01. June 36
1003: 40 PR 41310. Oct. 30. 1004; SI PR
40001. 4007S. Nov. 7. IOM; S3 PR 34714. July
I. 1007; 63 PR M300. Aug 7. 10071
T—(RtsnvKDj
Amtmix O—CLCAN Am ACT SECTION
174 OUIDBLIMU
OOIMBNX OH DCSieNATION Of lMU> PUIIIIIM
OaauiUATioiis roa NOHATTAIMMDIT
ASIA* *jn) on DRSHMINATIOH or lima-
AODICY RsaronsiaiuTin. Dscnsta
1077, ISSOBB JoinrLT ST nu O.8. Emri-
•OSMaHTAL PBOTBCTION AoSXCT SMS) THS
U.S. DcrASTwurr or TaAHsro*TATion.
WASHIMOTON. D.C.
TABLE or CONTENTO
P>.,.d.on
IS
I. teuton 01 * iMd nsnrtng OtvUlMon
M CritarM to S*toc«n| be -en.'to
the Office of Transportation and Land Use
Polie, (AW-44S,. US Environ,^, Z£
lection Agency. 401 M Street. S.W.. W«.h
DC 30400. Altenllon: Ms. Martha
Ms. Burke'* telephone number Is
«iil 766-0670. Questions concerning specif
|;,Ute or local areas should be directed U
III* appropriate EPA regional office.
to
lh«
. InnoDocrioH
These guidelines are applicable to all met-
moolltsn area regions or portions of regions
Untie the national ambient air quality
gujidards for ocone or carbon monoxide will
[Jot be stlalned by July I. 1070.
The purposes of these guidelines Include:
I. TO recommend procedures and criteria
(or determining a lead agency to be respon-
sible lor coordinating the preparation of the
Implementation plan revisions called for by
the 1177 amendments to the Clean Air Act
(Pub. U OS-OS) In metropolitan area regions
•here carbon monoxide or osone standards
•111 not be attained by July 1070.
1. To assist state and local governments In
Identifying the Initial planning. Implemen-
tation. and enforcement responsibilities for
the plan revisions and In establishing a
process for further definition of responslbll-
Wes as development of the revisions pro-
3. To encourage further coordination and
eomolldaUon of federally sponsored plan-
ning programs. This Includes the Integra-
tion of the new transportation related air
eusllty requirements under Pub. U M-M
Into the transportation planning process re-
quired by federal transportation grant stat-
utes.
It Baekoromid.
On August 7. 1077. President Carter
signed Into taw the first comprehensive
amendments to the Clean Air Act sine*
1070. Among the more Important changes In
the Clean Air Act are provisions encourag-
ing local governments and organizations of
local elected officials to assume additional
responsibilities In the development. Imple-
mentation, and enforcement of plans to
attain national ambient air quality stand
ards. Such plans were first required under
the 1070 amendmenU to the Clean Air Act
The 1077 amendments require plan revi-
sions tor areas where standards have not
been attained.
The assumption of additional responslMI-
Hies by local governments and local officials
Is specifically encouraged In those areas
where ozone and carbon monoxide stand-
ard* will not be attained by July I. 1070
(section I74(a». The first Identification of
nonsttalnmenl areas for these and other
pollutant* under (he requirements of the
1*77 amendments must hsve been made by
•tslei by December 5. 1077. The Administra-
tor of Ihr Environment*,! Protection Asjcncy
fort 51, Ap». U
(EPA) must publish a list of these areas.
with any modification* he deems necessary.
by February 1. 1071.
Par areas where standards for osone and
carbon monoxide will not be attained by
July I, 1070. stale and local elected officials
must jointly determine by February 7. 1070.
their respective responsibilities for the plan
revisions necessary to attain standards by
the new deadlines In the 1077 amendments.
The plan element* for which responsibilities
are to be Jointly determined encompass con-
trol measures for sll pollutants for which
standards have not been attained, not lust
osone and carbon monoxide.
The amendmenU require that, where pos-
sible, the Implementation plan revisions be
prepared by an organization of local elected
officials designated by agreement of local
governmenU. The amendmenU strongly en-
courage preparation by the organization
now responsible for transportation planning
under section 114 of Title U. U.8.C.. or for
air quality maintenance planning (or for
both). The designated organization and IU
responsibilities must be certified by the
state (or sUles If an Interstate area Is In-
volved). Where local govemmenU have not
reached agreement by February 7.1071. the
governor must. In consultation with the
elected offldato of local govemmenU In the
affected area, designate an organization of
local elected officials or a stole agency to
prepare the plan revisions. The designation
by the governor must be hi accordance with
the Joint delermlnallon of responslMlltes
made by state and local elected officials.
The governor must, under regulations
which the EPA will propose during Decem-
ber 1077. submit a notice to the EPA certify-
ing the designated agency for each nonal-
Ulnment area or Identifying the organiza-
tion that he or she has designated. The
notice must Include a brief summary of the
process Involved In selecting the designated
agency. A more detailed documentation of
the selection process shall be Included as
part of the plan revisions to be submitted to
the EPA by January 1.1070. Evidence of the
Involvement of state legislatures and local
govemmenU hi required as part of the plan
revision submltlal (section l7XbMO».
Only organizations of local elected offi-
cials of general purpose governmenU certi-
fied by the governor will be eligible for the
granU authorized under section 176 of the
amendmenU. In each urban area which Is
wholly or partially classified as a nonattaln
menl area, only one organization will be ell
glble to receive a grant. The organization re-
ceiving the grant may use the grant funds
to support plsn revision acllvllks carried
out by other governmental organizations.
public Interest groups, or private consult
ants.
796
797
-------
C.i.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE or
«.KD
S"J5JiCT: Improving New Source Review (NSR) Implementation
J. Craig Potter
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation (ANR-443)
Recional Administrator
Recicns I-X
1956, I established a special task force to address
cro^inc concerns about the consistency and certainty of permits issued
.-.der tne Clear. Air Act's prevention of significant deterioration and
r.cnattairjnent area NSR programs. Based on'the findings and reccranendations
c: tne t=s* force, I am today establishing certain program initiatives
designed tc irrrove the timeliness, 'certainty, and effectiveness of these
- - 3.- - sjrs .
A great deal of effort will be required to overcome the problems
-•-icr. have developed, but it is my belief that these problems', with your
f.ll coopers tier, and assistance, can be resolved so that these essential
= :r n-ar.agenent programs can fulfill their intended roles. Therefore, I
.rge each of yoc to provide the maximum priority and resource consnitments
k.
The outstanding concern we now face in these programs is inadequate
i-.plerentaticn. The Office of Air and Radiation intends to apply its
resource ccr7T7iit.Tier.ts so as to enhance its ability to provide technical
support and guidance, training, workshops, auditing, and enforcement
i.ppcrt to the Regions and delegated programs. The Regional Offices must
-5
-------
•II -II
if) MI
M O
Q 01
O..O 1
• rt>
PI 'U
«-l 3 ID
O O. »1
-. Ih
pi O
l -•• 1 -•• ii
O. i h s|
l '• f Oi
:• pi
• 1 rt
fl M t->.
:> PI 3
> • :• io
in • • »-•
• D '<
• • . i.
1,' - IU
l/i 3
.* 'O O.
- M
00
oi ID M
<: IB
fD 0 3-
Q "I
o. 5 3
»• 5 In
rt> 3 <
o rr rt)
it
ID O. n
n. c ID
•i <:
rt •-•• M-
3- 3 IB
rt) UQ C
O rt 0
Ih 3" l-h
Mt ID
»'• rt
o •-••g
th !-•• p
o (r
»-.. o ^-
M Q O
O 1 3
C (D O
OJ 3 rt
1—* ft" M*
!•• O
rt IB
iQ M
M
ID
In
•g
O
3 .-
W .'•
1-*' ?T"
ri?
IB M-
Ml
Iti IB
O -
£J5
ID 3
rt *-••
I-- 3
JB O*
*-" *1
'< a
ID
ri O,
ID
?•
-8
3- P-
IB rt
action,
infornat
M- rt
0 3-
3 IB
jxl
egional
specifi
Po
H* 1 h
M Itl
"§'
!-••
i •
Hi
in
i.
ft,
•
to
1 1*
r~i
!-••
"
rt
O
ft
3
rti
m
•n
i_i.
o
3
Oi
ft
I h
8
o
;8
a
\f
01
rt
3
in
i pentit
r
Lf"
ID
3
in 'it
i. ili
b ;«
it ri 1
r t
ft) i*
ii, :r in
in i:
o. : i l r
i • '1
11 i •- l *•
.1 •• in it
8 In
17. f •
in o
n 11.
3 •- rt
•n :r
• •• m
•1.1 3
r. o :«i
Jl !-• ID
!-• C '11
P. !'*'
O
3 3
O ill P>
9- "
a o
fO n 1 h
3 ID HI
rt l/i i ••
v'8%
IB 3
M in O'
I-'- ID
0 0
O. r t (O
Oi
3 0
>< Ih
pi ft
t) 3'
•O ID
ri
O ••»
•IJ H-
H 3
M- n>
pi \->
rt
ID 'CI
O ID
1 ^
ro R
P ir
ft ti
in cJ
o
I-**
O
3
•i rt!
•u o
pi ; )'
fi :»
ii ri
in i •
o
O HI
•i '•'
O '-
• i< in
1 1< .f
in (i
m i |
ft ^.-
in
- - 0
• M
q
I/I
ri
Oi
0
m
<"
K
ID
?
111 :.i D i"
< PI :i 11
1 • !-• I I .A
ID •< III 01
r. in • ••••ri i
i ••• 3 rt>
• 1 in
ID it Oi t/l
,1) O. 3" f I-
i; IB ID IT
!•• =J n •-!
• t 0 11 3' 1 '•
(U 3 r: ID it
a oi b
in rt !-• IT rt
;i M •-•• ih f)
r i pi f i i f|
In rt !••• rt
r- 3 .1 3'
O 3 O !.l rti
• htO ri l ••
!••• 3 '.«!
f i :_r o 'ii ID
3 Q ID «O
rt) ». O »'
I-- ih O
*~\ f t fV * 1
ID 3- 3 M PI
•n ID »fi 3 •-•
rJ f c ID
Oi »i »O 'O ih
r I O *D K 1 h
•-•••ii - t> i-
op !-• o
3 M rt • -• rt)
I/I ID 3- n
Q, ID Oi
rtiVl 'n O O
|j. . 11 M rt Q
W 'O O Q •-•• 3
in • «_j.'O o -0
!•• - ID O ID »-•
o o in ID
3 IT rt ID '(J rt
iu n. in ID
'i I/I O M
Oi
rl
ID
^~«
1
.0
M-
f *-
» n r--
rt ^- p
3 3" rt pi fu
ft IB IB iQ ft
ti O iu H-
O rt 3 O
1— IP 5 3 3
§H' F
pi r t
f-». |_»
O
f ^ 01 II. fl ft ••!
1 It'll III III 1 •• III
i i.'i) in * y n,
1 • 1 -• fl ID MI
: i • -•• i -•• t • v.
O O ni n PI 0
in 3 3 O 3' 3 n
• i rti 0. i •
'IJ •'• O :-l i"
ill in i h 1 1 •. | ' <
H O fD HI
f- 11 rt ih o :.i rt
O fD 3' ID P> 3"
O. f) ID III 1 • tO ID
i ' rt) '« ill
f) '•••rj O ri M Ul
< '1 O fp
•i ID Q T1 O i'-«Il
ill O.'O '«! ih l h •••
'fj O i- 0
O o m ID ot ri 3
•i *i IB fi •-•• 0'
ri O. rt) 3 pi |J
• it ip, in
3"U O C w O
ID M O •«•
o ;o 3 t-i 1 1.
H''O-*< "I !-<•
ri ID i_i. Oi O
ih O O O M rti
O n i h n m
fii rr o o.
ft ~2. ID n pi
r'- O H ri o
O rt oi o rti rt
3 i-'-TJ ID 3"
8 g'&'S # *
- *< w p 11 ta pi
ft h» 3 o •»•
IT !-•• it P- rt l h
fD O »-•• rt 10 rt)
3 O O. O
VI 3 Oi ^ rl
6O TJ - fP
in i-».'O 0,
a 3 rr l- r
r>- w !••• I'-'rj
rt rr n> p n p»
rt IB •-• Oi 3' M
m l h rt •••• rt
n. 3 !-•• ti ij-
Oi o O ID
rt O. M 3 Oi W
O ID
n> >i —
ft IV Ip ID
Lr w rr H it •
IB M tf W'O
IP M- M- O *
50 DI IB In 3 ••
IB P Hi (V
•0 tr o (r rt
"• W r-> 3'
O 3 ID ID
3
fc
oi :ii o
i() ID lit
in Hi i h
fl O O
• • :i m pj
ID P» ih
in i • 1 •• 1 h
I/I Ip
' •• O O
O i h ID rt
l .-• i f« in •-"
i • .' In <
O O rti iD
f. ID 3
in rt n
O !-•• O
fn »; PI a
r 1 1 '• | — • ^
rt i • C
pi i ' rt 3
1' O KJ-
n :.i o
rt> i •• oi
3 ID -1 rt
O O.'lJ I'-
ll 'i O
•-•• rt O 3
i h o <:
i- i'- rr
O IB 3 IB
P» 3 iQ rj
rt in C
i ••• ri •!) «D
O " M «
3 rt) 0 3
'ti ft M rt
M 3- pi tr
p Oi 3 ID
rt> i"*y
0. Irt fl ID
n n -0 M
'i m i-* a
ID rt ID P-
in rti j§ rt
IB rt
W pi 3 M.
C 3 rt a
O fl. Oi «O
-.r rt
Oi O O iQ
Ul O 3 ID
.. pi . 3
'"* »9
Ib 1? fW
ti ID 3
3 »-» o,
P- ID
rt 1 h ft
rt O 3*
r«- ti IB
f»'^
Jj* f-**
ID O
3
PI
'O ft rt -ri o •« - -,O
in 3' !-•• pi iD ID i •• i .
M ID 3 1 1 1 1 f'. i «t pi
3 ili n ri •••• i •
•••• (n 2 PI in n i •
ri rt O !•• i. O (i > 1
1 1 IH IB r»i :i r i >r\ i i
IJ- rl x 11 in
3 ID O rt M M. PI (1 D
«O 3" 3' ••• 1 • P' .*
oi PI ID 3 PI > i : t i •
"O 3 3 O 1 • m 3
M f>.«O 'Jll M 1 • III LI O
8 ID ip n. in
\-> «o in (n'<: -ti
n> O PI •'• O |l P' lit
l/i p 3 O i- Oi i • in • i
I/I l» O. 3 • i ft 3 in : |
• •-• : IH o ID i.i •
• 1 I-* ID "CJ " r t
SID |V • ••• ID
< Q'Q 3 Oi (l. Ii*
IB •-•• t* il) 0. o - n
3 ID l h '1 fD 1 1
o »; »-•• =i i- • -.- 1 1 i •
•••• o ••• o o
IB O
* ^< ? '"-u 7
f, f- Oi >1 >1 I
3-33 pi O rp t i
fD Hi DI mt> ifl ,11 3
3 O «O XI ID M c •••
ti IB 'O 3 pi l • -t»
oi s^ J •-• n "i »i i ••
OJ fD rt) '<' * i • PI
^ rt y 3 l ft ri i *
IB M- rt n> t •• o 'O •-•
'< O 3 in •<:
D W rt 1/1 ID n
3 •< in C 3 If pi
H- O w rt IB to Oi 3
i-* ID n M- o. n rt n.
rt it) Si oi 3
O ID OI O <_l Oi O rl
3 3 3 1 1» O :.?!••
ID O. 11 «t i-.
rt ft i>- Ul
I'- 7 < IT 01 ^ IB in
W rB ij- rti O IP |/i n fD 'rj
»j- HI Lr »-* IB 116
3 H- III IV 3 ID M
«O o rr 5 IB w rl
m s ili n. 3 f i r'
rt ri (n pi rt
3" 0» n> 3 M- Lr
fp 3 fit IV ^ 1-'
O. I-* O. ID 1-
IB In
3-
: i
in
• i
ID
.',!
i ,
In
rt
1 1
j-
.ri
rf
o
IT
1 1
i •
Ml
pi
l .
rt
• 1
o
rt)
?
ft
in
» •
3
a
I
3
ri
OJ
rf
O
3
t •
, j
3'
• Ii
()
\ -'
9 '
H
• •*•
i/i
pi
• -•
in
ft
• it
3
|
in K»
'»
ri
i •
1 h
l *•
O
,8
•i
?!
i ••
01
rt
l ••
ID
in
-»
-------
rlanr.inc as£ Standards (OAC?S) to start work cr. tne development of £
o~rr.it reviev checklist fc: use oy the Regional Office during the public
ocT.Ter.t period. The cnecxlist '-ill also be useful ~o State and local
ace.-.cies" as c. tool for self-audit and to understand what the Environmental
Protection A'c-e-.cy (I?.-.) emphasizes when reviewing a proposed penr.it.
- Review ar.y respcr.se to comments and the final permit to ensure
that any cutstencine concerns have been resolved satisfactorily-
- Review tne-permit to operate to ensure that it is consistent with
the preconstruction permit.
- Take prompt and appropriate action to deter the issuance or use of
permits which fail to meet minimal Federal requirements. I have directed
OAQPS to work with the Office of General Counsel and the Office of Enforce-
-ent end Compliance ycr.itorinc to develop guidance for the Regions.!
Offices or. the ecorooriate lecj" 'mechanisms and orocecures for handlinc
- To the extent practicable, prior to perr.it issuance, review
potential rdnor permit actions which exeirpt an otherwise major source or
•edification from a major review (e.g.,"synthetic" minor sources, major
sources netting out of review, end 99.9 or 249.9 tons per year sources).
The rrost critical element of these initiatives is the Regional Office
review of proposed perr.it actions during the public corarent period. Tr^e
~V Ir33 national air audit showed widespread serious permit deficiencies,
-ar.y of which could have seen corrected without interfering with State
and local agency processing if dealt with by E?A during the public
ccTrent period. 3y uniformly reviewing all major source permit actions
during the cement period, r?A is able to address deficient reviews or
t-=r-its oefore tne final permit is issued. This not only promotes more
consistency in tne penrlttinc process among the States, but also provides
t.-.e -.irr.est decree cf certainty to the applicant that the permit will not
:•= challenged by I?.-, at a later date. Moreover, if the permit is not
reviewed end commented on prior to issuance, the possibility of successfully
challenging the action is greatly diminished, as is the opportunity to
irrrprove the enforceability cf the permit.
5.-.CT ^eterminaticns—Of all tne NSR processes, 3ACT (and LASR)
determinations are perhaps the most misunderstood'and the least correctly
eppii'.4.. The BACT alternatives, if presented by the applicant at all,
are often poorly documented or biased to achieve the Decision the applicant
desires.
To bring consistency to the BACT process, I have authorized OAQPS to
proceed with'developing specific guidance on the use cf the "top-down"
approach to BACT. The first step in this approach is to determine, for
the emission source in question, the most stringent control available
for a similar or identical source or source category, if it can be shown
tr.at t.-.is level of control is technically cr economically infeasible for
-------
- 4 -
the source ir. question, tr.er. the next most strinoer.t level cf control is
•ceterr.inec" and similarly evaluated. This pro-cess continues until tne
3-.ZT level under consideration cannot be eliminated by any substantial or
unique technical, environmental, or eccnorr.ic objections. Tnus, tne
"tsp^-co-T." cpproccr. shifts.tne burden cf proof to the applicant to justify
wr.y tne proposed source 13 unable to apply the oest technology available.
I: also differs frcrr. other processes in that it requires the applicant to
analyze a control technology only if the applicant "opposes that level of
control; the other processes required a full analysis of all possible
types and levels of'control above the baseline case.
The "top-down" approach is essentially already required for municipal
waste combustors pursuant to the June 22, 1967, Adminis'trator's remand to
Region IX of the K-?ower 3ACT decision and the OAQPS June 26, 1987,
"Operational Guidance on Control Technoiocy for New and Modified Municipal
waste CoTiDustors (MWC's)." It is also currently being successfully
irnple^entec by many psrr.ittine agencies and some cf the Regional Offices
for all sc-.rces. I have therefore determined that it should be adopted
across tne board.
In tne interim, w-ile OAO.PS develops specific guidance on the
"top-down" process, I ar, requesting the Regional Office .to apply it to
tneir 5ACT deterr.inations and to strongly encourage State and local
agencies to do likewise. Moreover, when" a State agency proposes as 3ACT
£ level cf control thst appears to be inconsistent'with the'"top-down"
concept, such as failure to Adequately consider the more stringent control
options, the Regional Office is "to provide comment to that agency. A
final -=ACT deterrrination wnich still fails to reflect adequate consideration
::' tne factors that would have been relevant using a "top-down" type cf
analysis snail be considered deficient by EPA.
Treininc—Sc fcrr^l training workshops specific to NSH have been
-.eld since 1?£0. ."-any 5i5te and "local agencies, as well as the Regional
:ffires, have experienced £ nigh rate of*NSR perso.vjel turnover since.
then. M.ar.y cf the basic problems that are occurring in NSR iTplerrentation
can i^e traced tc the lac-; cf comprehensive, continuing training for new
Regicnal -Office and State agency personnel.
To rectify this situetion, in TV 1988, OAQPS will workron developing
-cterials for a comprehensive training program in the form cf Regional
•-crksnccs to be conducted in -"if 193S.
Commencing in T? 1969, biannual Headquarters-sponsored NSR workshops
will be conducted at eacn Regional Office with State and local agencies*
attendance encouraged, '-torkshop topics will cover tne NSIR rules'and
policy, 3ACT and LAIR determinations, effective permit writing, how to
review & proposed permit and audit a permit file, and other program areas
as needed. Appropriate;; -.rained Regional staff are to then"hold these
workshops at their resrvc- . ,•<= state agencies. The NSR experts from
Headquarters or NSR ex>---.- from other Regions will be available to assist.
-------
Ir. acciticn, Regicnaj. Ozrices snouic reserve tne tunes- necessary7 to
send at least one -PA staff representative to the NSR workshops (for ZPA
only) held semiannually a: Denver, Colorado (February), and Southern Pines,
North Carolina .(July). Attendance at these workshops plays a vital role
_.-. ent these initiatives.
.Additional specific guidance on improvements in the program areas
discussed above will be issued in the near future. In the meantime, each
Regional Office is directed to work closely with its State and local
agencies to ensure that all aspects of the NSR permit programs comply
.with ill applicable State and Federal program requirements.
Your coT.mer.ts and suggestions are welcome. Please direct them to
Gar-- y.cCutohen, -Chief, New Source Review Section, KD-15, Research Triancle
?=r<, Nort- Caroline 2"11 (FTS 629-5592).
oc: Air Division Directors, Regions I-X
-------
v>EPA
United States Office of Air Quality
^Environmental Protection Planning and Standards
Agency Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450 4-87-007
May 1987
Air
Ambient Monitoring
Guidelines for
Prevention of
Significant
Deterioration (PSD)
RADIAN LIBRARY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC
-------
fart 51
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-M Edition)
PART 31—REQUIREMENT! KM PREP-
ARATION. ADOPTION, AND SUi-
MITTAl OF IMPLIMiNTATtON
HANS
Sec.
• 140 Scope.
AQUA ANALYSIS
(141 AQUA analysis: SubmltUI date.
81.43 AQUA analysis: Analysis period.
• 141 AQMA analysis: Guidelines.
•1.44 AQUA analysis: Projection of emis-
sion*.
11.4k AQMA analytic Allocation of emis-
sions.
6I4( AQMA analysis: Projection of air
quality concentrations.
•1.47 AQMA analysis: Description of data
MM AQMA analysis: Data bases.
•14* AQMA analysis: Techniques descrip-
tion.
(1.60 AQMA analysis: Accuracy factors.
• LSI AQMA analysis: SubmltUI of calcula-
tions.
AQMA PLAN
Bl.tl AQMA plan: General
•I.M AQMA plan: Demonstration of ade-
quacy.
II M AQMA plan: Strategies
•I It AQMA plan: Legal authority.
lilt AQMA plan: Future strategies.
•1.17 AQMA plan: Future legal authority.
II M AQMA plan: Intergovernmental co-
operation.
6186 (Reserved!
81.M AQMA plan: Resources.
IU1 AQMA plan: Bubmlttal format.
II (2 AQMA analysis and plan: Data avail-
ability.
•I « AQMA analysis and plan: Alternative
piocedures.
snaps* •—|l*Mtv«4l
11.110 Attainment and maintenance of na-
tional standards.
•1.111 Description of control measures.
61.111 Demonstration of adequacy.
61.111 Time period for demonstration of
adequacy.
61.114 Emissions data and projections.
•l.llk Air quality data and projections.
61.11* Data availability.
61.117 Additional provisions for lead.
11.111 Stack height provisions.
61.110 Intermittent control systems.
i •! Air •••MM**
61.160 Classification of regions for episode
plans.
61.161 Significant harm levels.
61.161 Contingency plans.
61.161 Reevaluatlon of episode plans.
61.1M Legally enforceable procedures.
61.1(1 Public availability of Information.
61.1(1 Identification of responsible
agency.
61.1(1 Administration procedures.
61.1(4 Stack height procedures.
61.1(6 Permit requirements.
11.1(4 Prevention of significant deterio-
ration of air quality.
I Ah Qomtt, 6wv
61.160 Ambient air quality monitoring re-
quirements.
11.110 General.
61.111 Emission reports and reoordkeeplng.
•1.111 Testing. Inspection, enforcement,
and complaints.
61.111 Transportation control measures.
61.114 Continuous emission monitoring.
61.110 Requirements for all plans.
61.111 Identification of legal authority.
61.111 Assignment of legal authority to
local agencies.
M 100 Definitions.
11.141 Stipulations.
• 1101 Public hearings.
• 1.103 Submission of plans: preliminary
review of plans.
II 104 Revisions.
61.101 Approval of plans.
AGENCY DESIOMATIOH
• 1.140 General plan requirements.
•1.141 Nonattalnment areas for csrbon
monoxide and ozone.
61.241 I Reserved I
712
Environmental Protection Agency
951.40
CONTINUING CONSULTATION PROCESS
• 1.243 Consultation process objectives.
• 1.244 Plan elements affected.
• 1.246 Organizations and officials to be
consulted.
11246 Timing.
SI.247 Hearings on consultation process
violations.
RELATIONSHIP or PLAN TO OTHER PLANNING
AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
81.246 Coordination with other programs.
81.246 [Reserved!
•I.ISO TransmlUal of Information.
61.261 Conformity with Executive Order
12372.
61.262 Summary of plan development par-
ticipation.
61.2(0 Legally enforceable compliance
schedules.
61.2(1 final compliance schedules.
61.2(2 Extension bryond one year.
iufcpart O— M(»«ralliinsi»i Phm Csnl«nt
61.MO Resources.
61.1(1 Copies of rules and regulations.
81.1(6 Public notification.
Ktp-.rt P— Pratocthm «4 VbsMMy
61.100 Purpose and applicability.
81.301 Definitions.
61 .301 Implementation control strategies.
61.101 Exemptions from control.
II 304 Identification of Integral vistas.
61.106 Monitoring.
61.1M Long term strategy.
61.307 New source review.
Aia QUALITY DATA REPOHTINO ,
61.320 Annual air quality data report.
BODICE EMISSIONS AND STATS ACTION
REPORTING
61.321 Annual source emissions and State
action report.
61.123 Sources subject to emissions report-
Ing.
81.323 Reportable emissions data and In-
formation.
61.324 Progress In plan enforcement.
81.328 Contingency plan actions.
81126 Reportable revisions.
61.327 Enforcement orders and other Stale
actions.
S1.32R (Reserved!
Subsvrt •— f l
51.340 Request (or 2-year extension.
81.341 Request (or 18 month extension.
APPENDICES A- -K- (RESERVED)
APPENDIX L- EXAMPLE REGULATIONS roa
PREVENTION or Am POLLUTION EMERGEN-
CY EPISODES
APPENDIX M - ( RESERVED!
APPENDIX N-EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS
ACHIEVABLE THROUGH INSPECTION. MAIN-
TENANCE AND RETROFIT or LIGHT DUTY
VEHICLES '
APPENDIX O I RESERVED I
APPENDIX P—MINIMUM EMISSION MONITOR-
ING REQUIREMENTS
APPENDICES Q—R-1 RESERVED!
APPENDIX 8—EMISSION Orrscr INTERPRETA-
TIVE RULING
APPENDIX T—(RESERVED!
APPENDIX U—CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 174
GUIDELINES
AUTHORITY: This rulemaklng Is promul-
gated under authority of sections lOKbMI).
110. 1(0-109. 171 178. and 301(a> of the
Clean Air Act 42 U.8.C. 740l(bMl>. 7410.
7470-7479.1501 7508. and 7«01.
SOURCE: 3( FR 223B8, Nov. 25. 1971, unless
otherwise noted.
EDITORIAL NOTE: Nomenclature changes
affecting Part 61 appear at 44 PR (237. Feb.
(. 1979 and 61 FR 4M(I. Nov. 7. 19((.
Swbparts A-C—(Reserved)
Swbpmt D—Maintenance of National
Standards
SOURCE: 41 FR 1(3(8. May 3. I97(. unless
otherwise noted.
fSI.M Scope.
(a) Applicability. The requirements
of this subpirt apply to air quality
maintenance areas (AQMAs) Identi-
fied under I 51.IIOXI) and to any areas
Identified under I 51.110(1).
(b) AQMA Analviii. Under this sub-
part, procedures are given for the
analysis of the air quality Impact of
specified pollutant emissions from ex-
isting sources and emissions associated
with projected growth and develop-
ment In areas Identified under para-
graphs (I) and (I) of 151.110. This
analysis Is referred to In this subpart
as an AQMA analysis.
-------
8*0.45
approved by the Administrator shall
be used when measurements are on a
wet basis. When measurements are on
a dry basis, the following conversion
procedure shall be used:
E = Cn20.0/120.9-percent O.)l
where:
E. C. P. and %O. are determined under
paragraph If) of this section .
(2) When a continuous monitoring
system for measuring carbon dioxide Is
selected, the measurement of the pol-
lutant concentration and carbon diox-
ide concentration shall each be on a
consistent basis (wet or dry) and the
following conversion procedure shall
be used:
B= CF, (100/percent CO. I
whrre:
E. C, F, and %CO, are determined under
paragraph of this section
(f) The values used In the equations
under paragraphs (1) and (2) of
this section are derived as follows:
(1) E= pollutant emissions. ng/J (Ib/
million Btu).
(2> C= pollutant concentration, ng/
dscm (Ib/dscf), determined by multi-
plying the average concentration
(ppm) for each one-hour period by
4.15x10* M ng/dscm per ppm
(2 59x 10 • M Ib/dscf per ppm) where
IH= pollutant molecular weight, g/g-
mole and For the purpose of reports re-
quired under 160.7(c). periods of
excess emissions that shall be reported
are defined as follows:
(1) Opacity. Excess emissions are de-
fined as any six-minute period during
which the average opacity of emissions
exceeds 20 percent opacity, except
that one six-minute average per hour
of up to 27 percent opacity need not
be reported.
(I) For sources subject to the opacity
standard of I 60.42(bMl). excess emis-
sions are defined as any six minute
period during which the average opaci-
ty of emissions exceeds 35 percent
opacity, except that one six-minute av-
erage per hour of up to 42 percent
opacity need not be reported.
(II) For sources subject to the opaci-
ty standard of |60.42(bM2). excess
emissions are defined as any six-
minute period during which the aver-
age opacity of emissions exceeds 32
percent opacity, except that one six-
minute average per hour of up to 39
percent opacity need not be reported.
(ill) Por sources subject to the opaci-
ty standard of |60.42(bK3). excess
emissions are defined as any six
minute period during which the aver
age opacity of emissions exceeds 30
percent opacity, except that one slx-
mlniite average per hour of up to 37
percent opacity need not be reported.
(2) Sulfur diojidr. Excess emissions
for affected facilities are defined as:
247
•m i:n o wi
-------
5 «>.«
(I) Any llirrc hour period durlnf
which the aveianc emissions (arithme-
tic average of three contiguous one-
hour periods) of sulfur dioxide as
measured by a continuous monitoring
system exceed the applicable standard
under I M.43.
(3) Nitrogen oxtdei. Excess emissions
for affected facilities using a continu-
ous monitoring system for measuring
nitrogen oxides are defined as any
three-hour period during which the
average emissions (arithmetic average
of three contiguous one-hour periods)
exceed the applicable standards under
160.44.
140 FR 443M. Oct. «. ItTBI
EDrrom/iL Non: For FcraiUL Raoisna d-
Ulloiu affecting I «0 45. tee the Llit of CFR
flections Affected In the Flndlnc Aid* sec-
tion of till* volume.
I M.4« Test melhodi and procedures.
(a) The reference methods In Appen-
dix A of this part, except as provided
In 160.8(b). shall be used to determine
compliance with the standards as pre-
scribed In 1160.42. 60.43. and 60.44 as
follows:
. (I) Method I for selection of sam-
pling site and sample traverses.
(2) Method 3 for gas analysis to be
used when applying Method S, SB. 17,
6. 7. 7A. 1C. or 7D.
(3) Method 5. 5B. or 17 for concen-
tration of partlculate matter and the
associated moisture content as follows:
Method 6 Is to be used at affected fa-
cilities without wet flue gas desulfurl-
zatlon (POD) systems; Melliini so Is to
be used only after wet Full systems;
and Method 17 may be used at facili-
ties with or without wet POO systems
provided that the stack fas tempera-
ture Hi the sampling locution does not
exceed an average temperature of 160
*C (320 "F). The procedures of .sections
2 I and 2.3 of Method SB may be used
with Method 17 only If It Is used after
wet POD systems Do not use Method
17 after wet POD systems If the efflu-
ent gas Is saturated or laden with
water droplets.
(4) Method 6 or 6C for concentration
of SO,. Method 6A may be used when-
ever Methods 6 or 6C and 3 or 3A data
are used to determine the SO, emis-
sion rate In n«/J Method 6C shall be
40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M E4lltl«Ni)
used only at the sole discretion of the
source owner or operator.
(S) Method 7. 7A. 1C. ID. or 7E for
concentration of NO,. Method 7E
shall be used only at the sole discre-
tion of the source owner or operator.
(b) For Method B. SB. or 17. Method
1 shall be used to select the sampling
site and the number of traverse sam-
pling points. The sampling time for
each run shall be at least 60 minutes.
and the minimum sampling volume
shall be 0.68 dscm (30 dscf) except
that smaller sampling times or vol-
umes, when necessitated by process
variables or other factors, may be ap-
proved by the Administrator. The
probe and filter holder heating sys-
tems In the sampling train shall be set
to provide a gas temperature of
I60±I4"C(320±25-P).
(c) For Melhods 6 and 7. 7A. 7C. or
7D the sampling site shall be the same
as that selected for Method 8. SB, or
17. The sampling point In the duct
shall be at the centrold of the cross
section or at a point no closer to the
walls than 1 m (3.28 ft). For Methods 6
and 7C or 7D. the sample shall be ex-
tracted at a constant volumetric flow
rate.
(d) For Method 6. the minimum
sampling time shall be 20 minutes and
the minimum sampling volume 0.02
dscm (0.71 dscf) for each sample. The
arithmetic mean of two samples shall
constitute one run. Samples shall be
taken at approximately 30 minute In-
tervals.
(e) For Method 7 or 7A. each run
shall consist of at least four grab sam-
ples taken at approximately IB-minute
Intervals. The arithmetic mean of the
samples shall constitute the run value.
For Melhod 7C or 7D. each run shall
consist of a I-hour sample.
(f) For each run using the melhods
specified by paragraphs (aM3), (aM4).
and (aHS) of this section, the emis-
sions expressed In ng/J (Ib/mllllon
Btu) shall be determined by the fol-
lowing procedure:
prrcenlO.l
where:
(I) E^pollutant emission ng/J (Ib/
million Btu).
248
ProUctUn Agency
(2) C>pollutant concentration, ng/
dscm (Ib/dscf) determined by Method
S. 6. 6C. 7. 7A. 7C. 7D. or 7E.
(3) Percent O,=Oxygen content by
volume (expressed as percent), dry
basis. Percent oxygen shall be deter-
mined by using the Integrated or grab
sampling and analysis procedures of
Method 3 as applicable, or by using
Method 3A. Melhod 3A shall be used
only at the sole discretion of the
source owner or operator. Oxygen
samples shall be obtained as follows:
(I) For determination of sulfur diox-
ide by Method 6 or 6C and nitrogen
oxides emissions by Method 7. 7A. 1C.
7D. or 7E. Ihe oxygen sample shall be
obtained simultaneously at the same
point In the duct. For Method 7 or 7 A.
the oxygen sample shall be obtained
using the grab sampling and analysts
procedures of Melhod 3, or by using
Method 3A.
(II) For determination of partlculate
emissions, the oxygen sample shall be
obtained simultaneously by traversing
the duct at the same sampling location
used for each run of Method 0. SB. or
17 under paragraph (b) of this section.
Method I shall be used for selection of
the number of oxygen traverse points
except that no more than 12 sample
points are required.
(4) F=a factor as determined In
paragraphs (f) (4). (S) or (6) of 160.45.
(g) When combinations of fossil
fuels or fossil fuel and wood residue
are fired, the heal Input, expressed In
walla (Btu/hr). Is determined during
each testing period by multiplying the
gross calorific value of each fuel fired
(In J/kg or Btu/lb) by Ihe rale of each
fuel burned (In kg/sec or Ib/hr). Gross
calorific values are determined In ac-
cordance with ASTM methods D20IS-
77 (solid fuels). D240-76 (liquid fuels).
or DI826-77 (gaseous fuels) as applica-
ble. (These three methods are Incorpo-
rated by reference- see 160.17.) The
method used to determine calorific
value of wood residue must be ap-
proved by Ihe Administrator. The
owner or operator shall determine the
rale <>l fuels burned during each test-
ing period by suitable methods and
shall confirm the rate by a material
balance over the steam generation
system.
§•0.4
(h) If the Central Illinois Publ
Service Company elects. und<
|60.43(e). to comply with the con
blned SO* emission rate of 470 nani
•rams per Joule (1.1 Ib per mllllo
Btu) of combined heat Input to Units
and 2. the test methods and proc<
dures described In Appendix O. "Prc
visions for an Alternative Method o
Demonstrating Compliance with 4'
CFR 60.43 for the Newton Power 8ta
tton of Central Illinois Public Service
Company" must be used. ''
I4C PR 462M. Oct. «. int. as amended at II
FR 13Iff. Nov. ». int. 4S FR 1737. Jan. n.
INI; 4* FR JiJUJ. Sept. 27. 19M: 91 FR
HIM. June II. !••«. 51 FR 42841. Nov. M.
ISM: M FR J»»55. Aug. 4. 1M7I
IM.47 lrnio*atl*« technology waivers;
waiver of nrifur dioxide standards of
performance for new rtaltonary
•ource* for Homer City Hull No. 3
•nder section III(J> of Ike Clean Air
Act for Multi-Steam Coal Cleaning
System.
(a) Pursuant to section lll(j) of the
Clean Air Act. 42 U.8.C. 741 l(J). com-
mencing on November 13. 1981 Penn-
sylvania Electric Company and New
York State Electric it Gas Corpora-
tion shall comply with the following
terms and conditions for electric gen-
erating Units Nos. I. 2. and 3 at the
Homer City Steam Electric Generat-
ing Station. Center Township, Indiana
County. Pennsylvania.
(b) The foregoing terms and condi-
tions shall remain effective through
November 30. 1981, and pursuant to
section I IK 1KB), shall be Federally
promulgated standards of perform-
ance. As such. It shall be unlawful for
Pennsylvania Electric Company and
New York State Electric & Gas Corpo-
ration to operate Units Nos. I. 2. and 3
In violation of the standards of per-
formance established In this waiver.
Violations of the terms and conditions
of this waiver shall subject Pennsylva-
nia Electric Company and New York
Stale Electric A Oas Corporation to
Federal enforcement under sections
113 (bl and (c). 42 U.S.C. 7413 (b) and
(c). and 120. 42 U.S.C. 7420. of Ihe Art
as well as possible citizen enforcement
under section 304 of the Art. 42 U.S.C.
7604. Pursuant to sprllon IIKcHI) of
249
-------
8*0.47
the Act, 42 U.8.C. 74U(c)(l). at 45 FH
3100. January 16. 1980. the Adminis-
trator delegated to the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania authority to
Implement and enforce the Federal
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources of 1.2 Ib SO,/10*
Btu applicable to Homer City Unit No.
3. The SO, emission limitations speci-
fied In this waiver for Unit No. 3 are
new Federally promulgated Standards
of Performance for New Stationary
Sources for a limited time period.
Thus, during the period this waiver Is
effective, the delegated authority of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
to enforce the Federal Standards of
Performance for New Stationary
Sources of 1.2 Ib SO,/10* Btu applica-
ble to Homer City Unit No. 3 Is super-
seded and enforcement of the terms
and conditions of this waiver shall be
the responsibility of the Administrator
•)t EPA. The Commonwealth of Penn-
sylvania may, and Is encouraged to,
seek delegation of authority, pursuant
to section lll(cMl). to enforce the
temporary Federal Standards of Per-
formance for New Stationary Sources
specified In this waiver. Should such
authority be delegated to the State,
the terms and conditions of this
waiver shall be enforceable by the Ad-
ministrator of EPA and the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania, concurrently.
Nothing In this waiver shall affect the
rights of the Commonwealth of Penn-
sylvania under the Decree filed In the
Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
on January 28. 1981. at Docket No. 161
C.D. 1981.
(c) On December I. 1981, and con-
tinuing thereafter, at no time shall
emissions of SO, from Unit No. 3
exceed 1.2 Ib/IO" Btu of heal Input, as
specified In 40 CFR 60.43(a>(2) (July 1.
1979).
On January IS. 1982. Pennsylva-
nia Electric Company and New York
State Elcclrlr St Gas Corporation shall
demonstrate compliance at Homer
City Unit No 3 with 40 CFR
60.43(a)(2) (July I. 1979) In accordance
with the test methods and procedures
set forth In 40 CFR 60.8 , (c). (d).
(e) and (I) (July 1. 1979).
(e> Emission limitations. (I) Com-
mencing on November 13, 1981 and
continuing until November 30, 1981:
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-M Edition)
(I) At no time shall emissions of SO,
from Units Nos. 1. 2. and 3, combined.'
exceed: 2.87 Ib SO./10* Btu of heat
Input In a rolling 30-day period (start-
ing with the 60th day after the effec-
tive date of the waiver); 3.6 Ib SO./10'
Btu of heat Input In any day;' and 3.1
Ib SO,/10* Btu of heat Input on more
than 4 days In any rolling 30-day
period.
(II) At no time shall emissions of SO,
from Units Nos. 1. 2. and 3, combined,*
exceed 696 tons In any day.
(Ill) At no time shall emissions of
SO, from Units Nos. I. 2. and 3. com-
bined,' exceed 91 tons In any discrete '
3-hour period.
(Iv) At no time shall emissions of
SO, from Units Nos. 1 and 2, com-
bined, exceed 463 tons In any day.
(v) At no time shall emissions of SO,
from Units Nos. 1 and 2. combined.
exceed 61 tons In any discrete ' 3-hour
period.
(f) Installation schedule. (1) Penn-
sylvania Electric and New York State
Electric & Gas have selected engineer-
Ing designs for necessary modifications
to the Multl Stream Coal Cleaning
System (MCCS) 93B Circuit.
(2) Pennsylvania Electric and New
York State Electric it Gas have placed
purchase orders for all major equip-
ment necessary to complete necessary
modifications to the MCCS 93B cir-
cuit.
(3) Pennsylvania Electric and New
York Stale Electric & Gas have com-
pleted design engineering of the modi-
fications to the MCCS 93B circuit.
(4) On or before September IS. 1981.
Pennsylvania Electric and New York
State Electric Si Gas shall complete
construction of the MCCS 93B circuit.
(5) On or before October IS. 1981.
Pennsylvania Electric and New York
Stale Electric ti Gas shall start up the
MCCS 93B circuit.
(g> Monitoring and reporting.
Throughout the waiver period the
Company shall acquire sufficient
quantities of emission monitoring and
1 A "day" (a 24 hour period) and • "dis-
crete 3 hour period" Is defined In section
(KMIKlv).
' The procedures used (or calciilallnR com
blued SO, emissions are Riven In paragraph
(KH5lof this srcUmi.
250
Environmental Protection Agency
960.47
fuel analysis data to continuously
demonstrate compliance with the com-
bined emission limitations. The Com-
pany shall acquire heat Input and
emission data (sufficient to demon-
strate compliance) from each boiler
during all operating periods (I.e..
whenever fuel Is being fired). Includ-
ing periods of process start-up, shut-
down, and malfunction. This require-
ment shall be met through the use of
continuous emission monitoring sys-
tems (CEMS) (or as supplemented by
continuous bubbler (CB> systems),
heating value as determined by as-
fired fuel analysis, and coal mass feed-
rate measurements.
(1) Continuous Emission Monitoring
System (CEMS): Primary compliance
monitoring method. (I) The Company
shall Install, test, operate, and main-
tain all CEMS as the primary compli-
ance monitoring method In such a
manner as to result In the acquisition
of validated data which are represent-
ative of each boiler's 3-hour, 24-hour,
and 30-day emission rates. (See para-
graph (gM7> of this section.)
(II) The validity of the emission data
obtained with CEMS shall be deter-
mined Initially by conducting a per-
formance specification test (PST).
Subsequent CEMS data validations
shall be performed In accordance with
paragraphs (gM6> and (gK7> of this
section. All PSTs of CEMS shall In-
clude at least: (A) All of the specifica-
tions and test procedures contained In
the January 26, 19B1 proposed Per-
formance Specifications 2 and 3 (Ref.
1). 48 FR 83S2; and (B) the calibration
error and response time specifications
and test procedures contained In the
October 10, 1979 proposed Perform-
ance Specifications 2 and 3 (Ref. 2). 44
FR S8602. The calibration error, re-
sponse lime, and all drift tests shall be
conducted using calibration gases
which conform lo Ihe requirements of
paragraph (g)(6XIII) of this section.
(2) Continuous Bubbler System (CB):
Secondary compliance tfit method. (I)
The Company shall use Ihe CB syslem
as a secondary compliance monitoring
method lo supplement CEMS dala
whenever a CEMS Is oul of service or
Is otherwise providing dala of Insuffi-
cient quality or quantity. The CB
technique shall also he used to periodi-
cally assess the validity of CEMS data
(See paragraph (g)(6)(l)(C) of this sec-
tion).
(II) The CB technique for quantita-
tively assessing SO, emissions (In Ib/
10* Btu) Is delineated In Appendix I of
this waiver. This technique 10 based
upon combining the basic wet-chemi-
cal technique of EPA's Reference
Method 6 at 40 CFR Part 60. Appen-
dix I. July 1, 1979. (for determining
SO, concentrations) with the gravime-
tric method (absorption of CO, onto
ascarlte) for determining CO. concen-
trations. Using reduced flow rates and
Increased reagent volumes and concen-
trations, the CB system may be run
for much longer periods of time than
Reference Method 6 at 40 CFR Part
60. Appendix 1 (July 1. 1979). The
Company may make the following
modifications to the CB method as
long as they periodically demonstrate
that their modified CB method meets
the performance criteria of paragraph
(CX6KII) of this section:
(A) Use a heated sample probe.
(B) Use an In-slack filler (up stream
of the Implngers) to remove panicu-
late mailer.
(C) Eliminate Ihe Isopropanol (Ini-
tial) Implngers.
(D) Use a diaphragm pump with
flow regulators In place of Ihe peristal-
tic pump.
(Ill) The Company shall Initially
demonstrate Its proficiency In acquir-
ing 8O./CO. dala with Ihe CB melhod
by comparing the results obtained
using the CB melhod with Ihose ob-
tained using Reference Methods 3 and
6 (See Ref. 3 and paragraph
(g>(6MII>(B> of this section). The CB
data shall be deemed Initially accepta-
ble If Ihe results of this test are within
the limits prescribed In paragraph
(gX6XII) (A) and (B) of this section.
Subsequently. Ihe CB dala shall be pe-
riodically re validated as per the QA re-
quirements of paragraph (g>(6XII) (A)
and (B) of this section.
(3) Requirements for obtaining 3-
hotir and 24-hour emission data from
individual boilers. Using Ihe methods
set forth In this waiver, the Company
shall obtain Ihe following quantities of
3-hour and 24 hour emission data.
Failure to acquire the specified quanti-
ty or quality nf (lain shall const Mute n
251
-------
I 40 47
violation of the terms and condition*
of tliU waiver.
(I) Data and calculation require-
ment* for continuous emission moni-
toring system (CEMS). During normal
operation of a CEMS (primary compli-
ance method) to obtain emission data
from one or more of Units Nos. I, 2,
and 3. the Company shall obtain the
following data from each CEMS:
(A) 3-hour discrete averaging times
using CEMS.—For each boiler, con-
tinuously measure and calculate eight
discrete 3-hour averages each day,
using the three consecutive (exclusive
of exemptions below) 1-hour emission
averages (each consisting of four
equally spaced data points per 1-hour
period). The only periods when CEMS
measurements are exempted are peri-
ods of routine maintenance (as speci-
fied In the Lear Slegler Operator's
Manual) and as required for dally
zero/span checks and calibrations.
Such exemptions notwithstanding, at
no lime shall less than six discrete 3-
hour averages per day be obtained.
Note that In calculations each 3-hour
average one only uses the data avail-
able from that specific discrete aver-
age.
24-hour averaging limes using
CEMS. For each boiler, continuously
measure and calculate one discrete 24-
hour average per day. using the avail-
able (18 24) 1-hour emission averages
obtained during that specific day. The
only periods when CEM3 measure-
ments are exempted arc |*ii The Company shall estimate the
average 3-hour heat Input rate (10*
Btu/3-hours) for each boiler from the
previously determined 24-hour values.
To estimate a 3-hour heat Input rate
multiply the corresponding 24-hour
value (10* Btu/24 hours) by the ratio
of the respective 3-hour to the 24-hour
megawatl outputs.
(S) Requirement* for calculating
combined SO, emissions. (I) 3-hour
averaging period: The combined emis-
sion rales from Ihe operating boilers
are equal to the sum of the products
of the Individual heal Input rates (10*
Btu/3-hours) and the SO, emission
rates (lb/10* Btu as determined for the
3-hour period). This quantity, when di-
vided by 2000 Ib/ton, equals Ihe com-
bined Ions of 3- hour SO. emissions
(see Equation I).
M,=
2000
940.47
Equation I
Where:
M,.combined (e.g.. Units Nos. I and 2 or
UnlU Nos. I. 2. and 3t emission rates for
the operating units In tons SO., for the
Kit averaging period (3-hour or 14-hour).
E»- average emission rates from the "Ith"
unit In Ib SO,, for the Jth average period
where J - 1-hour or 24-hour. ,
H.- average heat Input rates for the "Ith"
unit In I0« Btu per "Jlh" averaging
period where 1-3-hour or 24-hour.
it-number of operating unlU.
NOTE: Equation 1 Is to be used for calcu-
lating: (l> combined tons of SO. emissions
from Units Nos. I and 2 and (2) combined
tons of SO. emissions from UnlU Nos. I. 2.
and 1 Equation I Is applicable to both 3-
hour and 24-hour averaging periods. Fur-
thermore. If a unit Is not combusting fuel.
"H." will be sero.
(II) 14-hour averaging period:
(A) The combined emissions from
the operating boilers Is equal to the
gum of the products of the Individual
neat Inputs (10* Btu/24 hour) and the
SO. emissions (lb/10* Btu as deter-
mined for the 24-hour period). This
quantity, when divided by 2000 Ib/ton.
equals the combined tons of 24-hour
SO, emissions (see Equation 1).
(B) The combined emissions from
the operating boilers. In the units Ib/
10* Btu. Is equal to the sum of the
products of the Individual heat Inputs
(10* Btu/24 hour) and the SO. emis-
sions (lb/10* Btu as determined for the
24-hour period) divided by the sum of
the combined heal Inputs (see Equa-
tion 2).
. (E.H.)
r. tt.~
Equation 2
252
Where:
E combined emission rale* for the operat-
ing units In Ib SO,/10- Btu. for the 24-
hour averaging period.
E, - 24-hour average emission rates from the
"Ith" unit In IbSO./IO'Btu
H, = 24-hour averaie heal Input rates for Ihe
"Ith" unit In 10-Blu/34 hour.
n number of operating units.
NOTE: If a unit Is not combusting fuel.
"II," will bo r.rro
(III) 30 day rolling average: Oner
every day. calculate combined 30-cal-
253
-------
J 40.47
endar day emission average rates (be-
ginning 60 days after the effective
date of this waiver), using all available
combined 24-hour emission rate aver-
ages (paragraph (gXSXIIXB) of this
section), for the moil recent 30 consec-
utive calendar days. To make the two
calculations for the combined (Units
Nos. 1. 2. and 3; Units Nos. 1 and 2)
emission rates, add the 30 consecutive
dally combined average emission rates
(Ib 8O./10* Btu) and divide the sum by
30 days.
(6) Quality Aiturance (QA) require-
ment*. The Company shall validate
the required emission data by per-
forming at least the quality assurance
procedures specified herein. These QA
requirements are considered the mini-
mum necessary to ensure that the
sampling methods employed produce
valid data. The performance criteria
that are established In this section and
that are restated In Table I are consid-
ered both necessary and reasonably
achievable. If. for any reason, a CEMS
system falls to achieve the required
specifications, the CEMS shall be Im-
mediately taken out of service and
s&mpllng with a CB system shall be
Initiated. If. for any reason, a CB
(whlih Is being used while a CEMS Is
out of service) falls to meet the re-
quired specifications, the Company
shall notify the Director of the Divi-
sion of Stationary Source Enforce-
ment (Washington. DC) within 72
hours, as per paragraph (gXSXIv) of
this section. The Company is encour-
aged to supplement these procedures
to Improve the quality of the emission
data obtained.
(I) QA requirements, calculation pro-
cedures, and specification limits for
CEMS At a minimum, the Company
shall conduct the following Initial.
dally, weekly, and quarterly QA eval-
uations of each boiler's CEMS data.
Where designated, the response time
and calibration error test procedures
contained In Reference 2 and the re-
maining performance lest procedures.
Including those for relative accuracy.
of the January 26. 1981 proposed Per-
formance Specifications 2 and 3 (Ref.
1) shall be used.
(A) Daily zero and calibration
checks of the CEMS. Conduct the fol-
lowing zero and calibration drift
40 CM Ch. I (7.141 Edition)
checks of each CEMS at approximate-
ly 24-hour Intervals, and use the equa-
tions provided here to determine If the
CEMS meets the designated drift spec-
ifications. All monitors that have ex-
hibited drift during the previous 24-
hour period must be adjusted Immedi-
ately after the drift checks have been
performed and the results have been
recorded.
) 24-hour zero drift of the SO.
monitor (this test to to be performed
using low range (2-5%) span gas):
Specification llmlU: • 0% of span In any 24-
hour period; 1.0% of span for any three con-
secutive 24-hour period*.
Equation 3
24-hour SOi icro
drift
CEMS.-0.
CEMS.
x 100
where:
CEMS.-monitor zero value (ppm)
O,- cero gu value (ppra)
CEMS.-monitor ipan value (ppm)
(2) 24-hour zero drift of the O. moni-
tor:
Specification llmlU: 2.0% O, In any 24 hour
period; 0.8% O. for any three consecutive
24-hour periods.
24-hour Ot zero
drift
Equation 4
CEMS. O. I x 100
where:
CEMS.-monitor aero value (%O, >
a.=xero gas value (%O.)
(J> 24-hour calibration drift of the
SO. monitor (this test Is to be per-
formed using 85-95% span gas):
Specification limits: 10.0% of span In any
one 24-hour period: 2.5% of span for any
three consecutive 24-hour periods.
Equation 5
24 hour SO.
calibration drift
CEMS. - Q.
CEM.
x 100
where:
CEMS. monitor reading (ppm)
O. calibration gas value (ppm)
CEMS.- monitor span value (ppm)
Environmental Protection Agency
(4) 24-hour calibration drift of the
O. monitor:
Specification limits: 2.0% O. In any one 24-
hour period: 0.6% O. for any three consecu-
tive 24-hour periods.
Equation 6
24-hour O.
calibration drift
CEMS,-O.
x 100
where:
CEM8,-monllor reading (%O.)
O.-calbrallon gas value <%O.)
(B) Daily mid-ranpe checks of the
CEMS. Conduct the following mid-
range calibration checks of each
CEMS after performing the zero and
calibration drift checks. The purpose
for requiring mid-range calibration
checks to to verify CEMS linearity be-
tween the zero and calibration values.
The mid-range calibration checks shall
be conducted at approximately 24-
hour Intervals (or more frequently),
and the equations provided shall be
used to determine If the CEMS meets
the designated specification limits:
24-hour mid-range drift check of the
SO. and the O. monitors (this test to
to be performed using 45-55% span
gas): Specification limits (same for SO.
and O. monitors): 10% of mid-range
gas In any one 24-hour period and
5.0% of mid-range gas In any three
consecutive 24-hour periods.
SO. and O. mid-
range drift
Equation 7
CEMS.
O.
x 100
where:
CEMS. = monitor reading t.
CB)
I x 100
where:
CEMS-8O./O. monitor system reading
(SO.Ib/10'Btu)
CB-CB measurement results (SO. Ib/IO*
Btu)
(D> Initial and quarterly perform-
ance specification tests of CEMS. Ini-
tially and once each three months,
conduct at least one 3-hour relative ac-
curacy test (combined SO. and O.
channels as per Ref erence; 1 >, and a re-
sponse time and calibration error test,
(as per Reference 2). The calculation
procedures provided In References I
and 2 shall also be used.
Specification llmlU:
Relative Accuracy =. ± 20% (maximum per-
cent difference between the CEMS and
the RM data In units of Ib SO./10' Btu)
Response Time- IS minutes
Calibration Error-8.0% (SO. and O. chan-
nels separately)
(E) Unscheduled performance speci-
fication tests of the CEMS. If for any
reason (other than routine mainte-
nance as specified In the Lear Slegler
operating manual) the CEMS to taken
out of service or Its performance Is not
within the specification limits of para-
graph (g>(6) of this section, the Com-
pany shall conduct a complete Per-
formance Specification Test (PST) of
the CEMS, according lo the combined
requirements of References 1 and 2. as
per paragraph (g)(6)(IHD) of this sec-
tion. Whenever a CEMS Is laken out
of service and a supplementary CB
system Is bring used, the CEMS shall
not replace the CB system until such
time that the Company has demon
slraled lhal Ihe performance of the
CEMS Is within all of the performance
limits established by paragraphs
(g)(6XI) (A). (B). (C). and (D) of this
section.
(II) QA requirements, calculation
procrduret, and specification limits
254
255
-------
J 40.47
for CB tyttenu. At a minimum, the
Company shall conduct the following
Initial, weekly, and quarterly QA eval-
uations of a/I CB systems that are
belnf used:
< I) For any quality assurance evalua-
tions of a CEM8; and
(2) Ss the secondary compliance
method when a CEMS Is out of serv-
ice. If a CB system does not meet
these specifications, then:
(1) The CB must Immediately be
taken out of service;
(2) The Company must notify the
Director, Division of Stationary
Source Enforcement (Washington,
DC) within 72 hours after this deter-
mination Is made; and
(3) The Company will be considered
In violation of the provisions of the
waiver until an acceptable monitoring
method Is Initiated (see paragraph
(gXSXIII) of this section).
(A) Initial and weekly mid-range
calibration checkt of the CB lyitem.
Calibration checks of the CB system.
using mixed 8O./CO. mid-range cali-
bration gas, shall be performed Initial-
ly and at least once each week thereaf-
ter. The calibration gas shall be sam-
pled by the CB system for no leas than
2 hours at a flow rale approximately
the same as used during emission sam-
pling. The following equation shall be
used to determine If the CB meets the
designated mid-range calibration speci-
fication limit.
Specification limit: ld.0% (maximum per-
cent difference between CH value and mid
ranee *u value).
Equation f
Percent difference
(CB M calibration
cast
CB
(I.
xlOO
where:
CR -bubbler value (SO. !»•/10* Blul
Q.. mined RO./CO, mM taiise calibration
•as valur (SO. Ib/IO'BUK
(B> Initial and quarterly relative ac-
curacy trtts of the CB system*. Oper-
ate at least one of the CB systems
used during the quarter for a 3-hour
period. During the same three hour
period, collect at least one paired set
of Reference Method 3 and 6 camples.
Each paired set shall consist of at least
40 CM Ch. I (7-141 Mitten)
three to six 20-90 minute consecutive
("bark-to back") runs. The following
equation shall be used to determine If
the CB meets the designated relative
accuracy specifications limit.
CB Specification limit: 10.0% (maximum
percent difference between CB value and
and RM value).
Equation 10
Percent difference (CB I CB
"•""' fe
xlOO
where:
CB-bubbler value (SO. Ib/IO'Btu)
RM-average value of the paired Reference
Method 1 and • run* (SO. Ib/IO- Blu)
Oil) QA requirement* and ipecifica-
tion limit for calibration pates. All
calibration gases used for dally,
weekly, or quarterly calibration drift
checks. CB calibration checks and per-
formance specification tests shall be
analyzed following EPA Tract-ability
Protocol No. I (see reference 4) or
with Method 3 or «. If Method 3 or 0 Is
used, do the following. Within two
weeks prior to Its use on a CEMS. per-
form triplicate analyses of the cylin-
der gas with the applicable reference
method until the results of three con-
secutive Individual runs agree within
10 percent of the average. Then use
this average for the cylinder gas con-
centration.
(Iv) Qualify assurance- checkt for lab-
oratory analysis. Each day that the
Company conducts Reference Method
6 or CB laboratory analyses, at least
two SO! audit samples shall be ana-
lyzed concurrently, by the same per-
sonnel, and In the name manner as the
Company uses when analyzing Its
dally emission samples. Audit samples
must be obtained from EPA. The fol-
lowing equation shall be used to calcu-
late the designated specification limit
to determine If the Company's labora-
tory analysis procedures are adequate.
Analysis ipeclf(cation limit (for each of
two audit samples): 5% '(maximum percent
difference between laboratory value and (he
averase of (he actual valur ol the audit
samples).
r
Percent difference
(laboratory vs.
actual)
rrs)ffwclloft Afj •ncy
Equation II
8LV
8AV
-I
where:
8LV-laboratory value (mg/D8CM> of the
audit sample
8AV- actual value (mg/DSCM) of the audit
•ample
(v) QA requirement*, calculation
procedure*, and specification limits
for 21-hour fuel tampllnp and analy-
sts. At a minimum, the Company shall
conduct the following bi-weekly QA
evaluations of each boiler's fuel sam-
pling and analysis data.
(A) Initially and at least bi-weekly
the Company (or Its own contractor
laboratory) shall prepare and split a
60 mesh (260 micron) sample of coal
(24-hour composite) with an Independ-
ent laboratory. The Company shall
compare the in ''•pendent laboratory'*
heal content
PAY-reference value (Btu/lb)
(vl) The use of more than the mint-
mum Quantifies o/ data to calculate
the QA speci/icafions. Whenever lh«
Company supplement*, expand*, or
otherwise obtains more than the mini-
mum amount of QA data required by
. paragraph of this sec-
tion.
(B) Documentation thai the Compa-
ny acquired at leasl the minimum
quantity and quality of valid emission
data specified In paragraph (gX3> of
this section.
(C) Documentation that the Compa-
ny performed al least the minimum
quality assurance checks specified In
paragraph (gK6) of this waiver; and
(D) Timely and adequate reporting
of all data specified In paragraph
(gX8) of this section.
Failure to meet any of Ihese require-
ments constitutes a violation of this
waiver.
(II) SO. emissions rate data from In-
dividual boilers shall be obtained by
Ihe primary compliance lest method
(CEMS), by the secondary compliance
tesl method (CB). or other methods
approved by the Administrator. Data
for Ihe heal Input determination shall
be obtained by 24-hour as-fired fuel
analysis and 24-hour coal feed rate
measurements, or other methods ap-
proved by the Administrator. Compll
256
257
-------
|«0.47
ance with all SO. emission limitations
shall be determined In accordance
with the calculation procedures set
forth In paragraph (g>(5) of this sec-
tion or other procedures approved by
the Administrator. The Company
must demonstrate compliance with all
3-hour, 24-hour, and 30-day SO, emis-
sion limitations during all periods of
fuel combustion In one or more boilers
(beginning with the effective date of
the waiver), and Including all periods
of process start-up, shutdown, and
malfunction.
(Ill) If the minimum quantity or
quality of emission data (required by
paragraph (g) of this section) were not
obtained, compliance of the affected
fftclllly with the emission require-
ments specified In this waiver may be
determined by the Administrator
using all available data which Is
deemed relevant.
(Iv) For the purpose of demonstrat-
ing compliance with the emission limi-
tations and data requirements of this
waiver:
(A) "A day" (24 hour period) begins
at 12:01 p.m. and ends at 12:00 noon
the following day. The Company may
select an alternate designation for the
beginning and end of the 24-hour day.
However, the Agency must be notified
of any alternate designation of a
"day" and must be maintained
throughout the waiver period. Also.
for the purpose of reporting, each day
shall be designated by the calendar
dale corresponding with the beginning
of the 24 hour period:
(B) Where concurrent 24-hour data
averages are required (I.e.. coal feed
rate, fuel sampling/analysis. SO, tons/
24 hours, and SO, Ib/IO" Blu). the des-
ignated 24-hour period comprising a
day shall be consistent for all such
averages arid measurement data: and
(C) There are eight discrete 3-hour
averaging periods during each day.
(8) Notification and reporting ee-
quirements (i) Noliflcalion: The
Company shall provide at least 30 days
notice to the Director. Division of Sta-
tionary Source Enforcement (Wash-
ington. DC) of any forthcoming quar-
terly CEMS Performance Specifica-
tion Tests and CR accuracy tests.
(II) Quarterly Compliance and Moni-
toring Assessment Report require-
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-M Edition)
ments: The Company shall submit to
the Director. Division of Stationary
Source Enforcement (Washington,
DC) "hard copy" quarterly reports
that present compliance data and rele-
vant monitoring and process data (e.g.,
process output rate, heat Input rate,
monitoring performance, and quality
assurance) acquired during the report-
ing period. Quarterly reports shall be
postmarked no later than 30 days
after the completion of every (whole
or partial) calendar quarter during
which the waiver Is In effect.
Nora: These requirement* do not replace
or preclude the "Unscheduled Reporting
Requirement*" contained In paragraph
((MIMIII) of Ihli section.
The following specific Information
shall be furnished for every calendar
day:
(A) General information. (/) Calen-
dar date;
(2) The method(s). Including descrip-
tion, used to determine the 24-hour
heat Input to each boiler (In units of
Btu/hour);
(J) The "F" factor(s) used for all ap-
plicable calculations, the method of Its
determination, and the type of fuel
burned;
(B) Emitiion data. (J> Combined
(Units Nos. 1. 2. and 3) 24-hour aver-
age SO. emission rate (In units of Ib/
MMBtu):
(2) Combined (Units Nos. 1. 2 and 3)
rolling 30-day average SO, emission
rale (In units of Ib/MMBtu);
(J) Combined (Units Nos. 1. 2. and 3)
3-hour average emission rates (in units
of tons SO,):
(4) Combined (Units Nos. 1. 2. and 3)
24-hour average emission rates (In
units of tons SO.);
(5) Combined (Units Nos. 1 and 2) 3
hour average emission rates (in units
of tons SO,): and
(6) Combined (Units Nos. 1 and 2)
24-hour average emission rates (In
units of tons SO,).
Quality assurance check data.
(I) The date and summary of results
from all (initial and repetitions) of the
quality assurance checks performed
during the quarter. This Includes all
analytical results on EPA's SO, and
coal audit samples.
Environmental Protection Agency
(2) Description^) of any
modification^) made to the CEMS or
CB which could affect the ability of
those systems to comply with the per-
formance specifications In References
1 and 2. or the CB performance speci-
fications established by section (g) of
this waiver.
(D) Atypical operation*. (I) Identifi-
cation of specific periods during the
calendar quarter when each boiler was
not combusting fuel;
(2) Periods of time when 3-hour, 24-
hour, and/or 30-day averages were ob-
tained using continuous bubbler data:
(J) All emission averages which have
been calculated using a composite of
two or more different sampling meth-
ods (I.e., periods when both CEMS and
CB systems have been used) must be
Identified by designating all
duratlon(s) and cause(s) of data loss
during such periods;
(4) For each Instance when a CEMS
has been out of service, the Company
shall designate:
«> Time. date, duration;
(«) Reason for such downtime;
(iii) Corrective action taken:
(ii>> Duration before CB sampling
began;
(v> Time. date, and performance
specification test (summary) results
acquired before CEMS returned to
service; and
(i>O Time and date when CEMS ac-
tually returned to service, relative to
terminating CB sampling.
(S> Where only a portion of continu-
ous data from any averaging perlod(s)
was obtained, the duration per averag-
ing perlod(s) when data were acquired
and were used to calculate the emis-
sion average(s) must be Identified;
<«) If the required quantity or qual-
ity of emission data (as per paragraph
(g) of this section) were not obtained
for any averaging perlod(s). the fol-
lowing Information must also be re-
ported for each affected boiler. (See
also Unscheduled Reporting Require-
ments, paragraph (gM7>(lv) of this sec-
tion:
(i) Reason for failure to acquire suf-
ficient data;
(ii) Corrective action taken;
(it)) Characteristics (percent sulfur,
ash content, healing value, and mois-
ture) of the fuel burned;
§60.47
(D) Fuel feed rates and steam pro-
duction rales;
(t>i> All emission and quality assur-
ance data available from this quarter;
and
(tili) Statement (signed by a respon-
sible Company official) Indicating If
any changes were made In the oper-
ation of the boiler or any measure- •
ment change (±20 percent) from the ,|
previous averaging period) In the type •
of fuel or firing rate during such
period.
(E> Company certifications. The
Company shall submit a statement
(signed by a responsible Company offi-
cial) Indicating:
(1) Whether or not the QA require-
ments of this waiver for the CEMs.
CB. and fuel sampling/analysis meth-
ods, or other periodic audits, have
been performed In accordance with
the provisions of this waiver:
(2) Whether or not the data used to
determine compliance was obtained In
accordance with the method and pro-
cedures required by this waiver. In-
cluding the results of the quality as-
surance checks;
(31 Whether or not the data require-
ments have been met or. If the mini-
mum data requirements have not been
met due to errors that were unavoid-
able (attach explanation):
(4) Whether or not compliance with
all of the emission standards estab-
lished by this waiver have been
achieved during the reporting period.
(Ill) Unscheduled reporting require-
ments. The Company shall submit to
the Director. Division of Stationary
Source Enforcement (Washington.
DC).
(A) Complete results of all CEMS
performance specification tests within
45 days after the Initiation of such
tests:
(B) The Company shall report.
within 72 hours, each Instance of:
(/) Failure to maintain the combined
(Units Nos. 1. 2. and 3 and Units Nos. 1
and 2. respectively) SO, emission rates
below the emission limitations pre-
scribed In section (e) of this waiver:
(2) Failure lo acquire the specified
minimum quantity of valid emission
data: and
(J) Failure of the Company's Cf)(s>
to meet the quality assurance checks.
258
259
-------
JW.4T
I. Standards of Performance for New Sta-
tionery Source*: Revisions to General Provl-
•Ion* and Additions to Appendix A. and Re-
piopuml of Revisions tu Appendix B. 40 FR
6162 (January M. 1031).
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-M Edition)
torlnc Performance Specifications 44 FR
MM2 lOctober 10. 1*791.
3. 40 CFR Part 60. Appendix A (July I.
1070).
4. Qualify Anuranct Handbook for Air
Pollution Measurement Svitemi. Volume
I. Proponed Standards of Performance for III. Stationary Source Specific Methods
New Stationary Sources, Continuous Monl EPA-600/4-77-027b. August IB77.
TAOIE l-ncoumED Prm-'j'tMtNCE CmrEMA ran OUMJTV ASSUHANCE (QA) EVAIUATIONS
mutton
ecus
ecus
ecus
ecus
ecus
ecus
ecus
ecus
ecus
CEMS
ecus*
CEMS
CEUS
CfUS
(fUS
ca
ca
Icbuotoiy
•oquoncy
Dvt,
DO*,
o*,
(My
(My
My
WMMy'
Molond
qu.rt.rty
InMlxd
qutrWrty
kiMond
qumrty
InMlondbi
Out,
'ft*** to iix-ol Kn fptotufcon toquici
CEUS null b> Moil oul o> MKVKO
OA chock
24 how ion dnn SOi
24 how <«o dri* (X
24 how IvodXlO.
24 how coM»t*on oWI
0,
24 how uttnMn OXH
a
24 haul ircdrona*
chK* (SO.OS.,1
24 how nwffftngo
dwc* ISO.OtJ
occwccy*
ISCvo, ...*•««
24 how c4Mj>MOn (Ml
(SO. •«* O, > COJ
COJ
A«talM« accuracy
ISO, 'CO, ci*j.-n<<
SpM vAn*** .ys.wy.it
•flt«V*r*
•nttyt*
BptCafsCtMaDn wfHH
fODOrowtlpMl
SOaMCMlpM.
tlooieonljMn
I00*vo»nlip«n
B] nmmn. .
20»«CMO.
05p4>conia
fOpweorta -
an veto
gn vduo
so* nrfuo
IS mnu*M
2 S fooonl ipon
90« vihM
100 p«c
CMoutollorl
P>OC«OWO>
E(juoSon4
Equolnn4
EquotanS
EquMonI
EquoMnS
equMon r
Cquosonr
1
2
Soo Rotoronco
2
SwRotwonc*
1
FquMan II
EquoDon 11
•w hm to b* fopMUd on* Kmo • In ta« dgtwiioM FOMIL Fun.
FIRED COMBUSTION Sonic r« <<:ONTIMU
ons RuR>i.r* MITIIOO)
(NOTE The Company may MM- I hi- method
or Its inodifk-atlons which II desslcanl. 6 mesh.
3.1.2 Aacarlle. Sodium hydroxide coaled
asbestos for absorption of CO.. 6 to 20 mesh.
• 3.2 Sample Recovery and Analysis. The
reagents needed for sample recovery and
analysis are the same aa for Method 6. Sec-
tions 3.2 and 3.3. respectively.
4. Preparation o/Collection Train.
Measure 75 ml. of 60 percent IPA Into the
first Implnger and 7» ml. of IP percent hy-
drogen peroxide Into each of the remaining
Implngen. Into one of the absorption tubes
place a one-hole stopper and glass wool plug
In the end and add ISO to 200 grams of
drlerlte to the tube. As the drlerlte to added
shake the tube to evenly pack the absorb-
ent. Cap the tube with another plug of glaas
wool and a one-hold stopper (use this end a*
the Inlet for even flow). The ascartte lube to
filled In a similar manner, using 160-111
grams of ascarlte. Clean and dry the outside
of the ascarlte tube and weigh (at room
temperalue. 20 degree* Cl to the nearest O.I
gram. Record this Initial mass aa M* As-
semble the train as shown In Figure I.
Adjust the probe heater to a temperature
sufficient to prevent water condensation.
4 I.I Sampling. The bubbler shall be op-
erated continuously at a sampling rate suffi-
cient to collect 70-60 liters of source efflu-
ent during the desired sampling period. For
(•0.47
example, a sampling rate of O.M liter/mm.
to sufficient for a 24-hour average and 0.40
liter per minute for a 3-hour average. The
sampling rate shall not. however, exceed 1.0
llter/mln.
4.3 Sample Recovery.
4.3.1 Peroxide Solution. Pour the con-
tents of the second and third Implngers Into
a leak-free polyethylene bottle for storage
or shipping. Rinse the two Implngen and.
connecting tubing with detonlzed distilled]1
water, and add the washings to the same
storage container.
4.3.3 Ascarlte Tube. Allow the ascarlte
tube to equilibrate with room temperature
(about 10 minutes), clean and dry the out-
aide. and weigh to the nearest O.lg In the
same manner as In Section 4.1.1. Record this
final mass (M.,) and discard the used aecar-
lle.
4.3 Sample Analysis. The sample analysis
procedure for SO, to Ihe same as specified In
Method 0. Section 4.3.
6 Calculation!.
6.1 SO, mass collected.
M,.- 33.03 (V. V»INV«.V.
Equation Al- 1
Where:
M_-maao of SO. collected, mg
V,- volume of barium perchlorate tltrant
used for Ihe sample, ml (average of rep-
licate Mirations).
V,- volume of barium perchlorate tltrant
used for the Wank. ml.
N- normality of barium perchlorate tltrant.
mllltequlvalenU/ml
V.M.- total volume of solution In which the
sulfur dioxide sample Is contained, ml.
V.^ volume of sample aliquot titrated, ml.
6.3 Sulfur dioxide emission rate
M..II
Equation All
Where:
M.- Initial mass of ascarlte. grams.
MM- final mass of ascarlle. grams.
E^, ^Emission rate of SO.. ng/J (Ib/
MMBtu).
P. -Carbon P factor for the fuel burned.
M VJ. from Method 19 (Ref. 21
K'= 1.620x10*
260
261
-------
*0 4Aa
40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
MCUHI |
COMINOIIOUS IIHHIF* (so/™! s*Nn INC TMIN
INOII Se« SMI ion (|K»(ii| '«' •et«pi»bl« vodilic tl ion> nl ihr
Swbpart Do—Standard* *f Paris
one* far EUctric Utility Steam
Generatinj Units far Which Can-
•traction It Commenced Aftar
September It. 1971
Bounce 44 FR 33813. June II. 1979. unless
othervlse noted.
lie 4*. A»»llr.MIUy .nd •t.iftn.llon of
effectce* facility.
(a) The affected facility to which
this subpart applies Is each electric
utility steam generating unit:
That Is capable of combusting
more than 73 megawatts (250 million
Btu/hour) heal Input of fossil fuel
(either alone or In combination with
any other fuel): and
262
Environmental Protection Agency
§*0.41a
(2) For which < (instruction or modi-
fication Is commenced after Septem-
ber 18. 1078.
(b) This subpart applies to electric
utility combined cycle gas turbines
that are capable of combusting more
than 73 megawatts (250 million Blu/
hour) heat Input of fossil fuel In the
steam generator. Only emissions re-
sulting from combustion of fuels In
the steam generating unit are subject
to this subpart. (The gas turbine emis-
sions are subject to Subpart GO.)
75 ng/J (0.17 Ib/mllllon Btu)
heat Input for liquid fuels.
(b) For sulfur dioxide Is determined
under 160 48a(b>.
(c) For nitrogen oxides Is:
(I) 200 ng/J (0.67 Ib/mllllon Utu)
heat Input for gaseous fuels:
(2) 310 ng/J (0.72 Ib/mllllon Btu)
heat Input for liquid fuels: and
(3) 000 ng/J (2.30 Ib/mllllon Btu)
heat Input for solid fuels.
"Combined cycle go* turbine" means
a stationary turbine combustion
system where heat from the turbine
exhaust gases Is recovered by a steam
generating unit.
"Interconnected" means that two or
more electric generating units are elec-
trically tied together by a network of
power transmission lines, and other
power transmission equipment.
"Electric utility company" means
the largest Interconnected organiza-
tion, business, or governmental entity
that generales electric power for sale
(e.g., a holding company with operat
Ing subsidiary companies).
"Principal company" means the
eleclrlc utility company or companies
which own the affected facility.
263
-------
|«0.4t«
••Neighboring company" means any
one of those electric utility companies
with one or more electric power Inter-
connections to the principal company
and which have geographically adjoin
Ing service areas.
•Net intern capacity" means the
sum of the net electric generating ca-
pability (not necessarily equal to rated
opacity) of all electric generating
equipment owned by an electric utility
company < Including steam generating
units. Internal combustion engines, gas
turbines, nuclear units, hydroelectric
units, and all other electric generating
equipment) plus firm contractual pur-
chases that are Interconnected to the
affected facility that has the malfunc-
tioning Hue gas desulfurlzatlon
syitem. The electric generating capa-
bility of equipment under multiple
ownership Is prorated based on owner-
ship unless the proportional entitle-
ment to electric output Is otherwise es-
tablished by contractual arrangement.
"Syitem load" means the entire elec-
tric demand of an electric utility com-
pany's service area Interconnected
with the affected facility that has the
malfunctioning flue gas desulfurlza-
tlon system plus firm contractual sales
to other electric utility companies.
Sales to other electric utility compa-
nies (e.g., emergency power) not on a
firm contractual basis may also be In-
cluded In the system load when no
available system capacity exists In the
electric utility company to which the
power Is supplied for sale.
"Syttem emergency reserve*" means
an amount of electric generating ca-
pacity equivalent to the rated capacity
of the single largest electric generat-
ing unit In the electric utility company
(Including steam generating units. In-
ternal combustion engines, gas tur-
bines, nuclear units, hydroelectric
units, and all ol her electric generating
equipment) which Is Interconnected
with the affected facility that has the
malfunctioning flue gas desulfurlza-
tlon system. The electric generating
capability of equipment under multi-
ple ownership Is prorated based on
ownership unless the proportional en-
titlement t The rated capacity of the power
transmission lines between the power
Interconnection devices and the elec-
tric generating units (the unit In the
principal company that has the mal-
functioning flue gas desulfurlzatlon
system and the unll(s) In the neigh-
boring company supplying replace-
ment electrical power) less the electric
power load on these transmission
lines.
"Spare flue gat de$ulfurization
$yitem module" means a separate
system of sulfur dioxide emission con-
trol equipment capable of treating an
amount of flue gas equal to the total
amount of flue gas generated by an af-
fected facility when operated at maxi-
mum capacity divided by the total
number of nonspare flue gas desulfurl-
zatlon modules In the system.
"Emergency condition" means that
period of time when:
(a) The electric generation output of
an affected facility with a malfunc-
tioning flue gas desulfurlzatlon system
cannot be reduced or electrical output
must be Increased because:
(I) All available system capacity In
the principal company Interconnected
with the affected facility Is being oper
atcd. and
264
tnvlr*mn«nt«l
§«0.41sj
(3) All available purchase power
Interconnected with the affected facil-
ity Is being obtained, or
(b) The electric generation demand
to being shifted as quickly aa possible
from an affected facility with a mal-
functioning flue gas desulfurbtatlon
system to one or more electrical gener-
ating unlU held In reserve by the prin-
cipal company or by a neighboring
company, or
(c) An affected facility with a mal-
functioning flue gas desulfurlzatlon
system becomes the only available
unit to maintain a part or all of the
principal company's system emergency
reserves and the unit to operated In
spinning reserve at the lowest practi-
cal electric generation load consistent
with not causing significant physical
damage to the unit. If the unit to oper-
ated at a higher load to meet toad
demand, an emergency condition
would not exist unless the conditions
under (a) of this definition apply.
"Electric utility combined cycle fat
turbine" means any combined cycle
gas turbine used for electric genera-
tion that to constructed for the pur-
pose of supplying more than one-third
of Its potential electric output capac-
ity and more than 2S MW electrical
output to any utility power distribu-
tion system for sale. Any steam distri-
bution system that to constructed for
the purpose of providing steam to a
steam electric generator that would
produce electrical power for sale to
also considered In determining the
electrical energy output capacity of
the affected facility.
"Potential electrical output capac-
ity" to defined as 33 percent of the
maximum design heat Input capacity
of the steam generating unit (e.g.. a
steam generating unit with a 100-MW
(340 million Btu/hr) fossil-fuel heal
Input capacity would have a 33-MW
potential electrical output capacity).
For electric utility combined cycle gas
turbines the potential electrical
output capacity Is determined on the
basis of the fossil-fuel firing capacity
of the steam generator exclusive of
the heal input and electrical power
contribution by the gas turbine.
"Anthracite" means coal that to clas-
sified as anthracite according to the
American Society of Testing and Ma-
terials' (ASTM) Standard Specifica-
tion for Classification of Coals by
Rank O3M-77 (Incorporated by refer-
ence-see |M.I7>.
"Solid derived fuer means any solid,
liquid, or gaseous fuel derived from
solid fuel for the purpose of creating
useful heat and Includes, but to not
limited to. solvent refined coal, liqui-
fied coal, and gasified coal. it
"H-Hour period" means the period
of time between 13:01 a.m. and 13:00
midnight.
"Retource recovery unit" means a fa-
cility that combusts more than 75 per-
cent non-fossil fuel on a quarterly (cal-
endar) heat Input basis.
"JvYmconftaentof area" means the
State of Hawaii, the Virgin Islands.
Guam, American Samoa, the Com-
monwealth of Puerto Rico, or the
Northern Mariana Islands.
"Boiler operating day" means a 34-
hour period during which fossil fuel to
combusted In a steam generating unit
for the entire 34 hours.
(«« FR (Mil. June II. int. as amended st
«g m rm. Jan. 21. itaii
• *t.43a Standard for s*rtlr«lale muUtr.
(a) On and after the date on which
the performance teat required to be
conducted under |«0.g to completed.
no owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall cause
to be discharged Into the atmosphere
from any affected facility any gases
which contain partlculale matter In
excess of:
(I) 13 ng/J (0.03 Ib/mlllkm Btu)
heat Input derived from the combus-
tion of solid, liquid, or gaseous fuel;
(3) 1 percent of the potential com-
bustion concentration (9* percent re-
duction) when combusting solid fuel:
and
(3) SO percent of potential combus-
tion concentration (70 percent reduc-
tion) when combusting liquid fuel.
(b) On and after the date the partlc-
ulale matter performance test re-
quired to be conducted under 1W.g Is
completed, no owner or operator sub-
ject to the provisions of this subpart
shall cause to be discharged Into the
atmosphere from nny affected facility
any gases which exhibit greater than
20 percent opacity (6 minute average).
265
-------
9*0.49*
except for one 6 minute period per
hour of not more than 27 percent
opacity.
I M.43a Standard for sulfur dioxide.
(a) On and after the date on which
the Initial performance test required
to be conducted under I 60.8 Is com-
pleted, no owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
cause to be discharged Into the atmos-
phere from any affected facility which
combusts solid fuel or solid-derived
fuel, except as provided under para-
graphs (c), (d). (f> or (h) of this sec-
tion, any gases which contain sulfur
dioxide In excess of:
(1) 520 ng/J (1.20 Ib/mllllon Btu)
heat Input and 10 percent of the po-
tential combustion concentration (90
percent reduction), or
(2) 30 percent of the potential com-
bustion concentration (70 percent re-
duction), when emissions arc less than
260 ng/J (0.60 Ib/mllllon Btu) heat
Input.
On and after the date on which
the Initial performance lest required
to be conducted under | 60.8 Is com-
pleted, no owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
cause to be discharged Into the atmos-
phere from any affected facility which
combusts liquid or gaseous fuels
iexcept for liquid or gaseous fuels de-
rive! from solid fuels and as provided
under paragraphs (e) or (h> of this sec-
tion), any gases which contain sulfur
dioxide In excess of:
(I) 340 ng/J (080 Ib/mllllon Btu)
heat Input and 10 percent of the po-
tential combustion concentration (90
percent reduction), or
(2) 100 percent of the potential com-
bustion concentration (zero percent re-
duction) when emissions are less than
86 ng/J (020 Ib/mllllon Btu) heat
Input.
(c) On and after the date on which
the Initial performance lest required
to be conducted under { 60.8 Is com-
plete, no owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
cause to be discharged Into the atmos-
phere from any affected facility which
combusts solid solvent refined coal
(SKC I) any gasrs which contain
sulfur dioxide in excess of 520 nK/J
(1.20 Ib/million Bin) heal Input and 15
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-M Edition)
percent of the potential combustion
concentration (85 percent reduction)
except as provided under paragraph
(f) of this section; compliance with the
emission limitation Is determined on a
30-day rolling average basis and com-
pliance with the percent reduction re-
quirement Is determined on a 24-hour
basis.
(d) Sulfur dioxide emissions are lim-
ited to 520 ng/J (1.20 Ib/mllllon Btu)
heat Input from any affected facility
which:
(1) Combusts 100 percent anthracite,
(2) Is classified as a resource recov-
ery facility, or
(3) Is located In a noncontlnental
area and combusts solid fuel or solid-
derived fuel.
(e) Sulfur dioxide emissions are lim-
ited to 340 ng/J (0.80 Ib/mllllon Btu)
heat Input from any affected facility
which la located In a noncontlnental
area and combusts liquid or gaseous
fuels (excluding solid-derived fuels).
(f) The emission reduction require-
ments under this section do not apply
to any affected facility that Is operat-
ed under an SO, commercial demon-
stration permit Issued by the Adminis-
trator In accordance with the provi-
sions of I 60.45a.
(g) Compliance with the emission
limitation and percent reduction re-
quirement* under this section are both
determined on a 30-day rolling average
basis except as provided under para-
graph (c) of this section*
(h) When different fuels are com-
busted simultaneously, the applicable
standard la determined by proratlon
using the following formula:
(I) If emissions of sulfur dioxide to
the atmosphere are greater than 260
ng/J (0.60 Ib/mllllon Blu> heat Input
E». = 1340 x + 520 yl/100 and
P.O. = 10 percent
(2) If emissions of sulfur dioxide to
the atmosphere are equal to or less
than 260 ng/J (0.60 Ib/mllllon Btu)
heat Input:
£„„ - 1340 x i 520 y 1/100 »nd
Pv,. 190 x i 70y)/IOO
where:
fc,,., is the prorated sulfur dioxide emission
limit (tiK/J heal Input).
266
Environmental Protection Afjoncy
P.O. Is the percentage of potential sulfur di-
oxide emission allowed (percent reduc-
tion required = 100 PIOI).
x to the percentage of total heat Input de-
rived from the combustion of liquid or
gaseous fuels (excluding solid-derived
fuels)
jr Is the percentage of total heat Input de-
rived from the combustion of solid fuel
(Including solid derived fuels)
I M.44a Standard for nitrogen oxMei.
(a) On and after the date on which
the Initial performance test required
to be conducted under 160.8 la com-
pleted, no owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
cause to be discharged Into the atmos-
phere from any affected facility,
except as provided under paragraph
(b) of this section, any gases which
contain nitrogen oxides In excess of
the following emission HmlU, baaed on
a 30-day rolling average.
(1) NO. emission limits.
9«0.45o
Fuaiixpa
Gaaaoua hiahv
CoatdanMdkialt
Alolhafluatl
liquid IM*
Coal4la
-------
5 «0 47*
sulfur dioxide emissions arc only mon-
itored M discharged to the almoa-
phere.
(3) An "as fired" fuel monitoring
system (upatream of coal pulverizers)
meeting the requirements of Method
10 (Appendix A) may be used to deter-
mine potential sulfur dioxide emis-
sions In place of a continuous sulfur
dloxlile emission monitor at the Inlet
to the sulfur dioxide control device as
required under paragraph (b)(l) of
this section.
The continuous monitoring sys-
tems under paragraphs (b>. (c). and (d)
of this section are operated and data
recorded during all periods of oper-
ation of the affected facility Including
periods of startup, shutdown, malfunc-
tion or emergency conditions, except
fur continuous monitoring system
breakdowns. repairs. calibration
checks, and zero and span adjust-
ments.
(f) When emission data are not ob-
tained because of continuous monitor-
ing system breakdowns, repairs, call
brallon checks and zero and span ad-
justments, emission data will be ob-
tained by using other monitoring sys-
tems as approved by the Administra-
tor 01 the reference methods as de-
dcilbtd In paragraph of this sec-
tion to provide emission data for a
minimum of 18 hours in at least 22 out
of 30 successive boiler operating days.
The I hour averages required
under paragraph |60.l3(h> are ex-
pressed In ng/J (Ibs/mlllion Btu) heat
Input and used to calculate the aver-
age emission rales under i 60.46a. The
I hour averages arc calculated using
the data points required under
40 CM Ch. I (7-1-18 Edition)
|60.13(b). At least two data points
must be used to calculate the 1-hour
averages.
(h) Methods used to supplement
continuous emission monitoring
system data to meet the minimum
data requirements In 160.47a(f > will be
used aa specified below or as otherwise
approved by the Administrator.
(1) Methods 3 or 3A, 6 or 6C and 7.
7A. 1C. 7D or 7E as applicable, are
used. Method 0A or 6B may be used
whenever Methods 6 and 3 data are re-
quired to determine the SOi emission
rate In ng/J. Methods 3A. 6C. and 7E
are used only at the sole discretion of
the source owner or operator. The
sampling locatlon(s) are the same as
those specified for the continuous
emission monitoring system.
(2) For Method 0 or 6A. the mini-
mum sampling Is 20 minutes and the
minimum sampling volume Is 0.02
dam'<0.71 dscf) for each sample. Sam-
ples are collected at approximately 60-
mlnute Intervals. Each sample repre-
sents a I-hour average. Method OB
shall be operated for 24 hours per
sample, and the minimum sample
volume Is 0.02 dsm'(0.71 dscf) for each
sample. Each Method 6b sample repre-
sents 24 I-hour averages.
(3) For Method 7 or 7A, samples are
taken at approximately 30-mlnute In-
tervals. The arithmetic average of
these two consectlve samples represent
a 1-hour average. For Method 7C or
7O, each run shall consist of a 1-hour
sample.
(4) For Method 3, the oxygen or
carbon dioxide sample Is to be taken
for each hour when continuous SO,
and NO, data are taken or when
Methods 6 or 6C and 7. 7A. 7C. 7D, or
7E are required. Each sample shall be
taken for a minimum of 30 minutes In
each hour using the Integrated bag
method specified In Method 3. Each
sample represents a 1-hour average.
(5) For each 1-hour average, the
emissions expressed In ng/J (Ib/mll-
llon Btu) heal Input are determined
and used as needed to achieve the min-
imum data requirements of paragraph
(f) of this section.
(!) The following procedures are
used to conduct monitoring system
performance evaluations under
Environmental Prelection Agency
| 60.13(c) and calibration checks under
|60.13 of this section for
burning combinations of fossil fuels
are rounded to the nearest 500 ppm.
(5) For affected facilities burning
fossil fuel, alone or In combination
with non-fossil fuel, the span value of
the sulfur dioxide continuous monitor-
Ing system at the Inlet to the sulfur di-
oxide control device Is 125 percent of
the maximum estimated hourly poten-
tial emissions of the fuel fired, and the
outlet of the sulfur dioxide control
device Is SO percent of maximum esti-
mated hourly potential emissions of
the fuel fired.
(44 PR 33013. June II. 1979. as amended at
47 PR 54075. Dec. I. 1982; SI FR 21188. June
II. 1986; 52 PR 21007. June 4. 19871
§ 60.48.
IM.48* rxHitpllmec determination proce-
dure! and method*.
(a) The following procedures and
reference methods are used to deter-
mine compliance with the standards
for partlculate matter under I 00.42a.
(1) Method 3 Is used for gas analysis
when applying Method 5. 5B, or 17.
(2) Method 5. SB. or 17 la used for
determining partlculate matter emis-
sions and associated moisture content
as follows: Method 6 Is to be used at
affected facilities without wet FOD
systems; Method SB Is to be used only
after wet POD systems; and Method
17 may be used at facilities with or
without wet POD systems provided
that the slack gaa temperature at the
sampling location does not exceed a
temperature of 100 'C (320 *F>. The
procedures of sections 2.1 and 2.3 of
Method 5B may be used In Method 17
only If It Is used after wet FOD sys-
tems. Do not use Method 17 after wet
FOD systems If the effluent la saturat-
ed or laden with water droplets.
(3) For Method 5. 5B. or 17. Method
1 Is used to select the sampling site
and the number of traverse sampling
points. The sampling time for each
run Is at least 120 minutes and the
minimum sampling volume la 1.7 dscm
(60 dscf) except that smaller sampling
times or volumes, when necessitated
by process variables or other factors,
may be approved by the Administra-
tor.
(4) For Method 5 or SB the probe
and filter holder healing system In the
sampling train Is set to provide an av-
erage gas temperature of 160 *C (320
•F).
(5) For determination of parllculate
emissions, the oxygen or carbon diox-
ide sample Is obtained simultaneously
with each run of Method 5. SB. or 17
by traversing the duel al the same
sampling location. Method 1 Is used
for selection of the number of oxygen
or carbon dioxide traverse points
excepl that no more than 12 sample
points are required.
(6) For each run using Method 5. SB.
or 17. the emission rate expressed In
ng/J heat Input Is determined using
the oxygen or carbon-dioxide measure
merits and participate matter meas-
urements obtained under this section.
270
271
-------
I 49.49 m
the dry baste PC factor and the dry
bMte emtoilon rate calculation proce-
dure contained In Method 19 (Appen-
dix A).
(b) The following procedures and
method* are used to determine compli-
ance with the sulfur dioxide standards
under I 60.43a.
(I) Determine the percent of poten-
tial combustion concentration (percent
PCC) emitted to the atmosphere as
follows:
(I) Fuel pretreatment <% K,l Deter-
mine the percent redurtlon achieved
by any fuel pretrealmrnl using the
procedures In Method 19 (Appendix
A). Calculate the average percent re-
duction for fuel pretreatment on a
quarterly basis using fuel analysis
data. The determination of percent R,
to calculate the percent of potential
combustion concentration emitted to
the atmosphere Is optional. For pur-
poses of determining compliance with
any percent reduction requirements
under 160.43a. any reduction In poten-
tial 8O. emissions resulting from the
following processes may be credited:
(A> Fuel pretrealment (physical coal
cleaning, hydrodesulfurlzatlon of fuel
oil, etc.).
(B) Coal pulverizers, and
(C) Bottom and flyash Interactions.
(II) Sulfur dioxide control tyttem (%
K,): Determine the percent sulfur di-
oxide reduction achieved by any sulfur
dioxide control system using emission
rates measured before and after the
control system, following the proce-
dures In Method 19 (Appendix A); or.
a combination of an "as fired" fuel
monitor and emission rales measured
after the control system, following the
procedures In Method 19 (Appendix
A). When the "as fired" fuel monitor
Is used, the percent reduction Is calcu-
lated using the average emission rate
from the sulfur dioxide ronlrol device
and the average SO, Input rale from
the "as fired" fuel analysis lor 30 suc-
cessive boiler operating days.
(Ill) Overall percent reduction (%
«.): Determine the overall percent re-
duction using the results obtained In
pHragmplis (bxl) (I) and (III of this
section following the proccdiues In
Method 19 (Appendix A). KcsulLs are
calculated for rnrh 30-day period
using the quarterly average (xrrrnt
40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-fi Edition)
aulfur reduction determined for fuel
pretreatment from the previous quar-
ter and the sulfur dioxide reduction
achieved by a sulfur dioxide control
system for each 30-day period In the
current quarter.
(Iv) Percent emitted (% PCC): Calcu-
late the percent of potential combus-
tion concentration emitted to the at-
mosphere using the following equa-
tion: Percent PCC» 100-Percent R.
(2) Determine the sulfur dioxide
emission rates following the proce-
dures In Method 19 (Appendix A).
(c) The procedures and methods out-
lined In Method 19 (Appendix A) are
used In conjunction with the 30-day
nitrogen-oxides emission data collect-
ed under f 00.47a to determine compli-
ance with the applicable nitrogen
oxides standard under I 60.44.
(d) Electric utility combined cycle
gas turbines are performance tested
for paniculate matter, sulfur dioxide.
and nitrogen oxides using the proce-
dures of Method 19 (Appendix A). The
aulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides
emission rates from the gas turbine
used In Method 19 (Appendix A) calcu-
lations are determined when the gas
turbine b performance tested under
Subpart OO. The potential uncon-
trolled partlculate matter emission
rate from a gas turbine Is defined as 17
ng/J (0.04 Ib/mllllon Btu) heat Input.
144 PR J3SIJ. June II. Ml*, aa amended ml
M FR 4M42. Nov. M. 1*861
I fMta Rtpwtlnc retirement!.
(a) For sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
oxides, and partlculate matter emis-
sions, the performance test data from
the Initial performance test and from
the performance evaluation of the
continuous monitors (Including the
transmlasometer) are submitted to the
Administrator.
(b) For sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
oxides the following Information Is re-
ported to the Administrator for each
24-hour period.
(I) Calendar date.
(2) The average sulfur dioxide and
nitrogen oxide emission rates (ng/J or
Ib/mllllon Blu) for each 30 successive
boiler operating days, ending with the
last 30 day period In the quarter: rea-
sons for non-compliance with I lie
•faction
emission standards: and. description of
corrective actions taken.
(3) Percent reduction of the poten-
tial combustion concentration of
sulfur dioxide for each 30 successive
boiler operating days, ending with the
last 30-day period In the quarter; rea-
sons for non-compliance with the
standard; and, description of correc-
tive actions taken.
(4) Identification of the boiler oper-
ating days for which pollutant or dllu-
tent data have not been obtained by
an approved method for at least 18
hours of operation of the facility; Jus-
tification for not obtaining sufficient
data; and description of corrective ac-
tions taken.
(5) Identification of the times when
emissions data have been excluded
from the calculation of average emis-
sion rates because of startup, shut-
down, malfunction (NO. only), emer-
gency conditions (SO, only), or other
reasons, and Justification for exclud-
ing data for reasons other than start-
up. shutdown, malfunction, or emer-
gency conditions.
(0> Identification of "F" factor used
for calculations, method of determina-
tion. and type of fuel combusted.
(7) Identification of times when
hourly averages have been obtained
baaed on manual sampling methods.
(•) Identification of the times when
the pollutant concentration exceeded
full span of the continuous monitoring
system.
(9) Description of any modifications
to the continuous monitoring system
which could affect the ability of the
continuous monitoring system to
comply with Performance Specifica-
tions 2 or 3.
(c) If the minimum quantity of emis-
sion data as required by 1 60.47a la not
obtained for any 30 successive boiler
operating days, the following Informa-
tion obtained under the requirements
of |00.46a(h) Is reported to the Ad-
ministrator for that 30-day period:
(I) The number of hourly averages
available for outlet emission rates (n.)
and Inlet emission rates (n,) as applica-
ble.
(2) The standard deviation of hourly
averages for outlet emission rates («.)
and Inlet emission rates as appli-
cable.
(4) The applicable potential combus-
tion concentration.
(5) The ratio of the upper confi-
dence limit for the mean outlet emis-
sion rate (E/) and the allowable em Is .
alon rate (£«•) aa applicable. ,
(d) If any standards under |00.43a
are exceeded during emergency condi-
tions because of control system mal-
function, the owner or operator of the
affected facility shall submit a signed
statement:
(I) Indicating If emergency condi-
tions existed and requirements under
|40.46a(d) were met during each
period, and
<2) Listing the following Informa-
tion:
(I) Time periods the emergency con-
dition existed;
(II) Electrical output and demand on
the owner or operator's electric utility
system and the affected facility;
(III) Amount of power purchased
from Interconnected neighboring utili-
ty companies during the emergency
period:
(Iv) Percent reduction In emissions
achieved:
(v) Atmospheric emission rate (ng/J)
of the pollutant discharged; and
(vl) Actions taken to correct control
system malfunction.
(e) If fuel prelreatment credit
toward the aulfur dioxide emission
standard under 160.43a Is claimed, the
owner or operator of the affected fa-
cility shall submit a signed statement:-
(I) Indicating what percentage
cleaning credit was taken for the cal-
endar quarter, and whether the credit
was determined In accordance with the
provisions of 160.4Ba and Method 19
(Appendix A); and
(2) Listing the quantity, heat con-
tent, and date each pretreated fuel
shipment was received during the pre-
vious quarter; the name and location
of the fuel prelreatment facility; and
the total quantity and tola! heat con-
tent of all fuels received at the affect
ed facility during the previous quarter.
(f) For any periods for which opaci-
ty, sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides
272
273
-------
emissions data are not available, the
owner or operator of the affected fa-
cility ihall submit a signed statement
Indicating If any changes were made In
operation of the emission control
system during the period of data un-
availability. Operations of the control
system and affected facility during pe-
riods of data unavailability are to be
compared with operation of the con-
trol system and affected facility before
and following the period of data un-
availability.
(g) The owner or operator of the af-
fected facility shall submit a signed
statement Indicating whether:
(1) The required continuous moni-
toring system calibration, span, and
drift checks or other periodic audits
have or have not been performed as
specified.
(2) The data used to show compli-
ance was or was not obtained In ac-
cordance with approved methods and
procedures of this part and Is repre-
sentative of plant performance.
(3) The minimum data requirements
have or have not been met; or. the
minimum d»ir> requirements have not
been met for IT lore that were unavoid-
able.
(4) Compliance with the standards
has or has not been achieved during
the reporting period.
(h) For the purposes of the reports
required under I 60.7. periods of excess
emliuilons are defined as all 6-mlnute
periods during which the average
opacity exceeds I h« applicable opacity
standards under |60.42a(b>. Opacity
level* In excess of the applicable opaci-
ty standard and the date of such ex-
cesses are to be submitted to the Ad-
ministrator earh calendar quarter.
(I) The owner or operator of an af-
fected facility shall submit the written
reports required under this section
and subpart A to the Administrator
for every calendar quarter. All quar-
terly reports shall be postmarked by
the 30th day following the end of each
calendar quarter.
40 CFt Ch. I (7-1-18 Edition)
Subpart Ob—Standard* of Perform-
ance for Indvttrial-Commercial-
Inttltutlonal Steam Generating
Units
SOURCE: 62 FR 47842. Dec. 10. 1*87. unless
otherwise noted.
IM.40* Applicability and delegation of
authority.
(a) The affected facility to which
this subpart applies Is each steam gen-
erating unit that commences construc-
tion, modification, or reconstruction
after June 19. 1984. and that has a
heat Input capacity from fuels com-
busted In the steam generating unit of
greater than 29 MW (100 million Btu/
hour).
(b) Any affected facility meeting the
applicability requirements under para-
graph (a) of this section and commenc-
ing construction, modification, or re-
construction after June 19, 1984, but
on or before June 19. 1986. Is subject
to the following standards:
(1) Coal-fired affected facilities
having a heat Input capacity between
29 and 73 MW (100 and 250 million
Blu/hour). Inclusive, are subject to
the partlculate matter and nitrogen
oxides standards under this subpart.
(2) Coal-fired affected facilities
having a heal Input capacity greater
than 73 MW (250 million Btu/hour)
and meeting the applicability require-
ments under Subpart D (Standards of
performance for fossll-fuel-flred steam
generators; f 60.40) are subject to the
partlculate matter and nitrogen oxides
standards under this subpart and to
the sulfur dioxide standards under
Subpart D (| 60.43).
(3) Oil fired affected facilities
having a heat Input capacity between
29 and 73 MW (100 and 250 million
Btu/hour). Inclusive, are subject to
the nitrogen oxides standards under
this subpart.
(4) Oil fired affected facilities
having a heal Input capacity greater
than 73 MW (250 million Btu/hour)
and meeting the applicability require-
ments undi i Subpart D (Standards of
performance for fossil fuel fired steam
generators: I 60.40) are also subject to
the nitrogen oxides standards under
this subparl and the partlculate
Environmental Protection Agency
matter and sulfur dioxide standards
under Subpart D (| 60.42 and I 60.43).
(c) Affected facilities which also
meet the applicability requirements
under Subpart J (Standards of per-
formance for petroleum refineries;
160.104) are subject to the partlculate
matter and nitrogen oxides standard*
under this subpart and the sulfur di-
oxide standards under Subpart J
(160.104).
(d> Affected facilities which also
meet the applicability requirements
under Subpart E (Standards of per-
formance for Incinerators; 160.60) are
subject to the nitrogen oxides and par-
tlculate matter standards under this
subpart.
(e> Steam generating units meeting
the applicability requirements under
Subpart Da (Standards of perform-
ance for electric utility steam generat-
ing units; 160.40a) are not subject to
this subpart.
(f) Any change to an existing steam
generating unit for the sole purpose of
combusting gases containing TR8 as
defined under 160.281 Is not consid-
ered a modification under I 60.14 and
the steam generating unit Is not sub-
ject to this subpart.
(g) In delegating Implementation
and enforcement authority to a State
under section lll(c> of the Act, the
following authorities shall be retained
by the Administrator and not trans-
ferred to a State.
(1) Section 60.44tXf).
(2) Section 60.44tXg>.
(3) Section 60.49b(aM4).
tM.4lb Definition*.
As used In this subpart, all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them In the Act and In Subparl
A of this part.
"Annual capacity factor" means the
ratio between the actual heat Input to
a steam generating unit from the fuels
listed In |60.42b(a). 160 43b(a>. or
| 60.44b(a). as applicable, during a cal-
endar year and the potential heal
Input to the steam generating unit
had It been operated for 8.760 hours
during a calendar year at the maxi-
mum steady stale design heat Input
capacity. In the case of steam generat-
ing units that are rented or leased, the
actual heat input slmll be determined
§«0.41I>
based on the combined heat Input
from all operations of the affected fa-
cility In a calendar year.
"Byproduct/waste" means any liquid
or gaseous substance produced at
chemical manufacturing plants or pe-
troleum refineries (except natural gas.
distillate oil. or residual oil) and com-
busted In a steam generating unit for
heat recovery or for disposal. Gaseous
substances with carbon dioxide levels
greater than BO percent or carbon
monoxide levels greater than 10 per-
cent are not byproduct/waste for the
purposes of this subpart.
"Chemical manufacturing plants"
means Industrial plants which are clas-
sified by the Department of Com-
merce under Standard Industrial Clas-
sification (SIC) Code 28.
"Coal" means all solid fuels classi-
fied as anthracite, bituminous, subbl-
tumlnous. or lignite by the American
Society of Testing and Materials In
A8TM D388 77. Standard Specific*
lion for Classification of Coals by
Rank (IBR-see 160.17). coal refuse.
and petroleum coke. Coal-derived syn-
thetlc fuels. Including but not limited
to solvent refined coal, gasified coal,
coal-oil mixtures, and coal-water mix-
tures, are also Included In this defini-
tion for Ihe purposes of this subpart.
"Coal refuse" means any byproduct
of coal mining or coal cleaning oper-
allons with an ash content greater
than 50 percent, by weight, and a
heating value less than 13.900 kj/kg
(6.000 Blu/lb) on a dry basis.
"Combined cycle system" means a
system In which a separate source.
such as a gas turbine. Internal combus-
tion engine, kiln, etc., provides ex-
haust gas to a heat recovery steam
generating unit.
••Conventional technology" means
wet flue gas desulfurizatlon (POD)
technology, dry PGD technology, at-
mospheric fluldlzed bed combustion
technology, and oil hydrodesulfurlza-
lion technology.
"Distillate oil" means fuel oils that
contain 0.05 weight percent nitrogen
or less and comply with the specifica-
tions for fuel oil numbers I and 2. as
defined by the American Society of
Testing and Materials In ASTM D396
78. Standard Specifications for Fuel
274
275
-------
Oils (Incorporated by reference—see
180.17).
"Dry flue gas desulfurlzallon tech-
nology" means a sulfur dioxide control
a/stem that Is located downstream of
the steam generating unit and re-
moves sulfur oxides from the combus-
tion Rases of the steam generating
unit by contacting the combustion
gases with an alkaline slurry or solu-
tion and forming a dry powder materi-
al. This definition Includes devices
where the dry powder material Is sub-
sequently converted to another form.
Alkaline slurries or solutions used In
dry flue gas desulfurlzatlon technolo-
gy Include but are not limited to lime
and sodium.
"Duct burner" means a device that
combusts fuel and that Is placed In the
exhaust duct from another source.
such as a stationary gas turbine. Inter-
nal combustion engine, kiln, etc., to
allow the firing of additional fuel to
heat the exhaust gases before the ex-
haust gases enter a heat recovery
steam generating unit.
"Emerging technology" means any
sulfur dioxide control system that Is
not defined as a conventional technol-
ogy under this section, and for which
the owner or operator of the facility
has applied to the Administrator and
received approval to operate as an
emerging technology under
ifl0.4Bb(aH4>.
••Federally enforceable" means all
limitations and conditions that are en-
forceable by the Administrator. In-
cluding Hie requirements of 40 CFR
Parts 60 and 61, requirements within
Miy applicable State Implementation
Plan, «nd any permit requirements es-
tablished under 40 CFR 52.21 or under
40 CFR 61 18 and 40 CFK 51.24.
"Fluldlzed bed combustion technolo-
gy" means combustion of fuel In a bed
ur series of beds < Including but not
limited to bubbling bed units and cir-
culating bed uiiils) of limestone aggre-
gate (or other soiltenl materials) In
wlilc-h these materials are forced
upward by the flow of combustion air
and the gaseous products of combus-
tion.
"Fuel prelrratmenl" means a proc-
ess that removes a |K>rlion ol the
Giillur In a fuel before combustion of
the fuel In a steam general Ing unit.
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-81 Edition)
"Full capacity" means operation of
the steam generating unit at 90 per-
cent or more of the maximum steady-
state design heat Input capacity.
"Heat Input" means heat derived
from combustion of fuel In a steam
generating unit and does not Include
the heat Input from preheated com-
bustion air, reclrculated flue gases, or
exhaust gases from other sources.
such as gas turbines. Internal combus-
tion engines, kilns, etc.
"Heat release rate" means the steam
generating unit design heat Input ca-
pacity (In MW or Bin/hour) divided
by the furnace volume (In cubic
meters or cubic feet); the furnace
volume Is that volume bounded by the
front furnace wall where the burner Is
located, the furnace side waterwall,
and extending to the level Just below
or In front of the first row of convec-
tion pass tubes.
"Heat transfer medium" means any
material that la used to transfer heat
from one point to another point.
"High heat release rate" means a
heat release rate greater than 730.000
J/sec-m' (70.000 Btu/hour-ftM.
"Lignite" means a type of coal classi-
fied as lignite A or lignite B by the
American Society of Testing and Ma-
terials In ASTM D388-77. Standard
Specification for Classification of
Coals by Rank (IBR-see I 60.17).
"Low heat release rate" means a
heat release rate of 730.000 J/sec-m9
(70,000 Btu/hour-ft*) or less.
"Mass feed stoker steam generating
unit" means a steam generating unit
where solid fuel Is Introduced directly
Into a retort or Is fed directly onto a
grate where It Is combusted.
"Maximum heal Input capacity"
means the ability of a steam generat-
ing unit to combust a stated maximum
amount of fuel on a steady state basis.
as determined by the physical design
and characteristics of the steam gener-
ating unit.
"Municipal-type solid waste" means
refuse, more than 50 percent of which
Is waste consisting of a mixture of
paper, wood, yard wastes, food wastes.
plastics, leather, rubber, and other
combustible materials, and noncom-
bustlble materials such as glass and
rock.
Environmental Protection Agency
"Natural gas" means (Da naturally
occurring mixture of hydrocarbon and
nonhydrocarbon gases found In geo-
logic formations beneath the earth's
surface, of which the principal constit-
uent la methane; or (2) liquid petrole-
um gas. as defined by the American
Society for Testing and Materials In
ASTM D1838-82. "Standard Specifica-
tion for Liquid Petroleum Oases"
(IBR-see 160.17).
"Noncontlnental area" means the
State of Hawaii, the Virgin Islands.
Quam. American Samoa, the Com-
monwealth of Puerto Rico, or the
Northern Mariana Islands.
"OH" means crude oil or petroleum
or a liquid fuel derived from crude oil
or petroleum. Including distillate and
residual oil.
"Petroleum refinery" means Indus-
trial plants as classified by the Depart-
ment of Commerce under Standard In-
dustrial Classification (SIC) Code 29.
"Potential aul'«r dioxide emission
rate" means the ' nroretlcal sulfur di-
oxide emissions (ng/J. Ib/mllllon Btu
heat Input) that would result from
combusting fuel In an uncleaned state
and without using emission control
systems.
"Process heater" means a device
that la primarily used to heat a mate-
rial to Initiate or promote a chemical
reaction In which the material partici-
pates as a reactant or catalyst.
"Pulverized coal-fired steam generat-
ing unit" means a steam generating
unit In which pulverized coal Is Intro-
duced Into an air stream that carries.
the coal to the combustion chamber of
the steam generating unit where It Is
fired In suspension. This Includes both
conventional pulverized coal-fired and
mlcropulverlzed coal-fired steam gen-
erating units.
"Residual oil" means crude oil. fuel
oil numbers 1 and 2 that have a nitro-
gen content greater than 0.05 weight
percent, and all fuel oil numbers 4, 5
and 6, as defined by the American So-
ciety of Testing and Materials In
ASTM D396-78, Standard Specifica-
tions for Fuel Oils (IBR-see I 60.17).
"Spreader stoker steam generating
unit" means a steam generating unit
In which solid fuel is Introduced to the
combustion zone by a mechanism that
throws the fuel onto a grate from
9 «0.41b
above. Combustion takes place both In
suspension and on the grate.
"Steam generating unit" means a
device that combusts any fuel or by-
product/waste to produce steam or to
heat water or any other heat transfer
medium. This term Includes any mu-
nicipal-type solid waste Incinerator
with a heat recovery steam generating
unit or any steam generating unit that
combusts fuel and la part of a cogen-
eratlon system or a combined cycle |f
system. This term does not Include
process heaters as they are defined In
this subpart.
"Steam generating unit operating
day" means a 24-hour period between
12:00 midnight and the following mid-
night during which any fuel Is com-
busted at any time In the eteam gener-
ating unit. It Is not necessary for fuel
to be combusted continuously for the
entire 24-hour period.
"Very low sulfur oil" means a distil-
late oil or residual oil that when com
busted without post combustion SOt
control has an SO, emission rate equal
to or less than 130 ng/J (0.30 Ib SO,/
million Btu).
"Wet flue gas desulfurlzatlon tech-
nology" means a sulfur dioxide control
system that Is located downstream of
the steam generating unit and re-
moves sulfur oxides from the combus-
tion gases of the steam generating
unit by contacting the combustion gas
with an alkaline slurry or solution and
forming a liquid material. This defini-
tion applies to devices where the aque-
ous liquid material product of this
contact Is subsequently converted to
other forms. Alkaline reagents used In
wet flue gas desulfurlzatlon technolo-
gy Include, but are not limited to, lime.
limestone, and sodium.
"Wet scrubber system" means any
emission control device that mixes an
aqueous stream or slurry with the ex-
haust gases from a steam generating
unit to control emissions of parllculate
matter or sulfur dioxide.
"Wood" means wood, wood residue.
bark, or any derivative fuel or residue
thereof. In any form. Including, but
not limited to. sawdust, sanderdusl,
wood chips, scraps, slabs, millings.
shavings, and processed pellets made
from wood or oilier forest residues.
276
277
-------
S60.44b
fected facility that combusts oil or
that combusts mixtures of oil with
other fuels shall cause to be dis-
charged Into the atmosphere from
that affected facility any gases that
contain partlculate matter In excess of
43 ng/J «UO Ib/mllllon Btu) heat
Input.
(c) On and after the date on which
the Initial performance lest Is com-
pleted or Is required to be completed
under 100.8 of this part, whichever
date comes first, no owner or operator
of an affected facility that combusts
wood, or wood with other fuels, except
coal, shall cause to be discharged from
that affected facility any gases that
contain particulatc matter In excess of
the following emission limits:
(!) 43 ng/J (010 Ib/mllllon Blu)
heat Input If the affected facility has
an annual capacity factor greater than
30 percent (0.30) for wood.
<2> 86 ng/J (020 Ib/mllllon Btu)
heat Input If
(I) The affected facility has an
annual capacity factor of 30 percent
(0.30) or less for wood,
(II) Is subject to a federally enforcea-
ble requirement limiting operation of
the affected facility to an annual ca-
pacity factor of 30 percent (0.30) or
less for wood, and
(III) Has a maximum heal Input ca-
pacity of 73 MW (250 million Btu/
hour) or less.
(d) On and after the date on which
the Initial performance lest Is com-
pleted or Is required to be completed
under i 60.B of this part, whichever
dale comes first, no owner or operalor
of an affected facility that combusts
municipal-type solid waste or mixtures
of municipal typo solid waste with
other furls, shall cause to be dis-
charged into the atmosphere from
that affected facility any gases thai
conialn parlirulalc mailer In excess of
the following emission limits:
(I) 43 HK/J (0.10 Ib/million Bill)
deal Input.
(I) If the alleclcd facility combusts
only municipal type solid waste, or
(II) If the affected facility combusts
municipal type soli.I waste and olher
fuels and liar, an anmml rapacity
factor for the ollu-i furls of 10 percent
iO in) or less
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-S8 Edition)
(2) 86 ng/J (0.20 Ib/mllllon Btu)
heat Input If the affected facility com-
busts municipal-type solid waste or
municipal-type solid waste and other
fuels; and
(I) Has an annual capacity factor for
municipal-type solid waste and other
fuels of 30 percent (0.30) or less.
(II) Has a maximum heat Input ca-
pacity of 73 MW (250 million Btu/
hour) or less,
(III) Has a federally enforceable re-
quirement limiting operation of the af-
fected facility to an annual capacity
factor of 30 percent (0.30) for munici-
pal-type solid waste, or municipal-type
solid waste and other fuels, and
(Iv) Construction of the affected fa-
cility commenced after June 19, 1984,
but before November 25. 1986.
(e) For Ihe purposes of this section.
the annual capacity factor Is deter-
mined by dividing the actual heat
Input to the steam generating unll
during the calendar year from Ihe
combusllon of coal. wood, or munici-
pal-type solid wasle. and olher fuels.
as applicable, by the potential heat
Input to the steam generating unit If
Ihe sleam generating unit had been
operated for 8,760 hours at the maxi-
mum design heat Input capacity.
(f) On and after the dale on which
the Initial performance tesl Is com-
pleted or is required to be completed
under 160.8 of this parl. whichever
dale comes first, no owner or operator
of an affected facility subjecl lo Ihe
parliculale mailer emission limits
under paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of this
section shall cause to be discharged
Into the atmosphere any gases thai
exhibit greater than 20 percent opaci-
ty (6 minute average), except for one
6 minute period per hour of not more
than 27 percent opacity.
(g) The parllculate matler and opac-
ity standards apply at all limes, exccpl
during periods of startup, shutdown or
malfunction.
H 6(M4b Standard for nitrogen iixidea.
(a) On and after the date on which
the Initial performance lesl Is com-
pleted or Is required lo be completed
under i 60.8 of this part, whichever
dale comes first, no owner or operalor
of an affected facility that Is subject
Environmental Protection Agoncy
to the provisions of this section and
that combusts only coal. oil. or natural
gas shall cause lo be discharged Into
the atmosphere from that affected fa-
cility any gases thai contain nitrogen
oxides (expressed as NO.) In excess of
the following emission limits:
Fud/SIMffl gmnkng untt, lypa
(I) Nalwal OM and dtoMaM oil. aireapl (4):
M low h*M ntoaM iato
(K) High hMt r«MM Ml*
m HMdual oi:
(V low haai idMM rate
m High hwi nriaata >«•
PI Co*
II) MM, la*d Motet
(I) Spraadai ItoMr and ftuMiiM tad
oofnbuclioft
(*) PuMnud cod
M llgnlto. «»c*p< (v)
|v) ligniM nwwd m North Dakota. South
CMoU. or Montana and ccvntumd n
a Hag Up Iwnaca
(vi| CoalKtacMd (yrthMic (MM
HI Duel bumf uud in a combinMl cyda
(l| NaMal oaa and oMMaM at
(>) Residual oil
ng/J (!>/
niton Btu|
"S5SS,"
Input
43(0101
ae 10201
130(0301
170 (040)
210(090)
HO (010)
300(0/0)
260 (0*0)
340(0 BO)
210 (090)
•6 (0?0|
170(040)
(b) On and after the dale on which
the Initial performance test Is com-
pleted or Is required lo be completed
under 1 60.8 of this part, whichever
dale comes first, no owner or operator
of an affected facility lhat simulta-
neously combusts mixtures of coal, oil.
or natural gas shall cause to be dis-
charged Into the almosphere from
lhal affecled facility any gases thai
contain nitrogen oxides In excess of a
limit determined by use of the follow-
ing formula:
H,.)l(EU H.)l/
280
where:
E. Is the nitrogen oxides emission limit (ex-
pressed a-i NO,). ng/J (Ib/mllllon Btu)
EL,. Is the appropriate emission limit from
paragraph <»MI> for combustion of nat-
ural gas or distillate oil. ng/J (Ib/mllllon
Blu)
H,. Is the heal Input from combustion of
natural gas or distillate oil.
EU. Is the appropriate emission limit from
paragraph (aM2) for combustion of re
sldual oil.
H,. Is the heal Input from combusllon of re
sldual oil.
5 60.44b
EL, Is the appropriate emission limit from
paragraph (»M3) tor combustion of coal,
and
H, Is the heal Input from combusllon of
coal.
(c) On and after the date on which
the Initial performance tesl Is com-
pleted or Is required lo be completed
under 160.8 of this part, whichever
comes first, no owner or operator of an
affected facility lhat simultaneously .
combusts coal or oil, or a mixture of';
Ihese fuels with natural gas. and wood.
municipal-type solid waste, or any
other fuel shall cause to be discharged
Into the atmosphere any gases that
conialn nitrogen oxides In excess of
the emission limit for the coal or oil.
or mlxlure of Ihese fuels with natural
gas combusted In the affected facility.
as determined pursuant to paragraph
(a) or (b) of this section, unless the af-
fected facility has an annual capacity
factor for coal or oil, or mixture of
these fuels with natural gas of 10 per-
cent (0.10) or less and Is subjecl to a
federally enforceable requirement
that limits operation of the facility to
an annual capacity factor of 10 per-
cent (0.10) or less for coal, oil. or a
mixture of these fuels with natural
gas.
(d) On and after Ihe date on which
the Initial performance test Is com-
pleted or Is required to be completed
under 160.8 of this part, whichever
date comes first, no owner or operator
of an affected facility lhal simulta-
neously combusts natural gas with
wood, municipal-type solid wasle, or
olher solid fuel, excepl coal, shall
cause lo be discharged Into the atmos-
phere from lhal affecled facility any
gases thai conialn nilrogen oxides In
excess of 130 ng/J (0.30 Ib/mllllon
Blu) heal Inpul unless Ihe affecled fa-
cility has an annual capacity factor for
nalural gas of 10 percent (0.10) or less
and Is subjecl lo a federally enforcea-
ble requirement lhal limits operation
of the affecled facility lo an annual
capacity factor of 10 percent (0.10) or
less for nalural gas.
(e) On and after Ihe dale on which
Ihe Initial performance lesl Is com-
pleted or Is required lo be completed
under 160.8 of this parl, whichever
date comes first, no owner or operator
of an affected facility that slmulta-
281
-------
{«0.44t>
neously combusts coal. oil. or natural
gas with byproduct/waste shall cause
to be discharged Into the atmosphere
from that affected facility any gases
that contain nitrogen oxides In excess
of an emission limit determined by the
following formula unless the affected
facility has an annual capacity factor
(or coal. oil. and natural gas of 10 per-
cent (0.10) or less and Is subject to a
federally enforceable requirement
which limits operation of the affected
facility to an annual capacity factor of
10 percent (0.10) or less:
«« C« Cli. I (7-l-M Edition)
Protection Agency
E.-KEU. H.IMEU. H..II CEI* H.)|/
•here:
E. U the nitrogen oxldea emission limit (ex
presned aa NO,). ng/J (Ib/nilllloii Rlu)
•Ov. It the appropriate emission limit from
paragraph (aXI) for combustion of nat-
ural gas or distillate oil. ng/J (Ib/mllllon
Btul.
H», 1s the heat Input from combustion of
natural gas. distillate oil and gaseous by
product/waste. ng/J lib/million Bin).
EU. la the appropriate emission limit from
paragraph (aHJl tor combustion of re-
sidual oil. ng/J The owner or operator of an af-
fected facility shall conduct perform-
ance tests lo determine compliance
with the percent of potential sulfur di-
oxide emission rate (% P.) and the
sulfur dioxide emission rate (B.) pur-
suant to I 60 42b following the proce-
IM.4M
dures listed below, except as provided
under paragraph (d) of this section.
(I > The Initial performance test shall
be conducted over the first 30 consecu-
tive operating days of the steam gen-
erating unit. Compliance with the
sulfur dioxide standards shall be de-
termined using a 30-day average. The
first operating day Included In the Ini-
tial performance test shall be schedt
uled within 30 days after achieving the
maximum production rate at which
the affected facility will be operated.
but not later than 180 days after Inl
tlal startup of the facility.
(2) If only coal or only oil Is com-
busted, the following procedures are
used:
(I) The procedures In Method 19 are
used to determine the hourly sulfur
dioxide emission rate (E».) and the 30-
day average emission rate (E»). The
hourly averages used to compute the
90-day averages are obtained from the
continuous emission monitoring
system of 160.47b (a) or (b).
(II) The percent of potential sulfur
dioxide emission rate (% P.) emitted to
the atmosphere Is computed using the
following formula:
% P.. too
% R. to the sulfur dioxide removal efficiency
of the control device as determined by
Method I*. In percent.
% R, as the aullur dioxide removal efficiency
of fuel prelreatment aa determined by
Method I*. In percent.
(3) If coal or oil Is combusted with
other fuels, the same procedures re-
quired In paragraph (cM2) of this sec-
tion are used, except as provided In
the following:
(I) An adjusted hourly sulfur dioxide
emission rate (E*.*) Is used In Equation
19-10 of Method 10 to compute an ad
lasted 30-day average emission rale
(!•:..•>. The Et. Is computed using the
following formula:
E^'-IE^ E.«l X.II/X.
•here:
EM* la the adjusted hourly sulfur dioxide
emission rate. ng/J ilb/mllllon Btul.
EM Is Ihr hourly sulfur dioxide emission
rale. nt/J db/mllllon HMD
283
-------
9 A0.43B
E. U the sulfur dioxide concentration In
fueb) other than co»l »nd oil combusted
In the •Heeled facility, as determined by
the fuel sampllni and analysis proce-
dures In Method 19. m/J (Ib/mllllon
Blu). The value E. for each fuel lot Is
used for each hourly average during the
time that the lot Is being combusted.
X. Is the fraction of total heat Input from
fuel combustion derived from coal. oil.
or coal and oil. as determined by appli-
cable procedures In Method 19.
(II) To compute the percent of po-
tential sulfur dioxide emission rate (%
P.). an adjusted % R. (% R/> Is com
puled from the adjusted E..' from
paragraph (bH3HI) of this section and
aii adjusted average sulfur dioxide
Inlet rate <£«•) using the following for-
mula:
%R.--iood o IV/E*"»
To compute E**, an adjusted hourly
sulfur dioxide Inlet rate Is used.
The EH* ls computed using the follow-
ing formula:
E./-I&. E.II X.)I/X,
where:
E,,- Is the adjusted hourly sulfur dioxide
Inlet rale, ng/J (Ib/mllllon Blu).
EM Is the hourly sulfur dioxide Inlet rate.
ng/J (Ib/mllllon Blu).
(4) The owner or operator of an af-
fected facility subject to paragraph
(b)(3) of this section docs not have to
measure parameters E. or Xt If the
owner or operator elects to assume
that Xk-I.O. Owners or operators of
affected facilities who assume X, ^ 1.0
shall
(I) Determine % P. following the
procedures In paragraph (c)(2) of this
section, and
(II) Sulfur dioxide emissions (E.) are
considered to be in compliance with
sulfur dioxide (-mission limits under
f 60.4 2b.
(5) Tho ownrr or operator of an af-
fected facility that qualifies under the
provisions of | 60.42b(d> does not have
to measure parameters E. or X. under
paragraph (b><3) of this section If the
owner or operator of the affected fa-
cility elecl.s lo measure sulfur dioxide
emission rales of the coal or oil follow-
ing the fuel sampling and analysis pro-
cedures under Method 19.
(d) The owner or operator of an af-
fected facility thai roinlinsls only oil
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-08 Edition)
emitting less than 130 ng/J (0.3 Ib/
million Btu) SOi, has an annual capac-
ity factor for oil of 10 percent (0.10) or
less, and Is subject to a federally en-
forceable requirement limiting oper-
ation of the affected facility to an
annual capacity for oil of 10 percent
(0.10) or less shall:
(I) Conduct the Initial performance
test over 24 consecutive steam generat-
ing unit operating hours at full load;
(2) Determine compliance with the
standards after the Initial perform-
ance test based on the arithmetic aver-
age of the hourly emissions data
during each steam generating unit op-
erating day If a continuous emission
measurement system (CEMS) Is used.
or based on a dally average If Method
6B or fuel sampling and analysis pro-
cedures under Method 19 are used.
(e) The owner or operator of an af-
fected facility subject to I 60.42b(d)(l)
shall demonstrate the maximum
design capacity of the steam generat-
ing unit by operating the facility at
maximum capacity for 24 hours. This
demonstration will be made during the
Initial performance lest and a subse-
quent demonstration may be request-
ed at any other time. If the 24-hour
average firing rate for the affected fa-
cility Is less than the maximum design
capacity provided by the manufactur-
er of the affected facility, the 24-hour
average firing rate shall be used to de-
termine the capacity utilization rate
for the affected facility, otherwise the
maximum design capacity provided by
the manufacturer Is used.
(f) For the Initial performance test
required under I 60.8. compliance with
the sulfur dioxide emission limits and
percent reduction requirements under
i 60 42b Is based on the average emis-
sion rates and the average percent re-
duction for sulfur dioxide for the first
30 consecutive steam generating unit
operating days, except as provided
under paragraph (d) of this section.
The Initial performance lest Is the
only tesl for which al least 30 days
prior notice Is required unless other-
wise specified by the Administrator.
The Initial performance test Is to be
scheduled so thai Ihe first steam gen-
erating unit operating day of the 30
successive steam generating unit oper-
ating days Is completed within 30 days
284
Environmental Protection Agency
after achieving the maximum produc-
tion rate at which the affected facility
will be operated, but not later than
180 day* after Initial startup of the fa-
cility. The boiler load during the 30-
day period does not have to be the
maximum design load, but must be
representative of future operating con-
ditions and Include at least one 24-
hour period at full load.
(g) After the Initial performance test
required under 160.8, compliance with
the sulfur dioxide emission limits and
percent reduction requirements under
160.42b la based on the average emis-
sion rates and the average percent re-
duction for aulfur dioxide for 30 suc-
cessive steam generating unit operat-
ing days, except aa provided under
paragraph (d). A separate perform-
ance test to completed at the end of
each steam generating unit operating
day after the Initial performance test.
and a new 30-day average emission
rate and percent reduction for sulfur
dioxide are calculated lo show compli-
ance with the standard.
(h) Except as provided under para-
graph (I) of this section, the owner or
operator of an affected facility shall
use all valid sulfur dioxide emissions
data In calculating % P. and E». under
paragraph (c), of this section whether
or not the minimum emissions data re-
quirements under 160.40b are
achieved. All valid emissions data. In-
cluding valid sulfur dioxides emission
data collected during periods of start-
up, shutdown and malfunction, shall
be used In calculating % P. and E,,.
pursuant to paragraph (c) of this sec-
tion.
(I) During periods of malfunction or
maintenance of the sulfur dioxide con-
trol systems when oil Is combusted as
provided under 160.42b(l>. emission
data are nol used lo calculate % P. or
E. under I 60.42b (a), (b) or (c). howev-
er, the emissions data are used to de-
termine compliance with Ihe emission
limit under | 60 421X1)
• «0.46b Compliance and performance tent
methods and procedures for paniculate
matter and nitrogen oxides.
(a) The participate mailer emission
standards and opacity limits under
160.43b apply at all times except
during periods of startup, shutdown.
fMMofc
or malfunction. The nitrogen oxides
emission standards under |60.44b
apply at all times.
Compliance with the partlculate
matter emission standards under
| 60.43b shall be determined through
performance testing as described In
paragraph (d) of this section.
(c) Compliance with Ihe nitrogen
oxides emission standards under
| 60.44b shall be determined through)
performance testing as described In
paragraph (e) or (f) of this section.
(d) The following procedures and
reference methods are used to deter-
mine compliance- with the standards
for partlculate mailer emissions under
160.43b.
(1) Method 3 Is used for gas analysis
•when applying Method 5 or Method
17.
(2) Method 5. Method SB. or Method
17 shall be used to measure the con-
centration of partlculale matter as fol-
lows:
(I) Method 5 shall be used at affect-
ed facilities without wet flue gas desul-
furlzatlon (POD) systems; and
(II) Method 17 may be used at facili-
ties with or without wet scrubber sys-
tems provided the stack gas tempera-
ture does not exceed a temperature of
160 *C (320 *P). The procedures of sec-
tions 2.1 and 2.3 of Method 5B may be
used In Method 17 only If It Is used
after a wet FGD system. Do not use
Method 17 after wet POD systems If
the effluent Is saturated or laden with
water droplets.
(Ill) Method SB Is to be used only
after wel FGD systems.
(3) Method 1 Is used to select the
sampling site and the number of tra-
verse sampling points. The sampling
lime for each run Is al leasl 120 min-
utes and the minimum sampling
volume Is 1.7 dscm (60 dscf) except
that smaller sampling times or vol-
umes may be approved by the Admin-
istrator when necessitated by process
variables or other factors.
(4) For Method 5. the temperature
of the sample gas In the probe and
filler holder Is monitored and Is main-
tained at 160 'C (320 -F).
(5) For determination of partlculate
mailer emissions, the oxygen or
carbon dioxide sample Is obtained si-
multaneously with each run of
285
-------
J40.I7*
excess emissions that shall be reported
are defined as follows:
(I) Opacity. Any (-minute period
during which the average opacity, as
measured by the continuous monitor-
ing system Installed undo paragraph
(a) of this section, exceeds the stand-
ard under | 60.17«(a>.
(2) Sulfur dioxide. Any 2-hour
period, as described In paragraph (b)
of this section, during which the aver-
age emissions of sulfui dioxide, as
measured by the continuous monitor-
ing system Installed under paragraph
(a) of this section, exceeds the stand-
ard under 160.173.
141 PR 2140. Jui. It. IMS. a* amended at 4s
FH 11(11. May 25. IM1I
IM.I7t T«»l method* and procedure*.
(a) The reference methods In Appen-
dix A to this part, except as provided
for In | 60.8
-------
5*0.184
Itorlng system Installed under para-
graph (a) of this section.
(c) For the purpose of reports re-
quired under 160.1t c>. periods of
excess emissions that shall be reported
are defined as follows:
(1) Opacity. Any six-minute period
during which the average opacity, as
measured by the continuous monitor-
Ing system Installed under paragraph
(a) of this section, exceeds the stand-
ard under 160.184U).
(2) Sulfur dioxide. Any two-hour
period, as described In paragraph (b)
of this section, during which the aver-
age emissions of sulfur dioxide, as
measured by the continuous monitor-
ing system Installed under paragraph
(a) of this section, exceeds the stand-
ard under I 80.183.
141 PR 2340. Jan. 16. 1978. as amended at 48
PR 3381 I.May 26. 1983)
188.IM Test methods and procedures.
(a) The reference methods In Appen-
dix A to this part, except as provided
for In 180.8(b). shall be used to deter-
mine compliance with the standards
prescribed In 1160.183. 80.183 and
«0.184 as follows:
(I) Method 5 for the concentration
of participate matter and the associat-
ed moisture content.
(2> Sulfur dioxide concentrations
shall be determined using the contlnu-
OUH monitoring system Installed In ac-
cordance with |80.186(a). One 3-hour
average period shall constitute one
run.
(b) For Method 5. Method 1 shall be
used for selecting the sampling site
and the number of traverse points.
Method 3 for determining velocity and
volumetric flow rate and Method 3 for
determining the gas analysis. The
sampling time for each run shall be at
least 80 minutes and the minimum
sampling volume shall be 0.85 dscm
(30 dscf) except that smaller times or
volumes, when necessitated by process
variables or other factors, may be ap-
proved by the Administrator.
Subpart S—Standards of Performance
for Primary Aluminum Reduction
Plants
Souacc 4S PR 44207. June 30. 1980. unless
otherwise noted.
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
I M.IM Applicability and detonation of
affected facility.
(a) The affected facilities In primary
aluminum reduction plants to which
this subpart applies are potroom
groups and anode bake plants.
(b) Any facility under paragraph (a)
of this section that commences con-
struction or modification after Octo-
ber 33. 1974. Is subject to the require-
ments of this subpart.
[42 PR 37937. July 25, 1977. as amended at
46 PR 44206. June 30. 1980]
1*0.191 Definitions.
As used In this subpart, all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them In the Act and In subpart
A of this part.
"Aluminum equivalent" means an
amount of aluminum which can be
produced from a Mg of anodes pro-
duced by an anode bake plant as deter-
mined by | 60.195(g>.
"Anode bake plant" means a facility
which produces carbon anodes for use
In a primary aluminum reduction
plant.
"Potroom" means a building unit
which houses a group of electrolytic
cells In which aluminum Is produced.
"Pofroom group" means an uncon-
trolled potroom, a potroom which Is
controlled Individually, or a group of
potrooms or potroom segments ducted
to a common control system.
"Primary aluminum reduction
plant" means any facility manufactur-
ing aluminum by electrolytic reduc-
tion.
"Primary control system" means an
air pollution control system designed
to remove gaseous and particular
flourldes from exhaust gases which
are captured at the cell.
"Roof monitor" means that portion
of the roof of a potroom where gases
not captured at the cell exit from the
potroom.
"Total fluoride?" means elemental
fluorine and all fluoride compounds as
measured by reference methods speci-
fied In i 60.195 or by equivalent or •>
ternatlve methods (see I 60 8
-------
i 40.92
used to manufacture hot mix asphalt
by heating and drying aggregate and
mixing with asphalt cement*.
let PR mat. APT. 10. 10001
I M.tS Standard for partleulale mailer.
(a) On and alter the date on which
the performance test required to be
conducted by |00.8 Is completed, no
owner or operator subject to the provi-
sions of this subpart shall discharge or
cause the discharge Into the atmos-
phere from any affected facility any
gases which:
(1) Contain participate matter In
excess of 90 mg/dscm (0.04 gr/dscf I.
(2) Exhibit JO percent opacity, or
greater.
I3> PR MM. Mar. 9. It74. M amended at 40
PR 4t2to. Oct. o. io7ti
I M.M Tc*t method* and procedure*.
<•> The reference methods appended
to this part, except as provided for In
|60.8(b>. shall be used to determine
compliance with the standards pre-
scribed In 160.92 as follows:
(1) Method 5 for the concentration
of paniculate matter and the associat-
ed moisture content.
(2) Method I for sample and velocity
traverses,
<3> Method 2 for velocity and volu-
metric flow rate, and
(4) Method 3 for gas analysis.
(b) For Method 5. the sampling time
for each run shall be at least 00 min-
utes and the sampling rate shall be at
least 0.9 dscm/hr (0.63 dscf/mln)
except that shorter sampling times.
when necessitated by process variables
or other factors, may be approved by
the Administrator.
Swbpcrt J—Standards of Per
rW Patralovm ••niwrkra
IM.IW Applicability and declination of
affected facility.
(a> The provisions of till* subparl
are applicable to the following affect-
ed facilities In petroleum refineries:
fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst
regenerators, furl gas combustion de-
vices, and all Clan* sulfur recovery
plants except Claus plants of 20 long
tons per day (LTD) or leu. The Claus
sulfur recovery plant need not be
40 CM Ch. I (7-1-00 fditlwt)
physically located within the bound-
aries of a petroleum refinery to be an
affected facility, provided It processes
gases produced within a petroleum re-
finery.
Any fluid catalytic cracking unit
catalyst regenerator or fuel gas com-
bustion device under paragraph (a) of
this section which commences con-
struction or modification after June
11. 1973. or any Claus sulfur recovery
plant under paragraph (a) of this sec-
tion which commences construction or
modification after October 4. 1970. Is
subject to the requirements of this
part.
143 PR IOSM. Mar. It. 1970. ai amended at
44 PR 01043. Oct. at. I tit I
IM.I9I Definllloiw.
As used In this subpart. all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them In the Act and In Subpart
A.
(a) "Petroleum refinery" means any
facility engaged In producing gasoline.
kerosene, distillate fuel oils, residual
fuel oils, lubricants, or other products
through distillation of petroleum or
through redistillation, cracking or re-
forming of unfinished petroleum de-
rivatives.
"Petroleum" means the crude oil
removed from the earth and the oils
derived from tar sands, shale, and coal.
(c) "Process gas" means any gas gen-
erated by a petroleum refinery process
unit, except fuel gas and process upset
gas as defined In this section.
(d) "Fuel gas" means any gas which
Is generated at a petroleum refinery
and which Is combusted. Fuel gas also
Includes natural gas when the natural
gas Is combined and combusted In any
proportion with a gas generated at a
refinery. Fuel gas does not Include
gases generated by catalytic cracking
unit catalyst regenerators and fluid
coking burners.
(e> "Process upset gas" means any
gas generated by a petroleum refinery
process unit as a result of start-up.
shut-down, upset or malfunction.
(f) "Refinery process unit" means
any segment of the petroleum refinery
In which a specific processing oper-
ation Is conducted.
300
environmental Protection Agamy
"Fuel gas combustion device"
means any equipment, such as process
heaters, boilers and flares used to com-
bust fuel gas. except facilities In which
gases are combusted to produce sulfur
or sulf uric acid.
(h) "Coke burn-off" means the coke
removed from the surface of the fluid
catalytic cracking unit catalyst by
combustion In the catalyst regenera-
tor. The rate of coke burn-off la calcu-
lated by the formula specified In
100.104.
(I) "Claus sulfur recovery plant"
means a process unit which recovers
sulfur from hydrogen sulflde by a
vapor-phase catalytic reaction of
sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulflde.
(J) "Oxidation control system"
means an emission control system
which reduces emissions from sulfur
recovery planU by converting these
emissions to sulfur dioxide.
"Reduction control system"
means an emission control system
which reduces emissions from sulfur
recovery plants by converting these
emissions to hydrogen sulflde.
(I) "Reduced sulfur compounds"
means hydrogen sulflde (H.S). carbon-
yl sulflde (COS) and carbon dlsulflde
(CS.).
130 PR Ml». Mar. S. I§74. M amended at 4)
PR lOtSS. Mar. It. 1070; 44 PR 13411. Mar.
12. 1070; 44 PR *I5«J. Oct. 3t. 1070; 4t PR
7*4t3. Dec. I. IBWI
I M. IM Standard for paniculate nailer.
(a) On and after the dale on which
the performance lest required to be
conducted by 160.8 Is completed, no
owner or operator subject to the provi-
sions of this subpart shall discharge or
cause the discharge Into the atmos-
phere from any fluid catalytic crack-
Ing unit catalyst regenerator or from
any fluid catalytic cracking unit regen-
erator:
(1) Parllculate matter In excess of
1.0 kg/1000 kg (1.0 ID/1000 Ib) of coke
burn-off In the catalyst regenerator.
(2) Oases exhibiting greater than 30
percent opacity, except for one slx-
mlnute average opacity reading In any
one hour period.
(b) Where the gases discharged by
the fluid catalytic cracking unit cata-
lyst regenerator pass through an In-
cinerator or waste heal boiler in which
{ 00.104
auxiliary or supplemental liquid or
solid fossil fuel Is burned, partlculate
matter In excess of thai permitted by
paragraph Burn In any fuel gas combustion
device any fuel gas which contains hy-
drogen sulflde In excess of 230 mg/
dscm (0.10 gr/dscf). except that the
gases resulting from the combustion of
fuel gas may be treated lo control
sulfur dioxide emissions provided the
owner or operator demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the Administrator that
thto to as effective In preventing sulfur
dioxide emissions lo Ihe atmosphere
as restricting the H. concentration In
the fuel gas lo 230 mg/dscm or less.
The combustion In a flare of process
upset gas, or fuel gas which Is released
to the flare as a result of relief valve
leakage, to exempt from this para-
graph.
(2) Discharge or cause Ihe discharge
of any gases Into Ihe atmosphere from
any Clans sulfur recovery plant con-
taining In excess of:
(I) 0.025 percent by volume of sulfur
dioxide al zero percent oxygen on a
dry basis If emissions are controlled by
301
-------
I WIOS
an oxidation control system, or a re-
duction control system followed by In-
cineration, or
Oil 0.090 percent by volume of re-
duced sulfur compounds and 0.0010
percent by volume of hydrogen sulflde
calculated as sulfur dioxide at zero
pei cent oxygen on a dry basis If emis-
sions are controlled by a reduction
control system not followed by Incin-
eration.
143 FR 10M9. Mar. It. I97BI
I 49.106 Emlulon monitoring.
(a) Continuous monitoring systems
shall be Installed, calibrated, main-
tained, and operated by the owner or
operator as follows:
(DA continuous monitoring system
for the measurement of the opacity of
emissions discharged Into the atmos-
phere from the fluid catalytic cracking
unit catalyst regenerator. The contin-
uous monitoring system shall be
spanned at 60, 70. or 80 percent opaci-
ty.
(2) An Instrument for continuously
monitoring and recording the concen-
tration of carbon monoxide In gases
discharged Into the atmosphere from
fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst
regenerators. The span of this contin-
uous monitoring system shall be 1,000
ppm. Installation of carbon monoxide
(CO) continuous monitoring systems Is
not required If the owner or operator
files a written request for exemption
to the Administrator and demon-
strates, by the exemption performance
lest descrHied below, that the average
CO rmUslons are less titan 10 percent
oi the applicable standard listed In
leu.lOJ. The exemption performance
lest shall consist of continuously mon-
itoring CO emissions for 30 days using
«n Instrument that meets the require-
ments of Performance Specification 4
of Appendix B, except the span value
shall be 100 ppm Instead of 1000 ppm,
and If required, the relative accuracy
limit shall be 10 percent or 5 ppm.
whichever Is greater.
(3) A continuous monitoring system
for the measurement of sulfur dioxide
In the gases discharged Into the atmos-
phere from the combustion of fuel
gases (except where a continuous mon-
itoring system for the measurement of
hydrogen suKicle Is installed under
40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
paragraph (a) (4) of this section). The
pollutant gas used to prepare'calibra-
tion gas mixtures under Performance
Specification 2 and tor calibration
checks under I 60.13(d), shall be sulfur
dioxide (SO.). The span shall be set at
100 ppm. FOr conducting monitoring
system performance evaluations under
160.13(0, Reference Method 6 shall
be used.
(4) An Instrument for continuously
monitoring and recording concentra-
tions of hydrogen sulflde In fuel gases
burned In any fuel gas combustion
device. If compliance with
|60.104(aMl) Is achieved by removing
HJ3 from the fuel gas before It Is
burned; fuel gas combustion devices
having a common source of fuel gas
may be monitored at one location. If
monitoring at this location accurately
represents the concentration of H.S In
the fuel gas burned. The span of this
continuous monitoring system shall be
300 ppm.
(5) An Instrument for continuously
monitoring and recording concentra-
tions of SOi In the gases discharged
Into the atmosphere from any Claus
sulfur recovery plant If compliance
with 160.104UM2) Is achieved through
the use of an oxidation control system
or a reduction control system followed
by Incineration. The span of this con-
tinuous monitoring system shall be set
at 500 ppm.
(6) An Inslrument(B) for continuous-
ly monitoring and recording the con-
centration of HfS and reduced sulfur
compounds In the gases discharged
Into the atmosphere from any Claus
sulfur recovery plant If compliance
with 160.104(aM2) is achieved through
the use of a reduction control system
not followed by Incineration. The
span(s) of this continuous monotorlng
system(s) shall be set at 20 ppm for
monitoring and recording the concen-
tration of HJS and 600 ppm for moni-
toring and recording the concentration
of reduced sulfur compounds.
(b> [Reserved]
(c) The average coke burn-off rate
(thousands of kilogram/hr) and hours
of operation for any fluid catalytic
cracking unit catalyst regenerator sub-
ject to | 60.102 or I 60.103 shall be re-
corded daily.
302
Environmental Protection
For any fluid catalytic cracking
unit catalyst regenerator which Is sub-
ject to 160.102 and which utilizes an
Incinerator-waste heat boiler to com-
bust the exhaust gases from the cata-
lyst regenerator, the owner or opera-
tor shall record dally the rate of com-
bustion of liquid or solid fossil fuels
(liters/hr or kllograms/hr) and the
hours of operation during which liquid
or solid fossil fuels are combusted In
the Incinerator-waste heat boiler.
(e) For the purpose of reports under
1 60.7(c), periods of excess emissions
that shall be reported are defined as
follows:
(1) Opacity. All one-hour periods
which contain two or more six-minute
periods during which the average
opacity as measured by the continuous
monitoring system exceeds 30 percent.
(2) Carbon monoxide. All hourly pe-
riods during which the average carbon
monoxide concentration In the gases
discharged Into the atmosphere from
any fluid catalytic cracking unit cata-
lyst regenerator subject to i 60.103 ex-
ceeds 0.050 percent by volume.
(3) Sulfur dioxide. (I) Any three-
hour period during which the average
concentration of H.S In any fuel gas
combusted In any fuel gas combustion
device subject to 1 60.104(aXl> exceeds
230 mg/dscm (0.10 gr/dscf). If compli-
ance Is achieved by removing H.S from
the' fuel gas before It Is burned; or any
three-hour period during which the
average concentration of SO. In the
gases discharged Into the atmosphere
from any fuel gas combustion device
subject to |60.I04(aMl> exceeds the
level specified In | 60.104(aXl>. If com-
pliance Is achieved by removing SO,
from the combusted fuel gases.
(II) Any twelve-hour period during
which the average concentration of
SO. In the gases discharged Into the
atmosphere from any Claus sulfur re-
covery plant subject to I 60.104(a)(2)
exceeds 250 ppm at zero percent
oxygen on a dry basis if compliance
with |60.104(b) is achieved through
the use of an oxidation control system
or a reduction control system followed
by Incineration: or any twelve-hour
period during which the average con-
centration of H.S. or reduced sulfur
compounds In the gases discharged
Into the atmosphere of any Claus
§M.10«
•ulfur plant subject to
| 60.l04(aM2Mb> exceeds 10 ppm or 300
ppm. respectively, at zero percent
oxygen and on a dry basis If compli-
ance Is achieved through the use of a
reduction control system not followed
by Incineration.
(4) Any six hour period during
which the average emissions (arithme-
tic average of six contiguous one-hour
periods) of sulfur dioxide as measured ,1
by a continuous monitoring system
exceed the standard under I 60.104.
lit FR (316. MM. I. 1974. as amended at 40
FR 48259. Oct. 6. 1975: 42 FR 32427. June
24. 1*77; 42 FR 39389. Au« 4. 1977: 41 FR
10889. Mar. 15. 1978: 48 FR 23811. May 25.
1983: 50 FR 31701. Au|. 5. I98SI
149.104 Tut method! and procedure*.
(a) For the purpose of determining
compliance with | 60 102(a)(l). the fol-
lowing reference methods and calcula-
tion procedures shall be used:
(1) For gases released to the atmos-
phere from the fluid catalytic cracking
unit catalyst regenerator:
(I) Method SB or 5F Is to be used to
determine parllculate matter emis-
sions and associated moisture content
from affected facilities without wet
FOO systems; only Method SB Is to be
used after wet FOD systems.
(II) Method 1 for sample and velocity
traverses, and
(III) Method 2 for velocity and volu-
metric flow rale.
(2) For Method SB or SF. the sam-
pling time for each run shall be at
least 60 minutes and the sampling rate
shall be at leasl O.OIS dscm/min (0.53
dscf/mln), except that shorter sam-
pling times may be approved by the
Administrator when process variables
or other factors preclude sampling for
at leasl 60 minutes.
(3) For exhaust gases from the fluid
catalytic cracking unit catalyst regen-
erator prior to the emission control
syslem: the integrated sample tech-
niques of Method 3 and Method 4 for
gas analysis and moisture content, re-
spectively; Method I for velocity tra-
verses; and Method 2 for velocity and
volumetric flow rale.
(4) Coke burn off rale shall be deter
mined by the following formula:
303
-------
SM.IM
R.-OMI2 QM <%CO.t%COM30gg
QU io.oM4 QH i%co/a««co.«%o.i
(Metric UnlU) or
R.-O.OIM QM (%C0.4%CO>i«IM>3 Qu-
0.00*1 QH I%CO/2»%C0.4%O.I (Eng
lUh UnlU)
•here:
R.-coke bum-off rate, kg/hr (English
unlU: Ib/hr).
0 Mil-metric unlU material balance factor
divided by 100. kg mln/hr m >.
OOISS-English unlU malerlal balance
factor divided by 100. Ib mln/hr ft*.
QU'fluid catalytic cracking unit calalyit
regenerator exhausl fan flow ral» before
enterlni the emlulon control sy«lem. H
determined by method J. dacm/mln
(English unlU: dscf/mln)
*CXJ.-perrenl carbon dioxide by volume.
dry bull, as determined b> Method I.
•HO* percent carbon monoxide by volume.
dry ba*U. a* determined by Method 1.
%O,« percent oxygen by volume, dry basis.
u determined by Method 3.
IOM~melrte unlU material balance factor
divided by 100. k| mln/hr m'.
O.I 303 = English unlU material balance
factor divided by 100. Ib mln/hr 11«.
Qu-alr rale to fluid catalytic crackln* unit
catalyst regenerator, a* determined
from fluid catalytic cracking unit con-
trol room Instrumentation, dacm/mln
(English unlU: dscf/mln).
O.OM4- metric units material balance factor
divided by 100. kg mln/hr m'.
0.0002'English unlU material balance
factor divided by 100. Ib mln/hr If.
(5) Participate emissions (hall be de-
termined by the following- equation:
R.-«Ox 10 ')Q..C. (Metric UnlU)
R.-(I.S7x 10- 'KJ..C. (English UnlU)
where:
R.- partlculale emission rate, kg/hr (Eng-
llsh unlU: Ib/hr).
MX I0~ '-metric unlU conversion factor.
m In kg/hr mg.
IMxIO'1. English unlU conversion factor.
mln-lb/hr gr.
Q,v T= volumelrfc flow rate of gases dis-
charged Into the atmosphere from the
fluid catalytic cracking unit ralalyst re-
generator following the emission control
system, as determined by Method 9.
dscm/mln (English unlU: duel /mini.
O. partlculale emission concentration dls
charged Into the atmocpliere. as deter-
mined by Method 6. mg/dscm (English
unlU:
(0) For each run, emissions ex-
pressed In kg/ 1000 kg (Kiifcllsh units:
40 Cf t Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
Ib/IOOO Ib) of coke burn off In the cat-
alygt regenerator shall be determined
by the following equation:
R.- lOOOm./R.MMelrlc or English UnlU)
where:
R.-partlculale emission rale, kg/1000 kg
(English unlU: Ib/IOOO Ib) of coke burn-
off In the fluid catalytic cracking unit
catalyst regenerator.
1000-conversion factor, kg to 1000 kg (Eng-
lish units: Ib to 1000 Ib).
RI-parllculate emission rale, kg/hr (Eng-
lish unlU: Ib/hr).
R,-coke burn-off rate, kg/hr (English
unlU: Ib/hr).
(7) In those Instances In which auxil-
iary liquid or solid fossil fuels are
burned In an Incinerator-waste heat
boiler, the rate of parllculate matter
emissions permitted under |80.l02(b>
must be determined. Auxiliary fuel
heat Input, expressed In millions of
cal/hr (English units: Millions of Btu/
hr> shall be calculated for each run by
fuel flow rate measurement and analy-
sis of the liquid or solid auxiliary fossil
fuels. For each run. the rate of partlc-
ulale emissions permitted under
|60102(b> shall be calculated from
the following equation:
R.- I.I t (0.11 H/R.) (Metric UnlU)
R.-1.01 (0.10 H/R.) (English UnlU)
where:
R.-allowable parllculate emission rate, kg/
1000 kg (English unlU: Ib/IOOO Ib) of
coke burn-off In the fluid caUlytlc
cracking unll catalyst regenerator.
l.l-emlsslon standard. 1.0 kg/1000 kg (Eng-
lish unlU: 1.0 Ib/IOOO Ib) of coke burn-
off In the fluid catalytic cracking unit
catalyst regenerator.
Oil-metric unlU maximum allowable In-
cremental rate of partlculale emissions.
g/mllllon cal.
0.10« English unlU maximum allowable In-
crements! rale of parlkulale emissions.
Ib/mllllon Blu.
H = heat Input from solid or liquid fossil
fuel, million cal/hr (English unlU: mil
lion Btu/hr).
R,-coke burn-off rate, kg/hr (English
unlU: Ib/hr).
(b) For the purpose of determining
compliance with I 60.103. the Integrat-
ed sample technique of Method 10
shall be used. The sample shall be ex-
tracted at a rale proportional to the
gas velocity at a sampling point near
304
Environmental Prelection Agency
the centrold of the duct. The sampling
time shall not be less than 60 minutes.
.
Method 6 shall be used to determine
the concentration of SO, and Method
15 shall be used to determine Ihe con-
cenlallon of H.S and reduced sulfur
compounds. Method ISA may be used
as an alternative method for determin-
ing reduced sulfur compounds.
(1) If Method 6 Is used, the proce-
dure outlined In paragraph (c)(2) of
this section shall be followed except
that each run shall span a minimum
of four consecutive hours of continu-
ous sampling. A number of separate
samples may be taken for each run,
provided the total sampling time of
these samples adds up to a minimum
of four consecutive hours. Where more
than one sample Is used, the average
SO, concentration for the run shall be
calculated as the lime weighted aver-
age of the SO, concentration for each
sample according to the formula:
c.
where:
C. -SO, concentration for the run.
M' Number of samples.
CM »8O, concentration for sample i.
(„.Continuous sampling time of sample i.
T--Total continuous sampling lime of all N
samples.
(2) If Method 15 Is used, each run
shall consist of 16 samples taken over
a minimum of 3 hours. If Method ISA
Is used, each run shall consist of one 3-
hour sample or three I-hour samples.
The sampling point shall be at the
cenlrold of the cross section of the
duct If the cross-sectional area Is less
lhan 5 m' (54 ft') or at a point no
closer to the walls than I m (39 In.) If
the cross-sectional area Is 5 m'or more
and the centrold is more lhan I m
from Ihe wall. For Method 15. to
ensure minimum residence lime for
lite sample inside the sample lines, the
sampling rate shall be at least 3 liters/
min (O.I flVmln). The SO, equivalent
for each run shall be calculated as the
arithmetic average of the SO, equiva-
lent of each sample during (lie run.
305
-------
9M.no
Method 4 shall be used to determine
the moisture content of the gases
when using Method 15. The sampling
point lor Method 4 shall be adjacent
to the sampling point for Method IS.
The sample shall be extracted at a
rate proportional to the gas velocity at
the sampling point. Each run shall
span a minimum of 4 consecutive
hours of continuous sampling. A
number of separate samples may be
taken for each run provided the total
sampling time of these samples adds
up to a minimum of 4 consecutive
hours. Where more than one sample Is
used, the average moisture content for
the run shall be calculated as the time
weighted average of the moisture con-
tent of each sample according to the
formula:
N
"•" JL.
•si
where:
B«= Proportion by volume of water vapor
In the |u tlream lor the run.
N - Number of sample*.
Bu = Pi "Hydrocarbon" means any organ-
ic compound consisting predominantly
of carbon and hydrogen.
(f> "Condensate" means hydrocar-
bon liquid separated from natural gas
which condenses due to changes In the
temperature and/or pressure and re-
mains liquid at standard conditions.
(g) "Custody transfer" means the
transfer of produced petroleum and/
or condensate. after processing and/or
treating In the producing operations.
from storage tanks or automatic trans-
fer facilities to pipelines or any other
forms of transportation.
(h) "Drilling and production facili-
ty" means all drilling and servicing
equipment, wells, flow lines, separa-
tors, equipment, gathering lines, and
auxiliary nontransportatlon-related
equipment used In the production of
petroleum but does not Include natu-
ral gasoline plants.
(I) "True vapor pressure" means the
equilibrium partial pressure exerted
by a petroleum liquid as determined In
accordance with methods described In
American Petroleum Institute Bulletin
2517. Evaporation Loss from External
Floating-Roof Tanks. Second Edition.
February 1980 (incorporated by refer-
ence—see 160.17).
(j) "Floating roof" means a storage
vessel cover consisting of a double
deck, pontoon single deck. Internal
floating cover or covered floating roof,
which rests upon and Is supported by
the petroleum liquid being contained.
and Is equipped with a closure seal or
seals to close the space between the
roof edge and tank wall.
(k> "Vapor recovery system" means
a vapor gathering system capable of
collecting all hydrocarbon vapors and
gases discharged from the storage
vessel and a vapor disposal system ca-
pable of processing such hydrocarbon
vapors and gases so as to prevent their
emission to the atmosphere.
(I) "Reid vapor pressure" is the abso-
lute vapor pressure of volatile crude
oil and volatile nonvlscous petroleum
liquids, except liquified petroleum
gases, as determined by ASTM D323-
$60.113
82 (Incorporated by reference—see
160.17).
(39 FR 9317. Mar. 8. 1974; 39 PR 13776. Apr.
17. 1974, as amended at 39 FH 20794. June
14. 1974: 45 FR 23379. Apr. 4. 1980; 48 FR
3737. Jan. 27. 1983; 52 PR 11429. Apr. 8.
19871
IM.II2 Standard fur volatile organk
compounds (VOO.
(a) The owner or operator of any
storage vessel to which this subpart
applies shall store petroleum liquids as
follows:
(1) If the true vapor pressure of the
petroleum liquid, as stored. Is equal to
or greater than 78 mm Hg (1.5 psla)
but not greater than 570 mm Hg (11.1
psla). the storage vessel shall be
equipped with a floating roof, a vapor
recovery system, or their equivalents.
(2) If the true vapor pressure of the
petroleum liquid as stored Is greater
than S70 mm Hg (11.1 psia). the stor-
age vessel shall be equipped with a
vapor recovery system or its equiva-
lent.
(39 PR 9317. Mar. 8. 1974: 39 PR 13776. Apr.
17. 1974. as amended at 45 PR 23379. Apr. 4.
19801
I «0.113 Monitoring of operalions.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(d) of this section, the owner or opera-
tor subject to this subpart shall main-
tain a record of the petroleum liquid
stored, the period of storage, and the
maximum true vapor pressure of that
liquid during the respective storage
period.
(b) Available data on the typical
Reid vapor pressure and the maximum
expected storage temperature of the
stored product may be used to deter-
mine the maximum true vapor pres-
sure from nomographs contained In
API Bulletin 2517. unless the Adminis-
trator specifically requests that the
liquid be sampled, the actual storage
temperature determined, and the Reid
vapor pressure determined from the
sample(s).
(c) The true vapor pressure of each
type of crude oil with a Reid vapor
pressure less than 13.8 kPa (2.0 psia)
or whose physical properties preclude
determination by the recommended
method is to be determined from avail
307
-------
8*0.70
Stibparl 0—Standards el
Perfemance far Nitric Acid Plant*
168.7* AppUcaMlltjr and designation of
affected facility.
(a) The provisions of this subpart
are applicable to each nitric acid pro-
duction unit, which Is the affected fa-
cility.
(b) Any facility under paragraph (a)
of this section that commences con-
struction or modification after August
17, 1971. Is subject to the requirement*
of this subpart.
(43 FH 37*36. July 38. 1*771
066.71 Definition*.
A* used In this subpart, all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them In the Act and In Subpart
A of this part.
(a) "Nitric acid production unit"
means any facility producing weak
nitric acid by either the pressure or at-
mospheric pressure process.
(b) "Weak nitric acid" means acid
which Is 30 to 70 percent In strength.
0 66.71 Standard for nitrogen oiides.
(a) On and after the date on which
the performance test required to be
conducted by 160.8 Is completed, no
owner or operator subject to the provi-
sions of this subpart shall cause to be
discharged Into the atmosphere from
any affected facility any gases which:
(1) Contain nitrogen oxides, ex-
pressed as NO,. In excess of 1.6 kg per
metric ton of acid produced (3.0 Ib per
ton), the production being expressed
as 100 percent nitric acid.
(2) Exhibit 10 percent opacity, or
greater.
13* FR 307*4. June 14. 1*74. at amended at
40 FR 46286. Oct. 6. 18761
06*73 EmlsaloB monitoring.
(a) A continuous monitoring system
for the measurement of nitrogen
oxides Khali be Inslallril. calibrated.
maintained, and operated by the
owner or operator. The pollutant gas
used to prepare calibration gas mix-
lures under paragraph 2.1. Perform-
ance Specification 2 and for calibra-
tion checks under |60.l3(d) to this
part shall be nitrogen dioxide (NO.).
The span shall be set at SOO ppm of
40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
NO.. Method 7. 7A. 7B. 1C. or 7D shall
be used for conducting monitoring
system performance evaluations under
(b) The owner or operator shall es-
tablish a conversion factor for the pur-
pose of converting monitoring data
Into units of the applicable standard
(kg/metric ton. Ib/short ton). The
conversion factor shall be established
by measuring emissions with the con-
tinuous monitoring system concurrent
with measuring emissions with the ap-
plicable reference method testa. Using
only that portion of the continuous
monitoring emission data that repre-
sents emission measurements concur-
rent with the reference method test
periods, the conversion factor shall be
determined by dividing the reference
method test data averages by the mon-
itoring data averages to obtain a ratio
expressed In units of the applicable
standard to units of the monitoring
data. I.e.. kg/metric ton per ppm (Ib/
short ton per ppm). The conversion
factor shall be reestablished during
any performance test under | 60.8 or
any continuous monitoring system
performance evaluation under
| 60.13(0.
The owner or operator shall
record the dally production rate and
hours of operation.
(d) I Reserved!
(e) For the purpose of reports re-
quired under 1 60.7(c>. periods of
excess emissions that shall be reported
are defined as any 3-hour period
during which the average nitrogen
oxides emissions (arithmetic average
of three contiguous 1-hour periods) as
measured by a continuous monitoring
system exceed the standard under
| 60.72
-------
\ ^$SL ? UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
*»•. .O WASHINGTON DC .JO 4 50
t swO^*
FES I 5 1989
Mr. John W. Boston
Vice President
Wisconsin Electric Power Company
Post Offi_-e Box 2046
Milwaukee. Wisconsin 52301
Dear Mr. Boston:
This is a revised final determination, on reconsideration,
regarding the applicability of the Clean Air Act's New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) provisions to the proposed life extension
project at the Port Washington steam electric generating station,
which is owned and operated by Wisconsin Electric Power Company
(WEPCO). This determination supplements the determination set
forth in an October 14, 1988 letter to you from Lee M. Thomas,
which in turn incorporated my September 9, 1988 memorandum. I
find it necessary to reconsider EPA's original determination and
issue this revised determination in part to address matters
raised by, and new information submitted by, WEPCO
representatives since the October 14 letter. WEPCO believes that
these new aspects call .into question the accuracy of EPA's prior
determination.
For the following reasons, EPA today reaffirms, with limited
exceptions detailed below, its earlier findings regarding the
Port Washington life extension project. I hereby incorporate by
reference the October 14 letter and the September 9 memorandum,
and reaffirm the findings and conclusions in those two documents
except where they are specifically superseded below.
This action constitutes final agency action for purposes of
judicial review under section 307(b) of the Clean Air Act, 42
U.S.C. S 7607(b).
I. CAPITAL EXPENDITURE
EPA explained in its earlier determination that under the
General Proviaion* of the NSPS regulations, a physical or
operational change which increases emissions at an affected
facility is a modification subject to NSPS. See 40 CFR 60.14(a).
However, 40 C7R 60.14(e) provides certain exceptions to that
general rule. In particular, section 60.14(e)(2) provides that
an increase in production rate at an affected facility would not,
by itself, be considered a modification if that increase is
accomplished without a capital expenditure.
As has been discussed in recent meetings between WEPCO and
EPA, the October 14, 1988 letter from Lee M. Thomas was based in
-------
- 2 -
part on information supplied by WEPCO in a letter dated October
11, 1988 which indicated that the increase in production rate at
each of the five units would be accomplished with a capital
expenditure. On October 13, 1988. and November 22. 1988 WEPCO
submitted revised capital expenditure calculations. EPA has
carefully reconsidered its earlier determination based on those
two additional submissions.1 However, as explained below, they
provide no grounds on which to alter EPA's earlier finding on
capital expenditure.
The modification provisions are designed in part to subject
to NSPS those emissions increases caused by an increase in
production rate that is in turn attributable to a significant
investment in improvements to the capital stock. Consistent with
this intent, capital expenditure calculations employ the total,
as opposed to annual, cost of a given project at each affected
facility.
Thus, the December 16, 1975 preamble to the promulgated
definition of capital expenditure states that "...the total cost
of increasing the production or operating rate must be
determined. All expenditures necessary to increasing the
facility's operating rate must be included in this total" (40 FR
58416) (emphasis added). The total cost of the planned work at
each facility is then compared to the product of the existing
facility's basis and the annual asset guideline repair allowance
percentage used by the Internal Revenue Service for taxation
purposes. If the total project cost for each facility exceeds
-.he product of the basis and repair percentage for each facility,
there is a capital expenditure at that facility. See 40 CFR
60.2.
It is appropriate to accumulate, for capital expenditure
purposes, the cost of the renovations necessary to increase the
facility's production rate, because the overall work necessary to
increase a facility's production rate pursuant to a particular
renovation project is the same whether the work is performed in
one calendar year or during two (or more) years. The use of
annual coats could encourage sources to distort normal business
planning.by artificially stretching out costs over time as a
means of-trading a finding of capital expenditure and consequent
NSPS coverage.*
1 The October 13, 1988 submission was not received in
time to be considered in issuing BPA's letter of October 14,
1988.
2 Indeed, it appears that WEPCO may have extended the planned
length of the Port Washington life extension project for
precisely this purpose after being informed by EPA in the Octobr
-------
Rather, the purpose of the exemption in 40 CFR 60.14(e)(2)
is to exclude from NSPS coverage increases in production rate
that are accomplished without "an expenditure for long-term
additions or improvements." See 39 FR 36948 (preamble to
proposed NSPS regulations>. Where the economic realities of the
case are that increased production and, hence, emissions, are due
to normal fluctuations in the business cycle rather than a
considered decision to invest in substantial capital
improvements, the NSPS do not apply.
The letter submitted on October 13 from Neil Childress of
your staff to Gary McCutchen of EPA presented updated basis
figures (determined by multiplying the original capital
investment in the facility by a coefficient'representing the
inflation in construction costs between the year of the
investment and the year in which the capital expenditure
calculation is made) for each of the emissions units at Port
Washington. These figures included costs of repair or
replacement of equipment, such as steam turbines, that is not
part of the existing affected facility for NSPS purposes. Since
applicability determinations under the NSPS modification
provisions are based on the existing affected facility, capital
expenditure determinations likewise are limited to costs
associated with the affected facility. For NSPS Subpart Da, the
affected facility is the steam generating unit as defined at 40
CFR 60.40a. Therefore, EPA staff requested WEPCO to limit the
basis figures to the steam generating unit.
The November 22, 1988 letter from Neil Childress to Walt
Stevenson of EPA presented revised cost figures on the renovation
work on steam generating units 1-4 related to the capital
expenditure calculations. These November 22 basis figures are
understood to be limited to costs associated with the affected
facility. The November 22 letter also presented a revised and
extended schedule for the renovation work, under which the costs
of repairs in any one year would not exceed the product of the
annual asset guideline repair allowance percentage, which is 5%
for electric utility steam generating units, and the basis of
each unit. Mr Childress' letter concluded that since 5% of each
14, 1988 letter that there would be a capital expenditure using
the original schedule. The unit 1 renovations have been extended
from four years to five; unit 2 has been extended from four years
to six; unit 3 has been extended from three years to six; unit 4
has been extended from two years to four. (Compare Telecopier
Transmission, Neil Childress, WEPCO, to Gary McCutchen, EPA,
October 11, 1988 (table attached to Response to Question No. 4)
with Letter, Neil Childress, WEPCO, to Walt Stevenson, EPA,
November 22, 1988, at page 2.)
-------
unit's updated basis is not exceeded by the cost of renovation
work in any one year, there would not be a capital expenditure at
any of the units. The revised figures also show that the total
costs for each unit over the entire renovation period would
exceed the 5% basis figure by 50% to 325%.
As explained above, it is the total cost/ not the annual
cost of a renovation project that determines whether a capital
expenditure has occurred. Accordingly, based on the calculations
and total project costs in WEPCO's November 22, 1988 letter, the
proposed project would result in a capital expenditure at each of
the five Port Washington units, and those units would not qualify
for the exemption in the NSPS modification provisions at 40 CFR
60.14(e)(2).' As to unit 5, WEPCO did not submit cost data
limited to the affected facility. Thus, I have no reason to
alter EPA's original determination that WEPCO has not
demonstrated that the increase in production rate at unit 5 can
be accomplished without a capital expenditure.
In addition, I have determined that it is more appropriate
to utilize the original basis of each affected facility (as
adjusted to reflect past capital improvements), expressed in
nominal dollars, rather than the updated basis, expressed in
current dollars, in determining NSPS applicability. Thus, even
if WEPCO were correct that annual renovation costs, rather than
total costs, should be used in capital expenditure calculations,
in this case a comparison of annual renovation costs and the
3 WEPCO has argued that since the definition of capital
expenditure at 40 CFR 60.2 refers to the IRS "annual asset
guideline repair allowance percentage" (emphasis added), EPA is
bound by the literal language of its own regulations to use
annual rather than total project costs in aaking capital
expenditure calculations. However, the regulations do not
dictate such a result. Instead, on their face they call for a
comparison between total renovation costs and the annual asset
guideline. Bad EPA intended the result suggested by WEPCO, it
would have explicitly called for comparison of annual costs of
the change for projects exceeding one year with the annual asset
guideline. This it did not do. In addition, as indicated above,
the purpose of the capital expenditure provision would not be
served by annualizing project costs for capital expenditure
purposes.
-------
- 5 -
(adjusted) original basis of each affected facility shows that a
capital expenditure would still occur.*
In making a more detailed inquiry into the capital
expenditure matter in response to WEPCO's request, I have found
that neither the NSPS General Provisions nor the preamble thereto
contain any discussion of the matter of original versus updated
basis, and that EPA has rarely been called upon to address this
issue. However, upon review of EPA's past practice in this area,
I have found that in developing performance standards for
particular industries, EPA has provided the regulated community
a mechanism to calculate the original basis in making capital
expenditure calculations. See, e.g., "Equipment Leaks of VOC in
Petroleum Refining Industry — Background Information for
Promulgated Standards," EPA-450/3-81-015b, December 7, 1983.3
This suggests that EPA intended the original basis to be utilized
to determine whether a capital expenditure is going to be made.
Moreover, I believe chat the use of original basis is
consistent with the overall purpose of the NSPS modification
regulations in general, and the capital expenditure provisions in
particular. The effect of using original basis is that the
greater the age of an affected facility, the more likely it is
that a/given investment resulting in increased production will be
deemed a capital expenditure and trigger NSPS. This is
consistent with Congress* intent in adopting new source
performance standards. Older facilities are more likely to use
outdated equipment which does not reduce pollution to the extent
more current technology does. Congress included modified sources
within the new source performance standards of section 111 to
ensure the use of new technology on such sources. See CAA
§§ lll(a)(2), lll(a)(4);
II. AIR HEATER RENOVATIONS AT UNIT 1
In January 1989, WEPCO asked EPA to determine whether
replacement of the heat transfer surface elements on the unit 1
air heater would trigger PSD or NSPS applicability. However, in
a letter dated February 3, 1989, WEPCO withdrew this request,
4 It is worth noting in this regard that if EPA were to
adhere to a literal reading of IRS guidelines as urged by WEPCO,
it would have no choice but to use original basis as well as
annualized costs in making capital expenditure calculations for
Port Washington. Using this formula, WEPCO would exceed the
repair allowance percentage at units 1-5 for most years, and
NSPS would still apply.
9 This Background Information Document provides an
alternative to the method prescribed in the General Provision
when it is difficult to determine original costs. The formula
uses replacement costs and an inflation index to "approximate the
original cost basis of the affected facility."
-------
- 6 -
asserting that it could not receive approval in the time
necessary, while reserving the right to renew it at a later time
as to unit 1 or any other unit at Port Washington. Because this
issue may arise again, and because I believe it bears upon the
project as a whole, I find it appropriate to address the matter
of air heater element replacement. Based on the information
submitted regarding this new plan, as well as the earlier
information submitted regarding air heater replacement work, I
conclude that if WEPCO were to proceed under its revised and now
withdrawn plan, it would not alter EPA's earlier finding that PSD
and NSPS would apply, in order-to explain this finding, it is
useful to first summarize the relevant facts.
Originally, WEPCO advised EPA that it planned to replace the
air heaters at units 1 - 4 in their entirety. As WEPCO
explained:
Air heaters are subject to the erosive and
corrosive effects of the flue gas passing through them
and require regular maintenance of the heat transfer
surfaces.
The plate-type air heaters on Units 1 - 4 do not
lend themselves to replacement of the individual
elements. Worn sections have been patched and blocked,
where accessible, over the years. Now, however,
overall corrosion and perforation Jus passed beyond the
practical point of repair, and replacement of the air
heaters is the economical way to maintain the air
preheater system.
The air heaters on Port Washington Unit 5 and the
other units on the Wisconsin Electric system [other
than Port Washington units 1-4] are of the Ljungstrom
basket design, which allows the heat transfer surfaces
i~ .ikets) to be replaced easily. ***
See, e.g., Li»t of Port Washington Projects, p. 6 (Attachment to
April 22, 1988 letter from John W. Boston, WEPCO, to Gary
McCutch«n. SPA).
On January 11, 1989, WEPCO informed the State of Wisconsin
that it was considering replacing all the plate elements at unit
1. In a letter to the State of Wisconsin, WEPCO described this
project as routine repair work, "necessary to halt the continuing
decrease in the capability of Unit 1," and submitted a list of 40
generating units where significant portions of the air heater
have been replaced. See Letter, with attachment, froa Mark P.
Steinberg, WEPCO, to Dale Ziege, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, January 11, 1989.
-------
- 7 -
In a telephone conversation with EPA staff the next day,
WEPCO indicated that it desired to perform the unit 1 plate
replacement work during a current unit outage; that it intended
to replace only half, not all, of the elements, at a cost of
approximately $500.000; that it intended to later scrap this work
and replace the entire air heater as described in the original
scope of work, at a cost of $2.600,000; and that it was
considering performing the same work at unit 4 also. See Record
of Telephone Conversation between David Schulz. EPA, and Mark
Steinberg. Neil Childress, and Walter Woelfle, WEPCO, January 12.
1989.
In a meeting on January 17, 1989, WEPCO related that if it
replaced half of the plate elements now, it probably would
replace the remainder as part of the total renovation project at
a later date and not replace the air heater in whole. WEPCO also
related that complete replacement of the plate elements should
increase unit 1's capability to the original design capacity.
Finally, WEPCO stated in response to questions from EPA staff
that none of the air heaters or plate elements at units 1-4 had
ever been replaced in the past. See Memorandum, Meeting with
WEPCO regarding the Port Washington Generating Station, from
David Schulz, EPA, to Files, January 27, 1989.
In addition to the above information, I note that WEPCO's
list of 40 units at which air heater element replacements have
occurred include no units containing plate elements such as those
on units 1 - 4 at Port Washington. Instead, all of the examples
submitted are of the Ljungstrom basket type or the tubular type.
I conclude that those examples are too dissimilar to the plate-
type elements in use at units 1 - 4 to support WEPCO's contention
that the work in question is routine.*
Based on all of the foregoing, I find no reason to depart
from EPA's earlier conclusion that PSD and NSPS would apply to
the air heater work on unit 1. It appears that despite WEPCO's
recent recharacterization of this work as a separate project, it
is properly viewed as an integral part of the overall Port
Washingtoa life extension project. WEPCO cannot evade PSD and
NSPS applicability by carving out, and seeking separate treatment
of, significant portions of an otherwise integrated renovation
program. * *9ueh piecemeal actions, if allowed to go unchallenged,
could readily eviscerate the clear intent of the Clean Air Act's
•Further, even the list of air heater replacement work
submitted by WEPCO did not establish this as routine repair work.
Those 40 units comprise only a small fraction of total operating
utility units, and even at the 40 units, air heater repair or
replacement appears to have been a one-time occurrence, not
routine repair.
-------
new source provisions. Accordingly, if seen as part of WEPCO's
previously proposed renovation project, the recent
recharacterization of the unit 1 air heater work does nothing to
alter the factors determinative of PSD and NSPS coverage.
III. CAPACITY TESTING FOR UNITS 1-4
A. Impact of Test Results on NSPS Applicability.
In Lee Thomas' October 14, 1988 letter, EPA seated that
baseline emissions for NSPS purposes are determined by hourly
maximum capacity just prior to the renovations. EPA relied on
actual operating data to determine that current maximum capacity
at units 1-4 has significantly deteriorated, such that the
restoration of original design capacity through the life
extension project would result in corresponding emissions
increases. As to unit 5, EPA stated that current capacity at
unit 5 is zero because it is physically inoperable. EPA rejected
WEPCO's unsupported assertions that all five units could be
operated at high capacities, but held open the possibility of
further discussions on that point. Subsequently, in November and
December of 1988, following discussions with EPA, WEPCO conducted
capacity tests to determine current actual capacity.
Based on its review and analysis of the test data, EPA finds
that the tests adequately demonstrate that units 2 and 3 can be
operated at their original design capacity on a sustained basis.
Accordingly, I hereby supersede EPA's earlier determination and
find that NSPS would not apply to units 2 and 3 by virtue of the
proposed renovations so long as the capacity of these units after
completion of the work is no higher than demonstrated in the
recent tests (694,000 and 690,000 pounds of steam per hour,
respectively). As discussed in more detail below, this revised
NSPS determination does not affect our determination that the PSD
provisions would be applicable to the proposed work on these two
units.
During the tests on units 1 and 4, WEPCO was able to operate
these units at 497,000 and 586,000 pounds of steam per hour,
respectively, representing 72% and 89% of these units' respective
original design capacities. These testa are adequate to confirm
EPA's original determination that units 1 and 4 are not capable
of operating at their original design capacities, and that
restoration of the lost capacity through the life extension will
trigger NSPS coverage. EPA today also determines that these
tests are not adequate to show that current actual capacity for
purposes of establishing the NSPS baseline is as high as the
levels achieved during the recent tests. Rather, I reaffirm that
baseline for those units is determined by the lower capacities
reflected in recent actual operating data as set forth in Lee
Thomas' October 14 letter. EPA must reject the tests for
-------
- 9 -
purposes of establishing actual NSPS baselines because during the
testing discussed above, there were significant, measured
exceedances of the applicable particulate mass emission limit,
and several measured exceedances of the applicable opacity limit
contained in the Wisconsin State Implementation Plan. One of the
purposes of these tests was to determine the maximum actual
capacity of the Port Washington units that can be achieved in a
lawful manner. As a consequence of the measured exceedances,
WEPCO's tests cannot be relied on to demonstrate that the company
could lawfully sustain the levels achieved during the testing.
Regarding unit 5, I find that by declining to conduct or
schedule capacity tests, WEPCO has effectively conceded that unit
5 is at present inoperable. Therefore. I reaffirm that its
baseline for NSPS purposes is zero.
B. Impact of Test Results on PSD Applicability.
In its February 3, 1989 letter, WEPCO asserted that EPA's
October 14, 1988 determination assumed that the emission rate of
each unit would increase following the renovations. Thus, WEPCO
claims, EPA did not address the question whether units that are
not increasing their emission rates following renovation can be
deemed to trigger PSO. WEPCO is incorrect on both counts.
EPA's prior determination explained that under the PSD
program, unlike NSPS, baseline emissions are determined by
representative actual emissions prior to the physical or
operational change. Accordingly, the results of testing
conducted by WEPCO, intended to determine current maximum hourly
capacity, have no impact on the existence of a significant net
emissions increase for PSD purposes. Hence, those test results
provide no reason to alter EPA's prior determination regarding
PSD applicability.
Actual emissions are the product of the emission rate
(amount of pollution per unit of production or throughput, e.g.,
pounds of sulfur dioxide per ton of coal combusted), the
production rat* or capacity utilization (amount of production or
throughput per hoar, e.g., tons of coal combusted per hour), and
the hour*>-~«f operation (e.g., hours per year). In its prior
determination, SPA explained that an increase in any one of these
three factors, if attributable to a physical or operational
change, can trigger an emissions increase for PSD purposes, and
rejected WBPCO's contention that only increases in the emission
rate were determinative. In so doing, EPA explicitly assumed
that emissions increases at Port Washington would come not from
an increase in emission rate, but rather from increases in
production rate or hours of operation. See Memorandum from Don
R. Clay, September 9, 1988 at 8.
-------
- 10 -
WEPCO further i.T.plies i- its February 3. 1939 letter that
the demonstration that uni-s 2 and 2 can operate now at r.axi-.u.-. '
design capacity means that cher^ will be no increase in
production rate for PSD purposes following the renovations. This
is not the case because PSD baseline emissions are determined by
representative actual emission rate, production rate, and hours
of operation prior to the physical change. Representative actual
emissions are determined by examining the actual emissions
during a representative two year period, (See 40 CFR
52.21(b)(21)(ii)) which in this case the Administrator determined
to be 1983 and 1984 (See Lee Thomas' Oct. 14 letter, at 5). The
hourly capacity demonstration for NSPS purposes is not relevant
to the PSD analysis.
IV. NSPS OPERATIONAL LIMITATIONS
In my September 9, 1988 memorandum, I pointed out that an
affected facility cannot avoid NSPS applicability by offsetting,
through the use of fuel with a lower sulfur content, an increase
in the emission rate that would otherwise occur due to a physical
or operational change. As I explained at that time, 40 CFR
60.14(e) provides that use of an alternative fuel or raw material
— such as higher-sulfur coal — which an existing facility was
designed to accommodate before a physical or operational change
does not constitute a modification for NSPS purposes. It follows
that the facility cannot avoid NSPS by switching to lower-sulfur
fuel to counteract a prospective increase in emission rate
because, under the regulations, the facility would always have to
option to switch back to a higher-sulfur fuel at a later date
without triggering NSPS.
Subsequent t'o ~.~e issuance of EPA's October 14, 1988 letter,
WEPCO inquired whether it might be able to utilize lower-sulfur
coal to avoid NSPS at Port Washington, notwithstanding the
regulatory provision explained above, by agreeing to federally
enforceable permit conditions that would bar the company from
switching back to higher sulfur coal in the future. Restrictions
of this nature are acceptable for netting transactions under the
Act's PSD provisions. However, the statute reflects a basic
political decision that fossil fuel-fired sources not rely only
on natural occurring less-polluting fuels to comply with the
NSPS. Instead, Congress declared that compliance must depend in
part upon the application of flue gas treatment or other
pollution control technologies. Thus, section 111(a)(1)(A)(ii)
defines "standard of performance" for fossil fuel-fired sources
as
requiring the achievement of a percentage reduction in
the emissions from such category of sources from the
emissions which would have resulted from the use of
-------
- 11 -
fuels which are not subject to treatment prior to
combustion ... .
Congress further clarified this point in a later paragraph of
section 111(a) by adding:
For the purpose of subparagraph (1)(A)(ii), any
cleaning of the fuel or reduction in the pollution
characteristics of the fuel after extraction and prior
to combustion may be credited ... to a source which
burns such fuel.
This core policy judgment is reflected as well in the
legislative history of the 1977 Clean Air Act amendments. For
example, the Conference Report states:
The Senate concx,: s in the House provision with
minor amendments. The agreement requires (1) that the
standards of performance for fossil fuel-fired boilers
be substantially upgraded to require the use of the
best technological system of continuous emission
reduction and to preclude use of untreated low sulfur
coal alone as a means of compliance; ... (3) that for
fossil fuel-fired sources, the new source performance
standards must be comprised of both a standard of
performance for emissions and an enforceable
requirement for a percentage reduction in pollution
from untreated fuel.
H.R. Rep. No. 95-564, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 130.
Because the will of Congress is so clear that lower-sulfur
fuels alone will not suffice to comply with NSPS, it would be
inconsistent with the legislative intent for EPA to allow sources
to use lower-sulfur fuel to avoid coverage of NSPS in the first
instance in the manner suggested by WEPCO. If EPA were to follow
such a course, numerous modifications to existing facilities
could escape coverage in a manner contrary to the statutory
purpose. •••••
V. THE TIMING OP THE LIFE EXTENSION PROJECT
In discussions with EPA, WEPCO has challenged, on grounds of
timing, BPA's position on baseline emissions for NSPS purposes.
In its prior determination, EPA explained that under the NSPS
regulations, baseline emissions are determined by hourly maximum
capacity just prior to the renovations. Thus, the baseline for
unit 5 at Port Washington is zero because the unit has been shut
down for several years due to safety concerns. In response.
-------
- 12 -
WEPCO has presented the hypothetical question whether EPA would
still have found a zero baseline if unit 5 had been shut down on
a Friday due to some unexpected or catastrophic failure of a
major component previously in good working order, and WEPCO had
sought to replace that component on the following Monday. WEPCO
asserts that in such circumstances, EPA should have established
baseline emissions using the emissions rate just prior to the
breakdown.
I find it unnecessary to engage in speculation by addressing
the hypothetical situation presented by WEPCO, because it is far
removed from the true circumstances surrounding the proposed Port
Washington life extension project. In fact, unit 5 has been shut
down for over four years, not a vaekend. and that is the
foundation cf EPA's analysis and determination.
In conclusion, with limited exceptions, EPA today reaffirms
the decisions reached in the October 14 determination. In
addition, EPA has concluded that the work on each unit
constitutes a capital expenditure and that the proposed air
heater plate replacement work on unit 1 would trigger PSD and
NSPS. As a result of the capacity test demonstration, however,
I find that units 2 and 3 at Port Washington can be operated at
their design capacity on a sustained basis. Therefore EPA's
earlier determination with respect to NSPS applicability is
superseded and NSPS would not apply to units 2 and 3 by virtue of
the proposed renovations so long as the capacity of these units
after the completion of this work is no higher than demonstrated
in the recent tests. This determination does not affect PSD
applicability for these two units. If you should have any
questions about the foregoing, please feel free to contact me.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Don R. Clai
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Air & Radiation
-------
APPENDIX B
S02 CHECKLIST
-------
SO2 Checklist
This checklist was developed from several other
checklists and from the SO2 Guideline itself for use in
SIP processing oversight as required by SIP processing
reform. It should be used as a guide to identify
problems when reviewing a SIP and to prevent problems
from occuring when writing a SIP. This checklist is an
overview and is not intended to be comprehensive.
Readers are encouraged to refer to the appropriate
chapter in the SO2 Guideline for more information.
-------
sdps/jvitas
CHECKLIST YES NO REFERENCE
Determining Air Quality Status of Areas
* Modeling is used in demonstration
(see below)
* Justifies exclusion of any areas as
not ambient air
* Demonstration that SIP is being
implemented
* Redesignation will result in a
change in emission limits
— Redesignatic allows
emission increase
Emission increase justified
by SIP revision
* Monitoring includes eight
quarters of data showing
attainment
Ambient Air Quality Monitoring and Data Usage
* Monitoring data are included
Data are quality assured
Data are part of
SLAMS network
* Monitors located at points
of expected maximum ground
level concentrations
Air Quality Modeling
* Specifies version of Guideline on Air
Quality Models (Guideline) used
If prior to current version,
specifies reason for
grandfathering
* Specifies model(s) used
* Specifies terrain
-------
Specifies the 5-year set of
meteorological data used
If on-site data exist but were
not used, provides rationale
Outputs include 3 and 24 hour and
annual average results
Inputs reflect maximum allowable
emissions for short-term analyses
Justifies treatment of any
emissions not input at
maximum allowable
Justifies stack heights input with
respect to good engineering practice
(GEP) requirements
— Modeling does not credit above
formula GEP stack height
Justifies any merged gas streams
input with respect to stack height
regulation
Does not include varying
emission rates with
meteorological conditions
Specifies background sources or
justifies absence
If background sources are
present they are explicitly
modeled
Justifies
background
concentrations
for those sources
not modeled
If actual stack height is below
formula GEP, downwash modeling is
provided
Justifies any deviations from
Guideline
-------
Stack Height Regulations
Stack height negative declaration
evaluates sources:
with stacks > 65 meters
with merged gas streams and
emissions > 5000 tons/year
grandfathered and shows date of
documention for grandfathering
Control Strategy
* Specifies block (or running) averages
used
* Demonstrates no exceedance of NAAQS
and PSD increment
* Justifies rollback or multipoint
rollback
SIP Provisions
* Revision contains PSD
analysis
* Bubbling, trading or
balancing is included
Justifies use of above
Describes before and after
conditions of bubble, trade
or balance
* Sulfur variability is not credited
* Documents interstate and
international impacts
Implementation Enforcement Aspects
* Test method uses averaging time
consistent with modeling
demonstration
Test method does not rely on 30-day
averaging
-------
Does not allow administrative
revisions to the rule/permit
requirements
Specifies EPA test method
Rule/permit does not include an
expiration date
Rule/permit justifies any
malfunction, startup/shutdown, or
maintenance provision
Rule/permit requires Continuous
Emission Monitoring
Units of compliance are
specified in the rule/permit
(e.g. Ibs/mmBtu)
Justifies any mass/time
limits
Rule/permit specifies final
compliance date
compliance date does not exceed
3 years
Rule/permit specifies more than one
emission limit for any emission point
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing;
. REPORT NO.
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
SO? Guideline
5. REPORT DATE
October 1989
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
Radian Corporation
Progress Center
3200 E. Chapel Hill Road/Nelson Highway, PO Box 13000
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-4392
Work Assignment No. 44
2 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The S02 Guideline is an integration and clarification of policy and guidance
information available for S02 programs. This Guideline is to aid the States and EPA
Regional Offices, especially in the development, review, and enforcement of future
S02 SIP revisions.
Each chapter of the Guideline presents a distillation of key policy and guidance for
various subjects that are important to S02 programs. Each chapter also contains
comprehensive references to the original material upon which the chapter is based.
These references include relevant statutory and regulatory requirements (i.e., the
Clean Air Act and the Code of Federal Regulations), FR notices, EPA guideline
documents, and Agency policy and guidance correspondence.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTlFlERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
S02
State implementation plan (SIP)
Attainment
Ambient Air
Ambient Monitoring N$PS
Dispersion Modeling Redesignation
Stack Height Enforcement
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEVEN1
19. SECURITY CLASS i Ttus Report/
20. SECURITY CLASS (Tim page/
22 PR'CE
EPA Form 2:2C-] (R«». ^-77) oRtv.ous ED'T:CN i s OBSOLETE