EPA-450/2-73-005

September 1973
          STATE AIR POLLUTION
         IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
           PROGRESS  REPORT
     JANUARY 1 TO JUNE 30, 1973
                      ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

-------
         United States
Environmental Protection Agency

-------
                              EPA-450/2-73-005
      STATE  AIR POLLUTION
     IMPLEMENTATION  PLAN
        PROGRESS REPORT
JANUARY 1  TO JUNE  30,  1973
     Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
     Office of Enforcement and General Council
                and
    Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
        Office of Air and Water Programs
        Environmental Protection Agency
    Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

             September 1973

-------
Part One
Introduction

-------
 Foreword
     This is the first report focusing  on  the  progress which States
have made in carrying out their air implementation plans which were
required by the Clean Air Act.   A good  start has been made and the
required improvement of air quality is  becoming a reality.  This
success is due largely to the combined  efforts of State and local
air pollution control agencies, environmental  groups, EPA headquarters
and Regional Office personnel  and, of course,  substantial committments
by industry and other pollution sources.

     The State Implementation Plan program is  a pioneering effort
and is inherently a dynamic process.  Many new programs are currently
active, including transportation controls,  significant deterioration
of ambient air quality, the maintenance of standards through the
control of indirect sources and land-use planning, and the inter-
action of the plans with short-term energy supply problems.  These
will  result in revisions and additions  to  Plans for many regions.

     Although many portions of State  plans have been approved, it
has been necessary for EPA to promulgate regulations in some States.
As a matter of policy, however, EPA promulgated regulations will be
rescinded as States are able to adopt necessary regulations and
develop resources to implement their own control programs.

     With the approval of most portions of SIPs, a  substantial  increase
 in State and EPA enforcement actions is anticipated  as various  require-
ments  become effective.  These actions  by  the  State  and/or  EPA  will  be
 needed  to complete establishment of compliance schedules  and  to  ensure
 that sources remain  on schedule and in  compliance with the  requirements
of State plans.

     The discussions which follow point to the progress made, indicate
where more  progress  is needed, and discuss the issues and problems which
 impact  on State  Implementation Plans.  This progress report covers the
semi-annual period ending June 30, 1973.   A similar  progress  report  will
be completed in March  1974 to cover the semi-annual  period  ending
December 31, .1973.
             J.  Steigerwald                      Richard Wilson
    Deputy Assistant  Administrator                  Director
for Air Quality  Planning  and Standards      Division of Stationary
                                             Source Enforcement

-------
Acknowledgements
     The preparation of this report resulted from information
provided by the State and local air pollution control  agencies,
EPA Regional Offices, and from various EPA  headquarters groups.

     Future reports relating to State Implementation Plan progress
will  continue to be a joint effort between  the Division of Stationary
Source  Enforcement, Office of Enforcement and General  Counsel and
the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air
and Water Programs.

     Information on enforcement activities  was provided by the
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement,  Office of Enforcement
and General Counsel.  Their contributions are gratefully acknowledged.
Future  reports will continue to focus on SIP actions and enforcement
of State plans.

     A  list of EPA Regional Offices and the States served by
the Regional Offices is included on the following page.  Additional
information on EPA air programs can be obtained by contacting the
EPA Regional Offices.

-------
          Table of Contents
PART I      INTRODUCTION
           Foreword    .                                        t
           Acknowledgement                                   lit
           Tables                                            vii
           Tables                                           viii
           Figures                                            ix
           Appendices                                          x
           Abbreviations                                      xi
           Regional Office Addresses                          xii
 PART  II   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

          A.  Introduction                                     1
         . B.  Air Quality Monitoring                           2
          C.  Source Emissions                                 6
          D.  EPA Actions on SIPs                             10
          E.  Plan Revision Management System                 11
          F.  Low Sulfur Fuel Supply                          12
          G.  Enforcement Activities                          13
          H.  Litigation                                      14
          I.  State and Local Agency Resources                 16
          J.  Current Activities                              17

 PART  III  STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN PROGRESS

          A.  Air Quality Monitoring                          21
          B.  Source Emissions                                24
          C.  EPA Actions on State Implementation Plans        26
          D.  Plan Revision Management System                 54
          E.  Progress Summary                                67
          F.  Status of Other Regions                         77
          G.  Regional Office Evaluation of State Progress     90

 PART  IV   ENFORCEMENT OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

          A.  SIP Requirements and Enforcement Strategies     101
          B.  Establishment of Compliance Schedules           103
          C.  Keeping Sources in Compliance or on Schedule    107
          D.  Source Surveillance and Intelligence            108
                                    (Continued next page)

-------
         Contents
(Continued)
PART V    AGENCY  RESOURCES

          A.   Operating Funds and Type  of Assistance          119
          B.   Agency  Funds Compared to  SIP Estimates          119
          C.   Manpower Resources Compared to SIP Estimates     120

PART VI   NATIONAL  ISSUES IMPACTING ON  STATE IMPLEMENTATION
          PLANS

          A.   Significant Deterioration                      136
          B.   Maintenance of Standards/Land Use Controls
              (Indirect Sources)                             136
          C.   Supplementary Control Systems                   138
          D.   Copper  Smelters                                139
          E.   Regional Classification for Nitrogen Dioxide     140
          F.   Fugitive Dust                                  140
          G.   Tall  Stacks                                    142
          H.   Definition of Reasonable  Time to Attain
              Secondary Standards                            143
          I.   Implementation of Clean Fuel Policy             143
          J.   Public  Comment Prior to EPA Plan                146
          K.   Variances                                      147
VI

-------
Tables
                                                                Page
 1               Suspended Particulate Matter-Status of
                Air Quality                                        3
 2               Sulfur Dioxide-Status of Air Quality               4
 3               Oxidants-Status of Air Quality                     5
 4               Carbon Monoxide-Status of Air Quality              7
 5               Summary - Air Litigation - July 1973              15
 6               Nationwide Summary of State Monitoring
                Inventories as Reported in SIPs                   22
 7               Number of Federal, State, and Local Air
                Pollution Monitoring Stations:  1969,
                1970, 1971                                        23
 8               Comparison of SIP Emissions and 1970
                Nationwide Estimates                   •           25
 9               Summary-Air Quality Control Regions-
                Priority Classification                           28
 10             Status of State Implementation Plans              29
 11             State Implementation Plans - Plans With All
                Regulatory Portions Approved                      30
 12             Status of States Deficient in Legal Authority      32
 13             Status of States Deficient in Non-regulatory
                Provisions                                        34
 14             Status of EPA Promulgations to Correct
                SIP Deficiencies                                  35
 15             Status of Extensions for Attaining Primary
                Standards                                         41
 16             Status of SIP Extensions for Submitting
                Plans for Attaining Secondary Standards          43
 17             Summary of Transportation Control  Plans           47
                                 (Continued,  next  page)
                                                                               VI 1

-------
Tables
(Continued)                                       page
 18             Maximum Sampling Site Not Exceeding the
               Particulate Matter Standards in 1972              78

 19             Maximum Sampling Site Not Exceeding the
               Primary Standards for Sulfur Dioxide in
               1972                                              80

 20             Maximum Sampling Site Not Exceeding
               Photochemical Oxidant Standards in
               1972                                              82

 21             Priority  III Regions with Present Ambient
               Concentrations Above the National Primary
               Standards for Particulate Matter                  83

 22             Priority  III Regions with Present Ambient
               Concentrations Above the National Primary
               Standard  for Sulfur Dioxide                       84

 23             Priority  III Regions With Present Ambient
               Concentrations Above the National Standards
               for Carbon Monoxide                               85

 24             Priority  III Regions With Present Ambient
               Concentrations Above the National Standard
               for Photochemical Oxidants                        86

 25             Regions with Present Ambient Particulate
               Matter Concentrations Higher than SIP
               Design Concentrations (>10%)                      89

 27             Summary of Significant State Progress and
               Other Activities Related to State
               Implementation Plans                              91

 28             Summary of EPA Air Enforcement Actions -
               May 1972  to June 1973                            110

 29             State and Local Operating Funds by
               Source of Funds and Type of
               Assistance (FY 73)                               122

 30             Comparison of Agency Resources to SIP
               Estimates (Funds) - 1973 Estimates               127

 31             Control Agency Support - Estimated
               Available Manpower Resources (June 1973)
               and State Implementation Plan Resource
               Needs                                            131
vm

-------
and Figures
 Figure  1 - Composite Levels of Total Suspended
           Particulate at Urban and Non-Urban
           NASN Stations                           8

        2 - Composite Levels of Sulfur Dioxide
           at 32 NASN Stations                     9

        3 - Metropolitan Chicago Interstate AQCR     60

        4 - Map - Metropolitan Chicago              61

        5 - Particulate Matter Listing - Chicago     62

        6 - Particulate Matter Projection - Chicago  63

        7 - Flagging Indicators - Chicago           64

        8 - Flagging Indicator Projections -
           Chicago                                65

        9 - Projected Compliance Schedule
           Development                           118

-------
               Appendices
                                                      Page

APPENDIX A       Air Quality Control Regions                 149
APPENDIX B       Establishment of Priorities of Use
               and Allocations of Supply for Certain
               Low Sulfur Petroleum Products               151
APPENDIX C       National Ambient Air Quality Standards        153

-------
Abbreviations
AQCR           Air Quality Control Region
CO             Carbon Monoxide
CDS            Compliance Data System
DSSE           Division of Stationary Source  Enforcement, EPA
EPA            United States Environmental  Protection Agency
FR             Federal Register
HC             Hydrocarbon
ug/m3          micrograms/cubic meter
mg/m3          milligram/cubic meter
NADB           National Aerometric Data Bank
NAAQS          National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NASN           National Aerometric Surveillance  System
NEDS           National Emission Data System
NO             Nitric Oxide
N02            Nitrogen Dioxide
NOx            Oxides of Nitrogen
OAQPS          Office of Air Quality Planning and  Standards, EPA
OAWP           Office of Air and Water Programs, EPA
OEGC           Office of Enforcement and General Counsel, EPA
Ox             Total Oxidants
PRMS           Plan Revision Management System
RO             Regional Office(s), EPA
SAROAD         Storage and Retrieval of Aerometric Data
SIP            State Implementation Plan
SCS            Supplementary Control System
TSP            Total Suspended Particulates
§109           Clean Air Act: National Ambient Air Quality Standards
S110           Clean Air Act:  Implementation Plans
§111           Clean Air Act: Standards of  Performance for New Stationary
               Sources
§112           Clean Air Act: National Emission  Standards for Hazardous
               Air Pollutants
§113           Clean Air Act: Federal Enforcement
§114           Clean Air Act: Inspections,  Monitoring and Entry

-------
                                             \
Through these  ten  regional offices,   •
assistance  is  provided to state  and
local authorities, industry,  environmental
groups, citizens,  etc.
                                                          \
                                                           UI
                                                           a
                                                   Pfl°
Region One
Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Vermont
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Telephone: (617) 223-6883

Region Two
New York, New Jersey
Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands
Federal Office Building
26 Federal Plaza (Foley Square)
New York, New York  10007
Telephone: (212) 264-2517

Region Three
Delaware, District of Columbia,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
West Virginia
Curtis Building
6th and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Telephone: (215) 597-9800
                                    Region Four
                                    Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
                                    Kentucky, Mississippi,
                                    North Carolina, South Carolina,
                                    Tennessee
                                    Suite 300
                                    1421 Peachtree Street
                                    Atlanta, Georgia 30309
                                    Telephone: (404) 526-3043

                                    Region Five
                                    Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota,
                                    Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin
                                    One North Wacker Drive
                                    Chicago, Illinois 60606
                                    Telephone: (312) 353-6942

                                    Region Six
                                    Arkansas, Louisiana,
                                    New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas
                                    1600 Patterson Street
                                    Dallas, Texas 75201
                                    Telephone: (214)749-1238

                                    Region Seven
                                    Iowa, Kansas, Missouri
                                    Nebraska
                                    1735 Baltimore Avenue
                                    Kansas City, Missouri 64108
                                    Telephone: (816)374-3791
 Region Eight
 Colorado, Montana,
 North Dakota, Utah, South Dakota,
 Wyoming
 916 Lincoln Towers
 1860 Lincoln  Street
 Denver, Colorado 80203
 Telephone:  (303) 837-4831

 Region Nine
 Arizona, California, Hawaii,
 Nevada, Guam, American Samoa
 100 California Street
 San Francisco, California 94111
 Telephone:  (415) 556-2320

 Region Ten
 Alaska, Idaho, Oregon,
Washington
 12006th Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Telephone:  (206) 442-1200
                                                                               Please address correspondence to Regional Administrator,
                                                                               Attn:  Air and Water Programs Division,

-------
Part Two
Executive Summary

-------
Part Two
Executive Summary
     A.  Introduction
         The purpose of this report is  to summarize significant activities
 related to State Implementation Plans  (SIPs).  This report  covers the
 semi-annual period ending June 30, 1973.  The next progress  report,
 scheduled for completion in March 1974  will cover the semi-annual period
 ending December 31, 1973.  Subsequent  reports will cover a  similar time
 schedule.  A special effort will be made to decrease the time between
 the end of a semi-annual report period  and the publication  of a progress
 report.
      Information in this and in future  progress reports will cover
 the most recent semi-annual period.  There will be some exceptions.  Air
 Quality and Source Emissions Data in this report were collected
 during the report period ending December 31, 1972.  The delay is due to
 the time required to collect, process,  validate and analyze the
 extremely large volume of Air Quality and Emissions Data.   Information
 on the status of SIPs, e.g., EPA approval/disapproval actions, Federal
 promulgations, enforcement activities,  and other actions relative to
 State plans will be current.  This type of information will  reflect the
 SIP status for the most recent semi-annual period.  Information on
 significant issues and problems impacting on the SIP process will
 reflect the status up  to the time the final  report is published.
      The discussions which follow summarize  the most significant
 aspects of SIPs and are intended to provide  a broad view of the SIP
 process.  Additional  details on SIPs are contained in the body of the
 report and in the references mentioned in the text.
                                                                   1

-------
     B.   Air Quality Monitoring
         Data acquired by state monitoring networks  are to be submitted
to EPA on a quarterly basis.   The total  number of monitors in 1971  is
shown by type in Table 6.  States have proposed to nearly double the
1971  capability by 1974.
     A significant nationwide total  suspended particulate (TSP) air
quality problem exists according to results of TSP monitoring in 1972.
Of the 213 AQCRs for which sufficient monitoring data have been obtained
to permit evaluation, approximately 65% exceed one or both of the primary
TSP NAAQS (Table 1).  Fourteen of the 36 Priority III AQCRs for which
there are sufficient data exceeded either the 24-hour primary TSP
standard or the annual standard (Table 1).
     The 1972 monitoring data indicate that S(L presents much less of
a problem than TSP.  Of the 154 AQCRs for which sufficient S02 air
quality have been obtained, 27 AQCRs exceed either or both of the
primary NAAQS (Table 2).   Of the 60 Priority I or la AQCRs for S02, 17
AQCRs show concentrations in excess of the NAAQS (Table 2).
     The national monitoring of oxidants is substantially less than
for TSP and SO^ but shows a significant oxidant problem with respect
to the NAAQS (Table 3).  Of the 54 AQCRs originally designated Priority I
for oxidants, EPA has adequate ambient air data for 25 AQCRs.  Eighteen
of these AQCRs show oxidant concentrations in excess of the standard.
Los Angeles exhibits by far the worst problem where 16 stations measured
concentrations in excess of the NAAQS.

-------
                                TABLE 1
                      SUSPENDED  PARTICULATE MATTER
                        STATUS* OF AIR QUALITY
                                 1972
PRIORITY**
CLASSIFICATION
I or la
II
III
TOTAL
NUMBER
OF
AQCR ' S
120
70
57
247
AQCR'S REPORTING
At Least 1 Sta-
tion-Quarter
116
61
36
213
Complete
Annual Average
106
47
26
179
AQCR'S EXCEEDING
ANY PRIMARY
STANDARD
99
26
14
139
 *As of August  7,  1973.
**Federal Register, Vol. 36, #158, p 15488, August 14, 1971

-------
                             TABLE 2




                          SULFUR DIOXIDE




                      STATUS* OF AIR QUALITY




                               1972
PRIORITY
CLASSIFICATION
I or la
II
III
TOTAL
NUMBER
OF
AQCR'S
60
41
146
247
AQCR'S REPORTING
At least 1 Sta-
tion-Quarter
51
30
73
154
Complete
Annual Average
40
25
50
115
AQCR'S EXCEEDING
ANY PRIMARY
STANDARD
17
8
2
27
^x •
*As of August 7, 1973.

-------
                                  TABLE 3
                                  OXIDANTS
                          STATUS* OF AIR QUALITY
                                    1972
Priority***
I
III
Number of
AQCR's
54
193
AQCR's Reporting
at Least One
Station Quarter
25
3
AQCR's Exceed-
ing the Primary
Standard
18
_ **
TOTAL                 247                  28                     21
           *As of August  7,  1973
          **085 Metropolitan Omaha-Council Bluffs, 1st highest  = 200 yg/m3,
                2nd highest  =  200  yg/m3.
             060 Hawaii,  1st  highest = 650 yg/m3, 2nd highest  =  120 yg/m3.
            161 Kingston  (N.Y.), 1st  highest = 164 yg/m3,
                2nd highest  =  160  yg/m3.
          ***Federa1 Register, Vol. 36, #158, p 15488, August 14, 1971

-------
     For CO, 29 AQCRs were originally classified as Priority I



(Table 4).  Sufficient 1971 data are available from 13 of the 29



AQCRs.  These 13 AQCRs showed concentrations in excess of the NAAQS.



Of the remaining 218 Priority III AQCRs, 20 AQCRs were found to



exceed the NAAQS.



     The NO  measurement technique is currently being reevaluated
           A


by EPA.  Based on information obtained by a method which is currently



being considered as a replacement methodology, Los Angeles, Chicago,



and the New Jersey-New York-Connecticut AQCRs currently exceed the



NAAQS.



     Air quality has improved substantially over the past decade with



respect to TSP and S02.  Annual  averages of TSP concentrations



(Figure 1) have improved by over 20% during the past 12 years while



average concentrations of S02 (Figure 2) at 32 NASN Stations have



improved 50 percent.



     Nationwide trends in oxidants, carbon monoxide, and NO  are not
                                                           X


yet identifiable, but, based on analysis of NO  data from the six CAMP
                                              /\


sites and on limited information obtained from the state of California,



carbon monoxide and oxidant concentrations appear to be decreasing.



     C.  Source Emissions



         The estimated emissions from major source categories are



summarized in Table 8.  Estimates are made for sulfur dioxide,



particulate matter, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides.



The tons of emissions of these pollutants are related to transportation,



fuel  combustion in stationary sources, industrial processes, solid

-------
                                Table 4



                            CARBON MONOXIDE



                         STATUS* OF AIR QUALITY



                                 1972
Priority**
I
III
TOTAL
Number of
AQCRs
29
218
247
AQCRs Reporting
at Least One
Station Quarter
13
21
34
AQCRs Exceeding
the Primary
Standard
13
20
33
 *As of August 7,  1973



**Federa1  Register,  Vol.  36,  #158,  p  15488, August 14, 1971

-------
FIGURE 1
COMPOSITE LEVELS OF TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATE
       AT URBAN AND NONURBAN NASN STATIONS
200
150
CO
E
=)
100
PRIMARY STANDARD
SECONDARY
STANDARD 50


.

10
r



*^N

—

-
•



*- 1 •
_
--

-



0
Ml
M
.
J.




••••
.„
M» 1




^

M
-
1 1




«*-*
MMV
—
*





•*~*.
_.
—

1 	




^
_
T"

i



^
fg>
•-










••Mm
•i

i t
•-
^






—
•v, 	





*•
•
M
r
— *«
1





^*-
IB •>




**
K

4.
^
--,
a e
_=

lr



--^
"• i
•* — _
i
i
j. .
.-»- ^
                                                         COMPOSITE AVERAGE
                                                         95 URBAN LOCATIONS
                                                         PRIMARY STANDARD

                                                         SECONDARY STANDARD
                                                         COMPOSITE AVERAGE
                                                         18 NONURBAN LOCATIONS
                    60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71 72
                                 YEARS
                     Range of urban geometric means
                  J_ Range of nonurban geometric means
           8

-------
       FIGURE  2   COMPOSITE LEVELS OF SULFUR DIOXIDE

                    AT 32 NASN STATIONS
              200
              150
           CO
            O)
              100

PRIMARY STANDARD
  SECONDARY
  STANDARD
               50
                                             AVERAGE
                   64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71  72
                          YEARS
                                             RANGE OF ARITHMETIC MEANS

-------
waste disposal and miscellaneous sources.  The SIP emission estimates
are compared to the 1970 nationwide estimates.
     A detailed analysis of monitoring, air quality, and emission trends
is covered in The National Air Monitoring Program:  Air Quality and
Emissions Trends Annual Report, Volume 1, EPA 450/1-73-001 a.
     D.  EPA Actions on SIPs
         Implementation plans have been submitted to EPA by all 50 States,
the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the
Virgin Islands.  At the present time, 20 plans contain fully approved
regulatory portions.  Various regulatory portions of the remaining
35 plans have been disapproved.  EPA has promulgated regulatory portions
of 19 SIPs.  For 11  of these, all  proposed regulations have been
finalized; 8 have action pending on some proposals.  As a matter of
policy, EPA rescinds its promulgated portion of a state plan when the
state takes corrective action to satisfy the plan requirement.
     All EPA proposals for the 16 remaining SIPs with regulatory
deficiencies are awaiting final action.  The majority of these proposals
resulted from disapprovals made relatively recently, mostly in the
areas of transportation controls and compliance schedules.  Other
proposals for these states are copper smelter regulations.
     At the present time, a portion of all plans are technically
disapproved because of deficiencies relating to the significant
deterioration and indirect source/maintenance of standards issues.
These issues and other problems are discussed in Section VI.
     Twenty-three states (including the District of Columbia) involving
38 separate AQCRs are required to submit transportation control plans.

10

-------
A list of these states and a summary of proposed transportation


control strategies are provided in Table 17.


     E.  Plan Revision Management System


         A plan revision management system (PRMS) has been developed


to identify potential problem air quality control regions (AQCRs) that


may need SIP revisions.  The system is designed to combine and utilize


information contained within the SAROAD (air quality), NEDS (source


emissions) and CDS (enforcement and compliance) systems.  Data from


these systems are used to project the air quality levels which can


be expected from enforcement of the regulations submitted as part of


the SIP.  PRMS will analyze air quality data and compare measured


values to projected air quality to determine if adequate progress


is being made to reach standards by statutory dates.  Potential


problem AQCRs will be flagged, and the EPA Regional Offices will be


advised to review the data and determine if a real problem exists.


     To date, the PRMS has been used to analyze the progress being


made relative to the annual particulate matter and sulfur oxide
                                                         o

standards.  OAQPS is in the process of reviewing and analyzing the


short-term data and will provide the PRMS results to the Regional


Offices when completed.


     It should be noted that the quantity and distribution of air


quality monitoring sites available for analysis by the PRMS varied


for each AQCR.  In a few cases, the limited number of sites and


quantity of data made the analysis for the Region difficult.


     Based on the limited data currently available, the PRMS analysis


indicates that acceptable progress has been made in improving the SO
                                                                    A

                                                                    11

-------
air quality and no "potential problem" was identified for any
of the AQCRs analyzed.  The TSP  analysis indicates that approximately
30% of the AQCRs were making adequate progress and 70% may have a
localized problem in some portion of the Region.  One of the
AQCRs analyzed was identified as a "potential problem region."  The
appropriate Regional Offices have been notified and asked to
investigate each "potential problem" that has been identified by the
PRMS.  The results of these investigations and analysis of additional
priority AQCRs will be discussed in the next Administrator's
Progress Report (March 1974).
     Results of 17 AQCRs now being tracked are included in the
"Plan Revision Management System" Section of this report.  Other
priority AQCRs currently are being added to the tracking system,
and results will be included in the next SIP progress report
(March 1974).
     F.  Low-Sulfur Fuel Supply
         The low-sulfur fuel supply problem results primarily from
the fact that some states (1) adopted statewide emission regulations
designed for the worst area of the State which were therefore more
restrictive than needed to attain the air quality standards in most
areas or (2) determined 1975 as a "reasonable" time by which to
meet secondary standards.  Viewed as a whole, the State Implementation
Plans imposed heavy demands on the nation's supply of low-sulfur
fuel and sulfur dioxide cleanup systems.  The problem is most severe
for coal-burning facilities in EPA Regions III, IV, and V where most
of the nation's coal combustion occurs.  EPA has implemented a
12

-------
Clean Fuel Policy assisting the States in modifying or deferring
SCL control regulations not needed for attainment of the primary
(health related) air quality standard.  The program has been
successful and plan revisions underway will lower the fuel  gap by
about 80 million tons of coal by 1975.
     G.  Enforcement Activities
         EPA air enforcement activities were initiated with the
approval of most portions of state plans on May 31, 1972.  Since
then, enforcement activities have concentrated on (1) the establishment
of reasonable compliance schedules for all major sources (2) the
development of a source surveillance program to determine the status
of compliance and (3) keeping major sources in compliance or on
compliance schedules.
     Enforcement actions have been initiated against 50 facilities.
»
In some cases these actions established a reasonable compliance
schedule and in other cases the actions were designed to achieve
compliance with previously established reasonable schedules.  These
actions, including pending notices of violations, abatement orders,
and civil/criminal proceedings are summarized in Table 28.  Current
investigations under authority of §114 of the Act are not included.
Most of these actions were against flagrant violators and were
initiated either because of state failure or inability to act or by
citizen complaint.  The air enforcement strategies that have been
developed are expected to provide a more orderly and rational
approach for the taking of future EPA air enforcement actions.  The
strategy is directed toward some 10,000 facilities that presently are

                                                                 13

-------
 out  of compliance  and  not  on  a  reasonable  schedule.
      Only  6 of the 20  states  required  to do  so,  submitted  increments
 of progress  to  complete  the compliance schedule  requirements of
 Section 40 CFR  Part 51.15.  Approval/disapproval action on these
 schedules was completed  as required on June 15,  1973. and only
 one  of the six  submitted was  satisfactory.
      EPA has proposed  schedules  by source  category in those  states
 that failed  to  submit  acceptable schedules.  Hearings on these
 schedules were  held the  week  of  July  15, 1973, by  the Regional
 Offices.  EPA promulgated  compliance  schedules for the affected
 source categories  (covering some 10,000  facilities) by the end of
 August 1973.  This completes  development of Section 51.15 schedules.
      DSSE, OEGC has completed development  of the Compliance  Data
 System (CDS).   This system has  now been  implemented in Regions II,
 III, IV,  V,  IX  and X.   It  is  expected that CDS will have an  adequate
 data base in all regions by the  next  semi-annual progress report
 in order to  assist in  providing  a meaningful summary of State and
 EPA  progress toward enforcing the requirements of  the SIPs.
      H.   Litigation
          Currently 119 lawsuits  have  been  brought  under the  Clean
 Air  Act,  as  amended.   The  type of organization filing the suit and
 the  reason for  the suit  is presented  in  Table  5.   Sixty (60) suits
 were brought by industries, with the  electrical  generating companies
 and  the  smelter industry bringing 23  and 17 suits, respectively.
 The  approval/disapproval of SIPs was  by  far the  most challenged EPA
 action,  resulting  in 63  suits.   Environmental/citizens groups filed
14

-------
                            TABLE 5
                              SUMMARY
                     Air Litigation  July 1973










Suit Filed
By
EPA
States
Cities/Counties
Environmental/
Citizens Groups
Industries
Petroleum
Automotive
Electrical
Gen.
Smelters
Other

TOTAL
Subject of Suit



>»
+•>
•r- 1/1
r— -a
fO i.
3 ra
Cr-rj
c
i- ro
•r- •»->
«t oo




2





2


4





in
c
0
•r~
I/I
O I/)
4-> T-
5S
3



1


4





8



O)
(U (_>
U C: C/1
s- re -a
=3 E S-
0 S-  +->
z: a. co




1




1

3

5



+j
c
QJ
E
QJ to
0 Q.
i. HH
O «^
>+-
C 4-
UJ O

2
1

1

2



1


7

c
O
+-> -1-
C 4->
fO fO
U 1-
•r- 0
M- -i-
•r- S_
C QJ
C7>4->
•r- QJ
OO T3




2






'

2

^v^
r—
ta i —
> ro
O >
i- O
a. s-
a. Q.
ra Q.
i ta
OL en
*—-• *r—
co -a

1
1

31




15
12
3

63
<«-
O

C
O I/)
•r- C
+-> O
ra T-
O1 -M
i — rtj
3 •—
E 3
O cn
t- QJ
CL C£

1
1

8

2


6
2
3

23
in
QJ
>

4->
• ^*






TD
TD

-------
 48  suits, most of which related to approval/disapproval actions taken
 by  EPA  on state  plans.
      Decisions on some of  these cases have been reached, and
 cases have  been  referred to higher courts.  Others are still pending.
 Additional  information on  specific court cases can be obtained by
 contacting  the EPA Office  of  Enforcement and General Counsel, (OEGC)
 in  Washington, D.C., or the EPA Regional Counsels in each of the 10
 EPA Regional Offices.  In  addition, a summary of Clean Air Act
 litigation  has been published in the Environmental Law Reporter,
 March 1973  issue.
      I.  State and Local Agency Resources
         State and local air  pollution control agencies currently
 have  6,844  budgeted positions; 6,195 of these are filled.  These
 filled  positions represent approximately 1,100 man-years less than
 the estimated SIP requirements for 1973 and 2,800 man-years less
 than  the estimated SIP manpower needs in 1975.  The resources
 are distributed  about equally between the 55 state and approximately
 174 local agencies.
      In FY  73 approximately $113.6 million was spent by State and
 local control agencies in  their air pollution control efforts.  The
 EPA grant support program  funds accounted for almost 41 percent of
 this  expenditure.  Additional Federal support, including 202
 Federal assignees, special contract support, and demonstration grants
 resulted in a total Federal cost of $50.5 million or 45% of the
 total FY 73 expenditure.   Although the total funds being spent in
 FY  73 is only 4% (4.5 million) less than the estimated SIP needs,

16

-------
additional resources will be needed by states to implement control
programs resulting from court decisions involving transportation
controls, significant deterioration and maintenance of standards
requirements.  An additional $5-10:mi 11 Ion above original SIP
requirements may be needed.  A comprehensive study of needed resources
is being made to define these needs.
     J.  Current Activities
         State Implementation Plans are not static; new issues are
continuously arising and revisions will be necessary both to
accommodate  these issues and to respond to new information on plan
effectiveness.  Some of the current issues and major plan revisions
i nclude:
         1.  Significant deterioration:  Four alternative regulations
were proposed by EPA in July 1973 and public comment is now being
solicited.  Public hearings have recently been held in Washington, D.C.,
Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, and San Francisco.
         2.  Maintenance of Standards/Land Use Controls (Indirect
Sources):  EPA is following a court order schedule as a result  of
the Natural Resource Defense Council v Ruckelshaus.  Final promulgation
of EPA regulations for disapproved SIPs is anticipated in  Peceir.ber 1973.
         3.  Supplementary Control Systems (SCS):  EPA proposed
regulations in September 1973 for the use of SCS and requested public
comment.  SCS is  a  temporary measure  applicable  only  to  isolated
smelters and coal-fired power plants, where the sole alternatives
are permanent curtailment of production, shut-down, or delays in
attainment of the standards.
                                                                   17

-------
         4.  Promulgation of final regulations for copper smelters:
The major issue involves the use of SCS as a control strategy.  SCS
will allow EPA to complete the development of control  strategies to
achieve secondary standards for which 18 month extensions have been
granted.
         5.  Regional reelassification for nitrogen dioxide:  It
is expected that 42 of the 47 AQCRs originally classified as
Priority I will be reclassified as Priority III.  The original
reference method overestimated nitrogen dioxide concentrations.
         6.   Fugitive  Dust:   Fugitive  dust  i.e., particulate  matter
due to  emissions from  unpaved roads, agricultural  lands,  construction
sites,  and other similar  sources,  caused  several western  states to
fail  to demonstrate  attainment of  standards for particulate matter.
Additional data have been  collected  and results indicate  that possibly
disruptive controls  may be required  in the  affected areas to  attain
particulate matter standards.
         7.   Tall  Stacks:   EPA has published  a  proposal  on  tall
stacks  policy simultaneously with  the  SCS proposal.   This policy
allows  consideration of tall  stacks  as an acceptable  control
strategy only as a part of SCS.
 18

-------
         8.  Definition of "reasonable time" to attain secondary standards
As a part of the SCS proposals "reasonable time" has been defined as
the time required to design, fabricate and install  reasonably available
control technology.  States can postpone the application of control
technology only in cases where the control strategy would have a severe
adverse economic or social impact.
         9.  Implementation of Clean Fuel Policy:  The availability
of low sulfur coal is most severe in coal-burning utilities in
EPA Regions III, IV, and V where most of the nation's coal combustion
occurs.  EPA has proposed that coal burning sources will still be
required to comply with state sulfur regulations but cannot
convert to oil  unless such conversion is needed to meet primary air
quality standards.
     In addition to these major issues directly involving plan
development, the Regional Offices have defined several general state
problems related to SIPs.  The more frequently mentioned of these
include the following:
     1.  State resources generally will not be adequate without
increases in Federal grant support.
     2.  State legal service generally is inadequate to  follow no
enforcement actions against air pollution sources.
     3.  State legal authority generally is inadequate to carry out
newer portions of implementation plans, e.g. indirect sources and
significant deterioration.
                                                                    19

-------
     4.  Coordination between states  and among State  and local
governments often is poor, e.g., in the development of transportation
control plans.
     5.  Public interest and support  of state  air pollution  control
programs appears to be decreasing in  some areas.
20

-------
Part Three
State Implementation
Plan Progress

-------

-------
Part Three
State Implementation
Plan Progress
      A.  Air Quality Monitoring
          An important measure of progress  in SIP implementation  is
 the relationship between the number of existing air quality monitoring
 stations and the number required under the  implementation planning
 process.  Table 6 summarizes the number of  existing monitoring
 stations for 1971, as well as the number proposed for 1974 and the
 minimum requirement,  stratified by pollutant and monitoring method.
 In some instances, the number of existing monitoring stations in  a
 given pollutant method category exceeds minimum requirement.
     The relationship between the total number of monitoring stations
 for a given pollutant and the number of those stations whose measure-
 ments exceeded established standards for 1969 through 1971 is shown
 in Table 7.  This table reflects only those stations from the
 National Aerometric Data Bank for which sufficient data were
 available to permit valid assessments of ambient air quality.  It
 does not include all  operating stations and therefore does not
 represent the total number of stations for  which measurements may
 have exceeded air quality standards.
     More specific details on air monitoring activities are
 contained in The National Air Monitoring Program:  Air Quality and
 Emissions Trends Annual Report, Volume 1, EPA 450/1-73-001 a, Volume II,
 EPA 450/1-73-OOlb.
                                                            21

-------
                         Table 6
     NATIONWIDE SUMMARY OF STATE MONITORING
         INVENTORIES AS REPORTED IN SIP'S
Pollutant/Method
TSP/Tape
TSP/Hi-Vol
SO^/Continuous
SOp/Wcst-Gaeke
6 Bubbler
0 x / C o n t i n u o u s
CO/tJDIR Continuous
NUMBER OF MONITORS
1971
E x i s t i n a
397
2538
329
541
183
197
1974
Proposed
901
3511
698
1431
458
457
Minimum
Requirement
497
1366
213
666
208
133
Percent
Increase
127
38
112
164
150
132
22

-------
                                          Table 7

                      NUMBER OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND  LOCAL AIR POLLUTION
                        MONITORING STATIONS:  1969,  1970, 1971
Pollutant
SUSPENDED PARTICULATES
Total stations with valid year's data
Exceeding Annual Secondary Standard
Exceeding Annual Primary Standard
Total stations with 1 or more valid quarters
Exceeding 24-Hr. Secondary Standard
Exceeding 24-Hr. Primary Standard
SULFUR DIOXIDE
Total Stations with valid year's data
Exceeding Annual Primary Standard
Total stations with 1 or more valid quarters
Exceeding 24 Hr. Primary Standard,,
CARBON MONOXIDE
Total stations with 1 or more vajid quarters
Exceeding 1-Hr. Standard
Exceeding 8-Hr. Standard
HYDROCARBONS*
Total stations with 1 or more valid quarters
Exceeding 6-9 A.M. Standard
TOTAL OXIDANTS OR OZONE
Total stations with 1 or more valid quarters
Exceeding 1-Hr. Standard
Number
1969
of Stati
1970
ons
1971

667
638
335
1095
594
184
178
24
234
25
35
3
29
23
*
38
37
644
459
319
1002
530
161
155
19
276
17
48
10
39
9
*
45
43
640
426
275
1313
628
140
153
4
409
11
58
7
53
34
•*•
50
50
*Data  on record are  for total  hydrocarbons,
                                                                           23

-------
     B.  Source Emissions
         Emissions data, because of the shorter history of their
collection, are less abundant than air quality data.   Further,  unlike
air quality data which are the results of direct measurements,  emissions
data are largely inferential (i.e., derived from emission factors  or
other indirect means).
     Table 8 presents a summary of nationwide emission estimates.   The
top half shows the nationwide emission totals resulting from the
summation of individual AQCR totals as found in the State Implementation
Plans.  AQCR totals were obtained by means of a comprehensive emission
inventorying technique.  This technique involves estimating a majority
of the emissions on a point by point basis, where such parameters
as fuel rates, process rates, and control equipment efficiencies are
known.  In the case of automotive pollutants, for example, motor
vehicle emission factors, vehicular miles of travel,  average vehicle
speeds, and population and age distribution of vehicles are all con-
sidered in determining the total emissions for that source category.
     There are some shortcomings in the data.  First, the SIP
emission data do not contain a complete set of data for all pollutants.
Consequently, nationwide totals derived from these data will not be
complete.  Second, the emissions for all Regions are not necessarily
for the same year.  Most of the existing data are referenced to
calendar  year 1970.  Third, it is not known if all States used the same
24

-------
 Table 8           COMPARISON OF SIP  EMISSIONS  AND
                     1970 NATIONWIDE  ESTIMATES
                           SIP EMISSIONS,  TO6 TONS/YR
Source Category
Transportation
Fuel Combustion in
Stationary Sources
Industrial Processes
Solid Waste Disposal
Mi seel 1 aneous
TOTAL
1970
Source Category
Transportation
Fuel Combustion in
Stationary Sources
Industrial Processes
Solid Waste Disposal
Mi seel 1 aneous
SOX
0.8
28.9
7.8
0.1
0.2
37.8
NATIONWIDE
SOX
1.0
26.4
6.4
0.1
0.2
PM
1.1 1
9.9
10.3
1.1
1.1
23.5 1
ESTIMATES
PM
0.8 1
6.7
13.3
1.4
4.0
CO
00.9
1.5
10.3
3.4
2.3
18.4
,106
CO
11.0
0.8
11.4
7.2
18.3
HC
18.0
1.0
4.3
1.2
1.5
26.0
TONS/Yr
HC
19.5
0.6
5.5
2.0
7.3
NOX
11.6
9.2
0.6
0.3
0.2
21.9

NOX
11.7
10.0
0.2
0.4
0.5
TOTAL                     34.1     26.2    149.0     34.9     22.8


                                                         25

-------
emission factors or estimating techniques in deriving their emission
totals.
     The bottom half of Table 8 presents 1970 nationwide emissions.
These numbers were derived using nationwide totals of fuel  consumption,
process weights, and overall average industry control efficiencies.
For motor vehicles, nationwide averages of vehicle population and
age distribution, average route speeds, and emission factors were
used to derive nationwide totals.  Comparisons made between the
results of these two techniques should be viewed with these
differences of procedure in mind.
     More specific details on emission estimating activities are
contained in The National Air Monitoring Program:  Air Quality
and Emissions Trends Annual Report, Volume I, EPA 450/1-73-001 a,
August 1973.
     C.  EPA Actions on State Implementation Plans
         1.  Background
             States were required to submit to EPA by January 31, 1972,
their plans for attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for six criteria pollutants (sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, carbon
monoxide, photochemical oxidants, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen dioxide).
     A priority classification system was established to categorize
AQCRs according to the severity of the air pollution problem in each
Region for purposes of SIP development and evaluation.  The SIP re-
quirements vary according to the priority classification in order
that the time and resources to be expended in both plan development
and carrying out the plan are commensurate with the air pollution problem.
26

-------
The classifications have been based on measured ambient air concen-
trations where known, or where not known, on estimated air quality
in the area of maximum pollutant concentration.
     AQCRs are classified as follows:   Federal Register, Part II,
August 14, 1971, p. 15488.
     Priority I - ambient concentrations significantly above primary
standards.
     Priority I a - ambient concentrations significantly above primary
standards due to emissions from a single point source.
     Priority II - ambient concentrations significantly above
secondary standards.
     Priority III - ambient concentrations below secondary standards.
     Table 9 is a summary of the AQCR priority classifications for
the various pollutants.  It should be noted that 43 AQCRs initially
classified Priority I or la for NCL were proposed to be reclassified
Priority III on June 8, 1973.  The proposed reclassification is a
result of new air quality data which show lower levels of NCL than
those previously measured using the now-invalidated analytical
reference method.
                                                                27

-------
                               Table 9
                              Surma ry
                      Air Quality Control Regions
                        Priority Classification
Pol lutant
Parti cul ate matter
Sulfur Dioxide
Carbon Monoxide
Nitrogen Dioxide*
Oxi dant/hydrocarbon
*Assuming reclassifi
Total
247
247
247
247
247
cation is
Priority
I
199
39
29
4
54
promulgated as
Priority
la
11
21
--
--
--
proposed
Priority Priority
II III
70 57
41 146
218
243*
193

A map showing air quality control regions is included in Appendix A.  A
 priority classification of AQCRs by pollutant is contained in The
National Air Monitoring Program:  Air Quality and Emissions Trends
Annual Report, Volume I, EPA 450/1-73-OOla, August 1973, pp. 3-11 to 3-16
         2.  Plan Approval
             Plans were submitted by all 55 states (50 states plus D.C.,
Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands), and EPA
approved or disapproved all portions of these plans.  Table 10 indicates
the status of regulations proposed by EPA to date.  The summary
does not reflect plan disapprovals with respect to "significant
deterioration" or maintenance of the national standards.  It does
reflect future EPA proposals anticipated for fugitive dust problems.
28

-------
 The summary also includes approval/disapproval promulgation actions

 prepared and submitted to the Administrator but not yet published in

 the Federal Register.  It should be noted that the number of plans

 fully approved and with no regulatory disapprovals has dropped from

 31  to 20 since the last SIP Status Report.  The new disapprovals are

 the result of recent actions on transportation control plans and

 compliance schedules.


                               Table 10

                      Status of State Implementation Plans

SIP's approved                                                   15

SIP's with only non-regulatory disapprovals; no
 EPA promulgation required                                        5

SIP's with EPA promulgation                                      19

     All proposals finalized                      11

     Partial promulgation: action
     pending on some proposals                     8

EPA proposals awaiting final action                              16
                  TOTAL PLANS                                    55



      On May 31, 1972, the EPA published in the Federal Register the

 approval and/or disapproval of the implementation plans.  Of the 55

 implementation plans, 14 plans were approved at that time.  Currently,

 there are 20 SIPs (Table 11) with all regulatory portions approved

 where no Federal promulgation is necessary (see footnote "a" in

 Table 11).
                                                                 29

-------
                              Table n
                 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
            Plans with All  Regulatory Portions Approved3
  Alabama                                          Maine
  American Samoa                                   Mississippi
  Arkansas0                                        New Hampshire
  Connecticut                                      North Carolina
  Delaware                                         North Dakota
  Florida                                          Oklahoma
  Geogria                                          Puerto Rico
  Guam                                             South Carolina 'c
  Hawaii                                           South Dakota
  Kentucky                                         Tennessee

      a.  Exclusive of requirements for maintenance of standards and
          significant deterioration
      b.  EPA has delegated authority to release emission data
      c.  Except certain non-regulatory portions.
30

-------
     It is anticipated that additional  action may be necessary in
some of these states at a later date, depending on how these states
respond to requirements involving 18-month extensions, maintenance
of the national  standards, and significant deterioration of air quality.
The current status and impact of these major issues on SIPs are dis-
cussed individually in this report.
         3.  Disapproved Portion of Plans
             The Clean Air Act requires that EPA promulgate regulations
to cover deficient regulatory sections but disapproved non-regulatory
portions cannot be corrected by regulatory measures.  Table 12 shows
the states deficient in legal authority to carry out all elements of
an implementation plan.  Table 13 indicates the states with non-
regulatory provisions still unapproved.  The status of EPA promulgations
to correct regulatory deficiencies is shown in Table 14.
         4.  Promulgations
             In some cases, EPA has  proposed or already promulgated
regulations for deficient plans.  EPA,  as a matter of policy,  will
rescind its regulations when states  enact adequate legislation and/or
regulations to satisfy SIP requirements.   The present status of EPA
promulgations is shown in Table 14.
         5.  Extensions
             (a)  Extensions for Attaining Primary Standards
                  The Clean Air Act provides for extensions of up
to two years beyond the three year period prescribed for attainment
of national primary ambient air quality standards in those AQCRs
                                                                31

-------
CO
                                                      Table  12
                                      Status  of States  Deficient  in  Legal  Authority



EPA REGION AND
STATE
Region I
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Vermont
Region III
District of Columbia
Maryland
Virginia
Region IV
Kentucky
South Carolina
.Tennessee
Region V
Indiana
Wisconsin

4-
o
Emergency
Abatement
Emissions











X




i 4—
d •!—
Prevent Co
struction
Standard
Exceeded
















O 0
•i- C 4->
in o
01 •«- O)
•"•!-+•>•—
LJJ E  3
S! •-« et 0.

X
X
X





X*
X*



X
QJ
tj U")
S- C
3 •!-
Require so
recordkeep


X







X*






 C O •!-
•r- S- O Q. l/l
3 0) S O) i/l
cr c o: -r-
0) 5 0 E


X







X*




^>
•i—
^~
S- -r-
O -0 -Q
rt3 -M t/1
O >, 03 C
O U CD O
•— C O) Q.
O> i — Q- to
O CD Q) •— • (1)
z o o:















O tO
•r- C
•4-> O3
Implement
Transporta
Control PI





X
X
X





X

      legal authority delegated to State by EPA

-------
                                           Table  12  (Continued)

                                     Status of States  Deficient  in  Legal Authority





EPA REGION AND
STATE
Region VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Region VIII
Colorado
South Dakota
Utah
Wyomi ng
Region IX
Cal i forrnj 	
Region X
Alaska
Idaho


<*-
o

Emergency
Abatement
Emissions











X


	 1


1 <4-
C -1-
o
(_) C
o ~o -o
4-> •!- 1- O)
C 4J IT3 X3
Ol U T3 O)
> 3 C 
O) S- n3 O
S_ ^_) ^ X
Q. 01 on UJ









X






c
0 0
•.- C -4->
10 O
tO -r- O)
•t- 4-> i —
E <« J3
LU E  3
s >-i <: Q-

X
X
X
X


X*
X
X

X


X*
OJ

•M 4-> C
 s: o> 01
o- c o; •!-
OJ 2 o E
Q£ O +-> 08 UJ









X





^>
-t->
•r-
^~
I- -f-
O TJ J3
i — <4- <1J •<-
ro •«-> 01
O >, T3 C
O  O
i— C Ol Q-
0) i — Q- 01
O O> o o:






X*






X

i-
O 01
•i- C
4-> (O

-------
                                  Table  13
             Status of  States  Deficient in Non-Regulatory Provisions
EPA Region
& State
Region II
New Jersey
Region III
District of Columbia
Virginia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Region IV
Tennessee
Region V
Illinois
Indiana
Region VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
Region VII
Kansas
Missouri
Region VIII
Utah
Wyomi ng
Region IX
Arizona
California
Nevada
Region X
Alaska
Oregon
Washington
Air Quality
Surveillance




X




X








X*






X
Periodic
Testing &
Inspection




X
X
















X




Emergency
Episode
Plan






X

X





X
X





X
X



Resources



X
X-
X
X






,X
X




X


X
X



X
X
Inter-
governmental
Cooperation

X

X
X
X
X



















X

*Approval expected
     34

-------
                            Table 14



Status of EPA Promulgations to Correct SIP Deficiencies












EPA Region/State/AQCR
Region I
Massachusetts*
Metropolitan Boston
Hartford-New Haven-
Springfield Interstate
Rhode Island**
Vermont
Region II
New Jersey
New Jersey-N.Y.- Conn.
Interstate
Metropolitan Philadelphia
Interstate
New York
Hudson Valley Intrastate
Genesee-Finger Lakes Intra-
state
Southern Tier West Intra-
state
New York-New Jersey-
Connecticut Interstate
Central New York Intrastate
Virgin Islands





>^
4->
•f—
^—
!o us
O « -M
•r— ^— tQ
I— -r- Q
.O ru
3 > <*-
0- «C 0

X




X




















CD CT>
C C
•r— «r-
Q.4->
OJ i-
O) O
y CX
QJ "O O
o s- o:
J- 0
3 U T3
O O) C .
OO Q£ (O

X



• x
X

















I/)
C
o
'£
fQ
I/I U
O) •!-
<4- O «4-
0 S- -^
3 -0
2 O O
O> OO S
• ^
> 3: -o
(U 


0

0





0

0











                                                            35

-------
                                   Table 14 (Continued)
                  Status of EPA Promulgations  to Correct SIP Deficiencies









EPA Region/State/AQCR
Region III
District of Columbia
Maryland
Metropolitan Baltimore
Intrastate
National Capital Interstate
Pennsylvania
Southwest Penn. Intrastate
Metropolitan Philadelphia
Interstate
Virginia
National Capital Interstate
West Virginia
Region V
Illinois
Metropolitan Chicago Inter-
state
Indiana
Metropolitan Indianapolis
Interstate
Michigan
. Metropolitan Detroit-Port
Huron Intrastate
South Central Michigan
Intrastate
Metropolitan Toledo Intra-
state
Minnesota
Ramsey and Hennepin Countie
Minneapolis & St. Paul
Ohio
Cincinnati & Hamilton County
Wisconsin



^
_•*-*
JH
-Q ro
O ro •»->
•r- i— ro
.— ••- Q
_a ro
3 > ««-
0.  X TJ
0) 0) C
Q£ Z ro



















X
X

















CJ 10
C 0)
•r- 3
I— TJ
Q. 
-------
                   Table 14 (Continued)
Status of EPA Promulgations to Correct SIP Deficiencies












EPA Region/State/AQCR
Region VI
Louisiana
New Mexico
Four Corners Interstate
Texas
Southern Louisiana-Southeast
Texas Interstate
El Paso-Las Cruces-Alamogorc
Interstate
Austin-Waco Intrastate
Metropolitan Houston-
Gal veston Intrastate
Metropolitan Dallas-Fort
Worth Intrastate
Metropolitan San Antonio
Intrastate
Region VII.
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Metropolitan St. Louis
Interstate
Nebraska
Jefferson, Gage, and Thayer
Counties
City of Omaha




>>
-»->
•i—
t—
_Q ro
O ro +->
•r- i— ro
i— ••- Q
-O ro
3 > «+-
0- et O







0









X
X
X


X






en en
c c
•f— 'r~
CL4->
QJ V.
O) O
^ Q.

tO
I/) O
Ol •>-
>4- O 4-
0 S- -,-
3 T3
300
01  3: -o
0) 0) C
a: z: 
-------
               Table 14 (Continued)
Status of EPA Promulgations to Correct SIP Deficiencies












EPA Region/State/AQCR
Region VIII
Colorado
Montana
Helena Intrastate
Utah
Four Corners Interstate
Wasatch Front Intrastate
Wyomi ng
Region IX
Arizona
Pi ma County APCD
Phoenix-Tucson Intrastate
Arizona-New Mexico Southern
Border Interstate
Four Corners Interstate
California
Metropolitan Los Angeles
Interstate
Sacramento Valley Intrastatt
San Diego Intrastate
San Francisco Intrastate
San Joaquin Valley Intrastai
Southeast Desert Intrastate
Nevada
38




>>
4->
•r—
r—
-O fO

•r- i— (O
r— -i- Q
JD (0
3 > «4-
0. «t 0




X


X







X





e

X




CD cn
c c
•r— *r—
Q--t->
OJ l-
O) O
-* O.
+-
01--^
3 -O
2 O O
 S T3
OJ Q> C
Q£ Z (0






X
X


X




X







X







Ol
O I/I
c 
E^
O U
O CO



0

X
X




X

0
X
X

X


X
X
X
0









Emission Limitations



NOX






0










0







PM





X
X




X





0



0
0


HC

















0
0
0
0
0
0


so2



0

X
0




0

0
X













C
O
_t \
+-*
T3
4-*
S- t/)
O ^~
CX O
(/) i—
C -4-*
to C
i- 0
(— CJ

0




0




0






0
0
0
0
0



-------
                                 Table 14 (Continued)

                   Status  of EPA Promulgations  to  Correct  SIP  Deficiencies










EPA Region/State/AQCR
Region X
Alaska
Northern Alaska Intrastate
Idaho
Eastern Washington-Northern
Idaho Interstate
Oregon
Washington
Puget Sound Intrastate
Eastern Washington-Northern
Idaho


^
4->
•r—
t—
_o 
•i- r— (0
I— -f- 0
-Q ro
3 > <4-
Q- e£ O













O> O^
C C
•r— 'r—
CL4->
O) i-
O> O
-*: Q.

-------
where needed technology or other alternatives either are not available
or will not be available soon enough to attain the primary standards.
     At present, there are seven states involving nine AQCRs with
extensions for attainment of primary standards as shown in Table 15.
In six of these AQCRs EPA promulgation is required and an extension
was provided as part of the control strategy.  It is likely that
additional extensions will be provided as a part of the transportation
control strategies which will be promulgated by October 15, 1973.
             (b)  Extensions for Submitting Plans for Attaining
Secondary Standards
                  On May 31, 1972, EPA granted 18-month extensions
to 19 states involving 31 AQCRs to prepare control strategies for
achieving secondary standards for particulate matter and sulfur
dioxide.  These extensions are summarized in Table 16.  As a result
of the Administrator's announcement on May 12, 1972, that the sulfur
dioxide secondary standards might be revised, states have been
concentrating their efforts most extensively on the development of
particulate strategies and have delayed the sulfur dioxide strategies
until the standards issue was resolved.  States now have until
January 14, 1974 to submit sulfur dioxide strategies.  EPA is developing
sulfur dioxide control strategies for those states where extensions
were provided as a result of disapprovals for not adequately con-
trolling copper smelter emission.  EPA will promulgate these strategies
by January 30, 1974, for secondary standards if they are still needed
after the impact of supplementary control system (SCS) is considered.
EPA has already proposed control  strategies for the attainment of primary
standards.
40

-------
                               Table 15


             Status of Extensions for Attaining Primary Standards
EPA Region/State/AQCR              Extensions for Attainment     EPA Promulgation
                                      of Primary Standards       Required
so2
PM
Ox
CO
EPA Region II

New York

Niagara Frontier Interstate (162)  7-77    7-77    -              No
New Jersey-New York-Conn.
  Interstate(43)                           7-77   12-76   12-76  No

EPA Region V

Kentucky

Louisville Interstate (78)         7-77                          No

EPA Region VI

New Mexico

Four Corners Interstate (14)       3-76                          Yes

EPA Region VIII

Montana

Helena Intrastate (142)            7-77                          Yes

Utah

Wasatch Front Intrastate(220)      7-77                          Yes
Four Corners Interstate(14)        3-76                          Yes
                                                                    41

-------
                           Table 15 (Continued)
EPA Region/State/AQCR              Extensions for Attainment     EPA Promulgation
                                      of Primary Standards         Required

                                   S02     PM      Ox     CO


EPA Region IX

Arizona

Arizona - New Mexico Southern
 Border Interstate  (12)            7-77                          Yes
Four Corners Interstate(14)        3-76                          Yes
Phoenix-Tuscon  Interstate(15)      7-77                          Yes

EPA Region X

Idaho

Eastern Washington-Northern  Idaho
Interstate (62)                    7-77                          Yes
 42

-------
                                   Table 16

         Status of SIP Extensions for Submitting Plans for Attaining
                            Secondary Standard
                             Extensions for Attainment      18-Month Extension
                               of Primary Standards
EPA Region/State/AQCR
so2
PM
°x
CO
so2
PM
EPA Region I

Connecticut
New Jersey-New York-
  Conn.  Interstate (43)                                                   X
Hartford-Springfield Interstate(42)                                       X

Massachusetts
Metro. Boston Intrastate (119)                                  X         X

EPA Region II

New Jersey
Metro. Philadelphia Interstate(45)                              X         X
New Jersey-New York-
  Conn.  Interstate (43)                                         X         X

New York
Niagara  Frontier Intrastate (162)                               X         X
Central  New York Intrastate (158)                                         X
New Jersey-New York-
  Conn.  Interstate (43)                                         X         X

EPA Region III

Maryland
Metro. Baltimore Intrastate (115)                               X

Pennsylvania
Southwest Penna. Intrastate (197)                               X         X
Metro. Philadelphia Interstate (45)                             X         X

Virginia
State Capital Intrastate (225)                                            X
                                                                      43

-------
                             Table  16  (Continued)

                             Extensions for Attainment       18-Month Extension
                               of Primary Standards
EPA Region/State/AQCR
so2
PM
°x
CO
so2
PM
EPA Region V

Indiana
Metro. Indianapolis Intrastate(SO)                             X
Metro. Chicago Interstate(67)                                  X       X

Ohio
Greater Metro. Cleveland
  Intrastate (174)                                                     X
Steubenvi11e-Wei rton-
  Wheeling Interstate(181)                                             X
Northwest Pennsylvania
  Youngstown Interstate(178)                                           X

EPA Region VI

New Mexico
Arizona-New Mexico Southern
  Border Interstate (12)                                       X
Four Corners Interstate (14)                                   X

EPA Region VIII

Colorado
Metro. Denver Intrastate (36)                                          X
San Isabel Intrastate (38)                                             X
Pawnee Intrastate (37)                                                 X

Montana
Helena Intrastate (141)                                         X

Utah
Wasatch Front Intrastate (220)                                  X
Four Corners Interstate (14)                                   X
  44

-------
                          Table 16 (Continued)

                            Extensions for Attainment      18-Month Extension
                              of Primary Standards
EPA Region/State/AQCR
so2
PM
°x
CO
so2
PM
EPA Region IX

Arizona
Arizona-New Mexico Southern
  Border Interstate (12)                                       X
Four Corners Interstate (14)
Phoenix-Tucson
  Intrastate (15)                                              X

California

Metro.  Los Angeles Intrastate (24)                                      X

Hawaii
State of Hawaii Intrastate (60)                                          X

Nevada
Nevada  Intrastate (147)                                        X

EPA Region X

Alaska
Cook Inlet Intrastate (8)                                                X
Northern Alaska Intrastate (9)                                          X

Idaho
Eastern Washington-
  Northern Idaho
  Interstate (62)                                              X        X
Eastern Idaho Intrastate(61)                                            X
Idaho Intrastate (63)                                                   X
Metro.  Boise Intrastate (64)                                            X
                                                                  45

-------
     Thirteen states identified in Table 16 were required to submit
particulate matter control strategies for attainment of secondary
standards by July 31, 1973.  Two states submitted strategies on time,
and nine more are expected to submit late plans.  Two states are
not expected to submit plans.  The thirteen state plans are
summarized below:
States Plans        States Expected to Submit       States Not Expected
Submitted	Late Plans	to Submit Plans
Hawaii              New Jersey                      California
New York            Pennsylvania                    Indiana
                    Connecticut
                    Massachusetts
                    Alaska
                    Idaho
                    Colorado
                    Ohio
                    Virginia
         6.  Transportation Controls
             A summary of transportation control plans is shown in
Table 17.  Twenty-three states including the District of Columbia
require transportation control measures in addition to stationary
source emissions controls to attain ambient air quality standards
for carbon monoxide (CO) and photochemical oxidants.  To date
eighteen states have submitted transportation control measures for
control of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon (HC) emissions from
motor vehicles.  Transportation control measures proposed by the
States of Alabama,  Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, and New York have
been approved.   In  those situations where review of the State plan
does not demonstrate that air quality standards  will be attained,
EPA has so indicated and published notice to that effect in the
46

-------
          Table 17
Summary of Transportation Control  Plans

State (EPA Region)
AQCR
Massachusetts (I)
Metropolitan Boston-
Interstate
Massachusetts (I)
Hartford-New Haven
Springfield Interstate
New York (II)
New York City
New York (II)
Rochester
New York (II)
Syracuse
New Jersey ( II)
N.Y., N.J., Conn.
Interstate
New Jersey ( II )
Metropol i tan
Phil adelphia
Interstate
District of Col umbia( III'


o -o
•r- Ol
•(-> i.
O -t— •> — N
Ol Ol
o: a:
CO
59
57
78

24. E
47
%
55
OX
69

68
45

67
47
60
Acceptable State Portion or EPA Proposal
Inspection/
Maintenance
E
E
S
S

S/E
S/E
S
Traffic Flow
Improvements

E
S


E


o
•i- +j
•M •!-
>>4-
i— O
rt3 S-
•4-> +J
fO OJ
o o:
E .
E
S


E
E
S/E
i- O
O) i-
-E -M
*-> O)
o cc
E
E
S


E
E
r
C
O
O) 
r> rv
E
E
S


E
E
E
CD O)
C -r-
•r- O
U -r-
i- O
Q- Q.
E
E
S




S
Mass Transit
Improvements




•
E
E
S
Additional
Stationary
Source Controls
E
E

S

E
E
S/E
VMT Reduction

E



E
E '


•^ *r-
r- E
•0 -r-
>— i 	 1








Selective
Vehicle
Exclusion
E
E
S






Extension
Requested
(Months)
24
0
CO-19
HC-19
0
0
24
24
24



-------
                                                 Table  17  (Continued)
                                      Summary of Transportation  Control  Plans

State (EPA Region)
AQCR
Maryland (III)
Metropolitan Baltimore
Maryland (III)
National Capital
Interstate
Pennsylvania (III)
Metropolitan
Philadelphia Interstate
Pennsylvania (III)
Southwest Pennsylvania
Virginia (III)
National Capital
Alabama (IV)
Metropolitan Birmingham
Alabama (IV)
Mobile, Pensacola
Indiana (V)
Metropolitan
Indianapolis
Illinois (V)
Metropolitan Chicago
Interstate
c
O T3
••-  S~
U -r- — s
3 3 S«

+-> -r-
>><*-
r— O
fO S-
+-> -(->
ra O)
o o:
S/E
S/E


S/E




Other
Retrofit
E
E


E




Parking
Restrictions
E
E
E
E
E



S/E
to
CD 
s:




S




0)
3
LJ_
(/)
3
O
(U
I/)
ns
C3









U
O
+J
us

5/E
S


S




i/>
c
o
QJ -r-
C -t->
•r- ro
r— 4->
O •!-
w E
(O -i-
0 _J
E

E
E





Motorcycle
Restrictions










CT) fO
C 4->
^'i
•O -r-
•— 1 — J









 0
•1- (1) •!-
*J i— CO
O (J 3
 LU

E
E
E
E





Extension
Requested
(Months)
24
24
12
12
24
0
0
0
0
00

-------
         Table  17  (Continued)



Summary of Transportation Control  Plans

State (EPA Region)
AQCR
Minnesota (V)
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Ohio (V)
Metropolitan
Cincinnati -Inter state
Ohio (V)
Metropolitan Dayton
Ohio (V)
Metropolitan Toledo
Louisiana (VI)
S. Louisiana-S.E. Texas
Texas (V!)
Austin-Waco
Texas (VI)
Corpus Christi
Texas (VI)
Metropolitan Houston-
Gal veston
Texas (VI)
Metropolitan Dallas-
Ft. Worth
c
^D "^3
•i- 
4-> -I-
>»**-
r— O
n S-
4-> 4->
fO QJ
o o;









Other
Retrofit







E

c
o
en o
C •!-
i- (/>
ra O)
0_ CtL
S/E






E
E
CD 
O T-
(/i E
(O -r-
C3 _J







E

Motorcycle
Restrictions









O
•r—
CD (O
C 4->
•—i _J









 O
•r- OJ T-
•M I— 00
U O 3
Q; -i- i—
i— J= O
O> <1> X
OO > LU










Extension
Requested
(Months)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
0

-------
         Table 17 Continued
Summary of Transportation Control Plans
.n
D
State (EPA Region)
AQCR
Texas (VI)
Metropolitan San Antonio
Texas (VI)
El Paso-Las Cruces-
Alamogordo Interstate.
Kansas (VII)
Metropolitan Kansas City
Missouri (VII)
Metropolitan Kansas City
Kansas (VII)
Metropolitan Kansas
City Interstate
Colorado (VIII)
Metropolitan Denver
Utah (VIII)
Wasatch Front
Arizona (IX)
Phoenix-Tuscon
California (X)
San Francisco Bay Area
i
c
O T3
•i-  i-
<_> -I- — -
3 3 &«
O) 
•*-> T-
>>4-
•— O
ia i.
4J -M
« O)
C_> C£.






>/E
58-74
•
E

Other
Retrofit
E



S
E
S/E
1 Pre-
68
S


c
o
+J
cr> o
c -^
•i- i-
^S 4->
i- VJ
(T3 (1)
Q- Di
E



S
S
E
E

in
CT OJ
C -r-
•r- (J
O •!-
si "o
0. Q.









Mass Transit
Improvements




5
S


i
Additional
Stationary
Source Controls
E
E
S
S

E

,S
E

c
o
4->
O
3
•a
0)
a:
I—
s»




S

5


fO
OJ
•
S*









cu
3
U.
01
3
O
0)
to





S

S


i.
o
-M
fO
o
0
_l
r^
S-
(O
<_>






E
E
i
Wl
c:
o
O) -r-
C -M
•r- (O
i— 4->
O -r-
ul E
ra -i-
CJ — J
E



E
E
E


Motorcycle
Restrictions






E
E
i
to
c
0
•r-
•»->
C7> >O
C -M
i^'i
T3 -i-
i— i 	 1









0) C
> 0
.,_  ••- i—
r- .C U
a; aj x
CO > LU








1

Extension
Requested
(Months)
12
0
0
0
0
24
12
24
24
1

-------
     Table  17  (Continued)



Summary of Transportation Control Plans












State (EPA Region)
AQCR

California (IX)
Metropolitan Los Angeles
California (IX)
San Diego
California (IX)
Sacramento Valley
California (IX)
San Joaquin Valley
California (IX)
Southeastern Desert
Alaska (X)
Northern Alaska
Oregon (X)
Portland Interstate
Washington (X)
Eastern Washington-
Northern Idaho-
Interstate







P~
O T3
••- O)
4_> c
U T- — -
QJ QJ
o: a:
CO

78

44

59

40

25
i
74

59



50
OX

87

--

67

62

_„

--

43




Acceptable State Portion or EPA Proposal




~^  C
(J O>
QJ 4->
Q C
to T-
C (13
. . ^^


E

E

E

E



E

S



E



3 to
O 4->
e— C
U- QJ
E
(j 
4- 0
4- S-
(O Q.
r"™ h~H


E

E

E

E



E

S



S






^j
•r- -4->
4-> T-
^"i *"!""
r— O
(O S-
(O O)
O Qi


E

E

E

E



E













4->
• r—
4-
i. 0
JT 4J
4-J O)
o o:


S

S

S

S

S

E









to
c
o
• r—
4-J
O) U
C -i-
•r- S-
^ to
(13 O)
Q_ rv*


E

E

E

E



E

S



E







to
01  to
•r- +->
to c
C O)
re E
i- O)
1— >
o
to i.
to Q.
i. >— <


E











S/E




to
r—
O
i.
4^
r- >, C
fO i- O
C "3 O
O C
•r- O O)
4-> •!- O
•r- 4-> S-
•O (T3 3
T3 4-> O
cl CO CO


E

E

E

E












. c
o
• ^
4->
O
~1
-o
Cl)

H-
>•


E















S

to
QJ
<*.
ef

•
r—
O
X
LU
>
^






















r—

(^
O
o
— 1

^~
|Q
^
tn
(T5





E

E

E














(/I
C
o
Ol •!-
C 4->
•r- (13
r— 4->
O •!-
to E
(13 ••-



E



















to
c
O) O

U 4->

U •!-
S^ S-
o +•>
4J to
O O)
2: o:


E

E

E

E














*/}
c
o

4.)
O) (O
C 4->
i^ i
•—i _i












E












(U C
> 0

4-> I— tO
O O 3
OJ -r- 1—
i— _E O
O) O) X
CO > LU














E



E







c -a
^J ^J ^™"**
••- 4-> to
to to ^:
c ai 4->
O) 3 C
4-> cr o
x a> s:
LU Qi 	


24

24

24

24

24

24

0



0

-------
                                              Table 17  (Continued)

                                     Summary  of  Transportation Control Plans
n
J












State (EPA Region)
AQCR

Washington (X)
Puget Sound
TOTALS
Legend: S - State
E - EPA








c
o -a
••- 0)
i > r
 C
O QJ
0) 4->
D. C
00 -t—
C (13
•— ' 21


E
31






S oo
O 4J
r— C
U. QJ
E
O O)
•r- >
4— O
4- S-
(O Q.
i- E
1— <->


S
24









o
•i — 4-*
-*"> *r—
>•) 4—
r- 0
(0 S_
(13 O)
o o;



16










4_>
• t—
s-
5- 0
QJ S-
J= -I-)
4-> OJ
O O^



21






01
C
o
• 1 —
4-J
01 U
c: -r-
•n- t-
S_ 01
(13 O)
a. a:


E
28










OO
Ol 0)
C -r-
•r- U
O •!-
t! 'o
Q- D-



8






4_) (/)
•r— -4-*
to c
C 0)
H3 £
S- 0)
H- >
O
01 i,
01 Q.
^" H~ 1



13



to
^~
o
S-
4^
r- >, C
ra S- O
C (13 C_)
o c
•r- O O>
4J -^ 0
•r- -M S-
T3 (13 3
-o •*-> o
eC I/) OO



30





c
o
• r-
^>
o
3
•a
0)
ce
I—


S
8




fO
O)

^^

•
r—
^J
X
LU
|



4






1— _
(U
23
U.

Ol
3
O
(U
01



2


S-
0
4-^
(T3
U
O
	 1

r_~
jQ
5
£L
S-
(O
0



9







00
C
o

^— «_J
•r— H3
^— 4J
O T-
01 E
f^ 	 I



n






oo
C
ai o
r— «^-
O 4-^
>> 0
U •!-
S- &.
0 4->
4-> 00
o a>
s: ca:



7







00
c
O

•M
Ol (13
C 4->
^'i
^3 *r~
•—i 	 i



1









ai c
> 0
•r- OJ •!-
4-> r— 01
O O 3
QJ ••- r—
i— ^T O
O) O) X
OO > UJ


E
10










^T "^3
^3 QJ ^*"^
•r- 4-> 01
01 oo .C
C OJ +->
QJ 3 C
•»-> cr o
x QJ s:
i i i rv* > 	 *


0



in
IV)

-------
Federal Register.  EPA has also proposed additional  transportation
control measures for presentation at hearings scheduled to permit
public participation in proposed rulemaking.  For those states
that have not prepared and submitted transportation  control
measures, the Environmental Protection Agency has published in
the Federal Register proposed strategies to reduce CO and/or HC
emissions from vehicular sources.  Public hearings to consider
EPA proposed transportation control measures commenced in July
and will continue until late September.
     The promulgation of EPA proposed rulemaking in  the Federal
Register is planned in three groups and will be completed by
October 15, 1973.  In addition, the latest available air quality
data are being examined to identify other AQCRs in which carbon
monoxide and/or photochemical oxidant air quality standards ace
being exceeded.  Initial review of this data indicates that air
quality standards are being exceeded in twenty additional AQCRs.
This air quality data will be subjected to roll-back analysis to
determine whether the Federal Motor Vehicle Emissions Control
Program plus stationary source controls will be adequate to attain
NAAQS or if additional transportation control measures will be
necessary.
                                                                53

-------
 D.  Plan Revision Management System
     1.   Background
     One important issue facing EPA relative to State  Implementation
Plans (SIPs) is whether the approved SIP control  strategies  will
 attain the national ambient air quality standards within the time  frame
 prescribed by the Clean Air Act.  In response to this area  of concern,
 OAQPS has developed a Plan Revision Management System (PRMS) to  identify
 those "potential problem regions" that may need plan  revisions.  The
 PRMS will identify "potential problems" by comparing  the measured  air
 quality curve with the projected air quality curve based on the  applica-
 ble SIP regulations to determine if adequate progress has been made  toward
 attainment of the standards.
     An evaluation by OAQPS of air quality data being  received from the
 States indicates that air quality in most regions is  improving.   (See:
 National Air Monitoring Programs: Air Quality and Emissions Trends Annual
 Report, August  1973 and Progress Reporting System Summary Report,  September
 1973).   However, in some regions air quality levels are not improving
 sufficiently to attain the national standard by the date specified for
 attainment of such standard.  In fact, air quality in a few areas  appears
 to have deteriorated from SIP design levels.
     2.  Plan Revision Management System
         (a)  Operation of the System
     The system  is designed to combine and utilize information contained
 within SAROAD (air quality), NEDS  (source emissions), and CDS (enforce-
 ment and compliance; when it becomes operational).  Data from all  of these
 systems are used to project the air quality levels which can be  expected
 from enforcement of the regulations submitted as part of the SIP.   From
 this information, a unique projected air quality curve is then developed

 54

-------
from each region under study.   Since the PRMS considers  both  growth  and

SIP regulations, it is possible for the projected air quality levels  to

increase prior to the effective date of the applicable SIP regulations.

As new ambient air quality data are submitted (as required by 40 CFR 51.7,

Reports, August 3, 1973), they will be entered into the system.  PRMS will

analyze these data by comparing them to the projected air quality values to

determine if adequate progress has been made.  In each case where measured

levels exceed projected levels, (allowing for statistical variation) the

region will be flagged as a "potential problem region."  Since many factors

influence air.quality measurements, it is not possible to state conclusively

that a flagged AQCR has an inadequate SIP.  Therefore, after a region is

flagged, a review will follow to assure that the "flag" was not the result

of invalid air quality data or unusual meteorological conditions.  The PRMS

will identify "potential problem" monitoring sites within the region and

indicate the need for further review.

     The appropriate Regional Office will be notified and a review will be

initiated to determine if a plan revision is warranted.

     In addition to providing a management tool for identifying regions

which have "potential problems," the PRMS can also be used to identify

regions or portions of regions whose air quality has significantly

deteriorated.   No action has been  taken in this report relative to air

quality deterioration since the issue  (significant deterioration) has not

yet  been resolved.

     Seventeen  AQCR's were selected for review by the PRMS in this first

report.  They are as follows:

     1.    Metropolitan Baltimore  Intrastate  (115)

     2.    Metropolitan Birmingham  Intrastate  (004)

     3.    Metropolitan Boston  Intrastate  (119)

     4.    Metropolitan Chicago  Interstate  (067)
                                                                        55

-------
     5.    Greater Metropol-itan Cleveland Intrastate (174)
     6.    Metropolitan Denver Intrastate (036)
     7.    Metropolitan Houston-Galveston Intrastate (216)
     8.    Metropolitan Indianapolis Intrastate  (080)
     9.    Metropolitan Los Angeles  Intrastate (024)
    10.    National Capital Interstate (047)
    11.    New Jersey-New York-Connecticut Interstate  (043)
    12.    Niagara Frontier Intrastate (162)
    13.    Metropolitan Philadelphia Interstate  (045)
    14.    Phoenix-Tucson Intrastate (015)
    15.    Puget Sound Intrastate (229)
    16.    Metropolitan St. Louis Interstate  (070)
    17.    Wasatch Front Intrastate  (220)

     Selections were made using the following criteria:
     1.    A history of high ambient pollutant concentrations,.
     2.    Expected problems.
     3.    High population areas (tjiey represent approximately 31% of
            the total U.S. population).
     4.   At  least  one major  city  in each EPA region.
     5.   Available  historical  data on  air quality and emissions.
     6.   Histories  of and  potentials  for emergency episodes.

     Two  of the  17  AQCR's in  the report  were not analyzed.   It was
decided that  air quality  projections would not be developed  at this time
for  the Phoenix-Tucson AQCR due to the  uncertain nature of the smelter and
fugitive  dust regulations and their impact on the ambient sulfur dioxide
and  particulate  matter concentrations  respectively.
56

-------
     A similar decision was made not to develop projected air quality



curves for the Los Angeles AQCR at this time because of the complex



relationship between particulate matter and photochemical oxidants.



Consequently, only the observed air quality is plotted for these regions.



A detailed review for these regions will be included as soon as the



above issues are resolved.



     No analysis was made of short-term data for any pollutant.  OAQPS



is in the  process of reviewing and analyzing these data and will forward



the PRMS results as an addendum when they are completed.  Similarly,



progress in controlling NO  was not reviewed by the PRMS due to the
                          y\


proposed changes to the reference method for.this pollutant.  Therefore,



this report only analyzes the progress being made relative to the annual



P.M. and SO  standards.
           A






b.   Action Procedures





     Once a "potential problem region" is identified, OAQPS will notify



the appropriate Regional  Office which will  then be responsible for



investigating the special details of the situation and determine the



validity and magnitude of any problems.  This should be done in cooperation



with the respective State and local agencies.  Such an investigation should



include a determination of the validity of the data in question as well



as a review of the effectiveness of the implementation plans control



strategy.  This investigation could indicate that:



     1.   A site is "source oriented," i.e., too close to a source.  In



          this case, the.Regional Office should develop a projected air



          quality curve for that specific site based primarily on the



          compliance schedule of that source.


                                                                    57

-------
           2.   A more detailed  analysis will  be  performed  to develop the projected
                air  quality  curve  because  of  special  features of  the region.
           3.   A more effective implementation of  procedures for reviewing new
                source construction  and modification  is  necessary to restrict
                growth in  certain  areas of a  region.
           4.   Additional  EPA/State enforcement  is needed  to implement  the
                control  strategy.
           5.   No further variances should be granted for  a particular  regulation.
           6.   A  SIP revision is  necessary.

           The  Regional  Office will  advise OAWP and OEGC of Its findings and
       submit a  description of the action  it plans to  take.   Guidelines  which
       identify  the  responsibilities  and  procedures  to be followed in determining
       where  plan  revisions are necessary  on the basis of evaluation of  air  quality
       data are  to  be transmitted to  the  Regional  Offices by OAQPS. Additional
       guidance on specific issues such as the evaluation of air quality data
       to determine its validity, the evaluation of sampling methodology, and
       data handling procedures  are being developed and will be  provided to  the
       Regional  Offices later this year.
            If a region has been identified as needing a plan  revision,  the  State
       must be notified by the Regional Office.  The State will  then  need approxi-
       mately four to six months to review and revise its plan.     This time is
       needed to identify the problem and develop new control  strategies, hold
       public hearings, adopt control regulations, and submit the revised SIP
       to the Agency.  EPA would liave two to four months to review the  plan  to
       determine its adequacy.   After the new plan has been reviewed,  approved
       or promulgated, sources affected by the regulations should in  most cases
       be provided with at least one year to comply.  The above actions  will
       require 18 to 22 months to accomplish.    If the need for a  plan  revision
58

-------
were signalled on January 1, 1974, implementation of the control require-
ments would be accomplished between July and November 1975.  If more than
one year is needed for source compliance, up to a two year extension could
be requested as provided in the Act.

c.   Typical Analysis
     The PRMS through the previously described procedures presents an
analysis of the air quality progress at each individual  monitoring site
within an AQCR.  The results are presented both in tabular and graphical
form.  A typical  summary PRMS analysis is provided in Figures  3,  4, 5,
6, 7, and 8 for the Metropolitan Chicago Interstate AQCR.
     The summary provides a map of the region  showing the.sampling site
locations, a statement on air quality progress, and for each site a tabu-
lation on air quality data.and a graphical presentation  of measured and
projected air quality.
     In the Chicago AQCR.for example, the site review of station #2 indi-
cates that Gary,  Indiana, is not making adequate progress toward attainment
of the national standard.  While simultaneously site #4  in. East Chicago
is making adequate progress, a similar review of the monitoring sites shows
that good progress is being made at all sites in the Metropolitan Chicago
area except for stations #1 and #2 in Gary.  Thus, the system has identi-
fied a possible problem area in Gary that will be further analyzed-by
Region V.  If it is found that the air quality standard  is in jeopardy in
Gary, a plan revision will be requested.
                                                            59

-------
                            FIGURE  3
   4.   METROPOLITAN  CHICAGO  INTERSTATE AQCR  (067)
    ILLINOIS-INDIANA
       The Chicago area has  made  exceptional progress in the improvement
   of P.M. air quality; however,  the  PRMS  indicates that the Gary area may
   have some significant problems in  attaining  the standards.  The region
   has made outstanding progress  in  the  control  of SO .
      Number of monitoring sites analyzed
54
SOx
10
' RRMS ANALYSIS - ANNUAL STANDARDS
Problem Type
%
Acceptable progress
i*i nor problem
Major problem
Signifi cant problem
Symbol
—
*
**
***
P.M.
Number (%)a
49 (91)
1 (2)
1 (2)
3 (6)
SOX
Number (%)a
10 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
      apercent of monitoring sites analyzed
60

-------
                           Figure  4

                  METROPOLITAN   CHICAGO
                       CHICAGO
                       1
                     Station No.  SAROAD No.  Station No.   SAROAD No.
Particulate Matter  (~)    1

                   o    f
                         4
                         5
Sulfur Oxides
                         6
                         7
151520009
151520004
151520001
151180001
141220022
141220021
141220020
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
141220018
141220013
141220012
141220008
141220002
141220001
                  SELECTED AIR QUALITY MONITORING STATIONS

                 METROPOLITAN CHICAGO INTERSTATE AQCR (067)

                          Scale: 1 inch •* 4 miles
                                                             61

-------
cr,
ro
PAHTICULATF VATTF.S--A^MUAI ngrmFTRlr  MEAN
              PRlOKITv: i
                                                   STATE  (is):  INDIANA
                           SITE
                                                                       POTENTIAL PRURLFMS

                                                                      SYPSQL        COMMENT
  FNCY iff--.: STATE

  jNTY('?3&0 > :  LAKE C"
  TE Ann1': FI^F. SUTIO-  =1  20
          "<1 b. '6 M.  Q3 <:.
          : u57 o. ?l M.  01  S.
I'T* 70-Jh :  lo
•)T« N'O'THING:  4605300
                                                  EAST
                                                                            SIGNIFICANT
                                                    PROPORTIONAL MODEL

                                                    R=<(A-C)/.ioo.
                                           WHERE:
                                           sip  BASED UPO^:  214  UG/CU HETER IA>
                                           BACKGROUND;       50.7 UG/CU «ETEH (8)
                                           NATIONAL  STANDARD                 (c>
                                           REDUCTION IN  EMISSIONS TO ACHIEVE
                                               P9i"A»Y STANDARD:       85  s'°i'
                                               S=CONOA(''' STANDARD:    94 3 x
                                           CORRECTION TACTORl   .292
                           TY?£(11>:
                      PL I Mr, iFTHOt :  91
I
I
YPA" I ^UA"TEa
I
196* 1 1
1<>67> I 3
197? I 4
1^73 1 1
1973 I t
1073 I 3
l g 7 .•« I s
1 V 7 4 I 1
1 1 7 * I ?.
1=>74 ! j
1~74 I <
l'->7" ! i
197S 1 ..
1^7S 1 o
1971; i •>
1 « 7 * ! 1
1 •> 7 i- I
1*7^1 o
\1I'. '. <
l'/7 I l
1^77 I i
1 :> / 7 !
1^77 I •,
1-7? 1 1
1 1 7 '• 1
	 1 	 	
1 Cfl^F,v=0 A
I 	
I 3'IA'T:?
1
1 170;
' 187.
I 166.
I 157.
I n.
1 n.
n.
0.
n B ,
17S.
120.
119.
13P.
193.
IQ".
^
n B
r .
F .
n .
r
(1 B
.?. I
n. I
C. I
". I
0. I
•\ .
(• .
' .
r
r ,
r
1 .
r t
n .
r,, I
I
	 !
H jMALlTY
^EA"
r.
G.
c.
152.
0.
0.
fl.
n. -
p. '
0.
0.
0.
130.
154.
U".
r>.
0.
0.
c .
0.
0.
0.
p .
n.
n.
1.
0.
". I
n. I
n. i
p. 1
r . 1
C. I
r. . 1
0. I
C. I
-,. I
r. i
	 -. i
CALCul-ATPfl
P'OJFCTFO
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
Q.
0.
0.
0.
0.
130. '
1?7.
125.
122.
119.
114.
106.
105.
103.
100.
97.
04.
'1.
66.
85.
92.
78.
75.
75.
75.
75.
75.
75.
75.
75.
75. I
Alo QUALITY
TEST VAI.UF
0.
0.
n.
0.
0.
a.
0.
n.
0.
0.
n.
0.
iji.
127.
125.
122.
119.
114.
108.
105.
103.
100.
97.
94 .
*1.
03.
65.
82.
7«.
75.
75.
75.
7S. I
75. I
75. I
75. 1
75. I
7<=. I
	 1
TE<;T .
OBSERVED
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
B
?7'.
H.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
•).
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
n.
PROBLEM
TYPF













• ••
• ..






















	 !
NUMBER OF
OBSERVATIONS
<*!>)
o.
0.
0.
40.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
104.
179.
254.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.
0.
0.
o.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
n.
0.
0.
a.
a. i
0. I
	 1
ANNUAL
GEOMETRIC
*TB. OEV.
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.592
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
o.aoo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.529
1.650
1.630
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
o.ono
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
c.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000 I
0.000 1
	 1
                                                                                                                                                      50
                      ALL  1» Ti
                                          tf * L • ' H = - « ' T o I
                                                            j I A "• T r : i. Y

-------
                »OCP
                                                         PiRTICJLATf rUTTf"--A'^IUI  n
                                                                                                            STATE (15)=
CO
                         SITE

                       fV:  !S
                        TYPF: :-T,TE
                 "TATIOV
                               i): CF'-T-R CITY -  I-jrueT9|»L
                              or. :  91
                  200.
                   180.
                  160.
                  14C.
                  ion.
                   80. )•
                   00'
                   Zt.
                    n.I-
                          PR1PORTIONAL MODEL

SIP oASFD UPQV: 214   UG/CU  1ETE1*
          "- fAr:ToR:   .79?
          IM CMISSIONS  TO ACHIEVE  PPIIARY STANDARDS   es  »
          IN CPISSKINS  TO ACHIEVE  SECONDARY STAND^RD:  943%
          :  SO.7  UG/CU HCT?R
                                                  AIR QUALITY
          0 Rfp^lE^ENTS  OB»E4VFD  AIR QUALITY DATA
          • RPP9£S£NTS  PROJECTED Al»
         -- RCP^E^ENTS  NATIONAL  STANDARD
                                                                                                                                      200.
                                                                                                                                      180.
                                                                                                                                      141.
                                                                                                                                      121.
                                                                                                                                      100.
                                                                                                                                      80.
                                                                                                                                      60-
                                                                                                                                      40.
                                                                                                                                      20.
                                      4   1   ?  ^  4  1
                                197
                                 iL  ?=I"AJY STA-.3A.i- (75 i;G/CU
                           .ATI''-.L  ScC''-j'%A5Y S'i'.'lnT  (4P l.u/iJ
 ?  3  4
 1*73
TIKE. 9Y
                                                                                 1574
                                                                             .IJABTF vs
                2  S
                1975
2  1
197*
2  3
1977
1  2
1978
                                                                        CD
                                                                        C=
                                                                        73
                                                                        m
                                                                                                                                                      en

-------
                      CHICi
                                                 MATTER--AMMIAI
                                                   PRIORI!*:  |
                                                                         MEAN
                                                                                        STATE (i5)= INDIA"*
                                                 POTENTIAL
nV TYPE;
 I->':
 Y(<;;t
 AID1':
                                               SYMBOL
                                                             COMMENT


                                                               PROfiRFSS
                 FIHC  ST4  i4lST » COLUMBUS
       *i  £,. .  76  H.   00  ^ .
        UP7 L.  ?9 M.  00  S.
       lo
       vJ:  460896'
MINOR PrtObl.E"
MAJOR PROBLEM
SIGNIFICANT
         PROPORTIONAL  MODEL

         R=«»-C)/
NATIONAL STANDARD                 
           N EHISSIONS  Tfl ACHIEVE
            STANDARD'-      « .  S
    SECONDARY STANDARD:    o4"3  s
CORRECTION TACTORI   .177
              :  SUnu-,34N  -
               9)

YFA"
I9t>«
1909
1969
l9h9
1970
1970
1970
197(1
1971
1»71
l»7t
l»7i
197?
197?
197?
197?
1373
1971
19 7 J
107J
1974
1974
1974
1974
197S
l'<>7*
i->7";
197S
197^-
197^
197*
1T:R
174.
181.'
174.
1-51.
17?.
21S.
15C.
181.
!.
,->
** .
IK QUALITY
i YEAR
i
I 0.
I 0.
n .
169.
169.
176.
169.
177.
168.
164.
161.
150.
130.
133.
131.
0.
0.
n.
P.
n.
0.
0.
0.
n.
0.
0.
n.
0.
0.
0.
i .
C-.
c.
p.
n.
0.
r.
n .
CALCULATED
P"OJECTED
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
177.
172.
169.
165.
161.
157. .
153.
149.
145.
HI.
133.
125.
121.
117.
112.
108.
104.
99.
94.
90.
85.
00.
75.
75.
75.
75.
75.
75.
75.
75.
75.
Aid QUALITY
TEST VALUF
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
177.
172.
169.
165.
161.
157.
153.
149.
145.
141.
133.
125.
121.
117.
11?.
ioe.
10«.
99.
94.
90.
85.
80.
7S.
75.
7*.
75.
75.
75.
75.
75.
75.
TEST _
OBSERVFO
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-4.
-4.
-4.
-11.
-27.
-?0.
-18.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
	 ,---
PB08LEM
TYPE






































i NUMBER OF
OBSERu*' IONS
_=T FT-  jrA-.T'raLY

-------
                  07) : utT'---A"r-ilA|  f.t
                                                        PR I "ii| TV:  I
                                                                                           -EAN
CTl
CJ1
A I" TUALI 1

       I...
             180. I
                 I
                 I
             160.1
                 I
                 I
             140. I
                 I
                 I
                 I
             120. I
                 I
                 I
                 i
              41.1-
                 1
                 •I
                 1
              ^f'. I
                 I
                 1
                 I
                                                                                                    PROPORTIONAL MODEL

                                                                         SIP 0«SF3  uPO••.: 214 . ipG/Cu  1ETE«
                                                                                   :  TAnT?R:   .177
                                                                                    I'i ^MIS^IONS  TO ACHIEVE PRIMAPY STAND»Kn:   I 35 %
                                                                                    pi EMISSIONS  TO ACHIEVE SECONDARY  STANDARD:   94.35
                                                                                   .!   'iO.? UR/CU MPT = R
                                                                                                                             AIR QUALITY
                                                                         0 (JPpoEsENTS OBijE^vfD AlR QUALITY  OAJA
                                                                                      PROJCCTEO •!" OUAL
                                                                                      NATIONAL STANDARD
                                                    \
                                 4  t
                                                                        4i234i234!234t2
                                                                               197S        197*         1977
                                                                                                                                   200.
                                                                                                                                   ISO.
                                                                                                                                   160.
                                                                                                                        140.
                                                                                                                        120.
                                                                                                                                   100.
                                                                                                                                    80.
                                                                                                                                    60-
                                                                                                                         40.
                                                                                                                         20.
                                                                                                                     •I    0.
                                                                                                                                        CD
                                                                                                                                       CO
                  .,--• »T I
                                                     n.;/C ;

-------
    d.    Analytical  Summary
         A short summary of the PRMS results  for the 17  AQCR's  that were  reviewed
     is presented region by region on the following pages.   A supporting  document
     has been prepared by OAQPS that contains the detailed  summary, region  maps,
     and important individual  site reviews for each AQCR analyzed.   This  supporting
     document is available from OAQPS upon request.
          The appropriate Regional Offices have been notified and  asked to
      investigate each "potential  problem" that has been identified by the
      PRMS.   The results of these  investigations and others will be discussed
      in the next Administrator's  Progress Report.   For  the next  report,  it is
      planned that an additional 50 AQCR's will be  analyzed through the PRMS.
      These will be selected on the basis of potential  air  pollution problems,
      population and the recommendations of the Regional Offices.
          The remaining 180 AQCR's will  be monitored by  mid-1974  and a selected
      number of these will also be analyzed and presented in subsequent  reports.
66

-------
     E.   Progress Summary
Annual Standards for Particulate Matter (PM)  and Sulfur Oxides  (SOx)

      1.  METROPOLITAN BALTIMORE INTRASTATE (115)         MARYLAND
         A very limited quantity of data was  available for each specific moni-
     toring site in this AQCR.  Good progress was noted in reducing P.M.
     concentrations where the data was available.  Similarly, very little S0x
     data was available but where available it indicated adequate progress
     was made.
.PRMS ANALYSIS - ANNUAL STANDARDS
Problem Type
Acceptable progress
Minor problem
Major problem
Significant problem
Symbol
—
*
**
***
P.M.
Number (35) a
27 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
S.Ox
Number (%)a
13 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
       apercent  of  monitoring  sites  analyzed

       2.   METROPOLITAN  BIRMINGHAM INTRASTATE  AQCR  (004)   ALABAMA
           Adequate progress in reducing SO  concentrations  was  noted.   Except
                                           X
       for one "potential problem" with increasing  P.M.  concentrations  in
                                 »
       Tarrant City, that will be reviewed by Region IV,  progress  is  being made
       in improving the P.M. air quality.
.PRMS ANALYSIS - ANNUAL STANDARDS
Problem Type
Acceptable progress
Minor problem
Major problem
Signi ficant problem
Symbol
—
*
**
***
P.M.
Number (:/<;) a
7 (88)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (13)
SOX
dumber (/,)a
1 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
                                                                                67
        apercent of monitoring sites analyzed

-------
              3.   METROPOLITAN  BOSTON  INTRASTATE  (119)
                                                  MASSACHUSETTS
                  The Boston Metropolitan area is on schedule and making progress in
              controlling P.M.  However, Worchester, which is approximately 35 miles
              west  of Boston,  has  shown some problems in the past and will be kept
              under surveillance by  the Regional Office.  Limited data is available
              for SO ;  however,  from the data available, very good progress has been
                     /\
              made in  controlling  SO .
                                     /\
.PRMS ANALYSIS - ANNUAL STANDARDS
Problem Type
Acceptable progress
Minor problem
Major problem
Significant problem
Symbol
—
*
**
***
P.M.
Number (%)a
18 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
SOX
Number (%)a
2 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
                 apercent of monitoring sites analyzed
                 4.  METROPOLITAN CHICAGO INTERSTATE AQCR (067)          ILLINOIS-INDIANA
                     The Chicago area has made exceptional progress in the improvement
                 of P.M. air quality; however, the PRMS indicates that the Gary area may
                 have some significant problems in attaining the standards.   The region
                 has made outstanding progress in the control  of SO .
PRMS ANALYSIS - ANNUAL STANDARDS
Problem Type
Acceptable progress
Minor problem
Major problem
Signifi cant problem
Symbol
—
*
**
***
P.M.
Number (%)a
49 (91)
1 (2)
1 (2)
3 (6)
SOX
Number (-j)a
10 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
68
apercent of monitoring sites analyzed

-------
5.  GREATER METROPOLITAN CLEVELAND INTRASTATE AQCR (174)    OHIO





    The PRMS indicates  that adequate  progress  is  being made  throughout



the region.   The P.M.  concentrations  at some  sites  did not improve  any



during the time period reviewed and were not  projected to have  improved.



Observed SO  concentrations had improved prior to 1972 but are  now
           X


deteriorating.   No "potential  problems" were  indicated for S0x  because



the observed air quality is still  below the projected air quality;  however,



if the upward trend continues, a "potential problem"  could develop.   This



region will be kept under special  surveillance.
' .PRMS ANALYSIS - ANNUAL STANDARDS
Problem Type
Acceptable progress
Minor problem
Major problem
Signifi cant problem
Symbol
—
*
**
***
P.M.
Number (%)a
23 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
SX)X
Number (%)a
17 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
  apercent  of  monitoring  sites  analyzed
                                                                  69

-------
          5.  METROPOLITAN DEMVER INTRASTATE AQCR (036)
COLORADO
70
              A large P.M. data base was available for this  AQCR.   Only  two moni-
          toring sites in the region indicated any possible  problems, at  this  time,
          No major improvements in air quality was observed.  This region  is
          classified Priority III for SOX and although data  was limited, all
          observed data was below the secondary standard.
.PRMS ANALYSIS - ANNUAL STANDARDS
Problem Type
Acceptable progress
Minor problem
Major problem
Signifi cant problem
Symbol
—
*
**
***
P.M.
Number («)a
19 (91)
1 (4)
0 (0)
1 (4)
SOX
Number (%)a
?. (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
            apercent of monitoring  sites  analyzed
             7.   METROPOLITAN  HOUSTON-GALVESTON  INTRASTATE AQCR (216)     TEXAS

                  The  limited  air quality  data  available  for  this  region made the
              review difficult.   The particulate matter concentrations for this region
              were low.   Adequate progress is being  made  except at Pasadena which is
              approximately 4 miles east of Houston.  Here  a  "potential  problem" is
                                        »
              indicated.   Although the SO  data was  limited,  it indicated adequate
                                         J\
              progress is being made.
.PRMS ANALYSIS - ANNUAL STANDARDS
Problem Type
Acceptable progress
Minor problem
Major problem
Signi fi cant problem
Symbol
—
*
**
•***
P.M.
Number ('/?)&
10 (90)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (9)
SDX
Number (.;Ja
2 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
               apercent of monitoring sites  analyzed

-------
8.  METROPOLITAN INDIANAPOLIS INTRASTATE AQCR (080)
INDIANA
     Adequate progress is being obtained for P.M.; however,  no major air

 quality reductions were scheduled during the time period reviewed.

 Although SO  data is limited, available data indicate adequate progress
                           •
 is being made.
-PRMS ANALYSIS - ANNUAL STANDARDS
Problem Type
Acceptable progress
Minor problem
Major problem
Significant problem
Symbol
—
*
**
***
P.M.
Humber (%)a
16 (94)
1 (6)
0 (0)
0 (0)
SOX
Number (%)a
1 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
   apercent of monitoring sites analyzed                    ,


   9.  METROPOLITAN LOS ANGELES IIJTRASTATE AQCR (024)          CALIFORNIA

        No air quality projections were developed for  this  region.   Thus,

   no analysis was performed by the PRMS.  However,  a  review of the

   observed air quality data indicates no major reductions  have taken

   place and, in fact, the air quality appears to be degrading.  A

   detailed analysis of this region will be conducted  for the  next

   report.
.PRMS ANALYSIS - ANNUAL STANDARDS
Problem Type
Acceptable progress
Minor problem
Major problem
Significant problem
Symbol
—
*
**
***
P.M.
Number (%)a




SOX
Number (%)a
(TOO)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
   apercent of monitoring sites  analyzed

-------
        10.  NATIONAL CAPITAL INTERSTATE AQCR (047)
             VIRGINIA-MARYLAND-DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
              Adequate  progress was  noted  for  this region.  Progress is being made
         by all  three major political  jurisdictions  involved  (Maryland, District of
         Columbia,  and  Virginia).   A possible  problem with air quality deterioration
         was noted  for  Quantico,  Virginia.   Although the  particulate matter concen-
         trations  are below the  secondary  standard,  they  appear to be increasing
         in an erratic  fashion.   This  site will  remain  under  special surveillance
         to assure  it does  not exceed the  standard.  Available data indicates that
         adequate  progress  is being made in controlling SO  .
.PRMS ANALYSIS - ANNUAL STANDARDS
Problem Type
Acceptable progress
Minor problem
Major problem
Significant problem
Symbol
*
**
***
P.M.
Number (%)a
52 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
SOX
Number (%)&
14 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
           apercent of monitoring sites  analyzed
72

-------
11.  NEW JERSEY-NEW YORK-CONNECTICUT INTERSTATE AQCR (043)
     NEW JERSEY-ilEW YORK-CONNECTICUT
          Outstanding  progress  has  been  mada  in  improving  both the P.M.
and SO  air quality.   Only one  "potential  problem" was  identified by
the'PRMS for this region.   This was for  P.M.  at  a monitoring  site
approximately 16 miles southwest of Newark, New  Jersey.  A review of
this site is scheduled.
.PRMS ANALYSIS - ANNUAL STANDARDS
Problem Type
Acceptable progress
Minor problem
Major problem
Significant problem
Symbol
___
*
**
***
P.M.
Number (%)a
49 (98)
1 (2)
0 (0)
0 (0)
SOX
Number (%)a
7 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
  apercent of monitoring sites analyzed
  12.  NIAGARA FRONTIER INTRASTATE AQCR (162)              NEW YORK
       Although initial P.M. concentrations were extremely high,  exceptional
  progress has been made toward attainment of the standards.   No  SO  problems
                                                                   A
  were identified from the available data.
.PRMS ANALYSIS - ANNUAL STANDARDS
Problem Type
Acceptable progress
Minor problem
Major problem
Signifi cant problem
Symbol
—
*
**
***
P.M.
Number (%)a
42 (98)
1 (2)
0 (0)
0 (0)
SOX
Number (£)a
2 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
    apercent of monitoring sites analyzed
                                                                           73

-------
             13.  METROPOLITAN PHILADELPHIA INTERSTATE AQCR (045)
                  NEW JERSEY-PENNSYLVANIA-DELAWARE
                 Adequate progress was noted for P.M. although the limited data at
            each monitoring site made ttie review questionable.  Available SO  data
                                                                            A
            indicate that adequate progress was being made.
.PRMS ANALYSIS - ANNUAL STANDARDS
Problem Type
Acceptable progress
Minor problem
Major problem
Signifi cant problem
Symbol
___
*
**
***
P.M.
Number (%)a
23 (96)
1 (4)
0 (0)
0 (0)
S-Ox
Number (%)a
8 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
             apercent  of monitoring  sites  analyzed                   '  ,
             14.   PHOENIX-TUCSON  INTRASTATE  (015)                     ARIZONA
                   No air quality  projections were developed for this region.  Therefore,
             no analysis was  performed by  PRMS.  A review of the available data indicates
             that  no major  improvements have taken place.  In fact, the P.M. concentra-
             tions  in  downtown  Phoenix have  deteriorated greatly since 1969.  The
             available SOX  data indicates  that both Phoenix and Tucson have air quality
             below  the secondary  standard.  The smelter monitoring project and fugitive
             dust  study should  be reviewed for special data relative to these topics.
             (See  page 3)
74
.PRMS ANALYSIS - ANNUAL STANDARDS
Problem Type
Acceptable progress
Minor problem
Major problem
Signifi cant problem
Symbol
—
*
X*
***
P.M.
Number (%)&
7 (70)
0 (0)
0 (0)
3 (30)
SOX
Number (',.•)&
2 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
               apercent of monitoring sites analyzed

-------
15.  PUGET SOUND INTRASTATE (229)
WASHINGTON
     Generally, the P.M. concentrations in this region were below the
secondary standard.  One monitoring site in Tacoma was "flagged"  as
having a significant deterioration problem.  A review of this  site by
Region X will follow to determine the reasons for the degradation of air
quality.  No potential problems have been identified for SO .
.PRMS ANALYSIS - ANNUAL STANDARDS
Problem Type
Acceptable progress
Minor problem
Major problem
Signifi cant problem
Symbol
—
*
**
***
P.M.
Number (%)a
23 (96)
0 (D
1 (4)
0 (0)
S.OX
•Number (%)a
7 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
  apercent of monitoring sites analyzed
  16.   METROPOLITAN  ST.  LOUIS  INTERSTATE AQCR  (070)
  MISSOURI-ILLINOIS
      The  P.M.  air quality  data  for this region was very limited at most
  of  the monitoring sites.   The available data was analyzed and indicated
  a "potential problem"  in downtown St. Louis.  A review by the Region VII
  Office will  determine  the  nature of this problem.  The SO  data indicated
                                                          A
  acceptable  progress has been made.
PRMS ANALYSIS - ANNUAL STANDARDS
Problem Type
Acceptable progress
Minor problem
Major problem
Signifi cant problem
Symbol
—
*
**
***
P.M.
Number (%)a
14 (88)
0 (0)
1 (5)
1 (6)
SOX
Number (>i)a
2 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
                                                                            75
     apercent of monitoring sites analyzed

-------
          17.   UASATCH FRONT INTRASTATE (220)
UTAH
               The available aerometric  data  was  analyzed  by  the  PRMS.   Both
          Ogden and Salt Lake City were  identified  as  having  a  "potential
          problem" in attaining the P.M. ambient  .standard,   Salt  Lake  City  in
          particular was noted as having a significant problem.   The available
          SOX data indicated that Salt Lake City's  air quality  was  presently
          below the secondary standard.   The smelter ambient air  monitoring
          project should be reviewed for special  data relative  to the  Kennecott
          smelter at Garfield, Utah.
.PRMS ANALYSIS - ANNUAL STANDARDS
Problem Type
Acceptable progress
Minor problem
Major problem
Significant problem
Symbol
—
*
**
***
P.M.
Number (%)a
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (50)
1 (50)
SDX
Number (%)a
1 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
           apercent of monitoring sites analyzed
76

-------
    F.   Status  of Other  Regions



    Time permitted the detailed analysis and/or tracking of only 17 of 247



regions by the PRMS in this report.  For the remaining 230 regions, however,



the latest SAROAD data for all  pollutants except NO  were reviewed and
                                                   J\


compared with the applicable air quality standards.  This review shows



that air quality in most regions is improving (See Table 18,  19,  and 20).



However, in a few of the regions, air quality is being measured at levels



exceeding the original SIP design values.  One reason for this may be



that additional  monitoring stations have been installed and are recording



more representative data than was available for the SIP design.  There are



12 Priority III  regions that now have ambient concentrations above the



primary particulate matter standard.  A similar situation exists for



other pollutants; one Priority III region for SO ; 22 for CO; and one for
                                                /\


photochemical oxidants (See Tables 21, 22, 23, and 24).  In addition, numerous



other regions which were originally classified Priority I or II now have



higher measured ambient concentrations in 1970-71-72 than the level used



as a basis for plan design (greater than 10%; See Tables 25 and 26.  It is



not possible to say at this time that these regions will require plan



revisions.  They are, however, in need of further analysis and as such



are candidates to be  added to the 15  regions already under surveillance



by the PRMS.



   In most cases, data from only one  air monitoring site per region is



presently available.  Consequently, because of the paucity of data, it



is difficult to establish with any certainty what regions will attain



all standards.  Corrective guidance will be given through the R.O.'s and



to the States in  these matters.
                                                                            77

-------
Priority I and II Regions -
          Table  18
Maximum Sampling Site Not Exceeding  the Participate
   Standards in  1972
Regions, Priority
'State Classifl
cation
1
29
41
48
53
57
59
73
83
104
109
no
114
117
142
167
174
193
198
212
217
221
237
Alabama-Tombigee
Rivers, Alabama
San Diego, California
Eastern Connecticut,
Connecticut
Central Florida,
Florida
Augusta-Aiken, Georgia
Northeast Georgia,
Georgia
Southwest Georgia,
Georgia
Rockf ord-Janesvi 1 le-
Beloit, Illinois/
Wisconsin
Southern Indiana,
Indiana
North Central Kentucky,
Kentucky
Down East, Maine
Metropolitan Portland,
Maine
Eastern Shore, Maryland
Berkshire, Massachusetts
Helena, Montana
Metropolitan Charlotte,
North Carolina/South
Carolina
Greater Metropolitan
Cleveland, Ohio
Portland, Washington
Camden-Sumpter, South
Carolina
Austin-Waco, Texas
Metropolitan San Antonio,
Texas
Vermont (Remainder), .
Vermont
Lake Michigan, Michigan
II
II
II
II
I
II
II
II
IA
II
IA
I
II
II
IA
I
I
I
II
II
II
II
II
r Ambient
1- 1970
2nd max.
Annual 24-hr.
.
* *
92
• ••
* *
• 122
135 .
* *
• 33 69
97
25 65 '
* *
•" -
-
108
* *
* *
* *
_ _
60 107
* *
28 57
71
Concentrations (yg/m3)

1971 1972
2nd max. 2nd max.
Annual 24-hr. Annual 24-hr.
48
59
101
V • M —
49
_
_ _ _
* * ,
40 62 34
42
23 38 25
* *
56
* * 54
90'
* * 47
* *
* *
'*53
116
* * 54
29 62 30
* * 23
130
124
142
67
121
67
133
145
121
89
65
138
147
150
83
112
142
109
129
123
138
54
55
242  Metropolitan Cheyenne,
      Wyomi ng
    II
34
34
26
52
30
                                                          53
 78

-------
- No data

* In violation


Standard
  Primary   75 yg/m3 - annual
           260 yg/m3 - 24-hour (not to be exceeded more than once per year.)

  Secondary
            60 yg/m3 - annual
           150 yg/m3 - 24-hour (not to be exceeded more than once per year.)
                                                                                79

-------
                                       Table 19
Priority I and IA Regions - Maximum Sampling Site Not Exceeding  the  Primary Standards
                               For Sulfur Dioxide in 1972
Region,
'State
42 Hartford-New Haven-Spring-
field, Connecticut/
Massachusetts
52 West Central Florida,
Florida
56 Metropolitan Atlanta,
Georgia
58 Savannah-Beaufort,
Georgia/South Carolina
82 South Bend-El khart-Benton
Harbor, Indiana/
Michigan
83 Southern Indiana, Indiana
106 Southern Louisiana-South
east Texas, Louisiana/
Texas
107 Androscoggin Valley,
i'iaine, New Hampshire
109 Down East, Maine
115 Metropolitan Baltimore,
Maryland
119 Metropolitan Boston,
Massachusetts
131 Minneapolis-St. Paul,
Minnesota
153 El Paso-Las Cruces-
Alamagordo, Texas
197 Southwest 'Pennsylvania,
Pennsylvania
199 Charleston, South
Carolina
IQ7 Eastern Tennessee-South-
west Virginia, Virginia/
Tennessee
HI Amarillo-Lubbock, Texas
?14 Corpus Christi-Victori ,
Texas
?16 Metropolitan Houston-
Gal veston, Texas
?20 Wasatch Front, Utah
80

Annual


57

17

20

10


10
9


8

-
8

54

30

38

23

57

-


-
-

6

10
9


1970
2nd max.
24-hr.


161

66

62

27


29
23


26

10'
20

156

129

162

63

137

-


5
17

14

18
26

Ambient Concentrations
1971
2nd max.
Annual 24-hr. Annual


44 136 26

20 47 20

22 49 14

7 16 8


- - 6
18


10 26 18

7 17
7 22 6
,
29 - 48

* * 67

23 96 17
•
-' -

63

_


'1,6
- -

4

8
10


1972
2nd max.
24-hr.


102

58

48

60


248
23

...
109

13
12

81

220

264

93

121

38


23
7

7

47
24


-------
                                    Table 19 (con't.)
Region,
'State
229 Puget Sound,
Washington
244 Puerto Rico
13 Clark-Mohave,
Nevada
14 Four Corners,
New Mexico/
Utah
47 National Capi
Virginia /:•)



Arizona/
Arizona/
Colorado/
tal, D.C./
aryland

1970
2nd max.
Annual ?4-hr.
* *
15 27
_ _
12
207
Ambient Conc^ntrati ons
1971
2nd max.
Annual 24-hr. Annual
* * 61
6
2 2

* * 40

1972
2nd max.
24-hr.
_
13
2
26
95
 54 Central  Georgia, Georgia     -                                  -         18

181 Steuuenvilie-Weirton-
      Wheeling, Ohio/West
      Virginia                   -                                  55       167

193 Portland,  Washington                 39                         33        -

120 Metropolitan Providence,
      i'iassachusetts/Rhode
      Island                     67     267       26      54        64       256

121 Merrimack  Valley-Southern
      New Hampshire, New
      Hampshire/i iassachusetts    -                                  44        -

128 Southeast  I'n'nnesota-La
      Crosse,  Minnesota/
      Wisconsin                  -                                  -         83

141 Great Falls, ;-iontana         -       15       -       10         4         7

150 New Jersey (Remainder),
      new Jersey                                  25                21

 62 Eastern  Washington-
      Northern Idaho, Idaho/
      Washington                         27                         57

 65 riurlington-Keokuk,
      Illinois/Iowa              -      134       -      171        28        82

 70 iietropolitan St. Louis,
      Illinois/.'iissouri          40      -        58      -         28       11Q

 75 West Central Illinois,
      Illinois                   -                                  -         23

113 Cumberland-Keyser,
      i-Saryland/West Virginia     -                                  20        81

  - ;Jo data                                 Standard:  80 ug/m3 - annual
   ...,,.                                       365 yn/ffi3 - 24-hour (not to re
    In violation                                          -   exceeded more tr.an once
                                                             per year)

Note:  No 1972 data was  reported for five  regions;  therefore, it could not be      .
       determined if they met or exceeded  the primary standards.

-------
                                          Table  20


Priority I Regions - Maximum Sampling Site Not Exceeding  the  Photochemical Oxidant
                               Standards in 1972
Regi


15
49

70

79

174

Ambient Concentrations ( ug/m3)
/ 1970
a e 2nd max.
1-hr.
Pnoenix-Tucson, Arizona
Jacksonville-Brunswick, Florida/
Georgia
Metropolitan St. Louis, Illinois/
Missouri 151
Metropolitan Cincinnati,
Indiana/ Kentucky/Ohio
Greater Metropolitan Cleveland,
Ohio
1971 1972
2nd max. 2nd max.
1-hr. 1-hr.
30

130

* 140

* 140

10
     - No data

     * In violation
          Standard                                                   . '

             160 yg/m3 - 1-hour (not to be exceeded more than once per year.)
  Note:  Regions  (15) Phoenix-Tucson  (Arizona) and (79) Metropolitan Cincinnati  •:
         (Indiana, Ohio and Kentucky) exceeded the oxidant standard one time)
   82

-------
                                    Table  21
         Priority  III  Regions with  Present Ambient  Concentrations  Above
              the  National  Primary  Standards  for  Particulate  Hatter
Region,
'State 1970
2nd Max.
Annual 24-hr.
11 Southeastern Alaska,
Alaska
20 Northeast Arkansas,
Arkansas
35 Grand Mesa, Colorado 114 320
39 San Luis, Colorado 83 195
40 Yampa, Colorado
86 Metropolitan Sioux
City, Iowa/Nebraska/
South Dakota - 110
139 Southwest Minnesota,
Minnesota
146 Nebraska (remainder),
Nebraska 20 59
189 Southwestern Oklahoma,
Oklahoma - 266
236 Southern West Virginia,
West Virginia
246 Guam
138 Southeast Missouri,
Missouri
Ambient Concentrations
1971
2nd Max.
Annual 24-hr.
•» «
_ _
98 258
95 211
94 313
94 139
_ _
99 228
108 412
_ _
-
-
1972
Annual
_
120
91
97
99
81
_
99
95
170
-
115
(yg/m3)
2nd Max.
24-hr.
346
252
532
152
375
190
337
302
215
380
656
673
        -  No  data
          Standard  (primary)
             75  yg/m3  -  annual
           260  yg/m3  -  24-hour  (not  to  be  exceeded  more  than  once  per year)

Note:  Regions (34) Comanche (Colorado)  and (187) Northv/estern Oklahoma (Oklahoma)
       exceeded the primary 24-hour standard one time.
                                                                                    83

-------
                                     Table 22
          Priority III Regions with Present Ambient Concentrations Above
                 the National Primary Standards for Sulfur Dioxide
Region,
1 State
184 Central Oklahoma,
Oklahoma

1970
2nd Max.
Annual 24-hr.
-
Ambient Concentrations (yg/m3)
1971 1972
2nd Max. 2nd Max.
Annual 24-hr. Annual 24-hr.
433
        - No data
          Standard
             80 yg/m3 - annual
            365 yg/m3 - 24-hour  (not to be exceeded more than once per year)
Note:  Regions (94) Metropolitan Kansas City (Missouri-Kansas) and (138) Southeast
       Missouri (Missouri) exceeded the primary 24-hour standard one time.
  84

-------
                                     Table 23
          Priority III Regions with Present Ambient Concentrations Above

                     the National Standards for Carbon Monoxide


Region,                       	Ambient Concentrations (mg/m )	
      'State                       1970              1971              1972
                              2nd max.   Max.     2nd max.  Max.     2nd max.  Max.
	1-hour    8-hour  1-hour    8-hour  1-hour    8-hour

 72 Paducah-Cairo,
     Kentucky/Illinois            -                          -        18        16

 77 Evansville-Owensboro-
     Henderson, Indiana/
     Kentucky                     -        -                 -        18        11

 78 Louisville, Kentucky/
     Indiana                      -                          -         9        16

 79 Metropolitan Cincinnati,
     Ohio/Kentucky                22       15.8    24        20.6

 33 Southeast Desert,
     California                   34       26.3    29        26.9    -

 49 Jacksonville-Brunswick,
     Georgia/Florida              -                          -        51        17.3

 56 Metropolitan Atlanta,
     Georgia                      -                          -        32        22

 60 Hawaii, Hawaii                -                          -        27        13.4

 85 Metropolitan Omaha-
     Council Bluffs,
     Nebraska/Iowa                -                          -        31        15

 95 Northeast Kansas, Kansas      -                          -        40        29.9

 99 South Central Kansas,
     Kansas                       -        -      31         17.6    20        13.8

120 Metropolitan Providence,
     Rhode  Island                 -                          -        25        21
148 Northwest Nevada, Nevada -
151 Northeast Pennsylvania-
Upper Delaware Valley,
Pennsylvania/New Jersey 18 13.1
152 Albuquerque-Mid Rio
Grande, New Mexico - - 28
162 Niagara Frontier, New York -• - 17
174 Greater Metropolitan
Cleveland, Ohio -
184 Central Oklahoma, Oklahoma -
208 Middle Tennessee, Tennesee -
223 Hampton Roads, Virginia -
225 State Capital, Virginia -
234 Kanawha Valley, West
Virginia -
25


17

19.0 25
13.1 16

19
37
31
20
21

16
23


10.7

16.1
11.9

17
23.6
20.1
16
10.2
85
15.8
         . t           Standard 10 mg/m3 - 8-hr (not to be exceeded more than once per year)
        aata                   40 mg/m3 - 1-hr (not to be exceeded more than once per year)

-------
                                        Table  24

           Priority III Regions with Present Ambient Concentrations Above
                  the National Standards for Photochemical Oxidants
Region,
1 State
85
Metropolitan Omaha-
Council Bluffs,
Nebraska/Iowa
Ambient Concentrations
1970
2nd highest
1-hour
-
1971
2nd highest
1-hour
-
1972
2nd highest
1-hour
200
        - No data
          Standard
            160 yg/m3 - 1-hour  (not to be exceeded more than once per year)
        Note:  Regions  (60) Hawaii and (161) Hudson Valley (New York) exceeded
               the oxidant standard one time.
86

-------
                           Table 25

Regions with Present Ambient Participate Matter Concentrations  Higher
             than SIP Design Concentrations (>10%)
Region, Priority
'State Classifi-
cation

















1

1

1


1
3
22


36

43


62

64
77

78

97
15

19

51


58
161
1

1


72

78


193
1

1

95

96

197


222
223
East Alabama, Alabama
Shreveport-Texarkana-
Tyler, Arkansas/Texas/
Okl ahoma/Loui si ana
Metropolitan Denver,
Oklahoma
New Jersey-New York-
Connecticut,' New Jersey/
New York/Connecticut
Eastern Washington-Northern
Idaho, Idaho/Washington
Metropolitan Boise, Idaho
Evansvi 1 le-Owensboro-Hen-
derson, Indiana/Kentucky
Louisville, Kentucky/
Indiana
Northwest Kansas, Kansas
Metropolitan Baltimore,
Maryland
Metropolitan Boston,
Massachusetts
Northeast Pennsylvania-
Upper Delaware Valley,
Pennsylvania/New Jersey
Central New York, New York
Hudson Valley, New York
North Dakota (Remainder),
North Dakota
Northwest Pennsyl vani a-
Youngstown, Pennsyl-
vania
Portland, Washington
Central Pennsylvania,
Pennsyl vani a
South Central Pennsyl-
vania, Pennsylvania
Southwest Pennsylvania,
Pennsyl vani a
Central Virginia, Virginia
Hampton Roads, Virginia
I


II

I


I

I
II

I

I
I

I

I


I
I
I

II


I
I

I

I

I
I
I
SIP
- Design
Value
71


91

122


130

94
94

82

101
77

115

83


102
100
110

79


210
70

114

91

162
108
99
Ambient Concentrations
1970
Max .
Annual
71


70

173


123

79
65

82

75
124

113

129


159
100
122

79


117
87

208

98

127
114
92
1971
Max.
Annual
77


80

186


100

82
76

70

99
100

-

138


106
101
124

73


a


a

a


(yg/m3)
1972
Max.
Annual
1


75


105

1



52


b


a

a

u
b 146U


a

a
b
u
a


b
u



b
a



a
108"
-

102

92

-







100a
97
b

1
1




31
14

97

147
1

1

1


1
1
04

47

08


89
13
124





87


238


1

1

1
1
1
86

42

36

91
88
13
h
u
b


b
L*
a
b
u
b
u



b
b



b
u
a
h
\J
b
u
K
u
b
b








>c






.




.



,d














,c
                                                                          87

-------
                                  Table 25 (con't.)
Rooi



229
230

244
Oil,
'State


Puget Sound, Washington
South Central Washington,
Washington
Puerto Rico
Priori ty
Classifi-
cation

I

I
IA
SIP
Design
Value

82

79
64
/W.ijoi:
1970
Max.
Annual
82

-
204
• L-V.lCfMt:
i'J/'l
Max.
Annual
58b"

-
87b
rf>li.;.... (,n/;n_i)
}-J/Z
n -
1 li'j A .
Annual
94b'«c

90
138a
-  No data.
 Same monitoring site as 1970 value.
'Different monitoring site than 1970 value.
'Different monitoring than 1971 value.
 Same monitoring site as 1971 value.

-------
                                        Table 26
          Priority I Regions for Carbon Monoxide with Present Concentrations

                       Higher than SIP Design Values (>10)
Region
       State
Design
Value
                                                   Ambient Concentrations
1970
Max.
8-hr.
1971
Max.
8-hr.
1972
Max.
8-hr.
 36  Metropolitan Denver, Colorado    21

 43  New Jersey-New York-Connecticut,
       New Jersey/New York/Connecti-
       cut                            22

 45  Metropolitan Philadelphia,
       Pennsylvania/New Jersey/
       Delaware                       18

 150 New Jersey (Remainder),
               37.1
               30
               39.5
              38.2C
              28.8L
              28.9C
               33.3C
               30.6
               44
                                              b,d
New
229 Puget
Jersey
Sound,
Washington
13
18
33.6
14. 8a
22. T
24.7
     - No data


     aSame monitoring site as 1970 value.

      Different monitoring site than 1970 value.

     cDifferent monitoring site than 1971 value.

      Same monitoring site than 1971 value.
                                                                                    89

-------
           G.   Regional  Office  Evaluation of State  Progress
                The  EPA  Regional  Offices  have reported  the significant
      accomplishments,  problems  and  other activities related to each State
      Implementation  Plan.   The  areas  covered  in  this  summary  (Table 27)
      include  resources, legislation,  delegation  of EPA authority,
      enforcement,  and  Federal  assistance.
90

-------
Region and
   state
  Percent
  of 1975
SIP Manpower
Reouirement*
                           Legislation

                       D = deficiency
                       A = accomplished
                       P = proposed
                                                          Table 27

                                                       SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT STATE PROGRESS AND OTHER
                                                       ACTIVITIES RELATED TO STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS**
 Delegation of
  tPA authority
Enforcement activities
Federal assistance to
State/local agencies
REGION I
Connecticut
Maine
    65%
    65%
Massachusett
    75%
New Hamphsir
    45%
Rhode Islanc
    60%
                        Authority to set and
                        levy fines (A)
                        Open burning regula-
                        tions, compliance
                        postponed from
                        1/1/74 to 1/1/75 (A)
                        Postpone until 7/1/74
                        regs. of burning re-
                        sidual fuel oil in
                        units rated 3-6 106
                        BTU in urban areas(A)

                        S content for #5/6
                        fuel oil in AQCR 107
                        2.2% (A) S content for
                        #5/6 fuel oil in AQCR1
                        121 & 149 2.0% (A)

                        Incinerators less  than
                        2K#/hr input capacity
                        into compliance by
                        1/31/74. (A)
      None
      None
      None
      None
EPA delegation author
ity on source records
refused by R.I.
   *Source:
'Includes
EPA Regional
period endinc
                      Office Evaluation Reportp for semi-annual
                       June 30, 1973
             State and local air pollution control
                                      agencies
  180  sources  under
  compliance schedule
  Licensing  program  be-
  hind  schedule;  30% of
  open  burning  (tires,
  rubber  products) com-
  plied with first in-
  crement of progress

  Nothing reported
  Enforcement  being
  accomplished via
  voluntary  compliance
  Legally enforceable
  court  orders available
  several sources have
  signed orders, 10 more
  expected
Indirect sources, emission
inventory, TSP, sec. stds.
transp. controls, significant
deterioration

None yet - anticipate assis-
tance with compliance
schedules
Develop TSP sec. stnds.
develop S02 std. plan for
AQCR #119. Identification
of sources subject to Mass,
regs. not yet identified.
Indirect sources; emission
inventory; significant
deterioration
Monitoring equipment for
Set II pollutants;
Emergency episode manual

-------
Region and
   state
  Percent
  of 1975
SIP Manpower
RGQUIrement
                                                  Fable 27 (con't.)
    Legislation

D - deficiency
A = accomplished
P = proposed
          Delegation of
           LPA authority
                Enforcement activities
                        Federal  assistance to
                        State/local  agencies
 Vermont
    125%
 REGION'I I

 New  Jersey
 New  Yosk
    70%
     55%
 Puerto  Rico
 Vi rgin
  Islands
 REGION  III

 Delaware
    60%
    100%
  Established  variance
  board  (A)
  Burning  of natural
  wood allowed (A)
  Adopted  regulations
  for review  (A)  of
  new sources  and
  modifications
  Regulations  adopted
  for control  of  sulfur
  in  Fuels  (A)
               None
               None
               None
  Public  hearing
  postpone   2% S
  limitations  (A)
to
               Regulations drafted
               for review of new
               sources and modifi-
               cations (A)
 Expansion of air
 pollution control
 agency's legal
 authority (A)
None
                               None
               None
                  47 consent agreements
                  80 enforcement actions
                  in progress
                  100 orders issued
                  500 permit applicatior
                  processed


                  Program to recertify
                  all emission sources
41 of 225 compliance
schedules acceptable
                                 7 of 11  compliance
                                 schedules  completed
                                 legal  action  planned
                                 on one source
                  Al.l  sources in com-
                  pliance, but 3 compl.
                  sched.  still to be
                  approved; legal
                  action  taken against
                  5 sources;   existing
                  problem with 2 Fed.
                  facilities
                        Emission inventory update
                        Devel.  transportation con-
                      s trol plans
Development of emission
factors for apartment
house^boilers and in-
cinerators; develop
transportation control
plans: emission data
collection & NEDS training
Emission date collection
and NEDS Training
                                          Devel.  of compliance
                                          schedule
                        Air monitoring system up-
                        date; SAROAD and NEDS
                        computer programs

-------
Region and
   state
  Percent
  of 1975
SIP Manpower
Reoui rement
                          I
    Legislation

D = deficiency
A = accomplished
P = proposed
                                                       Table 27 continuec
Delegation of
 tPA authority
 Enforcement activities
 Federal  assistance to
 State/local agencies
 District  of
 Columbia
  Maryland
    45%
    95%
 Pennsylvani
    50%
  Virginia
    65%
 W. Virgini
    45%
       None
     None
  Strengthen NOx  contro
  requirements  (P)
  Adoption  of new sourc
  performance stnds.(P)
  Specifications  for
  monitoring systems(P)
  Expanded  civil
  actions  (A)
Prompt action against
 open burning
 violation(A)
Local governments
 control  leaf burning
 via ordinances
 preempting  state  law
 rendering amendment
 ineffective (A)


Complex  (indirect)
 source  regulations(D)
     None
     None
                                             None
     None
Violation notices served
to 40 intermittent vio-
lators of control regu-
lation, but no enforce-
ment action taken

71 compliance schedules
completed
Backlog of variance re-
quests (basis of compl.
sched.) has hindered
compliance schedule
progress

 3,536 registration form
  received;
 200 compliance
  schedules approved.
 Because of state request
 to EPA for delay in
 meeting primary NAAQS,
 compliance schedules
 have been lagging.
 Negotiation of compliance
 schedules
 Land use and transp. control
 strategy; Ambient trend
 monitoring and source
 monitoring systems.
 Ambient trend monitoring and
 emission systems
                                                None  requested.
Compliance schedule development
Data processing;
Need assistance in establishing
 laboratory quality assurance
 program.

-------
Region and
   state
  Percent
  of 1975
SIP Manpower
Reoui rement
    Legislation

D = deficiency
A = accomplished
P = proposed
                                                    Table  27  (con't.)
  Delegation of
   LPA authority
Enforcement activities
 Federal assistance to
 State/local agencies
 REGION IV

 Alabama
 Florida
 Georgia
 Kentucky
    65%
    70%
    70%
    55%
 Mississipp
 N. Carolin
    55%
    65%
None
None
None
None
State operated permit
 system (A)
None
None
None
None
Permit regulation (A)
Authority to control
 complex (indirect)
 sources (A)
None
None
779 compliance
 schedules submitted.
478 compliance
 schedules submitted
Emission data
Establishment
 and EMS;
Transp. survey
 4 and 5.
to
of
NEDS;
AQDHS
                                                                                                                  in AQCR's
Revision of compliance
 schedules submitted for
 41 sources.
Compliance schedules
 from majority of
 sources (400)
650 compliance
 schedules submitted.
1200 compliance schedul<
 approved, all
 significant sources.
Emission data to NEDS;
Compliance schedule
 negotiations;
Diffusion modeling of Tampa
 area.

Data processing support
 (meteorology and math
 modeling);
Emission data to NEDS.

Emission data to NEDS;
Strategy verification in
 Louisville;
Source test training
 provided to Louisville
 agency.

Emission data to NEDS;
Met. data and diffusion
 models;
Establishment of EMS program

  Emission data to NEDS;
Met. data and diffusion
 models.

-------
Region and
   state
  Percent
  of 1975
SIP Manpower
Reaui rement
    Legislation

D = deficiency
A = accomplished
P = proposed
                                                    Table  27  (con't)
  Delegation of
   tPA authority
 Enforcement activities
  Federal  assistance to
  State/local  agencies
 S. Carol in




 Tennessee

       *

 REGION V

 Illinois
    60%
    80%
    90%
 Indiana
 Michigan
 Minnesota
    55%
    70%
    50%
None
Exemption for sawmills
 revoked  (A)
S02 emission limitatio
 and leaf burning  (P)
(Note:  SOp law would
postpone enforcement
of existing emission
limitations until  one
year demonstration of
stack gas cleaning
technology on a state
located utility.)

Construction permit
 system adopted by
 state air pollution
 control board. (A)

Surveillance Fee
System (A)
N/A
None
None
   None
None
None
None
34 compliance schedules
 submitted.
83 compliance schedules
 submitted
EMS and AQDM programs;
Diffusion modeling guidance;
Emission data to NEDS

Emission data to NEDS
39 compliance schedules
submitted.  EPA has
proposed  increments of
progress regulations for
corn wet milling, coke
ovens, and fuel combutior
sources.
Inadequate state report,
Region V invoking
Sect. 114 of the Clean
Air Act.

Inadequate compliance
schedules for S02 from
fuel combustion sources.

Obtaining compliance
schedule on reasonable
schedule.
 Consultation by NERC
  re: several enforcement
  cases.
 Secondary SOp and particulate
 standards, development in
 AQCR's 67 and 80.
 Indirect source assistance
  requested.


 Indirect sources assistance
  anticipated.

-------
   1-0
   CT>
Region and
   state
  Percent
  of 1975
SIP Manpower
Requirement
    Legislation

D = deficiency
A = accomplisned
P = proposed
                                                    Table 27  (con't)
Delegation of
 tPA authority
 Enforcement activities
  Federal  assistance to
  State/local  agencies
 Ohio
    55%
 Wisconsin
    60%
 Region VI

 Texas
    69%
 Louisiana
    50%
 New Mexico
    78%
N/A
 None
                                               of
Regulations for emissic
fees  (A)
Add'l. funding for
Milwaukee Co. Dept.
APC  (A)
Revised regulations
on volatile organic
compounds (A)
None
 Requested  for
 hazardous
 pollutants.
None
Air Quality Control Act
ammended to include
permit system(A),
creation of criminal
petty misdemeanor
penalty for violation
of any regulation(A),
and 18 month moratorium
on the requirement that
State agencies must
write Enviromental
Impact Statements(A)
None
    emission regulations
effective.  State now
negotiating variances.
Obtaining compliance
schedules to replace
>roposed categorical
schedules according to
6/15/73 Federal Register.
Requested for NSPS .
and NESHAPS
 5220  point  sources  in
 compliance;  720  sources
 have  acceptable  schedule
 no  sources  are exempted;
 60  schedules to  be
 negotiated

 167 point sources in
 compliance;  190  sources
 have  acceptable  schedules;
 303 schedules to be
 negotiated

 No  compliance schedules
 submitted by State;
 EPA promulgated  a
 regulation  for increment
 of  progress
Secondary standard for
particulate in AQCR's 174,
178, and 181;
Compliance schedules for SOp
emissions from power plants;

Simulation model for
highway siting.
Emission inventory update;
transportation controls for
;  6 AQCRs
Emission inventory update
Emission inventory update;
fugitive dust emission study;
ambient trend monitoring of
S02 in AQCR 14 to validate !
NORA model

-------
Region and
   state
  Percent
  of 1975
SIP Manpower
Requi rement
    Legislation

D = deficiency
A = accomplisned
P = proposed
                                                    Table 27 continued
  Delegation of
   tPA authority
                                                                           Enforcement activities
                                                                                                   Federal assistance to
                                                                                                   State/local agencies
Oklahoma
    77%
Arkansas
    62%
 REGION VII
Iowa


Kansas
70%


80%
 Missouri
 Nebraska
    55%
of FY '74
req.
    55%
Regulations on hydroger
sulfide submitted to
public hearing(P);
regulations for odors
and hazardous materials
(P)

None
Intend to request
for NSPS and NESHAPS
None
                           None
                           Emission data exempted
                           from confidentiality
                           clause  (A)
None
                                      None
                                      None'
None
Repealed the "Wyoming
Clause" permitting the
Dept. of Environmental
Control to control
air quality in the
clean air areas of the
State.
None
                                                                         333 point sources in
                                                                         compliance; 50 sources
                                                                         have acceptable schedule
                                                                         85 sources exempted;
                                                                         32 scheduled to be
                                                                         negotiated

                                                                         No point sources in
                                                                         compliance; 80 point
                                                                         sources have acceptable
                                                                         schedules, 100 point
                                                                         sources exempted; 220
                                                                         sources to be negotiatec
                                              All required compliance
                                              schedules submitted.

                                              65 compliance schedule
                                               submitted.
                                               000 sources determined
                                               in compliance.
                                                                        Compliance schedules not
                                                                        complete for all  sources
                                                                        in violation.
                                                                          oncentrated in AQCR's
                                                                         145 and 85 having
                                                                         regulations.
                                                                                                   Emission inventory update
Emission inventory to NEDS
                                                Emission data update.
Emission data to NEDS:
Kansas City traffic control
 study;
Survey of fugitive dust
 sources.

Kansas City odor survey;
Kansas City traffic
 control study;
St. Louis traffic control
 study.

Emission data to NEDS;
Fugitive dust survey,

-------
      oo
Region and
   state
  Percent
  of 1975
SIP Manpower
Reouirement
    Legislation

D = deficiency
A = accomplished
P = proposed
                                                     Table 27 (con't.)
  Delegation of
   tPA authority
 Enforcement activities
 Federal assistance to
 State/local  agencies
 REGION VII
 Colorado
    85%
 Montana
 N. Dakota
    80%
    55%
 S. Dakota
    25%
Public release of
emission data (A).
Construction reviews(A
Emergency episode
 authority  (A)

N/A
N/A
Monitoring of emissior
(State now has
authority)
None
None
Fuel content can be
 specified, if
 necessary, to achieve
 NAAQS  (A)
May prevent construct^
 or modification of
 source  (A)
Prohibits tampering wi
 motor  vehicle control
  devices (A)
Emission data availabl
 to public (A)
Penalties raised to
 $5,000/day (A)
Collect, correlate,
 and release emissions
 data.
   20 compliance
   schedules submitted;
   other sources in
   compliance, thus,
   no schedule.

Cannot be judged until
receipt of semi-annual
report.

24 compliance schedules
 submitted.
One point source
 achieved compliance,
 and 2 point sources
 ceased operation.

Public hearings yet to
be held for 1200
applications for permits
to operate, variance
requests, and compliance
schedules.
                       plan;
Transportation control
Emission data update;
Development of a secondary
 particulate standard
 implementation plan.

N/A
Indirect source regulation;
Emission data update.
Emission data update.

-------
Region and
   state
  Percent
  of 1975
SIP Manpower
Reouirement
    Legislation

D = deficiency
A = accomplished
P = proposed
                                                    Table 27 (con't.)
  Delegation of
   tPA authority
  Enforcement activities
 Federal assistance to
 State/local agencies
 Utah
    75%
 Wyomi ng
    45%
 REGION IX

 American
   Samoa
 Arizona
    85%
Annual inspection of
 motor vehicle control
 devices (A)
Public release of data
 submitted by owner/
 operator of air
 pollution source (A)
Authority to require
 installation, maint.,
 & use of emission
 monitoring devices(A)
State sales tax
 exemption for
 installation of air
 pollution control
 facilities

Environmental Quality
 Act  (A)
Authority to implement
 new  source review
 programs (direct
 sources only) (A)
Regulations necessary
 to fulfill SIP
 requirements  (A)

Public inspection of
 emission reports (A)
None
None
                                      None
None
Relying on voluntary
 compliance/negotiation.
fcease and desist order
 issued to a major
 source.
All sources are in
 compliance, thus
 schedules not required.

All compliance schedules
 submitted.
Transp. control  streategies;
Emission data updated
Emission grid network for
 urban portion of
AQCR 220.
Guidelines for newly
 enacted legislation;
Emission data update.
                                                Monitoring  equipment
                                                 (1  hi-vol)
Mobile emissions inventory;
Example compliance
 schedule formats.

-------
       o
       o
Region and
   state
   Percent
   of 1975
 SIP Manpower
 Requirement
     Legislation

 D = deficiency
 A = accomplished
 P = proposed
                                                   Table  27  (con't.)
  Delegation of
   tPA authority
Enforcement activities
 Federal assistance to
 State/local agencies
 Cal i form'a
 Guam
 Hawaii
     100%
      70%
 $4.6M to local agencie
 administered by ARB(A)
 Est. need for statewide
  air pollution control
  element to be integra'
  with statewide
  planning process (A)

 Guam Environmental
  Protection Agency
  (GEPA) effective
  3/7/73 (A)

 None
                                          None
                                                  ed
None
None
 Nevada
     55%
  NOTE:  No
reports recei'
 Authority to review
  and prevent
  construction of
  indirect sources (A)
 Reorganization of
  Environmental
  Control Commission(A)
ed from EPA Region X.
None
                       No compliance schedules
                        yet submitted
                        (officially) to EPA;
                        several  open burning
                        dumps closed.
All compliance
 schedules submitted.
Status of all major
 sources reviewed and
 compliance schedules
 developed is
 applicable.

17 compliance schedules
 submitted.
Variances for open
 burning granted to
 6 counties for
 30 cities.
                         Develop, of air quality and
                          emission data systems;
                         Advice in ambient trend
                          monitoring.
Revision of SIP:
Development of consolidated
 grant application.
Emission data to NEDS;
Updated consolidated grants;
Revised program objectives.
Emission data to NEDS;
Transp. plan for Las Vegas.

-------
Part Four
Enforcement of State
Implementation Plans

-------
Part Four
Enforcement of State
Implementation Plans
     Since the initial  approval of most portions of state implementation
plans on May 31, 1972,  air enforcement activities of the agency  have been
initiated.  These activities cover three broad areas including:
     1.   Establishment of reasonable compliance schedules for all major
sources.
     2.   Keeping sources in compliance or on compliance schedules, and
     3.   The development of a source surveillance program.
Each  of these activities will be covered in this report.
     A.   SIP Requirements and Enforcement Strategies
         Four types of requirements may be included in SIPs:  Federally
promulgated requirements; SIP requirements immediately effective; SIP
requirements which become effective through January 1974; and  SIP
requirements effective  after January 1974.  Different kinds of enforce-
ment  programs have to be designed for each of these categories of SIP
requirements.
     As a part of the analysis of the four classes of regulatory require-
ments, each Regional Office was asked by the Office of Enforcement and
General Counsel  (OEGC)  to collect and consider all available information
concerning specific sources or source categories subject to each such
class of regulation, the extent of noncompliance, and the feasibility
of compliance.   The enforcement options available for each requirement
were  examined and presented in the context of this information.  The
Regional Offices submitted a strategy to OEGC on April 30, 1973, to
                                                               101

-------
handle SIP requirements effective after January 1974.  These strategies


were used to develop EPA approval/disapproval  notices and proposed


compliance schedules on June 15, 1973.  These schedules were


promulgated on August 20, 1973.  An analysis of the present situation


on these compliance schedules is presented in Section B of this report.


     The Regional Offices submitted enforcement strategies to OEGC


for each state on or about May 31, 1973, to handle immediately


effective SIP requirements.  These strategies have been reviewed and


discussed in trips to each Regional Office during July 1973 by DSSE.


A summary report of these trips was made to each Region during early


August 1973.  An analysis of the present status of enforcement of


this type of SIP requirement is presented in part B(2) of this


section.
      :   ...                                        .

     In developing an enforcement strategy, for presently effective


requirements, the Regional Offices establish priorities for EPA


enforcement.  In general, it is the policy of the Agency that


priority be given to sources in AQCRs classified Priority I and


to larger sources.


     The enforcement strategy developed is not intended to be static.


Initial  information and  assumptions may prove to be  in error, and


strategies will  need to  be updated through quarterly reports to OEGC


that record progress toward achievement of the overall goal of full


compliance with  SIP requirements and  redefine the most effective  EPA


enforcement action strategy for the next quarter.
 102

-------
     B.   Establishment of Compliance Schedules
          EPA regulations (40 CFR §51.15) allowed states until  February 15,
1973, to submit compliance schedules establishing increments of progress
where such increments were required (i.e., for regulations with a final
compliance date after'January 31, 1974).  Regulations establishing the
final emission limitations and compliance dates were required to be
contained in the plan submitted by January 30, 1972; only the incremental
steps (contract, start construction, finish construction, etc.) were
covered by the deferred submission date.  The increments of progress
could be contained in a schedule particularized for an individual
source, in a categorical schedule, or in the emission control regulation
itself.  Where the emission control  regulation contained acceptable
increments (approximately 5,000 facilities are included in such
requirements), no submission of individual schedules pursuant to
§51.15(a)(2) was required.  Section B(l) presents the status of
§51.15 schedules.
     Although increments of progress are not necessary for sources
affected by requirements with an effective date prior to January 1974,
it is still  necessary for the states or EPA to establish reasonable
compliance schedules for such sources if the presently effective
compliance date is unreasonable.  Section B(2) presents status  of
and alternatives for handling development of schedules for such
requirements.
                                                                         103

-------
                (1)   Section 51.15 Schedules
                The  Administrator determined  on  May  31,  1972,  (37  F.R.  10842),
      that a  number  of states did not have  a  procedure  for  obtaining  legally  . .
      enforceable increments of progress  in compliance  schedules for  submission
      to the  Administrator by February 15,  1973. .  In these  cases,  the State's
      implementation plan was disapproved on  this  basis  and subsequently, on
      September 22,  1972, (37 F.R. 19829),  October 28,  1972 (37  F.R.  23085), and
      May 14, 1973,  (37 F.R. 16896),  the  Administrator  promulgated compliance   .
      schedules for  most of these states.                         .     •        •
           Despite substantial  efforts by the EPA  Regional. Offices, few states
      officially submitted any schedules  to fulfill  the .requirements  of.§51.15.
      Of the  20 states with regulations with  final compliance.dates after
      January 31, 1974, only 6 officially submitted  any  schedules  in  time to
      be dealt with  by June 1.5.       ,        .      .                     .   .
           Where states failed to fulfill their  responsibilities in submission
      of compliance  schedules,  EPA was required  to propose  schedules  to
      substitute for those not submitted  by the  state or not approvable by
      EPA. The approvals and disapprovals  of state  schedules  were required
      by June 15, 1973, by analogy to the four-month review period for original
      plans specified in the Clean Air Act.  Adoption of final  regulations
      was completed  on these schedules in August 1973.   Some 10,000 facilities
      have now been  placed on a reasonable  schedule. Most  of  these facilities
      are subject to a categorical-type schedule,  that  is,  a schedule tailored
      to a class of  sources such as asphalt batch  plants.
104

-------
          (2)  Presently Effective SIP Requirements
          If immediate compliance is reasonable, as in the case of fuel
switching (if the fuel is available), or prohibitions on open burning,
an effective enforcement program consists simply in the initiation of
enforcement actions against selected violators.   An example of such
enforcement actions is the open burning violations in Rhode Island
against which EPA has taken action.

     Where presently effective regulations have  been recently
enacted, the requirement to comply immediately may be wholly
unreasonable.  Instances of noncompliance may be widespread whether
or not the state is effectively enforcing the regulation.   A program
which consists of specific enforcement actions against sources,
culminating in an order which establishes a schedule tailored to the
particular source proceeded against, will be adequate for major sources
if the number of sources in violation are not numerous.  An example
of this type of action is the U.S. Steel  case in Gary, Indiana, summarized
in Table 28.
     The Regional Offices have estimated that some 10,000 point source
facilities are subject to presently effective requirements in SIPs and
need to be placed on a reasonable compliance schedule.
     Figure 9 illustrates the timetable over which this task is
expected to be completed.  Where sources are numerous, various
                                                                            105

-------
     methods of establishing realistic schedules for groups or classes of
     sources must be considered, including the following:
                    1.  Encourage the state to adopt acceptable plan
     revisions or to issue general variances which establish reasonable
     compliance dates for groups or classes of sources.  Enforce these
     revised schedules aggressively.  Submission of these schedules as
     revisions is not subject to any statutory timetable.  Federal Register
     packages covering substantial numbers of such schedules (approximately
     3,000  facilities) are expected to be submitted by the Regional Offices
     over the next few months.  An additional 2,000 facilities are expected
     to be handled by the states by the end of calendar year 1973.
                    2.   Issue notices of violation to a large number of
     similar sources.  Enclose with the notice a schedule developed for
     the entire source category.  Explain to the source in the notice of
     violation that the enclosed schedule is believed to be a reasonable
     schedule for all sources in the class and that, if the source accepts
     the schedule, an abatement order embodying the schedule will be issued
     to the source.  It should be made clear that, if the source requests
     a conference or rejects the schedule, EPA may determine that a more
     expeditious schedule is practicable or reasonable.  This approach
     will lighten the Regional Office workload, as compared to negotiation
     of individual schedules for each source, and may result in more
     expeditious abatement programs for the class as a whole.
106

-------
It is expected that a substantial  number of facilities will  have
to be handled in this manner.
               3.   Development for a large class of sources a realistic
schedule which includes a series of increments of progress and announce
that it will be EPA's policy to prosecute sources which do not initiate
and complete abatement programs in accordance with the schedule.  This
approach will be effective only if most sources in the class are informed
of the schedule and of EPA policy and if an extremely aggressive program
of litigation is promptly mounted against sources which fail to initiate
abatement action voluntarily in accordance with the schedule.   Sources
which are proceeded against should be put under orders requiring more
expeditious abatement than is required under the schedule for the
class, where more expeditious abatement is technically feasible, and
penalties should be recovered.   Initial cases will be carefully selected
to make success in litigation likely, including recovery of penalties.
This approach will be used only to the extent that option is not
successful.
     C.   Keeping Sources in Compliance or on Schedules
          A major activity of air enforcement after the establishment
of reasonable compliance schedules will be to keep such source on
schedule and, upon reaching final  compliance, to ensure that such
sources remain in compliance through proper operation and maintenance
of the facility.  An example of such an action is the Delmarva case
                                                                           107

-------
       summarized  in  Table 28.   In  this  case  the  affected source had reached
       its  final compliance date which was wholly reasonable.  Therefore, an
       order to  comply immediately  was issued.   It is expected that such
       action will  be accelerated as  increments  of progress  in approved
       schedules and  enforcement orders  are reached and as sources are
       scheduled to achieve final compliance.  The next semiannual progress
       report is expected  to show a significant  increase in  such actions.  The
       following sections  explain how OEGC expects to obtain the necessary
       information  on sources in order to determine priority for the taking
       of air enforcement  actions.
            D.   Source Surveillance  and Intelligence
                A  program of source  surveillance to determine sources and
       their compliance status is being  initiated in each Regional Office.
       This program will  first concentrate on the development of adequate
       source information  to use to follow state  progress in enforcing
       their SIPs.
            CEGC has  developed a computer system, now operational, known as
       the  Compliance Data System (CDS).  The CDS is not a data system, as
       such, but an enforcement management system.  It is designed to assist
       regional  programs  in performing the following activities:
                1.   Develop and revise (State)  enforcement strategies by
       providing statistical breakdowns  of state  enforcement progress and
       obtaining source listings by compliance status, industrial category,
       emission  potential  category, geographic location, and/or pollutant.
108

-------
          2.   Ease the state burden of reporting enforcement progress
semiannual!,/ through the use of simple questionnaires, tailored to the
actions the states should have monitored over the preceding six-month
period.
          3.   Provide a means for managing numerous enforcement actions
by furnishing summaries of EPA-to-source interactions, writing form
letters, tracking increments of progress or other dates pertaining to.
enforcement, assisting in assigning work loads such as inspection and
source observations to personnel, and producing summaries of future and
overdue work actions.
          4.   A summary of state enforcement actions that result in
civil or criminal penalties.
     A summary of EPA enforcement activities including inspections,
source tests, notices of violation, abatement orders and civil/criminal
actions.  These summaries are being designed to reflect in a meaningful
way both the state's and EPA's efforts toward implementing the requirements
of the state air implementation plans.
                                                                            109

-------
                                                                        Table  28

                                                         SUMMARY OF EPA AIR ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
                                                                  MAY 1972 - AUGUST 1973
     COMPANY
   TYPE OF SOURCE
                         LOCATION
                                                 POLLUTION PROBLEM
                                                                                    TYPE OF ACTION
                                                                                                                           RESULTS OR STATUS
Allied Chemical
Corporation

Sulfuric Acid
Plant
Claymont, Delaware

   Region III
Secure compliance with Delaware
SIP limiting S02 concentrations
and mass emission rates.
Notice of violation issued on
May .24, 1972.  Order to comply
issued on July 20, 1972.
 Bimonthly progress reports to  be submitted
 commencing October 10,  1972.   Information
 submitted to  EPA on construction of  an emis-
 sion control  facility to  comply with the plan,
 A construction schedule with increments of
 progress has. been established  by EPA.
Delmarva Power &
Light Company

Steam Generator
Delaware City,
Delaware

    Region III
Secure compliance with Delaware •
SIP requiring the use of fuel
containing not in excess of
3.5/5 sulfur.             '  :
Notice of violation issued on .
March 6, 1972.  Order to comply
issued on April 17, 1972.
 At the conclusion of litigation instituted
 by Getty Oil Company for a court order re-
 straining enforcement of the fuel, sulfur
 content regulation the order to comply was
 upheld.  (The interest of Getty Oil Co. in
 this matter arises from a contractural
 arrangement between Delmarva- Power & Light
 Co. and Getty Oil Company under which Getty
 provides Delmarva petroleum coke for fuel in
 exchange for electricity.)  Getty'Oil Co.
 (Eastern Operations) vs. Ruckelshaus (3^2 F.
 Supp. 1006; 1*67 F. 2d. 31«9; cert, den., 	
 U.S. 	, Jan. 15, 1973).  Source  is in
 compliance.        ...
City of Woonsocket

Open Burning
Woonsocket, Rhode
Island

    Region I
Open burning at municipal refuse
disposal facility in.violation
of Rhode island regulations.
Notice of violation issued on
February -7, 1973. Order issued
July .7, 1973. .
 On March 7, 1973,  a conference was held with
 representatives of the city,  who agreed to
 cease all open burning of debris except that
 generated by'HUD.   Region I is presently at-
 tempting informally to assist HUD in the reso-
 lution of its disposal problems.
City of Newport

Open Burning
Newport, Rhode
Island

    Region I
Secure compliance with Rhode
Island SIP prohibiting open
burning at public refuse dis-
posal sites and prohibiting
the emission of harmful con-
taminants.
Notice of violation issued on
October 13, 1972.  Order to
comply issued on Jan. 11, 1973..
The Newport refuse disposal site is under sur-
veillance, and pursuant to Section 113, jud-
icial proceedings are authorized if further
violations of the State implementation plan
occur.  Presently in compliance.

-------
Table 28 (con't)
COMPANY
TYPE OF SOURCE
City of Middletown
Open Burning
Texaco Inc.
American Barrel
Company
Drum Reclamation
Furnace & Incinerate
North East Utiz
lities Service
Steam Generator
U. S. Steel Corp.
Gary Works and
Universal Atlas
Cement, Buffington
Harbor Plant
Steel Mill,
Cement Plant
LOCATION
Middletown, Rhode
Island
Region I
Massachusetts
Region I
Massachusetts
Region I
jr
Massachusetts
Region I
Gary, Indiana
Region V
POLLUTION PROBLEM
Secure compliance with Rhode Is-
land SIP prohibiting open burn-
ing at public refuse disposal
sites and prohibiting the emis-
sion of harmful contaminants.
Selling fuel with higher sulfur
content than permitted under
Massachusetts regulations.
Operation of drum reclamation
furnace violating Mass, regu-
lations regarding open burn-
ing, visible emissions and
general air pollution.
Burning fuel with a higher
than permitted under State
regulations .
Operation of a steel mill with
cement production facilities in
violation of Indiana's regula-
tions regarding visible emis-
sions, combustion for industrial
heating and process operations.
TYPE OF ACTION
Kotice of violation issued on
Oct. 13, 1972. Conference held
between EPA and Middletown of-
ficials on Nov. 6, 1972.
Notice of violation issued on
Feb. 1, 1973.
Notice of violation issued on
March 15, 1973.
Notice of violation issued on
March 16, 1973-
Notice of violation issued on
April 18, 1973- Order issued
June 22, 1973.
RESULTS OR STATUS
In compliance presently, but order is pending.
On February 12, 1973, pursuant to a Section
llU letter, Texaco met with Region I person-
nel and provided information with respect
to fuels availability and demand. -Since
this meeting Texaco has ceased its violation.
Concurrence on order issued August 8, 1973.
In compliance.
On May 16, 1973, a conference was held with
the representatives of U.S. Steel, the city of
Gary and the State of Indiana. An order was
issued by June 22, 1973. U.S. Steel request-
ed U.S. District Court, Hammond, Ind., for a
stay of the order and declaratory Judgements
to void order. EPA counterclaimed to enforce
the terms of the order (first increment past)
on August 15, 1973.

-------
                                                                   Table 28 (con't)
      COMPANY
   TYPE OF SOURCE
                         LOCATION
                                                 POLLUTION PROBLEM
                                                                                    TYPE OF ACTION
                                                                                                                        RESULTS OR STATUS
Wabash Smelting
Corporation

Secondary aluminum
plant —
Indiana

Region V
Violation of Indiana regulations
for visible.emissions and process
operations.
Notice of violation issued on
March 28, 1973:  Order issued
on May 30, 1973.
Presently in compliance with terms of the
order.
H.N. Hartwell and
Son, Inc.
Massachusetts

Region I
Selling fuel with a higher sulfur
content than permitted under
Mass, regulations.
Notice of violation issued on
March 16, 1973.
 Presently in compliance.
Union Petroleum
Corporation
Massachusetts

Region I
Selling fuel with a higher sul-
fur content than permitted under
Mass, regulations.
Notice of violation issued on
March 16, 1973.
 Presently in compliance.
Central Electric
Power Cooperative
Jefferson City,
Missouri

Region VII
Power company refused to submit
information requested in Section
111* letter.
Administrative order issued 01
May 2, 1973.
 All the information required in the adminis-
 trative order has been provided.
Hercules, Inc. -
Missouri Chemical
Works
Louisiana
Missouri

Region VII
Operation of Plant in violation
of Missouri regulations regard-
ing process operations.
Notice of violation issued on
May 16, 1973.
 Awaiting conference.
Asarco

Primary Lead
Smelter
Glover, Missouri

Region VII
Violation of Missouri S02
regulations.
Notice of violatior issued
July 2, 1973.
 Conference held July 2k, 1973, order pending.

-------
Table 28 (con't)
COMPANY
TYPE OF SOURCE
Si. . Joe Minerals
Corporation
Primary Lead
Smelter
Ceritropolis
Crusher Inc.
City of Lawrence
Open Burning
So. California
Edison
Mohave Power
Plant
City of Bristol
Open Burning
Kaibab Industries
Wood waste burners
Western Pine Ind.
Wood waste burners
LOCATION
Herculaneum
Missouri
Region VII
Kansas City,
Missouri
Region VII
Lawrence, Mass.
Region I
Nevada
Region IX
Bristol, Rhode
Island
Region I
Pay son, Arizona
Region IX
Snowflake, Arizona
Region IX
POLLUTION PROBLEM
Violation of Missouri S02
regulations .
Refused to submit information
required in Section 111* letter.
Open burning
Violation of State visible emis-
sion regulation and S0?
emission limits.
Open burning at municipal re-
fuse disposal facility in vio-
lation of Rhode Island regu-
lations .
Violation of Arizona visible
emission regulations.
Violation of Arizona visible
emission regulation.
TYPE OF ACTION
Notice of violation issued
June 2, 1973.
Order issued on June 6, 1973.
Notice of violation issued on
June 6, 1973. •
Notice of violation issued
July 25, 1973.
Notice of violation issued on
April 26, 1973.
Notice of violation issued
July 2k, 1973.
Notice of violation issued
July 2l», 1973..
RESULTS OR STATUS
'

Conference held.
Conference held August lit, 1973. Order is
pending.
Conference held. Issuance of order is pending.
Conference pending.
Conference pending.

-------
Table 28 (con't)
COMPANY
TYPE OF SOURCE
Western Moulding Co.,
Inc.
Wood waste burners
Wilfret Brothers
Realty Trust
Incinerator
Penn Central
Transportation
Company
Passenger and freiglv
terminals
Independent Stave Co
Inc.
Boilers, Cyclones,
Teepee Burner,
Incinerator

LOCATION
Snowflake, Arizona
Region IX
Arlington, Mass.
Region I
Massachusetts
Region I •
Lebanon, Missouri
Region VII

POLLUTION PROBLEM
Violation of Arizona visible
emission regulation. •
Violation of Mass, regulation on
incinerator.
Transfer of cement products creat-
ing visible emissions problem and
trucks idling contrary to require-
of Mass. SIP.
Violation of Missouri 'particulate
matter regulation.

TYPE OF ACTION
Notice of violation issued
July 2U, 1973.
Notice of violation issued July
2, 1973.
Notice of violation. issued .
July 2, 1973.
Notice of violation issued
on July 9, 1973.

RESULTS OF STATUS
Conference pending.
Request for concurrence August 2, 1973 on
issuance of an order.
i
1
Concurrence granted July 2, 1973.


-------
                                                                  Table 28 (con't)
     COMPANY
  TYPE OF SOURCE
                          LOCATION
                                               POLLUTION PROBLEM
                                                                                    TYPE OF ACTION
                                                                                                                           RESULTS  OF STATUS
Bethlehem Steel Corp

Steel Mill
Burns Harbor Plant
Chesterfield, Ind.

Region V
Violation of Indiana visible
emission and particulate emissions
(process wt.) regulations.
Notice of violation issued on
July 11, 1973.
Kaiser Steel Corp.
Fontana, Calif.

Region IX
Violation of Calif, visible
emission and SOg regulations
(H2S standard).
Notice of violation issued
August 7, 1973.  .
8 wood waste
Burners
Mendocino and
Northern Sonoma
County, Calif.  .

Region IX
Violation of Calif, visible
emissions regulations.
Notice of violation issued
August 15, 1973.
Seaboard Foundry,
Inc.

Gray Iron Foundry
Johnston, R. I.

Region I
Violation of R. I. visible emis
sions .and particulate emissions
(process wt.) regulations.
Notice of violation issued
August 1, 1973.
Inland Steel Co.

Integrated Steel
Mill
East Chicago, Ind.

Region V
Violation of Indiana viaible
emissions, combustion for indus-
trial heating and process
operations.
Notice of violation issued

July 18, 1973.
Youngstown Sheet
and Tube Co.

Integrated Steel
Mill
East Chicago, Ind.
Region C
Violation of Indiana visible
emissions, combustion for indus
trial heating and process
operations.
Notice of violation issued
July 18, 1973.

-------
Table 28 (con't)
COMPANY
TYPE OF SOURCE
Missouri Power &
Light Co.
Power Plant
Controlled Demo-
lition, Inc.
Vince Baum Wrecking
Co.
)emolition Co.
Roberts Construction
Co.
Limestone Quarrying
and Crushing
Columbia Water &
Light Dept.
Boilers
J. Edward Moran
Generating Stat
Cty.-of Burlington
Electric Light Dept.
Boilers
LOCATIOH
Jefferson City, Mo.'
Region VII
Kansas City, Mo.
Region VII
Sundance, Wyoming.
Region VII
Columbia, Mo.
Region VII
Burlington, Vt.
Region I
POLLUTION PROBLEM
Refused to submit information re-
quired in Section llU letter.
Failed to notify EPA prior 'to
demolition of building containing
friable asbestos as required in
NESHAPS regulations. :
Violation of ambient air standard
for total suspended particulates
as provided in .Wyoming SIP.
Has not tested boilers 6 & ^
within 2 months extension given
by R.O. as required in Section
Ilk letter.
Violation of Vt. particulate
matter and visible emissions
regulations.
-TYPE OF ACTION
Administrative order issued
August 1, 1973.
Criminal action referred to
U.S. Attorney August 16, 1973.
Notice of violation issued
August 16, 1973.
Notices of- violation; Adminis-
trative order issued to obtain
§llit information
Notice of violation issued
August 14, 1973.
RESULTS OF STATUS


i



-------
Table 28 (con't)
COMPANY
TYPE OF SOURCE

Atlantic-Richfield
Corp.
Oil refinery
Mobil Oil Corp.
Oil refinery
American Oil Co.
Oil Refinery
LOCATION

East Chicago, Ind.
Region V
East Chicago, Ind.
Region V
Whiting, Ind.
Region V
POLLUTION PROBLEM

Violation of Ind. SOg regulation.
(APC-13)
Violation of Ind. SO- (APC-13) and
visible emission (APu-3) regu-
lations.
Violation of Indiana S02 (APC-13)
and visible emission (APC-3)
regulations.
TYPE OF ACTION

Notice of violation issued
August 10, 1973.
Notice of violation issued
August 10, 1973.
Notice of violation issued
August 10, 1973.
RESULTS OF STATUS





-------
                                      Figure  9.     Projected Compliance Schedule Development
  'C.CCC
   18.OOO,
   16.CCO
   : 4,000
   12.000
to
OJ
   1O.COO
•o
0>
o
    8OOO
    6000
    4OOC
                                                                         13.COO
                                   /

                                 /
                       1O.OOO
                                65OO
            50OO
            r  M
            E  A
            3  n

            7
            3
A
o
      A
      Y
J
U
j
U
A
U
                        Date
s
E
P
O     N
C     O
T     V
D
E
C
J
A
N

7
4
F
E
M
A
R
A
P
v,
*

V
U
J
U
I
                                                                                                         oo

-------
Part Five
Agency Resources

-------
Part Five
Agency Resources
     A.   Operating Funds and  Type of Assistance
         Since the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1970,
the primary  purpose of the grant assistance, special contract support
and the  assignment of personnel has been to aid State and local
agencies in  developing and executing state implementation plans.   In
1973, the grant awards will approximate $46 million, assignment of
personnel $1.7 million, and .special contract work and demonstration
grants $3 million.  The support shown in Table 29 does not include
other assistance provided to  the states by EPA such as training and
other technical1 support activities.
     B.   Agency Funds Compared to SIP Estimates
     The funds available to State and local control agencies were
estimated for the period July 1972 to June 30, 1973 as shown in
Table 30. These estimates indicate that available funds were approxi-
mately $113.6 million or 99%  of the anticipated national 1973 SIP
needs.  By 1975, an estimated $144 million will be required to meet
1975 SIP program needs.  Approximately one-fourth of the States are
spending less than 70% of the SIP estimates for FY '73.  Some of the
more industrialized states in this group include Rhode Island, West
Virginia, Mississippi, Indiana, Tennessee, and Louisiana.  Eighteen
states have  funds available that exceed their estimates in the SIP.
Since these  states, with the  exception of California, have not yet
reached  their manpower resource requirements, the original SIP fund
                                                               119

-------
estimates made  by  the  states  probably  did  not  anticipate certain costs
associated with air  pollution or  did'not include  the  local agency
contribution  pertaining  to  operating costs and resources.  Therefore,
the data on funding  tend to indicate that  the  resources actually
required to conduct  effective control,  programs may  be more than
estimated by  at least  some  of the states.  In  early 1.970, many states
were  in the early  stages of program development and the resources
required to fulfill  the  plans were projected on a .two-,four-, and
six-year basis.  It  is expected that some  states  will need to reassess
their current resource projections to  make them consistent with new
programs, including  land use  and  transportation controls, which will
tend  to increase resource needs in •terms of funding as well  as man-
power.  In fact, the states of Arizona, Nevada, and California already
have  been requested  by the  .EPA Regional Office to update the resource
estimates based on their current  level of  program operation.  ,EPA  is
now assessing,the  additional  resource  requirements  of new SIP requirements,
e.g.,  transportation controls, indirect sources and significant
deterioration.   Results  of  the studies are expected in early CY-74.
      C.  Manpower  Resources Compared to SIP Estimates
      State and  local air pollution control agency manpower information
was provided  by the  Regional  Offices from  the  air program grant
applications, and  through telephone communication with certain State
and local agencies.  While  such data collection activities are
relatively accurate, they are .subject  to error and  should not be
considered to :be. as  reliable  as controlled and validated manpower
120

-------
surveys.  However, the estimates are sufficient to demonstrate manpower
trends and provide a good indication of existing manpower gaps.  Man-
power estimates for FY '73 are provided in Table 31.  It should be noted
in Table 31 that, in some cases, the equivalent man-years exceed the
number of budgeted positions because other departments within the State
government contributed part-time assistance to the air pollution
control agency.
     The State Implementation Plan (SIP) manpower estimates for both
1973 and 1975 indicate the effort expected to be necessary to implement
each state plan.   The 1975 manpower resources estimated indicate
approximately 8600 man-years are needed to accomplish state imple-
mentation plans.   These estimates may be low in many cases where
revisions, such as modified transportation control strategies, have
become necessary.
                                                              121

-------
ro
ro
     Table 29 - STATE AND LOCAL OPERATING FUNDS

BY SOURCE OF FUNDS AND TYPE OF ASSISTANCE (FY 1973)
EPA Region
and State
REGION I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Subtotal
REGION II
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Subtotal
Control Program
Funds $1000
Federal Non-
granta/ fed.
1355.8 820.9
192.0 92.7
1312.9 600.9
185.4 78.3
133.9 89.1
154.4 97.2
3334.4 1779.1
2262.7 1489.8
4273.0 10492.4
419.3 342.2
100.0 50.3
7055.0 12374.7
Special contract
support (BOA)V
funds $1000
74.0
8.2
48.1
8.3

18.2
156.8
15.0
85.4

6.0
106.4
Demonstration
.grants $1000
46.0





46.0

215.0


215.0
EPA employees
assigned to
Control Agencies
equiv. value
No.S/ $1000^
1 4.4
2 7.9
3 1.5
1 13.6
1 0.0
1 2.6
9 30.0
2 0.0
3 10.0
1 7.5
1 0.0
7 17.5
Total
All support
2301.1
300.8
1963.4
285.6
223.0
272.4
5346.3
3767.5
15075.8
769.0
156.3
19768.6.

-------
Table 29 (con't)
EPA Region
and State
REGION III
Delaware
Control Program
Funds $1000
Federal Non-
grants§/ fed.
193.3 179.7
Dist. of Columbia 334.1 148.2
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
W. Virginia
Subtotal
REGION IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
No. Carolina
So. Carolina
Tennessee
_, Subtotal
ro
(jO
1365.8 1376,3
2545.5 1943.3
991.8 676.0
507.0 436.7
5937.5 4760.3
714.4 423.3
1045.6 969.7
626.5 367.1
656.6 786.8
419.5 163.8
1188.6 613.6
430.3 494.4
927.2 832.5
6008-7 4651.2
Special contract
support (BOA)-b/
funds $1000
16.7
20.7
45.5
65.6 .
38.4
7.9
194.8
74.1
55.6
40.0
45.6
31.1
39.5
54.5
37.6
378.0
Demonstration
grants $1000
















EPA employees
assigned to
Control Agencies
equiv. value
No.S/ $10004/
3 14.9
2 5.4
6 26.4
33 185.7
0 0.8
2 20.7
46 253.9
6 24.6
11 7.7
2 12.4
9 17.7
8 38.7
4 13.5
3 14.3
2 4.7
45 133.6
Total
All support
404.6
508.4
2814.0
4740.2
1707.0
972.3
11146.5
1236.4
2078.6
1046.0
1506.7
653.1
1855.2
993.5.
1802.0
11171.5

-------
Table 29 (con't)
ro
-P.

EPA Region
and State
REGION V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Subtotal
REGION VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Subtotal

Control Program
Funds $1000
Federal Non-
grant3/ fed.

2897.8 4070-°
778.9 785.2
1999.7 1476.8
661.2 442.9
2414.9 3569.3
840.4 626.0
9592.9 10970.2

201.8 120.4
350.0 229.8
482.5 225.2
416.0 297.4
2923.3 3004.2
4373.6 3877.0


Special contract
support (BOA)S/
funds $1000

39.4
7.0
7.0 =
46.6
46.1
7.0
153.1

16.5
16.5
47.3
18.5
155.0
253.8


Demonstration
grants $1000
















EPA employees
assigned to
Control Agencies
equiv. value
No.£/ $1000^

9 7.6
9 39.1
1 1.9
3 11.7
7 41.6
4 5.2
33 107.1

1 2.8
2 6.1
0 0.0
3 23.0
1 5.3
7 37.2


Total
All support

7014.8
1610.2
3485.4
1162.4
6071.9
1478.6
20823.3 .

341.5
602.4
. 755.0
,.,J54.9
6087.8
8541 .6

-------
Table 29 (con't)
EPA Region
and State
REGION VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Subtotal
REGION VIII
Colorado
Montana
No. Dakota
So. Dakota
Utah
Wyomi ng
Subtotal
(_n
Control Program
Funds $1000
Federal Non-
grant^/ fed.
645.3 331.9
596.3 405.7
1145.9 1070.0
247.1 107.8
2634.6 1915.4
817.3 641.8
266.6 154.9
45.0 45.0
32.0 10.7
160.0 145.1
68.1 32.0
1389.0 1029.5

Special contract
support (BOA)b/
funds $1000
18.0
21.5
38.0
24.5
.102.0
86.9
136.1
10.0
10.0
117.6
10.0
370.6

Demonstration
grants $1000













EPA employees
assigned to
Control Agencies
equiv. value
No.£/ $1000^7
0 0.0
5 32.1
3 26.8
2 10.2
10 69.1
3 0.0
4 9.7
1 0.0
4 28.6
2 6.0
2 15.3
16 59.6

Total
All support
995.2
1055.6
2280.7
389.6
4721.1
1546.0
567.3
100.0
81.3
428.7
125.4
2848.7


-------
                                           Table 29 (con't)
IX)
en
EPA Region
and State
REGION IX
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Guam
Subtotal
REGION )(
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Subtotal
Grand Total
Control Program
Funds $1000
Federal Non-
grant^ fed.
377.0 557.5
3761.3 18210.9
175.4 234.0
247.1 157.0
54.8 20.1
4615.6 19179.5
139.6 168.2
108.2 177.7
553.7 961.5
1084.5 1306.4
1886.0 2613.8
46,827.3 63,150.7
i nn mo o
Special contract
support (BOA)-fc/
funds $1000
262.7
232.9
7.5
: 84.0

587. 1
40.0
85.3
30.0
42.2
197.5
2500.1
Demonstration
grants $1000











261.0
EPA employees
assigned to
Control Agencies
equiv. value
No.c/ $1000d/
0 0.0
2 9.9
4 8.6
3 13.2 .
1 14.9
10 46.6
2 16.4
3 15.8
7 43.3
7 45.6
19 121.1
202 875.7
Total
All support
1196.7
22215.0
425.5
501.3
89.8
24428.8
364.2
387.0
1588.5
2478.7
4818,4
113,614.8
                    iW^j«//W»w
-''Actual grant awards made during FY -'73; values may include carryover funding from previous fiscal years.

-^ Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA) provides contractual assistance to states for collection of data in direct
  support of implementation plan development and revision.   Additional funds approximating $500,000 of special
  contract support have been provided to collect state and  local data in 1973 for the EPA, OAQPS, National Emission
  Data System.  BOA support awarded to each state is estimated because BOA projects are generally conducted on a
  multi-state basis.

^/Includes "not chargeable" and "in lieu of cash" State Assignees.

       chargeable State Assignee expenditures.  ("In lieu of cash" assignee expenditures are part of Fed.  grant column.)

-------
Table 30  - COMPARISON OF AGENCY RESOURCES TO SIP ESTIMATES (FUNDS)   $1000




                              1973 ESTIMATES
.
EPA Region
and State
REGION I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
N. Hampshire
Rhode Island
i Vermont
REGION II
New York
New Jersey
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Federal
Program
State
1006.8
192.0
566.2
185.4
133.9
154.4
251 5., 0
1913.3
419.3
100.0
Control
Grant
Local
349.0
0
746.7
0
0
0
1758.0
349.4
0
0
Non-Federal
Control Program
Monies
• State Local
•494.5
92.7
223.2
78.3
89.1
97.2
2600.0
1309.4
342.2
50.3
326.4
0
377.7
0
0
0
7892.4
180.4
0
0
Total
avai
State
. 1501.3
284.7
789.4
263.7
223.0
251.6
5115.0
3222.7
761.5
150.3
Funds
Table
Local
675.4
0
1124.4
0
0
0
9650.4
529.8
0
0
Requirements
from SIP
Total
2754.0
150.0
2143.0
284.0
329.0
167.0
16245.0
4110.0
600.0
84.0
SIP Minus
avail .
funds3/
577.3
(134.7)
229.2 :
20.3 i
106.0 :
(84.6) '
— . — .f.
1479.6 ;
357.5. '
(161.5)
(66.3) >

-------
ro
oo
                                                       Table 30 (con't)
EPA Region
and State
REGION III
Delaware
D. of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
REGION IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Federal Control
Program Grant
State Local
193.3 0
234.1 100.0 b/
605.6 760.2
1100.0 1445.5
832.5 159.3
497.0 10.0
367.0 347.4
700.0 345.6
500.0 126.5
492.7 163.9
419.5 0
800.0 388.6
300.0 130.3
500.0 427.2
Non-Federal
Control Program
Monies
State Local
179.7 0
142.9 5.3
657.0 719.3
957.7 985.7
460.0 216.0
422.4 14.3
272.0 151.3
592.3 377.4
288.0 79.1
554.9 231.9
163.8 0
321.6 292.0
394.1 100.3
476.0 356.5
Total Funds
available
State Local
373.0 0
377.0 105.3
1262.6 1479.5
2057.7 2431.2
1292.5 375.3
919.4 24.3
639.0 498.7
1292.3 723.0
788.0 205.6
1047.6 395.8
583.3 °
1121.6 680.6
694.1 230.6
976.0 783.7
Requirements
from SIP
Total
367.0
518.0
3328.0
6336.0
2040.0
1436.0
1215.0
2535.0
1490.0
2355.0
1032.0
2235.0
1369.0
2693.0
SIP Minus
avail .
funds
(6.0)
35.7
585.9
1847.1
372.2
492.3
77.3
519.7
496.4
911.6
448.7
432.8
444.3
933.3

-------
Table 30 (con't)
Non-Federal
EPA Region
and State
REGION V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
REGION VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
REGION VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Federal Control
Program Grant
State Local

1747.8 1150.0
342.6 436.3
83.2.7 1167.0
429.1 232.1
404.9 2010.0
638.2 202.2

201.8 0
350.0 0
400.3 82.2
230.6 185.4
2156.6 766.7

539.8 105.5
411.5 184.8
254.0 891.9
109.1 138.0
Control Program
Monies
State Local

1253.0 2817.0
200.4 584.8
478.6 998.2
236.5 206.4
1805.0 1764.3
292.5 333.5

120.4 0
229.8 0
162.3 62.9
115.3 182.1
2094.1 910.1

261.1 70.8
315.5 90.2
178.9 891.1
36.4 71.4
Total Funds
available
State Local

3000.8 3967.0
543.0 1021.1
1311.3 2165.2
665.6 438.5
2209.9 3774.3
930.7 535.7

322.2 0
579.8 0
562.6 145.1
345.9 367.5
4250.7 1676.8

800.9 176.3
727.0 275.0
432.9 1783.0
145.5 209.4
Requirements
from SIP
Total

5882.0
2468.0
2727.0
1256.0
6129.0
1443.0

501.0
930.0
726.0
1180.0
8955.0

805.0
713.0
2366.0
563.0
SIP Minus
avail .
funds

(1085.8)
903.9
(749.5)
151.9
144.8
(23.4)

178.8
350.2
18.3
466.6
3027.5

(172.2)
(289.0)
150.1
208.1

-------
0 (con't)
EPA Region
and State
REGION VIII
Colorado
Montana
No. Dakota
So. Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
REGION IX
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Guam
Am. Samoa
Nevada
REGION X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
GRAND TOTAL
Federal Control
Program Grant
State Local

457.0 360.3
219.8 46.8
45.0 0
32.0 0
160.0 0
68.1 0

227.0 150.0
1058.0 2703.3
175.4 0
54.8 0
0 0
44.8 202.3

69.6 70.0
108.2 0
61.5 492.2
345.0 739.5
26,903.2 19,924.1
46,827.3
Non-Federal
Control Program
Monies
State Local

454.6 187.2
110.0 44.9
45.0 0
10.7 0
145.1 0
32.0 0

322.1 235.4
7761.6 10449.3
234.0 0
20.1 0
0 0
23.1 133.9

40.2 128.0
177.7 0
579.6 381.9
621.5 684.9
29,616.4 33,534.3
63,150.7
Total Funds
available
State Local

911.6 547.5
329.8 91.7
90.0 0
42.7 0
305.1 0
100.1 0

549,1 385.4
8819.6 13152.6
409,4 0
74.9
0 0
67.9 336.2

109.8 198.0
285.9 0
641.1 874.1
966.5 1424.4
56,519.6 53/158.4
109,978.0
Requirements
from SIP
Total

1220.0
442.0
107.0
150.0
383.0
267.0

1470.0
13597.0
317.0
70.0

633.0

229.0
275.0
1411.0
1820.0
114850.0
SIP Minus
avail .
funds

(239.1 )
20.5
17.0
107.3
77.9
166.9

535.5
(8375.2)
(92.4)
(4.9)

228.9

(78.8)
00.9)
(104.2)
(570.9)
4872.0
Parentheses indicate the available funds exceed the SIP
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG)
stated needs.

-------
        Table 31  - CONTROL AGENCY SUPPORT
ESTIMATED AVAILABLE MANPOWER RESOURCES (June 1973)
   AND STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN RESOURCE NEEDS
Region State
I Connecticut
Massachusetts
Total budget
positions
State Local
146 -115
130 15
Maine 24 0
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Subtotal
II New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Subtotal
III Delaware
23 0
18 0
19 0
360 130
176 35
257 602
47 0
10 0
490 637
34 0
Dist. of Columbia 25 0
Maryland 89 131
Pennsylvania 119 206
Virginia 101 54
W. Virginia 71 3
Subtotal 439 394
On Board
State Local
86 110
98 14
15 0
13 . 0
14 , 0
16 o
242 124
157 35
238 546
34 0
8 0
437 581
31 0
19 0
79 127
94 167
89 51
45 3
357 348
Equivalent man-years
State Local Total
86.0 51.5
101.4 9-2
15.0 0.0
13. Q 0.0
14.0 0.0
15.1 0.0
244.5 60.7
157.0 32.0
238.0 539.4
34.0 0.0
6.5 0.0
435.5 571.4
27.5 0.0
17.8 0.0
80.6 123.7
114.0 160.4
89.0 29.3
46.0 2.5
374.9 315.9
137.5
110.6
15.0
13.0
14.0
15.1
305.2
189.0
777.4
34.0
6.5
1,006.9
27.5
17.8
204.3
274.. 4
118.3
48.5
690.8
SIP Estimates (M.Y.)
1973 1975
164.9 209.5
128.3 145.0
9.0 24.0
17.0 29.0
19.7 24.0
10.0 11.9
348.9 443.4
246.1 265.5
972.7 1,398.1
35.9 57.9
5.0 8.0
1,259.7 1,729.6
22.0 27.0
31.0 39.5
199.3 213.0
379.4 547.1
122.1 185.0
86.0 109.9
839.8 1,121.5

-------

GO
ro
Region State
IV Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Subtotal
V Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Subtotal

Total budget
positions
State Local
42 41
154 76
70 13
104 34
55 .0
83 73
66 22
85 58
659 317
125 214
39 71
58 92
26 25
55 235
43 35
346 672
Table 31 (con't
On Board
State Local
36 30
148 71
53 12
68 34
45 0
77 72
55 20
81 56
563 295
116 209
25 70
52 89
24 19
55 203
34 31
306 621

Eauivalent man-years
State Local Total
29.6 30.0
81 . 1 51.2
53.0 11.8
52.9 34.0
37.6 0.0
77.0 49.8
48.8 10.7
78.6 55.5
458.6 243.0
116.0 195.0
25.0 66.0
50.0 91.0
27.0 22.9
55.0 208.5
38.8 31.0
318.8 614.4
59.6
132.3
64.8
86.9
37.6
126.8
59.5
134.1
701.6
311.0
91.0
141.0
49.9
263.5
69.8
933.2

SIP Estimates (M.Y.)
1973 1975
72.8 91.5
151.8 188.9
89.2 93.0
141.0 156.0
61.8 70.8
133.8 190.5
82.0 .98.0
161.3 173.0
893.7 1,061.7
352.2 354.2
147.8 162.1
163.3 208.0
75.2 97.0
367.0 479.0
86.4 113.7
1,191.9 1,414.0

-------
Table 31 (con't)
Region State
VI Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Subtotal
VII Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Subtotal
VIII Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
_, Subtotal
OJ
CO
Total budget
positions
State Local
24 0
29 0
51 17
38 35
260 202
402 254
40 30
36 34
32 94
16 30
124 188
45 47
23 15
9 0
10 0
21 0
8 0
116 62

On Board
State Local
24 0
.29 0
51 16
38 34
251 199
393 249
38 29
36 34
26 91
9 29
109 183
38 47
22 15
8 0
10 0
18 0
8 0
104 62

Equivalent man-years
State Local Total
24.0 0.0
24.0 0.0
42.0 15.0
36.0 28.0
249.0 167.0
375.0 210.0
25.0 12.2
25.4 13.2
25.5 85.7
4.5 18.1
80.4 129.2
38.0 37.2
14.4 7.0
5.3 0.0
3.1 0.0
17.0 0.0
7.7 0.0
85.5 44.2

24.0
24.0
57.0
64.0
416.0
585.0
37.2
38.6
111.2
22.6
209.6
75.2
21.4
5.3
3.1
17.0
7.7
129.7

SIP Estimates (M.Y.)
1973 1975
30.0 39.0
55.5 55.5
43.5 48.4
70.7 94.8
536.2 667.2
735.9 904.9
48.2 52.2
42.7 49.0
141.7 203.8
33.7 42.3
266.3 347.3
73.1 86.4
26.5 26.5
6.4 10.0
9.0 12.0
23.0 23.0
16.0 18.0
154.0 175.9


-------
CO
4»
Region State
IX Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Amer. Samoa
Guam
Subtotal
X Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Subtotal
Grand Total
Total budget
positions
State Local
71 41
259 (601 )a
23 0
5 20

5 0
363 662
12 11 .
12 0
35 49
30 80
89 140
3388 3456
UUIC *J | \ wwi i \f /
On Board
State Local
' 42 41
248 (601 )a
; 27 0
9 23

6 0
• 332 665
• 12 11
12 0
34 48
28 79
86 138
2929 3266
Equivalent man-years
State Local Total
48.0 42.0
; 248.0 601.0
: 20.0 0.0
3.7 19.8

5.1 0.0
324.8 662.8
7.0 8.0
6.0 0.0
33.0 48.0
24.0 79.0
' 70.0 135.0
2768.0 2865.0
90.0
: 849.0
: 20.0
23.5

5.1
.987.6
15.0
6.0
' 81.0
103.0
205.0
5754.6
SIP Estimates (M.Y.)
1973 1975
88.0 109.0
814.2 925.0
19.0 27.5
37.9 43.7

4.2 5.2
963.3 1,110.4
13.7 15.0
16.5 19.7
84.5 100.3
109.0 185.6
223.7 320.6
6877.2 8629.3 .
a Estimated by CPDD (no information available from R.O.)

  Equivalent man-years data for R.O.'s V and IX includes part-time assistance from
  "outside" agencies (e.g., Building Dept.,  Health Dept., etc.)

-------
Part Six
National Issues Impactingon
State Implementation Plans

-------
Part Six
National Issues Impacting on
State Implementation Plans
    A number of issues have developed since the SIP process began,
most as a direct result of court decisions involving interpretation of
the Clean Air Act.  These court decisions have affected the approvability
of State plans and have resulted in changing some plans from approved
to disapproved status.
    The impact that the following issues have had on SIPs are discussed
in this section:
   A.  Significant Deterioration
   B.  Maintenance of Standards/Land Use Controls  (Indirect Sources)
   C.  Supplementary Control Systems
   D.  Promulgation of Final Regulations for Copper Smelters
   E.  Regional Classification for Nitrogen Dioxide
   F.  Fugitive Dust
   G.  Tall Stacks
   H.  Definition of Reasonable Time to Attain Secondary Standards
   I.  Implementation of Clean Fuel Policy
   J.  Public Comment Prior to EPA Plan Approval
   K.  Variances
                                                                 135

-------
             A.    Significant Deterioration
                  On May 30, 1972, as the result of a suit filed by the
     Sierra Club, EPA was ordered by the District Court of the District of
     Columbia to disapprove all SIPs which do "not prevent significant
     deterioration of air quality" in currently clean areas and to promulgate
     new regulations which would prevent significant deterioration.  The
     District Court order was appealed to the Court of Appeals where it was
     affirmed, and subsequently to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the
     decision by a tie vote.
          As a result, all SIPs were disapproved on November 9, 1972, to the
     extent that they did not explicitly "prevent significant deterioration",
     and four alternative sets of regulations were proposed in the Federal
     Register of July 16, 1973.
          EPA is soliciting widespread public participation in the rulemaking
     activity because, despite the extensive litigation, there is no
     guidance available regarding what level of deterioration is "significant",
     nor what procedures should be implemented to prevent that level of
     deterioration from occurring.  To this end, public hearings on the
     significant deterioration issue were held in Washington, D.C.
     (August 27-28, 1973), Atlanta (September 4-5, 1973) and Dallas, Denver
     and San Francisco (September 5-6, 1973).  A 90-day period for public
     comment has been established.
             B.    Maintenance of Standards/Land Use Controls (Indirect Sources)
                  As a result of the court order in Natural Resources Defense
     Council v Ruckelshaus, EPA has developed and promulgated regulations
136

-------
requiring that SIPs  include procedures  to  prevent  construction  of
"indirect sources" which would interfere with  attainment  and main-
tenance of the national  standards.
     The term "indirect source" has been used  by EPA  to describe
facilities which indirectly cause air pollution by substantially
increasing traffic,  including shopping  centers and sports arenas and
other similar sources.
     The court-ordered timetable for SIP actions involving indirect
source review requirements is as follows:
     March 2, 1973 - Advance notice of proposed rulemaking for  an
indirect source regulation and of disapproval  of SIPs.
     April 15, 1973  - Proposal of an indirect  source  regulation
followed by a 30-day comment period.
     June 11, 1973 - Promulgation of the indirect  source  regulations.
     August 15, 1973 - State submittal  of  implementation  plan
revisions.
     October 15, 1973 - Approval or disapproval of plan revisions  by
EPA.
     December 15, 1973 - Final promulgation of EPA regulations  for
disapproved SIPs.
     The first three events have been accomplished with the notice of
proposed rulemaking  and plan disapprovals  being published on March 8,
and the indirect source regulations proposed on April 18, 1973, and
promulgated on June  18, 1973.
                                                                     137

-------
          C.   Supplementary Control Systems
              A major issue related to implementation plans involves the
  question of supplementary control systems (SCS) as an acceptable control
  strategy.  SCS is a relatively new term which replaces the former
  "intermittent control system  (ICS)".  SCS involves both the temporal
  variation of emission rate, based on expected meteorological conditions,
  to avoid high ground level concentrations during periods of poor
  dispersion potential and the  use of tall stacks to lower ground-level
  concentration.
        Early in September EPA proposed regulations containing the provisions
  outlined below and asked for  public comment on them.
              a.   SCS would be  authorized only in situations where its
  use  is  necessary to augment constant emission limitation techniques
  which are available to a specific source, and only until completely
  adequate emission limitation  techniques become available; i.e., only in
  situations wherein the alternatives are either permanent production
  curtailment or delay of an attainment date for the national standards.
              b.   SCS would be  authorized only in situations where it
  would exhibit a  high degree of reliability and enforceability; i.e., only
  in situations wherein  the emission source can be readily and
  unequivocally related to air  quality.
        As proposed these provisions will generally restrict the application
  of SCS  to isolated copper smelters and some coal-fired power plants, and
  then only after  application of all available constant emission limitation
  technology.  The proposed regulations do not explicitly preclude
138

-------
consideration of other sources,  but few other sources  could  meet  the
above criteria.
        D.   Copper Smelters
            On May 31, 1972, EPA disapproved SIPs for  Arizona,  New Mexico,
Nevada, Utah, Idaho, and Montana because they did not  submit adequate
plans to control sulfur dioxide  from copper smelters.   Regulations for
control of these sources were proposed by EPA and public hearings on
the regulations were held during August, September and October  of 1972
at which time substantial comments were received.  Numerous  court suits
have been filed by the individual copper smelters against the EPA
proposed regulations.
     Some of the important issues include the validity of the ambient
air quality data upon which the  proposed regulations were based,  the
accuracy of EPA's diffusion model analysis and the allegation that the
Agency should have provided adjudicative hearings on the proposed
regulations.  The decision by the District Court of Colorado in the
Anaconda case was recently overturned, thus resolving  in EPA's  favor
the issues of whether or not EPA must file an environmental  impact
statement and hold adjudicative  hearings.
     The major issue with the smelters involves the use of supplementary
control systems.  If the Agency  position becomes one of allowing the
use of SCS under specified conditions to achieve national standards,
it will have a significant impact on the Agency's proposed regulations
in relation to smelters.  Also,  it appears that SCS will allow EPA to
complete the development of control strategies to achieve secondary
                                                                        139

-------
    standards for which 18-month  extensions  were  provided  in  each of  the



    affected Regions.



            E.   Regional  Classification for  Nitrogen  Dioxide



                A Federal  Register notice on June 8,  1973,  proposed that  42



    of the 47 AQCRs originally classified as Priority I  be  reclassified as



    Priority III.  In addition, EPA revoked  the disapprovals  of SIPs  for



    nitrogen dioxide control  strategies for  18 AQCRs, revised the attainment



    date for 42 AQCRs and will withdraw and  take  no further action to



    promulgate proposed regulations to control oxides of nitrogen from



    stationary sources in 18 AQCRs.



         The Federal Register notice on June 8, 1973, provided that all



    relevant comments received before July 23, 1973,  would be considered  in



    developing the final  promulgation for reclassification of Regions for



    NO .  As of that date, sixteen comments  were received on  the proposed
      /\


    reclassification.  Seven comments concurred with  EPA's proposed action,



    four disagreed and the remaining provided general comments on the



    national ambient air quality standard for NO .
                                                /\


         The final action on the reclassification of AQCRs is scheduled  for



    September 30, 1973.



         The issue of a new proposed reference method will  be open  for



    comment until November 5, 1973, after which all relevant comments will



    be considered before a new reference method for the measurement of NO
                                                                         A


    is promulgated.



            F.   Fugitive Dust



                In May 31, 1972, Federal Register, EPA disapproved  the SIPs
140

-------
for Nevada, California, Arizona and New Mexico for the control  of
particulate matter because these states failed to demonstrate attain-
ment of both primary and secondary standards for particulate matter.
The major reason for disapproving these plans was the inadequacy of
the proposed strategies to control particulate matter from wind blown
or fugitive dust.  Very limited data were available at the time of
plan disapproval on the sources of fugitive dust emissions in these
States.  EPA conducted a special study in these four southwestern states
to develop emission factors for fugitive dust sources, define the
extent of the fugitive dust problem and develop recommended control
strategies to achieve the national standards.
     The results of the study indicated that fugitive emissions from
unpaved roads, agricultural lands, construction sites, material
storage piles, tailings piles and animal feedlots cause a significant
impact on ambient concentrations of particulate matter.  The study also
indicated that possibly disruptive controls may be needed in these
areas to attain the national standards for particulate matter.
     An issue paper presenting alternative courses of action for the
fugitive dust problem has been prepared and forwarded to EPA
Headquarters for review and final resolution of the fugitive dust issue.
     It should be noted that several other western states including
Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa, Oklahoma and Texas are expected to
have similar fugitive dust problems but these have not yet been evaluated.
     As a result of the recent fugitive dust studies, it is expected
that the fugitive dust problem may have been underestimated because of
                                                                      141

-------
    the  lack  of  air  quality  data  in  some  states.  The extent of this problem
    will  be more clearly  defined  as  more  air quality data are collected
    and  analyzed.
         Two  additional studies concerning  the  problems with fugitive dust
    are  currently underway in  regard to developing  an implementation plan
    to attain the national secondary standard for particulate matter in
    Idaho,  Kansas and Nebraska.   The preliminary results of these  studies
    indicate  that some type  of fugitive dust regulations may be needed in
    these areas  to develop a plan to attain the national secondary
    standard  for particulate matter  in  these areas.
           G.   Tall Stacks
                EPA has  recently  disapproved the control strategy  portion of
    the  Georgia  State Implementation Plan because their  regulations allowed
    more emissions from tall stacks  than  from shorter stacks, without other
    appropriate  limitations  and conditions. The plan disapproval  action
    resulted  from a court action. Other  states may also have tall stack
    regulations  similar to those  of  Georgia which will  require a  revision
    to this  portion of their control strategy.
         EPA  has published a proposed policy statement  on tall stacks in
    the  Federal  Register  simultaneously with the supplementary control
    system proposal.  The policy  allows  consideration of stack extensions
    as an acceptable control strategy only  as part  of existing stacks and
    additions to existing stacks  up  to the  height called for  by good
    engineering  practice  will  be  allowed  without restrictions as  a means
    of preventing violations of ambient  air quality standards.
142

-------
       H.   Definition of Reasonable Time to Attain Secondary Standards
            The SCS proposals also modified the definition of
"reasonable time" for attainment of secondary standards by specifying
that "reasonable time" shall be the time required to design, fabricate,
and install reasonably available control technology, as defined in
Appendix B to the state plan guidelines.  States could postpone
application of such measures only in cases where the control strategy
would have a severe adverse economic or social impact.  It is expected
that such postponements would be rare, but they could be necessary in
special cases to prevent plant shutdown or to prevent massive replace-
ment of recently installed equipment which would result in an
inequitable economic impact.  Any postponement beyond January 1, 1978,
would be subject to periodic reevaluation at five-year intervals.
       I.   Implementation of Clean Fuel Policy
            There is a problem of inadequate supplies of low sulfur
fuel, primarily coal, for use by stationary combustion sources to
meet State Implementation Plan sulfur dioxide emission regulations in
the 1975-77 period.  Basically, the problem arises because:  1) many
plans define 1975 as a "reasonable time" to meet the more stringent
secondary standards, and 2) many plans impose uniform emission regu-
lations throughout the State, not accounting for regional differences
in air quality.
     An assessment of the aggregate impact of the State Implementation
Plans produced strong evidence that complete implementation of the
plans as submitted could not be accomplished everywhere within the
                                                                       143

-------
        time  prescribed.  Analyses  completed  by EPA  in 1972 showed that
        through  1975,  nationwide  supplies of  low sulfur coal would not be
        sufficient  and stack  gas  cleaning would not  be available to satisfy
        the aggregate  requirements  dictated by State regulations.  Based on
        1970  coal production,  enforcement of  State environmental regulations
        could render more than 150  million tons of high sulfur coal unusable.
        Additional  supplies of coal  or  other  fuels equivalent to 125 million
        tons  of  coal would also be  required to meet  the growth in energy
        demands  over the 1971-75  period.  The sulfur content of these new
        fuel  supplies  must meet applicable sulfur dioxide emission regulations.
        The problem of the availability of low sulfur coal is most severe for
        coal-burning utilities in the States  in EPA  Regions III, IV, and V
        where most  of  the nation's  coal combustion occurs.
             EPA's  analysis indicated that some resolution of the coal problem
        could be achieved if  sulfur regulations were revised or deferred where
        not required to meet  the  primary standard in 1975.  This option resulted
        in the development  of EPA policy of encouraging States with predicted
        coal  deficits  to  revise coal sulfur regulations and to defer attain-
        ment  of  S02 secondary air quality standards  consistent with "no
        significant deterioration"  requirements.  This policy was announced
        by the EPA  Administrator  in November  1972, and communicated to Governors
        of affected States  in mid-December 1972.
             There  is  sufficient  flexibility  in the  Clean Air Act to allow
        States to delay enforcement of  sulfur regulations so long as primary
        standards are  achieved by the date stipulated in the SIPs.  However,
144

-------
EPA has legislative authority only to ensure compliance with approved
regulations in the State implementation plans.   EPA does not have a
legislative mandate to require states to delay enforcement of regulations
which will achieve air quality better than needed to meet primary
standards.  EPA is encouraging States to request variances or plan
revisions whenever this does not conflict with the goal of primary
standards by 1975.  However, the States must initiate such actions.
     The clean fuels policy involves reducing emissions so that the
primary standard is met by 1975 in areas not presently meeting this
standard.  It is expected that such emission reductions must occur in
S02 Priority I and IA and some Priority II AQCRs although power plants
located in isolated portions of some of these AQCRs may not significantly
impact on the attainment of the primary standard.  These isolated power
plants and most coal-fired steam-electric plants in Priority III AQCRs
may be candidates for variances or plan revisions under EPA's clean
fuels policy, enabling them to continue to burn higher sulfur coal.
     EPA's clean fuels policy is consistent with criteria relative to
the significant deterioration issue.  The fuels policy does not advocate
unlimited increased emissions up to either the primary or secondary
standard.
     Some states already have regulations consistent with EPA's clean
fuels policy.  Michigan, in devising its SO^ emission regulations
considered two control strategies for all of the State except Wayne
County which has separate regulations to deal with the difficult air
quality problem in that county. One strategy, to be effective July 1,1978,
                                                                           145

-------
       is based on attaining the secondary standard.   Although  Michigan's
       regulations apply statewide, regardless of AQCR priority,  the  plan  has
       provision for allowing an existing source to demonstrate to the
       Michigan Air Pollution Control  Commission that its fuel  burning does
       not create, or contribute to, an ambient level of S02 in excess of  the
       applicable ambient air quality standards and thereby to  obtain a
       variance from the Commission to operate.
            Other states are revising their State implementation plans in
       ways which move them toward EPA's clean fuels policy.  For example,
       both Tennessee and Alabama are revising their SOo regulations  to take
       into account the need for different control strategies in different
       parts of the States to meet air quality standards.
            The Energy Policy Office published a notice of public hearing
       and proposed rulemaking on the "Establishment of Priorities of Use
       and Allocations of Supply for Certain Low Sulfur Petroleum Products",
       Federal Register. Vol. 38, No.  167 - August 29, 1973, and is attached
       as Appendix B.
               J.   Public Comment Prior to EPA Plan
                    As a reult of recent court decisions by the Third, Fourth,
       and Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeals, the Agency has modified the
       procedures for dealing with regulatory plan revisions and supplemental
       information.  These court decisions required EPA to take comment on a
       State's plan concerning the "reasonableness" of the plan prior to
       publishing the approval/disapproval decision.  Consequently, the public
       will be notified in the Federal Register of the opportunity to comment
146

-------
on all future plan revisions which are regulatory in nature.   Although
there are no plans to require public comment on previously approved
SIPs, this is being done by Ohio, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania  as a
result of court decisions.
        K.   Variances
             Variances (along with exceptions, enforcement orders and
similar actions) are involved in efforts of State and local agencies
in obtaining compliance with emission regulations.   In general, these
are actions to accommodate the problems of specific sources  in achieving
compliance.  In the past, these agencies operated on the basis of their
own laws, regulations and administrative procedures in granting special
consideration to individual sources.  Under the Clean Air Act, however,
state and local actions must be in accordance with Federal requirements
as well.
     Some of these variances were extensions of interim compliance
dates or emission limitations in a regulation with no alteration of
the final compliance requirements.  A more detailed analysis  of these
variances is presented in the enforcement activities section  of this
report.  Several of the approved variances extended the date  for
compliance beyond the date established for attainment of the  applicable
national  standards.  In these cases, it was necessary for the State to
either submit the variance as a control strategy revision along with
a demonstration that the variance will not affect the attainment of
the standards or to change the attainment date.
                                                                         147

-------
         The legal authority of the States to grant variances of certain
    kinds under certain conditions has been challenged in Natural Resources
    Defense Council, Inc., et. al. v EPA, Case Nos. 72-1219 and 72-1224
    (1st Circuit).  The court found that the Administrator erred in approving
    the variance provisions of the Rhode Island and Massachusetts plans
    and ordered these provisions to be disapproved.  The court found that
    prior to the mandatory deadline for attainment of the standards,
    i.e., 1975 (or 1977), States can defer compliance with control strategies
    with the approval of the Administrator provided such deferrals cease
    before the mandatory compliance data.  After 1975, however,   110(f)
    of the Act is to be the exclusive mechanism for relief from this date
    in revising the plan.  The effect of this decision on agency policy
    with regard to variances and enforcement orders is presently under
    consideration.  In any event, after disapproval the Administrator
    must promulgate regulations for Rhode Island and Massachusetts specifying
    the limited terms, conditions and circumstances under which State
    variances may be issued.
148

-------
Appendices

-------

-------
                                                 PROPOSED RULES
                                                                                           23339
        APPENDIX
B
      ENERGY  POLICY  OFFICE
         [32ACFR Chapter XIII]
ESTABLISHMENT OF PRIORITIES OF USE
  AND  ALLOCATIONS  OF  SUPPLY  FOR
  CERTAIN  LOW SULFUR  PETROLEUM
  PRODUCTS
 Notice of Public Hearing and  Proposed
              Rulemaklng
  On June  11-14,  1973, hearings were
held concerning the operation of  the
voluntary allocation program  for petro-
leum products and  the need for a man-
datory allocation program. These hear-
ings indicated that the voluntary pro-
gram had done significant good, but that
difficulties were being experienced  in
certain parts of  the country and in cer-
tain sectors of the industry.
  In the Energy Policy Office  statement
of August 9, 1973, it was indicated that
the current fuel situation had  led  the
Administration to consider action which
would temporarily prohibit utilities,  In-
dustrial, and commercial firms from  (a)
switching from coal to petroleum or  pe-
troleum products, (b) switching from re-
sidual fuels to home heating fuels,' or
(c)  increasing the quantity of distillates
blended  into  residual fuel oil, except
where such actions  were absolutely nec-
essary to meet primary (health related)
ambient  air quality standards.
  As there may be insufficient supplies
of petroleum products, especially home
heating oils, to  meet essential needs in
certain parts of  the country and to  in-
sure an adequate supply to the  independ-
ent distributors and marketers, priorities
for use and allocation of supplies for cer-
tain petroleum products are being estab-
lished pursuant  to  section 203(a) (3)  of
the Economic  Stabilization Act of 1970,
as amended. Specifically, this  regulation
aims to prevent  coal-to-oil fuel  conver-
sions and to delay shifts to lower sulfur
content fuel oils than were hi use as of
the effective date of this regulation;  ex-
cept where such actions are required to
iwhteve primary air quality standards.
1   Provisions   to   prohibit   coal-to-oil
 switching except to achieve primary air
 quality standards are directly supportive
 of   the   Environmental   Protection
 Agency's Clean Fuels Policy. That policy
 urges the States  to  delay  attainment
 dates for secondary standards as they
 apply to coal-fired combustion sources
 and  specifically discourages  coal-to-oil
 switching, except  to meet primary  air
 quality standards.  Under  this proposal,
 coal burning sources will still be required
 to comply with State sulfur regulations
 except that they could not convert to oil
 unless such conversion is needed to meet
 primary air quality standards.
   In view of the tight market for low sul-
 fur fuel oil, the other provisions  of the
 measure  prohibit   oil-burning sources
 from shifting  to lower sulfur fuel oils
 than presently in use except to meet pri-
 mary air quality standards. This  meas-
,ure does not roll back any gains already
 made in  reducing  the sulfur  content of
 fuel oils under the  Clean Air Act. It does
 Impose a .temporary halt in the trend to-
 ward lower sulfur content fuel oil where-
 ever  progress toward primary standards
 is not affected.
   As required by section 203 (a) (3) of the
 Economic Stabilization Act,  a  public
 hearing will  be held on  the proposed
 regulation. If the regulations are  to be-
 come effective in time to significantly in-
 crease  the  supply  of  home  heating oil
 available this whiter,  it is necessary to
 to shorten the notice period for the pub-
 lic hearing and comment. Therefore, the
 public hearing will be held in Washing-
 ton,  D.C., beginning at 9 a.m.  (e.s.t.)
 Thursday, September 6, 1973, and con-
 tinuing  through Friday,  September 7,
 1973, in the auditorium  of the  United
 States Department of the  Interior main
 building, 19th and E Streets, NW., Wash-
 ington, D.C. 20240, for the purpose of
 receiving comments and. testimony on all
 phases of the Proposed Program to Es-
 tablish Priorities and Allocate Supply for
 Certain Low Sulfur Petroleum Products.
   In  addition, interested persons are in-
 vited to  submit twenty (20)  copies of
 any written comments on the proposal to
 the Office of Oil and Gas, Department
 of the Interior, Washington, D.C.  20240,
 Attention: Dr. Lisle Reed. Comments re-
 ceived no later than September 7th  will
 be considered.
                *   JOHN A. LOVE,
                          Director,
                 Energy Policy Office.
   AUGUST 24, 1973.
   A new chapter XIII is added to Title
 32A  CFR consisting  of  the  following
 EPO-Reg. 2:
 EPO  REG 2—PRIORITIES  FOR USE  OF
   CERTAIN   LOW  SULFUR  PETROLEUM
   PRODUCTS
 Sec.
 1 Purpose and Intent.
 2 Definitions.
 3 Boilers not currently burning petroleum
    products.
 4 Boilers  currently  burning   petroleum
    products.
 5 New boilers.
6 Exceptions to meet primary ambient air
    quality standards.
7 Other exceptions.
8 Termination.
  AUTHORITY: Sec.  203(a) (3)  of the  Eco-
nomic Stabilization Act as amended by PL
93-28; 13 U.8.C. 1904 (Note) : EO 11605, 38
PR 1473;  COLC Order 33.  38 PR  20960.

Section 1 Purpose and Intent.
  The purpose of the regulation is to as-
sure the  optimum use of  the limited
supplies  of  low sulfur petroleum prod-
ucts in a manner consistent  with  the
provisions  of  the Clean  Air Act, as
amended, and the Clean Fuels Policy of
the  Environmental Protection Agency.
This regulation is not intended to affect
or preempt  the development of individ-
ual  source  compliance  schedules or
other actions associated with Implemen-
tation of the Clean Air  Act, except  with
regard to the timing  of actual shifts to
burning lower sulfur  oil during the pe-
riod this regulation is in effect.
  To the extent that provisions of appli-
cable State implementation  plans  re-
quiring changes  in fuel usage are  not
consistent with this regulation, the  pro-
visions  of  this  regulation shall  take
precedence.
Sec. 2  Definitions.
   (a) "Boiler" means any boiler, burner,
or other combustor of fuel in any electric
power  generating  plant or industrial or
commercial  plant having a firing  rate
of 250 million BTU/hour in commercial
operation on  or prior  to  the effective
date of this regulation.
   (W "Petroleum Product" means  pe-
troleum,  distillate fuel, residual fuel oil,
or any other petroleum product.
   (c) "Primary Air Quality Standards"
means the national primary ambient air
quality standards provided for in  the
Clean Air Act, as amended.  (42 U.S.C.
1857 et se«.)

Sec. 3  Boilers not currently burning
          petroleum products.
  No petroleum product shall  be sold or
otherwise provided to  or  accepted by
any  person for burning under boilers
that were not using petroleum products
on the effective date  of this regulation.
Automatic   exception  is   granted   for
boilers converting from natural gas, pro-
vided that alternative fuels, such as coal,
cannot practically be utilized.

Sec. 4  Boilers currently burning petro-
         leum products.

  (a) Petroleum products may continue
to be utilized by persons using them in
boilers burning petroleum  products on
the effective date  of this regulation  ex-
cept that:
  (1) No petroleum product  having a
lower sulfur content, by weight, than any
petroleum product in use in such a boiler
during the  month preceding  the date
hereof shall be sold or otherwise pro-
vided or accepted by any person or firm
for use in such boiler;
  (2) The aggregate quantity  of petro-
leum product utilized  by such  person in
any  month  subsequent  to  the date at
                             FEDERAL REGISTER,  VOl. 38, NO. 167—WEDNESDAY. AUGUST 29, 19/3
                                                                                                              151

-------
23340
          PROPOSED  RULES
this regulation In any such boiler capa-
ble of burning coal'and petroleum prod-
ucts shall not exceed the  larger of the
aggregate quantity of petroleum prod-
ucts  consumed  In  the  corresponding
month of 1972 or In July 1973, except
that the quantity of petroleum products
burned  may  be Increased  hi proportion
to the Increased output of  steam.
  (3) The quantity of distillate fuel on
utilized by such  person in any month
subsequent to the date of this regulation
In any such  plant shall not exceed the
larger of  the quantity  of  distillate fuel
oil consumed in the corresponding month
of 1972  or in July 1973, except that the
quantity of distillate fuel oil burned may
be increased In proportion  to the In-
creased output of steam.
  (4) In order to discourage further in-
crease In the Indirect  use of  distillate
fuels in the form of a mixture of distillate
and residual fuel oils:
  (i)  No  refiner,  fuel  dealer, or  user,
shall  blend more distillate fuel oils Into
residua] fuel oil than the greater of the
quantities blended in the corresponding
month of 1972,  or hi July 1973, except
where  essential  to  meeting   primary
standards.
  (ii) No person shall use under a boiler
a blended fuel containing a greater pro-
portion  of   distillate  fuels  than  the
larger of
   (A) the proportion  included  hi the
corresponding month of 1972, or
   (B) the proportion included in July
1973, except where essential to meeting
primary air  standards.
   (iii) Those quantities of fuels contain-
ing distillates that  constitute plant or
firm inventories as of the effective date
of this  regulation may be consumed by
or sold for  use  In  boilers  until those
quantities are depleted.
   (b) This  section is intended to pre-
empt, in  part,  State  Implementation
Plans and associated individual source
compliance   schedules   required under
the Clean Air Act where these measures
would:
  (1) Cause existing oil burning sources
to shift to a lower sulfur content fuel
oil  during the effective  period  of this
regulation, and
  (2) Where such actions  are  not re-
quired for the  achievement of primary
ah* quality standards.
Sec. 5 New Boilers.
  (a) Any person with boilers which be-
gin commercial operations after the ef-
fective date of  this regulation shall not
utilize any petroleum products with sul-
fur content by weight lower than that
needed  to meet primary ambient air
quality standards or to comply with EPA
new source standards, (b) This section
is not  intended to  preempt the new
source  performance  standards  of  the
Clean Air Act, as amended. In the event
this section  conflicts with  such stand-
ards, the provisions of the Clean Air Act
prevail and the prohibitions In this sec-
tion do not apply.
Sec. 6 Exceptions To  Meet Primary Am-
        bient Air Quality Standards.
  (a) The Office of Oil  and Gas in the
Department  of the Interior shall auto-
matically grant exceptions  to the pro-
hibitions contained in these regulations
when the use of petroleum products Is
properly  certified by the  appropriate
State air  pollution control agency to be
essential  to  meeting the primary air
quality  standard of the air quality re-
gion hi which  the plant Is  located, (b)
With respect to | 3, the Office of Oil and
Gas shall grant exceptions pursuant to
this section only when suitable alterna-
tive fuels are not available.
Sec. 7 Other Exceptions.
  The Office of Oil and Gas may grant
exceptions from the prohibitions of this
regulation if:
  (a) Any person subject to this regula-
tion can demonstrate that compliance
would cause  an undue  economic hard-
ship; or
  (b) Fuels  necessary  for compliance
with this regulation are not available.
Sec. 8 Termination.

  The provisions of this regulation shall
be hi effect for not longer than one year
following its  effective date, or until  the
expiration of Section 203(a)(3)  of  the
Economic  Stabilization  Act  of  1970.
which ever occurs first.
  [PR Doc.73-18444 Filed 8-27-73;2:45 pm]
    152
                              FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 38, NO. 167—WEDNESDAY. AUGUST 29, 1973

-------
APPENDIX
National Ambient Air
Quality Standards
                         Primary Standards
Total Suspended Particulate   75 ug/m3 annual
                         260 ug/m3 (24 hr)*
Sulfur Dioxide

Nitrogen Dioxide
Hydrocarbon

Oxidant
Carbon Monoxide
 80 ug/m3 annual
365 ug/m3 (24 hr)*
100 ug/m3 annual
160 ug/m3(max 3 hr.
 concentration)*
 (6 to 9 a.m.)
160 ug/m3(l  hour)*
10 mg/m3 (8 hour)*
40 mg/m3 (1  hour)*
  Secondary Standards
  60 ug/m3 annual
 150 ug/m3 (24 hr)*
1300 ug/m3 max 3 hr.
    concentration*
  None
  None
  None
  None
*Not to be exceeded more than one per year
                                                    153

-------