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rescinded as States are able to adopt necessary regulations and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 2PRIORITIES 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. 167WEDNESDAY. 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. 167WEDNESDAY. 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
------- |