SURVEY OF EXPERIENCE WITH
STATE AND LOCAL OPERATING
PERMIT PROGRAMS
Draft Final Report
(Revised)
VOLUME I
GCA CORPORATION
Technology Division
213 Burlington Road
Bedford, Mass. 01730
-------
ป
GCA-TR-79-81-G
Prepared for
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Contract No. 68-01-4143
Technical Service Area 3
Task Order No. 68
SURVEY OF EXPERIENCE WITH
STATE AND LOCAL OPERATING
PERMIT PROGRAMS
Draft Final Report
(Revised)
VOLUME I
11 January 1980
by
Susan Pultz
John Willson
GCA CORPORATION
GCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
Bedford, Massachusetts
-------
DISCLAIMER
Thin Draft Final Report was furnished to the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency by GCA Corporation, GCA/Technology Division, Bedford, Massachusetts
01730, in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-01-4143. The opinions, findings, and
conclusions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of
the Environmental Protection Agency or of cooperating agencies. Mention of
company or product names is not to be considered as an endorsement by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
CONTENTS
Figures iv
Tables vi
1. Introduction 1
2. Findings and Recommendations 3
Major findings 3
Recommended next steps 5
3. Analysis of Survey Results: Agencies Having Operating
Permit Programs 8
Program size 8
Program coverage 13
Permit application and approval procedures 15
Conditions of permit tenure 21
Program operations 25
Agency experience with the program 31
4. Analysis of Survey Results: Agencies Which do not
Have an Operating Permit Program 38
Type of program 38
Appendices
A. Telephone Survey Interview Guide for Agencies
Having Operating Permit Programs 41
B. Telephone Survey Interview Guide for Agencies
Which Do Not Have an Operating Permit Program 47
C. List of State and Regional Control Agency
Officials Contacted 50
D. Completed Telephone Survey Interview Guides for
Agencies Having Operating Permit Programs 59
E. Completed Telephone Survey Interview Guides for
Agencies Which Do Not Have an Operating Permit Program . . 316
iii
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Operating permits issued by states in most recently completed
program year 10
2 Number of full-time equivalent staff persons assigned to per-
mit activity 11
3 Percentage of total staff and annual operating budget
accounted for by permit activity 12
4 How states decide whether an operating permit is required . . 14
5 Minimum days to process permit application 16
6 Maximum days to process permit application 16
7 Upper limit on amount of staff time spent reviewing an in-
dividual permit application 18
8 State treatment of non-filers 19
9 Frequency with which states impose special operating
conditions 22
10 Frequency with which regional agencies impose special
operating conditions 22
11 State handling of permit transfers 24
12 Number of state permit revocations in the most recently
completed program year 26
13 Ratio of on-site inspections performed to operating permits
issued by states in the most recently completed program
year 28
14 Percentage of state and regional agency notices of violation
resolved through litigation in the most recent program year 30
iv
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number Page
15 Percentage of state and regional agency notices of violation
resolved through formal administrative procedures in the
noit recent program year 32
16 Percentage of state and regional agency notices of violation
resolved by informal means in the most recent, program year. 33
17 Distribution of state and regional agencies by the ratio of
notices of violation to total number of operating permits
issued in the most recent program year 34
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 State and Regional Agency Officials' Opinions on Program
Strong Points 36
2 State and Regional Agency Officials' Opinions on Needed
Program Improvements 36
vi
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The 1977 Amendments to the Clean Air Act broadened the requirement for
states to control emissions of air pollutants from the operation of new and
existing major emitting facilities. The language contained in Sections
110(a)(2)(D), 165(a)(3), 173 and 129(a)(3) clearly contemplates a permit pro-
gram for the operation of new sources subject to Parts C (Prevention of Sig-
nificant Deterioration) and D (Plan Requirements for Nonattainment Areas),
and a permit or equivalent program for other major emitting facilities.
A formal EPA Work Group has been established to consider amending
40CFR 51.18 (Review of New Sources and Modifications) to require operating
permits and to establish minimum criteria for state implementation of operat-
ing permit programs. GCA conducted an earlier study for the Work Group which
reviewed existing state statutes and regulations bearing upon state operating
permit authority (Summary of Existing State Operating Permit Regulations,
May 1979, Contract No. 68-01-4143, Task Order No. 56).
This present study, also done in support of the Work Group, was designed
to move beyond a discussion of state authority in this area to an analysis of
actual state experience with administering operating permit programs. With
fhe participation of the EPA Project Officer, GCA developed informal Interview
guides to be used in a telephone survey of responsible officials in the 50
states and 15 selected substate regional control agencies to determine what
their experience has been with existing permit programs and to gather
their suggestions for possible program improvements. The telephone interviews
were conducted during the late summer and autumn of 1979, each interview
lasting approximately 45 minutes to 1 hour. States which currently do not
have operating permit programs were surveyed using a shorter interview guide
different from that used for states which do have such programs.
This report represents the output of the telephone survey of state and
Hubatate regional control agencies. Section 2 summarizes the major findings
from the survey and presents recommendations for needed further"study. Sec-
tion 3 of this report analyzes the detailed responses of the states which
currently do have an operating permit program, while Section 4 covers the
responses of those six states which now lack such a program.
-------
Appendicea A and B supply blank interview guide forms for states with
and without operating permit programs, respectively. Appendix C contains
thซ list of state and regional officials interviewed for the survey.
A seperate volume contains the. completed interview guide forms for each
state And regional agency contacted during the survey, and is available upon
request from the EPA Program Officer.
-------
SECTION 2
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Tliis concluding section provides a summary of the major findings of the
telephone survey and indicates a number of important areas where further
analysis is needed in order to support development of federal regulations
and/or guidance for state operating permit programs.
MAJOR FINDINGS
Based on telephone contacts with 39 states and 13 substate regional con-
trol agencies, GCA has established the following important facts:
1. The great majority of states having operating permit programs
issued between 100 and 1000 new (or renewed) operating permits
in their most recently completed program year.
2. Roughly half of the states with operating permit authority
employ less than 5 full-time equivalent staff persons on
source permitting activities, including but not limited to
administering operating permit programs. Most states devote
less than 20 percent of their control agency's operating
budget to permitting activities.
3. Three-quarters of the states determine which sources require
an operating permit by following a specific list of equipment
types and sizes which are a priori exempt. For the most part
these states have little discretion when deciding whether a
particular source not on the list requires an operating permit.
4. Most states specify 10 to 30 days as the minimum time period
needed to review operating permit applications. Typically,
they allow themselves anywhere, from 1 to 3 months to reach a
decision on an individual permit application, expending from
1 to 5 person-days of professional staff time.
5. All states contacted specify formal procedures for reviewing
and approving operating permit applications, although these
procedures differ widely among individual states. Notification
and appeal procedures are also typically specified.
-------
6. Roughly one-third of all agencies contacted apply special
conditions to 10 percent or less of their operating permits,
another one-third use them for all sources, and the remaining
third apply them somewhere between 11 percent and 99 percent
of the time. Generally the less frequently an agency applies
gpecial conditions the more detailed they are.
7. About half of the agencies require periodic renewal of operat-
ing permits, while the other half rely on regular compliance
inspections alone. Of the agencies requiring renewals, most
renew all sources with the same frequency.
8. Virtually all states have the authority to revoke operating
permits but exercise that authority very rarely. A majority
of states do not regard revocation as a credible enforcement
threat because they know that sources understand the political
difficulties the state would face in actually carrying it out.
9. Nearly three-quarters of the states with operating permit pro-
grams have the authority to require sources to perform routine
monitoring and testing activities, but a significantly smaller
percentage of states ever specify such activities as a permit
condition. Monitoring requirements typically extend to less
than 10 percent of all sources permitted, while 80 percent of
the states limit testing to major sources only.
10. About 60 percent of the states having operating permit programs
make use of automated processing of permit data. Half of the
remaining 40 percent plan to computerize their permit data
handling within the near future.
11. States typically do not rely on litigation or formal adminis-
trative proceedings as a means for securing compliance with
operating permit requirements; instead they prefer to resolve
permit violation problems through informal conversation and
negotiation with sources. Approximately 60 percent of the
states with operating permit programs used this informal approach
when dealing with more than half of their identified violations
during their most recent program year.
12. State respondents were largely unable to point to specific features
of their operating permit programs which they regard as most im-
portant for overall program success; the most common response
(23 percent) was a vague reference to the quantity and quality of
resources devoted to source surveillance and inspection.
13. The most commonly expressed needs for improvement in existing
operating permit programs were for more staff personnel and
stricter, speedier enforcement.
-------
14. States without operating permit programs devote roughly similar
Htaff and budgetary resources to their overall permitting activ-
ity (i.e., new source review, procesing of permit applications,
source surveillance and inspection) as do states which also have
operating permit programs.
RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS
These findings have a number of important implications for the federal
regulator who would define minimum requirements and/or establish guidance
for state operating permit programs. First, in many states there are already
well established procedures and preferences for regulating source operations.
Any proposed federal regulations or guidance will have to take into account
what, the states already have in place, and any recommended improvements on
existing practice should draw upon an analysis of state experience and
performance.
The findings from the telephone survey, while useful, are largely des-
criptive; they are not based on any analysis of performance. They reflect
what an interviewer can learn over the telephone in 45 minutes to an hour by
talking to one knowledgeable official in each state after having reviewed
that state's existing laws and regulations. In order to support a federal
regulatory development effort for operating permits there is a need for fur-
ther analysis of the effectiveness of existing state programs, based on more
detailed study of how these programs actually function.
CCA recommends that the EPA Work Group undertake a limited number of
case studies of selected state operating permit programs, perhaps five or
six at most, to provide the needed additional information on which to base
minimum federal requirements or guidance. Criteria which should be considered
when selecting individual state programs for further study would include but
not necessarily be limited to:
Number of sources
ซ Extent of industrial development
Type of program (separate, combined)
Agency organization (centralized, decentralized)
Enforcement approach (formal, informal)
Strong state interest in the study
At least one of the states should be chosen from among those which currently
do not have an operating permit program so as to enable the Work Group to
also address the question of "equivalence."
Ideally the case studies would be designed to provide more detailed in-
formation on state programs relevant to the following types of issues:
-------
1. Program Coverage
On what basis should sources be exempted from operating
permits?
How much discretion should the control agency have in
deciding which sources are exempt?
Should existing sources be required to obtain operating
permits?
Should state operating permit programs treat major and
minor sources differently? Sources in nonattainment
and attainment areas are differently?
Should states issue special short-term permits for un-
expected or emergency activities?
2. Permit Application/Approval Procedures
Should states provide assistance to sources applying
for an operating permit?
Should there be a distinction between major and minor
sources with respect to the engineering evaluation?
What steps should a formal approval process include?
What provisions should be made for public notice of new
sources?
How should appeals from permit decisions be handled?
3. Conditions of Permit Tenure
What level of detail is appropriate for special O&M
conditions attached to operating permits?
How much flexibility should control agencies have in
devising, imposing special permit conditions?
How should temporary noncompliance with permit require-
ments be handled?
What source changes should prompt an engineering evalu-
ation without necessarily requiring modification to an
operating permit? How handled?
What should programs require regarding permit transfers?
Should permits be transferable from one location to
another?
-------
ฎ Should operating permits be renewable? How frequently
renewed? Differential timing, treatment depending on
source type?
On what grounds should operating permits be revocable?
How can the threat of revocation be made more credible?
Would this lead to increased enforcement effectiveness?
4. Program Operations
How frequently are source inspections needed for major
sources? Minor sources?
What type of recordkeeping, reporting should be required
of sources?
e At what point do the benefits of computerizing permit
data handling begin to outweigh the added costs?
Are states exploiting fully all the advantages of com-
puterization?
What is the appropriate balance (if any) between informal
negotiations with violators and formal enforcement action?
e What should be the relationship between operating permits
and the State Implementation Plan?
ซ What is the range of possible linkages with the Consoli-
dated Permits Program?
In some cases state experience under existing operating permit programs may
provide reasonable answers, or at least interesting examples of what has been
tried but found wanting. Certainly the experience of the states to date
needs to be assessed thoroughly before EPA settles upon proposed regulations
or guidance. The selected case studies would provide a manageable vehicle
for accomplishing this objective.
-------
SECTION 3
ANALYSIS OF SURVEY RESULTS: AGENCIES HAVING
OPERATING PERMIT PROGRAMS
Tills section analyzes the responses of state and substate regional air
pollution control agencies to a series of questions administered by telephone
concerning their programs for regulating the operations of major stationary
sources. Forty-six states have such programs, 35 of them issuing separate
operating permits and another 11 issuing one combined permit covering both
preconstruction review and operations. Fourteen of the 15 regional agencies
included in the survey have operating permit programs, with the distinction
between separate and combined permits following the lines established by
their respective states.
CCA interviewers succeeded in contacting officials in 39 of the 46 states
and 13 of the 15 regional agencies. The states which we were unable to con-
tact were California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Montana, Puerto Rico, West Vir-
ginia and Wisconsin. The regional agencies not contacted were those for
St. Louis, Missouri and Tulsa, Oklahoma.
The Interview guide used to survey the control agencies having operating
permit programs appears as Appendix A to this report. For ease of presenting
the agency responses we have reordered the survey questions, grouping them
under six major headings:
Program Size
Program Coverage
Permit Application and Approval Procedures
Conditions of Permit Tenure
Program Operations
Agency Experience with the Program
Agency responses to the individual questions are clearly labeled; also,
the wording of the original question is provided in each instance so that
the reader may follow the text more easily.
PROGRAM SIZE
A weries of Initial questions were asked in order to establish the level
of effort represented by operating permit activities. The questions concerned
the number of operating permits issued by the agency during its most recent
8
-------
program year; the number of full-time equivalent staff assigned to the program
and the percentage of the agency's total staff this accounts for; and the per-
centage, of their current annual budget allocated to administering the program.
Number of Operating Permits Issued (Question 5)
"H
-------
39
(9
Z
30
QC 25
O
o.
ui
* 20
<0
UI
< .
10
LESS
THAN
100
14
100
TO
500
10
500
TO
1000
1000
TO
5000
MORE
THAN
5000
NUMBER OF OPERATING PERMITS
Figure 1. Operating permits issued by states in most recently
completed program year.
10
-------
44
40
35
30
o
p
oc
o
a.
UJ
at 20
tfป
bJ
2
if) 15
O
21
8
I -5
6-10
11-15
16-25 MORE THAN
25
NUMBER OF STAFF
Figure 2. Number of full-time equivalent staff persons assigned
to permit activity.
11
-------
40-
35-
30 -
- 25 -
oc
o
a.
ID
" 20
Vt
u
-------
air programs, the high percentages accorded the permit activity simply re-
flecting its essential importance in the case of a limited regulatory effort.
Twelve of the 13 substate regional agencies surveyed reported spending less
than 20 percent of their staff and budgetary resources on permitting.
PROGRAM COVERAGE
State and regional control programs differ among themselves as to which
sources and activities are covered under their operating permit requirements.
Survey questions were asked to find out how agencies determine whether a par-
ticular source needs an operating permit, and whether and under what circum-
stances they allow exemptions.
When a Permit is Required (Question 9)
"Hoi} does your agency determine whether or not a source requires
an operating permit?"
In talking to agency officials we found that states determine whether or
not a particular source requires an operating permit in one of three basic
ways: either their regulations list specific facility types which must have
a permit, or they list specific equipment types and sizes which are exempt
from a permit requirement, or they specify emission level cutoffs below which
no permit is required regardless of facility or equipment type. The results
are summarized in Figure 4.
The great majority of the states responding (26 of 35 states, or 74 per-
cent) follow a list of specific equipment types and sizes which are exempted
from operating permit requirements. If the proposed equipment is not on the
Hat then the source requires a permit. Such lists typically include air-
conditioning or ventilating systems, fuel burning equipment having a particular
Btu input rate, laboratory equipment used for chemical or physical analyses,
and any structural changes or repairs which cannot affect the nature or quan-
tity of air contaminant emissions.
Of the remaining nine states, five of them (Massachusetts, Montana, New
Hampshire, Tennessee and Washington) issue operating permits only to specific
facility types. Examples of such facilities include commercial and industrial
power generation plants, petroleum refineries, pulp and paper mills, chemical
and fertilizer manufacturing plants, and all industrial boilers burning coal
or heavy petroleum products. The other four states (Alaska, Indiana, Kansas
and Rhode Island) employ the emission level cutoff approach. For example,
Alaska exempts sources emitting less than 25 TPY of S0ฃ and TSP or less
than 100 TPY of NOX, DO and HC.
Exemptions in Specific Cases (Question 11)
"Doe8 your agency allow exemptions from operating permit
requirements? On what basis are exemptions granted?"
Fully three-quarters of the states responding said that they follow
detailed regulations which allow them little discretion in deciding in
13
-------
30 -
- 25 -
1*.
o
a
u
a 20
V)
UJ
ฃ 15
10
5
0
-
-
26
5 4
EQUIPMENT FACILITY EMISSION
TYPE AND TYPE LEVEL
SIZE INCLUDED CUTOFF
EXEMPTED
CRITERIA FOR PERMIT REQUIREMENT
Figure A. How states decide whether an operating permit is required.
14
-------
individual cases whether or not a specific source requires an operating permit.
The remaining states do allow their control agencies to exercise some discre-
tion, differing mainly in degree. Five states (Colorado, Georgia, Idaho,
Indiana, Oklahoma) have regulations which specify equipment types excluded or
facility types Included, but which also empower the agency director to estab-
lish additional guidelines as needed to make individual permit decisions.
Only three states (Alabama, Kansas, Louisiana) allow the agency director com-
plete discretion in setting guidelines for permit decisionmaking.
PERMIT APPLICATION AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES
The telephone survey of state and regional control agencies included a
number of questions on specific aspects of the application and approval pro-
cess for operating permits. Individual questions dealt with the length of
time and the amount of agency staff effort typically required to review a
permit application; the administrative treatment of "non-filers;" i.e., those
sources requiring an operating permit but which do not file an application;
the extent to which agencies follow a formal permit review and approval pro-
cedure; and finally how they handle notification and appeal of their permit
decisions.
Time Limits for Processing Applications (Question 12)
"How much time is usually required to process an operating permit?
Specify a range. Is there a specific time limit for processing
an individual operating permit? Has your agency ever exceeded
the time limit? How often is the most recently completed pro-
gram year? \fhat recourse does a source have if the time limit
ia exceeded or if an inordinate amount of time passes before
the permit is issued?"
Not all states specify formal time limits for processing operating permit
applications as part of their air quality regulations. However, without ex-
ception, states do follow specific guidelines, formal or informal, as to the
amount of calendar time required to allow full consideration of an individual
permit application. Each of the states we contacted specified both a minimum
and a maximum amount of time allowed for each application; the distribution of
these minimum and maximum time limits across the states is shown in Figures 5
and 6, respectively.
Roughly 45 percent of the states contacted require a minimum of only 10
days or less for reviewing operating permit applications while another 45 per-
cent insist on a longer review period, up to 30 days. Only seven states re-
quire a minimum period exceeding 30 days, with the highest minimum requirement
set at 60 days (Maryland, South Dakota, Texas). The same states divide fairly
evenly as to the allowable maximum time period for permit processing, approxi-
mately 25 percent each setting the upper limit at 1 month, 2 months, 3 months,
and more than 3 months.
It should be emphasized that the operational significance of these time
limits varies depending on the particular state. For instance, in some states
15
-------
38
o 35
z
K 30
(C
o
S 25
V)
UJ
20
15
10
5
/
n
_
-
-
17
r~r~i
14
7
MORE THAN
30
0-10 11-20 21-30
NUMBER OF DAYS
Figure 5. Minimum days to process permit application.
O
z
UJ
-------
failure to reach a decision on the application within the prescribed period
leads to automatic permit approval, while in other states this same situation
can result in a conditional approval subject to final disposition at a later
date. In at ill other states there is no provision covering what happens when
the maximum time period is exceeded.
Staff Review Time (Question 4)
"HaiJ many professional person-hours would you estimate are spent
in reviewing an individual application for an operating (com-
bined construction/operating) permit? Specify a range."
States vary considerably as to the amount of technical staff time they
typically devote to reviewing an individual operating permit application.
State officials we contacted usually gave a range, depending on the complexity
of the particular source involved. Figure 7 shows the distribution of the
upper Hmits of these states ranges. The two peaks are accounted for by those
statea which devote 1 to 3 person-days to reviewing their more complex sources,
und thoae spending more than 5 person-days per source, with each group amount-
ing to roughly one-third of the states contacted. Ohio reported spending up
to 2 person-years reviewing certain major applications, while New York and
Arizona cited instances of spending up to a person-year on similarly complex
cases.
Treatment of Non-filers (Question 10)
"How doeo your agency respond in the case when sources do not
apply for a permit (i.e., non-filers?"
Most agencies reported that failure of sources to apply for an operating
permit ia not a significant problem. Sources which do not apply usually do so
unintentionally because they are unaware of permit requirements. Once notified
they are typically cooperative and apply for the permit immediately.
Once a non-filer is discovered states handle the problem in one of two
wayn. As whown in Figure 8, roughly a third of the states contacted issue a
formal, notice of violation. The remaining two-thirds stop short of issuing a
notice of violation, instead calling or visiting the source or simply mailing
out an application form. They only resort to an NOV in those instances when
a Hource once contacted still does not apply within a reasonable period,
typically 1 month.
One state agency which utilizes combined construction/operating permits
requests that sources notify them at the time of operations start-up. At
that point, the agency inspects the source to ensure that operations are
carried on as specified in the construction portion of the permit; only then
does the agency issue the operations portion of the permit. However, about
half of approved new sources never notify the agency once operations have
started and in most instances the state does not follow-up on these sources
because of manpower constraints. While not content with this situation the
agency is reasonably confident that the construction approval phase of the
permit process provides an adequate basis for compliance tracking and
enforcement.
17
-------
o
ct
o
a.
LJ
DC
U)
30 -
20
10
-
7
12
6
II
LESS THAN 1-3 3-5 MORE THAN
1 5
NUMBER OF DAYS
Figure 7. Upper limit on amount of staff time spent reviewing an
individual permit application.
18
-------
30 -
o
? 25
REPORT
r\>
O
(ft
UJ
ฃ .5
10
5
0
k-
-
-
26
12
CALL OR NOTICE OF
LETTER VIOLATION
MEANS OF NOTIFYING NON - FILERS
Figure 8. State treatment of non-filers.
19
-------
Suhstnte regional, control agencies appear generally more likely to slap a
non-filer witli a formal notice of violation. Seven of the 12 regional agen-
cies we contacted reported following this course of action while only 5 relied
on the alternative of a telephone call or the mailing of a blank application
form.
Permit Apj?rqval Prgcedurea (Question 13}
"Does your agency specify a formal approval procedure? How
doeo your agency process permits?1'
While only 24 states specify an operating permit approval procedure to
their air pollution control statutes or regulations, all states contacted
in the telephone survey report that they follow a formal procedure in that
each application must contain standard information and receive the required
approvals. Typically, an agency approval procedure consists of sequential
reviews by a staff engineer, a supervising engineer and the agency director.
However, individual states vary considerably in the number of officials who
must eventually sign off on an application. In Missouri and Nebraska, an
inspector reviews and approves all operating permits. But in Connecticut
each application must be approved by a Principal Engineer, the Assistant
Director and Director of Air Pollution Control Engineering, and finally by
both the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner of Environmental Protection.
Subatate regional control districts tend to follow this same general
pattern. Thirteen of 15 such agencies contacted report that they follow a
formal permit approval procedure. Permit applications are first reviewed by
a staff engineer and an engineering supervisor before being sent to the state
agency for approval.
.19J-JJL teat ion of Permit Decisions (Question 14)
"How do oourcee find out whether or not their permit appli-
cations have been approved?"
With few exceptions state and regional control agencies mail the approved
permit or a denial letter to the source. Four states (Arkansas, Connecticut,
Nebraska, Wyoming) mentioned that they publish their preliminary permit de-
cisions In appropriate local newspapers before making a final determination,
to allow for public participation. Regional agencies in Florida (Jacksonville)
und California (Monterey) typically mail the source a notice of intent to issue
an operating permit, then conduct final negotiations with the source before
approving and mailing the actual permit document.
Appeals of Permit Decisions (Question 15)
"Jo there a way for sources to appeal a permit decision if they
arc diooatiofied with the outcome?"
A]] but three states provide the opportunity to sources which have been
denied a permit to appeal the decision through a formal administrative hearing
process. Most require the source to request the hearing within a specified
20
-------
period following receipt of a permit denial. Appeals are typically made to a
hearing board composed of control agency staff or simply the agency director.
The other three states (Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana) also allow for appeals
from their permit dectHions but do so through Informal conversations and nego-
tiations rather than u formal hearing.
CONDITIONS OK PERMIT TENURF,
Once an operating permit has been issued there are a number of important
considerations regarding conditions placed on permit holders. The telephone
survey included questions on the use of special O&M conditions; the granting
of permit variances and transfers; and permit renewal and revocation
procedures.
Special Operating Conditions (Question 19)
"At what level of detail are operation and maintenance and/or
special operating conditions prescribed in the permit? How
frequently are operation and maintenence and/or, special op-
erating conditions prescribed by permits?"
All. of the control agencies contacted impose special operating and main-
tenance conditions on at least some portion of their operating permittees.
As can be seen in Figures 9 and 10 the frequency with which they use special
conditions is fairly consistent across state and substate regional lines.
Roughly one-third of the agencies apply special conditions to 10 percent or
leas of their sources, another one-third use them for all sources, while the
remaining third apply them somewhere between 11 and 99 percent of the time.
Where agencies are selective in imposing special operating conditions
they apply them based on a number of different considerations. Most commonly
these considerations include source size (i.e., "major" sources), location
(i.e. , in nonattainment areas) and any special site characteristics or
potentially unique operating problems. In general the less frequently an
agency prescribes special conditions the more detailed their content.
Special conditions can cover the full range of source operations.
Depending on the particular agency and source these conditions may cover
fuel consumption and composition, operating hours, control equipment use and
maintenance, fugitive dust controls, monitoring and testing, and record-
keeping and reporting requirements.
Jlejrm_l_t Variances (Question 18)
"On what basis, if any, does your agency grant variances?"
Among those states contacted, 21 do issue variances from operating permit
requirements. Tn all cases these variances are temporary only; despite sta-
tutory language in at least 14 states that permanent variances are also avail-
able under certain conditions, we found no state that issued them. Eighteen
of the 21 states grant variances on the basis of economic hardship or unavail-
able control equipment as long as no adverse air quality impacts will result
from failure to meet emission standards. The three other states allow variances
21
-------
36
o
25 30
a
0 25
a.
UI
* 20
V*
ui 15
ซ
sS
0
-
-
_
-
-
-
12
3
5
3
13
1-10%
11-40% 41 -70% 71 -99%
100%
PERCENT OF OPERATING PERMITS ISSUED
WITH SPECIAL OPERATING CONDITIONS
Figure 9. Frequency with which states impose special operating conditions.
ซ> 10
z
a:
o
a.
UJ
ct
z
o
CO
lu
K
0
3
| 1 | 0
3
1-10%
11-40% 41-70% 71-99%
100%
PERCENT OF OPERATING PERMITS ISSUED
WITH SPECIAL OPERATING CONDITIONS
Figure 10. Frequency with which regional agencies impose special
operating conditions.
22
-------
from opacity standards if emission standards are met. The term of a variance
ranges from 3 months to up to 2 years.
Fifteen Htatea informed us that they do not grant permit variances.
However, four of these achieve essentially the same result by allowing tem-
porary deviations from emission standards by means of delayed compliance
schedules or consent orders. They feel that renegotiating compliance schedules
la a more efficient, less time consuming alternative to a formal variance
process. Arizona represents an extreme position, granting conditional permits
for up to 3 years, with the option of two 1-year extensions, rather than
issuing variances.
Seven of the 13 substate regional control agencies contacted also issue
permit variances. Again, these variances are temporary only and are granted
because of economic hardship or unavailability of required control equipment.
Three districts utilize delayed compliance orders as an alternative to vari-
ances while a fourth allows deviation from permit conditions at the director's
discretion, assuming good faith effort on the part of the source.
Permit Transfers (Question 17)
"Can operating permits be transferred?"
: State procedures for handling instances where a permitted facility under-
goes a change of ownership vary markedly (see Figure 11). Roughly 60 percent
of the states contacted allow the old owner to transfer the operating permit
to the new owner. In most cases these transfers are perfunctory, simply
Involving a change of name on the permit document. However, at least six of
the states which allow transfers require the new owner to file a transfer
application, and two of these (North Carolina, North Dakota) further require
a site inspection before approval. The remaining 40 percent of the states
Instead require that the new owner file an application for a new operating
permit, following the same application procedures as for any new source.
Permit Renewal (Question 16)
"Mnot permits be renewed within a specified time period?"
The states contacted during the survey divide roughly in half as to
whether or not they require periodic renewal of operating permits. Twenty-
two states renew permits periodically, while 21 states instead rely upon
periodic compliance inspections alone.
Of the states which require permit renewal, 75 percent renew all sources
with the name .frequency, most commonly every year or every 3 years. The other
25 percent vary the renewal period based upon source size with the larger
sources renewed more frequently. Typically, major sources are renewed an-
nually while minor sources are renewed every 3 to 5 years. Depending on the
particular state a "major" source is usually defined as either 25 or 100
tonH/year of one or more criteria pollutants.
23
-------
UJ
35
30
o
? 25
h-
UJ
a 20
15
10
14
15
TRANSFERS- TRANSFERS- NO
NO APPLICATION WITH APPLICATION TRANSFERS
MEANS OF HANDLING TRANSFERS
Figure 11. State handling of permit transfers.
24
-------
The pattern among substate regional control districts is generally the
same. Of the 13 agencies contacted 9 require periodic renewal while 4 rely
upon compliance inspections. Half of the agencies which renew permits do so
with the same frequency for all sources (1, 3, or 5 years), while the other
half vary the frequency depending on source size (major sources 2 to 4 times
n year, minor sources on complaint).
Permit Revocation (Questions 7, 8)
"Are revocation conditions specified? How many operating (com-
bined construction/operating) permits did your agency suspend/
revoke during the latest completed program year?"
"In your opinion, how effective is the threat of revocation?"
With one exception (Idaho) the states contacted provide for revocation
of operating permits for cause; i.e., noncompliance with permit terms or
administrative procedures. However, as would be expected given the nature of
the power to revoke, states resort to it only infrequently, if at all, as a
means for resolving problems with individual sources. As shown in Figure 12,
28 states did not revoke a single operating permit in the most recently com-
pleted program year, and only two states revoked more than five (New Jersey,
Alabama). The same pattern holds for the substate regional agencies contacted;
eight of them had not revoked any operating permits in the past year, and only
one (Nashville, Tennessee) had revoked more than five.
The reluctance of states to exercise the power of revocation reflects
their doubt as to its credibility as a means for securing compliance with
permit requirements. Fully one half of the states contacted rated the
threat of revocation as "not effective" in gaining permit compliance; of the
remaining one-half 12 states rated it "somewhat effective" while only 7 re-
garded it as "very effective." Most states which expressed doubts regarding
the efficacy of permit revocation felt that violators understood the polit-
ical difficulty that such a step would create for the state control agency
and hence that the power would likely go unused. Instead, they felt that
fines, coupled with renegotiation of compliance schedules, were an adminis-
tratively more efficient as well as substantively more productive approach.
Substate regional agencies, while no more active than states in revoking
operating permits, tended to have more confidence in revocation as a credible
enforcement threat; three regional agencies rated it "very effective" and
another six "somewhat effective,1' while only three agencies felt it was "not
effective" as a means for gaining compliance.
PROGRAM OPERATIONS
The various permit programs we surveyed operate within the context of a
larger set of regulatory activities, including inspection, monitoring and
testing, recordkeeping and enforcement. Specific survey questions addressed
how state and regional control agencies handle these related activities and
how these In turn support the operating permit function.
25
-------
38 -
o
REPORTl
nป r
O v.
U)
ฃ .5
10
5
0
-
-
28
4 A r
1 2
0 1-2 3-5 MORE THAN
5
NUMBER OF OPERATING PERMITS REVOKED
12. Number of state permit revocations in the most recently
completed program year.
26
-------
On-Sitc Inspections (Question 6, partial)
"Haul many on-aite inspections did your agency conduct during the
latent completed program year?"
The states surveyed varied widely in terms of the number of source
inspections they perform annually. In retrospect, it is clear that the most
meaningful comparison of inspection effort across states would be that ex-
pressed by the ratio of annual inspections to the total number of operating
permits outstanding in that year. However, the GCA survey instrument only
asked for the number of operating permits issued in the most recent program
year rather than the total number of permits outstanding at the time. As a
consequence we are forced to rely on a much less satisfactory comparative
statistic, namely, the ratio of inspections performed in the most recent year
to the number of new permits issued (or reissued) over that same period.
The results (arrayed in Figure 13), while still useful, can be misleading
because of the important information masked by this particular ratio. For
example, New York conducted 9000 on-site inspections last year but since it
also issued 10,000 new operating permits its score was 0.9; by the same token,
Nevada conducted 204 inspections but only issued four new operating permits,
leading to score of 51.0. Thus, states with an absolutely large inspection
effort but also, a rapidly growing permit base compare poorly with states per-
forming far fewer inspections but having a more mature permit base.
Mg_nit_ojrlng and Source Testing (Question 20)
"What monitoring, sampling and testing activities are sources
required to perform?"
As reported in an earlier review of state statutes and regulations,
roughly 75 percent of states which have operating permit programs provide in
their rules for routine monitoring and testing activities to be carried on by
all sources. However, In practice a significantly lower percentage of these
states actually require that sources perform monitoring and testing activities.
Only 30 percent of the states surveyed reported that they ever specify
reRulur monitoring as a permit condition, and in all such states this require-
ment extends to fewer than 10 percent of the total sources permitted. If
sub'Htate regional agencies are also counted, this percentage of agencies which
ever require monitoring increases only slightly, to 33 percent.
Source testing or sampling is relatively more widespread, with 60 percent
of the.states surveyed reporting that they require regular tests as a permit
condition. This figure drops to 55 percent if the substate regional agencies
are also included. Of the total number of state and substate agencies which
do require source testing, approximately 80 percent limit the tests to major
sources only. Another 11 percent require tests only when a permit violation
is suspected, while 9 percent require regular testing by all sources.
27
-------
40
30
o
5 25
K
IX
o
Q.
U
20
V)
u
10
0 - 1.0 1.0-5.0 5.0-10.0 GREATER
THAN
10.0
RATIO OF INSPECTIONS TO OPERATING PERMITS
Kigure 13. Ratio of on-site inspections performed to operating permits
issued by states in the most recently completed program year.
28
-------
Operating Records (Question 21)
"What are the requirements for sources regarding operating
methods?"
Overall, 93 percent of the state and substate agencies surveyed require
nt least some sources to keep specified operating records and to make them
available for inspection upon request. A lesser percentage, 67 percent, also
require some sources to submit regular operating reports based on these records.
As for comprehensiveness of coverage, 35 percent of the agencies surveyed re-
quire all permitted sources to keep operating records but only 11 percent re-
quire all such sources to submit regular reports. The most common response,
accounting for 40 percent of the agencies surveyed, was that they require regu-
lar recordkeeping and reporting only for a few "exceptional" sources.
Processing of Permit Data (Question 2)
"la operating permit data processed manually or aith a computer-
ised fit/stem?"
The majority of states surveyed report that they make some use of auto-
mated processing of permit data. Some computerization is used by 58 percent
of the state and regional agencies contacted while the remaining 42 percent
continue to rely on manual systems. Of the agencies using manual procedures,
roughly 40 percent reported that they plan to computerize their permit data
handling within the near future, while the remainder find manual systems appro-
priate to their needs and do not foresee adopting a computerized approach.
Of those agencies with data handling systems which are at least partially
computerized, most use the computer for tracking permit renewal dates, inspec-
tion frequencies and fee collections.
Ulevposltion of Permit Violations (Question 6, partial)
"/tow many of these (on-site inspections) resulted in notifica-
tion of permit insolations being issued? In turn, how many of
Iheae Mere ultimately referred for enforcement action?"
Stute statutes and regulations typically provide for two means of handling
operating permit violations: formal administrative hearings and/or referrals
for court action. However, in practice, state and substate regional control
agencies both rely more heavily on a third alternative for resolving permit
disputes, namely, informal discussion and negotiation with the source followed
by voluntary compliance.
As can be seen in Figure 14, 36 of the 48 agencies contacted, or 78 per-
cent, did not bring a single permit violator to court during the most recently
completed program year. Only one state (Alabama) sought to resolve more than
5 percent of its violation problems through litigation. While also reluctant
to Heck court action, proportionally more regional agencies (4 of 11, or 36
percent) litigated as many as 5 percent of their notices of violation
(Nashville, Tennessee; Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; Jefferson County,
Alabama; and Dayton, Ohio).
29
-------
46 -
ซ ป
REPORTI
m
0
REGIONS
ro
oป
0
Z
< ZO
u
(/> 13
10
5
0
-
-
ซ.
u
h-
-
36
5 5
0%
I - 5%
MORE THAN
5%
PERCENTAGE OF AGENCY NOTICES OF VIOLATION
Figure 14. Percentage of state and regional agency notices of violation
resolved through litigation in the most recent program year.
30
-------
Figure 15 provides similar data on the extent to which state and regional
control agencies resort to formal administrative procedures, involving hearings
and/or legally binding consent orders, when dealing with operating permit
violators. While 80 percent of the agencies responding to the question indi-
cated that they had followed this approach to handling violations in at least
Home Instances over the past year, less than 25 percent (10 to 45 agencies)
had uHtid It as a means for resolving more than 50 percent of identified vio-
lations. Again, as with the results for litigation, proportionally more
regional than, state agencies tend to rely more heavily on the formal hearing
process (4 of 11 regional agencies, or 36 percent, handled more than 50 per-
cent of their violations this way, as opposed to 6 of 32 states, or 18 percent).
By far the most popular option for resolving permit violation problems
with state and regional agencies alike is that of informal conversation and
negotiation with the source. As Figure 16 shows, 60 percent of the agencies
responding (26 of 43 agencies) used this informal approach when dealing with
more than half of their identified violations during the most recent year,
.with states and regions resorting to it in roughly the same proportions. The
reasons given are straightforward, mainly limited time, manpower and budgetary
resources in the face of a heavy caseload. More cases can be disposed of with
the same resources by relying upon informal communication and maximum voluntary
compliance.
Regarding the enforcement caseload the survey results do yield at least
one useful indicator of the level of enforcement activity undertaken by con-
trol agencies: the ratio of the number of notices of violation issued in a
given year to the total number of operating permits issued in that year. This
measure at least partially controls for the size of the source population and
thus can be used to compare the relative vigor of the enforcement effort across
agencies which issue widely varying numbers of permits. Figure 17 summarizes
the distribution of state and regional control agencies along this dimension of
enforcement activity for the most recent program year. As is evident, the
spread among Individual agencies is considerable; whereas one-third of the agen-
cies Issued 5 percent or less as many notices of violations as they did operat-
ing permits, 10 percent of the agencies issued more than half as many notices
of violation as compared to the number of permits.
lining the NOV/permits ratio as an indicator of the level of enforcement
jict'lvity, the survey data tend to bear out the "limited resources" argument
that agencies resort to informal negotiations with permit violators because
of heavy enforcement caseload. Roughly 60 percent of the agencies issuing
more than 25 percent as many NOV's as operating permits negotiated informal
compliance settlements more than half of the time. Correspondingly, only
30 percent of the agencies which Issued between 0 and 5 percent as many NOV's
as permits resolved compliance problems informally more than half of the time.
AfJKNCY KXPKRIENCE WITH THE PROGRAM
With an eye toward tapping state and regional agency experience with op-
pnitlng permit programs in support of EPA's current regulatory development
needs, the survey concluded with two open-ended questions designed to solicit
31
-------
43 -
40
35
QC
o
2i 30
cc
z
o
o 25
UJ
oc
20
<
ซ/) 15
10
16
10
10
0%
1-25%
26-50%
MORE THAN
50%
PERCENTAGE OF AGENCY NOTICES OF VIOLATION
Figure 15. Percentage of state and regional agency notices of violation
resolved through formal administrative procedures in the most
recent program year.
32
-------
43 -
40 -
O
uJ 30
or
(rt
z
O
UJ
K
O
Z
en
25
20
15
10
17
0% 1-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%
PERCENTAGE OF AGENCY NOTICES OF VIOLATION
Figure* 16. Percentage of state and regional agency notices of violation
resolved by informal means in the most recent program year.
33
-------
45
40
o
z
I-
(C
O
O.
Ul
QC
25
O
S 20
O
z
en 15
U4
10
14
12
10
0-5% 6-15% 16-25% 26-50% MORE THAN
50%
RATIO OF NOV'S TO OPERATING PERMITS
Figure 17. Distribution of state and regional agencies by the ratio of
notices of violation to total number of operating permits
issued in the most recent program year.
-------
opinions on overall program strengths and weaknesses. Agency officials were
free to raise nny issue which they felt had a bearing on successful perfor-
mance and/or needed improvements.
Strong PointH of the Program (Question 22)
in the strongest point of your operating permit program:,
the key element which makes it viable?"
For one reason or another we did not learn much that was very useful from
agency responses to this question. The single factor mentioned most frequently,
by 23 percent of the agencies contacted, was the quantity and quality of the
resources they devote to source surveillance and inspections. This is a truism
that hardly bears repeating for the other three-quarters of the agencies in-
volved in the survey, and when respondents were asked to elaborate upon the
reasons for their answer they provided little additional in the way of
specif icH.
Of nil the other factors mentioned none was cited by more than 11 percent
of the agencies we spoke with (see Table 1). Three factors mentioned rela-
tively frequently; i.e., by 11 percent of the agencies contacted, were fast
efficient enforcement against violators; competent evaluation of source opera-
tions, emissions and air quality impacts; and statutory authority to curtail
source operations in the absence of a permit. At least 9 percent of the agen-
cies also cited the importance of flexibility in being able to tailor special
conditions to the particular source and an established capability to track
needed permit renewals. Only 7 percent of the agencies we spoke to elected
to make no comment on the question of overall program strengths.
Needed Program Improvements (Question 23)
"Marring restrictions such as legal or political constraints* what
aspects of your operating permit program would you like to see
changed in order to strengthen its effectiveness?"
When agencies were asked to identify which aspects of their operating
permit programs could most profitably be improved, there were again a wide
variety of specific suggestions made. These agency responses are summarized
In Table 2.
The most commonly mentioned improvements, each cited by 20 percent of
the agencies contacted, were the need for more staff personnel and for faster,
stricter enforcement of permit requirements. The next most commonly cited
area needing improvement (18 percent) was that of automatic data processing;
more efficient handling of permit and violations information is necessary in
order to support the management of operating permit programs.
35
-------
TABLE 1. STATE AND REGIONAL AGENCY OFFICIALS' OPINIONS ON
PROGRAM STRONG POINTS
No. of agency
responses
10
5
5
5
4
4
3
2
1
1
45
% of agencies
contacted
23
11
11
11
9
9
7
4
2
2
100
Agency response
Inspection and Surveillance
Fast, Efficient Enforcement
Evaluation of Source Operations,
Emissions, Air Impacts
Authority to Require Permit Over-
all Staff Quality
Flexibility in Special Conditions
Tracking of Permit Renewals
No Comment
Cohesive Management Group
Manageable Number of Sources
All Significant Sources Covered
TABLE 2. STATE AND REGIONAL AGENCY OFFICIALS' OPINIONS ON
NEEDED PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS
No. of agency
reaponses
9
9
8
7
4
3
2
2
1
% of agencies
contacted
20
20
18
16
9
7
4
4
2
Agency response
Stricter, Faster Enforcement
Increased Staff Personnel
More Efficient Data Processing
No Comment
Less Emphasis on Small Sources
Clearer Federal Regulations
More Emphasis on Small Sources
More Frequent Permit Renewals
Use of Permit Fee System
36
-------
An interesting split in agency opinion exists on the question of how
bewt to handle small sources. As many as 9 percent of the agencies contacted
felt that lest* administrative emphasis should be placed on smaller sources,
while another A percent suggested that such sources should receive more
thorough review. Other needed improvements which were mentioned include those
for clearer federal regulations governing operating permits, more frequent
permit renewals, and use of permit fee systems. Finally, a fairly high per-
centage of agencies (16 percent) indicated that they had no comment on needs
for improving their operating permit programs. Most of these agencies
f3trongly Implied that their programs simply did not need improvement.
37
-------
SECTION A
ANALYSIS OF SURVEY RESULTS: AGENCIES WHICH
DO NOT HAVE AN OPERATING PERMIT PROGRAM
This section briefly summarizes the responses of those six states
Iowa, Missouri, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington which
currently do not administer operating permit programs. The interview guide
used to survey control agencies which do not have an operating permit pro-
gram appears as Appendix B to this report.
TYPE OF PROGRAM
While none of these states has an operating permit program, they all
do issue construction permits based upon a preconstruction review and approv-
al process. They evaluate the potential impacts of a new or modified source
on ambient air quality at the preconstruction review stage. But unlike
states which do have operating permit programs they do not evaluate such im-
pacts after equipment installation and operations startup. The one exception
is Vermont, which does perform a compliance check once operations have begun.
The purpose of this second set of interviews was to find out how these
statet) handle their existing permitting activities, and to establish as far
an possible whether these activities are roughly "equivalent" to those carried
on by states having formal operating permit programs. While we are not pre-
l>/ired, on the basis of the limited evidence available, to conclude that these
nix HtHtes carry on activities which are the "equivalent" of having an opera-
ting permit program, we did find a number of important similarities across
the two groups of states.
An important preliminary finding is that the states which do not issue
Heparatf operating permits (or combined construction/operating permits) devote
roughly the same staff resources to their overall permitting activity as do
states having operating permit programs. The number of full-time equivalent
Htnff members dedicated to the permit activity ranges from a low of one (Iowa,
Washington) to a high of eleven (New Mexico). For the six states without
operating permit programs the permit staff averages five full-time equivalent
persona, comparing favorably with half the states which do have such programs
(refer back to Figure 2). These six states devote approximately 20 percent
of their professional staff and budgetary resources to source permitting,
ugain comparable to the majority of states with operating permit programs
(see Figure 3). While this question deserves more detailed analysis before
the Working Croup comes to a definitive conclusion, it would appear that add-
ing an operating permit requirement to a state construction permit program
would not necessarily lead to a substantial increase in agency staff size and
budget.
38
-------
The six.states expend roughly the same type and amount of effort on
source surveillance and inspection as do the states which have operating per-
mit programs. Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington inspect all major sources
annually, while Iowa inspects major sources twice a year and minor sources
annually. New Mexico and Vermont inspect all sources annually. Rhode Island
InupcctH minor wources only on a complaint basis; Washington inspects minor
sources once a year or by complaint. In the most recent program year the
range in the number of on-site inspections was from 100 (Vermont) to 861 (Iowa),
with the average at 442 inspections. This average exceeds the number of on-
slte inspections reported by 21 of the 46 states having operating permit au-
thority over the same time period.
Using the ratio of the number of notices of violation issued in a pro-
gram year to the total number of permits granted during that same period as
an indicator, the six states again appear to .be comparable to the operating
permit states in terms of the level of enforcement effort. The range in the
NOV/new permits ratio is from roughly 0.05 (Iowa, Vermont) to 1.5 (Washington).
It will be recalled from Section 2 of this report that nearly one-third of the
operating permit states exhibited on NOV/new permits ratio of less than 0.05.
The six states vary considerably among themselves as to how they typi-
cally handle situations involving permit violations. In the most recent
program year Vermont and New Mexico settled all cases of permit violation
informally, through discussion and negotiation with the source owner. Iowa,
Rhode Island and Washington instead chose to rely on formal administrative
hearings resulting in consent agreements and revised compliance schedules.
Only Washington reported any instances where the state took a violator to
court to resolve a permit dispute. This overall pattern of handling permit
violations is quite consistent with that reported in Section 2 for those
states having operating permit programs.
With one exception there is no history in these six states of permit
violation proceedings leading to closure of the offending plant. Five of
the states report that no source has ever been forced to close as a result
of noncompliance with permit requirements. Only Missouri indicated that it
haa ever closed down a permit violator, and this only once.
To Hupport their permitting activity the six states use both manual and
computerized systems for source data processing. New Mexico and Rhode Island
employ only manual systems and have no plans to computerize in the forseeable
future. Vermont tentatively plans to shift from a manual to a computerized
system, while Iowa, Missouri and Washington currently use both manual and
computerized systems to perform different tasks. In these latter three states
the emission inventories are computerized while permit data is processed
manually. Again, this pattern of manual versus automated permit data handling
.1n roughly the same as that for states having operating permit programs.
39
-------
Similarities between permitting activities of spates with and without
operating permit programs are one thing, formal "equivalence" is quite another.
Telephone interviews are simply not an adequate means for settling this latter
question. Once the Work Group has established its own definition of minimum
requirement for an operating permits program, an important remaining task
will be to determine in more detail whether the six states currently lacking
ซuch authroity have equivalent programs in place. At least one of the in-
depth case studies recommended previously (refer back to Section 2) should be
done in a state which does not now have an operating permits program.
40
-------
APPENDIX A
TELEPHONE SURVEY INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR AGENCIES
HAVING OPERATING PERMIT PROGRAMS
41
-------
OPERATING PERMIT TELEPHONE SURVEY
(Agencies Having Operating Permit Programs)
PERSON INTERVIEWED
TITLE
AGENCY
LOCATION
1. How many full-time equivalent staff (technical, support) are
currently allocated to administering the operating permit program?
2. Is operating permit data processed manually or with a computerized
system?
What percentage of your staff and current annual budget is allocated
for administering the operating permit program?
t\. How many professional person-hours would you estimate are spent in
reviewing an individual application for an operating (combined
construction/operating) permit? Specify a range.
How many operating (combined construction/operating) permits did
your agency issue in the most recent completed program year? Was
that year typical with respect to the number of operating permits
issued?
-------
How many on-site inspections/source sampling and testing activities
did your agency conduct during the latest completed program year?
How many of these resulted in notifications of permit violation
being isbued? In turn how many of these were ultimately referred
for enforcement action?
Are revocation conditions specified? How many operating (combined
constructIon/operating) permits did your agency suspend/revoke
during the latest completed program year?
8. In your opinion, how effective is the threat of revocation?
How does your agency determine whether or not a source requires
;in operating permit?
10. How dors your agency respond in the case sources that do not apply
for permits (i.e., non-filers)?
A3
-------
11. Doe8 your agency allow exemptions from operating permit requirements?
On whซt has IB are exemptions granted?
12. How much time is usually required to process an operating permit?
Specify a range. Is there a specific time limit for processing
an individual operating permit? Has your agency ever exceeded the
time limit? How often is the most recently completed program year?
What recourse does a source have if the time limit is exceeded
or if an inordinate amount of time passes before the permit is
issued?
13. Does your agency specify a formal approval procedure? How does
your agency process permits?
How do sources find out whether or not their permit applications
have been approved?
15. Is there a way for source to appeal permit decision if they are
dissatisfied with the outcome?
-------
16. Must permits be renewed within a specified time period?
17. Can operating permits be transfered?
18. On what basis, if any, does your agency grant variances?
19. At what level of detail are operation and maintenance and/or
special operating conditions prescribed in the permit? How
frequently are operation and maintenance and/or special operat-
ing conditions prescribed by permits?
20. Whnt monitoring, sampling and testing activities are sources
required to perform?
21. What are the requirements for sources regarding operating records?
45
-------
22. What Is the strongest point of your operating permit program, the
key element which make it viable?
Burring restrictions such as legal or political constraints, what
aspects of your operating permit program would you like to see
changed in order to strengthen its effectiveness?
46
-------
APPENDIX B
TELEPHONE SURVEY INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR AGENCIES
WHICH DO NOT HAVE AN OPERATING PERMIT PROGRAM
47
-------
OPERATING PERMIT TELEPHONE SURVEY
(Agencies Which DO NOT Have an Operating Permit Program)
PKHSON INTERVIEWED
TITLE
AGENCY
LOCATION
1. What system do you presently use for inventorying sources, ensuring
applicability and compliance with regulations?
2. How many full time equivalent staff (technical, support) are currently
allocated to administering this effort?
'3. In what way is source data processed?
I'") with an MI.S. GO ON TO QUESTION 4.
[ \ manually. ASK: Are you planning to develop an automated
data processing system?
it. What percentage of your staff anc current annual budget is allocated to
administering this effort?
48
-------
How many new sources came on line last year?
llriw mnny oil-site Inspections/source sampling and testing activities did
your agency conduct during the latest completed program year? How many
of these resulted in notifications of violations being issued? In turn,
how muny of these ultimately led to enforcement actions?
What iii-1 ion do you take against sources not in compliance? How many
sources, If any, were required to close in the most recent year?
49
-------
APPENDIX C
,JST OF STATE AND REGIONAL CONTROL AGENCY
OFFICIALS CONTACTED
50
-------
STATE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCIES
Si fit i* Contact
A l;i boron
JameH W. Cooper
Director, Div. of Air Pollution Control
834-6570
Alaska
Tltomas R. tlanna & Dan Hungerford
Air Quality Supervisor
(907) 465-263 1/465-2692
Ar I 7. on a
Carl 11 LI 1 ings
Manager, Engineering Serv. Section
(602) 255-1144
Arkansas
St. (.'vi^ Col dwe 1 1
Kng Infer
(501) 371-1 135
(!o.i oratlo
Ace 111 shard, P.K.
CliJt'f, Stationary Source Section
(303) 320-4180 X4136
tionnt'cl lent
Stic I don Edwards
CoimnlsH loner
(203) 566-8230
De 1ซware
Holier K. French
Manager, Air Resources Section
(302) 678-4791
I) 1st rid of Columbia
Donald Wanihsgans
Director, Dept. of
(202) 767-7376
Env. Services
Address
Alabama Air Pollution Control Comm.
645 S. McDonough St.
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
Alaska Dept. of Environmental
Conservation - Pouch 0
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Arizona Dept. of Health Services
Bureau of Air Quality Control
1740 West Adams Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Arkansas Dept. of Pollution Control
and Ecology
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72209
Air Pollution Control Division
Colorado Health Department
4210 E. llth Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
Air Compliance
Department of Environmental Protection
State Office Building
Hartford, Connecticut 06115
Deleware Dept. of Natural Resources
& Environmental Control
Tatnall Building, P.O. Box 1401
Dover, Delaware 19901
District of Columbia/Dept of Environmental
Services
5010 Overlook Ave., S.W., Room 210
Washington, D.C. 20032
51
-------
(c.ont'd)
I-lor I da
.Jim KHI ler
Deputy Director of Permitting
(904) A88-0130
Geoff, In
WU Ham Mitchell
Program Manager
Air Pollution Compliance Program
(40/0 656-6900
Idaho
IH 11 DanH-worth
Supervisor of Air Quality
Planning & Technical Support Section
(208) 384-2903
Department of Environmental Regulations
Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Natural Resources
270 Washington Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Air Quality Bureau
Department of Health and Welfare
State House
Boise, Idaho 83720
Michael -I. Hayes
Manager, Perm! IK Section
(217) 782-2113
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Air Pollution Control
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
Lncl I ana
M St re. Kino
Chle.f of Enforcement
OI7) 63V060U
Indiana State Board of Health
1330 W. Michigan Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206
I owa
Charles C. Miller
Director, Air and Land
Qual Ity Division
(515) 281-8925
Iowa Dept. of Environmental Quality
Henry A. Wallace Building
900 East Grand Avenue
De Moines, Iowa 50319
Kan.s.is
Howard F. Salver
Chief, Air Quality & Occupational
llt-a 1 I h
(913) 862-9360 X266
Kent ncky
Will lam Dills
Engineering & Permits Program Director
(502) 564-6844
LouIsiana
; avr- Von Hodungen
i-lmical Secretary Chief Air Quality
!)4) r)bH-5122
Kansas Dept. of Health & Environment
Forbes Field
Topeka, Kansas 66620
Division of Air Pollution Control
Dept. for Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection
Capital Plaza Tower, 5th Floor
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Louisiana Air Control Commission
P.O. Box 60630
New Orleans, Louisiana 70160
52
-------
(com M)
Ma IDC
Dfivi: Human
Licensing Offlrer
(207) 289-2417
M.'iry I ami
Donald Andrew
Chief of Engineering
(301) 383-3147
Mi cli I g;m
Dave Ferries
Permit Unit Engineer
(517) 122- mO
M Innesot a
l.ou Cham her lain
Chief Eng. Section
(612) 296-7334
MI MS I s.sippi
Dwight. K. Wylle
Chief, Air Emissions Section
(601) 35A-2550
Dept. of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Air Quality Control
State House
Augusta, Maine 04333
Environmental Health Administration
Maryland State Dept. of Health &
Mental Hygiene
P.O. Box 13387
Baltimore, Maryland 21203
Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Michigan 48909
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
1935 W. County Road, B-2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Mississippi Air & Water Pollution Control
P.O. Box 827
Jackson, Mississippi 39205
Untidy Raymond
Chief of Engineering
OI4) 751-324! X255
Nehr.'iska
Di-nn is Hur 1 ing
Knvl ronnieiital Engineer
(402) 471-2186
Nevada
Hugh Ritrhlc
DlvlHlon of Engineering
(702) 885-4670
Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources
Air Quality Program
P.O. Box 1368
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102
Dept. of Environmental Control
P.O. Box 94877, Centennial Mall
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
Division of Environemental Protection
201 S. Fall Street
Carson City, Nevada 89710
53
-------
(cont'd)
New Hampshire
Donuld Davis
Oiler Engineer
(603) 271-4579
Now Jersey
Alan T. Edwards
Supervisor Permits &
(609) 292-6716
Certificates
New Mexico
Kenneth M. Hargis
Chief, Air Quality Division
(503) 827-5271 X370
New York
Sidney Mar.low
Chief, Bureau of
(518) 457-5118
Source Control
Mori h Carol Ina
Myron Whit 1 ey
Plans Review Engineer
(919) 73:3-7120
North Dakota
Terry O'Clalr
Manager Eng. Enforcement
(701) 224-2348
Ohio
Thomas E. Crepe.au
Chief, Division of
Comp I .lanet;
(614) 466-6040
Authorization &
Okl ahoiua
G.C. Marburger
Director, Facilities Construction
and Operation Division
(4()r>) 271-5220
Oregon
K.A. Skirvin
Administrator, Air Quality Control Div.
(503) 229-6414
N.H. Air Pollution Control Agency
Health & Welfare Building
Hazel Drive
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Bureau of Air Pollution Control
P. 0. Box CN027
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Air Quality Section
Environmental Improvement Division
Health & Environment Department
P. 0. Box 968
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503
N.Y. Dept. of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12223
Dept. of Natural Resources & Community
Development - Division of Environ-
mental Management, P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
N.D. State Department of Health
State Capital
1200 Missouri Avenue
Bismarck, North Dakota 58505
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
361 E. Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43216
Air Quality Service
Environemental Health Services
Oklahoma State Department of Health
Northeast 10th & Stonewall
P. 0. Box 53551
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
Department of Environmental Quality
P. 0. Box 1760
Portland, Oregon 97207
54
-------
(com M)
Pi-tinny 1 v;inia
Dmigl.i.s Leslie?
CM of, Permits Division
(71/) 787-4324
Rhode Island
Douglirifi McVny
Senior Engineer
(401) 277-2808
South Carolina
Pvf'.ston Campbell
Permit. Soction
(80')) 758-5406
tilli Dakota
.|DC I .Smith
Chief, Office of Air Quality
(f>0r>) 773-3329
Bureau of Air Quality Control
Department of Environmental Resources
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
P. 0. Box 2063
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
R.I. Division of Air Resources
Dept. of Environmental Management
204 Cannon Health Building
75 Davis Street
Providence, Rhode Island 02908
S.C. Dept. of Health & Environmental
Control
Bureau of Air Quality Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Dept. of Environmental Protection
Air Quality Office, Room 412
Foss Building
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
1;mil'SKI-'i'
.I,Mines W. Haynos
Chief of Engineering
(615) 741-3931
Division of Air Pollution Control
Department of Public Health
301 Seventh Avenue, Room 256
Capital Hill Building
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
.liin Myers
Chief of Permit Section
CilZ) 4 r> 1-57 11
Texas Air Control Board
8520 Shoal Creek Boulevard
Austin, Texas 78758
III ,ili
Alv.ln !',. Rlrhers, Monty Keller
Uoh II I (Idle
linn.'.-m of A i r Quality
(801) 513-6108
Vermont
Harold Carahedlan
Air I'.ng Inhering Supervisor
(802) 828-3395
VI rglnla
./nines C. Ruehrmund
Director, Div. of Operations Procedures
(BOM 786-7564
Utah State Division of Health
P. 0. Box 2500
150 W. North Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84110
Agency of Environmental Conservation
Air Pollution Control
State Office Building
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
State Air Pollution Control Board
Room 1106, Ninth St. Office Building
Richmond, Virginia 23219
55
-------
(com M)
Pt-rcr W. Hlldchrnndt Washington State Dept. of Ecology
AflHlstnnr Director for Air Program Olympia, Washington 98504
(206) 7VJ-2821
Wyoming
Chuck Collins Division of Air Quality
F.n^. Supervisor ' Dept. of Environmental Quality
(307) 777-7391 Hathaway Building
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002
56
-------
SUBSTATK REGIONAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCIES
lona I Contact
aiit Director Bur. Env. Health
Address
Jefferson County Dept. Health
1912 8th Avenue S.
Birmingham, Alabama 35233
James V.. Vlbbe
Director Bureau Environmental Health
Mobile Co. Health Department
248 Cox Street
Mobile, Alabama 36601
l.;iwronce B. Odle
Air Pollution Control Officer
J/in Bush
Ventura County ERA
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution
Control Dist.
1270 Natividad Road
Salinas, California 93901
Air Pollution Control Dist.
800 S. Victoria
Ventura, California 93009
Robert I.. Knppi11 man
Air Pollution Cont.ro.1 Engineer
Bio-Environmental Services Division
Air Pollution Control Activity
515 W. 6th St. Room 316
Jacksonville, Florida 32206
Morton Strrl in;?,
Director Air Pollution Control Division
Wayne County Health Department
311 E. Jefferson Street
Detroit, Michigan 48207
Donah! K. Arkyl.1
1)1 ri'ctor Mr Pollution Control Division
District Health Dept. of Clark County
625 Shadow Lane
LasVegas, Nevada 89106
Norman I1'.. Kinkier
Admin I st rat or
Akron Reg. Air Pollution Control
177 S. Broadway
Akron, Ohio 44308
WlI 1 him P. Burkhart
Siipi'rv Isor
Regional Air Pollution Control Agency
451 W. 3rd Street
Dayton, Ohio 45402
57
-------
(contM)
i>lono'l Contact
Address
William Rlley
Assistant Health Commissioner
Air Management Services
Philadelphia Department Public Health
801 Arch Street 6th Floor
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
P;jul .1. Bontragur
Director Air Pollution Control Dlv.
Metro Health Dept. of Nashville &
Davidson County
311 23rd Avenue North
Nashville, Tennessee 37203
W. Carter Bradley
Air Pollution Control Director
Roanoke County/City of Salem
Salem, Virginia 24153
Artlius R. Daimnkoehler
Ai.r Pollution Control Officer
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
410 W. Harrison Street
Seattle, Washington 98109
Ronald J. Ch it1, bo.sk i
Director, Allegheny County Health Dept.
301 39th Street
Pittsburg, Pennsylvania 15201
Linn W. Wainner
Air Quality Control Section
Oklahoma City County Health Dept,
921 N.E. 23rd Street
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
58
------- |