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

-------