EPA-450/2-74-013
SEPTEMBER 1974
STATE AIR POLLUTION
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
PROGRESS REPORT,
JANUARY 1 TO JUNE 30, 1974
m
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Enforcement and General
Counsel and the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards of the
Environmental Protection Agency and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of
trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recom-
mendation for use.
-------
EPA-450/2-74-013
STATE AIR POLLUTION
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
PROGRESS REPORT,
JANUARY 1 TO JUNE 30, 1974
Prepared by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Enforcement and General Counsel
Washington, D.C.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
September 1974
-------
Document is available to the public through the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
Publication No. EPA-450/2-74-013
-------
FOREWORD
This is the third in a continuing series of reports assessing the
progress made by States in implementing the Clean Air Act. It covers the
period January 1 through June 30, 1974. In some instances, where applicable,
more recent information is provided.
State plans are designed to provide for the control of pollution from
mobile sources (through transportation control plans) as well as stationary
sources. At the present time, most States are operating with approved
implementation plans. In some States, the Environmental Protection Agency
has promulgated portions of plans to correct deficiencies. States are work-
ing to clean up deficiencies and to design programs to handle the maintenance-
of-standards problem.
Over the past 6 months progress has been made; and in many areas of the
country the air is cleaner. State and Federal efforts have resulted in the
identification and investigation of approximately 16,000 (80 percent) of the
country's major emitters, of which over 12,000 are now in compliance or on
compliance schedules. A major effort is under way to assure that compliance
schedules are established where needed and adhered to. Increased attention
is also being given to assuring that, once compliance is achieved, it is
continued.
Despite this progress, it is becoming evident that in some large
urban centers, achievement of health-related ambient air quality standards
for particulate matter and sulfur oxides (produced largely by the com-
bustion of fossil fuels) will be delayed beyond the attainment dates set by
the Clean Air Act. The principal causes of this delay are a combination of
inadequate enforcement efforts, unavailability of low-sulfur fuels, delays
in the installation of flue-gas desulfurization equipment, and inadequacies
in implementation plans. Special efforts are underway to increase Federal,
State, and local enforcement and to determine the extent to which problems
in implementation plans can be remedied. The results of these efforts will
serve to further focus activities in EPA's air pollution program during
the coming year. Other problems involve the implementation of transportation
control plans and meeting oxidant and carbon monoxide standards in all areas
by 1977.
Another significant problem is the growing gap between the level of
resources required to implement State plans and the level which States
have. The lack of adequate numbers of trained air pollution control staffs
is detracting from the ability of States to perform a wide variety of
tasks required under the Clean Air Act, including the provision of air quality
and emission data to EPA on a timely basis.
In general, significant progress is being made toward the attainment
of clean air, despite some problem areas mentioned above in certain urban areas,
B. J. Steigerwald
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Air Quality Planning and Standards
Robert Baum
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for General Enforcement
m
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The preparation of this report resulted from information
provided by the State and local air pollution control agencies,
the Environmental Protection Agency Regional Offices, and various
EPA Headquarters groups.
As with earlier reports relating to State Implementation Plan
progress, this edition continues to be a joint effort between the
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement, Office of Enforcement
and General Counsel, and the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Office of Air and Waste Management.
Information on enforcement activities was provided by the
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement, Office of Enforcement
and General Counsel. Additional specific information on EPA air
programs can be obtained by contacting the EPA Regional Offices.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF FIGURES viii
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS ix
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
State Implementation Plans, Overview 1
Data Reporting 1
Control Agency Resources 2
Maintenance of Standards 3
Indirect Source Review 3
Extension for Development to Meet
Secondary Standards 4
Changes to 40CFR Part 51 4
Plan Revision Management System - Results
of Analysis 5
Source Compliance Activities 5
References for Section 1 7
2 NATIONAL ISSUES 9
Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination
Act of 1974 (ESECA) 9
Unleaded and Low-lead Gasoline 12
Transportation Control Plans 14
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Versus EPA .... 15
Section III(d) Regulations 16
Prevention of Significant Deterioration .... 16
Attainment of Standards 18
EPA Proposals to Change the Clean Air Act ... 19
References for Section 2 20
3 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN PROGRESS 21
Approval/Disapproval Status and EPA
Promulgation 21
Maintenance of National Standards 27
Extensions 38
Changes to Regulations for Preparation,
Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation
Plans 39
References for Section 3 40
-------
Section page
4 PLAN REVISION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 41
~-\
Background 41
Action Procedures |1
PRMS Analytical Results Jj:
References for Section 4
5 ENFORCEMENT OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 47
Status of EPA's Power Plant Enforcement Program. . 49
Other Problem Sources Categories ^
References for Section 5 b4
6 AIR QUALITY AND EMISSIONS DATA 97
Ambient Air Quality 97
Status of Priority Classifications in Relation
to Standards 97
Timeliness and Availability of Data '°2
Systems Improvement to SAROAD/NEDS 1°5
Comprehensive Data Handling System 106
References for Section 6 1°6
7 CONTROL AGENCY RESOURCLS 107
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1-1 Summary of Proposed AQMA Designations 3
2-1 Status of Regulation Changes (Plan Revisions) H
2-2 Energy Impact of EPA Lead Regulations and
Emission Standards 13
3-1 Status of State Implementation Plans, Summary 22
3-2 Status of State Implementation Plans 24
3-3 Summary Listing of Progress of SIP Actions by
Deficient Portions 28
3-4 Summary Listing of Progress of SIP Actions by
Regional Office 29
3-5 Proposed AQMAs by Region, State and Pollutant Category. . 3]
4-1 Regional Office Investigations (PRMS Analysis) 43
4-2 AQCRs Analyzed by PRMS 44
5-1 Status of Compliance by Major Emitters with SIP
Emission Standards 50
5-2 Summary of EPA Enforcement Activity 50
5-3 Summary of the Status of CDS Development 51
5-4 Current EPA Enforcement Actions Under State
Implementation Plans 55
6-1 Status of CY 72 and CY 73 Monitoring Activity as
Reported to NADB by States 98
6-2 Suspended Particulate Matter, Status of Air Quality-1973. ]QO
6-3 Sulfur Dioxide, Status of Air Quality - 1973 100
6-4 Carbon Monoxide, Status of Air Quality - 1973 101
6-5 Oxidant, Status of Air Quality - 1973 101
6-6 Comparison of Quarterly Data Available for
Particulate Matter 103
6-7 Comparison of Quarterly Data Available for
Sulfur Dioxide 103
6-8 Comparison of Quarterly Data Available for Oxidant. ... 104
6-9 Comparison of Quarterly Data for Carbon Monoxide 104
6-10 States Submitting Semiannual Reports 105
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
7-1 Comparison of Actual and Needed State and Local Air
Pollution Control Program Manpower 109
7-2 Comparison of Actual and Needed State and Local Air
Pollution Control Program Funds 110
vm
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
AQCRs Air Quality Control Regions
AQMAs Air Quality Maintenance Areas
AQMPs Air Quality Maintenance Plans
CDS Compliance Data System
CFP Clean Fuels Policy
CY calendar year
DOT Department of Transportation
EPA (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency
FEA Federal Energy Administration
FGD flue gas desulfurization
FY fiscal year
HC hydrocarbons
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NADB National Aerometric Data Bank
NESHAPS National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Substances
NOp nitrogen dioxide
NSPS New Source Performance Standard
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
0 oxidant
A
ppm parts per million
PRMS Plan Revision Management System
PVC polyvinyl chloride
SAROAD Storage and Retrieval of Aerometric Data
SCS supplementary control system
SIP State Implementation Plan
SOy sulfur dioxide
TSP total suspended particulate
VCM vinyl chloride monomer
-------
STATE AIR POLLUTION
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN PROGRESS REPORT,
JANUARY 1 TO JUNE 30, 1974
SECTION 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIPs), OVERVIEW
Since the last SIP progress report, the number of fully approved
SIPs, with no regulatory disapprovals, has dropped from 16 to 3. This is
due to the Environmental Protection Agency's promulgation for the review
of indirect sources. Only the Florida, Alabama, and Guam plans are fully
approved.
Of the 52 plans still having deficiencies, 38 have only regulatory
deficiencies, which have been corrected by EPA promulgation; and 14 are
in the stages of finalization by State or EPA action.
DATA REPORTING
The reporting of data from the States to the Environmental Protection
Agency is a particularly vital part of the overall process. Both air
quality data and emissions data are needed to measure progress, identify
problem areas and evaluate strategies. The requirements for reporting
2
are contained in 40 CFR 51.7. However, many States are not meeting
these minimum requirements.
Progress has been made in achieving timely reporting of air quality
data. At the conclusion of the second quarter of calendar year 1974,
data reaching SAROAD represented a 34 percent increase in the number of
sites reporting at least one valid quarter of data over CY 1972 data in
by September 1973. This increase is due to more monitoring sites coming
into operation and to more efficient operation of the quarterly reporting
mechanism. The increase means that more data are becoming available in
less time.
-------
Despite these real improvements, problem areas still remain. Many sites
have still not reported four valid quarters of data for CY 1973. Hence, it
is not possible to characterize annual air quality trends in all areas. In
addition, the number of oxidant sites reporting one valid quarter of data
is still below both the .Federal minimum and the SIP requirement.
In contrast to the progress made in air quality reporting, the reporting
of emissions data is an area of real concern. Although the National Emissions
Data System (NEDS) is now completely operational, the small amount of data
reported is a serious problem. For the semiannual reporting period ending
December 31, 1973, reports were received from only 14 of 51 States required.
This number represents a serious decline since the previous two semiannual
reports.
In recognition of the reporting problem, the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) is developing a computer software package
(near completion) that, when implemented at the State level, will help
to improve reporting and will provide for the States' own data needs.
Monitoring and data reporting was identified as one of three major priorities
for fiscal year (FY) 1975, and OAQPS will work to improve the reporting
system.
CONTROL AGENCY RESOURCES
Control agency resources are being strained by the increased program
demands being placed upon them. New programs, such as the development of
Air Quality Maintenance Plans and implementation of the Nonsignificant
Deterioration regulations, are costly, both in terms of staff effort and in
money for contract support. In addition, some air pollution control
activities must, in part, be carried out by other governmental agencies
(e.g., planning commissions, transportation departments, etc.). At
present, the control agencies are approximately 3000 man-years below
the estimate of needed resources. While the level of available resources
has been increasing over recent years, program needs appear to be in-
creasing at a greater rate. Since most of the new programs represent
Federal requirements, it is of some concern that Federal financial assistance
has remained constant.
-------
MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS
On July 10 and August 12, 1974, Air Quality Maintenance Area (AQMA)
designations were proposed for all areas in the United States.3'4 Table
1-1 shows a summary of proposed AQMA designations.
Table 1-1. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AQMA DESIGNATIONS
AQMA
designated
by
State
Number
of
States
Number
of
AQMAs
Pollutant
TSP
S00 ! CO
21
100
0.. NO,
i i
1 I
X
95 i 30 18 24
EPA
20
88
72 : 26 6 30
Total
! 41
i
, 188
167
56
24
i 54
9
INDIRECT SOURCE REVIEW
Three States (Alabama, Florida, and Guam) have approved indirect source
review procedures. For all other States, EPA has promulgated (February 25,
1974, as revised en July 9, 1974)°' Federal regulations for indirect
source review effective January 1, 1975. Several States have submitted
indirect source review plans that are expected to be approved shortly. A
number of other States and local agencies have indicated interest in being
delegated the responsibility of carrying out EPA's indirect source regula-
tions. Publication of these delegations is expected shortly. (Eight
States lack legal authority.)
-------
EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT TO MEET SECONDARY STANDARDS
*
EPA has granted or provided 18-month extensions for the development of
control strategies for achieving secondary standards for participate matter
and/or sulfur dioxide in 19 States involving 30 Air Quality Control Regions
(AQCRs). Of these, 8 AQCRs involve sulfur dioxide, 14 involve particulates,
and 8 involve both. Three plans for sulfur dioxide and 7 for particulate
matter have been submitted by the States. The control plan for the Metro
Baltimore AQCR in Maryland, the State of Hawaii, and the particulate plan
in the State Capital AQCR for Virginia have been approved. The rest are
under development either by EPA or the States.
SMELTERS
EPA is nearing completion of the development of regulations controlling
sulfur dioxide from nonferrous smelters located in Arizona, New Mexico,
Texas, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Nevada. These regulations are designed to
attain both primary and secondary ambient air quality standards with the
exception of New Mexico and Nevada where, due to an approved State Regula-
tion, the regulations are only designed to attain secondary standards.
It is anticipated that the regulations, which, in most cases, will require
the application and use of reasonably available control technology and a
supplementary control system, will be proposed in the Federal Register in
the near future.
In addition to the States above, EPA has called for a plan revision
with respect to the smelter in El Paso, Texas. The State is working on this
revision and is expected to submit revised regulations sometime this fall.
Efforts are continuing to encourage the affected States to submit
approvable plans. However, EPA promulgation will probably be necessary.
States may submit plans after the EPA promulgations, so that EPA regulations
could be withdrawn. These actions will satisfy the requirement for develop-
ing a plan for meeting the secondary sulfur dioxide standard in these
States. Fourteen smelters in the seven States are involved.
CHANGES TO 40 CFR PART 51
Regulations for preparation, adoption, and submittal of SIPs (40 CFR
Part 51) are being amended to conform with the decisions by the First,
Second, and Eighth Circuit Courts as reported in the last report. A
-------
major result of the decisions is that SIP regulations and legal authority
do not permit deferring compliance beyond the date specified in the SIP for
attainment of air quality standards unless "procedures of Section 110(f) of the
Clean Air Act are met.
PLAN REVISION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (PRMS) - RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
The PRMS has now been used to analyze a total of 117 AQCRs, which
contain approximately 79 percent of the nation's population. The current
analysis identified only 15 percent of the total suspended particulate
monitoring sites as having possible problems in attaining national ambient
air quality standards by mid-1975. However, this small percentage of
sites was distributed among 102 of the 117 AQCRs analyzed. The possible
problem in most of these AQCRs was localized, but in some cases it appeared
to be a more general problem. Only 1 percent of the sulfur dioxide sites
showed potential problems in attaining national ambient air quality
standards by mid-1975. The problems were generally located around large
point sources such as smelters and power plants. Approximately 18 percent
of the carbon monoxide sites and 38 percent of the oxidant sites appeared
to have problems. Because of the complex nature of these two pollutants
and the problems of sampling and analyzing them, site visits are required
to further define the real nature of the problem.
SOURCE COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES
During the semiannual period covered by this report, States and EPA
have continued active enforcement programs. The priority placed by EPA
on obtaining compliance by 18,000 to 20,000 major emitters (installations
capable of emitting more than 100 tons per year of a pollutant; as a class,
responsible for about 85 percent of the pollution emitted from all instal-
lations) has shown success. At the time of the last report, approximately
12,000 of these facilities had been investigated. By July 1974, the
number of these facilities identified and investigated by States and/or
EPA had risen to nearly 16,500. The number of these facilities in com-
pliance with the SIP emission standards has increased from about 7600 in
December of 1973 to 10,400 at the present time, while the number of major
emitters on compliance schedules has risen from 1200 to over 2000. Of
-------
the remaining 3800 major emitters investigated to date, some 1500 have
State compliance schedules now being reviewed by EPA for approval. The
compliance status of an additional 1500 is being reevaluated, and for the
remainder, State and/or Federal action is pending.
Enforcement activity by EPA over the past 6 months has also increased
markedly, as the attainment dates in many SIPs draw nearer. From the date
the SIPs were approved until last December, EPA had made 1800 investigations
of source compliance status (approximately 1100 formal inquiries citing the
Q
authority of Section 114 and approximately 700 site inspections and/or
source tests). In the past 6 months, an additional 6000 Section 114
letters have been sent and 600 inspections and tests have been performed.
These increased compliance investigations have resulted in a large increase
in enforcement actions since December 31, 1973. At the present time, EPA
has issued notices of violation to 230 facilities, up from 82 last December,
and issued enforcement orders or initiated civil or criminal action at 47
installations, up from 24 in December 1973. This increased enforcement
activity has served to stimulate State enforcement efforts in many areas,
and a large number of notices of violation issued by EPA will be followed
up by State enforcement actions (detailed in Table 5-3).
Compliance monitoring programs have been initiated in States and by
EPA Regional Offices to assure that all major emitters in compliance are
checked periodically by either the State or EPA and to provide for the verifi-
cation of all increments of progress when they come due for all major emitters
on compliance schedules. In addition, the EPA Regional Offices will verify
the compliance status of about 10 percent of all major emitters handled
by each State in order to verify the reliability of State data. Barring
discovery of serious compliance problems in State programs by EPA's
compliance monitoring effort, over 85 percent of all major emitters will
achieve final compliance by July 1975. Although this will significantly
reduce air pollution emissions, it is anticipated that air quality levels
in many areas may not meet the health-related levels by the attainment
dates, since some of the largest polluters will be among the remaining
15 percent violating emission standards. Special EPA program efforts
-------
are in various stages of execution to assure that the largest emitters
(including power plants, steel mills and industrial boilers) achieve com-
pliance as expeditiously as possible.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 1
1. State Air Pollution Implementation Plan Progress Report, June 30
to December 31, 1973. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA-450/2-74-004, April 1974.
2. Federal Register. Volume 38, No. 149. August 3, 1974. p. 20835.
3. Federal Register. Volume 39, No. 133. July 10, 1974. p. 25330.
4. Federal Register. Volume 39. August 12, 1974. p. 28906.
5. Federal Register. Volume 39, Mo. 38. February 25, 1974. p. 7269.
6. Federal Register. Volume 39, No. 132. July 9, 1974. p. 25291.
7. 40 CFR Part 51 - Requirement for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal
of Implementation Plans.
8. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970. Public Law 91 604. December 31,
1970.
-------
SECTION 2 - NATIONAL ISSUES
I. THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION ACT OF 1974 (ESECA)1
The purposes of this Act, signed into law on June 22, 1974, are
(1) to provide for a means to assist in meeting the essential needs of the
United States for fuels, in a manner that is consistent, to the fullest
extent practicable, with existing national commitments to protect and
improve the environment; and (2) to provide requirements for reports
respecting energy resources. The major thrust of the Act, relevant to sta-
tionary sources, is to increase the use of coal to conserve oil. The Federal
Energy Administration (FEA) must prohibit power plants from using oil or nat-
ural gas as a primary fuel wherever such prohibition is practicable and may
issue similar prohibition orders to other major fuel burners. These orders,
however, are not effective until the date, specified by EPA, as the earliest
date by which affected plants can meet applicable air pollution requirements
while burning coal. The air pollution requirements, except if a severe oil
or low sulfur coal shortage should occur this winter, range from protection
of primary national ambient air quality standards to full compliance with
SIP requirements. As mentioned, these conditions must be met before the
plant can burn coal. With few exceptions, all temporary in nature, all such
plants must comply with the applicable SIP requirements by January 1, 1980.
The Act requires EPA to review all SIPs with respect to requirements appli-
cable to stationary fuel burners and suppliers and to suggest plan revisions
to States wherever such revisions would not interfere with the attainment/
maintenance of any national ambient air quality standard and would be con-
2
sistent with the purposes of both this Act and the Clean Air Act.
This requirement, by the legislative history of the Act, is intended to
permit a mechanism by which EPA's clean fuels policy can be implemented to
the extent that States agree to do so and by which conversions to the burn-
-------
ing of coal can be effected more readily, consistent with requirements of
the Clean Air Act.2 ESECA also states that an FEA prohibition order will
not be effective for any period for which EPA certifies that the emissions
from the source will cause or materially contribute to a significant risk
to public health as a result of pollutants for which national ambient air
quality standards have not been promulgated.
It is too early to define the impact this new legislation will have
on SIPs and the enforcement of the requirements in such plans. It is clear,
however, that the Act places major responsibilities on EPA as well as on
FEA. The details of these responsibilities are too lengthy to delineate
here, but they include the development of technical, administrative,
and legal guidelines, decisions on a source-by-source basis, and the in-
volvement of States, EPA Regional Offices, and EPA Headquarters Offices.
Some of the major requirements are listed below as examples. Work is
already underway pertinent to these and other requirements.
1. There must be an adequate exchange of information and discussion
of policy with FEA.
2. The air pollution requirements, and the dates by which they can
be met, must be determined for each source prohibited from burn-
ing oil or gas.
3. The "significant risk" criterion must be defined and applied to
sources converting to coal.
4. Required reports must be prepared for submittal to Congress by
late 1974.
5. All SIPs must be reviewed, and suggestions for revisions must
be transmitted to the States.
6. Regulations setting forth procedures and requirements applicable
to sources affected by the new legislation must be proposed and
promulgated.
Item 5, as mentioned, is an extension of EPA's Clean Fuels Policy
•3
(CFP), which was reported on in the last progress report. To date, the
implementation of this policy has been concentrated on power plants in
EPA Regions III, IV, and V, in which 80 percent of the nation's utility
coal is consumed. Through air quality modeling of some 200 power plants,
the impacts of these plants' emissions on ambient pollutant concentrations
10
-------
have been predicted. Wherever a State's emission-limiting regulation
appeared to be more stringent than might be needed to achieve the national
ambient air quality standards, consideration of plan revision has been
suggested. Such revisions relieve regulatory demand for additional emission
controls on plants whose emissions are not causing nor contributing to
contravention of the national ambient air quality standards. Thus, the
coal burned in such plants complies with the adjusted SIP requirement,
becoming, in the parlance of the Clean Fuels Policy, SIP-acceptable. EPA's
estimate of the total number of tons of coal that will become SIP-acceptable
through such plan revisions is referred to as the CFP potential. Table 2-1
shows the current status of anticipated regulation changes.
Table 2-1. STATUS OF REGULATION CHANGES (PLAN REVISIONS)
State
Ohio9
Indiana
Michigan
Tennessee
Alabama
Georgia
Total
Projected
1975 coal
usage,
10° tons/yr
55.3
29.4
28.6
21.6
20.9
17.9
173.7
Projected
1975
CFP potential ,
106 tons/yr
22.9
16.8
13.8
11.8
13.5
12.6
91.4
Plan
revision
submitted
5/74
10/74b
12/73
10/73
10/73
7/74b
Plan
revision
approved
Uncertain
l/75b
9/74b
7/74b
7/74b
10/74b
The Ohio plan revision submitted in April 1974 does not include
the relaxed regulations that will be forthcoming after comple-
tion of adjudicatory hearings.
Expected date.
11
-------
II. UNLEADED AND LOW-LEAD GASOLINE
Achievement of carbon monoxide and oxidant standards in many Air
Quality Control Regions is partially dependent on lowered automobile emis-
sion levels. The majority of domestic and foreign auto makers have chosen
to use catalytic converters in 1975 model cars to reduce auto emissions.
The presence of lead or phosphorus in gasoline will "poison" the catalysts
and cause emission levels to exceed the Federal Standards. EPA regulations
^
required that unleaded gas be generally available by July 1, 1974. An EPA
review of the situation5 indicates that there should be no major problems
related to general availability of unleaded fuel. In particular, EPA has
determined that:
1. Essentially all large and many small refiners will produce
unleaded gasoline.
2. The distribution system is generally prepared to supply
unleaded fuel.
3. Independent marketers will receive this fuel from their
current suppliers, or from an FEA-designated supplier.
In addition to requiring the availability of lead-free gasoline, EPA
has also issued regulations requiring a 60 to 65 percent reduction in the
lead content of leaded gasoline by 1979. Lead emissions from leaded gas
constitute a risk to human health, and this regulation is designed to
reduce that risk.
These regulations will have several impacts. There will be a net
energy savings associated with these regulations. An EPA sponsored analysis
by Arthur D. Little, Inc., showed that the energy penalty incurred by
refiners in producing lead-free and low-lead gasoline is more than out-
weighed by the increase in fuel economy that results from the use of the
catalytic converter (see Table 2-2). In addition, the individual motorist
can expect net savings of approximately $48 over the lifetime of a new
car (the savings due to increased spark plug and exhaust system life minus
increased automobile production costs).
12
-------
Table 2-2. ENERGY IMPACT OF ERA'S LEAD REGULATIONS
AND EMISSION STANDARDS
(thousand of barrels per day)
Refinery energy requirements
(Base case, no lead regulations)
Gasoline production penalty
Lead-free
Lead phase-down
Lead additive production (savings)
Fuel economy (savings)0
Net energy penalty (savings)
1975
13,890
6
0
(2)
(45)
(41)
1977
15,246
13
27
(6)
(119 to 126)
(85 to 92)
1979
16,823
34
75
(10)
(140 to 163)
(41 to 64)
The energy impact of producing lead-free and low-lead gasoline
was calculated by Arthur D. Little, Incorporated,7 for EPA. This impact
reflects all changes in the refining energy balance, including not only
crude oil, natural gasoline, purchased refinery fuel, and butane inputs,
but also purchased power and liquid propane gas production. The impact
of the lead regulations is relative low primarily because the average
octane rating of gasoline will decrease as new low-compression engines
replace older engines demanding a high-octane gasoline.
The energy savings resulting from the decreased production of lead
additives were calculated by EPA based on an estimate that 56,700 Btu/lb
of lead is required for the production of lead additives. The energy
expended for the production of lead additive now used is 2.5 x lO^3 Btu/yr
(equivalent to 10,900 barrels of fuel oil per day) and would be approxi-
mately 3.2 x 1013 Btu/yr in 1980, assuming a 4 percent per year growth in
gasoline production (to match the basis for the gasoline production
penalty).
cThe fuel savings resulting from the catalyst were calculated by EPA
staff. It was assumed that 1975/76 model year cars meeting 1975 interim
standards of 1.5 gpm HC, 15 gpm CO, and 3.1 gpm NO would achieve an 8
percent improvement in fuel economy over 1973/74 vehicles, and 1977-80
model year vehicles (1) meeting statutory standards would achieve a 4
percent improvement over 1973/74 vehicles, or (2) meeting interim
standards of 0.41 gpm HC, 3.4 gpm CO, and 2.0 NOx would achieve a 5 percent
improvement. Fuel savings are expressed as ranges in order to reflect tne
use of assumptions of 1 and 2. These estimates are conservative assess-
ments of results of recent EPA test programs and statements by the industry
of the benefits derived from the catalyst. It is expected that future
fuel economies will be increased significantly as the industry responds to
customers' desires for increased fuel economy.
13
-------
III. TRANSPORTATION CONTROL PLANS
Programs in the designated areas requiring Transportation Control
Plans are continuing to move forward with a variety of remedial measures.
Although no area has met its entire schedule for implementation of all
required measures, most areas are generally making progress in coping
with these extremely difficult problems. Measures on which selective
progress has been noted include improvements to metropolitan mass transit
systems, development of employer incentive programs for increased use of
mass transit and carpools, comprehensive carpool improvement programs
including publicity and computer matching, vapor recovery systems for
control of hydrocarbon emissions, and automotive inspection and maintenance
programs. In all of these program areas, there has been notable success in
several cities.
Indirect source review and parking management programs are now in their
initial phases of implementation. Application forms for developers have
been prepared, and an extensive program of information dissemination to
developers and the general public is underway. Special attention is
being paid to delegation of review authority to State and local govern-
ments and to development of comprehensive parking management plans in some
20 large metropolitan areas, as the conceptual basis for making lot-by-lot
reviews.
Another recent development involves formation of a joint EPA/Department
of Transportation (DOT) Task Force to identify specific problems associated
with implementation of the Transportation Control Plans. Officials from
DOT and EPA will visit selected cities requiring Transportation Control
Plans to assist local officials in articulating available options for
implementing measures to obtain air quality objectives and determining
areas where additional Federal assistance would be desirable.
A comprehensive program of interaction between the developer assoccia-
tions and State and local governmental officials has been intensified during
1974. The objectives of this interactive effort are to better explain EPA
air quality programs that affect land use, and to obtain insights and
guidance from developers and local officials concerning effective techniques
to implement these national environmental programs. Specific attention
14
-------
has been paid to Transportation Control Plans (including parking management),
indirect source reviews, air quality maintenance plans, and proposed
regulations for prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.
Developer groups with which close communication has been established
include: International Council of Shopping Centers, National Association
of Realtors, National Association of Home Builders, National Realty
Committee, National Land Council, and Western Council of Retail Associations.
Governmental associations with which EPA has maintained liaison on these
programs in recent months include: National Governors Conference, Council
of State Governments, National Association of Counties, National League
of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Association of Regional
Councils, Advisory Commission on Inter-governmental Relations, and
Commission on the Future of the South. Special efforts are now underway
for EPA Regions to open channels of communication with developer groups
in each State regarding implementation of indirect source reviews, parking
management, and air quality maintenance plans. Similar activities are
underway to explain these program efforts to each governor, principal
State officials, and key elected officials of the counties and cities
directly affected.
IV. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA VERSUS EPA
In a landmark case, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals [Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania vs. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 72-2121 (3rd
Circuit, June 28, 1974)] has upheld the constitutionality of the trans-
portation control strategies of EPA. This decision affirmed EPA's
requirement that Pennsylvania enforce the strategies contained in the
original Federal plan.
In November 1973, EPA issued 13 strategies designed to reduce air
pollution and conserve energy by reducing automobile traffic in Philadel-
phia. These regulations were part of a total transportation plan for
Philadelphia and some other counties.
In December 1973, Pennsylvania filed suit with the U.S. Court of
Appeals challenging the constitutionality of the transportation control
strategies. In a far-reaching decision with national implications, the
Court upheld the legality of the strategies. This decision is expected
15
-------
2
to establish a precedent that, under Section 113 of the Clear. Air Act,
EPA can promulgate regulations and require States to enforce Federal
regulations under court order if they fail to do so voluntarily-
V. SECTION lll(d) REGULATIONS2
As presently contemplated, the Section lll(d) regulatory process
would proceed as follows:
1. Action is initiated by promulgation of new source performance
standards for a designated noncriteria pollutant.
2. The next step is issuance by EPA of a guideline document that
reflects best control technology for existing sources (considering
cost), specifies the time required for compliance, and provides
background information and the rationale used to select the emission
level reflecting best retrofit technology. The document will
designate specific emission standards.
3. States must then submit control plans, on which public hearings
have been held, that contain equal or more stringent emission
standards. Compliance schedules must be included in the control
plan.
4. States may permit case-by-case exceptions to the standards when
such exceptions are justified by unreasonable costs, physical
plant limitations, or other hardships.
It is anticipated the draft regulations will cover phosphate ferti-
lizer plants and primary aluminum plants for flourides, and sulfuric acid
plants for acid mist.
Internal and external review of the draft Section lll(d) regulation
is nearly completed. Unless last-minute issues arise, proposal is
expected in September 1974, with promulgation in December 1974.
VI. PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
A reproposal of regulations to prevent significant deterioration of
air quality was published in the Federal Register on August 27, 1974.8 The
basic features of the new proposal follow.
16
-------
Area Classification Concept
Class I designation restricts deterioration to a minimum and is in-
tended to preclude introduction of any additional major sources. Class II
designation restricts deterioration to that associated with "normal"
well-controlled growth. Class III designation imposes no additional
restrictions and is reserved for areas where deterioration is "insignificant"
until it reaches the national standards.
Initial Classification of Areas
All areas would be designated Class II as of promulgation, subject to
redesignation by the States (or Federal Land Managers or Indian governing
bodies) at any time. The proposal for Federal redesignation to Class I
after 2 years has been rejected.
Administrator's Approval Authority
Proposed redesignations could normally be disapproved by the Adminis-
trator only if (1) the required procedures (specifically public participa-
tion) were not followed, (2) relevant environmental, social, or economic
considerations were arbitrarily and capriciously disregarded, or (3) a
State was not willing to implement the source review procedures.
Resolution of Interstate Disputes
The Administrator will provide technical assistance in resolving
interstate disputes, but will not serve as arbiter. Arbitration is to be
accomplished in the Courts.
Sources Subject to Review
The original list of 16 source categories has been expanded to 19,
and the requirements for review of all sources with annual emissions in
excess of 4000 tons has been deleted. Sources in the 19 categories must
estimate the impact of minor sources in the area as part of the review
procedure, but minor sources are not subjected to individual preconstruc-
tion review. Those regulations cover only total suspended particulates
and sulfur dioxide.
The Baseline
The original proposal specified air quality as existing in 1972 as the
baseline against which deterioration would be measured. The new regulations
specify the baseline to be the date of promulgation, adjusted to account
for sources approved prior to promulgation.
17
-------
Impact on Fuel Switching
Existing sources that switch fuels are not subject to review under
these regulations, even though they may degrade air quality and "use up"
the available increment.
Boundary Considerations
A source proposed for construction in a Class II area is not permitted
to violate the increment in an adjoining Class I area. However, sources
proposed for construction in a Class III area are not subject to review for
significant deterioration. States are cautioned to redesignate areas such
that an adequate "buffer zone" is provided between any Class III areas and
areas to be protected under more stringent criteria.
Best Available Control Technology^
The new regulations require BACT only on major sources of particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide. Further, the regulations exclude from the BACT
requirement all sources for which New Source Performance Standards have
been established.
Ambient Air Monitoring by Sources
Under the new regulations, the source review is based on modeling in
lieu of air quality monitoring. The monitoring requirement has been
deleted because it is not essential and has a questionable legal basis.
Delegation of Authority for Source Review
The Administrator would delegate authority to the States to review
all new sources (except for all Indian sources and certain Federal sources).
The Administrator would monitor the States' exercise of this authority in
the same manner as for other new source reviews.
The regulations being reproposed are Federal regulations (40 CFR Part
52) to be implemented by the States. Guidelines for development of SIPs
(40 CFR Part 51) are being written, and will be proposed prior to promul-
gation of the above mentioned Part 52 regulations.
VII. ATTAINMENT OF STANDARDS
There are strong indications that particulate matter standards will
not be achieved in 20 to 25 urban areas excluding problems related to
agricultural sources and unpaved roads in the southwestern part of the
country. In some of the larger metropolitan areas, reentrainment of parti-
18
-------
culate matter from automobile tires and other sources of street dust
contribute to standards being exceeded. A major effort is being directed
to determine the extent of this problem and to help define reasonable
controls for each of the problem areas.
Another major difficulty in standards attainment involves control of
oxidants and hydrocarbons. The inherent resistance to socially disruptive
transportation controls and the long-range transport of automotive pol-
lutants make this problem extremely difficult to solve. Several studies
of oxidant problems which hopefully will lead to effective and reasonable
control strategies are now under way.
Information resulting from studies of particulate matter and oxidants
will be provided in the next progress report, scheduled for publication in
March 1975.
VIII. EPA PROPOSALS TO CHANGE THE CLEAN AIR ACT2
Proposed changes to the Clean Air Act were sent to the Congress by
EPA on March 22, 1974. The changes were designed to take into account
new realities, particularly energy related problems, that have arisen
since the Amendments of 1970. The Clean Air Act has been amended by
the enactment of the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act
of 1974 (ESECA).1
The proposed changes to the Clean Air Act contained three major pro-
posals relative to statutory deadlines for air quality standards. First,
for those communities where needed transportation control plans would cause
serious economic and social disruption, EPA would be authorized to allow up
to 5 additional years for compliance with air quality standards. Secondly,
EPA would be allowed to review the SIPs in order to encourage the use of
clean fuels in geographic areas of highest need. Provisions similar to
this second proposal have already been enacted in the ESECA. Thirdly, EPA
requested authority to suspend temporarily any emission standard or
limitation in cases where the Federal Energy Administration has mandated
coal conversion where the national standards are not threatened. ESECA
contains provisions somewhat similar to this proposal.
The bill also contained provisions to give EPA authority to set design
or equipment standards for new sources and hazardous pollutants, whenever
emissions limits were impracticable due to a lack of appropriate measure-
19
-------
merit technology. It was also proposed that EPA enforcement authority be
expanded to include civil penalties up to 525,000 for each day of emission
violations.. In addition, EPA transmitted the Administration's proposal that
application of auto emission standards for carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons,
and oxides of nitrogen be extended at the interim 1975 level through the
1977 model year.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2
1. Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974. Public
Law 93-319. June 22, 1974.
2. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970. Public Law 91 604. December 31,
1970.
3. State Air Pollution Implementation Plan Progress Report, June 30 to
December 31, 1973. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA-450/2-74-004. April 1974.
4. Federal Register. Volume 38, No. 6. January 10, 1973. p. 1255.
5. EPA Analysis of FEO Review of Land Phase-down Regulations. Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. April 9, 1974.
6. Federal Register. Volume 38, No. 234. December 6, 1973. p. 33733.
7. Impact of Motor Gasoline Lead Additive Regulations on Petroleum
Refineries and Energy Resources, 1974-1980. Arthur D. Little,
Incorporated. Contract Grant No. 68-02-1332, Task No. 4.
EPA-450/3-74-032a. May 1974.
8. Federal Register. Volume 39, No. 167. August 27, 1974. p. 30999.
20
-------
SECTION 3 -
STATE IMPLEMENTION PLAN PROGRESS
APPROVAL/DISAPPROVAL STATUS AND EPA PROMULGATION
States were required to submit to EPA by January 31, 1972, their plans
for attainment of national ambient air quality standards for six criteria
pollutants (sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, photo-
chemical oxidants, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen dioxide).
Plans were submitted by all 55 States (the 50 states plus the District
cf Columbia, Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, arid the Virgin Islands),
and EPA approved or disapproved all portions of these plans. Table 3-1
shows the status of the 55 plans with respect to the need for EPA promul-
gation and the degree to which these promulgations have been made. It
should be noted that the number of fully approved plans and those with
no regulatory disapprovals has dropped from 16 to 3 since the last semi-
annual report. The change in the approval/disapproval figures are the
result of the recent promulgation by EPA of indirect source review regu-
lations. Only the Florida, Alabama, and Guam State plans are presently
fully approved. However, the 38 plans supplemented by EPA promulgations
are being implemented although not fully approved.
Plan disapprovals with respect to "significant deterioration" or
maintenance of the national standards are not reflected in Table 3-1.
EPA has the authority to propose or promulgate regulations to over-
come States' regulatory deficiencies. EPA, as a matter of policy, will
rescind its regulations when States enact adequate legislation or
regulations. The proposals and promulgations to alleviate regulatory
deficiencies and indications if legal authority is possessed by the
State or if legal authority has been delegated by EPA to the State are
listed in Table 3-2.
21
-------
Table 3-1. STATUS OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS, SUMMARY
SIPs approved through State submittal
SIPs submitted by States and requiring
EPA promulgation
SIPs with all regulatory deficiencies
corrected by EPA promulgation
SIPs with all regulatory deficiencies
not yet corrected (finalized) by
EPA promulgation
As of
8/7/74
3
52
38
14
As of
4/1/74
16
39
26
13
States with unapproved nonregulatory provisions are also listed in
Table 3-2. Nonregulatory deficiencies can be corrected only by State action,
i.e., State submittal of approval parts of the plan. The combination
cf the deficiencies of regulatory and nonregulatory provisions reflects the
States' overall plan conformance to Federal Register^ requirements.
A national overview of the States' plan conformance, including progress
made since the last report, is summarized by specific SIP parts as follow:
Public Availability of Data
Sixteen Statewide plans were disapproved as of the last report, result-
ing in 13 promulgations for regulations and/or delegation of legal authority.
Three Statewide plans have no legal authority, and 1 EPA promulgation has
been revoked; thus there are now 15 Statewide plans disapproved.
Two States have disapproved plans due to inadequacies in 3 specific
AQCRs, all 3 of which lack legal authority, including 1 with an inadequate
regulation.
Required Source Recordkeeping
Eight Statewide plans had been disapproved, resulting in 7 promulga-
tions, including 1 State that also required delegation of legal authority.
The other promulgation was for delegation of legal authority only.
Of these, 2 States have disapproved plans due to inadequacies in 3
specific AQCRs, 2 for lack of legal authority and the other for an
inadequate regulation.
This portion of all plans remains unchanged since the last reporting
period.
22
-------
Review of New Sources (Stationary)
Five Statewide plans were disapproved, resulting in 5 EPA promul-
gations.
An additional 5 States have disapproved plans due to inadequacies in
9 specific AQCRs. One AQCR in 1 State has new EPA promulgated regulations,
5 AQCRs in 1 State have proposed EPA regulations, and 3 AQCRs in 3 States
have EPA promulgations still in effect (1 State, Arizona, has new
promulgations for 2 AQCRs and prior EPA promulgation in another AQCR).
Review of New Sources (Indirect)
Fifty-two Statewide plans had been disapproved, resulting in 52 EPA
promulgated regulations, including 8 States that also lacked legal
authority.
Review of new sources (indirect) was not applicable in the last
report; thus, all these actions are considered initial.
Compliance Schedules
Nineteen Statewide plans had been disapproved, resulting in 16 EPA
promulgations of compliance schedule regulations, and 3 proposals of regu-
lations. Since the last report, EPA has promulgated regulations for 1
State, a new deficiency has been noted in another State, and 1 Statewide
EPA promulgation has been revoked.
Twelve States hav£ disapproved plans due to inadequacies in 27
specific AQCRs. Twenty-three AQCRs in 10 States still have old promulga-
tions; 4 AQCRs (including 1 of the 23) in 4 States still have old
proposals.
Since the last reporting period, 5 AQCRs in 1 additional State
progressed from proposal to EPA promulgation.
Transportation Control Plans
Eight Statewide plans were disapproved as of the last report, result-
ing in 1 promulgation including delegation of legal authority, 5 delega-
tions of legal authority only, and 2 promulgations for regulations alone.
In addition, 11 States had deficiencies in 22 AQCRs, resulting in
promulgations affecting 19 AQCRs, proposals in 2 AQCRs, and 1 AQCR labeled
as deficient.
23
-------
Table 3-2. STATUS OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS9
EPA Region/State/AQCR
Region I
Massachusetts
Metropolitan Boston
Hartford-New Haven-Springfield
Intrastate
Maine
Rhode Island
Vermont
Connecticut
New Hampshire
Region II
New Jersey
New Jersey-New York-Connecti-
cut Interstate
Metropolitan Philadelphia
Interstate
New York
Hudson Valley Intrastate
Genesee-Finger Lakes
Intrastate
Southern Tier West Intrastate
New York-New Jersey-Connecti-
cut Interstate
Central New York Intrastate
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Region III
District of Columbia
Maryland
Metropolitan Baltimore
Intrastate
National Capital Interstate
Pennsylvania
Southwest Pennsylvania
Intrastate
Metropolitan Philadelphia
Interstate
Delaware
Virginia
National Capital Interstate
West Virginia
Region IV
Kentucky
South Carol ina
Florida
Tennessee
Georgia
Mississippi
North Carol ina
Region V
Illinois
Metropolitan Chicago
Interstate
Indiana
Metropol itan Indianapolis
Chicago Interstate
Michigan
Metropolitan Detroit-Port
Huron Intrastate
South Central Michigan
Intrastate
Metropolitan Toledo
Interstate
Minnesota
Ohio
Cincinnati and Hamilton
County
4->
-Q (O
O «3 *J
-Q to
3 > **-
Q- rO O
X-NLA
NLA
X-NLA
DLA
DLA
X
Wi ^con^in /,-NL'1
i
2 i1
3 Q.
t/> 01
OJ
•r^ S-
>
^ ro
o c
s oJ-2
QJ U -M
> 3 •!->
OJ O t/>
C£. i/l — *
0
0
0
0
0
X
X
X
•4J
OJ
= 1
o
sS,
OJ 0
01 O
ce: i/i
®
®
(X^NLA)
®
®
8
®
®
8
®
8
®
®
8
8
8
8
(1TNLA
I^TNLA i
8
("X-flLA i
©
8
8
'x-lJuT1'
®
8
0
at
£3
fO i—
1 S
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
V
X
0
8
X
X
X
X
X
X
c
c
Q.
*o
i.
o
u
X
X
X
X
X-NLA
NLA
X
X
X
X
X
NLA
X
X
®
0
©
Emission
limitations
SO?
V
V
V
V
0
I)
D
D
TSP
0
0
HC
X
X
NO?
0
» 0
•»-> c
15
O- OJ
L. |
D
D
Ol
4J O
U 0.
o •<-
11
D
D
NLA
OJ
-o
o
"£.
5
1 =
II
LU O.
D-NLA
en
0)
|
o
I/I
£
DV
D
D
DV
c
c: c
> +J
O 10
?&
01 Q.
-*J 0
C O
i— ( (J
D
DV
D
D
D
i
24
-------
Table 3-2 (continued). STATUS OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS9
r
^
! ~
0 >
«*- 3 -t-J
-M
II
S 0
•— o
D
aX = promulgation; 0= proposal; V = -evocation; D = deficiency; NLA no legal authority; DLA = legal authority deligated by [PA;
Lncircled items represent actions taken sinco last report.
25
-------
Emission Limitations (Sulfur Dioxide)
As of the last report, 10 States had disapproved plans due to in-
adequacies in 15 specific AQCRs. There are presently 3 AQCRs in 2 States
with old deficiencies, 6 AQCRs in 5 States with old proposals, and 2 AQCRs
(including 1 of the 6 AQCRs) in 2 States with old promulgations.
However, 4 AQCPs in 1 additional State submitted approvable plans,
thereby correcting this deficiency and negating the need for final
rulemaking on the EPA proposal.
Emission Limitations (Total Suspended Particulates)
There were no Statewide disapprovals.
Eight States were disapproved due to inadequacies in 14 specific AQCRs,
resulting in proposals for 9 AQCRs in 2 States, 3 AQCRs in 3 States
where EPA has promulgated regulations, and 2 AQCRs in 1 State being
deficient.
Since the last report, one AQCR in Washoe County, Nevada, has a
new proposal.
Emission Limitations (Hydrocarbons)
Three State plans covering 14 AQCRs had been disapproved, resulting
in EPA promulgations in 14 AQCPs in 3 States.
Since the last report, EPA has revoked promulgations in 5 AQCRs (all
in the same State with the outstanding proposal).
Emission Limitations (Nitrogen Dioxide)
Three AQCRs in 3 States still have EPA proposals; thus, no change
has taken place since the last report.
Air Quality Surveillance
Four States were judged to be deficient in the last report. One State
(Wyoming) has corrected its deficiency, leaving 3 States having plan
deficiencies in this area. Section 6 discusses actual implementation of
this part of the plans.
Periodic Testing and Inspection
Five States were disapproved, 2 due to no legal authority and 3
because the submittal was deficient. Since the last report, there has
been no change.
26
-------
Emergency Episode
Since the last report, 1 State has corrected its deficiency, and 1
additional State has been found as lacking legal authority. There are
now 3 States still deficient and 1 State disapproved only for lack of
legal authority.
Resources
Eleven States had plan deficiencies in resources. Since the last
report, 3 States corrected their deficiencies; thus, leaving 8 States
deficient in regard to planned provision of adequate resources. As the
figures in Section 7 indicate, the States in general still need more
resources to implement fully the plan provisions.
Intergovernmental Cooperation
Six States were deficient in intergovernmental cooperation. Since
the last report, 1 State has overcome its deficiency; thus, leaving 5
States deficient.
Summary
Table 3-3 represents a summary listing of the progression of SIP
actions to correct deficient parts of SIPs according to (or arranged by)
the deficient portions. Table 3-4 represents a specific breakout of a
summary listing of the progression of SIP actions to overcome deficient
parts of SIPs arranged according to EPA Regional Offices. Tables 3-3
and 3-4 depict progress in respect to both Statewide plans and specific
AQCRs. The tables also reflect the'total1 number of actions.
MAINTENANCE OF NATIONAL STANDARDS
2
Air Quality Maintenance Area Designations
The States were required by the Administrator to identify by May 10,
1974, areas that have the potential to exceed any national standard
within the next 10-year period because of current air qualty and/or
projected growth. EPA's final designation of the Air Quality Maintenance
Areas (AQMAs) is required by that same promulgation by August 16, 1974.
On July 10, 1974, AQMA designations were proposed for all areas in the
4
United States except those States within EPA Region V. Proposed AQMA
designations for States within Region V appeared in the Federal Register
27
-------
Table 3-3. SUMMARY LISTING OF PROGRESS OF SIP ACTIONS BY DEFICIENT PORTIONS9
00
State
correction
of non-
regulatory
portion
Revocation
New EPA
promul-
gation
New EPA
proposal
New defi-
ciencies
No change
since
last
report
Total
Public
avail-
ability
of
data
Require
source
record
keeping
N/A N/A
Review
of
station-
ary
sources
N/A
1(1,0)
0
0
i
I
0
0
0
2(0,2)
o
i
0 0
18(16,2)
9(17,2)
11(8,3)
11(8,3)
0
0
13(5,8)
15(5,10)
Review
of
indirect
sources
N/A
Compli-
ance
sched-
ules
N/A
0
52(52,0)
0
0
0
52(52,0)
1(1,0)
1(1,0)
0
1(1,0)
43(17,26)
46(20,26)
Transpor-
tation
control
plan
N/A
0
3(1,2)
0
0
35(8,27)
38(9,29)
Emission limitations
S02
N/A
4(0,4)
0
0
0
12(1,11)
16(1,15)
TSP
N/A
0
0
1(0,1)
0
8(0,8)
9(0,9)
HC
N/A
5(0,5)
0
H02
N/A
0
0
0 0
0
10(0,10)
15(0,15)
0
3(0,3)
3(0,3)
Air
quality
surveil-
lance
1(1,0)
N/A
0
Periodic
testing
and
inspec-
tion
0
N/A
0
Emer-
gency
episode
plan
1(1,0)
N/A
1(0,1)
0 | 0 0
0
3(3,0)
4(4,0)
0
5(5,0)
5(5,0)
0
4(4,0)
6(5,1)
Resources
3(3,0)
N/A
0
0
0
8(8,0)
11(11,0)
Inter-
govern-
mental
coopera-
tion
1(1,0)
N/A
0
0
0
5(5,0)
6(6,0)
Total by
type of
action
taken
6(6,0)
11(2,9)
59(54,5)
1(0,1)
1(1,0)
78(80,98)
256(143,113)
a Numbers in parentheses indicate actions by number of States (left) and number of AQCRs (right).
-------
Table 3-4. SUMMARY LISTING OF PROGRESS OF SIP ACTIONS BY REGIONAL OFFICE3
State
I
0
correction
of non-
regulatory
portion
II
0
III
3(3.0)
i
IV
0
V
0
VI
VII
0 1(1,0)
Revocation ' 0 4(0,4) 1(1,0) 0 . 0
New EPA . 6(6,0)
promulgation
New EPA
4(4,0) 6(6,0)
o
proposal ;
New defi- 0
ciencies
No change j 11(9,2)
since
last report
Total
1.7(15,2)
7(7,0)
000
0 ' 0
15(3,12) 19(14,5)
23(7,16)
29(24,5)
0
7(7,0)
14(14,0)
9(7,2)
0
0
17(7,10)
26(14,12)
0 ' 1(1,0)
5(5,0) 4(4,0)
0
0
1(1,0) 0
23(3,20)
29(9,20)
15(13,2)
21(19,2)
VIII
1(1,0)
0
6(6,0)
0
0
14(5,9)
21(12,9)
IX
0
5(0,5)
7(5,2)
1(0,1)
0
43(10,33)
56(15,41)
X
1(1,0)
0
5(4,1)
0
0
19(9,10)
25(14,11)
Total
6(6,0)
11(2,9)
59(54,5)
1(0,1)
1(1,0)
178(80,98)
256(143,113)
a Numbers in parentheses indicate actions by number of States (left) and number of AQCRs (right).
-------
on August 12, 1974. Because of the delayed proposal of some AQMA desig-
nations, the proposed date for Federal Register publication of a final
AQMA list has been delayed. Progress toward designation of areas in all
10 EPA Regions is quantified as follows.
Total AQMAs proposed 188
Total AQMAs designated for total suspended particulate 167
Total AQMAs designated for sulfur dioxide 56
Total AQMAs designated for carbon monoxide 24
Total AQMAs designated for ozone 54
Total AQMAs designated for oxides of nitrogen 9
Specific proposed areas are shown by State and pollutant category
in Table 3-5.
Recommended Amendments jtd 40 CFR Part 51
Proposed amendments to 40 CFR Part 51 have been drafted to aid in
developing and analyzing AQMAs. Some changes will be made in Section
51.1 - Definitions, and a Subpart D - Maintenance of National Standards
will be amended to Part 51. Subpart D outlines the format for a
maintenance plan and discusses the information that must be included
therein. The major portions of the proposed Subpart D are:
1. AQMA analysis.
2. AQMA plans
3. Resources.
4. Intergovernmental cooperation.
5. Emission data format.
A new appendix is also proposed as an amendment to Part 51. This
appendix, entitled Air Quality Maintenance Measures, presents brief
descriptions of several administrative and technical approaches for air
quality maintenance area plans.
" The proposal package to amend Part 51 is being prepared and will
appear in the Federal Register this fall.
Development of Air Quality Maintenance Plans
Air Quality Maintenance Plans (AQMP) should be in draft form by
February 1975 for final submittal to EPA in June 1975. To aid the States
in the preparation of these AQMPs, EPA is progressing in developing guide-
30
-------
Table 3-5. PROPOSED AQKAs BY REGION, STATE, AND POLLUTANT CATEGORY9
EPA Region/State/AQMAb
Region I
Connecticut
The Connecticut AQMA
Massachusetts
Boston
Springfield
Worchester
Lawrence-Haverhill
Rhode Island
Metropolitan Providence
Region II
New Jersey
Al 1 entown-Bethl ehem-Easton ,
Pennsylvania-New Jersey
Jersey City
Long Branch-Asbury Park
New Brunswick-Perth Amboy-Sayreville
Newark
Morris
Bergen
Passaic
Philadelphia, Penn.-New Jersey
Trenton
Salem
New York
Binghamton
New York City Metropolitan
Niagara Frontier
Utica-Rome
Elmira-Corning
Rochester
Jamestown
Syracuse
Capital District
Mid-Hudson
Puerto Rico
Ponce
San Juan
Guayanilla
Penuelas
Region III
District of Columbia
National Capital (DC portion)
Maryland
Baltimore
National Capital (Maryland portion)
Potomac River Basin
Total AQUAS
by State
1
4
1
Pollutant
TSP
S
S
S
S
S
S
j ___
11 (F)
F
F
F
F
10
F
F
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
4
1 (F)
3 (F)
S
S
S
S
F
F
F
F
S02
S
S
S
S
S
S
F
F
CO
S
Ox
S
S
S
S
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
S
S
N02
S
1
F
F
F
F
F
31
-------
Table 3-5 (continued). PROPOSED AQMAs BY REGION STATE AND POLLUTANT
CATEGORY*
EPA Region/State/AQMAb
Region III (continued)
Pennsylvania
Allegheny County
Al 1 entown-Bethl ehetn- Easton
Beaver Valley Air Basin
Erie Air Basin
Harrisburg Air Basin
Johnstown Air Basin
Lancaster Air Basin
Monongahela Valley Air Basin
Reading Air Basin
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Air Basin
Total AQMAS
by State
12 (F)
Southeast Pennsylvania Air Basin
York Air Basin
Virginia
National Capital (Virginia portion)
Richmond
Petersburg-Colonial Heights -Hopewell
Lynchburg
Hampton-Newport News
Norfolk-Portsmouth-Newport News
Roanoke
Region IV
Alabama
Birmingham
Gadsden
Mobile
Florida
Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood
Gainesville
Jacksonville
Lakeland-Winter Haven
Mel borne-Ti tus vi 1 1 e-Cocoa
Miami
Orlando
Pensacola
Tallahassee
Tampa-St. Petersburg
Georgia
Atlanta
Savannah
Chattanooga Interstate
Kentucky
Louisville
North Carolina
Asheville
Charlotte-Gastonia
Greensboro
Raleigh-Durham
Winston-Sal em
TSP
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
Polluta
$02 !~ccP
F
F
F F
F
F
F
F
7
S
S
F
S
S
S '
S i
3 (F)
10
3
1 (F)
5
S i
i
F
F
nt
Ox
F
F
N02
1
i
s !
I
I
!
1
F
c
S
S
S S
S S
S
S
S
o
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
F
S
32
-------
Table 3-5 (continued).
PROPOSED AQMAs BY REGION, STATE, AND POLLUTANT
CATEGORY^
EPA Region/State/AQMAb
Region IV (continued)
South Carolina
Charleston
Greenville
Tennessee
Chattanooga Interstate
Kingsport-Bristol
Memphis
Nashville
Region V
Illinois
Total AQMAS
by State
2
4 (F)
TSP
S
S
; F
F
Pollutant
S02
CO
F
Ox
1
F
N02
' 1
6 (F)
Chicago Interstate j | F F : F F
Decatur
Peoria
Rock Island
St. Louis Interstate
Springfield
F
i
F F . j
F i
F F ! F
F i
1
Indiana 9 (F)
Anderson
Cincinnati Interstate
Evansville
Chicago Interstate
Indianapolis
Lafayette
Louisville Interstate
South Bend
Terre Haute
Michigan
Ann Arbor
Battle Creek
Bay City
Detroit
Flint
Grand Rapids
Lansing
Monroe
Saginaw
Minnesota
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Duluth
Ohio
Akron
Canton
Cincinnati Interstate
Cleveland
Columbus
Dayton
Hamil ton-Mi ddletown
Lorain
Mansfield
F
F
F
F
r
F F
F
F
F
F
9 (F)
F
F
F
F
F
i
F
: F
i F
1 F F
| F
2 (F)
13
F
F
F
r
F
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
F
S
S
S
S
S
S
33
-------
Table 3-5 (continued). PROPOSED AQMAs BY REGION, STATE, AND POLLUTANT
EPA Region/State/AQMAb
Region V
Ohio (continued)
Springfield
Steubenville
Toledo
Youngstown
Wisconsin
Southeast Wisconsin
Lake Michigan Subregion
Region VI
Arkansas
Little Rock
Fort Smith
Louisiana
Baton Rouge
New Orleans
Shreveport
New Mexico
Albuquerque
Four Corners
Grant County
Las Cruces
Roswell
Santa Fe
Oklahoma
Central Oklahoma
Total AQMAS
by State
2
2 (F)
3 (F)
6 (F)
2 (F)
Tulsa
Texas
Beaumont
Corpus Christi
Dallas-Fort Worth
Houston-Galveston
El Paso
San Antonio
Austin
Region VII
Iowa
Cedar Rapids
Council Bluffs
Davenport
Des Moines
Dubuque
Waterloo
Missouri
St. Louis Interstate
7 (F)
6
1
TSP
S
S
S
S
S
S
F
F
F
F
F
F
Pol
S02
S
F
F
lutan
CO
F
F
F
F
F
i
F : F
F j
i
F
F
F
F
c
F
F
s
S
s
s
s
s
S
t
Ox
S
F
F
F
F
F
N02
F
F
F
F
F
F
S
34
-------
Table 3-5 (continued). PROPOSED AQMAs BY REGION, STATE, AND POLLUTANT
CATEGORYa
EPA Region/State/AQMAb
Region VIII
Colorado
State Planning and Management District:
No. 2
No. 3
No. 4
No. 7
No. 11
Montana
Billings
Great Falls
Butte
Anaconda
Helena
Kali spell
Missoula
Coal Area
North Dakota
Cass
McLean-Mercer-01 i ver
South Dakota
Sioux Falls
Utah
Salt Lake City
Prove
Uintah
Southern Utah
Kyoming
Sweetwater
Powder River Basin
Region IX
Arizona
Phoenix SMSA
California
Monterey County
Sacramento Valley Area
San Diego Air Basin
San Francisco Bay Area
San Joaquin Valley
South Coast Air Basin
Southeast Desert Air Basin
Hawaii
Honolulu SMSA
Nevada
Las Vegas
Total AQMAS
by State
Pollutant
hTSP
5
S
S
S
S02
CO Ox
s s
N02
S S S
s ;
S S
8
s s s !
S S S
S S
i s
s s
s s
S
s
2
1 (F)
s
s
s
s
i
i •
s s
s
s
F
4 (F)
F
F
2
1
7
1 (F)
1 (F)
F
F
S
S
S
S
S
F
F
F
F
F
s s
F
F
O
S
s
s
S S
S
S S
s s
s
s s
s s
s
F F
S
35
-------
Table 3-5 (continued). PROPOSED AQMAsBY REGION, STATE, AND POLLUTANT
CATEGORY*
EPA Region/State/AQMAb
Region X
Oregon
Portland-Vancouver
Eugene-Springfield
Medford-Ashland
Washington
Puget Sound
Spokane
Portland- Vancouver
Totals
Total AQMAS
by State
3
3
188
TSP
S
167
Poll
S02
c
56
utanl
CO
Q
C
24
t
Ox
NO?
1
c
54
9
aS = State designated; F = Federally designated.
bAQMAs are designated by central city or air basin, etc.
36
-------
lines that outline procedures for analysis of problems in AQMAs and
discuss various aspects of AQMA preparation.
Twelve documents concerning AQMP development are being constructed
to cover the following topics:
1. Designation of AQMAs.
2. Plan preparation.
3. Control strategies.
4. Land use and transportation considerations.
5. Case studies in plan development.
6. Overview of AQMA analysis.
7. Projecting county emissions.
8. Computer-assisted area source emission gridding procedure.
9. Evaluating indirect sources.
10. Reviewing new stationary sources.
11. Air quality monitoring and data analysis.
12. Applying atmospheric simulation models to air quality
maintenance areas.
The first document was published in draft form in January 1974. It
has been revised. The complete guidance series is in preparation and
should be available by the fall of 1974.
One of these publications, Case Studies in Plan Development, details
progress toward drafting of "example" AQMPs by the cities of San Diego,
Denver, St. Louis, and Baltimore. Several major problems were encountered.
Attainment of standards remains difficult, especially with oxidants and
particulate matter, and reasonable solutions regarding fugitive dust are
lacking. Also, mechanisms to integrate air quality concerns into land
use programs are not available in many cases. Delineation of the problems
encountered in developing these plans and the critical procedures applied
to render them into final form will be most helpful to areas in constructing
their own plans.
These publications offering guidance on land development should be
of considerable help to the involved areas. With progressive efforts by
the States and EPA, an effective program is being developed to assure
the maintenance of air quality standards throughout the country.
37
-------
EXTENSIONS
Extensions for Attaining Primary Standards
The Clean Air Act provides for extensions of up to 2 years beyond
the 3-year period prescribed for attainment of national primary ambient
air quality standards in those AQCRs where needed technology or other
alternatives either are not available or will not be available soon
enough to attain the primary standards.
As noted in the last SIP progress report, there are 16 States
involving 28 AQCRs with extensions for attainment of primary standards. Of
these States, 14 required EPA promulgation; and an extension was provided
as part of the control strategy.
Extension for Submitting Plans for Attaining Secondary Standards
Pursuant to Section 110(b) of the Clean Air Act, EPA has granted or
provided 18-month extensions for the development of control strategies
for achieving secondary standards for total suspended particulates and/or
sulfur dioxide. These extensions are summarized in Table 3-6 of the
last SIP progress report. These were granted on the basis of an apparent
lack of reasonable available control technology or equipment, or, in the
case of some plans for particulate matter, inadequate data on which to
base the control strategy.
As noted in the last progress report, 13 States covering 24 AQCRs were
granted 18-month extensions for the particulate standard. Of these, plans
for 8 States, covering 16 AQCRs, have been submitted to EPA. Plans sub-
mitted by Hawaii and Virginia have been approved by EPA. The remaining
plans for 5 States and 8 AQCRs are now under development by EPA. To date,
plans for 3 States having extensions for the sulfur dioxide standard
covering 5 AQCRs have been submitted to EPA. Of these, Maryland's sub-
mittal for the Baltimore AQCR has been approved. Plans for the remaining
9 States and 13 portions of appropriate AQCRs are under development by
EPA. This includes specific regulations for sulfur dioxide emissions from
nonferrous smelters for 6 States (Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Idaho,
Montana, and Nevada) where extensions were not requested by the States but
were provided by EPA.
38
-------
CHANGES TO REGULATIONS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS2
Variances and Enforcement Orders
As a result of decisions by the First, Second, and Eighth Circuit
Courts, 40 CFR Part 51 may be amended to require that SIP regulations
and legal authority not allow the issuance of variances and enforcement
orders deferring compliance with the SIP beyond the dates specified in
the Clean Air Act unless the procedures of Section 110(f) of the Act are
met. This might require virtually all States to modify their enabling
authority and regulations to be consistent with the Act in this respect.
Tall Stacks
On September 14, 1973, EPA proposed changes to Part 51 setting forth
the conditions that must be met before States could utilize supplementary
control systems (SCS), i.e., emission curtailment during poor atmospheric
dispersion conditions, and tall stacks as temporary measures when reasonably
available control technology will not attain NAAQS. With respect to tall
stacks the Fifth Circuit Court has issued a ruling, in a case involving
the Georgia plan, that is consistent with part of EPA's September 14
proposal. Accordingly, EPA intends to finalize this proposal shortly
and call for a plan revision in several States where the plan is based
upon stack height regulations similar to Georgia's, i.e., regulations that
allow increased emissions as a function of increased stack height.
Continuous Emission Monitoring
Although the Act requires that SIPs contain provisions to require
that owners of stationary sources install emission monitoring devices, EPA
felt at the time Part 51 was promulgated in 1971 that the state-of-the-art
was such that it was not prudent to be specific about requirements for the
installation of continuous monitoring devices. Therefore, States were only
required to have the legal authority to compel sources to monitor emissions.
Since 1971, much work has been done by EPA and others to develop and field
test various emission monitors that are suitable in terms of accuracy,
reliability, and durability for measuring sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
dioxide, and opacity at certain types of sources. Therefore, a proposed
change to Part 51 that will require States to specify continuous emission
39
-------
monitoring for at least certain specified sources will be published shortly.
The sources covered will be essentially those for which continuous monitors
are required under provisions of the New Source Performance Standards.
(40 CFR Part 60), except for oil-burning plants.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3
1. State Air Pollution Implementation Plan Progress Report, June 30
to December 31, 1973. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA-450/2-74-004. April 1974.
2. 40 CFR Part 51 - Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and
submittal of Implementation Plans.
3. Federal Register. Volume 39, No. 90. May 8, 1974. p. 16343.
4. Federal Register. Volume 39, No. 133. July 10, 1974. p. 25330.
5. Federal Register. Volume 39, No. 156. August 12, 1974. p. 28906.
6. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970. Public Law 91 604. December 31, 1970.
7. 40 CFR Part 60 - Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources.
40
-------
SECTION 4 - PLAN REVISION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
BACKGROUND
1 2
As discussed in previous SIP progress reports, ' one important issue
facing EPA is whether the approved SIP control strategies will attain the
national ambient air quality standards within the time-frame prescribed
by the Clean Air Act.3
The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), EPA, has
developed and is now using the Plan Revision Management System (PRMS) to
assist Regional Offices in making evaluations of plan adequacy. The PRMS
identifies Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) with potentially deficient
SIPs by comparing the measured air quality values at each monitoring site
within an AQCR with the future air quality values for that site projected
from applicable SIP regulations, expected growth, source compliance status,
Transportation Control Plans, and automotive emission standards to
determine if adequate progress has been made toward attainment of the
standards.
ACTION PROCEDURES
When a potential deficiency is identified, OAQPS notifies the appro-
priate Regional Office (as discussed in the OAQPS guideline document),
which will then be responsible for investigating the special details of
the situation and determining the validity of the data and the magnitude of
the problem. This should be done in cooperation with the respective State
and local agencies. Such an investigation should include a determination
of the validity of the data in question as well as a review of the effec-
tiveness of the implementation plan control strategy. After completion
of such a review, legal action (State and/or EPA) may be required to
implement the SIP or revise it to correct any deficiency determined by the
referenced review.
41
-------
To assist the Regional Offices with their review, OAQPS provides
each Region with copies of the individual PRMS site reviews for each moni-
toring site that has been identified as having a possible deficiency within
60 days after the end of each semiannual reporting period.
The Regional Offices that have elected to use the PRMS have indicated
that it is a useful optional tool in coordinating their Surveillance and
Analysis, Air Programs, and Enforcement activities in the review of SIPs.
Investigations by Regional Offices are summarized in Table 4-1.
Site visits by Regional Offices are used to document the problems in
potentially deficient areas. The basic objective of the site visits is to
verify air quality data or to identify improper sampling procedures that
can be corrected, resulting in collection of valid data in the future.
Site visits can also assist in the understanding the impact of local
sources, a parameter that must be reviewed as part of SIP control strate-
gies. After completion of the site visits, some program reviews may be
required for understanding of potential deficiencies. In some cases, a
short-term field study may be designed to verify certain factors or
assumptions.
PRMS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
This discussion presents a short overview of the current PRMS analysis
of the 117 AQCRs performed by OAQPS and distributed to the Regional
Offices for review. Table 4-2 provides a list of these AQCRs. A supporting
document has been prepared by OAQPS that contains the detailed summary,
regional maps, and important individual site reviews for each AQCR
analyzed, summarized by Regional Offices. This supporting documentation
is available from OAQPS upon request.
Several important factors should be considered when reviewing the
analytical results. First, the projected air quality-time curves have
been developed using the proportional model and applying it to an entire
AQCR. In consideration of this fact, each individual site analysis
involves a preliminary review that does not attempt to provide final
work on the status of any AQCR. The PRMS is an optional evaluation tool
made available to Regional Offices by OAQPS to assist in determining
42
-------
Table 4-1. REGIONAL OFFICE INVESTIGATIONS (67 AQCRs)
Total
suspended
participate
Total
Sulfur
dioxide
Total
Carbon
monoxide
Total
Oxidants
Total
EPA
region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Analytical results
Number of
sites
analyzed
132
221
224
166
329
120
69
43
48
64
1416
101
94
102
101
166
44
16
4
54
16
698
11
25
8
4
19
2
7
5
28
6
115
3
17
10
1
9
1
5
2
44
5
97
Number of
sites
flagged
10
41
32
25
80
42
19
23
5
13
290
0
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
6
1
5
2
1
4
2
2
1
5
0
23
0
0
4
0
3
0
2
1
11
1
22
Number of Regional
Office investigations
initiated6
10
41
22
25
0
42
19
0
0
0
159
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
5
0
1
0
2
2
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
aNumber of analyzed monitoring sites that had a potential deficiency.
On a per site basis, number of planned or completed investigations (i.e.
data certification, program review, etc.).
43
-------
Table 4-2. AQCRs ANALYZED BY PRMS
Region I
Hartford-New Haven-Springfield
New Jersey-New York-Connecticut
Central Massachusetts
Metropolitan Boston
Metropolitan Providence
Merrimack Valley-Southern N.H.
Champlain Valley
Region II
New Jersey-New York-Connecticut
Metropolitan Philadelphia
New Jersey
Northeast Penn-Upper Del Valley
Central New York
Genesee-Finger Lakes
Hudson Valley
Niagara Frontier
Southern Tier West
Puerto Rico
U.S. Virgin Islands
Champlain Valley
Region III
Metropolitan Philadelphia
National Capital
Huntington-Ash land-Portsmouth
Metropolitan Baltimore
Northeast Penn-Upper Del Valley
Northwest Penn-Youngstown
Steubenvi11e-Wei rton-Wheeli ng
Central Pennsylvania
South Central Pennsylvania
Southwestern Pennsylvania
East Tenn-Southwestern Va.
Central Virginia
Hampton Roads
State Capital (Va.)
Kanawha Valley
Southern West Virginia
Region IV
East Alabama
Metropolitan Birmingham
Mobile-Pensacola-Panama City
Tenn River Valley-Cumberland Mts.
Metropolitan Memphis
Jacksonville-Brunswick
Southeast Florida
west Central Florida
Augusta-Aiken
Chattanooga
Metropolitan Atlanta
Paducah-Cairoa
Evansvi1le-Owensboro-Henderson
Louisville3
Metropolitan Cincinnati3
Hun tington-Ash land-Portsmouth"
Northeast Mississippi
Northern Piedmont
Eastern Mountain
Metropolitan Charlotte
Southern Coastal Plain
Western Mountain
Charleston
Greenville-Spartanburg
East Tenn-Southwestern Va.a
Middle Tennessee
Region V
Burlington-Keokuk3
Metropolitan Chicago
Metropolitan Quad Cities6
Metropolitan St. Louis
Paducah-Cairo
West Central Illinois
East Central Indiana
Evansville-Owensboro-Hendersona
Louisville
Metropolitan Cincinnati3
Metropolitan Indianapolis
South Bend-Elkhart-Benton Harbor
Wabash Valley
Huntington-Ashland-Portsmoutha
Central Michigan
Metropolitan Detroit-Port Huron
Metropolitan Toledo
South Central Michigan
Upper Michigan
Southeast Minnesota-La Crosse
Duluth Superior
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Southwest Minnesota
Dayton
Greater Metropolitan Cleveland
Mansfield-Marion
Metropolitan Columbus
Northwest Penn-Youngstown
Steubenville-Weirton-Wheeling
Lake Michigan
Southeast Wisconsin
Region VI
Central Arkansas
Metropolitan Memphis
Northeast Arkansas
Shreveport-Texarkana-Ty1er
Southern La-Southeastern Texas
Albuquerque-Mid Rio Grande
El Paso-Las Cruces-Alamogordo
Central Oklahoma
Northeast Oklahoma
Southwest Oklahoma
Amarillo-Lubbock
Austin-Waco
Metropolitan Dallas-Ft. Worth
Metropolitan Houston-Galveston
Metropolitan San Antonio
Region VII
Burlington-Keokuk3
Metropolitan Quad Cities3
Metropolitan St. Louis
Metropolitan Omaha-Council Bluffs
Metropolitan Kansas City
Northwest Kansas
South Central Kansas
Southeast Missouri
Nebraska
Region VIII
Grand Mesa
Metropolitan Denver
Pawnee
San Isabel
Wasatch Front
Region IX
Clark-Mohave
Phoenix-Tucson
Metropolitan Los Angeles
Sacramento Valley
San Diego
San Francisco
San Joaquin Valley
Hawaii
Region X
Northern Alaska
Eastern Idaho
Eastern Wash-Northern Idaho
Portland
Puget Sound
Interregional AQCR.
44
-------
the adequacy of an existing SIP. It is recognized that Regional Office
personnel have day-to-day contact with the State and local agencies and
are aware of unique characteristics of each AQCR. Accordingly, they are
in the best postion to evaluate problem areas. PRMS was designed to
provide an indication of how the AQCR is progressing toward attainment
of the air quality standards based upon the air quality data available
from Storage and Retrieval of Aerometric Data (SAROAD).
The system considers the applicable State and Federal regulations,
Transportation Control Plans, and the Federal motor vehicle control program
in the development of the projected air quality curve. Accordingly, AQCRs
will not be flagged if the observed air quality is following the predicted
trend even though the air quality is above the applicable standard.
A projected air quality curve is based on the assumption that local,
State, or Federal agencies will continue implementing their regulations as
prescribed. The resulting air quality data should reflect this enforcement
by continuing to follow the projected curve.
For PRMS to be effective, it is important that air quality data contained
in SAROAD be current and collected from a representative sampling network
consistent with EPA minimum monitoring requirements. Additionally, con-
sideration should be given to the sample collection and analysis methods
to assure that they are consistent with EPA guidelines.
A review of the PRMS analytical results for the 117 AQCRs has re-
sulted in the observations discussed below. In order to provide a more
accurate overview of the analytical results, the 67 AQCRs that were
previously analyzed and contained in the 117 AQCRs currently being tracked
are included in the review.
Approximately 79 percent of the national population is represented
within the 117 AQCRs. The analysis includes approximately 80 percent of
all the total suspended particulates and sulfur dioxide, 97 percent of
the carbon monoxide, and 55 percent of the oxidant data currently con-
tained in the SAROAD system.
45
-------
The current PRMS analysis of the progress being made toward attain-
ment of the national ambient air quality standards for total suspended
particulates involves the analysis of over 2000 monitoring sites. Of
those analyzed, 15 percent were identified as being potentially deficient.
This study resulted in 102 of the 117 AQCRs being identified as having a
possible problem. Generally, the problems were localized, but in some
cases there did appear to be a problem throughout the AQCR.
PRMS analysis of sulfur dioxide data for the 117 AQCRs indicated that
very few problems exist in the 117 AQCRs relative to attainment of that
national ambient air quality standard. The sulfur dioxide analysis in-
cluded the review of approximately 800 monitoring sites and identified one
percent of them as having possible problems. The analysis indicated that
most metropolitan areas will attain the national standard for sulfur
dioxide. Problems relative to attainment of the short term (24-hour and
3-hour) sulfur dioxide standard appeared to be more common than with the
annual sulfur dioxide standard, and are generally observed around large
isolated point sources such as power plants and smelters.
The analysis of the available carbon monoxide and oxidant data
required the review of 167 and 93 sites, respectively. Approximately 18
percent of the carbon monoxide and 38 percent of the oxidant sites
appeared to have problems.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4
1. State Air Pollution Implementation Plan Progress Report, January 1 to
June 30, 1973. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA-450/2-73-005. September 1973.
2. State Implementation Plan Progress Report, June 30 to December 31, 1973.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. EPA-450/2-74-004. April 1974.
3. Clean Air Act Amendment of 1970. Public Law 91 604. December 31, 1970.
4. Guidelines for Determining the Needs for Plan Revisions to the Control
Strategy Portion of the Approved State Implementation Plans. Control
Programs Development Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. OAQPS No. 1.2-001 (Draft). November 1973.
46
-------
SECTION 5 -
ENFORCEMENT OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
The Clean Air Act amendments of 1970 allow 3 years from the date of
SIP approval to reduce pollution levels to health-related ambient air
quality standards. Except for portions of 16 States, where an extension
of up to 2 years has been granted for one or more pollutants, the pri-
mary ambient air quality standards for particulate matter, sulfur
dioxide, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide are to be met by July 1975.
In order to meet this deadline, the enforcement of emission limitations in
the State plans has been given first priority by EPA and State air pollu-
tion programs. Success in enforcing SIPs hinges upon the accomplishment
of four major tasks.
1. The identification and investigation of possible violators
to determine their compliance status.
2. Assurance that expeditious compliance schedules are
established for violators.
3. Assurance that the increments of progress in compliance
schedules are met in a timely manner.
4. Assurance that sources initially found in compliance or
sources that come into compliance continue to meet emission
requirements.
State and Federal programs face an immense task in achieving com-
pliance, since there are estimated to be over 200,000 stationary sources
subject to SIP emission standards. Of this number, however, between 18
and 20 thousand are major emitters (i.e., "point sources" - facilities
individually capable of emitting over 100 tons of a pollutant per year).
As a class, point sources emitted:
47
-------
1. 82 percent of the particulate matter emitted by all stationary
sources (15,128,000 tons in 1972).
2. 86 percent of the sulfur oxides emitted by all stationary
sources (29,043,000 tons in 1972).
3. 89 percent of nitrogen oxides emitted by all stationary sources
(14,125,000 tons in 1972).
4. 65 percent of hydrocarbon pollutants emitted by all stationary
sources (7,037,000 tons in 1972).
5. 86 percent of the carbon monoxide emitted by all stationary
sources (19,037,000 tons in 1972).
Accordingly EPA has placed high priority in obtaining compliance by this
class of emitters. As indicated in Table 5-1, the number of point sources
investigated by States and EPA is now about 16,400 up from 12,000 in
December 1973. Of these, over 10,000 point sources are now complying with
applicable emission standards (up from 7600 at last report) and over 2000
are on EPA and State approved compliance schedules. Of some 3800 major
emitters in violation of emission standards and without EPA approved
schedules, about 1500 have State schedules that are now being reviewed
by EPA. The compliance status of roughly 1500 more is in the process of
being verified, and State or EPA enforcement actions are pending for the
remainder. Efforts are continuing in States and EPA Regional Offices,
through special contractual efforts, to determine the compliance status
of all remaining point sources.
The responsibility for enforcement of SIP emission limitations is
shared by EPA and States. The Clean Air Act recognizes that States have
first responsibility to achieve clean air within their jurisdiction. In
the event States do not enforce the air pollution standards needed to
achieve national ambient air quality standards, however, the Act requires
EPA to take action. In accordance with the intent of the Act, the EPA
air enforcement program has been designed to bolster State air enforcement
efforts (1) by providing assistance to the State agencies in the forms of
control agency grants, provision of specialized skill and expertise, or
special contractual efforts and (2) by taking enforcement actions against
selected sources when the State could not or would not enforce.
48
-------
Since July 1973, EPA has conducted over 3000 investigations under the
authority of Section 114 of the Act to determine source compliance status
and has undertaken 275 enforcement actions under the authority of Section 113
to secure source compliance (Table 5-2). Current EPA enforcement actions
are shown in Table 5-4 (at the end of the section). In many instances the
table notes initiation of an EPA enforcement action that triggers action
by the States. In the next 12 months, the number of investigations and EPA
enforcement actions are expected to more than double. Implicit in EPA's
role of assuring that the Act is implemented is the responsibility to
determine that source compliance is maintained, once achieved. In many
cases, the cost of properly maintaining and operating pollution control
devices exceeds the initial cost of purchase and installation. In order to
assure that the environmental gains produced by the initial enforcement
effort continue, State and EPA programs are being initiated to monitor
closely the progress sources make in meeting compliance schedule incre-
ments of progress. The Compliance Data System is now being implemented by
all Regional Offices to provide a means of recording the status of source
compliance, the planning of surveillance and enforcement actions, and the
coordination of the efforts of the various components of Regional Offices
to assure source compliance. Table 5-3 summarizes the status of CDS
development.
Despite this progress in SIP enforcement, several major categories
of point sources may not achieve compliance with emission standards within
the time limits prescribed by the Act, delaying the attainment of ambient
air quality standards. Notable among these sources are coal-fired power
plants, iron and steel manufacturing plants, smelters, and industrial/
commercial boilers. Special efforts now being initiated to assure com-
pliance by these classes of sources are addressed below.
STATUS OF EPA's POWER PLANT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
As discussed in the last semiannual report, EPA held a special
public hearing last fall in Washington, D. C., to review the status of
power plant compliance with sulfur dioxide (S0£) air pollution emission
limitations. The hearing was called because power plants are the largest
49
-------
Table 5-1. SUMMARY OF STATUS OF COMPLIANCE BY MAJOR EMITTERS
WITH SIP EMISSION STANDARDS
EPAa
Regional
Office
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
Total
installations
investigated
869
920b
2,371
4,664
2,017
2,108
523
434
1,690
748
16,344b
Number of
installations
in compliance
474
525
1,208
3,116
794
1,780
390
219
1,362
561
10,429
.. Number of installations in violation
With EPA
approved schedules
139
328
141
579
661
0
4
0
185
52
2,089
Without EPA
approved schedules
256
67
1,022
969
562
328
129
215
143
135
3,826
Information relative to each State can be obtained from EPA Regional Office.
'Estimated 700 or more major emitters yet to be investigated by State or EPA.
Table 5-2. SUMMARY OF EPA ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY,
JULY 1, 1973 TO JUNE 30, 1974
EPA
Regional
Office
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
Formal
inquiries
(Section 114
letters)
108
535
149
71
427
106
15
179
343
54
1987
Site
inspections
and tests
69
71
66
75
76
127
81
129
439
79
1168
Notices
of
violation
17
9
40
5
67
1
20
35
26
8
228
Enforcement orders
and civil /criminal
cases
8
3
13
0
10
0
6
1
5
1
47
50
-------
Table 5-3. STATUS OF COMPLIANCE DATA SYSTEM FILE AS OF JUNE 28, 1974
EPA
Region
ia
II
Ilia
IVa
Va
VI3
VIIa
VIIIa
IX
Xa
Total
Point source
facilities,
FY 75
start level
877
1,356
2,546
3,094
1,793
3,toO
764
414
1,690
680
16,664
CDS file
Total
sources
868
963
2,358
3,510
502
79
379
104
221
1,482
10,466
Point source
facilities
on file
868
963
2,358
3,094
502
79
379
104
221
680
9,027
Percent
on
file
99
71
93
100
28
2
50
25
13
100
54
Comments
Data fairly complete; in-
crements to be updated
soon by contractor
Many increments already
updated; New Jersey in-
formation to be completely
revised
Contractor revising entire
file
Data fairly complete; in-
crements to be updated by
contractor
Contractor to complete and
update file
All available schedules are
on file; contractor to
complete and update file
All schedules are on file
and will be up to date
soon; remaining point
sources to be entered by
Region.
Contractor to complete and
update file
All EPA and approvable State
schedules are on file; in-
crements are being updated;
remaining sources with en-
forcement actions being
entered
Data fairly complete; incre-
ments are being updated
Contractor assistance being utilized.
51
-------
source of S02 emissions in the United States (emitting about 60 percent
of total S02 emissions) and because large numbers of power plants were not
in compliance with SCL emission limitations and were not on compliance
schedules to meet the limitations. Further, the national shortage of
available low-sulfur coal adds to the complexity of this problem. Flue
Gas Desulfurization (FGD) can remove S02 from the combustion gases and there-
fore enable power plants to meet emission requirements while using high-
sulfur coal. Unfortunately, the utility industry has generally been
reluctant to apply these systems.
The hearing panel found that installation of FGD systems must be
greatly accelerated by the utility industry if S02 emission requirements
adopted pursuant to the Clean Air Act are to be met in the 1970s. On the
basis of utility and FGD vendor testimony, the panel concluded that the
electric utility industry has not aggressively sought out solutions to
the problems that they allege exist with FGD technology, and that these
alleged problems can be, and have been, solved at a reasonable cost.
In implementing these recommendations, EPA has been placing high
priority on the establishment of realistic compliance schedules for power
plants so that S02 emission limitations will be met. A review of data on
all power plants in the country indicated that some 90 coal-fired power
plants should receive high priority for control so that primary standards
will be attained in an expeditious manner. These plants total about
65,000 megawatts generating capacity, which is roughly 40 percent of all
coal-fired generating capacity in the United States. EPA Regional Offices
have sent Section 114 letters to almost all of these plants to determine
if the companies have any firm plans to comply with applicable S02
emission limitations. With the exception of a few that had made contractual
obligations for obtaining low-sulfur coal, it was found that there were
generally no such plans.
Consequently, EPA has begun enforcement actions against power plants.
During this semiannual period, notices of violations have been issued to
7 utility companies for S02 violations at 18 plants. Subsequent orders
to be issued for the plants will be expeditious and reasonable, taking
into account the time required to install control equipment or to obtain
52
-------
low-sulfur coal. The number of plants required to control within each
company will be considered in the development of these orders. EPA is
also negotiating with several utility companies for Federal consent orders
that would establish expeditious but reasonable schedules for compliance
through installation of FGD systems.
Overall, EPA's power plant enforcement program has been moving ahead
at a rapid pace. During this semiannual period, the program has moved from
the basic data gathering phase to active enforcement. It is anticipated
that all the additional priority plants will be the subject of enforcement
activity during the next semiannual period. A major obstacle toward
meeting this objective is that almost two-thirds of the plants identified
for enforcement priority are under SIPs that are presently the subject of
litigation or that are in the process of being revised. EPA has placed
high priority on getting these problems resolved.
OTHER PROBLEM SOURCE CATEGORIES
In addition to power plants, there are several other categories of
major sources that pose particularly difficult compliance problems. Some of
these sources will not be in compliance by mid-1975, and vigorous Federal
enforcement is required to assure compliance as soon as practicable. Source
categories include industrial boilers, iron and steel plants and smelters,
which, as a class, are responsible for more than 20 percent of particulate
matter and over 24 percent of sulfur dioxide emitted by all stationary
sources. EPA has taken the following actions for these categories of
polluters:
1. Steel mills - The iron and steel industry in the United States
consists of over 200 companies, with plants located in 37
states (primarily in the north-central part of the United
States and in Alabama and Texas). State and local enforce-
ment programs have had difficulty enforcing standards for
these sources due to the size and complexity of the pollution
control problems. In the last 6 months, EPA has initiated
enforcement actions against 9 of the largest iron and steel
companies (Table 5-4).
53
-------
2. Industrial boilers - There are about 3500 coal-fired industrial
and commercial boilers in the United States. Control of these
sources is especially needed in urban areas not yet meeting
the primary ambient air quality standards for sulfur dioxide.
Basic enforcement problems are presented by the large number
of these sources and the difficulty in establishing reasonable
and expeditious compliance schedules when the availability of
low-sulfur fuels may be in question and the availability of
FGD systems is limited. An analysis is being conducted to
pinpoint violating sources within this large group of emitters
for selective EPA and/or State enforcement actions.
3. Smelters - Smelters alone contribute about 10 percent of the
sulfur dioxide emissions from all stationary sources. Abate-
ment at these sources, essential to the achievement of
ambient air quality standards in many parts of the western
United States, has been delayed due to difficulty in
establishing adequate control technology.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5
1. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970. Public Law 91 604. December 31, 1970.
2. 1972 National Emissions Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA-450/2-74-012. June 1974.
3. State Air Pollution Implementation Plan Progress Report, June 30 to
December 31, 1973. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA-450/2-004. April 1974.
54
-------
Table 5-4. CURRENT EPA ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
UNDER STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
JANUARY 1974 TO JUNE 30, 1974
NOTE: This table contains only those actions initiated, or continuing through the semi-annual period by
EPA to enforce SIP emission limitations. Enforcement actions are grouped by EPA Regional Office
and State,and listed alphabetically by company within each State.
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
REGION I
Connecticut,
Rockville
cn
Amerbelle Corp.
Printing.
Organic emissions
Notice of violation is- Conference held 8/19/74.
sued 8/5/74.
Connecticut,
Bridgeport
Bullard Castings,
Inc.
Cupula Furnaces
Violation of Conn.
particulate matter
(process emissions
visible emissions
and fugitive dust)
regs.
Notice of violation is-
sued 10/12/73. Admin.
order issued 2/14/74.
The Co. has complied with
the second five increments
of the order. The state is
monitoring progress. The
case is pending.
Connecticut,
Derby
Hull Dye and Print
Print Works
Textile
Operation
Violations of visi- Notice of violation is-
ble emission,
hydrocarbon emis-
sion limitations
and nuisance
caused by un-
controlled emis-
sions from the
drying operation.
sued 12/5/73. Admin.
order issued 2/14/74.
A conference was held on
12/27/73. They complied
with the first increment
on 9/15/74. The State is
monitoring their progress.
The case is pending.
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Connecticut,
Waterbury
Waterbury Rolling
Mills, Inc.
Metallurgical
Operation
Violations of visi- Notice of violation is-
ble emissions caus- sued 10/31/73. Admin.
ed by uncontrolled order issued 2/14/74.
metallurgical
operations.
The co. has not complied with
the first increment of order
due to finance difficulties.
Co. is presently negotiating
with Conn. Development authority
to act as guarantor to private
financing.
Maine,
Winslow
on
Scott Paper Co.
Paper Manufac-
ture
Violation of Me.
Implementation
Plan dates.
Consent order was
sued 6/7/74.
is- EPA is monitoring company's
progress in accordance with
the Consent Order, State
Implementation dates.
Massachusetts, Boston Edison Co.
Boston New Boston Sta-
tion
Violation of visi-
ble emission regs.
Power Plants
Notice of violation
issued 11/9/73.
114 letter issued. The Co.
will conduct stack tests to
correlate Edison test methods
with EPA's Method #5. Case
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Massachusetts
Boston
Boston Edison Co.
L Street Sta-
tion
Power Plant
Violation of visi-
ble emission regs.
Notice of violation
issued 11/9/73.
114 letter issued. The Co.
will conduct stack tests to
correlate Edison test methods
with EPA's Method #5. Case
pending.
Massachusetts,
Everett
Massachusetts,
iawrence
Boston Edison Co.
Mystic Sta-
tion
Power Plant
Lawrence, City
of
Open Burning
Violation of visi-
ble emission regs.
Violation of open
burning regs.
Notice of violation
issued 11/9/73.
Notice of violation
issued 6/6/73.
114 letter issued. The Co.
will conduct stack tests to
correlate Ediston test methods
with EPA's Method #5. Case
pending.
Incinerator has been shut
down and transfer station
is being constructed the
incinerator site. Upon
completion the transfer
station construction, the
open face of the. dump will
be covered under the supervi-
sion of the Department of
Publie"Health Solid Waste
Office.
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Massachusetts,
Somerset
New England Power
Co. : Brayton Point
Power Plant
Violation of S02
particulate regs .
Notice of violation
issued 9/6/73.
Electrostatic precipitators
are being upgraded. Further
studies xtfill be conducted on
flue gas desulfurization. The
case is pending.
Massacussetts ,
Sonunerville
en
oo
Massachusetts
Sonunerville Smelt-
ing
Metallurgical
Process
Penn Central Trans.
Company
Passenger and Frei-
ght Terminals
Violation of visi-
ble emission reg.
Transfer of cement
products creating
visible emissions;
trucks idling con-
trary to require-
ments of Mass. SIP.
Notice of violation
issued 1-8-74. Admin.
order issued 4/30/74
Notice of violation
issued 7/2/73. Admin.
order issued 4/12/74
for commuter passenger
service.
The Co. has submitted final
plans and specs to MA Dept.
of Public Health for approv-
al . The case is pending.
Commuter passenger service
ordered to cease excessive
idling violations.
The case is pending.
Massachusetts
Arlington
Wilfret Brothers
Realty Trust
Incinerator
Violation of Mass
incinerator regs.
Notice of violation
issued 7/2/73. Admin.
order issued 12/3/73.
Presently in compliance with
terms of order.
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Rhode Island
Cranston
Rhode Island
Smithfield
ITT Grinell
Gray Iron Foundry
Narragansett Gray
Iron Foundry
Gray Iron
Foundry
Violaton of visible Notice of violation
emissions and reg. issued 2/7/74.
Violation of visi-
ble emissions and
particulate emis-
sion limitations.
Notice of violation
issued 12/10/73. Admin.
order issued 2/14/74.
Co. contemplates sale to Fair-
mont Foundry Order is scheduled
to be issued 8/16/74 for both
co.s and require the installation
of appropriate air pollution
control equipment.
Conference held 1/17/74. The Co.
has complied with the first in-
crement the order. A delay in
equipment delivery required an
amendment to the order.
en
Rhode Island
Ashton
Owens-Corning Fiber-
glass
Manufacturing
Violation of parti- Notice of violation is-
culate and visible sued 2/4/74. Admin.
emissions regs . order issued 3/29/74.
Company chose to achieve
compliance by process
order issued 3/29/74.
stack tests to verify such
such compliance are scheduled
to be completed by 8/31/74.
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
cr>
O
Rhode Island
Lincoln
Rhode Island
Woonsocket
Taggart Sand Pro-
ducts
Woonsocket, City of
Open Burning
Violation of fugi- Notice of violation is-
tive dust and visi- sued 2/14/74. Admin.
ble emissions regs. order issued 4/18/74.
Violation of open
burning regs.
Notice of violation i:
sued on 2/7/73. Order
i.= su»d 7/7/73.
Company complying with
order.
3/7/73, a conference was held
held with representatives
of the city, who agreed to
cease all open burning of
debris except that gener-
ated by HUD. Region I is
attempting informally to
assist HUD in the resolution
of its disposal problems.
Vermont
Ansonia
Vermont
Burlington
Anaconda American
Brass
Smelting
J.B. Moran Genera-
ting Station
Power Plant
Operation of 10
uncontrolled in-
duction furnaces
Administrative
order issued
5/16/74.
Violation of parti- Notice oi violation
culate and opacity issued on 8/24/73.
regs.
Presently in compliance
with terms of order.
The company is modifying
control equipment. EPA
is monitoring progress.
The case is pending.
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
REGION II
New York
Rochester
New York
Green Island
Castle Co., Div.
of Sybron Corp.
Chemical Mfg.
Ford Motor Co.
Auto parts Mfg.
New York Hudson Valley
Mount Marion Light
Weight Aggre-
gare Corp.
New York North Hempstead
Ft. Washington Municipal Inci-
nerator
Failure to respond Administrative order
to 6114 inquiry. issued 6/4/74.
Violation of opa- Notice of violation is-
city reg. sued 1/11/74.
Failure to respond Adminis. order is-
to $114 inquiry.
Violaton of opac- Notice of violation
ity regs. issued 6/7/74.
Source in compliance
with order.
State action initiated
company put in new boiler
and upgraded operating
procedures.
Complied with order.
Conference held on
6/26/74.
Incinerator
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Puerto Rico, Puerto Rican
Pueblo Viejo Cement, Inc.
Lime Kilns
Violation of opac- Notice of violation is-
ity reg. sued 5/9/74.
Conference held
6/6/74.
en
IV)
U.S. Virgin Us. St. Croix Stone
Frederiksted and Sand, Inc.
Virgin Island
St. Croix
Rock Crushing
Hess Oil Virgin
islands Corp.
Oil Refinery
Violation of parti- Notice of violation is-
culate emissions sued 1/28/74. Admin.
reg. order issued 4/18/74.
Violation of feder- Notice of violation
ally promulgated sued 6/6/74.
new source review
requirements (ex-
pansion in progress)
Source presently in
compliance with
EPA order.
Conference held 6/20/74.
Further evidence to be
presented 8/20/74.
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
REGION III
Delaware
Claymont
Allied Chemical
Corp.
CT)
CO
Sulfuric Acid
Plant
Maryland, Bayshore Foods,
Eastern Shore
Grain Dryer
Maryland,
Rockville
Maryland,
Maryland
Montgomery Cty.
Incinerator
Incinerator
PEPCO
Chalk Point
PEPCO
Dickerson
Violation of mass
emission rate regs.
Notice of violation is-
sued on 5/24/72. Order
comply issued on
6/18/72.
Amended order is-
sued on 6/18/74.
Violation of visi- 12/28/73 - Notice of
ble emission violation.
standards
Commencing on 11/10/72,
bimonthly progress re-
ports have been submitted
to EPA resulted in con-
struction schedule with
increments of progress,
schedule is presently being
complied with. Amended order
issued to discontinue monthly
reporting.
1/24/73 - conference held
7/5/74 draft consent orders
mailed to co.
Failure to respond
to sl!4 letter.
Violation of S02
and particulates
Violation of S02
and particulates.
Administrative order is- Response received
issued 4/23/74. engineering review
being performed.
Notices of violation(3)
issued 5/31/74.
Notices of violation(3)
issued 5/31/74.
Conference held on
7/25/74.
Conference held on
7/25/74.
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
*'ai'\land, Perdue, Inc.
Eastern Shore
Grain Drver
>!aryland,
Baltimore
Southern States
Grain Cooperative,
Grain Drver
Violation of visi- 12/28/73 - Notice of
ble emission violation.
standards
Violation 01" visi- 12/28/73 - Notice of
ble emission violation
standards
1/24/73 - conference held
7/5/74 draft consent orders
mailed to co.
1/24/73 - conference held
7/5/74 draft consent orders
mailed to co.
Maryland, Snow Hill Grain,
Eastern Shore
Grain Dryer
Violation of visi- 12/28/7? - Notice of
ble emission violation
standards
1/24/73 - conference held
7/5/74 - draft consent
order mailed to co.
Maryland, WTiittington Poul-
Eastern Shore try Farms
Grain Drver
Violation of visi- 12/28/73 - Notice of
ble emission violation
standards
1/24/73 - conference held
7/5/74 draft consent orders
mailed to co.
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Pennsylvania
Allentown
Penn. Elec. Co.
Seward
Station
Violation of parti- Notice of violation
culates and S02 issued 6/19/74.
standards.
Power Plant
Pennsylvania
Clairton
01
U. S.
Works
Steel Clairton
Coke. Ovens
Violations of opac- Notice of violation
ity and particulate issued 11/8/73.
emission standard.
Referred to U.S. Atty. for
combustion stacks door
leaks, & topside emission
on 6/7/74.
Referral to U.S. Atty.
for pushing sent on
7/11/74.
Pennsylvania,
Courtney
West Penn Power
Co.
Mitchell
Station
Violation of SOx and Notice of violation
particulate stds. issued 9/13/73.
One conference held. A
second conference to be held
in August, 1974.
Coke Ovens
Virginia
Arlington
Arlington County
Incinerator
Sludge
Incinerator
Violation of parti- Notice of violation sent Awaiting stack test
culate emission on 3/14/74, order to results.
standards. stack test issued 7/2/74.
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Pennsylvania,
Wyomissing
Pennsylvania,
Reading
Metals Engineer-
ing, Inc.
Metallergy Shop
Reading Gray
Iron Casting,
Inc.
Failure to respond
to sl!4 letter.
Order issued on
4/3/74.
Failure to respond Order issued on 4/3/74.
to sl!4 letter.
Company complied with
order on 5/15/74.
Company responded to order
on 5/15/74.
Pennsylvania,
Allentown
Gray Iron
Foundry
Penn. Elec. Co.
Front St.
Station
Violation of parti- Notice of violation
culates and S02 issued 6/19/74.
standards.
Power Plant
Pennsylvania
Allentown
Penn. Elec. Co.
Warren
Station
Violation of parti- Notice of violation
culates and S02 issued 6/19/74.
standards.
Power Plant
Pennsylvania
Allentown
Penn. Elec. Co.
Shawville
Station
Violation of parti- Notice of violation
culates and S02 issued 6/19/74.
standards.
Power Plant
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Virginia
Arlington
Arlington County
Incinerator
Sludge
Incinerator
Violation of parti- Notice of violation sent Awaiting stack test
culate emission on 3/14/74, order to results.
standards. stack test issued 7/2/74..
Virginia
Danville
Virginia
Danville
Boise Cascade
Boiler
Brantly Generating
Station
Power Plant
Violation of parti- Notice of violation
culate emission on 3/15/74.
standards.
Violation of parti- Notice of violation
culate emission issued 6/4/74.
limitation.
Company complied with
order. Met first
increment.
Conference held on
7/29.
Virginia
Richmond,
Federal Paper
Board Inc.
Boiler
Violation of parti- Notice of violation
culate emission issued 4/17/74.
limits.
Awaiting sLack test
results.
Virginia
Alexandria
PEPCO Station
Power Plant
Violation of opac- Notice of violation
ity limitation. issued 1/30/74.
Administrative order
issued 6/25.
Conference held 2/27/74.
Meeting to discuss order
with Co. scheduled for
7/25/74.
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/SIATUS
REGION IV
Alabama,
Demopolis
Lone Star Industr-
ies, Inc.
Cement Plant
Violation of Fed-
erally approved
Alabama Imple-
mentation plan
for particulate
and SO,,
of violation is-
sued I/14/74.
A conference was held on 7/2/74.
An administrative order was
issued on 7/17/74.
Florida,
Barton
W. R. Grace
Phosphate rock
dryers
Violation of Fla.
PM and S00 reg.
Notice of violation is- Order issued 8/19/74.
sued 6/11/74.
01
O3
Florida,
Gibsonton
Florida,
Nichols
Gardinier Inc.
Phosphate reck
dryers
Mobile Chem. Co.
Phosphate rock
dryers
Violation of Fla.
PM and S0n reg.
Violation of Fla.
PM and SO reg.
Notice of violation is- Order issued 8/19/74.
sued 6/11/74.
Notice of violation is- Order issued 8/19/74.
sued 6/11/74.
Florida
Paiatka
Hudson Pulp &
Paper Co.
Pulp & Paper
Plant
Source missed 1st
increment of State
adopted Federally
approved compli-
ance schedule for
SO and particulate
Notice of violation is-
sued 12/20/73.
Administrative order issued
1/21/74.
-------
COMPANY/TYPE
STATE/CITY OF SOURCE POLLUTION PROBLEM TYPE OF ACTION RESULTS/STATUS
Tennessee, Monsanto Indus- Violation of 3 in- Notice of violation is-
Columbia trial Chero. Co. creraents of fed- sued 4/8/74:
erally promul-
Chem. Co. gated categorical
compliance sched-
ule .
Tennessee, Monsanto Indus- Violation of Tenn. Notice of violation is-
Columbia tries Chem. Co. S02 reg. sued 4/20/74.
Rotary Kilns
en
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
REGION V
1 llir.ois,
Chicago
American Brick
Company
Brick Kiln &
Crusher
Violation of 111.
opacity and parti-
culate emission
standards.
Notice of violation
issued 1/21/74.
State suit filed, no
lurcher Federal action
at this tine.
Illinois,
East Feoria
Illinois
Bartonville
Central Illin-
ois
Boilers
Central Illinois
Light Co. Edward
Station
Power Plant
Violation of Feder- Notice of violation
al compliance sched-issued 12/20/73.
ule for Illinois
particulate emission
standard.
Conference held 8/1/74.
Violation of SOx
reg & Federal
compliance
schedule.
Notice of violation
issued 5/31/74.
Conference held 8/1/74
Illinois, Granite City
Granite City Steel Co.
Coke Ovens
Violation of 111.
particulate std.
and federal
compliance
schedule.
Notice of violation
issued 3/13/74.
State action pending.
Illinois
Blue Island
Illinois Brick
Company
Brick Kiln
Violation of parti- Notice of violation
culate standard. issued 3/4/74.
Complaint fileu before
Illinois Pollution Control
Board, further Federal
action deterred.
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPK OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Illinois,
Chicago
Illinois,
Thornton
International
Harvester Co.
Coke Oven
Marblehead Lime
Company
Illinois Texaco Refinery
Lawrenceville Inc.
Storage Tanks
Violation of f
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Elgin
Woodruft
Edwards, Inc.
Cupola
Violation of cai- Notice of violation is- Awaiting results of
bon monoxide stds. sued b/7/74. stack test.
Indiana,
Newburg
ALCOA
Aluminum Smelter
Violation of parti- Notice of violation
culate matter emis- issued 1/4/74.
sion standard.
Awaiting stack test results.
Indiana
Munster
American Brick Co.
Brick Kiln &
Crusher
Violation of parti- Notice of violation is- Awaiting results of stack test.
culate and opacity sued 1/21/74.
standards.
Indiana,
Whiting
American Oil Co.
Oil Refinery
Violation of sulfur Notice of violation
oxide and opacity issued 9/10/73.
standards.
Presently on enforceable
state order.
Indiana Blaw-Know Foundry
East Chicago
Open Hearth
Furnace
Violation of parti- Notice of violation
culate matter emis-issued 1/21/74.
sion standards. Administrative order
issued 4/15/74.
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Indiana
Bloomington
Bloomington
Crushed Stone
Co.
Quarry
Violation of opaci- Notice of violation is-
ty and particulate sued 10/31/73.
matter eni=~ion
standards.
Presently in compliance with
regulation.
Indiana
Terre Haute
Indiana
Cannellon
Indiana
Largo
C.F. Industries
Ammonium Nitrate
Process.
Can-Tex Industries,
Inc.
Shale Grinding
Celotex Corporation
Boilers
Violation of parti- Notice of violation is-
culate matter emis- sued 10/9/73, Aclnin.
sion standards. order issued 1/31/74.
Violation of parti- Notice of violation is-
culate matter emis- sued 10/17/73 Admin.
sion standard. order issued 1/24/74.
Violation of parti- Notice of violation
culate matter emis- issued 1/23/74. Admin.
sion standard. order issued 3/26/74.
Presently complying with
terns of order.
Presently in compliance with
terms of order.
Presently in compliance with
order
Indiana Central Soya Co.
Indianapolis
Boilers
Violation of parti- Notice of violation
culate matter emis- issued 10/12/73.
sion standard.
Presently in compliance
Indiana
Cayuga
Colonial Brick Corp. Violation of parti- Notice of violation is-
culate emission sued 12/4/73.
Brick Mfj. standard.
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Indiana
Container Corp. of
America
Boilers
Violation of parti- Notice of violation is- State schedule adopted.
culate matter and sued 10/9/73.
S02 emission std.
Indiana
Richmond
Dana Corp.
Cupolas
Violation of opac- Notice of violation is-
ity and particulate sued 10/30/73.
matter emission
standards.
Presently in compliance.
Indiana
Indianapolis
Indian^,
Marion
Indiana
Noblesville
Ford Motor Co.
Boilers paint
spraying, drying
oven f, degreaser.
Foster Forbes
Glass Co.
Class Mfg.
Hamilton Cty.
Asphalt, Inc.
Asphaltic
''oncrete
Awaiting stack test,
Violation of hvdro- Notice of violation
carbon and particu- issued 6/11/74.
late matter
emission standards.
Source refused info.Admin, order issued
requested in sec- 11/21/73.
tion 114 letter.
Violation of parti- Notice of violation
culate matter emis- issued 1/2/74.
sion standard.
Violation of parti- Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance with
culate matter emis- issued 11/19/73. Admin, terms of order.
sion standard. order issued 1/28/74.
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Indiana
Petersburg
Indiana Rural Elec,
Coop. , Inc.
Power Plant
Violation of opac-
ity and particula-
te matter ^mission
standards. (SOx
ted).
Consent .irder is-
sued 7/10/74.
Awaiting Co. and state
signatures.
tn
Indiana
Bloomington
Indiana,
East Chicago
Indiana,
Indianapolis
Indiana U.
Power Plant
Inland Steel Co.
Steel Mill
Violation of parti- Notice of violation is-
culate natter emis-- sued 10/24/73 admin.
sion standard. order issued 1/8/74.
Violation of opaci- Notice of violation is-
ty emission stand- sued 7/18/73.
ard.
Presently in compliance
with terms of order
At present time, no further
Federal action anticipated
since cited source is on en-
forceable State schedule.
International Harvest-Violation of parti- Notice of violation
Co. culate matter emis- issued 10/26/73.
sion standard.
Boiler
Indiana
Richmond
Johns-Manville Corp.
Class Mfg.
Violation of parti- N'otice of violation is-
culate matter emis- sued 6/26/74.
sion standard.
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Indiana,
Terre Haute
Indiana,
Brownstown
J.W. Davis Co.
Boilers
Kieffer Paper Mill
Boilers
Violation of parti- Notice of violation is-
culate matter and sued 4/26/74: Admin.
opacity emission
standards.
order issued 6/15/74.
Violation of parti- N'otice of violation is-
culate matter enis- sued 10/12/73.
sion standard.
Presently in compliance
with terms of order.
Now on enforceable State
schedule.
Indiana
Mitchell
Lehigh Cement Co.
Kilns
Violation of parti- Notice of violation is-
culate matter emis- sued 11/26/73. Admin.
sion standards. order issued 1/25/74.
Presently in compliance with
terms of order.
Indiana,
Richmond
Indiana,
Muncie
Magaw Construction
Asphalt Plant
Magaw Construction
Inc.
Asphalt Plant
Violation of opaci- Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance
ty ana particulate sued 12/19/73.
matter emission
standards.
Violation of opaci- Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance.
ty and particulate sued 12/19/73.
matter emission
standards.
Indiana,
Mt. Summit
Magaw Construction
Inc.
Asphalt Plant
Violation of opaci-
ty and particulate
matter emission
standards.
Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance.
sued 12/19/73.
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Indiana,
Derby
Indiana,
Indianapolis
Mulzer Crushed Stone Violation of parti- Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance.
Company culate matter and sued 111 Ilk.
opacity standards.
Limeston Quarry
Nat'l Starch & Chem. Violation of parti- Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance with
Corp. culate matter and sued 11/19/73 admin. terms of order.
sulfur oxide emis- order issued 2/13/74.
Boiler House sion standard.
Indiana, NIPSCO
Gary Vicinity
Power Plant
Violation of sulfur Notice of violation is-
oxide emission sued 9/13/73.
standard.
Administrative order pending
Seventh Circuit decision.
Indiana, Phillips Petro.
•Indianapolis Company
Violation of hydro- Notice of violation is-
carbon emission sued 5/30/74.
standards.
Indiana,
Terre Haute
Public Service Co.
of WABASH
Power Plant
Violation of sulfur Notice of violation is-
oxide emission sued 9/13/73.
standard.
Conference scheduled 8/30/74.
Indiana,
Indianopolis
RCA Corp.
Electronics
Manufacturer
Violation of hydro- Notice of violation is-
carbon emission sued 7/1/74.
standard.
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
RESULTS/STATUS
Indiana, Rock Island
1;. ".ianapoiis Refining Corp.
Oil Refinerv
Violation of hv_ro- Notice of violation is-
carbon and carbon sued 3/13/74.
monoxide emission
standards.
Indiana,
Sellersburg
Indiana,
Hammend
co
Sellersburg Stone
Company
Rock Crushing
Stauffer Chem.
Company
Sulfuric acid
Manufacturer
Violation of opaci- Notice of violation is-
ty and particulate sued 1/10/74.
matter emission
standards.
Violation of sulfur Notice of violation
dioxide emission issii'---' 1/10/74.
Indiana,
LaPorte
Teledyne Casting
Service
Cupola
Violaton of parti- Notice of vioJrn.ion is- Evaluating stack test
culate matter eirns- -uc- ' 4M/74. report.
sion standard.
Indiana, Union Carbide Corp.
Indianapolis
BoiK-r
Violation of parti- Notice of violation is-
culate r.atter enis- ~ued 5/29/74.
sion standard.
Indiana,
Shoals
U.S. Gyp sum
Flatter Mfg.
Violation of parti- Notice of violation
culate matter emis- issued 10/5/73.
sion standard.
'In enforceable State
schedule
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPF. OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
'"abash
U. S. Gypsum Co.
Mineral --^ul
cupolas
Violation of parti - Notice of violation is- On enforceable State
culate matter stand-sued on
Indiana,
Gar-
10
U.S. Steel Corp.
Gar;' Works
Steel Mill,
Cement Plant
Operation of a ste- Notice of violation is-
e! mill vitli ce-.t?nt sued 4718/73. Order
production facil- issued June 22, 1973.
ities (Universal
Atlas Co.) in
violation 01 opaci-
ty and particulate
emission standards.
U. S. Steel requested U.S. District
Court, Hammond, Indiana, for a stay of
the order and declaratory judgement to
void order. EPA counter claimed to
to enforce the terns of the order
(first increment past due) on 8/15/73.
U.S. District Court denied U.S. Steel'
motion to stay and will hold hearing
on the merits of declatory judgement
for these issues not dismissed. Have
entered into settlement discussions
with U.S. Steel to obviate necessity
for hearing on merits.
Indiana
Wabash
Vabash Smelting
Corp.
Alluminum
Plant
Violation of opaci- Notice of violation
ty standards. issued 3/28/73. Order
issued 5/30/73.
Presently in compliance with terms
of the order.
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Indiana,
Indiana,
Terre Haute
Indiana,
Wabash Smelting,Inc. Violation of ps,tl- Notlce of violation is_ Conference held
cuiate matter and sued 6/27/74.
Smelter
Weston Paper and
Mfg. Co.
Boiler
Youngstown Sheet
Co
O
East Chicago and Tube Co.
Steel Mill
opacity standards.
Violation of parti- Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance with
cuiate matter and sued 11/9/73; order for terms of order
sulturoxicle standard • •.
Illations. issued 1^28/74. Peculate matter only
Violation of parti- ;
cuiate and opacity
standards.
enforceable
order.
Michigan,
Hillsdale
Hillsdale Foundry
Minnesota, Boise Cascade Corp.
International
Falls Kraft, pulp and
paper mill.
Minnesota,
Brainerd
Nortter"'
Boilers
Violation of parti- Notice of violation
culate matter erais- issued 4/9/74.
sion standard.
sion standard.
order issued on 5/20/74
sion standard.
State legal action has been
initiated to enforce schedule.
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLUITfON PROBLEM
TYPE OF AC1TON
RESULTS/STATUS
Minnesota,
Red Wing
Minnesota
Collegeville
Conwed Corp.
Cupola &
Blowchambers
St. John's U.
Boiler
Violation of Minn. Notice of violation is- On enforceable State order.
participate erais- sued 2/20/74.
sion standards.
Violation of parti- "otice of violation is- Evaluating stack test report
culate emi.ii-'iou sued 2/20/74.
standard.
00
Minnesota,
Duluth
U.S. Steel-S. works
Coke Ovens
Violation of parti- Notice of violation
culate matter emis- issued 5/2/74.
Wisconsin,
Mixton
Wisconsin,
Milwaukee
Wisconsin,
Milwaukee
Husky Industries,
Inc.
Charcoal Mfr.
Pabst Brewing Co.
Brewery
Miller Brewing Co.
Brewerv
Violation of parti- Notice of violation is-
culate matter emis- sued 4/3/74.
sion standard.
Violation of parti- Notice of violation is-
culate matter emis- sued 4/3/74.
sion standard.
Violation of parti- Notice of violation is-
culate matter emis- sued 4/3/74.
sion. Federal com-
pliance schedule
for hydrocarbon
emission standard.
State order issued 6/28/74.
State order issued 6/20/74.
Wisconsin,
Milwaukee
Milwaukee Solvay
Coke Co.
Coke Ovens
Violation of parti- Notice of violation is-
culate matter opa- sued 1/9/74.
city and hydrocarbon
emission standards.
State order issued 6/11/74.
-------
COMPANY/TYPE
STATE/CITY OF SOURCE POLLUTION PROBLEM TYPE OF ACTION RESULTS/STATUS
REGION VI
Louisiana, Hunt Lumber Co., Violaton of opacity Notice of violation is-
Dodson Inc. particulate natter sued 6/27/74.
and open burning
Conical regulations.
Incinerator
CO
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
REGION VII
Iowa,
Clinton
Iowa,
Ft. Dodge
Clinton Corn Proc-
essing Company
Grain Dryers
Violation of parti- Notice of violation
culate matter etnis- sued 6/3/74.
sion standard.
Georgia Pacific Corp. Violation of parti- Notice of violation is-
culate matter and ^ue|Ji ~/ll/74.
Wallboard Mfr. opacity standards.
Source presently in compliance
with terms of order.
CO
co
Kansas
Kansas City
Erman Corp.
Railroad Car
Salvage
Missouri, ADM Milling Co.
N. Kansas City
Grain Processing
Missouri,
Glover
Asarco Primary
Lead
Smelter
Violation of open
burning regs.
Notice of violation is- Open burning ceased.
sued 5/3/74.
Violation of parti- Notice of violation is- On acceptable compliance schedule.
culate emission sued 1/14/74.
standard.
Violation of sulfur-Notice of violation is-
oxide emission sued 6/2/73. Admin.
standard. order issued 10/23/73.
Order has been rescinded mooting
present litigation. Awaiting final
modeling report from contractor prior
to taking administrative action on
proposed revision to State Implementat
Plan an issuing a new order.
Missouri
Affton
Alpha Portland
Cement
Clinker Cooler
Violation of Mo.
particulate matter
(process weight
regulation.
Notice of violation is- On acceptable compliance
sued 9/28/73. schedule.
Missouri
Hannibal
Board 01 n'iblic
Works
Power Plant
Violation of parti- Notice of violation is- Notice of violation withdrawn
culate emissions sued 1/2/74.x 4/25/74, (power plant shut-
limitation, down).
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Missouri,
Columbia
Missouri,
Louisiana
Missouri,
Lebanon
Columbia Water
Light Dept.
Boilers
CO
Hercules, Inc.
Fertilizer
Manufacturer
Independent Stave
Co. , Inc.
Boilers,
Cvclones
j Plan i-o test boilers 1, 2,
Source did not Admin order xssued ^Yla^er part of July,
test boilers 6 6, 7 8/8//J. lg?4 Boiiers 6 & 7 in
within two month ex- compliance.
tension given by
Regional Office
as required in Sec-
tion 114 letter.
in violation of Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance with
particulate matter sued_5/16/73. Order terms of order.
emissions standard. 10/15/73.
Violation of parti- Notice of violation is- Scheduled to be arraigned
culate matter (pro- sued 7/9/73. Supple- in fall, 1974.
ces= emissions) mental notice of viola-
and opacity tion issued 10/10/73.
standards.
Missouri,
Hannibal
Missouri,
Parkville
Missouri,
St. Louis
County
Hillin.
Alfalfa Dehydrat-
ing.
Mid-Continent Asphalt Violation of opaci- Notice of violation is-
and Paving Co. ty standard. sued 10/19/73.
with source.
Issue'd Administrative
order 4/25/74, Plan to refer to
Attorney for civil action.
Asphalt :-'.fr.
Union Electric Co.
Labadle Station
Power Plants
Violation of sulfur-Notice of violation is- Conference scheduled for
oxide emission limi-sued May 31, 1974. Conf- 8/5/74.
tation. erence requested by
Union Electric
Co. on 6/7/74.
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE Of ACT ION-
RESULTS/STATUS
Missouri,
St. Louis
County
Union Electric Co.
Meramec Station
Power Plants
Violation of sulfur-Notice of violation is- Conference scheduled for
oxide emission limi-sued May 31, 1974. Conf- 8/5/74.
tation. erence requested by
I'nion Electric
Co. on 6/7/74.
OO
tn
Missouri,
St. Louis
County
Missouri,
Bonne Terre
Union Electric Co.
Sioux Station
Power Plantb
Valley Mineral
Prod. Corp.
Rock Crushing
Violation of sulfur-Notice of violation is- Conference scheduled for
oxide emission limi-sued May 31, Conf- 8/5/74.
tation. erence requested by
Union Mectric
Co. on 6/7/74.
Violation of Mo.
process weight and
visible emissions
regulations.
Notice of violation is-
sued 1/14/74.
On acceptable State
compliance schedule.
Nebraska,
Beatrice
Dempster Industries,
Inc.
Cupola
Violation of Feder- Administrative order is-
al particulata sued 7/2/74.
matter emission
standard.
Nebraska,
Belle'/ue
Nebraska Public
Power Kramer
Station
Violation of emis-
sion limitations
for particulates.
Notice of violation is-
sued 2/4/74.
Administrative order issued
3/14/74.
Power Plant
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
REGION VIII
Colorado,
Fueblo
CF&I Steel Corp.
Steel Mill
Violation of opaei- Notices of violation is- Conference held 7/2/74;
ty standard. sued 5/8,15, 17 and Battery E closed.
6/6/74.
Utah,
Woods Cross
Crown Refining Co.
Petroleum
Refinery
Violation of new
source review.
Notice of violation is- Complying with order
sued 5/6/74. Order is- Plant production unit
sued 7/26/74. closed.
00
CTl
Utah,
Salt Lake
City
Utah,
Woods Cross
f.ranite Mill and
Fixture Co.
Lloyd A. Fry Roof-
ing Co.
Roofing Mfr.
Violation of
tv standard.
V'->tice of violation is-
sued fi/2 '/74.
Violation of opaci- Notice of violation is- Delayed pending State
tv standard. sued 1/23/74. litigation.
Utah,
Salt Lake
City
Wyoming,
Sundanct
Utah Sand & Gravel Violation of opaci- Notice of violation is- Conference held 8/7/74.
ty standard. sued 6/20/74.
Rock Crushing.
Roberts Construction Violation of ambi- Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance with
• _ ,_ _ _ j _ 1 „ J O / 1 £ / "7 *3 n-v A t*r *- d t-Tno /-\ 4- /-i vrl OT-
Company
Quarry and
Crushing Opera-
tion
ent air standard sued 8/16/73. Order
for total suspend- issued 9/28/73.
ed particulates
as provided in
Wyoming SIP.
terms of order.
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
REGION IX
Arizona
Benson
Apache Powder Co.
Nitric acid
plant and
open burning.
Violation of opaci- Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance.
ty open burning, sued 11/13/73.
and nitrogen oxide
emission standards.
Arizona,
Payson
Kaibab Industries
Incinerators
Violation of opaci- Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance with
ty standards. sued 7/24/73. Admin. terms of order
order issued 9/26/73.
00
Arizona,
Douglas
Phelps Dodge Corp.
Copper Smelter
Violation of opac- Notice of violation is-
ity particulate sued 3/27/74; admin, order
matter emission issued 6/6/74.
standards.
Arizona,
Page
Salt River Najaho
Plant
Power Plant
Violation of Feder- Notice of violation is- Order being prepared
ally promulgated sued 6/10/74.
compliance sched-
ule for particulate
matter.
Arizona,
Snowflake
Western Moulding Co.
Inc.
Violation of opaci- Notice of violation is- On State compliance
ty standards. sued 7/24/73. sche'dule
Incinerators
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Arizona
Snowflake
Western Pine
Industries
Incinerators
Violation of opaci- Notice of violation is-
ty standards. sued 7/24/73.
On State compliance
schedule.
California,
North Roll;.
wood
ALCO Gravure
Printing Co.
Violation of Hydro- Notice of violation is-
carbon emission
standard .
sued 4/26/74.
APCD to accept enforceable
compliance schedule
00
CO
California,
Richmond
California,
Brawley
Allied Chem. Corp,
Chemical Mfr.
Batley-Janss
Enterprise
Alfalfa Mill
Violation of sulfur Notice of violation is-
oxide emission sued 7/18/74.
standard.
Violation of parti- Notice of violation is-
culate and opaci- sued 12/14/73
ty emission
standards.
In compliance (source shut-
down) .
California,
Cloverdale
Cloverda.le Plywood
Co.(Fibreboard
Corp.)
Violation of opaci- Notice of violation is-
ty standards. sued 8/10/73. Admin.
order issued 12/21/73.
Presently in compliance with
terms of order.
Incinerator
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
California,
Long Beach
Dept. of Water &
Power
Power Plant
Violation of nitro- Consent order issued
gen oxide emission 7/9/74.
Presently in compliance with
terms of order.
California,
Vernon
Fibreboard Corp.
Incinerator
Violation of opaci- Notice of violation is- Achieved final compliance
ty standard. sued 3/11/74. Admin. 7/8/74.
order issued 12/21/73.
California,
Cloverr.ale
California,
South Gate
G&R Lumber Co.
Incinerator
Gen. Motors Corp
Organic Solvent
Violation of opaci- \otice of violation is- Presently in compliance with
ty standards. sued 8/10/73. Admin. terms of order.
order issued 12/20/73.
Failure to submit
a proposed compli-
ance with hydro-
carbon emission
standards.
Consent order is-
sued 6/3/74.
Presently complying with
terms of order.
California
Fort Bragg
Georgia Pacific
Corp.
Incinerator
Violation of opaci- Notice of violation is-
ty standard. sued 8/10/73. Admin.
order issued 12/2D/73.
California,
Los Angeles
Gravure W. Printing
Co.
Organic Solvents
Violation of incre- Notice of violation is- APCD to adopt enforceable
ments of progress sued 5/10/74. compliance schedule.
of schedule to meet
hydrocarbon emis-
=ion standard.
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF Snn
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PKOKLKM
TYPr: OF ACTION;
RESULTS/STATUS
California,
Monolith,
Monolith Portland
Cement Plant
Cement Kilns
Violation of opaci- Notice of violation is-
ty and particulate sued 11/20/73; admin.
emission standards, order issued 5/10/74.
Presently in compliance
with terms of order.
California,
Martinez
Monsanto-Avon Plant
Boilers.
Violation of sulfur Notice of violation is-
oxide emission std. sued 7/18/74.
California,
Martinez
Phillips Petro.
Co.
Violation of sulfur Notice of violation is-
oxide emission std. sued 7/18/74.
Avon Plant
California,
Ukiah
Redwood Coast
Lumber Co.
Violation of opaci- Notice of violation is- Achieved final compliance
ty standard reg. sued 12/20/73. 7/8/74.
Incinerator
California,
Anderson
Simpson Lee
Paper Co.
Boiler
Violation of opaci- V.otice of violation is-
ty particulate and sued 3/21/74. Admin.
sulfuroxide (TRS) order issued 4/9/74.
emission standard.
Presently in compliance
vitfi terms of order.
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
California,
Richmond
Standard Oil of
Calif.
Refinery
Violation of suliur Notice of violation is-
oxide emission sued 7/18/74.
standard.
California,
El Segundo
Standard Oil of
Calif.
Oil Refinery
Violation of Calif. Notice of violation is-
review of new sued 1/31/74. Admin.
sources and mod- order issued 3/5/74.
ifications regs.
Presently in compliance
with terms of order.
California,
Carson
ro
Texaco, Inc.
Sulfur Rec-
overy Plant
Violation of sulfur Notice of violation is-
oxide emission sued 2/22/74; admin.
standards. order issued 5/9/74.
Presently complying with
terms of order.
California, Uniroyal, Inc.
Los Angeles
Rubber Mfr.
Failure to submit
approvable com-
pliance schedule
pursuant to Fed-
erally promulgated
regulation.
Notice of violation is-
sued 3/11/74; consent
order issued 6/18/74.
Hawaii
Halaula
Kohala Corp.
Sugar Mill
Boiler
Violation of opaci- Consent order is-
ty and particulate sued 7/16/74.
matter emission
standards.
-------
COMPANY/TYPE
STATE/CITY OF SOURCE POLLUTION PROBLEM TYPE OF ACTION RESULTS/STATUS
Nevada, Basic Industries Violation of parti- Notice of violation is-
Gabbs culate o'pacity emis-sued 5/2/74.
Quarry Mill sion standards.
Nevada, S. Calif. Edison Violation of opaci- Notice of violation is- 'Presently in compliance
S. Calif. ty and sulfur oxide sued 7/25/73; order is- with terms of order
Power Plant emission standards, sued 11/1/73.
CO
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
REGION X
j-dalio,
Pocatello
FMC Corp.
Phosphurus Mfg.
Violation of parti- Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance
culate emissions sued 3/8/74. i-ompj.iance.
standard.
Idaho,
Lewis ton
Idaho,
Lewiston
10
Potlatch Corp.
Kraft Pulp Mill
Potlatch Corp.
Pulp Mill
Boilers
Violation of opaci- Administrative order is- Presently in compliance
ty standard. sued 4/8/74. with terms of order.
Violation of parti- Notice of violation is- Conference held 3/4/74.
culate emission sued 2/8/74.
standards.
Washington,
Connell
Connell, City of
dump
Violation of open Notice ol violation is- Amended order under
burning regs. ^uec! 9/21/73. Admin. consideration.
order issued 12/12/73.
Washington,
Davton
Dayton, City of
dump
Violation of open Notice of violation is- Presently complys with
burning regs. sued 9/21/73. Admin. order.
order issued 12/12/73.
Washington,
Lament
Laraont, City of
dump
Violation of open Notice of violation is- Presently complying with
burning regs. sued 9/21/73. Admin. order.
issued 12/12/73.
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLU'I TUN PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Washington,
Long Beach
Peninsula Sani-
tation Service
Disposal Service
Violation of open Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance.
burning regs. sued 10/17/73.
Washington,
Oaksdale
Oaksdale, City of
dump
Violation of open
burning regs.
Notice of violation is- Presently complies
sued 9/21/73. Admin. with order.
order issued 12/12/73.
Washington,
Whitman
Whitman County
dump
Violation of open
burning regs.
Notice of violation is- In violation of order, civil/
sued 9/21/73. Admin. criminal action contemplated.
order issued 12/12/73.
en
-------
SECTION 6 - AIR QUALITY AND EMISSION DATA
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
Table 6-1 lists, by State, the level of monitoring activity for
calendar year 1973 being reported to EPA's National Aerometric Data Bank
(NADB) as of July 5, 1974 (170 days after the end of the fourth quarter).
Under each pollutant, the initial column shows the number of individual
stations required in the August 14, 1971, Federal Register, the second
shows the number of stations for which data collected in 1972 have been
reported and the third column the number of stations for which data were
collected in 1973.
Note that some States in Table 6-1 are reporting as many stations as
required, and some are reporting more; but these stations are not always
distributed among the Air Quality Control Regions in accord with minimum
requirements for each AQCR. Consequently, even in these States, one or
more AQCRs may not yet satisfy minimum monitoring requirements.
Tables 6-2 through 6-5 summarize the status of air quality in the
nation's 247 AQCRs as portrayed by the data reported to NADB for CY 1973.
For each pollutant, the number of AQCRs in each priority classification
is shown, plus the number of AQCRs reporting (1) at least one station-
quarter of data, and (2) at least one valid station-year of data for
particulates and sulfur dioxide, to which annual standards pertain. The
final column in each of these tables reports the number of AQCRs wherein
one or more reporting stations exceeded a primary standard.
STATUS OF PRIORITY CLASSIFICATIONS IN RELATION TO STANDARDS
The suspended particulate annual primary standard was exceeded in
over half of the Priority I and la AQCRs (94 out of 120) in 1973, and
97
-------
Table 6-1. STATUS OF CY 72 AND 73 MONITORING ACTIVITY
AS REPORTED TO NADB BY STATES
a,b
EPA Region/State
Region I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Region II
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Ri co
Virgin Islands
Region III
Delaware
Dist of Columbia
Mary! and
Pennsyl vania
Vi rginia
West Virginia
Region IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Region V
11 linois
Indiana
Mi chi gan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
0)
-!->
ro
4->
l/l
C
-C
4->
3
1/1
C£
0
cr
i-
o
G_
O)
i.
rO
+J
0
1—
25
6
52
25
23
2
78
228
5
4
16
2
85
105
116
36
60
39
29
88
1
178
72
95
54
117
108
57
123
7
ro
r^
CTl
i — i
Ol
C
4->
S-
o
0.
Ol
i.
ro
4->
O
1—
57
16
46
33
27
/
78
289
5
3
18
2
81
128
i/0
36
76
59
47
116
28
166
77
98
55
92
123
82
227
71
Sulfur
dioxide
o
TD
O)
i.
=>
cr
OJ
S-
E
rj
E
c
i:
14
13
34
9
7
5
20
58
4
4
3
4
29
42
16
12
15
24
36
18
9
11
19
17
52
37
27
23
60
9
C\J
r^
01
i — i
CD
C
4->
S-
O
CL
01
i-
re>
-M
o
h-
4
9
48
4
20
0
28
49
4
2
10
4
50
14
44
14
10
36
14
78
2
13b
36
34
38
61
42
18
72
3
n
i^
Ol
i — i
01
c:
+j
i.
o
Q.
O)
i-
O
H-
30
19
50
10
25
0
30
101
4
3
8
2
67
22
79
iri
13
24
26
122
16
132
56
52
53
69
53
41
92
33
Carbon
monoxide
%
o>
s_
Minimum requi
4
0
7
0
0
0
8
13
0
0
1
1
6
11
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
4
0
4
0
0
CXI
r~
01
i — i
01
c
4->
S-
o
d.
0)
i-
fO
4->
O
1—
0
0
2
0
2
0
20
10
0
0
0
2
1
1
3
1
0
3
1
4
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
4
0
oo
r~~
Ol
I-H
Ol
c
-I-J
S-
o
0-
O>
s_
ro
-I-)
O
1—
1
0
0
1
3
0
22
16
0
0
0
0
15
3
6
0
1
0
1
8
0
1
1
0
7
1
/
4
4
4
Oxidants
O
-a
S-
o
o.
CL)
l_
(O
+->
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
9
16
0
0
0
0
8
1
8
0
2
4
0
4
1
3
2
2
2
1
1
2
7
4
98
-------
Table 6-1 (continued). STATUS OF CY 72 AND 73 MONITORING ACTIVITY
AS REPORTED TO NADB BY STATES3>b
EPA Region/State
Region VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Region VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Region VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Region IX
American Samoa
Arizona
California
Guam
Hawai i
Nevada
Region X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Total
10
+J
t/1
C
.C
4->
3
in
cc
(j
czr
<
7
3
8
8
12
12
7
5
4
8
5
2
4
3
3
1
4
11
1
1
3
4
4
5
b
Total suspendec
parti culates
H,
£
3
CT
£
E
c
iE
10
5
16
24
52
32
35
30
11
28
13
5
6
11
7
1
17
64
1
3
13
11
15
20
31
CM
1^.
cn
r~t
cn
c
&_
o
Q.
Ol
i.
IO
4->
0
1—
28
11
26
90
160
26
57
46
36
68
2
16
2
8
3
0
32
18
3
14
41
17
25
48
b4
ro
r~
01
01
c
•t->
s-
o
0-
c
IO
+J
0
1—
52
11
48
90
203
46
61
73
43
73
22
16
8
8
13
0
47
6/
5
16
40
28
24
17
44
1352 2667 3368
Sulfur
dioxide
Sa
£
Minimum requ
4
15
9
b
49
13
6
15
5
8
14
2
3
9
3
1
16
I/
4
1
8
7
7
8
14
CM
r^
01
i— i
Ol
c
4-J
t_
O
Q.
OJ
S-
0
t—
2
17
b
25
13
2
31
4
2
3
1
0
1
1
1
0
15
Ib
2
12
3
7
0
2
12
ro
r^
01
1—4
Ol
c
4->
S-
o
CL
s_
rO
4J
O
1—
11
18
26
27
101
21
49
23
3
8
8
0
1
11
5
0
37
43
2
12
9
4
6
12
19
875 1059 1699
Carbon
monoxide
S,
e
Minimum requi
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
6
0
3
0
0
0
2
0
0
3
29
0
0
2
}
0
3
/
CM
r*.
01
t— *
O!
c
4->
S-
o
Q.
0)
i.
10
4-*
0
1—
0
0
1
2
0
0
3
1
1
1
0
0
0
4
0
0
1
42
0
1
0
1
0
2
8
CO
r^
CTI
r— t
crt
c
•*j
S-
0
o.
e
to
+->
o
(—
0
0
2
4
0
1
9
8
1
6
0
0
0
4
1
0
3
bl
0
1
1
2
0
5
8
133 125 223
Oxidants
t
C
Minimum requi
0
5
3
4
19
2
3
6
0
3
0
0
0
2
0
0
3
29
U
0
2
0
0
3
b
C\J
r^
01
i— i
01
c
4->
S_
O
a.
£
IO
4->
0
H-
0
4
1
2
0
0
2
1
1
2
0
0
U
0
0
0
2
60
0
1
1
0
0
2
4
ro
r-
01
i — i
Ol
c
Total reporti
0
2
1
2
7
0
5
9
1
5
0
0
0
3
0
0
2
76
0
1
2
0
0
4
b
208 116 206
a CY 72 data are as reported by September 3, 1973 (i.e. end of reporting period + 240 days).
CY 73 data are as reported by June 30, 1974 (i.e. end of reporting period + 70 days).
b CY 72 and CY 73 data represent any valid quarter of data.
c Federal Register. Volume 36, No. 156. August 14, 1971 p 15488
99
-------
that count could be higher considering only 92 of the 120 Priority I and la
AQCRs had reported a complete year's data for at least one station as of June
1974 (Table 6-2). Two-thirds of the Priority I and la AQCRs exceeded the
24-hour particulate primary standard (83 out of 120), with 118 out of 120
Priority I and la AQCRs reporting at least one quarter's data with which
to appraise their status with respect to the 24-hour particulate standards.
Table 6-2. SUSPENDED PARTICULATE MATTER,
STATUS OF AIR QUALITY, 1973
Priority
classification
I-Ia
II
III
Total
Number
of
AQCRs
120
70
57
247
AQCRs reporting
At least 1
station-quarter
118
66
41
225
At least 1
station-year
92
50
30
172
AQCRs exceeding
any primary
standard
94
31
18
143
Sulfur dioxide continues to appear the most successfully controlled
pollutant, with only 10 AQCRs (8 Priority I and la; and 2 Priority II)
reporting stations exceeding the annual standard. However, only approxi-
mately half the AQCRs in these two priority classes have reported valid
annual data for 1973 (Table 6-3).
Table 6-3. SULFUR DIOXIDE, STATUS OF AIR QUALITY, 1973
Priority
classification
I-Ia
II
III
Total
Number
of
AQCRs
60
41
146
247
AQCRs reporting
At least 1
station-quarter
55
35
97
187
At least 1
station-year
33
24
43
100
AQCRs exceeding
any primary
standard
17
6
4
27
100
-------
Carbon monoxide is pervasive. Of the 30 priority I and la AQCRs, 26
reported at least one quarter's data, and 25 exceeded the 1-hour or (more
often) the 8-hour standard (Table 6-4). The 26th AQCR only reported the
equivalent of 4 month's data, mostly in the first half of the year. Of
particular significance is the fact that of the 217 Priority III AQCRs,
which are not required to monitor for carbon monoxide, 34 have established
monitors and submitted data, and 28 report at least one site where a
carbon monoxide standard is being exceeded.
Table 6-4. CARBON MONOXIDE, STATUS OF AIR QUALITY, 1973
Priority
classification
I-Ia
III
Total
Number
of
AQCRs
30
217
247
AQCRs reporting
at least 1
station-quarter
26
34
60
AQCRs exceeding 8-hr
primary standard
25
28
53
Oxidant values (Table 6-5) are exceeding the 1-hour standard in almost
every Priority I and la AQCR reporting (40 out of 41) and in three-fourths
of the Priority III AQCRs reporting (12 out of 16).
Table 6-5. OXIDANTS, STATUS OF AIR QUALITY, 1973
Priority
classification
I-Ia
III
Total
Number
of
AQCRs
55
192
247
AQCRs reporting
at least 1
station-quarter
41
16
57
AQCRs exceeding
primary standard
40
12
52
Nitrogen dioxide priority classifications have been substantially
revised from the initial classifications; there are now 5 Priority I's,
the remainder are Priority III. Of the 5, only 2 reported a full year's
data, and both exceeded the annual standard. None of the 18 Priority III
AQCRs reporting a full year's data exceeded the standard. These results
remain tentative until a reference method is selected and the equivalency
of the remaining methods is appraised.
101
-------
The presence of individual values or annual means over the standards
clearly identifies problem AQCRs. The absence of such values or means
in the data reported from other AQCRs does not necessarily warrant the
conclusion that the standards are being met in those AQCRs until their
monitoring networks have been thoroughly appraised for adequacy in number
and placement of monitoring sites. Many AQCRs do not have comprehensive
networks operating; others are only just beginning to report scattered
results from the initial stages of network implementation. Until assess-
ments can be made of network adequacy, a technical distinction exists in
describing an AQCR reporting no values above standards. For the present,
it can only be stated that such an AQCR "reports no violation." The
goal, based on data from an adequate network, will be to designate such an
AQCR as "in compliance" with national ambient air quality standards. The
presence of individual values or annual means above standards is a par-
ticular problem in Priority II and III AQCRs. The Plan Revision Management
System, discussed in Section 4, helps to identify such problem areas and
to single them out for further investigation.
In some instances, the lack of stations in an AQCR may be only an
apparent deficiency. Stations may exist for which the data are not yet
being expeditiously relayed or correctly identified for acceptance in
the NADB.
TIMELINESS AND AVAILABILITY OF DATA
Tables 6-6 through 6-9 show the percentage of air quality data
received by EPA at 75, 105, 135, and 170 days after the end of the
quarterly reporting period. There has been a significant increase in
the amount of data received for each of the quarterly reports, beginning
with second quarter 1973 through the first quarter of 1974, with the
exception of carbon monoxide and oxidant data for the first quarter of
1974.
102
-------
Table 6-6. COMPARISON OF QUARTERLY DATA AVAILABLE FOR PARTICIPATE MATTER,
II-CY-73 TO I-CY-74
Calendar
quarter
and year
II - 1973
III - 1973
IV - 1973
I - 1974
Percent of sites reporting data
End of
quarter
+ 75 days
0
0
0
9.1
End of
quarter
+ 105 days
10.9
35.7
40.2
56.3
End of
quarter
+ 135 days
10.9
42.4
54.7
--
End of
quarter
+ 170 days
10.9
48.9
66.6
--
Table 6-7- COMPARISON OF QUARTERLY DATA AVAILABLE FOR SULFUR DIOXIDE,
II-CY-73 TO I-CY-74
Calendar
quarter
and year
II - 1973
III - 1973
IV - 1973
I - 1974
Percent of sites reporting data
End of
quarter
+ 75 days
0
0
0
9.8
End of
quarter
+ 105 days
11
41.8
43.8
64.7
End of
quarter
+ 135 days
11
47.6
50.9
--
End of
quarter
+ 170 days
11
53.4
62.8
—
103
-------
Table 6-8. COMPARISON OF QUARTERLY DATA AVAILABLE FOR OXIDANTS,
II-CY-73 TO I-CY-74
Calendar
quarter
and year
II - 1973
III - 1973
IV - 1973
I - 1974
Percent of sites reporting data
End of
quarter
+ 75 days
0
0
0
1.5
End of
quarter
+105 days
1.7
9
40.3
26.7
End of
quarter
+ 135 days
1.7
14.9
48.3
--
End of
quarter
+ 170 days
1.7
19.8
67.2
--
Table 6-9. COMPARISON OF QUARTERLY DATA AVAILABLE FOR CARBON MONOXIDE,
II-CY-73 TO I-CY-74
Calendar
quarter
and year
II - 1973
III - 1973
IV - 1973
I - 1974
Percent of sites reporting data
End of
quarter
+ 75 days
0
0
0
12.7
End of
quarter
+ 105 days
3.9
12.6
51.1
36.5
End of
quarter
+ 135 days
3.9
22.9
59.1
--
End of
quarter
+ 170 days
3.9
33.8
71.8
--
104
-------
Table 6-10 shows the status of semiannual emissions reporting since
CY 1972. Timely submission of emission data remains a problem. Over
the last three semiannual report periods, about half of the States have
provided EPA with adequate emission data. Increased emphasis is being
placed by EPA to resolve data input problems in the remaining States.
Table 6-10. STATES SUBMITTING SEMIANNUAL REPORTS
EPA
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
States
required
6
4a
6b
8
6
5
4
6
6C
4
55
Report period
III, IV
CY 72
4
0
1
8
1
4
4
5
3
3
33
Report period
I, II
CY 73
3
0
1
6
1
4
4
5
3
0
27
Report period
III, IV
CY 73
0
0
3
0
1
0
3
4
1
2
14
? Includes Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands-
Includes District of Columbia.
SYSTEMS IMPROVEMENT TO SAROAD/NEDS
Plans and procedures have been developed to assure the integrity of
the data contained in the National Emissions Data System (NEDS) and the
Storage and Retrieval of Aerometric Data (SAROAD) system. Data in both
systems are used for a wide variety of purposes and are essential to
basic decisions concerning attainment of standards and evaluation of
105
-------
strategies. The newly developed Data Auditing System contains a series
of computerized routines to edit and validate data. It flags erroneous
or suspect data for verification and/or correction.
COMPREHENSIVE DATA HANDLING SYSTEM
2
The Air Quality Data Handling Subsystem (AQDHS II), a portion of
the Comprehensive Data Handling System (CDHS), was developed for use by
State and local agencies to improve their report generating and data
handling capabilities. Resources have been allocated by EPA to install
this data system in several control agencies. The AQDHS II is compatible
with SAROAD.
The Emissions Inventory Subsystem (EIS), ' another element of the
Comprehensive Data Handling System, provides the same general assistance
to States in improving the data handling activities associated with
emissions information. The EIS is compatible with NEDS.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6
1. Monitoring and Air Quality Trends, 1973. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. In
preparation.
2. Comprehensive Data Handling System, Air Quality Data Handling Sub-
system (AQDHS-II) Program Documentation and User's Guide. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. EPA-450/3-74-045. July 1974.
3. Comprehensive Data Handling System, Emissions Inventory Subsystem
(EIS), User's Guide. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. Publication No. APTD-1550. July 1973.
4. Comprehensive Data Handling System, Emissions Inventory Subsystem
(EIS), Program Documentation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Publication No. APTD-1551.
July 1973.
106
-------
SECTION 7 - CONTROL AGENCY RESOURCES
During FY 1974, State and local air pollution control agencies
reported 7805 budgeted positions; 7236 of these positions are filled. The
7236 filled postions reflect a level of effort of approximately 6500 man-
years, which is nearly 1200 man-years less than the original estimates for
SIP achievement in 1975 and approximately 3000 man-years less than the
SIP estimates anticipated in necessary revisions to the plans. The revised
estimates, which call for 9500 man-years in 1975 and 10,200 man-years in
1977, were submitted by the Regional Offices in December 1973. The 1975
estimates appeared in the last progress report.
State and local control agencies spent an estimated $126.1 million
on control activities. The Federal Government provided $48.5 million of
this amount through Federal program grant assistance. In addition, the
agencies received, as part of the Federal grant assistance, approximately
$1.1 million to support Federal assignees and $2.8 million in special
support and demonstration grant assistance. The special support helps
the State and local agencies accomplish tasks associated with meeting
imposed deadlines for the submittal and modification of implementation
plans and for meeting other Federal requirements.
The resource estimates made in December 1973 increased expected
needs over the original SIP estimates by 30 percent for funds and by 10
percent for manpower. The reassessment accounted for program demands
anticipated in the land use and transportation areas, for indirect source
reviews, and for expected significant deterioration activities. However,
these reassessments may be low in States where revisions to control plans
must be made to attain standards, where air quality maintenance plans
must be developed and implemented, and where implementation of Federal
107
-------
programs such as enforcement of new source performance standards will be
carried out. In addition, the involvement of States in the Federal
Energy Act policies concerning air pollution control strategies and the
recently promulgated regulation on EPA's nonsignificant deterioration
policy may also result in the States making an additional upward reassess-
ment of their resource needs.
Figure 7-1 compares the actual growth of agency manpower with
estimated levels (original and revised for SIP achievement, as well as with
estimates derived from a manpower model). At the end of FY 1974, the
agencies had available approximately 70 percent of the manpower stated as
needed by 1975 to accomplish the basic SIPs and revisions to those SIPs.
However, approximately two-fifths of the States did not expend in 1974 a
man-year effort equivalent to 60 percent of their stated needs.
Figure 7-2 compares actual State and local program funds to estimates
of SIP needs - original and revised - and to estimates based on program
costs commensurate with the manpower model. The anticipated 1975 and 1977
expenditures for accomplishment of the basic SIP and anticipated revisions
are approximately $188 million and $210 million, respectively. In 1974,
the agencies had available approximately 69 percent of the funds stated
as needed by 1975. Approximately one-third of the States spent less than
60 percent of their stated revised 1975 needs.
Significant increases were made in agency resources in FY 1974.
Funding increased by approximately 13 percent ($15 million) and man-years
of effort by 15 percent (850 man-years). State and local funds increased
by 21 percent over 1973, while available Federal funds increased by only
4 percent. Continued increases at this rate, however, will not permit
the stated revised SIP needs to be met in 1975 and, if continued at the
same rate of growth, would not achieve the expected 1975 needs until
FY 1978.
REFERENCE FOR SECTION 7
1. State Air Pollution Implementation Plan Progress Report, June 30 to
December 31, 1973. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA-450/2-74-004. April 1974.
108
-------
o
10
UJ
I
•z.
<
a
UJ
5, 000
(11,000)
J I
(6,494)
(10,10!)
I I i I
1965
1970
1975
197?
YEAR
Figure 7-1. Comparison of actual and needed State and local air pollution control program manpower.
-------
(209)
Q
ID
PQ
13 J
ieo
120
100
80
60
40
20
1965
(200)
(14-5)
I I I I I I
J L
J I
1970
1975
1977
YEAR
Figure 7-2. Comparison of actual and needed State and local air pollution control program funds.
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/2-74-013
2.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
STATE AIR POLLUTION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN PROGRESS
REPORT, JANUARY 1 TO JUNE 30, 1974
7. AUTHOR(S)
9. PERFORMING OR~ANIZATION NAME Al>
U. S. Environmental Protect
and Waste Management, Offic
and Standards, Research Tri
Office of Enforcement and G
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADC
U.S. Environmental Protecti
Office of Air and Waste Man
Office of Air Quality Plann
Research Triangle Park, Nor
JD ADDRESS
ion Agency. Office of Air
e of Air Quality Planning
angle Park, N.C. , and
eneral Counsel, Washington, I
JRESS
on Agency
agement
ing and Standards
th Carolina 27711
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
5. REPORT DATE
September 1974
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
.c.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Proaress. 1/1 to 6/30/74
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Plans for attainment of national ambient air quality standards have been sub-
mitted by all States. This report describes progress toward implementing those plans
from January to June 1974. Since the last progress report, the number of fully ap-
proved State Implementation Plans (SIPs), with no regulatory disapprovals, has dropped
form 16 to 3. This is due to the Environmental Protection Agency's promulgation for
the review of indirect sources. Of the 52 plans still having deficiencies, 38 have
only regulatory deficiencies, which have been corrected by EPA promulgation, and 14 ar
being finalized by State or EPA action. The adequacy of air monitoring networks and
air quality data reporting is reviewed; despite real improvements, problem areas still
remain. The status of EPA enforcement activities is discussed. Compliance schedules
have been developed for most major point source facilities, and these schedules are
being monitored and enforced. The Plan Revision Management System, which identifies
"possible deficiencies" in the attainment of air quality standards, has been expanded
to cover 117 Air Quality Control Regions, representing approximately 79 percent of the
nation's population. Possible deficiencies identified are being investigated by the
Regional Offices. States have identified areas with the potential of exceeding any
national standard within the next 10 years, and Air Quality Maintenance Areas have
been established for most such areas. National issues affecting the SIPs are discussed
Prominent among these is the energy issue.
17.
a. DESCRIPTORS
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Air pollution
Air Quality Maintenance Areas
Air quality standards
Enforcement (air quality standards)
State Implementation Plans
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
c. COSATI Field/Group
21. NO. OF PAGES
122
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
111
------- |