SULFUR DIOXIDE SIP DEFICIENCIES
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING
AND STANDARDS
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
1 2 'i
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT
FROM:
TO:
Transmittal of the SO0 Ye
John Calcagni, Directo
Air Quality Management
and
Director, Air, Pesticides,
Division, Regions I, IV, VI
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Region II
Director, Air Management Division
Region III and IX
Director, Air and Radiation Division
Region V
Director, Air and Toxics Division
Regions VII, VIII, x
Management
Attached to this memorandum is a copy of the SO, Yellow
Book. As you may know, the Yellow Book, is a compilation of the
enforceability deficiencies that the Regional Offices identified
when they reviewed the States' SO2 State implementation plans
(SIP's). It is our intention to use the Yellow Book to support
the effort to correct these deficiencies.
There have been numerous discussions about this effort to
correct SO2 rule deficiencies. It goes without saying that the
correction of SO2 deficiencies is an important effort. By
correcting enforceability deficiencies in the SO2 SIP's,
uncertainty about the regulatory requirements that SO- sources
must meet will be removed. This will benefit the implementation
of Titles I, IV, and especially V. As the States, or EPA in the
case of a State default, are confronted with the initial wave of
permit applications, permit writers will be able to easily
incorporate SO2 SIP requirements into the permits in the
enforceability deficiencies.
Finally, if the deficiencies are not corrected at this time,
these deficiencies will continue to plague the States, the
sources, and the Agency. Past Agency experience in attempting to
implement and/or enforce ambiguous regulations has resulted in
court opinions and precedents which have adversely affected the
-------
Agency's regulatory and enforcement programs. Permits which
attempt to correct an ambiguity can be challenged by the public
which may interpret the SIP requirements in another way.
Frequently, such a challenge has resulted in a program which is
more difficult to implement. Therefore, we expect that the
effort to correct these enforceability deficiencies will proceed.
We hope that you will find the Yellow Book helpful in your
negotiations with the States. We appreciate all of the work that
you and your staff have done in completing the review of the
SIP's. If you have any further questions about the effort to
correct the SIP deficiencies, feel free to contact Fred Renner at
FTS 629-5556 or have your staff contact Laura McKelvey at FTS
629-5497.
Attachment
cc: R. Biondi
R. Campbell
D. Oevoe
T. Eagles
P. Embrey
E. Ginsburg
K. Harmon
P. Horwitz
L. Kertcher
L. Lay
J. Paisie
F. Renner
L. Wegman
Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
-------
Introduction of the SO, "Yellow Book"
Introduction
On November 15, "1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act (Act)
were signed into law. Titles I, IV and V of the legislation will
affect changes in implementation of the SO, national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) program. In order for all three
programs to be implemented as efficiently as possible, EPA is
requiring the States to correct existing enforceability
deficiencies in the SIP's. The following is a summary of the
major requirements of the aforementioned Titles:
*
Title I:
Title I addresses the nonattainment SIP provisions. It
requires that nonattainment plans be completed within 18 months
after enactment or designation to nonattainment, which ever is
later, with attainment required in 5 years. The nonattainment
plans must be fully federally enforceable and therefore
unambiguous in their requirements.
Title IV:
Title IV, the acid rain program, will affect many of the
larger stationary sources of SO2. These sources will be required
to have acid rain permits and compliance plans, but they are also
required to comply with any other applicable requirements of the
Act (see section 413). Therefore, the utilities affected by
Title IV must consider Title I SIP requirements in planning for
compliance with the acid rain program. Any regulatory
deficiencies in the SO, SIP can complicate this planning. Thus,
uncertainties may be introduced into the allowance market and may
stifle trading. This, in turn, could inhibit the ability of the
industry to achieve cost-efficient reductions.
Title V:
The Title V operating permit program will require
reexamination of many SO, NAAQS SIP's for enforceability
deficiencies. The SO, program, unlike ozone and other criteria
pollutant programs, has not undergone significant program changes
since the 1970 Clean Air Act. Consequently, the opportunity to
correct many technical and regulatory deficiencies has not
previously occurred. Since the operating permit may simply
codify existing SIP requirements, correcting SIP deficiencies is
a key to the program's success.
Purpose of "Yellow Book":
The purpose of this document is to provide a listing of the
federally-approved State and local rules that have deficiencies
-------
affecting enforceability. This listing will be used to support a
nationwide effort to correct deficiencies in the SO2 SIP's so
that the related SO2 programs are implemented on a nationally
consistent and defensible basis. This effort does not expand or
modify existing Federal regulatory requirements, but merely
clarifies EPA policy where past guidance or approved rulemaking
may have been vague or ambiguous.
The review of the SOa SIP's was performed by the EPA
Regional Offices in response to 1990 Grant Guidance and the 1991
STARS commitments. The resulting document will be used by the
States and Regional Offices to establish plans and schedules for
correcting those rules that are found to be deficient.
Basis for the Review:
The EPA Headquarters and Regional Offices developed a
checklist (Appendix A) that was used as the basis for determining
enforceability of the SIP's. The checklist was developed from
existing policy and guidance (Appendix B) that address common
problems encountered in the agency's past enforcement actions.
The checklist was not designed to provide suggested changes to
the State regulation, but to highlight those regulations which
have enforceability problems that need to be corrected.
Thus, it will be up to the States and EPA Regional Offices
to establish revisions that reflect the States' particular
regulatory structures and fully meet Federal requirements. The
EPA Headquarters is in the process of considering example or
model regulations to address particularly common types of
deficiencies. The deficiencies that were included in the
checklist included ambiguous (or lack of) emission limitations;
inconsistencies between (or lack of) the averaging times and the
NAAQS, emission limitations and test methods; lack of test and
compliance methods; lack of a method of determining continuous
compliance; lack of recordkeeping and reporting requirements;
unclear alternative compliance approaches; and the inclusion of
director's discretion without provisions for Federal review.
Also included in the listing are rules with inadequacies in
complying with section 123 of the Clean Air Act.
-------
Summary of SO2 SIP Deficiencies
•
Executive Summary
The purpose of this document is to describe the deficiencies
discovered by the EPA Regional Offices in reviewing State S02
State implementation plans (SIP's) for enforceability
deficiencies. Adequacy of the SIP and emission limitations to
attain air quality standards was not included in this review, nor
were review of, or revisions to, the demonstrations of attainment
required in this effort. Absent evidence of an air quality
problem EPA is not requiring new air quality attainment
demonstrations at this time.
The review for SIP deficiencies covered a variety of
criteria ranging from deficiencies in recordkeeping and reporting
requirements to inadequate or nonexistent compliance
methodologies and emission limitations. The checklist used in
the evaluation of the SIP's only includes issues that are
explicitly addressed in current policy. However, there are
several additional issues that have been identified as being
needed to ensure enforceability but that may require further
refinement or interpretation of existing policy (i.e., what to do
about Director's discretion clauses). These issues will be
considered in a separate action. The checklist was developed by
Region V, the Technical Support Branch of the stationary Source
Compliance Division (SSCD) and the Sulfur Dioxide Programs
Section of the Air Quality Management Division (AQMD), with input
from all of the Regional Offices. The following is a 'description
of.the types of deficiencies that were included in the checklist
and the number of each type of deficiency nationwide.
TYPES OF DEFICIENCIES
1) The rule does not clearly specify which sources are
subject to it.
There are 17 State rules with type 1 deficiencies.
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
There 52 State rules with type 2 deficiencies.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 2 4-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
There are 53 State rules with type 3 deficiencies.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
-------
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
There are 57 State rules with type 4 deficiencies.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
acontinuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but-no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; GEM is feasible but is not
required).
There are 42 State rules with type 5 deficiencies.
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
There are 56 State rules with type 6 deficiencies.
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
There are 36 State rules with type 7 deficiencies.
•
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
There are 35 State rules with type 8 deficiencies.
£ •
9) The rule contains an alternative approach for compliance
(e.g., variable or multiple limits among a number of
affected sources) where the emission limits which apply to
each affected sources are a) unclear, b) the period of time
and length of time the alternate limits are in effect are
unclear, c) there is no requirement for the source to notify
the regulatory agency prior to changes in the applicable
emission limit, and/or d) the rule does not contain
-------
continuous monitoring requirements that enable EPA to verify
that all sources are in compliance with an applicable limit
scenario.
There are 20 State rules with type 9 deficiencies.
10) The rule contains an alternative compliance approach
other then alternative emission limits (e.g., load derating)
but it does not clearly state the method of determining
continuous compliance.
•
There are 15 State rules with type 10 deficiencies.
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
There are 51 State rules with type 11 deficiencies.
12) The rule has Section 123 deficiencies; including non
compliance with the 1985 regulations, sources affected by
the *. Thomas vs NRDC remand and Intermittent or
Supplemental Control Systems (ICS or SCS).
(Adequate information is not yet available on this
deficiency.)
3) The SIP for the State has not been federally approved or
it is unclear as to whether it has been approved. There are
6 States without, or substantially without, federally-
approved SIP's.
TOTAL NUMBER OF STATE RULES WITH DEFICIENCIES (Not including
Region IX)
There are a total of 78 State rules that are deficient. It
is important to note that the total number of deficiencies is
much higher then 78. This is due to the fact that most of the
rules have more than one deficiency.
-------
Regional and State Deficiencies
Introduction
In an effort to "facilitate implementation of the Operating
Permits and the Acid Rain Programs created by the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, the EPA has begun an effort to correct
enforceability deficiencies in the SO2 State implementation plans
(SIP's) throughout the country. The rirst.stage of the effort
was to review the SO2 SIP's using an enforceability checklist
developed in coordination with the EPA Headquarters and the
Regional Offices. The checklist is a modification of an earlier
Enforceability Checklist and is based on existing Agency policy.
The attached is a summary of the preliminary review of the SIP's
conducted by the Regional Offices (for all Regions except II and
IX). The information is presented as summaries by Region further
refined to the State level. Criteria addressed in the checklist
are as follows:
1) The rule does not clearly specify which sources are
subject to it.
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
is no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are being
protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel, sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; GEMS is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., The averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data. Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
-------
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies, does not include
requirements on "format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on-site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
9) The rule contains an alternative approach for compliance
(e.g., variable or multiple emission limitations among a
number of affected sources) where the emission limits which
apply to each affected sources are a) unclear, b) the period
of time and length of time the alternate limits are in
effect are unclear, c) there is no requirement for the
source to notify the regulatory agency prior to changes in
the applicable emission limit, and/or d) the rule does not
contain continuous monitoring requirements that enable EPA
to verify that all sources are in compliance with an
applicable emission limit scenario.
*
10) The rule contains an alternative approach other then
alternative emission limits (e.g., load derating) and it
does not clearly state the method of determining continuous
compliance.
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
*
13) The SIP for the State has not been federally approved
or it is unclear as to whether it has been approved.
-------
NUMBER OF DEFICIENT RULES BY REGION AND STATE
REGION I
CONNECTICUT - Section 22a-174-(19,4,5)
Type of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but
does not require daily sampling; CEM is feasible but is
not required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
-------
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
Types of Sources
Combustion sources
Sulfuric acid plant
Sulfur recovery operations
smelters
Kraft pulp mills
Other process sources
-------
MAINE - Rule 100 (.7)
Type of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 2 4-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; CEM is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
Types of Sources
Combustion sources
Sulfite mills
-------
MASSACHUSETTS - 310MR
Types of Deficiencies
1) The rule does not clearly specify which sources are
subject to it.
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 2 4-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
5) The rule does not provide for determining* compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; CEM is feasible but is not
required).
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
9) The rule contains an alternative approach for compliance
(e.g., variable or multiple limits among a number of
affected sources) where the emission limits which apply to
each affected sources are a) unclear, b) the period of time
and length of time the alternate limits are in effect are
unclear, c) there is no requirement for the source to notify
the regulatory agency prior to changes in the applicable
emission limit, and/or d) the rule does not contain
continuous monitoring requirements that enable EPA to verify
that all sources are in compliance with an applicable limit
scenario.
-------
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
Types of Sources
combustion sources
-------
NEW HAMPSHIRE - Chapter 400
Types of Deficiencies
1) The rule does not clearly specify which sources are
subject to it.
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
'•averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; CEM is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
8
-------
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
Types of Sources
Combustion sources
Chapter 800
Types of Deficiencies
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
Types of Sources
Combustion Sources
Chapter 1205.04
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
-------
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; GEM is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
Types of Sources
smelters
10
-------
RHODE ISLAND - Rule # 8
Types of Deficiencies
1) The rule does not clearly specify which sources are
subject to it.
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g.,. the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Re-f. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; CEM i§ feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging tiroes.
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
11
-------
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordJceeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
9) The rule contains an alternative approach for compliance
(e.g., variable or multiple limits among a number of
affected sources) where the emission limits which apply to
each affected sources are a) unclear, b) the period of time
and length of time the alternate limits are in effect are
unclear, c) there is no requirement for the source to notify
the regulatory agency prior to changes in the applicable
emission limit, and/or d) the rule does not contain
continuous monitoring requirements that enable EPA to verify
that all sources are in compliance with an applicable limit
scenario.
10) The rule contains an alternative compliance approach
other then alternative emission limits (e.g., load derating)
but it does not clearly state the method of determining
continuous compliance.
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
Types of Sources
»
Combustion sources
12
-------
VERMONT - Rule # 5-221
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging tine (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; CEM is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
13
-------
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
14
-------
Types of Sources
Combustion sources
Rule # 5-225
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; CEM is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
Types of Sources
Combustion sources
15
-------
REGION II - For more detailed review and comments see Appendix C
HEW JERSEY - NJAC 7:27-(7,9,10,13
Sub chapter 7
Types of Deficiencies
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; GEM is feasible but is not
required).
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
9) The rule contains an alternative approach for compliance
(e.g., variable or multiple limits among a number of
affected sources) where the emission limits which apply to
each affected sources are a) unclear, b) the period of time
and length of time the alternate limits are in effect are
unclear, c) there is no requirement for the source to notify
the regulatory agency prior to changes in the applicable
emission limit, and/or d) the rule does not contain
continuous monitoring requirements that enable EPA to verify
that all sources are in compliance with an applicable limit
scenario.
Subchapter 9
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
16
-------
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; CEM is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of .the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e»g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
9) The rule contains an alternative approach for compliance
(e.g., variable or multiple limits among a number of
affected sources) where the emission limits which apply to
each affected sources are a) unclear, b) the period of time
and length of time the alternate limits are in effect are
unclear, c) there is no requirement for the source to notify
the regulatory agency prior to changes in the applicable
emission limit, and/or d) the rule does not contain
continuous monitoring requirements that enable EPA to verify
that all sources are in compliance with an applicable limit
scenario.
10) The rule contains an alternative compliance approach
other then alternative emission limits (e.g., load derating)
but it does not clearly state the method of determining
continuous compliance.
17
-------
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
Subchapter 10
Types of deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 2 4-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based 'on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
9) The rule contains an alternative approach for compliance
(e.g., variable or multiple limits among a number of
affected sources) where the emission limits which apply to
each arffected sources are a) unclear, b) the period of time
and length of time the alternate limits are in effect are
unclear, c) there is no requirement for the source to notify
the regulatory agency prior to changes in the applicable
emission limit, and/or d) the rule does not contain
continuous monitoring requirements that enable EPA to verify
that all sources are in compliance with an applicable limit
scenario.
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
Subchapter 13.4
Types of Deficiencies
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
18
-------
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data 'to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
9) The rule contains an alternative approach for compliance
(e.g., variable or multiple limits among a number of
affected sources) where the emission limits which apply to
each affected sources are a) unclear, b) the period of time
and length of time the alternate limits are in effect are
unclear, c) there is no requirement for the source to notify
the regulatory agency prior to changes in the applicable
emission limit, and/or d) the rule does not contain
continuous monitoring requirements that enable EPA to verify
that all sources are in compliance with an applicable limit
scenario.
19
-------
NEW YORK It is important to note that not all parts of the
part New York regulations are adopted into the SIPs, this could
lead to confusion in what EPA can enforce against a source. For
specific comments on the regulations or clarifications on
ambiguities see Appendix C for Region II specific comments.
Part 223
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
Types of Sources
Petroleum refineries
20
-------
Part-224
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance, on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
Types of Sources
Sulfuric and Nitric Acid Plants
Part 225.1
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
21
-------
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
9) The rule contains an alternative approach for compliance
(e.g., variable or multiple limits among a number of
affected sources) where the emission limits which apply to
each affected sources are a) unclear, b) the period of time
and length of time the alternate limits are in effect are
unclear, c) there is no requirement for the source to notify
the regulatory agency prior to changes in the applicable
emission limit, and/or d) the rule does not contain
continuous monitoring requirements that enable EPA to verify
that all sources are in compliance with an applicable limit
scenario.
10) The rule contains an alternative approach other then
alternative emission limits (e.g., load derating) and it
does not clearly state the method of determining continuous
compliance.
22
-------
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
Types of Sources
Fuel composition and use
Part 227
Types of Deficiencies
1) The rule does not clearly specify which sources are
subject to it.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; CEM is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
23
-------
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
Types of Sources . .
Stationary combustion sources
24
-------
PUERTO RICO - Puerto Rico regulations establish source
specific rules which are then applicable to other general rules
describing source monitoring, record keeping, reporting, sampling
and test methods, air pollution emergencies, air pollution
control equipment, permits and compliance plans. These source
specific rules-sometimes contain phrases such as "comply to
applicable rules in this regulation." these *catch all phrases7
are assumed to be used in order to hold a source accountable in
cases where it is not clearly stated. However, these phrases are
unclear and can add confusion to the regulations.
Types of Deficiencies
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
9) The rule contains an alternative approach for compliance
(e.g., variable or multiple limits among a number of
affected sources) where the emission limits which-apply to
each affected sources are a) unclear, b) the period of time
and length of time the alternate limits are in effect are
unclear, c) there is no requirement for the source to notify
the regulatory agency prior to changes in the applicable
emission limit, and/or d) the rule does not contain
continuous monitoring requirements that enable .EPA to verify
that all sources are in compliance with an applicable limit
scenario.
10) The rule contains an alternative compliance approach
other then alternative emission limits (e.g., load derating)
but it does not clearly state the method of determining
continuous compliance.
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
25
-------
VIRGIN ISLANDS -
Types of deficiencies
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; CEM is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
9) The rule contains an alternative approach for compliance
(e.g., variable or multiple limits among a number of
affected sources) where the emission limits which apply to
each affected sources are a) unclear, b) the period of time
and length of time the alternate limits are in effect are
unclear, c) there is no requirement for the source to notify
the regulatory agency prior to changes in the applicable
emission limit, and/or d) the rule does not contain
continuous monitoring requirements that enable EPA to verify
that all sources are in compliance with an applicable limit
scenario.
26
-------
10) The rule contains an alternative compliance approach
other then alternative emission limits (e.g., load derating)
but it does not clearly state the method of determining
continuous compliance.
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
27
-------
REGION III - For more detailed information and comments see
Appendix C
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA - Title 20.(201,204,505,602)
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 2 4-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; CEM is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
28
-------
for at least 2 years).
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
29
-------
DELAWARE - Rule VIII
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 2 4-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
Rule IX
•
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
30
-------
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
Rule X
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
31
-------
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
Rule XVII
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data)'. Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
32
-------
MARYLAND - Rule 26.11.(.01,.06f.08,.09f.10,.14)
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. .For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 2 4-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data)-. Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
33
-------
PENNSYLVANIA --Rule 25IC-III-123.(21,11,12,15, )
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 2 4-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
Types of Sources
Combustion sources
Coke ovens
Rule 25IC-III-129.10
Types of Deficiencies
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
Rule 25IC-III-139.1
Types of Deficiencies
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
34
-------
VIRGINIA - Rule 4 (4,8,9,11,13,16,18,19,21,22)
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; ox fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; CEM is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
Types of Sources
Combustion sources
Coke ovens
Petroleum refineries
Kraft pulp mills
Cement plants
Smelter
Sulfuric acid plant
Sulfur recovery plant
Other process sources
35
-------
WEST VIRGINIA - Rule 45-16-20X
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule doe's not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.'g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; GEM is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance' on a 30-day average
but that might not- be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not"include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
36
-------
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
Types of Sources
Combustion sources
37
-------
REGION IV - For more detailed information and comments see
Appendix C
ALABAMA - Rule 335-3-5-(.03,.01,.02,.03)
Types of Deficiencies
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method,-but no frequency for
testing is specified,- or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; CEM is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
38
-------
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
39
-------
FLORIDA - Rule 17-2.600(5,6,2)
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 2 4-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; CEM is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
Types of Sources
Combustion sources
Sulfuric acid plant
40
-------
GEORGIA - Rule 391-3-1(1)(i,iv,V,)
Types of Deficiencies
1) The rule does not clearly specify which sources are
subject to it.
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; CEM is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified* in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
41
-------
for at least 2 years).
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
13) The SIP for the State has not been federally approved
or it is unclear as to whether it has been approved.
42
-------
KENTUCKY - Rule 401-59:(015,035)
Types of Deficiencies
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on 'format and frequency of data reporting
(e..g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
Types of Sources
Indirect heat exchanger
Sulfuric acid plant
Rule 401-61:005
• •
Types of Deficiencies
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g.,. the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
Types of Sources
Indirect heat exchanger
Sulfuric acid plant
Natural gas processing
Coke ovens
43
-------
NORTH CAROLINA - Rule 2D.(0501,0516,0517,0527)
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.•
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; GEM.is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
.acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
9) The rule contains an alternative approach for compliance
(e.g., variable or multiple limits among a number of
affected sources) where the emission limits which apply to
each affected sources are a) unclear, b) the period of time
and length of time the alternate limits are in effect are
unclear, c) there is no requirement for the source to notify
the regulatory agency prior to changes in the applicable
emission limit, and/or d) the rule does not contain
continuous monitoring requirements that enable EPA to verify
that all sources are in compliance with an applicable limit
scenario.
10) The rule contains an alternative compliance approach
other then alternative emission limits (e.g., load derating)
44
-------
but it does not clearly state the method of determining
continuous compliance.
Types of Sources
Combustion sources
Sulfuric acid plants
Spodumene ore roasting
45
-------
SOUTH CAROLINA - Rule 62.5-1-III
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 2 4-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; CEM is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data,' recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
•to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
46
-------
9) The rule contains an alternative approach for compliance
(e.g., variable or multiple limits among a number of
affected sources) where the emission limits which apply to
each affected sources are a) unclear, b) the period of time
and length of time the alternate limits are in effect are
unclear, c) there is no requirement for the source to notify
the regulatory agency prior to changes in the applicable
emission limit, and/or d) the rule does not contain
continuous monitoring requirements that enable EPA to verify
that all sources are in compliance with an applicable limit
scenario.
10) The rule contains an alternative compliance approach
other then alternative emission limits (e.g., load derating)
but it does not clearly state the method of determining
continuous compliance.
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
47
-------
MISSISSIPPI - Rule APC-S-1-4
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging tine (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; CEM is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
48
-------
9) The rule contains an alternative approach for compliance
(e.g., variable or multiple limits among a number of
affected sources) where the emission limits which apply to
each affected sources are a) unclear, b) the period of time
and length of time the alternate limits are in effect are
unclear, c) there is no requirement for the source to notify
the regulatory agency prior to changes in the applicable
emission limit, and/or d) the rule does not contain
continuous monitoring requirements that enable EPA to verify
that all sources are in compliance with an applicable limit
scenario.
10) The rule contains an alternative compliance approach
other then alternative emission limits (e.g., load derating)
but it does not clearly state the method of determining
continuous compliance.
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
49
-------
TENNESSEE - Rule 1200-3-10.02(1)(c)(2)
Types of Deficiencies
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
Rule 3-14-.03(4)
Types of Deficiencies
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
50
-------
REGION V
ILLINOIS - Has no SIP for sources in the MMA for Chicago and
East St. Louis.
13) The SIP for the State has not been federally approved
or it is unclear as to whether it has been approved.
SECTION 214 - Sulfur Dioxide Rules
Types of Deficiencies
1) The rule does not clearly specify which sources are
subject to it.
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; CEM is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
9) The rule contains an alternative approach for compliance
(e.g., variable or multiple limits among a number of
affected sources) where the emission limits which apply to
each affected sources are a) unclear, b) the period of time
and length of time the alternate limits are in effect are
unclear, c) there is no requirement for the source to notify
the regulatory agency prior to changes in the applicable
51
-------
emission limit, and/or d) the rule does not contain
continuous monitoring requirements that enable EPA to verify
that all sources are in compliance with an applicable limit
scenario.
10) The rule contains an alternative compliance approach
other then alternative emission limits (e.g., load derating)
but it does not clearly state the method of determining
continuous compliance.
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
Types of Sources
Combustion Sources
Process Sources
52
-------
INDIANA - 326 I AC
Types of Deficiencies
1) The rule does not clearly specify which sources are
subject to it.
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; CEM is feasible but is not
required). .
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
9) The rule contains an alternative approach for compliance
(e.g., variable or multiple limits among a number of
affected sources) where the emission limits which apply to
each affected sources are a) unclear, b) the period of time
and length of time the alternate limits are in effect are
unclear, c) there is no requirement for the source to notify
the regulatory agency prior to changes in the applicable
emission limit, and/or d) the rule does not contain
continuous monitoring requirements that enable EPA to verify
that all sources are in compliance with an applicable limit
scenario.
53
-------
10) The rule contains an alternative compliance approach
other then alternative emission limits (e.g., non
simultaneous operations) but it does not clearly state the
method of determining continuous compliance.
54
-------
MICHIGAN - 401, 402, 403
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; CEM is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
55
-------
MINNESOTA - 417, 418
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected, (because there is no averaging time in the
rule).
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; CEM is feasible but is not
required).
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for*
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
56
-------
OHIO
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
5) The rule does not -provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; CEM is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
57
-------
WISCONSIN - Has submitted a SIP but it has not been approved
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time'in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; CEM is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
13) The SIP for the State has not been federally approved
or it is unclear as to whether it has been approved.
58
-------
REGION VI - For Detailed review and comments see Appendix C
ARKANSAS - Section 7
Type of Deficiencies
1) The rule does not clearly specify which sources are
subject to it.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time arid/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; CEM is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
Rule - Section 8
Type of Deficiencies
1) The rule does not clearly specify which sources are
subject to it.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
59
-------
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; GEM is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
60
-------
LOUISIANA - Chapter 15
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging tine (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; CEM is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not Be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
Types of Sources
Sulfuric acid plant
Sulfur recovery operations
Kraft pulp mills
Petroleum refineries
Smelters
61
-------
NEW MEXICO - Rule 602
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and.24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
9) The rule contains an alternative approach for compliance
(e.g., variable or multiple limits among a number of
affected sources) where the emission limits which apply to
each affected sources are a) unclear, b) the period of time
and length of time the alternate limits are in effect are
unclear, c) there is no requirement for the source to nptify
the regulatory agency prior to changes in the applicable
emission limit, and/or d) the rule does not contain
continuous monitoring requirements that enable EPA to verify
that all sources are in compliance with an applicable limit .
scenario.
Types of Sources
Combustion sources
Rule - 701.H ** Note this is not SIP approved but allows
variances from State enforcement **
Types of Deficiencies
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
62
-------
Types of Sources
Combustion sources
Rule - 605
Types "of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable*
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; GEM is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
63
-------
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
Types of Sources
Combustion sources
Rule - 651 (New version Submitted as a SIP revision)
Types of Deficiencies
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 2 4-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
Types of Sources
Sulfuric acid plants
Rule 652
Type of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
64
-------
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
9) The rule contains an alternative approach for compliance
(e.g./ variable or multiple limits among a number of
affected sources) where the emission limits which apply to
each affected sources are a) unclear, b) the period of time
and length of time the alternate limits are in effect are
unclear, c) there is no requirement for the source to notify
the regulatory agency prior to changes in the applicable
emission limit, and/or d) the rule does not contain
continuous monitoring requirements that enable EPA to verify
that all sources are in compliance with an applicable limit
scenario.
65
-------
OKLAHOMA - Rule 3.4(b)
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in"the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; GEM is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting dataj. Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
Types of Sources
Natural gas processing
Sulfuric acid plants
Combustion sources
Sulfur recovery operations
Smelters
Rule 3.4 (c)
Types of Deficiencies
66
-------
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; GEM is feasible but is not
required).
•
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging*times.
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
Types of Sources
Natural gas processing
Sulfuric acid plants
Combustion sources
Sulfur recovery operations
Smelters
67
-------
TEXAS - Rule 2
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging tine (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; GEM is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
68
-------
9) The rule contains an alternative approach for compliance
(e.g., variable or multiple limits among a number of
affected sources) where the emission limits which apply to
each affected sources are a) unclear, b) the period of time
and length of time the alternate limits are in effect are
unclear, c) there is no requirement for the source to notify
the regulatory agency prior to changes in the applicable
emission limit, and/or d) the rule does not contain
continuous monitoring requirements that enable EPA to verify
that all sources are in compliance with an applicable limit
scenario.
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
Types of Sources
Combustion sources
Sulfuric acid plants
Sulfur recovery operations
Smelters
69
-------
REGION VII - For detailed review and comments see Appendix C
IOWA - Rule 23.3 (3,4)
Types of Deficiencies
1) The rule does not clearly specify which sources are
subject to it.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention ('e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
Types of Sources
Combustion sources
70
-------
KANSAS - Rule 28-19[12,22(A,B,C),31(0),32(D)
Types of Deficiencies
1) -The rule does not clearly specify which sources are
subject to it.
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) .The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
7.) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g./ quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site, and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
Types of Sources
Combustion sources
Indirect heat exchanger
Sulfuric acid plants
Smelters
71
-------
MISSOURI - Rule 10CRS10-3.100[3(A),4(A)]
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
Rule - 10CRS10-4-150
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
Rule - 10CRS10-5-150
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
Rule - 10CRS5.110(2)(C)(2)
Types of Deficiencies
9) The rule contains an alternative approach for compliance
(e.g., variable or multiple limits among a number of
affected sources) where the emission limits which apply to
each affected sources are a) unclear, b) the period of time
and length of time the alternate limits are in effect are
unclear, c) there is no requirement for the source to notify
the regulatory agency prior to changes in the applicable
emission limit, and/or d) the rule does not contain
continuous monitoring requirements that enable EPA to verify
that all sources are in compliance with an applicable limit
scenario.
10) The rule contains an alternative compliance approach
other then alternative emission limits (e.g., load derating)
but it does not clearly state the method of determining
continuous compliance.
Types of Sources
Combustion sources
72
-------
NEBRASKA - Chapter 19
Types of Deficiencies
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
•
Rule # ??
Types of Deficiencies
1) The rule does not clearly specify which sources are
subject to it.
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
Types of Sources
Combustion sources
73
-------
REGION 8
In general, the S02 regulations in the six Region VIII
states were deficient in several of the requirements for
enforceable regulations, including lack of specified test
methods, lack of recordkeeping and reporting requirements,
ambiguous emission limits, and emission limit averaging times
which were not protective of the 3 hr NAAQS.
COLORADO - Rule l.IV.(A-I)
Types of Deficiencies
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; GEM is feasible but is riot
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
GEMS Requirements
Rule - VI.(A,B,C,D)
Types of Deficiencies
1) The rule does not clearly specify which sources are
subject to it.
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
74
-------
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
•
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies of does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
75
-------
MONTANA - Rule 16.8.(1411,1412,1413,1414)
Types of Deficiencies
1) The rule does not clearly specify which sources are
subject to it.
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in 'the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
9) The rule contains an alternative approach for compliance
(e.g., variable or multiple limits among a number of
affected sources) where the emission limits which apply to
each affected sources are a) unclear, b) the period of time
and length of time the alternate limits are in effect are
76
-------
unclear, c) there is no requirement for the source to notify
the regulatory agency prior to changes in the applicable
emission limit, and/or d) the rule does not contain
continuous monitoring requirements that enable EPA to verify
that all sources are in compliance with an applicable limit
scenario.
10) The rule contains an alternative compliance approach
other then alternative emission limits (e.g., load derating)
but it does not clearly state the method of determining
continuous compliance.
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
Types of Sources
Combustion sources
Sulfur recovery operations
Smelters
Kraft pulp mills
Rule 16.8.704
Types of Deficiencies
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; GEM is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
GEM Requirements
77
-------
NORTH DAKOTA - Rule 33-15-06(.01,.02,.03)
Types of Deficiencies
1) The rule does not clearly specify which sources are
subject to it.
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; OEM is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
78
-------
Types of Sources
Combustion sources
Industrial processes
79
-------
SOUTH DAKOTA - Rule 74:26:07:(01,02,03)
Types of Deficiencies
1) The rule does not clearly specify which sources are
subject to it.
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; GEM is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
80
-------
for at least 2 years).
Types of Sources
Combustion sources
81
-------
UTAH -SO, requirements for Utah County and Davis/Salt lake
Counties are in the PM-10 SIP, which has not been formally
submitted to EPA at this time.
Rule UACR 4.2
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
Types of Sources
Combustion sources
Rule UACR 4.6
Types of Deficiencies
82
-------
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that'demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
Types of Sources
GEMS Requirements
PM-10 SIP
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
Types of Sources
Combustion sources
Industrial Process
Refineries
Asphalt Plants
Smelters
83
-------
WYOMING - Rule 4.((b)-(h))
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but tHe
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; CEM is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data recordkeeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
9) The rule contains an alternative approach for compliance
(e.g., variable or multiple limits among a number of
affected sources) where the emission limits which apply to
each affected sources are a) unclear, b) the period of time
and length of time the alternate limits are in effect are
unclear, c) there is no requirement for the source to notify
the regulatory agency prior to changes in the applicable
84
-------
emission limit, and/or d) the rule does not contain
continuous monitoring requirements that enable EPA to verify
that all sources are in compliance with an applicable limit
scenario.
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provisioti for EPA review.
13) The SIP for the State has not been federally approved
or it is unclear as to whether it has been approved.
Types of Sources
Combustion sources
Sulfuric acid plant
85
-------
REGION IX - Region IX's review has not been completed at this
point but will be completed and included in the Yellow Book in
the future.
86
-------
REGION X - This is a partial review for Region X, there review
will be completed in the future.
ALASKA - Rule 18.50.(0050,.010)
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the. NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
9) The rule contains an alternative approach for compliance
(e.g., variable or multiple limits among a number of
affected sources) where the emission limits which apply to
each affected sources are a) unclear, b) the period of time
and length of time the alternate limits are in effect are
unclear, c) there is no requirement for the source to notify
the regulatory agency prior to changes in the applicable
emission limit, and/or d) the rule does not contain
continuous monitoring requirements that enable EPA to verify
that all sources are in compliance with an applicable limit
scenario.
10) The rule contains an alternative compliance approach
other then alternative emission limits (e.g., load derating)
but it does not clearly state the method of determining
continuous compliance.
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
87
-------
Types of Sources
Combustion sources
Process sources
88
-------
IDAHO - Has a Substantially inadequate SIP.
Section .01.(.1561-1355,.1801-.1804,.167-.1662)
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging tine (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
•
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; GEM is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous-compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not.be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
9) The rule contains an alternative approach for compliance
(e.g., variable or multiple limits among a number of
affected sources) where the emission limits which apply to
each affected sources are a) unclear, b) the period of time
and length of time the alternate limits are in effect are
unclear, c) there is no requirement for the source to notify
the regulatory agency prior to changes in the applicable
emission limit, and/or d) the rule does not contain
continuous monitoring requirements that enable EPA to verify
that all sources are in compliance with an applicable limit
scenario.
89
-------
10) The rule contains an alternative compliance approach
other then alternative emission limits (e.g., load derating)
but it does not clearly state the method of determining
continuous compliance.
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
13) The SIP for the State has not been federally approved
or it is unclear as to whether it has been approved.
Types of Sources
Combustion sources
Process sources
90
-------
OREGON - Chapter 340 division 22
Types of Deficiencies
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; CEM is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
9) The rule contains an alternative approach for compliance
(e.g., variable or multiple limits among a number of
affected sources) where the emission limits which apply to
each affected sources are a) unclear, b) the period of time
and length of time the alternate limits are in effect are
unclear, c) there is no requirement for the source to notify
the regulatory agency prior to changes in the applicable
emission limit, and/or d) the rule does not contain
continuous monitoring requirements that enable EPA to verify
that all sources are in compliance with an applicable limit
scenario.
10) The rule contains an alternative compliance approach
other then alternative emission limits (e.g., load derating)
but it does not clearly state the method of determining
continuous compliance.
91
-------
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
Types of Sources
Combustion sources
Process sources •
92
-------
WASHINGTON - Regulation 1-9.07,(463-39,172,173)
Types of Deficiencies
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Ref. Method 6, Stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no frequency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling; GEM is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reporting data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with shorter term
averaging times.
11) The rule contains director's discretionary authority
without provision for EPA review.
Types of Sources
Combustion sources
Process sources
93
-------
Appendix A
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
\ -\'f~^ Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1
*'««
NOV 2 8 I990
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: S02 SIP Deficiency Checklist
FROM: Robert D. Bauman, Chief \ffi
S02/Particulate Matter Programs Branch, AQMD (MD-15)
Rich Biondi, Chief )faL
Technical Support Branch, SSCD (EN-341)
TO: Air Branch Chiefs
Regions I-X
As you know, the Sulfur Dioxide Programs Section (SDPS) is engaged in an
effort to identify S02 State implementation plans (SIP's) that have
deficiencies in enforceability. We hope to have these deficiencies identified
and corrected, or at least have schedules for their correction before the
Operating Permits Program in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 is
effective. Because the Operating Permits Program will initially codify
underlying SIP requirements, it is important that the underlying SIP is
enforceable so that permits themselves will be enforceable. This should
prevent a larger future effort to correct all of the source-specific permits
that have codified deficient requirements.
The first phase of this effort included highlighting the review of the
States' SIP's and submission of schedules for correction of the deficient
SIP's in the 1991 STARS and grant guidance. The review of the SOo SIP's will
be the first step in developing a "Yellow Book" patterned after tne ozone
"Blue Book." The schedule for completion of the draft of the "Yellow Book" is
December 31, 1990 with the final version ready in mid-January 1991 so that it
will be available for use in the fiscal year 1992 grant negotiations. The
STARS measures require the Regions to submit schedules for correcting
deficient SIP's in the second and third quarters. This is expected to be
followed by a nationwide SIP call in the summer of 1991 for States that have
not committed to corrections by this time.
As part of the review effort, the Sulfur Dioxide/Particulate Matter
Programs Branch of the Air Quality Management Division (AQMD), and the
Technical Support Branch of the Stationary Source Compliance Division (.SSCD),
agreed to work together to produce a more explicit checklist that the Regions
could use in their reviews to determine SIP enforceability. Subsequently, a
conference call was held on November 1, 1990 to discuss draft criteria for S02
-------
ATTACHMENT
S02 SIP ENFORCEABILITY REFERENCES AND CHECKLIST
REFERENCES (see citation listing on page 5)
Ref #1, Pg. 2 of attachment, "Applicability It should be clear as to
whom the regulation applies."
1. Does rule clearly specify sources subject to rule?
REFERENCES
Ref 11, Pgs 3 & 4, "Standard of Conduct 'alternative equivalent
technique' provisions should not be approved without clarification
concerning the time period" "Compliance Periods SIP rules should
describe explicitly the compliance timeframe associated with each
emission limit"...."Test Methods.....The allowable averaging times should
be explicit. Both the test method and averaging times employed must be
sufficient to protect the ambient standard involved."
1
2. Does rule clearly specify applicable averaging time associated with
emission limitations?
REFERENCES
Same as for #2 above.
3. Is averaging time in rule consistent with protection of the NAAQS (e.g.,
3-hr or 24-hr average, dependent on controlling standard)?
REFERENCES
Same as for #2 above.
4. Does rule have compliance test methodologies consistent with the
averaging time and units of the applicable emission limitations (e.g., if
rule specifies Ib/hr limitation based on 1-hr average, the compliance
method must be capable of calculating and reporting Ib/hr values)?
REFERENCES
Section HO(a)(2)(F)(1i) of CAA of 1977, SIP contains "requirements for
installation of equipment by owners or operators of stationary sources to
monitor emissions from such sources, (ill) for periodic reports on the
nature and amounts of such emissions" (6)(j) "as a condition for
issuance of any permit required under this title, the owner or operator
of each new or modified....must show to the satisfaction of the
permitting authority that the technological system of continuous emission
reduction which is to be$u£d " 40 CFR 51.20, "Each plan must provide
for monitoring the status of compliance with any rules and regulations
that set forth any portion of the control strategy". ....51.214(a), "The
plan must contain legally enforceable to - (1) Require stationary sources
subject to emission standards as part of an applicable plan to install,
calibrate, maintain, the operate equipment for continuously monitoring
and recording emissions " Ref #2, Pg 2, "Policy, CEMS (continuous
emission monitoring system) should be used to assure continuous
-------
sources addressed In the rule): (a) is It clear which limits apply to
each affected source prior to the timeframe in question; (b) is it clear
that such limits, once selected, apply to each source for the entire
duration of the reporting period; (c) does it require source notification
or request from the agency prior to the effective timeframe; and (d) does
it require CEMS (or some other continuous monitoring system), which are
always available, to'assure acquisition of sufficient data to determine
each source's compliance status under all alternative conditions?
REFERENCES
Same as in #9 above.
10. If the rule contains an Alternative Approach which contains features
other than alternative emission limits (e.g., load derating), does it
clearly state the method of determining compliance on a continuing basis
(e.g., reporting hourly MM load or steam flow)?
REFERENCES
This issue is being addressed through a separate work group. Decisions
reached in that context will be directly applicable here.
11. Does the rule contain director's discretionary authority? Director's
discretion should be highlighted and disapproved in accordance with
forthcoming guidance.
12. Section 123 deficiencies; including compliance with the 1985 regulations,
sources affected by the remand and ICS.
-------
REFERENCES FOR S02 SIP ENFORCEABILITY CHECKLIST
1. Policy Memorandum - "Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions
for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency," 0. C. Potter, T. L. Adams,
Jr., and F. S. Blake, September 23, 1987.
2. Policy Memorandum - "Transmittal of Reissued OAQPS CEMS Policy," G. A.
Emison, March 31, 1988.
3. Policy Memorandum - "Supplementary Guidance - SO? Continuous Compliance
Strategy (July 5, 1988)," J. S. Seitz, October 21, 1988.
4. 40 CFR Part 51, Promulgated Policy Statement - "Air Pollution Control:
Recommendation for Alternative Emission Reduction Options Within State
Implementation Plans," December 11, 1979.
-------
Appendix B
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
2 3 1987
MSXOP.AND'JM
SC3J2CT: Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions
foe Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency
FROM: Michael S. Alushin
Associate Enforcement Counsel
for Air Enforcement
Alan W. Eckert _ _
Associate Genera*! coTTnsel
Air and Radiation Division
John S. Seitz, Director
Stationary Source Compliai
Office of Air..Quality Placing and Standards
TO: Addressees
This is to provide implementing guidance on the memorandum
issued by J. Craig Potter/ Thomas Adams and Francis Blake
on this date relating to review of SIP plans and revisions
for enforceability and legal sufficiency. We urge you to
provide copies of these memoranda to your State Agency Directors.
Applicability
This guidance applies to all SIP proposals which have
not completed the state or local, agency legal and procedural
requirements for SIPs. For proposals that have not yet
been submitted to the Regional office for action/ the state
and local agencies have forty-five (45) days from the date
of this guidance to submit such proposals for review in order
for the proposal to be considered under previous procedures.
SIP packages currently in Headquarters will undergo the usual
review but will be returned to *the Regions if they contain
deficiencies which raise significant questions as to whether
the regulation would be enforceable.
Enforceability Criteria
The notion of enforceability encompasses several concepts.
At the most basic level, a regulation mus~t be within the statutory
authority of the promulgating"agency. For example, some states
have statutory restrictions or prohibitions on the promulgation
of regulations more restrictive than the federal counterpart.
(b-i-i
-------
-3-
• Standard of Conduct
The regulation must be sufficiently specific so that a
source is fairly on notice as to the standard it must meet.
For example, "alternative equivalent technique" provisions
should not be approved without clarification concerning the
time period over which equivalency is measured as well as
whether the equivalency applies on a per source or per line
basis or is facility wide.
• Incorporation by Reference
Some federal regulations are inappropriate for adoption
by reference. For example, a state intending to enforce PSD
regulations adopted by reference must adopt 40 C.P.R. 552.21,
not 40 C.F.R. SSI.166, as only the former is written in a form
imposing obligations on permit applicants. Even then, changes
may have to be made to take into account the difference between
the State's situation and EPA's.
• Transfer Efficiency
Some states have attempted to provide particular VOC
sources with relaxations of compliance limits in return for
improvements in the efficiency with which the sources use the
pollutant producing material. Any rules allowing transfer
efficiency to be-used in determining compliance must be explicit
as to when and under what circumstances a source may use improved
transfer efficiency as a substitute for meeting the SIP limit.
Such provisions must state whether EPA approval is required on
a case-by-case basis. Also, such provisions may not simply.
reference the NSPS auto coating tables for the transfer
efficiency. The improvement should be demonstrated through
testing and an appropriate test method should be set forth.
Implied improvements noted by the NSPS auto coating TE
table are not to be accepted at face, value.
0 Compliance Periods
SIP rules should describe explicitly the.compliance time
frame associated with each emission limit (e.g. instantaneous,
—stack test, 3 hour average or dally). The Regions should not
assume that a lack of specificity implies instantaneous compliance.
The time frame or method employed must be sufficient to protect
the standard involved.
•
'"• Equivalency Provisions and Discretionary Emission Limits
Certain provisions allow sources to comply via "bubbles"
oc "alternate equivalent techniaues" or through mechanisms
"as approved by the Director." These provisions must make it
-------
-5- ,
Please contact the appropriate staff attorney in the Office
of General 'Counsel or the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring should you have any questions concerning issues of
enforceability in particular instances. Please contact Tom
Helms, OAQPS, 'PTS-629-5526, for other questions concerning
implementation of this guidance.
Attachment
Addressees:
Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
Regional Counsels
Regions I-X
Air Management Division Directors
Regions 1, 111 and IX
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region ZZ
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
Directors
Regions ZV and 71 .
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region 7
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions 7XX, 7IIZ and X
cc: Deputy Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
Regional Counsel
Air Contacts
Regions I-X
Air Compliance Branch Chiefs
Regions XX, III, 17, 7, 71, IX
Air Program Branch Chiefs
Regions I-X
Darryl Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Gerald Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards
6-1-3
-------
APPOVABILITY CHECKLIST- ENFORCEABILITY
SIP Package No. Date Rec.
I
STATE: 11. _L .^ '
•
Subject Matter: '
Attachment
Date Due
(Specific Provision and Description)
Enforceabilitv Analysis state Submittal
1. Applicability
i
a. What sources are being
regulated?
b. What are criteria for
exemption?
c. Is calculation
procedure for exemption
clearly specified?
d. Is emission Inventory
listed in the
background document
of the attainment
demonstration?
(list responses)
EPA Requirement
Clarity
Clarity
Example calculation or
clear explanation of
how to determine
exemption (line by line,
etc.
Inventory including
allowable and actual
emissions in source
category should be
included, for enforce-
ment purposes and
independent of any Clean
Air Act requirements,
in the attainment demon-
stration if such data is
necessary for determin-
ing baselines in regula-
tions.
Approvability (Approvable or N
-------
trceabillty Analysis
h. If there is a redesigna-
tion; will this change
the emission limita-
tions? If yes, which
ones and how?
2. Compliance Dates
a. What is compliance
date?
b. What is the attainment
date?
&>
i
3. Specificity of Conduct
a. What test method is
required?
b. What is the averaging
time in compliance
test method?
c. Is a compliance
calculation or
evaluation required?
(i.e., daily weighted
average for VOC).
d. If yes to "c," list
the formula, period of
rwnnl I -»••«'»•« - • t '
State Submittal
EPA Requirement
Regulation may not
automatically allow for
self nullification upon
redesignatlon of area
to attainment. New
maintenance demonstra-
tion required in order
to drop regulation.
Must not be later than
approved or about to
be approved date of •
attainment unless
emission reductions not
necessary for attain-
ment. In some cases,
it will be necessary
for the regulation to
specify dates in compli-
ance schedules that are
required to be submitted
by source to state.
Test method must be
explicitly stated.
Averaging time and
application of limit
must be explicit.
Formula must be
explicit-..
Approvabil i tv (Ap, yahle or
-------
Enforceabilitv Analysis
State Submittal
RPA Requirement
Approvabilitv (Approvable or Not)
6. Exemptions
a. List any exemptions
allowed.
b. is the criteria* for
application clear?
7. Malfunction Provisions
Must be clearly defined
and distinguishable from
what constitutes a
violation.
Rule must specify what
exceedances nay be
excused, how the
standard is to be
applied, and who makes
the determination.
-------
1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
. WASHINGTON. O.C. 204«0
•
JUN 2 I S82
OFFICE OF
Alfl. NOISE AND flAOIATlCN
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Definition of "Continuous Compliance*
and Enforcement of O&M Violations
P«OM» Kathleen M. Bennett
Assistant Administratoc^sor Air, Noise and Radiation
<"
V-v-»'
TO i Directors « Air and Waste '•nagenent Divisions v
Regions I -IV, VI -VI 1 1 and X
Directors, Air Management Divisions
Regions V and IX
The purpose of this memo is to provide you with some general
programmatic guidance as to the meaning of the term "continuous
compliance" and the role of operation and . maintenance (O&M)
requirements in assuring that continuous compliance is maintained.
Of course, source specific guidance on O&M measures which can
assure continuous compliance is an essential part of this program
and this memorandum is -not intended to substitute for such
guidance. As you know, DSSE has undertaken a number of
initiatives related to the continuous compliance effort and we
hope to discuss the progress of those efforts with you at the
upcoming workshop at Sou-th<3£2 ?inee . DSSE will be forwarding to
you an updated sumtc&r? cf th- .s -.ctivicies prior to the workshop*
However, given the coaticcing a««snticn being given to
"continuous compliance," Z think it would be helpful to have a
common understanding of what that concept entails*
In the strict legal sense, sources are required to meet,
without interruption, all applicable emission limitations and
other control requirements, unless such limitations specifically
provide otherwise. However, of primary concern to the Agency are
those violations that could have been prevented, through the
'Installation of proper control eqvipzr.snt aad the operation and
maintenance of that equipment in accordance with proper
procedures. We believe the concept of continuous compliance is
essentially the avoidance of preventable excess emissions over
time as a result of the proper design, operation and maintenance
of an air pollution source. .This includes avoidance of
preventable inatancea of excess emissions, minimization of
6-;--?
-------
""V
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY r
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 27711
4 I99I
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: FY 1993 Budget Priorities
FROM: ohn s- Seitz,
ffice of Air Quality Planning al^fl, standards (MD-10)
TO: Michael Shapiro, Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation (ANR-443)
•
Attached is the OAQPS input into .the forthcoming discussion
on FY93 OAR budget priorities. The themes, priorities and
initiatives listed are "fresh" from our meeting in Southern Pines
and represent a collective long-range planning effort of
Headquarters, Regional, State, and local air pollution control
professionals.
Three major themes emerged from our discussions that will
guide the development of our FY93 budget. The first theme,
focusing on accountability, monitoring and enforcement, will give
us the data we need to judge the success or failure of our
mandated programs. Such a focus includes providing the technical
tools (emissions factors, test methods, and data management
capabilities) to markedly improve our overall ability to
implement air pollution control programs and ensure their
integrity. Second, we will in FY93 expand our CAA implementation
efforts to include the development of the small business
technical assistance program, fixing regulatory problems such as
those affecting utilities, arid data collection for out year MACT
standards. The third theme of our discussions includes some
critical cross-cutting issues that require attention in FY93,
including technical training, further development of market-based
initiatives, characterization and control of NOX, and integrating
our regulatory activities across programs and titles.
Thanks again for your presence and support at the long-range
planning meeting. Lydia and I look forward to our discussion of
these priorities on March 8. Please call Dale Evarts at FTS 629-
5535 or leva Spons at FTS 629-0882 if you have any questions.
Attachment
cc: Lydia Wegman (MD-10)
Stan Meiburg (Region VI)
OAQPS Division Directors
Jerry Kurtzweg (ANR-443)
-------
FY93 BUDGET PRIORITIES FOR OAQPS
FY93 BUDGET THEMES:
• Accountability, monitoring and enforcement
- Ensure our ability to determine our success in implementation
• Provide technical tools (emissions factors, test methods, .data management
capabilities) to support implementation
• Program implementation
• Provide small business technical assistance
• Fix regulatory problems
- Collect data for out year program development
N
• Cross-cutting issues
- Technical training
•- Market-based initiatives
- NO,control
- Integration of regulatory activities
-------
FY93 BUDGET PRIORITIES/INITIATIVES:
SO2 INTEGRATION (Based upon SO2NAAQS ncL changing)
• Fix regulatory problems
• Nonattainment plans and rule corrections affecting utilities ("level the playing
field")
• Consistency for implementation of permit program (Phase n Acid rain permit
program)
• Establish monitoring network
• Support FY95 report on SO 2 emission projection •
- Make data management efforts consistent across SO2 NAAQS, acid rain, permit
program .
- Support implementation of Acid Sain phase n programs
• Provide tools for "regionalization"
- Test methods
• Nationally consistent guidance
• Model rules to facilitate SIP corrections
OZONE/CO
• Improve tracking of emissions reductions
- Upgrade and expand monitoring
- Ensure adequate emissions inventory
- Update/expand emissions factors
• Meet data management requirements
- Need to be tied permit program
• Provide support for market-based initiatives
- Integrate with MACT standard requirements
Enlist assistance from State/local agencies on rule development ("reverse enabling")
• Draw on State/local experience to develop model rules
-------
PM10
• Support better characterization of air quality
- Revise monitoring strategy
- Targeted, risk-oriented program
- Attempt to integrate with MACT standards (industry/facility basis)
- Characterize in FY91-92, begin to implement in FY93
• Establish better emissions inventories for modeling and tracking
• Develop better technical tools, support, and outreach
- Emissions factors
- Tap state experience to transfer successful efforts in implementing RACM/BACM
-Development of. model permits
AIR TOXICS
• Develop outyear MACT standards
- Data collection and analysis (Blanket use of Section 114 letters to solicit data)
- Coordinate with TSCA to use test results generated under Section 4
• Leverage State and industry experience, where possible
- For development of MACT standards
- For conduct of studies
OPERATING
• Establish consistent data-management system (integrated across tides)
- Emission inventories are essential to viable system
• Establish audit system for oversight
Develop test methods to tie in to Tide VH enforcement
- Continuous emissions monitoring
- Improve accountability and data management
-------
CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES
• Increase support for training (HQ/Region/State/Local)
• Leverage support from industry
• Ensure enforceable programs and regulations
- Expand enforcement efforts
• Implement small business techncial assistance program
•
- Exploit public/private partnerships
• Assess impact of NOZ
* .
• Significant for all major programs (e.g.,urban ozone, regional/global ozone, PM10,
acid rain)
- Support development of NOZNSPS
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JUL 5 1988
OFFICE OF
AIM AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Transmittal of SO2 Continuous Compliance/Strategy I
FROM: John S. Sertz, Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: Air Management Division Directors
^Regions I, III, and IX
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division
Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII, and X
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Attached is the final version of the SO2 Continuous
Compliance Strategy. As you may.recall, a draft compliance
strategy for SO2 sources was distributed for comment
May 1, 1987. Subsequently a draft SO2 Continuous Compliance
Strategy was circulated February 26, 1988. Based on the
comments received on these two documents this final strategy
emerged.
The latest Regional review (February 26th draft) indicated
only minimal changes were necessary. The decision point
table used to determine appropriate action for noncoapliers
~""flas been simplified and additional discussion has been added
concerning resource allocation procedures. Also, the overall
document has been streamlined somewhat and clarified as nucn
as possible.
-------
- 2 -
As discussed in the "Introduction", an approach is
presented for gathering and analyzing SO2 data in a nationally
consistent manner to help State/local agencies and Regional
Offices make decisions about nonconpliers. As such, it should
help agencies to allocate scarce resources more effectively.
Please note, that while the strategy is designed to provide
flexibility, any actions taken mist be consistent with all
applicable enforcement guidance. Bob Marshall (FTS 382-2862)
is SSCD's contact.
Attachment
-------
SO? CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
INTRODUCTION
This strategy provides State/local agencies and EPA
Regional Offices with guidance on making decisions about SO2
noncompliers. It divides SC>2 violators into two groups.
The first group consists of marginal noncompliers requiring
additional information before launching an enforcement action.
The second group are sources significantly out of compliance
for which an enforcement action should be considered.
Numerical percentages, related to degree of noncompliance are
used to indicate the appropriate type of follow-up action
(See DECISION POINTS AND RECOMMENDED FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS, p.4).
The strategy is specifically designed not to impose any
additional burdens; rather, its purpose is to ensure consistent,
efficient and effective utilization of existing SO2 compliance
resources. Current regulatory requirements are used to determine
excess emissions, averaging time, monitoring methods and
degree of violation. Previously issued guidance and standardized
procedures provide an adequate basis for fully implementing
this strategy. Specifically, any actions taken should be
consistent with the documents entitled "Timely and Appropriate
Enforcement Response Guidance" which was issued by the Office
of Air and Radiation on April 11, 1986, "Enforcement Applications
of Continuous Emission Monitoring Data" which was issued by
the Stationary Source Compliance Division and the Air Enforcement
Division on April 22, 1986; and, the "OAQPS CEMS Policy"
statement, which was reissued on March 31,'1988. Copies of
these guidance packages may be obtained by contacting the
Stationary Source Compliance Division.
This strategy does not change any underlying emission
standards or-requirements. It establishes no rights or
privileges for the regulated sources nor does it change the
definition of a violation. The goal for compliance remains
at 100 percent. Further, the level of compliance activity
identified by this strategy should be thought of as a
minimally acceptable program. Agencies are encouraged to
implement more rigorous activities as they deem appropriate.
-------
- 2 -
APPLICABILITY
This 'strategy applies to £asASO2 sources such as;
coal & oil-fired utility and inTSt»*rial boilers, smelters,
refineries, steel mills, sulfuric acid plants, and pulp
mills which are regulated by SIPs, HSPS or PSD/HSR permits.
DECISION POINTS FOR 'SO? NONCOMPLIERS
The data analysis table on page 4 provides numerical
decision points and recommended follow-up actions for different
types of compliance problems that may be identified by stack
test reports or self-reporting mechanisms. Stack test
reports, such as Method 6 for NSPS sources, clearly establish
the compli lance status of a source in a legally enforceable
form. Therefore, such a violating source should be immediately
ranked using the prioritization scheme described on page 4;
and, an active enforcement action initiated, if appropriate.
The three categories of self -monitor ing reports submitted
by sources are: 1) reports from 803 continuous emission
monitoring systems (GEMS), 2) fuel sampling and analysis
reports (FSA), and, 3) other reports, such as malfunction/bypass,
fuel supply or inspection data. Using information from these
reports, the percent of noncompliance is computed based on
the length of time in violation. Length of time refers either
to excursions above the regulatory limit or lack of monitoring
information due to data collection and/or transmission problems
(See page 3). The percent of noncompliance is then compared
to values in the table and the designated fol low-up actions
pursued. . :
As an example, consider a Subpart Da Electric Utility
steam generator that failed to meet the 1.2 Ibs/MM BTU emission
limit for one 24 hr. period (based on a 30 day rolling average).
Under the table heading "GEM AND/OR FSA IS THE EMISSION
COMPLIANCE METHOD" and subheading "EMISSION LIMIT EXCEEDED",
the percent of time is greater than 1% [i.e., 24 hr./ (90
days x 24 hr)= 1.1%]. Therefore, the source should be
scheduled for enforcement consistent with the prioritization
scheme developed on page 5. This does not mean an automatic
enforcement action must ensue, but it does place the source
in-line for future actions as resources may permit.
-------
- 3 -
It should- be noted that many of these sources would
qualify as significant violators should any violation be
determined to have occurred. Therefore, these decision
points should be used to identify SO2 significant violators.
Assuming a source meets the other criteria for such a
designation, these decision points delineate a degree of
noncompliance that would automatically place a source on the
significant violator list. Additionally, existing guidance
including J:hose^addressing federally reportable violations,
timely* & appropriate enforcement actions and SPMS committments
should be imposed
fo-VS"
-------
- 4 -
• DECISION POINTS AND RBCCWEHDED FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS
(Based on Charterly Data)
If the percent is less than that shown below, acquisition of more data is
recommended before proceeding with enforcement actions.
If the percent is greater than or equal to the numerical value below, a
prioritization procedure should be used to rank the importance of the violation
and then the designated enforcement activity initiated.
DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION
DECISION POINT
1. STACK
DATA
Emission Limit Exceeded
Proceed with enforcement
prioritization ranking.
2. GEMS AND/OR FSA IS THE EMISSION COMPLIANCE METHOD
(LT .» Length of Time}"
EMISSION LIMIT EXCEEDED
Formula: (LT In Violation/LT of Operation) x 100%
1%
EMISSION REDUCTION SHORTFALL \ 1%
rbrmula: Percent of tine not neeting emission reduction
requirement. Formula: (LT In Viol. /LT of Oper.) x 10OS
DMA ACQUISITION SHORTFALL, FOR IOC AVERAGING TIMES.
Formula: (LT of Data Inadequacy/LT of Operation) x 100%
DATA ACQUISITION SHORTFALL, EDR SHORT AVERBGINS TIMES.
Formula: (LT of Data Inadequao//LT of Operation) x 100%
5%
3. QMS AND/OR FSA. IS NOT EMISSION COMPLIANCE METHOD
(LT = Length of Time)
EMISSION LIMIT EXCEEDED
Formula; (LT In Violaticn/LT of Operation) x 100%
5%
EMISSION REDUCTION SHORTFALL 5%
Fornula: Percent of tine .not neeting emission reduction
requirement. Ebrmula: (LT In Viol./LT of Oper.) x 100%
DATA ACQUISITION SHORTFALL, K>R LOM3 AVERA3IN3 TT'IES.
Formula: (LT of Data Inadequacy/LT. of Operation) x 100%
5%
DATA ACQUISITION SHORTFALL, !DR SHORT AVERAGING TIMES.
Formula: (LT of Data Inadequacy/LT of Operation) x 100%
5%
'Data Acquisition shortfall reflects the percentage of time a source supplies data
not neeting the standards set by the applicable rule (e.g., if data rule requires
..onitor availability 22 of 30 days; then dat* acquisition sliortfall is the difference
n 22 days and the lesser nuntoer of days actually provided.)
-------
- 4a -
(LT « Length of Time)
EMISSION LIMIT EXCEfDrD
(Except Cqpper Smelters) 5%
Formula? (LT. In Violation/LT of Operation) x 100%
EMISSION LIMIT EXCEEDED
(Cqpper Sneltexs Only) 1%
Formula: (LT In Violatioa/LT of Operation) x 100%
-------
- 5 -
DATA COLLECTION
For those sources exhibiting performance less than the
indicated amount in the table, collection of more data is
recommended. Acquire more data means the source should be
contacted to determine the specific nature of the apparent
problem and the corrective action taken. Often clarification
of such problems can be achieved through informal means
(e.g., telephone) and additional review of existing data.
However, if the available data is not useful or conclusive,
then a more formal mechanism is indicated. Formal approaches
include using Section 114 of the Clean Air Act, or similar
state authority, conducting a monitor audit or an on-site
inspection. This formal approach should be consistent with the
priorities in the CMS strategy. Should an inspection be the
preferred mechanism, such inspection would be scheduled using
the "Compliance Monitoring Strategy for FY 89." Once the
data is collected and analyzed, the agency should determine
whether to proceed with an enforcement action.
ENFORCEMENT
The.requirement to initiate enforcement means that the
frequency of the violation is great enough that remedial
measures are appropriate. In this case, traditional
enforcement measures according to EPA's current practices
should be implemented. . }
Due to various limitations, an EPA Regional O.ffice or
• State/local agency may not be able to address all SO2
noncompliers immediately. Therefore, an enforcement
prioritization scheme should be developed. Since e\ach agency
has unique problems and commitments with respect to SO2»
a number of different approaches are permissible.
General considerations for any prioritization scheme
include:
• Air quality
" Konattainment vs. Attainment status
0 Potential emission reductions
* SPMS commitments
Inclusion of these general factors and their applicability
—*for prioritizing sources is left to each agency's discretion.
-------
- 6 -
Specific factors that can be used to prioritize SC>2
sources requiring remedial action include:
Source compliance history
Source's compliance rate compared to others
in its category.
Actual emission rate
Control technology limitations
O&M practices
Frequency and magnitude of the violations
These specific factors should be woven anto the overall
scheme developed under the general considerations. Each
agency should formulate it's own prioritization scheme as
soon as practicable.
In addition, sources designated by the chart on page 3
should be prioritized for inspection consistent with their
ranking under the CMS process. Any sources subsequently
inspected and found to be in violation should then be
prioritized for enforcement action consistent with existing
guidance. . The results are, of course, reported through the
Compliance Data System. 't
DATA BASE REQUIREMENTS
All data reported on an affected unit should be entered
into the appropriate data system following existing guidance
(i.e., enforcement actions in CDS and EER data in the GEMS
Subset of CDS). Guidance issued by SSCD on July 9, 1987
on the CEMS Subset and Attachment B to "Second Quarter FY 88
SPMS Reporting Instructions for the Stationary Source
Compliance Program", (March 15, 1988) provide instructions
on the input of unit-specific data, and the information to be
reported through the CEMS Subset.
SUMMARY
A strategy to maintain a high level of SO2 compliance
must be incorporated into each yearly planning cycle. It is
recognized that resource limitations effectively prevent an
aggressive follow-up to each and every violation. Therefore,
to more efficiently utilize EPA funding, this strategy has
been devised as a means to prioritize resource expenditures.
essence, very minor violations require only more data
collection rather than immediate enforcement actions. Other
violations are treated in a more traditional fashion.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
) • •*
X «*•«•*" ^*T .-^-'.*, .r.kr*~
SEP.2 3 1987 ,
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Review.of State Implementation Plans and Revisions
for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency
FROM: J. Craig Potter
Assistant Administrator *- >>^.-
for Air and Radiation /f 'J
Thomas L. Adams Jr.
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Monitoring
Francis S. Blak<
General Counsel
Office of General Counsel
•
TO: Addressees
One critical function that your offices perform is to
assure that regulations developed for stationary sources
by the States under the Clean Air Act are enforceable and
legally sufficient. Our regulations require that the state
implementation plans ("SIPs") must "be adopted as rules and
regulations enforceable (emphasis added) by the State agency"
(40 C.F.R. S51.281 (1987)). He are concerned that review of
SIPs for enforceability has not been receiving adequate atten-
tion. The Agency sometimes experiences difficulties in its
efforts to enforce the current rules because they are not
sufficiently clear. The Regional Offices are at the forefront
of the federal SIP approval process. The purpose of this
memorandum is to remind you of the importance of doing the
review necessary to assure that all SIP plans and revisions
are enforceable and in conformance with the Act. Please do not
forward for approval SIPs which fail to satisfy the enforce-
ability criteria7 in this memorandum.
Background
^4f Recent information indicates that the attention being paid
to SIP approvals is declining, particularly for enforceability.
The Office of General Counsel reviews regulations as to their
adequacy under applicable law and Agency policy, but not for
enforceability. This void is not being filled by other offices.
Often, the problems with enforcing the regulations are not
immediately obvious and only become known where a case or issue
focuses on the particular regulation. At the October 1986
6-4-1
-------
Annapolis meeting of Air Program Directors and Regional Counsel
Air Branch Chiefs, a number of problems in recent enforcement
cases due to difficulty in interpreting and enforcing regula-
tions were discussed. With the recent work being done to
address the nonattainment problem, it is even more critical
that regulations be clear and enforceable.
It is appropriate that the Regional air compliance staff
and the Regional Counsel's Office have primary responsibility
for this enforceability review because they have the most direct
experience in compliance and rule interpretation. They also
have resources allocated through their workload models specifi-
cally for SIP review.
Timing of Review
The Regions should try to review developing State SIP
provisions prior to final approval by the State, when the
provisions are at their most malleable stage. In line with
this, each Region should provide its States with a copy of the
implementing guidance associated with this memorandum and a
briefing which outlines the enforceability requirements for new
SIP submittals. If we provide the States with more explicit
guidance and make earlier contacts to resolve problems, we can
avoid instances where EPA is pressured to settle for a flawed
regulation only because it is better than its predecessor.
»
Enforceabilitv Criteria
Your review should ensure that the rules in question are
clearly worded an* explicit in their applicability to the
regulated sources. Vague, poorly defined rules must become a
thing of the past. SIP regulations that deviate from this
policy are to be disapproved pursuant to Section 110(a) of the
Clean Air Act, with appropriate references in the C.F.R. Speci-
fically, we are concerned that the following issues be directly
addressed. The rule should be clear as to who must comply and
by what date. The effect, if any, of changed conditions (e.g.,
cedesignation to attainment) should be set forth. The period
over which compliance is determined and the relevant test
method to be used should be explicitly noted. Provisions which
exempt facilities under certain sizes or emission levels must
identify explicitly how such size or level is determined.
Also, provisions which allow for "alternate equivalent techniques"
or "bubbles" or any other sort of variation of the normal mode
of compliance must be completely and explicitly defined and must
make clear whether or not EPA case-by-case approval is required
to make such a method of compliance federally effective.
-------
-3-
Conclusion
S*P*r«visions shou>d"'be wrifitSii^cleacly, with explicit
language td implement their intent. The plain language of all
rules,"as well as the related Federal Register notices/ should
be complete, clear and consistent with the intended purpose of
the rules. Specific review for enforceability will be a further
step in improving the overall SIP process and structure.
We have attached detailed guidance to assist you in
implementing this memorandum.
Attachment
Addressees:
Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
Regional Counsels
Regions I-X
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III and IX
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
•
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII and X
cc: Deputy Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
Regional Counsel
Air Contacts
Regions I-X
Air Compliance Branch Chiefs
Regions U, III, IV, V, VI, IX
Air Program Branch Chiefs
Regions I-X
Darryl Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Gerald Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
fc-H-3
-------
-4-
cc: John S. Seitz, Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and standards
Alan W. Eckert
Associate General Counsel
Air Division
Michael S. Alushin
Associate Enforcement Counsel
Air Enforcement Division
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C 20460
DEC \ 9 1988
AOl AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Deficiencies with Region V SIPs
FROM: John S. Seitz, Director
Stationary Source Compli^jRre Division ^
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: David Kee, Director
Air and Radiation Division
Region V
The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize existing
compliance policy that addresses enforcement problems associated
with the use of compliance techniques such as variable emission
limits in SIPs and to request that your staff review the SIPs you
currently have under development to ensure that they are in
conformance with these guidance documents. I hope that by
conducting this review, we will be able to avoid problems such as
those recently encountered with the Indiana SO2 SIPs
(Attachment 1).
As you requested, I have reviewed the guidance discussed
below and feel, if applied to the SIP packages in a timely and
comprehensive manner, that enforceable SIPs would be promulgated.
I urge you to review and follow this guidance and provide copies
to your State agencies indicating to them that you will review
their submittals against this guidance. In addition, you may
consider having your compliance staff conduct a training session
on the use of these guidance documents for those individuals that
would be directly responsible for their implementation at a State
or Regional level.
Summary of Guidance
t l. December 11, 1979 - Promulgated policy statement entitled
"Air Pollution Control: Recommendation for Alternative
Emission Reduction Options (the Bubble Concept) within
State Implementation Plans* (Attachment 2). The policy
-------
-2-
•
specifically addressed alternative emission reduction
options within SIP revisions. The thrust of its
enforcement section is that all such revisions must be
enforceable with the same degree of confidence, and
result in a'comparable resource burden, as do
conventional SIP revisions.
Specifically, in its section entitled "Conditions for
Using the Alternative Approach, Enforcement
Considerations" (D, 2.) it stated that revisions must
contain: "an easily enforceable technique for multiple
emission points ..... In general the new limits must be
at least as enforceable as the existing requirements.
This applies with special force to alternative control
strategies that involve multiple sources." Furthermore,
in its section entitled "Summary of Comments - Resource
Burden" it says "if a State does believe that reviewing
or enforcing a particular alternative approach would
require excessive resources (compared to conventional
SIPS), the State is free under Section 116 of the Clean
Air Act to reject the approach on that basis."
2. September 23, 1987 - Memorandum entitled "Review of State
Implementation Plans and Revisions for Enforceability
and Legal Sufficiency," signed by J. Craig Potter,
Thomas L. Adams and Francis S. Blake (Attachment 3).
This memorandum states that it "is applicable to all SIP
proposals which have not (as of September 23, 1987}
completed the State or local agency legal and procedural
requirements of SIPs." It provided a grandfather period
which ended on November 7, 1987. It states that "SIP
packages currently in Headquarters will undergo the usual
review but will be returned to the Regions if they
contain deficiencies which raise significant questions as
to whether the regulation would be enforceable."
Furthermore, it stresses the need for specific test
methods, recordkeeping and reporting "commensurate with
the regulatory requirements." It also requires
submission of a completed Enforceability Checklist with
each SIP that addresses test methods, recordkeeping,
exemptions, etc.
I believe current guidance and Agency practice dictate that
..«FPA reject State .requests to approve variable emission limit SIP
revisions unless they address at least the following items:
1. Clear and specific requirements that result in agency
confidence in compliance findings and provide the ability
to determine source compliance without increasing agency
resource burden beyond that which is required by
conventional SIPs; and
-------
-3-
2. Specific test methods, compliance procedures,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements commensurate
with the complexity of the specific regulations. In many
instances this may require CEMs as a compliance method.
•
Given the current guidance and the expertise available within
your compliance staff, I believe we can avoid future problems
with enforceable SIPs from your Region. To this end, I request
that you review those SIP revisions currently under development
within the Region and identify any package which does not conform
to the guidance. In such an instance, please notify me by
January 31, 1989 with the following information:
1. Justification why you are recommending approval;
2. What specific steps have already been taken by your staff
to ensure the package's conformance with the guidance, or
if not taken when will they be taken;
3. What additional steps you will take to avoid problems in
the future.
. I believe if we all work toward the same goal we can quickly
approve clear and enforceable SIPs without delay.
Attachments
cc: Gerald A. Emison
John Calcagni
Allan Eckert
Terrell Hunt
Richard Roos Collins
Larry Kertcher
Steve Rothblatt
6-5-3
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
Deficiencies with Indiana SO2 SIPs
The concept of "variable emission limits" creates the
primary problem with these SIPs. As depicted in the section
entitled "STACK TESTING REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE
WITH VARIABLE EMISSION RATE SCENARIOS", SUCh limits
substantially increase the complexity and burden upon
compliance agencies and reduce their confidence in source
compliance. Other deficiencies include the requirements for
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting of emissions.
Although the subject SIPs were approved and promulgated,
I suggest that your staff encourage Indiana to incorporate a
"fix" into each source's operating permit to address the
problems discussed below, submit them to EPA as SIP
revisions, and rigorously enforce the existing SIPs in the
interim (e.g., upgrade its draft "Guidelines for Enforcement
of 326 IAC7-1" dated 4/12/88). I also suggest that the
Technical Support Documents reflect the enforceability
concerns.
*
STACK TESTING REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH
VARIABLE EMISSION RATE SCENARIOS
ASSUMPTIONS
Source is comprised of four individually regulated
units; and regulation permits source to choose from among any
of four different emission limit scenarios (varying scenarios
are reflective of alternative fuel allowances for each unit).
REQUIRED STACK TESTS
Scenario Unit Number
1234
A
B
C
D
X*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
* "X" denotes that an individual test is required, for a
total of 16 emission tests
In addition, each unit's emissions have to be within the
limit for a given scenario. That is, all units must be
-------
within the limits of scenario A when operating in that mode,
likewise for scenarios B through D. This may require
additional simultaneous sampling of units 1-4 for scenarios
A-D in order to demonstrate the source's ability to comply
across units (e.g., four additional tests at four different
scenarios, for a total of 16 more emission tests). Also,
since units 1-4 are eligible to vary limits and associated
fuels, there is a presumption that they will do just that.
This decreases our confidence that the units will maintain
compliance with their operating scenarios, without the
acquisition of some form of continuous monitoring
information.
This contrasts with the "conventional" emission limit
which prescribes a single limit based on the combustion of
one fuel type. This would typically require a single test
and some lesser degree of monitoring in order to ensure
continued compliance.
Our conclusion, therefore, would be to require
continuous emission monitoring as the compliance technique.
This would provide EPA and the State with the level of
information necessary to make a compliance determination at
all times.
-------
71780 ' Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 239 / Tuesday. December 11.1979 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40CFRPart52
(FRL1360-3)
Air Pollution Control;
Recommendation for Alternative
Emission Reduction Options Within
State Implementation Plans
AGENCY: Environmental Protecttoa
Agency.
ACTION; Policy Statement
SUMMARY: The policy statement set forth
below (1) outlines how states can revise
their State Implementation Plans to
permit sources to place a greater burden
of control where the marginal cost of
control is low and to reduce control
requirements where the cost is high and
(2) encourages states to be receptive to
proposals from sources seeking to
employ a more economically efficient _'.
mix of controls. .." •'• ... :. ..••• ^
This policy statement, commonly ""'•-
referred to as the "bubble" concept is
one in a series of steps designed to
produce a coherent-easy-to-use system.
which we have sometimes called . ~.~.
"controlled trading." Other steps have
included the offset and banking policies.
This system will reconcile improved air
quality with economic growth at the
least possible cost encourage firms to
develop new ways to control pollution, __
and enable government and industry to*
* solve problems more flexibly. • „ • •'
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 11.1979. • y~,
Glen Hanson. Chiet PA. DE, WV Section. Air for public comment in each proceedina"
Planning Branch. EPA Region ffl. Curti* . ^Jthat places alternative control
Building. Sixth and Walnut Street*. ••-'.' - ~
Virginia, West Virginia. District of " ':: Therefore, although the public has had
Columbia). • ' - the opportunity to comment on the •--•
Roger Pfalt Technical Adviaor. Air Programs '..issues in this policy statement EPA will
•1 consider additional comment on these
same issues in individual proceedings.
Policy Statement on Alternative
Branch. EPA Region IV. 345 Courtland
Street NE, Atlanta 3A 30306. (404) 881-
3288 (Alabama. Georgia, Florida. Kentucky.
Mississippi North Carolina. Tennessee.
South Carolina). . : •
Ronald Van Menhbergen. New Source '>
Review Coordinator. Air Program* Branch.
EPA Region V. 230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago.JL80604.(312)888-6037(Indiana. ~f..-+r -» ., A .* . . .'";*'
BUnoU/Mlchigan, Minnesota, Ohio. ; V -'^ **? Cl1!an *? A,ct ""I"1"9 •£*«* to
Wisconsin). •.-:'"'.. .~~J develop State Implementation Plans
Slate Implementation Plans
• •' #••*
; Introduction
(415) 556-6063 (California, Nevada,
Arizona. Hawaii. American Samoa. Guam.
Northern Mariana Islands). •%_ .
Dave Bray. Technical Support and Special
Project* Section. Air Programs Branch (M/
.• S 625). EPA Region X1200 Sixth Avenue.
"'; ? '. -Seattle. WA 98101 (206) 442-1125 (Alaska.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT! •"-•«•»««-'—— « u-u_i .--••_.
General inquiries regarding the policy
may be directed to:
Deborah Taylor. Office of Planning and
Evaluation (PM-220). EPA Headquarter*. . .EPA has extensively evaluated the
401 M Street SW, Washington. DC 20460. •"'
(202)755-2770. • ^,. •».;.-•
Leo Slander. Control Program* Operations
(SIPs) and source-specific compliance']'
schedules to attain and maintain rrSfjf;
ambient air quality standards. In * iV^
developing these plans, states establish
~ • emission limits which, when applied to '
>_.emission points contributing to the -7^
. 7; ambient air problem, .are calculated to ^
^5'. ensure that the standards are met In 3§
*£i?naldng these decisions, states regularly.
Elliot Cooper. Planning and Operations"* •' '•££-take into account the nature and amount:
Section. Air Program* Branch. EPA Region "'•' of emissions from each emission point. *$
VOL 1860 Lincoln Street Denver. CO 80295. .-"the control technology available, and &
(303) 837-3711 (Montana, Utah, North ~; -Slhe time required for its installation. '
Dakota. South Dakota. Wyoming, ... ^".'-"^ SIPs, however, are not always as
rSnifw^FnoinMwin. «~*t«f. Ai,"" -frv^r *conomicany efficient as they could be7
•rKS &SS^ i^n ntiii '•-*->'and current regulations and policies do
Tecnnicaiorancn,crAKegionIA,zis .—JTVT- . . ( . \ ...-j-i.
Fremont Street San Francisco. CA 94105. ?°»P«"»P» companies to seek
Randy Brown, Chiet Technical Support
Section. Air Program* Branch. EPA Region
VL1201 Elm Street. Dallas, TX 75270. (214)
• 787-2742 (Arkansas. Louisiana, Oklahoma,
New Mexico. Texaa). - ' : „• .-
Gale Wright Chiet Technical Analysis ~. \
Section. Air Support Branch. EPA Region
VQ. 324 East llth Street Kansa* City, MO
84106. (818) 374-3791 (Nebraska. Iowa. :.
Kansa*. Missouri). ^*
innovations in control technology. For:;
these reasons, the Environmental
Protection Agency is adopting this '-3
policy explamiog how plants can reduce
control where costs are high in -jagg*
.exchange for a compensating increasajn
.•control where abatement is less '-'.ViV
advantages ana conditions of use, ana
Branch. Control Program* Development
Division. EPA. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standard* (MD-1S). Research
Triangle Park. NC 27711. (919) 541-5365.
foral
be directed to the appropriate regional
contact .
Unda Murphy. Chiet Stationary Source
Section. Air Branch. EPA Region L JFK
Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203. (617)
233-4448 (Connecticut Maine.
Massachusetts. New Hampshire. Rhode
Island. Vermont).
Kennth Eng. Chiet Air and Environmental
Application* Section, Permit*
Administration Branch. EPA Region 0.28
Federal Plaza. New York. NY 10007. (212)
2*4-4711 (New York. New Jersey. Puerto
Rico. Virgin Islands).
alternative emission control approach -*r (3Jbe receptive to proposals from __
'and has considered comments submitted>'. sources that want to use a more cost-"-
regarding the proposed policy. As a ^^'effective mix of controls. Properly .
result Jhe Agency has made three key ^applied, this policy should promote!
changes in the policy: (1) Sources may . -'^greater economic efficiency and -^L
use alternative strategies involving more "increased innovation by providing pi
than one plant; (2) states may consider -^-managers with an economic incentive to^
open dust trades in some circumstances, -develop new control strategies. This Is a"
though/EPA will closely scrutinize such ^ rare opportunity to provide such positive
requests and will require conclusive 'r-t{"' Incentives. -•- *' *• —— • • n .^ajjSr
demonstrations of equivalence before '~*ar-^'lt is important to note, however,Jhat;;
granting approval: and (3) EPA may —:'•' with one exception EPA can only ^=SB
approve compliance date extensions In ^. approve alternative control strategies to.
special cases. The policy also contains ^Var*" when states have successfully .*
many-darificaUons and less significant
changes. These are discussed In the .
summary of comments, which follows
thepolicy statement • -r;.
This policy statement does not '~''~'-
establish conclusively how EPA will ./
resolve issues in individual cases. The"
Qean Air Act and the Administrative -rr-excess of the SIP requirements or
»Procedure Act guarantee the opportunity '** weakening enforcement To
-.; demonstrated that they can meet air
.:• quality standards by the statutory .£ ,
^deadlines. Therefore. EPA will not allow
sources to use the alternative approach
'S'm a way that Jeopardizes attaining .^S
^.requirements of the Qean Air Act bygL
.^"permitting degradation of air qualir/hv
• * / '!• •
- -1r-
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 239 / Tuesday. December 11. 1979 / Rules and Regulations 71781
problems. EPA ha a carefully stipulated
the use of the alternative approach, as
described in detail in the body of this
statement
With this policy, we are urging states
to be receptive to alternative emission
reduction applications whenever eligible
sources propose them and particularly
when the states an drawing up or
revising SIPs.'EPA will work wi.th the
sta tes in expediting the SIP revision
process, especially where the trades are
straightforward. The Agency is '• • •
committed to promptly reviewing '-
alternative proposals so that the. •
maximum benefits can be derived from
this policy. .•'••'•
The Alternative Emission Reduction
Concept ' ... ,
A. What Is the Concept? . .
The primary, tests to which EPA
subjects State Implementation Plans
include: * • • ' .»•-.•'. «_~'
• Do their provisions ensure the "";.
attainment and maintenance o£ ambient
air quality standards as expeditiously as
practicable? v • • . ... '•.
• Do their provisions ensure
reasonable further progress toward
attainment? ' "•
• Are their provisions enforceable?
If the control method adopted meets
these requirements. EPA generally does
not stipulate the degree to which a
source must control individual emission
points. • • • ' '
Under the alternative emission
reduction concept a source with
multiple emission points (stacks, vents,
ports, etc.)—each of which is subject to
specific emission limitation '• ..-•
requirements under an approved SIP— j'
may propose to meet the. SIP'S total '...'
emission control requirements for a ' •
given criteria pollutant with a mix of
controls that is different from that •';
mandated by the existing or proposed
regulations. Sources will have the
opportunity to come forward with
alternative abatement strategies that
would result in the same air quality -.'
impact but at less expense by placing
relatively more "ontrol on emission
points with a low marginal cost of
control and less on emission poults with
a high cost . . - - -. •
Of course, these strategies are subject
to restrictions that might apply under '
the Clean Air Act. such as National
Emission Standards for Hazardous ' •
Pollutaftts (NESHAPS) or rules for the
Prevention of Significant Deteriora tion
(PSD).
EPA has already Introduced the
concept of trading emissions in previous
policies. For example, the concept is
generally similar to the offset policy (40
CFR. Part St Appendix SJ.
B. Eligibility S
^Applicability. Sources may apply
. for alternative emission approaches for
existing* emission limitations • '
established under Section 110 and/or
Part D as part of the SIP. Sources may
• also propose alternative approaches for
SIP requirements that are under
development This policy statement
does not apply to or supersede the
;.- conditions that sources must meet under
nonattainment or PSD permit programs.
New Source Performance Standards
(NSPSJ, NESHAPS «. or other conditions
that the Act specifically requires for
.. new or modified sources. Separate * ••/•'•
_• Federal Register notices * discuss. ..:.-«•
"• requirements for trading under permit •:
programs for new or modified stationary
• sources. • •*•.--.. • ••—• ••- •;••_ .
-.- Z. Demonstration of Attainment by :
'• Statutory Deadlines. Sources may use
alternative emission reduction
approaches only in areas that can . •
demonstrate attainment by the statutory
' deadlines (and reasonable further
'. progress toward attainment) for those
pollutants included in emission
reduction alternatives. An adequate
demonstration may include . -• •••:•»
• commitments to specific control j -M
measures on a specified schedule. • .-.;•*
' • However, trades involving emission
•- •"-;;' points that will be regulated in the
'• * future under such commitments may not
'-' be undertaken until the state adopts the
measures. A state may submit an • • % -.
V alternative control strategy involving ' ;
- • these emission points at the same time
.-or after it submits its newly adopted -•
'• general regulation to EPA for approval
There is one exception to the . .„•:.- •'••••.
_;. condition that areas demonstrate
attainment before alternative control
strategies are allowed. Under certain
.circumstances, ozone SIPs may be . •
approved by EPA despite a failure to
- a.
^tfltUeg" mltffkn ItaJUtkuu w* (ho**
rtqulremaU Uul UM tUU IM* (depud or EPA hu
promalfaltd «« th« Urn* • tourc* propoM* «a
•Jtenuthr* itralefjr. SUIM may lubmil iltenuUva
ttralefia to EPA « UM Mm* Urn* or «/i«r tiwjr
nbmtt ihcir •pplleabU Mwly •doplcd *UU ,
f«ful«Uoo». ... . '.
• Under UmlUd drcamttutcM. toure** ouy
•Uodw UM Oca AJr Act la ccftila C«MA EPA
•My draw up or ttviM SIP*. la tboM CMC*. «• wffl
•dviM
forth alternative control strategies ..-;"_>
would only protract and confuse efforts ",;
to enforce the SEP. Sources that have .. • '
successfully deferred compliance would
. •- be tempted to use the alternative
.: approach to argue for further delay or to . ..-, ••
'" -" alter emission requirements so as to -rc.i.:
'• -i.' • frustrate enforcement efforts. Permitting .- ~~-
'.i-r.ri use of the alternative approach in such . -».^;J*:
/j-^ instances would only serve to continue -.iitfSfs
.''"!; unlawful pollution and increase the '"?'$£-•'-•
•. inequity between sources that have -~^rsrB
incurred the expense and difficulty of ^
: compliance and those thathave so far •-
i'* avoided compliance. -— • »<••«•> -' P •
-. . Accordingly, sources that wish to use
*•: an alternative control strategy, but have
not yet reached an EPA-approved
••- agreement with the state (or reached . '.•
- agreement with EPA as appropriate) on
"' their compliance schedules for all of the
emission points included in the
' • alternative approach * or are not
complying with these agreements, may
• apply for the alternative approach only
• if they: •-.- •:*>•.. ,..
• L Come into compliance: or - **
1L Meet an EPA-approved compliance
schedule; or ".'".•• . -. s.- : • • • • »
•:• Ui. Become subject to court decree: (1)
• In an action in which EPA was a party
or which decree EPA has found to be
•S*t HM Emiaaioa Gib* latetpraUUvt Rulfa|. 40
OR Part St. Appmdix & u revised 44 re 3274
- Qtaury is. isni: propOMd tula. 44 FR S1K4
-------
71782
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 239 / Tuesday. December 11, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
satisfactory, and (2) which decree
recognizes the possibility of SIP revision
and allows for timely modification of the
decree without delay in the final
compliance date. . • •
To be acceptable, any compliance
schedule under U and any decree under
iii (1) must set out a timetable and
emissions limitations with which the
source has agreed to comply (Le» to not
appealing or otherwise contesting). (2)
must provide for a resolution of penalty
issues and other sanctions, and (3) must
not contain any provisions allowing the
source to delay its compliance or to
avoid sanctions for noncompliance with
the existing requirement until EPA has ;•
promulgated the alternative proposal as
a'SIP revision. . . ', .. . . . ,....'. .i.; .
C. Implementing the Alternative '•' ; •'•'
Approach . • '• " •. • .' ': :.•: •
1. Sources Initiate Alternatives. It is
the regulatee's responsibility to come . ;
forward with the alternative control ...'"_
approach. EPA encourages the states.. ^
also to require the regulatee to .."..' ;,~*';
demonstrate satisfactorily, entirely af'":" ^
• its expense, that the proposal to ;' ";; '• -"
equivalent to the existing SIP ;."" :"/". .
requirements in enforceability and •''"'••
environmental impact Because of the
cost we advise sources to discuss the
demonstration requirements with
control agendes before preparing the
demonstration. Control agendes. ' - •
however, should not begin to formally ' • •
review proposals until the source has
completed the demonstrations. In this
way the resource demands on control
agendes are limited primarily to :. •
deciding what kind of demonstration to ' •
required and to reviewing the results. To •
minimize the possibility of subsequent ' *
delays. EPA also encourages control -—
agendes to discuss issues with EPA as
they arise. . _:, .*-•-•• *'-,:-¥-; -V'-M? •
The process of approving alternative
control strategies will differ depending •:
on whether the source to proposing an
alternative to existing SIP requirements • •
or to requirements that are under :•"••-/•
development Where existing SIP • •'•' •
requirements are concerned, overall .' • -
emission limits and compliance • . *"
deadlines are known. Once • plant . ;
comes forward with a promising '
alternative proposal that seems capable
of attaining the goals of the current •
' compliance schedule, the control agency
will dedde on a test to verify the ... - -
. equivalency of the proposed trade. If the
source to able to present evidence that .
the control agency Judgesio be • .,.. .-• ••
suffident the control agency may . -
submit the alternative approach to EPA
as a SIP revision. . •••'.•;'...-'
Although sources may propose an -'''
alternative for existing SIP requirements
at any time, it to clearly to their • :
advantage to do so as early as possible.
Control agendes should expect sources
to meet the requirements of their ... ••• -o.-.
existing schedules on time until EPA ' -.-
approves the alternative approach. In •
some cases, a source may have to make
a pollution control investment that it
would not have to *aake under the " :
alternative approach. By presenting
alternative proposals as early as .•:•'. ^?
possible (preferably during the :•: •-•:'-•
engineering and design period that to :> ••
provided at the beginning of most .::: •' •'•
compliance schedules), sources can • •*'•'
avoid such conflicting investments. . •''• '•
When a state (or EPA) to developing a •
new SIP. sources may present a ' : • ' .- i
counterproposal in antidpation of •;::::.>.>
overall emissions limits or in response " •'•
to limits being proposed. The source
would then have to show that its ;'•;;.''.",
alternative mix of controls would be'' • * A
environmentally equivalent to the ;"; ««? a
process-specific standards. If the '• ^wEtf!
demonstration to successful, the state "•"**
can adopt the counterproposal as part of ~
ihm CTO ..,.-. . . • • ^.n<—..,.
1116 DU. : • - • '•• - -- . *..i;i«r**..
needed for the auto assembly category
This approach would allow the source
achieve the same overall emissions
requirement at a lower cost .•<-.-•".-
2. SIP Revisions Required. Each
alternative approach must be adopted
a SIP revision approved or promulgate-
by EPA.* • ;••":_ i,-;^..;•.:.. •• ••••."ry .»•:...
D. Conditions for Using the Alternative
Approach ' •*^;^'it . .- ;'(. "//*..."..
States applying the alternative. -*-~
approach must continue to ensure (1)
attainment and maintenance of ambien
air quality standards as expeditiously t
practicable. (2) reasonable further . '-.-
progress. (3) enforceability. and (4) "-
>coinpliance with all other requirements
of the Act To assist states in achieving
this basic requirement EPA has •.'>.••—
established certain conditions that an
alternative approach must meet before
can be approved. •..':~ !J'. .4.X; ',".*• ~-
• t. Air Quality Considerations.^-^ AJi
quality standards must be met, The.;:~'
3 command of the statute is to
maintain ambient air quality
standards. Many states have been _.,£.'
Power Plant in Ohio provides one
example of how a source can use the ". 1 ;,<
alternative emission reduction .•&«*~;V^
approach. This SIP regulation contains
power plant may use in lieu of a uniform
limit, at each of its five boiler stacks. The
plant still must meet specific limits at its
individual stacks, but it can select these '
limits by using equations that make the ""
air quality effects of the emissions under*
the emission reduction alternative equal
Whe« the wvi^ plans are inadequate
to "ft *• ^tutory deadlines •
contatoed in the dean Air Act as .
majr not approve ;
Furthermore, if attainment is not
.achieved as expected in the areas when
the revised plans were approved,. ..*&*
'.control agendes may require sources to
install more stringent controls on '
-
->.,.»,) Jhm .• *.- ..- emtosion points may be releasing less
of k plant's production process that «Slt ^SSSXSXXSSSr
the same kind of polluUnt For example, ^^lS^JfSS!SS^\
could reduce the amount of control »»•-•>». SIP. r.r* T.—L r-—•• -
-------
;r- i
...
lent .-.;;-.%'
at* -:-^-:.
••.. -.
ire it ,:>v
UM. /ll-
late ;£:"V
,
here - V
••^Tar '
s to ,\ '
ing -.
with. .
» *./ .
* • *••*•
lew r
>n* )
they .'.
on .
rting .
dude
{*• .
..-•*•
Federal Kegistcr / Vol. 44. No. 239 / Tuesday. December 11. 1979 /.Rule*' and Regulations 71783
do not affect the use of such processvJ^latesVsowee"s"hutdown*. and averaging
controls. These modeUng, : .... v^sytaw {>determining whether a trade
control strategy that is not accounted for
. in the state's control strategy, the source
must demonstrate that consideration of
the additional emission does not affect
the state's demonstration of attainment
States must also disapprove proposals
where controlling one emission point *
less and another more might violate a
basic condition of attainment even
though total emissions do not increase.
For example, particulates emitted from a
stack might have a totally different and
more harmful impact upon ambient air
quality than road dust stirred up by
trucks within the plant site..' . • r
EPA will insist on an adequate
equivalency demonstration proving that
the alternative emission reduction
approach will result in attainment and
maintenance of standards and will :
comply with Prevention of Significant :.
Deterioration requirement*. The greater .
the difference in the types of emissions .
to be traded, the more detailed the
demonstration must be..Thus, a trade '.;:''.
between a stack emission and a fugitive
emission will require a more detailed
demonstration of equivalence than
would a trade between two emissions of
a more similar nature, such as two J;M "
closely located stacks of the same
height • ' "•' •
This condition wfll apply with ' '*
particular force to trades involving open'
dust emissions (such as emissions from
roads and storage piles). It is especially
difficult to ensure equivalent effects on
air quality for such trades because of (1)
the uncertainty in determining emission
rates from open dust sources. (2) the
difficulty of predicting the effectiveness'
of control technology, and (3) the
shortcomings of air quality models for ' *
this type of source. In addition, the '•' '•
adequacy of modeling techniques has •
not been verified for certain situations. . -
As a result there is substantial •
uncertainty regarding the accuracy of
some model projections, such as for the
complex interaction between open dust
sources and structures at industrial "" •• •
sites, although these techniques may be
verified and improved in the future. In
such situations. EPA believes that the
economic benefit* that might result from
a reduced marginal cost oftontrol are
not sufficiently great to outweigh the
risk of having trade* approved that
would not adequately protect air quality
standards. Therefore. EPA generally will
not approve any proposed alternative
-entission strategy based on a modeling
demonstration that proposes to
substitute controls on open dust •.»'—•"•
emissions for reasonable controls on the
more significant sources of process «
emissions. • • • . •. _>.-L.'..° '
Sources may use modeling •• '•*-*•*•'••
demonstrations for open dust trades that
demonstrations must be particularly '&5*m result In equdemissions.
comprehensive, and states should .^ =* f^ne test for equivalence will gene
review them with special care. The ,•.&.-['-. be consistent with the SIFs '
diffusion models used for open dust ^'i demonstration of attainment Some .'
demonstrations are generally more '-^L; • demonstrations are based on
complex and more se'-sitive to input .T.^ .* atmospheric simulation modeling, while
data than those used for stack . vMV.p,-;Xother* are based on more simplified
emissions. EPA will insist on a thorough •; techniques, such as linear rollback or an
justification and explanation of the •%£. : ."example" region approach. Sources in
" "
.
basis for all critical Inputs to the '-" 45js-"o *reas "here • •implified demonstration
emission and air quality calculations. ..5l1'. ."• of attainment has been used may show
There are a number of factors that ' U^ ;•; equivalence by establishing that the
control agendes should keep in mind ~4.£,overaQ emissions level will not increase
when evaluating open dust modeling » -ii if UM alternative approach is
demonstrations. .... ^ >';,i>"5iSo?'Vtop'eaiented- -'
as the Industrial Complex Source Model r PX- *"*•*• requre ar quaity moeling to
Both •Bttoal and •hort-tena concentration*"/., demonstrate .that the Increases and
must be examined, and particle deposition '; • decreases In plant emissions will not
and fallout should be taken into account, .^''.adversely affect air quality in the area
•Control agendes should ensure that the ^5fe affected by the sources. Such
*
tniange should be used. This .** -«-' «»«• «ses were the SIP
determination should include consideration "*• requirements an derived through
of any relative uncertainty in the : :,, :..-•-,": .' modeling. EPA will require a modeling
effectiveness of control technology and of .. ' demonstration to ensure that the trades
any expected variation in emissions with ^'^wiU result In the same air quality level
plant utilization. ' : 'V^~T- overau^ and emissions may vary
•In demonstrating the adequacy of a r^te-^ accordingly. Ideally, in all instances.
parUculat ^mix of controls to attain *••>*&- to,a emissions levels will also be
^T-
emUsionrates that are legally enforceable. :.:«• emissions trades may e necessa
'. • ,.-. In some cases to protect ambient air
As an alternative to modeling, sources : quality. This could occur, for example.
may demonstrate the equivalency of the / where stack heights are different or
trades by installing the open, dust source ,\ where emissions are so difficult to
controls and monitoring the results. In "Sr- quantify or model that a margin of
making this showing sources and control' ^safety Is'necessary. '.V_:'
agencies should be sure that monitors''^:-; EPA recognizes that the bean Air Act
are properly sited and that data are ~ ;?v permits states lo revise their SIPs to
collected over an appropriate period of .J* allow Increases In total emissions. There
Ume. • • •'••*"
b. All emissions under the alternative /.'• authority: The revised SIP must
approach must be quantifiable, and v^r'demonstrate attainment and _
trades among them must be even, A '.**^" maintenancVof the standards: the
source that wishes to control one' T^rS:^? requirements for reasonable further ...
emission point less in exchange for • ~?i:£ progress In reducing emissions and for
controlling another emission point more " -':• attainment a* expediUously as
must demonstrate that the trade will in ..*.-*, practicable must be satisfied: and the
i—. i M_, 1.. t__ j— it • fgyjjiQBj most not interfere with the
fact be even. This can only be done if
the emissions from both emission points
(and increases and decreases in them) '
can be acceptably quantified and '. V,.
related to ambient air quality . • '.Y^ :
consideration*. Direct measurement 1*
preferred, although indirect : ;/ *
quantification i* acceptable if a source
establishes a clear and convincing link
between the emissions and other *..'..'
quantifiable measures, such a* ...Ji..!
application rate*, work practice*, or .~
equipment standards. Section IV.C of .'.
EPA'* Emission Offset Ruling contain* .
guidance on such items as operating ..
,
'
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
program. However, the fact that the Act
does not completely prohibit SIP
revisions that increase overall emissions
does not lead EPA to encourage such
revisions as an element of this policy
atatement''.••;£.•„ o •—.-••
• • In EPA'*'opinion there are important
policy reasons to discourage SIP
.revisions that Increase overall
emission*. A growing number of serious
air quality problem* an now recognized
•• covering broad region* of the country:
-:Ozone violations, elevated sulfates
-------
71784 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 239 / Tuesday. December 11. 1979 / Rules and Regulations
"acid rain." and visibility reduction. SIP
revisions that permit significant
increases in total emissions of the
criteria pollutants can exacerbate some
or all of the current wide-scale air
quality problems. Therefore, EPA does
not encourage by this policy, or as a
more general matter. SIP revisions that
result in overall emissions increases.
More specifically. EPA •will not approve
such SIP revisions to the extent
consistent with its current legal " '",'
authority. - - •••-••''
c. The pollutants ander-the alternate
proposal must be comparable. Clearly.
sources cannot apply trade-offs across
criteria pollutant categories, e.g* they *
cannot trade SOi against hydrocarbons.
Further, even within a category,
pollutants that pose significant health
hazards cannot be traded against less
harmful pollutants. For example: ' "
L Coke oven paniculate emissions. . '
because of their carrinogencity. should
not be traded against particulate ~;' V''
emissions from any other source. "• •'•'••'•'
IL Some criteria pollutants are also
hazardous pollutants (e^j., vinyl chloride
and benzene are hydrocarbons that
have been designated as hazardous " •
under section 112). Emissions of criteria
pollutant* that contain hazardous ' •
pollutants can be used in alternative
emission control strategies subject to the
following restrictions: •
• In all cases, sources must meet
applicable section 112 regulations. __ '•'• __ \
Except as permitted under specific •"••'.'•
NESHAPS regulations,« source may not
use an alternative emission control
approach to meet section 112 regulations
(as discussed in Eligibility), and a source
may not increase emissions regulated
under section 112 beyond the levels that
the applicable section 112 regulation
allows. Furthermore,'when new section"*
112 regulations become effective.
sources must comply with those •''
regulations, notwithstanding any '" ' '
previously approved trades. ' ' •
• The emission of asbestos, beryllium.
vinyl chloride, or benzene, which are
listed under section 112. may be
Increased at one emission point (subject
to the above constraints) only as long as
there is a compensating decrease in the
emission of the same pollutants at '
another emission point it the same • -
location or at a contiguous location. For
example, a source may increase one
t vinyl chloride emission as long as there
is an equal decrease in another vinyl ' '
chloride emission. Since EPA believes
that the limited number of pollutants it
expects to list over the next several
years under section 112 will be ''.'"'..''•
significantly mere hazardous than"' "* ~':
others in the same criteria pollutant :°
category, restraints on trading similar to
those discussed above,will apply when .'
such pollutants are listed. Should EPA
list a pollutant that it judges to be less
hazardous than those currently listed. ]
EPA will indicate what pollutant- '.."
specific trading restraints are - •*'*'
appropriate. Trading restrictions will not
apply to alternative emission control
strategies that EPA has approved before
the announcement of the trading ••• • •
restraints. As noted above, however. •'"' j
even previously approved trades may *
not be continued if they conflict with '
section 112 regulations when they
become effective. • '•••- •• '••''•' - /".'-'
• In addition, where the hazardous
pollutant is an insignificant contaminant
of the emission, exceptions to the ••. •
trading restraints may be appropriate.
This is likely to be the case when the
source is not using the hazardous — '••'
material in question as a raw material or
.when the source is not producing the .»
hazardous material. Control agencies .•'
should consult EPA when considering _ •
such exceptions. '••.•;-*•»:* •••-•'. f-i^.'.
• Sources may equally trade !•; i*iM •
hazardous pollutants with •-• "•'• ••"
nonhazardous pollutants in the same •
criteria pollutant category only in those
cases where the source decreases the
emission of the hazardous pollutant For
example, a source may equally trade , •,
vinyl chloride with any nonhazardous
hydrocarbon if it reduces die vinyl -.:•-•
chloride emission. "•; .~. •? - •-• — • s —i:
fiL EPA will closely examine the
comparability of particle size .•„.-:; i<« •
distribution in particulate emission
enforceable technique for multiple '
emissions points. Of course, these lira
must be accompanied by enforceable
testing techniques, which may include
specific control measures, perfonnanc
^measures, and performance standards
In general, the new limits mint bejdL'
Jeast as enforceable, as the existing
trades because fine particles disperse _,-
requirements. This applies with specia
force to alternative control strategies
"That involve multiple sources. ".. —•
b. Existing SIP provisions submitted
• 'under Section 110 must not be replacet
' Litigation for SIP requirements
established under Section 110 of the ,
Clean Air Act has long since run Its :'
course. In almost aO cases these sectio
110 SIP.requirements are enforceable
• and are being enforced. EPA will not.
allow these SIP provisions to be " \'..'
replaced by new alternative SIP J^JJ.
. requirements that are. subject to ''.'^"
litigation and that could result in a'dela
vor lapse in enforceabillty. Therefore. ,...
-states must incorporate any control ''.
•''strategy'that Is an alternative to 5 110
-• requirements as an addition to the SIP.
not as a replacement This principle of
"coexisting old and new requirements Is
consistent with EPA's guidance to the •
• states regarding the continuity of the .
SIPs when establishing Part D SIP .. -V
'revisions.* :.-,^'.-C,„: .'• •"T.-.'X-"'^
''" It should be noted that under the '.',~£
'• "continuity of the STPs" policy, the " 'J£
• section 110 requirements can be ./..?.??•
replaced only if a Part D requirement is
(•- unavoidably incompatible with an ,./ji.
i -existing SIP. Alternative control
f-!f3'CS
... . ...r - strategies to Part D requirements are ;
more widely in the air than coane.f^j^«optionaLTherefore. if the original part t
particles and stay in the air longer. ;:.r, ;• requirement is compatible with the , -« i
Sources should also be aware that EPA ;• section 110 requirement but the jS-w
Is considering an inhalable particulate ;, alternative control strategy is not'^-'v--
standard. If EPA promulgates such a -...<13.V-Uection 110 SIP provisions cannot be~^
standard some alternative approaches .-• replaced merely because they are* 7*T-
thatpA has approved may no longer . incompatible with the alternative *g
be adequate to meet new standards. .,.:•. approach. Otherwise, sources might be
Trades involving open dust sources are ~ encouraged to develop Incompatible •-
of particular concern in this regard.
* 2, Enforcement Considerations. If the
alternative emission reduction policy b
improperly carried out It could delay
compliance and impede effective
enforcement Therefore, to avoid any
additional grounds for legal challenges
to revised SIPs. delays In enforcement
or any weakening of the enforceability...
or sanctions of SIP requirements. EPA .
has established the following conditions.
a. Specific, enforceable control .. .-.;
requirements are mandatory. EPA will
approve alternative proposals only if 'j
they contain (1) enforceable, specific "';
emissions limits (Including limits on ',''
quantity of emissions or quantifiable '•'!!
• surrogates, such as equipment or work X —T
practice standards) on each regulated
'-" alternative strategies solely to avoid thie
••• consequences of noncompliance with •
i section 110 requirements. Thus, EPA wil
. • only approve alternative strategies to ..
> section 110 requirements as additions to
" the existing SIPs. ..ij _;:..^:v skitfAv-
h -:— c. Compliance dates generally should
not be extended. Some sources have not
• • yet achieved final compliance with SIP
requirements that took effect several •
years ago. States are free if they wish,
subject to the conditions in this -"irz;.
statement to apply the alternative -.-"•
approach to these requirements as weQ,
However, that revision should not have
. . .
emission point or (2) an easily ' '*' ~.. • AKU 44 nt jam (Apiil«. 1979).
™^ - .^ '.;.'.'...-. . ... . .-_-
- .r •
lfX\ •
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 239 / Tuesday. December 11. 1979 / Rules and Regulations 71785
»•»*•
I1
••:-*
'I
'
w
s-S-.
*
:v. i
consequences of such delay. To make
sure of this, any such alternative
requirement should have the same SIP .
compliance deadline as the existing
requirements. Of if the new requirement
allows controls that a source can adopt
more quickly than those included hi the
existing compliance schedule, the states
shoL.d consider establishing earlier ..
compliance dates.
• In some cases, it may be impossible
for a source to implement alternative
control strategies within the time frame
allowed in the existing schedule. EPA
does not have the statutory authority to
extend compliance schedules solely for
the purpose of implementing alternative
strategies. However. EPA's statutory
authority does provide for the extension
•of compliance schedules for Part O
requirements under certain conditions.
Where sources need additional time to
implement the alternative approach and
where they qualify for a time extension.
they should apply for a time extension
for their existing Part O requirements
before or when they apply for the
alternative approach.
d. There will be no delay of existing
enforcement actions. Since sources may
not delay compliance with existing
schedules while awaiting the review of
the alternative approach, states should
continue to pursue enforcement actions
and seek compliance with the existing
SIP as expeditiously as practicable.
Further, until EPA approves the
alternative proposal, all noncompliance
penalties under authority of Section 113
or 120 of the Clean Air Act or Equivalent
state provisions will be based on the • -•-
pre-altemative proposal definition of
cost Afterward, noncompliance
penalties will be based on the cost of
the alternative control strategy.
e. Requirements in some court
decrees should not be changed. Control
agencies in routine situations frequently
obtain court decrees to ensure
compliance. In these circumstances, it
may be appropriate to modify court
decrees if a source presents an
approvable alternative approach.
Over the past few years, control
agencies and EPA have devoted'
considerable time and effort to arrive at
decrees with some important sources,
often involving several plants. EPA
considers such court decrees to be of
critical importance in achieving air
quaKrptobjective. Therefore, alternative
control strategies should not be used to
change the requirements specified in
these existing court decrees. The only
exception is the use of alternatives to
remedy the failure of control strategies
specified in the consent decrees to work
as expected. . ....-•-
'In the future, important sources may
be involved in similar negotiations to
which the states and EPA have devoted
considerable resources. These sources
may wish to use the alternative
approach. Under these conditions.
sources should be sure e'ther to: (1)
Come forward with their alternatives
and obtain agreement from the control
agencies that the proposal is acceptable
before entering into the court decree or
(2) include a provision in the decree that
explicitly allows for consideration of
alternatives. Otherwise they may well
find that the states and EPA will be
unwilling to modify the requirements of
the court decree to allow the use of an
alternative approach because of the
amount of effort already invested to
obtain a settlement Consent decree
negotiations now nearing completion
should not be delayed for the '•'.•• . ..."
formulation of alternative plans. .- •'- v
Conclusion ..•-• ••'•'';'.'.••.>•:*::?'•"• *.' '..'.'.
EPA believes that the alternative ".'. •.
emission reduction approach, properly
applied, will be of significant benefit to
the states and to industry. We therefore
encourage states to review the policy
carefully, to inform sources of the . • •
options, to explain the policy's
advantages and conditions of use, and
to be receptive to industry proposals.
Summary of Comments •
Many individuals and organizations
took the opportunity to comment on the
policy statement as it was proposed on
January 1& 1979 (44 FR 3740]. Our . :
responses to the issues raised follow. '.- ••
. Innovative Technology ••••/•
The Environmental Protection Agency
believes that the alternative emission
reduction concept will promote •' • •
economic efficiency and increase
innovation, since it offers plant .
managers an economic incentive to ' •
develop new control strategies. Some '
commenters expressed concern with the
statement in the proposed policy which
suggested that EPA could use the new
control strategies developed in response
to this policy as a basis for setting
tighter standards in the future. They
mistakenly interpreted this to mean new
standards would be set regardless of
ambient air quality considerations.
Under the Clean Air Act EPA cannot
. limit emissions of criteria pollutants
from existing sources unless this is
necessary to meet the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or
NESHAPS. If an existing source is in an
area that has already attained the . . .
standards or will attain them by ihe
statutory dates, then EPA will not
require further control However, if a • -
source it In on area where the State -J.-.
cannot make a satisfactory .
denunutration of attainment by t
•tatutory date, then a source may ha
to meet tighter standards which may
necessitate using innovative technology.
One comment suggested that EPA
exempt a plant that develops an ' -' '". • ,
innovative control technique from any :
new emission limitation that may be set
as a result of that technique. EPA is not •
in a position to do this, since it is usually
the state that sets specific source .......
emission limitations in the State '••-.
Implementation Plan (SIP). However, if a
state chooses to exempt a source and ..;
this exemption does not violate the ....
statutory requirements of the Clean Air
'Act, then EPA will approve it .-..-
Resource burden •-'•* - '••'• '-••;r.'e"':
In the proposed policy, the Agency ''.
specifically solicited comments on the . , >
• resource burden that final adoption of £
• an alternative emission reduction policy '.
might place on state air pollution control
agencies. In addition. EPA contacted 38
states to further explore this question. .'.
We found that the expected volume of ' '
alternative proposals and the resulting '•'
resource requirements vary widely. . •""'
Some states believe they may " '"'.v!-
experience resource problems because:* : -
(1) They may receive a large number of '
applications, including some complex |
ones that could take a iot of time to <
review; (2) processing the applications \
through case-by-case SIP revisions is a ' .".'
lengthy process, and rejected proposals ".
may tie up resources with appeals: and
(3) it may take more time and Resting to
determine compliance with an" • * ~""*
alternative plan than if the source used
a traditional control approach. - .— - • "^
. Recognizing that some states' resource
burdens may increase, the Agency has
tried to incorporate safeguards into the
proposed policy and has made some
changes to the final policy to further "
reduce any additional demands on the • •
states. EPA has taken measures to avoid
overloading the state staffs with
alternative approach applications that
are not well prepared. First, the Agency
has tried to minimtr* demands on state
• resources by specifying that the source
must initiate the proposal if it wishes to
use an alternative approach. EPA also
encourages states to require that the
source pay for aQ demonstrations
, relevant to its proposal and that the
proposal be complete before the state
review process begins. There are also
provisions that help to screen out • -
applications submitted for the purpose
. of delaying compliance. For instance. ..
the policy does not create any new
. opportunities for extensions of • •".
compliance schedules beyond those •
*•• .<^ /
:•:. ^.* "ii
~r^~*~-
V •
if-'*-
in-
-------
7178G Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 239 / Tuesday. December 11. 1979'/ Rules and Regulations
already available under existing laws.
Additionally, enforcement of existing
requirements continues while the
applications are under review.
Applicants do not qualify for stays
egainst their compliance schedule or
exemptions from noncompliance fees
(unless they otherwise would under the
law). It should be noted that the section
110 SIP requirements can be replaced
only if a Part 0 requirement is
unavoidably incompatible with an
existing SIP. However, since
alternatives to Part O requirements are
optional existing SIP provisions cannot
**' be replaced merely because they are •
Incompatible with the alternative
approach.-Therefore, alternative
strategies to section 110 requirements
may only be adopted as an addition to .
the SIP. not as a replacement
Some states thought that enforcing an
alternative approach might be more time
consuming since (1] such an approach
requires that the enforcement staff . .-' '.V
become familiar with the source-specific '.
plan, as opposed to relying on .. •.-...'
knowledge of traditional means of * " ..
control, and (2) there may be an '.... '.
increased need for testing because, . *.
under traditional approaches, states
infrequently test installations whose ,.'..
emissions are well below their .. • •
allowable limit In some cases ; -~
enforcement may be more time ' * .
consuming, but we feel the differences * .
will be saialL Although states may have
to initially invest some additional time .
to learn about an alternative approach,
once familiar with the source's ,'.-
alternative plan, they can proceed as^ ;_;i
rapidly as before with testing and •"—•".:
enforcement On the other hand, some . '.-
alternative approaches will require less
. enforcement resources. For example.
alternative control strategies may lead ."
sources to focus their control efforts on
fewer emission points so that the overall
frequency of testing may be reduced. In .
any event if a state does believe that ....
reviewing or enforcing a particular -••> '•
alternative approach would require . •;.-
excessive resources, the state is free
under Section 116 of the Clean Air Act
to reject the approach oiythat basis.
Some commenters requested guidance
for evaluating equivalency among . •.
pollutants and means of quantifying • •
emissions. EPA does not think a new
guidance document is necessary. In •• .
general the Agency will require the "."
same type of demonstrations that were ;
necessary for comprehensive SIP .~3
revisions, except where trades involve
open dust source emissions, increases in
overall emissions, or multiple plants. In
those cases. EPA may require additional
monitoring data or source-specific
modeling data (these requirements are *
spelled out in the policy), EPA is. ••• . •
however, taking measures to ease any
problems that might arise in ' • • -
implementing this policy. First we will
hold workshops around the country to
explain the policy. Second, we have
apppointed coordinatrrs to answer any
questions about the policy. We have
also designated a contact person in each
Regional office to answer technical ~
questions. These people are listed at the
beginning of this policy statement
Clarifications " -. '.'.' . '••'•'• ••".
1. Definition of terms and relationship •
to other policies. In the proposed policy.
some readers found that such terms as •
source, facility, plant and site were •• .
unclear or inconsistent with definitions
used in other EPA air-related • •....••.:
regulations. We believe these terms are -.
commonly understood and the precise ".
definitions are not important since this .
policy is no longer restricted to a single "*
source, facility, plant or site.'* !•'• >•••'"'•-• •'"-"•• :
Several commenters also asked how •••
this policy affected Best Available ..'.:-~*
Control Technology (BACT), New ' ' :•'£
Source Performance Standards (NSPS). •
Lowest Achievable Emission Kate ••• •>
(LAER). and Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD). This policy applies
only to emission limitations approved or
promulgated as part of a SIP. It does not ..
apply to BACT. LAER NSPS. or other
conditions specifically required by the
Act for new or modified sources. • '• • ••- ••'
However. EPA is applying a similar •••• -.
"bubble" policy to some conditions for ~~;
new and modified sources. (See footnote -;
5 of the policy.) PSD concerns are ,. .'*+**$
explicitly mentioned in the policy where"
appropriate. : •-' • •• -J^V-'- *
One commenter requested '": "*:''* •'''•
clarification of the relationship between''
this policy statement and the RACT -*•>'
emission limitations recommended in ~~:
the Control Techniques Guidelines • •' •"•
(CTC). The policy states that it is -''•-'
essential to have specific limits for each •
of the emission points included in
alternative control strategy. Under some '
circumstances, states must require the
use of RACT in establishing these limits
and must establish these RACT ' - ;'
requirements in EPA-approved ' v:Y."
regulations. EPA published in the "-. ••• ••
Federal Register (see 44 FR 53762-63) <•
the role of CTCs in the development and
approval of the state RACT regulations.*
2. Specific emission limits. One • •• ••
commenter asked which emission points
must have a specified emission limit if a
source uses aa alternative plan. The *
policy requires that the source specify '•
an emission limitation only farinose
points actually involved in the - - •
alternative trades. For example, if a
source has five emission points that emi
SO2 but wants to use an alternative • •
approach that involves only three of '• -'
them, then for the purposes of this policy
the source has to specify an emission '
limitation for those three points only. • '
The other emission points would •
continue to be subject to the level of
control (if any) specified in the SIP. '••-.-•
X Compliance status. Commenters •
frequently misunderstood the intent of
the policy regarding the restrictions on
eligibility for nonoomplying sources. To
clarify our intent there is a new section
in the policy entitled "Eligibility." •••'. •'-' •
Basically, the alternative approach does
not prevent those sources not now in -
compliance with emission limitations V
from ever using a bubble. Rather, the ':- •
policy requires that a source agree to a '
legally enforceable schedule for • ' ••'•li. :
achieving the appropriate standards in
order to establish an adequate basis for
considering alternative control •'.•.*•?••''"''
strategies. Without such an agreement *'
consideration of an Alternative approach
can only lead to further delays in' savf *."
.compliance. A source can apply for aa'**'
alternative approach to achieve •"•'•r.-.::'.
compliance after it agrees to an-•"•*
appropriate schedule. '•>&
• '» "••••
Processes Alternative Proposals '*"„ ^
. 1. SIP revisions. Some commenters '? wi
suggested that EPA would not need to • "*
use a case-by-case SIP revision for ••• '•• v>>3
aleraative approaches if the state •••-«"*:
incorporated a general regulation for "-tf:'*
alternative control strategies in its SEP ••*•
that EPA has approved. Instead. EPA &
should depend on spot audits to -^jajrtfe
'.determine if the state is faithfully * :3&5J%
• adhering to the requirements of the •-~&^
'general SIP revision. :c<>.<••••'- ~w ;.ir31^rj?rj
•• In response, the Agency believes that -*
7 case-by-case SIP revisions are ~>*Br»]S5<
necessary for an alternative approach to "•
be legally enforceable. The Clean Air •££
.Act requires EPA to review and process *
all SIP revisions, and this cannot b«.-~aiSt
eliminated or delegated. Additionally, a 1
. derived from this policy. Therefore, the
Agency is committed to expediting the ' •»
SIP revision process, especially for those'
. proposal* where the trades are •;• •'rr*-
straightforward. •'-'- >V ; - =. ••' ••> •* lM.3as*>'
• There was some question concerning '*r
• EPA's authority to impose conditions on"
- the use of alternative approaches. EPA -r
: has carefully evaluated each of the -.^^
--• conditions in this statement and is
•. convinced that each condition is
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 239 / Tuesday. December 11. 1979 / Rules and Regulations 71787
>i
'&.
?&
3&
SF*-
-•*!
i
fi
*!
.
•
.
.'V*'- «
fi
necessary to protect air quality and is
fully consistent with Die Qean Air Act
2. Actual vs. SIP allowable emission
limits. Some existing installations may
be emitting a lesser amount of pollutants
than existing SIP regulations allow .
because, for example, they may be •
burning a dean fuel such as natural gas.
Several commenters were concerned
that the policy would allow a source to
use the difference between such a low-
emitting installation's actual emissions
and the SIP'S allowable emissions to
offset any proposed higher emissions
from another installation, with a
resulting increase in overall emissions
from this source,
EPA's primary concerns in any
alternative approach are that the trades
will be equal and result in attainment
and maintenance of air quality
standards as demonstrated by the SIP.
In those cases where* the SIFs
demonstration of attainment is.implidtly
or explicitly based on the source
maintaining the actual emission level, j.
even though that level is lower in .-~.
practice than what the SIP allows, that
source cannot use the difference to . .
increase its emissions through trading.
But EPA will consider alternative
approaches where the SIP can
demonstrate attainment using the
difference between the emission levels
to offset proposed higher emissions from
another installation. However, states
should realize if they approve such
trades they will be consuming part of
their margin for growth and should
explicitly take that into consideration
before approving the trades.
3. Testing techniques and '.:'; r. "'•
determination of specific emission '
limits. The proposed policy stated that '
each emission point must have a specific
emission limit and the limit must be tied.
to enforceable testing techniques.
Several commenters pointed out that
these requirements would prevent some
sources, such as those that emit Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOCs). from using
the alternative approach. EPA did aot
intend to predude the use of
quantifiable surrogate measures that
would allow such sources to use the •
alternative approach. Therefore, the
policy now states that enforceable
testing techniques can Indude specific
control measures, performance
measures, and performance standards.
4. Attainment and nonattainment The
alternative emission reduction approach
may be used in those areas currently in
attainment or in areas where EPA has
Judged the SIP adequate to achieve
attainment by the future statutory
deadlines (this means use of the
alternative approach is allowed for
control of oxidants beyond 1982 for
states that obtain an extension of the
deadline, if the SIP can demonstrate
attainment by 1987). The alternative
approach can also be used within CTG
categories in areas that fail to
demonstrate attainment (see Section E2
of the policy).
Some commenters as*4ed what
happens to the sources that are using an
alternative approach if attainment is not
achieved as expected in the area where
the source .is located. If such a situation
arises, the sources may have to install
more stringent controls on facilities
where the requirements have been
relaxed under the alternative approach
b» cause the statute requires that all
reasonable control measures have to be
taken in an effort to meet NAAQS.
• 5. Limited review period, A few
commenters mentioned that by inaction
on an alternative proposal. EPA or a . .
state could cause a source to come into
compliance late. Consequently, they
• suggested that the policy specify a .".'."-..
reasonable time limit during which the :
state and EPA must act on the proposal
Although EPA agrees that prompt • •
review is needed, it does not believe it
• can limit this process to a specific time
• period. The amount of time necessary to
review an alternative approach depends
on many factors, such as the complexity
of the proposal and tie quality of the
demonstration the source submits. EPA
will handle the alternative approach
• proposals as quickly as possible, but it
must have enough time to ensure that
these proposals are consistent with air .
quality goals. The Agency will make • .
every attempt to expedite the processing
"of those proposals 1bat are • ~. -•••••:.
straightforward. The Agency is asking :
the states to work with it in expediting • .
the SIP revision process. , •' •:' ;,•-•.,
0. Time extensions. As originally • ". '•'
proposed, the alternative emission - .' •
reduction policy stated that existing
compliance dates could not be extended
In. any case. Several commenters argued
that this stipulation is unfair because in
some cases it may be impossible for a
source to implement alternative control
strategies within the time allowed in the
. existing schedule. They also felt that
equity requires EPA to consider delaying
compliance dates in some Instances.
. since the states can establish earlier
dates where the alternative approach '.
can be implemented more quickly than
the existing compliance schedule. : -.:
EPA agrees that for some it may be .:•
difficult to Implement an alternative
' approach on the existing schedule. This •
Is an important reason for sources to ':.«. •
'• submit their alternative proposals as .:
early as possible. However. EPA doe* .
' not have the authority to extend ••"••'•
compliance schedules for the purpose of
Implementing alternative strategies.
Nevertheless, there are drcumstam
where sources can obtain time
extensions for Part D requirements
under existing law. • ' • - • •
For example, a Part D SIP submission
may have established a new particulate
requirement for a source with an
immediately effective compliance date.
Assuming that immediate compliance is
not truly practicable for that source •
(except by shutdown), the Clean Air Act
would allow a new schedule with a final
compliance date no later than December
31.1982, to be established for the source
as long as the new schedule requires
compliance as expeditiously as . ••-r:
practicable and reasonable further ... '
progress is not jeopardized. An . •• •
alternative emission limitation could be
adopted for that source with an .• -,,
expeditious compliance date even . -•-:
though that expeditious date is later . yx
than the immediately effective ••-.-• :ri*j
• compliance date for the existing SEP , -rtl
requirement -••".-,.»-'..:..*,v...-.«-;
" The policy for alternative emission V
reduction approaches is not intended to .
prohibit sources from applying for time
extensions when they would otherwise
qualify for them under the law. Thus, .,
under some <^T"FT*fft^nffi*n sources may -
be able to obtain additional time to . . - •
Implement alternative approaches for •'
meeting Part D requirements. . • .. t
Applications for time extensions should
be made prior to or simultaneously with
the application for the alternative v-^..»;
strategy, r.,.':-,. --^ "•• • •=•' .-"•'•- • .-•" .-;,-.;
v; -Several cbmraenters objected to the ...
requirement that they agree in writing '—
not to seek stays of compliance with the
existing requirement or avoidance of ..
-sanction if the alternative proposal is ..*
; disapproved, challenged, or delayed.
' EPA no longer asks this. However.
before considering alternative .'. ' y
approaches, we will require sources to .
come to an agreement with the control *
agency regarding compliance with .. ~
existing SIPs. These agreements must
not contain provisions that grant the '[.
source stays or waivers of sanctions to
consider an alternative approach. ' 7
There were requests for guidance in
handling noncompliance penalties ~~~.'~
assodated with an alternative approach.
Under Section D.2. of the policy.
paragraphs b, e and d deal with penalty
fees. The appropriate regional contact
person can answer questions that arise
' hi conjunction with a particular
application. — ••••:•<•
7. Comparable trades. The alternative
emission reduction policy only allows "
trading of comparable pollutants. Some'
commenters said that when determining
comparability of pollutants the policy
must consider that pollutants within the
ar;
••£&..•
':?':*&JG£$&.-
".':' '-j^c-
-------
I
717C8 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 239 / Tuesday. December 11. 1979 / Rules and Regulations
same criteria category may have
different effects on air quality. However.
other commenters were of the opinion
that without any specific standards for
individual pollutants within a criteria
category. EPA cannot prevent trades
between pollutants in the same
category. EPA recognizes that pollutants
in the same category may have different
impacts, and will take this into
consideration to the extent legally • -:
possible when reviewing proposed
trades.
8. Open dust source trades. The
proposed policy did not allow trading
paniculate emissions from open dust
sources against particulate emissions
from stacks or industrial processes.
Many commenters objected to this
prohibition and the reasoning that EPA
used to support its decision. EPA has
reviewed this issue and has decided to
no longer categorically prohibit open
dust trades. However, the Agency still
believes it is especially difficult to :- -
ensure equivalent air quality impacts for
such trades. Due to the shortcomings of
air quality models for open dust sources,
EPA will insist on a thorough '
justification and explanation of all
critical Inputs to the emission and air
quality calculations for any proposals
based on modeling demonstrations. ^
Generally. EPA will not approve any ~~-.
proposed alternative emission strategy
based on a modeling demonstration that
proposes to substitute controls on open
dust emissions for reasonable controls
on the more significant sources of
process emissions. EPA will accept good
modeling demonstrations for trades that
do not affect the use of basic controls. '.'
As an alternative to modeling, sources
can propose trades without these . . '•
restrictions if they demonstrate the '.",.,
equivalency of the trades by installing ~
open dust source controls and
monitoring the results. .
9. Hazardous pollutant trades. Several
commenters suggested that the policy '".
should allow trades between the same *
hazardous pollutant We have clarified
our position on this matter and have • .
stated that the emissions of pollutants
that are currently listed under Section ;
112 (but not specifically regulated) may.
be increased at on* emission point only
as long as there is a compensating • ••
decrease in the emission of the same ..
pollutant at another point For those
-pollutants listed under f 112 In the - - .,
future, similar trading restraints will ..
apply. However, in all cases, sources
must comply with applicable Section 112
regulations and they cannot use an •:
alternative emission control to do this.
10. Trades between criteria pollutant
categories. Other commenters urged ....
EPA to consider allowing trades
between criteria categories if the results
will be beneficial, e.g.. trading a
decrease in a pollutant seriously
violating NAAQS for an increase in a
pollutant with a minor violation. EPA
cannot consider any trades involving
pollutants from different criteria
categories because the Clean Air Act
requires SIPs to provide for attainment
for every standard. EPA may not
approve a revision that makes a •
violation worse for one standard. •
regardless of any offsetting benefits for
another standard.
11. Equal emissions. There were
comments that suggested that it was
unduly restrictive to require trades .- .
under an alternative approach to be
equal, since in some cases this is more
control than is necessary to protect • :
ambient air quality. One commenter •
thought that the policy should not '''~
prevent VOC sources from increasing "
emissions because, unlike other •- ••;«'•*
pollutants, they do not create a localized
nonattainment problem. •-.•-....
EPA recognizes that the Clean Air Act
permits states to revise their SIPs in .:
ways that allow increases in total
emissions from a source, a plant, or an
area. But there are significant '• •••-•
restrictions on this authority: The •: -• '
revised SIP must demonstrate • • • • • •••' - *
attainment and maintenance of the . '•
standards; the requirements for .-••'•-•
reasonable further progress in reducing ''
emissions and for attainment as .......
expediUously as practicable must be •••
satisfied; and the revision must not •••*
interfere with the Prevention of •• '?';">.
Significant Deterioration program. •"'i''"
However, the fact that the Act does not
completely prohibit SIP revisions that •''
increase overall emission does not lead
.EPA to encourage such revisions as an
element of this policy statement ' • •"
In EPA's opinion there are important •
policy reasons to discourage SIP • •.-' ••"•
revisions that increase overall /• '•
• emissions. A growing number of serious '
air quality problems are now recognized
as covering broad regions of the country:
ozone violations, elevated sulfates and
"add rain." and visibility reduction. SIP
revisions that permit significant •• »
increases in total emissions of the major
criteria pollutants can exacerbate some
or all of the current wide-scale air - •• •
quality problems. Therefore. EPA does '
not encourage by this policy, or as a
; more general matter, SIP revisions that
: result in overall emission Increases. In ' •
particular. EPA will not approve such
SIP revisions to the extent consistent
: with its current legal authority. • • -'• -
, • VLMultiplant emissions trades. ' .'"-
Several commenters said that use of an
. alternative approach should not be "••<-
-14
restricted to a single plant They said
that this restriction creates an arbitrary
boundary for trading emissions since th<
policy already requires a source to •'•
demonstrate that the alternative •- :
strategy will not harm air quality. —
EPA has changed the policy to allow
more than one plant in the same area to
be included in an alternative emissions
abatement strategy. However. EPA will
require modeling (except in the case of
hydrocarbons and ozone) to show (hat
air quality will be protected. :; •
terIssues ..'..„ ;.„•..;. .. • «...-;•
• ^.-Workerexposure. The Agency ;•'";
received a recommendation that it • ':
disapprove any alternative approach '
that will increase the concentration of
pollutants to which any group of '; _
workers is exposed. EPA has "s~ ~ *'
specifically forbidden trades involving
coke oven particulate emissions. In -_•_• V
many instances emissions close to .J-'^V:
ground level, where workers are located
may have to be weighed differently than
emissions from high stacks. While EPA
does not have the statutory authority to
specifically prohibit a trade because, of ..
increased worker exposure, we ''.''.- :'• ':
encourage states to examine this issue ""
and avoid decisions that would increase
worker exposure. .'"';.".""-.:" ""'."'."»-,,.;.
2. Energy management. There was a
suggestion that the alternative emission.'
policy should encourage innovative '„'."
energy management approaches by i7%.
providing for greater flexibility in the '
use of alternative fuels to meet SIP
requirements. EPA feels that the
alternative approach provides flexibility •
for fuel switching to balance emission
limits, and to the extent that energy is a .*
growing component of the cost of. .,, r.^
meeting pollution control requirements,..-
sources will seek to minimize energy . ±-':
use. However. EPA does not have the _":
authority to take into account such • *'fe
factors as energy savings or choice of ,_ J
fuel when it reviews alternative ..u'^fV
• strategies, -.^.i •_•>•.'•• .ivvvifc-r-*;'••• *'•;*& ni»fr
.... .,
" ""'
Dated: November 29.1979. •
DougU«M.Co»Ua. ••-^ --• '•
Administrator. ' " ''• r ':: ~ ''•' •-• • •
(nDoc.7»4m4nbdU'tfrj**4»««| .
COM «MO-OI-*I .-'•• ' " " - "'
f •
-------
^ _ , „,-.„,,,
UNITED^STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ^^6/ "*'***
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
APR 1 0 1991
THE AOMIN1STRATO*
Honorable John 0. Dingell
Chairman, Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Energy and' Commerce
House of Representatives
Washington, O.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for your letter of November 2, 1990 regarding the
General Accounting Offices's (6AO) report of September 2T~, 1990
which is entitled "Air Pollution: Improvements Needed in
Detecting and Preventing Violations" (B-233555). We have
reviewed the report and noted its findings and recommendations.
The report discusses the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) efforts to detect stationary source violations and take
appropriate enforcement actions under the Clean Air Act (the
Act). The report recommends that EPA: "implement...emission-
monitoring policy by developing regulations that (1) establish
criteria for determining where monitors are feasible [for major
stationary sources], (2) require monitor use at all sources
meeting the criteria, (3) require EPA enforcement staff to use
available enforcement authority to overfile to the maximum extent
possible when States assess inadequate penalties, and (4)
undertake efforts to include specific standards for assessing
economic benefit penalties in the next revisions to State
Implementation Plans (SIPs).n The remainder of this letter
addresses the questions and issues you have posed concerning the
report's findings.
I. EPA'a Ability to Require Authorized Programs to Impose
Economic Benefit Penalties
EPA acknowledges the importance of a strong enforcement
program and the value of a penalty scheme that serves as a
deterrent for violating sources. In order to accomplish this
objective, EPA has developed a Clean Air Act Stationary Source
Civil Penalty Policy ("penalty policy") to ensure that federal
enforcement actions under the Act result in the assessment of a
significant financial penalty. This policy mandates, among other
things, recovery to the extent possible, of the economic benefit
a source may have received through noncompliance with the Act.
In accord with its statutory mandate, much of the Act is
implemented at the State and local level. Section 101(a)(3) of
the Act provides that "the prevention of and control of air
-------
- 2 -
pollution at its source is the primary responsibility of states
and local governments.1* Also Section 110 of the Act explicitly
reference* the primacy of States in the control of air pollution
through the implementation of federally enforceable Sips.
Consequently, EPA relies extensively on the states to enforce the
provisions of the Act. In wording with" the- States, we recognize
the differences that1 exist among the various States1 penalty
authorities and the diversity of approaches they bring to their
various programs. EPA has attempted to address this problem in
several ways. The Agency, in conjunction with the States, has
developed comprehensive guidance policies that address the
Agency's and the States' mutual expectations regarding what
constitutes a timely and appropriate resolution ofviolations
(see EPA's "Revised Policy Framework for State/EPA Enforcement
Agreements", August'25, 1986 (Policy Framework) (Enclosure No. 1)
and EPA's "Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Response Guidance"
for Significant Air Violators, April 11, 1986 (T&A Guidance)
(Enclosure No. 2)). 'Ideally, we would like to see EPA* and the
States achieve a uniform approach to the imposition of penalties.
The Policy Framework addresses State penalties' in'several
ways. It requires each program to clarify where a penalty or
other sanction is an essential part of an enforcement response to
a violation to ensure deterrence. The Air Program's guidance
does this by requiring a penalty for all significant non-
compliance (SNC). However, it also indicates under criterion #6
that States should, at a minimum, calculate economic benefit and
are encouraged to assess "that amount at a minimum. They are also
encouraged to adopt formal penalty policies, or at a minimum
describe to EPA how their penalty authorities or other sanction
authorities will be used to create the necessary deterrence.
Additionally, the Policy Framework requires States to
maintain accessible summaries of penalty assessments and use of
related sanctions for use by Regions in oversight of this aspect
of the program, while promising that penalty practices will be
reviewed in the context of the whole program. Finally, it
clearly states that EPA will pursue its own enforcement action if
a State fails to obtain a penalty where defined as appropriate or
if its penalty was grossly deficient under the circumstances,
considering among other factors, the relation of the penalty to
the economic benefit of non-compliance.
• •
Furthermore, EPA continues to provide support to States in
developing economic benefit penalty models as a* part of their
penalty policies. Throughout the year, EPA's Office of
Enforcement provides training to State and local programs on how
to Include the Agency's computerized model (known as BEN) for
calculating economic benefit in enforcement actions.
Approximately thirty (30) States at present have access to the
BEN computer model.
-------
- 3 -
States have expressed concerns with the strict penalty
formulas advocated by EPA, because they deal with a broader
spectrua of the regulated conaunity. Many of their enforcement
actions involve very snail companies/ individuals- or-i:~
circumstances where^ economic < gain is* vague amfdlf-f icu-tfctr to
assess, (gj^L./ open burning-/-etc-;5) Thua^ tte>. St&ts* insist that
they be allowed to maintain flexibility in utilizing their
assessment of penalties involving economic gain.
EPA's Off ice-of Air and Radiation (OART'isv with the
participation of the Office of Enforcement, developing additional
guidance- which will allow the Agency to evaluate the adequacy of
State's penalty assessments (Enforcement Response;Guidance).
This guidance will assist each State to develop7'enforcement
response plans as a means to measure the individual enforcement
actions taken by States and encourage States to develop penalty
policies which-consider the economic benefit of• noncomplirance.
Such plans will address the full range of responses, including
actions such as permit revocations as well 'as" penalty^-;- •'
assessments. -EPA is also examining the additional enforcement
authority provided in Title V of the clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 as a means of increasing-the States?1 ability to-recover
penalties that offset the economic benefit of violations*' Title
V requires that States must have legal-authori
-------
- 4 -
Also,.although not a part of the SIP review process,
the Regional Offices through their oversight
responsibility have reviewed States* enforcement and
penalty authorities to advance EPA's position for a
credible penalty program. This is^ done by Regional
Offices, in *accordance with the-T&*-Guidance holding
monthly conference calls to discuss compliance program
implementation, specific cases and pending enforcement
actions. Enforcement actions by States hot considered
to be in accordance with the T&A Guidance are addressed
during these monthly program consultations.
Q. (2) "When was the first EPA review of all SZPs made to
address these issues?1*
A. (2) The first, comprehensive review of SZPs was performed
when the SZPs were initially approved by EPA in 1972.
Outside the context of formal SZP review, EPA
continually reviews the activities of the States to
ensure their conformity with national policy. Zn 1984,
EPA and the States developed a national policy guidance
for the timely and appropriate resolution of source
violations (which was revised in 1986) (see Enclosure
No. 1). This policy guidance forms the basis of EPA's
oversight procedures to ensure the adequate resolution
of .State initiated enforcement actions. Since such a
significant portion of the air compliance program is
implemented at the State level, EPA must rely on the
States to resolve most violations. The varying degree
of statutory authority that presently exists among
4.State and local enforcement programs does not always
result in the recovery of a penalty that is equivalent
to the economic benefit of the violation. Zn its
oversight capacity, the Agency continues to work with
the States to upgrade their enforcement and penalty
authorities. This sometimes involves the Agency
assisting States with penalty information needed by
State Legislatures in support of increasing their
penalty authorities. We believe that the permit
program provisions of Title V of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 will provide States with an
additional tool by which to upgrade their penalty
authority. Zn the past two years, we completed a
comprehensive review of all ozone SZPs and are
currently reviewing all SO2 SZPs to ensure among other
things their enforceability. The States will be
required to submit revisions to the extent deficiencies
are noted (within six months for ozone and two years
for S02).
-------
- 5 -
Q. (3) "Has any SIP been disapproved for failure to meet these
requirements?"
A. (3) EPA has not disapproved any SIP because of State
failure .Jto assess adequate penalties.^ .. ^ ;....v
Q. (4) Requests .that EPA. "please provide,~ttiA-opaquested
opinion from your General. Counsel [concerning the GAO
finding.set forth below].1*
The GAO states:
The proposed revisions, however, do not address the
issue of whether State and local enforcement programs
can be required to collect penalties .based on the
economic benefit violators have obtained. According to
senior EPA compliance officials, such- legislative
direction is needed to change the State and local
agencies' practice of not adhering to EEA's-civil
penalty settlement policy. . They pointed out that since
the act makes no specific reference to the issue of
state and local penalties, these agencies .-are likely to
contest any EPA effort to require that economic benefit
penalties be imposed. The EPA officials said that
requiring these groups to assess economic benefit
penalties appeared to be the most appropriate and
practical remedy because (1) State and local programs
will continue to carry out most enforcement actions,
and (2) EPA's enforcement resources will continue to be
limited for the foreseeable future. The EPA officials
said that additional legislative authority and/or
direction would provide the necessary leverage to
compel State and local programs to impose economic
. benefit penalties.
A. (4) I have requested a legal opinion from the Office of.
General Counsel (OGC) on this question. When that
opinion is available, I will provide you with a copy.
-------
- 6 -
Q. (5) "I do not recall EPA bringing this concern [EPA '3
interest in having additional leverage to compel state
and local programs to increase economic penalties-]
during consideration of H.R. 3030 or during the
conference on S.1630. is it still a concern after
enactment of "the- 1990 amendments? "iv ••«••".«•«
A. (5) Our long term goal is to enable States to get
resolution of compliance problems by enhancing- -their
•penalty authorities. Title V of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 provides significant new authority
pertinent to increasing State penalties. • Title V
requires all major sources of air pollution to obtain
operating permits. Under Title V, to have an
approvable permit program States must have authority to
assess $10,000 per day for civil penalties • for-
violation of Title V's provisions-. However, States are
not required to have a permit program, and it is
possible that EPA may administer some permit programs.
Once .the Office of General' Counsel provides the legal
opinion referred to above, the Office of Enforcement
(OE) and OAR will examine what further action EPA
should take regarding States ' assessing economic
benefits in their penalty practices. of- violations.
Q. (6) "I request that EPA re-examine its pobfcey regarding
overfiling particularly in light of the new amendments
and consider where i€ may be appropriate and reasonably
used.1*
A. (6) EPA is concerned that States obtain higher penalties
in Clean Air Act enforcement actions. I have
asked the Acting Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement, Raymond L. Ludwizewski, to convene a
workgroup to develop a more vigorous overfiling policy
for EPA's air program. This workgroup will include
representatives from EPA's Regional Offices, the
Stationary Source Compliance Division of the' Office of
Air and Radiation, and State and local air enforcement
agencies. The primary issue the workgroup will be
charged with addressing will be, what level of
penalties are acceptable in State enforcement actions
before EPA should overf ile? The workgroup will
consider the new requirement in Title V of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990, that States have legal
authority to assess $10,000 per day for each violation
in civil penalties and impose appropriate criminal
penalties to have a federally approvable operating
permits program. We anticipate that the workgroup will
have completed the first draft of the revised
overfiling policy within the next six months.
fc-t-l.
-------
-7-
I will keep you apprised of the schedule for producing
a recommendation after the workgroup convenes".
Q. (7) "In general/ I believe EPA and EPA's General Counsel
and the Administrator, in light of the 1990 amendments,
need to re-examine its entire enforcement role' and
policies to ensure that full, fair, consistent, and
effective enforcement will be carried out in this
decade by EPA and the States.... r request your
comments, while noting that the President and EPA never
complained to Congress that it lacked resources to
enforce the law and carry out the provisions-
recommended in large part by the President.1*-" '~
A. (7) EPA, is presently examining how to improve the
effectiveness of its enforcement program through its
"Enforcement in the 1990's Project1* and the'
"Enforcement Four-Year Strategic Plan." One of the
areas being'reviewed in depth is the State'/federal
relationship in enforcement. Some of the primary
objectives.of the 1990'a Project's -"State/Federal
Relationship Workgroup1* are to: (1) clarify the
appropriate roles and responsibilities of EPA and the
States in environmental enforcement, (2) identify
barriers and opportunities for State involvement in
planning and implementing enforcement strategic plans,
(3) consider the need for more effective EPA oversight
mechanisms, and (4) examine the implications of
strategic planning on existing policies and management
systems. The assessment of penalties, in terms of
EPA's expectations and oversight is clearly a critical
part of this relationship. We plan to complete this
review by the end of FY 1991.
II. Improvements to Detect Air Pollution Violations at
Maior Stationary Sources
EPA recognizes the value of routinely monitoring emissions,
keeping records, and requiring periodic reporting from major
stationary sources. EPA believes such monitoring is of great
benefit both to industry in pollution prevention and energy
minimization and to control agencies in continuous compliance and
targeting of "problem sources." EPA views continuous emission
monitoring in a broader context than that described in the GAO
report. While EPA considers continuous emission monitoring
systems (CEMS) to be the most useful means of directly
determining source compliance with emission regulations, the •
agency also recognizes the need to rely on the application of
-------
- 8 -
other means of continuous monitoring* These include instrumental
monitoring of process parameters such as temperature, pressure,
and voltage, and manual monitoring of process information such as
the number of gallons and chemical analysis of specific paints
used to coat automobiles. These alternative continuous
monitoring techniques.are appropriate in situations where the
technology does "not exist"for CEMS;or the application of
technology is not feasible.
EPA, has exercised authorities granted under the Act prior
to this year by requiring monitoring (preferentially GEMS) in all
NSPS and NESHAPs regulations, and in at least four major
categories of SIP-regulated sources. The Agency routinely
promoted the use of emission monitoring through guidance and
policies, control agency grants, and its management
accountability systems.
EPA recognizes the increased emphasis which the Congress
placed on enhanced monitoring in the new Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990 and intends to fully explore the additional opportunities
and authorities which it received.
Specifically, in promulgating new or revised regulations
which pertain to NSPS, NESHAPs, and major source operating
permits, EPA will routinely include cost effective continuous
monitoring requirements. EPA will preferentially specify the use
of continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) whenever such
instruments are feasible and technologically available. If such
instruments are riot available, EPA intends to rout£HeTy> specify
the use of process or control system monitoring systems whenever
these instruments' are technologically available. To the extent
neither type of instrumental system is available, EPA intends to
specify source use of manual recording of process parameters.
In addition, EPA will require State and local agencies to
utilize a similar hierarchical approach in preparing their SIPs
to comply with compliance certification and operating permits
requirements of the CAAA. To assist the State and local agencies
i.n this effort, EPA will encourage them to utilize, among other
things, the data and other information which EPA prepares when it
develops NSPS and NESHAPs.
EPA believes GAO understates some of the promotional
activities undertaken during the period addressed by the GAO
report. These include the following:
o increased Federal promulgation of SIP regulations
containing CEMS requirements.
o Headquarters presentations in public and professional
conferences, including:
fc-t-S
-------
- 9 -
- the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
meeting (September 1988, in Philadelphia),
- the Air and Waste Management Association (AWMA) GEMS
Specialty Conference (November 1989, in Chicago),
- the Engineering Foundation Meetings on Source
Measurements (October 1989, in Florida and November
1990, in California).
o Headquarters presentations in Agency workshops and
meetings, including:
• six different EPA Air Pollution Training Institute
workshops on emission measurement techniques,
• two different workshops on SO2 SIP processing,
o Establishment of Agency CEMS data follow-up strategies in
Regional Offices,
In the following paragraphs EPA provides additional
information in response to the five CEMS-related questions raised
in your letter.
Q. (8) "Clearly, an increase in CEMS are likely under the
revised law. . Some of the changes were urged by the
President and the EPA,-and, as 6AO observes, CEMSs are
more efficient than inspections, although both are
needed. Again, the President and EPA never suggested
that EPA lacked resources to implement these requests.
I hope that the above comments by 'EPA compliance
officials' are not official Administration policy.
Please comment."
A. (8) As indicated earlier, EPA intends to implement a
continuous monitoring program for all major sources.
However, the implementation of this program will have to
be done in a manner which ensures that the technology for
the given source or source category is feasible and
technologically available. It will be phased in over*
time consistent with the implementation of the CAA
amendments. If EPA did not take into consideration these
factors, the resources of State and local agencies and
industry could very well be a limiting factor.
It should also be noted as previously stated that EPA
views the tern "continuous monitoring" to include not
-------
- 10 -
only CEMS instruments, but also techniques such as the
use of process and control system parameter monitors and
manual recordkeeping.
Q. (9) "I presume that the term »major1' sources are those
at 100 tons or more and would not include all the %major'
sources now covered by the 1990 amendments. Please
comment* I note that Pennsylvania has found that OEMs
*are not appropriate for every major stationary source.'"
A. (9) EPA intends to require the use of continuous monitoring
at all "major" sources required to have permits under
Title V and those subject to new or revised NSPS and
NESHAPS regulations, including those defined by the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990.
Q. (10) "Please explain the use of CEMs that EPA believes is most
efficient and effective. Should they be used to * detect
violations?1 Please explain. When are CEMS appropriate
for a major stationary source?"
A. (10) CEMS may be used most efficiently and effectively in
the following order of priority:
(a) industry self-regulation, pollution prevention, process
and energy optimization, and certification of
compliance,
(b) detection and documentation of a violation of an
emission standard and an operation and maintenance
(O&M) requirement,
(d) targeting of sources for possible agency follow-up
fe.a.. compliance tests, inspections).
Q. (11) "I am interested in this view that CEMs can
help a firm reduce its costs, while providing;
pollution control-benefits. If true, EPA should do
more to convince the regulated community of these
benefits. I request that you address in greater
detail the reliability, costs, and benefits issues,
as well as the concern that the regulated industry
does not want *full-time' monitors."
A. (11) As noted in the GAO report, CEMS have been shown to
provide pollution prevention and energy optimization
benefits, as well as compliance certification benefits
ft-t-10
-------
- 11 -
to Industry. It has been well documented that sources
that properly select, install, operate and maintain
their GEMS obtain very high levels of reliability (well
in excess of 90%) and improved levels, of; compliance.
EPA will continue to- vigorously promote CEMS ami other
forms of continuous monitoring to- industry. It will
use various techniques- to inform and- convince industry
of the benefits of monitoring including: speaking and
presenting technical papers at professional meetings,
participating in Agency workgroups, writing and
distributing technical reports and manuals to State and
industry personnel, and participating in State and
industry training activities.
Furthermore, OAR will promote, in cooperation with ORD,
the development of new technology which will result in
additional CEMS for applications for which there
currently are no monitors. As such CEMS become
available, EPA will incorporate them- into regulatory
requirements imposed upon major sources.
'As to your question on industry's desire-not to have
full time monitors. Agency experience- suggests that
some in industry are very apprehensive about a
mechanism or procedure that can document non-compliance
and expose their company to potential liabilities that
can attach to periods of non-compliance. To many, this
is an unknown area that makes them very uncomfortable.
Q. (12) "Finally, GAO observes that EPA 'has not fully
followed through' in implementing its 1988 emission-
monitoring policy *calling for CEM installation and
use where feasibler because of 'resource limitations
and higher priority activities.' That is not an
acceptable excuse in light of the President's
legislation. EPA and the President promised
implementation of the law. Such monitoring is a part
of it. Please explain your implementation plans."
A. (12) EPA plans to review and revise as appropriate the 1988
emission monitoring policy taking into consideration
the 1990 CAA amendments; EPA will develop a plan which
will phase in implementation consistent with the timing
for the development of acid rain, operating permit,
enhanced monitoring, compliance certification, and the
NSPS and NESHAP programs to ensure efficient
implementation by EPA, States and industry. The plan
will include:
fi-t-ii
-------
- 12 -
(a) developing guidance for how EPA and State
agencies should incorporate CEMS, and when to
require some other form of continuous monitoring
-• in their regulatory activities,
•-,1
~ (b) the development of additional types- of OEMS/
-ftjy incorporating the use of CEMS and other continuous
monitors in regulations, guidelines, workshops,
etc.*, and
• ;-A'.- - -~
fd) providing training and technical assistance to
agencies and industry related to continuous
monitoring. - .
Q. (13)~ • n[T]he two pictures in the GAO report are apparently
EPA pictures. • GAO tells us that one was taken in New
Jersey in £990 and the other was taken in-Maryland in
- 1987. There is no discussion in the report about the
nature of the pollutants, the controls, or other
pertinent information. GAO does not know if there was
a violation when they were taken. Also it is unclear
why-they were taken. Please provide more such
details."
A. (13) We are unable to provide you with the requested
information at this time. We will seek assistance from
GAO in an attempt to identify the sources involved. We
will work with the GAO to determine more details
regarding these sources.
I trust that this letter is responsive to the questions and
issues you have posed. If you have additional questions or
concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me, or have your
staff contact Michael S. Alushin, the Associate Enforcement
Counsel for Air in the Office of Enforcement about questions
5-7. He may be contacted at (202) 382-2820. For information
about questions 1-3 and 8-13 please contact John Rasnic, Acting
Director, Stationary Source Compliance Division. He may be
contacted at (703) 308-8672. For information about question 4,
you may contact Alan Eckert, Associate General Counsel for Air
and Radiation, on (202) 382-7606.
Sincerely your
William K. Reil
LE-134A:MALUSHIN:382-2820:M3211
(H -u
-------
- 13 -
Enclosures
cc: The Honorable Charles A;-Howshef
Comptroller General °°wsner
General Accounting Office
ft-fe-13
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JUL 5 1988
AIM AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
r ^ls~*
SUBJECT: Transmittal of SO2 Continuous Compliance/Strategy I
FROM: John S. Sertz, Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, and DC
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division
Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and ToxicJs Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII, and X
Air and Radiation Division Director
Regi on V
Attached is the final version of the SO2 Continuous
Compliance Strategy. As you may recall, a draft compliance
strategy for SO2 sources was distributed for comment
May 1, 1987. Subsequently a draft SO2 Continuous Compliance
Strategy was circulated February 26, 1988. Based on the
comments received on these two documents this final strategy
emerged.
The latest Regional review (February 26th draft) indicated
only miiiimal changes were necessary. The decision point
table used to determine appropriate action for noncorapliers
has been simplified and additional discussion has been added
concerning resource allocation procedures. Also, the overall
document has been streamlined somewhat and clarified as nucn
as possible.
6-1-1
-------
- 2 -
As discussed in the "Introduction", an approach is
presented for gathering and analyzing SO2 data in a nationally
consistent manner to help State/local agencies and Regional
Offices make decisions about noncompliers. As such, it should
help agencies to allocate scarce resources more effectively.
Please note, that while the strategy is designed to provide
flexibility, any actions taken must be consistent with all
applicable enforcement guidance. Bob Marshall (FTS 382-2862)
is SSCO's contact.
Attachment
-------
SO? CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
INTRODUCTION
This strategy provides State/local agencies and EPA
Regional Offices with guidance on making decisions about S02
noncompliers. It divides SO2 violators into two groups.
The first group consists of marginal noncompliers requiring
additional information before launching an enforcement action.
The second group are sources significantly out of compliance
for which an enforcement action should be considered.
Numerical percentages, related to degree of noncompliance are
used to indicate the appropriate type of follow-up action
(See DECISION POINTS AND RECOMMENDED FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS, p.4).
The strategy is specifically designed not to impose any
additional burdens; rather, its purpose is to ensure consistent,
efficient and effective utilization of existing SO2 compliance
resources. Current regulatory requirements are used to determine
excess emissions, averaging time, monitoring methods and
degree of violation. Previously issued guidance and standardized
procedures provide an adequate basis for fully implementing
this strategy. Specifically, any actions taken should be
consistent with the documents entitled "Timely and Appropriate
Enforcement Response Guidance" which was issued by the Office
of Air and Radiation on April 11, 1986, "Enforcement Applications
of Continuous Emission 1-ton i tor ing Data" which was issued by
the Stationary Source Compliance Division and the Air Enforcement
Division on April 22, 1986; and, the "OAQPS CEMS Policy"
statement, which was reissued on March 31, 1988. Copies of
these guidance packages may be obtained by contacting the
Stationary Source Compliance Division.
This strategy does not change any underlying emission
standards or .requirements. It establishes no rights or
privileges for the regulated sources nor does it change the
definition of a violation. The goal for compliance remains
at 100 percent. Further, the level of compliance activity
identified by this strategy should be thought of as a
minimally acceptable program. Agencies are encouraged to
implement more rigorous activities as they deem appropriate.
-------
- 2 -
APPLICABILITY <<
This strategy applies to £lass .OSO2 sources such as;
coal & oil-fired utility and im3oa-ti^ial boilers, smelters,
refineries, steel mills, sulfuric acid plants, and pulp
mills which* are regulated by SIPs, NSPS or PSD/NSR permits.
DECISION POINTS FOR SO? NONCOMPLIERS
The data analysis table on page 4 provides numerical
decision points and recommended follow-up actions for different
types of compliance problems that may be identified by stack
test reports or self-reporting mechanisms. Stack test
reports, such as Method 6 for NSPS sources, clearly establish
the complilance status of a source in a legally enforceable
form. Therefore, such a violating source should be immediately
ranked using the prioritization scheme described on page 4;
and, an active enforcement action initiated, if appropriate.
The three categories of self-monitoring reports submitted
by sources are: 1) reports from SC>2 continuous emission
monitoring .systems (CEMS), 2) fuel sampling and analysis
reports (FSA), and, 3) other reports, such as malfunction/bypass,
fuel supply or inspection data. Using in for sat ion from these
reports,, the percent of noncompliance is computed based on
the length of time in violation. Length of time refers either
to excursions above the regulatory limit or lack of monitoring
information due to data collection and/or transmission problems
(See page 3). The percent of noncompliance is then compared
to values in the table and the designated follow-up actions
pursued. . :
As an example, consider a Subpart Da Electric Utility
steam generator that failed to meet the 1.2 Ibs/MM HTU emission
limit for one 24 hr. period (based on a 30 day rolling average).
Under the table heading "GEM AND/OR FSA IS THE EMISSION
COMPLIANCE METHOD" and subheading "EMISSION LIMIT EXCEEDED",
the percent of time is greater than 1% [i.e., 24 hr./ (90
days x 24 hr)= 1.1%]. Therefore, the source should be
scheduled for enforcement consistent with the prioritization
scheme developed on page 5. This does not mean an automatic
enforcement action must ensue, but it does place the source
in-line for future actions as resources may permit.
fc-l-4
-------
- 3 -
It should be noted that many of these sources would
qualify as significant violators should any violation be
determined to have occurred. Therefore, these decision
points should be used to identify SO2 significant violators.
Assuming a source meets the other criteria for such a
designation, these decision points delineate a degree of
noncompliance that would automatically place a source on the
significant violator list. Additionally, existing guidance
including^hose addressing federally reportable violations',
timely & appropriate enforcement actions and SPMS committments
should be imposed\
rv
-------
- 4 -
DECISION POINTS AND RECOMMENDED FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS
(Rased on Quarterly Data!
If the percent is less than that shown below, acquisition of more data is
recommended be fere proceeding with enforcement actions.
If the percent is greater than or equal to the lumerical value below, a
prioritization procedure should be used to rank the importance of the violation
and then the designated enforcement activity initiated.
DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION
DECISION POINT
1. STACK TEST DATA
Emission Limit Exceeded
Proceed with enforcement
prioritization ranking.
2. GEMS AND/OR FSA IS THE EMISSION COMPLIANCE METHOD
(LT = Length of Tine)
EMISSION LIMIT EXCEEDED
Formula: (LT In Violation/LT of Operation) x 100%
1%
EMISSION REDUCTION SHORTFALL \ 1%
Formula: Percent of tine not meeting emission reduction
requirement. Formula: (LT In Viol./LT of Oper.) x
* ___ _ _ _ _
DSTA ACQUISITION SHORTFALL, FDR LON3 AVERAGING TIMES.
Formula: (LT of Data Inadequacy/LT of Operation) x 100%
DATA ACQUISITION SHORTFALL, FDR SHORT AVERAGING TIMES. 5%
• Formula: (LT of Data Inadequacy/LT of Operation) x 100%
3. GEMS AND/OR FSA IS NOT EMISSION COMPLIANCE METHOD
(LT = Length of Time)
EMISSION LIMIT E
-------
- 4a -
4. NftLFUNCTION/BYFftSS EftTA:
(LT « length of Time)
EMISSION LIMIT EXCEEDED
(Except Copper Smelters) 5%
Formula: (LT. In VioIation/LT of Operation) x 100%
HUSSION LIMIT EXCEEDED
(Copper Smelters Only) 1%
Formula: (LT In Violation/LT of Operation) x 100%
-------
- 5 -
DATA COLLECTION
For those sources exhibiting performance less than the
indicated amount in the table, collection of more data is
recommended. Acquire more data means the source should be
contacted to determine the specific nature of the apparent
problem and the corrective action taken. Often clarification
of such problems can be achieved through informal means
(e.g., telephone) and additional review of existing data.
However, if the available data is not useful or conclusive,
then a more formal mechanism is indicated. Formal approaches
include using Section 114 of-the Clean Air Act, or similar
state authority, conducting a monitor audit or an on-site
inspection. This formal approach should be consistent with the
priorities in the CMS strategy. Should an inspection be the
preferred mechanism, such inspection would be scheduled using
the "Compliance Monitoring Strategy for FY 89." Once the
data is collected and analyzed, the agency should determine
whether to proceed with an .enforcement action.
ENFORCEMENT'
The requirement to initiate enforcement means that the
frequency of the violation is great enough that remedial
measures are appropriate. In this case, traditional
enforcement measures according to EPA's current practices
should be implemented. ]
• »
Due to various limitations, an EPA Regional Office or
State/local agency may not be able to address all SO2
noncompliers immediately. Therefore, an enforcement
prioritization scheme should be developed. Since each agency
has unique .problems and commitments with respect to SC>2/
a number of different approaches are permissible.
General considerations for any prioritization scheme
include:
0 Air quality
e Nonattainment vs. Attainment status
0 Potential emission reductions
0 SPMS comini tments
Inclusion of these general factors and their applicability
for prioritizing sources is left to each agency's discretion.
-------
- 6 -
Specific factors that can be used to prioritize SC>2
sources requiring remedial action include:
* Source compliance history
* Source's compliance rate compared to others
in its category.
* Actual emission rate
* Control technology limitations
* O&M practices
" Frequency and magnitude of the violations
These specific factors should be woven anto the overall
scheme developed under the general considerations. Each
agency should formulate it's own prioritization scheme as
soon as practicable.
In addition, sources designated by the chart on page 3
should be prioritized for inspection consistent with their
ranking under the CMS process. Any sources subsequently
inspected and found to be in violation should, then be
prioritized for enforcement action consistent with existing
guidance. The results are, of course, reported through the
Compliance Data System.
DATA BASE REQUIREMENTS
All data reported on an affected unit should be entered
into the appropriate data system following existing guidance
(i.e., enforcement actions in CDS and EER data in the CEMS
Subset of CDS). Guidance issued by SSCD on July 9, 1987
on the CEMS Subset and Attachment B to "Second Quarter FY 88
SPMS Reporting Instructions for the Stationary Source
Compliance Program", (March 15, 1988) provide instructions
on the input of unit-specific data, and the information to be
reported through the CEMS Subset.
SUMMARY
A strategy to maintain a high level of SC-2 compliance .
must be incorporated into each yearly planning cycle. It is
recognized that resource limitations effectively prevent an
aggressive follow-up to each and every violation. Therefore,
to more efficiently utilize EPA funding, this strategy has
been devised as a msans to prioritize resource expenditures.
In essence, very minor violations require only more data
collection rather than immediate enforcement actions. Other
violations are treated in a more traditional fashion.
-------
Appendix C
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I
DATE: January 10, 1991
SUBJ: Review of the Region I SO2 SIPs
PROM: Tom Elter
TO: Susan Studlien
THRU: Bob O'Meara
In conducting the Connecticut review, I consulted both Dave Conroy's
file on the Connecticut SIP and the files contained in the Lektriever.
Single source SIP revisions were excluded from this review.
Unfortunately, the details of the conditions associated with the SIP
changes are not well documented, and this complicates the review.
In conducting all other reviews, after consulting 40 C.F.R. Part 52, I
went to the SIP files contained in the Lectriever and examined all
pertinent changes to the each SIP, excluding single-source SIP
revisions. Unfortunately, the details of the conditions associated
with the SIP changes are not well documented. Furthermore, in many
cases -the original 1972 SIPs were missing. This complicated the
review, because the current SIP had to be pieced together.
GENERAL COMMENTS
All of the SIPs regulate S02 from fossil fuel combustion by regulating
the sulfur content of the fuels. The SIPs regulate persons who use,
buy or sell fuel oil for use in their respective States. In general,
there are no test methods specif j^^, a"^ *•"•» ra^r>r/^o t^ t-xa kept or
reports to be sent to the agencies. There are no averaging times
specified. There are no means of continuous compliance.
Most SIPs allow for the use of higher sulfur fuels if the flue gas is
cleaned such that S02 emissions are equivalent to what would be emitted
burning the same fuel with complying amounts of sulfur. There are no
continuous emission monitoring requirements for add-on control devices.
There is no discussion of how the emissions are to be shown to be
equivalent (for instance, how does one deal with sulfur retention in
the ash?) . Also, there is no requirement that the source notify the
agency of the option it chooses to comply with (although this seemed to
be a concern voiced during the national teleconference, I don't see
this as a trick question).
Many of the SIPs have an emergency variance provision whereby the
-------
Director of the agency can approve the use of a higher sulfur fuel in
cases of a fuel shortage. Most of these provisions were not approved
by EPA.
None of the single-source SIP revisions I examined are summarized in
this memo. However, none of the revisions I examined modified the SIP
with the exception of raising the allowable sulfur content of the fuel
for that particular source.
A completed SO2 Enforceability Checklist for each state is attached. I
have also attached pertinent copies of state regulations, Federal
Register Notices, etc. Due to the abbreviated time frame in which to
complete this task, I reviewed the SIPs only in the context of the
checklists, and did not critically review the SIP language.
-------
MASSACHUSETTS
The Massachusetts SIP regulates the sulfur content of fuels. The
regulation is organized into six sections (Metropolitan Boston, Pioneer
Valley, the Berkshires, Central Massachusetts, Merrimack Valley, and
Southeastern Massachusetts). The contents of each section is structured
the same way: The first paragraph limits the sulfur in fuel. A second
section allows the use of a higher sulfur fuel if emissions to the air
are no greater than if a low sulfur fuel were used (that is, if
emissions are scrubbed). Another section establishes a limit for
distillate oil. Also, there is a provision which requires distributors
of fuel to register with the Department.
In addition to the above requirements, in each of the sections of the
regulation except the Berkshire Air Pollution Control District, there
appears a section which raises the allowable sulfur content (from 0.55
pounds sulfur per million BTU to 1.21 pounds sulfur per million BTU)
for facilities having an energy input capacity of 100 mmBTU/hr or more.
One possible problem with the wording is that it is not clear that this
provision applies only to units with an individual capacity of 100
mmBTU/hr, or whether the entire facility can be aggregated. However, a
more serious concern, after review of the SIP files, shows that these-
revisions were made for specific sources and may not necessarily apply
to each 100 mmBTU/hr boiler across the board.
•
As is the case with the other SO2 SIPs in New England, the are no
averaging times stated, and no test methods are stated.
A copy of the State SIP regulation is attached. Some miscellaneous
comments appear in the margins.
-------
S02 SIP ENFORCEABILITY CHECKLIST
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Sulfur in Fuel Regulation
1. Does the rule specify sources subject to the rules?
Yes: Persons owning, leasing, or controlling the operation of a
fossil fuel utilization facility; persons responsible for the sale or
•distribution of fuels...
2. Averaging times:
None are stated.
4. Compliance Tests?
No methods are stated.
5. Is there a means of assessing compliance on a continuous basis?
•
No.
6. Reporting requirements:
7. Recordkeeping/retention:
Persons delivering fuels with a sulfur content in excess of the
regulation limits must verify that the Department has approved of its
use, and also keep a record of the shipment. .Any person distributing
fuel must be registered.with the Department.
8. Alternative compliance (i.e., low sulfur or scrubber):
Sources can use a scrubber.
There is no recordkeeping, test methods, or continuous compliance
methods specified.
9. Directors discretion:
The Department may approve the use of higher sulfur fuel in units with
a heat input capacity of 100 mmBTU/hr. EPA has required these to be
SIP revisions.
C-l-4
-------
MAINE
General Discussion:
The original Maine sulfur-in-fuel SIP was approved in 1972 (copy
attached). It was revised on January 8, 1982 (copy attached). The
revision establishes a limit of 2.5 % sulfur statewide, except in a
downtown Portland area, referred to as the "Portland Penninsula," where
the limit is 1.0 %. There is an exemption for sources that install
add-on control equipment that achieves an emission limit equivalent to
what would be emitted burning 1.5 % sulfur fuel. This appeared in the
1972 SIP and was presumably carried over into the 1982 revision. The
1982 state submittal also provided an exemption during fuel shortage
periods, which the EPA did not approve. No test method.s are specified.
No averaging times are specified. There is minimal recordkeeping
requirements.
The federal SIP is inconsistent with the state law, which raises the
allowable sulfur limit in some areas. Please refer to the attached
copy of the state regulation.
•
The sulfur dioxide emissions standard for sulfite mills was approved by
EPA in 1972. The standard limits emissions to 40 Ibs SO2 per air dried
ton of sulfite pulp produced. The regulation should state how to
measure the pulp production. (Actually, a concentration limit is much
easier to enforce.) There is a malfunction provision in the 1972 SIP
(requiring subject sources to notify the state with 48 hours), and test
methods were specified. The state agency may approve the use of
equivalent methods.
Please refer to the attached SO2 checklists which have been completed
for these regulations.
-------
SO2 SIP ENFORCEABILlTY CHECKLIST
State of Maine
Low Sulfur Fuel Regulation
1. Does the rule specify sources subject to the rules?
Yes: Persons who sell, distribute, buy, or use fuel.
2. Averaging times:
None stated.
3. Consistent with NAAQS?
No averaging times are stated.
4. Compliance Tests?
No Test methods are stated in the federal SIP. However, the existing
state regulation does state some test methods for sampling and
analysis.
5. Is there a means of assessing compliance on a continuous basis?
Np.
6. Reporting requirements:
Any person importing residual oil or coal into the state must submit a
record of the sulfur content pf each shipment.
Regulation doesn't say what the report is to contain, or when it should
be sent.
7. Recordkeeping/retention:
The 1972 SIP required that any person importing or shipping residual
oil or coal into the Metropolitan Portland Air Quality Control Region
shall maintain a record of the sulfur content for three years. This
apparently was not carried over in the 1982 revision.
8. Alternative compliance (i.e., low sulfur or scrubber):
A source may install add-on control equipment as long as emissions are
equivalent to burning 1.5 % sulfur fuel. No equivalecy methods or
calculations are described. Sulfur retention is not described.
9. Directors discretion:
The director may grant a varience, but this provision is not part of
the SIP.
C-J-fc
-------
SO2 SIP ENFORCEABILITY CHECKLIST
State of Maine
Sulfite Mill Regulation
1. Does the rule specify sources subject to the rules?
"All emissions (except from burning petroleum fuels} at sulfite-type
pulp mills."
2. Averaging times:
None are stated.
3. Consistent with KAAQS?
No averaging times are stated.
4. Compliance Tests?
Manual test methods 1 and 6 as promulgated by EPA on December 23, 19.71,
or other such methods as are deemed equivalent by the Department of
Environmental Protection.
5. Is there a means of assessing compliance on a continuous basis?
No.
•
6. Reporting requirements:
The is a malfunction regulation which requires the source to notify the
state in 48 hours.
7. Recordkeeping/retention:
None.
8. Alternative compliance (i.e., low sulfur or scrubber):
None.
9. Directors discretion:
See above.
-------
RHODE ISLAND
The current Rhode Island SIP establishes a maximum sulfur content in
fuels. It allows the use of a higher sulfur fuel if flue gas cleaning
processes are used. It allows for the use of emissions bubbling
(approved by EPA in 1983) .and contains a conversion/conservation
incentive. There is a section of the state regulation that allows an
exemption for coal boilers over 250 mmBTU/hr that was not approved by
EPA.
A checklist for this regulation is attached.
-------
S02 SIP ENFORCEABILITY CHECKLIST
State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations
Regulation 8: Sulfur Content of Fuels
l. Does the rule specify sources subject to the rules?
Yes: Persons that- store for sale, offer for sale, sell or deliver for
use in RI, and persons that use or store high sulfur fuel. (High
sulfur fuel is defined in the regulation) .
2. Averaging times:
None are stated.
3. Consistent with NAAQS?
No averaging times are stated.
4. Compliance Tests?
Not clear. Section 8.4.1(a) references 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Appendix A,
but 8.4.1(b) specifies laboratory analysis of fossil fuels by the owner
or operator or supplier using ASTM methods approved by the Director.
EPA approved the revision with the understanding that RI would not
approve a method without first consulting EPA.
5. Is there a means of assessing compliance on a continuous basis?
No.
6. Reporting requirements:
Section 8.4.2 requires that each shipment of residual fuel oil received
at a marine terminal be sampled and a report sent to the Director. The
regulation doesn't say who shall do the sampling (other than a
"qualified laboratory), "marine terminal" is not defined, test methods
are not specified, and a "qualified" laboratory is not defined.
7. Recordkeeping/retention:
None.
8. Alternative compliance (i.e., low sulfur or scrubber):
Alternative compliance provisions include the use of control equipment,
the use of a bubble, or conservation-type permits. If gas cleaning is
used, the Department must approve it and the source must meet an
emissions limit of 1.1 Ib S02/mmBTU. No testing is required; no
averaging times are specified; there are no provisions for continuous
c,-\-<\
-------
monitoring.
If emissions bubbles are used, the source must get approval from the
Director. EPA approval of this revision stated that such approvals
would have to be SIP revisions, although this is not recognized in the
regulation itself. Furthermore, this regulation was approved prior to
EPA's publication of EPA's current "bubble" policy. One could argue
that the 1979 or 1982 policy would apply. The current policy should be
stated in the SIP. There are no averaging times specified, nor
compliance test methods specified. Recordkeeping is not mentioned.
However, these deficiencies could be contained in the bubble
permits/SIP revisions.
If a conversion/conservation incentive is sought, approval must come
from the Director. Again, the EPA approved this contingent on the
source receiving a SIP revision. No averaging times or compliance
provisions are discussed.
9. Directors discretion:
As discussed above, relative to EPA's approval of the bubble and
conservation provisions, a SIP revision is necessary. Regarding the
Director's approval of test methods, the RI agency promised it would
check with EPA first.
-------
VERMONT
I have not been able to locate the original Vermont SIP. However, the
Vermont state agency has compiled the federally-approved SIP, and this
is attached. Also attached is a copy of Vermont's current sulfur
regulations, which are not necessarily part of the federal SIP. For
instance, Regulation 5-221(2), pertaining to waste oil, is not part of
the SIP.
Vermont's original SIP was approved in 1972. There have been two
revisions, one in 1977 and one in 1978. The 1977 revision to
regulation 5-221, Prohibition of potentially polluting materials in
fuels, added 5-221(b), which set a sulfur dioxide emission limit,
expressed in pounds SO2/mmBTU, on boilers with a heat input greater
than 250 mmBTU/hr. The 1978 revision, which EPA termed procedural,
moved 5-221(b) to 5-251, Prohibition of gaseous air contaminants,
paragraph (2), Control of sulfur dioxide. New paragraphs were added,
5-221 (b) - (d), which allow the use of flue gas cleaning and provide
for an exemption from the low sulfur regulation during fuel shortages.
6-1-
-------
S02 SIP ENFORCEABILITY CHECKLIST
State of Vermont
Prohibition of Potentially Polluting Materials In Fuel, 5-221
1978 SIP Revision
1. Does the rule specify sources subject to the rules?
Yes: persons who use, buy, or sell fuels for use in Vermont.
2. Averaging times:
None 'stated.
3. Consistent with NAAQS?
No averaging time is stated.
4. Compliance Tests?
No compliance test methods are stated.
5. Is there a means of assessing compliance on a continuous basis?
No.
6. Reporting requirements:
None.
7. Recordkeeping/retention:
None.
8. Alternative compliance (i.e., low sulfur or scrubber):
Is it clear what applies? The alternative compliance scheme
allows for the use of flue gas cleaning equipment. The emissions must
be no greater than what would be emitted under the low sulfur fuel
section.
Does it require notification?
No.
Other requirements?
Emission testing is required to demonstrate the effectiveness of the
controls.
9. Directors discretion:
The Secretary may approve the use of 2.2 % S fuel if a person shows
that 2.0 % S is not available.
-------
SO2 SIP ENFORCEABILITY CHECKLIST
State of Vermont
Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions, 5-252
1978 SIP Revision
1. Does the rule specify sources subject to the rules?
Yes: Fuel burning equipment with a heat input of 250 nunBTU/hr.
2. Averaging times:
None specified.
3. Consistent with NAAQS?
No averaging times specified.
4. Compliance Tests?
No tests are specified.
5. Is there a means of assessing compliance on a continuous basis?
No.
6. Reporting requirements:
None. ,
7. Recordkeeping/retention:
None.
8. Alternative compliance (i.e., low sulfur or scrubber):
None.
9. Directors discretion:
None.
6-1-
-------
NEW HAMPSHIRE
There have been three statewide SO2 regulation actions by EPA. The
first is the approval of the original 1972 SIP. Those early
regulations included two sets of sulfur regulations: (1) a sulfur-in-
fuel reg and (2) a smelter regulation.
The second statewide action was the 1983 revision. For the most part,
this action simply approved a renumbering of the state regs. Some
minor changes were made. Of significance regarding the SO2 regs was
New Hampshire's attempt to relax the SO2 SIP, which EPA disapproved.
However, it looks like EPA approved a variance with the regs contingent
on a fuel shortage. Also, regarding Chapter 108 (Testing
Requirements), there is a note in the margin stating "revised see
attached revisions," but no revisions are attached. Finally, in the
1983 SIP revision, the EPA did not approve New Hampshire's variance
regulation, Chapter 206.
The third action was the 1984 revision raising the statewide sulfur-in-
oil limit from 1.0- % to 2.0 or 2.2 % except for ten identified sources.
*
Copies of each of these regulations are attached, as are SO, SIP
ENFORCEABILITY CHECKLISTS.
-------
SO2 SIP ENFORCEABILITY CHECKLIST
State of New Hampshire
' 1983 SIP/Revisions
Regulation: Chapter 400 Sulfur Content Limits In Fuels
1. Does the rule specify sources subject to the rules?
Yes: persons using fuel in fuel burning devices
persons selling fuel for use in fuel burning devices.
Deficiency: definition of fuel burning device has director's
discretion
2. Averaging times:
Deficient: s
None for liquid fuel; "trimonthly" for coal at 2.0 Ib/mmBTU, but no
specific period for short-term limit of 2.8 Ib/mmBTU (presumed
instantaneous).
3. Consistent with NAAQS?
Deficient:
•
Averaging, time is not consistent with the NAAQS.
4. Compliance Tests?
Deficient:
Chapter 800: No specific test methods are mentioned ( i.e., by methods
of measurement accepted by the EPA or by the agency).
Chapter 400: "in accordance with the most recent ASTM methods or
equivalent methods acceptable to the agency."
5. Is there a means of assessing compliance on a continuous basis?
No.
»
6. Reporting requirements:
Deficient:
Chapter 400 requires: all major companies, and other companies
designated by the agency, which supply fuel for use or sale in the
state, are required to submit to the agency copies of fuel analyses for
each different consignment of fuel.
The reg does not specify the companies to which it applies. It is my
-------
opinion that it should apply to those facilities that burn the fuel.
The reg does not define consignment, nor sampling frequencies, nor
reporting frequencies.
7. Recordkeeping/retentioh:
Deficient: there are no records retention requirements.
8. Alternative compliance (i.e., low sulfur or scrubber):
The reg includes an exemption to the low sulfur fuel regulation for
sources that have sulfur dioxide emissions control equipment.
Is it clear what applies? Yes: sources that operate fuel burning
devices.
Does it require notification? Yes: "Upon application to the
commission..." It does not detail what data/information must be
submitted in the application.
Other requirements?
The applicant must prove to the satisfaction of the agency the device
will continuously prevent emissions in excess of what would be emitted
under the low-sulfur part of the regulation burning the same type of
fuel. This is deficient because, in addition to requiring the
applicant to make the agency happy, the regulation should state
unequivocally what the compliance levels are.
There are no averaging times stated, no malfunction provisions, no
compliance test methods, no GEM requirements, and no reporting nor
recordkeeping requirements.
9. Directors discretion:
It appears that EPA approved a 90 day variance contingent upon a fuel
shortage. It requires that an application be submitted to the agency.
The variance is granted if it is shown to the "commission's
satisfaction" that there isn't enough complying fuel, and that the
NAAQS will not be violated. The lack of complying fuel must be
verified by the governor, and an affidavit must be signed by the
applicant. The agency must notify the EPA after granting the
exemption, and no variance shall become effective until it has received
approval from the EPA.
Deficiency: This was not in the original SIP, and it looks like EPA
rubber stamped it (since each emergency variance requires EPA approval
prior to its effective date).
-------
S02 SIP ENFORCEABILITY CHECKLIST
State of New Hampshire
1983 SIP/Revisions
Regulation: Chapter 1205.04, Smelters
1. Does the rule specify sources subject to the rules?
Yes: Copper, zinc, and lead smelters (smelters is defined in Chapter
100) .
2. Averaging times:
Nop averaging times are specified.
3. consistent with NAAQS?
N/A.
4. Compliance Tests?
No tests are specified.
»
5. Xs there a means of assessing compliance on a continuous basis?
No.
6. Reporting requirements:
None.
7. Recordkeeping/retention:
None.
•
Original 1972 SIP had a malfunction provision whereby the source could
continue to operate for 48 hours if the malfunction was reported to the
agency, in 8 hours. The Commission also could extend operations to
beyond the 48 hours.
8. Alternative compliance (i.e., low sulfur or scrubber):
Not applicable.
9. Directors discretion:
None.
Original SIP contained some provisions.
-------
S02 SIP ENFORCEABILITY CHECKLIST
State of New Hampshire
1983 SIP
Regulation: Chapter 108, Testing Requirements
Summary: this regulation requires submission of a test plan; states
that the agency may require tseting; requires testing to be done at
representative points; states that testing shall be done by methods
accepted by the EPA or the agency; requires the owner to provide
ports; states that data collected will be made available to both the
source and the state; and states that VOC testing may be accomplished
with a mass balance where appropriate.
1. Does the rule specify sources subject to the rules?
No.
2. Averaging times:
Not Applicable.
3. Consistent with NAAQS?
Not Applicable.
4. Compliance Tests?
No methods are specified.
•
5. Is there a means of assessing compliance on a continuous basis?
NO.
•
6. Reporting requirements:
None.
7. Recordkeeping/retention:
None.
•
8. Alternative compliance (i.e., low sulfur or scrubber):
Not Applicable.
9. Directors discretion:
Discretion used on the selection of test methods.
-------
CONNECTICUT
Under Regulation 22a-174-19, the SIP regulates SO2 from fuel
combustion, refinery gas (as H2S), copper, zinc, and lead smelters,
sulfite pulp mills, and other process sources. Also, recordkeeping and
testing requirements can.be found under regulations 22a-174-4 and -5.
The original Connecticut SIP was approved in 1972. Revisions to the
SO2 SIP were made in August 1981 and November 1981. The August 1981
revision incorporated Connecticut's Energy Trade Program. Some
provisions of state law are not part of the feredal SIP, as noted on
the attached copy of the state regulation.
The sulfur-in-fuel regulation, which is confusing to read, is
summarized as follows:
a(2) requires the use of fuel with a maximum sulfur content of
1.0 %, dry basis. Solid fuel users must get an operating
permit or demonstrate that emissions are not greater than
1.10 Ib S02/mmBTU.
Discussion: The November 1981 revision raised the statewide •
sulfur limit from 0.5% to 1.0%. The federal register (48 FR
56613) clearly states in the narrative that the statewide 1.0 %
limit is intended for fuel oil. If a source uses coal with a
sulfur content of 1.0 % it must demonstrate that, in addition,
its SO2 emissions are less that 1.1 Ib SO2/mmBTU or get a permit.
The narrative states that the permit must be submitted as a SIP
revision.
a(3)(i) contains provisions for the use of other than 1 % sulfur
fuel. It states that the "Commissioner" may approve the
combustion of fuels which contain more than 1.0 % sulfur
provided that the emissions from a given "premise" do not
exceed 0.55 Ib S02/mmBTU of gross heat input.
a(3)(ii) contains provisions that allow the "Commissioner" to
approve the combustion of fuels with more than 1 % sulfur
provided emissions do not exceed 1.1 JLb SO2 /mmBTU of heat
input.
Discussion: [ EPA approved Connecticut's Energy Trade Program in
August 1981, but made corrections to inconsistencies in the final
rulemaking in November, 1981. ]
There are two important distinctions in the wording of these two
paragraphs. Paragraph a(3)(i) applies to a "premise," and limits
emissions on a "gross heat input" basis, while a(3)(ii) applies
to fuel burning equipment and limits emissions on a "heat input"
basis. The narratives contained in the proposed (May 1981) and
final (August and November 1981) Federal Register notices attempt
to describe what this provision is trying to accomplish. It
requires establishment of a type of cap based on an energy-to-
-------
production ratio. Essentially, a particular "premise" (grouping
of all air pollution emitting sources at one location) selects a
year in which its energy needs per unit of production (i.e.,
MW/thousand widgets) were the highest (least efficient energy
use) and uses this year to calculate the "gross heat input,"
which is an annual .number. Neither the SIP nor the Federal
Register states how the energy per unit production ratio is to be
applied (supposedly it is in the SIP narrative).
Regulation 19 also includes standards for flares at refineries,
sulfuric acid plants, sulfur recovery plants, smelters, sulfite
mills and other process sources. No averaging times are stated,
nor are emission test methods or reporting/recordkeeping
requirements. Some problems exist with the standards. For
instance, the sulfite mill standard is expressed in pounds SOX
per air dried ton of pulp. There needs to be a way to measure
the air dried tons of pulp produced, yet none is specified.
"Other process sources" are limited to 500 ppm SO2 at standard
temperature and pressure, but standard conditions are not.
defined.
I have attached the SO2 checklist for the SO2, recordkeeping and
testing regulations.
In my opinion, EPA's reliance on its interpretation of the narrative in
the Federal Registers, and the "SIP narrative" (presumably contained in
the SIP file) is a major deficiency. In addition to the obvious
problems of interpretation, there are other issues that arise, also.
For instance, the consumption of PSD increment was raised during the
comment period. EPA relied on the SIP "narrative," that is, a promise
by the state to see if emissions increases impact a baseline. Finally,
wherever the "Commissioners" approval is needed, it seems that the
narrative in the Federal Register states that a SIP revision is needed.
-------
SO2 SIP ENFORCEABILITY CHECKLIST
State of Connecticut
1981 SIP
Regulation! 22a-174-19, Sulfur Dioxide
1. Does the rule specify sources subject-to the rules?
Yes: It applies to fuel merchants and fuel users, (both defined) ;
refineries; sulfuric acid plants; sulfur recovery plants; smelters;
sulfite pulp mills; and other process sources. None of these sources
were defined.
2. Averaging times:
No averaging times are listed in the regulation.
3. Consistent with NAAQS?
Not applicable.
4. Compliance Tests?
Under paragraph a (5), the "Commissioner" may require fuel analyses and
stack tests to ensure compliance. A separate regulation specifies the
methods (See the accompanying checklist).
5. Is there a means of assessing compliance on a continuous basis?
No.
6. Reporting requirements: v
None.
7. Recordkeeping/retention:
Paragraph a(6) requires people selling fuel containing sulfur to keep
records of all sales. This doesn't say anything about what is to be
maintained, or for how long.
8. Alternative compliance (i.e., low sulfur or scrubber):
There are no provisions allowing a source to comply using a wet
scrubber. There are provisions allowing the use of a higher sulfur
fuel, subject to the approval of the Commissioner. EPA interprets this
to require a SIP revision (as stated by EPA in the Fed. Reg. notices
approving the regulations) .
Is it clear what applies?
No; State Procedures are supposedly contained in the SIP narrative,
but are not described in the regulation.
-------
Does it require notification?
Yes, it requires a permit.
Other requirements?
See Comments in memo.
9. Directors discretion:
As mentioned above, wherever the Commissioner's approval (or a permit)
is required, EPA intended that such approval/permit was to be submitted
as a SIP revision.
-------
SO2 SIP ENFORCEABILITY CHECKLIST
State of Connecticut
Regulation: Recordkeeping
1. Does the rule specify sources subject to the rules?
Yes: The operator of any air pollution source...as prescribed by the
Commissioner.
2. - 4. Not applicable
5. Is there a means of assessing compliance on a continuous basis?
Paragraph a(2) gives the Commissioner broad authority to require
continuous monitoring or use of stack sampling.
6. Reporting requirements, and 7. Recordkeeping/retention:
Paragraph (c) gives the Commissioner broad authority to require the
submission of records; monitoring data are to be kept for 3 years.
8. Alternative compliance (i.e./ low sulfur or scrubber):
^Not Applicable.
9. Directors discretion:
The Commissioner approves opacity monitor design and performance
specifications; prevents deliberate shutdown of monitors.
-------
S02 SIP ENFORCEABILITY CHECKLIST
State of Connecticut
Regulation: Emission Testing
1. Does the rule specify sources subject to the rules?
This is a broad regulation which is used to specify emission test
methods.
2. and 3. Not applicable.
4. Compliance Tests?
Methods for the analysis of fuels for sulfur are specified. Sampling
frequencies are not specified.
Methods for testing for sulfur dioxide and sulfur oxides specify use of
the manual test methods found in 40 CFR Part 60. Modifications can be
made subject to the approval of the Commissioner.
9. Directors discretion:
-------
jyod
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
DATE:
UBJECT: SO2 SIP Deficiencies Final Review ("Yellow Book")
William S. Baker, Chief
Air programs Branch
TO-. Laura McKelvey, Environmental scientist
SO2 Programs Section, OAQPS
Enclosed is Region II 's final review in identifying deficiencies
in sulfur dioxide (S02) State Implementation Plans (SIPs) . The
review has been updated to incorporate the virgin islands SIP to
complement the New Jersey, Mew York and Puerto Rico SIPs. The
overview, highlighting general comments of the review, is also
included.
This memorandum is also making OAQPS aware of the Region's
requt > to include this review in appendix form in the "Yellow
Book."
»
On the issue of State commitments to submit schedules to correct
deficiencies, Region II has not solicited, nor received any
commitments at this point. However, based on the Fiscal Year
1991 STAR Targets, Region II is presuming that all four States
will require revisions and thus need to submit schedules. Also,'
an air quality demonstration is required to support an earlier
SIP revision affecting sulfur- in- fuel limitations on St. Croix,
VI. Therefore, the total number of schedules expected from the
States was cited as five in the STAR report. Upon receipt of the
"Yellow Book," my staff will begin negotiations with the states.
Attachments
cc: R. Werner, 2AWM-AP
bcc: K. Mangels, 2AWM-AC
J. Menczel, 2AWM-AC
R. Ruvo, 2AWH-AP
K. Seet, 2AWH-AC
Y. Yeung, 2AWM-AC
-------
Region II Overview of alP Review
Puerto Rico regulations establish source specific rules
which are then applicable to other general rules describing
source monitoring, record keeping, reporting, san^ ling and
testing methods, air pollution emergencies, air pollution
control equipment, permits and compliance plans.
Puerto Rico's source specific rules sometimes contain
phrases such as "comply to applicable rules in this
Regulation." These 'catch all phrases' are assumed to be
used in order to* hold a source accountable in cases where it
is not clearly stated. When deficiencies are corrected, it
is suggested that this type of phrasing be revised to
clearly define exactly which sources are accountable and by
which rules.
Alternative Approaches in Puerto Rico's SIPS are found in
Rule 107 Air Pollution Emergencies. This rule presents
emission levels of pollutants and combinations of pollutants
which would then dictate the type of emergency.' However
appropriate control actions to be taken are stated but not
clearly defined. Emergencies, malfunctions, start-ups and
shutdowns should be reviewed and better defined when
regulations are revised.
New York Part 227 Stationary Combustion Installatior
all parts of this regulation are adopted into the SIP
New York Part 214 By-Product Coke Oven Batteries is not
part of the adopted SIP.
Part 214.9 Gaseous emissions: The limit of sulfur
compounds is.measured as hydrogen sulfide.
New York Part 216 Iron and/or Steel Processes
Part 216.3 Gaseous emissions: No specific gases are
identified. Would this include SO2 and/or H2S ?
New York Part 225-2 Fuel Composition and Use - Waste Fuel.
Fuel sulfur limitations set forth in Subpart 225-1 are
referred to in the definitions of waste fuels. However, the
sampling requirements do not refer to sampling by any
specific method.
In general, the checklist questions were used with an
understanding that when a conflict occurred amongst the
reviewers as to how clearly a rule is written, the default
was "no." This would at least flag a deficiency that needed
additional review or policy. It is suggested that
subsequent steps in the correction process include examples
as to what type of phrasing makes for a clear rule.
C-l-Z
-------
NJAC 7:27-7
NJAC 7:27-9
NJAC 7:27-10
NJAC 7:27-13
2
HEW JERSEY SOj fllP DEFICIENCY REVIEW
Applicable Rules
Sulfur
Sulfur in Fuels
Sulfur in Solid Fuels
Ambient Air Quality Standards
-------
JERSEY flO3 fllP DEFICIENCY REVIEW
MJAC 7:27-7 Sulfur
1. Does the rule clearly specify sources subject to rule?
YES.
The rule clearly states that all facilities emitting sulfur
compounds in the forms of gases, vapors or liquid from any
stack or chimney would be subjected. Only exception in the
regulation is for commercial fuel combustion facilities or
discharges from 'pressure relief stack due to emergency
conditions. Some facilities are exempted from certain parts
of the regulation due to their gases discharge volume and
the nature of the facility. Flares are also mentioned.
2. Does the rule clearly specify applicable averaging times
associated with emission limitations.
YES.
The average time is based on a 60 minute rolling average,
while emissions limit is determined by the stack height,
stack exit velocity and exit gases temperature of the
facility.
3. Is averaging'time in rule consistent with protection of the
NAAQS?
YES.
4. Does rule have compliance test methodologies consistent with
the averaging time and units of the applicable emission
limitations?
YES.
Although no specific method is mentioned in the regulation,
the compliance test methods chosen must be approved by State
agency. The compliance test does require data such as SO2
concentration/ total gas volume scharged, gas temperature
and pressure at sampling point, be recorded at least once
each hour (This may not show com^-iance ^r a 60 minute
rolling average value).
5. Does rule have a ^ea -.; of determining compliance/excess
emiff
-------
7.
Not clear, the* regulation specifically stated that emissions
must not exceed the allowable limit in any 60 minute period
and at any instant the maximum emissions rate should not
exceed twice the allowable emission. However/ regulation
does not explicitly state that CEM is required. It only
states that sampling and testing facility must be provided
to the State agency upon State's request.
Is the averaging time of the rule's continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology consistent with
protection of the NAAQS?
Does rule specify requirements to report compliance data to
regulatory agencies, Including format and frequency of data
reporting?
NO.
There isn't any reporting of compliance data directly to the
State except for those facilities requesting exemptions from
the regulation, which is a one time reporting. Only stack
testing data are required to be kept on site for the state
to review. In addition, notification for start up/ or shut
down which exceeded the allowable limits must be reported to
the State.
8.
YES.
Does rule contain clear requirements for compliance data
recordkeeplng and retention?
YES.
Stack test data must be kept on site for state to review for
at least one year.
If the rule contains an Alternative Approach:
a) Is it clear which limits apply to each affected source
prior to the tlmeframe In question.
b) is it clear that such limits, once selected, apply to
each source for the entire duration of the reporting
period.
c) does it require source notification or request from the
agency prior to the effective tlmeframe.
d) does it require CEMS, which are always available, to
assure acquisition of sufficient data to determine each
source's compliance status under all alternative
conditions.
-------
a) YES.
b) NO.
C) NO.
d) NO.
Yes, regulation has alternative approach for multiple stacks
emissions from single source operation, a) Yes, regulation
states that total quantity discharged from any one stack
shall not exceed the allowable emission permitted for that
stack, nor shall the total quantity discharged from all the
stacks exceed the allowable emission that would be permitted
from the single stack having the greatest allowable
emission, b) The regulation does not explicitly state that;
however, it is implied, c) No. d) No, it is unclear
whether OEMs is required by the regulation; however,
regulation has provision for the State to require the
facility to install temporary or permanent testing and
sampling facilities on site.
20. if the rule contains an Alternative Approach which contains
features other than alternative emission limits, does it
clearly state the method of determining compliance on a
continuing basis?
NOT APPLICABLE.
»
11. Does the rule contain director's discretionary authority?
Director's discretion should be highlighted and disapproved
in accordance with forthcoming guidance.
YES.
Director's discretion is contained throughout the
regulation.
12. Section 123 deficiencies; including compliance with the 2985
regulations, sources affected by the remand and ICS.
NOT APPLICABLE.
There are no intermittent control systems in Region II.
-------
6
NEW JERSEY 8Qa SIP DEFICIENCY REVIEW
NJAC 7:27-9 Sulfur in Fuels
Does the rule clearly specify sources subject to rule?
YES.
The rule Is applicable for all persons storing, selling,
delivering/ exchanging or using fuel (gaseous, liquid, or
liquefiable petroleum product) containing sulfur. The
regulation limits sulfur content in fuel depending on where
the facility is located. However, the regulation seems to
gear specifically toward users who have mathematical
combination for SO2 emissions, since most sampling and
testing in the regulation are for those facilities, only
exception in the regulation is for ocean going vessels or in
motor vehicles. By product and fuel combustion facilities
with less than 310 ppm by volume adjusted to 12% CO2 are
exempted from certain parts of the regulation.
2. Does the rule clearly specify applicable averaging times
associated with .emission limitations.
NO.
For general combustion not under mathematical combination,
the only requirement is to limit the sulfur content in their
fuel. This limitation is based on the fuel viscosity,
facility location and BTU content of the fuel. For
mathematical combination, there is a 24 hr averaging time
associated with emissions limit and air quality modeling.
3. Is averaging tine in rule consistent with protection of the
NAAQS?
NO.
Not clear, only the alternative emission control plan for
the mathematical combination is consistent with NAAQS.
(Regulation may be consistent, if the regulation is based on
prior air quality modeling of.the designated areas)
4. Does rule have compliance test methodologies consistent with
the averaging time and units of the applicable emission
limitations?
NO.
Not clear, although all facility must meet limitation based
on pounds of S02 emitted per million BTU of fuel, regulation
-------
.8
does not explicitly state any testing methods for the
general sources. For mathematical combination facilities/
certifications are required for SQ2 emissions based on
quantity of fuel burned, fuel sulfur content, maximum gross
heat input and grades of fuel burned.
5. DOBS rule have a means of determining compliance/excess
emissions on a continuing basis?
NO.
The regulation does not require any OEM devices nor does it
explicitly state that continuous fuel sampling analysis is
required. However, mathematical combination facilities are
required to submit fuel analyses to the State at time
Intervals specified by the State.
£» Is the averaging time of the rule's continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology consistent with
protection of the NAAQS?
•
MO.
Not clear, see question 5.
7. roes rule specify requirements to report compliance data to
regulatory agencies, including format and frequency of data
reporting?
NO.
Not clear, for mathematical combination facilities, they
must submit fuel analyses to the State at time interval
specified by the .State. It is not clear, if non
mathematical combination facilities are required to submit.
fl. Does rule contain clear requirements for compliance data
recordJceeping and retention?
NO.
9. If the rule contains an Alternative Approach:
a) is it clear which limits apply to each affected source
prior to the timeframe in question.
b) is it clear that such limits, once selected, apply to
each source for the entire duration of the reporting
period.
c) does it require source notification or request from the
agency prior to the effective timeframe.
d) does it require CEMS, which are always available,, to
assure acquisition of sufficient data to determine each
-------
.6 'd Se=SI IG/8I/t?.Q t?6IQ
8
source's compliance status under all alternative
conditions.
a) YES.
b) YES.
c) YES.
d) NO.
Yes, regulation has alternative approach for mathematical
combination, a) Yes, S02 emissions limitation is still
based on fuel usage and fuel sulfur content on a 24 hour
basis, b) Yes. c) Yes, facility must have State approval
for their mathematical combination application prior to
operation as mathematical source d) No, GEM is not
required by the regulation; however, regulation has
'provision requiring facilities to submit fuel analyses to
the State at interval specified by the State.
if the rule contains an Alternative Approach which contains
features other than alternative emission limits, does it
clearly state the method of determining compliance on a
continuing basis?
NO.
The regulation does not seem to clearly state the method of
determining compliance on a continuing basis. Unless State
required facilities to do fuel analyses at a frequent
interval (e.g., hourly or daily)
11. Does the rule contain director's discretionary authority?
Director's discretion should be highlighted and disapproved
in accordance with forthcoming guidance,
YES.
Exemption and incentive for conversion to coal or other
solid fuel are under Director's discretion as are other
sections of the subchapter.
22. Section 123 deficiencies; including compliance with the 1985
regulations, sources affected by the remand and ICS.
NOT APPLICABLE.
There are no intermittent control systems in Region II.
-------
9
MEW JERSEY SOj SIP DEFICIENCY REV1BW
NJAC 7-: 27-10 Sulfur in Solid Fuels
1. Does the rule clearly specify sources subject to rule?
YES.
The rule is applicable for all persons storing, selling,
delivering, exchanging or using solid fuel containing
sulfur. The regulation limits sulfur content in solid fuel
depending on where the facility is located* The regulation
also regulates any expansion, reconstruction or construction
of solid fuel burning units (this includes resource recovery
facilities (RRF) and solid fuel-fired steam generating
unit). Regulation exempts ocean-going vessels and one or
two family residences using coal.
2, Does the rule clearly specify applicable averaging times
associated with emission limitations.
NO.
The regulation only limits the sulfur content in the solid
fuel used, it does not specify an averaging time for
emissions limitation. Only for expansion, reconstruction or
construction of solid fuel burning units that 30 day rolling
average Is required for emission limitation, (i.e., SO2
emissions of a RRF must not exceed 1.2 Ibs of SO2 per one
million BTU gross heat input determined as a 30 day rolling
average.) For facilities where they can demonstrate that
low sulfur coal cannot be obtained, they must also show that
they meet ambient air quality standards.
3. Is averaging time in rule consistent with protection of the
NAAQS?
NO.
Not explicitly stated, however, it is implied that this
regulation meets NAAQS from the ambient air quality
requirement (NJAC 7:278-13, which is essentially same as
NAAQS) for those facilities unable to obtain low sulfur
coal.
4. Does rule have compliance test methodologies consistent with
the averaging time and units of the applicable emission
limitations?
NO.
Not clear, solid fuel classification is based on ASTM
C-2-10
-------
tl'd
-------
31 'd iS'SI 16/81/^0 F6IO bdB'STI WOdd
11
source's compliance status under all alternative
conditions.
NO.
a) MO.
b) NO.
c) NO.
d) NO.
10. If the rule contains an Alternative Approach which contains
features other than alternative emission limits, does it
clearly state the method of determining compliance on a
continuing basis?
NOT APPLICABLE.
11* Does the rule contain director's discretionary authority?
Director's discretion should Jbe highlighted and disapproved
in accordance with forthcoming guidance.
YES.
Many exceptions are under Director's discretion with source
input for compliance demonstration.
»
12* Section 123 deficiencies; Including compliance with the 1985
regulations, sources affected by the remand and ICS.
NOT APPLICABLE.
There are no intermittent control systems in Region II.
-------
12
NEW JERSEY BO- SIP pEFICIBNCY REVIEW
NJAC 7:27-13.4 Ambient Air Quality Standards
1. Does the rule clearly specify sources subject to rule?
YES.
The rule is applicable throughout all areas of the State.
2. Does the rule clearly specify applicable averaging tines
associated with emission limitations,
YES.
For primary air quality standards, during any 12 consecutive
months, arithmetic mean concentration of sulfur dioxide in
ambient air shall not exceed .03 ppm and 24 hour average
concentration shall not exceed .14 ppm more than once. For
secondary air quality standards, during any 12 consecutive
months, the arithmetic mean concentration of sulfur dioxide
in ambient air shall not exceed .02 ppm, 24 hour average
concentration may not exceed . l ppm more than once and three
hour average concentration may exceed .5 ppm not more than
once.
3. IB averaging time In rule consistent with protection of the
NAAQS?
YES.
4. Does rule have compliance test methodologies consistent with
the averaging time and units of the applicable emission
limitations?
NO.
5. Does rule have a means of determining compliance/excess
emissions on a continuing basis?
YES.
Not explicitly, but implied.
6. is the averaging time of the rule's continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology consistent with
protection of the
YES.
-------
13
7. Does rule specify requirements to report compliance data to
regulatory agencies, including format and frequency of data
reporting?
NO.
8. Does rule contain clear requirements for compliance data
recordkeeping and retention?
NO.
9. If the rule contains an Alternative Approach:
a) is- it clear which limits apply to each affected source
prior to the tlmeframe in question.
b) is it clear that such limits, once selected, apply to
each source for the entire duration of the reporting
period.
c) does it require source notification or request from the
agency prior to the effective tlmeframe.
d) does it require CEMS, which are always available, to
assure acquisition of sufficient data to determine each
source's compliance status under all alternative
conditions.
NO.
a) NO.
b) NO.
C) NO.
d) NO.
10. If the rule contains an Alternative Approach which contains
features other than alternative emission limits, does it
clearly state the method of determining compliance on a
continuing basis?
NOT APPLICABLE.
11. Does the rule contain director's discretionary authority?
Director's discretion should be highlighted and disapproved
in accordance with forthcoming guidance.
NO.
12. Section 123 deficiencies; including compliance with the 1985
regulations, sources affected by the remand and JC5.
NOT APPLICABLE.
There are no intermittent control systems in Region II.
-------
SI'd 68:91 16/81/frO frBIO bdB'STI WOdd
14
KBW YORK SQ3 SIP DEFICIENCY REVIEW
Applicable Rules
Part 212 General Process Emission Sources
Part 214 By-Product Coke Oven Batteries
Part 216 Iron and/or Steel Processes
Part 223 Petroleum Refineries
Part 224 Sulfuric and Nitric Acid Plants
Part 225-1 Fuel Composition and Use - Sulfur Limitations
Part 225-2 Fuel Composition and Use - Waste Fuel
Part 227 Stationary Combustion Installations
Part 231 Major Facilities
-------
3 I'd Of:St 16/31/PO frSlG tfd3'5T» WOdd
15
MEW YORK SOa SyP DEFICIENCY REVIEW
Part 223 Petroleum Refineries
1. Does the rule clearly specify sources subject to rule?
YES.
2. Does the rule clearly specify applicable averaging times
associated with emission limitations*
NO.
223.6, S2 compound emissions. Refers to sulfur compound
emissions and hydrogen sulfide standards only.
3. Is averaging time in rule consistent with protection of the
NAAQS?
NO.
•
4, Does rule have compliance test methodologies consistent with
the averaging time and units of the applicable emission
limitations?
NO.
5. Does rule have a means of determining compliance/excess
emissions on a continuing basis?
YES.
6. Is the averaging time of the rule's continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology consistent with
protection of the NAAQS?
NO.
7. Does rule specify requirements to report compliance data to
regulatory agencies, Including format and frequency of data
reporting?
NO.
Only at the request of the commissioner.
-------
Ll'd Ofr.'SI I6/SI/fO t>610 bd3'STI
16
8. Does rule contain clear requirements for compliance data
recordJeeeplng and retention?
YES.
5. J/ the rule con tains an Alternative Approach:
a) is it clear which limits apply to each affected source
prior to the timeframe In question.
b) is it clear that such limits, once selected, apply to
each source for the entire duration of the reporting
period.
c) does it require source notification or request from the
agency prior to the effective timeframe.
d) does it require CEMS, which are always available, to
assure acquisition of sufficient data to determine each
source's compliance status under all alternative
conditions.
NOT APPLICABLE.
10. If the rule contains an Alternative Approach which contains
features other than alternative emission limits, does it
clearly state the method of determining compliance on a
continuing basis?
NOT APPLICABLE.
11. Does the rule contain director's discretionary authority?
Director's discretion should be highlighted and disapproved
in accordance with forthcoming guidance.
YES.
12. Section 123 deficiencies; Including compliance with the 1985
regulations, sources affected by the remand and ICS.
NOT APPLICABLE.
There are no intermittent control systems in Region II.
-------
17
NEW YORK 8O- 8IP DEFICIENCY REVIEW
Part 224 Sulfuric and Nitric Acid Plants
1. Does the rule clearly specify sources subject to rule?
YES.
224.a.1 Should refer to a specific part of Part 212 for
limits.
2 • Does the rule clearly specify applicable averaging times
associated with emission limitations.
NO.
3, Is averaging time in rule consistent with protection of the
NAAQS?
NO.
4. Does rule have compliance test methodologies consistent with
the averaging time and units of the applicable emission
limitations?
NO.
224.c.2 Uses an example of the Reich test, National Air
Pollution Control Administrative publication #999-AP-13)
5. Does rule have a means of determining compliance/excess
emissions on a continuing basis?
YES.
£• Is the averaging time of the rule's continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology consistent with
protection of the NAAQS?
NO.
7. Does rule specify requirements to report compliance data to
regulatory agencies, including format and frequency of data
reporting?
NO.
-------
_6T'd 3t?:9I IS/81/t^O fr-610 tfdB'STI WOHd
18
Only at the request of the commissioner.
8. Does rule contain clear requirements for compliance data
recordkeeplng and retention?
YES.
9. If the rule contains an Alternative Approach:
a) Is it clear which limits apply to each affected source
prior to the tineframe In question.
b) Is It clear that such limits, once selected, apply to
each source for the entire, duration of the reporting
period.
c) does, it require source notification or reguest from the
agency prior to the effective timeframe.
d) does It require CEMS, which are always available, to
assure acquisition of sufficient data to determine each
source's compliance status under all alternative
conditions.
NOT APPLICABLE.
. •
10. if the rule contains an Alternative Approach which contains
features other than alternative emission limits, does it
clearly state the method of determining compliance on a
continuing basis?
NOT APPLICABLE.
11. Does the rule contain director's discretionary authority?
Director's discretion should be highlighted and disapproved
In accordance with forthcoming guidance.
YES.
224.6 Exception a) and b).
17:. Section 123 deficiencies; including compliance with the 1985
regulations, sources affected by the remand and ICS.
NOT APPLICABLE.
There are no intermittent control systems in Region II.
-------
O2'd 3f:9l I6/SI/fO F610 bd3'STI WOdd
19
NEW YORK flOa 8IP DEFICIENCY REVIEW
Part 225-1 Fuel Composition and Use - Sulfur Limitations
1. Does the rule clearly specify sources subject to rule?
YES.
2. Does the rule clearly specify applicable averaging times
associated with emission limitations.
NO.
225.1 (a) (1) (2) and (3).
N
3. Is averaging time In rule consistent with protection of the
NAAQS?
NO.
4. Does rule have compliance test methodologies consistent with
the averaging time and units of the applicable emission
limitations?
NO.
Reference standards are to general. 225.7 (d).
5. Does rule have a means of determining compliance/excess
emissions on a continuing basis?
YES.
6. Is the averaging time of the rule's continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology consistent with
protection of the NAAQS?
NO.
225.7 and 6 (b).
7. .Does rule specify requirements to report compliance data to
regulatory agencies, including format and frequency of data
reporting?
NO.
225.7 (a) But, Only at the request of the commissioner, to
C -2 -
-------
12'd £fr:SI I6/8!/frO F6IO bd3'STI WOdd
20
retain and report.
8. Does rule contain clear requirements for compliance data
recordkeeping and retention?
NO.
225.7 (b) No tine retention period specified*
9. If the rule contains an Alternative Approach:
a) is it clear which limits apply to each affected source
prior to the timeframe in question.
b) is it clear that such limits, once selected, apply to
each source for the entire duration of the reporting
period.
c) does it require source notification or request from the
agency prior to the effective timeframe.
d) does it require OEMS, which are always, available, to
assure acquisition of sufficient data to determine each
source's compliance status under all alternative
conditions.
225.2 Special Limitations contingent upon air quality.
a) YES.
b) YES.
c) NO.
d) YES. Not strong. 225.2 (c) (2).
225.3 Exception contingent upon fuel shortage.
a) YES.
b) YES.
C) YES.
d) NO.
225.5 General exceptions.
a) Fuel Mixtures
a) YES.
b} N/A.
c) YES.
d) NO.
b) Equivalent Emission Rate
a) YES.
b) YES.
c) NO.
d) NO.
c) Experiments
a) YES. Duration of experiment should be specified.
b) NO.
c) YES.
-------
21
d) NO.
d) Coal and coke
a) YES.
b) YES.
c) NO.
d) NO.
10. It the rule contains an Alternative Approach which contains
features other than alternative emission limits, does it
clearly state the method of determining compliance on a
continuing basis?
225.2 NO.
225.3 NO.
225.5 NO.
•
11. Does the rule contain director's discretionary authority?
Director's discretion should be highlighted and disapproved
in accordance with forthcoming guidance.
225.2
225.2
225.2
225.3
225.3
225.5
225.5
(*>)
C(l)
C(2)
a
b
a
b
12. Section 123 deficiencies; Including compliance with the 1985
regulations, sources affected by the remand and ICS.
NOT APPLICABLE.
There are no intermittent control systems in Region II.
-------
SS'd frfr:£I 16/81/fO t>610 bd3'STl WOdd
22
NEW YORK fiO3 8TP DEFICIENCY REVIEW
Part 227 Stationary Combustion Installations
1. Does the rule clearly specify sources subject to rule?
NO.
Should state that owners /operators of stationary combustion
installations are affected* The beginning only states
prohibited use of bituminous coal, hand fuel/ and particular
emission limits.
2. Does the rule clearly specify applicable averaging times
associated with emission limitations.
3. is averaging time In rule consistent with protection of the
NAAQS?
NO.
4. Does rule have compliance test methodologies consistent with
the averaging time and units of the applicable emission
limitations?
NO.
227.9 b "...most recent ASTM standard methods or equivalent
methods acceptable ..."
5. Does rule have a means of determining compliance /excess
emissions OQ a continuing basis?
NO.
227.5 c Daily and weekly basis.
•
6. Is the averaging time of the rule's continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology consistent with
protection of the NAAQS?
NO.
7. Does rule specify requirements to report compliance data to
regulatory agencies. Including format and frequency of data
-------
I ._. ._! _3 >_l ^ O ._..-..._•.-•. -. •- -
t?6io yd3'STi woad
23
reporting1?
NO.
Only at the request of the commissioner.
8* Does rule contain clear requirements for compliance data
recordkeeplng and retention?
HO.
Only as required by the commissioner.
9. if the rule contains an Alternative Approach:
a) is it clear which limits apply to each affected source
prior to the timeframe In question.
b) is it clear that such limits, once selected, apply to
each source for the entire duration of the reporting
period.
c) does it require source notification or request from the
agency prior to the effective timeframe.
d) does it require OEMS, which are always available, to
assure acquisition of sufficient data to determine each
source's compliance status under all alternative
conditions.
MOT APPLICABLE.
10. If the rule contains an Alternative Approach which contains
features other than alternative emission limits, does it
clearly state the method of determining compliance on a
continuing basis?
NOT APPLICABLE.
11. Does the rule contain director's discretionary authority?
Director's discretion should be highlighted and disapproved
in accordance with forthcoming guidance.
YES. 227.4 (c)
227.6 (d)
227.9 (a)
12. Section 123 deficiencies; including compliance with the 1985
regulations, sources affected by the remand and ICS.
MOT APPLICABLE.
There are no intermittent control systems in Region II.
c o. -
-------
S3 'd
IddB'STl WOdd
PART IV
Rule 401
Rule 411
Rule 412
Rule 413
Rule 414
Rule 415
Rule 416
OTHERS
Rule 209
Rule 410
24
PUERTO RICO flOa SIP DEFICIENCY REVIEW
Applicable Rules
PROHIBITIONS
Generic Prohibitions
•
Hydrogen sulfide
Sulfur Dioxide Emissions; General
Sulfuric Acid Plants
Sulfur Recovery Plants
Non-Ferrous Smelters
Sulfite Pulp Mills
Modification of Allowed Percentage of Sulfur in
Fuels
Maximum Sulfur Content in Fuels
The following Rules do not contain any specific reference to
SO2, rather they refer to particulate matter:
Rule 405
Rule 406
Rule 407
Rule 409
Incineration
Fuel Burning Equipment
Process Sources
Non-Process Sources
-------
25
PUERTO RICO SO- SIP DEglCIENCY REVIEW
1. .Does the rule clearly specify sources subject to rule?
YES.
The individual source category rules clearly specify sources
subject to the rule. Accountable sources are also derived
by the definition of a source in Rule 102 and the exemptions
presented in Rule 206.
•
2. Does the rule clearly specify applicable averaging times
associated with emission limitations.
YES.
The averaging times are consistent with the emission
limitations. Emissions of sulfur oxides are generally
expressed in pounds per hour (Ibs/hr) as stated in Rule 103
(E). The averaging times are specified in Rule 102 under
the.definition of "Significant Air Quality Impact." For
SO., an air quality impact is equal to or greater than the
following conceDerations at the corresponding averaging
times:
Averaging Tine Concentration
Annual 1 ug/nr
24-hours 5 ug/m3
3-hours • 25 ug/m3
NAAQS
80 ug/m3
365 ug/mj
1300 ug/m3
3
3. Is averaging time in rule consistent with protection of the
NAAQS?
YES.
The averaging times are consistent with the NAAQS, as
obviously shown in the table in the reply to question #2.
4. Does rule have compliance test methodologies consistent with
the averaging time and units of the applicable emission
limitations?
YES. (
Rule 106 specifies test methods 6, 8 & 11 from the USEPA 40
CFR 60 for sulfur dioxide, sulfuric acid mist, and hydrogen
sulfide, respectively. All three methods calculate for
concentrations bearing the units of mg/dscm (milligrams per
dry standard cubic meter.) However, where ASTM methods are
cited, methodologies are unclear.
C -
-------
-iS'd ifr:S-I 16/81/170
bd3's'n
26
5. Does rule have a means of determining compliance/excess
emissions on a continuing basis?
YB8.
It is assumed that compliance testing is conducted in
accordance to the appropriate reference method (6, 8, 11)
and Rules 108, 205 & 207 establish continuous compliance.
6. Is the averaging time of the rule's continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology consistent with
protection of the NAAQS?
YES.
It is assumed that the averaging time for continuance
compliance is consistent with the protection of the NAAQS
since r< es 102 and 205 specify the general terms applicable
for the entire Regulation.
7. Does rule specify requirements to report compliance data to
regulatory agencies, including format and frequency of data
reporting?
YES.
In general/ Rules 103, 104 and 205 require the reporting of
compliance data, but do not go into detail. Data reporting
is understood to be of a continuous nature to be provided to
regulatory agencies "upon request" [Rules 103 (A) , (B) , (F) ,
and 104 (A) ] . Format and frequency of reporting are alluded
to in Rules 103 (C) . (D) ,
-------
27
c) does it require source notification or request from the
agency prior to the effective time frame.
d) does it require OEMS, which are always available, to
assure acquisition of sufficient data to determine each
source's compliance status under all alternative
conditions.
Rule 107, Air Pollution Emergencies, provides guidelines for
preventing the occurrence of an emergency, due to pollutant
effects on the health of persons. There are guidelines for
the Board to follow to determine an air pollution alert,
warning or emergency. This determination depends on the
concentration levels reached for a 24-hour average at any
monitoring site. There are also provisions in the Rule for
sources to submit an emergency response plan that would go
into effect should an emergency be declared. However there
is mention of first stage controls that need to be initiated
depending on the emergency. It is not clear what is meant
by this statement. Therefore:
a) NO.
b) NO.
C) YES.
d) NO.
10. If the rule contains an Alternative Approach which contains
features other than alternative emission limits, does It
clearly state the method of determining compliance on a
continuing basis?
NO.
Continuous compliance is not clearly stated in Rule 107, in
regards to an emergency condition.
II, Does the rule contain director's discretionary authority?
Director's discretion should be highlighted and disapproved
In accordance with forthcoming guidance.
YEfl.
Director's discretion is contained throughout the
regulation. It is referred to as the "Board" (Environmental
Quality Board of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico).
12. Section 123 deficiencies; including compliance with the 1985
regulations, sources affected by the remand and JCS.
NOT APPLICABLE.
There are no intermittent control systems in Region II.
-------
82'd 8f:SI I6/81/FO t?6lO ddB'STl UOdd
DRAFT
Introduction of the SO2 Yellow Book
Introduction
On November 15, 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act were
signed into law. Titles I, IV and V of the legislation will affect
changes in implementation of the SO2 national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) program. In order for all three programs to be
implemented as efficiently as possible EPA is requiring the states
to correct existing enforceability deficiencies in the SIPs. The
following is a summary /£ the major requirements of the afore-
mentioned Titles: ^
Title I:
Title I addresses the nonattainment SIP provisions. It
requires that nonattainment plans be' completed within 18 months
after enactment or designation to nonattainment, which ever is
later, with attainment required in 5 years. The nonattainment
plans must be fully Federally enforceable and therefore unambiguous
in their requirements. '
Title IV:
Title IV, the Acid Rain program, will affect many of the
larger stationary sources of SO2. These sources will be required
to have Acid Rain permits and compliance plans; but they are also
required to comply with any other applicable requirements of the
Act (see section 413). Therefore, the utilities affected by Title
IV must consider Title I SIP requirements in planning for
compliance with the Acid Rain program. Any regulatory deficiencies
in the SO2 SIP can complicate this planning. Thus uncertainties
may be introduced into the allowance market and may stifle trading.
This, in turn, could inhibit the ability of the industry to achieve
cost efficient reductions.
Title V:
The Title V operating permit program will require
reexamination of many SO2 NAAQS SIP'S for enforceability
deficiencies. The SO2 program, unlike ozone and other criteria
pollutant programs, has not undergone significant program changes
since the 1970 Clean Air Act. consequently, the opportunity to
correct many technical and regulatory deficiencies has not
previously occurred. Since the operating permit may simply codify
existing SIP requirements, correcting SIP deficiencies is a key to
the program's success.
Purpose of Yellow Book:
The purpose of this document is to provide a listing of the
Federally approved, state and local rules that have deficiencies
affecting, enforceability. This listing will be used to support a
-------
nationwide effort to correct deficiencies in the SO2 SIPs so that
the related SO2 programs are implemented on a nationally consistent
and defensible basis. This effort does not expand or modify
existing federal regulatory requirements, but merely clarifies EPA
policy where past guidance or approved rulemaJcing may have been
vague or ambiguous.
The review of the SO2 SIPs was performed by the EPA Regional
Offices and States in response to 1990 Grant Guidance and the 1991
STARS commitments. The resulting document will be used by the
States and Regional Offices to establish plans and schedules for
correcting those rules that are found to be deficient.
•
Basis for the Review:
EPA Headquarters and Regional Offices developed a checklist
(Appendix A) that was used as the basis for determining
enforceability of the SIPs. The checklist was developed from
existing policy and guidance (Appendix B) that address common
problems encountered in the agency's past enforcement actions. The
checklist was not designed to provide suggested changes to the
State regulation, but to highlight were those regulations have
enforceability problems that need to be corrected.
is,?will be up to the states and EPA Regional Offices to
establish'revisions that reflect the States' particular regulatory
structures and fully meet federal requirements. EPA Headquarters
is in the process of considering example or model regulations to
address particularly common types of deficiencies. The
deficiencies that were included in the checklist included ambiguous
or lack of emission limitation; inconsistencies between (or lack
of) the averaging times and the NAAQS, emission limitations and
test methods; lack of test and compliance methods; method of
determining continuous compliance; record keeping and reporting
requirements; clearly written alternative compliance approaches;
and the inclusion of director's discretion without provisions for
federal review. Also included in the listing are rules with
inadequacies in complying with Section 123 of the Clean Air Act.
-------
09=91 I6/8I/frO frSIO UdH'STI WOdd
Summary of SO2 SIP Deficiencies
Executive summary
The purpose of this document is to describe the deficiencies
discovered by the EPA Regional Offices in reviewing S£*t6~SO2 State
implementation plans (SIP's) for enforceability deficiencies.
Adequacy of the SIP and emission limitations to attain air quality
standards was not included in this review, nor were review of, or
revisions to, the demonstrations of attainment required in this
effort. Absent evidence of an air quality problem EPA is not\
requiring new air quality attainment demonstrations at this time, j
The review for SIP deficiencies covered a variety of criteria (/
ranging • from deficiencies in recordXeeping and reporting
requirements to inadequate or nonexistent compliance methodologies
and emission limitations. The checklist used in the evaluation of
the SIP's only includes issues that are explicitly addressed in
current policy. However, there are several additional issues that
have been identified as being needed to ensure enforceability but
that may require further refinement or interpretation of existing
policy (i.e., the extent to which demonstration of continuous
compliance require the installation of Continuous Emission
Monitoring Systems (CEMS) and what .to do about Director's
discretion clauses). These issues will be considered in a separate
action. The checklist was developed by Region V, the Technical
Support Branch of the Stationary Source Compliance Division (SSCD)
and the Sulfur Dioxide Programs Section of the Air Quality
Management Division (AQMD), with input from all of the Regional
Offices. The following is a description of the types of
deficiencies that were included in the checklist and the number of
each type of deficiency nationwide.
TYPES OF DEFICIENCIES
1) The rule does not clearly specify which sources are
subject to it.
There are 21 state rules with type 1 deficiencies.
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable averaging
time (compliance periods) associated with the emission
limitation.
ta-e.
There.48 State rules with type 2 deficiencies.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with
the averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the r-ule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there may
be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are being
protected.
There are 51 State rules with type 3 deficiencies.
-------
'd 02:il I6X9I/.SO frSlO ~ ' Wd3'S^n WOJdd
30
VIRGIN I8LMTP8 SO, SIP DEFICIENCY RSVIEW
l. Does the rule clearly specif sources subject: to rule?
The rules are applicable to all persons who may cause, let,
permit, suffer or allow any emission of sulfur oxides in
excess of the limitations* The rules also apply to all
persons who may sell, offer for sale, purchase for use in or
use in any air contamination source having a total combined
rated heat input capacity greater that 8 million Btu/hr fuel
oil based on tabulated sulfur content.
2. Doea the rule clearly specify applicable averaging times
associated with emission limitations.
YES.
The averaging times are consistent with the emission
limitations. Emissions of sulfur oxides are limited to
ground level concentrations at any given point in excess of
0.5 ppm in the period of any hour and average exposure shall
not exceed 0.1 ppm of sulfur oxides in any 24-hour period.
3. Is averaging time in rule consistent with protection of the
NAAOS?
YES.
The averaging times are consistent with the NAAQS, since
they are based on hourly and 2 4 -hour time periods.
4. Does rule have cottpliaqce jfrest methodologies consistent with
the averaging time and units of the applicable emission
•(.imitations?
MO.
Rule specifies stack testing methods (not specifically)
which 'should include a determination of sulfur
concentrations, the total gas volume being discharged and
the gas temperature and pressure at the sampling point in
the stack or chimney. However, it is not clear, but
implied, as to what are the applicable averaging times and
emission limitations.
5. _ Does rule have a meana^f determining compliance/excess
emissions on a continuing basis?
NO.
It is not clear. Rule mentions data shall be maintained for
-------
.3 'd IS'.Ll ISX9IXSO 1,61 'n WOdd
31
a period of not less than a year, but does not specify on
what basis.
6. Ta the averaging time of the rule's continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology consistent with
protection of the NAAQS?
NO.
It is not clear but can be assumed that the averaging tine
for continuance compliance is consistent with the protection
of the NAAQS.
7. Does rule specify ^requirements to report compliance data to
regulatory agencies f including format and frequency of data
reporting?-
NO.
Format and frequency of reporting to regulatory agencies are
not clearly defined.
8. Does rule contain clear requirement a for compliance data
recordkeepinq and retention?
NO.
Rule states that data shall be maintained for a period of
not less than one year and shall be available for review by
the Department and inspection by members of the public.
Requirements for data recordkeeping and retention are not
clearly defined, but implied.
9. If the rule contains an Alternative Approach:
a.\ is it clear which limits apply to each affected source
to the timeframe in question
b) is it clear that such limits,, once selected, apply to
each source for the entire duration of the reporting
period T
c) does it require source jnotif ication or request from the
agency prior to the effective timeframe.
&} does it require (pEMS. which are always available, to
assure acquisition of sufficient data to determine each
source's compliance status under all alternative
conditions.
a) NO.
b) NO.
C) NO.
d) NO.
-------
32
10. If tha mile contains an Alternative Approach which contains
features other than alternative emission limits, does it
clearly state the method of determining compliance on a
continuing basis?
NO.
11. Does the yule contain director*s Discretionary authority?
Director's discretion should be highlighted and disapproved
in accordance wj.th forthcoming guidance.
YES.
Director's discretion is contained throughout the
regulation. It is referred to as the Department or the
Commissioner.
12. Section 123 deficiencies? including compliance with the 1985
retaliations, sources affected bv the remand and ICS.
HOT APPLICABLE.
There are no intermittent control systems in Region II.
-------
2«i ^» rt • I T I L_ / %_J 1 S "—. I I " D I U
d
29
VIRGIN IfllAimfl flO, SIP DEFICIENCY REVIEW
Applicable Rules
Chapter 9: Air Pollution Control (enforceable SIP dates: 1971
and 1979)
Subchapter 204 Protection of Air Resources
Subchapter 206 Permits
These are the only rules considered by Region II to be federally
approved in regards to SO,. There have been several revisions,
the latest' of which is dated March 1987, however they are not
approved. The later revisions may comply to the checklist better
than the original siPs.
C -£ -
-------
UNFTED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
SUBJECT: SO2 SIP Deficiency Checklists DATE: 01/28/91
FROM: Joseph W. Kunz, Chief^e^gflwL
Planning and Technical Support
TO: Eric Ginsburg, Chief
Sulfur Dioxide Program Section AQMD ' (MD-15)
Attached are the SC-2 SIP deficiency checklists for each of the
states in Region III. The checklist supplied in the November 28,
1990 memo from Robert Bauman and Rich Biondi to the Air Branch
Chiefs -was used for the analyses of the state SIPs.
As discussed in recent conversations between you and I,, these
checklists represent an initial review of the pertinent state
regulations and SIPs. However, I feel the checklists will be
adequate to include in the forthcoming "yellow book". Please note
that checklist item No. 12 (pertaining to Section 123) was not
addressed on any of the checklists due to time constraints. This
item will be investigated for all of the Region III states in the
near future.
t
Finally, The Region plans to engage in *a more comprehensive
review of the SO2 SIPs prior to the individual state-Region III
negotiations to obtain a schedule to address the identified
deficiencies. If you have any questions, please contact me at
(215) 597-8486 or David Campbell at (215) 597-9781.
•
Attachments
CC: Marcia L. Spink (3AT10)
David Campbell (3AT11)
-------
DELAWARE SO2 SIP DEFICIENCY REVIEW
1. Does the rule clearly specify sources subject to rule?
Yes. The individual source category rules clearly specify sources
subject to the rule. Emission limitations are generally listed
in Ibs/hr, ppm/volume, or % sulfur content.
Delaware regulations establish rules for individual source
categories. These rules generally reference a common rule for
the specific compliance, monitoring, emission testing,
monitoring, and recordkeeping. A list of the applicable
individual source category rules is attached.
Citation: see attached list.
2. Does the rule clearly specify applicable averaging time
associated with emission limitations?
No. Averaging times are not specified by the rules.
Citation: see attached list.
3. Is averaging time in rule consistent with protection of the
NAAQS?
No. See No. 2.
%.
4. Does rule have compliance test methodologies consistent with the
averaging time and units of the applicable emission limitations?
No. The lack of averaging times infers inconsistency.
5. Does rule have a means of determining compliance/excess emissions
on a continuing basis?
Yes. Compliance testing is conducted in accordance to Ref.
Method 6 and the rules establish that CEMS data must be
determined on a continuing basis.
Citation: Regulation XVII
•
6. Is the averaging time of the rule's continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology consistent with protection
of the NAAQS?
No. Averaging times are not stated.
-------
7. Does rule specify requirements to report compliance data to
regulatory agencies, including format and frequency of data
reporting?
Yes. The rules provide for a .written report every calendar
quarter detailing the magnitude of excess emissions, date,
duration of period of excess emissions, start-ups, shut-downs,
malfunctions (nature, cause, corrective action taken), and
regular operation data.
Citation: Regulation XVII
8. Does rule contain clear requirements for compliance data
recordkeeping and retention?
No. All compliance data and recordkeeping information is to be
. recorded in a permanent form suitable for inspection and retained
Citation: Regulation XVII
9. If the rule contains an Alternative Approach: a) is it clear
which limits apply to each affected source prior to the timeframe
in question; b) is it clear that such limits, once selected,
apply to each source for the entire duration of the reporting
» period; c) does it require source notification or request from
the agency prior to the effective time frame; and d) does it
require CEMS, which are always available, to assure acquisition
of sufficient data to determine compliance status under all
alternative conditions?
Not applicable. Alternative Approach methods are not addressed
specifically.
10. If the rule contains an Alternative Approach which contains
features other than alternative emission limits, does it clearly
state the method of determining compliance on a continuing basis?
Not applicable. Alternative Approach methods are not addressed
specifically.
11. Does the rule contain director's discretionary authority?
Yes. The rules contain director's discretion clauses.
12. Section 123 deficiencies; including compliance with the 1985
regulation, sources affected by the remand and ICS.
-------
List of Cited Rules
REGULATION GOVERNING THE CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION
REGULATION NO. VIII
REGULATION NO. IX
REGULATION NO. X
SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS FROM FUEL BURNING
EQUIPMENT
EMISSIONS OF SULFUR COMPOUNDS FROM
INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS
CONTROL OF SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS - KENT
AND SUSSEX COUNTIES
REGULATION NO. XVII - SOURCE MONITORING, RECORD-KEEPING AND
REPORTING
L:
-------
MARYLAND S02 SIP DEFICIENCY REVIEW
1. Does the rule clearly specify sources subject to rule?
Yes. The individual source category rules clearly specify sources
subject to the rule. Emission limitations are generally listed
in Ibs/hr, ppm/volume, or % volume by weight.
Maryland regulations establish rules for individual source
categories. These rules generally reference a common rule for
the specific compliance, monitoring, emission testing,
monitoring, and recordkeeping. A list of the applicable
individual source category rules is attached.
Citation: see attached list.
2. Does the rule clearly specify applicable averaging time
associated with emission limitations?
No. Averaging times are not specified by the rules.
Citation: see attached list.
3. Is averaging time in rule consistent with protection of the
NAAQS?
No. See No. 2.
»
4. Does rule have compliance test methodologies consistent with the
averaging time and units of the applicable emission limitations?
No. The lack of averaging times infers inconsistency.
5. Does rule have a means of determining compliance/excess emissions
on a continuing basis?
No. However, Maryland is revising its SIP to include GEMS rules.
The rules establish that GEMS data must be determined on a
continuing basis.
6. Is the averaging time of the rule's continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology consistent with protection
of the NAAQS?
No. No averaging time is stated.
C-V
-------
7. Does rule specify requirements to report compliance data to
regulatory agencies, including format and frequency of data
reporting?
No. However, Maryland is currently revising its SIP to include
CEMS rules. The rules provide for a written report every
calendar quarter detailing the magnitude of excess emissions,
date, duration of period of excess emissions, start-ups, shut-
downs, malfunctions (nature, cause, corrective action taken), and
regular operation data.
8. Does rule contain clear requirements for compliance data
recordkeeping and retention?
No. The current recordkeeping requirements are not specific.
The "non-SIP" CEMS rules provide that all compliance data and
recordkeeping information is to be recorded in a permanent form
suitable for inspection and retained for
Citation: COMAR 26.11.04
9. If the rule contains an Alternative Approach: a) is it clear
which limits apply to each affected source prior to the timeframe
in question; b) is it clear that such limits, once selected,
apply to each source for the entire duration of the reporting
period; c) does it require source notification or request from
the agency prior to the effective timeframe; and d) does it
require CEMS, which are always available, to assure acquisition
of sufficient data to determine compliance status under all
alternative conditions?
Not applicable. Alternative Approach methods are not addressed
specifically.
10. If the rule contains an Alternative Approach which contains
features other than alternative emission limits, does it clearly
state the method of determining compliance on a continuing basis?
Not applicable. Alternative Approach methods are not addressed
specifically.
11. Does the rule contain director's discretionary authority?
Yes. The rules contain director's discretion clauses.
12. Section 123 deficiencies; including compliance with the 1985
regulation, sources affected by the remand and ICS.
-------
List of Cited Rules
CODE OF MARYLAND REGULATIONS (COMAE)
COMAR 26.11.01 GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
COMAR 26.11.06 GENERAL EMISSION STANDARDS, PROHIBITIONS, AND
RESTRICTIONS
COMAR 26.11.08 CONTROL OF INCINERATORS (This rule is currently
being processed as a SIP revision)
COMAR 26.11.09 CONTROL OF FUEL BURNING EQUIPMENT AND STATIONARY
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES
COMAR 26.11.10 CONTROL OF IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTION
INSTALLATIONS
COMAR 26.11.14 CONTROL OF KRAFT PULP-MILL TRS EMISSIONS
-------
WEST VIRGINIA S02 SIP DEFICIENCY REVIEW
Does the rule clearly specify sources subject to rule?
Yes. The rule specifies the subject source categories (e.g.
different types of fuel burning units, manufacturing process
sources) and a number of specific sources are identified by name.
Citation: WV Code, Title 45, Chapter 16, Article 20
Regulation X - To Prevent and Control Air Pollution
from the Emission of Sulfur Oxides. (This is the
citation in all cases)
Does the rule clearly specify applicable averaging time
associated with emission limitations?
•
No. Emission limits are indicated in Ibs/hr (based on heat input
in mmBTus) and ppm/volume. For fuel burning units a continuous
24-hour averaging time is stated, however, the rule provides for
a variable (by source) standard starting time for al( continuous
24-hour periods. A two-hour averaging time is indicated for
process sources.
Is averaging time in rule consistent with protection of the
NAAQS?
No. See No. 2.
Does rule have compliance test methodologies consistent with the
averaging time and units of the applicable emission limitations?
No. The rule lacks specific compliance test methodologies. The
test are "... conducted in a manner acceptable to the Director".
Does rule have a means of determining compliance/excess emissions
on a continuing basis?
No. The rule does not.specify a means for determining continuous
compliance.
Is the averaging time of the rule's continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology consistent with protection
of the NAAQS?
No. Continuous compliance monitoring or reporting is not
established.
Does rule specify requirements to report compliance data to
regulatory agencies, including format and frequency of data
reporting?
No. The rule does not provide specific recordkeeping or reporting
requirements.
-------
8. Does rule contain clear requirements for compliance data
fecordkeeping and retention?
No. See No. 7
9. If the rule contains an Alternative Approach: a) is it clear
which limits apply to each affected source prior to the timeframe
in question; b) is it clear that such limits, once selected/
apply to each source for the entire duration of the reporting
period; c) does it require source notification or request from.
the agency prior to the effective timeframe; and d) does it
require CEMS, which are always available, to assure acquisition
of sufficient data to determine compliance status under all
alternative conditions?
Not applicable. Alternative Approach methods are not addressed
specifically.
10. If the rule contains an Alternative Approach which contains
features other than alternative emission limits, does it clearly
state the method of determining compliance oh a continuing basis?
•
Not applicable. Alternative Approach methods are not addressed
specifically.
^1. Does the rule contain director's discretionary authority?
Yes. The rule contains director's discretion clauses.
12. Section 123 deficiencies; including compliance with the 1985
regulation, sources affected by the remand and ICS.
-------
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA S02 SIP DEFICIENCY REVIEW
Does the rule clearly specify sources subject to rule?
No. Applicability is vague, rules specify that "no person shall
allow..." No descriptions of facilities are included.
Citation: Sections 505 and 602 (see attached list)
Does the rule clearly specify applicable averaging time
associated with emission limitations?
No. Averaging times are not specified by the rules. Emission
limits are based on % weight per volume for process sources and %
sulfur content per volume of fuel for combustion sources.
Citation: Sections 201, 505, and 602
Is averaging time in rule consistent with protection of the
NAAQS?
No. See No. .2.
Does rule have compliance test methodologies consistent with the
averaging time and units of the applicable emission limitations?
No'. The lack of averaging times infers inconsistency.
Does rule have a means of determining compliance/excess emissions
on a continuing basis?
No. Continuous compliance testing is not specified in the rules.
Citation: Section 204
Is the averaging time of the rule's continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology consistent with protection
of the NAAQS?
No. Continuous monitoring and reporting methodologies are not
specified in the rules.
Citation: Section 204
Does rule specify requirements to report compliance data to
regulatory agencies, including format and frequency of data
reporting?
No. The rules specify basic reportirig requirements but do not
indicate desired format or frequency.
Citation: Section 201
-------
8. Does rule contain clear requirements for compliance data
recordkeeping and retention?
No. Recordkeeping requirements are vague and discretionary.
•
Citation: Section 201
9. If the rule contains an Alternative Approach: a) is it clear
which limits apply to each affected source prior to the timeframe
in question; b) is it clear that such limits, once selected,
apply to each source for the entire duration of the reporting
period; c) does it require source notification or request from
the agency prior to the effective timeframe; and d) does it
require GEMS, which are always available, to assure acquisition
of sufficient data to determine compliance status under all
alternative conditions?
• • <
Not applicable. Alternative Approach methods are not addressed.
10. If the rule contains an Alternative Approach which contains
features other than alternative emission limits, does it clearly
state the method of determining compliance on a continuing basis?
Not applicable. Alternative Approach methods are not addressed.
],!. Does the rule contain director's discretionary authority?
Yes. Director's or Mayor's discretionary authority is stated
throughout rules.
12. Section 123 deficiencies; including compliance with the 1985
regulation, sources affected by the remand and ICS.
-------
3
List of Cited Rules
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MUNICIPAL REGULATIONS - TITLE 20
Section 201 - RECORDS AND REPORTS
Section 204 - MONITORING DEVICES
Section 505 - HIGH-SULFUR FUELS
Section 602 - PROCESS EMISSIONS
-------
PENNSYLVANIA SO-, SIP DEFICIENCY REVIEW
Does the rule clearly specify sources subject to rule?
Yes. The sources subject to the rules are clearly specified by
source or process type, size and in some cases geographic area.
Emission limitations.are generally listed in Ibs/hr (based on
mmBtu heat input), ppm/volume or % sulfur content by volume.
Citation: Sections 123.21-.24,? 129.12-.13 (see attached list.)
Does the rule clearly specify applicable averaging time
associated with emission limitations?
No. Thirty day running averaging times are associated with the
emission limits for combustion sources. A 2-hour averaging time
is associated with zinc smelters.
Citation: Sections 123.21-.24
Is averaging time in rule consistent with protection of the
NAAQS? . "
No. See No. 2.
Does rule have compliance test methodologies consistent with the
averaging time and units of the applicable emission limitations?
,Yes. The rule specifies adequate test methodologies.
Citation: Section 139.13
Does rule have a means of determining compliance/excess emissions
on a continuing basis?
Yes. The rules specify CEMS monitoring requirements that comply
with 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix B - Spec. 2.
Citation: Sections 123.25 and 139.101-.105
Is the averaging time of the rule's continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology consistent with protection
of the NAAQS?
No. The thirty day averaging time is not consistent with the
protection of the NAAQS.
-------
7. Does rule specify requirements to report compliance data to
regulatory agencies, including format and frequency of data
reporting?
Yes. The rules provide for a written report every calendar
quarter detailing the magnitude of excess emissions, date,
duration of period of excess emissions, start-ups, shut-downs,
malfunctions (nature, cause, corrective action taken), and
regular operation data.
Citation: Section 139.101
8. Does rule contain clear requirements for compliance data
recordkeeping and retention?
Mo. All compliance data and recordkeeping information is to be
recorded in a permanent form suitable for inspection and retained
Citation: Section 139.101
9. If the rule contains an Alternative Approach: a) is it clear
which limits apply to each affected source prior to the timeframe
in question; b) is it clear that such limits, once selected,
apply to each source for the entire duration of the reporting
, period; c) does it require source notification or request from
the agency prior to the effective timeframe; and d) does it
require CEMS, which are always available, to assure acquisition
of sufficient data to determine compliance status under all
alternative conditions?
Not applicable. Alternative Approach methods are not addressed
specifically.
10. If the rule contains an Alternative Approach which contains
features other than alternative emission limits, does it clearly
state the method of determining compliance on a continuing basis?
Not applicable. Alternative Approach methods are not addressed
specifically.
11. Does the rule contain director's discretionary authority?
Yes. The rules contain director's discretion clauses.
12. Section 123 deficiencies; including compliance with the 1985
regulation, sources affected by the remand and ICS.
c-
-------
List of Cited Rules
TITLE 25 RULES AND REGULATIONS
PART I. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Subpart C. PROTECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
ARTICLE III. AIR RESOURCES
CHAPTER 123.21 - SULFUR COMPOUND EMISSIONS
123.22 - COMBUSTION UNITS
123.23 - BY-PRODUCT COKE OVEN GAS
123.24 - PRIMARY-ZINC SMELTERS
123.25 - MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
CHAPTER 129.10 - STANDARDS OF SOURCES
129.12 - SULFURIC ACID PLANTS
129.13 - SULFUR RECOVERY PLANTS
CHAPTER 139.1 - SAMPLING AND TESTING
-------
VIRGINIA S02 SIP DEFICIENCY REVIEW
Does the rule clearly specify sources subject to rule?
Yes. The individual source category rules clearly specify sources
subject to the rule. Emission limitations are generally listed
in Ibs/hr with a few .limitation based on ppm/yolume.
Virginia regulations establish rules for individual source
categories. These rules generally reference a common rule for
the specific compliance method, monitoring, emission testing,
monitoring, and recordkeeping. A list of the applicable
individual source category rules is attached.
Citation: see attached list.
Does the rule clearly specify applicable averaging time
associated with emission limitations?
No. Averaging times are not specified by the rules.
Citation: see attached list.
Is averaging time in rule consistent with protection of the
NAAQS?
No. See No. 2.
Does rule have compliance test methodologies consistent with the
averaging time and units of the applicable emission limitations?
No. The lack of averaging times infers inconsistency.
Does rule have a means of determining compliance/excess emissions
on a continuing basis?
Yes. Compliance testing is conducted in accordance to the
"appropriate" reference method i.e. Ref. Method 6 and the rules
establish that CEMS data must be determined on a continuing
basis.
Citation: Sections 120-04-03 and 120-04-04
Is the averaging time of the rule's continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology consistent with protection
of the NAAQS?
No. Averaging times are not stated.
-------
7. Does rule specify requirements to report compliance data to
regulatory agencies, including format and frequency of data
reporting?
Yes. The rules provide for a written report every calendar
quarter detailing the magnitude of excess emissions, date,
duration of period of excess emissions, start-ups, shut-downs,
malfunctions (nature, cause, corrective action taken) , and
regular operation data.
Citation: Section 120-04-05
8. Does rule contain clear requirements for compliance data
recordkeeping and retention?
No. All compliance data and recordkeeping information is to be
"recorded in a permanent form suitable for inspection" and
retained for
Citation: Section 120-04-05
9. If the rule contains an Alternative Approach: a) is it clear
which limits apply to each affected source prior to the timeframe
in question; b) is it clear that such limits, once selected,
apply to each source for the entire duration of the reporting
period; c) does it require source notification or request from
the agency prior to the effective timeframe; and d) does it -
require GEMS, which are always available, to assure acquisition
of sufficient data to determine compliance status under all
alternative conditions?
Not applicable. Alternative Approach methods are not addressed
specifically .
10. If the rule contains an Alternative Approach which contains
features other than alternative emission limits, does it clearly
state the method of determining compliance on a continuing basis?
Not applicable. Alternative Approach methods are not addressed
specifically.
11. Does the rule contain director's discretionary authority?
Yes. The rules contain director's discretion clauses.
12. Section 123 deficiencies; including compliance with the 1985
regulation, sources affected by the remand and ICS.
-------
3
List of cited Rules
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAW OF VIRGINIA
Part IV EXISTING AND CERTAIN OTHER SOURCES
Rule 4-4 GENERAL PROCESS SOURCES
Rule 4-8 FUEL BURNING EQUIPMENT
Rule 4-9 COKE OVENS
Rule 4-11 PETROLEUM REFINERY OPERATIONS
Rule 4-13 KRAFT PULP MILLS
Rule 4-16 PORTLAND CEMENT PLANTS
Rule 4-18 PRIMARY AND SECONDARY METAL OPERATIONS
Rule 4-19 LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE PROCESS OPERATIONS
Rule 4-21 SULFURIC ACID PRODUCTION MIST
Rule 4-22 SULFUR RECOVERY OPERATIONS
c - >
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGIONS
1445 ROSS AVENUE. SUITE 1200
DALLAS. TEXAS 7S202-2733
JAN 2 8 B91
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SO2 SIP Enforceabilitv Review
FROM: Gerald W. Fonten*
Chief v
Air Programs Branch Region VI (6T-A)
TO: Fred Renner, Acting Chief
SO2/Particulate Matter Program Branch
Air Quality Management Division (MD-15)
ATTN: Laura McKelvey (MD-15) -
Attached is a review of the State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for
sulfur dioxide (SO2) enforceability deficiencies. We used.the SO, SIP
Enforceability Checklist and each checklist item number is identified
in the attachments.
We found and reviewed all of the available SIP rules concerning SO2
emissions as well as sulfur emissions. Along with an answer for each
checklist item, we included a brief description/clarification of the
evaluation result.
The following is a list of some general concerns that we have of the
evaluation results:
1 - The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) has
v codified several of EPA's New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) regulations into its rules. Consequently, evaluation
of the LDEQ rules using the 12 SO2 checklist items reveal that
some of EPA's NSPS regulations contain a few deficiencies. It
• appears that, before the agency is cited for a deficiency of
' a rule based on NSPS, the EPA NSPS subpart should be improved
,t . so that it meets the criteria of the checklist. This is also
i a problem with one of the New Mexico regulations.
.-.
2 - LDEQ's generic SO2 rule found in Chapter 15. conflicts with
LDEQ's NSPS-type rule found in Chapter 31. This conflict could
lead to problems in executing enforcement actions.
-------
3 - We took the approach that, if the rule's averaging period was
less than or equal to the ambient SO2 standard averaging period
(either the NAAQS or the state equivalent), then the emission
limit was sufficient to ensure compliance with the ambient
standard. As an example, a ppm emission limit based on a 6
hour average would be adequate to protect the 24 hour NAAQS,
but not the 3 hour NAAQS.
4 - The proper Texas SIP codification is Rule 201, 202, 203, etc.
and not 112.1, 112.2, 112.3, etc.
All of the Region 6 agencies except Texas have procedures to
obtain a variance (agency discretion) from any SO2 rule.
6 - The State of Arkansas SIP does not contain an SO2 regulation.
State-issued permits require that sources demonstrate that they
will not cause an exceedance of the SO, NAAQS. Section 8 of the
Arkansas Air Pollution Control Code ("Emission of Sulfur
Compounds") is not a part of the Arkansas SIP. This section
only gives emission limitations (30 minute average) for sulfur
dioxide (0.20 ppm) and sulfuric acid mists or sulfur trioxide
(30 ug/m ). The maximum ambient concentrations are determined,
with director's discretion, by ambient air sampling or by
calculations based upon dispersion equations and stack
concentrations of the air contaminant.
The State of Oklahoma SIP contains Regulation 3.4, "Control of
Emission of Sulfur Compounds." There are portions. of this
regulation, though, that have not been approved in the SIP, and
these are noted in the following attachments.
8 - Texas SIP Rule 201.10 (State Rule 112.10) 'states that the
Executive Secretary (now the Executive Director) may set SO2
emission rates as necessary to attain ambient air quality
standards for sources not regulated by other source-specific
rules. In this case, director's discretion is not undesirable
and should actually be encouraged*.
If you have any questions or comments on this review, please feel
free to contact Raymond Magyar and Jonathan York (SO2 Compliance
contacts) at FTS 255-7229 or Mark Sather (SO2 SIP contact) at
FTS 255-7214.
Attachments
c-M-i
-------
ARKANSAS AIR POLLUTION CODE
Sulfur Dioxide (SO..) Emissions Limitations survey
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Review
State Rules on SO. Sources
SECTION 8 CODE (Amended July, 1973):
Emission of Sulfur Compounds
SECTION 7 SIP (Amended June, 1975):
Sampling and Monitoring Recruicements
Checklist Item No. 1;
. •
Section 8 Code
NO SO, limit is an ambient air standard and is
not source specific.
Checklist Item No. 2;
• Section 8 Code
YES 30 Min. Avg. (ambient air standard)
Checklist Item No. 3:
• Section -8 Code
YES Primary - 30 min. avg.
YES Secondary - 30 min. avg.
Checklist Item No. 4t
Section 8 Code
NO .Methods of determining pollutant levels are
not stated. Methodology is to be determined
at the option of the Director.
-------
Section 7(d)(i) SIP
NO ' .Methods and procedure are not stated.
Procedures and methods commonly accepted and
used in the field of air pollution control
can be used.
Checklist Item No. 5;
Section 7(e) SIP
NO .The requirement for CEM is at the discretion
of the Director.
Checklist Item No. 6;
Section 7(e) SIP
NO. . . . . . .30 min. avg. time is available. CEM is
required at discretion of the Director1.
Checklist Item No. 7;
Section 7(c) and 7(g) SIP
YES Reports are required on a scheduled basis
in a required format.
Checklist Item No: 8:
• Section 7(e) SIP
NO Record maintenance is the only requirement.
No specific recordkeeping requirements are
stated.
Checklist Item No. 9:
NO No Alternative Approach (AA) .
Checklist Item No. 10;
;• NO No AA.
Checklist Item No. 11:
Section 8(b) Code
YES Maximum cone, determination
C-H-f
-------
Section 7(c) SIP
YES. ..... Emissions data filing
Section 7(d) SIP
YES. ..... Procedures and methods
Section 7(e) SIP
YES Use of GEM
Section 7(g) SIP
YES Maintenance of records
Checklist Item No. 12:
UNKNOWN. . . . Stack height requirements were not found in
the SIP.
-------
TEXAS REGULATIONS
Sulfur Dioxide (SO..) remissions Limitations Survey
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Review
State Rules on SO, Sources
REGULATION II:
Control of Air Pollution from Sulfur Compounds
(SIP Version)
Checklist Item No. 1:
Rule 201.1
YES. . . . • • Sulfuric acid plants burning elemental S
Rule 201.2
YES Sulfuric acid plant
Rule 201.3
YES. ..... Sulfur recovery plants
Rule 201.4
YES Nonferrous smelters
Rule 201.5
YES. . . . . . Solid fossil-fuel-fired steam generator
Rule 201.6
YES Liquid fossil-fuel-fired steam generator
Rule 201.7
YES All sources in Galveston/Harris Counties
Rule 201.8
YES All sources in Jefferson and Orange
Counties
-------
Rule 201.9
YES All sources
Rule 210.10
YES All sources not regulated by Rules
201.1, 201.2, 201.3, 201.4, 201.5, and
201.6
Checklist Item No. 2;
Rule 201.1
NO Ib/hr, 1 hr. average implied
Rule 201.2
NO Ib/hr, 1 hr. average implied
Rule 201.3
• * .
NO Ib/hr, 1 hr. average implied
Rule 201.4
NO % volume, no averaging specified
Rule 201.5
NO Ib/MMBTU, no averaging specified
Rule 201.6
NO ppm (v), no averaging specified
Rule 201.7
YES ppm (ambient) averaged over 30 min.
Rule 201.8
YES ppm (ambient) averaged over 30 min.
Rule 201.9
YES ppm (ambient) averaged over 30 min.
Rule 201.10
YES "Emission rates . . . may be set. . . to
attain ambient air quality standards."
-------
3
Checklist Item No. 3;
Rules 201.1 - 201.3
NO. ... 1 . averaging only implicitly specified
Rules 201.4 - 201.6
NO no averaging given
Rules 201.7 - 201.9
UNKNOWN. . . .30 min. average less than 3 hr.
Rule 201.10
YES Required
Checklist Item No. 4;
NO » .No test methods referenced
Checklist Item No. 5;
NO No continuous compliance methods
specified
Checklist Item No. 6;
NO. . . . . . .See Item No. 5
Checklist Item No. 7;
NO not required
Checklist Item No. 8;
NO not required
Checklist Item No. 9;
Rules 201.1, 201.2, 201.3, 201.4: Alternate emission limit
for effective stack height
a. YES clearly stated in Rules 201.1 - 201.4
b. NO no reporting period specified
c. NO since emission limit is lowered
d. NO none required
-------
Checklist Item No. 10;
Not applicable
Checklist Item No. 11:
Rule 201.10
YES Executive Secretary may set SO2 emission
rates from sources not regulated by Rules
201.1 - 201.6
Checklist Item No. 12;
Stack height corrections in Rules 201.1 - 201.4
-------
PEG01ATIOH II:
Control of Air Pollution from Sulfur Compounds
(State Version)
Control of Sulfur Dioxide
Checklist Item No. 1:
Rules 112.1(a), 112,l(a), 112.3(3), 112.4(a), 112.5(a) and
(b) and 112.6(a)
YES sources clearly specified
Rules 112.7, 112.8, 112.9, 112.10
YES all sources in areas listed
(Galveston/Harris Counties, and
Jefferson/
Orange Counties)
Rule 112.9
YES all sources
Rule 112.10
YES All sources not regulated by Rules
112.l(a), 112.2(a), 112.3(a), 112.4(a),
112.5(a), and 112.6(a)
Rule 112.16(a)
YES Nonferrous smelters (including sulfuric
acid plants)
Checklist Item No. 2;
Rules 112.1(a), 112.2(a), 112.3(a)
NO. Ib/hr (1 hr. average implicit)
Rule 112.4(a)
NO % volume, no averaging specified
Rule 112.5(a)
NO Ib/MMBTU, no averaging specified
-------
Rule 112.5(b)
NO. ...*.. .Ib/MMBTU, no averaging specified
Rule 112.6(a)
NO ppm(v), no averaging specified
Rule 112.7
YES ppm (ambient) averaged over 30 min.
Rule 112.8
YES ppm (ambient) averaged over 30 min.
Rule 112.9
YES ppm (ambient) averaged over 30 min.
Rule 112.10
YES "Emission rates . . . may be set . . .
. to attain ambient air quality
standards."
Rule 112.16(b)
YES 2 hr. average ppm(v) limit less than 3
hr. NAAQS
NO 6 hr. average ppm(v) limit greater than
3 hrs. NAAQS
Rule 112.19
YES ppm standard averaged over 3 hrs.
Checklist Item No. 3;
Rule 112.1(a), 112.2(a), 112.3(a)
MAYBE
Rules 112.4(a), 112.5(a) and (b), 112.6(a)
NO no averaging given
*
Rule 112.7 - 112.9
UNKNOWN. ... 30 min. average less than 3 hr.
c-H-
-------
Rule 112.10
YES required
Rule 112.16
NO 6 hr. average does not protect 3 hr.
NAAQS
Checklist Item No. 4t
•
NO No test methods referenced
Checklist Item No. 5;
Rule 112.16(g)
YES for significant sources from primary
smelter
• All other Rules
NO no continuous compliance methods given
Checklist Item No. 6;
Rule 12.16(g)
YES one measurement required every 15 min.
NO. . .'. . . for all other Rules
Checklist Item No. 7:
NO not required
Checklist Item No. 8;
NO not required
Checklist Item No. 9:
Rules 112.l(b), 112.2(b), 112.3(b), 112.4(b), 112.6(b):
Alternate emission limit for effective stack height
a. YES clearly stated
b. NO no reporting period specified
c. NO no, since emission limit is lowered
d. NO none required
-------
8
Rule 112.5(b): Alternate SO. Limit for Solid Fossil-Fuel-
Fired Steam Generator Located in Milam County
a. YES....'.. clearly stated
b. NO No reporting period specified
c. NO Rule was put in place by source request
•
d. NO none required
Rule 112.9: Exemption for New or Modified Sources From Net
Ground Level Concentration Limit
a. NO effective date not specified
b. NO no reporting period specified
c. NO* not required
d. NO not required
Rule 112.11-15: Temporary Fuel Shortage Plan
a. YES Limits are suspended for any source
subject to 112.6-112.9 or permit (except
NSPS)
b. YES. .....
c. YES Rule 112.13
d. YES implicitly through Rule 112.14
Rule 112.17-19: Area Control Plan
a. YES Rule 112.19-0.5 ppm (ambient) averaging
over 3 hr.
b. YES,
c. YES Rules 112.17-18 source must apply and
TACB may grant
YES Rule 112.17 plan must include ambient
SO2 sampling system
Checklist Item No. 10;
Not applicable
-------
Checklist Item No. 11;
Rule 112.10
«
YES Executive Director may set SO, emission
rates from sources not regulated by
Rules 112.1-112.6.
Checklist Item No. 12;
Rules 112.1 - 112.4 and 112.6 make emission limit
corrections for stack height
£.-'
-------
, NEW MEXICO REGULATION
'••-'Vr,.:-i ?.":"•* . 8ul£ur Dioxide (SO.) Emission Limitations Survev
-.-./•".».*<£-•-•-.•• *.--•' .v •••..• • Beaca TrnDlenentation Plan (SIP) Review
•
ftbate Rules on SO.. Sources
r^i'JiJ''-''5??.^-'.*'':*•*•/• --'-••.. ••*:.- ' ^
^cf-fja^Ss'
*vi?Wiprtfi?iy^ir:-,'y:- .• •
^^^iifeS--;-':;::'
, NEW JffiXICO REGULATION 13: Coal Burning Equipment -
Dioxide
-w^^>':'--;'
.st Item No. 1;
ffM»fe;®;.;;•*, -^ ^TI« —•
w^gK^vi^v,,--^ •
.- ;'. r'..f::.-.^.>-.>-f--? -^.T.'/'-^'-• \-»»*^ •
•v?-i'':.'^?^Vr'.-:v"!?c''.-:"l;'.' 'MO ......
r^;J?4;J*i^^':??-;V-'i;/.' ..';
'. "••^-'.'''"•"i-'.>•-'f'«"-''-i-r' ^VVkA.M.1_ ^ J ^.A. ^^^.«« %V_. <
Regulation 13.01
Checklist Item No. 2;
Regulation 13.01 - no averaging specified
Checklist Item No. 3;
"-.'•"-
NO ^ none specified
' '-
Item No. 4:
NO « . .... none specified
:^/l^jv*;>^v^' checklist I
. .----. • ...-.,-
y^/; ' • V Checklist Item Nol 5;
>; YES see Regulation 23
v Checklist Item No. 6;
NO see Regulation 23 - not specified
• ^ ^;? ^ Checklist Item No. 7;
IV: '? YES. ..... Regulation 23.02 requires semi-annual reporting
\ ", of information required by the Director
-.'-. . Checklist Item No. 8;
. NO ...... nothing specified
Checklist Item No. 9;
Not applicable - none allowed for, but see Regulation 24 -
Variance Procedure
-------
Checklist Item No. 10:
Not applicable.
Checklist Item No. 11;
*
YES see Regulation 24.08, where Director may waive
stay of enforcement
Checklist Item No. 12;
Stack height provisions are dealt with in Regulation 33
-------
REGULATION 17: • Oil Burning Equipment - Sulfur Dioxide
Checklist Item No. 1;
YES Regulation 17.01
Checklist Item No. 2;
NO none specified
Checklist Item No. 3;
NO none specified
Checklist Item No. 4;
NO . . ., . . . none specified
Checklist Item No. 5:
YES see Regulation 23
Checklist Item No. 6;
NO see Regulation 23 - not specified
Checklist Item No. 7;
YES Regulation 23.02 requires semi-annual reporting
of information required by the Director
Checklist Item No: 8;
NO ... . . . nothing specified
Checklist Item No. 9:
Not applicable - none allowed for, but see Regulation 24 -
Variance Procedure
Checklist Item No. 10;
Not applicable.
Checklist Item No. 11:
YES see Regulation 24.08, where Director may waive
stay of enforcement
Checklist item No. 12:
Stack height provisions are dealt with in Regulation 33
-------
Sulfur Dioxide (SO,) Emission Limitationa Survey
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Review
State Rules on SO, Sources
LOUISIANA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (LAC)
VOLUME II, TITLE 33 (1988):
Part III. Air
Chapter 15. Emission Standards for Sulfur Dioxide
Section 1503. Emission Limitations
Checklist Item No. It
YES Existing Sulfuric Acid Plants (SAP)
New Sulfuric Acid Plants (SAP)
New Sulfur Recovery Plants (SRP)
Existing All Other Sources (AOS)
New All Other Sources (AOS)
Checklist Item No. 2i
YES Existing SAP - 3 hr. avg.
YES New SAP - 3 hr. avg.
40 GFR Part 60, Subpart H, 60.84(e)
NO. . . . . . .New SRP
NO Existing AOS
NO New AOS
Checklist Item No. 3:
YES Existing SAP
Secondary NAAQS (3 hrs.)
Primary NAAQS (24 hrs.)
YES New SAP
Secondary NAAQS
Primary NAAQS
NO New SRP
Secondary NAAQS
Primary NAAQS
-------
NO Existing AOS
Secondary NAAQS
Primary NAAQS
NO. New AOS
Secondary NAAQS
Primary NAAQS
Checklist Item No. 4;
YES "Analytical methods" references Table 4,
which includes 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A,
Test Method 1 (Sample and Velocity Traverses)
and Test Method 6 (Sulfur Dioxide emissions,
concentrations)
Checklist Item No. 5:
NO ...... EPA's Part 60, Appendix A, Test Method 6 is
referenced in LDEQ's Chapter 15. Continuous
monitoring of SO2 emissions is not explicitly
required, although it is implied.
Checklist Item No. 6;
NO Continuous monitoring is not explicitly
required. Averaging time cannot be readily
evaluated.
Checklist Item No. 7;
YES a. LAC Chapter 9, Section 918 and Section
919, specify applicability of reporting
requirements and emission data reporting
requirements. Emission data is to be
sent to LDEQ upon request by the State.
Reporting is done annually.
b. An air permit may be more specific.
Checklist Item No. 8;
NO No specific recordkeeping requirements are in
LA's LAC.
Checklist Item No. 9;
Not applicable. No Alternative Approach (AA) is used.
-------
Checklist Item No. 10:
Not applicable. No AA is used.
Checklist Item No. 11:
YES Section 1505 "Variances" allows the LOEQ
administrative authority to permit the source
to obtain relief from the LAC rules on a
case-by-case basis.
Checklist Item No. 12:
YES LAC Chapter 9, Section 921 "Stack Heights"
includes detailed stack height regulations:
- Pre and post 7/8/85 requirements are
specified.
- Good engineering practice is
described.
QUESTIONS/CONCERNS:
1. Why have Section 1503, SO2 emission limits for new
sulfuric acid plants when Chapter 31, Subchapter H,
Section 3232 covers "new sulfuric acid plants" as new
sources?
•
2. The "New All Other Sources" SO2 limit conflicts with
Chapter 31 SO2 requirements.
3. The New Sulfur Recovery Plant SO2 limit conflicted with
Chapter 31, Subchapter J, Section 3264.
4. The difference between a "new source" and an "existing
source" is not clearly specified by the use of
applicable dates.
-------
Chapter 23. Control of Emissions for Specific Industries
Subchapter A. Chemical Woodpulpina Industry
Section 2301. Contr61 of Emissions from the Chemical Woodpulpina
Industry
********
Checklist Item No. 1:
YES Existing All Other Sources (AOS)
New AOS (See Section 1503C)
Checklist Item No. 2t
NO Existing AOS, except for smelt dissolving
tanks (12 hr. avg.)
New AOS
(See Section 1503C)
Checklist Item No. 3;
NO Existing AOS:
Secondary or Primary NAAQS
NO New AOS:
Secondary or Primary NAAQS
t>
Checklist Item No. 4;
YES. ..... "Analytical Methods" references
Table 4
Checklist Item No. 5:
NO CEM is not required
Checklist Item No. 6;
•
NO. . . . . . . CEM is not required
Checklist Item No. 7:
YES a. LAC Chapter 9, Section 918 and Section
919. Data sent to LDEQ upon request.
Reporting done annually.
b. An air permit may be more specific.
Checklist Item No. 8;
NO None specific in LA's LAC.
-------
Checklist Item No. 9;
Not applicable. No Alternative Approach (AA) is given.
*
Checklist Item No. 10;
Not applicable. No AA is given.
Checklist Item No. 11;
NO in Section 2301
YES in Section 1505 for 1503 emission limits
Checklist Item No. 12:
NO in Section 2301
YES in Section 921
-------
6
Chapter 31. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources
Subchapter 8. Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired
Steam Generators for Which Construction is
Commenced After August 17. 1971 fSubpart D)
Section 3138. Standard for Sulfur Dioxide
Checklist Item No. 1;
YES Established in Section 3135
Checklist Item No. 2;
YES Section 31406.2 - 3 hr. avg. (3 one-hr.
periods are averaged)
Checklist Item No. 3;
YES Primary NAAQS (24 hr.)
YES Secondary NAAQS (3 hr.)
Checlist Item No. 4;
YES Section 3141A. - Method 1 and Method 6 or
Method 6A
Checklist Item No. 5;
YES Section 3140A, except where SO2 monitoring is
not required:
•
3140B.1. - burning gaseous fossil fuel
3140B.2. - no flue gas desulfurization device
(fuel sampling/analysis required)
Checklist Item No. 6:
YES Section 3125E. - specifies 15 min. CEM cycle
•
YES Section 3125H. - specifies 1 hr. avg. of 4 or
more data points equally spaced over 1 hr.
period.
Checklist Item No. 7:
YES Section 3113C - specifies quarterly reporting
of CEM data/excess emissions.
-------
Checklist Item No. 8:
YES Section 3113D - specifies maintenance of a
record file suitable for inspection.
Checklist Item No. 9:
Not applicable - No Alternative Approach (AA) is used.
Checklist Item No. 10i
Not applicable - No AA is used.
Checklist Item No. 11:
NO None in Subchapter B or Subchapter A (General
Provisions and Definitions).
Checklist Item No. 12:
Not applicable - In Subchapter B.
(See LAC Chapter 9, Section 921)
-------
8
Chapter 31. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources
Subchapter C. Standards of Performance for Electric Utility
Steam Generating Units for Which Construction is
Commenced After September 18. 1978 (Subpart Da)
Section 3145. Standard for Sulfur Dioxide
Checklist Item No. 1;
YES Established in Section 3142.
Checklist Item No. 2;
YES. . . . . . Section 3149H.2. - 1 hr. avg. (30-day rolling
average basis is used - see Section 3148E.,
F., and 6.)*
Checklist Item No. 3;
YES* Primary NAAQS (24 hr.)
YES* ..... Secondary NAAQS (3 hr.)
Checklist Item No. 4;
YES Section 3149 H.I - Method 3 and Method 6B are
specified
Checklist Item No. 5:
YES Section 3149B, except where natural gas is
the fuel
Checklist Item No. 6;
YES*. ..... Section 31496, specifies 1 hr. averages of 2
data points
Checklist Item No. 7;
YES Section 3113C specifies quarterly reporting
of CEM data/excess emissions.
Section 315IB is specific for Subchapter C.
* 40 CFR 60.46a, 60.473, and 60.49a, contain the same
requirements that are included in Lousiana's Sections 3148
and 3149.
-------
Checklist Item No. 8;
YES Section 3113D specifies maintaining a record
file suitable for inspection.
Checklist Item No. 9;
Not applicable - No Alternative Approach (AA) is used
Checklist Item No. 10:
Not applicable - No AA is used
Checklist Item No. 11;
NO None in Subchapters C or A
Checklist Item No. 12;
Not applicable - In Subchapter C
(See LAC Chapter 9, Section 921, p. 126-131)
-------
10
Chapter 31. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources
Subchapter H. Standards of Performance for Sulfuric Acid Plants
(Suboart H)
Section 3232. Standard for Sulfur Dioxide
Checklist Item No. 1:
YES Established in Section 3230
Checklist Item No. 2;
YES Section 3234E - 3 hr. periods (or avg. of 3
^ consecutive 1 hr. periods)
Checklist Item No. 3:
YES Primary NAAQS (24 hr.)
YES Secondary NAAQS (3 hr.)
Checklist Item No. 4;
YES Section 3234B, C, & D - kg/ton (or Ib/ton) of
100% H2S04
Checklist Item No. 5;
YES. ..... Section 3234A - Ref. Method 8 plus Methods 1,
2, and 3
•
Checklist Item No. 6;
YES Section 3234E - 3 hr. periods
Checklist Item No. 7;
YES Section 3234E - refers to 3113C quarterly
reports
Checklist Item No. 8;
YES Section 3113D - specifies record/file
maintenance
Checklist Item No. 9;
Not applicable - No Alternative Approach (AA) is used
-------
11
Checklist Item No. 10;
Not applicable - No AA is used
Checklist Item No. I'l;
NO. . '. . . . None in Subchapters A or H
Checklist Item No. 12;
Not appicable - in Subchapter H
(See Chapter 9, Section 921, p. 126-131)
-------
12
Chapter 31. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources
Subchapter J• Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries
(Subpart J)
Section 3264. Standard for Sulfur Dioxide
Checklist Item No. 1;
YES. ..... Established for Glaus sulfur recovery plants
and fuel gas combustion devices
(in Section 3260)
Checklist Item No. 2;
YES Section 3265E.3 - fuel gas: 3 hr. avg.*
Glaus Plant: 12 hr. avg.*
Section 3265E.4 (?) unit: 6 hr. avg.*
•
Checklist Item No. 3;
YES* Primary NAAQS (24 hr.)
NO* Secondary NAAQS (3 hr.)
Checklist Item No. 4;
YES Section 3266C - Method 6 and Method 1
(mg/dscm)
YES Section 3266D - Method 6 (Alt. proc. - % by
vol.)
Checklist Item No. 5;
YES Section 3265A.3 (fuel gas)
YES Section 3265A.5 (Glaus plant)
Checklist Item No. 6:
NO* See #2 and 3, above
* 40 CFR 60.105(e)(3) and (e)(4) contain the same requirements
that are included in LA's Section 3265.
-------
13
Checklist Item No. 7;
YES Section 3265E references Section 3113C
quarterly reporting
Checklist Item No. 8;
YES Section 3113D - specifies record/file
maintenance
Checklist Item No. 9;
Not applicable - No Alternative Approach (AA)
Checklist Item No. 10;
Not applicable - No AA
Checklist Item No. 11;
• '
NO None in Subchapters A or J
Checklist Item No. 12;
Not applicable - in Subchapter J
(See Chapter 9, Section 921, p. 126-131)
-------
14
Chapter 31. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources
Subchapter P. Standards of Performance for Primary Copper
Smelters (Subpart PI
Section 3363. Standard for Sulfur Dioxide
Checklist Item No. 1:
YES Established in Section 3360
Checklist Item No. 2;
YES Section 3365C - 6 hr. avg. (4 times per day)*
Checklist Item No. 3:
YES* Primary NAAQS (24 hr.)
NO* Secondary NAAQS (3 hr.)
Checklist Item No. 4:
YES Section 3365B.2-Air Quality (AQ) Div. Source
Test Manual.
Section 3366A.2-SO2 in %-by vol.
Checklist Item No. 5;
YES Section 3365B.2 - roaster, smelting furnace,
or copper converter
Checklist Item No. 6;
NO* Section 3366A.2 - 6 hr. avg.
Checklist Item No. 7:
YES Section 3365D - references to 3113C
Checklist Item No. 8;
YES Section 3113D - specifies record/file
maintenance
* 40 CFR 60.165(c) and (d)(2) contain the same requirements
that are included in Sections 3365C and 3365D.
-------
15
Checklist Item No. 9;
Not applicable - No Alternative Approach (AA)
Checklist Item No. 10;
Not applicable - No AA
Checklist Item No. 11;
NO None in Subchapters A or P
Checklist Item No. 12:
Not applicable - in Subchapter P
(See Chapter 9, Section 921, p. 126-131)
-------
16*
Chapter 31. Standards of Performance for New Stationary sources
Subchapter Q. Standards of Performance for Primary Zinc Smelters
(Subpart Q}
Section 3383. Standard for Sulfur Dioxide
Checklist Item No. Is
YES Established in Section 3380
Checklist Item No. 2:
YES Section 3385B and C.2 - 2 hr. avg. (Two 1 hr.
contiguous periods averaged).*
Checklist Item No. 3;
YES* Primary NAAQS (24 hrs.)
YES* Secondary NAAQS (3 hrs.)
Checklist Item No. 4;
YES Section 3386A.2 - AQ Div. Source Test '
Manual, SO2 in % by vol.
Checklist Item No^ 5s
YES Section 3385A.2 - roaster
Checklist Item No. 6;
YES* Section 3385B - 2 hr. avg.
Checklist Item No. 7;
YES. .... .Section 3385C - refers to Section 3113C
Checklist Item No. 8:
YES. . . , . .Section 3113D - specifies record/file
maintenance
Checklist Item No. 9s
Not applicable - No Alternative Approach (AA)
* 40 CFR 60.175(b) and (c)(2) contain the same requirements
that are included in Sections 3385B and 3385C.2
-------
17
Checklist Item No. 10;
Not applicable - No AA
Checklist: Item No. lit
NO None in Subchapters A or Q
Checklist Item No. 12;
Not applicable - In Subchapter Q
(See Chapter 9, Section 921, p. 126-131)
-------
18
Chapter 31. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources
Subchapter R. Standards of Performance for Primary Lead Smelters
(Subpart R)
Section 3403. Standard for Sulfur Dioxide
»
Checklist Item No. 1;
YES. ..... Established in Section 3400
Checklist Item No. 2;
YES Section 3405B and C.2 - 2 hr. avg. (two 1 hr.
contiguous periods averaged.)*
Checklist Item No. 3;
YES*. .... Primary NAAQS (24 hrs.)
YES* Secondary NAAQS (3 hrs.)
Checklist Item No. 4;
YES Section 3405A.2.b. - AQ Div. Source Test
Manual, SO2 in % by vol.
Checklist Item No. 5;
YES Section 3405A.2.a - blast furnace, dross
reverberatory furnace, or sintering machine
discharge
Checklist Item No. 6;
YES* Section 3405B - 2 hr. avg.
*
Checklist Item No. 7:
YES Section 3405C - refers to Section 3113C
Checklist Item No. 8:
YES Section 3113D - specifies record/file
maintenance
* 40 CFR 60.185(b) and (c) (2) contain the same requirements
that are included in Sections 3405B and 3405C.2
-------
19
Checklist Item No. 9;
Not applicable - No Alternative Approach (AA)
Checklist Item No. 10;
Not applicable - No AA
Checklist Item No. 11;
NO None in Subchapters A or R
Checklist Item No. 12;
Not applicable - In Subchapter R
(See Chapter 3, Section 921, p. 126-131)
-------
20
Chapter 31. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources
Subchapter GG. Standards of Performance for Stationary Gas
Turbines (Subpart GG)
Section 3583. Standard for Sulfur Dioxide
Checklist Item No. 1;
YES. ..... Established in Section 3580
Checklist Item No. 2;
NO Section 3584C.2 - Daily period (24 hr.) for
fuel sulfur content only, not SO2 discharge*
Checklist Item No. 3:
NO* Primary NAAQS (24 hr.)
NO* Secondary NAAQS (3 hr.)
Checklist Item No. 4;
YES Section 3585B.1 - Ref. Method 20, which
references to Method 6 (Alt. proc., % by
vol.)
Section 3585B.2 - ASTM specs for sulfur
content of fuels
Checklist Item No. 5;
NO Section 3584A - continuous monitoring is
required for fuel sulfur content only, not
SO2 emissions
Checklist Item No. 6;
NO* No averaging time for SO2 emissions. Section
3583A does include a SO2 emission limit of
0.015% by vol. § 15% O2 on a dry basis.
Checklist Item No. 7;
YES Section 3584C.2 - refers to Section 3113C
* See 40 CFR 60.334(a)(2), which is the same as Section
3584C.2
N^ ^
-------
21
Checklist Item No. 8:
YES Section 3113D - specifies record/file
maintenance
Checklist Item No. 9;
Not applicable - No Alternative Approach (AA)
Checklist Item No. 10;
Not applicable - No AA
Checklist Item No. 11;
NO None in Subchapters A or GG
Checklist Item No. 12;
Not applicable - In Subchapter GG
(See Chapter 9, Section 921, p. 126-131)
0J
-------
NEW MEXICO REGULATIONS
Loxide (SQj) g""*|3aion3 Limitations
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Review
State Rules en so. Sources
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGULATION/602V Coal Burning Equipment -
Sulfur Dioxide
Checklist Item No. 1;
YES AQCR 602.A.4, A.5, A.6.a, A.6.b, B.l.c,
B.2.a, and B.2.b
Checklist Item No. 2;
NO AQCR 602.A.4,-A.5 - no average
Not applicable to all other rules
Checklist Item No. 3;
NO AQCR 602.A.4, A.5 - since there is no average
YES. ..... AQCR 602.A.6.af A.6.b and B.2.b - lb/hr., 3
hr. average.
NO AQCR 602.A.6.a, A.6.b, B.l.c, and B.2.a - 30-
day average period is greater than 3 hr.
NAAQS.
Checklist Item No. 4i
YES AQCR 602.C.I requires Method 6 for all limits
except 30-day averages.
YES AQCR 602.C.I and 602.D. require continuous
monitoring
Checklist Item No. 5;
YES AQCR 602.D.I and D.2
Checklist Item No. 6;
YES AQCR 602.E.I
f U -.'
-------
Checklist Item No. 7:
^^^^^W^^^^^^B^VB^B^—i^^K^^~^«BHB^^—^^VP^K^^^^^B^
NO AQCR 602.E.I and E.2 have no definition of
excess emission
Checklist Item No. 8;
NO AQCR 602.D.3 requires only raw data be
retained for two years
^'
Checklist Item No. 9;
a. YES. . . AQCR 602.A.6.b
b. NO ... .not stated
c. YES. . . .AQCR 602.A.6.b requires showing of inability
to the Board
d. YES. . . .AQCR 602.C.I requires continuous emission
monitoring
Note that AQCR 701 allows for requesting and receiving a variance
from any AQCR.
Checklist Item No. 10:
Not applicable
Checklist Item No. 11:
YES AQCR 701.H allows for director's opinion on
stay of enforcement while variance petition
is pending
(NB: not part of SIP)
Checklist Item No. 12:
No stack height regulations in this AQCR, but see AQCR 710
-------
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGULATION^ 605:/ Oil Burning Equipment -
Sulfur Dioxide
Checklist Item No. 1;
YES AQCR 605
Checklist Item No. 2;
NO Ib/MMBTU, no averaging time specified
Checklist Item No. 3;
NO none specified
Checklist Item No. 4;
NO none specified
Checklist Item No. 5;
NO none specified
Checklist Item No. 6:
NO none specified
Checklist Item No. 7:
NO no requirements
Checklist Item No. 8;
NO no requirements
Checklist Item No. 9:
Not applicable; however, AQCR 701 allows for requesting and
receiving a variance from any AQCR.
Checklist Item No. 10;
Not applicable
Checklist Item No. 11i
YES see AQCR 701.H
Checklist Item No. 12 i
No mention of stack heights, but see AQCR 710
-------
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGULATION 621: Natural Gas Processing Plant
- Sulfur •
Checklist Item No. 1;
YES AQCR 621.A
Checklist Item No. 2;
NO. . . o . . AQCR 621.B, C, D, E, F.2.a, F.2.b, 6.2.a,
G.2.b, I, K - no average given
Checklist Item No. 3;
NO AQCR 621. J - Ib/day > 3 hrs and is not
consistent with 24 hr. average
NO. . . . . . AQCR 621.B-K: no average given
Checklist Item No. 4;
•
NO Tests specified
Checklist Item No. 5:
NO AQCR 621. L specifies no less than quarterly
for some parameter measurements
Checklist Item No. 6;
•
NO AQCR 621.L allows reporting times ranging
from once per 24 hours to quarterly
Checklist Item No. 7:
YES AQCR 621.L requires quarterly reports and
what data to be reported
Checklist Item No. 8;
NO not required '
Checklist Item No. 9:
Not applicable - no alternate approaches allowed after
1/1/80; however, AQCR 701 allows for requesting and
receiving a variance from any AQCR
-------
Checklist Item No. 10;
Not applicable
Checklist Item No. 11;
YES AQCR 621.L: last sentence dealing
with reporting frequencies
YES see AQCR 701.H
Checklist Item No. 12:
YES AQCR 621.H deals with stack heights; also see
AQCR 710
-------
6
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGULATION 622: Petroleum Refinery - Sulfur
Checklist Item No. 1;
YES. ..... AQCR 622.A, B, and E
Checklist Item No. 2;
YES AQCR 622.A: "tons in any 24 hr. period"
NO. ..... AQCR 622.B and C - Ib S/100 Ib S released
Checklist Item No. 3;
YES AQCR 622.A - with 24 hr. average
NO AQCR 622.A - with 3 hr. average
N
NO AQCR 622.B and C - no averaging specified
Checklist Item No. 4;
NO No test methods specified
Checklist Item No. 5;
NO AQCR 622.F allows monitoring of parameters
from weekly to quarterly
Checklist Item No'• 6t
NO. AQCR 622.F - sampling times all greater than
24 hrs.
Checklist Item No. 7;
YES AQCR 622.F requires quarterly reporting
Checklist Item No. 8;
NO No requirements
Checklist Item No. 9;
Not applicable - not allowed for; but see AQCR 701
Checklist Item No. 10:
Not applicable
C-H-H?
-------
Checklist Item No. 11;
YES See AQCR 701.H
Checklist Item No. 12;
AQCR 622.H deals with stack heights; also see AQCR 710
-------
8
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGULATION 632 - Sulfur Recovery Plant -
Sulfur
Checklist Item No. 1;
YES AQCR 632.A, B, and C
Checklist Item No. 2;
NO AQCR 632.A, B, and C - no averaging time
mentioned
Checklist Item No. 3;
NO AQCR 632.A, B, and C - none specified
Checklist Item No. 4;
NO. . . . . . None specified
Checklist Item No. 5:
NO AQCR 632.E allows parameter monitoring from
weekly to monthly
Checklist Item No. 6:
*
NO. ..... AQCR 632.E - sampling frequency > 24 hrs.
Checklist Item No. 7;
YES.. .... AQCR 632.E requires quarterly reports
Checklist Item No. 8:
NO Not required
Checklist Item No. 9;
Not applicable - not allowed for; but see AQCR 701
Checklist Item No. 10;
Not applicable
Checklist Item No. 11:
YES See AQCR 701.H
Checklist Item No. 12;
No stack height rules; but see AQCR 710
-------
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGULATION; 651:; Sulfuric Acid Plants -
Sulfur (SIP Version)
Checklist Item No. 1;
•
YES AQCR 651.A, B, C, D, and E
Checklist Item No. 2;
YES AQCR 651.A, B, and C - 24 hr. average
NO AQCR 651. D - no average given
Checklist Item No. 3;
. YES with 24 hr. NAAQS
NO with 3 hr. NAAQS
Checklist Itfem No. 4:
NO none specified
Checklist Item No. 5;
NO none specified
Checklist Item No. 6;
NO none specified
Checklist Item No. 6:
NO. . . . . none specified
Checklist Item No. 7:
NO not required
Checklist Item No. 8:
NO not required
Checklist Item No. 9:
Not applicable - not allowed; but see AQCR 701
Checklist Item No. 10;
Not applicable
-------
10
Checklist Item No. 11:
YES see AQCR 701.H
Checklist Item No. 12;
No stack height regulations; but see AQCR 710
-------
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGULATION 651: Sulfuric Acid Production
Units - Sulfur Dioxide. Acid Mist and Visible Emission (latest
state version)
Checklist Item No. 1:
YES. ..... AQCR 651.1
Checklist Item No. 2;
YES AQCR 651.A, B and C - excess emissions
defined in AQCR 651.H.I and H.2
Checklist Item No. 3:
NO AQCR 651.H.2 - does not protect 3-hr, average
YES.^ .... AQCR 651.H.I
Checklist Item No. 4;
YES AQCR 651.D requires testing as required by
NSPS
Checklist Item No. 5:
YES. . . . 1 . AQCR 651.F - SO2 CEM required
Checklist Item No. 6;
YES AQCR 651.H.I - requires 3-hr, average
NO AQCR 651.H.2 - requires 6-hr, average
Checklist Item No. 7;
YES AQCR 651.H.I and H.2
Checklist Item No. 8:
NO AQCR 651. F allows raw data to be kept for 2
years
•
Checklist Item No. 9;
Not applicable - not allowed; but see AQCR 701
Checklist Item No. 10;
Not applicable
-------
12
Checklist Item No. 11;
YES see AQCR 701.H
•
Checklist Item No. 12;
Stack height referenced in AQCR 710 for AQCR 651.B
-------
13
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGULATION 652: Nonferrous Smelters - Sulfur
Checklist Item No. 1;
YES AQCR 652.A and B
Checklist Item No. 2;
YES AQCR 652.A.I, A.2, A.3, A.4.a
NO AQCR 652.B - no average specified
Checklist Item No. 3;
YES. ..... AQCR 652.A.2
NO AQCR 652.A.3 and A.4
Checklist Item No. 4:
NO none specified
Checklist Item No. 5;
YES AQCR 652. C
Checklist Item No. 6;
YES .AQCR 652.G.c and G.d
NO for new smelters
Checklist Item No. 7;
YES AQCR 652.G.2 and G.3
Checklist Item No. 8;
YES AQCR 652.G.3
Checklist Item No. 9t
a. YES. . . .AQCR 652.A.3
b. YES. . . .AQCR 652.A.3
c. NO. ... none allowed by regulation
d. YES. . . AQCR 652.C
Also, see AQCR 701
-------
14
Checklist Item No. 10:
Not applicable '
Checklist Item No. 11:
YES. . . , . . see AQCR 701.H
Checklist Item No. 12:
No stack height rule but see AQCR 710
-------
15
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGULATION 679: Gasification Plants - Gas-
burning boilers - Sulfur Dioxide
Checklist Item No. 1:
YES AQCR 679.B
Checklist Item No. 2:
NO AQCR 679.A - Ib/MMBTU, no average specified
Checklist Item No. 3;
NO no average given
Checklist Item No. 4;
NO. . . . . . none specified
Checklist Item No. 5;
•
NO no rule given
Checklist Item No. 6;
NO none specified
Checklist Item No. 7;
NO .none specified
Checklist Item No. 8;
NO no requirements
Checklist Item No. 9;
Not applicable - none allowed; but see AQCR 701
Checklist Item No. 10;
Not applicable
Checklist Item No. 11;
YES. see AQCR 701.H
Checklist Item No. 12:
No stack height section but see AQCR 701
-------
16
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGULATION 680: Gasification Plants - Sulfur
Checklist Item No* 1;
YES AQCR 680.B.3
Checklist Item No. 2;
NO AQCR 680.A, Ib/MMBTU, no averaging specified
Checklist Item No. 3:
NO . . . . . .no averaging specified
Checklist Item No. 4:
NO none specified
Checklist Item No. 5;
NO no rule given
Checklist Item No. 6:
NO none specified
Checklist Item No. 7:
NO none specified
Checklist Item No. 8;
NO no requirements
Checklist Item No. 9:
Not applicable - none allowed
Checklist Item No. 10;
Not applicable
Checklist Item No. 11:
YES see AQCR 701.H
Checklist Item No. 12:
No stack height section; but see AQCR 701
-------
REGULATIONS
Sulfur Dioxide (SO..) Emissions Limitations Survey
State implementation Plan (SIP) Review
state Rules on so, sources
REGULATION 3.4 (Amended 5/8/87):
Control of Emissions of Sulfur Compounds
Checklist Item No. 1;
• Reg. No. 3.4(b) Existing Equipment covers:
YES. .-.«.. All kinds of existing SO2 sources.
Not approved by EPA.
• Reg. No. 3.4(c) New Equipment covers:
YES A. Sulfuric Acid Plants
B. Fuel-Burning Equipment
C. Gas Sweetening and Sulfur Recovery
Plants
D. Nonferrbus Smelters
- Copper Smelters
- Zinc Smelters
- Lead Smelters
E. . Paper Pulp Mill
Checklist Item No. 2:
• Reg. No. 3.4(b) Existing Equipment
YES Average: 5 min. 0.52 ppm
1 hr. 0.46 ppm
3 hr. 0.25 ppm
24 hr. 0.05 ppm
Not approved by EPA
Reg. No. 3.4(c) New Equipment
A. Sulfuric Acid Plants
YES. . . • Average: 2 hrs.
-------
B. Fuel-Burning Equipment
YES ........... Average: 3 hrs.
C. Gas Sweetening & Sulfur Recovery
Plants
(i) Natural Gas Processing
NO ............ None.
(ii) Other Processes (Sulfur Recovery
Plant) .
YES ........... Average: 2 hrs.
D. Nonferrous Smelters
- Copper Smelters
- Zinc Smelters
- Lead Smelters
*
YES ........... Average: 2 hrs.
•
E. Paper Pulp Mill
YES ........... Average: 2 hrs.
Checklist Item No. 3:
Reg. 3.4(b) Existing Equipment
YES ...... . . .Secondary - Average: 3 hrs. 0.25 ppm
Primary - Average: 24 hrs. 0.05 ppm
• Not approved by EPA
• Reg. No. 3.4(c) New Equipment
A. Sulfuric Acid Plants
YES ......... (S&P) Average: 2 hrs. - 4 Ib/ton of
100%
B. Fuel-Burning Equipment
YES ......... (S&P) Average: 3 hrs. - 0.2, 0.8, or 1.2
Ib/MMBTU
-------
3
C. Gas Sweetening & Sulfur Recovery Plants
(i) Natural Gas Processing
NO * No Average-tons/day or % reduction
(ii) Other Processes (Sulfur Recovery
Plant)
YES (S&P) Average: 2 hrs.-20 tons/ton
of sulfur
D. Nonferrous Smelters
- Copper Smelters
- Zinc Smelters
- Lead Smelters
YES (S&P) Average: 2 hrs. - Ib/hr
E. Paper Pulp Mill
YES (S&P) Average: 2 hrs. - 18 Ib/dry ton
pulp
Checklist Item No. 4:
• Reg. No. 3.4(b) Existing Equipment
NO "Appropriate material balances and/or
emission factors" and "appropriate
atmospheric diffusion estimates or any other
suitable method as accepted by the
Commissioner."
Not approved by EPA.
Reg. No. 3.4(c) New Equipment
A. Sulfuric Acid Plants
NO 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B is stated.
No method like an Appendix A Method
is used.
B. Fuel-Burning Equipment
NO Part 60, Appendix B is stated.
No method like an Appendix A Method
is used.
-------
C. Gas Sweetening and Sulfur Recovery
Plants
(i) Natural Gas Processing
NO "as determined by the Commissioner
in accordance with Reg. No. 5.1."
(ii) Other Processes (Sulfur Recovery
Plant)
NO "as determined by the Commissioner
in accordance with Reg. No. 5.1."
D. Nonferrous Smelters
- Copper Smelters
- Zinc Smelters
- Lead Smelters
NO No test methodology specified.
E. Paper Pulp Mill
NO. 40 CFR, Part 60, Appendix B is stated.
No method like an Appendix A Method
, is used.
Checklist Item No. 5;
«^^^^^B^H^^^^H_^^^^H^^^M^^^H.H^MI^^^^K^^M^^^HW ^
• Reg. No. 3.4(b) Existing Equipment
NO No CEM or FSA data is obtained on a
continuous basis.
Reg. No. 3.4(c) New Equipment
A. Sulfuric Acid Plants
YES CEM is required for SO2
B. Fuel-Burning Equipment
YES CEM is required for SO2, except where
fuel sulfur content is determined
C. Gas Sweetening and Sulfur Recovery
Plants
(i) Natural Gas Processing
NO "as determined by the Commissioner
in accordance with Reg. No. 5.1."
-------
(ii) Other Processes (Sulfur Recovery
Plant)
NO * "as determined by the Commissioner
in accordance with Reg. No. 5.1."
D. Nonferrous Smelters
- Copper Smelters
- Zinc Smelters
- Lead Smelters
YES CEM is required for SO2
E. Paper Pulp Mill
YES CEM is required for SO2
Checklist Item No. 6;
Reg. No. 3.4(b) Existing Equipment
NO No CEM is required.
• Reg. No. 3.4(c) New Equipment
A. Sulfuric Acid Plants
»
YES 2 hr. avg. of CEM data*
B. Fuel-Burning Equipment
YES. . 3 hr. avg. of CEM data
C. Gas Sweetening & Sulfur Recovery Plants
(i) Natural Gas Processing
NO NO CEM is required.
(ii) Other Processes (Sulfur Recovery
Plant)
NO No CEM is required.
D. Nonferrous Smelters
- Copper Smelters
- Zinc Smelters
- Lead Smelters
YES 2 hr. avg. of CEM data
-------
E. Paper Pulp Mill
YES ......... 2 hr. avg. of GEM data
Checklist Item No. 7;
• Reg. No. 3.4(b) Existing Equipment
No specific requirements are in Reg. No.
3.4(b).
YES ...... Format & frequency of reports are in Reg. No
• Reg. No. 3.4(c) New Equipment
A. Sulfuric Acid Plants
No specific requirements are in Reg.
No. 3.4(c)
YES ......... Format & frequency are in Reg. No.
B. Fuel-Burning Equipment
No specific requirements.
YES ..... ... .Format & frequency are in Reg. No.
C. Gas Sweetening & Sulfur Recovery Plants
(i) Natural Gas Recovery
No specific requirements.
YES ........... Format & Frequency are in Reg. No.
(ii) Other Processes (Sulfur Recovery
Plant)
,•
No specific requirements.
YES ........... Format & frequency are in Reg. No.
-------
D. Nonferrous Smelters
- Copper Smelters
- Zinc Smelters
- Lead Smelters
No specific requirements.
YES ......... Format & frequency are in Reg. No.
E. Paper Pulp Mill
•
No specific requirements.
YES ......... Format & frequency are in Reg. No.
Checklist Item No. 8:
• . Reg. No. 3.4(b) Existing Equipment
YES ...... - No specific requirements are in Reg. No.
3.4(b).
- Recordkeeping requirements are in Reg. No.
- PM emission recordkeeping is not specified
in Reg. No. 5.1(b) .
- S02, NOX/ visible emissions, and fuel
sulfur content records are to be ready for
inspection, but recordkeeping duration is
not specified.
• Reg. No. 3.4(c) New Equipment
YES ...... Same as Reg. No. 3.4(b) regarding
recordkeeping requirements.
Checklist Item No. 9;
• Reg. No. 3.4(b) Existing Equipment i-
NO ...... No Alternative Approach (AA)
Reg. No. 3.4(c) New Equipment
NO ...... No AA.
04-W
-------
8
Checklist Item No. 10;
Reg. No. 3.4(b) Existing Equipment
NO No AA.
• Reg. No. 3.4(c) New Equipment
NO No AA.
CHecklist Item No. 11;
• Reg. No. 3.4(b) Existing Equipment
YES It appears that methods of determining
violations are to be determined by the
Commissioner.
• Reg. No. 3.4(c) New Equipment
A. Sulfuric Acid Plants
NO No Commissioner's discretion.
B. Fuel-Burning Equipment
NO On all, except sulfur content of fuel.
YES On method of analysis of sulfur content
of fuel.
C. Gas Sweetening and Sulfur Recovery
Plants
(i) Natural Gas Processing
NO On all, except emission monitoring
YES When emission monitoring is
required.
(ii) Other Processes (Sulfur Recovery
Plants)
Same as (i), above.
D. Nonferrous Smelters
- Copper Smelters
- Zinc Smelters
- Lead Smelters
NO No Commissioner's discretion.
-------
E. Paper Pulp Mill
NO No Commissioner's discretion.
Checklist Item No. 12;
• Reg. No. 3.4 Control of Emission of Sulfur
Compounds
UNKNOWN. ... No mention of stack heights in Reg. No. 3.4.
Reg. No. 1.4 Air Resources Management/Permits
Required (5/18/83)
UNKNOWN. . . . Stack heights are permitted in Reg. 1.4.2,
but a post-1985 Regulation was not found.
C-H-
-------
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Enforceability Review of Region 7 Sulfur Dioxide
State Implementation Plans
FROM: Jon Knodel
Air Compliance Section
TO: Wayne Kaiser
Air Planning Section
In accordance with the Office of Air Quality, Planning, and
Standards (OAQPS) request to review sulfur dioxide (SO2) State
Implementation Plans (SIPs), attached are recommendations to
improve the enforceability of the Region 7 SO, SIPs. The review
was completed using the criteria listed in Attachment 1. As
indicated in the OAQPS background documents, the intent of the
review was to identify deficiencies that adversely affect the
enforceability of the rule; not to evaluate whether SO2 emission
limitations are adequate to protect the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) or whether additional S02 controls are
necessary.
Rather than list each of the state-specific SO2 requirements
and answer each of the twelve questions for each rule, the
recommendations focus on those rules that present enforceability
problems. If you have any questions, please give me a call or
drop by.
-------
In general, the Iowa SO2 SIP rules are enforceable.
- The SIP clearly defines all affected equipment and emission
limitations for affected equipment. However, the state should
revise sections 23.3(3)(a)(3) and (4), and 23.3(4) to clarify
that new sources subject to NSPS Subparts Db and DC must meet the
NSPS SO, standards, not the 6 pound SO2/MMBTU limit set forth in
23.3(3)(a)(3). These corrections should be made when the state
formally adopts NSPS Subparts Db and DC.
- The SIP clearly states averaging times that are consistent
with NAAQS averaging times.
Sampling methods are specified in the Department's
"Compliance Sampling Manual" adopted by the Commission on May 19,
1977. Minor corrections have been made to EPA's reference
methods since 1977 and should be incorporated in the Iowa
sampling manual. Iowa should consider referencing the NSPS
reference methods directly, or periodically update its sampling
manual. In addition, the state should update the SIP to
reference'the latest update of the sampling manual. Reference
methods provide emissions data consistent with the averaging
times set forth in the SIP.
- The Iowa SIP does not specify continuous compliance
'monitoring requirements. However, Iowa's CEMS requirements are i
consistent with 40 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendix P. Since the state
has no existing SIP boilers controlling SO2 with flue gas
desulfurization equipment, SO2 CEMS are not required, and
therefore no rule has been adopted.
The state should consider revising Chapter 25 to require
expanded use of CEMS, mandatory recordkeeping, and periodic
reporting at all major SO2 emitting facilities, consistent with
the compliance certification and expanded monitoring provisions
of the 1990 Clean Air Act. In the absence of CEMS, sources
should periodically (at least annually) be required to conduct a
compliance test using approved reference methods, and to
continuously record process and control equipment parameters to
provide an indicator of continuing compliance.
- While the Iowa SIP doesn't require source owners and
operators to maintain records or to report compliance data to the
regulatory agency, the SIP authorizes the director to require
such activities if requested in writing. Specific recordkeeping
and reporting requirements can be required through the pre-
construction permitting process.
-------
- The SIP provides procedures allowing a source to seek
approval of an alternate emission limit, but SIP language
explicitly states that the limit would have to be submitted to
EPA and approved as part of the SIP. The Iowa SIP does not
presently contain any source specific alternate emission S02
limits. Director discretion, in general, does not appear to be a
problem in the Iowa SIP.
- Section 24.1(1) provides an exemption for S02 exceedances
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction;
inconsistent with the excess emission approach taken in NSPS
Subparts D, Da, Db, and DC. The state should clarify the excess
emission provisions' in Chapter 24 to apply only to existing
sources, or more appropriately, only to particulate matter
(opacity) excess emissions.
- There are no SOo-related provisions in the federally
approved Linn and Polk county rules.
-------
Kansas
In general, the Kansas SIP presents several enforceability
challenges.
- While applicability criteria appear to be clearly stated in
early sections of the SIP, they are muddied in later exemptions
found in the federally approved SIP. For example, in 28-19-
31(C), the SIP requires all indirect heating equipment with a
heat input of 250 MMBTU per hour or greater to limit sulfur
emissions to less than 1.5 pounds sulfur per MMBTU. However, in
28-19-32(0), a source is exempted from the SO2 control
requirements if 1)it limits annual emissions below two times its
baseline SO2 emissions in 1971, or 2) if it combusts other than
natural gas less than 2000 hours per year.
The state never established 1971 baseline emissions for
affected facilities, nor established recordkeeping or reporting
requirements for sources using the "2,000 hours" exemption
criteria; complicating applicability determinations. Further,
the "on-off" nature of the rule is inconsistent with continuous
short term protection of the NAAQS. The exemption provisions
allow a source to burn any fuel type or fuel quality during
exempt periods, resulting in SO2 emissions that may or may not
protect the NAAQS.
The exemptions in 28-19-32(D) have been hotly contested in
recent enforcement actions involving the Board of Public
Utilities, Kansas City Power and Light - LaCygne, and Empire
District - Riverton. The state should eliminate the exemption
provisions from the federally approved SIP and establish specific
SO2 emission limits for individual sources or source categories.
- Averaging times are not explicitly stated for any of the S02
emitting equipment listed in the SIP, including sulfuric acid
plants [29-19-22(A)], primary nonferrous smelters [28-19-22(B)],
and indirect heating equipment [28-19-31(C)]. It is not clear if
averaging times are continuous, or are presumed to be the
duration of the reference test method (e.g., three hours for a
RM-6 test). The sections listed above should be revised to
include an explicit averaging time; an averaging time consistent
with protection of the SO2 NAAQS (3-hour, 24-hour, and annual).
- Testing methodologies are not specified in the SIP (except
for NSPS sources). Section 28-19-12 gives the state generic
authority to require testing using methods "approved by the
Director as being in accordance with sound analytical and
sampling procedures". EPA, however, generally only recognizes
test methods included in 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Appendix A (NSPS) or
other test methods specifically referenced or drawn out in the
federally approved SIP. The state should consider revising
28-19-12 to incorporate the NSPS reference methods by reference.
The state should also consider revising the testing section to
give the department expanded authority to require testing at any
time; not just for cause or during an initial performance
-------
demonstration. Compliance certification and expanded monitoring
requirements under the Titles 5 and 7 of the 1990 Clean Air Act
will likely require revision of 28-19-12 to make it consistent
with the Act.
- When establishing revised limits for indirect heating
equipment, the state should specify the emission limitation in
terms of pounds sulfur dioxide per million-BTU heat input rather
than pound sulfur per million-BTU heat input. CEMS and EPA's
reference methods traditionally measure SO2/ not sulfur.
- Kansas has adopted S02 CEMS requirements consistent with
Part 51, Appendix P. The rule [28-19-19] sets forth monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements necessary for
determining compliance on a continuous basis from indirect
heating equipment with a heat input of 250 MMBTU/hour or greater
that use flue gas desulfurization equipment to control SO2
emissions. Further, the rule specifies a three hour averaging
time for sources subject to the CEMS requirements; clarifying the
"silence" on averaging time in the generic SIP. The three hour
standard is consistent with the SO2 NAAQS averaging time.
However, because the CEMS requirements apply to only one
utility, compliance at other SO2 sources cannot realistically be
determined on a continuous basis. The state should consider
revising 28-19-19 to require expanded use of CEMS, mandatory
recordkeeping, and periodic reporting at all major SO, emitting
facilities, consistent with the compliance certification and
expanded monitoring provisions of the 1990 Clean Air Act. In "the
absence of CEMS, the state should requires sources to
periodically (at least annually) conduct a compliance test using
approved reference methods, and to continuously record process
and control equipment parameters to provide an indicator of
continuing compliance.
- The Kansas SIP doesn't appear to have any director
discretion issues other than those described above (test
methods).
- Although the S02-related provisions in the Kansas SIP are
based in large part on ambient monitor data collected in the
Kansas city area, the Kansas City Wyandotte County Ordinance does
not contain any federally enforceable SO2 rules. When the state
develops source-specific or source-category SO2 emission
limitations, the local agency should consider adopting and
enforcing the standards.
-------
MISSOURI
For the most part, the Missouri SO, SIP is enforceable.
However, the fragmentation of the rule (different rules for
different geographical areas) complicated review, and in turn
complicates the enforceability of the rules. The Missouri SIP
could be greatly simplified by consolidating all of the source-
specific emission limitations, test methods, monitoring
requirements in the different geographical areas into one or two
concise sections.
Source applicability (as well as exclusion) is well defined,
in particular, for "named" sources.
- Averaging times accompany emission limitations and are
consistent with the NAAQS averaging times with the following
exceptions:
- Ambient-like air standards found in Sections 10 C.S.R.
10-3.100(3)(A)(1) and (2), (4)(A), 10 C.S.R. 10-4-
150(3)(A) and (B), 10 C.S.R. 10-5.150(2)(A) and (B) don't
have any averaging times listed. It's unlikely that EPA
Region 7 would approve the rule, in any case, because the
agency doesn't traditionally enforce ambient standards.
However, the state should clarify the rule by adding the
appropriate averaging time or specify that the limits are
instantaneous and never to be exceeded.
- The SO2 emission limitation for the Union Electric -
Sioux and Labadie plants are averaged on a 24-hour basis
[10 C.S.R. 10-5.110(2)(B). While the 24-hour averaging
period is consistent with the NAAQS standards, it's not
clear whether the emission limit and averaging time
protect the short term 3-hour SO2 standard. NOTE: Since
compliance is determined with CEMS, the enforceability of
the rule remains intact; the inconsistent averaging time
appears to be a planning issue.
- Test methods are consistent with EPA recognized test methods
and, in conjunction with the listed averaging times, are capable
of providing data necessary to make a compliance determination.
- The Missouri SIP, with limited exceptions, does not provide
for continuous compliance monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting
of excess emissions. However, the state's CEM rules are
consistent with 40 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendix P. As mentioned in
the Iowa and Kansas SIP reviews, the state should consider
revising the Missouri SIP to require expanded use of CEMS,
mandatory recordkeeping, and periodic reporting at all major SO2
emitting facilities, consistent with the compliance certification
and expanded monitoring provisions of the 1990 Clean Air Act. In
the absence of CEMS, sources should periodically (at least A
annually) be required to conduct a compliance test using approved^
reference methods, and to continuously record process and control
t-s-b
-------
equipment parameters to provide an indicator of continuing
compliance.
While the Missouri SIP specifies an EPA approved reference
method in 10 C.S.R. 10-3.100 for measuring SO2 emissions from
primary lead smelters [Asarco-Glover, AMAX-Boss, and St. Joe
Lead-Herculaneum] the frequency of measurement to ensure
continuous compliance appears inappropriate; given the level of
allowable emissions. Asarco-Glover, at its current allowable,
can emit up to 92,225 tons SO2 per year; higher than any single
Phase I acid rain-affected unit. Although not required by
Appendix P, it seems appropriate that the state require primary
smelters to install GEMS to verify continuous compliance. If the
state opts not to require GEMS, EPA should seriously consider
requiring installation of GEMS using its authority under Section
114 of the Act.
- Section 10 C.S.R. 5.110(2)(C)(2) provides a shield from
enforcement for the Union Electric Labadie and Sioux plants that
allows the utilities to exceed specified SO2 emission limitations
up to 20 percent on up to three days per month. The exemption is
not consistent with good engineering practice to minimize
emissions,' does not ensure protection of the 3-hour or 24-hour
NAAQS standards on the excess emission days, and is inconsistent
with EPA's "S02 Continuous Compliance" policy. The state should
consider deleting the shielding provision and instead use
enforcement .discretion when reviewing excess emissions reported
by the utilities.
- The Missouri SIP doesn't appear to raise any director
discretion issues for SO2-emitting sources.
- The St. Louis City, St. Louis County, Kansas City, and
Springfield-Greene County regulations all contain SO2-related
rules. A cursory review of the rules didn't reveal any major
discrepancies between local and state rules that would impact
EPA's ability to enforce the rules.
-------
NEBRASKA
In general, the Nebraska SO2 SIP appears to present some
enforceability problems combustion equipment. EPA has not
attempted to enforce the SO2 regulations during the past several
years, but based on similar problems encountered in Kansas, would
expect difficulty determining compliance at Nebraska SO2 sources.
- The Nebraska SIP establishes a SO2 emission limit and
averaging time for existing fuel burning equipment, but
complicates the compliance determination. Heat input for
combustion sources is determined from the aggregate of all fuel
burning equipment on the premise. Subsequently, all fuel burning
equipment must be tested to determine compliance with the "plant-
wide" S02 emission limitation. Routine, or even periodic
compliance determinations (using SIP approved test procedures)
can be expensive, and in some cases impracticable for sites with
more than two or three combustion units. Further, the rule
provides a heat input credit from combustion units burning
natural gas; a "clean" fuel with little or no potential to
produce SO2 emissions. The state should establish source-
specific or source-category S02 emission limitations, using only
the heat input contribution from sulfur bearing fuels.
- Chapter 19 (Emission Sources, Testing, Monitoring)
The state should also consider revising the testing section
to give the department expanded authority to require testing at
any time; not just for cause or during an initial performance
demonstration. Compliance certification and expanded monitoring
requirements under the Titles 5 and 7 of the 1990 Clean Air Act
will likely require revision of Rule 10 to make it consistent'
with the Act.
- The Nebraska SIP does not specify continuous compliance
monitoring requirements for SO2 but gives the director authority
to establish continuous monitoring and reporting requirements.
Nebraska's CEMS requirements are consistent with 40 C.F.R. Part
51, Appendix P. Since the state has no existing SIP boilers
controlling SO2 with flue gas desulfurization equipment, SO2 CEMS
are not required, and therefore the state has not adopted'a S02
CEMS rule.
The state should consider revising Chapter 19, 006 to
require expanded use of CEMS, mandatory recordkeeping, and
periodic reporting at all major SO, emitting facilities,
consistent with the compliance certification and expanded
.monitoring provisions of the 1990 Clean Air Act. In the absence
of CEMS, sources should periodically (at least annually) be
required to conduct a compliance test using approved reference
methods, and to continuously record process and control equipment
parameters to provide an indicator of continuing compliance.
- No director discretion issues (other than specifying test
methods) were found.
£-5-6"
-------
- No attempt was made to review the Lincoln-Lancaster or Omaha
Air Pollution Control Ordinances.
-------
Attachment 1
Criteria for Enforceability Review of Region 7 SO2 SIPs
1. Does rule clearly specify sources subject to rule?
2. Does rule clearly specify applicable averaging time
associated with -emission limitations?
3. Is averaging time in rule consistent with protection of the
NAAQS ,(e.g. 3-hour or 24-hour average, dependent on controlling
standard)?
4. Does rule have compliance test methodologies consistent
with the averaging time and units of the applicable
emission limitations (e.g. if rule specifies Ib/hour
limitations based.on 1-hour average, the compliance method
must be capable of calculating and reporting Ib/hour values)?
5. Does rule have a means of determining compliance/excess
emissions on a continuing basis (e.g., if Reference Method
6 is the specified reference test method, then the GEMS of
FSA (fuel sampling and analysis) data must also be
determined on a continuing basis)?
6. Is the averaging time of the rule's continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology consistent with
protection of NAAQS?
7. Does rule specify requirements to report compliance data to
regulatory agencies, including format and frequency-of data
reporting ( e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average
excess emissions)?
8. Does rule contain clear requirements for compliance data
recordkeeping .and retention (e.g., all emission data,
recorded in units of the standard, must be retained on site
and be made available to regulatory agency inspectors; data
must be retained for at least 3 years)?
9. If the rule contains an alternate approach (or alternate
emission limit such as a matrix or possible emission limits
for a series of affected sources addressed in the rule):
(a) is it clear which limits apply to each affected source
prior to the timeframe in question; (b) is it clear that
such limits, once selected, apply to each source for the
entire duration of the reporting period; (c) does it
require source notification or request from the agency
prior to the effective timeframe; and (d) does it require
GEMS (or some other continuous monitoring system), which
are always available, to assure acquisition of sufficient
data to determine each source's compliance status under all
alternative conditions?
-------
10. If the rule contains an alternative approach which
contains features other than alternative emission limits
(e.g., load derating), does it clearly state the method of
determining compliance on a continuing basis (e.g.,
reporting hourly MW load or steam flow)?
11. Does the rule contain director's discretionary authority?
Director's discretion should be highlighted and disapproved
in accordance with forthcoming guidance.
12. Section 123 deficiencies; including compliance with the
1985 regulations, sources affected by the remand and ICS.
C- 5- H
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI
999 18th STREET - SUITE 500
DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2405
MAR U I99I
Ref: 8AT-AP
MEMORANDUM
TO: Eric Ginsbiirg, Chief
Sulfur Dioxide Programs Section, AQMD (MD-15)
FROM: Marius Gedgaudas, Chief
SIP/Permits Section
SUBJECT: Sulfur Dioxide Regulation Enforceability Reviews
Enclosed are the final versions of the Region VIII
enforceability reviews for the sulfur dioxide regulations of the
respective states of Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Draft versions of these reviews were
sent to Laura Mckelvey of your staff on February 20, 1991.
These final reviews were sent to the respective State Air
Directors on March 8, 1991. In our cover letters to the states,
we noted that director's discretion provisions were not evaluated
in these reviews, since EPA guidance on evaluating such
provisions has not been finalized. Also, for the two states with
outstanding stack height issues, namely Montana and Utah, we
noted that deficiencies in stack height provisions would be
addressed through separate correspondance.
We have requested that the Region VIII states review and
comment upon our findings, and submit a schedule for correction
of the regulations to us as soon as possible, but no later than
the dates specified in the FY91 State-EPA Agreements. Therefore,
we expect to have such schedules by June 30 of 1991 for Utah,
South Dakota, and Wyoming, and no later than September 30, 1^91
for Colorado,Montana,and North Dakota^"~—
It is our understanding that these deficiencies will be
compiled in a "Yellow Book", similar to the "Blue Book" which was
developed for the Ozone SIPs. As my staff has stated to you •
earlier, it is our preference that the Yellow Book only identify
generic deficiencies, as did the Blue Book, rather than list
specific deficiencies for each state. We would prefer to give
our states an opportunity to review our comments, prior to
publishing them on a nationwide basis.
Please feel free to call Mindy Mohr of my staff at
FTS 330-7539 with any comments or questions regarding the
attached material.
Enclosures (6)
-------
ENFORCEABILITY REVIEW
OF
COLORADO SULFUR DIOXIDE REGULATIONS
Checklist Item (1): Are the sources subject to S02 regulation
clearly specified in the SIP?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
1.VI.B.I No. The definition of "new" source is
not clear. The exact applicability date
of 9/11/77 must be used, rather.than the
phrase "prior to the 1977 effective date
of this amended regulation". Also, the
definition contradicts itself for
modified sources, for those instances
where a source obtained an initial
construction permit prior to 9/11/77, but
received a modification permit after that
date. It appears that such a source
would be both subject to, and exempt
from, this regulation. To clarify
applicability, since the definition of
"new source" is already clearly stated in
regulation 1.I.G, EPA recommends deleting
the definition from 1.VI.B.I and simply
indicating the exact applicability date
of 9/11/77.
1.V1.A.2 No. This regulation must state that it
pertains only to sulfur dioxide ambient
standards (i.e., not to any other
pollutants), and only to the sulfur
dioxide process-based emission standards
"found in Regulation 1.VI. This is parti-
cularly important to clarify, since the
Colorado air regulations do not define
the phrase "process based emission
standard". Also, the regulation must
specify whether the three-tons-per-day
exemption level pertains to: (a)
potential uncontrolled S02 emissions, or
to (b) potential controlled S02
emissions, or to (c) actual S02
emissions.
. 1
-------
Checklist Item (1) (continued)
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
1.VI.A.3 No. The phrase "cause to be emitted" has
no clear meaning. EPA recommends instead
the phrase "emits or may emit", which is
found in the general definitions section
of the Colorado air regulations (under
the definition of "stationary source").
1.VI.A.3.d No. The use of the term "source" leaves
1.VI.B.4.d it unclear whether applicability of these
regulations is to be determined on a
plantwide basis, or for each individual
stack. This must be clarified. (NOTE:
The term "source" is not defined in
Colorado air regulations. The term
"stationary source" is defined, but in
terms of a "building, structure, facil-
ity, equipment, or installation, or any
combination thereof belonging to the same
industrial grouping". This term does not
clarify applicability of this regula-
tion. )
1 .VI.A.3.a,b,c No. Similar to the comment directly
1 .VI.B.4.a,b,c above, it is not clear if applicability
of these regulations is to be determined
plantwide, or for each individual boiler
or furnace. This must be clarified.
Also, for determining applicability
cutoff size based upon heat input, the
regulation should clarify that this is
based upon "manufacturer's or designer's
'guaranteed maximum heat input rate".
1.VI.A.3.6 No. It is unclear whether or not the
regulation pertains to each emission
point individually, or to the refinery as
a whole. If the latter is the intent of
the regulation, then this must be
clarified by incorporating the same
phrase as is .found in regulation
1.VI.B.4.e, namely, "for the sum of all
S02 emissions from a given refining
facility". The State should also add a
definition of "facility" to Section
I.I.G. of the regulations, or use another
term in 1.VI.A.3.6, such as "refinery".
-------
Checklist Item (2): Are the averaging times for the S02 emission
limits clearly specified in the SIP?
Applicable
State Reg. . EPA Comment
1.VI.A.I Yes, for sources using CEM; however, no
averaging time is specified for sources
using fuel sampling. To be consistent
with protection of the 3-hour S02 NAAQS,
EPA considers the maximum acceptable
averaging time to be a 3-hour averaging
period for fuel sampling. Also, the
regulation must specify whether emission
rates are to be averaged on a block or on
a rolling basis.
1.VI.B.2 Not fully adequate. Although this
regulation appears to be based on a . •
rolling average (since it states that
"any three-hour average of emission rates
which exceeds these standards is a
violation of this regulation"), the
regulation must clearly specify if . "
emissions are to be averaged' on a block
or on a rolling basis.
Checklist Item (3); Are the averaging times for S02 emission
limits consistent with the S02 NAAQS?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
1.VI.A,B No, for sources using fuel sampling. As
stated above, to be consistent with
•protection of the 3-hour S02 NAAQS, EPA
recommends a 3-hour averaging time or
shorter for fuel sampling. Also, the
regulation must specify whether emission
rates are to be averaged on a block or on
a rolling basis.
c _(«-
-------
Checklist Item (4): Are the S02 compliance test methods
consistent with the S(>2 emission limits?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
1.VI.A • ' No. For compliance determinations, the
1.VI.B regulations must specify test methods for
determining the sulfur content and the
BTU content of fuels. For sulfur content
... - in coal, EPA suggests ASTM Methods D3177-
75 or D4239-85; for sulfur content in
oil, ASTM Methods D2880-71 or D4294-89; *
and for sulfur content in natural gas,
ASTM Methods D1072-56, D3031-81, D3246-
81, D4084-82, or continuous H2S
monitoring in the fuel gas line. For
gross calorific (or BTU) content-of coal,
EPA suggests ASTM Methods D2015-77 or
D3286-85. Also, the regulations must
specify whether the BTU content is based
on the lower or on the higher (gross)
heating value of the fuel.
1.VI.A.3.a,b,c No. The emission limits must be
1.VI.B.4.C expressed per million BTU of•heat input.
The phrase "of heat input" was left out.
1.VI.A.3.d No. The phrase "per 1,000 cubic feet of
1.VI.B.4.d gas delivered" must specify whether this
is actual or standard cubic feet.
1.VI.C No. This regulation states that
performance tests may be required only
for "fuel-burning equipment", which
therefore exempts some of the facilities
listed under 1.VI.A and 1.VI.B, such as
• natural gas desulfurization equipment and
sulfuric acid plants. This therefore
circumvents the enforceability of 1.VI.A
and 1.VI.B, and contradicts the State
authority allowed under regulation
1.II.C.I. Also, regulation 1.VI.C does
not give the State the option of
requiring any appropriate Reference
Methods for S02/ just Reference Method 8.
To solve these problems, EPA recommends
that the State replace the phrase "fuel
burning equipment" in 1.VI.C with
""facility subject to the emission
standards under Section VI", and require
the appropriate Reference Methods for
testing.
-------
Checklist Item (5): Does the SIP require continuous S02
compliance determination for 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix P sources?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
1.IV.A - I No. These regulations require S02 CEMs
only for "existing" Appendix P sources/
not for "new" sources. The SC>2 CEM
provisions of 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix P,
must be. incorporated into Colorado
regulations, for all applicable Appendix
P source categories, which includes both
"existing" and "new" sources.
Checklist Item (6): Is the averaging time of continuous S02
compliance monitoring/reporting consistent with the S02 NAAQS?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
1.IV. ' No. The regulation must require that the
averaging periods used for data reporting
correspond to the averaging periods in
the emission standards (which EPA recom-
mends be consistent with the SOo NAAQS,
as mentioned in checklist item (3)
above).
Checklist Item (7); Are compliance reporting requirements for
S02 included in the SIP?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
1.VI. No. These regulations do not require
compliance reporting. The regulations
must specify a format and frequency for
reporting of compliance status. This
applies both to CEMs and to fuel
sampling. (For CEM sources, the
regulation may simply reference Section
1.IV, which specifies the format and
frequency for reporting of CEM data. )
-------
Checklist Item (8): Are S02 compliance data recordkeeping and
retention requirements included in the SIP?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
I.Vi. No. The regulation must require
compliance data recordkeeping and data
retention.
Checklist Item (9): Are alternative approaches for S02
regulation clear and enforceable?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
N/A
Checklist Item (10); Do alternative approaches for S02
regulation require continuous compliance determination?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
N/A
Checklist Item (11): Do the S02 regulations.contain (and/or
appropriately describe) the State air director's discretionary
authority?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
To be deter- These are provisions which allow the
mined 'Director of the Colorado Air Pollution
Control Division (or appropriate
designee) to approve alternatives to the
basic provisions of the State air
regulations without regulatory process
involving EPA. Although some of these
provisions may not have the potential to
change the stringency of the applicable
emission limitations, other provisions
• do. EPA is developing guidance to
address these provisions. EPA will
comment upon such provisions when this
guidance is finalized.
-------
Checklist Item (12); Are there any stack height (CAA Section
123) deficiencies?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
3.XII.C No deficiencies.
General Comment:
Regulations for combustion sources under Section 1.VI
should address procedures to be followed for sources using
mixtures of fuels (i.e. coal/oil, oil/gas, coal/gas and
coal/oil/gas). These procedures must specify averaging times
which protect the S02 NAAQS (EPA recommends 3-hour averaging
time), require S02 CEMs where appropriate, and require
recordkeeping.
-------
ENFORCEABILITY REVIEW
OF
MONTANA SULFUR DIOXIDE REGULATIONS
Checklist Item (1 ): Are sources subject to S02 regulation
clearly specified in the SIP?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
16.8.141l(6)(a) No. The regulation must specify whether
the 1 MMBtu/hr exemption applies to a
single emission point or to the whole
plant. The term "facility", which is
used in this regulation, is not defined
anywhere in the Montana Air 'Quality
Regulations. "Facility" should be
defined, or else another term (such as
"source") used instead.
16.8.1411(5)(b) No. The regulation must make it clear
whether or not the term "incinerators",
as it is used in this regulation,
includes flares, as well as combustion
units designed to oxidize H2S to S02,
such as those located downstream of
sulfur recovery units at refin'eries and
natural gas processing plants. Similarly,
it must be made clear whether or not the
term "waste gases", as it is used in this
regulation, is intended to include the
exhaust from flares and sulfur recovery
unit combustors.
-------
Checklist Item (1) (continued)
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
16.8.1411 (6) (b)' Not adequate. The term "mixing" must be
defined. It is not clear whether or not
physical mixing of two fuels is required
for this exemption, or just sequential
mixed usage (e.g., using coal one day,
oil the next). Also, it is not clear
whether or not the exemption only applies
to physically mixing two fuels in the
same phase (e.g., two liquids) or to
other mixtures as well (coal/oil,
coal/gas, oil/gas, and coal/oil/gas).
Also, it is not clear whether a
combustion device that can burn a mixture
of both oil and gas would be subject to
the emission limit under 16.8.1411(4), or
to the emission limit under 16.8.1411(5),
or to both.
16.8.1412 Not adequate. The regulation must make
it clear what types of sources and what
pollutants are being regulated. The
heading of the regulation is "Sulfur
Oxide Emissions — Primary Copper
Smelters", but the emission limits shown
in Figure 1 under that regulation are for
reduced sulfur from smelting of copper,
zinc and lead, as well as slag treatment.
(NOTE: Figure 1 is not referenced in
regulation 16.8.1414 on lead and zinc
smelters.) Also, reduced sulfur is not
defined anywhere in the Montana Air
-Quality Regulations.
16.8.1412(1) Not adequate. The term copper smelting
"operation" must be defined. In
particular, it must be made clear whether
or not "operation" includes each roaster,
smelting furnace, copper converter,
and/or other associated process
i- equipment.
-------
Checklist Item (1) (continued)
Applicable
State Reg.
16.8.1412(2)
16.8.1413
16.8.1414
EPA Comment
Yes, but may not be adequate for certain
applications. It appears that not all
scenarios for process/stack
configurations are addressed. For
example, the regulation does not address
the possibility of exhausts from multiple
processes mixing, and then being
exhausted through multiple stacks. If
the State wishes to include this type of
regulation, all potential scenarios must
be addressed for completeness.
Yes.
Yes.
Checklist Item (2): Are the averaging times for S02 emission
limits clearly specified in the SIP?
Applicable
State Reg.
16.8.1411
1618.1412
EPA Comment
*
No. Averaging times must be speci-r
fied for the emission limits in each of
these regulations, to protect the 3-hour
S02 NAAQS. For sulfur content in fuel
(which EPA interprets as an emission
limit), EPA considers a 3-hour averaging
period as the maximum acceptable
averaging period. For reduced sulfur or
sulfur oxide emissions from primary
copper smelters, EPA considers a 6-hour
average, as specified in 40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart P, to be the maximum acceptable
averaging period, and strongly recommends
continuous emission monitoring for
tracking compliance, also as specified in
NSPS. The regulations must also specify
whether the averaging period is to be
calculated on a fixed (i.e., block) basis
or on a rolling basis.
-------
Checklist Item (2) (continued)
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
16.8.1413 ' Yes, but not adequate. While the
averaging periods for emission limits at
kraft pulp mills are specified in the
regulation, those periods must be
shorter. See checklist item (3) below
for further discussion.
16.8.1414 Yes, but not adequate. While the
averaging periods for emission limits at
lead and zinc smelters are specified,
those periods must be shortened. See
checklist item (3) below for further
discussion.
Checklist Item (3): Is the averaging time for S02 emission
limits consistent with the S02 NAAQS?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
16.8.1411 No. As mentioned under checklist
16.8.1412 item (2) above, for protection of the 3-
hour S02 NAAQS, the regulations must
specify no greater than a 3-hour
averaging period for sulfur content in
fuel (which EPA interprets as an emission
limit)., and no greater than a 6-hour
averaging period for primary copper
smelters (as in NSPS). Also, the
regulations must specify whether
•emissions will be averaged on a block or
rolling basis.
16.8.1413 No. For protection of the 3-hour SC>2
NAAQS, the averaging period for kraft
pulp mills must be shortened. EPA
considers a rolling 12-hour average, as
specified in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart BB
(NSPS), to be the maximum acceptable
averaging period. A period shorter than
12 hours should be specified in State
regulations, where reasonable.
-------
Checklist Item (3) (continued)
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
16.8.1414 " No. The tons-per-six-hour and tons-per-
day averages, listed in the regulation
for sulfur oxide emissions from primary
lead and zinc smelters/ are not adequate
for protection of the 3-hour 502 NAAQS.
EPA recommends tons-per-hour or tons-per-
three-hour limits, which would also
coincide with Reference Methods 6 and 8
(discussed further under checklist item
(4) below). Also, for sulfur dioxide
emissions from roasters and sintering
machines at primary zinc smelters, as
well as for sintering machines, electric
smelting furnaces and converters at
primary lead smelters, EPA recommends a
2-hour averaging period and continuous
emission monitoring, as specified in 40
CFR Part 60, Subparts Q and R (NSPS).
Checklist Item (4): Are the S02 compliance test methods
consistent with the S02 emission limits?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
16.8.1411 No. The regulation must specify test
methods for determining the sulfur
content and the BTU content of fuels.
For sulfur content in coal, EPA suggests
ASTM Methods D3177-75 or D4239-85; for
-sulfur content in oil, ASTM Methods
D2880-71 or D4294-89; and for sulfur
content in natural gas, ASTM Methods
D1072-56, D3031-81, D3246-81, D4084-82,
or continuous H2S monitoring in the fuel
gas line. For gross calorific (or BTU)
content of coal, EPA suggests ASTM
I Methods D2015-77 or D3286-85. Also, the
fc regulation must specify whether the BTU
content is based on the lower or on the
higher (gross) heating value of the fuel.
-------
Checklist Item (4) (continued)
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
16.8.1412 ' No. Test methods are not specified for
determining sulfur in fuels and sulfur in
feed materials. Also, test methods are
not specified for determining reduced
sulfur emissions. The appropriate ASTM
Methods, or appropriate test methods in
NSPS Subparts P, Q and R, must be stated
in the regulation.
16.8.1413 No. Test methods are not specified for
determining total reduced sulfur (TRS)
emissions. The appropriate ASTM Methods,
or appropriate test methods in NSPS
Subpart BB for kraft pulp mills, must be
specified in the regulation.
16.8.1413(3) No. This regulation is unenforceable,
since the level of required emission
reduction (i.e., equivalent to "thermal
oxidation in a lime kiln") is not
quantified.
16.8:1414 No. The specified Reference Methods 6
and 8 utilize three separate 1-hour
tests, and thus will not give results
consistent with the ton-per-six-hour or
ton-per-day emission limits. Emission
limits are not considered by EPA to be
enforceable unless they can be verified
by testing. The regulation must specify
limits in terms of tons-per-hour or tons-
-per-three-hours. This will also serve to
protect the 3-hour S02 NAAQS, as
mentioned in checklist item (3) above.
-------
Checklist Item (5): Does the SIP require continuous SO2
compliance determination for 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix P sources?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
16.8.704(2) Yes, but 16.8.704(2) must require
16.8.704(3) . reporting of-data, as well as monitoring
and recording. The State should add the
phrase "and reporting" to this
regulation. Also, although 16.8.704(2)
requires CEMs for Appendix P sources, the
Montana Air Quality Regulations contain
no emission limit for the Appendix P
source category of sulfuric acid plants.
The State should consider setting
emission limits for these plants.
Checklist Item (6); Is the averaging time of continuous S02
compliance monitoring/reporting consistent with the S02" NAAQS?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
16.8.704 No. The State must set emission limits
16.8.1412 with averaging times that protect the 3-
16.8.1414 hr SC>2 NAAQS for Appendix P sources.
Monitoring/reporting averaging times
. should be consistent with these emission
limit averaging times. Also, there are
no continuous S02 monitoring requirements
specified for copper, lead and zinc
smelters. As mentioned in checklist item
(2) above, EPA recommends the CEMs which
are required under NSPS; compliance
monitoring/reporting averaging times for
-these CEMs must also be specified, and be
consistent with protecting the 3-hr
NAAQS.
Checklist Item (7): Are compliance reporting requirements for
SC>2 included in the SIP?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
16.8.1411 No. None of these regulations require
16.8.1412 compliance reporting. The regula-
16.8.1414 tions must specify a format and frequency
for reporting of compliance status.
16.8.1413 Yes.
-------
Checklist Item (8): Are S02 compliance data recordkeeping and
retention requirements included in the SIP?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
16.8.1411 No. None of these regulations require
16.8.14-12 compliance data recordkeeping and
16.8.1413 retention. The regulations must
16.8.1414 include these requirements.
Checklist Item (9): Are alternative approaches for S02 .
regulation clear and enforceable?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
16.8.141!(6)(a) See checklist item (1) above for
16.8.1411(6)(b) discussion of deficiencies with these
16.8.1411(6) (c) regulations. In addition, the
regulations must specify the monitoring
technique to be used to determine
compliance with the alternative emission
limits or regulatory approaches.
Checklist Item (10): Do alternative approaches for S02
regulation require continuous compliance determination?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
16.8.1411(6)(c) No. If the limits on sulfur content in
fuel are waived, in favor of an S02
control device, then EPA strongly
-recommends a continuous monitoring
requirement, to protect the 3-hour SC>2
NAAQS and be consistent with 3-hour
averaging for sulfur content in fuel.
8
-------
Checklist Item (11): Do the S02 regulations contain (and/or
appropriately describe) the State air director's discretionary
authority?
Applicable
State Reg. ' EPA Comment
To be deter- These are provisions which allow the
mined Chief of the Montana Air Quality Bureau
(or other appropriate designee) to
approve alternatives to the basic
provisions of the State air regulations,
without regulatory process involving EPA.
Although some of these provisions may not
have the potential to change the
stringency of the applicable emission
limitations, other provisions do. EPA is
developing guidance to address these
provisions. EPA will comment upon such
provisions when this guidance is
finalized.
Checklist Item (12): Are there any stack height (CAA Section
123) deficiencies?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
16.8.1201 These are being discussed under separate
through correspondance.
16.8.1205
-------
ENFORCEABILITY REVIEW
OF
NORTH DAKOTA SULFUR DIOXIDE REGULATIONS
Checklist Item (1): Are the sources subject to S02 regulations
clearly specified in 'the SIP?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
33-15-06-01.1.a,b No. It is not clear what specific
types of sources are intended to be
subject to the S02 regulation. The
regulation states that it applies to
"installations...in which the fuel is
burned primarily to produce heat" and
where the S02 emissions are "substan-
tially due to the content of the fuel
burned". Since the regulation does
not Limit itself to any particular
sizes or industrial categories of
"installations", even fireplaces in
private residences could be subject.
EPA questions whether the State
intended this broad interpretation of
the regulation.
To clarify applicability, EPA »
recommends that the regulation be
reworded to either: (a) exclude home
heating, or (b) indicate specific
industrial categories of subject
sources, such as fossil-fuel-fired
steam generators, compressor engines,
combustion turbines, refineries,
cement plants, lumber mills, chemical
plants and natural gas processing
plants, or (c) indicate a lower size
cutoff for applicability, such as 100
MMBTU/hr, or (d) some combination of
the above.
33-15-06-02.2 No. For clarity, this regulation
must state that it pertains only to'
/:- exeedances of sulfur dioxide ambient
standards (i.e., not to any other
pollutants). Also, EPA recommends
that the State reconsider whether
heating processes should be exempted
from the regulation. Such processes
constitute a large portion of the S02
emissions in the State.
1
-------
Checklist Item (2): Are the averaging times for the S02 emission
limits clearly specified in the SIP?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
33-15-06-01 No. An averaging time must be
specified for the 3 Ib/MMBTU emission
limit, to protect the 3-hour S02
NAAQS. • EPA considers a 3-hr
averaging period as the maximum
acceptable averaging period for this
regulation. The regulation must also
state whether the averaging periods
are to be on a block basis, or on a
rolling basis.
Checklist Item (3); Are the averaging times for S02 emission
limits consistent with the S02 NAAQS?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
33-15-06-01 No. The averaging time for the 3
Ib/MMBTU emission limit must be
consistent with protection of the S02
NAAQS. As'mentioned above, for
protection of the 3-hour NAAQS, EPA
recommends 3 hour averages.
Checklist Item (4); Are the SO2 compliance test methods
consistent with the S02 emission limits?
Applicable
State Reg. - EPA Comment
33-15-06-01 Yes, but the regulation should also
refer to Reference Methods 6A and 6C
(see 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart D, for
fossil-fuel-fired steam generators)
and Reference Method 20 (see 40 CFR
Part 60, Subpart GG, for gas
i turbines).
-------
Checklist Item (5): Does the SIP require continuous S02-
compliance determination for 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix P sources?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
No. The regulations must include the
CEM requirements found in 40 CFR Part
51, Appendix P, for S02 sources
(pertaining to certain fossil-fuel-
fired steam generators and sulfuric
acid plants).
Checklist Item (6): Is the averaging time of continuous S02
compliance monitoring/reporting consistent with the S02 NAAQS?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
No- As mentioned above, the State
regulations do not contain any CEM
requirements for Appendix P sources.
When those requirements are added,
the regulations must also specify
that the averaging period(s) to be
used for data reporting correspond to
the averaging period(s) in the
emission standard. (See 40 CFR Part
51, Appendix P, Section 4.0, for
minimum data requirements. These
must be included in State
regulations.)
Checklist Item (7): Are compliance reporting requirements for
S02 included in the SIP?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
33-15-06-01 No. The regulation must specify a
format and frequency for reporting of
compliance status. For Appendix P
S02 sources, State regulations must
include Appendix F reporting
requirements.
-------
Checklist Item (8): Are 502 compliance data recordkeeping and
retention requirements included in the SIP?
Applicable
State Reg. . EPA Comment
33-15-06-01 No. The regulation must require
compliance data recordkeeping and
retention.
Checklist Item (9): Are alternative approaches for S02
regulation clear and enforceable?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
N/A
Checklist Item (10): Do alternative approaches for S02
regulation require continuous compliance determination?
Applicable
State Reg. . EPA Comment
N/A
Checklist Item (11): Do the 803 regulations contain (and/or
appropriately describe) the State air director's discretionary
authority?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
To be deter- These are provisions which allow the
mined Director of the North Dakota air
pollution control program (or
appropriate designee) to approve
alternatives to the basic provisions
of the State air regulations without
regulatory process involving EPA.
Although some of these provisions may
not have the potential to change the
stringency of the applicable emission
standards, other provisions do. EPA
is developing guidance to address
these provisions, and will comment
upon such provisions when this
guidance is finalized.
Checklist Item (12): Are there any stack height (CAA Section
123) deficiencies?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
No deficiencies.
-------
ENFORCEABILITY REVIEW
OF
SOUTH DAKOTA SULFUR DIOXIDE REGULATIONS
Checklist Item (1): Are the sources subject to S02 regulation
clearly specified in the SIP?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
74:26:07:01 No. It is not clear what specific
types of sources are intended to be
subject to the S02 regulation. The
regulation states that it applies to
"installations...in which the fuel is
burned primarily to produce heat and in
which the S02 emission is substan-
tially due to the content of the fuel
burned". Since the regulation does not
limit itself to any particular sizes or
industrial categories of "installa-
tions", even fireplaces in private
residences could be subject. EPA
questions whether the State intended
this broad interpretation of the
regulation.
To clarify applicability, EPA
recommends that the regulation be
reworded to either: (a) exclude home
heating, or (b) indicate specific
industrial categories of subject
sources, such as fossil-fuel-fired
steam generators, compressor engines,
combustion turbines, refineries, cement
plants, lumber mills, chemical plants
and natural gas processing plants, or
(c) indicate a lower size cutoff for
applicability, such as 100 MMBTU/hr, or
(d) some combination of the above.
-------
Checklist Item (2): Are the averaging times for S02 emission
limits clearly specified in the SIP?
Applicable
State Reg. . EPA Comment
74:26:07:03 No. An averaging time must be
specified for the 3 Ib/MMBTU emission
limit, to protect the 3-hour S02 NAAQS.
EPA considers a 3-hour averaging period
as the maximum acceptable averaging
period for this regulation. The
regulation must also state whether the
averaging periods are to be on a block
basis, or on a rolling basis.
Checklist Item (3): Are the averaging times for S02 emission
limits consistent with the SC>2 NAAQS?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
74:26:07:03 No. The averaging time for the 3
Ib/MMBTU emission limit must be
consistent with protection of the S02
NAAQS. As mentioned above, for
protection of the 3-hour NAAQS, EPA
recommends 3 hour averages.
Checklist Item (4): Are the S02 compliance test methods
consistent with the S02 emission limits?
Applicable
State Reg. * EPA Comment
74:26:07:03 No. Test methods must be specified for
determining sulfur dioxide emissions,
and for determining the BTU content of
the fuel. Also, the regulation must
indicate whether the BTU content is to
be based on the lower or higher (gross)
heating value of the fuel. The
regulation should include Reference
Methods 6, 6A and 6C for fossil-fuel
steam generators (as specified in 40
CFR Part 60, Subpart D) and Reference
Method 20 for gas turbines (as
specified in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart
GG).
-------
Checklist Item (5): "Does the SIP require continuous SC>2
compliance determination for 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix P Sources?
Applicable
State Reg. . EPA Comment
No. The regulations must include the
CEM requirements found in 40 CFR Part
51, Appendix P, for S02 sources
(pertaining to certain fossil-fuel-
fired steam generators and sulfuric
acid plants).
Checklist Item (6): Is the averaging time of continuous S02
compliance monitoring/reporting consistent with the SC-2 NAAQS?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
No. As mentioned above, the State
regulations do not contain any CEM
requirements for Appendix P sources.
When those requirements are added, the
regulations must also specify that the
averaging period(s) to be used for data
reporting correspond to the averaging
period(s) in the emission standard.
(See 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix P,
Section 4.0, for minimum data
requirements. These must be included
in State regulations.)
Checklist Item (7): Are compliance reporting requirements for
S02 included in the SIP?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
74:26:07:03- No. The regulation must specify a
format and frequency for reporting of
compliance status. For Appendix P SC>2
sources, State regulations must include
Appendix P reporting requirements.
Checklist Item (8): Are SC-2 compliance data recordkeeping and
retention requirements included in the SIP?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
74:26:07:03 No. The regulation must require
compliance data recordkeeping and
retention.
Checklist Item (9): Are alternative approaches for S02
3
-------
regulation clear and enforceable?
Applicable
State Reg.
N7A
EPA Comment
Checklist Item (10): Do alternative approaches for S(>2
regulation require continuous compliance determination?
Applicable
State Reg.
N7A
EPA Comment
Checklist Item (11): Do the regulations contain (and/or
appropriately describe) the State air director's discretionary
authority?
Applicable
State Reg.
To be deter-
mined
EPA Comment
These are provisions which allow the
Director of the South Dakota air
pollution control program (or
appropriate designee) to approve
alternatives to the basic provisions of
the State air regulations without
regulatory process involving EPA.
Although some of these provisions may
not have the potential to change the
stringency of the applicable emission
standards, other provisions do. EPA is
developing guidance to address these
provisions, and will comment upon such
provisions when this guidance is
finalized.
Checklist Item (12): Are there any stack height (CAA Section
123) deficiencies?
Applicable
State Reg.
EPA Comment
No deficiencies.
-------
ENFORCEABILITY REVIEW
OF
UTAH SULFUR DIOXIDE REGULATIONS
ORGANIZATION AND SCOPE OF REVIEW
This review follows a checklist format developed by EPA
Headquarters (see attached), for reviewing enforceability of S02
provisions in State Implementation Plans (SIPs). The review
covers the S02 provisions in the Utah Air Conservation Regula-
tions (UACR), as well as S02 provisions found in the-draft PM10
SIP for Utah County and Salt Lake/Davis Counties. -EPA expects
that the PM10 SIP will be adopted by the State in the near
future. This review is not intended to delay that process, but
may be responded to by the State in separate forum. The State is
being asked by EPA to comment on this review and submit a
schedule for corrections by June 30, 1991.
Enforceability of S02 provisions in Approval Orders for
sources other than those regulated ii) the PM10 SIP is not
evaluated in this review. Enforceability of those A.O.
provisions will be evaluated by EPA later .in 1991 or early in
1992, as part of the implementation of Title V of the new Clean
Air Act amendments.
Two items which appear in the attached checklist, namely,
director's discretion provisions and stack height provisions (CAA
Section 123), are not fully addressed in this review. EPA
guidance on addressing director's discretion provisions has not
been finalized, so EPA is not providing comments on this item at
this time. Any stack height deficiencies will be addressed
through separate correspondence.
PRIORITY ITEM(S)
In conjunction with adoption of the Salt Lake County PM10
SIP, the State has proposed to eliminate the 3-hour S02 emission
limits for Kennecott (currently contained in UACR 4.3), and
replace them with 24-hour emission limits; As a result, the 3-
hour S02 ambient standard will remain to be fully addressed in
the vicinity of Kennecott. EPA has already advised the State to
proceed with establishing a 24-hour emission limit for Kennecott,
but has also advised that a 3-hour emission limit will need to be
re-established in time for the May 1992 submittal of the revised
Salt Lake County S02 SIP. This remark is reiterated in the
detailed review below.
-------
SPECIFIC AREAS OF EPA REVIEW
Checklist Item (1): Are sources subject to 803 regulation
clearly specified in the SIP?
Applicable
State Regs
OACR 4.2
PM10 SIP
EPA comment
Yes; subject sources clearly specified.
Yes; subject sources clearly specified.
Checklist Item (2): Are the averaging times for S02 emission
limits clearly specified in the SIP?
Applicable
State Regs
UACR 4.2.1
PM10
1 .2
1 .2
1
1
1
1
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
SIP:
.A.6.C
.B.2.B
.D.4
.L.5.A
.M.3
.A.2.H
.D.6.A
.G.2.V
.L.2.P
.N.2.Q
.P.10
.3.4
.W. 14
.Y. 12
.CC.4
.DD.4
. HH,
.00,
-S3,
3
2,
7
EPA comment
The limits on sulfur content in fuel are
viewed by EPA as emission limits and there-
fore require an averaging time. For
protection of the 3-hour SO2 NAAQS, EPA
considers a 3-hour averaging time as the
maxiumum acceptable averaging period for
this regulation. This may be a "block" or
"rolling" 3-hour average; the regulation
must specify which. Also, the rule must
address fuel mixtures (i.e., coal/oil,
oil/gas, coal/gas, and coal/oil/gas).
The limits for sulfur content in fuel are
viewed by EPA as emission limits and there-
fore require an averaging time. For
protection of the 3-hour S02 NAAQS, EPA
recommends a 3-hour averaging time. This
may be a "block" or "rolling" 3-hour
average; the regulation (or Approval
Orders) must specify which.
.BBB.4
C-fr-D
-------
Checklist Item (3): Are the averaging times for 803 emission
limits consistent with the S02 NAAQS?
Applicable
State Regs
UACR 4.2.1
PM10 SIP:
Same as
sections
listed in
item (2)
above
PM10 SIP:
2.2.V.3.A
EPA comment
As stated above, for protection of the 3-
hour S02 NAAQS, the averaging time for
limits on sulfur content in fuel should be
specified as 3-hour. This may be a "block"
or "rolling" 3-hour average; the regulation
must specify which. Also, as mentioned
above, fuel mixtures must be addressed.
•
As stated above, for protection of the 3-
hour S02 NAAQS, the averaging time for
limits on sulfur content in fuel should be
specified as 3-hour. This may be a "block"
or "rolling" 3-hour average; the regulations
(or Approval Order) must specify which.
As mentioned under "Priority Item(s)" above,
for S02 emission limits at the main smelter
stack at Kennecott, since the 3-hour
emission limits in UACR 4.3 will be
rescinded in conjunction with adoption of
the PM10 SIP, the 3-hour S02 NAAQS will
remain to be fully addressed in the vicinity
of Kennecott. The State will need to re-
establish a 3-hour S02 emission limit by May
of 1992, as part of the submittal of the
revised Salt Lake County SC-2 SIP.
-------
Checklist Item (4): Are the S02 compliance test methods
consistent with the S02 emission limits?
Applicable
State Regs
UACR 4.2.1
UACR 4.2.3
UACR 4.2.4
PM10 SIP:
2.2.A.3.G
2.2.G.3.F
2.2.L.3.A.3
2.2.N.3.C.1
2.2.00.3.B
EPA comment
To avoid confusion, UACR 4.2.1 must speci-
fy that the heat input Btu value for fuel is
based on the gross heat value of the fuel.
v •
The regulation must include a statement that
when exemptions from UACR 4.2.1 (limits on
sulfur content in fuel) are granted, the
source's application for such exemption must
specify the test method for determining
sulfur emissions. Also, the test method
must agree with the NSPS test method for the
same industrial category. For example, for
S02 at fossil fuel fired steam generators,
the test method should be the same as NSPS
Subpart D test method; for Sd2 at gas
turbines, the test method should be the same
as NSPS Subpart GG test method.
The regulation must indicate the specific
ASTM test methods which must be used for
determining sulfur content in fuels, and for
determining the BTU value of fuels. Fuel
mixtures should be addressed as well. For
determining sulfur content in coal, EPA
suggests ASTM Methods D3177-75 or D4239-85;
for sulfur content in oil, ASTM Methods
D2880-71 or D4294-89; and for sulfur content
in natural gas, ASTM Methods D1072-56,
D3031-81, D3246-81, D4084-82, or continuous
H2S monitoring -in the fuel line. For gross
calorific (or BTU) content of coal, EPA
suggests ASTM Methods D2015-77 or D3286-85.
For H2S in fuel gas at the five Salt Lake
refineries, the PM10 SIP must specify that
CEMs be certified via Performance Specifica-
ation #7 (PS7) in 40 CFR 60, Appendix B.
PS7 was promulgated by EPA on October 2,
1990.
-------
Checklist Item (5): Does the SIP require continuous compliance
determination for S02?
Applicable
State Regs
UACR 4.6.2
PM10 SIP
EPA comment
Yes, for 40 CFR 51 Appendix P sources.
Yes; continuous compliance demonstration is
required at all sources where EPA and the
State have agreed that it is appropriate.
Checklist Item (6): Is the averaging time of continuous S02
compliance monitoring/reporting consistent with the S02 NAAQS?
Applicable
State Regs
UACR 4.2.3
UACR 4.612
UACR 4.6.3
PM10 SIP
EPA comment
For the industrial source categories
subject to 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix P,
UACR 4.2.3 must specify an averaging time.
Section 4 of Appendix P states that the
averaging times associated with CEM
monitoring and reporting should correspond'
to the averaging periods specified in
emission limits. The "monitoring devices"
referred to under UACR 4.2.3 are interpreted
by EPA to mean CEM monitors; however, the
regulation should clearly state what
"monitoring devices" means. Similarly, UACR
4.6.2 should specify averaging times for CEM
monitoring and reporting. Also, UACR 4.6.3
only infers that quarterly CEM reports are
required; this requirement should be
explicitly stated.
Since certain sections of the PM10 SIP refer
back to CEM requirements in UACR 4.6, the
PM10 SIP will not be fully adequate unless
the deficiencies noted above in UACR 4.6.2
and 4.6.3 are corrected.
-------
Checklist Item (7): Are compliance reporting requirements for
S02 included in the SIP?
Applicable
State Regs EPA comment
UACR 4.2.1 For reporting compliance with limits on
sulfur content in fuel, UACR 4.2.1 should
specify a format and frequency for
compliance reporting. EPA recommends a
sampling frequency (or 'lot size1 of stored
fuel for individual samples) sufficient to
ensure compliance with sulfur limits
expressed as 3-hour averages.
PM10 SIP Adequate, with the exception of any items
discussed above.
Checklist Item (,8): Are SO2 compliance data recordkeeping and
retention requirements included in the SIP?
Applicable
State Regs EPA comment
UACR 4.2.1 The regulation should specify compliance
data recordkeeping and retention
requirements.
PM10 SIP Adequate, with the exception of any items
discussed above.
Checklist Item (9): Are alternative approaches for S02
regulation clear and enforceable?
Applicable
State Regs EPA comment
• ^™™^^"™^^^^™^^^™^™^™^^^^™"^
UACR 4.2.2 EPA comments already stated above.
UACR 4.2.3
PM10 SIP N/A
-------
Checklist Item (10): Do alternative approaches for S02
regulation require continuous compliance determination?
Applicable
State Regs EPA comment
UACR 4.2.2 EPA comments already stated above.
UACR 4.2.3
.PM10 SIP N/A
Checklist Item (11); Do the SC>2 regulations contain (and/or
appropriately describe) the State Air Director's discretionary
authority?
. Applicable
State Regs EPA comment
To be deter- These are provisions which allow the
mined ' Executive Secretary (i.e., Utah State Air
Director or appropriate designee) to approve
alternatives to the basic provisions of the
State air regulations, without regulatory
process involving EPA. Although some of
these provisions may not have the potential
to change the stringency of the applicable
emission limitations, other provisions do.
EPA is developing guidance to address these
provisions. EPA will comment upon such
provisions when this guidance is finalized.
Checklist Item (12): Are there any stack height (CAA Section
123) deficiencies?
Applicable
State Regs EPA comment
To be deter- These are being addressed under separate
mined correspondence.
-------
ENFORCEABILITY REVIEW
OF
WYOMING SULFUR DIOXIDE REGULATIONS
Checklist Item (l); Are sources subject to S02 regulation
clearly specified in the SIP?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
4.(b),(c) Yes.
4.(d),(e),(f) Yes.
Checklist Item (2): Are the averaging times for S02 emission
limits clearly specified in the SIP?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
•
4.(b)-(h) Yes, but with the following exceptions:
Sections 4(e) and (f) must specify whether
the "2 hour average" is on a fixed or
rolling basis. Similarly, Table 4a in
Section 4 must specify whether the "3 hr.
average" is on a fixed or rolling basis.
Checklist Itme (3): Is the averaging time for S02 emission
limits consistent with the SO2 NAAQS?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
4.(b)-(h) Yes. Emission limits are on either 2 hour
or 3 hour averaging times.
-------
Checklist Item (4); Are the S02 compliance test methods
consistent with the S02 emission limits?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
4.(b),(c) No. Sections 4(b) and (c) must state the
specific test methods to be used for
determining sulfur dioxide concentration.
The State should review the NSPS for
sulfuric acid plants (40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart H) to determine the applicable test
methods. For sulfuric acid plants of
greater than 300 tons/year production
capacity, Section 4(b) and (c) must specify
the SC>2 CEMs required under 40 CFR 51.214;
these plants are included in 40 CFR Part 51
Appendix P.
4.(d)-(h) Not adequate. Although Reference Method 6
is specified for determining sulfur dioxide
emissions, the regulations must also speci-
fy a test method for determining the Btu
value of the fuel. Also, the regulations
must specify whether the Btu value is the
higher (gross) heating value, or the lower
heating value. Also, Section 4(h) must
refer to the notification provisions of
4(e) and 4(f), rather than 4(c) and 4(f).
Checklist Item (5): Does the SIP require continuous SC>2
compliance determination for 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix P sources?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
No. Appendix P S02 sources (fossil fuel
fired steam generators with greater than
250 MMBtu/hr heat input which have emission
controls, and sulfuric acid plants with
greater than 300 tons/day capacity) must be
required to demonstrate continuous
compliance with CEMs.
-------
Checklist Item (6): Is the averaging time of continuous S02
compliance monitoring/reporting consistent with the SC>2 NAAQS?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
No. This must be addressed for the
Appendix P S02 sources. The averaging
period used for data reporting must
correspond to the averaging period in the
emission standard for the source in
question. See 40 CFR 51 Appendix P,
Section 4.0 for minimum data requirements;
these must be included in the regulations.
Checklist Item (7): Are compliance reporting requirements for
S02 included in the SIP?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
4.(b)-(h) No. Section 4 does not require compliance
reporting. The regulation must specify a
format and frequency for reporting of
compliance status. (For 40 CFR Part 51,
Appendix P S02 sources, the Appendix P
reporting requirements must be specified.)
Checklist Item (8): Are S02 compliance data recordkeeping and
retention requirements included in the SIP?
Applicable
State Reg. EPA Comment
4.(b)-(h) No. Section 4 must include compliance data
recordkeeping and retention requirements.
-------
Checklist Item (9); Are alternative approaches for SO2
regulation clear and enforceable?
Applicable
State Reg.
4(e),(f)
Tables 4b, 4c
Table 4c
EPA Comment
Not fully adequate. The description of
options allowed to sources for compliance
demonstration is cumbersome and difficult
to follow. The State should consider
revising these subsections to make them
easier to follow.
It is not clear why Tables 4b and 4c in
Section 4 do not specify allowable emission
rates for oil burning/ while Table 4a does.
Certain boilers constructed prior to 1974
(which are subject to Table 4b or 4c) may
be capable of burning oil.
Units must be specified in Table 4c for the
emission rates- which are listed. EPA
assumes that these are intended to be in
terms of lb/10^ Btu of heat input. This
apparently inadvertent omission must be
corrected.
Checklist Item (10): Do alternative approaches for S02
regulation require continuous compliance determination?
Applicable
State Reg.
4(e),(f)
EPA Comment
Yes.
-------
Checklist Item (11); Do the SC-2 regulations contain (and/or
appropriately describe) the State Air Director's discretionary
authority?
Applicable
State Reg.
To be deter-
mined
EPA Comment
These are provisions which allow the
Administrator of the Wyoming Air Quality
Division to approve alternatives to the
basic provisions of the State air
regulations without regulatory process
involving EPA. Although some of these
provisions may not have the potential to
change the stringency of the applicable
emission standards, other provisions do.
EPA is developing guidance to address these
provisions, and will comment upon such
provisions when this guidance is finalized.
Checklist Item (12): Are there any stack height (CAA Section
123) deficiencies?
Applicable
State Reg.
21(d)
EPA Comment
No deficiencies.
General comment:
For combustion sources, Section 4 must include procedures to
be followed for sources using mixtures of fuels (i.e. coal/oil,
oil/gas, coal/gas and coal/oil/gas). These procedures must
specify averaging times which protect the NAAQS (EPA recommends
3-hour averaging time), require CEMs where appropriate, and
require recordkeeping.
.-(,-'57
------- |