EPA-450/2-75-003
April 1975
STATE AIR POLLUTION
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
PROGRESS REPORT,
JULY 1 TO DECEMBER 31, 1974
l.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
-------
EPA-450/2-75-003
STATE AIR POLLUTION
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
PROGRESS REPORT,
JULY 1 TO DECEMBER 31, 1974
•v 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
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
April 1975
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Enforcement and the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards of the Environmental Protection Agency and
approved for publication.
Document is available to the public through the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
Publication No. EPA-450/2-75-003
11
-------
FOREWORD
This is the fourth in a continuing series of reports assessing the
progress made by States in implementing the Clean Air Act, specifically
Section 110. Although the report is intended to cover the last six
months of calendar year 1974, more recent information is provided where
applicable.
This document discusses the status of the various components of
State Implementation Plans, the progress that enforcement activities
have made in bringing major emitters into compliance, and several of
the pending issues that affect the SIP process. A description of the
SIP process is also included to facilitate an understanding of
increments of progress. The ultimate effectiveness of SIPs will be
judged in terms of States meeting the national ambient air quality
standards. An official determination will be made for a calendar year
of data, in most cases beginning with the first quarter of calendar
year 1976.
iii
-------
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 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.
Additional specific information on EPA air programs can be obtained
by contacting the EPA Regional Offices.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Secti on Page
LIST OF TABLES vi
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS vii
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
Overview of State Implementation Plans 1
Attainment of Standards 2
Source Compliance Activities 4
Data Reporting 5
Control Agency Resources 6
References for Section 1 7
2 CURRENT ACTIONS AFFECTING SIP PROCESS 8
Proposed 1975 Amendments to the Clean Air Act . . 8
Review of SIPs for Feasibility 10
Intermittent Control Systems and Tall Stacks. . . 11
Review of SIPs Under Section IV of the Energy 12
Supply and Environmental Coordination Act . . .
Prevention of Significant Deterioration 13
Transportation Control Plans 15
References for Section 2 19
3 ENFORCEMENT OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 20
Coal-Fired Power Plants 25
Iron and Steel Mills and Coke Plants 28
Primary Non-Ferrous Smelters 29
Major Industrial Boilers 30
Other Source Categories 30
References for Section 3 33
4 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN PROGRESS 34
Background 34
Status of State Implementation Plans 38
Development of Air Quality Maintenance Plans . . 47
Reference for Section 4 52
APPENDIX: SUMMARY OF EPA ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS .... 53
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-- 5
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
Summary of EPA Enforcement Activity, July 1, 1974,
through December 31, 1974
Compliance Status of Major Emitters by Region
Compliance Status of Coal -Fired Power Plants in
1974, by Coal Use
Compliance Status of Existing U.S. Primary Smelters . . .
Compliance Status of U.S. Petroleum Refineries,
Kraft and Sulfite Pulp and Paper Mills, and
Municipal Incinerators
Status of EPA Actions on State Implementation Plans . . .
Status of State-Initiated SIP Actions, July 1 -
December 31, 1974
AQMAs to Receive Final Designations in First Phase . . .
Paqe
??
?4
?7
31
3?
- 39
42
45
49
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
AQCRs Air Quality Control Regions
AQDHS Air Quality Data Handling System
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
N02 nitrogen dioxide
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Ox oxidant
ppm parts per million
SCS supplementary control system
SIP ' State Implementation Plan
S02 sulfur dioxide
TSP total suspended particulate
vii
-------
SECTION 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIPs)
All SIPs are in the process of being amended to address inadequacies
found by the courts and to meet emerging environmental issues. Although
no State plan is fully approved, the degree to which each plan is
disapproved and the amount of technical change required varies from State
to State. A judgment relative to achievement of the Clean Air Act's
objectives must be based on more than an examination of the total number of
approved versus disapproved State plans. SIPs are disapproved to bring
about necessary changes to meet objectives, and disapproval thus should
be considered a positive step in the dynamic process.
In response to judicial rulings, for example, EPA has in the last 6
months taken the following actions to revise the plans:
Promulgated regulations for non-significant deterioration
of air quality in 55 States.
Proposed regulations for all States which establish that EPA's
approval of a State plan does not authorize States to extend
compliance deadlines for sources beyond air quality attainment
dates.
Proposed new regulations on public availability (confidentiality)
of data for 33 States.
1
-------
During the last 6-month period, States have initiated 28 SIP
revisions to satisfy defective parts of plans. Of the 28 actions, 14
have been published as final rulemaking in the Federal Register.
States have also acted to obviate EPA promulgations for several
significant parts of SIPs during the last 6 months. Specifically, four
States have approved regulations for indirect source review; two States
have changed their sulfur dioxide emission limitations to conform with
the clean fuels policy; and four States, which had been granted 18-month
extensions for development of secondary sulfur dioxide plans, have pro-
gressed to the extent that two State plan revisions have been published
as notices of proposed rulemaking, and the other two as final notices
of rulemaking.
ATTAINMENT OF STANDARDS
Available ambient air quality data (Quarters I-II, CY 1974) indicate
that significant progress has been made in reducing sulfur dioxide levels
in the air. This improvement is especially evident in large metropolitan
areas where sulfur dioxide concentrations have been reduced by 50 percent
or more from levels existing prior to SIP development. On a national
average, a 25 percent decrease in annual sulfur dioxide concentrations
has been observed. Of the 247 Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs), 134
have concentrations below the standard, and 42 have concentrations exceed-
ing the standard. There is no basis to determine progress in the remaining
AQCRs at this time. While these data reflect a promising national trend,
many areas still have unacceptable levels of sulfur dioxide pollution.
Most monitoring stations are sited to give measurements of general
-------
pollution levels in urban areas and often do not reflect the pollution
impact of major emitters. It is reasonable to expect that higher sulfur
dioxide concentrations may be found as more monitors are placed around
large point sources.
Significant progress has also been made toward attainment of total
suspended particulate (TSP) standards, although few areas of the nation
that had significant problems in 1970 have yet attained national standards.
On a national basis, approximately 32 percent of the 984 monitoring sites
measured ambient levels in excess of primary standards in 1973-74, compared
to 45 percent in the 1970-71 time period. However, only 16 of the 247
AQCRs have reported all TSP concentrations below national secondary
standards, while 47 AQCRs have reported all levels below primary standards.
In addition to the as yet unassessed impact of violations by large
numbers of small emitters, the urban TSP problem in many large metropolitan
areas is thought to be worsened by the combined effects of a number of
unregulated sources. Miscellaneous sources such as salt and sand particles,
windblown soil, and reentrainment of street dust may create a high back-
ground TSP concentration. A special effort has been initiated by EPA and
States to determine the status of such sources in high TSP and sulfur
dioxide areas. The unregulated miscellaneous sources are considered
generally "uncontrollable" at this time, and long-term control strategies
will be needed to attain national TSP standards in these areas.
Air quality data for 1973-74 indicate that a large number of the
originally designated Priority I AQCRs for photochemical oxidants are
presently exceeding the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
-------
for oxidants; 74 of the 88 reporting AQCRs had values in excess of the
national standard at some time during this period.
During the development of SIPs, 29 AQCRs were classified as Priority I
for carbon monoxide control. All but two of these Priority I regions, plus
32 additional regions, reported air quality data for carbon monoxide
during 1973, making a total of 59 AQCRs reporting. Of these, 54 reported
air quality data which exceeded the standard. Twenty-one of these 54
AQCRs have transportation control plans.
States will soon be developing plans to maintain standards. During
this process, the existing SIPs will be evaluated. It is clear that in
some AQCRs plan revisions will be needed to attain as well as maintain the
national air quality standards. Realistically, however, it is not
believed that States will require more control of sources than that which
is considered to be reasonably available. To relieve the anticipated
2
noncompliance with the mandate of the Clean Air Act, one of tv/o actions
will be needed: either implement costly and socially disruptive controls
in the near term, or extend the Act's time requirements.
SOURCE COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES
EPA and States have to date focused on ensuring compliance by major
emitters. Of some 200,000 sources subject to SIP requirements, about
20,000 major emitters are projected to produce 85 percent of all
stationary source air pollution. Since the last report, approximately
2,500 major emitters have been identified through State and EPA action,
bringing the total identified to 19,200. On a national basis, 71
percent of the 19,000 are in compliance (i.e., either by meeting a
-------
compliance schedule to abate pollution before the attainment date or by
meeting emission standards); this represents an increase of 9 percent
during the past 6 months. There are, however, 11 percent of the sources
out of compliance and an additional 18 percent of unknown compliance
status.
From July to December 1974, EPA made 2,517 investigations of source
compliance (including 1,891 plant inspections, opacity observations, and
emission tests, and 626 formal inquiries for evidence based on the
authority of Section 114 of the Act). This total is more than twice the
1,100 investigations made in the previous 6 months. This resulted in 234
enforcement actions, nearly double the 128 actions taken in the preceding
6 months.
States report that in the last 6 months they have conducted 81,160
investigations of compliance schedules and have taken some 7,206
enforcement actions. These actions resulted from a major EPA and State
effort to document the compliance status of major emitters.
DATA REPORTING
The computer system used to store, retrieve, and summarize national
data was converted in 1974 from one manufacturer's system to another.
Data processing difficulties caused by this change have led to diffi-
culties in accessing CY 1974 air quality and emission data. However,
the number of States submitting semiannual reports (source and emission
data) has gradually increased from 28 to 32 to 37 for the periods
January-June 1973, July-December 1973, and January-June 1974,
respectively.
-------
The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards COAQPS) and Regional
Offices are continuing the development and installation of computer
software packages in State agencies to improve their data storage and
reporting capabilities. This package, the Air Quality Data Handling
System (AQDHS), is designed to benefit both the States and EPA. States
with AQDHS have the capability to build and maintain their own data bases,
to retrieve information at any time, and to generate many different kinds
of reports - all in a system compatible with SAROAD. The system also
generates the quarterly reports required by EPA and, because the reports
are already compatible with SAROAD, should result in the data becoming
a part of the national data bank in a much more timely manner. Since the
last progress report,1 AQDHS installation work was completed in three
States, and installation activity was initiated in 13 other States and
one local agency.
CONTROL AGENCY RESOURCES
The program demands placed upon control agencies continue the
pressure for additional resources. The control agencies have indicated
through their SIPs and additional resource estimates (1974) that a total
level of 9500 man-years is required to implement SIPs (including
revisions) in 1975. Predictive manpower estimates place the range of
need between 8600 man-years (SIP original) and 10,800 man-years (EPA
manpower model). The dollar values associated with these estimates range
from $144 million to $200 million. In 1974 the Federal support to 54
State agencies and 150 local agencies approximated $47.8 million for
direct grants and assignments of personnel and $3.0 million for special
-------
assistance. The contribution from State and local agencies approximated
$76.7 million. The total of $129 million supported approximately 6500
man-years of control effort at the local level, which is nearly 3000
man-years less than the 1975 revised estimated SIP needs (9500).
Agency resources increased significantly between July 1973 and
July 1974. Funding increased by approximately 13 percent ($15 million)
and the man-years of effort increased by 15 percent (850 man-years). The
majority of the increase ($14.7 million) was from State and local sources,
an increase of 21 percent over the previous year. Federal support
($51.5 million) represented 41 percent of the total, down by 2 percent
from the total amount represented in the previouus year. Even with
increases, however, approximately 40 percent of the States had satisified
less than 60 percent of their estimated manpower needs as of July 1974.
Continued agency funding at current levels ($129 million and 6500
man-years) will not permit the estimated additional SIP resource needs of
$60 million and 3000 man-years to be met by the end of 1975. If the
continued growth rate remains constant, control agencies will not achieve
their needs before 1979.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 1
1. State Air Pollution Implementation Plan Progress Report, January 1 to
June 30, 1974. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA-450/2-74-013. September 1974.
2. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970. Public Law 91 604. December 31, 1970.
-------
SECTION 2 - CURRENT ACTIONS AFFECTING SIP PROCESS
PROPOSED 1975 AMENDMENTS TO THE CLEAN AIR ACT1
On January 11, 1975, the Administrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency submitted to Congress a series of proposed amendments
to the Clean Air Act. A general description of amendments which affect
the SIPs is presented below:
Attainment of Particulate Standards
It is proposed to allow selected sources in certain regions of the
country until as late as 1987 to meet the primary air standards for particu-
late matter. This will provide more time for States to attain standards
where States can demonstrate that the application of all reasonably available
measures for particulate control will not result in attainment of standards
by existing statutory deadlines.
Compliance Orders
It is proposed to clarify EPA's authority to issue compliance orders
which extend beyond statutory dates for attainment of air quality standards.
Non-Signi fi cant Deterioration
It is requested that Congress examine and provide guidance on
significant deterioration in areas already achieving secondary standards.
This is needed to clarify continuing controversy over the definition of
"significant deterioration" and to allow States to develop meaningful
air quality management plans.
8
-------
Transportation Control Plans
It is proposed to extend the deadline up to five years beyond the
present 1975-77 statutory timetable for communities that are unable to
meet standards for auto-related pollutants after applying all reasonably
available measures, including transportation control plans. This will
avoid the implementation of controls that would have severe adverse social
and economic effects.
Extend Compliance Date for Power Plants
It is proposed to allow the extension of the compliance date to 1985
for certain power plants in rural areas. Under a compliance schedule these
plants would be allowed to employ intermittent control systems and tall
stacks to meet primary standards until permanent emission control systems
are operational. This is intended to ensure permanent controls of sulfur
dioxide emissions as soon as practicable while allowing necessary time for
installing constant control equipment.
Equipment Standards for Pollution Control
It is proposed to allow EPA to set design or equipment standards for
sources when it is not feasible to set emission or performance standards.
This is intended to simplify monitoring and enforcement of a limited
number of source categories normally subject to hazardous or new source
performance standards.
Waivers for Technology Innovation
It is proposed to allow a waiver of compliance with new source per-
formance standards to encourage innovative and experimental control
technology, provided that primary air quality standards are met. This
-------
would apply only on a case-by-case basis to new facilities and is intended
to encourage technology that would be more efficient and, in particular,
less costly than conventional technology.
Auto Emission Standards
It is proposed to delay requiring more stringent emission limitations
for light duty motor vehicles for five years beyond the 1975-77 statutory
deadlines. This will allow automakers to direct more resources to improving
fuel economy, thereby decreasing dependence on imported oil.
REVIEW OF SIPs FOR FEASIBILITY
Since 1971 EPA criteria for approval of state-submitted SIP regulations
have primarily focused on the capability of the regulations to achieve air
quality standards within the strict timeframe established by Congress.
Section 307 of the Clean Air Act sets forth procedures for petition-
ing for judicial review of actions by the Administrator in approving or
promulgating SIPs. A split has recently developed among the Circuit Courts
of Appeal with respect to the question of when, in the SIP development/
enforcement process, the courts and EPA will review the economic and
technical feasibility of SIP regulations. Briefly, the Circuit Courts
have presented EPA with three possible options in reviewing plans for
feasibility:
1. The Seventh Circuit Court, in Indiana and Michigan Electric
2
Company v. EPA, held that EPA and the courts are not required to consider
technical and economic feasibility in determining the approvability of SIPs;
rather, the question of feasibility should be considered in the course
10
-------
of enforcement actions relative to particular sources. This decision
would, in effect, hasten the establishment of enforceable requirements by
avoiding protracted administrative and judicial proceedings at the plan
approval/disapproval stage.
3
2. The Third Circuit Court, in St. Joe Minerals Corporation v. EPA.
held that questions of feasibility must be considered at the plan approval
stage. Consideration of economic and technical feasibility at the plan
approval/disapproval stage would preclude the approval of obviously
unrealistic SIP regulations.
4
3. The Sixth Circuit Court, in Buckeye Power Company et al. v. EPA.
agreed with the Seventh Circuit on the question of considering feasibility
relative to particular sources, but went on to require consideration of
generalized claims of feasibility at the time of plan approval/disapproval.
This option would afford source operators two opportunities to litigate
questions of feasibility.
The Office of General Counsel is currently considering the cases
involved and the desirability of requesting the Department of Justice to
appeal one of them. A decision will be reached shortly and guidance on
this issue will be provided.
INTERMITTENT CONTROL SYSTEMS AND TALL STACKS
On September 14, 1973, EPA proposed to allow temporary use of
intermittent control systems to control sulfur oxide emissions in cases
where such systems are the only alternatives to either a delay in attain-
ment of national standards or a shutdown of a facility. EPA's application
11
-------
of this policy is presently restricted to sulfur dioxide emissions from
certain isolated non-ferrous smelters.
As mentioned in the previous report, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals has issued a ruling that intermittent controls and tall stacks,
are not to be considered acceptable control measures unless available
emission reduction measures are insufficient to attain standards.
EPA policy on intermittent controls will be applied to those smelters
where it is needed to attain NAAQS (see Section 4 in regard to smelters).
Regulations are being developed for application of intermittent controls
to smelters including commitments which will lead to the eventual
application of constant controls. In these regulations, certain points
will be emphasized:
- Application of intermittent control systems to specific smelters
will be based on a case-by-case study.
- Intermittent controls are not adequate permanent substitutes
for constant controls.
- Intermittent controls which are reliable can be employed only
temporarily until constant emission reduction techniques adequate
to allow attainment of NAAQS become available.
REVIEW OF SIPs UNDER SECTION IV OF THE ENERGY SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
COORDINATION ACT (ESECA)
Section IV of ESECA directs the Administrator to review State imple-
mentation plan requirements for fuel burning stationary sources to determine
whether those requirements can be relaxed without interfering with attain-
ment and maintenance of national ambient air quality standards. The
Administrator must notify the State whether a revision is feasible. The
Administrator is allowed 3 months from the date of submission by the State
to approve or disapprove the revision.
12
-------
Reports sent to the States on review of their plans include a standard-
ized introduction, formulated to explain the intent of ESECA Section IV and
the manner in which EPA is implementing it. The review of plans is
designed to direct the States' attention to any control regulations that may
be more stringent than necessary to attain and maintain national standards.
No State is required to change an existing approved plan, but review reports
are for the use of States in deciding if a revision should be made. In
cases where revision may be indicated, States are reminded to consider
modeling and monitoring data, emission increases from fuel switching,
and other relevant matters.
Final SIP review reports have been prepared for 19 States:
Maine Kentucky Kansas Arizona
Massachusetts Indiana Nebraska Hawaii
New Jersey Ohio Colorado Alaska
Puerto Rico New Mexico Utah Washington
Pennsylvania Oklahoma American Samoa
EPA Regional Offices are currently reviewing draft reports for
11 States:
New Hampshire West Virginia Illinois South Dakota
Virgin Islands Florida Wisconsin Nevada
Virginia Mississippi North Dakota
Reports for the 25 remaining States are expected by May 1975.
PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
The Federal Register notice of proposed regulations to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality appeared on August 27, 1974.
13
-------
Details of that notice were discussed in the previous progress report.
These regulations are in 40 CFR Part 52, Approval and Promulgation of
o
Implementation Plans.
On November 27, 1974, the Administrator signed regulations that
9
applied the area classification concept nationwide. Those regulations
stated that, effective January 6, 1975, all areas are designated Class II,
restricting deterioration to that associated with "normal" well-controlled
growth. With the 1974 air quality as a baseline, States may decide if
areas should remain Class II or should be either Class I, which restricts
deterioration to a minimum, or Class III, which levies no additional
•
restrictions beyond State plan requirements and considers any deterioration
as "insignificant" as long as no national standards are violated. Redesig-
nation of areas will be done by States and will be handled as normal SIP
revisions. The regulations also provide that air quality deterioration
increments are not applicable in counties which pervasively exceeded
NAAQS for sulfur dioxide or particulate matter during 1974. The States may
request that such areas be exempt from the area classification requirements.
However, the regulations would still require that major new sources
locating in such areas be reviewed to determine whether increments in
adjacent areas would be violated and to ensure that best available emission
controls are applied.
These November 27 regulations combine the concept of area classifi-
cation with new source review procedures and the application of best
available control technology. The preconstruction review of all new and
14
-------
expanded sources in 18 major categories is designed to prevent their
violating allowable increments of deterioration and to assure the
employment of "best available control technology." States are encouraged
to accept a delegation of authority to implement this review process
fully.
The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards is preparing guidance
to States wishing to accept such delegation. Guidance to States and
EPA Regional Offices on redesignations and determination of which areas
are "pervasively" above the national standards is being developed.
As further aid in this matter, in late 1975 EPA will promulgate
guidelines in 40 CFR Part 51, Requirements for Preparation, Adoption
and Submittal of Implementation Plans, to assist States in developing
their own programs which could supersede the Part 52 regulations. It
appears that the basic requirements for these State actions will be:
- Necessity for public participation in defining significant
deterioration.
- Need for enforceable procedures to prevent such deterioration.
- Application of best available control technology to sources.
- Protection against deterioration in one State resulting from
sources in a neighboring State.
TRANSPORTATION CONTROL PLANS
Inspecti on/Mai ntenance Programs
Of the 32 A.QCRs that have TCPs, 27 require motor vehicle inspection/
maintenance (I/M) programs. These I/M programs, when fully implemented,
are projected to cover 35 million vehicles. While the published plans
15
-------
call for about one-third loaded-mode (dynamometer) testing and two-thirds
idle-mode testing, most of the programs, at least initially, will be
idle mode. A few of the programs will be run as State lanes and some of
these will be combined with safety inspection procedures. The status
of specific States and AQCRs is given below.
Mew Jersey (Newark and Camden-Trenton AQCRs) - A full idle-testing
program has been operating since February 1974 using State lanes.
Illinois (City of Chicago AQCR) - An idle-testing (city lanes) program
is now operating on a voluntary basis and will become mandatory in May 1975.
The city will issue stickers, with a fine for non-compliance.
New York City - A mandatory program is now in effect for taxis, but
there is no plan to date for a full program. An order to comply under the
authority of Section 113 has been sent to the State of New York.
California (Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento Valley,
and San Joaquin Valley AQCRs) - Partial programs in some areas now require
I/M on change of registration and on some fleet cars. A fully implemented
(part idle, part loaded testing) program is expected in the South Coast
Basin in early 1976.
Pennsylvania (Philadelphia and Pittsburgh AQCRs) - Pennsylvania has
decided'to operate an idle-testing program statewide rather than confine
it to the 2 AQCRs in which it is required. This program is scheduled to
be implemented through authorized garages in August 1975.
Arizona (Phoenix-Tucson AQCR) - A contractor was recently hired to
build lanes for loaded-mode testing, with the program scheduled to begin
January 1976.
16
-------
District of Columbia__portion of National Capital Interstate AQCR -
A voluntary program is now operating, and the District is seeking
authorizing legislation, possibly for loaded-mode testing.
Colorado (Denver AQCR) - A voluntary program for 1968 and newer cars
is now in operation, with a mandatory idle-mode program planned for
early 1977.
Connecticut (Hartford-New Haven-Springfield Interstate AQCR) -
Connecticut is studying the possiblity of having a contractor develop an
idle-mode testing program to be used statewide.
Idle-mode testing programs are expected to be implemented by 1977
in the following AQCRs:
Boston, Massachusetts
Indianapolis, Indiana
Portland, Oregon
No substantial progress has been made in the remaining AQCRs required
to have I/M programs:
Baltimore, Maryland (issue in litigation)
Metropolitan D. C. - Maryland suburbs
Metropolitan D. C. - Virginia suburbs
San Antonio, Texas
Houston, Texas
Salt Lake City, Utah
Seattle, Washington
Spokane, Washington
Fairbanks, Alaska
17
-------
Other TCP Provisions
Most areas are moving toward full implementation of carpool locator
systems. In addition, employers in the Boston area have submitted to
date over 1,000 mass transit incentive plans, and over 100 plans have
been submitted in New Jersey. Expansions of mass transit systems are
being delayed in some cases because of late grants from the Department
of Transportation or late delivery of vehicles.
Most areas are moving toward full implementation of exclusive bus/
carpool lanes, although jurisdictional problems may cause late com-
pliance in New Jersey, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and the suburbs of
Philadelphia. Late compliance is expected on bicycle lanes because of
jurisdictional problems and disagreements over routes and design
criteria. Traffic flow improvement is being planned for the areas in
which it is required, but restrictions on taxi-cruising and after-hour
delivery of goods are being resisted in New York City.
The effective date of parking management regulations has been post-
poned from January 1, 1975, to June 30, 1975, pending litigation. These
regulations include both a review for localized carbon monoxide impact,
similar to that required under indirect source regulations, and a review
of the impact of the proposed facility on area-wide oxidant and carbon
monoxide levels through evaluation of the impact of new facilities on
vehicle miles traveled. (Indirect source regulations do not apply to
facilities which are subject to review under parking management regulations.)
On-street parking restrictions, a separate portion of TCPs, are being
implemented in Washington, D. C., and Arlington, Virginia.
18
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2
1. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970. Public Law 91 604. December 31,
1970.
2. Indiana and Michigan Electric Company v. EPA. (CA-7, No. 72-1491 -
decided January 27, 1975).
3. St. Joe Minerals Corporation v. EPA. (CA-3, No. 72-1543 - decided
January 29, 1975).
4. Buckeye Power Company et al. v. EPA. 481 F2d 162 (CA6, 1973).
5. Federal Register. Volume 38, No. 178. September 14, 1973. p. 25697.
6. State Air Pollution Implementation Plan Progress Report, January 1
to June 30, 1974. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA-450/2-74-013. September 1974.
7. Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974. Public
Law 93-319. June 22, 1974.
8. Federal Register. Volume 39, No. 167. August 27, 1974. p. 31000.
9. Federal Register. Volume 39, No. 235. December 5, 1974. p. 42510.
10. Annotated in Federal Register. Volume 38, No. 213. November 6, 1973.
p. 30626.
11. Federal Register. Volume 39, Mo. 200. October 15, 1974. p. 36870.
19
-------
SECTION 3 - ENFORCEMENT OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
The Clean Air Act establishes a stringent timetable for EPA and
States to abate air pollution. With a few notable exceptions, all States
now have enforceable emission limitations for stationary sources;
these limitations are designed to reduce ambient pollutant concentrations
to the mandated levels. The Act allows 3 years from the date of State plan
approval for EPA and States to implement SIP emission limitations.
Except for portions of 16 States, where extensions of up to 2 years have
been granted for one or more pollutants, these emission limitations and
the primary ambient air quality standards are required to be met by
May 31, 1975.
To meet the goal of achieving the air quality target levels in all
areas of the country, State arid Federal enforcement programs are
designed to ensure that all sources subject to SIP emission requirements
achieve and maintain compliance with those emission requirements. State
and Federal enforcement programs face an immense task since there are
a vast number of stationary sources subject to SIP emission limitations.
Of this number, however, approximately 20,000 are major emitters
(i.e., facilities individually capable of emitting over 100 tons of a
pollutant per year) which, as a class, produce about 85 percent of
all air pollution from stationary sources. Accordingly, EPA and State
20
-------
enforcement programs have focused first on ensuring compliance by this
class of heavy emitters in order to produce the greatest reduction in
pollution levels with available resources. As of December 31, 1974,
19,173 major emitters had been identified by States and EPA and included
in State and Federal source inventories.
EPA and States have implemented vigorous enforcement programs to ensure
that violations of the SIP requirements are dealt with expeditiously. In
the past 6 months, EPA has taken 234 enforcement actions (127 notices of
violation and 107 enforcement orders or civil/criminal actions), almost
double the 128 actions taken in the preceding 6 months. A summary of these
actions current through November 1974 is contained in the Appendix. The
Federal enforcement actions also represent the culmination of a major effort
on the part of EPA to establish the compliance status of sources subject
to SIP emission limitations. In the 6-month period ending December 1974,
EPA made 2,517 investigations of compliance status (including 1,891 plant
inspections, opacity observations, and emission tests, and 626 formal
inquiries for evidence, based on the authority of Section 114 of the Act).
This total is more than twice the 1,100 investigations made in the pre-
ceding 6 months (see Table 3-1).
State actions have also contributed greatly to an increase in the
number of major sources brought into compliance. These actions have
primarily been independently initiated, but in some cases occurred as a
result of Federal stimulation (see comments in the Appendix). States report
that in the last 6-month period they have conducted 81,160 investigations
of compliance status and have taken some 7,206 enforcement actions (4,992
21
-------
Table 3-1. SUMMARY OF EPA ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY
JULY 1, 1974, THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1974
Regional
Office
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
Source compliance investigations
Total
(A+B)
58
499
151
143
738
185
169
378
169
25
2,515
A.
Surveillance
actions
50
446
104
89
545
68
128
286
149
24
1,889
B.
Formal .
inquiries
8
53
47
54
193
117
41
92
20
1
626
§113 enforcement actions
Total
(A+B)
26
33
37
42
32
14
10
12
19
9
234
A.
Notice of
violation
13
22
5
24
27
13
4
3
11
5
127
B.
Orders, Civ.Crim.
referrals
13
11
32
18
5
1
6
9
8
4
107
IV)
rv>
of opacity observations, plant inspections, emission test observations.
lumber of requests for reports of source compliance evidence under §114 of the Act.
-------
notices of violation and 2,214 enforcement orders or civil/criminal
actions). This emphasis on enforcement activity by the State enforcement
programs has resulted in a great increase in the number of major sources
brought into compliance.
Of the 19,173 identified major sources mentioned above, a total of
*
13,585 (71 percent) now comply with applicable emission limits or are
meeting compliance schedules, an increase of over 3,000 sources from the
level reported last June. As of December 1974, 3,428 (18 percent) of the
identified major sources require more thorough EPA and State investiga-
tion to determine compliance status. Nearly 2,200 major sources (11
percent) are suspected to violate emission limitations or compliance
schedules; these sources are the subject of current EPA and State case
development efforts. See Table 3-2.
Despite this progress in SIP enforcement, several categories of
major sources may not achieve compliance with emission standards within
the time limits prescribed by the Act. Notable among these sources are
coal-fired power plants, iron and steel manufacturing plants, smelters,
and industrial/commercial boilers. Special efforts now being implemented
»
by EPA to ensure compliance by these classes of sources are addressed
separately below.
In addition to the problems caused by continuing violations by
classes of heavy industrial emitters, it is becoming increasingly
apparent that in many areas of the country poor air quality is the result
of large numbers of violations by categories of the smaller emitters (i.e.,
less than 100 tons per year). To date, enforcement against minor sources
has been left almost exclusively to the State and local agencies.
23
-------
Table 3-2. COMPLIANCE STATUS OF MAJOR EMITTERS BY REGION
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
Installations
identified
1,218
1,622
2,549
5,197
2,248
2,344
1,097
425
1,690
783
19,173
Installations
investigated
916
1,136
2,388
4,783
2,065
1,656
987
388
720
706
15,745
In compliance
With
standard
583
946
1,735
3,052
1,208
1,340
569
257
443
485
10,618
Meeting
schedule
248
75
361
1,217
417
55
304
77
156
57
2,967
Total in
compliance
No.
831
1,021
2,096
4,269
1,625
1,395
873
334
599
542
13,585
%A
68
63
82
82
72
60
80
79
35
69
71
Out of compliance
Not
meeting
schedule
36
54
227
232
49
5
76
13
94
99
885
No
schedule
49
61
65
282
391
256
38
41
27
65
1,275
Total out of
compliance
No.
85
115
292
514
440
261
114
54
121
164
2,160
#»
7
7
12
10
20
11
10
12
7
21
11
Compliance
status
unknown
No.
302
486
161
414
183
688
no
37
970
77
3,428
%a
25
30
6
8
8
30
10
9
57
10
18
^Calculated as percentage of total installations identified.
-------
Enforcement against the great numbers of these lesser emitters has,
however, often presented a larger task than could be accomplished by
local agencies within the Act's time schedule using the limited resources
available. An analysis is now being made of each potentially polluted
area to isolate those categories of minor sources most responsible for
possible delays in the attainment of health-related air quality standards.
These categories of lesser emitters will be subject to more intense Federal
and State scrutiny in the forthcoming year.
COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS
By mid-1973, it became evident to EPA that many coal-fired power
plants were not making plans to comply with sulfur oxide emission limita-
tions because supplies of low-sulfur coal (the favored approach to com-
pliance with emission standards) were becoming scarce, and alternative
routes to compliance, such as stack gas scrubbers, were viewed by
the industry as unreliable. National public hearings were held in the
fall of 1973 to determine the validity of the utilities' contentions
regarding optional means of compliance. After hearing testimony from a
variety of experts and interested parties, the 1973 hearing panel concluded
that the basic technological problems associated with flue gas desulfuriza-
tion (FGD) has been solved or were within the scope of current engineering
2
and, further, that FGD could be applied at reasonable cost. A special
EPA enforcement program was then initiated for power plants on the basis
of these findings. As detailed in the Appendix, 31 notices of violation
were issued to power plants (6 in 1973, 25 in 1974), 14 enforcement orders
25
-------
were issued, and 13 consent orders establishing firm schedules of
compliance were signed.
A measure of the effectiveness of EPA's enforcement efforts against
power plants is the rise in commitment to FGD control systems. In 1974,
the number of FGD installations in operation, under construction, or
otherwise committed to increased by nearly 150 percent - from 44 units in
fall 1973 to about 100 units by the end of 1974. The number of units
now on-line has doubled from 10 to 20, with additional systems scheduled
for startup in January 1975. Reliability factors are increasingly high
(in the range of 85 to 95 percent), and several companies have purchased
systems to treat sludge by-products from nonregenerable scrubber systems.
By the end of 1975, 12 more units should be operable; an expected 12
more in 1976 will bring the total number of on-line systems to 44 by the
end of 1976. A few units are scheduled for startup later than 1977, and
some startup dates are unknown because installation is tied to the startup
dates of new plants, but the bulk of the 100 units committed to will be
on-line by December 1977.
Despite some progress in bringing power plants closer to compliance,
it is evident that many electric utilities will not be in compliance with
emission regulations by the mid-1975 deadlines contained in most SIPs.
This widespread noncompliance will undoubtedly have a major impact on
achieving primary air quality standards in many areas by the mandated
attainment dates. As of December 1974, only about half of the coal being
used by utilities was burned in boilers meeting the SIP standards. Of the
remaining 50 percent of 1974 utility coal, about 12 percent was burned
by boilers at noncomplying plants owned by utilities with firm plans to
26
-------
comply, about 16 percent was burned at plants having no known compliance
plans, and about 22 percent was used at plants covered by SIPs that
either were under legal challenge or were being revised. Table 3-3 gives
the compliance status of coal-fired power plants in terms of coal use.
Table 3-3. COMPLIANCE STATUS OF COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS
IN 1974, BY COAL USEa
Coal use
1974 coal use,
million tons
Percent of
total
Being burned in compliance
Being burned out of compliance
- compliance plans known
- compliance plans unknown
Being burned in States where SIP is
under challenge or being revised
Total
194
46
65
85
l90~
50
12
16
22
100
Source: Report to Congress - Energy Supply and Environmental
Coordination Act of 1974, February 24, 1975.
To ensure that the clean air mandated by the Act is attained as
quickly as possible, EPA has, over the last year, given enforcement
priority to about 90 noncomplying power plants judged to have the greatest
impact upon attainment of health-related air quality goals. Of these 90
plants, 3 have achieved compliance, 23 are subjects of State and EPA
enforcement actions, and 20 are now on acceptable Federal, State, or local
27
-------
compliance schedules. Unfortunately, enforcement against the remaining
half of these priority plants is stayed pending conclusion of litigation
or is prevented by ongoing SIP revisions.
IRON AND STEEL MILLS AND COKE PLANTS
Iron and steel mills and associated coke plants represent a large, com-
plex category of problem sources in stationary source enforcement. There
are about 200 of these facilities in the U.S., of which 130 produce iron and
steel without also making coke. In these facilities, pig iron is produced
using blast furnaces, and raw steel is produced using open-hearth and/or
basic oxygen furnaces. Nearly all of the non-coking facilities contain
at least one of the above processes that is out of compliance. In addition,
in some 85 iron and steel plants raw steel is also produced in electric arc
furnaces that charge mostly scrap metal instead of pig iron. Although
evidence is not yet complete, it is estimated that approximately 20
percent of the electric arc furnaces violate applicable emission standards.
Coking, the process which "cooks" impurities out of coal so that it may
be used to produce iron and steel, is a major source of particulate
matter and other pollutants. Many coking operations are individually
capable of emitting enough pollutants to exceed the primary air quality
standards. A reflection of EPA's recent expansion of its enforcement
program to inspect and document violations occurring at iron and steel
mills and coking facilities is the increase in enforcement actions taken
in 1974 — from 8 in 1973 to a total of 33 by December 1974 (see the
Appendix). Although much remains to be accomplished in bringing steel
-------
mills and coke plants into compliance, it is anticipated that all remain-
ing facilities will soon be inspected, and by mid-1975 most violating iron
and steel mills will be subject to State or EPA enforcement actions leading
to firm compliance schedules.
PRIMARY NON-FERROUS SMELTERS
Most of the Agency's problems in assuring compliance by the nation's
28 primary non-ferrous smelters have centered in the western U.S., where
13 of these smelters are not subject to Federally enforceable sulfur oxide
regulations. However, regulations soon to be proposed require application
of the best available retrofit control technology and, if necessary, allow
the interim use of supplementary control systems (SCS) and tall stacks until
adequate constant emission control techniques become available. Each
smelter using SCS is further required to conduct a research and development
program to hasten the development of such technology.
Six smelters in the eastern U.S. violate an SIP-approved regulation.
With few exceptions, State agencies are adequately responding to the
problem. In one case, EPA has filed suit to enforce the regulation; in
another, enforcement is stayed by a challenge to the SIP under Section 307
of the Clean Air Act.
The national program for assuring compliance from primary non-ferrous
smelters is making headway. Regulations for the control of sulfur oxides
have been proposed for two smelters and promulgated for another. The
additional regulations are in the final stages of development and should
be proposed in the near future. In nearly all cases, smelters (including
several not yet subject to final regulations) are taking steps to comply
with regulations.
29
-------
About half of the primary non-ferrous smelters are located in air
quality control regions where statutory attainment dates have been
extended to July 1977. No major obstacles are anticipated that might
prevent achievement of primary ambient standards in the vicinity of these
sources by the mid-1977 deadlines by using SCS; however, installation of
some constant control devices may not be completed before the attainment
date, Those subject to mid-1975 deadlines are, for the most part,
nearing compliance. Table 3-4 gives the compliance status of the 28
primary non-ferrous smelters.
MAJOR INDUSTRIAL BOILERS
There are about 3,500 coal-fired or residual oil-fired industrial
and commercial boilers (generally units with heat input of greater than
10 million Btu/hour) 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
supply of low-sulfur fuels may be in question and the supply of FGD devices
is limited. In selective enforcement actions, EPA has issued 26 notices
of violation to facilities having industrial boilers, resulting in the
issuance of 11 orders to comply, and has obtained the first criminal
conviction under the SIP provisions of the Clean Air Act.
OTHER SOURCE CATEGORIES
Table 3-5 summarizes by region the compliance status of petroleum
refineries, pulp and paper mills, and municipal incinerators, respectively.
30
-------
Table 3-4. COMPLIANCE STATUS OF EXISTING U.S. PRIMARY SMELTERS
Region
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
Total
2
1
2
7
3
3
8
2
28
Applicable SIP
regulation in effect
In
compliance
1
1
2
1
5
Out of
compliance
2
1
2
1
6
No applicable SIP
regulation in effect3
National standards
are presently exceeded
1
3
8
1
13
National standards
are not presently exceeded
1
3
4
aWhere there is no applicable SIP regulation, EPA cannot take enforcement action.
Assumed from Priority ill classification.
-------
Table 3-5. COMPLIANCE STATUS OF U.S. PETROLEUM REFINERIES, KRAFT AND
SULFITE PULP AND PAPER MILLS, AND MUNICIPAL INCINERATORS
Type of
source
Petroleum refineries
Kraft and sulfite
pulp and paper mills
Municipal incinerators
Total number
of facilities
250
150
230
In compliance or meeting
compliance schedules
50%
60%
25%
Out of compliance
or not meeting compliance
schedules
25%
30%
40%
Requiring
further investigation
25%
10%
35%
00
ro
-------
These source categories, as well as others for which such information is
not available, have received less enforcement attention to date than have
the categories discussed above since they cause relatively less severe
pollution problems. They are now being closely investigated, however, to
determine whether a special enforcement effort is necessary to ensure
acceptable schedules.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3
1. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970. Public Law 91 604. December 31, 1970.
2. Flue Gas Desulfurization - Installations and Operations. EPA Division
of Stationary Source Enforcement, Office of Enforcement. Washington, D.C.
September 1974.
33
-------
SECTION 4 - STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN PROGRESS
BACKGROUND
To appreciate the progress that States are making in meeting the
goals of the Clean Air Act, it is important to understand the background
of the initial requirements for SIPs and the multiple steps that are
necessary to implement plan revisions in response to technology changes
and legal interpretations. As pointed out in Section I, progress cannot
be judged solely on the number of approved plans. The following
discussions give some insight into the intricacies of the total SIP
process.
SIPs are intended by the Clean Air Act to be vehicles by which the
States assume responsibility for attaining and maintaining the national
ambient air quality standards, with Federal coordination, technical guidance,
and financial support as necessary. EPA is required by the Act to review
and approve or disapprove the SIPs and, if a State's plan is not approvable,
to propose and promulgate appropriate regulations for that State.
Theoretically, the State should then propose and adopt regulations of its
own, at which point EPA revokes its promulgated regulations if those
adopted by the State are acceptable. The objective is that States become
self-sufficient by developing and adopting their own regulations in
implementing Section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
34
-------
The reality of the situation is that the initial State submittals
did not, and could not have been expected to, properly anticipate changes
over time. Thus, approvals correctly assessed in 1972 would not neces-
sarily be applicable in 1974. To ensure that the plans respond to
changing requirements, mechanisms for change were built into the SIP
process.
Various situations can result when the regulatory provisions of a
total plan or part of a plan are being evaluated for approval/disapproval.
Some of the more important procedural details in the complex SIP approval/
disapproval flow are presented below:
a. The State plan can be approved by EPA as submitted.
b. The State plan can be approved by EPA as submitted and at a later
date can be revised by the State. The revision becomes part of
the plan upon approval by EPA.
c. All or part of the State plan can be disapproved by EPA as
submitted and EPA can propose substitute regulations. This action
can be considered "a holding action" if EPA does not proceed with
a promulgation since EPA cannot enforce its own proposal. If a
State does not correct the disapproved part of the plan using
the EPA proposal as a framework, EPA then promulgates sub-
stitute regulations.
d. All or part of the State plan can be disapproved by EPA as sub-
mitted and EPA can promulgate substitute regulations. In this
action, EPA is in the position of enforcing regulations for
the State. However, the State can request delegation of
authority from EPA for enforcement.
35
-------
e. The State plan can be disapproved as a result of a court
decision declaring the plan to be defective. In these cases,
EPA is required to promulgate a new or revised part of the
State plan. The State can revise the affected part of the
plan on its own initiative, in which case EPA would not need
to promulgate rules or rescind affected rules.
The term "disapproval" is used to describe all problems resulting in
disapproval. The complexity of the issue involved determines the commit-
ment of time, resources, and manpower required to correct the disapproval.
Thus, because issues vary in intricacy, numbers of approvals and dis-
approvals can be misleading.
It should also be emphasized that a plan is not necessarily inef-
fective if it is classified as disapproved. When EPA disapproves a
portion of a plan and promulgates substitute regulations, the SIP con-
tinues to be classified as disapproved until the State submits approved
regulations for that portion. In the interim, however, any State
regulation which remains on the State's law books remains enforceable by
the State, even though that regulation would not be enforceable by EPA.
The preparation and submission by a State of revisions to the regula-
tory part of its SIP is not a simple process. The State needs to collect
and evaluate facts relating to the revision; coordinate the proposal with
concerned governmental entities and affected private parties; conduct
public hearings on the proposal; and, in most cases, provide for formal
adoption of the proposed regulations by a rulemaking board or commission.
This process can take several months, even for a relatively non-
controversial action. Further, in the development process, the State
36
-------
must try to ensure that the new regulation will be approvable when it is
submitted to EPA, after formal adoption, for incorporation into the SIP.
The Regional Office, after review of the State submittal, publishes
the revision as proposed rulemaking and invites public comment. Assuming
the review of the proposal and public and other comments do not indicate
that the State plan revision should be disapproved, the final rulemaking
can be published and the State's submittal then becomes part of the approved
plan. If there were any applicable EPA disapprovals or promulgations,
these would be withdrawn. Because the steps required by the State and
Regional Office are so iterative, the situation may become extremely pro-
tracted to the point of taking, in some instances, as long as 2-1/2 years.
Plans developed by States were required to be consistent with
2
regulations published by EPA in the Federal Register on August 14, 1971.
Since first published, these guidelines have undergone a series of
changes necessitated by the introduction of new technology, new air
quality and/or emission data, and new interpretations of the Clean Air
Act resulting from court decisions. The SIP process is continually
changing to satisfy new requirements and must be viewed as a dynamic
process. Recognition of the changing nature of SIPs is essential in
understanding progress to date in plan development, revision, and
perfection.
One of the major factors complicating the situation is litigation.
EPA has been sued on a number of issues involved in the SIP process, and
decisions in these cases have necessitated a number of revisions to the
original SIPs. Generally, the State should, in response to the court
37
-------
action, initiate a plan revision that EPA would approve. However, in m°st
instances to date there has been a minimum of State-initiated plan revisions,
and EPA has been required to promulgate regulations to satisfy court
decisions.
STATUS OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Table. 4-1 reflects the change in status of SIP approval/disapproval
from June 30, 1973, to March 1, 1975. This table shows that in March 1975
there were no approved plans, whereas 20 States had fully approved plans
on June 30, 1973. An analysis of the diminishing number of approved plans
reveals that disapprovals were basically a result of court actions and
other changes which were not anticipated when the original plans were
submitted. The major issues and legal cases that have affected approval/
disapproval status include the following:
1. Significant deterioration - All 55 plans were disapproved
3
November 9, 1972, as the result of a Sierra Club suit and the subsequent
judicial ruling that plans must contain provisions to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality. A more detailed discussion of the issues
is contained in Section 2.
2. Air quality maintenance and indirect source review - All 55 plans
5
were disapproved March 8, 1973, after the Natural Resources Defense Council
obtained a court decision that all SIPs must contain provisions to ensure
long-term maintenance of air quality standards. EPA responded with two
actions: regulations for review of indirect sources were promulgated
July 9, 1974, (although the effective date has now been postponed to
G
July 1, 1975 ); and air quality maintenance areas will be designated
38
-------
Table 4-1. STATUS OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS - SUMMARY
Status
States fully 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
Total plans
*
June 30, 1973
20
35 '
19
16
56
December 31, 1973
16
39
26
13
55
August 8, 1974
3
52
38
14
55
March 1, 1975
0
55
0
55
55
co
10
-------
in three stages in April and May 1975 by publication in the Federal
Register, and updated 40 CFR 51 regulations will be published as guide-
lines for States to initiate SIP revisions for maintenance of standards.
3. Tall Stacks - On February 8, 1974, the Court of Appeals for the
g
Fifth Circuit issued an opinion that tall stacks could be used as a
control strategy technique in Georgia only under certain circumstances.
The court held that tall stacks and intermittent controls are permitted
only (a) if and to the extent that permanent quantitative emission controls
are not achievable or feasible, or (b) if such controls are in addition
to permanent quantitative emission limitations which, standing alone without
the dispersion strategy, are adequate to achieve the national ambient
standards. Final regulations interpreting and implementing that court
decision on a nationwide basis will be issued in the near future. These
regulations are discussed in Section 2.
4. Variances and Enforcement Orders - On September 26, 1974, EPA
disapproved all State plans to the extent that their regulations permitted
those States to grant variances after the attainment date for the standards
without conforming to the postponement procedures in Section 110(f) of the
Act. This action was influenced by several court cases. EPA has
proposed substitute regulations for all 55 States that restrict them
from extending the deadlines without observing the requirements in the Act.
This issue is now under review by the Supreme Court.
5. Confidentiality of data - A new interpretation of public avail a-
1 9
bility (confidentiality) of data, as set forth by three Circuit Courts,
resulted in EPA's disapproval of this portion of 26 State plans and
proposal of substitute regulations on September 26, 1974. The Courts
held that, even though many approved SIPs provide the public with access
40
-------
to emission data, they also contain confidentiality provisions which
might, in some circumstances, cause such data to be withheld from public
scrutiny. The Courts ruled that the presence of a confidentiality clause
so beclouds the public's right to emission data that the emission
disclosure provisions must be disapproved.
The workload requirements for the States necessitated by. court-
•
ordered EPA promulgations should be put into perspective. State develop-
ment of a plan sufficient to allow EPA to revoke its promulgations for any
of the issues ruled on by the Circuit Courts may be a large and time-
consuming task. This is especially true in the cases of non-significant
deterioration regulations, air quality maintenance regulations, and indirect
source review regulations. Numerous separate elements of a complete SIP
must be considered, and in some cases, revisions to many of the emission
regulations must be examined before an appropriate plan revision or
supplement can be developed. Due to a number of court decisions involv-
ing nationwide issues, EPA has been forced to promulgate regulations on
a number of complex problems. States wishing to develop their own plans
more precisely tailored to their needs are in the position of having
limited resources and manpower available to develop acceptable plans.
Also, each EPA promulgation shows up as only one revision to the State
plan, but on a complex issue a State must usually adopt a large number
of regulations to make its plan acceptable to EPA so that EPA's promul-
gation may be revoked.
Table 4-2 lists EPA proposals and promulgations to correct
13
deficiencies in State plans. Since the last report, the number of
revocations of EPA promulgations made possible by State actions has been
41
-------
Table 4-2. STATUS OF EPA ACTIONS ON STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLANSa
EPA Reglon/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-Flnger Lakes
Intrastate
Southern Tier West Intrastate
New York-New Jersey-Connecti-
cut Interstate
Central New York Intrastate
Puerto R1co
Virgin Islands
Region III
District of Columbia
Maryland
Metropolitan Baltimore
Intrastate
totiunal Capita! Interstate
Pennsylvania
Southwest Pennsylvania
Intrastate
Metropolitan Philadelphia
Interstate
Delaware
Virginia
National Capital Interstate
West Virginia
Region IV
Alabama
Kentucky
South Carolina
Florida
Tennessee
Georgia
Mississippi
North Carolina
Region V
Illinois
Metropolitan Chicago
Interstate
Indiana
Metropolitan Indianapolis
Chicago Interstate
Michigan
Metropolitan Detroit-Port
Huron Intrastate
South Central Michigan
Intrastate
Metropolitan Toledo
Interstate
Minnesota
Ohio
Cincinnati and Hamilton
County
Wisconsin
>,
^
J3 IT)
U nl V
•r- i— IB
3 > <*-
o. m o
0
0
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
X
s ?
i- ._
0 &
I/I 111
I?
3 0
sa
Of t-
X
X
X
X
c >%
H- (O
o c
jsS
SSi
0
0
0
0
0
X
X
X
+J
me
c c
o
S3
£ 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R
X
X
X
X
R
X
X
X
X
X
X
ss
nt •—
•i.i
3 u{
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S£
t-
1 =
C +J
L. O
X
X
X
J(
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
X
Emission
limitation
1 1
502 1 TSP | HC
R
R
R
R
X
X
S
N02
0
; promulgation; 0 = proposal;
42
-------
Table 4-2 (continued). STATUS OF EPA ACTIONS
ON STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS*
EPA Reg1on/State/AQCR
Region VI
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Louisiana
DM Mexico
Four Cornars IntarsUta
Texas
El Paso-Las Cruces-
Alaa»gordo Inttrstata
Austln-Naco Intrastate
Metropolitan Houston-
Salveston Intrestate
Metropolitan Dallas-Fort Worth
IntrasUta
Natropolltan San Antonio
Intrastata
Southern Louisiana-Southeast
Texas (la.)
Corpus Chr1st1-V1ctor1a-
Region VII
low
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Jefferson. Gage, and Thayer
Region VIII
South Dakota
Colorado
North Dakota
Montana
Helena Intrastate
Utah
Four Cornars Interstate
Uasatch Front Intrastata
Hyoailng
Region IX
Arizona
P1e» County APCD
Phoenix-Tucson Intrastate
Arizona-New Mexico Southern
Border Interstate
Four Corners Interstate
GUH
Naval 1
American Sana
California
Metropolitan Los Angeles
Intrastate
Sacraaento Valley Intrastate
San Diego Intrastate
San Francisco Intrastate
San Joaquln Valley Intrastate
Southeast Desert Intrastate
Northcoast Intrastate
Northeast Plateau
Nevada
Hashoe County
Region X
Alaska
Northern Alaska Intrastate
Cook Inlet
Idaho
Eastern Washington-Northern
Idaho Interstate
Oregon
Portland Intrastate
Hashing ton
Puget Sound Intrastate
Eastern Washington-Northern
Idaho
Public
availability
of data
D
D
0
0
0
X
X
X
0
0
X
0
X
0
0
0
0
Require source
record keeping
X
X
X
X
Review of new
sources
(stationary)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ti
jl
o
«js
ll
•X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
if
X
X
X
X
R
X
R
Compliance
schedules
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
X
X
X
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
X
0
X
X
Transportation
control plans
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
X
X
Ellislon
limitation
S02
X
a
0
X
X
0
TSP
R
X
X
0
0
0
0
HC
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
R
R
R
R
R
NO;
0
0
*X - promulgation; 0* proposal; R* revocation
43
-------
minimal. Specifically, 7 States now have approved regulations for indirect
source review (4 of the 7 have been approved during the last 6 months);
and 1 State (involving 1 AQCR) has an emission limitation strategy for
TSP approved in the last 6 months.
In addition to responses to changes in EPA requirements (Table 4-2),
a number of SIP actions have taken place which have been initiated by
the States. These are SIP revisions which are designed to replace an EPA
promulgation or to make a change which the State has deemed necessary. If
approved by EPA, these changes do not affect the approval/disapproval
status of a SIP. Since the last report,13 there have been 14 notices
of proposed revisions to State plans and 14 promulgations of final action
on revisions to plans initiated by the States (Table 4-3). These actions
*
affected both the regulatory and nonregulatory portions of the SIPs.
Some plan revisions do not affect all States but are essential in
fulfillment of Section 110 of the Clean Air Act and are discussed below:
Clean Fuels Policy
Thirteen States (involving 5 EPA Regions) could revise their SIP sulfur
dioxide emission limitations to be less stringent in order to meet the
established EPA clean fuels policy. This policy allows burning of fossil
fuel with higher sulfur content than previously permitted as long as NAAQS
are not violated. Three of the 13 States have taken no action on the policy,
3 States have submitted revisions to the Regional Office, and 3 States have
had regulations for a clean fuels policy published as notices of proposed
rulemaking. Four of the 13 State regulations have been published in the
Federal Register as final rulemaking.
it
Regulatory portions of an SIP are those for which EPA is required to
promulgate and enforce a regulation in the absence of State action. EPA
action is not required for nonregulatory portions.
44
-------
Table 4-3. STATUS OF STATE-INITIATED SIP ACTIONS,
July 1 - December 31, 1974a
- Review of new sources clarification
- Hearing procedures
- SCS regulations
- Coke oven TSP
(b) Notice of Final Rulemaking Published in Federal Register
- Open burning regulations
- Exempt certain locomotives from visible emission
regulations
- Revisions to revoke EPA disapproval of Part 205 of
6NYCRR
- Open burning regulation (conical burners)
- Sulfur in fuel revision
- Variance for incinerator #5
- Resubmitted plan
- Correction to TCP
- Revised regulations (rename and reorganize)
- Legal authority revision
- TCP revision
- EPA's review of new sources
1 (N.H.)
1 (N.H.)
(a) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Published in Federal Register
- Open burning regulation
- State regulation for NSPS
- Exemption of transportation authority
- HC regulations for TCP
- Clarification of coke oven gas regulations
- Visible emission regulation
- TSP regulations for direct heat exchangers and
manufacturing
- Waste wood boiler regulations
- Incinerator and sulfur dioxide regulations
- SOpj NOp and data availability regulations
(Conn.)
(Va.)
(Pa.)
(D.C.)
(Ala.)
1 (Fla.)
1 (Kan.)
1 (Iowa)
1 (Calif.
1 (Calif.
1 (Nev.)
1 (Ala.)
2 (Me.)(Wash.)
1 (N.H.)
1 (N.Y.)
(Va.)
(Pa.)
(D.C.)
(Ky.)
(Calif.)
(Alaska)
(Idaho)
(Ariz.)
2 (Nev.)(Calif.)
Does not include actions on compliance schedules.
45
-------
Smelter Regulations
Six States involving 3 Regional Offices need plan revisions dealing
with sulfur dioxide emissions from smelters. No State has initiated
its own revisions to date. EPA has proposed regulations for 3 States
(Utah, Nevada and Idaho) and is proceeding with the promulgation process. .
Review of New Indirect Sources
There are 7 States with approved regulations for review of indirect
sources. Of the remaining 48 States, 37 have initiated no action and the
EPA-promulgated regulations as reported in the last SIP progress report
are still in effect. Of the remaining 11, regulations for 8 States have
been published in the Federal Register as notices of proposed rulemaking,
and 3 States have had their notices of proposed rulemaking received and
reviewed by headquarters.
Extensions for Submitting Plans for Attaining Sulfur Dioxide Secondary
Standards
Seven States involving 3 Regional Offices have been granted 18-month
extensions for plan submittals specific to secondary sulfur dioxide stand-
ards. Three of the 7 States have shown no progress since the last SIP
progress report. However, 2 State regulations have been proposed in the
Federal Register, and 2 State regulations have been published in the
Federal Register as final rulemaking.
Extensions for Submitting Plans for Attaining Particulate Matter Secondary
Standards
Eleven States involving seven Regional Offices have been granted
18-month extensions for plan submittals for the attainment of secondary
particulate matter standards. In the last 6 months, one State had its plan
revision approved and published as final rulemaking in the Federal Register.
None of the remaining 10 States have submitted plan revisions since the
last SIP progress report.
46
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLANS
The draft 40 CFR 51 regulations relating to maintenance plan prepara-
tion will receive final EPA review before promulgation. This draft
incorporates a 6-month postponement from the currently required date of
June 18, 1975, to December 31, 1975, with provision for an additional
6-month extension upon request by the Governor of a State, for State
submission of the Air Quality Maintenance Area (AQMA) analysis and plan.
13
As noted in the previous report, the proposed 40 CFR 51 regulations
were originally scheduled for late CY 1974 but are now slated for
June 1975. Comments'from the EPA Steering Committee (Assistant Adminis-
trators), the associations of State and local governments under OMB's
Circular A-85, and the EPA Regional Offices will be considered in pre-
paring the final package.
The final AQMA designations will be accomplished in three phases.
The first Federal Register^ package will be published by April 11, 1975,
and includes 21 States:
Alabama Iowa (partial) Oklahoma Vermont
Alaska Louisiana Oregon Washington
Georgia Maine Rhode Island Puerto Rico
Hawaii Mississippi South Carolina Virgin Islands
Idaho North Carolina Texas Guam
American Samoa
Final AQMA designations for an additional 18 States are scheduled to
be published in the Federal Register by April 18, 1975. (Note: The
remainder of Iowa will be covered at this time, and the State is counted
only in the first group.)
New Hampshire Nebraska North Dakota Minnesota
Massachusetts Iowa (remainder) South Dakota Illinois (partial)
Connecticut Colorado Utah Indiana (partial)
Tennessee Montano Wyoming Ohio
New Mexico Michigan Wisconsin
47
-------
Final AQMA designations for the remaining States will probably be
published in May 1975:
New York Maryland ' Florida Kansas
New Jersey Pennsylvania Kentucky Nevada
Delaware Virginia Arkansas Arizona
Washington, D.C. West Virginia California Missouri
Illinois (remainder) Indiana (remainder)
Table 4-4 lists the designated AQMAs which will be published in the first
group.
-------
Table 4-4. AQMAs TO RECEIVE FINAL DESIGNATIONS
IN FIRST PHASE
EPA Region/State/AQMAa
Region I
Maine
Vermont
Rhode Island
Metropolitan Providence
Region II
Puerto Rico
Ponce
San Juan
Caguas"
Mayaguez
Guanica
Dorado
Guayanilla-Penuelas.
Lares-Utuado-Adi untasb
Aguadillab
Arecibo-Barcelonetab
Guayama
Yabucoa
Virgin Islands
Region III
None in first phase
Region IV
Alabama
Birmingham
Gads den
Mobile
Georgia
Atlanta
Savannah
K
Chattanooga Interstate
Approval
status
Approved
(C)
Approved
Approved
(C)
Approved
Approved
Total AQMAs
by State
0
0
1
12
0
3
3
Pollutant
TSP
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S02
X
X
X
X
Y
X?
X
X
X
X
X
CO
Ox
X
N02
49
-------
Table 4-4 (continued). AQMAs TO RECEIVE FINAL DESIGNATIONS
Iri FIRSi PHASE
EPA Region/State/AQMA3
Region IV (continued)
Mississippi
North Carolina
Charlotte
Greensboro
Winston-Salem
South Carolina
Charleston
Greenville
Region V
None in first phase
Region VI
Louisiana
b
Shreveport
Oklahoma
Central Oklahoma
Tulsa
Texas
Beaumont
Corpus Chris ti
Dallas-Ft. Worth
Calves ton
Houston
San Antonio
El Paso
Region VII
Iowa
Cedar Rapids
Des Moines
Waterloo
Approval
status
Approved
Approved
Approved
Disapprovec
(No submis-
sion)
Approved
Approved
Approved
Total AQMAs
by State
0
3
2
1
2
7
3
Pollutant
TSP
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
so2
X
CO
X
°x
X
X
xb
xb
Xb
Xb
Xb
Xb
NO 2
50
-------
Table 4-4 (continued). AQMAs TO RECEIVE FINAL DESIGNATIONS
IN FIRST PHASE
EPA Region/State/AQMAa
Region VIII
None in first phase
Region IX
American Samoa
Guam
Hawaii
Region X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Portland-Vancouver-
Interstate (Oregon
portion)
Eugene-Springfield
Medford-Ashland
Washington
Puget Sound
Spokane
Portland-Vancouver-
Interstate (Wash-
ington portion)
Approval
status
(C)
(C)
Disapproved
(no submis-
sion)
Disapproved
(no submis-
sion)
Approved
Approved
Approved
Total AQMAs
by State
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
Pollutant
TSP
X
X
X
X
X
X
S02
X
X
CO
X
X
Ox
X
X
N02
Totals
Approvals 14
Disapprovals 3
Neither 4
,
AQMAs are designated by central city, district, descriptive name, etc.;
specific boundaries will be in the Federal Register.
EPA-designated AQMA or pollutant.
(C) Indicates State with no SMSAs; no designation action required.
51
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4
1. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970. Public Law 91 604. December 31, 1970.
2. Federal Register. Volume 36, No. 158. August 14, 1971. p. 15486.
3. Federal Register. Volume 37, No. 217. November 9, 1972. p. 23836.
4. Sierra Club v. Ruckelshaus, 344 F. Supp. 253. U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia. May 30, 1972.
5. Federal Register. Volume 38, No. 45. March 8, 1973. p. 6279.
6. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al. v. EPA, 475 F.2d 968.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. January 31, 1973.
7. Federal Register. Volume 39, No. 132. July 9, 1974. p. 25291.
8. Federal Register. Volume 39, No. 251. December 30, 1974. p.45014.
9. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al. v. EPA, 489 F.2d 390.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. February 8, 1974.
10. Federal Register. Volume 39, No. 188. September 26, 1974. p. 34533.
11. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., (NRDC) et al. v. EPA (Nos.
72-1728 and 72-2165, 2nd Cir., March 13, 1974); NRDC et al. v. EPA,
483 F.2d 690 (8th Cir. 1973); NRDC et al. v. EPA (No. 72-2402, 5th
Cir., February 8, 1974).
12. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., (NRDC) et al. v. EPA,
478 F.2d 875 (1st Cir. 1973); NRDC et al. v. EPA (Nos. 72-1728
and 72-2165, 2nd Cir., March 13, 1974); NRDC et al. v. EPA (No. 72-
2402, 5th Cir., February 8, 1974).
13. State Air Pollution Implementation Plan Progress Report, January 1 to
June 30, 1974. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA-450/2-74-013. September 1974.
52
-------
APPENDIX
SUMMARY OF EPA ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
SECTION 110 - STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
DECEMBER 1974
53
-------
NOTE:
SUMMARY OF EPA ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
SECTION 110 - STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
December 1974
SOURCES ARE LISTED IN ALPHABETIC ORDER FOR EACH STATE WITHIN EACH EPA REGIONAL OFFICE.
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
^OF SOURCE
REGION I
POLLUTION PROBLEM TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Connecticut,
Rockville
Connecticut,
Bridgeport
Connecticut,
Derby
Connecticut,
Middletown
Connecticut,
Waterbury
Amerbelle Corp.
Printing
Plant
Bullard Castings,
Inc.
Cupola Furnaces
Hull Dye and Print
Works
Textile
Plant
Russell Mfg. Div.
Fenner America Ltd.
PVC Belting
Operation
Waterbury Rolling
Mills, inc.
Meta 1 lur g ica 1
Operation
Violation of hydro-
carbon emission
standard.
Violation of parti-
culate (opacity
process weight,
and fugitive dust)
emission stds.
Violations of
opacity, and
hydrocarbon emis-
sion std. caused
by uncontrolled
emissions from the
drying operation.
Violation of opa-
city std.
Violations of
opacity std.
Notice of violation
issued 8/5/74. Admin.
order issued 9/13/74.
Notice of violation
issued 10/12/73
Admin, order issued
2/14/74.
Notice of violation
issued 12/5/73. Admin.
Order issued 2/14/74.
Order amended 8/14/74.
extending date for
final compliance to
Notice of violation
issued 12/14/73.
Admin, order issued
7/5/74.
Notice of violation
issued 10/31/73.
Admin, order issued
2/14/74.
Co. has chosen reformulation
as means of compliance. The
order requires submittal of
all formulations used which
it has not fully complied with
to date.
Co. has complied with second
set of increments in order.
State is monitoring compliance.
Co. complied with the first
increment on 9/15/74. Com-
pletion of installation of
control equipment should
take place by 1/1/75. State
is monitoring their progress.
Appear to be in final compliance
as of 12/1/74. Compliance status
to be established.
Due to continued financial
problems the Co. is shut down
indefinitely. The order
remains in effect should
they decide to reopen.
-------
STATE/CITY
Maine,
Winslow
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Scott Paper Co.
Paper Mfg.
POLLUTION PROBLEM TYPE OF ACTION
en
ui
Massachusetts,
Boston
Massachusetts,
Norwood
Massachusetts,
. Boston
Massachusetts,
Boston
Ma ssachusetts,
Everett
American Barrel
Co.
Incinerator
American Biltrite
Boston, City of
Incinerator
Boston Edison Co.
L Street Station
Power Plant
Boston Edison Co.
Mystic Station
Power Plant
Violation of
State compliance
increments of
progress.
Violation of
opacity and open
burning regs.
Violation of hydro-
carbon regs.
Violation of opaci-
ty and particulate
emission limitat-
ations.
Violation of parti-
culate (opacity)
emission regs.
Violation of parti-
culate (opacity)
emission regs.
Consent order was
issued 6/7/74.
Notice of violation
issued 3/15/73. Admin.
Order issued 9/18/73.
Notice of violation
issued 10/11/74.
Notice of violation
issued 11/20/74.
Notice of violation
issued 11/9/73.
Notice of violation
issued 11/9/73.
RESPLTS/STATOS
EPA is monitoring co. *s
progress in accordance with the
Consent Order, State implementation
dates. The co. has complied with
the 3rd increment of the consent
order which is to achieve the
specified interim SO2 emission
limitation by 10/30/74.
Source complying with terms
of order.
Conference held. Order will be
issued.
Conference held 12/20/74.
Stack testing program has been
completed. Edison is presently
compiling data and preparing
report for Dec. 1974 submittal.
Stack testing program has been
completed. Edison is presently
compiling data and preparing
report for Dec. 1974 submittal.
-------
en
en
STATE/CITY
Massachusetts,
Boston
Massachusetts,
Quincy
Massachusetts,
Lynn
Massachusetts,
Boston
Ma ssachusetts,
Lawrence
Massachusetts,
Lowell
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SODRCE
Boston Edison Co.
New Boston Sta-
tion
Power Plant
General Dynamics
General Elec. Co.
Electronics
Mfg,
H.N. Hartwell 6 Son
Fuel Distrib.
Lawrence, City of
Open Burning
Lowell, City of
Incinerator
POLLUTION PROBLEM
Violation of
particulate (op-
acity stds.
Violation of parti-
culate (fugitive
dust) 6 hydro-
carbon regs.
Violation of hydro-
carbon regs.
Violation of sul-
fur oxide std.
(regs prohibiting
sale of high sul-
fur fuel)
Violation of open
burning regs.
Violation of parti-
culate emission
limitations.
TYPE OF ACTION
Notice of violation
issued 11/9/73.
Notice of violation
issued 10/4/74.
Notice of violation is-
sued 10/4/74. Order
issued 12/18/74.
Notice of violation
issued 3/16/73.
Notice of violation
issued 6/6/73.
Notice of violation
issued 11/20/74.
RESULTS/STATUS
Edison is presently preparing
report of emission test results
as evidence of compliance status.
Conference held. Co.
submitted hydrocarbon process
info, as per sl!4 Itr. consent
order will be issued for open
shot blasting 6 spray paint
operations. Pending.
First increment not due at this
time.
Achieved final compliance.
The transfer station has been
completed and is operational
confirmed by EPA inspection.
Dump is currently being closed
in accordance with MA DPH regs.
-------
COMPANY/TYPE
STATE/CITY OF SOURCE POLLUTION PROBLEM TYPE OF ACTION RESOLTS/STATDS
Massachusetts, Marblehead Town of Violation of parti- Notice of violation conference held. 12/13/74.
Marblehead culate emission issued 11/20/74.
Incinerator limitations.
Massachusetts New England Power Violation of sulfur Notice of violation Electrastic precipitators are
Somerset Co. oxide and particu- issued 9/6/73. being upgraded. Further studies
late emission stds. will be conducted on flue gas
Brayton Point desulfurization.
Power Plant
Massachusetts, Northeast Utilities Violation of sul- Notice of violation Achieved final compliance.
Boston Service fur oxide emission issued 3/16/73.
limitation.
Power plant
(j, Massachusetts, Odell Co. Violation of hydro- Notice of violation conference held. Order will be
->J Watertown carbon regs. issued 10/11/74. issued.
Massachusetts, Penn Central Trans. Transfer of cement Notice of violation Commuter passenger service
Needham Company products violating issued 7/2/73. Admin, order to cease excessive idling
Franklin particulate (opac- Order issued 4/12/74 violations. Presently in
Framingham Passenger 6 ity) emission stds; for commuter passenger compliance.
Freight trucks idling con- service
Terminals trary to require-
ments of MA SIP
Massachusetts, Plymouth Rubber Co. Violation of parti- Notice of violation Conference held with Co.,
Canton culate (opacity) issued 9/27/74. order to be issued.
Rubber Mfg. emission regs.
Massachusetts, Salem, City of Violation of opac- Notice of violation conference held 12/16/74
Salem ity and particulate issued 11/20/74.
Incinerator emission limita-.
tions.
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLOTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Massachusetts,
Somerville
Somerville Smelting
Metallurgical
Process
Violation of opa-
city reg.
Notice of violation
issued 1/8/74. Admin.
order issued 4/30/74,
ammended 8/29/74.
Co. issued purchase order 6
submitted installation schedule
per 4/30/74 Order. Order amended
8/29/74 to incorporate installation
schedule.
en
00
Massachusetts,
North Easton
Massachusetts,
Boston
Ma s sa chusetts,
Boston
Massachusetts,
Weymouth
Massachusetts,
Arlington
Rhode Island,
Bistol
Rhode Island,
Middletown;
Rhode Island,
Newport
Rhode Island,
Johnston
Steadfast Rubber
Co. Inc.
Rubber Mfg.
Texaco, Inc.
Fuel distrib.
Onion Petroleum
Corp.
Fuel distrib.
Weymouth, Town of
Incinerator
Wilfret Bros.
Realty Trust
Incinerator
Bristol, city of
Open dump
Middletown, City of
Open dump
Newport, City of
Open dump
Seaboard Foundry
Inc.
Grey Iron
Foundry
Violation of hydro-
carbon emission
standard.
Violation of
sulfur oxide emis-
sion limitations
(regs prohibiting
sale of high sul-
fur fuel)
Violation of sul-
fur oxide std.
(regs. prohibiting
sale of high sul-
fur content fuel)
Violation of parti-
culate emission
limitations.
Violation of parti-
culate emission
stds.
Violation of
open burning
Violation of open
burning reg.
Violation of open
burning reg.
Violation of par-
ticulate (opacity
and process weight)
stds.
Consent Order issued
11/11/74.
Notice of violation
issued 2/1/73.
Notice of violation
issued 3/16/73.
Notice of violation
issued 11/20/74.
Notice of violation
issued 7/2/73. Admin.
order issued 12/3/73.
Notice of violation
issued 4/23/73.
Notice of violation
issued 10/13/72.
Notice of violation
issued 10/23/72.
Enforcement order
issued 1/11/73.
Notice of violation
issued 8/1/73.
Achieved final compliance-
2/12/73.
Achieved final compliance
Conference held 12/23/74.
Presently in compliance with
terms of order.
In final compliance.
Achieved final compliance
Achieved final compliance
Achieved final compliance.
-------
in
10
STATE/CITY
New Jersey,
Ridgefield
Park
New York,
Niagara Falls
New York,
Tonawanda
New York,
Babylon
New York,
Schenectady
New York,
Fort Edward
New York,
Green Island
New York,
New York
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Arnatex Dyeing S
Finishing Co., Inc.
Textile Mfr.
'Airco Alloys.
Foundry
Ashland Petro. Co.
Refinery
Babylon, City of
Incinerator
Gushing Stone
Company, Inc.
Rock Crushing
Decora, Div. of
United Merchants
6 Manufacturers,
Inc.
Ford Motor Co.
Industrial Boiler
Frank Mascali and
Sons Inc.
Asphalt concrete
Mfr.
REGION H
POLLUTION PROBLEM TYPE OF ACTION
Violation of opac-
ity reg.
Failure to respond
to section 114
inquiry.
Failure to respond
to a section 114
inquiry.
Violation of opac-
ity reg.
Failure to file
NYS recertifica-
tion forms.
Failure to file
NYS recertifica-
tion forms.
Violation of opa-
city reg.
Violation of opac-
ity reg.
Notice of violation
issued 9/26/74.
Admin. Order issued
11/20/74.
Admin, order is-
sued 10/10/74.
Admin, order is-
sued 10/24/74.
Notice of violation
issued 8/28/74.
Notice of violation
issued 9/11/74.
Notice of violation
issued 9/19/74.
Notice of violation is-
sued 1/11/74.
Notice of violation
issued 11/4/74.
RESULTS/STATUS
Source in compliance
with EPA order.
Source complied with EPA
order.
Source complied
with EPA order.
Conference held 9/30/74.
Negotiating order.
Source in compliance.
Source in compliance
Source installed new boiler and
upgraded operating procedures:
presently in compliance.
Conference held 12/3/74.
-------
STATE/CITY
New York,
Waterford
New York,
Buffalo
New York,
Hickersville
New York,
Roslyn
Puerto Rico,
Ponce
Puerto Rico,
San Juan
Puerto Rico,
San Juan
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
General Electric
Co., Silicone
Prods. Dept.
Electronics Mfg.
The Hanna Furnace
Corp.,
Steel Mfg.
Hooker Chem. Corp.
Ruco Div.
Chem. Mfr.
North Hempstead
Municipal Inci-
nerator
Incinerator
Puerto Rico Cement
Inc.
lime kilns
Puerto Rico Cement
Inc.
Lime Kilns
Puerto Rico Water
Resources Authority
"Palo Seco" (Toa
Baja) Station/power
plant.
POLLUTION PROBLEM
Failure to file
NYS recertifica-
tion forms.
Failure to respond
to section 11«
inquiry.
Failure to file
NYS recertification
forms.
Violation of opac-
ity regs.
Violation of opac-
ity reg.
Violation of opac-
ity reg.
Violation of opac-
ity reg.
TYPE OF ACTION
Notice of violation
issued 9/19/7U.
RESULTS/STATUS
Source in compliance.
Order issued 10/15/7U. Source in compliance.
Notice of violation
sent 9/12/74.
Notice of violation
issued 6/7/7«;
Administrative order
issued 9/25/7H;
amended 10/11/7U.
Notice of violation
issued 5/9/7U. Two
consent orders signed
8/12/7H.
Source in compliance
Conference held on 6/26/74 and
10/3/7U.
conference held-covered
Ponce1 facility also.
Notice of violation Source in compliance with
issued 5/9/7H. consent consent order.
Order signed 8/12/7H.
Notice of violation
issued 9/19/7U.
Additional information submitted
and being reviewed. Conference
held 11/21/7U.
-------
Puerto Rico,
San Juan
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Puerto Rico Water
Resources Authority
Puerto Nuevo
Station.
PROBLEM
Violation of opac-
ity reg.
or ACION
Notice of violation
issued 9/19/74.
RE8OLT8/8TATOS
Conference held 11/21/74.
Additional info submitted and
being reviewed.
U.S. Virgin
Islands
Virgin Islands,
St. Croix
Virgin Islands,
St. Croix
Power Plant
St. Croix Petro-
chemical Corp./
petrochemical
company.
St. Croix Petro-
chemical Corp.
Chemical Mfg.
Vir. Us. Hater
6 Power Authority
Power Plant
Violation of feder-
ally promulgated
new source review
requirements of
SIP.
Violation of feder-
ally promulgated
new source review
requirements of
SIP.
Violation of fed-
erally 'promulgated
SIP new source re-
view regulations.
Notice of violation
10/18/74.
Notice of violation
issued 10/18/74.
Notice of violation
issued 11/8/74.
Co. stopped construction
until approval to con-
struct was granted.
Co. stopped construction
until approval to con-
struct was granted.
Source has filed required
new source review data.
-------
STATE/CITY
Delaware,
Claymont
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Allied Chemical
Corp.
REGION III
POLLUTION PROBLEM TYPE OF ACTION
Delaware,
Delaware City
Delaware,
Edge Moor
Maryland,
Eastern Shore
Maryland,
Sabillesville
Maryland,
Emittsburg
Maryland,
Thurmond
Violation of emis-
sion std for sulfur
oxides.
Delmarva Power 6
Light Co.
Power Plant
E.I. duPont de
Nemours Co. Inc.
Sulfate
Mfg.
Bayshore Foods,
Grain Dryer
Benchoffs Dump
Open Dump
Charles Wetzel Dump
Open Dump
Fogels Dump
Open Dump
Violation of sulfur
oxide emission
standard.
Violation of parti-
culate emission
std.
Violation of opac-
ity stds.
Violation of parti-
culate (open burn-
ing) std.
Violation of parti-
culate (open burn-
ing) std.
Violation of parti-
culate (open burn-
ing) std.
Notice of violation is-
sued on 5/24/72. Order
comply issued on
6/18/72.
Amended order is-
sued on 6/18/74.
Notice of violation
issued 3/6/72 En-
forcement order
issued 4/17/72.
Consent order issued
10/25/74.
12/28/73 - Notice of
violation issued.
Consent order issued
10/10/74.
Consent order issued
10/10/74.
Consent order issued
10/10/74.
RESDLTS/STATUS
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.
Getty Oil (supplying high sulfur
fuel to Delmarva) litigated the
EPA order. Court upheld EPA
in Getty Oil vs. Ruckelshaus
(342 F. Suppl. 1006; 467 F. 2d.
349;l/15/73). Source is presently
in compliance with emission std.
1/24/73 - conference held
7/5/74 - draft consent
order mailed to co.
Letter of intent received
in December 1974.
-------
GO
STATE/CITY
Maryland,
Bethesda
Maryland,
Silver Spring
Maryland
D. C. Area
Maryland
D.C. Area
Maryland
D.C. Area
Maryland,
Eastern Shore
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
National Med.
Center
Industrial Boiler
and Incinerators
Naval Ordinance
Laboratory
Incinerator
PEPCO chalk
Point Station
Power Plant
PEPCO Dickerson
Station
Power Plant
PEPCO Morgan-town
Station
Power Plant
Perdue, Inc.
Grain Dryer
POLLUTION PROBLEM
.Violation of parti-
culate emission
std.
Violation of parti-
culate emission
std.
Violation of sulfur
oxide and parti-
culate emission
standard.
Violation of sulfur
oxide and Parti-
culate emission
std.
Violation of sulfur
and particulate
emission std.
Violation of opac-
ity stds;
TYPE Of ACTION
Consent agreement
signed 12/1/74.
Consent agreement
signed 12/16/74.
Notice of violation
issued 6/04/74.
Notice of violation
issued 6/01/74.
Notice of violation
issued 6/04/74.
12/28/73 - Notice of
violation issued.
RESULTS/STATUS
Conference held on 7/25/74.
Conference held on
Conference held on
1/24/73 - conference held
7/5/74 draft consent orders
mailed to co. Letter of intent
received Dec. 1974.
-------
STATE/CITY
Maryland,
Eastern Shore
Maryland,
BaItimore
Maryland,
Eastern Shore
Pennsylvania,
Meadville
Pennsylvania,
Evansville,
Penns yIvania,
Delaware
Pennsylvania,
Kittanning
Pennsylvania,
Wyomissing
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Snow Hill Grain
Grain 'Dryer
Southern States
Grain Coops.
Grain Dryer
Whittington Poul-
try Farms
Grain Dryer
Abex Corp.
Smelting
Allentown Port-
land Cement Co.
Cement Plant
Delaware County
Municipal Inci-
nerator
Incinerator
Manor Minerals,
Inc.
Mineral
Processing
Metals Engineer-
ing, Inc.
POLLUTION PROBLEM
Violation of opac-
ity standards
Violation of opaci-
ty stds.
Violation of opac-
ity stds.
Violation of parti-
culate emission
stds.
Failure to respond
sl!4 letter.
Violation of parti-
culate emission
stds.
No response to sl!4
letter requesting
information re-
garding facilities
emissions.
Failure to respond
to sl!4 letter.
TYPE OF ACTION
12/28/73 - Notice of
violation issued.
12/28/73 - Notice of
violation issued.
12/28/73 - Notice of
violation issued.
Notice of violation
issued 5/1/74.
Consent order signed
9/4/74.
RESPLTS/STATUS
1/24/73 - conference held
7/5/74 draft consent orders
mailed to co. Letter of intent
received Dec. 1974.
1/24/73 - conference held
7/5/74 draft consent orders
mailed to co. Letter of intent
received Dec. 1974.
1/24/73 - conference held
7/5/74 - draft consent
mailed to co. Letter of
intent received Dec. 1974.
In compliance with terms
of order.
Order issued on 5/3/74. Co. complied with order.
Notice of violation
issued 6/25/74.
Order issued 4/3/74.
Order issued on
4/3/74.
Conference held on
6/19/74. Delco determining
applicability of ESP as
central technique.
Company complied with
order.
Company complied with
Metallergy Shop
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Pennsylvania,
New Florence
Penn. Elec. Co.
Conemaugh Sta-
tion
Power Plant
Violation of parti-
culates and sulfur
oxide emission
stds.
Notice of violation
issued 6/19/74. Con-
sent order issued
11/18 /7
-------
STATE/CITY
Pennsylvania,
warren
Pennsylvania,
williamsburg
Pennsylvania,
Phila.
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SODRCE
Penn. Elec. Co.
Warren Station
Power Plant
Penn. Elec. Co.
Williamsburg
Station
Power Plant
Philadelphia
Electric Co.
Comby Station
Power Plant
POLLUTION PROBLEM
Violation of parti-
culates and sulfur
oxide emission
stds.
Violation of parti-
culates and sulfur
oxide emission
stds.
Violation of parti-
culates and sulfur
oxide emission
stds.
TYPE OF ACTION
Notice of violation
issued 6/19/74. Con-
sent order issued
11/18/74.
Notice of violation
issued 6/19/74. Con-
sent order issued
11/18/74.
Notice of violation
issued 6/19/74. Con-
sent order issued
11/18/74.
RESULTS/STATUS
Company is complying with
terms of the order.
company is complying with
terms of the order.
Company is complying with
terms of the order.
en
01
Pennsylvania,
Phila.
Pennsylvania,
Reading
Pennsylvania,
Clairton
Philadelphia
Electric Co,
Eddystone
Station
Power Plant
Reading Gray
Iron Casting,
Gray Iron
Foundry
U.S. Steel Clairton
works
Coke Ovens
Violation of parti-
culates and sulfur
oxide emission
stds.
Failure to respond
to s!14 letter.
Notice of violation
issued 6/19/74. Con-
sent order issued
11/18/74.
Company is complying with
terms of the order.
Order issued on 4/3/74. Company responded to order
on 5/15/74.
Violation of opac- Notice of violation
ity and particulate issued 11/8/73.
emission stds.
Referred to D.S. Atty.
for combustion stacks
door leaks, 6 topside
emission on 6/7/74.
On 11/29/74. Honorable J.L.
Miller stayed effect on
subpeonas until 1/6/75.
Referred to U.S. Atty.
for pushing sent on
7/11/74.
-------
STATE/CITY
Pennsylvania,
Courtney
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
West Penn Power
Co. Mitchell
Station
POLLUTION PROBLEM
Violation of parti-
culate and sulfur
oxide stds.
TYPE Of ACTION
Notice of violation
issued 9/13/73.
RESULTS/STATUS
Conference held 12/13/74.
Virginia,
Arlington
Virginia,
Danville
Virginia,
en Danville
Power Plant
Arlington cty.
Incinerator
Sludge
Incinerator
Boise Cascade
Indust. Boiler
Brantly Generating
Station
Power Plant
Violation of parti-
culate emission
stds.
Violation of parti-
culate emission
stds.
Violation of parti-
culate emission
limitation.
Notice of violation
sent on 3/14/74.
Order to stack test
issued 7/2/74.
Notice of violation
issued 3/15/74. En-
forcement order issued
6/7/74.
Notice of violation
issued 6/4/74.
Awaiting stack test
results.
Company complied with
first increment of order
On 10/16/74 company notified
EPA that it will shut down
in January 1975 due to
economic reasons.
Conference held on 7/29/74.
Virginia,
Richmond
Virginia,
Alexandria
Federal Paper
Board Inc.
Industrial
Boiler
PEPCO Potomac River
Station
Power Plant
Violation of parti-
culate emission
limits.
Violation of opac-
ity limitation.
Notice of violation
issued 4/17/74.
Notice of violation
issued 1/30/74.
Administrative order
issued 6/25/74.
Awaiting stack test
results.
Conference held 2/27/74.
Meeting to discuss order
with Co. scheduled for
7/25/74
-------
REGION IV
oo
STATE/CITY
Alabama,
Tuscombia
Alabama,
Stevenson
Florida,
Pierce
Florida,
Lakeland
Florida
Bradley
Florida,
Joy Oil Field
Florida,
Chatahoochie
Florida,
Gibsonton
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
TVA-Colbert Sta.
Power Plant
TVA-Widows Creek
Station
Power Plant
Agrico. Chemical Co.
Rockdryers
Bordon Chemical Co.
Rock dryers
Brewster Phosphate
Co.
Rock Crushing
Exxon Louisiana
Land Corp.
Refinery
Florida State Hosp.
Industrial
boiler
Gardinier Inc.
Phosphate rock
dryers
POLLUTION PROBLEM
Violation of par-
ticulate emission
std.
Violation of par-
ticulate emission
std.
Violated particu-
late std.
Violation of par-
ticulate emission
std.
Violation of
Federally approved
compliance schedule
for particulate
emission std.
Violation of sul-
fur oxide emis-
sion std.
Violation of par-
ticulate emission
std.
Violation of par-
ticulate and sul-
fur oxide stds
TYPE OF ACTION
Notice of violation
issued 12/4/74.
Notice of violation
issued 12/4/74.
Notice of violation
issued 8/26/74.
Notice of violation
issued 8/30/74.
Notice of violation
issued 8/26/74. Enforce-
ment order issued
10/9/74.
Notice of violation
issued 9/13/74.
Notice of violation
issued 8/27/74.
Notice of violation
issued 6/11/74. Admin.
order for particulate
issued 9/6/74.
RESULTS/STATUS
-------
STATE/CITY
Florida,
Bartow
Florida
Chatahoochie
Florida,
Linhaven
Florida,
Pensacola
Florida
Palatka
VO
Florida,
Nichols
Florida,
white Springs
Florida.
Bartow
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
W. R. Grace
Phosphate rock
dryers
Gulf Power Co.
Power plant
Gulf Power Co.
Power plant
Gulf Power Co.
Power Plant
Hudson Pulp 6
Paper Co.
Pulp and Paper
Plant
Mobile Chem. Co.
Phosphate rock
dryers
Occidental Chemical
Co.
Swift Chemical Co.
Rock dryers
POLLOTION PROBLEM
Violation of Par-
ti culate and sul-
fur oxide emission
stds.
Violation of par-
ti culate and sul-
fur oxide stds.
Violation of par-
ti culate and sul-
fur oxide stds.
Violation of par-
ticulate and sul-
fur oxide stds.
Source missed 1st
increment of State
adopted federally
approved compliance
schedule for sulfur
oxide and par-
ticulate matter.
Violation of Fia.
PM and S02 reg.
Violation of
sulfur oxide
std.
Violation of par-
ticulate emission
std.
TYPE OF ACTION
Notice of violation
issued 6/11/74. Admin.
order issued 9/6/74.
Notice of violation
issued 8/30/74.
Notice of violation
issued 8/30/74.
Notice of violation
issued 8/30/74.
Notice of violation
issued 12/20/73. Admin.
order issued 1/21/74.
Notice of violation
issued 6/11/74. Admin.
order issued 9/6/74.
Notice of violation
issued 8/26/74.
Notice of violation
issued 9/13/74.
RESOLTS/STATUS
-------
STATE/CITY
Florida,
Tampa
Florida,
Bartow
Florida,
Ft. Meade
Kentucky,
Paradise
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Tampa Electric Co.
Power .Plant
U.S.S. Agrichemical
Co.
Rock Dryers
U.S.S. Agrichemical
Co.
Rock Dryers
TVA-Paradise Sta.
Power Plant
POLLUTION PROBLEM
Violation of par-
ticulate and sul-
fur oxide emissions
limitations.
Violates particu-
late std.
Violates particu-
late std.
Violation of par-
ticulate emission
std.
TYPE OF ACTION
Notice of violation
issued 8/23/7<».
Notice of violation
issued 8/26/74.
Notice of violation
issued 8/26/74.
Notice of violation
issued 12/4/74.
RESULTS/STATUS
Kentucky,
Paducah
TVA-Shawnee Sta.
Power Plant
Violation of par-
ticulate emission
std.
Notice of violation
issued 12/4/74.
Mississippi,
Jackson
Mississippi,
Natchez
Tennessee,
Columbia
Cook Construction
Co.
Open burning
International Paper
Co.
Pulp 6 Paper Mill
Monsanto Industries
Chem, Co.
Violation of
particulate emis-
sion std.
Violation of par-
ticulate emission
std.
Violation of sulfur
oxide emission stds.
Notice of violation
issued 11/29/7U.
Notice of violation
issued 9/24/74.
Notice of violation
issued «/20/7(».
Tennessee
Oak Ridge
Tennessee,
Gallatin
Tennessee,
Waverly
Tennessee,
Kingston
Rotary kilns
TVA-Bull Run Sta.
Power Plant
TVA-Gallatin Sta.
Power Plant
TVA-Johnston Sta.
Power Plant
TVA-Kingston Sta.
Power Plant
Violation of par-
ticulate emission
std.
Violation of par-
ticulate emission
std.
Violation of par-
ticulate emission
std.
Violation of par-
ticulate emission
std.
Notice of violation
issued 9/12/74. Admin.
Order issued 12/4/74.
Notice of violation
issued 12/4/74.
Notice of violation
issued 12/4/74.
Notice of violation
issued 12/4/74.
-------
STATE/CITY
Illinois,
Chicago
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
American Brick
Company
Brick Kiln £
Crusher
REGION V
POLLUTION PROBLEM
Violation of 111.
opacity and parti-
culate emission
standards.
TYPE OF ACTION
Notice of violation
issued 1/21/74.
RESOLES/STATUS
State suit filed, no
further Federal action
at this time.
Illinois,
Quincy
Celotex Corp.
Industrial
Boilers
Violation parti-
culate stds.
Consent order
issued 11/20/74.
Illinois
East Peoria
Illinois,
Bartonville
Central Illin-
ois Light Co.
Power Plant
Central Illinois
Light Co. Edward
Station
Power Plant
Violation of Feder-
al compliance
schedule for Illi-
nois particulate
stds.
Violation of sulfur
oxide std 6
Federal compli-
Kotice of violation
issued 12/20/73.
Notice of violation
issued 5/31/74.
conference held 8/1/74.
Draft consent order sent to company
for comment.
Conference held 8/1/74.
Draft consent order sent to Co.
for comment.
Illinois,
Wood River
Illinois,
Granite City
Illinois,
Blue Island
Clark Oil Refinery
Refinery
Granite City
Steel Co.
Coke ovens
Illinois Brick
Company
Brick Mfg.
FCC unit violates
particulate, hydro-
carbon & carbon
monoxide stds.
Violation of
particulate std.
and federal
compliance
schedule for coke
ovens.
Kilns violate par-
ticulate std.
Notice of violation
issued 10/24/74.
Notice of violation
issued 3/13/74.
Notice of violation
issued 3/4/74.
conference held 11/19/74.
Awaiting decision of 111.
AFCB on new carbon monoxide stds.
State action anticipated,
further EPA action deferred.
Complaint field before
Illinois Pollution Control
Board, further Federal
action deferred pending State
action.
-------
STATE/CITY
Illinois,
Alton
Illinois,
Chicago
Illinois,
Chicago
Illinois,
Thornton
Illinois,
Sterling
Illinois,
Chicago
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Illinois Power Co.
Power Plant
Interlake, Inc.
Coke ovens
International
Harvester Co.
Coke ovens
Marblehead Lime
Company
Quarry
Northwestern Steel
6 Wire
Steel Mfg.
Republic Steel Co.
Steel Mfg.
POLLDTION PROBLEM
Violation of sulfur
oxides stds.
Coke oven (pushing
6 quenching) Opera-
ting violate parti-
culate stds.
Violation of
federal compliance
schedule for coke
oven quenching
and pushing
Violaton of parti-
culate std.
Electric arc
furnaces violate
particulate stds.
Melt shop e Elec.
arc furnaces vio-
late particulate
stds.
TYPE OF ACTION
Notice of violation
issued 9/3/74.
Notice of violation
issued 8/16/74.
Notice of violation
issued 11/29/73.
Consent order
issued 4/ll/7
-------
CO
STATE/CITY
Illinois,
Lawrenceville
Illinois,
Cahokia
Illinois,
Venice
Illinois,
Chicago
Illinois,
Elgin
Indiana,
Newburg
Indiana,
Munster
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Texaco Refinery
Inc.
Refinery
Union Elec. Co.
Power Plant
Onion Elec. Co.
Power Plant
U.S. Steel Corp.
South Works
Steel Mfg.
Woodruff
Edwards, Inc.
Foundry
ALCOA
Aluminum Smelter
American Brick Co.
Brick Kiln &
Crusher
POLLUTION PROBLEM
Violation of car-
bon monoxide and
hydrocarbon stds.
by storage tanks.
Violation of parti-
culate & sulfur
oxides stds.
Violation of parti-
culate 6 sulfur
oxides stds.
Violation of parti-
culate emission
stds.
Cupola violates
carbon monoxide
stds.
Violation of parti-
culate stds.
Violation of parti-
culate and opacity
standards.
TYPE OF ACTION
Notice of violation
issued 3/26/74.
Order issued 7/3/74.
Notice of violation
issued 10/23/74.
Notice of violation
issued 10/23/74.
Notice of violation
issued 9/5/74.
Notice of violation
issued 6/7/74.
Notice of violation
issued 1/4/74.
RESULTS/STATUS
Presently in compliance
with terms of order.
Conference held 12/5/74. Draft
order being prepared.
Conference held 12/5/74. Draft
Order being prepared.
Conference held 9/27/74.
Meeting mid-January to discuss
Consent Order.
Awaiting results of
stack test.
Now in compliance with terms
of state order.
Notice of violation is- Awaiting results of stack test.
sued 1/21/74.
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Indiana,
Whiting
Indiana,
Noblesville
Indiana,
East Chicago
Indiana,
Chesterfield
Indiana,
East Chicago
Indiana,
Terre Haute
Indiana,
Bloomington
American Oil Co.
Oil Refinery
Hamilton Cty.
Asphalt, Inc.
Asphaltic
Concrete
Atlantic Richfield
Corp.
Refinery
Bethlehem Steel
Corp., Burns Harbor
Plant
Steel plant
Blaw-Know Foundry
Foundry
Bloomington
Ammonium Nitrate
Process.
Bloomington
Crushed Stone
Co.
Quarry
Violation of sulfur
oxide and opacity
standards.
Violation of parti-
culate matter emis-
sion standard.
Violation of sul-
fur oxide stds.
Violation of par-
ticulate (opacity
and process weight
stds.
Open hearth furn-
ace violates parti-
culate stds.
Violation of opaci-
culate matter emis-
sion standards.
Violation of opaci-
ty and particulate
matter emission
standards.
Notice of violation
issued 9/10/73.
Notice of violation is-
issued 11/19/73. Admin.
order issued 1/28/7«.
Notice of violation
issued 9/10/73.
Notice of violation
issued 7/11/73
Notice of violation
issued 1/21/74. Admin-
istrative order is-
sued U/15/7U.
Presently on enforceable
state order, further EPA
action obviated.
Presently in compliance with
terms of order.
Source in compliance.
Coke ovens placed on satisfactory
state schedule. Other points of
emission achieved compliance.
Presently in compliance with
terms of order.
Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance with
sued 10/9/73, Admin. terms of order.
order issued 1/31/7*.
Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance with
sued 10/31/73. regulation
-------
en
STATE/CITY
Indiana.
Cannellon
Indiana,
Largo
Indiana,
Indianapolis
Indiana,
Cayuga
Indiana,
Wabash
Indiana,
Richmond
Indiana,
Terre Haute
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Can-Tex Industries.
Inc.
Bock Crushing
Celotex Corporation
Indust. Boilers
Central soya Co.
Indust. Boilers
Colonial Brick Corp.
Brick Mfg.
Container Corp. of
America
Industrial
Boilers
Dana Corp.
Foundry
J.W. Davis Co.
Boilers
POIiLOTION PROBLEM
Violation of parti-
culate matter emis-
sion standard.
Violation of parti-
culate matter emis-
sion standard.
Violation of parti-
culate matter emis-
sion standard.
Violation of parti-
culate emission
standard.
Violation of parti-
culate and sulfur
oxide stds.
Cupolas violate op-
acity and partic-.
ulate stds.
Violation of parti-
culate matter and
opacity emission.
standards.
TYPE Of ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance with
sued 10/17/73 Admin. terms of order.
order issued 1/24/74.
Notice of violation Presently in compliance with
issued 1/23/74. Admin, order.
order issued 3/26/74.
Notice of violation
issued 10/12/73.
Presently in compliance
Notice of violation is-
sued 12/4/73.
Notice of violation is- State schedule adopted, further
sued 10/9/73. EPA action obviated.
Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance.
sued 10/30/73.
Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance
sued 4/26/74; Admin. with terms of order.
order issued 6/15/74.
-------
STATE/CITY
Indiana,
Indianapolis
Indiana,
Marion
-xl
01
Indiana,
Petersburg
Indiana,
Bloomington
Indiana,
East Chicago
Indiana,
Indianapolis
Indiana,
Richmond
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Ford Motor Co.
Boilers paint
spraying, drying
oven 6 degreaser.
Foster Forbes
Glass Co.
Glass Mfg.
Indust. Boilers
Indiana Rural Elec.
Coop., Inc.
Power Plant
Indiana University
Power Plant
Inland Steel Co.
Steel Mill
International
Harvest Co.
Indust. Boiler
Johns-Manvilie Corp.
Glass Mfg.
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
Violation of hydro- Notice of violation
carbon and particu- issued 6/11/74.
late matter stds. Consent order for
particulate issued
10/11/74.
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.
RESDLTS/STATOS
In compliance with order for
boilers. Action for other
sources pending legal inter-
pretation of HC stds.
Awaiting stack test.
Violation of opac-
ity and particula-
te standards.
Violation of parti-
culate standard.
Violation of opaci-
ty emission stand-
ard.
Violation of parti-
culate matter emis-
sion standard.
Violation of parti-
culate matter emis-
sion standard.
Forming lines
violate parti-
culate std.
Consent order is-
sued 7/10/74.
In compliance with terms
of consent order.
Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance
sued 10/24/73 admin. with terms of order
order issued 1/8/74.
Notice of violation is- At present time, no further
sued 7/18/73. Federal action anticipated
since cited source is on en-
forceable State schedule.
Notice of Violation
issued 10/26/73.
In compliance with regulations.
Notice of violation is- Order to be issued 1/1/75.
sued 6/26/74. Notice of
violation issued
9/16/74.
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OP ACTION
RESOLTS/STATUS
Indiana,
Brownstown
Kieffer Paper Mill
Boilers
Violation of parti- notice of violation is- Now on enforceable State
culate matter emis- sued 10/12/73. schedule.
sion standard.
Indiana,
Mitchell
Lehigh cement Co.
Kilns
Violation of parti- Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance with
culate matter emis- sued 11/26/73. Admin. terms of order.
sion standards. order issued 1/25/74.
Indiana,
Mt. Summit
Indiana,
Muncie
Indiana,
Richmond
Indiana,
East Chicago
Indiana,
Derby
Indiana,
Indianapolis
Magaw Construction
Inc.
Asphalt Plant
Magaw Construction
Inc.
Asphalt Plant
Magaw Construction
Inc.
Asphalt Plant
Mobil Oil Corp.
Refinery
Mulzer Crushed Stone
Company
Quarry
Nat'l
Corp.
Starch 6 Chem.
Violation of opaci- Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance.
ty and particulate sued 12/19/73.
matter emission
standards.
Industrial Boiler
Violation of opac-
ty and particulate
matter emission
standards.
Violation of opaci-
ty and particulate
matter emission
standards.
Violation of opa-
city & sulfur oxide
limitations.
Violation of parti-
culate matter and
opacity standards.
Violation of parti-
culate matter and
sulfur oxide emis-
sion standard.
Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance
sued 12/9/73.
Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance
sued 12/19/73.
Notice of violation
issued 9/10/73.
Source in compliance.
Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance
sued 2/7/74.
Notice of violation is-
sued 11/19/73 admin.
order issued 2/13/74.
Presently in compliance with
terms of order.
-------
co
STATE/CITY
Indiana,
Gary Vicinity
Indiana,
Indianapolis
Indiana,
Terre Haute
Indiana,
Indianopolis
Indiana,
Indianapolis
Indiana,
Sellersburg
Indiana,
Hammond
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
NIPSCO
Power Plant
Phillips Petro.
Company
Refinery
Public Service Co.
of Ind. Wabash Sta.
Power Plant
RCA Corp.
Electronics
Manufacturer
Rock Island
Refining Corp.
Refinery
Sellersburg Stone
Company
Rock Crushing
Stauffer Chem.
Company
Sulfuric acid
Manufacturer
POLLUTION PROBLEM TYPE OF ACTION
Violation of sulfur
oxide emission
standard.
Violation of hydro-
carbon emission
standards.
Violation of sulfur
oxide emission
standard.
Violation of hydro-
carbon emission
standard.
Violation of hydro-
carbon and carbon
monoxide emission
standards.
Violation of opaci-
ty and particulate
matter emission
standards.
Violation of sulfur
dioxide emission
Notice of violation is-
sued 9/13/73.
Notice of violation is-
sued 5/30/7U.
Notice of violation
sued 9/13/73.
Notice of violation is-
sued 7/1/7U.
Notice of violation
issued 3/13/7*.
Notice of violation
issued 1/10/7U.
Notice of violation
issued 1/10/7tt.
RESOLTS/STATDS
Administrative order pending
Seventh Circuit decision.
EPA action pending legal inter-
pretation of HC reg.
In compliance with State
enforcement order.
Achieved compliance with
regulations.
In compliance with terms of order
issued by local agency.
Indiana,
LaPorte
Teledyne Casting
Service
Foundry
Cupola violates
particulate matter
emission standard.
Notice of violation is- Evaluating stack test
sued H/6/1H. report.
-------
STATE/CITY
Indiana,
East Chicago
Indiana,
Indianapolis
Indiana,
Shoals
Indiana,
Wabash
Indiana,
Gary
-vl
IO
Indiana,
Wabash
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
U.S. Gypsum Co.
Milling
Union Carbide Corp.
Industrial Boiler
U.S. Gypsum
Plaster Mfg.
U.S. Gypsum Co.
Mineral wool
cupolas
U.S. Steel Corp.
Gary works
Steel Mill,
Cement Plant
Wabash Smelting
Corp.
Aluminum
Plant
POLLUTION PROBLEM
Violation of Parti-
culate matter and
opacity standards.
Violation of par-
ticulate matter
emission standard.
Violation of parti-
culate matter emis-
sion standard.
Violation of par-
ticulate matter
std.
Operation of a ste-
el mill with cement
production facil-
ities (Universal
Atlas Co.) in
violation of opaci-
ty and particulate
emission standards.
Violation of opaci-
ty standards.
TYPE OF ACTION
Notice of violation Is-
sued 10/5/73.
Notice of violation
issued 5/29/74.
Notice of violation
issued 10/5/73.
Notice of violation
sued on 10/5/73.
Notice of violation
issued 4/18/73. Order
issued June 22, 1973.
Notice of violation
issued 3/28/73. Order
issued 5/30/73.
RESULTS/STATUS
On enforceable State
schedule.
on enforceable state Schedule
On enforceable State
schedule
On enforceable state Schedule
U. S. Steel brought suit in the
U.S. District Court, Hammond,
Ind. to void the EPA order. The
Court issued a consent decree on
11/21/74, establishing a compli-
ance schedule for the facility.
The first increment of progress
requires the closing of open
hearth furnace * 4 in January 1975.
Presently in compliance with
terms of the order.
-------
oo
o
STATE/CITY
Indiana,
Wabash
Indiana,
East Chicago
Michigan,
Hillsdale
Minnesota,
International
Falls
Minnesota,
Brainerd
Minnesota,
Red Wing
Minnesota,
Minneapolis
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Wabash Smelting,Inc.
Smelter
Youngstown Sheet
and Tube Co.
Steel Mill
Hillsdale Foundry
Boise Cascade Corp.
Kraft, pulp and
paper mill.
Burlington Northern
Inc.
Ind. Boilers
Conwed Corp.
Foundry
L. Dreyfus Corp.
Grain Handling
POLLOTION PROBLEM
Violation of parti-
culate matter and
opacity standards.
Violation of parti-
culate and opacity
standards.
Violation of parti-
culate matter emis-
sion standard.
Violation of parti-
culate matter emis-
sion standard.
Violation of parti-
culate matter emis-
sion standard.
Cupola 6 blow
chambers violate
sion standards.
particulate stds.
Marquette grain
elevator, rail
dump, storage
bins violate
particulate stds.
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Notice of violation is- conference held 7/22/74.
sued 6/27/74.
Notice of violation is- On enforceable State order.
sued 7/18/73.
Notice of violation
issued 4/9/74.
Notice of violation
issued 4/18/74.
Consent order is-
sued on 5/20/74.
Notice of violation
issued 2/20/74.
Notice of violation
issued 2/20/74.
Notice of violation
issued 8/8/74.
Enforcement Order
issued 11/15/74.
State legal action has been
initiated to enforce schedule.
Presently in compliance with
terms of order.
State order issued 6/26/74.
On enforceable State order.
-------
00
STATE/CITY.
Minnesota,
Buhl
Minnesota,
Springfield
Minnesota,
Collegeville
Minnesota,
Duluth
Minnesota,
City of
Two Harbors
Ohio,
Portsmouth
Ohio,
Cleveland
Ohio,
Norwalk
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Public Utilities
Commission
Power Plant
Public Utilities
Commission
Power Plants
St. John's Univ.
Industrial Boiler
U.S. Steel-
South Works
Coke Ovens
Water 6 Light
Plant
Power Plant
Empire-Detroit Steel
Steel Co.
steel Mfg.
Jones 6 Laughlin
Steel Corp.
steel Mfg.
Ohio Liquid Dispos-
al, Inc.
POLLUTION PROBLEM
Violation of
participate
stds.
Violation of par-
ticulate stds.
Violation of parti-
culate emission
standard.
Coke ovens violate
particulate stds.
Boiler *2
violates parti-
culate stds.
Open hearth furnace
violate particulate
stds.
Sinter plant viola-
tes particulate
stds.
Violation of parti-
culate std.
TYPE OF ACTION
Notice of violation
issued 7/25/74.
Notice of violation
issued 9/4/74.
Notice of violation is
sued 2/20/74.
Notice of violation
issued 5/2/74.
Notice of violation
issued 11/5/74.
Notice of violation
issued 11/1/74.
Notice .of violation
issued 11/29/74.
Notice of violation
issued 9/6/74.
RESULTS/STATUS
State handling conversion of
customers to fuel oil. Hill
continue to monitor.
Enter agreement with State for
compliance early 1976.
Evaluating stack test report
State filed suit 10/7/74. Further
federal action deferred.
Conference held 12/5/74.
Conference held 12/2/74.
State initiated action; Co.
now out of business.
Incinerator
-------
STATE/CITY
Ohio,
Canton
Ohio,
Cleveland
Ohio,
Massilion
Ohio,
Alliance
oo Wisconsin,
^° Whitewater
Wisconsin,
Hixton
Wisconsin,
Milwaukee
Wisconsin,
Milwaukee
Wisconsin,
Milwaukee
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Republic Steel Corp.
Steel Mfg.
Republic steel Corp.
Steel Mfg.
Republic Steel Corp.
Coke ovens
Transue & Wins.
Foundry
Industrial
boilers
Alpha Cast, Inc.
Foundry
Husky Industries,
Inc.
Charcoal Mfr.
Miller Brewing Co.
Brewery
Milwaukee Solvay
Coke Co.
Coke Ovens
Pabst Brewing Co.
Brewery
POLLUTION PROBLEM
Elec arc furnace
violate particulate
stds.
Sinter Plant, EOF,
OHF, & Coke Batter-
ies violate parti-
culate stds.
Coke Batteries vio-
late particulate
stds.
Forging operation
6 boilers violate
particulate stds.
Violation of parti-
culate stds.
TYPE OF ACTION
Notice of violation
issued 9/27/74.
Notice of violation
issued 9/29/74.
Notice of violation
issued 9/27/74.
Notice of violation
issued 8/15/74.
Notice of violation
.issued 9/25/74.
RESIDLTS/STATOS
Conference held 11/8/74.
Awaiting policy decision on
pending 307 challenge.
Conference held 11/8/74.
Conference held 11/8/74.
Control program for boiler house
being evaluated.
Conference held 10/25/74.
Co. to submit control plans
in mid-December.
Violation of parti- Notice of violation is- State order issued 6/28/74.
culate matter emis- sued 4/3/74.
sion standard.
Violation of parti-
culate matter emis-
sion. Federal com-
pliance schedule
for hydrocarbon
emission standard.
Violation of parti-
culate matter opa-
city and hydrocarbon
emission standards.
Notice of violation
issued 4/3/74. Con-
sent order issued
6/6/74.
Incompliance with terms of consent
order.
Notice of violation is- State order issued 6/11/74.
sued 1/9/74.
Violation of parti- Notice of violation is- State order issued 6/20/74.
culate matter emis- sued 4/3/74.
sion standard.
-------
STATE/CITY
Louisiana,
shreveport
Louisiana,
Elizabeth
Louisiana,
Pollock
Louisiana,
Tallulah
COMPANY/TYPE
_OF SOURCE
Bird 6 Son Inc.
Calcasieu Paper Co.
Inc.
Indus, boilers,
pulp mill
Carroll W. Maxwell
Co., Inc.
Conical Inciner-
ator
Chicago Mill &
Lumber Co.
Indus. Boiler
REGION VI
POLLUTION PROBLEM TYPE Of ACTION RESOLTS/STATUS
Violation of parti- Notice of violation is- Conference waived negotiating
culate matter sued 11/11/74. agreed order.
(Fugitive dust) reg.
Violation of opaci- Notice of violation
ty and particulate issued 11/11/74.
matter regs.
Conference scheduled for
12/17/71.
Violation of opaci- Notice of violation is- Conference requested not
ty and incinerator sued 11/29/74. yet scheduled.
regs.
Violation of parti- Notice of violation is- Conference waived, compliance
culate matter regs. sued 11/21/74. to te reverified.
oo
GO
Louisiana,
Dodson
Louisiana,
Baton Rouge
Louisiana,
Larose
Hunt Lumber Co.,
Inc.
Conical
Incinerator
Ideal Cement
Cement Kilns
LaFourche Parish
Police Jury
Open burning
Violaton of opacity
particulate matter
and open burning
regulations.
Notice of violation is-
sued 6/27/74.
Violation of parti- Notice of violation
culate matter regs. issued 8/12/74.
Violaton of open
burning reg.
Notice of violation
issued 10/3/74.
Conference held 11/21/74.
Order being prepared.
Conference waived, source
reports compliance, inspection
to be conducted.
-------
STATE/CITY
Louisiana,
Florien
Louisiana,
Dodson
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Vancover Plywood
Co., Inc.,Florien
Plywood
Conical
Incinerator
Willamette Ind.,
Inc., Louisiana
Plywood Corp.
Conical
Incinerator
POLLUTION PROBLEM TYPE OF ACTION
Violation of opaci- Notice of violation
ty and incinera- issued 9/30/74.
tor regs.
Violation of opaci- Notice of violation
ty, incinerator, issued 9/30/74.
and open burning
regs.
RESULTS/STATUS
Conference held 11/19/74.
Order being prepared.
Conference waived. Consent
order being prepared.
order sent to DSSE on 12/10/74.
oo
-------
COMPANY/TYPE REG ION VII
STATE/CITY. OF SOURCE POLLUTION PROBLEM TYPE OF ACTION RESULTS/STATUS
Iowa, Clinton Corn violation of par- Notice of violation Presently complying with
Clinton Processing Co. ticulate emission issued 6/3/74. En- •; terms of order.
standard forcement order issued
Grain Dryers 7/31/74.
Iowa, Georgia Pacific Violation of par- Notice of violation Source presently in com-
Ft. Dodge Corp. ticulate and issued 7/11/74. pliance with terms of
Wallboard Mfg. opacity stds. Enforcement order order.
issued 10/21/74.
Kansas, Erman Corp. Violation of open Notice of violation Open burning ceased, source
Kansas City burning (particu- issued 5/3/74 now in compliance.
Railroad Car late matter) reg.
Salvage
Missouri, ADM Milling Co. Violation of par- Notice of violation Source is now meeting
N. Kansas City ticulate emission issued 1/14/74. terms of EPA approved
Grain Mill standard. compliance schedule.
Missouri, Alpha Portland clinker cooler Notice of violation Source is now meeting terms
Affton Cement violates particu- issued 9/28/73. of EPA approved State corn-
late std. pliance schedule, further
Cement Mfg. EPA action deferred.
Missouri, Asarco Violation of Notice of violation Order has been rescinded
Glover sulfur oxide emis- issued 6/2/73. Admin. mooting present litigation.
sion standard order issued 10/23/73. Entering into stipulation with
Lead Smelter company to resolve case.
Missouri, Central Electric • Co. refused to Admin, order is- Company complied with order.
Jefferson City Pwr Co-op. submit data sued 5/2/73.
required by section
Power Plant 114 letter.
Missouri Centropolis Crusher Co. refused to Admin, order Company complied with order.
Kansas City Inc. submit data issued 6/6/73.
required by sec-
Rock Crushing tion 114 letter.
Missouri, Columbia Water & Source did not test Admin, order issued Information received, boilers
Columbia Light Dept. boilers 6 6 7 as 8/8/73. 6 & 7 in compliance.
required in sec-
Power plant tion 114 letter.
-------
STATE/CITY
Missouri,
Louisiana
Missouri,
Lebanon
Missouri,
Hannibal
Missouri,
Parkville
en Missouri,
St. Louis
County
Missouri,
St. Louis
County
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Hercules, Inc.
Fertilizer Mfr.
Independent Stave
Co, , Inc.
Industrial
Boilers
Marion county
Milling
Grain Dryers
Mid-Continent
Asphalt and
Paving Co.
Asphalt Mfg.
Union Electric Co.
Labadie station
Power Plant
Union Electric Co.
Meramec Station
Power Plant
POLLUTION PROBLEM TYPE OF ACTION
In violation of
particulate matter
emissions stds.
Violation of par-
ticulate matter
(process emissions)
and opacity stds.
Violation of opaci-
ty standard
Violation of opaci-
ty standard
Violation of
sulfur oxide emis-
sion limitation
Violation of
sulfur oxide emis-
sion limitation.
Notice of violation
issued 5/16/73.
Order issued 10/15/73.
Notices of violation
issued 7/9/73 and
10/10/73. Enforce-
ment order issued
10/18/73. Criminal
conviction returned
on 11/20/74 for
violating order.
Notice of violation
issued 6/16/74.
Notice of violation
issued 10/19/73.
Admin, order issued
4/25/74.
Notice of violation
issued 5/31/74.
Notice of violation
issued 5/31/74.
RESULTS/STATUS
Presently in compliance with
terms of order.
Awaiting sentencing.
Source presently complying
with acceptable State
compliance schedule
Source has completed
installation of control
equipment and is in
compliance.
Company filed suit under
section 307 of the CAA
against EPA for review of
Missouri SIP.
Company filed suit under section
307 of the CAA against EPA for
review of Missouri SIP.
Missouri,
St. Louis
County
Missouri,
Hannibal
Union Electric Co.
Sioux Station
Power Plants
Universal Atlas
Cement Co.
Cement Mfr.
Violation of
sulfur oxide emis-
sion limitations
Co. refused to
submit data
required by sec-
tion 114 letter.
Notice of violation
issued 5/31/74.
Adminis. Order
issued 10/1/73.
company filed suit under section
307 of the CAA against EPA for
review of Missouri SIP.
Company complied with order.
Missouri,
Bonne Terre
Valley Mineral
Prod. Corp.
Rock Crushing
Violation of
particulate and
opacity stds.
Notice of violation
issued 1/14/74.
On acceptable State
compliance schedule.
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Nebraska,
Beatrice
Nebraska,
Bellevue
Dempster Industries
Xnc.
Foundry
Nebraska Public
Power Kramer
Station
Power Plant
Cupola violates
EPA promulgated
particulate matter
emission Std.
Violation of emis-
sion limitations
for particulates
Admin.
7/2/74
order issued
Notice of violation
issued 2/1/74.
Admin, order issued
3/14/74.
Company meeting requirements
of order.
Source complying with
terns of order.
oo
-vl
-------
co
co
STATE/CITY
Colorado,
Pueblo
Utah,
Salt Lake City
Utah,
Hoods Cross
Utah,
Salt Lake City
Utah,
Salt Lake City
Utah,
Hoods Cross
Utah,
Salt Lake City
Utah,
Salt Lake city
Wyoming,
Sundance
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
CF6I Steel Corp.
Steel Mill
Concrete Products
Co.
Cement Mfg.
Crown Refining Co.
Refinery
H. B. Gardner
Granite Mill and
Fixture Co.
Rock Crushing
Lloyd A. Fry Roof-
ing co.
Roofing Mfg.
Utah Sand & Gravel
Rock Crushing
Western States
Engineering 6
Milling
Roberts Construction
Company
Quarry
REGION VIJI
POLLUTION PROBLEM TYPE OF ACTION
Violation of
opacity std.
Violation of
opacity std
Violation of SIP
new source review.
Violation of
opacity std.
Violation of
opacity standard.
Violation of
opacity std.
Violation of
opacity std.
Violation of
opacity standard
Violation of
ambient air std
for total sus-
pended particulates
as provided in
Wyoming SIP.
Notices of violation
issued 5/8,15,17 and
6/6/74. Orders issued
8/27/74 and 10/17/74.
Notice of violation
issued 8/28/74.
Notice of violation
issued 5/6/74. Order
issued 7/26/74.
Notice of violation
issued 8-23-74
Notice of violation
issued 6/20/74.
Notice of violation
issued 1/23/74.
Notice of violation
issued 6/20/74.
Notice of violation
issued 8/6/74.
Notice of violation
issued 8/16/73.
Order issued 9/28/73.
RESULTS/STATUS
Company complying with
terms of order.
In compliance. Ceased
operation.
Complying with order
Plant production unit
closed.
Presently in compliance.
Presently in compliance
EPA action pending out-
come of State adminis-
trative hearing deter-
mination.
Conference held 8/7/7H.
No further violations noted.
Requesting improvement of
O&M Plan.
In compliance.
Presently in compliance with
terms of order.
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
REGION IX
POLLUTION PROBLEM TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Arizona
Benson
Arizona,
Mineral Park
Arizona,
Payson
Apache Powder Co.
Nitric acid
plant and
open burning.
Duval Corp.
Mining, ore
roasting
Kaibab Industries
Incinerators
Violation of opaci- Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance.
ty open burning, sued 11/13/73. Order
and nitrogen oxide issued 2/13/74.
emission standards.
Violation of sulfur
oxide emission
stds.
Violation of opaci-
ty standards.
Two notices of viola-
tion issued 10/7/74.
State to bold bearing
1/9/75.
Notice of violation is- Achieved compliance
sued 7/24/73. Admin. 1/10/74.
order issued 9/26/73.
Arizona,
Douglas
Phelps Dodge Corp.
Copper Smelter
Violation of opac-
ity 6 particulate
matter emission
standards.
Notice of violation is- Presently employing
sued 3/27/74; Admin. with terms of order.
order issued 6/6/74,
ammended 11/12/74.
m Arizona,
10 Page
Arizona,
Snowflake
Arizona,
Snowflake
California,
Richmond
Salt River Navajo
Plant
Power Plant
Western Moulding Co.
Industries
Incinerators
western Pine
Inc.
Incinerators
Allied Chem. Corp,
sulfuric Acid
Plant
Violation of Feder-
ally promulgated
compliance sched-
ule for particulate
matter.
Violation of opaci-
ty standards.
Violation of opaci-
ty standards.
Violation of sulfur
oxide emission
standard.
Notice of violation is- Presently employing with
sued 6/10/74. Order terms of order.
issued 9/18/74.
Notice of violation
issued 7/24/73.
Placed on State schedule.
Final compliance verified 5/8/74.
Notice of violation is- Placed on state compliance
sued 7/24/73. schedule. Achieved final
compliance 8/26/74.
Notice of violation is- EPA is disapproving existing
sued 7/18/74. regs. New regs to be promulgated.
California,
North Bolly-
wood
ALCO Gravure
Printing Co.
violation of Hydro-
carbon emission
standard.
Notice of violation is- Presently complying with terns
sued 4/26/74. Order of order.
issued 10/16/74.
-------
STATE/CITY
California,
Azuza
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Avery Label Co.
Printing
POLLUTION PROBLEM
Violation of hydro-
carbon stds.
TYPE OF ACTION
Consent order is-
sued 8/30/74.
RESULTS/STATUS
Source complying with
terms of order.
California,
Brawley
Batley-Janss
Enterprise
Alfalfa Mill
Violation of parti-
culate and opaci-
ty emission
standards.
Notice of violation is- In compliance (source shut-
sued 12/11/73 down).
California,
Cloverdale
Cloverdale Plywood
Co. (Fibreboard
Corp.)
Incinerator
Violation of opaci-
ty standards.
Notice of violation is- Order expired 7/1/74.
sued 8/10/73. Admin. Compliance status will be
order issued 12/21/73. verified.
vo
o
California,
Long Beach
California,
Vernon
California,
Cloverdale
Dept. of Water 6
Power
Power Plant
Fibreboard Corp.
Incinerator
GSR Lumber Co.
Incinerator
Violation of nitro-
gen oxide emission
Violation of opaci-
ty standard.
Violation of opaci-
ty standards.
Consent order issued
7/9/74.
Source is late in meeting
some increments of progress
while ahead in others.
Notice of violation is- Achieved final compliance
sued 3/11/73. Admin. 7/8/74.
order issued 12/21/73.
Notice of violation is- Achieved final compliance.
sued 8/10/73. Admin.
order issued 12/20/73.
-------
<£>
COMPANY/TYPE
STATE/CITY OF SOURCE POLLUTION PROBLEM y TYPE OF ACTION RESULTS/STATDS
California, Gen. Motors Corp Failure to submit Consent order is- Achieved final compliance
South Gate a compliance sued 6/3/74. 8/5/74.
Auto Mfr. schedule for hydro-
carbon emission
standards.
California, Georgia Pacific Violation of opaci- Notice of violation is- Achieved final compliance
Fort Bragg Corp. ty standard. sued 8/10/73. Admin. 7/13/74.
order issued 12/20/73.
Incinerator
California, Gravure W. Printing Violation of incre- Notice of violation is- APCD also adopted enforceable
Los Angeles Co. ments of progress sued 5/10/74. Order compliance schedule. Source is
of schedule to meet issued 10/16/74. presently complying, with terms
Printing hydrocarbon emis- of schedules.
sion standard.
California, Kaiser Steel Corp. Violation of opaci- Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance
Fontana ty, sulfur oxide sued 8/7/73; consent with terms of order.
Steel Mill emission standards, order issued 6/11/74,
amended 11/11/74.
California, Louisiana Pacific Violation of opaci- Notice of violation is- Achieved final compliance 5/1/74.
Covelo Corp. ty standards. sued 8/10/73 Admin.
orders issued 12/20/73.
Incinerator
California, Louisiana Pacific Violation of opaci- Notice of violation is- Achieved final compliance
Fort Bragg Co. ty standard. sued 8/10/73. Admin. 5/14/74.
order issued 12/20/73.
Incinerator
-------
STATE/CITY
California,
Calpella
California,
Cloverdale
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Masonite Corp.,
Incinerator
Masonite Corp.
Incinerator
POLLUTION PROBLEM
Violation of opaci-
ty standards.
Violation of opaci-
ty std.
TYPE OF ACTION
RESUI.TS/STATU S
Notice of violation is- Achieved final compliance
sued 8/10/73. Admin. 6/1/74.
orders issued 12/20/73.
Notice of violation is- Achieved final compliance
sued 8/10/73. Admin. 6/27/71.
order issued 12/20/73.
10
PO
California,
Monolith,
California,
Martinez
California,
Martinez
California,
Ukiah
Monolith Portland
Cement Plant
Cement Kilns
Monsanto-Avon Plant
Indus. Boilers
Phillips Petro.
Co. - Avon Plant
Refinery
Redwood Coast
Lumber Co.
Incinerator
Violation of opaci-
ty and particulate
emission standards.
Violation of sulfur
oxide emission std.
Violation of sulfur
oxide emission std.
Violation of opaci-
ty standard reg.
Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance
sued 11/20/73; admin. with terms of order.
order issued 5/10/74.
Notice of violation is- Conference held 8/29/74. RPA is
sued 7/18/74. disapproving reg., new regs to be
promulgated by EPA.
Notice of violation is- Conference held 8/29/74. EPA is
sued 7/18/74. disapproving reg., new regs to be
promulgated by E?A.
Notice of violation is- Achieved final compliance
sued 8/10/73. Admin. 7/8/74.
order issued
12/21/73.
California,
Anderson
Simpson Lee
Paper Co.
Boiler
Violation of opaci-
ty particulate and
sulfur oxide (TRS)
emission standard.
Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance
sued 3/21/74. Admin. with terms of order.
order issued 4/9/74.
-------
to
STATE/CITY
California,
El Segundo
California,
Richmond
California,
Carson
California.
Kern Cty.
California,
Los Angeles
Hawaii,
Balaula
Nevada,
Gabbs
Nevada,
S. Calif.
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Standard Oil of
Calif.
oil Refinery
Standard Oil of
Calif.
Texaco, Inc.
Sulfur Rec-
overy Plant
U.S. Borox
Mining
Uniroyal, Inc.
Rubber Mfr.
Kobala Corp.
Sugar Mill
Industrial
Boiler
Basic Industries
Quarry Mill
S. Calif. Edison
Power Plant
POLLUTION PROBLEM
Violation of Calif.
review of new
.sources and mod-
ifications regs.
Violation of sulfur
oxide emission
standard.
Violation of sulfur
oxide emission
standards.
Violation of opac-
ity std.
Failure to submit
approvable com-
pliance schedule
pursuant to Fed-
erally promulgated
regulation.
Violation of opaci-
ty and particulate
matter emission
standards.
Violation of parti-
culate 6 opacity
emission stds.
Violation of opaci-
ty and sulfur oxide
emission stds.
TYPE OF ACTION
RE8CLTS/STATOS
Notice of violation is- Achieved final compliance 8/12/74.
sued 1/31/74. Admin
order issued 3/5/74.
Notice of violation is- conference held 8/13/74. EPA la
sued 7/18/74. disapproving regulation; will pro-
mulgate new requirements.
Notice of violation is- achieved final compliance 11/5/74.
sued 2/22/74; admin.
order issued 5/9/74.
Notice of violation
issued 10/10/74.
conference held 12/9/74.
D. S. Borax to submit
compliance schedule to EPA.
Notice of violation is- Complying with terms of order.
sued 3/11/74; consent
order issued 6/18/74.
Consent order is-
sued 7/16/74.
Notice of violation is- Conference held 6/13/74.
sued 5/2/74. state adopted revised reg 6
placed source on compliance.
schedule 11/8/74.
Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance
sued 7/25/73; order is- with terms of order
sued 11/1/73, ammended
9/18/74.
-------
STATE/CITY
Idaho/
Pocatello
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
FMC Corp.
Phosphorus Mfg.
REGION X
POLLUTION PROBLEM TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Cooler fl violates
particulate Stds.
Notice of violation
issued 3/8/7
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/2-75-003
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
STATE AIR POLLUTION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN PROGRESS
REPORT, JULY 1 TO DECEMBER 31, 1974
5. REPORT DATE
April 1975
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
and Waste Management, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C., and Office
of Enforcement and General Counsel, Washington, D. C.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Progress, 7/1 to 12/31/74
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
All 55 State Implementation Plans (SIPs) are in the process of being amended.
Since the last report in this series, (EPA 450/2-74-013, September 1974), the number
of fully approved SIPs has dropped from 3 to 0, partly because EPA, in response to
court orders, proposed or promulgated regulations for non-significant deterioration,
variances and enforcement orders, and public availability of data. Additional
work resulting primarily from these court mandates has stressed already limited
State resources. Issues that affect the SIP process and the complexities inherent
in the SIP framework are discussed. The number of major emitters identified has
increased to 19,200; 70 percent of these are now in compliance with an emission
standard or an acceptable compliance schedule. The goal of attaining ambient
air quality standards will probably not be achieved in all AQCRs by the statutory
deadlines, but the SIP process is accomplishing reductions in ambient levels of
the criteria pollutants on a nationwide basis.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COS AT I Field/Group
Air pollution
Air Quality Maintenance Areas
Air quality standards
Enforcement (air quality standards)
State Implementation Plans
3. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
102
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified •
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
95
------- |