vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, N'C 27711
EPA-450/2-89-005
February 1989
Air
Guidelines for the Review of State
Implementation Plan Revisions
by EPA Regional Offices
-------
DCN No. 89-203-080-25-10
EPA Contract No. 68-02-4392
Work Assignment No. 25
FINAL
SIP GUIDANCE MANUAL
Prepared for:
Ms. Denise Gerth
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Air Quality Management Division
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Prepared by:
Radian Corporation
3200 Progress Center
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
March 1989
-------
Table of Contents
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1-1
1.1 Overview of Manual 1.1-1
1.2 Provisions for Updating Manual 1.2-1
1.3 Additional Information Sources 1.3-1
2.0 GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SIP FEDERAL REGISTER
NOTICES 2.1-1
2.1 Purpose of Chapter. 2.1-1
2.2 Initiation of FR Notice 2.2-1
2.3 Presentation of SIP Decision Rationale 2.3-1
2.4 Procedural and Format Guidelines 2.4-1
2.5 Examples of SIP FR Notices 2.5-1
3.0 COMPILATION OF SIP POLICY AND GUIDANCE REFERENCES 3.0-1
3.1 Generic Guidance 3.1-1
3.2 VOC Bubbles 3.2-1
3.3 VOC Single-Source Regulations 3.3-1
3.4 Visibility SIPs 3.4-1
3.5 State Stack Height Regulations and Negative
Declarations 3.5-1
3.6 Section 107 Redesignations 3.6-1
3.7 Prevention of Significant Deterioration/New
Source Review SIPs 3.7-1
3.8 lll(d) Plans and Negative Declarations 3.8-1
3.9 CO Attainment Plans Dealing with Hotspots 3.9-1
3.10 Lead Plans and Revisions 3.10-1
3.11 Particulate Matter (TSP and PM]0) SIPs 3.11-1
3.12 VOC Revisions with Extended Compliance Schedules. . . 3.12-1
3.13 S02 SIPs 3.13-1
Appendix A Tabular Guide to SIP Policy and Guidance Materials. . A.0-1
Appendix B
Policy and Guidance Memoranda B.0-1
jq.050
-------
Chapter 1 - Introduction
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview of Manual
The Guidelines for the Review of the State Implementation Plan
Revisions by EPA Regional Offices is a compilation of guidance information
intended to guide the Regional Offices in processing State implementation
plan (SIP) revisions for which approval responsibilities have been delegated
to the Regional Offices. The guidance manual is divided into three chapters
and two appendices as follows:
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Chapter 2 - Guidelines for Development of SIP Federal Register
Notices
Chapter 3 - Compilation of SIP Policy and Guidance References
Appendix A - Tabular Guide to SIP Policy and Guidance Materials
Appendix B - Policy and Guidance Memoranda
Chapter 2 contains guidance for preparation of effective,
well-organized Federal Register notices proposing and promulgating decisions
on SIP revisions. It is intended for use as a reference by Regional Office
personnel responsible for preparing Federal Register notices. The guidance
emphasizes techniques for organizing Federal Register notices and presenting
the decision rationale. In addition, several procedural and format
guidelines pertaining to Federal Register notice preparation are presented.
Finally, for illustration purposes, several examples of well-written
Federal Register notices are presented in Chapter 2.
Chapter 3 contains a listing of policy and guidance references relevant
to those categories of SIPs for which review and approval responsibilities
have been delegated to the Regional Offices. These policy and guidance
references include relevant statutory and regulatory requirements (i.e.,
Clean Air Act and Code of Federal Regulations), Federal Register notices,
EPA guideline documents, and Agency policy and guidance memoranda.
Appendix A is a tabular presentation of the policy and guidance
reference listing in Chapter 3. It is intended to provide a quick guide to
jq.050 1.1-1
-------
1.1 Overview of Manual (Continued)
the available policy and guidance materials pertaining to a particular
category of SIP revision. In addition, it shows topics covered by each of
the policy and guidance memoranda included in Appendix B of the manual.
Appendix B contains copies of the policy and guidance memoranda that
pertain to one or more of the SIP catego'ries for which review and approval
responsibilities have been delegated to the Regional Office.
jq.050 1.1-2
-------
1.2 Provisions for Updating Manual
The guidance manual has been designed to permit periodic update (e.g.,
adding new categories of SIP revisions as they are delegated and adding new
policy and guidance information to those categories already delegated to the
Regional Offices). Additional guidance on Federal Register notice
preparation (Chapter 2) may also be incorporated as it is developed.
Updating of the manual will be accomplished by either adding new pages
or by replacing existing pages, as appropriate. Detailed instructions for
updating the manual will be provided to the Regional Offices along with the
update materials.
jq.050 1.2-1
-------
1.3 Additional Information Sources
One purpose of the guidance manual is to provide a compilation of
guidance documents which should be used by the Regional Offices when
reviewing SIP revisions. It is designed as a basic reference tool for
determining if a SIP revision should be approved or disapproved. Additional
guidance can be found in the following documents: "Air Programs Policy and
Guidance Notebook"; "New Source Review/Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Guidance Notebook"; and "Clean Air Act
Compliance/Enforcement Manual--Compendium of Operative Policies". It is
anticipated that issues and situations will arise with regard to specific
SIP submittals for which guidance beyond that provided in these manuals will
be needed. Regional Office personnel responsible for preparing SIP
revisions are encouraged to solicit additional guidance whenever necessary
from EPA Headquarters personnel irrespective of the category of the SIP. A
list of individuals to contact for additional guidance on specific SIP
categories is presented below and is further supplemented in the "Regional
Office and OAQPS Contact Points for Selected Air Pollution Control
Activities".
Guidelines for processing the Federal Register notices (i.e., the flow
of paper) for SIP actions is found in the document "Processing Procedures
for SIP Revisions for Part 52; Part 62 lll(d) Plans; and Part 81
Redesignations". Regional Office personnel engaged in the processing of SIP
revisions should also be fully aware of three additional policy memoranda
which govern the SIP review process. They are: "Policy for Determining
Completeness of SIP Submittals"; "Legal Analysis of Letter Notice Option for
Processing Minor SIP Actions"; and "Grandfathering of Requirements for
Pending SIP Revisions". For additional guidelines on the format and writing
requirements of the Federal Register, reference should be made to the Office
of the Federal Register's "Document Drafting Handbook". The individuals to
contact for assistance on processing SIPs are Betty Abramson (FTS 629-5369)
or Denise Gerth (FTS 629-5550).
jq.050 1.3-1
-------
1.3 Additional Information Sources (Continued)
SIP Category
VOC bubbles
VOC single-source regulations
Visibility SIPs
State stack height regulations and negative
declarations
Section 107 redesignations:
t CO
TSP
SO
Prevention of significant deterioration/new
source review SIPs
lll(d) plans and negative declarations
CO attainment plans dealing with hotspots
Lead plans and revisions
Particulate matter (TSP and PM1Q) SIPs
VOC revisions with extended compliance
schedules
S02 SIPs
Headquarters Contact(s)
Ted Creekmore
FTS 629-5699
Bill Polglase
FTS 629-5246
Denise Scott
FTS 629-0870
Doug Grano
FTS 629-5255
Ray Vogel
FTS 629-5284
Martha Smith
FTS 629-5314
Doug Grano
FTS 629-5255
Dennis Crumpler
FTS 629-0871
David Painter
FTS 629-5355
Ray Vogel
FTS 629-5284
Martha Smith
FTS 629-5314
Martha Smith
FTS 629-5314
Bill Polglase
FTS 629-5246
Doug Grano
FTS 629-5255
jq.050
1.3-2
-------
Chapter 2 -
Federal Register Guidelines
-------
2.0. GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SIP FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES
2.1 Purpose of Chapter
The purpose of this chapter is to provide guidance to EPA Regional
personnel responsible for preparing Federal Register (FR) notices proposing or
promulgating decisions on State implementation plan (SIP) submittals. This
guidance addresses the organization and presentation of the rationale for EPA
action on SIP submittals. Adherence to these guidelines is important to
ensure that published SIP actions are consistent with Agency policy and to
prevent variation in policy interpretation between Regions.
The remainder of this chapter is organized as follows:
2.2 - Initiation of FR Notice
2.3 - Presentation of SIP Decision Rationale
2.4 - Procedural and Format Guidelines
2.5 - Examples of SIP FR Notices
jq.050 2.1-1
-------
2.2 Initiation of FR Notice
The first purpose of a FR notice prepared for the proposal or
promulgation of an Agency action on a SIP submittal is to state clearly what
action EPA is taking or proposing to take on the submittal. The proposal
notice also serves the function of providing the public with an opportunity
to review and submit comments on proposed Agency actions. The FR notice
presents the background and the rationale for the Agency's decision on the
proposed or final SIP action, explaining the relationship of the action to
EPA policy and the basis for any exception which has been granted.
Proper organization of the FR notice contents prior to writing is an
essential step toward ensuring effective communication of Agency SIP
decisions. This section presents guidelines and suggestions for initiating
well-organized FR notices.
Step 1 - Identifying Information Needed to Support Decision
As a first step in developing the rationale for the Agency's decision
to approve or disapprove a SIP action, it is important to identify the
information needed as a minimum to support the decision. In general, this
information will be developed in the course of the Regional office's review
of a SIP submittal. In cases where the FR notice announces a decision to
approve a SIP action, the minimum information will consist of evidence that
all relevant requirements for an approvable SIP have been met. In cases
where the FR notice announces a decision to disapprove a SIP action, the
deficiencies of the plan should be clearly identified in the context of the
applicable requirements. As discussed in more detail in Section 2.3, the
rationale presented in support of most Agency decisions will be based on
existing statutory and regulatory requirements and policy statements. If
other information is used to make the decision, it should be identified and
discussed in the FR notice.
jq.050 2.2-1
-------
2.2 Initiation of FR Notice (Continued)
Step 2 - Development of Logic for FR Notice Rationale
After all the information needed to support the decision has been
identified, the logic to be used in presenting the decision rationale should
be outlined. The rationale presented in the FR notice should describe in a
logical, step-by-step fashion the basis for the Agency's decision. The
requirements for an approvable SIP action should be clearly identified along
with a concise description of how the action being taken: 1) complies with
these requirements (in the case of an approval), or 2) fails to comply with
these requirements (in the case of a disapproval). Information not directly
relevant to the Agency's decision should not be included.
Step 3 - Preparation of FR Notice Text
After developing the logic for the rationale to be presented in the FR,
the text of the notice should be prepared. The text of the notice should
contain sufficient detail to inform the public of the basis for the Agency's
decision while remaining as brief and concise as possible. In general, less
detail is needed to explain decisions on SIP actions which are expected to
be minor, noncontroversial, and generate minimal public interest. More
detail will be necessary to explain decisions on major actions and on
actions expected to be controversial or to generate significant amounts of
public interest. Overall, the preamble to a FR notice is intended to
provide a logical presentation of the issues, policies, and decisions
relevant to Agency action on a specific SIP submittal.
The text should include a summary of the action that clearly states the
Agency's position on a final rule or that identifies specific issues for
which comments are solicited in the case of proposed rules.
jq.050 2.2-2
-------
2.3 Presentation of SIP Decision Rationale
This section presents specific guidance on the use of supporting
information in the presentation of SIP decision rationale. Categories of
support information for which guidance is provided include:
Consultation with Headquarters.
Use of EPA policy as basis for decisions.
Use of decisions on past SIP submittals as basis for current
actions.
Use of economic arguments in supporting decisions.
t Use of technical feasibility arguments in supporting decisions.
jq.050 2.3-1
-------
2.3 Presentation of SIP Decision Rationale (Continued)
Consultation with Headquarters
As discussed below, the Headquarters program staff will be available
for consultation with the Regional offices on the preparation of SIP
FR notices. The Headquarters staff can assist the Regional offices by
clarifying existing policy statements as they relate to specific actions or
other issues that may arise on SIP revisions. Regional office SIP review
personnel are encouraged to consult with Headquarters on these and any other
areas of concern.
jq.050 2.3-2
-------
2.3 Presentation of SIP Decision Rationale (Continued)
Use of Policy
Agency decisions on SIP action submittals are based on: 1) statutory and
regulatory requirements provided in the Clean Air Act and Code of Federal
Regulations, and 2) policy and guidance developed by EPA in the implementation
of these statutes and regulations. Sources of documented policy and guidance
issued by EPA include the Federal Register, EPA guideline documents, and
individual policy memoranda. All statutory and regulatory requirements and
relevant policy statements should be reviewed prior to and during
preparation of FR notices and a thorough knowledge of these policies
developed. In the majority of cases, it is expected that Regional offices
can rely on existing policy in presenting the rationale for their decisions.
In describing Agency policy in the FR notice, it is important that policy
be presented clearly and accurately. This is critical to ensure that the
basis for Agency decisions on a particular SIP submittal is well-understood by
the State submitting the SIP and the public. All discussions of Agency policy
on a particular SIP action should specifically reference the source(s) of the
applicable policy. In addition to referencing applicable policy sources in
the FR notice, discussion of Agency policy should be in the exact language
used in those policy statements. The language in these policy statements has
been the subject of discussion at all levels of Agency management by the time
the policy is adopted. Even well-intentioned changes to this language (e.g.,
paraphrasing or summarizing of policy statements) in a FR notice may alter the
meaning of the policy to some extent. This can cause misunderstanding about
the policy and its application to SIP revisions. Consequently, it is
essential that the original language be incorporated into the FR notice
wherever the policy is being stated.
In instances where stated Agency policy on a particular issue does not
adequately address the specific SIP action under review, assistance should be
sought from Headquarters. Headquarters personnel will make an effort to
clarify the application of policy statements to the specific SIP action. In
addition, when written policy does not exist for a particular issue
pertaining to a SIP submittal, the Regional office should request that
jq.050 2.3-3
-------
2.3 Presentation of SIP Decision Rationale (Continued)
Use of Policy - Continued
Headquarters develop and/or document the needed policy guidance. Failure to
request input from Headquarters in cases of inadequate or nonexistant policy
could result in poorly supported or, in some cases, improper decisions on
SIP submittals.
In some cases where there is no directly applicable policy statement,
it may be necessary to rely on a group of interrelated Agency policies in
order to formulate a position on the SIP submittal. When presenting a
rationale based on a group of policies, the connection between the provisions
of the policies relied upon and the aspects of the proposed revision should be
made clear. Similarly, the relationship between the specific provisions of
the various policies should be made clear in the FR notice. Care should be
taken, however, to ensure that policy statements are not linked in a way that
effectively creates new policy.
In some instances, the Regional office may believe there should be a
departure from previously stated Agency policy with regard to a particular
action. Where significant deviation from policy is recommended as the basis
of decision on a SIP action, the SIP action must be submitted to and processed
by Headquarters according to standard procedures. Prior to submittal to
Headquarters, it is recommended that the Regional office identify and
discuss with Headquarters the specific policy statements being contradicted,
as well as the specific portions of those policies that have been determined
to be inapplicable or inappropriate. The nature of the action being taken
should be discussed in terms of the situational factors that make this
particular proposal distinct from the otherwise similar SIP actions that
remain subject to the policy. In the case of policy deviations that are not
significant, action at the Regional level may be allowed following
discussion with Headquarters.
In some instances, Regional personnel may have no prior experience
applying an Agency policy to a particular type of SIP action. In these
instances, Regional personnel are encouraged to contact other Regional offices
in order to determine whether they have encountered similar SIP submittals.
jq.050 2.3-4
-------
2.3 Presentation of SIP Decision Rationale (Continued)
Use of Policy - Continued
If another Region has dealt with a related action under similar circumstances,
it may be appropriate that the treatment of the submittal and the FR notice
reflect the same reasoning developed by the other Region. The fact that
another Region took a certain action or presented a certain rationale in a
previous action should never be cited as the primary basis or precedent in
the FR notice for the current action. Prior action by another Region,
however, may be used to provide additional support to a decision on a SIP
submittal. However, the rationale for the action on the SIP submittal in
the FR notice should be presented on the basis of local conditions and
considerations as they relate to the statutory, regulatory, and policy
requirements. Headquarters may be of assistance in identifying the Regions
that have dealt with similar issues.
To summarize, when using Agency policy to support decisions on SIP
actions in the FR notice:
Do
Cite policy documents, as appropriate, or ask for more policy or
technical assistance from Headquarters.
Read all policy statements and ask Headquarters for assistance if
you have trouble understanding the policy.
t Submit SIP actions based on significant deviations from policy to
Headquarters according to standard procedures, providing rationale
for approval/disapproval action.
Solicit input from other Regions to develop national perspectives
on SIP issues for unusual cases.
jq.050 2.3-5
-------
2.3 Presentation of SIP Decision Rationale (Continued)
Don't
Restate policy in language other than original language (e.g.,
summarize or paraphrase).
t Ignore issued policies because they don't make sense'or don't
support a desired course of action.
Base an action solely on another action.
jq.050 2.3-6
-------
2.3 Presentation of SIP Decision Rationale (Continued)
Use of Past SIP Decisions
In processing SIP submittals, past actions by the Agency (either within
the same Region or by another Region) on similar SIP submittals should not
be cited as the primary basis of the rationale for approving or disapproving
a current SIP submittal. Such reliance can have the effect of creating
Agency policy with regard to a category of SIP action where no such policy
exists or is intended to exist. Instead, the rationale for Agency action
presented in the FR notice should be discussed in terms of the relevant
statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements in the context of the local
factors relevant to the action under consideration and any unique factors
presented by the State in submitting the revision. Where a similar decision
has been reached on a previous SIP submittal, reference to the past decision
to provide additional support to the current decision is appropriate.
However, in no case, should any individual decision (past or present) be
considered a precedent for making other similar decisions. To clarify the
point that SIP actions do not set precedent for the Agency's actions in
other SIP revision requests, the following language should be incorporated
into each FR notice:
"Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for
revision to the state implementation plan shall be considered
separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements."
jq.050 2.3-7
-------
2.3 Presentation of SIP Decision Rationale (Continued)
Use of Past SIP Decisions - Continued
To summarize, when using past SIP decisions to support current
decisions on current SIP actions in the FR notice:
Do
Base decision rationale on specified local factors relevant to the
action and on compliance with relevant requirements.
t Indicate that this action does not constitute a precedent for other
SIP actions.
t Verify the basis of previous policy exceptions to ensure
similarities and differences.
Don't
Cite previous actions as primary reason for decision.
jq.050 2.3-8
-------
2.3 Presentation of SIP Decision Rationale (Continued)
Use of Economic Arguments
Many submittals for SIP revisions involve economic arguments, such as
when a source is attempting to gain an exemption from certain SIP requirements
on the basis of economic hardship. In these instances, the burden of
proving the economic hardship is on the State, not EPA, and the State's case
must satisfy the economic criteria established in EPA policy. Accordingly,
specific economic criteria set forth in those policy statements can be
discussed as part of the rationale presented in the FR notice. Local
economic impacts created by a proposed SIP revision can also be the basis
for action by the Agency. Importantly, however, there should be no
reference in the FR notice to certain general levels of costs or of costs
per ton of pollutant controlled being reasonable or unreasonable, per sg.
However, factual cost information can be and, where appropriate to the
decision, should be included in the technical support document if the SIP
action involves a RACT determination. The Agency has avoided setting such
cost effectiveness limits on an across the board basis. Further, previous
actions taken by the Agency in approving or denying a SIP proposal on the
basis of adverse economic impacts should not be used as the basis for
decisions on SIP proposals elsewhere primarily since each case represents a
unique decision.
To summarize, when using economic arguments to justify decisions on a SIP
action in the FR notice:
Do
Base economic justification on the merits of local factors as they
relate to the specific action under review.
Understand the basis and validity of the economic factors presented
by the State.
jq.050 2.3-9
-------
2.3 Presentation of SIP Decision Rationale (Continued)
Use of Economic Arguments - Continued
Don't
Make any references to what $/ton threshold is or is not acceptable
or reasonable.
Make economic justification outside the strict confines of
established policy.
jq.050 2.3-10
-------
2.3 Presentation of SIP Decision Rationale (Continued)
Use of Technical Feasibility Arguments
As in the case of economic arguments, many SIP submittals include claims
that previously defined emission levels are technically infeasible and cannot
be met by sources or States. Again, it is the responsibility of the State
to demonstrate within the context of existing Agency policy that unique
factors exist making the specific emission level technically infeasible for
the particular source. The FR notice should discuss whether the SIP
submittal has adequately presented the case in support of its uniqueness. In
addition, it is inappropriate to make general statements in the FR notice
regarding technical feasibility for a source category as a whole; technical
feasibility arguments should address only the situational factors surrounding
the case at hand. However, where applicable, information contained in
nationally accepted data sources (e.g., BACT/LAER clearinghouse) can be used
to support local decisions regarding technical feasibility. It may also be
appropriate to reference State regulations and public comments that relate
to technical feasibility when applicable to the case at hand.
To summarize, when using technical feasibility arguments to justify
decisions on a SIP action in the FR notice:
Do
Reference and draw support from nationally accepted technical data
sources.
Reference State adopted rules and prior public comments on general
technical feasibility.
For approval actions, demonstrate uniqueness of sources; for
disapproval, explain why approval not justified on basis of
uniqueness.
Don't
Make generalized statements on technical feasibility for broad
categories or types of sources.
jq.050 2.3-11
-------
2.4 Procedural and Format Guidelines
This section presents guidance on four specific procedural aspects of
FR notice preparation:
t Handling of multiple SIP submittals.
t Processing of SIP submittals containing references to other
regulations.
Request for public comments on nonguideline provisions.
Approving only a portion of a SIP submittal.
jq.050 2.4-1
-------
2.4 Procedural and Format Guidelines (Continued)
Handling of Multiple SIP Submittals
FR notices should be limited wherever possible to a single State
submission. The incorporation of multiple submissions into one notice
unnecessarily complicates the discussion and consideration of the issues
raised by the proposals. Generally, where a State submits a number of
proposals for SIP revisions at one time, separate FR notices should be
prepared discussing the issues raised by each. This is particularly important
in FR notices where submittals are being disapproved and need to be segregated
along lines of major issues or deficiencies.
In some cases, however, the linkages between different submissions makes
a single notice desirable. In these instances, it may be appropriate to
incorporate into one FR notice separate submittals from one State that have a
common technical issue and rely on the same policy for the basis of decision.
Only when separate submittals present a single, common issue, however, should
they be joined in a single FR notice. Further, care should be taken to assure
that the issue as presented in each submittal receives clear and thorough
consideration.
To summarize, when handling multiple SIP submittals:
Do
Limit combined FR notices to associated rules and issues especially
for disapproval or controversial actions.
Don't
Limit discussion of major issues in order to reduce the number of FR
notices required.
jq.050 2.4-2
-------
2.4 Procedural and Format Guidelines (Continued)
Processing of SIP Submittals Containing References to Other Regulations
In processing SIP submittals, it is important that Regional Offices
identify situations (e.g., recodifications) where the language of a
submission contains references to other regulatory provisions. In approving
a submission containing such a reference, EPA is also by implication
approving the referenced section. Consequently, the referenced section
should be examined to determine if EPA has made a prior determination of
approvability. If no prior decision has been made, the Regional Office
should treat the reference as a separate submission. If approval of the
referenced section has been delegated to the Regional level, then processing
should proceed by the Regional Office. If approval of the referenced
section has not been delegated to the Regional Office, the referenced
section should be referred to Headquarters as a separate SIP submittal
according to standard procedures.
To summarize, when processing SIP submittals containing references to
other regulations:
Do
t Carefully review references contained in regulations submitted for
approval to determine whether the referenced regulation has been
approved.
Request copies of rules not previously approved.
Don't
Allow actions to reference other regulations that are not already in
the SIP unless you also want to approve the referenced sections as
part of the SIP.
jq.050 2.4-3
-------
2.4 Procedural and Format Guidelines (Continued)
Request for Public Comments on Nonquideline Provisions
In FR notices, EPA must clearly define what is and is not permissible
under Agency rules and policy. The public must be provided with a full
opportunity to comment on exceptions being granted to existing policy.
In any case where actions are approved that include provisions, such as
modeling procedures, that are deviations from guidelines, these provisions
should be clearly identified and a rationale provided for their use. In
addition, the FR notice should request public comment on the provisions
involved.
To summarize, when preparing FR notices for actions including
nonguideline provisions:
Do
Discuss deviations from policy and guidelines, provide rationale for
approval/disapproval action; be up front.
Specifically request public comments on use of nonguideline items.
Don't
Hide or cover up nonguideline issues.
jq.050 2.4-4
-------
2.4 Procedural and Format Guidelines (Continued)
Approving Only a Portion of a SIP Submittal
Where the Regional SIP reviewer determines that only a portion of a SIP
submittal is approvable, the reviewer may prepare a notice processing only
that portion of the submittal provided that such action does not alter the
overall intent of the State in making the full submission. The Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals has concluded that EPA may not approve only a
portion of a SIP submittal if such action would alter the state's intent in
creating the regulations at issue. See Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Gorsuch.
742 F.2d 1028 (7th Cir. 1984).
For example, if a State submits three independent compliance date
extension requests for three separate companies in three separate locations,
EPA can approve one extension regardless of its action on the other two.
However, if a State submits an emission limitation for a source category
which contains a variance for use in certain circumstances, EPA cannot
approve the emission limitation without simultaneously approving the
variance as such approval would alter the State's intent in adopting the
emission limitation containing the variance. EPA would be creating a new,
more stringent emission limitation, one which did not contain a variance.
Where the Regional reviewer anticipates any question concerning the
appropriateness of approving only a portion of a SIP submittal, the
FR notice should explicitly raise the issue for public comment.
To summarize, when approving only part of a SIP submission:
Do
Raise for public comment the impact of partial approval.
Don't
Alter the State's intent in making the overall SIP submission.
jq.050 2.4-5
-------
2.5 Examples of SIP FR Notices
The following SIP revisions are examples of well-written FR notices.
All pertinent background, historical, and supporting information is
presented in logical order. The format meets the requirements of the Office
of Federal Register and all appropriate boilerplate language is included.
These notices should be read from a generic perspective rather than in
detail and are intended to be a general guide.
jq.050 2.5-1
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
IFRL-3465-8J
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; State of Iowa
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rulemaking:
SUMMARY: EPA is approving the-
amended Iowa Chapter&22 and 23
which address EPA's revised stack
height requirements. Revision of these
regulations satisfies the requirements of
Section 110 of the Clean Air Act as
amended. This action cures a deficiency.
in the Iowa State Implementation Plan
(SIP)/ _: :.:;'^r'^-^t.r^
DATE: This rulemaking is effective ;-^:^
November23,1988..;;.,.-...',.,.^^-^Q'-^Z
ADDRESSES: Copies of the submittal are:
available for public inspection during
normal business hours at:.- -;''- r^-v; -;
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region VII. 726 Minnesota Avenue, ;
Kansas City, Kansas 661Qi; V^ ; '"' V
Public Information Reference Unit.
Environmental Protection Agency,.
Library, 401M Street SVW ---
Washington, DC 20460 if,. ;>v«iA-.: L-
Iowa Department of Natural Resources..'
900 East Grand, Des Moines,Iowa - <.
50319 '.;.-,-
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert J. Chanslor at (913) 236-2893: FTS
757-2839.-. " . :-,:^>;-.--.-.>.-^.^:,-«.>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
September 3,1987 (52 FR 33437). EPA
published a proposed rulemaking
pertaining to revised Iowa regulations "
affecting stack height credit for ' . .:'
dispersion modeling purposes; The "; :';^.
state's regulations are contained m Its
revised Chapters 22 and 23 regulations.*
The state's revised stack height-^'; ;
regulations were adopted after EPA's .
stack height regulation promulgation of
July 8.1985 (50 FR 27892) to satisfy the
requirements of Section 110 of the Clean
Air Act as amended. :' !~ .' i.'.ir:,;'. .'..
Included in EPA's September 3,1987
(52 FR 33437), proposed rulemaking was
a proposal to approve the state's :.
negative declaration with regard to a
need .to revise its sulfur dioxide
emissions limit except for sources in the
Muscatine. Iowa, area. The state, also
committed to an analysis of sources in
the Muscatine area to determine what
SOi emissions limits are appropriate for
that area to assure attainment and
maintenance of the SO* air quality
O5"ti*O
Loh,
OS
' 5
2.5-2
-------
standard. EPA is assisting the state in
this endeavor.
The EPA's stack height regulations
were challenged in NRDC v. Thomas.
838 F. 2d 1224 (DC Cir. 1988). On January
22.1988. the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the DC Circuit issued its decision
affirming the regulations in large part.
but remanding three provisions to the
EPA for reconsideration. These are:
1. Grandfathering pre-October 11.
1983. within-formula stack height
increases from demonstration
requirements (40 CFR 51.100(kk)(2)J;.
2. Dispersion credit for sources
originally designated and constructed-^
with merged or multiflue stacks (40 CFR
51.1orXhh)(2)(ii)(A)):;and:; ,.:: : .
3. Grandfathering pre-1979-useiof the
refined H+1.5L formula (40 CFR.. .. ^
51.100(ii)(2)). . ... .::ivS^&V--
- Although the EPA generally apptoves .
Iowa's stack height rales on the grounds';'
that they satisfy 40.CFR Part StcEPA^r;f
also provides notice that this action may<
be wbjectto modification'whetpEPAi
completes rulemakin
vJ
-"7
zv-L
1224 (DC Or. 1988). If the EPA':
response, to< th&NRDC remand modifies ^
the July 8..1985. regulation^the EPA will
notify the state of Iowa that fts.rulea> '
must be changed to comport with the- .
EPA's mobbed requirements. This-may
result in revised'emission limitations or
may affect other actions taken-by lowr
and Source owners or operators.- - .
On September. 3.1987 (52 FR 33437),
EPA-proppsed.approvalvOf Iowa's.
negative declaration concerning a-need.|
to revise its SOt emission limit outside i
the Muscatine area. That proposed rule V
stated that Iowa and EPA are working
together to develop an SOt emission
limit for the Muscatine area. However.' ;:
pursuant to the January. 22,1988, NRDC
remand, EPA is deferring action on all
Iowa sources because it appears mat'
they may receive credit under one of the
provisions remanded to EPA fa NRDC v.
Thomas,838 F. 2d 1224 (DC Cir. 1988).
Iowa and EPA wifl review these sources
when the EPA completes rulemaking to
.respond to:the NRDC remand. '..<.'/"-' '
The September 3,1987, proposed ;
rulemaking identified a deficiency in the
Iowa stack height regulations ': ' '
concerning the definition of emission .
limitation or emission standard. That
proposed rule cited a letter from the '. r
state which committed to revise the -:
state's definition of emission standard .
before the end of September 1987. On .
October 21.1987, the Iowa Department
of Natural Resources submitted a *
revision of its definitions at 567- ,
20.2(455B). The revision deletes- - ';. -='
"emission standard" and inserts - . " \
"emission limitation and emission- . '
, ^PA
2.5-3
-------
standard mean a requirement
established by a state, local government,
or the Administrator which limits the
quantity, rate, or concentration of
emissions of air pollutants on a
continuous basis, including any
requirements which limit the level of
opacity, prescribe equipment, set fuel
specifications, or prescribe operation or
maintenance procedures for a source to
assure continuous emission reduction."
This definition is consistent with EPA's
definition at 40 CFR 51.100(z): The Iowa
Environmental Protection-Commission
adopted' mis definition on September 22.
1987. Therevisibn was published in the
low* Administrative'Bulletin on ;
October 21,1987. Today's action
approves-this revised'definition: ''"-'' ;''
EPA received no public comments on
the September 3,1987..proposedl,.
'. tTlcmalfing.--:.-'a=-;Vy>>-:--^:''^---.-- !'--"Ji'
Action: ERA approves the.amended .'"
Iowa Chapters 2rand'2JpertainIng,tb
; stack heights as published* in the Iowa
AdmtoistraaveBtuTetto'on May-2X 1988.
EPA approves tfie Iowa definition of
"emission Umitationoremissibn " .
standard" included to Iowa regulation
567-202(4558). \ vX; / /=:
The Office of Management and Budget
has" exempted this rulemaking from-the
requirements of Section 3~of "Executive
Order 12291. ;; ' ;
. UnderSectiom307(b)(a).of the Clean
. Air Act.,a» amended^ judidaireviewof!
. this- action Unavailable only/ by- filing-, a .
. petition-far review to the United States
.; Court o£ Appeals lor the. appropriate- >:
circuit within 60 days of today. This
action may not be challenged later to
proceedings to enforce its requirements.
(See Section 307fbJ(2).).
List of Subjects to 40 CFR Part 52-
. Air pollution control, Incorporation by
. reference. Particulate matter, and Sulfur
;- .-,.. -. . .... .- .
Incorporation by reference of the SIP
: fe the ftate of Iowa wa* approved by the
'Director of the Federal Re^ster on July t
'' '' '" '
j. Dated: October 7,1988. . . '.
LaeM.Thomas, - . ..:
Administrator.'. .;.'.'... -:; - '
40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52(AMENDED]
SubpartQIowa
1. The authority citation for Part 52
"continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C 7401-7642
- 2. Section 52.820 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(47) to read as
follows: ;
§ 52.820 Identification of plan.
\^i
(47) Revised Chapters 22 and 23
regulations pertaining to stack height
credits for modeling purposes were
submitted on May 20,1988, by the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources.
Revised definition of "emission
limitation" and "emission standard" at
Iowa regulation 567.20.2(4558).
Definitions.
(i) Incorporation by reference
(A), Iowa Administrative Bulletin
(ARC 6566), amendments to Chapter 22.
"Controlling Pollution" and Chapter 23,.
"Emission Standards for Contaminants"
adopted by the Iowa Environmental
Protection Commission on April 22,1986,
effective pine 25,,1986;
(B) Iowa Administrative Bulletin (ARC
8023] amendment to 567-20.2(4558).
(FRBoc. 88-24394PaedilO-21-88:.a:45 am]: t
2.5-4
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40CFRPart52
[FRL-3458-6]
Approval arid Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; State of :
California; Ventura County Ozone Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). --, ; -
ACTION: Final rule. .
SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's
final disapproval of the California State
. Implementation Plan (SO?) for ozone in
the southern portion of Ventura County.
This final action is being taken because
the SIP for Ventura County does not
provide for attainment of the ozone
national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) by the statutory deadline of
December 31, 1987. or by any other fixed
date, as required by section 172(a) of the
Clean Air Act ("the Act") (42 U.S.C.
7502(a)). Pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(I)
of the Act and EPA's implementing ^
regulations, this disapproval results in
the imposition of a moratorium -on the
construction and modification of major
'stationary sources of volatile organic:
compounds (VOC) in Ventura County.
See 40 CFR SZ24 and 42 U.S.C.
DATES: EPA's disapproval of the .
Ventura ozone SIP is effective
November 4, 1988. The ban on
construction or modification of major
sources is effective November 4, 1988. ;
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Wallace D. Woo. Chief. State Liaison
Section. Air Management Division,
Environmental Protection Agency.
Region 9, 215 Fremont Street San
Francisco, California 94105. Telephone:
(415) 974-7634. (FTSj 454-7634.
I
V
V~)C5t
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
A brief background of (he Act and the
history of the Ventura SIP is provided
here. For a more comprehensive
description of the relevant requirements
of the Act and EPA's regulatory actions
on the Ventura SIP, sec the proposed
disapproval of the SIP for Ventura and
three other areas in California (52 FR
26431. July 14.1987) and the General
Preamble accompanying that notice (52
FR 26404).
The Clean Air Act mandates a system
of state implementation plans as the
chief mechanism for meeting the
NAAQS. Section 110(a)(l) directs the
state to submit, within nine months from
the promulgation of primary NAAQS, a
\-
~p
\r^
o v.
2.5-5
-------
plan for implementing those NAAQS.
Section 110 lays out the requirements
that the plan must meet and provides a
mechanism for revision of the plan
where the Administrator finds that the
plan is substantially inadequate to
achieve the NAAQS by the relevant
deadline.
Recognizing the numerous areas had
not been able to attain the NAAQS
within the initial timeframe. Congress
added Part D to the Act in 1977. Part D
allowed certain "nonattainment" areas
to apply for time extensions to
December 31, 1982. with the exception
that certain areas, in which it was "not
possible" to meet that deadline for
ozone and CO despite the application of
all reasonably available control
measures, could apply for a further
extension to December 31. 1987.
California requested, and EPA
approved, an extension of the statutory
attainment date for ozone in Ventura
County to December 31. 1987. The State
then submitted 1982 plan updates for the
ozone SIP. In 1983, EPA proposed to
disapprove this revision and impose a
construction ban on the ground that the
plan did noi provide for attainment of
the ozone standard by the end of 1987,
or reasonable further progress in the
interim. 48 FR 5074 February 3. 1983). On
July 30. 1984. EPA took final action to
approve the control measures submitted
by the State, but held open the question
of whether to approve the attainment
demonstration in the SIP submittal for
Ventura and for three other areas of
California (South Coast, Fresno, and .
Sacramento) similarly lacking
approvable SIP attainment .
demonstrations for ozone or carbon
monoxide. 49 FR 30300. 30305 (July 30.
1984).
In July 1987, EPA reproposed to
disapprove the ozone SIP for Ventura,
South Coast. Fresno. Sacramento and
several other areas. 52 FR 26408-26409,
2G431-26435 (July 14. 1987). In that
notice. EPA stated that it lacked :
authority to continue to defer action on j
the plans for those areas that had not
yet submitted a plan demonstrating
attainment by the deadline, and that it
had no choice but to disapprove the
plans for those areas and impose a
construction ban under section .
m November 1987. the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals issued its opinion in
Abramowitz v. United States
Environmental Protection Agency. 832
F.2d 1071 (9th Cir. 1987). The court held
that EPA lacked authority to defer
action on whether the South Coast
ozone and carbon monoxide plan meets
all of the Part D requirements of the Act
when the Agency approved the
individual control measures. The court
ordered EPA to "disapprove the relevant
h^
of
1)
2.5-6
-------
SIP provision*." 832 F.2d at 1079. , . .. -,
Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit Court's .
instructions, EPA took final action in :,..
January 1988 to disapprove the South
Coast SIP. 53 FR 1780 Qanoary 22, 1988].
B. Discussion
EPA concludes that the attainment.
demonstration deficiency in the Ventura
ozone SIP la substantively identical to
the deficiency in the South Coast CO
and ozone SIP, and EPA is therefore ,
' now taking final action to disapprove ,
the Ventura SIP. As in the case of EPA's
July 14, 1987 proposal and the final
disapproval of the South Coast SIP. the
ground for EPA's final disapproval of
the Ventura SIP is that it Hoes not
demonstrate attainment of the ozone
NAAQS by December 31. 1987. or by
any other fixed near term date
thereafter. Under the terms of the Act
and EPA's regulations, such final plan
disapproval results in the imposition of
a construction ban in the nonattainment
portion of Ventura .Cotmty for major. -
new sources and major modifications' of
existing sources of VOC.1 Section "
110(8X27(1): 40 CFR 52JZ4(a). Under 40
stationary source or .major modification
thai is major for VOC is also major for
' '
otone.
Today's action Is driven by the ;j
reasoning of the decision m : . ij
Abnmtemritz."Ihat decision establishes
' Tbe ozone honattainmeat area to Ventura !
County include* all portion* of the County south of
the »outhern boundary of the Los Padre* National :
Forest Within thi* nonattabunent area, any maior '
new source or .major coodiTicatioo for which tb* ...
constructioii permit application to incomplete on or !
' after (thirty days from publication) will be'
prohibited (com construction. EPA's criteria for .
determining an application to be complete are u;., ;
explained in 52 FR 26404 and 28409 n.18 (July 4. %'
IflW). '.U-- > - ' :- -- -«*V:-i
that EPA has no discretion under the
law to postpone the final disapproval
when the Agency has effectively
determined that the plan does not
provide for attainment by any fixed
date. Thus, EPA is not responding
directly to public comments on EPA's
July 14.1987 proposal. EPA may respond
to some of the comments in the future,
perhaps in connection with EPA's final
policy on how areas like Ventura should
correct their SIPs after December 31,
1987.
C. Final Action
EPA is today taking final action to
disapprove the 1982 Ventura County SIP
revision for attainment of the primary.
NAAQS for ozone. Pursuant to the-
Administrative Procedure Act 5 U.S.C.
553(d), this disapproval is effective'-''
November 4.1988. The effective date for
the construction ban is November 4.
1988.
2.5-7
-------
Under Executi ve Order 12291. this
action is not "Major." It has been
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget for review. ' '
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C 605(b), EPA must assess the
impact of proposed or final rules on
small entities. EPA does not have
sufficient information to determine the
impacts that the construction
moratorium announced in today's notice
may have on small entities, because it la
difficult to obtain reliable information /
on future plans for business growth.
Even if this action were to have a
significant impact, however, the Agency
could not modify its action. Under the
Act. the imposition of a construction
moratorium is mandatory whenever the
Agency determines that an
implementation plan for a
nonattainment area fails to meet the
requirements of Part D of the Act and
'that determination, in turn, is effectively
required by the Ninth Circuit's decision
inAbramowitz. -;': ;- '
Under section 307(b}(l) of *he Clean
Air Act petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the .
appropriate circuit by December 5,1988.
This action may not be challenged later
in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. See section 307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
: Air pollution control. Ozone,
Intergovernmental relations.
Dated: September 28,1988.'
Lee M.'Thomas,
Administrator. ...
40 CFR Part 52, SubpartF. is amended
\ as follows:. - :.-.-.-,. . .;-.' .
PART 52{AMENDED!
Subpart FCalifornia
1. The authority citation for Part 52
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C 7401-7642.
2. Section 52.237 is amended by
adding new paragraph (a)(2) to read as
follows:
§52-237 Part 0 disapproval.
(a)* * '
(2) The ozone attainment
demonstration for Ventura County. No
major stationary source, or major
modification of a stationary source, of
volatile organic compounds may be
constructed in the Ventura County
nonattainment area unless the :
construction permit application is "- :
complete on or before November 4,1988.
' - .--":-...;- « ."-".'»'.' ' - ..' " .' I
(FR Doc. 88-22915 Filed 10-4-48; 8:45 amj...
MJUNO cooe «s4o-so-M '. . .
-4.
lo*
^
> ^ -f^j
dF
2.5-8
-------
tNYIHUNMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[FRL-3235-2J
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plan; Illinois
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: USEPA is proposing to
disapprove a revision to the Illinois
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for
Ozone. The revision woulil extend the
compliance schedule fur Georgia-Pacific
Corporation's (Georgia-Pacific) two
paper varnish coating lines located in
Will County. Illinois. This revision
would allow Georgia-Pacific additional
tirr.r: io reformulate its varnishes to high
solids, or Io water-base coatings.
USEPA today is proposing to
disapprove this SIP revision because the
requested compliance date extension is
inconsistent with relevant portions of
the Clean Air Act and USEPA Policy.
DATE: Comments on this revision and on
the proposed USEPA action must be
received by December 8, 1988.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the SIP revision
are available at the following addresses
:or review: (It is recommended that you
telephone Uylaine E. McMahan, at (312)
J86-C031. before visiting the Region V
office.)
J.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region V, Air and Radiation Branch.
230 South Dearborn Street. Chicago, IL
60604
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency, Division of Air Pollution
Control. 2200 Churchill Road.
Springfield. IL 62706
Comments on this proposed rule
should be addressed to: (Please submit
an original and three copies, if possible).
Gary Gulezian. Chief. Regulatory
Analysis Section. Air and Radiation
Branch (5AR-26) U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 230 South
Dearborn Street Chicago. IL 60604
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Uylaine E. McMahan. (312) 886-6031.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 15,1983, the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA) submitted a proposed revision to
its ozone SOP for two of Georgia Pacific's
paper coating varnish lines. These lines
are located in Will County, Illinois,
which is part of the Chicago ozone
demonstration area. This proposed
revision is in the form of a May 5,1983,
Opinion and Order of the Illinois
Pollution Control Board (IPCB). IPCB 82-
142. It grants a variance from the
existing SIP requirements until
December 31.1984, and provides a
legally enforceable compliance
schedule. Georgia-Pacific is located in
Will County, which is currently
designated attainment for ozone but (as
stated above) within the Chicago ozone
nonattainment area.
Under the existing federally approved
SIP. each varnish coating line is subject
to the emission control requirements
contained in Rule 205 Chapter 2 (Air
Pollution) of the IPCB Rules and
Regulations. IPCB Rule 205(n)(l)(C).
adopted February 21,1980, limits
volatile organic compound (VOC)
fi_JU- ^iU^_
2.5-9
-------
emissions to 2.9 pounds VOC per gallon
of coating. Final compliance was
required on December 31. 1982.
In lieu of the compliance date
contained in the existing federally
approved SIP, the State is proposing an
extended compliance schedule for two
of Georgia-Pacific's varnish coating
lines to December 31,1984.
Georgia-Pacific manufactures
multicolor paper labels, used primarily
for canned food products. Included in
this facility are two Christensen
vamishers that are used to apply a high-
gloss protective varnish coating onto
printed labels.
In the March 20.1984. Federal Register
(49 FR10277), USEPA proposed to
disapprove this proposed SIP revision
because the Illinois Ozone SIP backed
an approved attainment demonstration
for the Chicago nonattainment area.
Since the publication of the March 20,
1984, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
[EPA has submitted a revised ozone
attainment demonstration, which
USEPA proposed to approve on August
15,1984 (49 FR 32601). However, USEPA
proposed to disapprove the State's
attainment demonstration (52 FR 26404,
July 14,1987).
Proposed Actions
USEPA has determined that Georgia-
Pacific's schedule to achieve final
compliance by December 31,1984 is not
approvable based on the Clean Air Act
and USEPA's policy on compliance date
extensions. In particular, the State has
not adequately research the compliance
status of other similar sources to
determine if compliance by the original
deadline was reasonable. Nor has the
State demonstrated that the compliance
date extension will not interfere with
RFP. This source is located in the
Chicago nonattainment area which
lacks an approved attainment
demonstration. Therefore, USEPA is
again proposing to disapprove Georgia-
Pacific's compliance date extension
request A more detailed discussion of
the rationale for proposing disapproval
of the State submission and of the Clean
Air Act and USEPA policy related to
compliance dae extension appears in
Appendix A of this notice.
USEPA is providing a 30-day comment
period on this notice or proposed
rulemaking. Public comments received
on or before December 8,1988 will be
considered in USEPA's final rulemaking.
All comments will be available for
inspection during normal business hours
at the Region V office listed at the front
of this notice.
Under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). I certify that
tliis disapproval will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
because it applies only to Georgia-
Pacific.
Under Executive Order 12291. this
action is not "Major". Il has been
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7642.
Dated: March 30.1937.
Editorial Note: This document was received
at the Office of the Federal Register
November 3,1988.
Robert Springer,
Acting Regional Administrator.
2.5-10
-------
Editorial Note: This appendix will not
appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Appendix A
This SIP revision, if approved by EPA,
would allow the source an extension of
time for complying with the SIP limit.
EPA has a policy of approving
compliance date extensions, but only
under certain circumstances. The
following explains the relevant
provisions of the Clean Air Act and
EPA's policy.
Under the Clean Air Act, a SIP must
"provide fj for the attainment of [the]
primary [National ambient air quality
standard ("NAAQS]] as expeditiously
as practicable but [in general] in no case
later than three years from the date of
approval of such plan". 42 U.S.C.
7410(a](2) (AHB). For areas that had
not, as of August 7,1977, attained the
primary standard, the SIP must provide
for attainment "as expeditiously as
practicable", but, in the case of the
primary NAAQS. no later than
December 31,1982, or, under certain
circumstances. December 31,1987. 42
U.S.C. 7502(a).
EPA has reiterated these statutory
requirements in a regulation, 40 CFR
51.110, which states, "Each plan
providing for the attainment of a
primary standard or revision of it must
do so as expeditiously as practicable",
but no case later than the statutory
attainment date.
In addition, the-SIP must provide for
maintenance of the NAAQS for the
period following attainment 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2)(B). It should be noted that
some EPA-approved SIPs provide for
more pollution reductions than the SIP's
supporting analyses show are necessary
to attain and maintain the air quality
standards. These excess reductions are
known as the margin of attainment.
The Clean Air Act further provides
that revisions to an approved SIP are
permissible only if they do not interfere
with attainment by the applicable date.
and maintenance thereafter. 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(3).
In addition to providing for attainment
and maintenance, the SIPs in areas that
had not attained by August 7. 1977, must
"provide for the implementation of all
reasonably available control measures
["RACM"] as expeditiously as
practicable", and "require, in the interim
(period before attaintment], reasonable
further progress ("RFP"] * * * including
such reduction in emissions from
existing sources in the area as may be
obtained through the adoption, at a
minimum, of reasonably available
control technology ['RACTJ." 42 U.S.C.
7502(b) (2H3).' Because EPA considers
RACM to include RACT, these
requirements mean that sources must
adopt RACT as expeditiously as
practicable. To determine RFP, the State
typically identifies amounts of reduction
expected in the years prior to
attainment, and EPA determines
whether these interim reductions are
approvable as RFP. The amounts of
reductions are known as the "RFP Une".
EPA generally has required sources to
come into compliance within three years
of the date the State adopted the
regulation setting out the applicable
requirements. EPA has viewed this
period as expeditious.
Under long-standing EPA regulation.
the State, in seeking EPA approval for a
SIP or SIP revision, has the burden of
proving that the statutory requirements
are met See, e&, 40 CFR 51.1l2(a)
("Each plan must demonstrate that
* * * it [is] adequate to provide for the
timely attainment and maintenance of
the national standard").
Consistent with these statutory and
regulatory provisions, EPA uses the
following guidelines for allowing
compliance date extensions greater than
three years from the date of adoption of
the SIP requirement by the State:
l.a. In an area with an approved SIP. EPA
will approve a compliance date extension
only if it represent* expeditious action and
does not interfere with the attainment date or
the RFP Une.
EPA will approve compliance date
extensions in areas with approved
c SPIs * if the State demonstrates that the
1 "Reasonable further progress" is defined as
annual Incremental reductions in emissions of the
applicable air pollutant (including substantial
reductions in die early years following approval or
promulgaMon of plan provisions * * * and regular
reductions thereafter) which are sufficient in the
judgment of the Administrator, to provide for
attainment of the applicable national ambient air
quality standard by the date required * * ' 42
U.S.C. 7501(1).
* For presen! purposes. EPA does not consider an
area to have an anpraved SIP if EPA. at on? time.
approved the SIP. but subsequently, (i) EPA issued a
notice that the SIP failed to attain or maintain the
Continued
2.5-11
-------
extension represents action that is as
expeditious as practicable. This policy is
consistent with the requirements that
sources put in place RACT as
expeditiously as practicable, as
discussed below. The criteria for
determining whether action is
expeditious are also discussed below.
In addition, the State must
demonstrate that the extension does not.
or did not, intefere with the date for
attaining the ambient air standard, with
the RFP line in the interim, or with
maintenance thereafter. If the
compliance date extension goes beyond
the attainment date. EPA will view the
extension as not interfering with
attainment or maintenance only if the
attainment margin is sufficient to
accommodate the additional emissions.
This requirement is consistent with
long-standing EPA policy. In the April 4,
1979 "General Preamble". EPA stated.
"EPA must reject any individual
requirement that would interfere with
attaining and maintaining the NAAQS
by the required deadline * * *" 44 FR
20373. col. 3. Similarly, a July 29.1983.
memorandum from Sheldon Meyers,
Director of the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, stated,
For a State to secure EPA approval of a
relaxation and continue overall approval
status * * the State would need to show
that the SIP as a whole, despite the
relaxation, would continue to "provide for*
attainment by the end of 1982 [or 1987. as the
case may be].'
l.b. EPA will not approve compliance date
extensions in areas that lack approved
attainment demonstrations.
A SIP revision seeking a compliance
date extension amounts to a relaxation
of the SEP requirements because the
company would be permitted to emit
greater amounts of pollutants for a
longer period. EPA may approve the SIP
revision only if the State shows that the
greater amounts of pollution will not
interfere with attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS by the
required date, and with RFP in the
NAAQS (either SIP call under 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2)(H) or rederignation to nonattainment
under 42 U.S.C. 7407) or i notice that the State
failed to implement the SIR (U) the Slate (ailed to
fulfill certain condition* in the SIP: (ill) the
Inventory of VOC emissions substantially changed
go that the margin of attainment changed
significantly; or (iv) monitoring data raited Mriout
question! about the original prediction of
attainment
9 In addition, in the April 4.1979 "General
Preamble" describing how EPA intended to
implement provisions of the 1977 Clean Air Act
EPA stated that a SIP "relaxation"i.e..» SIP
revision that allows increased emissions, as does a
compliance date extension for the period following
the SIP compliance datewould no! be permitted in
an area where the NAAQS was vlolatid. 44 FR
20374. col. Z.
interim. The State cannot make this
showing if it has not submitted an
approvable attainment demonstration.
identifying the attainment date and the
RFP line. Accordingly. EPA cannot
approve a compliance data extension in
an area lacking an approved attainment
demonstration. EPA made this policy
clear when it proposed to disapprove
compliance date extension requests for
Georgia Pacific Corporation and six
other sources in Illinois by notice dated
March 20. 1984 (49 FR 10277).
2. In an area with an approved SIP. EPA
will approve the compliance date extension
only if it is consistent with the Clean Air Act
requirements that SIPs provide for
implementation of RACT as expeditiously as
practicable.
As noted above, the Clean Air Act
requires that SIPs for areas not in
attainment of the NAAQS by August 7,
1977 mast provide for the
implementation of RACT as
expeditiously as practicable. 42 U.S.C.
7502fb)(2). EPA has defined RACT as
The lowest emission limitation that a
particular source Is capable of meeting by the |
application of control technology that is :
reasonably available considering
technological and economic feasibility.4 i
Through the issuance of Control I
Technique Guidelines ("CTGs"), EPA !
has identified pollution control levels
that EPA presumes to constitute RACT j
for various categories of sources. Where !
the State finds the presumptive norm
applicable to an individual source of
group of sources, the State typically
adopts requirements consistent with the
presumptive norm. However, the
presumptive norm is only a
recommendation, and States may
develop case-by-case RACT
determinations independently of EPA's
recommendation. EPA will approve
these RACT determinations as long as
the State shows they will satisfy the
Clean Air Act's RACT requirements
based on adequate documentation of the
economic and technical circumstances
of the particular sources being
regulated.*
4 44 Fit 53782 coL 1 (September 17.1979)
More specifically. EPA has described RACT and
the obligations of the State as follow*:
Along with information, each CTC contains
recommendations to the States of what EPA calls
the "presumptive norm" for RACT. based on EPA's
current evaluation of the capabilities and problems
general to the Industry. Where the Stales finds (sic]
the presumptive norm applicable to an individual
source or group of source*. EPA recommends that
the State adopt requirements consistent with the
presumptive norm level in order te Include RACT
limitations in tlie SIP.
However, recommended controls are based oa
capabilities and problems which are general to the
industry: they do not take into account the unique
circumstances of each facility. In many cases
I
2.5-12
-------
EPA will approve a compliance date
extension only if the State demonstrates
that the extension represents
implementation of RACT as
expeditiously as practicable. To make
this demonstration, the State must show
that (i) in fact the SIP requirements do
not represent RACT because pollution
control technology necessary to reach
the requirements is not reasonably
available in time to meet the SIP
compliance date, and (ii) the extension
is for the shortest period that reasonably
reflects the expected availability of the
control technology. EPA will determine
whether the State makes these
demonstrations on a case-by-case basis,
taking into account all the relevant facts
and circumstances concerning each
case.
In making these demonstrations, the
State must make reasonable efforts to
determine and adequately document the
availability of complying coatings or
other kinds of control as appropriate.
The State is free to consult informally
with EPA to determine whether EPA has
up-to-date information concerning the
availability of particular coatings or
other kinds of control If EPA does not
have up-to-date information, the State
must undertake further efforts. .
Examples of these efforts Include -
examining information that is or should
be reasonably available to the State.
Including whether sources operating in
the State that are in an industry
comparable to the source at issue (e.g..
within the same CFG category) achieve
compliance with the SIP, by the SIP
approved compliance schedule, by using
complying coatings, or other kinds of
control that the source could adopt In
addition, if the State participates in a
formally established, multi-state
pollution control group or commission,
EPA presumes that the State has
reasonable access to information
concerning whether sources operating in
the other States that are members of the
group or commission use complying
coatings, or other controls. Thus, the
State must examine available
information concerning sources in those
other States. Reasonable efforts by the
appropriate control* would be mora or leu
stringent Statn are urged to fudge the feasibility of
imposing the recommended controls on particular
source*, and adjust the control* accordingly.
The presumptive norm I* only a recommendation.
For any source or group of sources, regardless of
whether they fall within the industry norm, the State
may develop case-by-case RACT requirements
independently of EPA's recommendation. EPA will
propose to approve any submitted RACT
requirement that the State shows will satisfy the
requirement!! of the Act for RACT based on the
economic and technical circumstances of the
parricuUr sources being regulated.
Stale also include seeking information
reasonably available to the source
requesting the SIP revision, including.
for example, contacting suppliers
available to the source to determine if
they have complying coatings or other
controls: contacting trade associations
to determine if they know of complying
coatings or other controls; and
reviewing trade publications containing
information concerning complying
coatings or other controls.
It seems appropriate for the source to
make a showing that process changes,
such as switching to low solvent
coatings are not available when
applying for a compliance date
extension. If low solvent coatings (or
other process changes) meeting the
Control Technique Guideline (CTG)-
recommended emission level are shown
not to be feasible for a particular source,
then the source should identify the
lowest level of volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions that is
available for that source or type of
coating.
Assuming that a source has prepared
an adequate showing that abatement
("add-on") controls are not feasible, an
example of an action that a source might :
perform to demonstrate to the State that
no complying coating is available would ;
be for the company to place two
consecutive advertisements in each of
three leading paint trade journals (&£.,
Industrial Finishing, Products Finishing.
Modem Paint and Coatings, JCT-JoumaJ
of Coatings Technology, American Paint
and Coatings Journal] and describe the
application and product
specifications for a low solvent paint
which they are seeking. This
advertisement should solicit paint
companies to provide a low VOC
product meeting those specifications.
The responses which the company
receives could be provided to EPA as
proof that this type of product does or
does not exist The advertisement in a
trade journal would reach a wide
number of paint producers, some of
whom may have developed suitable low
VOC products. When reporting the
response to the advertisement to EPA,
the State should report the lowest VOC
content coating that is available for the
particular job, even if that coating does
not meet the CTG recommended limit
Another example of an approach that
a metal coaler might use in
demonstrating the unavailability of
complying coatings for a particular
product would be to contact a trade
association which represents a large
number of manufacturers of low VOC
2.5-13
-------
o- i- o - ~ o
Institute). If such an association
documents that none of its members can
.irovide a low solvent complying coating
for this product, then this trade
association reply could be used to show
that a reasonable effort had been made
to find a complying product and that
such a product apparently does not
currently exist. If. through efforts such
as those described above, the source
makes a convincing demonstration that
complying products are not available in
the industry, State would not be
required to make duplicative efforts.
If, after the reasonable efforts
described above are expended, and the
State finds that no complying coatings
or other controls as appropriate are
available. EPA itself may make an
independent assessment of the :
availability of such coatings or controls ,
and the compliance status of other
sources in the same CTG category.
It should be noted that by notice
dated November 24,1987. EPA
published a proposed program for
addressing the expected failure of many
areas of the county to attain the ozone
NAAQS by the end of 1987 (52 FR
45046). Beginning May 28,1988, EPA
issued SIP calls under 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2)(H)/.e., notices that the SIP
failed to attain or maintain the
NAAQSfor many areas of the country.
These SIP calls have the effect for
certain purposes, of converting an area
with an approved attainment
demonstration into an area lacking an
approved attainment demonstration.
Some of the notices of proposed
rulemaking that refer to this Appendix
concern compliance date extension
requests for sources operating in some
of those areas.
EPA is currently considering the effect
of these SIP calls on pending and future
SIP revision requests seeking
compliance date extensions, as well as
other SIP relaxations. The SIP calls
represent a determination that the air
j quality is not in attainment and that the
SIP does not provide for attainment
Current EPA policy, described above,
generally precludes approval of
relaxations such as compliance date
extensions in such areas. EPA's
November 24.1987 notice proposed a
program under which States would be
required to submit new SIPs within the
next few years providing for attainment
|FR Doc. 88-25770 Filed 11-7-8& 8:45 am)
eiujoo cooe «MO-«MI
2.5-14
-------
Chapter 3 - Compilation of Policy
and Guidance References
-------
3.0 COMPILATION OF SIP POLICY AND GUIDANCE REFERENCES
The purpose of this chapter is to provide an up-to-date compilation of
Agency policy and guidance references for use by the Regional offices in
reviewing and approving SIP actions. For each general category of SIP
action for which review and approvability determination responsibilities
have been delegated to the Regional office, a listing of the statutory and
regulatory requirements (i.e., Clean Air Act and Code of Federal
Regulations) is provided followed by a listing of applicable Federal
Register notices, EPA guideline documents, and Agency memoranda. A summary
of this listing is presented in Appendix A. Agency policy and guidance for
SIP actions which still require Headquarters review are not included in this
compilation.
To conserve space in this manual, copies are provided only of the
Agency memoranda (see Appendix B). To facilitate easy access to other
policy and guidance materials listed in this chapter (e.g., Federal Register
notices, EPA guideline publications), a complete reference has been
provided.
The SIP policy and guidance references included in this chapter are
organized by the following topics:
1. Generic guidance
2. VOC bubbles
3. VOC single-source regulations
4. Visibility SIPs
5. State stack height regulations and negative declarations
6. Section 107 redesignations
7. Prevention of significant deterioration/new source review SIPs
8. lll(d) plans and negative declarations
9. CO attainment plans dealing with hotspots
10. Lead plans and revisions
11. Particulate matter (TSP and PM1Q) SIPs
12. VOC revisions with extended compliance schedules
13. S02 SIPs
jq.050 3.0-1
-------
3.1 GENERIC GUIDANCE
The following is a compilation of existing policy and guidance
information that encompasses basic policies for consideration in SIP
development and is not specific to one category of SIP. Rather, the subject
matter of these documents, in most cases, cuts across category lines. When
reviewing a SIP submittal, the reviewer should ensure that the policies and
procedures stated within these "generic" documents support the Regional
office's decision to approve/disapprove the action.
jq.050 3.1-1
-------
3.1 Generic Guidance (Continued)
Federal Register Notices
Criteria for approval of 1979 SIP revisions (43 FR 21673,
February 24, 1978)
General preamble for proposed rulemaking on approval of SIP revisions
for nonattainment areas (44 FR 20372, April 4, 1979)
Ambient air monitoring regulations (44 FR 27569, May 19, 1979)
EPA Guideline Documents
Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis, Volume I:
Designation of Air Quality Maintenance Areas, EPA-450/4-74-001,
April 1974. (NTIS PB-239663)
Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis, Volume 2:
Plan Preparation, EPA-450/4-74-002, July 1974. (NTIS PB-237581)
Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis, Volume 3:
Control Strategies, EPA-450/4-74-003, July 1974. (NTIS PB-237582)
Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis, Volume 4:
Land Use and Transportation Considerations, EPA-450/4-74-004,
August 1974. (NTIS PB-237583)
Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis, Volume 5:
Case Studies in Plan Development, EPA-450/4-74-006, December 1974.
(NTIS PB82-241800)
Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis, Volume 6:
Overview of Air Quality Maintenance Area Analysis, EPA-450/4-74-007
September 1974. (NTIS PB-237584)
Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis, Volume 7:
Projecting County Emissions, Second Edition, EPA-450/4-74-008,
January 1975. (NTIS PB-240659)
Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis, Volume 8:
Computer-Assisted Area Source Emission Gridding Procedure,
EPA-450/4-74-009, September 1974. (NTIS PB-237585)
Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis, Volume 9:
Evaluating Indirect Sources (Revised), EPA-450/4-78-001 January 1979.
(NTIS PB-288206)
jq.050 3.1-2
-------
3.1 Generic Guidance (Continued)
Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis,
Volume 10: Procedures for Evaluating Air Quality Impact of New
Stationary Sources (Revised), EPA-450/4-77-001, October 1977.
(NTIS PB-274087)
Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis,
Volume 11: Air Quality Monitoring and Data Analysis, EPA-450/4-74-012,
September 1974. (NTIS PB-237626)
Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis,
Volume 12: Applying Atmospheric Simulation Models to Air Quality
Maintenance Areas, EPA-450/4-74-013, September 1974. (NTIS PB-237750)
Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis,
Volume 13: Allocating Projected Emissions to Subcounty Areas,
EPA-450/4-74-014 November 1974. (NTIS PB-240252)
Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis,
Volume 14: Designing Air Quality Maintenance Areas, EPA-450/4-75-002,
December 1975. (NTIS PB-254961)
Guidance Document for Correction of Part D SIPs for Nonattainment
Areas, January 27, 1984
Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised) with Supplement A,
EPA-450/2-78-027R, July 1986. (NTIS PB86-245248)
EPA Policy and Guidance Memoranda
Memo entitled "Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown,
Maintenance, and Malfunctions" from Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant
Administrator for Air, Noise, and Radiation, to Regional Administrator,
Regions I-X, dated February 15, 1983 [Appendix B, 1.1]
Memo entitled "Summary of NAAQS Interpretation" from Richard G. Rhoads,
Director, Monitoring and Data Analysis Division, to Gary L. O'Neal,
Environmental Services Division, Region X, dated May 27, 1983
[Appendix B, 1.2]
Memo entitled "Source Specific SIP Revisions" from Sheldon Meyers,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Director,
Air Division, Regions I-X, dated July 29, 1983 [Appendix B, 1.3]
jq.050 3.1-3
-------
3.2 VOC BUBBLES
The following is a compilation of existing policy and guidance
information pertaining to SIP revisions involving VOC bubbles, except:
New generic state-wide bubble rules
Bubbles which trade off growth allowances
jq.050 3.2-1
-------
3.2 VOC Bubbles (Continued)
Federal Register Notices
Emissions trading policy (51 FR 43814, December 4, 1986)
EPA Policy and Guidance Memoranda
Memo entitled "Applicability of the Bubble Concept to Section lll(d)
Standards" from Earl Salo, Office of General Counsel, to
James Kamihachi, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, dated
May 7, 1979 [Appendix B, 2.1]
Memo entitled "The Bubble Policy and State Plans under Clean Air Act
Section lll(d)" from Walter C. Barber, Director, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, to Director, Air Division, Regions I-X, dated
August 8, 1980 [Appendix B, 2.2]
jq.050 3.2-2
-------
3.3 VOC SINGLE SOURCE REGULATIONS
The following is a compilation of existing policy and guidance
information pertaining to SIP revisions involving VOC single source
regulations.
jq.050 3.3-1
-------
3.3 VOC Single Source Regulations (Continued)
Federal Register Notices
Compliance with VOC emission limitations for can coating operations
(45 FR 80824, December 8, 1980)
EPA Guideline Documents
Issues Related to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations (Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987
Federal Register) OAQPS/Air Quality Management Division, May 25, 1988.
(Contains an extensive list and index of other VOC related guidance
documents, See Attachment 5, "Index to EPA Guidance Memorandums and
Policies".)
(Contains a list of CTGs, See Attachment 1, "CTG Applicability:
Cutoffs, Exemptions, and General Applicability".)
EPA Policy and Guidance Memoranda
Memo entitled "SIP Actions and Toxic Pollutants" from Sheldon Meyers,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to David Kee,
Acting Director, Air Management Division, Region V, dated
November 24, 1982 [Appendix B, 3.1]
Memo entitled "Averaging Times for Compliance with VOC Emission
Limits - SIP Revision Policy" from John R. O'Connor, Acting Director,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Director, Air
Division, Regions I-X, dated January 20, 1984 [Appendix B, 3.2]
jq.050 3.3-2
-------
3.4 VISIBILITY SIPs
The following is a compilation of existing policy and guidance
information pertaining to two categories of SIP revisions:
Visibility SIPs involving regional haze
Other visibility plans except those addressing existing impairment
jq.050 3.4-1
-------
3.4 Visibility SIPs (Continued)
Clean Air Act
Section 110
Section 169A
Code of Federal Regulations
40 CFR 51.300-51.307
40 CFR 81.400-81.437
Federal Register Notices
Visibility protection rules for Federal Class I areas
(final-45 FR 80084, December 2, 1980;
proposed-45 FR 34762, May 22, 1980)
Visibility SIPs new source review and monitoring strategy rule
(final-50 FR 28544, July 12, 1985; proposed-49 FR 42670,
October 23, 1984)
Visibility SIPs long-term strategies, integral vistas, and control
strategies rule (final-52 FR 45132, November 24, 1987;
proposed-52 FR 7802, March 12, 1987)
EPA Guideline Documents
Protecting Visibility: An EPA Report to Congress, EPA-450/5-79-008,
October 1979 (NTIS PB-284391)
The Development of Mathematical Models for the Prediction of
Anthropogenic Visibility Impairment; EPA-450/3-78-110a, b, c;
September 1978 (NTIS PB-293119/4, PB-293120/2, PB-293121/0)
Assessment of Economic Impacts of Visibility Regulations
User's Manual for the Plume Visibility Model (PLUVUE),
EPA-450/4-80-032, November 1980 (NTIS PB81-163297)
Workbook for Estimating Visibility Impairment, EPA-450/4-80-031,
November 1980 (NTIS PB81-157885)
jq.050 3.4-2
-------
3.4 Visibility SIPs (Continued)
EPA Guideline Documents - Continued
Interim Guidance for Visibility Monitoring, EPA-450/2-80-082, 1980
(NTIS PB81-157760)
EPA Policy and Guidance Memoranda
Memo entitled" Requirements for State Submittals of Visibility
Protection SIPs," from Darryl D. Tyler, Director, Control Programs
Development Division, to Director, Air Division, Regions I-X, dated
September 17, 1984 [Appendix B, 4.1]
Memo entitled "Visibility Monitoring Strategy Requirements," from
Darryl D. Tyler, Director, Control Programs Development Division, to
Director, Air Division, Regions I-X, dated March 25, 1985
[Appendix B, 4.2]
jq.050 3.4-3
-------
3.5 STATE STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS AND NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS
jq.050 3.5-1
-------
3.5 State Stack Height Regulations and Negative Declarations (Continued)
Clean Air Act
Section 123
Code of Federal Regulations
40 CFR 51.118
40 CFR 51.164
40 CFR 51.166(h)
Federal Register Notices
Stack height regulations (final-47 FR 5864, February 8, 1982;
proposed-44 FR 2608, January 12, 1979 and 46 FR 49814, October 7, 1981)
Revised stack height regulations (final-50 FR 27892, July 8, 1985;
proposed-49 FR 44878, November 9, 1984)
Policy for using emissions balancing to comply with stack height
regulations (53 FR 480, January 7, 1988)
EPA Guideline Documents
Guideline for Fluid Modeling of Atmospheric Diffusion,
EPA-600/8-81-009, April 1981. (NTIS PB81-201410)
Guideline for Use of Fluid Modeling to Determine Good Engineering Stack
Height, EPA-450/4-81-003, July 1981. (NTIS PB82-145327)
Determination of Good Engineering Practice Stack Height - A Fluid Model
Demonstration Study for a Power Plant, EPA-600/3-83-024, April 1983.
(NTIS PB83 207407)
Fluid Modeling Demonstration of Good Engineering Practice Stack Height
in Complex Terrain, EPA-600/3-85-022, April 1985 (NTIS PB85-203107)
Guidance for Determination of Good Engineering Practice Stack Height,
EPA-450/4-80-023R, June 1985. (NTIS PB85-225241)
jq.050 3.5-2
-------
3.5 State Stack Height Regulations and Negative Declarations (Continued)
EPA Policy and Guidance Memoranda
Memo entitled "Guidance on Fluid Modeling Demonstrations for
Determining GEP Stack Height in Complex Terrain", from
Joseph A. Tikvart, Chief, Source Receptor Analysis Branch, MDAD, to
David Stonefield, Chief, Policy Development Section, CPDD, dated
September 19, 1985 [Appendix B, 5.1]
Memo entitled "Questions and Answers on Implementing the Revised Stack
Height Regulation" from G.T. Helms, Chief, Control Programs Operations
Branch to Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X, dated October 10, 1985
[Appendix B, 5.2]
Memo entitled "Implementation of Stack Height Regulations - Exceptions
from Restrictions on Credit for Merged Stacks" from Darryl D. Tyler,
Control Programs Development Division to Director, Air Management
Division, Regions I-X, dated October 28, 1985 [Appendix A, 5.3]
Memo entitled "Implementation of Stack Height Regulations - Presumptive
NSPS Emission Limit for Fluid Modeling Stacks above Formula GEP Height"
from Darryl D. Tyler, Director, Control Programs Development Division
to Director, Air Division, Regions I-X, dated October 28, 1985
[Appendix B, 5.4]
Memo entitled "Determining Stack Heights 'In Existence' Before
December 31, 1970" from Darryl D. Tyler, Director, Control Programs
Development Division to Director, Air Division, Regions I-X, dated
October 28, 1985 [Appendix B, 5.5]
Memo entitled "Priority for Review of Particulate Matter Sources for
Compliance with Revised Stack Height Regulations" from Darryl D. Tyler,
Director, Control Programs Development Division, to Director, Air
Division, Regions I-X, dated February 11, 1986 [Appendix B, 5.6]
Memo entitled "Clarification of Existing Guidance on Dispersion
Modeling Requirements for Plants with 'Tall Stacks' and Other
Prohibited Dispersion Techniques" from Darryl D. Tyler, Director,
Control Programs Development Division to Director, Air Division,
Regions I-X, dated February 11, 1986 [Appendix B, 5.7]
Memo entitled "Technical Support for Stack Height Negative
Declarations" from Tom Helms, Chief, Control Programs Operations
Branch, to Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X, dated September 3, 1987
[Appendix B, 5.8]
Memo entitled "Processing of Stack Height Negative Declarations" from
G.T. Helms, Chief, Control Programs Operations Branch, to Chief, Air
Branch, Regions I-X, dated October 9, 1987 [Appendix B, 5.9]
jq.050 3.5-3
-------
3.5 State Stack Height Regulations and Negative Declarations (Continued)
EPA Policy and Guidance Memoranda - Continued
Memo entitled "Interim Policy on Stack Height Regulatory Actions" from
J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to
Director, Air Division, Regions I-X, dated April 22, 1988
[Appendix B, 5.10]
Memo entitled "Application of the Interim Policy for Stack Height
Regulatory Actions" from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division to Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X, dated
May 17, 1988 [Appendix B, 5.11]
jq.050 3.5-4
-------
3.6 SECTION 107 REDESIGNATIONS
The following is a compilation of existing policy and guidance
information pertaining to three categories of Section 107 redesignations:
TSP redesignations
S02 redesignations
t CO redesignations relating to point-source only problems and hot
spots
NOTE: 0- redesignations have not been delegated for sign-off to the
Regional Administrator
jq.050 3.6-1
-------
3.6 Section 107 Redesiqnations (Continued)
Clean Air Act
Section 107(d)
Code of Federal Regulations
40 CFR 81.300 - 81.356
Federal Register Notices
Final rule for State attainment status designations in relation to
NAAQS (43 FR 8962, March 3, 1978)
Final regulations for implementing revised particulate matter standards
(52 FR 24672, July 1, 1987)
Proposed policy notice for approval of post-1987 ozone and CO plan
revisions for areas not attaining the national ambient air quality
standards (52 FR 45044, November 27, 1987)
EPA Guideline Documents
Guidelines for the Interpretation of Air Quality Standards, OAQPS
No. 1.2-008, 1977
EPA Policy and Guidance Memoranda
Letter regarding the use of monitoring data and modeling results in
Section 107 designations, from Walter C. Barber, Director, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Ralph C. Pickard, Indiana Air
Pollution Control Board, dated September 3, 1981 [Appendix B, 6.1]
Memo entitled "Milwaukee SO, Nonattainment Designation" from
Sheldon Meyers, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
to David Kee, Director, Air Management Division, Region V, dated
September 16, 1982 [Appendix B, 6.2]
Memo entitled "Section 107 Designation Policy Summary" from
Sheldon Meyers, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
to Director, Air Management Division, Regions I-X, dated April 21, 1983
[Appendix B, 6.3]
jq.050 3.6-2
-------
3.6 Section 107 Redesiqnations (Continued)
EPA Policy and Guidance Memoranda - Continued
Memo entitled "Summary of NAAQS Interpretation" from Richard G. Rhoads,
Director, Monitoring and Data Analysis Division, to Gary L. O'Neal,
Environmental Services Division, Region X, dated May 27, 1983
[Appendix B, 6.4]
Memo entitled "Section 107 Questions and Answers" from G.T. Helms,
Chief, Control Programs Operations Branch, to Air Branch Chief,
Regions I-X, dated December 23, 1983 [Appendix B, 6.5]
Memo entitled "Redesignations That Would Change the SIP", from
Darryl D. Tyler, Director, Control Programs Development Division, and
Peter H. Wychoff, Assistant General Counsel, Air and Radiation
Division, to Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, dated
February 27, 1985 [Appendix B, 6.6]
Memo entitled "Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) Redesignations" from
Gerald A. Emison, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, to Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, dated
September 30, 1985 [Appendix B, 6.7]
Memo entitled "Rulemaking on State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for
SO,," from G.T. Helms, Chief, Control Programs Operations Branch, to
Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X, dated December 10, 1986
[Appendix B, 6.8]
jq.050 3.6-3
-------
3.7 PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)/
NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) SIPs
The following is a compilation of existing policy and guidance
information pertaining to all PSD/NSR SIPs, except:
New generic state-wide PSD/NSR programs
t PSD/NSR SIPs submitted to comply with post-87 03/CO policy
PSD/NSR SIPs submitted to comply with Alabama Power decision
jq.050 3.7-1
-------
3.7 PSD/NSR SIPs (Continued)
Clean Air Act
Section 110
Sections 160-169
Section 173
Code of Federal Regulations
40 CFR 51.160 - 51.166
Federal Register Notices
Promulgation of plant-wide source definition for nonattainment area new
source review (46 FR 50766, October 14, 1981)
Stack height regulations (final-47 FR 5864, February 8, 1982;
proposed-44 FR 2608, January 12, 1979 and 46 FR 49814, October 7, 1981)
Deletion of requirements for inclusion of vessel emissions in threshold
applicability determinations and inclusion of mobile source emissions
as secondary emissions in air quality impact assessments (47 FR 27554,
June 25, 1982)
Requirements for inclusion of fugitive emissions in threshold
applicability determinations (49 FR 43202, October 26, 1984)
Revised stack height regulations (final-50 FR 27892, July 8, 1985;
proposed-49 FR 44878, November 9, 1984)
"Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised),11 EPA-450/2-78-027R
(51 FR 32176, September 9, 1986)
Supplement A to "Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised),"
EPA-450/2-78-027R (53 FR 392, January 6, 1988)
jq.050 3.7-2
-------
3.7 PSD/NSR SIPs (Continued)
EPA Policy and Guidance Memoranda
Memo entitled "Improved New Source Review/ Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (NSR/PSD) Program Transfer" from Darryl D. Tyler,
Director, Control Programs Development Division, to Director, Air
Division, Regions I-X, dated May 9, 1985 [Appendix B, 7.1]
Memo entitled "Questions and Answers on Implementing the Revised Stack
Height Regulation" from G.T. Helms, Chief, Control Programs Operations
Branch, to Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X, dated October 10, 1985
[Appendix B, 7.2]
Memo entitled "Ozone Control Strategy-Regional Office Review of
Potential Improvements in New Source Review (NSR) Regulations" from
G.T. Helms, Chief, Control Programs Operations Branch, to Chief, Air
Branch, Regions I-X, dated September 11, 1986 [Appendix B, 7.3]
Memo entitled "Region IX New Source Review/Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Rulemaking Backlog" from Gerald A. Emison, Director,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to David P. Howekamp,
Director, Air Management Division, Region IX, dated February 4, 1987
[Appendix B, 7.4]
Memo entitled "Plantwide Definition of Major Stationary Sources of Air
Pollution" from J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, to Directors, Air Division, Regions I-X, dated
February 27, 1987 [Appendix B, 7.5]
Memo entitled "Request for Guidance in Drafting a State Implementation
Plan Deficiency Notice for Michigan's Nonattainment New Source Review
Program" from Darryl D. Tyler, Director, Control Programs Development
Division, to David Kee, Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region V,
dated March 26, 1987 [Appendix B, 7.6]
Memo entitled "Interim Policy on Stack Height Regulatory Actions" from
J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administra'tor for Air and Radiation, to
Director, Air Division, Regions I-X, dated April 22, 1988
[Appendix B, 7.7]
Memo entitled "Application of the Interim Policy for Stack Height
Regulatory Actions" from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, to Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X, dated
May 17, 1988 [Appendix A, 7.8]
jq.050 3.7-3
-------
3.8 lll(d) PLANS AND NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS
jq.050 3.8-1
-------
3.8 lll(d) Plans and Negative Declarations (Continued)
Clean Air Act
Section lll(d)
Code of Federal Regulations
40 CFR 60.20 - 60.29
40 CFR 60.30 - 60.34
Federal Register Notices
State lll(d) plan regulations (final-40 FR 53340, November 17, 1975;
proposed-39 FR 36102, October 7, 1974)
Availability of final guidance document for phosphate fertilizer plants
(42 FR 12022, March 1, 1977)
Emission guidelines for sulfuric acid must (42 FR 55796,
October 18, 1977)
Availability of final guidance document for Kraft pulp mills
(44 FR 29828, May 22, 1979)
EPA Guideline Documents
Requirements and Procedures for Implementing Section lll(d), OAQPS
No. 1.2-072, March 1977
Final Guideline Document: Control of Fluoride Emissions from Existing
Phosphate Fertilizer Plants, EPA-450/2-77-005, March 1977
(NTIS PB-265062)
Final Guidance Document: Control of Sulfuric Acid Mist Emissions from
Existing Sulfuric Acid Production Units, EPA-450/2-77-019,
September 1977 (NTIS PB-274085)
Kraft Pulping - Control of TRS Emissions from Existing Mills,
EPA-450/2-78-003b, March 1979 (NTIS PB-296135)
Guidelines for Control of Fluoride Emissions from Existing Primary
Aluminum Plants, EPA-450/2-78-049b, December 1979 (NTIS PB80-153935)
jq.050 3.8-2
-------
3.8 lll(d) Plans and Negative Declarations (Continued)
EPA Policy and Guidance Memoranda
Memo entitled "Applicability of the Bubble Concept to Section lll(d)
Standards" from Earl Salo, Office of General Counsel, to
James Kamihachi, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, dated
May 7, 1979 [Appendix B, 8.1]
Memo entitled "The Bubble Policy and State Plans under Clean Air Act
Section lll(d)" from Walter C. Barber, Director, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards to Director, Air Division, Regions I-X, dated
August 8, 1980 [Appendix B, 8.2]
Memo entitled "EPA Policy on Welfare-Related Pollutants under
Section lll(d)" from Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant Administrator for
Air, Noise, and Radiation, to Director, Air Division, Regions I-X,
dated September 14, 1981 [Appendix B, 8.3]
jq.050 3.8-3
-------
3.9 CO ATTAINMENT PLANS DEALING WITH HOTSPOTS
The section presents existing policy and guidance information for
CO attainment plans dealing with hotspots only.
jq.050 3.9-1
-------
3.9 CO Attainment Plans Dealing with Hotspots (Continued)
Clean Air Act
Section 110
Section 171-178
Code of Federal Regulations
40 CFR 51
Federal Register Notices
Criteria for approval of 1979 SIP revisions (43 FR 21673,
February 24, 1978)
Final policy on approval of 1982 ozone and carbon monoxide plan
revisions for areas needing an attainment date extension (46 FR 7182,
January 22, 1981)
Rule for compliance with the statutory provisions of Part D of the
Clean Air Act (final-48 FR 50686, November 2, 1983;
proposed-48 FR 4972, February 3, 1983 and 48 FR 5022, February 3, 1983)
Proposed policy on approval of post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide plan
revisions for areas not attaining the NAAQS (52 FR 45044,
November 24, 1987)
EPA Guideline Documents
Carbon Monoxide Hot Spot Guidelines, Volume I: Techniques,
EPA-450/3-78-033 (NTIS PB 82-238072)
Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis, Volume 9
(Revised): Evaluating Indirect Sources, EPA-450/4-78-001, January 1979
(OAQPS No. 1.2-028R)
CALINE3 - A Versatile Dispersion Model for Predicting Air Pollutant
Levels Near Highways and Arterial Streets (NTIS PB80-220841)
Guidance Document for Correction of Part D SIPs for Nonattainment
Areas, January 27, 1984
jq.050 3.9-2
-------
3.9 CO Attainment Plans Dealing with Hotsoots (Continued)
EPA Guideline Documents - Continued
SAI Airshed Model Operations Manuals, Volume I: User's Manual,
EPA-600/8-85-007A (NTIS PB85-1915567)
SAI Airshed Model Operations Manuals, Volume II: System's Manual,
EPA-600/8-85-007B (NTIS PB85-1915765)
User's Guide for RAM - Second Edition, EPA 600-8-87/046, October 1987
(NTIS PB88-113261)
Emission Inventory Requirements for Post-87 Carbon Monoxide State
Implementation Plans, EPA-450/4-88-020, December 1988
EPA Policy and Guidance Memoranda
Memo entitled "Volume 9 Update" from Mark Wolcott, Test and Evaluation
Branch, to Ray Vogel, OAQPS, dated January 14, 1986 [Appendix B, 9.1]
jq.050 3.9-3
-------
3.10 LEAD PLANS AND REVISIONS
jq.050 3.10-1
-------
3.10 Lead Plans and Revisions (Continued)
Clean Air Act
Section 110
Code of Federal Regulations
40 CFR 51
40 CFR 51.117 (specific provisions for lead)
Federal Register Notices
Rule for preparation, adoption, and submittal of implementation plans
for lead (final-43 FR 46264, October 5, 1978; proposed-42 FR 63087,
December 14, 1977)
EPA Guideline Documents
Supplementary Guidelines for Lead Implementation Plans,
EPA-450/2-78-038, August 1978 (NTIS PB-286409/8)
Guideline for Short-Term Lead Monitoring in the Vicinity of Point
Sources, OAQPS No. 1.2-122, March 1979
Supplementary Guidelines for Lead Implementation PlanUpdated
Projections for Motor Vehicle Lead Emissions, EPA-450/2-83-002,
March 1983 (NTIS PB84-104603)
Updated Information on Approval and Promulgation of Lead Implementation
Plans, Draft Manual, July 1983
EPA Policy and Guidance Memoranda
Memo entitled "Lead SIPs" from G.T. Helms, Chief, Control Programs
Operations Branch, to Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X, dated
June 14, 1979 [Appendix B, 10.1]
Memo entitled "Minimum Number of Samples for Determining Quarterly
Average Lead Concentration" from Richard G. Rhoads, Director, Control
Programs Development Division, OAQPS, to Director, Air Division,
Regions I-X, dated November 21, 1979 [Appendix B, 10.2]
jq.050 3.10-2
-------
3.10 Lead Plans and Revisions (Continued)
EPA Policy and Guidance Memoranda - Continued
Memo entitled "New Source Review Requirements for Lead" from
Richard G. Rhoads, Director, Control Programs Development Division, to
Director, Air Division, Regions 1-X, dated April 8, 1980
[Appendix B, 10.3]
Memo entitled "Issues on Lead SIPs" from G.T. Helms, Chief, Control
Programs Operations Branch, to Conrad Simon, Director, Air and Waste
Management Division, Region II, dated March 14, 1983 [Appendix B, 10.4]
Memo entitled "Section 107 Designation Policy Summary" from
Sheldon Meyers, Director, Office of Air Quality and Standards, to
Director, Air Division, Regions 1-X, dated April 21, 1983
[Appendix B, 10.5]
Memo entitled "Acceptance Criteria for Lead Data Used in Control
Strategy Development" from G.T. Helms, Chief, Control Programs
Operation Branch, to Tom Harris, Montana Field Office, Region VIII,
dated May 3, 1983 [Appendix B, 10.6]
Memo entitled "Definition of Ambient Air for Lead" from Darryl D.
Tyler, Director, Control Programs Development Division, to Allyn Davis,
Director, Air and Waste Management Division, Region VI, dated
May 26, 1983 [Appendix B, 10.7]
jq.050 3.10-3
-------
3.11 PARTICULATE MATTER SIPs
The following is a compilation of existing policy and guidance
information pertaining to the following types of particulate matter SIPs:
f PM,Q and TSP relaxations
t PM1Q Group II and III SIPs
jq.050 3.11-1
-------
3.11 Particulate Matter SIPs (Continued)
Clean Air Act
Section 110
Code of Federal Regulations
40 CFR 51
Federal Register Notices
Regulations for implementing revised particulate matter standards
(final-52 FR 24672, July 1, 1987; proposed-50 FR 13130, April 2, 1985)
Criteria for approval of 1979 SIP revisions (43 FR 21673,
February 24, 1978)
EPA Guideline Documents
Guideline on the Identification and Use of Air Quality Data Affected by
Exceptional Events, EPA-450/4-86-007, July 1986 (NTIS PB86-218344)
Guideline on Exceptions to Data Requirements for Determining Attainment
of Particulate Matter Standards EPA-450/4-87-005, April 1987
(NTIS PB88-100359)
PMin SIP Development Guideline, EPA-450/2-86-001, June 1987
(NTIS PB87-206488)
PM10 SIP Development Guideline Supplement, June 1988
Response to Questions Regarding PM,Q State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Development, June 1988
PM,Q SIP Checklist for General Requirements
EPA Policy and Guidance Memoranda
Memo entitled "Options for Handling State Implementation Plan
Relaxation in Face of Uncertainty" from Richard G. Rhoads, Director,
Control Programs Development Division, to David G. Hawkins, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Waste Management, dated May 16, 1978
[Appendix B, 11.1]
jq.050 3.11-2
-------
3.11 Particulate Matter (Continued)
EPA Policy and Guidance Memoranda - Continued
Memo entitled "Guidance on Accounting for Trends in Particulate Matter
Emission and Air Quality Data" from Richard G. Rhoads, Director,
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division, to Director, Air Division,
Regions I-X, dated May 11, 1987 [Appendix B, 11.2]
Memo entitled "Processing of Particulate Matter State Implementation
Plan Revisions" from Gerald A. Emison, Director, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, to Director, Air Division, Regions I-X, dated
August 11, 1987 [Appendix B, 11.3]
Memo entitled "Clarification of Implementation Policies for PM,Q
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)" from Darryl D. Tyler,
Director, Control Programs Development Division, to Director, Air
Division, Regions 1-X, dated October 2, 1987 [Appendix B, 11.4]
Memo entitled "PM10 SIP Checklist" from David H. Stonefield, Chief,
Particulate Matter Programs Section, SDPMPB, to Chief, Air Branch,
Regions I-X, dated July 1, 1988 [Appendix B, 11.5]
Memo entitled "PM,0 SIP Development: Status and Concerns" from
John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, to Director,
Air Division, Region I-X, dated September 6, 1988 [Appendix B, 11.6]
Memo entitled "PM,Q Policy Memorandum" from Gerald A. Emison, Director,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Don R. Clay, Acting
Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, dated October 21, 1988
[Appendix B, 11.7]
Memo entitled "Guidance on Long-Term Nonattainment of the PM,Q
Standards" from Don R. Clay, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of
Air and Radiation, to Administrator, Regions I-X, dated
November 4, 1988 [Appendix B, 11.8]
Memo entitled "Revision to Policy on the Use of PM ,Q Measurement Data"
from Gerald A. Emison, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, to Director, Air Division, Regions I-X, dated
November 21, 1988 [Appendix B, 11.9]
jq.050 3.11-3
-------
3.12 VOC REVISIONS WITH EXTENDED COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES
The following is a compilation of existing policy and guidance
information pertaining to two categories of SIP revisions:
t VOC revisions with extended compliance schedules affecting
nonattainment areas
VOC revisions with extended compliance schedules (except those
affecting nonattainment areas)
jq.050 3.12-1
-------
3.12 VOC Revisions with Extended Compliance Schedules (Continued)
Clean Air Act
Section 110
Section 172 (Nonattainment Areas)
Code of Federal Regulations
40 CFR 51.104
40 CFR 51.110-116
Federal Register Notices
General preamble for proposed rulemaking on approval of SIP revisions
for nonattainment areas (44 FR 20372, April 4, 1979)
Approval of 1982 ozone and carbon monoxide plan revisions for areas
needing an attainment date extension (46 FR 7182, January 22, 1981)
Proposed policy on approval of post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide plan
revisions for areas not attaining the NAAQS (52 FR 45044,
November 24, 1987)
Appendix A to proposed disapproval of compliance date extension for
Georgia Pacific (53 FR 45103, November 8, 1988)
EPA Policy and Guidance Memoranda
Memo entitled "Source Specific SIP Revisions" from Sheldon Meyers,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Director,
Air Division, Regions I-X, dated July 29, 1983 [Appendix B, 12.1]
Memo entitled "Policy on SIP Revisions Requesting Compliance Date
Extensions for VOC Sources" from J. Craig Potter, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, to Regional Administrator,
Regions I-X, dated August 7, 1986 [Appendix B, 12.2]
Memo entitled "SIP Compliance Date Extension Policy for VOC Sources in
Nonattainment Areas" from Richard Biondi, Acting Chief, Compliance
Monitoring Branch, to Steve Rothblatt, Chief, Air and Radiation Branch,
Region V, dated December 22, 1986 [Appendix B, 12.3]
jq.050 3.12-2
-------
3.13 S02 SIPs
The following is a compilation of existing policy and guidance
pertaining to the following categories of SO, SIPs:
c.
1. Area-wide and source-specific SIP revisions, where the source(s)
or background sources have allowable emissions of 25,000 tons per
year or more (except primary nonferrous smelters or emissions
trading)
2. Revisions with: (a) averaging times greater than the short-term
S02 NAAQS; (b) revised emission limits due to changes in stack
height credits
3. Ambient monitoring plans
4. Malfunction rules
5. State ambient air quality standards
6. All other SOp SIPs, except:
t S02 revisions involving (a) unresolved national issues (e.g,
stack height remand, statistical attainment demonstrations,
expected exceedances methods); (b) more than one Regional
Office, and (c) international issues
S02 revisions involving State-developed air quality
dispersion model guidelines or based on nonapproved models
or deviations from EPA's modeling guidance
SO
2 statewide plans (all elements)
jq.050 3.13-1
-------
3.13 S02 SIPs (Continued)
Clean Air Act
Section 110
Section 123
Code of Federal Regulations
40 CFR Part 51
40 CFR Part 58 (Ambient Monitoring Plans)
Federal Register Notices
Disapproval of SIPs allowing automatic exemption from malfunctions
(final-42 FR 58171, November 8, 1977; proposed-42 FR 21372,
April 27, 1977)
Criteria for approval of 1979 SIP Revisions (43 FR 21673,
February 24, 1978)
General preamble for proposed rulemaking on approval of SIP revisions
for nonattainment areas (44 FR 20372, April 4, 1979); with supplements
(44 FR 38583, July 2, 1979; 44 FR 50371, August 28, 1979; 44 FR 53761,
September 17, 1979; 44 FR 67182, November 23, 1979)
Ambient air monitoring regulations (44 FR 27569, May 10, 1979)
Stack height regulations (final-47 FR 5864, February 8, 1982;
proposed-44 FR 2608, January 12, 1979 and 46 FR 49814, October 7, 1981)
Revised stack height regulations (final-50 FR 27892, July 8, 1985;
proposed-49 FR 44878, November 9, 1984)
EPA Guideline Documents
See "Air Programs Reports and Guidelines Index", OAQPS, January 1988,
for a complete listing of reports and guideline documents pertaining to
specific issues involved in S0« SIPs
jq.050 3.13-2
-------
3.13 S02 SIPs (Continued)
EPA Policy and Guidance Memoranda
Memo entitled "Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown,
Maintenance, and Malfunctions" from Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant
Administrator for Air, Noise, and Radiation to Regional Administrator,
Regions I-X, dated May 15, 1983 [Appendix B, 13.1]
Memo entitled " Summary of NAAQS Interpretation" from
Richard G. Rhoads, Director, Monitoring and Data Analysis Division, to
Gary O'Neal, Director, Environmental Services Division, Region X, dated
May 27, 1983 [Appendix B, 13.2]
Memo entitled "Questions and Answers on Implementing the Revised Stack
Height Regulation" from G.T. Helms, Chief, Control Programs Operation
Branch, to Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X, dated October 10, 1985
[Appendix B, 13.3]
Memo entitled "Block Averages in Implementing SO- NAAQS" from
Gerald A. Emison, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, to Director, Air Division, Regions I-X, dated March 28, 1986
[Appendix B, 13.4]
Letter from Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, to Nancy Maloley, Commissioner, Indiana Department of
Environmental Management, dated May 23, 1986. Subject: Policy on use
of 30-day averaging for S02 compliance [Appendix B, 13.5]
Memo entitled "Rulemaking on State Implementation Plans for SO," from
G.T. Helms, Chief, Control Programs Operations Branch, to Air Branch
Chief, Regions I-X, dated December 10, 1986 [Appendix B, 13.6]
Memo entitled "State Implementation Plans for Sulfur Dioxide" from
Gerald A. Emison, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, to Director, Air Division, Regions I-X, dated July 29, 1987
[Appendix B, 13.7]
Memo entitled "Interim Policy on Stack Height Regulatory Actions" from
J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to
Director, Air Division, Regions I-X, dated April 22, 1988
[Appendix B, 13.8]
Memo entitled "Application of the Interim Policy for Stack Height
Regulatory Actions" from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, to Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X, dated
May 17, 1988 [Appendix B, 13.9]
jq.050 3.13-3
-------
Appendix A - Tabular Guide to
Policy and Guidance References
-------
APPENDIX A
Tabular Guide to SIP Policy and Guidance Materials
This appendix contains a tabular guide for identifying available
policy and guidance information pertaining to each category of SIP for
which review and approval responsibilities have been delegated to the
Regional offices. In the left column of the table is listed the individual
SIP categories for which review and approval responsibilities have been
delegated to the Regional offices. Next to each SIP category are
references to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements (i.e., Clean
Air Act and Code of Federal Regulations), Federal Register notices, EPA
guideline documents, and Agency memoranda. General topics addressed by
each of the memoranda are indicated by a matrix on the right side of the
table. Topics included in the matrix are:
Policy statements
t Interpretation/clarification of regulations and policy statements
Guidelines for implementing interim policies
Guidelines for preparing and reviewing technical demonstrations
involving:
1) modeling
2) monitoring
3) economic feasibility
4) technical feasibility
5) emissions inventories
6) control strategies
Procedural guidelines for preparing and reviewing SIP-revisions
Checklist availability
jq.050 A.0-1
-------
Guidelines for Preparing nrf
Reviewing Technical Demonstratio
Statutory and Regulatory
Guidelines
* --. Federal Register
SIP Topic CAA Authority CFR Notices
guidance approval of 1979
SIP revisions
o 43 FR 21673
(2/24/78)
General preamble
for proposed
rulemaklng on
approval of SIP
revisions for
nonattalnment
areas
o 44 FR 20372
(4/4/79)
Ambient Air
monitoring
regulations
o 44 FR 27569
(5/19/79)
EPA Guideline Index
Documents No.
u lines or r
Planning and Analysis,
Volume 1: Designation
of Air Quality
Maintenance Areas
EPA-450/4-74-001
1.2
"Guidelines for Air
Quality Maintenance
Planning and Analysis
Volume 2: Plan
Preparation", 1.3
EPA-450/4-74-002
"Guidelines for Air
Quality Maintenance
Planning and Analysis,
Volume 3; Control
Strategies",
EPA-450/4-74-003
"Guidelines for Air
Quality Maintenance
? * ? - " o-
0 / * ?
r f * £ f *
// / *" ^ o* //
/// */ / / / / ///
<7 M * O » ^ r » "J
«7 y J » <* > if ^ , °> ? * "? *
Agency Memoranda *9 ff 3 ff $ » £ .** o 3 / ^ if J £ -?
a .5 J* S Z i"* ** o ^ ** "» J? "0 * ** If
".:;;... ////// // / // / //*/
rom . nne o
dated February 13, 1983,
"Policy on Excess Emissions
During Startup, Shutdown,
Maintenance, and Malfunctions"
Memo from R. Rhoads, to X X X X
G. O'Neal, dated
May 27, 1983, "Stannary of
NAAQS Interpretation"
Memo from S. Meyers, to X
Regional Air Directors, dated
July 29, 1983, "Source
Specific SIP Revisions"
Planning and Analysis,
Volume 4: Land Use
and Transportation
Cons Iderat ions",
BPA-450/4-74-004
"Guidelines for Air
Quality Maintenance
Planning and Analysis,
Volume 5: Case Studies
in Plan Development"
EPA-450/4-74-006
"Guidelines for Air
Quality Maintenance
Planning and Analysis,
Volume 6: Overview of
Air Quality Maltenance
Area Analysis",
EPA-450M-74-007
-------
Statutory and Regulatory
Guidelines
SIP Topic
CAA Authority
Federal Register
Notice*
EPA Guideline
Document*
Guidelines for Preparing aud
Reviewing Technical Demonstrat Um»
Agency Memoranda
* /?
* ff.
Index
f ?t 3
ff.f /
Description
Generic
guidance
(continued)
"Guidelines for Air
Quality Maintenance
Planning and Analysis,
Volume 7: Projecting
County Emissions,
Second Edition",
EPA-450/4-74-008
"Guidelines for Air
Quality Maintenance
Planning and Analysis,
Volume 8: Computer-
Assisted Area Source
Emissions Cridding
Procedure",
EPA-4SOM-74-009
"Guidelines for Air
Quality Maintenance
Planning and Analysis,
Volume 9: Evaluating
Indirect Sources
(Revised),"
EPA-450/4-78-001
"Guidelines for Air
Quality Maintenance
Planning and Analysis,
Volume 10; Procedures
for Evaluating Air
Quality Impact of New
Stationary Sources
(Revised),"
EPA-450/4-77-001
"Guidelines for Air
Quality Maintenance
Planning and Analysis,
Volume 11: Air Quality
Monitoring and Data
Analysis",
-------
Guidelines for Preparing and
Reviewing Technical Demonstrat Io
/
Statutory and Regulatory
Guidelines
SIP Topic
GAA Authority
Federal Register
Notices
EPA Guideline
Documents
Agency Memoranda
t ?/ -y»
'..»/ ?.?
Description
/ /
o^ "* ^ £ £
Generic
guidance
(continued)
00
"Guidelines for Air
Quality Maintenance
Planning and Analysis,
Volume 12: Applying
Atmospheric Simulation
Models to Air Quality
Maintenance Areas",
EPA-450/4-74-013
"Guidelines for Air
Quality Maintenance
Planning and Analysis,
Volume 13: Allocating
Projected Emissions to
Subcounty Areas",
EPA-450/4-74-014
"Guidelines for Air
Quality Maintenance
Planning and Analysis,
Volume 14: Designing
Air Quality Maintenance
Areas,"
EPA-450/4-75-002
Guidance Document for
Correction of Part D
SIPs for Nonattalnment
Areas", January 27, 1984
"Guideline on Air
Quality Models (Revised)
with Supplement A,"
EPA-450/2-7B-027R
-------
Guideline* for Preparing and
Reviewing Technical Demonstrai I»ID
Statutory and Regulatory
Guidelines
SIP Topic CAA Authority CFR Notice!
VOC bubblea - - Emissions trading
policy statement
-j., 51 FR 43814
(12/4/86)
/" ,?,? ,} * -°" y f * ? " 3
*/ ""V / j ? ' if/
******** O 4. Ca* * '
Agency Memoranda # if ^ f -5* » ^ ^* o <7 o^ S* /*?*'*
£ £ ^ $ £ ? * / -£ * e / * * £
Document* No. Description ^ 0»CJS» *.. ^J* *^V 0,0.
2.1 Memo from Salo, E., OGC, to X
Kamlhachl, J. , OPPE, dated
May 7, 1979, "Applicability
of the Bubble Concept to
Section lll(d) Standard*"
Memo from Barber, W., OAQPS,
to Regional Air Division
Directors, dated Aug. 8, 1980,
"The Bubble Policy and State
Plans under Clean Air Act
Section lll(d)"
-------
Guideline! for Preparing *i,H
Statutory and Regulatory
Guidelines
Federal Register EPA Guideline
SIP Topic CAA Authority CFR Notices Documents
VOC single-source Compliance with VOC "Issues Related to
regulations emission limitations VOC Regulation
for can coating Cutpoints,
operations Deficiencies, and
' Deviations" OAQPS/
, 45 FR 80824 AQKD, May 25, 1988
(12/8/80)
1 (Contains an
extens Ive list and
Index of other VOC
related guidance
document, see
Attachment 5,
"Index to EPA
Gu Ldance
Memorandums and
Policies")
(Contains a list
of CTCs, see
Attachment 1, "CTG
Applicability:
Cutoffs ,
Exemptions, and
General
Applicability")
o* % Reviewing Technical Deraonst r*t loni
* & / 0"
° ** C "-T »
// -' > *" //
/ // '$* ? / / / ///
!.._ ////// /// /// ////
Index ^'c'K^o'c' £ & c7 ^ *^ p7 if +" ^ (j
Mo. Description fl, o^Cfs rJp £ *»v *^"Q
3.1 Memo from Meyers, S.. to X
Regional Air Division
Directors, dated Nov. 24,
1982, "SIP Actions and Toxic
Pollutants"
3.2 Memo from O'Connor, J., X XX X
OAQPS to Regional Air
Division Directors, dated
January 20, 1984,
"Averaging Times for
Compliance with VOC
Emission Limits - SIP
Revision Policy"
-------
Guidelines for Preparing and
Reviewing Technical Demonstrat loi
SIP Topic
Statutory and Regulatory
Guidelines
CAA Authority
Federal Register
Notices
EPA Guideline
Document,
Index
Mo.
Agency Memoranda
Description
A, 4» .*
/ J" /
*
f
-» o
f ff
f f
,/
-------
% /
Culd*lln*>> for Preparing «nd
Reviewing Technical Deo.oru.trat UMU
Statutory and Regulatory
Guidelines
SIP Topic CAA Authority CFR Notices
Other Sections 110, 40 CFR 51.300- Visibility
visibility 169A M.307i protection rules
plans 81.400-81.437 for Federal
Class I areas
j, e 45 FR 80084
(12/2/80)
1
1
' « 45 FR 34762
(5/22/80)
new source review,
and monitoring
strategy rule
e 50 FR 28544
(7/12/85)
e 49 FR 42670
(10/23/84)
Visibility SIPs
long-term
and control
strategies rule
52 FR 45132
(11/24/87)
e 52 FR 7802
(3/12/87)
Documents
"Protecting Visibility:
An EPA Report to
Congress" EPA-450/
5-79-008
"The Development of
Mathematical Models
for the Prediction of
Anthropogenic
Visibility Impairment"
EPA-450/3-78-110a,b,c
Impacts of Visibility
Regulations"
"User's Manual for the
Plume Vlslllblty Model
(PLUVUE)" EPA-450/
4-80-032
"Workbook for
Estimating Visibility
Impairment" EPA-450/
4-80-031
"I 1m C Ida f
Visibility Monitoring"
EPA-450/2-80-082
s- .y * - ,? « J J' / ,ff « ,f * fff o
o. Description ^o s o » CT *, f f ^ £ $ 1 ^ £ w «
4.1 Memo from Tyler, D.D., CPDD XX X
to Regional Air Division
Directors, dated September 17,
1984, "Requirements for
State Submlttals of Visibility
Protection SIPs"
4.2 Memo from Tyler, D.D., CPDD, XX XX
to Regional Air Division
Directors, dated March 25,
1985, "Visibility Monitoring
Strategy Requirements"
-------
/
// /
Guidelines for Preparing and
Reviewing Technical Demonscratlo
I
00
SIP Topic
State stick
height
regulat ions
and negative
declarations
Guldel Lnes
CAA Authority CFR Notices
Sect Ion 123 40 CFR 51 . 118, Revised stack
51.164. height regulations
S1.166(h)
o 50 FR 27892
(7/8/85)
o 49 FR 44878
(11/9/84)
Stack height
regulations
o 47 FR 5864
(2/8/82)
o 44 FR 2608
(1/12/79)
o 46 FR 49814
(10/7/81)
Final policy on
stack height
emissions balancing
o 53 FR 480
(1/7/88)
Documents
of Fluid Modeling to
Determine Good
Engineering Stack
Height" EPA- 4 50 /
4-81-003
"Guideline for Fluid
Modeling of Atmos-
pheric Diffusion"
EPA-600/8-81-009
"Guidance for Deter-
mination of Good
Engineering Practice
Stack Height"
EPA-450/4-80-023R
"Determination of
Good Engineering
Practice Stack
Height - A Fluid
Modeling Demon-
stration for a Power
Plant" EPA-600/
3-83-024
"Fluid Modeling
Demonstration of
Good Engineering
Practice Stack
Height In Complex
Terrain" EPA-600/
3-85-022
Agency Memoranda t» C a S 3 a A > * g *, ^ ^ f -^
*i & f / ? ? v o* > »? ^
-------
Reviewing Technical Demons t rat Io
SIP Topic
Statutory and Regulatory
Guidelines
CAA Authority
Federal Register
Notices
EPA Guide Lin*
Documents
Inden
No.
D..crlptlon
/ / / /
State stack
height
regulations
and negative
declarations
(continued)
Memo from Tyler, D. , CPDD, to
Regional Air Division
Directors, dated Feb. 11,
1986, "Clarification of
Existing Guidance on Disper-
sion Modeling Requirements
for Plants with "Tall Stacks"
and other Prohibited
Dispersion Techniques"
Memo from Helms, T., CPDD/
CPOB, to Regional Air Branch
Chiefs, dated Sept. 3, 1987,
"Technical Support for Stack
Height Negative Declarations"
Memo from Helms, T., CPDD/
CPOB, to Regional Air Branch
Chiefs, dated Oct. 9, 1987,
"Processing of Stack Height
Negative Declarations*
Memo from Potter, J.C., OAR,
to Regional Air Division
Directors, dated April 22,
1988, "Interim Policy on Stack
Height Regulatory Actions"
Memo from Calcagnl, J., AQMD,
to Regional Air Branch Chiefs,
dated May 17, 1988,
"Application of the Interim
Policy for Stack Height
Regulatory Actions"
-------
GuldtLtn** for Preparing and
Statutory and Regulatory
Guidelines
Federal Register
SIP Topic CAA Authority CPR Notices
TSP Section 107 (d) 40 CFR 81.300- Final rule for
status designations
in relation to
NAAQS
43 FR 8962
Y* (3/3/78)
1 '
^^ Final regulations
for implementing
revised particulate
matter standards
52 FR 24672
(7/1/87)
£ ^ Reviewing Technical Den.orutrat ions
I t? »j 0
^o? / . £> ff
Agency Memoranda <& £ af f 3 e f f u ff / Z $ ? t ~<
- - «, ff/ // ^ ' / / / ? / /." " /
EPA Guideline Inde« -^c'v^'j'c / / / / S <$ * /«" O
Document. Ho. Description .0 s« > ,
-------
Guidelines for Preparing -nd
Reviewing Technical Demonstrat luiis
Statutory and Regulatory
Guidelines
SIP Topic CAA Authority
S02 Section 107(d)
3=»
1
1
H-*
*~*
reoerai KegLster
CFR Notices
1.0 CFR 81.300- Final rule for
status designa-
tions In relation
to NAAQS
43 FR 8962
(3/3/78)
E,rA uuiaeiine
Documents
"Guidelines for the
Quality Standards"
OAQPS No. 1.2-008
inaex ^ c S *j o t?
No. Description flf S ° * <* s
6.1 Utter from Barber, W. , OAQPS,
dated Sept. 3, 1981, regarding
use of monitoring data in
Section 107 designations
6.2 Memo from Meyers, S. , OAQPS,
to Kee, D., Region V, dated
Sept. 16, 1982, "Milwaukee
SO2 Nonattainment Designation*
/
K X
6.3 Memo from Meyers, S., OAQPS,
to Regional Air Division
Directors, dated April 21,
1983, "Section 107 Designation
Policy Summary"
6.4 Memo from Rhoads, R., MDAD, to
O'Neal, G., Region X, dated
May 27, 1983, "Summary of
NAAQS Interpretation"
6.5 Memo from Helms, G.T., CPDD,
to Regional Air Branch Chiefs,
dated Dec. 23, 1983, "Section
107 Questions and Answers"
6.6 Memo from Tyler, D., CPDD,
to Regional Air Division
Directors, dated Feb. 27,
19BS, "Redeslgnatlons That
Would Change the SIP"
6.8 Memo from Helms, C.T., CPDD,
to Regional Air Branch Chiefs,
dated Dec. 10, 1986,
"Rulemaking on State
Implementation Plans for S02"
XX
-------
Guidelines for Preparing »nd
Reviewing Technical Deo.onstr.tt 1»
SIP Topic
CO
relating to
point -source
only problems
and hot spots
It*
*
l-^
1
I*
no
Statutory and Regulatory
Guidelines
-- Federal Register EPA Guideline
CAA Authority CFR Notice* Document*
Section 107(d) 40 CFR 81.300- Fin* I rule for state "Guidelines for the
designation* in Air Quality
relation to NAAQS Standards" OAQPS
No. 1.2-008
43 FR 8962
(3/3/78)
Proposed policy
notice for approval
of post-1987 ozone
a ions for areas not
attaining the NAAQS
52 FR 45044
(11/27/87)
// / * //
»*«' £ ^ $ .?-?
. Xs"*7 -ft -y -y ? s yt
///,// / / / / j'/ t
Agency Memoranda
-------
f*
? f
Guideline* for Preparing and
Reviewing Technical Demonstratio
^ f
/i
Statutory and Regulatory
Guidelines
SIP Topic
CAA Authority
Ageru=, Memoranda
Federal Register
Notices
Prevention of Section* 110,
Significant 160-169, 173
Deterioration/
New Source
Review
(NSR/PSD)
I
I»
CO
40 CPR 51.160- Plant-wide source
51,166 definition for
nonattalnment. area
new source review
46 FR 50766
(10/14/81)
Stack height
regulations
47 FR 5864
(2/8/82)
46 FR 49814
(10/7/81)
44 FR 2608
(1/12/79)
Deletion of
requlremen
vessel eml
ondary eml
In air quality
47 FR 27554
(6/25/82)
Memo from Tyler, D., CPDD, to
Regional Air Division
Directors, dated May 9, 1985,
"Improved NSR/PSD Program
Transfer"
Memo from Helms, G.T., CPDD,
to Regional Air Branch Chiefs,
dated Oct. 10, 1985,
"Questions and Answers on
Implementing the Revised
Stack Height Regulation"
Memo from Helms, C.T., CPDD,
to Regional Air Branch Chiefs,
dated Sept. 11, 1986, "Ozone
Control Strategy - Regional
Office Review of Potential
Improvements In NSR
Regulations"
Memo from Emison, G., OAQPS,
to Howekamp, D., Region IX,
dated Feb. 4, 1987, "Region IX
NSR/PSD Rulemaklng Backlog"
Memo from Potter, J.C., OAR,
to Regional Air Division
Directors, dated Feb. 27,
1987, "Plantwlde Definition of
Major Stationary Sources of
Air Pollution"
-------
/
C 5*
;? «
Guidelines for Preparing *»uH
Reviewing Technical Demonstrations
Statutory and Regulatory
Guidelines
SIP Topic
CAA Authority
Federal Register
Notices
EPA Culd-lln.
Doc«.nt.
//
D«crlption
PSD/NSR
(continued)
Requirements for
Inclusion of
fugitive emissions
In threshold
applicability
determinations
o 49 FR 43202
(10/26/84)
Revised stack
height regulations
o 50 FR 27892
(7/8/85)
o 49 FR 44878
(11/9/84)
"Guidelines on Air
Quality Models
(Revised),"
EPA-450/2-78-027R
o 51 FR 32176
(9/9/86)
Supplement A to
"Guidelines on Air
Quality Model.
(Revised)"
o 53 FR 392
(1/6/88)
7.6 Memo from Tyler, D., CPDD, to
Kee, D., Region V, dated
March 26, 1987, "Request for
Guidance In Drafting a SIP
Deficiency Notice for
Michigan's Nonattalnment
HSR Program"
Memo from Potter, J.C., OAR,
to Regional Air Division
Directors, dated April 22,
1988, "Interim Policy on Stack
Height Regulatory Actions"
Memo from Calcagnl, J., AQMD,
to Regional Air Branch
Chiefs, dated May 17, 1988,
"Application of the Interim
Policy for the Stack Height
Regulatory Actions"
-------
CutdelInes for Preparing and
Reviewing Technical Demonstratloin
SIP Topic
lll(d) plans/
negative
declarations
3s
*
"r"
i »
en
Statutory and Regulatory
Guidelines
Federal Register
CAA Authority CFR Notices
Section lll(d) 40 CFR 60.20-29, "Regulations
60.30-34 for State lll(d)
plans
40 FR 53340
(11/17(75)
e 39 FR 36102
(10/7/74)
Availability of
final guidance
document for
phosphate
fertilizer plants
42 FR 12022
(3/1/77)
Final emission
guidelines for
sulfurlc acid mist
e 42 FR 55796
(10/18/77)
Availability of
final guidance
' PUlP mUl5
* 44 FR 29828
(5/22/79)
EPA Guideline
Document*
"Requirements and
Procedures for
Implementing Section
lll(d>" OAQPS Ho.
1.2-072
"Final Guideline
Document : Control
of Fluoride
Emissions from
Existing Phosphate
Fertilizer Plants"
EPA-450/2-77-005
Document : Control
of Sulfuric Acid
Mist Emissions from
Existing Sulfuric
Acid Production
Units" EPA-450/
2-77-019
"Kraft Pulping -
Control of TRS
Emissions from
Existing Mills"
EPA-450/2-78-003D
Control of Fluoride
Emissions from
Existing Primary
Aluminum Plants"
EPA-450/2-7B-049b
ff / . t . //
s? f ? . ;???£ ? e
* y ? ^ -^ t £ $ £ */-?
Agency Memoranda # ff 3 f * *
8.1 Memo from Salo, E., OGC, to X
Kamlhachl, J , OPPE, dated
May 7, 1979, "Applicability of
the Bubble Concept to
Section lll(d) Standards"
8.2 Memo from Barber, W , OAQPS. X
to Regional Air Division
Directors, dated Aug. 8, 1980,
"The Bubble Policy and State
Plans under Section lll(d)"
8.3 Memo from Bennett, K. , OAR, to X
Regional Air Division
1981, "EPA Policy on Welfare-
Related Pollutants Under
Section lll(d)*
-------
Guideline* for Preparlnt
Guidelines
SIP Topic CAA Authority CFR Notices
CO attainment Sections 110, 40 CFR 51 Criteria for
plans dealing 171-178 approval of 1979
with hotspots SIP revisions
43 FR 21673
3=> (2/24/78)
1
1
1 >
CTi Final policy on
approval of 1982
ozone and CO plan
revisions for areas
needing an attain-
ment date extension
46 FR 7182
(1/22/81)
Compliance with the
of Part D of the
Clean Air Act rule
48 FR 50686
(11/2/83)
e 48 FR 4972
(2/3/83)
e 48 FR 5022
(2/3/83)
0? «, Reviewing Technical Demons! rat lum
// / ""
// /' * / *
/// // / / / /
/ y -f * .7 s J * g
***/*»» O a»7 ** ^" *J
i?*'**'*^ <* £ -v ,9 **
Agency mot a **&££*?$ v *? ** So ^*
o* £ * TO S*^ $ ** * ** '
Documents Ho. D«4criptLon flJ>No»»Ca*» t'-.r ^ *» <7 nj*
"Guidelines for Air 9.1 Mwno from yalcott, M. , Test X
Quality Maintenance and Evaluation Branch, to
Planning and Vogel , R. , OAQPS, dated
Analysis, Volume 9 Jan. 14, 1986, "Volume 9
(Revised) : Evalu- Update"
atlng Indirect
Sources" EPA - 4 50 /
4-78-001
Carbon Monoxide
Hot Spot Guidelines,
Volume I : Techniques,
EPA-450/3-78-033
"CALIHE3 - A
Versatile Dispersion
Model for Predicting
Air Pollutant Levels
Near Highways and
(NTIS) PB 80-220841
"Guidance Document
Part D SIPs for
Nonattalnment Areas"
OAQPS, Jan. 27, 1984
"SAI Airshed Model
Operations Manuals,
Volume I: User's
Manual" EPA- 600 /
8-85-007A
-------
/
Guidelines for Preparing ttnd
Reviewing Technical Demonstration)
Statutory and Regulatory
Guidelines
SIP Topic
CAA Authority
Federal Register
Notices
EPA GuU.lln.
Ind.»
.0.
D..crlptton
CO attainment
plans dealing
with hotspota
(continued)
Proposed policy on
approval of post-
1987 ozone and
CO plan revisions
for areas not
attaining the NAAQS
52 FR 45044
(11/24/87)
SAI Alrihcd Hod«l
Operacloni Manuals,
Volume 11: System's
Manual1 EPA-600/
8-8S-007B
"User's Guide fat
RAM - 2nd Edition*
EPA-600/8-87-046
"Emission Inventory
Requirements for
Post-87 Carbon
Monoxide State
Implementation Plans"
EPA-t50M-88-020
-------
Guidelines for Preparing «n/ // / / / / / / /i* *
10.1 Memo from Helms, G.T. , CPDD/ XXX X
CPOB, to Regional Air Branch
Chiefs, dated June 14, 1979,
"Lead SIPs"
10.2 Memo from Rhoads, R.G. , CPDD, X
to Regional Air Division
Directors, dated Nov. 21,
1979, "Minimum Number of
Samples for Determining
Quarterly Average Lead
Concent rat Ion"
10.3 Memo from Rhoads, R.G., CPDD, X
to Regional Air Division
Directors, dated April 8,
1980, "New Source Review
Requirements for Lead"
10.4 Memo from Helms. C.T. , CPDD/ X XX XXX
CPOB. to Simon, C., Air and
Management Division,
Region II, dated March 14,
1983, "Issues on Lead SIPs"
10.5 Memo from Meyers, S., OAQPS, XX XX XX
to Regional Air Division
Directors, dated April 21,
1983, "Section 107 Designation
Policy Summary"
10.6 Memo from Helms, G.T., CPDD/
CPOB, to Harris, T., Montana
Regional Field Office,
Region II, dated May 3, 1983,
"Acceptance Criteria for Lead
Data Used in Control Strategy
Development*
10.7 Memo from Tyler, D.D., CPDD,
to Davis, A., Air and Waste
Division, Region VI, dated
May 26, 1983, -Definition of
Ambient Air for Lead"
-------
Guidelines for Preparing and
Reviewing Technical Demonstratlu
SIP Topic
Statutory and Regulatory
Guidelines
CAA Authority
Federal Register
Notice*
An.ncylfcmot.nd.
EPA Guideline
Documents
PM-10
Groups II
and III SIPs
Section 110
Regulations
Implementing revised
partlculate matter
standards
52 FR 24672
(7/1/87)
50 FR 13130
(4/2/85)
"Guideline on the
Identification and
of Air Quality Data
Effected by
Exceptional Events",
EPA-450M-86-007
"Guideline on the
Exceptions to Data
Requirements for
Determining
Attainment of
Partlculate Matter
Matter Standards,"
EPA-450/4-87-005
"PM-10 SIP Develop-
ment Guideline"
EPA-450/2-86-001
"PM-10 SIP Develop-
ment Guideline
Supplement"
June 1988
Memo from Rhoads, R., to
Regional Air Division
Directors, dated May 11, 1987,
"Guidance on Accounting for
Trends In Partlculate Matter
Emission and Air Quality Data"
11.4 Memo from Tyler, D., to
Regional Air Division
Directors, dated Oct. 2, 1987,
"Clarification of Implementation
Policies for PM-10 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS)
11.5 Memo from Stonefleld, D., to
Regional Air Branch Chiefs,
dated July 1, 1988, "PM-10
SIP Checklist"
11.6 Memo from Calcagni, J. to
Regional Air Division Directors,
dated Septemer 6, 1988 "PM-10
SIP Development; Status and
Concerns"
"Response to
Questions Regarding
PM-10 State
Implementation Plan
(SIP) Development"
June 1988
"PM-10 SIP Checklist
for General
Requirements"
-------
Guidelines for Preparing ami
Reviewing Technical Demonstratlo
Statutory and Regulatory
Guideline]
---------------------------------- Federal Register
Sir Topic CAA Authority CFR Notices
Description
/ /
PM-10
Groups II
and III SIPs
(continued)
11.7 Memo from Emlaon, G., to
Clay, D., dated
October 21, 1988, "PM-10
Policy Memorandum"
11.8 Memo from Clay, D., to
Regional Administrator,
dated November 4, 1988,
"Guidance on Long-Term
Nonattalnment of the PM-10
Standards"
11.9 Memo from Emlson, G., to
Regional Air Division
Directors, dated
November 21, 1988,
"Revision to Policy on
the Use of PM-10
Measurement Data"
-------
Guidelines for Preparing aitrl
viewing Technical Demonstration
Statutory and Regulatory
Guidelines
Federal Regliter
SIP Topic CAA Authority CFR Notices
EPA Guideline
Documents
Indei
No.
Agency Memoranda
De»crlptlon
y 3 y j f
#£££$
-# -o
-------
£
ft f
" * tf'>
SIP Topic
VOC revisions
with extended
compliance
schedules
affecting
nonat ta Inment
areas
3=
| *
ro
ro
Statutory and Regulatory
Guidelines
Federal Register
CAA Authority CFR Notices
Sections 110, 40 CFR 51.104, General preamble for
172 51.110-116 proposed rulemaklng
on approval of SIP
revisions for
nonat talnment areas
44 FR 20372
(4/4/79)
Approval of 1982
ozone and CO plan
needing an attaln-
» 46 FR 7182
(1/22/81)
Proposed post-87
ozone and CO policy
« 52 FR 45044
(11/24/87)
Appendix A to
proposed disapproval
of compliance date
extension for
Georgia Pacific
53 FR 45103
(11/8/88)
« o * ? n
* ** * ** ^ J* ** -^ ~~* »7 *
Agency Memoranda $ i? ^ j 3 $ & f f <7 / ? S £ * ^
EPA Guideline Index * £ <^ $ ? % £ $ / ff *? / / /^ £
Document* No. Description ^oso^cT*, 4? jf ^ £
-------
Guidelines for Preparing «nrt
°c Ji
.7 ^ ^
/y /
» S £
, // &
ff £ ** -C*
if £ Sf 3 »* a."
Statutory and Regulatory Agency Memoranda 4* "? ^^ "^^ &
IP Topic CAA Authority CFR Notice! Docunenta Mo. Deacrlption ^o V o * CT S Jf
Reviewing Technical Oemonatrat luna
1"°<»
«, « y
^ C * /-?
-? ? / .* /,
-? ^ f S 3 3
f f 4 * *J/ .
> « ' , , # y « -?
»c-*j iT 0
OJ
-------
Statutory and Regulatory
Guidelines
Federal Register
SIP Topic CAA Authority CFR Notices
with averaging
times greater
than short-term
S02 NAAQS
I*
1
ro
^ % Reviewing Technical Demonstration*
/J / ' - jf
u . £ ?-?/ /""
-------
Guidelines for Preparing au25,000 TPY
(except primary
nonferrous
smelters or
missions
trading)
Section 110
I
I\3
cn
Criteria for
approval of 1979
SIP revisions
43 FR 21673
(2/24/78)
General preamble for
proposed rulemaking
on approval of SIP
revisions for
nonattalnnent areas
44 FR 20372
(4/4/79)
with supplements
44 FR 38583
(7/2/79)
44 FR 50371
(8/28/79)
44 FR 53761
(9/17/79)
44 FR 67182
(11/23/79)
See "Air Programs
Reports and Guide-
lines Index" OAQPS,
Jan. 1988, for
complete listing of
guideline documents
pertaining to
specific issues
involved in S02 SIPs
Memo from Rhoads, R., MDAD, to
O'Neal, G., Region X, dated
May 27, 1983, "Sumnary of
NAAQS Interpretation"
Memo from Emison, G., OAQPS,
to Regional Air Division
Directors, dated March 28,
1986, "Block Averages in
Implementing S02 NAAQS"
13.6 Memo from Helms, G.T., CPDD,
to Regional Air Branch Chiefs,
dated Dec. 10, 1986, "Rule-
making on State Implementation
Plans for S02"
13.7 Memo from Emison, G., OAQPS,
to Regional Air Division
Directors, dated July 29,
1987, "State Implementation
Plans for Sulfur Dioxide"
-------
Guidelines for Preparing and
Reviewing Technical Demonstrai luns
//
ff
SIP Topic
Statutory and Regulatory
Guidelines
CAX Authority
.
/// //
// /
Federal Register
Notleei
SO2 revised
emission
Limits due to
changes In
stack height
credit
Section! 110,
123
40 CFR 51.118.
51.164
ro
Reviled atack
height regulation*
50 FR 27892
(7/8/85)
49 FR 44878
(11/9/84)
Stack height
regulations
47 FR 5864
(2/8/82)
e 46 FR 49814
(10/7/81)
44 FR 2608
(1/12/79)
See "Air Programs
Reports and
Guidelines Index"
OAQPS, January 1988,
for complete listing
of guideline
documents pertaining
to specific Issues
M«mo from lUlou , G.T. , CPDD,
to lUalonal Air Branch Chiefs,
dated Oct. 10, 1985,
"Questions and Answers on
Implementing the Revised
Stack Height Regulation"
Memo from Potter, J.C., OAR,
to Regional Air Division
Directors, dated April 22,
1988, "Interim Policy on Stack
Height Regulatory Actions"
Memo from Calcagnl, J., AQMD,
to Regional Air Branch Chiefs,
dated May 17, 1988,
"Application of the Interim
Policy for Stack Height
Regulatory Actions"
-------
Guidelines for Preparing *i.-l
Statutory and Regulatory
Guidelines
Federal Register
SIP Topic CAA Authority CFR Notices
SO2 Disapproval of SIPs
owl function at lowing automatic
rules exemption for
malfunctions
e 42 FR 38171
(11/8/77)
!t»
. e 42 FR 21372
t_> (4/27/77)
1
PO
vj
£ .. Reviewing Technical Oeounittai t»n*
£ , f
i" £ J '
-,"-7 »c
> 4? /
ft f £ / £
c*'?* -7 -o" ° £
/ fs *t $ / / f
/ J/ SC f a/ s^
y *? «r «? »? «? * * ' , * *
Agency H.«or.nd. * J ?/ ^?^ > / . 0 / ?
- - *> & f / ? ? ^ o g g y *.
EPA Guideline Inde. ^ /s / 5- / / / / / j / J
Documents Ho. Description ^o s o » tf S f f g ** «J ° f
See "Air Report* 13.1 Memo froan Bennett, K.. OAR, to X
and Guideline* Regional Administrators, dated
Index" OAQPS, Feb. IS, 1983, "Policy on
January 1988, for Excess Emission* During Start-
coo.pl ete 1 1st Ing up , Shutdown, Maintenance ,
of guideline and Malfunctions"
document *
pertaining to
pec If Ic Issues
Involved In
SO SIPs
-------
t o*
£*
Guideline* for Preparing ..<.
Reviewing Technical Demonstrati«
Statutory and Regulatory
SIP Topic
SO2 aioblant
monitoring
plan*
3>
t
CAA Authority CFR Notices
Section 110(a) 40 CFH 51 190. Ambient air
(2)(C) 40 CFR 58 monitoring
regulations
e *4 FR 27569
(5/10(79)
DocuMnta No. Description
See "Air Programs
Reports and
Guidelines Index"
OAQPS, January 1988,
for complete listing
of guideline
documents pertaining
to apeclflc Issues
Involved In SO SIFs
-f £*f f* / / / /
j $*? rfs« / / / £
ro
CD
-------
Appendix B - Policy and
Guidance Memoranda
-------
APPENDIX B
POLICY AND GUIDANCE MEMORANDA
This appendix contains copies of each of the Agency policy and
guidance memoranda listed in Chapter 3. For convenience, the memoranda
have been grouped according to the following major SIP topics:
1. Generic guidance
2. VOC bubbles
3. VOC single-source regulations
4. Visibility SIPs
5. State stack height regulations and negative declarations
6. Section 107 redesignations
7. Prevention of significant deterioration/new source review (NSR)
SIPs
8. lll(d) plans and negative declarations
9. CO attainment plans dealing with hotspots
10. Lead plans and revisions
11. Particulate matter (TSP and PM1Q) SIPs
12. VOC revisions with extended compliance schedules
13. S02 SIPs
Within each major SIP topic, the memoranda are presented in
chronological order and each memorandum is assigned an index number. A
complete listing of the memoranda index has been placed at the beginning of
the appendix. A brief description of each memorandum's contents is
included as part of the index. Because some memoranda apply to more than
one SIP topic, the index includes an entry for a cross reference (CR). The
CR entry lists all other places in the appendix where a particular
jq.050 B.0-1
-------
memorandum has been included. In addition, the CR entry indicates the
location of the hard copy of the memorandum. (To conserve space, only one
copy of a given memorandum has been included.)
jq.050 B.0-2
-------
Index to Appendix B
-------
B.I Generic Guidance
1.1 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
1.2 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
1.3 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
February 15, 1983
Policy on Excess Emission During Startup, Shutdown,
Maintenance, and Malfunctions
Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant Administrator
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
Administrator
Regions I-X
Clarification of policy on approvable SIP malfunction
provisions
13.1 (hard copy)
May 27, 1983
Summary of NAAQS Interpretation
Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division
Gary O'Neal, Director
Environmental Services Division, Region X
Guidance on air quality data analysis questions related
to interpretation of the NAAQS
6.4, 13.2 (hard copy)
July 29, 1983
Source Specific SIP Revisions
Sheldon Meyers, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Director
Air Division, Regions I-X
Guidance on processing source-specific SIP revision
requests in attainment and nonattainment areas
12.1 (hard copy)
jq.050
B.l-1
-------
B.2 VOC Bubbles
2.1 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
2.2 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
May 7, 1979
Applicability of the Bubble Concept to Section lll(d)
Standards
Earl Salo, Attorney
Air, Noise, and Radiation Division, OGC
James Kamihachi
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
Clarification of whether bubble policy applies to
standards of performance for existing sources under
Section lll(d)
8.1 (hard copy)
August 8, 1980
The Bubble Policy and State Plans under Clean Air Act
Section lll(d)
Walter C. Barber, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Director
Air Division, Regions I-X
Clarification of applicability of bubble policy with
respect to noncriteria pollutants designated under
Section lll(d) beyond those pollutants listed under
Section lll(d)
8.2 (hard copy)
jq.050
B.2-1
-------
B.3 VOC Single-Source Regulations
3.1 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
3.2 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
November 24, 1982
SIP Actions and Toxic Pollutants
Sheldon Meyers, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
David Kee, Acting Director
Air Management Division, Region V
Restrictions on emission trades or other SIP actions
beyond those pollutants listed under Section 112 or
health-based designated pollutants for which NSPS have
been promulgated under Section 111 (i.e., sulfuric acid
mist)
None
January 20, 1984
Averaging Times for Compliance with VOC Emission
Limits - SIP Revision Policy
John R. O'Connor, Acting Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Director
Air Division, Regions I-X
Clarification of Agency's policy regarding emission time
averaging for existing sources of VOC
None
jq.050
B.3-1
-------
B.4 Visibility SIPs
4.1 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
4.2 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
September 17, 1984
Requirements for State Submittals of Visibility
Protection SIPs
Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Director
Air Division, Regions I-X
Description of requirements for an approvable visibility
protection plan
None
March 25, 1985
Visibility Monitoring Strategy Requirements
Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Director
Air Division, Regions I-X
Guidances for determining adequacy of a visibility
monitoring strategy
None
jq.050
B.4-1
-------
B.5 State Stack Height Regulations and Negative Declarations
5.1 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
5.2 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
5.3 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
September 19, 1985
Guidance on Fluid Modeling Demonstrations for
Determining GEP Stack Height in Complex Terrain
Joseph A. Tikvart, Chief
Source Receptor Analysis Branch, MDAD
David Stonefield, Chief
Policy Development Section, CPDD
Information on available guidance for conducting fluid
modeling demonstrations in complex terrain for purposes
of determining GEP stack height
None
October 10, 1985
Questions and Answers on Implementing the Revised Stack
Height Regulation
G.T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operation Branch
Chief
Air Branch, Regions I-X
Guidance on questions raised following promulgation of
the July 8, 1985 revised stack height regulations under
the general topic headings of: 1) interpretation of the
regulation, 2) SIP requirements, and 3) modeling
analyses
7.2, 13.3
October 28, 1985
Implementation of Stack Height Regulations - Exceptions
from Restrictions on Credit for Merged Stacks
Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Director
Air Management Division, Regions I-X
Guidance for preparing and reviewing justifications for
merging gas streams for economic or engineering
reasons, and for addressing the presumption that
merging was significantly motivated by an intent to
gain credit for increased dispersion
None
jq.050
B.5-1
-------
B.5 State Stack Height Regulations and Negative Declarations (Continued)
5.4 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
5.5 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
5.6 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
October 28, 1985
Implementation of Stack Height Regulations - Presumptive
NSPS Emission Limits for Fluid Modeling Stack above
Formula GEP Height
Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Director
Air Management Division, Regions I-X
Guidance on general emission control requirements for
sources conducting fluid modeling to justify stack
height in excess of that provided by the GEP formulae
None
October 28, 1985
Determining Stack Heights "In Existence" Before
December 31, 1970
Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Director
Air Management Division, Regions I-X
Guidance on implementing the definition of "in
existence" and for assisting States and emission source
owners and operators in providing appropriate evidence
of commitments to undertake stack construction on or
before December 31, 1970.
None
February 11, 1986
Priority for Review of Particulate Matter Sources for
Compliance with Revised Stack Height Regulations
Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Director
Air Management Division, Regions I-X
Clarification of the applicability of the revised stack
height regulations to PM sources and guidance on
conducting reviews of these sources
None
jq.050
B.5-2
-------
B.5 State Stack Height Regulations and Negative Declarations (Continued)
5.7 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
5.8 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
5.9 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
February 11, 1986
Clarification of Existing Guidance on Dispersion
Modeling Requirements for Plants with "Tall Stacks" and
Other Prohibited Dispersion Techniques
Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Director
Air Division, Regions I-X
Clarification of guidance on the dispersion analysis
requirements that are necessary to implement the
revised stack height regulations; response to questions
on whether dispersion modeling is required in the
context of checking for prohibited dispersion modeling
if a source's emission limitation was not developed by
means of a case-specific dispersion analysis.
None
September 3, 1987
Technical Support for Stack Height Negative
Declarations
G.T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch
Chief
Air Branch, Regions I-X
Presents minimum requirements for determining adequate
documentation for, and processing of, negative
declarations for stack height requirements
None
October 9, 1987
Processing of Stack Height Negative Declarations
G.T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch
Chief
Air Branch, Regions I-X
Clarification and revision of minimum requirements for
determining adequate documentation for stack height
negative declarations
None
jq.050
B.5-3
-------
B.5 State Stack Height Regulations and Negative Declarations (Continued)
5.10 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
5.11 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
April 22, 1988
Interim Policy on Stack Height Regulatory Actions
J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator
Office of Air and Radiation
Director
Air Division, Regions I-X
Interim policy for processing SIP actions affected by
the January 22, 1988 remand of portions of the stack
heights regulations
7.7, 13.8
May 17, 1988
Application of the Interim Policy for Stack Height
Regulatory Actions
John Calcagni, Director
Air Quality Management Division
Chief
Air Branch, Regions I-X
Guidance on implementing interim policy on processing
SIP actions affected by the stack height remand
7.8, 13.9
jq.050
B.5-4
-------
B.6 Section 107 Redesignations
6.1 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
6.2 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
6.3 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
6.4 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
September 3, 1981
Use of ambient monitoring data and modeling results in
Section 107 designations
Walter C. Barber, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Ralph C. Pickard, Technical Secretary
Indiana Air Pollution Control Board
Guidance on the use of ambient monitoring data in
making Section 107 area designations and on the use of
modeling in setting of source emission limits
None
September 16, 1982
Milwaukee SO Nonattainment Designation
Sheldon Meyers, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
David Kee, Director
Air Management Division, Region V
Response to questions from Region V concerning S02
redesignations
None
April 21, 1983
Section 107 Designation Policy Summary
Sheldon Meyers, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Director
Air Management Division, Regions I-X
Summarizes and clarifies existing policy for reviewing
designations and provides new guidance on processing
these actions
9.5
May 27, 1983
Summary of NAAQS Interpretation
Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division
Gary O'Neal, Director
Environmental Services Division, Region X
Guidance on air quality data analysis questions related
to interpretation of the NAAQS
1.2, 13.2 (hard copy)
jq.050
B.6-1
-------
B.6 Section 107 Redesianations (Continued)
6.5 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
6.6 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
6.7 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
6.8 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
December 23, 1983
Section 107 Questions and Answers
G.T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch
Chief
Air Branch, Regions I-X
Responses to questions raised since the April 21, 1983
redesignation policy memo from Sheldon Meyers
None
February 27, 1985
Redesignations That Would Change the SIP
Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Peter H. Wyckoff, Assistant General Counsel
Air and Radiation Division
Director
Air Division, Regions I-X
Guidance for examining redesignations to determine
whether they would relax the stringency of the SIP
None
September 30, 1985
Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) Redesignations
General A. Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Director
Air Division, Regions I-X
Redesignation criteria for TSP
None
December 10, 1986
Rulemaking on State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for SO
G.T. Helms, Chief
Control Program Operation Branch
Chief
Air Branch, Regions I-X
Guidance of preparation of communications strategy for
proposed and final revisions and redesignations
13.6 (hard copy)
jq.050
B.6-2
-------
B.7 Prevention of Significant Deterioration/New Source Review (NSR) SIPs
7.1 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
7.2 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
7.3 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
7.4 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
May 9, 1985
Improved New Source Review/Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Program Transfer
Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Director
Air Division, Regions I-X
Guidance for expediting the development and processing
of high quality NSR/PSD SIP revisions
None
October 10, 1985
Questions and Answers on Implementing the Revised Stack
Height Regulations
G.T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch
Chief
Air Branch, Regions I-X
Guidance on questions raised following promulgation of
the July 8, 1985 revised stack height regulations under
the general topic headings of: 1) interpretation of the
regulation, 2) SIP requirements, and 3) modeling
analyses
5.2 (hard copy), 13.3
September 11, 1986
Ozone Control Strategy - Regional Office Review of
Potential Improvements in New Source Review (NSR)
Regulations
G.T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch
Chief
Air Branch, Regions I-X
List of "loopholes" that occur in some State
regulations and that are inconsistent with Federal
requirements
None
February 4, 1987
Region IX New Source Review/Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Rulemaking Backlog
General A. Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
David P. Howekamp, Director
Air Management Division, Region IX
Responds to Region IX concerns about backlog of NSR/PSD
rule approvals
None
jq.050
B.7-1
-------
B.7 PSD/NSR SIPs (Continued)
7.5 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
7.6 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
7.7 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
7.8 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
February 27, 1987
Plantwide Definition of Major Stationary Sources of Air
Pollution
J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator
Office of Air and Radiation
Director
Air Division, Regions I-X
Guidance on preparation of Federal Register notices
proposing action on SIP submissions that would adopt the
plantwide definition of source for nonattainment
purposes
None
March 26, 1987
Request for Guidance in Drafting a State Implementation
Plan Deficiency Notice for Michigan's Nonattainment New
Source Review Program
Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division
David Kee, Director
Air and Radiation Division, Region V
Response to question on approvability of NSR regulation
with a dual source definition
None
April 22, 1988
Interim Policy on Stack Height Regulatory Actions
J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator
Office of Air and Radiation
Director
Air Division, Regions I-X
Interim policy for processing SIP actions affected by
the January 22, 1988 remand of portions of the stack
height regulations
5.10 (hard copy), 13.8
May 17, 1988
Application of the Interim Policy for Stack Height
Regulatory Actions
John Calcagni, Director
Air Quality Management Division
Chief
Air Branch, Regions I-X
Guidance on implementing interim policy on processing
SIP actions affected by the stack height remand
5.11 (hard copy), 13.9
jq.050
B.7-2
-------
B.8 HHd) Plans and Negative Declarations
8.1 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
8.2 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
8.3 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
May 7, 1979
Applicability of the Bubble Concept to Section lll(d)
Standards
Earl Salo, Attorney
Air, Noise, and Radiation Division, OGC
James Kamihachi
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
Clarification of whether bubble policy applies to
standards of performance for existing sources under
Section lll(d)
2.1
August 8, 1980
The Bubble Policy and State Plans under Clean Air Act
Section lll(d)
Walter C. Barber, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Director
Air Division, Region I-X
Clarification of applicability of bubble policy with
respect to noncriteria pollutants designated under
Section lll(d)
2.2
September 14, 1981
EPA Policy on Welfare-Related Pollutants under Section
lll(d)
Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant Administrator
Office of Air and Radiation
Director
Air Division, Regions I-X
Clarification of policy for requiring Section lll(d)
plans for welfare-related pollutants
None
jq.050
B.8-1
-------
B.9 CO Attainment Plans Dealing with Hotspots
9.1 DATE: January 14, 1986
SUBJECT: Volume 9 Update
FROM: Mark Wolcott
Test and Evaluation Branch
TO: Ray Vogel
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
DISCUSSION: Provides updated emission and correction factor
estimates used in the Guidelines for Air Quality
Maintenance Planning and Analysis. Volume 9 (Revised)
Evaluating Indirect Sources
CR: None
jq.050 B.9-1
-------
B.10 Lead Plans and Revisions
10.1 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
10.2 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR
10.3 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
June 14, 1979
Lead SIPs
G.T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch
Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
Guidance on interpretation of SIP requirements for lead
where no violations of the national ambient lead
standard have been recorded since January 1, 1974; no
significant lead point sources exist; and the State has
no urbanized area with a 1970 population greater than
500,000
None
November 21, 1979
Minimum Number of Samples for Determining Quarterly
Average Lead Concentration
Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division, OAQPS
Director
Air Division, Regions I-X
Guidance regarding the minimum number of valid samples
needed to determine quarterly average lead
concentrations
None
April 8, 1980
New Source Review Requirements for Lead
Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Director
Air Division, Regions I-X
Guidance regarding new source review requirements for
lead SIPs
None
jq.050
B.10-1
-------
B.10 Lead Plans and Revisions (Continued)
10.4 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
10.5 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
10.6 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
March 14, 1983
Issues on Lead SIPs
G.T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch
Conrad Simon, Director
Air and Waste Management Division, Region II
Response to issues raised by Region II in the following
subject areas:
1) attainment and maintenance
2) summary of Pb air quality data since January 1974
3) reentrained dust from paved roadways
4) air quality dispersion modeling
5) calculation of grams per mile of lead emissions
from mobile sources
6) transportation control strategy development
7) lead point source definition for significant
sources
8) statewide inventory development
None
April 21, 1983
Section 107 Designation Policy Summary
Sheldon Meyers, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Director
Management Divisions Region I-X
Summarizes and clarifies existing policy for reviewing
designations and provides new guidance on processing
these actions
6.3 (hard copy)
May 3, 1983
Acceptance Criteria for Lead Data Used in Control
Strategy Development
G.T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch
Tom Harris
Montana Field Office, Region VIII
Guidance concerning the acceptability of air quality
monitoring data for lead used in control strategy
development for a site in Montana
None
jq.050
B.10-2
-------
B.10 Lead Plans and Revisions (Continued)
10.7 DATE: May 26, 1983
SUBJECT: Definition of Ambient Air for Lead
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division
TO: Allyn Davis, Director
Air and Waste Management Division, Region VI
DISCUSSION: Guidance on definition of ambient air
CR: None
jq.050 B.10-3
-------
B.ll Participate Matter SIPs
11.1 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
11.2 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
11.3 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
11.4 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
May 16, 1978 .
Options for Handling State Implementations Plan
Relaxations in Face of Uncertainty
Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division
David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Waste Management
Guidance for handling SIP relaxations
None
May 11, 1987
Guidance on Accounting for Trends in Particulate Matter
Emission and Air Quality Data
Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division
Director
Air Division, Regions I-X
Guidance for using mathematical techniques to adjust
expected annual PM,Q concentrations
None
August 11, 1987
Processing of Particulate Matter State Implementation
Plan Revisions
Gerald A. Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Director
Air Division, Regions I-X
Guidance for categorizing and processing TSP SIPs
following promulgation of
None
PM,Q standards
October 2, 1987
Clarification of Implementation Policies for PM,Q
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Director
Air Division, Regions I-X
Clarification and amplification of PM,Q implementation
issues
None
jq.050
B.ll-1
-------
B.ll Participate Matter SIPs (Continued)
11.5 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
11.6 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
11.7 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
11.8 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
July 1, 1988
PM10 SIP Checklist
DavTd H. Stonefield, Chief
Particulate Matter Programs Section, SDPMPB
Chief
Air Branch, Regions I-X
Discusses availability of "expert system" of PM,Q SIP
checklist that can be used on a personal computer
None
September 6, 1988
PM,Q SIP Development: Status and Concerns
Joftn Calcagni, Director
Air Quality Management Division
Director
Air Division, Regions I-X
Guidance on SIP development progress and deadlines
None
October 21, 1988
PMjg Policy Memorandum
Gerald A. Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Don R. Clay, Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Air and Radiation
Guidance on approvability of
attainment demonstrations
None
PM1Q SIPs without
November 4, 1988
Guidance on Long-Term Nonattainment of the PM,Q
Standards
Don R. Clay, Assistant Administrator
Office of Air and Radiation
Administrator
Regions I-X
Guidance for reviewing PM,Q SIPs in areas that may not
be able to provide for attainment within 3 to 5 years of
statutory deadlines
None
jq.050
B.ll-2
-------
B.ll Participate Matter SIPs (Continued)
11.9 DATE: November 21, 1988
SUBJECT: Revision to Policy on the Use of PM,Q Measurement Data
FROM: Gerald A. Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: Director
Air Division, Regions I-X
DISCUSSION: Revised policy regarding treatment of PM,Q data produced
by reference and nonreference PM,Q samplers and by
collected PMln samplers
CR: None 1U
jq.050 B.ll-3
-------
B.12 VOC Revisions with Extended Compliance Schedules
12.1 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
12.2 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
12.3 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
July 29, 1988
Source Specific SIP Revisions
Sheldon Meyers, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Director
Air Division, Regions I-X
Guidance on processing source-specific SIP revision
requests in attainment and nonattainment areas
1.3
August 7, 1986
Policy on SIP Revisions Requesting Compliance Date
Extensions for VOC Sources
J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator
Office of Air and Radiation
Regional Administrator
Regions I-X
Policy for approving SIP revisions granting compliance
date extensions for individual VOC sources in ozone
nonattainment areas
None
December 22, 1986
SIP Compliance Date Extension Policy for VOC Sources in
Nonattainment Areas
Richard Biondi, Acting Chief
Compliance Monitoring Branch, SSCD
Steve Rothblatt, Chief
Air and Radiation Branch, Region V
Clarification of policy for approving compliance date
extensions; specifically addresses how an examination of
compliance status of other sources nationally should be
accomplished
None
jq.050
B.12-1
-------
B.13 S02 SIPs
13.1 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
13.2 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
13.3 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
13.4 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
May 15, 1983
Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown,
Maintenance, and Malfunctions
Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant Administrator
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
Regional Administrator
Regions I-X
Clarification of policy on approvable SIP malfunction
provisions
1.1
May 27, 1983
Summary of NAAQS Interpretation
Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division
Gary O'Neal, Director
Environmental Services Division, Region X
Guidance on air quality data analysis questions related
to interpretation of the NAAQS
1.2, 6.4
October 10, 1985
Questions and Answers on Implementing the Revised Stack
Height Regulation
G.T? Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operation Branch
Chief
Air Branch, Regions I-X
Guidance on questions raised following promulgation of
the July 8, 1985 revised stack height regulations under
the general topic headings of: 1) interpretation of the
regulation, 2) SIP requirements, and 3) modeling
analyses
5.2 (hard copy), 7.2
March 28, 1986
Block Averages in Implementing S02 NAAQS
Gerald A. Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Director
Air Division, Regions I-X
Guidance on use of block averages in implementing the
3-hour and 24-hour SO- NAAQS
None
jq.050
B.13-1
-------
B.13
SIPs (Continued)
13.5 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
13.6 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
13.7 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
13.8 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
May 23, 1986
Policy on Use of 30-day Averaging for S02 Compliance
Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator
Office of Air and Radiation
Nancy Maloley, Commissioner
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Guidance on the use of 30-day averaging compliance
methods
None
in SO,, SIPs.
December 10, 1986
Rulemaking on State Implementation Plans for SO,
G.T. Helms, Chief *
Control Programs Operations Branch
Chief
Air Branch, Regions I-X
Guidance on preparation of a communications strategy
for proposed and final S02 SIP revisions and
redesignations
6.8
July 29, 1987
State Implementation Plans for Sulfur Dioxide
Gerald A. Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Director
Air Division, Regions I-X
Guidance on enforceable S02 compliance test methods and
procedures for S02 emissions limits in SIPs
None
April 22, 1988
Interim Policy on Stack Height Regulatory Actions
J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator
Office of Air and Radiation
Director
Air Division, Regions I-X
Interim policy for processing SIP actions affected by
the January 22, 1988 remand of portions of the stack
height regulations
5.10 (hard copy), 7.7
jq.050
B.13-2
-------
B.13 S02 SIPs (Continued)
13.9 DATE: May 17, 1988
SUBJECT: Application of the Interim Policy for Stack Height
Regulatory Actions
FROM: John Calcagni, Director
Air Quality Management Division
TO: Chief
Air Branch, Regions I-X
DISCUSSIONS: Guidance on implementing interim policy on processing
SIP actions affected by the stack height remand
CR: 5.11 (hard copy), 7.8
jq.050 B.13-3
-------
1 Generic Guidance
-------
1.1
1.1 DATE: February 15, 1983
SUBJECT: Policy on Excess Emission During Startup, Shutdown,
Maintenance, and Malfunctions
FROM: Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant Administrator
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
TO: Administrator
Regions I-X
DISCUSSION: Clarification of policy on approvable SIP malfunction
provisions
CR: 13.1 (hard copy)
-------
1.2
1.2 DATE: May 27, 1983
SUBJECT: Summary of NAAQS Interpretation
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division
TO: Gary O'Neal, Director
Environmental Services Division, Region X
DISCUSSION: Guidance on air quality data analysis questions related
to interpretation of the NAAQS
CR: 6.4, 13.2 (hard copy)
-------
1.3
1.3 DATE: July 29, 1983
SUBJECT: Source Specific SIP Revisions
FROM: Sheldon Meyers, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: Director
Air Division, Regions I-X
DISCUSSION: Guidance on processing source-specific SIP revision
requests in attainment and nonattainment areas
CR: 12.1 (hard copy)
-------
2 VOC Bubbles
-------
2.1
2.1 DATE: May 7, 1979
SUBJECT: Applicability of the Bubble Concept to Section lll(d)
Standards
FROM: Earl Salo, Attorney
Air, Noise, and Radiation Division, OGC
TO: James Kamihachi
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
DISCUSSION: Clarification of whether bubble policy applies to
standards of performance for existing sources under
Section lll(d)
CR: 8.1 (hard copy)
-------
2.2
2.2 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
August 8, 1980
The Bubble Policy and State Plans under Clean Air Act
Section lll(d)
Walter C. Barber, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Director
Air Division, Regions I-X
Clarification of applicability of bubble policy with
respect to noncriteria pollutants designated under
Section lll(d) beyond those pollutants listed under
Section lll(d)
8.2 (hard copy)
-------
3 VOC Single -
Source Regulations
-------
3.1
f f\ '; L'V-ED STATES E\\ iPOr.'VF'.'TAL PROTECTION1 AGENCY
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SIP Actions andjojcic Pollutants
FROM: *Sheldon Meyers, Director
Office of A1r Quality Planning and Standards
TO: David Kee, Director
A1r Management Division, Region V
This 1s a follow-up to my July 30, 1982 memo to you regarding your
recommendation that the Agency disapprove any SIP action which would result
in an increase of any pollutant which the Agency 1s "actively considering"
for designation as a hazardous air pollutant. You suggested using our
current assessment 11st of 37 chemicals 1n Implementing such a policy.
My staff, in conjunction with the interagency group working on the proposed
emissions trading policy statement, has examined your suggestion as well as
other options for restricting emission trades involving potentially hazardous
air pollutants. We have concluded that we should not attempt to broaden the
restrictions on emission trades or other SIP actions beyond those pollutants
listed under section 112 or health-based designated pollutants for which NSPS
have been promulgated under section 111. Currently, only sulfuric add mist
would be 1n this latter category.
As a legal matter, we do not feel the Agency could sustain a SIP
disapproval for a compound just because it appears on a "candidates 11st.*
While there 1s some evidence for concern over the compounds on our list of 37,
our evaluations to date indicate that the health evidence on many will fall
far short of that needed to 11st under section 112 or regulate under section
111/111 (d). It would be equally tenuous to Impose SIP restrictions on toxic
compounds that are subject to regulation under other EPA programs or by
other Federal agencies or to rely on determinations made by Independent
groups such as the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
or the International Agency for Research on Cancer. We feel that an
official Agency finding of adverse health effects, according to criteria
and procedures specified under the Clean Air Act, would be needed to
support SIP disapprovals Involving Increases of toxic compounds. As you
may know, the Agency attempted to restrict SIP actions Involving potential
toxics as part of its Recommended Polity on Control of Volatile Organic
Compounds (42 FR 35314, July 8, 1977). The Agency was forced to retreat
from that policy statement for lack of an adequate legal foundation.
As a policy matter, I feel your suggestion would also be contrary to the
Administrator's emphasis on having a credible scientific basis, including appro-
priate peer review of the science, for all the Agency's regulatory actions. The
assessment list of 37 compounds does not meet this test.
-------
We feel that the most appropriate Agency position would be to recognize
that SIP actions that Increase emissions of certain unlisted compounds may
be unwise and that the Agency should provide whatever Information 1t has
available to assist the States 1n making their decision 1n such situations.
We plan to Include a discussion to this effect 1n the preamble to the final
Issuance of the Agency's Emission Trading Policy Statement.
cc: L. Scopino, SSCD
B. S1h, OGC
L. Stander, CPDD
I. Tether, OPRM
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Offica of Air Quality Planning and Standards 3.2
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
JAN 2 0 1984
If
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Averaging Times for Compliance With
VOC Emission Limits - SIP Revision '
FROM: John R. O'Connor, Acting Director,^ ._
Office of A1r Quality Planning apfl Standards (MD-IO)
TO: Director, A1r and Waste ManagemehTIJIvision
Regions II-IV, VI-VIII, X
Director, A1r Management Division, Regions I, Y, IX
The purpose of this memorandum 1s to clarify the Agency's policy
regarding emission time averaging for existing sources of volatile organic
compounds (VOC's). Numerous State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions, both
broad regulations and source-specific changes, have been submitted which
provide for compliance determinations by "time averaging" emissions of VOC
for periods exceeding 24 hours. These requests and the following policy
on this subject were discussed extensively at a recent meeting attended
by those Regional Offices which have the most pending actions (Regions I,
III, IV, Y); the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; and the
Office of General Counsel. This policy represents the consensus of the
meeting attendees.
The objective of EPA's national VOC emissions control program 1s the
timely attainment and maintenance of the national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS) for ozone. SIP revisions and other regulatory actions
relating to VOC control must maintain the Integrity of this basic objective.
There should be assurances that VOC emission control Is reasonably con-
sistent with protecting this short-term ozone standard. Further, since
SIP's and associated VOC control programs contemplate the actual applica-
tion of reasonably available control technology (RACT), regulatory actions
that Incorporate longer term averages to circumvent the Installation of
overall RACT level controls cannot be allowed.
NOTE: The Federal Register notice mentioned in this
memorandum is not included in the SIP Guidance Manual
-------
-2-
Current Agency guidance specifies the use of a daily weighted average
for VOC regulations as the preferred alternative where continuous compliance
is not feasible. An example might be where a facility operates in a
batch manner with multiple lines and various products. Reference is made
to the December 8, 1980, Federal Register (copy attached) where can
coating operators are allowed to "bubble" several production lines and
average emissions over a 24-hour time period.
?. '
The preferred dally weighted average alternative may not be feasible
in all cases. Where the source operations are such that daily VOC emissions
cannot be determined or where the application of RACT for each emission
point (line, machine, etc.) is not economically or technically feasible
on a dally basis, longer averaging times can be permitted under certain
conditions. In determining feasibility, consideration might be given,
for example, to the extent to which modifications can be made to testing,
inventory, or recordkeeping practices in order to quantify daily emissions.
Also, variability or lack of predictability in a source's.daily operation
might be considered as well as availability of control technology or the
physical impediment or restriction to control equipment installation. In
order to allow longer than daily averaging in SIP regulations, the following
conditions or principles must be honored:
1. Real reductions in actual emissions must be achieved, consistent
with the RACT control levels specified 1n SIP's or the control
technique guidelines (CTG's). These limits are typically expressed
In terms of YOC per unit of production (a qualitative term such
as Ibs VOC/gal coating). Where it 1s not feasible to specify
emission limits in such terms, emission limits per unit of time
can be approved provided that:
a. The emission limits reflect typical (rather than potential
or allowable) production rate and operating hours. These
emission Units must truly reflect emissions reductions
consistent with RACT and are not simply an artificial constraint
on potential emissions. This must be supported in the SIP
revision by historical production and operation data.
b. Nonproductlon or equipment downtime credits are not allowed in
the emission limit calculation unless a Federally enforceable
document specifically restricts operation during these times.
Such credit must be based on real, historical emissions.
2. Averaging periods must be as short as practicable and in no
case longer than 30 days.
3. A demonstration oust be made that the use of long-term averaging
(greater than 24-hour averaging) will not jeopardize either
ambient standards attainment or the reasonable further progress
(RFP) plan for the area. This must be accomplished by showing
-------
-3-
that the maximum daily increase in emissions associated with
long-term averaging is consistent with the approved ozone SIP
for the area.
4. Sources in areas lacking approved SIP's, or in areas with approved
SIP's but showing measured violations, cannot be considered for
longer term averages until the SIP has been revised demonstrating
ambient standards attainment and maintenance of RFP (reflecting
the maximum dally emissions from the source with long-term
averaging).
Meaningful short-term (i.e., daily) emission caps are desirable
especially for sources subject to large fluctuations in emissions. The
use of a daily cap (equal to or less than current average emissions on a
daily basis) that limits short-term emissions to RACT equivalent levels
would meet the above objective of ensuring VOC control that is consistent
with attaining the NAAQS for ozone.
States have the primary responsibility to show adherence to the above
principles and, to do so, must include the following Information (in detail)
in all SIP revision requests that seek VOC averaging times greater than
24 hours:
1. The VOC limits specified in an enforceable form with appropriate
compliance dates.
2. A description of the affected processes and associated historical
production and operating rates.
3. A description of the control techniques to be applied to the
affected processes such as low solvent and waterborne coating
technology and/or add-on controls.
4. The nature of the emission control program whether a bubble, a
regulation change, a compliance schedule, or some other form of
alternative control program.
5. The method of recordkeeplng and reporting to be employed to*
demonstrate compliance with the new emission limit requirement
and to support the showing that the emission limit 1s consistent
with RFP and the demonstration of attainment.
' Each EPA Regional Office shall have the primary responsibility for
determining the approvablHty of application requests. However, in order
to assure Regional consistency, coordination with the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards staff is encouraged during the Initial
development of any single "time average" SIP revision or regulation.
Also, all SIP revisions Involving long-term averaging must be proposed in
the Federal Register with an explanation of how the principles listed
above have been satisfied. .
-------
-4-
Should there be any questions on this policy, please call Tom Helms
(FTS 629-5526) or Brock Nicholson (FTS 629-5516).
Attachment
cc: Barbara Bankoff
Ron Campbell
Jack Fanner ' * .
Mike Levin
Ed Reich
B. 0. Steigerwald
Darryl Tyler
Peter Wyckoff
Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
-------
4 Visibility SIPs
-------
4.1
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Requirements for State Subroittals of Visibility Protection SIP's
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler. Director
Control Programs Development Division (MO-15)
TO: Director. A1r and Waste Management Division
Regions II, IV, VI-VIII, X
Director, A1r Management Division
Regions I, III, V, IX
As you are aware, the Agency is presently under court order to propose
visibility protection plans for 34 deficient States. Two sections, the
visibility monitoring strategy and new source review (NSR) requirements,
are to be proposed by October 20, 1984. States have until April 20, 1985,
to submit acceptable State implementation plan (SIP) revisions to avoid
Federal prowulgstlon of these two sections. Some States have begun or are
considering action on these programs. This memorandum Identifies what the
submittal must include for a State to have an approvable SIP.
The visibility protection program has some unique features from other
air quality programs. First, the program addresses a national welfare goal
of preventing future and remedying existing impairment in certain Federal
Class I areas (areas listed in 40 CFR 81.401-436). The Federal Land
Managers (FLM's) responsible for the areas play an Important role in the
development and Implementation of an effective program. The FLM's are
responsible for maintaining their areas consistent with various Congres-
sional land use goals and, 1n some cases, may restrict access if equipment
or personnel Interfere with these goals. They are also responsible for
determining 1f man-made Impairment 1s adverse or significant and for
reviewing new source Impact analyses for air quality related values.
Including visibility, under the prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) program. Because of this situation, the Office of A1r Quality Planning
and Standards has been working with the FLM's In developing the Federal
program.
It is difficult to give uniform and specific advice to the States on
this program. The visibility protection program most be tailored to meet
the specific needs in the Stats. The first step the State should take in
visibility SIP development is to consult with the appropriate FLM's. This
should be emphasized to the States in any discussions which you have with
them. The following information is specific to the monitoring and NSR
requirements.
-------
VISIBILITY MONITORIN6 STRATEGY
States are required by 40 CFR 51.305 to develop a visibility monitoring
strategy that assesses visibility by "visual observation or other appro-
priate techniques." The States must also consider "advances 1n visibility
monitoring technology and any guidance given by the Agency." Provisions
must be made in the SIP for consideration of the available data in other
sections of the visibility protection program. The data 1s used in
determining the potential impact of new sources, determining sources of
visibility Impairment and remedial control measures for those sources* and
determining progress toward the national visibility goal. These needs can
be broken Into two types of monitoring data: background visibility data,
and documentation on individual visibility impairment that can be attributed
to a source or group of sources. The background data can also be used for
trend analysis and for assessing the extent of regional haze for future
visibility programs.
The States have great latitude in deciding the methodology for data
collection. The Agency does not presently have a standard method for
visibility monitoring and therefore cannot require more than a human
observer as a minimum. However, other more objective methods are avail-
ablethese are automatic cameras, teleradlometers, nephelometers, and
particulate samplers. These have been used successfully In the field.
This equipment 1s described 1n the "Interim Guidance for Visibility Moni-
toring" (EPA/450-2-80-082). Dr. Marc Pltchford of the Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory 1n Las Vegas has worked with the.National
Park Service (NPS) and several States in Implementing appropriate visibility
monitoring. He, along with Or. William Malm of the NPS Research Center in
Ft. Collins, Colorado, should be considered as a resource for more detailed
information on the Implementation of these technologies.
The State should design a monitoring strategy that meets the requirements
of Section 51.305 and provides the type of data that can be used most effec-
tively in our effort to meet the national visibility goal. This means the
State should concentrate resources on collecting data which can be used for
NSR to prevent future Impairment and for documenting source specific Impairment
that can be remedied. The program could also be compatible with programs
to address nonsource specific impairment in the future.
Background Data
The NPS has Implemented visibility monitoring stations that cover 30
Class I areas. The NPS has agreed to provide their data to the Agency for
our regulatory needs. Any additional stations would be provided by the
Agency. The States with NPS stations could negotiate a similar agreement.
Since background data are primarily used 1n new source Impact analyses.
the permit applicant could be required to monitor visibility as part of
its preapplication monitoring. Although this approach has some financial
advantages to the States, 1t will provide only site-specific, data making
trend analysis or regional haze assessment difficult. This approach also
adds additional burdens on the source: to negotiate access to the areas
with the FLM's, and to coordinate with the States on appropriate technologies.
-------
The State Bia> also sponsor their own background stations, locatir.c;
sites in or near tht Class I areas. The Agency enccurayt-s the States to
implement sophistlcatec technology- where resources ptrmi t, so as to take
Rtaxiriiuin advantage of ongoing work by tut FLM ana Federal government.
However, the Agency cannot require the States to use any specific
methccolcgies until a reference method 1s available. It should be noted
that background o'ata can be collected 1n a regional manner, eliminating
t.ne r,tt-d for a station at every Class I area."
Spec1 fie 1mpa1rmen t Rev1ew
The second type of required monitoring 1s a review of each area to
determine and document the extent of any nan-made visibility 1npa1rment.
As an expert on the properties, the FLM can be an important resource In
determining 1f a specific problem is present. The areas should be reviewed
periodically to determine the effectiveness of any control measures and to
determine that no new impairment 1s present.
Visual observation can be very helpful 1n determining if visibility
Impairment exists, but 1s limited as a technique to determine and document
the cause or source of the Impairment. Aerial- or land-based photography
can be used to document the problem and to attempt to trace the impairment
to Its source. The States' selection of techniques should be tailored to
the specflc problems in the visibility protection areas.
Approval Process
The States1 monitoring strategies will be reviewed by EPA for approval
on a case-by-case basis to determine if the strategy will provide the
necessary data. This review shall Include an assessment of:
1. The adequacy for providing data for new source Impact analyses;
2. The determination of exlsiting Impairment compared to Information
provided to the Agency by the FLM's, and the adequacy of the documentation
program; and
3. The previsions tor periodic review of the areas and monitoring
program 1n the long terra.
KLW SOURCE REVIEW
Some of the procedural requirements 1n the visibility NSR rules are
different from the existing PSD and NSR program. To cover PSD sources,
we are planning to aratnu the present PSD regulations to include the visibility
requirements. Most States with delegated or Federally run PSD programs need
no further action. Sotne delegations, however, may need to be renegotiated.
States with their own PSD SIP's must submit revisions that contain the
following provisions:
For all raajor PSD stationary sources;
1. The State must notify the FLM in writing within 30 days of
receiving a penal t application or advance notification of application from
a proposed source that nay impact a visibility protection area.
-------
?. This notification tpust take place at least 60 days prior to the
public hearing on the application and oiust contain an analysis of the potential
impact of the proposed source on visibility.
3. The State must consider any analysis concerning visibility impairment
performed by the FLM and received within 30 days of the notification.
4. If the State does not concur with the FLM's analysis that adverse
visibility Impairment will result from the proposed source, the State must
provide 1n Its notice of public hearing on the application an explanation
of Its decision, or give notice as to where the explanation can be obtained.
5. The State must have the ability to require a permit applicant to
monitor visibility 1n or around the visibility protection areas.
The visibility NSR rules also require a visibility Impact analysis
for any major stationary source or modification locating 1n a nonattalnment
area and that may Impact a visibility protection area. The Federal proposal
will contain a small permit program for these sources. States with NSR
SIP's must submit revisions that contain the following provisions:
1. A major construction 1n a nonattalnment area that may impact a
visibility protection area must provide a visibility Impact analysis.
2. The State must ensure that the sources' emissions are consistent
with the national visibility goal. The State may consider the costs of
compliance, the time for compliance, the energy and nonair quality
environmental Impacts of compliance, and the useful life of the source.
3. The State must follow the same procedures outlined in the PSD items
1-6 above in conducting nonattainnwnt area visibility reviews.
Details of Federal monitoring and NSR programs will be published in
the Federal Register 1n October, You will be seeing this proposal soon as
part of the Agency review process. States may wish to follow the Federal
approach, or at least use the Federal proposal as a guide. However, in
order to meet the April deadline, most States will have to begin developing
their plans now. Bruce Polkowsky or Janet Metsa (FTS 629-5540) of my
staff are available for additional information and to assist the States
and you 1n the SIP development and review.
cc: B. Bauraan (MD-15)
R. Campbell (MO-10)
G. Emlson (MO-10)
T. Helms (MO-15)
0. Rhoads (MO-14)
0. Tyler (MO-15)
bcc: J. Metsa (MD-15) S. Sleva (MD-14)
B. Polkowsky (MD-15) M. Trutna (MO-15)
0. Stonefield (MD-15)
CPDD:JMetsa:X5540:500NCMDurham: (MD-15)-.9/11/84
-------
4.2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
MAR C 5 :3G5
MEMORANDUM:
SUBJECT: Visibility Monitoring Strategy Requirements
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, D
Control Programs Development Div^fffon (MD-15)
TO: Director, Air Division
Regions I-X
It has come to my attention that some States have requested additional
guidance in developing a visibility monitoring strategy for the May 6,
1985, submittal deadline. This memorandum explains the monitoring
requirements and is meant to assist the States and Regions in determining
the adequacy of a visibility monitoring strategy.
The 1980 visibility rules (Section 51.300-307) require 36 States to
amend their State implementation plans (SIP's) to include visibility
protection plans. The plan must contain "a strategy for evaluating visi-
bility : . . by visual observation or other appropriate techniques . . . ."
The plan must also provide for consideration of available data and must
provide a mechanism for Its use in decisions in other portions of the
protection program. The monitoring strategy was not meant to be implemented
independent from the rest of the rules. Therefore, the requirements for
monitoring come directly from the sections of the rules to be Implemented
in the*second part of the settlement agreement.
Consultation with the Federal land managers (FLM's) 1s required by
Section 51.302. All affected FLM's must be given the opportunity to consult
with the State, in person, at least 60 days prior to any public hearing on
the rule. At this meeting, the FLM may make recommendations to the State
on Items in the protection plan including but not limited to Identifying
impairment, and recommending items to be Included in the monitoring strategy.
The State should contact the on-site FLM personnel as well as the divisional
offices handling SIP coordination. The addresses for the divisional office
personnel, are attached.
The States' visibility monitoring strategy must address the following
requirements:
1) Provide data for new source impact analyses (required by Sections 51.307
and 51.24),
-------
2) Determine sources, if possible, of visibility impairment (required by
Section 51.302),
3) As.sess visibility conditions for the SIP and periodic report (required
by Sections 51.302 and 51.306).
The State is required by Section 51.305 to consider all available data
in making assessments in the visibility protection program. This could be
data from any FLM, industrial, or EPA sponsored visibility monitoring
programs. In some circumstances, airport visibility data may be appropriate.
However, if no data exist from other sources, it is the States' responsi-
bility to provide the appropriate information. The types of assessments
will be.dependent on the types of visibility impairment that are thought to
exist in the visibility protection areas. The State should request the FLM
to provide his assessment of impairment so that the State can determine the
extent of monitoring and protection needed. States that wish to design a
monitoring strategy that requires visual observation as a minimum, should
ensure that the frequency of observation is sufficient to provide meaningful
data.
Many States have indicated that they cannot accept the additional
responsibility of visibility monitoring without an Increase in their grant
support. The EPA has requested additional funding for the Federal
visibility monitoring program and to encourage States to develop visibility
SIP's. Therefore, some limited grant moneys may be available for States
that wish to take a more active role 1n the monitoring program. States may
also participate In the Federal monitoring program which will be a more
cost-effective use of resources. It should be noted that EPA will have no
authority to monitor in States with approved monitoring strategies, even if
EPA proposed to do so in the Federal plan. Also some States may wish to
delay action on the monitoring strategy in order to Incorporate it with the
remaining provisions.
The format for the monitoring strategy need only be a narrative section
of the SIP. Any details that are subject to change should be referenced in
an appendix or separate document. A checklist has been attached to help
the States and Regions determine the adequacy of the monitoring strategy.
I hope this Information 1s helpful. If you have any questions, please
contact Janet Metsa (FTS 629-5540) or Mark Hodges (FTS 629-5665) of my staff.
Attachments
cc: R. Bauman (MD-15)
R. Campbell (MD-10)
T. Helms (MD-15)
R. Rhodes (MO-14)
0. Stonefield (MD-15)
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
FEDERAL LAND MANAGER DIVISIONAL OFFICES
National Park Service
Mr. Brian MitchelI
Ai r Quality Division
National Park Service
Post Office Box 25287
Denver, CO 80225
Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. Ty Berry
Division of Refuge Management
FSWS, Room 2342
Department of Interior
18th & C Streets,' N.W.
Washington, DC 20024O
Forest Service Headquarters
Mr. Jim Byrne
USDA-Forest Service
WSAAM
Post Office Sox 2417
Washington, D.C. 20013
Forest Service Regional Directors (See Map)
Eastern Region Southern Region
310 W. Wisconsin Avenue 1720 Peachtree Road, N.W,
Milwaukee, WI 53203 Atlanta, 6A 30367
Northern Region Rocky Mountain Region
Federal Building 11177 W. 8th Avenue
Post Office Box 7669 Post Office Box 25127
Missoula, MT 59807 Lakewood, CO 80225
Intermountaln Region Pacific Southwest Region
Federal Building .630 Sansome Street
324 25th Street . San Francisco, CA 94111
Ogden, UT 84401'-
Southwestern Region Pacific Northwest Region
Federal Building 319 S.W. P1ne Street
517 Gold Avenue, S.W. Post Office Box 3623
Albuquerque, NH 87102 Portland, OR 97208
-------
The Fores,
United States Department of Agriculture
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
VISIBILITY MONITORING STRATEGY CHECKLIST
1. Does impairment exist? What documentation does the State provide?
Example: a) FLM statement
b) no sources near the protection areas
2. Does the SIP mention coordination/consultation with the FLM's?
3. Does the SIP list the objectives of the monitoring program?
Example: a) Provide data for new source impact analysis.
b) Provide data to determine sources subject to BART.
c) Provide data for assessment of control strategies.
d) Provide data for trend analysis.
If impairment does not exist, only a and d are needed.
4. Does the SIP list the data collection methods or equipment to be used?
Example: a) Require preapplication monitoring.
b) Installation of automatic cameras or other monitoring
device.
c) Periodic reporting from FLM's (with FLM agreement).
5. Are the equipment or procedures appropriate to meet the stated
objectives?
Example: a) Preapplication monitoring will not provide data for BART
determinations.
b) A report from the FLM will not provide appropriate data
; for new source impact analysis.
6. If the SIP calls for a separate document or appendix to describe the
details of the monitoring program, is it available to the public? EPA?
7. A separate document or appendix is recommended to describe the details
of:
a) Monitoring sites,
; b) Equipment or data collection techniques,
c) Quality assurance procedures,
d) Monitoring frequency, and
e) Implementation schedule.
-------
State Stack Height Regulations/
Negative Declarations
-------
5.1
USB;
-^ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
3 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
September 19t 1985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance on Fluid Model Demonstration* for Determining GEP
Stack Height in Complex Terrain
FROM: Joaeph A. Tlkvart, Chief
Source Receptor Analysis Branch, MDAD
TO: David Seonefield, Chief
Policy Development Section, CPDD
The recently promulgated stack height regulation requirea that a source
that wishes to receive credit for the effecta of wakes, eddiea and downwash
produced by nearby terrain for the purpose of calculating GEP stack height
must conduct a fluid model demonstration or a field study. Recent guidance
for fluid modeling theae terrain effecta la contained in Section 3-6 of the
"Guideline for Determination of GEP Stack Height (Raviaed),* EPA 450/4-80-023R,
June 1985, available from NTIS as PB 85-225-241. In addition, the report
"Fluid Modeling Determination of Good Engineering Practice Stack Height in
Complex Terrain," EPA 600/3-85-022, available from NTIS PB 85-203-107,
provldea an actual caae of how EPA conducted a GEP determination, abort of
performing the "exceaaive concentration" criteria teat. Requeata to conduct
field studlea in lieu of fluid modeling demonstrations will be evaluated on
a caae-by-caae baala; refer to pp. 46-47 of that GEP Guideline.
Previously, EPA published three documents which form the basis for
conducting fluid model demonstrations, particularly in flat terrain
situations: (1) 'Guideline for Fluid Modeling of Atmospheric Diffusion,"
EPA 600/8-81-009, April 1981, available from NTIS as PB 81-201-410; (2)
"Guideline for Use of Fluid Modeling to Determine Good Engineering Practice
Stack Height," EPA 450/4-81-003, July 1981, available from NTIS as PB 82-145-
327; and (3) "Determination of Good-Engineering-Practice Stack Height: A
Fluid Model Demonstration Study for a Power Plant," EPA 600/3-83-024, April
1983, available from NTIS as PB 83-207407.
Lastly, EPA conducted a 4-day workshop on fluid modeling and GEP
determination at the Fluid Modeling Facility at RTF in February 1981,
attended by staff from each Regional Office. Although some attendees are
no longer with the Agency, we believe at least one person in each Region
who attended is still "on board," except for Regions II and VIII, and could
serve as a resource person. At the Regional Workshop on the Stack Height
Regulation next month, we will poll the attendees concerning the need for
-------
another fluid modeling workshop for Regional Office and State technical
staff. If a need is expressed and specific attendees can be identified, we
will request the Meteorology and Assessment Division, ASRL, to present such
a workshop at RTF within the next few months.
The above documents together with staff that have some knowledge of
fluid modeling should enable most Regions to provide initial technical
assistance to the States and enable the States to increase their own level
of expertise. Note that document (2) contains a report checklist in Section
5, outlining what a fluid model report should contain. Additional items
explicitly related to complex terrain studies may be required on a case-by-
case basis, especially after reviewing EFA's example study carefully. More
detailed procedures for implementing the excessive concentration criteria
calculations, using data from a fluid model demonstration, are being developed
and will be provided at the upcoming Regional Workshop.
Should technical questions arise regarding CEP determinations or fluid
model demonstrations, please contact Jim Dlcke or Dean Wilson of my staff,
FTS 629-5681. Ve assume the Regional Office staffs will attempt a first-cut
resolution of technical Issues before requesting our assistance.
cc: S. Relnders
R. Rhoads
F. Schiermeier
D. Wilson
-------
5.2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Offict of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
OCT 101385
ECMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Questions and Answers on Implementing the
Revised Stack Height Regulation
FROM: G. T. Helms, Chleff L U***
Control Programs Operations Branch (HD-15)
TO: Chief, A1r Branch, Regions I-X
A number of questions have arisen In several areas of the revised
stack height regulation since Its promulgation on July 8. The following
answers have been developed In response. The questions and answers are
arranged under the general topic headings of Interpretation of the regul a-
tlon, State Implementation plan (SIP) rfqyirsssats, and modeling analyses.
PI-sic continue to call Sharon Relnders at 629-5526 If you have further
comments or additional questions.
Interpretation of the Regulation
1. Q: What criteria should be used to determine when a stack was "1n
existence" with respect to the various grandfather1ng dates In the
regulation?
A: The recent proawlgatlon of revisions to the stack height regulation
did not change the definition of "In existence." The definition Is provided
In 40 CFR Sl.l(gg) and Includes either the commencement of continuous
construction on the stack or entering Into a binding contract for stack
construction, the cancellation of which would result 1n "substantial
loss" to the source owner or operator. The definition of what constitutes
a "substantial loss* will be the subject of future guidance.
2. Q: What "source" definition should be used In determining whether tie-
ins to grandfathered stacks should be permitted or prohibited?
A: The tern "source" 1n this Instance mans a single emitting unit.
Thus, credit for tying a single post-1970 un1t(s) Into a grandfathered
stack serving a nuiber of old units Is prohibited under the regulation.
-------
-2-
3. Q: What 1s mtant In the regulation by "facility"?
A: for purposes of this regulation, the definition contained 1n
40 CFR 51.301(d) should be used. That definition essentially defines the
term as the entire complex of emitting activities on one property or
contiguous properties controlled by a single owner or deslgnee.
4. Q: Must good engineering practice (GEP) stack height be established
separately for each pollutant? If not, how should ft be determined?
A: It 1s not necessary to calculate a separate GEP stack height for
each pollutant. Since "GEP" 1s defined by Section 123 of the Clean A1r
Act as the height necessary to ensure against excessive concentrations of
any air pollutant, 1t follows that GEP should be established for each
source based on the pollutant requiring the greatest height to avoid
excessive concentrations.
5. Q: How should "reliance" on the 2.SH formula bt determined?
A: First, "reliance* on the 2.5H formula applies only to stacks 1n
existence before January 12, 1979. Credit for "reliance" on the 2.5H
formula, can be granted under the following casts: (a) Where the stack
was actually built to a height less than or equal to 2.SH; (b) Where the
stack was built taller than 2.5H and the emission limitation reflects the
use of 2.5H In the SIP modeling analysis; or (c) Where evidence Is provided
to show "reliance" as discussed 1n the following paragraph. If no modeling
was used to set the emission limitation for the source, then 1t cannot be
argued that there was "reliance" on the formula, since EPA's guidance was
specifically aimed at using stack height credit In establishing emission
limitations. Once 1t Is determined that the emission limitation was 1n
fact based on estimates of dispersion from the stack, then the source can
be said to have properly "relied" on .the 2.5H formula. In the event that
1t cannot be determined that the emission limit 1s based on "reliance" on
the 2.5H formula, then the refined H + 1.51 formula must be used.
Where a clear relationship between a 2.5H stack height and the
emission limitation cannot bt shown, where the emission limitation was
not calculated based precisely on the 2.5H height, or where tht stack
height used In modeling cannot bt verified, then additional evidence will
be needed. Preferred would be written documentation, such as copies of
tht original engineering calculations or correspondence bttwttn tht Statt
or tht emission source owner and EPA Indicating that tht 2.5H formula
should bt used to derive the mission limitation. However, recognizing
that such evidence Is often not retained for more than a few yttrs,
"reconstructed" documentation may bt considered, but should only bt used
as a last resort. This evidence should Include explanations by thost
Individuals who wtre Involved 1n designing tht facility, calculating
emission ratts, and who represented tht facility 1n dealings with tht
-------
-3-
State and EPA on how the emission limit was dtrlved, Including a discussion
of how tht formula was originally used 1n deriving the source emission
limitation, a discussion of the analytical method applied, and a listing
of any contacts or discussions with EPA during that period. This listing
will aid EPA In searching Its own files to find any records of communication
or correspondence that may bear on the Issue.
In no case should a source be allowed after January 12, 1979, to
obtain a relaxation 1n the emission limitation by arguing that 1t "relied"
on past EPA guidance endorsing the 2.5H formula. In cases where a relaxation
based on GEP formula height Is sought 1n the future, the refined H * 1.51
formula must be used.
6. Q: The preamble specifically discusses cooling towers as structures to
which the formula should not be applied. Will the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards be specifying other structures that are not well
represented by the formula?
A: The discussion 1n the preamble and SEP guideline Is not Intended to
be all-inclusive; judgment should be used In determining when fluid
model Ing should be used to estimate the effects of structures with rounded,
domed, or tapered shapes. Water towers and storage tanks are additional
examples of such structures. As additional Information becomes available
on the aerodynamic effects of specific building shapes and configurations,
we will evaluate the need to revise the SEP guidance, 'Hmevar, at present,
there ire no plans to Issue a = laundry list11 of structures to which the
formulas do not apply.
SIP Requirements
7. Q: Should a compliance averaging-time be explicitly stated In a
SIP revision for sulfur dioxide ($02) emission limits that are revised to
meet the stack height regulation?
A: A compliance averaging time need not be specified as an enforceable
SIP provision as long as a stack test compliance method Is 1n place 1n the
underlying federally approved SIP. EPA's current national policy requires
that SIP's and permits contain enforceable "short-term" emission limits
set to limit maximum emissions to a level which ensures protection of the
short-term national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and prevention
of significant deterioration (PSD) Increments. EPA relies upon a short-term
stack test provision In the SIP as the method of determining compliance
with the emission limits. In lieu of a stack test, EPA has accepted fuel
sampling and analysis and continuous emission In-stack monitors (CEM's).
When compliance Is to be determined from Information obtained by fuel
sampling and analysis and CEM's, short-term averaging times should be
specified.
-------
-4-
8. Q: Are all States required to have "stack height regulations"?
A: Limitations on creditable stack height and dispersion techniques
Impact the SIP program 1n two areasSIP emission limits for existing
sources and SIP provisions covering new source review (NSR)XPSD permitting
procedures. For existing sources, State regulations limiting credit for
stack height and other dispersion techniques (stack height regulations)
are not necessary as long as the SIP emission limits are not affected In
any manner by so much of the stack height as exceeds SEP. or any other
dispersion technique. Where a State has stack height regulations, those
regulations must be consistent with EPA's regulation. Where a SIP contains
regulations that are Inconsistent with EPA's regulation, tht State must
either adopt a stack height regulation that 1s consistent with EPA's or
Incorporate the EPA regulation by reference.
For the NSR/PSO programs, It 1s essential that the plan contain
limitations on the amount of creditable stack height and other dispersion
techniques. The following cases have been developed to Illustrate what
act1on(s) may be required of the State since promulgation of the stack
height regulation.
CASE All): A fully or partially delegated PSO program that references but
does not define SEP where tht delegation agreement does not contain
a date to define which version of tht PSO rule Is being StTegated.
ACTION: Notify the State that all penalts Issued henceforth must bt
consistent with EPA's stack height regulation. All permits
previously Issued must be reviewed and revised as necessary
within 9 months.
CASE A(2): A fully or partially delegated PSO program that references
but dots not define GEP where the delegation agreement
dots contain a datt to define which version of tht PSO rule
Tsbtlng dtlegated.
ACTION: Update the delegation agreement to reflect agreement with EPA's
stack height regulation as of July 8, 198S. Notify the State
that all permits Issued henceforth must bt consistent with
EPA's stack height regulation. All permits previously Issued
must bt reviewed and revised as necessary within 9 months.
CASE B: The current federally approved SIP for NSR/PSO dots not
contain a reference to SEP or dispersion techniques, I.e.,
provisions assuring that emission limitations will not bt
affected by stack height In excess of SEP or any prohibited
dispersion techniques do not exist In tht current SIP.
-------
-5-
ACTION: Notify the State that such provisions must be adopted and
submitted as a SIP revision within 9 months. This can be
acccompl1 shed by adopting stack height regulations at the
State level or by adopting the appropriate reference and
connltnent to comply with EPA's stack height regulation as
promulgated on July 8, 1985. Interim permitting should be
consistent with EPA's stack height regulation.**
CASE C: The current federally approved SIP for NSR/PSO contains
references to, but does not define, GEP or dispersion techniques.
ACTION: Notify the State that a commitment to comply with EPA's stack
height regulation as promulgated on July 8, 1985, Is required.
If a State Is unable to make such a commitment, State regulations
must be revised to be consistent and submitted to EPA as a SIP
revision within 9 months and Interim permitting should be
consistent with EPA's stack height regulation. No "grace
period" will be allowed for sources receiving permits between
July 1985 and April 1986.**
CASE 0; The current federally approved SIP for NSR/PSO contains stack
height regulations that are Inconsistent with EPA's regulation.
ACTION: Notify the State that such regulations must be revised to be
consistent and submitted as a SIP revision within 9 months
and that interim psrslttlng should be consistent with EPA's
stack height regulation.**
CASE E(l): A SIP for NSR/PSO has been submitted to EPA, or will be
submitted to EPA before the due date for stack height revisions.
The submlttal contains provisions that conflict with EPA's
stack height regulation.
ACTION: Notify the State that EPA cannot approve the submlttal until
1t Is revised pursuant to EPA's July 8, 1985, regulation.
**In the event that a State does not have legal authority to comply with
EPA's regulation in the Interim (e.g., because It must enforce State
rules that are Inconsistent with EPA's regulation) and 1s compelled to
Issue a permit that does not meet the requirements of the EPA revised
stack height regulation, then EPA should notify the State that such
permits do not constitute authority under the Clean A1r Act to commence
construction.
-------
6-
CASE E(2): As In Case E(l), a SIP for NSR/PSO has been submitted to EPA
or will be submitted to EPA before the due date for stack
height revisions. The submlttal 1s not Inconsistent with
EPA's stack height regulation, but portions of the existing
approved SIP that relate to the submlttal are Inconsistent.
ACTION: Approve the SIP submlttal based on a commitment by the State
to correct the Inconsistencies 1n Its existing SIP to comport
with EPA's July 8 regulation and submit the corrections as a
SIP revision within 9 months. Interim permitting should be
consistent with EPA's stack height regulation.** If the exist-
ing $IP 1s ambiguous, I.e., the SIP references but does not
define terms relating to SEP or dispersion techniques, the
action steps outlined 1n Case C above should be followed.
CASE F: In nonattalnment areas, emission limits or permits do not always
Include modeling, but rather are based on lowest achievable
mission rate (LAER) and offsets.
ACTION: If no modeling 1s used 1n the Issuance of a permit, the emission
requirements for the source are not "affected" by stack heights
or dispersion techniques* and no action 1s needed. However, 1f
modeling was used 1n the process of preparing and Issuing a
permit, such as cases where offsets were obtained offsite, that
modeling must be reviewed for consistency with the stack height
regulatlon.
9. Q: What must all States do now that EPA's stack height regulation 1s
promulgated?
A: States must review and revise.their SIP's as necessary to Include or
revise provisions to limit stack height credits and dispersion techniques
to comport with the revised regulations, and, 1n addition, review and
revise all emission limitations that are affected by stack height credit
above SEP or any other dispersion techniques. In accordance with Section
406(d)(2) of the Clean A1r Act, States have 9 months from promulgation to
submit the revised SIP's and revised SIP emission limitations to EPA.
In an August 7, 1985, memo titled "Implementation of the Revised
Stack Height Regulat1 onRequest for Inventory and Action Plan to Revise
SIP's," Regional Offices were requested to begin working with each of
their States to develop States' Action Plans. Each Action Plan should
Include the following: (1) An Inventory of (a) all stacks greater than
65 meters («), (b) stacks at sources which exceed 5,000 tons per year
total allowable S02 emissions; and (2) A reasonable schedule of dates for
significant State actions to conform both State stack height rules and
emission limitations to EPA's stack height regulation. Schedules should
Include Increments of progress. Regional Offices should be satisfied
that each of their States provide schedules for completion of the tasks
-------
-7-
as outlined In the August nemo and report the status of schedule commitments
to then on a monthly basis. Regional Offices have been asked to forward
monthly status reports to the Control Programs Development Division on
the States' progress to meet scheduled commitments and also report the
results of followup with the States on schedules that are not met. In
order to facilitate tracking the States monthly progress, guidance on a
standardized format will be Issued shortly.
Modeling Analyses
10. Q: Is there any restriction or prohibition against, or demonstration
required for, raising an existing (or replacing) stack up to 65 m?
A: No, as long as prohibited dispersion techniques are not employed.
11. Q: Are flares considered to be stacks?
A: No, flares are excluded from the regulation.
12. Q: What load should be used for a fluid modeling demonstration?
A:* One hundred percent load should generally be used unless there
Is a compelling argument otherwise..
13. Q: Can new or modified sources who have agreed to a case-by-case
best available control technology (BACT) emission rate be required to uss
this rate for fluid audiling father thin a less stringent new source
performance standard (NSPS) emission rate?
»
A: As set forth In 40 CFR 51.1 (kk), the allowable emission rate to
be'used 1n making demonstrations under this part shall be prescribed by
the NSPS that 1s applicable to the source category unless the owner or
operator demonstrates that this emission rate 1s Infeaslble.
14. Q: Must the exceeddnce of NAAQS or PSO Increment due to downwash, wakes,
or eddies occur at a location meeting the definition of ambient air? '
A: No, the exceedance may occur at any location, Including that to
which the general public does not have access.
15. Q: Is a source that Meets NSPS or BACT emission limits subject to
restrictions on plume merging?
A: Yes. However, 1n a majority of such cases, there will be no practical
effect since BACT or NSPS limits will be sufficient to assure attainment
without credit for plume rise enhancement.
-------
-3-
Q: What stack parameters are to be used in modeling when the actual
stack height is greater than GEP height?
A: Where it is necessary to reduce stack height credit below what is 1n
existence, for modeling purposes, use existing stack gas exit parameters--
temperature and flow rate and existing stack top diameter and model at
GEP height.
17. Q: How should a stack that is less than GEP height be modeled when
dispersion techniques are employed?
A: In order to establish an appropriate emission limitation where a
source desires to construct less than a GEP stack but use dispersion
techniques to make up the difference In plume rise, two cases should be
tested. First, conduct a modeling analysis Inputting the GEP stack
height without enhanced dispersion parameters, then conduct a second
analysis inputting the less than GEP stack height with the Increased
plume rise. The more stringent emission limitation resulting from each
of the two runs should be the one specified as the enforceable limitation.
18. Q: How are the effects of prohibited dispersion techniques to be excluded
for modeling purposes?
A: Where prohibited dispersion techniques have been used, modeling to
exclude their effects on the emission limitation will be accomplished by
using the temperature and flow rates as the gas stream enters the stack, and
recalculating stack parameters to exclude the prohibited techniques
(e.g., calculate stack diameter without restrictions In place, determine
exit gas temperatures before the use of prohibited reheaters, etc.).
19. Q: How are single flued merged stacks and multlflued stacks to be
treated in a modeling analysis?
A: This is a multlstep process. First, sources with allowable
emissions below 5,000 tons/year may be modeled accounting for any plume
merging that has been employed. For larger sources, multlflued stacks
are considered as prohibited dispersion techniques in the same way as
single flued merged gas streams unless one of the three allowable conditions
has been met; I.e., (1) the source owner or operator demonstrates that
the facility was originally designed and constructed with such merged gas
streams; (2) after date of promulgation, demonstrate that such merging 1s
associated with a change in operation at the facility that Includes the
installation of pollution controls and results in a ntt reduction In tht
allowable emissions of the pollutant for which credit 1s sought; or (3)
before date of promulgation, deionstrate that such merging did not result
1n any Increase in the allowable emissions (or. In the event that no
emission limit existed, actual emission level) and was associated with a
change In operation at the facility that Included the Installation of
-------
-9-
anlsslons control equipment or was carried out for sound economic or
engineering reasons, as demonstrated to EPA. Guidelines on what constitutes
sound economic or engineering justification will be Issued shortly.
If plume merging from multlflued stacks 1s not allowable, then each
flue/liner must be modeled as a separate source and the combined Impact
determined. For single flued merged stacks where credit 1s not allowed,
each unit should be modeled as a separate stack located at the same
point. The exit parameters, I.e. velocity and temperature, would be the
same as for the existing merged stack conditions and the volume flow rate
based on an apportionment of the flow from the Individual units.
20. Q: What stack height for point sources should bt Input to air quality
dispersion modeling for the purpose of demonstrating protection of the
NAAQS and PSD Increments?
A: A discussion of the maximum stack height credit to be used 1n modeling
analyses 1s provided 1n the "Guideline for Determination of Good Eng1ne«r1ng
Practice Stack Height* and provides that the SEP stack height should be
used as Input to the model assessment. If a source 1s operating with a
less than GEP stack height, then the actual stack height should be Input
to the model.
21. Q: What stack height should be used for background sources 1n
modeling analyses?
A: The GEP stack height for each background source should
be Input to the model assessment. If a background source Is operating
with a less than GEP stack height, then the actual stack height should be
Input to the model.
22. Q: Can credit for plume merging due to Installation of control
equipment for total suspended particulate (TSP) matter be allowed when
setting the SOj limit?
A: To state the question another way, the concern Is what Impact
the merging and Installation of control equipment have on the emission
limit for another pollutant, and whether the merging occurred before or
after July 8, 1985. After July 8, 1985, any exclusion from the definition
of "dispersion techniques* applies only to the emission limitation for
the pollutant affected by such change 1n operation and 1s accompanied by
a net reduction 1n allowable emissions of the pollutant. For example, a
source tears down two old stacks and builds one new GEP stack with an
electrostatic preclpltator (ESP). This results 1n a net reduction 1n TSP
emissions. This source could model using stack gas characteristics
resulting from merging the two gas streams 1n setting the TSP emission
Hm1t, but may not so model and receive the credit for stack merging when
evaluating the $03 emission Unit.
-------
-10-
Before July 3, 1985, Installation of ISP pollution control equipment
generally justifies the merging of the stacks for TSP. However. 1f a
source's emission limitation for SOg Increased after the meryfag, then
credit would generally not be allowed since 1t 1s presumed that the
merging was to Increase dispersion.
A source with no previous SOj emission limit that merges stacks and
Installs an ESP for TSP control may consider the effects of merging on
compliance with the TSP NAAQS but may not use merging to justify setting
an S02 emission limit less stringent than Its actual emission rate before
the merging.
23. Q: If. after determining GEP stack height by fluid modeling,
dispersion modeling under other than "downwash" meteorological conditions
shows that a lower emission limit than that from the fluid model GEP
analysis 1s necessary to meet ambient air quality constraints, should a
new stack height be defined for the source?
A: No. GEP stack height 1s set. Avblent air quality problems
predicted by dispersion modeling at the fluid modeled height means that a
more stringent emission limit Is necessary.
24. Q: Does EPA Intend to Issue additional guidance on fluid modeling
demonstrations?
A: See the attached memo from Joseph A. Tfkvart, Chief, Source
Receptor Analysis Branch, to David Stonefleld, Chief, Policy Development
Section, on guidance for a discussion of existing and additional guidance
on fluid model demonstrations.
Attachment
cc: Stack Height Contacts
Gerald Emlson
Ron Campbell
B. J. Stelgerwald
NOTE:
-------
5.3
t UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
( Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
OCT 28
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Implementation of Stack He 1gMfl Regulations - Exceptions From
Restrictions on Credit for^rjged Starts
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Develo
TO: Director, A1r Management Division
Regions I-X
This guidance has been prepared to address two Issues pertaining to
credit for merged stacks prior to July 8, 1985. It establishes a procedure
that should be used to prepare and to review justifications for merging gas
streams for economic or engineering reasons, and to address the presumption
that merging was significantly motivated by an Intent to gain credit for
Increased dispersion. Please note that this 1s guidance; States may submit
alternative demonstrations 1n support of merged stack exemptions 1f they
feel the Individual clrcusstancss warrant.
Background
Recent revisions to EPA's stack height regulations place certain
restrictions on the degree to which stationary sources may rely on the
effects of dispersion techniques when calculating allowable emissions.
One such restriction 1s provided for the merging of gas streams, or
combining of stacks. Several exemptions have been provided 1n the regula-
tion, however. More specifically, 40 CFR Part 5l.l(hh)(2)(11) allows
credit under circumstances where:
A. The source owner or operator demonstrates that the facility was
originally designed and constructed with such merged gas streams;
B. After July 8, 1985, such merging 1s part of a change 1n operation
at the facility that Includes the Installation of pollution controls and 1s
accompanied by a net reduction 1n the allowable emissions of a pollutant.
This exclusion from the definition of 'dispersion techniques' shall apply
only to the emission limitation for the pollutant affected by such change
1n operation; or
C. Before July 8, 1985, such merging was part of a change 1n operation
at the facility that Included the Installation of emissions control equip-
ment or was carried out for sound economic or engineering reasons. Where
there was an Increase 1n the federally-approved emission limitation for any
-------
pollutant or, 1n the event that no emission limitation was 1n existence
prior to the merging, an Increase 1n the quantity of any pollutants actually
emitted from existing units prior to the merging, the reviewing agency
shall presume that merging was significantly motivated by an Intent to gain
emissions credit for greater dispersion. Absent a demonstration by the
source owner or operator that merging was not significantly motivated by
such an Intent, the reviewing agency shall deny credit for the effects of
such merging 1n calculating the allowable emissions for the source.
General Requirements
Figure 1 Illustrates a framework for evaluating claims for merged
stack credit. Because merged gas streams are generally regarded as prohibited
dispersion techniques under the regulations, 1t 1s Incumbent on the State
or the source owner or operator to demonstrate that such merging was conducted
for sound economic or engineering reasons, and was not significantly motivated
by an Intent to avoid emission controls. Consequently, the first step
should entail a review of State and EPA files to determine the existence of
any evidence of Intent on the part of the source owner or operator.
Information showing that merging was conducted specifically to Increase
final exhaust gas plume rise serves as a demonstration of dispersion Intent
that justifies a denial of credit for merged gas streams. Demonstrations that
merging was carried out for sound economic or engineering reasons are
expected to show that either the benefits of merging due to reduced
construction and maintenance costs outweigh the benefits relating to lower
emission control costs or that relevant engineering considerations showed
the merging to be clearly superior to other*conf1gurat1ons.
Demonstration Requirements
Several exemptions from prohibitions on gas stream merging are provided
for existing sources 1n the stack height regulations:
1- where sources constructed their stacks before December 31, 1970,
2- where the total facility-wide emissions from the source do not
exceed 5,000 tons per year,
3- where the facility was originally designed and constructed
with merged gas streams, and
4- where the merging was part of a change 1n facility operation that
Included the Installation of pollution control equipment and resulted 1n
no Increase 1n the allowable emissions of any pollutant.* Where there
was an Increase 1n emissions 1n conjunction with the merging and Installation
of control equipment, the regulations require that source owners also make
an affirmative demonstration that the merging was not motivated by dispersive
1ntent.
*Hhere there was no federally-approved emission limit prior to merging
gas streams, there must be no Increase 1n the actual emissions of any
pollutant. Moreover, 1t 1s Incumbent on the State to demonstrate that there
was a logical relationship between the merging of existing gas streams and
the Installation of controls.
-------
Sources that are not covered under these criteria may still qualify for
exemption 1f they can show that merging was conducted for sound economic
or engineering reasons. Such demonstrations should Include justifications
for having replaced existing stacks. This may be done, for Instance, by
documenting through maintenance records, correspondence, or other
contemporaneous evidence, that the existing stacks had reached the end of
their useful life, were prematurely corroded, had sustained other damage
making them unservlcable, were of a height less than that regarded as
good engineering practice, thereby causing downwash problems, or that the
addition of new units at the facility necessitated additional stacks and
Insufficient land was available. The absence of any evidence supporting
the need for stack replacement creates a strong presumption that Merging
was carried out specifically to avoid the Installation of pollution
controls, I.e., was "significantly motivated by an Intent to gain emissions
credit for Increased dispersion."
No Increase 1n Allowable Emissions
Once this Initial criterion 1s satisfied, demonstrations may show
that merging was based either on sound economic or sound engineering
reasons. Claims based on strict engineering justifications «ay be more
difficult to show, since the existence of more than one reasonable
engineering solution generally leads to a decision based on economics.
However, 1f 1t can be documented that the merged stack configuration was
clearly superior to other stack configurations for purely engineering
reasons, without consideration of cost, then credit for merging may be
granted.
In order to most reliably Implement the provisions of the regulations
regarding the merging of gas streams for sound economic reasons, 1t would
be necessary to ascertain the actual Intent of the source owner or operator
at the time the decision was made to merge gas streams. Recognizing that
the difficulty of doing so was the basis for EPA's rejection of an "Intent
test" 1n the rule, the following approach provides a surrogate demonstration
of Intent. This approach 1s summarized 1n Figure 2.
Because the potential savings attributable to the avoidance of
pollution controls can significantly Influence decisions to merge stacks,
one way to show the absence of dispersion Intent 1s to conduct an analysis
of the annuallzed capital and maintenance costs for merged stacks and for
Individual stacks, and compare the results to the compliance costs (fuel
and operation and maintenance of any control equipment) calculated based on
the emission limitations derived with and without merged stack credit. If,
when the difference 1n capital and maintenance costs Is compared with the
difference 1n compliance costs over the period of capital amortization, the
capital and maintenance cost saving 1s greater than the compliance cost
saving, then merging can be accepted as having a sound economic basis.
In establishing this rule of thumb, we are aware that a benefit of as
little as 10-20«>ercent could be considered "significant" 1n the context of
the court's holding on this matter--1.e., such a benefit could have been
considered to be a relevant factor 1n decisions to construct merged stacks.
-------
However, recognizing that documentation of cost analyses after an extended
period of t1me--up to 15 years 1s likely to be limited, we believe that
the 50 percent test articulated above would constitute a more reasonable
basis for Initial determinations (that 1s, a level at which we believe that
there was likely a significant Incentive to merge stacks to avoid control
requirements).
Affirmative Demonstrations of Nond1spers1on Intent
In some Instances, a State or emission source owner may not be able to
make a demonstration as described above, or believe that sound economic
reasons existed for merging stacks, regardless of the relationship between
financial savings attributable to reduced emission control requirements
versus lower stack construction cost. In such cases, an opportunity should
be provided to affirmatively demonstrate that merged stacks were not
"significantly motivated by an Intent to obtain emissions credit for
Increased dispersion." The burden of proof rests solely with source owners
or operators attempting to make this showing.
Demonstrations may rely on any relevant evidence, Including but not
limited to the following:
construction permits, or permits to operate from pollution control
agencies
correspondence between the source owner or operator and government
agencies
- engineering reports relating to the facility
- facility records
- affidavits
any other relevant materials
For Instance, such a demonstration could be made by submitting
documentary or other evidence (e.g., Internal company memoranda presenting
the alternative construction opportunities available to the company) that
Indicates the Intent of the source owner or operator and shows that
consideration of dispersion advantages was conspicuously absent.
Alternatively, 1t might be shown that either action by the State 1n
approving a revised emission limit followed actual merging sufficiently
later 1n time to suggest that dispersion credit was not considered by the
source at the time of merging or the State approved limit was unrelated to
the merging.
In attempting to make demonstrations, source owners or operators
should present as much evidence as can be located, with the understanding
that demonstrations based on any single category of evidence (such as
affidavits) presented 1n Isolation are less likely to constitute acceptable
showings than demonstrations based on cumulative bodies of evidence.
discussed below, affirmative showings will be required of sources
whose merged stacks were associated with an Increase 1n allowable emissions
as well as some sources whose mergers were not associated with such
-------
Increases. However, EPA expects sources whose emission Units Increased
subsequent to the merging to present stronger showings than those with no
Increase, since the regulatory definition of "dispersion technique" views
such increases as an explicit Indication that the merged stacks were
significantly motivated by an Intent to gain credit for Increased disper-
sion. Sources who do not Increase their emissions, but who have difficulty
making other demonstrations, such as the Installation of pollution controls,
or merging for sound economic or engineering reasons convey a more Implicit
Indication of dispersion Intent that must be rebutted; for such sources,
however, the presumption of Intent 1s not as compelling.
Increases 1n Allowable Emissions
As stated above, 1n cases where the allowable emissions of any
pollutant Increased 1n conjunction with the merging of gas streams, such
an Increase provides even stronger circumstantial evidence that merging
was not carried out for sound economic or engineering reasons, but was
"significantly motivated by an Intent to gain emissions credit for greater
dispersion." This presumption may be rebutted by making one of the
following demonstrations.
1- by showing that the cost savings associated with reduced compliance
costs for merged stacks are less than 50 percent of the total savings due to
merged stacks (I.e., annual compliance savings plus annual 1zed capital
and maintenance savings), and by making an affirmative showing, as described
above, that there was no significant motivation to gain credit for the
Increased dispersion provided by merged stacks; or
2- by showing that alternatives to stack merging were reasonably
precluded strictly for engineering reasons, and by affirmatively demon-
strating the absence of significant dispersion Intent, as noted above.
In the absence of such a showing, 1t should be presumed that avoidance
of emissions control was a significant factor 1n the decision to merge gas
streams, and credit should be denied.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding the application of
this guidance 1n specific Instances, please contact Eric Glnsburg at
(FTS) 629-5540 or Sharon Relnders at (FTS) 629-5526.
Attachments
-------
FIGURE 1
Re"!
Credit
Granted
Credit
Granted
Pre-778/85
Retrofit Merged Stacks
Record of Intent
for Dispersion
Pur oses
rrari
No
Credit
SLl
Installed
Pollution Controls
increased
Emissions
Affirmative
Showing
FRO I
Reason to
Replace Stacks
I No I
Credit ~T
R
mri
Engineering
Reasons make
No Merging Clearly
Credit l"Ro~l Superior
nglneerlng
easons for
Merging
Increased
Emissions
rr«
r^l^
Tes
Economic
Reasons for
Merging
See
Figure 2
No
Credit
Engineering Reasons
to Preclude Alternatives
Credit
Granted
GJD
Credit
Granted
I Yes I
Affirmative
Showing
No
Credit
No I
No
Credit
-------
Figure 2
Economic Justification
for Merged Stacks
Savings due to Avoidance
of More Stringent
Emission Limit
Less than 50* of Total
Savings due to Merged
Stack Construction
Exceed SOX of Total
Savings due to Merged
Stack Construction
No Increase
In Emissions
Credit
Granted
Affirmative
Showing
Increase
In Emissions
Affirmative
Showing
No
Credit
-------
5.4
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
i Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
'. «o^
OCT 2 8 1985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Implementation of Stack Height .Regulations - Presumptive NSPS
Emission Limit for Fluid Modffng StacX'Above Formula GEP Height
FROM: Carry 1 D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
TO: Director, Air Management Division
Regions I-X
The following guidance is provided to explain the general emission
control requirements for sources conducting fluid modeling to justify stack
height in excess of that provided by the GEP formulae. While some of the
discussion and examples contained herein focus on utility sources, the
procedures outlined in this memorandum are generally applicable to all
stationary source categories. Please note that this 1s guidance. States
may present any other demonstrations that they may fiil are warranted in
individual circumstances.
Background
.The revised stack height regulations published on July 8, 1985, define
three methods for determining good engineering practice (GEP) stack
height. These methods Include:
1- a 65 meter de minimis GEP height;
2- the height determined by using an applicable formula based on the
dimensions of nearby buildings; and
3- the height necessary to avoid excessive concentrations due to
downwash as shown using a field study or fluid modeling
demonstration.
As the preamble to the regulations points out, the revised definition
of "excessive concentrations," a 40-percent Increase 1n concentrations
due to downwash resulting 1n a NAAQS or PSD Increment exceedance,
necessitates that an emission rate be specified for purposes of evaluating
fluid modeling. The regulations require that a presumptive emission rate
equi?alent to the new source performance standards (NSPS) be established
for the source in question before modeling may be conducted to determine
-------
stack height needed to avoid excessive concentrations due to downwash.*
This emission nte is described as "presumptive" because it is EPA's
presumption that all sources seeking to justify stack heights exceeding
those provided by the GEP formulae are capable of controlling their
emissions to NSPS levels. However,.the regulations also allow source
owners or operators to rebut this presumption, establishing an alternative
emission rate that represents the most stringent level of control that
can feasibly be met by that source 1n excess of the NSPS level. In the
preamble to the regulations, EPA Indicated that it will rely on the
"Guidelines for Determination of Best Available Retrofit Technology for
Coal-Fired Power Plants and other Existing Stationary Facilities,
EPA-450/3-80-009b" (5ART Guidelines) when reviewing these rebuttals.
If it is infeasible for a source to control Its emissions to NSPS
levels, then an alternative limit reoresentlng the lowest feasible emission
limit must be met before obtaining credit for stack height 1n excess of .
GEP formula height. Sources may consider such factors as remaining plant
life and the cost of modifying existing equipment when determining NSPS
feasibility.
Procedures
The general procedure that is described in the BART Guidelines for
analyzing control alternatives should be followed to Identify and evaluate
alternatives for sources seeking credit for stack heights In excess of
those produced by the applicable GEP formulae. Because the guidelines
were originally written to address visibility impairment, however, not all
of the analytical steps or applicability criteriasuch as analysis of
visibility impairment or exemptions for power plants below 750 megawatts-
will *be appropriate, and need not be addressed.
General steps in the analysis described in Section 2.0 of the
guidelines can be summarized as follows.
1. Identify a range of control alternatives, Including both pre- and
post-combustion controls. In this regard, several fuel substitution and
alternative fuel blends should be considered, as well as technological
alternatives, such as coal cleaning and flue gas desulfurlzatlon.
2. Calculate tne cost, emissions, and other environmental and energy
impacts of the alternatives [including those meeting NSPS objectives).
3. Select the alternative that represents the most stringent level
of emissions control feasible.
*Where the HS?S has been subject to revision, and the source in
question is not subject to the revised NSPS, the earliest standard will be
applied; e.g., for po*er plants a rate of 1.2 1b/nvn3tu would be used.
-------
In performing these analyses, It 1s Important to keep in mind that
EPA's presumption 1s that the NSPS emission limit 1s feasible unless
demonstrated otherwise. Uhen carrying out evaluations, source owners or
operators may consider such factors as remaining useful plant life, the
remaining life of any equipment affected by revised emission rates
(including any control equipment), the cost of modifying boilers, control
equipment, and fuel handling facilities, and the cost of modifying or
cancelling existing fuel supply contracts (remaining useful plant life,
if a significant factor 1n determining NSPS feasibility, may necessitate
restrictions on the period of applicability of less stringent emission
limits). Finally, it is important to analyze, not only a range of alter-
native controls, but several combinations of alternatives, since such
combinations may yield a greater and more cost-effective degree of
emissions control.
Since determinations of the adequacy of any rebuttals of the NSPS
emission limit and the reasonableness of control alternatives considered
must be made on a case-by-case basis, and will be subject to public review
and comment during the rulemaking process, all technical and economic
analyses, as well as any claims of infeasibility, must be fully documented
and supported by any information that may be available.
If you have any questions regarding the application of this guidance
in a particular set of circumstances, please contact Eric Glnsburg at
(FT*?) fi29-5540 or Sharon Relnders at (FTS) 529-5525.
-------
5.5
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
OCT 2 8 1985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Determining Stack Heights "uOExIstenae" Before December 31, 1970
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Director/
Control Programs Development DJ^slon (MD-15)
TO: Director, A1r Management Division
Regions I-X
The following guidance 1s provided to describe how the definition of
"In existence" should be Implemented and to assist States and emission
source owners and operators in providing appropriate evidence of commitments
to undertake stack construction on or before December 31, 1970. Please
note that this 1s guidance; States may submit alternative demonstrations
in support of grandfatherlng claims, If they feel the circumstances
warrant.
We Intend to rely on the general provisions of this guidance to
determine eligibility for grandfatherlng exemptions from certain other
provisions of the revised stack height regulations: restrictions on the
use of GEP formulae for cooling towers, use of the refined 6EP formula,
fluid modeling to justify GEP formula stack height, credit for merged
stacks, credit for new sources tied Into grandfathered stacks, and credit
for stacks raised to GEP formula height.
Background
Section 123 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, contains a grandfather
clause intended to exempt stack heights and techniques for pollutant
dispersion that were 1n existence on or before December 31, 1970, from
general provisions of Section 123 restricting the degree to which emission
limitations may be affected by dispersion. When EPA promulgated stack
height regulations pursuant to Section 123 1n 1982, 1t adopted a definition
of "stack heights in existence before December 31, 1970." This definition
allowed the grandfatherlng of stacks on which construction had not yet
commenced, but for which binding contracts had been signed that could not
be modified or cancelled without substantial loss to the owner or operator.
The EPA's definition was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit 1n Sierra Club v. EPA. 719 F.2d 436, and has not been modified in
any way by the rule revisions promulgated on July 3, 1935, except to
restrict its applicability to facilities that have not undertaken major
.nodifications or reconstruction, and have not ducted the effluent gas
streams from post-1970 units into prs-1971 stacks.
-------
Subsequent to the recent revisions, questions have been raised about
how the definition should be implemented, i.e., what EPA should consider
to be a binding contract, and what should constitute a "substantial loss"
for determining whether a stack should be grandfathered.
General Provisions
The burden of proof for showing that a stack 1s eligible for
grandfather1ng exemption lies with either the State or the source owner or
operator, as appropriate, and documentation in support of exemptions must
be made available for public review during the rulemaking process. In t;ie
event that no case for exemption under this provision 1s made, or that
satisfactory support for such a request is not provided, the stack is
presumed not to be grandfathered, and therefore subject to the requirements
of Section 123 and the stack height regulations promulgated by EPA.
Grandfathering exemptions may be supported 1n one of three ways: by
showing that the stack was completed or was physically 1n existence prior
to December 31, 1970; by showing that actual on-s1te continuous stack
construction activities began on or before December 31, 1970; or by showing
that a binding contract for stack construction was executed on or before
that date.
Documenting Stack Construction
In cases where a stack was completed prior to December 31, 1970, the
State may make a summary determination that the stack 1s grandfathered,
but must provide an explanation of the reasons for Its determination.
One way in which 1t can be documented that the*stack was physically in
place before December 31, 1970, 1s to provide a copy of the 1970 Federal
Power Commission report Form 67, which Includes stack height, among other
information. Evidence that may be submitted to support the date of
commencement of stack construction can include virtually any contemporaneous
documentation that clearly Indicates that construction activities were under
way as of December 31, 1970. This could consist of building Inspection
records, construction materials delivery receipts, correspondence,
inter-office memoranda, photographic records, or news clippings. In the
event that documentation is lacking or weak, EPA will consider affidavits
*hich include detailed descriptions of efforts that were undertaken to
obtain contemporaneous supporting documentation.
Documenting Contractual Obligations
The date of signature on a contract for stack construction will be
acceptable for applying grandfathering exemptions if the contract itself
meets certain minimum qualifications. A "binding contract," under the
previously-discussed provisions is considered to be one that commits the
source owner or operator financially to undertake stack construction and
that did not have 1n effect on December 31, 1970, an "escape" provision
that allows cancellation by the owner or operator without penalty.
-------
Fn the event that a contract contains provisions for assessing
penalties for modification or cancellation by the owner or operator, and
those provisions were 1n effect on December 31, 1970, then the provisions
must be reviewed to determine whether the penalties and other costs of
cancellation would have imposed a "substantial loss" on the owner or
operator. For new facilities, EPA will presume that a substantial loss
would have resulted where the penalties exceed ten percent of the project
cost. Where the project involves only stack construction or replacement,
EPA will review claims on a case-by-case basis.
If a contract does not contain provisions which Impose financial
obligations on the owner or operator for contract modification or
cancellation, then any determinations of whether liability to the owner
or operator resulting from such modification would constitute substantial
.losses must be made on a case-by-case basis. In general, EPA's rule of
thumb relying on ten percent of the project cost will be used.
If you have any questions regarding application of this guidance in
specific instances, please contact Eric Ginsburg at (FTS) 629-5540 or
Sharon Relnders and (FTS) 629-5526.
-------
5.6
^ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
* Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
f Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
r-- 11 i986
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Priority for Review of Participate Matter Sources for Compliance
With Revised Stack Height Relations
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Director*^ _
Control Programs Development Divirfon (MD-15)
TO: Director, Air Management Division
Regions I-X
In response to requests from a number of Regional Offices, I would
like to clarify the applicability of the revised stack height regulations
to particulate matter sources and to provide guidance on conducting reviews
of these sources.
As indicated in the preamble to the revised regulations, we intend to
review pollutants other than S02--specif1cally TSP--to determine the appro-
priateness of a de minimis exemption froa prohibitions against the use of
dispersion techniques'!! Qn"tn a decision is made to adopt such an exemption,
however, the prohibitions remain applicable to a-11 stationary sources of
TSP. Recognizing that time and resources will not allow the review of all
potentially affected sources within the period prescribed by the Clean Air
Act, I am requesting that you give highest priority to the review of affected
S02 sources. Following this, larger TSP sources should be reviewed, such
as primary smelters, steel mills, etc., where prohibited dispersion techniques
could readily be employed. This is a clarification of my August 7, 1985,
memorandum wherein we requested a review of the above sources as a "first
cut." The TSP sources with stacks less than the 65 meter de minimis height
should be reviewed only after reviews of all affected SO? sources and larger
TSP sources have been completed. It 1s our expectation that a decision will
be made regarding a de minimis size exemption before it becomes necessary to
review this last category of sources.
If you or your staff have any questions about this guidance, please
call Eric Ginsburg at (FTS) 629-5540 or Sharon Reinders at (FTS) 629-5526.
cc: R. Bauman (MD-15)
R. Campbell (MD-10)
C. Carter (LE-132A)
T. Helms (MD-15)
-------
-2-
regulation because credit for prohibited dispersion techniques is reflected
in the monitored value. If a source has never been analyzed for dispersion,
then it is' not necessary to conduct a dispersion analysis now.
It is a State responsibility to demonstrate (1) that the SIP limit
does not consider the results of dispersion analyses, (2) that the source
has never been evaluated for dispersion credit, or (3) that existing or new
analyses are consistent with guidance. Regions are encouraged to provide
assistance to States in this endeavor if the impacted agency so desires.
It is always appropriate for an individual State or Region to request or
initiate a modeling analysis where one does not exist if there is reason
to believe that a source's emission limitation is inconsistent with the
stack height regulations. However, EPA 1s not calling for an across the
board modeling analysis from every source.
Please pass this information along to your States. If you have any
ions on implementing this guidance, please call Sharon Reinders at
:29-5526 or Eric Ginsburg at FTS 629-5540.
questions on ,.
FTS 529-5526 or
cc: Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
Chief, Air Branch, Region I-X
Regional Stack Height Contact, Regions I-X
R. Brenner
R. Campbell
C. Carter
C. Elkins
G. Emison
T. Helms
D. Rhoads
B. J. Steigerwald
J. Tikvart
P. Wyckoff
-------
5.7
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
r- :i /986
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Clarification of Existing Guidance on Dispersion
Modeling Requirements for PUpfs With "Tall Stacks
and Other Prohibited Dispersion Techofques
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Director^
Control Programs Development DV^Hion (MD-15)
TO: Director, Air Division, Regions I-X
The purpose of this nemo is to clarify EPA's guidance on the dispersion
analysis requirements that are necessary to implement the revised stack
"eight regulations (see EPA's Stack Height Workshop Manual dated October
1335} and, second, to respond to questions on whether dispersion modeling
is required in the context of checking for prohibited dispersion credit
if a source's emission limitation was not developed by means of a case*
specific dispersion analysis.
In cases where stack height credit and/or dispersion credit changes
and a dispersion analysis has been performed in any context, that
analysis must to be reviewed to determine If the model inputs reflect
credit for stack height(s) above good engineering practice (GEP) or any
other prohibited dispersion tecnnique(s).(Review of the model inputs
applies to both the specific source(s) for which the analysis is conducted
and nearby point sources as performed for a new or renewed-permit, a new
source review/ prevention of significant deterioration national ambient
air quality standard attainment or increment analysis, a State plan to
propose revision of its federally approved State implementation plan
(SIP) emission limitations, justification of the current SIP limitations,
or any attainment/nonattainment redesignation(s), etc.)
If the analysis reflects credit for prohibited dispersion techniques,
then the source(s) need to be remodeled without the prohibited credit(s)
and revised emission limitation established in the event that the analysis
shows an attainment or increment problem. If a source's emission limit
was established by ambient air quality considerations such as rollback,
modeling is required to demonstrate consistency with the stack height
-------
2. Docementation Needed by EPA Headquarter's Reviewers Before Concurrence:
a. The TSD as described in Ic above.
b. The Region's assurance that they are confident the documentation
is adequate and a list of sources with citation of documentation
included in the Federal Register notice or docket.
c. We do not need to see all the State's referenced material (maps,
FPC forms, etc.) just a summary as an indication that the
documentation exists.
As additional guidance, I have attached a memorandum which includes
a detailed 11st of documentation requirements and a detailed review of the
Tennessee SIP revision (Attachment 1). Much of the Tennessee memorandum
is based on Appendix G to the Stack Height Workshop Manual (Attachment 2)
and an October 10, 1985, memorandum from Tom Helms to the Regional Air
Branch Chiefs (Attachment 3). We encourage you to use the Appendix G
Form as a minimum in preparing the TSO. Please call me (629-5526) or
Ted Creekmore(629-5699) if you wish to to discuss any specific issues.
Thanks.
Attachments
cc: Charles Carter
Pat Embry
Sharon Reinders
Richard Roos-Co1lins
Ted Creekmore
Dave Stonefield
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards * 5.8
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
0 3 SE?
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Technical Support for Stack Height Negative Declarations
FROM: Tom Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch
TO: Chief, Air Branch
Regions NX
Several negative declarations for the stack height requirements
are currently under review. Many of these actions are being delayed
because we are concerned that the documentation each submittal
should contain to support the grandfathering, good engineering practice
calculation, and review of sources with emissions over 5000 tons/year,
etc., is inadequate. Because of the many actions Involved and the
potential for major effort to upgrade the documentations, I believe that
detailed minimum requirements for documentation should be set forth.
After discussing the technical support issue with my staff and the Office
of General counsel, I suggest the following minimum requirements for
determining adequate documentation for, and processing of, these proposals.
1. Technical Support Requirements for Negative Declarations:
a. States should compile documentation and submit It to the Region
or make it available at State offices,
b. The Federal Register notice should cite where documentation is
Regis
liable
readily available to the public (docket or State),
c. Federal Register packages and technical support documents (TSD)
must contain a basis for each conclusion regarding each stack
covered by the regulations. The notice or TSD should include
the following:
0 A statement describing when the stack was built and how we
know it was built, and what formula and models were used and why.
0 A list of sources evaluated for the negative declaration with the
citation of documentation listed by source (FPC-67 form, map,
design specification, etc.).
d. Regions should have discussed the contents of the documentation
with the States and should be satisfied that it meets minimum
EPA requirements.
NOTE: Attachments 1-3 are not included in
the SIP Guidance Manual.
-------
3. It is not necessary that a Region give assurances that
they ara confident the documentation is adequate; however,
regional management should be satisfied that the State
submission meets the requirements of the stack height
regulation.
We also agreed during the conference call that the Delaware negative
declaration (#3356) (See Attachment 1) includes a good tabular form to
present the good engineering practice (GEP) review in a Federal Register
notice or the accompanying technical support document (TSTJJtAttachments
2 and 3 present expanded tables for stacks over 65 meters and for sources
over 5000 tons per year. The notice does not have to include tables in
these formats, but the information required In them should be discernable
from the notice and/or TSD. For example, the Delaware table in Attachment 1
is a shortened version of Attachment 2, since no stacks exceeded GEP.
I hope this memorandum clarifies my past correspondence and gives
you a better understanding of the documentation necessary for processing
stack height negative declarations. If you have any questions, please
call Ted Creekmore (629-5699) or me (629-5526). Thank you for your
patience during the processing of these complex SIP revisions.
Attachments
cc: Charles Carter
Pat Embrey
Sharon Reinders
Richard Rocs-Collins
Ted Creekmore
Dave Stonefield
-Eric Ginsberg
John Silvasi
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 5 g
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
9 OCT J987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Processing of Stack Height Negative Declarations
FROM: G. T. Helms, Chief J$ ^ /Jt-^cO^
Control Programs Operations Branch
TO: Chief, Air Branch
Regions I-X
The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify and revise some points
in my September 3, 1987, memorandum entitled "Technical Support for Stack
Height Negative Declarations." That memorandum included a list of minimum
requirements for determining adequate documentation with three additional
guidance documents attached. One of the attachments was the August 28,
1987, memorandum from Charles Carter of the Office of General Counsel (OGC)
and me to Bruce Miller of Region IV, entitled "Documentary Support for
Deficiencies in Stack Height Review Packages." Because several actions
are being delayed by inadequate documentation, we sent copies of the
August 28 memorandum to all ten Regions as examples to alert them to
these problems.
The Tennessee State implementation plan (SIP) was used as an example
because we believed it had deficiencies that were common to other negative
declaration packages. The use of the Tennessee evaluation as an example
was not intended to single out Region IV as having more problems with
documentation than other Regions, although the tone of the memorandum
might have given- this impression. I am sorry for this misrepresentation.
In a recent conference call with OGC and Region IV, Region IV
suggested three clarifications and revisions to the guidance that we
included in the August 28, 1987, and September 3, 1987, memorandums. We
believe these should be Incorporated. They are as follows:
1. The requirement for a list of sources evaluated for
negative declarations applies only to sources greater
than 65 meters.
2. For grandfathering documentation, the date the
source was built is not essential, but the type and
date of the documentation that the source was built
prior to December 31, 1970, must be listed. However,
whenever the actual construction date Is submitted
by the State, it should be included.
NOTE: Attachments 1 and 2 are not
included in the 'SIP Guidance Manual.
-------
dealing with specific source emission limitations, and redeslgnatlons under
section 107 of the Clean A1r Act. Consequently, until resolution of litigation
and completion of any rulemaking activity to respond to the court decision,
the following policy will be applied.
In general, actions to approve States' rules may proceed provided appropriate
caveat language 1s inserted which notes that the action 1s potentially subject
to review and modification as a result of the recent court decision. Actions
addressing State permitting authority should require States to provide notice
that permits are subject to review and modification 1f sources are later
found to be affected by revisions to stack height regulations. Where States
currently have the authority to issue permits under fully-approved or delegated
NSR and PSD programs, any permits issued prior to EPA's promulgation of
revised stack height regulations should provide notice as described above
that they may be subject to review and modification. Regional Office staff
are requested to contact their State officials and notify them accordingly.
Where EPA has retained authority to issue permits, it should also Insert
appropriate cautionary language in the permit.
The EPA will try to avoid taking source-specific actions that may need
to be retracted later. Such actions may Include certain emission limitations
and good engineering practice demonstrations which reflect dispersion credit
affected by the remand. The EPA may approve these State submittals on a
case-by-case basis, with the explicit caution that they and the sources
affected by them may need to be evaluated for compliance with any later
revisions to the stack height regulations, as a result of the litigation.
The EPA will continue to process, under normal procedures, any source-specific
actions which do not Involve the remanded provisions.
Requests for redesignatlon of areas from nonattainment to attainment
which are affected by any of the remanded provisions of the stack height
regulations will be put on hold until EPA has completed any rulemaklng
necessary to comply with the court's remand. This 1s due to the Issue of
whether EPA has authority to unilaterally change attainment designations.
During this Interim period, the Regional Office staff should review with
their States all regulatory actions involving dispersion credits and identify
those actions or sources affected by the remanded provisions. The Region
should consult with their States on appropriate action for all such packages,
consistent with this policy.
If you have any questions regarding the application of this policy,
please contact Doug Grano at FTS 629-0870 or Janet Metsa at FTS 629-5313.
cc: D. Clay
A. Eckert
J. Emison
D. Grano
0. Metsa
-------
. 5'10
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C 20460
APR 2 2 888
.ANDftADUnON
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Interim Policy on Stack Height Regulatory Actions
FROM: ^ J. Craig Potter /lY£o
" Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation (MlR-443)
TO: Director, A1r Management Division
Regions I, III, IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Region II
Director, A1r, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
Regions .IV, VI
Director, Air and Radiation Division
Region V
Director, Air and Toxics Division
Regions VII, VIII, X
On January 22, 1988, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia issued Its.decision in NRDC v. Thomas. 838 F. 2d 1224 (D.C. Clr.
1988), regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) stack height
regulations published on July 8, 1985 (50 FR 27892). Subsequent petitions
for rehearing were denied. Although the court upheld most provisions of the
rules, three portions were remanded to EPA for review:
1. Grandfathering pre-October 11, 1983 w1thin-formula stack height
increases from demonstration requirements [40 CFR 51.100(kk)(2)];
2..Dispersion credit for sources originally designed and constructed
with merged or multiflue stacks [40 CFR 51.100(hh)(2)(11)(A)]; and
3. Grandfathering of pre-1979 use of the refined H * 1.5L formula
[40 CFR 51.100(11)(2)]. . - -
A number of pending State implementation plan (SIP) and other rulemaking
actions may be affected by this decision in advance of EPA's promulgation of
further revisions of the stack height regulations. This Includes not only
rulemaking packages developed to respond to the 1985 stack height regulations,
but also such actions as Issuance of new source review (NSR) and prevention
of significant deterioration (PSD) permits, permit modifications, SIP revisions
-------
My staff has applied the policy when reviewing packages currently 1n
Headquarters (Attachment C). While proposals to approve (or disapprove)
State rules will remain on the Headquarters clock, the Regional Offices are
requested to review these packages and provide appropriate boilerplate as
soon as possible. Negative declaration packages and final actions on State
rules are being returned to the Regional Office clock as more substantial
revisions and commitments may be required. The redesignatlon packages
currently in Headquarters which contain sources affected by the remand are
being placed on formal hold.
If you have any questions regarding the April 22 policy, today's
guidance, or disposition of the SIP's, please contact Janet Metsa
(FTS 629-5313) or Doug Grano (FTS 629-0870). C
Attachments
cc: R. Bauman
R. Campbell
C. Carter
6. McCutchen
J. Pearson
J. Sableskl
bcc: B. Armstrong
P. Embrey
G. Foote
E. Ginsburg
0. Grano
N. Mayer
\JX Metsa
S. Reinders
R. Roos-Col 1.1ns
S0g SIP Contacts
Stack Height Contacts, Regions I-X
-------
5.11
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
MAY 1 ? J9£3
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Appl 1 jw^fcofc'the Interim Policy for Stack Height
FROM: JifTnVCtTcagn-i; Director
Xir Quality'Management Division (MD-15)
TO: ,'/ Chief, Air Branch
Regions I-X
On April 22, 1988, J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation, Issued a memorandum entitled, "Interim Policy on Stack
Height Regulatory Actions" (Attachment A). The memorandum requests that
the Regional Offices review with their States all regulatory actions
Involving dispersion credits and determine the appropriate action consistent
with the policy. The purpose of today's memorandum is to provide guidance
in carrying out the interim policy.
In general, actions taken at this time to approve or disapprove
statewide stack height rules which are affected by the remand must Include
the qualification that they are subject to review and modification on
completion of EPA's response to the court decision. Permits Issued under
the prevention of significant deterioration or new source review programs
should also contain caveat language for sources which may be affected by
the remand. Attachment B contains example boilerplate language to be
Inserted into permits and regulatory packages. Note that States Rust
commit to Including the caveat before EPA will take final action on packages
affecting permitting authority. Those actions not Involving the remanded
provisions may proceed as usual.
In contrast to our policy regarding the processing of stack height
rules, our policy for source-specific State Implementation plan (SIP)
revisions is to avoid proceeding with actions which may need to be
retracted later. You are advised to consult with my staff and the Office
of General Counsel staff prior to submitting such rulemaklng packages.
Affected sources must be deleted from negative declaration packages prepared
under the 1985 stack height regulations before EPA can proceed with action
on them.
See Appendix B.3-10
-------
Additions for Stack Height Emission Limitation Changes or
Good Engineering Practice Demonstration
The OAQPS and 06C will provide language on a case-by-case basis when
the EPA is acting on a source-specific package which 1s affected by the
remand.
Language for Proposed NSR and PSD SIP Approvals
"Under this program, [State] will be Issuing permits and establishing
emission limitations that may be affected by the court-ordered reconsideration
of the stack height regulations promulgated on July 8, 1985 (50 FR 27892).
For this reason, EPA requires that the State,include the following caveat
in all potentially affected permit approvals until the EPA completes Its
reconsideration of remanded portions of the regulations and promulgates any
necessary revisions:
'In approving this permit, [name of agency] has determined that the
application complies with the applicable provisions of the stack
height regulations as revised by EPA on July 8, 1985 (50 FR 27892).
Portions of the regulations have been remanded by a panel of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1n NRDC v. Thomas. 838 F.2d
1224 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Consequently, this permit may be subject to
modification if and when EPA revises the regulation in response to
the court decision. This may result in revised emission limitations
or may affect other actions taken by the source owners or operators.'
[State] must make an enforceable commitment to Include this caveat in
all affected permits before the EPA can take final action approving the
[NSR or PSD] progpam."
Language for Final NSR and PSD SIP Approvals
"Under this program, [State] will be Issuing permits and establishing
emission limitations that may be affected by the court-ordered reconsideration
of the stack height regulations promulgated on July 8, 1985 (50 FR 27892).
For this reason, the EPA has required that the State Include the following
caveat in all potentially affected permit approvals until the EPA completes
its reconsideration of remanded portions of the regulations and promulgates
any necessary revisions:
'In approving this permit, [name of agency] has determined that the
application compiles with the applicable provisions of the stack .
height regulations as revised by the EPA on July 8, 1985 (50 FR
27892). Portions of the regulations have been remanded by a panel of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in NRDC v. Thomas, 838
F.2d 1224 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Consequently, this permit may be subject
to modification if and when the EPA revises the regulations 1n
-------
Attachment B
The following boilerplate, or variations tailored to suit particular
situations, should be used in rulemaking actions affected by the stack
height remand.
General Addition
"The EPA's stack height regulations were challenged 1n NRDC v.
Thomas. 838 F.2d 1224 (D.C. Ci r. 1988). On January 22, 1988, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Issued Its decision affirming the
regulations in large part, but remanding three provisions to the EPA for
reconsideration. These are:
1. Grandfathering pre-October 11, 1983 w1thin-formula stack height
increases from demonstration requirements [40 CFR 51.100(kk)(2)];
2. Dispersion credit for sources originally designed and constructed
with merged or multiflue stacks [40 CFR 5l.lOO(hh)(2)(11)(A)]; and
3. Grandfatherlng pre-1979 use of the refined H * 1.5L formula
[40 CFR 51.100(10(2)]."
Addition for Stack Heights Rules Packages
"Although the EPA generally approves [State's] stack height rules on
the grounds that they satisfy 40 CFR Part 51, the EPA also provides notice
that this action may be subject to modification when EPA completes
rulemaking to respond to the decision in NRDC v. Thomas. 838 F.2d 1224
(D.C. C1r. 1988). If the EPA's response to the NRDCTemand modifies the
July 8, 1985 regulations, the EPA will notify the~5Fate of [ ] that its
rules must be changed to comport with the EPA's modified requirements.
This may result 1n revised emission limitations or may affect other
actions taken by [State] and source owners or operators.*
Additions for Stack Negative Declaration Packages
"The EPA 1s not acting on sources (Identified In table form or by
asterisk) because they currently receive credit under one of the provisions
remanded to the EPA In NRDC v. Thomas. 838 F.2d 1224 (D.C. C1r 1988).
The [State] and EPA will review these sources for compliance with any
revised requirements when the EPA completes rulemaking to respond to the
NRDC remand."
-------
Attachment C
State
AZ/CA/NV
A2/CA/NV
SC
MS
NJ/NY/VI
WA
MO
AR
OH
TX
LA
DE
OH
SD
CO
AQMD 1
3059
3210
3243
3330
3418
3480
3543
3548
3570
3572
3592
3600
3334
3618
3623
Description
Promulgation of Stack Height Regs.
App. and Olsapp. of Stack Height Req.
Negative Declaration
Mississippi's Negative Declaration
Stack Height Revisions
Stack Height Rules
Negative Declaration
Stack Height Rules
Stack Height Regulations
Stack Height Regulations
Revisions to Stack Height Rules
Stack Height Regulations
Redes 1 gnat 1 on of Gall a County to
Attainment
Administrative Rules
Negative Declaration
Disposition
HQ
RO
RO
RO
RO
HQ
RO
HQ
HQ
HQ
HQ
HQ
Hold
RO
RO
-------
cc: Betty Abramson
Walter Bishop
Ted Creekmore
Tom Diggs
Pat En»brey
Greg Foote
Denise G^rth
Dean Gil lam
Laurie Krai
Carol teValley
Sandy McLean
Bob Miller
Rich Ossias
Carolyn Payne
Sharon Reinders
Julie Rose
John S11vas1
Mare1 a Spink
Rebecca Taggart
Paul Truchan
-------
response to the court decision. This may result In revised emission
limitations or may affect other actions taken by the source owners
or operators.1
[State] has made an enforceable commitment to Include this caveat In
all affected permits by letter dated [ ]. This commitment 1s being
incorporated into the Code of Federal ff?gulat1ons for the State of [J as
part of EPA's approval action."
See Attachment 0 for sample CFR amendment.
The Regional Offices are requested to contact those States that
currently have permitting authority and request that they Include similar
language 1n any permits issued until EPA has .completed Its reconsideration
of the stack height regulations and has promulgated any necessary revisions,
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
3 O^ce of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711-
1 2 NOV ;^7
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Incorporation by Reference
FROM: G. T. Helms, Chief-/^
Control Programs Operations Branch
TO: Chief, A1r Branch
Regions I-X
The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) has recently advised us
that commitment letters are not acceptable for Incorporation by reference
because they are not regulatory 1n nature.
Instead, the OFR has Informed us that the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) can be amended by adding a new section or amending an existing section
to add the commitment; the "Identification of Plan" paragraph should not
be amended.
Attached 1s an example of a CFR page that the OFR has reviewed and
approved and the commitment letter from the State of Minnesota that was
the basis for this sample regulatory text. Please note that the core
paragraph from the letter should be quoted 1n the new section that 1s
being added to the CFR.
If you have any questions on Incorporation by reference procedures,
call Denise Gerth at 629-5550. Thank you for your cooperation.
Attachments
-------
40 CFR Part 52, Subpart Y, 1s amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows
AUTHORITY: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7642
2. A new Section 52.1237 is added as follows:
§52.1237 Stack Height Regulations
The State of Minnesota has committed to Conform to the Stack
Height Regulations as set forth 1n 40 CFR Part 51. In a letter to
Mr. David Kee, EPA, dated January 14, 1987, Mr. Thomas J. KalUowskl
of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency stated:
Minnesota does not currently have a stack height rule,
nor do we intend to adopt such a rule. Instead, we will
conform with the Stack Height Regulation as set forth
in the July 8, 1985 Federal Register 1n Issuing permits
for new or modified sources. In cases where that rule
is not clear, we will contact U.S. EPA Region V and
conform to the current federal Interpretation of the
Item in question.
-------
6 Section 107
Redesignations
-------
6.1
i
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
SEP 03 ,93,
Mr. Ralph C. Pickard
Technical Secretary
Indiana Air Pollution Control Board
P. 0. Box 1964
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206
Dear Mr. Pickard:
This is in response to your letter of July 9, 1981 to
Mr. Valdas V. Adamkus regarding the use of ambient monitoring data
in making Section 107 area designations. I am also providing comments
on the use of modeling in setting of source emission limits.
I am in agreement with your position that, when available, adequate
ambient monitoring data should be given preference over modeling results
in designating areas as attainment/nonattainment under Section 107 of
the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA has always held this position and has
promoted this approach in the guidance we have issued on the subject. A
model letter prepared by my staff in October 1977 that was sent by the
Regional Administrators of EPA to the various State governors or environ-
mental agency heads emphasized the use of monitoring data for designation
purposes.
A follow-up memorandum issued on January 12, 1978 from my staff to
the EPA Regional Offices responded to various questions regarding Part D
plan requirements. It contained the following response to the question
of whether preference should be given to either monitored ambient data
or dispersion modeling results in designating areas under Section 107.
"If there is a conflict between adequate monitoring data and modeling
results, monitored values should be used. However, if the monitoring
data are inadequate, the modeling results should be used."
It is the desire of the Agency to base Section 107 designations on
the best possible data that are reasonably obtainable. In most cases,
especially for isolated point sources, it is difficult for a few ambient
monitors to adequately reflect the true air quality conditions surrounding
the source, especially the areas of maximum impact or hotspots. In many
such situations, dispersion modeling would be an alternative to the
total reliance upon a limited monitoring network.
-------
With regard to the referenced Indiana designations, there is not,
in an administrative sense, a significant difference between unclassified
and attainment. However, as I understand it, there exists in these
counties a more significant issue; that is, setting of new emission
limitations for power plants.
The use of diffusion modeling is now the accepted way of establishing
emission limits for individual sources such as power plants. Most air
pollution control agencies have accepted modeling as the only practical
alternative of establishing emission limits for large sources such as
power plants. The courts have also recognized the validity of using
modeling in setting emission limits even where monitoring data are also
available. Recent data indicate that a number of models are proving
to be reasonable predictors of ambient impact. One recent study has
shown that the EPA reference model for rural power plants, CRSTER,
appears to have no inherent bias; it neither over- nor underestimates
air quality levels routinely.
It is EPA's belief that, in most cases, the use of models is the
most effective and efficient way to properly represent the impact of
varying meteorology. To properly evaluate a prospective emission limit
solely by the use of monitoring, a very extensive and costly air quality
and meteorological monitoring network would have to be established.
This network may have to be operated for a long time to ensure that the
various meteorological conditions were actually experienced during each
of the various operating regimes. I do not believe the situation
surrounding the Indiana power plant emission limit changes argues for
an exception to the use for modeling contained in current EPA guidance.
I trust this response adequately explains EPA's considerations in
both the Section 107 area designation process and the requirement for
modeling when setting new emission limits.
Si ncerel
Walter C.
Director
Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Harry D. Williams
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 6'2
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
SEP 1 6 JS82
AIM. NOISE. AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Milwaukee SO, Nonattalnment Designation
FROM: Sheldon Meyers, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (ANR-443)
TO: David Kee, Director
Air Management Division, Region V
Thank you for your August 9, 1982, memorandum to Assistant
Administrator Bennett regarding Wisconsin's request for a redesig-
nation to attainment of the sulfur dioxide (SCL) standard for the
Milwaukee area.
You asked four (4) separate questions 1n your memo. Those questions
are repeated 1n full below along with my responses.
Q) In nonattainment areas with no emission limits, what 1s required to
support a redesignation to attainment? (It does not appear to be
sufficient to accept eight quarters of data showing no violations, even
if the monitors were located in the expected high concentration areas.)
A) The fact that no Federally enforceable emission limits are 1n place
does not affect the criteria applied 1n determining the area's attain-
ment status. In general, Section 107 designation changes should utilize
all available data, including both monitoring ?.-sd modeling data.
Whatever 1s available should certainly be used. Monitoring data should
be used only within the limits of being representative for a specific
geographic area. The object of any designation should be to make the
best decision based upon the maximum amount of available information.
Q) What is the role of modeling in redes ignations?
A) The need for dispersion modeling for Section 107 designation
purposes is especially Important when dealing with areas dominated by
point sources of 50^. In thtse cases, a small number of ambient air
107
7-1
-------
2 -
quality monitors will not be able to tell the whole story. Modeling Is
essential to evaluate comprehensively and thoroughly the sources'
impacts as well as identify the areas of highest concentrations. It
must be included in a redesignation analysis where feasible.
For all other areas, if modeling already exists, it should be
considered. However, dispersion modeling is generally not required to
be performed strictly for the purposes of Section 107 redesignation
requests for such areas.
Q) Is a redesignation to attainment acceptable if there are eight
quarters of monitored data showing no violations but there is modeling
that predicts violations? (Note, this is not to say that the modeling
contradicts the monitoring since the modeling shows attainment at the
monitor locations, but nonattainment at other, nonmonitored locations.)
A) There 1s no answer that fits all possible situations. However,
where valid dispersion modeling has been performed, such modeling
results should set the designation status. When the appropriateness
of the model 1s of some concern, Regional Offices must exercise judgment
after considering such things as how many monitors are 1n the network;
is complex terrain (terrain greater than stack height) involved; what
model is being used; is 1t a guideline model, if not, has it been
demonstrated to be appropriate; does the model tend to over- or under-
predict for the situation at hand?
Again, 1t should be emphasized that the objective 1s to make the
best determination possible using all relevant information as to what
the attainment status of an area really Is.
Q) Mr. Barber's letter says that adequate monitored data are necessary.
How is "adequate" defined? (We suggest that a determination of adequate
monitoring data Involve reference modeling. That 1s, monitors must be
located in the areas of expected high concentrations, based on a
reference modeling analysis.)
A) Your suggestion 1s what Ideally should be required. However,
monitors are seldom sited at the locations shown by later dispersion
modeling to be those of maximum Impact.
Again, the responsibility lies with the Regional Office to make the
necessary judgments as to whether or not the existing monitor locations
are sufficient both 1n number and sp&tial arrangement to allow them to
be representative of the air quality for the area. Some judgment as to
whether the potential problem 1s of a localized or more general areawide
nature should be made. This judgment will Influence whether modeling or
monitoring should be given preference in the particular situation in
question. How much information is needed before such a judgment can be
made is subject to the complexity of the situation.
107
7-2
-------
I would like to add the following comments regarding the particular
situation 1n Milwaukee, Wisconsin, as described In the background portion
of your August 9, 1982, memo.
In a situation where an area was originally designated nonattalnment
based on measured violations but subsequently has air quality measure-
ments less than the ambient air quality standard, common sense would
recognize the need for a study of the situation, Including modeling. It
could not reasonably be expected that violations would disappear by
themselves. If a source has voluntarily made some emission reduction
changes that eliminate violations, these changes need to be embodied
Into regulation and then be made part of the approved State Implementa-
tion Plan (SIP) control strategy. The approval of such emission limits
as part of a SIP must be based on an adequate demonstration that ambient
air quality standards will be protected. Such a demonstration must
Include a dispersion modeling analysis under worst case conditions.
If you have any other questions, please let me know.
107
7-3
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 6'3
WASHINGTON. DC 20460
APR 2 1 1983
orricc or
AIM. NOISC. AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Section 107 Designation Policy Summary
FROM: Sheldon Meyers v
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (ANR-443)
TO: Director* Air and Waste Management Division
Regions II-IV, VI-VMI, X
Director, Air Management Division
Regions I, V. IX
On February 3, 1983, the Agency published a Federal Register notice
regarding the status of all areas designated nonattainment under Part 0
of the Clean Air Act. This notice indicated that for a significant
number of nonattainment areas States are anticipated to be able to
demonstrate attainment of the primary national ambient air quality standards.
Accordingly, for those areas, States have been encouraged to update their
Section 10? designations. In addition, a number of nonattainment areas were
identified in the February 3, 1983, notice as "unlikely to attain standards.*
The Federal Register also stated that the basic existing policy will generally
be continued for redes1 gnat1on. This memorandum summarizes and clarifies
existing policy for reviewing designations and provides new guidance on
processing these actions.
Policy For Reviewing 107 Designations
1. Data: In general, all available information relative to the attainment
status of the area should be reviewed. These data should Include the most
recent eight (8) consecutive quarters of quality assured, representative
ambient air quality data plus evidence of an implemented control strategy
that EPA had fully approved. Supplemental Information, including air
quality modeling emissions data, etc., should be used to determine if
the monitoring data accurately characterize the worst case air quality
in the area. Also, the following items can be considered In special
situations.
An attainment designation can be made using only the most recent four (4)
Quarters of ambient data If an acceptable state of the art modeling analysis.
(such as city-specific EKNA for ozone) is provided showing that the basic
SIP strategy is sound and that actual, enforceable emission reductions are
responsible for the recent air quality improvement.
-------
FOP nonattainment designations which were originally based solely on
modeling, redeslgnatlon to attainment Is possible even If less than four (4)
quarters of ambient data are available provided that a reference modeling
analysis considering the sources' legal emission limits shows attainment of
the standards. Information must also be presented showing that the sources
causing the problem are 1n compliance with the enforceable SIP measures.
Although the current ozone standard implies the need for three years
of data for attainment designations, two years of data with no exceedances
is an acceptable surrogate. As discussed previously, this should be
accompanied by evidence of an implemented control strategy that EPA had
fully approved.
2. Projected Future Violations; Projections of future violations can
provide the basis for continuing nonattainment designations. This
concept is particularly Important because of the current economic downturn.
Information submitted to support attainment redeslgnations must adequately
and accurately reflect anticipated operating rates. Areas should remain
nonattainment where such projections reveal air quality violations. .
3.
suffT _ r _.
monitors usually 1s not representative of the air quality for the entire
area. Dispersion modeling employing the legally enforceable 50-2 SIP limits
will generally be necessary to evaluate comprehensively the sources' Impacts
as well as to Identify the areas of highest concentrations. If either the
modeling or monitoring Indicates that S02 air quality standards are being
violated, the area should remain nonattainment.
4* Boundaries; Current policies on appropriate boundaries for designation
of nonattainment areas by EPA remain in effect, i.e., generally political
boundaries such as city or county for TSP and SOj, county as a minimum for
rural ozone, entire urbanized area and fringe areas of development for
urban ozone, and urban core area for CO. When States redeslgnate, EPA
will continue to accept reasonable boundaries which are supported by
appropriate data, such as specific new monitoring and/or modeling data or
evidence of Improvement due to control strategy Implementation. Nonattain-
ment areas for ozone should Include the significant VOC sources.
5. Dispersion Techniques: Areas which are projected to attain the TSP
or SOg standards because of the use of unauthorized dispersion techniques
should continue to be designated as nonattainment.
Modeling: In most SOj cases, monitoring data alone will not be
ficient for areas dominated by point sources. A small number of ambient
-------
Policy for Processing 107 Redes 1 gnatIons
1. SIP Review Actions: Section 107 designations have generally been
classified as minor actions, with only a few of the more significant
ones being processed as moderate. In the future, redes 1 gnatIons of Tier II
nonattalnment areas should be classified as major actions so that they
can receive a comprehensive review to help ensure regional consistency.
Redesignatlon of Tier I nonattalnment areas should continue to be handled
as minor or moderate actions, as appropriate.
2. "Unclassifiable* Areas: Since EPA and the States have had nearly five
years to resolve discrepancies for nonattalnment designations, 1t 1s now
inappropriate to redesignate any area from nonattalnment to unclassi-
fiable. There has been ample time since the first designations were made
in 1978 to thoroughly study'each nonattainment area. Sufficient data
should now exist to either make a redes1 gnat1 on to attainment or to keep
the nonattalnment designation.
If you have any questions, please contact Tom Helms at (FTS) 629-5526.
cc: Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
Chief, A1r Programs Branch, Regions I-X
-------
6.4
6.4 DATE: May 27, 1983
SUBJECT: Summary of NAAQS Interpretation
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division
TO: Gary O'Neal, Director
Environmental Services, Division, Region X
DISCUSSION: Guidance on air quality data analysis questions related
to interpretation of the NAAQS
CR: 1.2, 13.2 (hard copy)
-------
t £& I UNITE° Ocelli 1NV'R0.NMENTAL.PROTECTION AGENCY 6 5
V^Sk/ _0ffiet °f Air Quality Planning and Standarda '
\ ^»/ R«g«arch TrungU Park. Nonh Carolina 27711
2 3 DEC 1983
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Section 107 Questions and Answers
From: G. T. Helms, Chief.
Control Programs Operations Branch (MO-15)
To: A1r Branch Chief
Regions I-X
The April 21, 1983 memo from Sheldon Meyers on Section 107 Redeslgnatlon
Policy has generally resulted in more consistent redeslgnatlon packages.
However, a number of questions have developed since then and it seems
worthwhile now to share with everyone the responses that have been developed.
These questions have arisen in a number of areas.
1. Is air quality data alone sufficient for a redeslgnatlon fro*
nonattalnment to attainment?
Answer: No. Valid air quality data showing no NAAQS violations must be
Supplciiiciiteu With a ucmunStrat 10n that the approved Sir control Strategy
which provides for attainment has been implemented. The April 21 memo
describes the requirements in detail. In most cases the submittal will
include the most, recent eight quarters of data showing attainment and
evidence of an Implemented control strategy that EPA had approved. This
demonstration need not necessarily be quantitative. Rather, it need
simply confirm that the control strategy approved In the SIP to address
the problem has indeed been Implemented. Where only the most recent four
quarters of data showing attainment are available, a state-of-the-art
modeling analysis must be provided which quantifies that the SIP strategy
is sound and that actual enforceable emission reductions are responsible
for the air quality Improvements.
2. Are the same requirements discussed 1n answer number 1 applicable to
secondary TSP redes1 gnatIons?
Answer: Yes. As for primary standards, some reason has to be shown for
the improvement 1n air quality. This can consist of an Implemented
control strategy, some other Federally enforceable statewide regulations,
or a well-documented explanation that the circumstances which resulted in
the initial designation have changed or were Incorrect. The Integrity of
the designation process should be preserved, for both primary and secondary
pollutants. Further, 1t should be noted that States are not penalized by
remaining secondary nonattalnment. Therefore, a control strategy or
other demonstration needs to be included with these redeslgnatlon requests.
-------
3. Can a control strategy that has not been approved by EPA as part of
the SIP be used to support a redes 1 gnat1on?
Answer: In general, no. However, an exception will be made If the
physical circumstances and long-term economic factors are such that the
Implemented measures have the same weight as a SIP: for example, the
permanent closing of the major emitting sources, road paving to eliminate
fugitive emissions, or other irreversible measures. Submittals including
such changes, even though not formally approved as SIP revisions, have
the practical impact of an EPA approved strategy and can be the basis for
approval of the redes 1 gnat ion.
4. Are the same criteria required to reduce the size of a nonattainment
area as are required for redesignating the entire area?
Answer: In general, yes. -However, if a sound case can be made that the
State "overdesignated" initially -- that 1s, designated a larger area
than EPA required -- then the area can be reduced. The remaining nonattain-
ment area must be compatible with EPA boundary requirements (see April 21,
1983 memo) and it must be convincingly demonstrated that the area going
from nonattainment to attainment should not have been designated non-
attainment. Other than this specific kind of exception, however, boundary
changes require the same analysis as any nonattainment to attainment
redes 1 gnat ion. When a portion of a nonattainment-area 1s redes1 gnated
attainment, it would help the public if a statement was Included in the
notice which explains that a nonattainment portion remains.
5. What criteria are used in redesignating from unclasslfiable to attainment
for TSP and $03? ,:
Answer: Redes 1 gnations from unclasslfiable to attainment generally require
the most recent eight consecutive quarters of air quality data demonstrating
attainment. No control strategy demonstration 1s required since there
would have been no SIP requirement for an unclasslfiable area. The S02
redes 1 gnat ions will generally continue to require dispersion modeling.
6. What 1s required for reelasslflcatIons from unclasslfiable to attainment
for ozone, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides?
Answer: Redes1gnatIons from unclasslfiable to attainment do not Involve
any regulatory change. If a State wishes to make such a redes1 gnat1 on, 1t
should be sent forward as a brief explanatory Federal Register notice
documenting the Information. However, the formal table containing the
designation status 1s not changed since the attainment and unclassiflable
designations are combined for these pollutants.
7. Is there, or has there ever been, a 50 km policy for ozone nonattainment
areas?
Answer: No, this was only discussed as an option some years ago but it
never achieved the status of Agency policy.
-------
cc: B. Bauman
D. White
R. Campbell
S. Meiburg
J. Ulfelder
"9-5665)
-------
6.6
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
rrr>
OFFICE OF
GENERAL. COUNSEL
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Redesignations That Would Chang
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development
Division
Peter H. Wyckoff, Assistant^General.Counserl
Air and Radiation Division /c^nji tUucf^^l
TO: Air Division Directors, Regions I-X
Our staffs recently discovered, in reviewing a Federal
Register package that embodied a redesignation from nonattain-
ment to attainment, that the redesignation would have relaxed .
the relevant SIP, because the SIP specified one set of control
requirements for "nonattainment" areas and a less stringent set
for "attainment" areas. The package, however, treated the
redesignation merely as a redesignation and not also as a SIP
relaxation.
We therefore ask you in the future (1) to examine each
redesignation to determine whether it would have a substantive
effect on the stringency of the relevant SIP and (2) to state
your conclusion in the Action Memorandum for the Federal Register
package. If the redesignation would have such an effect, you
should treat it as a SIP revision and draft the package in accord-
ance with the relevant Agency guidance, including guidance on SIP
relaxations and attainment demonstrations. Please forewarn your
state counterparts that EPA will be treating redesignations that
would affect SIP stringency as SIP revisions. Thank you.
cc: Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Regional Counsel, Regions I-X
Bill Seal
Gerry Emison
Tom Helms
Betsy Home
Joan La Rock
Bill Pedersen
John Topping
John Ulfelder
-------
.
*. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 6 7
i Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Trianglt Park. Norih Carolina 27711
*.**"
SEP 3 0 1385
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: * total Suspended PartlcujXt (TSP) Rtdeslgnatloni
FROM: Gerald A. Era? son/ jE»ctor
Office cf Mr fciflty Planning and Standards (MO-10)
*/*
TO: Dlrectop. A1p Division
Regions I - X
In response to Inquiries fpom various Regional Offices, this memorandum
sets forth a basis upon which EPA may pedeslgnate areas from nonattalnment
to attainment for TSP.
The EPA will approve TSP redeslgnatlons that aeet the following criteria:
1. Eight consecutive quarters of the most recent, quality-assured
ambient air quality dita reveal no violations of the TSP NAAQS. The monitors
Indicating attainment must be placed at the points of expected maximum
TSP impact and the monitoring network must be extensive enough to produce
fully representative data. If monitoring data are not representative of
the Impact of a major source on air quality. dUfltHlon aodehnj must be
uTe?to determine rn» Tun «lap«gt of th« «oui>g«;
2. An EPA-approved control strategy has been Impleatnted. The
improvement 1n monitored readings for- TSP (since the base year used for
the r.onattalnment designation) must.be attributable to enforceable emission
reductions approved and Implemented since that year;
3. Emission reductions and the Improvement 1n air Duality are not
merely' the result of economic downturn or temporary. It must be shown
that 1t 1s highly unlikely that emission rates will Increase significantly
at units operating below their allowable emission rates (e.g. because
economic, technological or regulatory factors would prevent such Increases)
It must also be shown that 1t 1s highly unlikely that production levels
will Increase significantly; and
4. Dispersion techniques are not responsible for the Improvement in
air quality. Sources in the nonattalnment area should be reviewed in
light of the revised Section 123 regulations published on July 8, 1985
(50 Fed. Reg. 27892).
-------
Other basts for TSP redesi gnat Ions are descrloed 1n the April 21
1983, memoranda) froa Sheldon Meyers and the December 23, 1983, aemorandun
from 6. T. Helms. Thus, this memorandum supplements those prior onts.
To the extent 1t may conflict with those memorandtns, however, 1t supersedes
them. In addition, this memorandum applies only to TSP redesignations.
Thus, the prior memorandums continue to govern redesignatIons for other
pollutants.
Attached to this memorandum 1s a set of redesignat1 on criteria to be
used In reviewing State TSP redeslgnatlon requests and preparing the
necessary Federal Register ootlces. If you have any questions about this
guidance, pi ease contact either Ken Woodard or Larry Wilson of OAQPS at
FTS 629-5665 or 629-5540 respectively.
Attachment
3111 Pedersen
Paul Stolpman
Darryl Tyler
Tom Helms
Larry Wilson
John S1lvas1
Ken Woodard
Peter Wyckoff
John mfelder
-------
tate:
REDESIGNAT10N CRITERIA FOR TSP
Location: From:
To:
Note: Designation of unclassifiable 1s not-a11 owed!
Change from nonattalnment to attainment 1s a major action!
Bftsis.for Redesignatlon
1. Eight quarters of monitoring data showing attainment.
a. Quality assured data: Yes No
b. Data is representative of the area:
Number of monitors
Map of locations Yes No
Monitors at points of expected maximum Impact Yes No
c. Year Annual Ave
Year
Annual Ave
Second High 24-Hr Ave
Second high 24-hr Ave"
2. Evidence of an implemented control strategy end evidence that
emissions are not likely to increase.
a. List regulations that have been adopted, approved by EPA, and
Implemented since the area was designated nonattalnment.
b. List sources that have been permanently shut down (operating
permit withdrawn or removed from emission Inventory).
source
"reduction in allowable
emissions (t/yr)
'reduction in actual
emissions (t/yr)
c. List emissions and operating data for major sources
source
allowable emission rate 1n 1979 and 1984
actual emission rate in-1979 and 1984
operating rates for past 5 years
current allowable operating capacity (as limited by
technology or operating permit)
maximum actual emission rate likely to occur
any dispersion techniques used: Yes (explain) No_
-------
6.8
6.8 DATE: December 10, 1986
SUBJECT: Rulemaking on State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for S0
FROM: G.T. Helms, Chief
Control Program Operation Branch
TO: Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
DISCUSSION: Guidance of preparation of communications strategy for
proposed and final revisions and redesignations
CR: 13.6 (hard copy)
-------
7. PSD/NSR SIPs
-------
7.1
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
3 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
«*«**
MAY 9 7985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Improved New Source Review/Preve/ition of Significant Deterioration
(NSR/PSD) Program Transfer "
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Director _
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
TO: Director, Air Division, Regions I-X
One of EPA's highest air program priorities is the timely transfer
of high quality NSR/PSD programs to the States. While EPA has had consider-
able success in transferring and updating NSR/PSD programs, there are
still some State and local review authorities which have not received one
or both of these programs. Furthermore, several of the transfers have
been incomplete (conditional approvals or partial delegations), have
taken too long, or are outdated due to subsequent court cases (e.g..
Alabama Power).
I recognize that a large part of the problem may be unavoidable for
several reasons. First, transfer is difficult due to the unique level of
detail with which the Clean Air Act (Act) outlines mandatory NSR/PSD
program requirements. Next, many States are reluctant to take, update,
or even retain NSR/PSD programs since these programs are believed to be
resource intensive to implement and continually evolving as a result of
litigation and potential Act changes. Finally, the transferred or updated
program must be one of highest quality so the permits issued under these
programs will be consistent with the explicit requirements of the Act and
will be able to withstand legal challenge. Nevertheless, I believe that
our performance in this area can and should be improved.
This memo is intended to help facilitate additional program transfers
or upgrades by summarizing most of the considerable but fragmented policy
now governing such changes. Outlined below is a compilation of advice
which has proven useful in expediting the development and processing of
high quality NSR/PSD State implementation plans (SIP) revisions. Each
guidance element is described in terms of the specific problems it addresses
and incorporates comments made on an earlier version of this package.
Check Lists/Critical Elements
Review of SIP's has often led to lengthy negotiations among Headquarters,
Regional Offices, and State officials. These discussions usually come
after the Regions have already assured the State in some manner that
NOTE: Attachments A-E are not included in the SIP Guidance Manual.
-------
their SIP is approvable. Part of this problem is caused by a lack of
firm guidance up front as to which particular NSR/PSD requirements States
must strictly adhere to and which requirements States have more flexibility
in meeting. Accordingly, CPOD has developed two types of check lists to
help standardize and focus the review process for NSR/PSD SIP's.
First, comprehensive check lists detailing all elements required in a
PSD or NSR SIP submittal have been prepared (see Attachment A). Several
Regions are already using these or similar check lists for evaluating
State submittals to determine their adequacy relative to the 40 CFR Part 51
requirements and have found them useful.
In order to optimize use of EPA resources and to expedite SIP review,
a second form of check list is being formulated (see Attachment B). This
check list, which is an evolving product, attempts to outline those elements
of NSR/PSD SIP's which are the explicit requirements of the Act, the subject
of current litigation, or are otherwise critical to the program (i.e., produce
a large impact in terms of emissions capture). The checklist thus serves
to indicate where Headquarters will focus its review effort. Attachment C
contains several types of State proposals which commonly fail to meet these
critical requirements. In an effort to facilitate a timely Headquarters
review, I recommend that the technical support documents (TSD) developed by
the Regions are arranged such that they, as a minimum, indicate how and
where each of the critical elements are met. Similarly, the Federal Register
notices themselves need only mention any difficulties with critical elements
and defer detailed discussions of these and any other problems to the TSD.
To ensure that overall quality of NSR/PSD SIP's does not suffer, Regions
will be responsible for working with the State/local agencies to develop
rules which you determine to meet all the applicable requirements of 40 CFR
Part 51 (i.e., the comprehensive check lists). I will recommend that
approvals of Regional packages which meet the critical program elements
not be questioned by OAR.
While we will devote the vast majority of our efforts during 14-day
review to how the critical NSR elements are addressed in completed rules,
we will also be available for some support regarding the development of
regulatory language. That is, upon request, Mike Trutna and his staff
will assist you in working out appropriate language with a State/local
authority in order that their rule will meet the applicable requirements.
In doing so, please attach your review of the proposed rule along with
the regulation itself. I also stress that when you request this assistance
from Mike, you do so early enough in order that adjustments can be.made
before the time of formal SIP submittal.
The success of this concept of shared review responsibility depends
greatly on the content of Attachment B. I invite your continued comments
particularly on ways to improve this and the other check lists.
-------
Program Delegation Guidance
About 25 States have taken over responsibility for the PSD program
through delegations. State and local agencies have shown an interest in
this procedure because it usually results in an expedited program transfer.
Full or partial delegation of PSD programs is generally possible in all
cases where the reviewing authority requests the program and has the
necessary resources. To ensure that we are working from a consistent
base with regard to issuing new delegations and updating existing delegation
agreements, I would like to restate two major points within the delegation
policy for PSD programs:
1. States proposing to implement the program generally will be assumed
to have dedicated appropriate resources for the purpose and should be given
the opportunity to proceed without detailed predelegation approvals of
staffing plans.
2. The EPA's role should be to provide technical assistance as
requested and to review State performance for overall adequacy and consistency,
Comments on individual permits should be limited to identification of explicit
legal or technical deficiencies. The EPA is to avoid routine second guessing
on State-issued permits.
SIP Classification and Processing
There appears to be some confusion on how to apply previous memos on
SIP classification and processing to PSD and NSR rules. To ensure national
consistency, the proposal stage for almost all PSD and NSR SIP's (or parts
thereof) must be classified as major actions. Some special cases, as well
as some final actions, may be classified as minor. This does not include,
however, finals of proposals which have been changed due to significant
comment unless all commenters have had a chance prior to the final package
to review the changed version.
A matrix that shows how this guidance applies to PSD and NSR SIP's is
included in this package as Attachment C. We are also encouraging parallel
processing of these SIP's as we realize it is much easier to make changes
in rules at early stages of the State's regulatory development process.
Incorporation by Reference
A complaint often voiced by Regions on behalf of States is that the
NSR/PSD SIP development and approval process takes too long or the rules take
too long to write because of the comprehensive Federal requirements which
must be met. One solution to such problems is to use model incorporation-
by-reference language. As you can see in Attachment D (guidance and sample
regulation), the State rules using incorporation by reference can be quite
abbreviated. Attachment C indicates that if a State uses the model
language, the package can be classified as direct final which will shorten
the review processing time.
-------
Planned Changes in Rules
As we all know, changes are continually occurring in the Part C and D
SIP requirements. These changes generally happen in response to court
decisions or out-of-court settlements. I wish to repeat how we should
process SIP actions which are affected by certain litigation and pending
rulemaking actions for which there is already established EPA policy.
Policies are still under development due to litigation on topics such as
tall stacks and vessel emissions. Such guidance, of course, will be
released as appropriate.
An important event affecting Part C and D SIP requirements is the
Chemical Manufacturers Assn. vs. EPA (CMA) settlement. This settlement
states that EPA has agreed to propose certain changes to the SIP requirements.
These changes include the deletion of the requirements that all emission
reductions used for netting or offsets be Federally enforceable and that
emissions reductions caused by shutdowns or curtailments which are to be
used for offsets may only be allowed if the reduction occurs after August 7,
1977, and the new facility is a replacement for the old facility. Although
the proposed rulemaking on most of these issues was published in the Federal
Register on August 25, 1983, when approving SIP's, we may not presume that
the CMA settlement provisions have already occurred. In fact, on October 22,
1984TTPA promulgated a final rulemaking on certain CMA proposals which
affirmed the original regulations. Therefore, if a State SIP has a provision
that would be approvable if the CMA negotiated changes are promulgated, but
the SIP is not approvable under th"e current 40 CFR Part 51 provisions, the
SIP may not be fully approved. Typically, these SIP's are conditionally
approved. This condition should contain the requirement that the relevant
provision(s) will be changed within a year to meet whatever Federal requirements
are in effect at that time. The State must also make an enforceable commitment
(e.g., a letter from the State Attorney General) to implement their regulations
to meet the current 40 CFR Part 51 requirements in the interim period
(i.e., without the CMA settlement changes).
This system will limit the legal vulnerability of these SIP approvals.
If such a conditional approval is not acceptable to the State, the Office of
General Counsel (OGC) continues to support a Regional strategy to defer
action on the relevant provisions if the State currently has an approved
Part D SIP. If the Region chooses to defer action, then the Federal Register
notice should inform (1) the public of the timetable for reviewing the
provision again, and (2) prospective permitees of their responsibility to
meet the Federally approved SIP requirements in the interim. The Region
may also selectively disapprove the variant provisions if the provisions
relax a previously Federally approved SIP.
In the November 2, 1983, Federal Register package containing EPA's
policy on compliance with the statutory provisions of Part D of the Act,
footnote 4 provides guidance on State responsibility for updating SIP's to
comply with the current requirements (stated in the August 7, 1980, Federal
Register). States which currently have conditions on PSD or NSR SIP's must
meet all the conditions that are unrelated to the CMA settlement. For the
conditions that could be affected by the CMA settlement, EPA will extend
-------
5
the conditions until the CMA proposal is completed. For these CMA affected
conditions, the State must agree to an enforceable interim implementation
agreement to ensure that the current requirements contained in 40 CFR Part 51
will be met until the CMA final notice.
Common Errors in NSR/PSD SIP's
During the review of SIP revisions, my staff has observed several
problems which occur frequently, impact critical elements, and must be
avoided in order to fully approve a NSR/PSD rule. These are listed in the
right-hand column of Attachment E. To avoid further difficulty with some
of the more common errors, I wish to clarify EPA's policy in these areas.
1. EPA-Approved Models. To comply with the Act, all SIP's must state
that if a party wishes to use a nonguideline air quality model during a PSD
air quality analysis, then they must receive permission from EPA.
2. Class I Area Protection. All SIP's for State and local agencies
whose jurisdiction comes within 100 kilometers (km) of a Class I area
must contain all the Class I protection provisions. These include identi-
fication of Class I areas, notification to the Federal land manager (FLM)
or EPA of any PSD source located within 100 km of a Class I area on or
before its application is considered complete, protection of Class I
increment (including protection fross various exemptions such as portable
sources and sources with proposed innovative control technology waivers)
and sending copies of all materials to FLM's as they become available. If
no Class I area is located within 100 km, then an enforceable commitment
should be made that if a new Class I area is created within 100 km, the
State will add these provisions to its SIP.
3. Offsets and Reasonable Further Progress (RFP). All SIP's must
state explicitly that each offset transaction must be consistent with
the RFP demonstration. Also, if a SIP allows exemptions from offsets,
the SIP must require that any emissions resulting from these exemptions
will also be consistent with RFP.
4. General Exemptions. Many SIP's contain general exemptions from
all -PSD and NSR requirements. We can only allow these exemptions if the
SIP explicitly states that these general exemptions cannot be used to
exempt any major source or major modification, as defined in 40 CFR Part 51,
from any requirements in Part 51.
5. Baseline Date. A SIP may not contain a baseline date from the
past unless the date was set by a complete PSD application or if the
relevant reviewing authority demonstrates that the approach taken is at
least as stringent as the one identified under the Federal definitions.
6. Jurisdiction on Indian Lands. Several issues have recently
emerged regarding the extent that States have SIP jurisdiction over Indian
lands contained within their State. The Office of Federal Activities has
-------
6
advised the Office of Air and Radiation that States presumptively do not
have this authority. Thus, unless a State can show that it has authority on
Indian lands, EPA must state in the CFR that EPA retains authority for issuing
PSD permits in Indian lands. If the State wishes to accept jurisdiction
over Indian lands, the demonstration proving this authority must be approved
by EPA prior to proposing approval of the PSD SIP.
7. Jurisdiction of Existing PSD Permits. When EPA approves a PSD SIP,
it is necessary to determine jurisdiction over any existing PSD permits
previously issued by EPA. If the State wishes to have responsibility for
these permits and will commit to reissue these permits under the State
program, EPA should announce the transfer of authority in the Federal
Register. If the State wishes to have responsibility for these permits and
either will not or cannot commit to reissue these permits, EPA can still
transfer control by retaining 40 CFR 52.21 in the SIP and delegating authority
to the State (i.e., using a memorandum of understanding as in a program
delegation). In this case, the supplementary information in the final
rulemaking Federal Register notice should announce the delegation of
authority for the existing permits. If a State declines the opportunity
to take responsibility for EPA-issued permits, EPA will again retain
40 CFR 52.21 authority for these permits. In either of these last two
cases, the CFR language contained in the final Federal Register promulgation
package should contain provisions which retain EPA's authority and exclude
the State's authority for these existing permits.
Equivalent State/Local Rules
Our current system for measuring the approvability of candidate State/
local rules is based on line-by-line equivalence with the 40 CFR Part 51
regulations for NSR (§51.18(j)) and PSD (§51.24). Both sets of require-
ments contain the program requirements mandated by the Act as well as
additional requirements not specifically contained in the Act but needed
to make the permitting process operative. Yet, to date we have allowed
language deviations only where they could be shown that the proposed
variant provisions would cause no difference in terms of real world impact.
Specifically, approval of a State/local rule which contained a combination
of weaker and stronger provisions (as compared to 40 CFR Part 51 requirements)
was not allowed, even if this rule were more stringent overall. Considerable
analysis considering alternative approaches pertaining to this subject has
been done. However, the Regional Offices, OGC, and CPDD question the need
for completing this project. To date, the most promising use of an overall
rule equivalence policy is to rationalize conditional approvals of qualifying
rules during which time EPA and the State pursue the need to make regulatory
amendments. Accordingly, until a more definite need is determined, we are
not recommending further action on the equivalency issue.
I hope that this guidance will be helpful. Any comments on these
actions, including other ideas or concerns you may have on improving NSR/PSD
-------
7
programs transfer, should be forwarded to Mike Trutna at 629-5591. I look
forward to seeing continued improvements in NSR/PSD program development and
transfer.
Attachments
cc: G. Emison
B. Pedersen
E. Reich
P. Wyckoff
-------
7.2
7.2 DATE: October 10, 1985
SUBJECT: Questions and Answers Implementing the Revised Stack
Height Regulation
FROM: 6.T. Helms, Cheif
Control Programs Operation Branch
TO: Chief
Air Branch, Regions I-X
DISCUSSION: Guidance on questions raised following promulgation of
the July 8, 1985 revised stack height regulations under
the general topic headings of: 1) interpretation of the
regulation, 2) SIP requirements, and 3) modeling
analyses
CR: 5.2 (hard copy), 13.3
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY . 7'3
5 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
* Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
MEMORANDUM
dflTA, CA
SUBJECT: Ozont Control Strategy - Regional Off let Review of
Potentltl Improvements In New Source Review (NSR)
Regulations
FROM: 6. T. Helms. Chief .
Control Programs Operations Branch (MO-15)
TO: See Addressees
Attached 1s a list of NSR "loopholes* that occur In some State
regulations and that are Inconsistent with Federal requirements as adopted
In 1980. Closing these loopholes has been proposed as a control measure
under the ozone control strategy to minimize emissions Increases that
otherwise might result from new source growth.
This control measure was discussed by a committee of Headquarters
and Regional representatives at the 1986 Regional Workshop 1n Southern
Pines. From thos« discussions and other Information available to the New
Source Review Section 1n the Standards Implementation Branch, the attached
11st of potential Improvements 1n State NSR regulations has been prepared.
Before attempting to Include this list In the national ozone strategy, we
are sending 1t to the Regional Offices for review and comment, particularly
In regard to the expected benefits from closing the specific loopholes.
For example * 1t would be helpful 1f you could relay to us experiences you
nay have had regarding the magnitude of emission Increases that resulted
from use of one of these loopholes. To assist you 1n your review, a
sample worksheet 1s attached to provide a format for your comments.
Also, please feel free to describe additional loopholes that you believe
should be addressed.
Please coordinate your response with the other addressees 1n your
Region and with your Regional Counsel. Since we are on a tight time
frame for developing ozone strategy, we would like to have your comments
by September 24. If you have any questions, please call David Johnson
(FTS 629-5655) or Barb Oulstsky (FTS 629-5516).
Attachments
-------
Addressees:
Chief. A1r Branch, Regions I-X
Hard a Splnk, Region I
John Gourd er, Region I
Kevin Doerlng, Region II
Ken Eng, Region II
Eileen Glenn, Region III
Estena Me Ghee, Region III
Roger Pfaff, Region IV
Burt Frey, Region V
Ron Van Mersbergen, Region V
Donna Ascenzl, Region VI
Tom D1ggs, Region VI
Dan Rodriguez, Region VII
Orarlle Uhltmore. Region VII
Lee Han ley. Region VIII
Dal* Wells, Region VIII
Wiyi* BlacScarl, Region IX
David Jessan, Region IX
Dave Bray, Region X
* X
:c: Ron Ca-npoell
Gerald Srrlson
Greg Foot
Nancy Mayer
3rock Nicholson
Rich Osslas .
B. J. StelQ*rwald
-------
Mayer 5-42-2
New Sourct Rtvlew (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Loopholes Affecting Ozone
1. Clean Soot Exemption. This loophole exempts sources that are located
in a 10 / designated nonattal nroent area from NSR requirements 1f the source
can demonstrate that 1C does' not "affect* the nonattalnment problem In an
area. This 1s sometimes demonstrated by showing that an Increase 1n a
pollutant from a particular source Is Insignificant when compared to the
a re 3*1 de nonattal nment problem. This type of exemption was removed In the
August 1980 response to the Alabama Power court settlement £40 CFR
-
2. General Exemptions. This loophole exempts certain source types (e.g.,
cotton gins) and/or source classes (e.g., reactivated sources) from some
or all NSR requirements. These exemption! apply regardless of the quantity
of emissions generated by the source. Even though section 51.18(J)
contains some exemptions In the definition of major modification [40
CF3 51.18(J)(l)(v)] and major stationary source [40 CFR 51.18(j)(l)(lv)]
anc *<'SR policy allows States to exempt a source from offsets 1f a growth
i-Tjrfance 1s available, some States have added additional (unauthorized)
exemptions that should be removed*
3. Vague Offset Requirements. This loophole Is the omission of specific,
er,fo-c*aoie, ana r«piicable criteria for approving offsets. These crier! a
Include a definition of baseline (CMA Exhibit B), a requirement tnat reduc-
tions nusf be Federally enforceable (CnA Exhibit A), a prohibition on
prior shutdowns as. an offset (CMA Exhibit A), and a prohibition on the
use a* any emission reduction, as an offset, that the State had previously
s* ta demonstrate attainment [43 CFR 51.18(j)(3)J.
4. Vague or Incorrect Netting Requirements* This loophole 1s similar to
3 «aove Dut the requirements apply to netting rather than offsetting.
Netting 1s used to exempt sources from NSR requirements by allowing sources
:o ^et creqit from emission reductions within the same source to remain
5e:s« certain major source emission cut offs. The requirements for
:.-:-.ing should include an "actual" baseline (CMA Exhibit B), a health and
w-1. -ire equivalence (CMA Exhibit A), federal enforceablllty of emission
reactions (CMA Exnibit A), the lack of a specific contemporareous timeframe.
?"* consistency wltl the reasonable further progress and attain-nent
<3«-?^->:-at1ons. Sot* SIP's nave "significant" levels that are higher
tnan those allowed by Federal requirements [40 CFR 51.18(j)(l)(x) and
(vi)]. .
5. 'Jse of Konfederally Enforceable Permit Conditions. This loophole
allies sources to use permit conditions, that are not federally enforceable
19 «xes»st sources fro* NSR requirements (CMA Exhibit A). Federal regulations
snly ills* the use of federally enforceable permit conditions to limit
th* potential to emit b-slo* t.na maximum capacity. The proposal t> -nake
operiting permits federally enforceable does not close this loophole [40
-------
6. The Omission of Source Responsibility Provisions. This loophole
allows a source to:(i) state that an N5R permit relieves 1t from
complying with other applicable requirements, and (2) use a federally
enforceable permit condition to exempt a potentially major source from
ftSR requirements when the source 1s constructed and to request a relaxation
fro* th« federally enforceable condition without having to subject the
source to NSR requirements. 'Federal requirements prohibit both practices.
This second provision has become Increasingly Important 1n fuel switching
situations and In times of Increased economic activity [40 CFR 51.18(j)(S)].
*
7. Incorrect VOC Definitions. This loophole exempts certain sources from
NSR requirements by excluding certain VOC substances from the emission
calculation used In applicability determinations. These Incorrect deflntlons
Include vapor pressure criteria and "Rule 66" exemptions. Federal requirements
only allow the exclusion of organic compounds which EPA has declared
Insignificantly photochemically reactive [40 CFR 5l.l8(j)(3)(11)(d) and
certain Federal Register notices on VOC reactivity].
8. Use of Federally Approved Attainment Demonstrations. This loophole
allows the State to use * State developed attainment demonstration even
if the demonstration has not been approved by EPA to determine whether an
offset/netting transaction Is consistent with RFP. This 1s particularly
4 i*rjb1e«i when EPA has actually determined that the State attainment
Is not approval* because 1t does not meet Federal attainment
3 CM 51.13(j)(3)J.
?. "Jse of State Nonattalnment Designations. This loophole allows a
Stit* to exempt sources that are located in 107 designated nonattalnment
ar«is 1f the State designates the area as attainment. The EPA criteria
for rsdaslgnattng an area as attainment may be more stringent than the
State's criteria [40 CF* 51.18 (j)(2)J.
10. Unclear or Incorrect Definitions. This loophole allows States to
eteipt sources from N5* b? using less restrictive definitions or more
c-sifive Interpretations of vague definitions. The definitions that are
v*n irnportant far applicability determinations are: stationary source,
'.: -i' emissions, allowable emissions, fugitive emissions, commence or
^*j-:-» construction, building structure or facility (dual source dsMndon
'.;»:=*;, tr.d. major statoniry source. For correct application of control
tH» HER definitions should match the Clean..A1r Act
-------
i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
? Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 7.4
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
FEB4 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Region IX New Source Review/Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (NSR/PSfi) Rt»lemaJc1ng Backlog
FP.QM: Gerald A. Earl son, (
Office of A1r -Quality PlannYng and Standards (MD-10)
TO: David P. Howekamp, Director
A1r Management Division, Region IX
This 1s 1n response to your memorandum of December 22, 1986, 1n
which you ftpurt on the currsnt stats of ths Rsglcr, IX NSH/PSD rul snaking
backlog. In that mcno, you reiterated the causes of the backlog. You
also expressed concern about the reprogranoring of your Region's resources
from NSR/PSD rulemaklng to compliance, enforcement, and local agency
oversight activities which, while allowing you to meet your enforcement
strategic planning and management system commitments, emphasized the need
to make the local NSR/PSD regulations federally enforceable to enhance
enforcement options.
You feel that the current NSR/PSO regulations adopted by the State
and local agencies "now generally conform to, or are more stringent than,
trie substantive Alabama Power regulatory requirements,* yet are not
promulgated Into the State Implementation plan (SIP) as 40 CFR Part 52
regulations because of the reasons you enumerate, particularly the Inflexi-
bility with which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must apply
the Federal SIP requirements. I agree with you. The EPA simply does not
have the authority to apply an "equivalency" approach when determining
the acceptability of a specific SIP revision. Each requirement of the
Federal regulations must be met on a I1ne-by-l1ne basis, a test which
many of the Region IX regulations do not pass.
Another problem with NSR/PSO rule approval 1s that the Federal
requirements keep changing as technology advances or court cases are
settled. For example, all PSD regulations must now reference the 1986,
rather than the-1978, version of the EPA modeling guideline.
-------
Your Region is not alone In the problem of expending substantial
Regional resources 1n an effort to make 40 CFR Part 51 regulations enforce-
aDle by Incorporating State NSR/PSO rules Into 40 CFR Part 52. My staff,
In fact, has proposed the formation of a SIP task force to explore methods
of minimizing the resources necessary to do this; their recommendation 1s
similar to yours. If we Initiate this task force, I will Instruct 1t to
focus first on the NSR/PSD rulemaklng activities 1n Region IX. The task
force will attempt to find a way to lessen your NSR/PSO backlog with a
minimum of resources. At the very least, 1t may provide extra resources
on a temporary basis to review your NSR/PSO regulations.
The possibility of a SIP task force and Us composition will be
discussed 1n more detail at the NSR Workshop 1n Denver, February 11-13.
Since I assume Region IX would want to participate 1n the Task Force, I
urge you to ensure that someone on your staff attends the workshop and
discusses this further with Nancy Mayer or Gary McCutchen of my staff.
Should you wish to talk with Nancy or Gary prior to the workshop, they
can be reached at (FTS) 529-5591.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
7.5
February 27, 1987
OFFICE OF
Alt AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Plantwide Definition of Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution
FROM: J. Craig Potter , ,/ -^ '/
Assistant Administrator
ssan mnstrator / ^^ *
for Air and Radiation / ' 7
u
TO: Director, Air Management Division
Regions I, III, V, and IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxic Management Division
Regions IV and VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division
Regions VII, VIII, and X
As you know, in October 1981 the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) revised the new source review (NSR) regulations in 40 CFR Part 51
to allow adoption and use of the "plantwide" definition of "source" in
nonattainment areas (46 Fed. Reg. 50766). Since then, the. Supreme Court
has upheld that action in Chevron. USA. Inc. v. NRDC. Inc.. 104 S.Ct. 2778
(1984), and many States have submitted State implementation plan (SIP)
revisions that would adopt the plantwide definition for nonattaimnent
purposes, either by substituting that definition for a definition that
already exists in the SIP as part of a'previously approved NSR program or
by including it as part of the nonattainment NSR program still missing
from the SIP. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide guidance on
the preparation of Federal Register notices proposing action on those
pending submissions and to ask that .you process those submissions as
quickly as possible.
In its 1981 action, EPA ruled that a State wishing to adopt a plantwide
definition has discretion to do so. However, the EPA also stated that
use of the plantwide definition could not interfere with reasonable
further progress (RFP) and timely attainment of the relevant national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Thus, EPA further ruled that, if
a State had relied on emission reductions that it projected would result
from the operation of a "dual" definition (or a definition similar to the
dual definition) in obtaining EPA approval of its Part D plan, then the
State would have to revise its attainment strategy and demonstration as
necessary to accommodate reduced permitting under the plantwide definition.
-------
The EPA did not restrict a State's ability to adopt a plantwide definition
in any other respect. It did not, however, on the premise that the Clean
Air Act (Act) would operate independently to generate Part D plans that
would assure RFP and timely attainment (see 46 FR 50767 col. 2, 50769
col. 1).
Category A: Adequate SIP, No Prior Reliance on Dual Definition
In view of the above, a proposal to approve is appropriate for those
pending submissions where the State: (1) has a fully approved Part D SIP,
(2) is not subject to a call by EPA for a SIP revision, and (3) did not
rely on a dual or similar definition in its attainment demonstration.
Where EPA has previously approved a Part D plan on the basis of an attain-
ment demonstration, you should determine whether there was reliance on a
dual or similar definition, either by examining the demonstration yourself
or by asking the State to certify that there was no such reliance and then
reviewing that certification.
Category B: Adequate SIP, Prior Reliance on Dual Definition
A proposal to approve would also be appropriate for any'submission
where the State: (1) has a fully approved Part D SIP, (2) is not subject
to a call by EPA for a SIP revision, and (3) did rely on the operation of
a dual or similar definition but now has adjusted its strategy or demon-
stration or both to compensate or otherwise account for the effects, if
any, of the switch to the plantwide definition. This could be done in
one of several ways, as follows:
1. Altered Circumstances/Revised Views. The State could make
a showing that any emission reductions previously projected to be obtained
from the NSR program are no longer needed as part of the attainment
strategy in the current SIP (e.g., because fewer reductions are needed
than originally forecast, or because additional reductions will be forth-
coming elsewhere). Similarly, the State could revise its original views
as to the emission reductions that would be obtained from NSR using the
existing definition (e.g., upon reassessment, the State might conclude
that the plantwide definition would be at least as effective 1n producing
reductions).
2. Progressive Netting. The State could require that all
emission redaction credits used for plantwide netting be discounted at
(or beyond) the offset ratio specified in the applicable SIP. Such a
measure would assure that any emission reductions previously expected as
a result of applying NSR would be achieved through plantwide netting.
3. Compensating Changes Within the NSR Program. Alternatively,
the State could submit other changes to the NSR program (e.g., increasing
the offset ratio for the reduced number of anticipated NSR permits) such
that the total emission reductions attributable to the NSR program would
remain constant.
-------
4. Compensating Changes Elsewhere In the SIP. Finally, the
State could also compensate (in'whole or in part) for any fall-off in
emission reductions previously expected from NSR, if any, by making compen-
sating changes elsewhere in the SIP.(e.g., by adopting additional control
measures for existing sources).
Category C: Inadequate SIP
A proposal to approve would be appropriate for a submission where
the State does not have a fully approved Part D plan or is subject to a
call for a SIP revision only if the State has shown it is making, and
will continue to make, reasonable efforts to adopt and submit a complete
plan for RFP and timely attainment. Specifically, the State must submit
written assurances that it is making reasonable efforts to develop a
complete approvable SIP and intends to adhere to the schedule for such
development (including dates for the completion of an emissions inventory
and subsequent increments of progress) stated in the submission or
previously forwarded to EPA. The State assurances will become part of
the SIP; however, they need not be verified by, e.g., detailed quantifica-
tions, or showings that all reductions needed for areawide progress or
attainment have been identified and targeted for regulation. They are,
however, expected to be based upon a meaningful review by the State.
Likewise, EPA will not second-guess the assurances, provided that they
constitute a substantial assessment and, as a whole, explain how use of
the plantwide definition is consistent with the State's SIP development
strategy.
One of the pillars of the 1981 action was EPA's confidence that the
Act would independently generate adequate attainment plans. However, many
nonextension areas with previously approved plans are still experiencing
violations of the relevant NAAQS, and many extension areas are still
without approved attainment plans. The purpose of the requirement for
specific assurances from the State is to rebuild for the specific case
that level of confidence that supported EPA's general willingness in 1981
to approve the use of the plantwide definition.
Incidentally, if the State previously relied on the operation of a
dual or similar definition in obtaining approval of its Part D plan, it
would also have to adjust its strategy or demonstration or both to compen-
sate or otherwise account for the effects, if any, of the switch to the
plantwide definition, even though EPA has called for a SIP revision.
' " ' >
A proposal to disapprove would be appropriate for all other cases,
in particular where the State has yet to obtain approval of a Part D plan
and has failed to show that it is making reasonable efforts to develop
the SIP revisions necessary at this point.
We have prepared "boilerplate" language for each of these cases. A
copy is attached. You should tailor 1t to fit the circuastances of each
particular SIP submission.
-------
If you have any questions, please contact Gary McCutchen (FTS-629-5591)
Attachment
cc: Mike Alushln, LE-134A
Don Clay, ANR-443
Alan Eckert, LE-132A
Greg Foote, LE-132A
Joe Lees, ANR-443
Mike Levin, PM-223
Paul Stolpraan, ANR-443
John Thill mann, ANR-443
Bob Way!and, A-101
Peter Wyckoff, LE-132A
-------
ATTACHMENT
INSERT FOR FEDERAL REGISTER PROPOSALS
TO APPROVE PLANTWIDE DEFINITION
On October 14, 1981, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
revised the new source review (NSR) regulations in 40 CFR Part 51 to give
States the option of adopting the "plantwide" definition of stationary
source in nonattainment areas (see 46 FR 50766). This definition provides
that only physical or operational changes that result in a net increase
in emissions at the entire plant require a NSR permit. For example, if a
plant increased emissions at one piece of process equipment but reduced
emissions by the same amount at another piece of process equipment at the
plant, then there would be no net increase in emissions at the plant and
therefore no "modification" to the "source." The plantwide definition is
in contrast to the so-called "dual" definition [or a definitional structure
like that in the 1979 offset ruling (44 FR 3274), which has much the same
effect as the dual definition]; under the dual definition, the emissions
from each physical or operational change are gauged without regard to
reductions elsewhere at the plant.
In the October 1981 Federal Registe"r notice, EPA set forth its
rationale for allowing use of the plantwide definition (46 FR 50766-69).
In its view-, "allowing use of the plantwide definition was a reasonable
accommodation of the conflicting goals of Part D of the Clean Air Act
(Act); on the one hand, reasonable further progress (RFP) and timely
attainment of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), and on the
other, maximum State flexibility and economic growth. The EPA recognized
that use of the plantwide definition would bring fewer plant modifications
-------
2
into the nonattainment permitting process, but emphasized that this
generally would not interfere with RFP and timely attainment primarily
because the States under the demands of Part D eventually would have
adequate State implementation plans (SIP's) in place. For instance, EPA
stated:
Since demonstration of attainment and maintenance
of the NAAQS continues to be required, deletion of
the dual definition increases State flexibility
without interfering with timely attainment of the
ambient standards and so is consistent with Part D
[46 Fed. Reg. 50767 col. 2].
The EPA added that in any event the use of a dual definition, by
bringing more plant modifications through the NSR process or subjecting
them to the construction ban (40 CFR 52.24), may discourage replacement
of older, dirtier processes and hence retard not only economic growth,
but also progress toward clean air. The EPA also pointed out that under
the plantwide definition new equipment would still be subjected to any
applicable new source performance standard and that wholly new plants, as
well as any modifications that resulted in a significant net emissions
increase, would still be subject to NSR. Thus, EPA saw no significant
disadvantage in the plantwide definition from the environmental standpoint,
as against the advantages from the standpoints of state flexibility and
economic growth. It regarded the plantwide definition as presenting, at
the very worst, environmental risks that were manageable because of the
independent impetus to create adequate Part 0 plans, and at best .the
potential for air quality improvements driven by the marketplace.
As a result, EPA ruled that a State wishing to adopt a plantwide
definition generally has complete discretion to do so, and it set only
one restriction on that discretion. If a State had specifically projected
-------
3
emission reductions from its NSR program as a result of a dual or similar
definition and had relied on those reductions in an attainment strategy
that EPA later approved, then the State needed to revise its attainment
\
strategy as necessary to accommodate reduced NSR permitting under the
plantwide definition (46 FR 50767 col. 2, 50769 col. 1).
In 1984, the Supreme Court upheld EPA's action as a reasonable
accommodation of the conflicting purposes of Part D of the Act, and hence
well within EPA's broad discretion. Chevron, U.S.A.. Inc. v. NRDC. Inc..
ID* s.Ct. 2778. Specifically, the Court agreed that the plantwide defini-
tion is fully consistent with the Act's goal of maximizing State flexibility
and allowing reasonable economic growth. Likewise, the Court recognized
that EPA had advanced a reasonable explanation for its conclusion that
tne plar.twide definition serves the Act's environmental objectives as
Well 's=£ 104 S.Ct. at 2792\ The EPA toe
rationales stated in the 1981 rulemaking. Those rationales were left
undisturbed by the Supreme Court decision. Further, EPA has not received
any empirical information since the 1981 rulemaking that would require a
departure from the basic reasoning in support of the plantwide definition.
[Insert for States in "Category A" with an approved NSR program and an
approved attainment plan that does not rely on the NSR program to
demonstrate- attainment.]
On , the State of submitted a SIP revision
that would substitute a plantwide definition of source for the existing
dual definition in the State's nonattainmervt NSR program. The EPA previously
approved the Part D SIP for the relevant nonattainment areas on the basis
o* »* attainment demonstration. The State has certified that it did net
-------
4
rely on any reduction fro~ che operation of the existing NSR program in
that demonstration, and EPA's examination of the demonstration confirms
that it did not. Therefore, EPA here proposes to approve the switch to a
plantwide definition inasmuch as it satisfies the only restriction EPA
placed on such changes.
[Insert for States in "Category 8" with an approved NSR program and
an approved attainment plan that relies on the NSR program to demonstrate
attainment.]
On , the State of submitted a SIP revision
that would substitute a plantwide definition of source for the existing
dual definition in the State's nonattainment NSR program. The EPA
previously approved the Part D SIP for the relevant nonattainment areas
on the basis of an attainment demonstration, and the State relied in that
demonstration on emission reductions it projected would result from the
operation of the NSR program. The State, however, has adjusted its
attainment strategy and demonstration to account for the loss of any
reductions attributable to the operation of the dual definition as follows:
[insert content of State showing]. Therefore. EPA here proposes to
approve the switch to a plantwide definition in accordance with its 1981
action inasmuch as the State has modified its attainment plan to assure
RFP and attainment of the NAAQS on the original schedule approved in the
plan.
[Insert for all States in "Category C" that lack an approved
attainment plan or are subject to a SIP call.]
There has been, however, a material change in circumstances from
those surrounding the 1981 rulemaking. In 1981, EPA assumed that
-------
5
nonattainrr.ent areas already had or shortly would have Part D SIP's in
place that would bring about RFP and attainment by the applicable statutory
deadline. How, however, many nonattainment areas that were to be free of
NAAQS violations by the end of 1982 are still experiencing them and have
yet to respond adequately to EPA's calls for SIP revisions. See generally
EPA's policy on Compliance with the Statutory Provisions of Part D of the
Act, 48 FR 50686 (November 2, 1983). Similarly, many areas that were to
be free of violations by the end of 1987 still .do not have fully approved
Part D plans and, at this point, could not be free of the violations by
then without the imposition of draconian measures (see, e.g., 51 FR 34428.
34431-35 (September 26, 1986)].
In light of this history of SIP development and implementation, EPA
will now approve adoption of the plantwide definition into SIP's for
nonattainment areas that still lack adequate plans only if the State has
shown that it is making, and will continue to make, reasonable efforts to
adopt and submit a complete plan for RFP and timely attainment. Specifi-
cally, the State must submit written assurances that it is making reasonable
efforts to develop a complete approvable SIP and intends to adhere to the
schedule for such development (including dates for the completion of an
emissions inventory and subsequent increments of progress) stated in the
submission -or previously forwarded to EPA. In adopting and defending the
plantwide definition, EPA relied in large measure on its confidence that
the Act would operate independently to generate adequate attainment
plans, so as to make manageable whatever risks were posed by the use of
the plantwide definition. The assurances described above are necessary
to restrengthen EPA's confidence with respect to this specific State plan.
-------
6
[Further insert for those "Category C" States with an approved NSR
program and an attainment plan that does not rely on NSR to demonstrate
attainment but is subject to a SIP call.]
On , the State of submitted a SIP revision
that would substitute a plantwide definition for a dual definition in its
existing NSR program. Several of the nonattainment areas to which this
program applies have Part 0 plans previously approved by EPA, but neverthe-
less are still experiencing violations of the relevant NAAQS, and therefore
are currently subject to calls for SIP revisions by EPA. The State has
shown that in obtaining EPA approval of its original Part D SIP it did
not rely on any emission reductions from the operation of its existing
NSR program. The State has also submitted assurances that it is making,
and will continue to make, reasonable efforts to adopt and submit the
necessary additional SIP revisions. [Describe the assurances.] Therefore,
EPA nere proposes to approve the switch to a plantwide definition, in
accordance with its 1981 action.
[Further insert for those "Category C" States which have an approved
NSR program, but do not have an approved attainment plan.]
On , the State of submitted a SIP revision that
would substitute a plantwide definition for a dual definition in its
existing NSR program. The State has yet to submit a full Part D plan and
attainment demonstration for the relevant nonattainment areas, and hence
did not rely on any reductions from the operation of the existing NSR
program in any attainment demonstration. Therefore. EPA here proposes to
approve the switch to a plantwide definition in accordance with its 1981
action, inasmuch as the State has shown that it is making, and will
-------
7
continue to make, reasonable efforts to adopt and submit the necessary
additional SIP revisions. [Describe the assurances.]
[Further insert for those "Category C" States which do not have an
approved NS* program, and do not have an approved attainment plan.]
On . the State of submitted a SIP
revision that would add a NSR program for nonattainment areas to the SIP.
This program uses a plantwide definition of source. The State has yet to
submit and receive approval of an attainment demonstration for the
relevant areas, and hence did not rely on any reductions from the operation
of the new NSR program in an approved attainment demonstration. Therefore,
EPA here proposes to approve the adoption of a plantwide definition in
accordance with its 1981 action inasmuch as the State has shown that it
is making, and will continue to make, reasonable efforts to adopt and
submit the necessary additional SIP revisions. [Describe the assurances.]
-------
7.6
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Plai ning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
MAR 2 6 1937
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Request for Guidance 1n Drafting a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Deficiency Notice for Michigan's Nonattalnment New Source Review
(NSR) Program
FROM:* Oarryl D. Tyler, Director
%£/ Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
T
TO: David Kee, Director
Air and Radiation Division, Region V (5A-26)
This 1s In response to your recent memo 1n which you requested guidance
on a SIP deficiency notice for Michigan (MI) NSR regulations. I agree with
you that the program deficiencies outlined In your memo for the MI NSR
rules warrant a SIP deficiency notice.
Your first Concern relating EO the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) general policy and guidance on SIP deficiencies should be answered
by the Office of General Counsel (OGC). The OGC 1s currently developing
legal strategies on the relationship between notices of SIP deficiency and
the Imposition of a construction moratorium as well as other sanctions.
A copy of your memo has been sent to Peter Wyckoff for response.
I can answer the other concern you Included In your memo on the
approvablllty of an NSR regulation which Includes a dual source definition.
As we have stated before, If an NSR regulation 1s otherwise approvable,
the use of a dual source definition requires no demonstration for EPA to
approve the SIP revision; we consider such definition to be more stringent
than our minimum requirement. In fact, our concern 1s with proposals to
use a plantwlde source definition. The EPA requires a demonstration or
certification for all States wishing to adoot a Part 0 NSR program which
contains a plantwlde source definition with netting. The requirements of
this demonstration or certification are contained 1n a memo signed by Craig
Potter on February 27, 1987. A copy of this guidance memo has been sent to
you under separate cover.
cc: Ron Van Mersbergen
Nancy Mayer
Gary McCutchen
Greg Foote
Peter Wyckoff
Rich Osslas
-------
7.7
7.7 DATE: April 22, 1988
SUBJECT: Interim Policy on Stack Height Regulatory Actions
FROM: J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator
Office of Air and Radiation
TO: Director
Air Division, Regions I-X
DISCUSSION: Interim policy for processing SIP actions affected by
the January 22, 1988 remand of portions of the stack
height regulations
CR: 5.10 (hard copy), 13.8
-------
7.8
7.8 DATE: May 17, 1988
SUBJECT: Application of the Interim Policy for Stack Height
Regulatory Actions
FROM: John Calcagni, Director
Air Quality Management Division
TO: Chief
Air Branch, Regions I-X
DISCUSSION: Guidance on implementing interim policy on processing
SIP actions affected by the stack height remand
CR: 5.11 (hard copy), 13.9
-------
8. 111 (d) Plans/
Negative Declarations
-------
8.1
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JCTON. D.C, 2041
May 7, 1979
WASHINGTON. D.C, 20460 , .,
"*
MEMORANDUM
OCMKMAkl
SUBJECT: Applicability of the Bubble Concept to Section
lll(d) Standards
FROM: Earl Salo, Attorney
Air, Noise and Radiation Division (A-133)
TO: James Kamihachi (PM-220) r
THROUGH: Michael A. James, Associate General Counsel fl"Kj
Air, Noise and Radiation Division (A-133) £""""^
QUESTION
Should EPA allow a "bubble" policy to be applied to the
adoption of standards of performance for existing sources
under Section lll(d) of the Clean Air Act?
ANSWER
No. Regulations implementing Section lll(d) allow the
states enough flexibility in establishing standards that a
bubble policy is unnecessary. Moreover, a bubble under
Section lll(d) is subject to legal challenge on the same
theory on which the NSPS bubble was invalidated in Asarco v.
EPA, 578 F.2d 319 (D.C. Cir., 1978). "~
DISCUSSION
Whenever EPA establishes an NSPS that regulates a
pollutant not regulated under either Section 108 or Section
112, Section lll(d) requires the states to establish standards
of performance for existing sources of the same type.
Our regulations implementing Section lll(d) are found
at 40 CFR 60 Subpart B (60.20- 60.29). After EPA promulgates
an NSPS regulating a pollutant not regulated under Sections
108 or 112 (a "designated pollutant"), EPA must publish a
"guideline document" including a "guideline" that reflects
the "best system of emission reduction (considering the cost
of such reduction) that has been adequately demonstrated for
designated facilities." 40 CFR 60.22 (b) (5) . "Designated
facilities" are existing facilities of the type regulated by
the NSPS.
-------
Each state must then adopt "emission standards" I/ for
all designated facilities in the state. However, the state
standards do not have to incorporate the EPA guideline. In
the case of a designated pollutant that affects human
health, states may adopt emission standards less stringent
than the guideline to take account of cost or "other factors
... that make ... a less stringent standard ... more reasonable,
40 CFR 60.24(f). In the case of a designated pollutant that
affects only welfare and not health, the flexibility left to
the states is even greater. See 40 CFR 60.24(d).
Accordingly, it does not seem necessary to employ a
bubble concept to give the states flexibility in adopting
standards under Section 111(d).
. V
Employing a bubble under Section lll(d) also presents
legal risks because of the decision in Asarco v. EPA, 578
F.2d 319 (D.C. Cir., 1978), holding the bubble concept
impermissible as applied to modified facilities subject to
NSPS. Because Section lll(d) guidelines and standards are
established for "facilities," defined analogously to NSPS
"facilities," the Asarco rationale could well be held to
apply to Section lll(d). This is especially true now that
the 1977 Amendments have amended the definition of Section
111(d) standards to conform almost verbatim to the definition
of NSPS. 2/
I/ The term "emission standards" is taken from the 1970
Act, under which Subpart B was promulgated. Under the
1977 Act, states must adopt "standards of performance."
2/ New source standards are now defined as "[reflecting]
the degree of emission limitation and the percentage
reduction achievable through application of the best
technological system of continuous emission reduction
which (taking into consideration.the cost of
achieving such emission reduction, any non-air
quality health and environmental impact and energy
requirements) the Administrator determines has
been adequately demonstrated." Section 111(a)(1).
The definition of Section lll(d) standards is
identical, except that the reference to "percentage
reduction" is deleted, and the word "technological" is
deleted. Section 111(a) (1)(C).
-------
You will note that ,the Agency's proposed policy statement
allowing a bubble in SIP stategy applies only to the health
and welfare based ambient air quality standards. 44 Fed.
Reg. 3740 (Jan. 18, 1979). It does not apply to technology
based standards such as NSPS and Section lll(d) standards.
cc: . William F. Pedersen, Deputy General Counsel
Don Goodwin, Director, ESED
-------
8.2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of A1r Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
OATt. A{J* 3 JQQQ
The Bubble Policy and State Plaj
Under Clean A1r Act Section
MOM: Walter c. Barter,
Office of A1r Quality tfanWMTafid Standards (MO-10)
Director, A1r and Hazardousj^aterlals Division, Regions I-X
A number of Inquiries/have been received concerning the applicability
of the bubble policy wltir respect to the noncriterla pollutants designated
under the requirements df Section lll(d) of the Clean A1r Act. This
memorandum Is a response to these Inquiries.
The bubble policy, as published 1n the December 11, 1979 Federal
Register (44 ?R 71780), may be applied to emission limitations developed
as part of State Implementation Plans required by Section 110 of the
Clean Air Act. The bubble policy does not apply to sources which
must comply with the performance standards for existing stationary
sources developed In accordance with the requirements of Section lll(d).
These performance standards are applied to specific Individual facilities
for certain designated pollutants.
Although the bubble policy does not apply to Section 111(d), the
advantages of the policy can be achieved, 1n some cases* simply by
observing EPA's requirements for Implementing this Section as found 1n
40 CFR Part 60 Subpart B. This 1s particularly true 1f the Administrator
determines that a designated pollutant may only cause or contribute to
the endangerment of public welfare but not endanger public health. In
such cases, the States are not bound by the EPA guideline document but
may balance "other factors of public concern" against the EPA guidelines
when setting standards. These other factors may Include: (a) the cost
of achieving such emission reductions; (b) any other health and environ-
mental Impacts; (c) energy requirements; and (d) the remaining useful
life of the existing sources.
Under the regulations, States have less flexibility 1f the
Administrator determines the designated pollutant to be health related.
In such cases, the States are generally expected to set standards at
least as stringent as the EPA guidelines. Less stringent standards may
be set but only 1n situations where the State demonstrates compelling
reasons to do so.
.. 1.74)
-------
We encourage you to be receptive to Section 111(d) proposals. If
cornpany tells you or the State that they want to "bubble" 'll(d)
pollutant control requirements, as* to see their specific plan before
you give them ah opinion. In many cases,-it nay be possible to adapt-
the camoany's preferred cor.^rol strategy. In particular, sine* TRS
regulations are du* soon in many States and it 1r a welfare, related
pollutant only, you may want to rewind your States that, they already
have substantial flexibility under our regulation* to design source-
specific regulations for thes-e sources.
Should you have any quest-tons- concerrrfrw the relationship between
EPA's bubble policy and the requirements of Section lll(d), please
contact 01 ck Wiorads at FTS 625-525T or Lea Staflder of his- staff at
F7S 629-5365.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMF NTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 8'3
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
Sept. 14, 1981
OFFICE OP
AIR. NOISE. AND RADIATION
SUBJECT: EPA Policy on Welfare-Related Pollutants Under Slll(d)
FROM: Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation (ANR-443)
MEMO TO: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
Questions have arisen with regard to our policy in carrying out the
requirements of Slll(d) of the Clean Air Act with regard to welfare-
related pollutants. Specifically, a State has requested clarification
of our policy for requiring Slll(d) plans establishing standards of
performance for existing kraft pulp mills emitting total reduced sulfur
compounds (TRS).
The principal purpose of listing welfare pollutants under 5111(d)
is to insure that new sources are well controlled and that the equity
objectives of Sill are achieved. With regard to existing sources, the
responsibility for determining the degree and timing of any control for
such pollutants is a State responsibility. This policy is stated in 40
CFR 60.24(d) as follows: .
Where the Administrator has determined that a designated
pollutant may cause or contribute to endangerment of public welfare
but that adverse effects on public health have not been demonstrated,
States may balance the emission guidelines, compliance times, and
other information provided in the applicable guideline document
against other factors of public concern in establishing emission
standards, compliance schedules, and variances.
Section 40 CFR 60.24(d) then goes on to spell out the factors of concern
as relating to available control technology, welfare impacts, costs,
timing, environmental effects, information submitted at-public hearings,"
etc. '
Although EPA does have the authority to require States to submit
plans, or in the absence of a submittal, to prescribe a plan, it is our
general policy to rely on the judgment of the individual States to
develop and implement such plans. This is particularly true for the
welfare-related pollutants, such as TRS, controlled under lll(d). I
believe this position is generally in keeping v/ith the priority we have
assigned to Slll(d) actions and also with the regulatory philosophy of
the Administration.
-------
9. CO Attainment Plans
Dealing with Hotspots
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ANN ARBOR MICHIGAN 48105
OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION
January 14, 1986
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Volume 9 Update
FROM: Mark Wolcott
Test and Evaluation Branch
TO: Ray Vogel, OAQPS (MD-15)
Research Triangle Park, NC
THRU: Lois Platte, Project Officer ~/Y
Test and Evaluation Branch
Earlier this year you requested assistance in updating the emission
and correction factor estimates used in the Guidelines for Air Quality
Maintenance Planning and Analysis Volume 9 (Revised); Evaluating Indirect
Sources. As we earlier discussed over the telephone, we have attempted
to update the tables and charts of that volume using MOBILES.
Background
One of the major obstacles to updating Volume 9 was determining how
certain figures and tables contained in that work were constructed.
Specifically, Volume 9 did not document the methodology for creating the
cruise, acceleration and deceleration curves (Figures 6 and 7 on page 26)
nor the emission correction factor tables on pages 27 through 32.
Fortunately, most of the documentation for these items appears in
Estimating Mobile Source Emissions for Air Quality Modeling, by George
Schewe. I have enclosed a copy of this report for your records.
We attempted to duplicate the Volume 9 cruise, acceleration and
deceleration curves by running the Modal Model with deterioration rates
at two and one half mile per hour increments from 2.5 to 55 mph. Since
the Modal Model requires that weighting factors be applied to each of 18
vehicle groups, those recommended in the Modal Model documentation were
applied:
NOTE: The report mentioned In this memorandum is not included in the
SIP Guidance Manual.
-------
Modal Model Vehicle Group Weighting Factors
Group 1 1957-1967 Denver 0.0%
Group 2 1957-1967 low altitude cities 15.0%
(non-California 1966. 1967)
Group 3 1966, 1967 California 0.0%
Group 4 1968 low altitude cities (49-State) 6.3%
Group 5 1969 low altitude cities (49-State) 7.9%
Group 6 1970 low altitude cities (49-State) 9.4%
Group 7 1971 low altitude cities (49-State) 10.8%
Group 8 1968 Denver 0.0%
Group 9 1969 Denver 0.0%
Group 10 1970 Denver 0.0%
Group 11 1971 Denver 0.0%
Group 12 1972 Denver 0.0%
Group 13 1973, 1974 Denver 0.0%
Group 14 1972 California 0.0%
Group 15 1973, 1974 California 0.0%
Group 16 1972 low altitude cities (49-State) 12.1%
Group 17 1973, 1974 low altitude cities (49-State) 27.3%
Group 18 1975 low altitude cities (49-State) 11.2%
In addition/ both accelerations and decelerations were assumed to
occur at the constant rate of 2.5 mph/sec and always to begin or to end
at idle. By making these Modal Model assumptions, we were able to
reproduce exactly the cruise, acceleration and deceleration curves found
in Volume 9.
Tables 1-3 list the equations of these three curves. The units of
emissions (EMISSM) are grams/vehicle-meter. The units of inverse speed
(INVSPEED) are 1/mph.
-------
Table 1
Least Squares Regression
Acceleration
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 3.EMISSM N= 23 OUT OF 23
SOURCE
REGRESSION
ERROR
TOTAL
DF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF
1 .84360 .84360 3481.5
21 .50885 -2 .24231 -3
22 .84869
.0000
MULT 5= .937CC R-3QK= .99400 SE= .15555 1
VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF
CONSTANT .47598 -1 .39438 -2 12.069 .0000
5.INVSPEED .99700 1.8865 .31972 -1 59.004 .0000
-------
Table 2
Least Squares Regression
Deceleration
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 3.EMISSM N= 23 OUT OF 23
SOURCE DF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT
REGRESSION
ERROR
TOTAL
1 .18011 .18011 3015.1
21 .12544 -2 .59734 -4
22 .18136
SIGNIF
.0000
MULT R= .99654 R-SQR= .99308 SE= .77288 -2
VARIABLE
CONSTANT
5.INVSPEED
PARTIAL
.99654
COEFF
STD ERROR T-STAT
.97766 -2 .19582 -2 4.9927
.87166 .15874 -1 54.910
SIGNIF
.0001
.0000
Table 3
Least Squares Regression
Cruise
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 3.EMISSM N= 23 OUT OF 23
SOURCE DF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT
REGRESSION
ERROR
TOTAL
1 .67134 -1 .67134 -1 3482.6
21 .40482 -3 .19277 -4
22 .67539 -1
SIGNIF
.0000
MULT R= .99700 R-SQR= .99401 SE= .43906 -2
VARIABLE
CONSTANT
5.INVSPEED
PARTIAL
.99700
COEFF
STD ERROR T-STAT
.68089 -3 .11124 -2 .61210
.53217 .90178 -2 59.013
SIGNIF
.5470
.0000
-------
To the best of our knowledge the emission correction factors found
in Volume 9 were derived from MOBILE1. For each speed, a single base
case emission factor was used as a denominator. The conditions of this
base case are listed in Table 4. Other MOBILEI emission factors from
different years, vehicle classes, and engine operating characteristics
were used as the numerators. The resulting quotients were the
correction factors listed in the Volume 9 tables on pages 27 through 32.
Table 4
Base Case Values For Each Speed
Calendar Year 1977
Ambient Temperature .... 75F
Percent Cold Starts .... 0\
Percent Hot Starts 0%
Altitude Region Low, Non-California
Vehicle Class Light Duty Gas Vehicles
Table 5 lists a sample of MOBILEI emission factors from which the
Volume 9 correction factors can be calculated.
Table 5
MOBILE1 Emission Factors
* TOTAL HC EMISSION FACTORS INCLUDE EVAP. HC EMISSION FACTORS
VEH. TYPE: LDVLDT1 LDT2 HDGTOD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1977 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: 49-STATE 5.0: 5.0/ 5.0/ 5.0 MPH ( 5.0) O.O/ O.O/ 0.0
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC ALL MODES
EXHAUST CO: 188.82 199.72 260.12 762.76 76.55 102.56 215.51
-------
Table 5
(continued)
MOBILE1 Emission Factors
CAL. YEAR: 1977
REGION: 49-STATE
LDV
EXHAUST CO: 61.41
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
15.0:15.0/15.0/15.0 MPH (15.0) O.O/ O.O/ 0.0
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC ALL MODES
66.07 82.12 359.71 39.61 37.84 75.51
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
19.6:19.6/19.6/19.6 MPH (19.6) O.O/ O.O/ 0.0
CAL. YEAR: 1977
REGION: 49-STATE
LDV
EXHAUST CO: 48.35
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC ALL MODES
52.31 64.13 274.51 30.88 30.89 59.04
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
30.0:30.0/30.0/30.0 MPH (30.0) O.O/ O.O/ 0.0
CAL. YEAR: 1977
REGION: 49-STATE
LDV
EXHAUST CO: 32.10
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC ALL MODES
35.18 43.28 176.45 19.89 22.66 39.00
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
45.0:45.0/45.0/45.0 MPH (45.0) O.O/ O.O/ 0.0
CAL. YEAR: 1977
REGION: 49-STATE
LDV
EXHAUST CO: 22.01
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC ALL MODES
24.47 30.15 141.21 14.27 17.19 27.73
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
TEMP: 20.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
5.0: 5.0/ 5.0/ 5.0 MPH ( 5.0) 10.O/ 20.O/ 10.0
CAL. YEAR: 1978
REGION: 49-STATE
LDV
EXHAUST CO: 238.70
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC ALL MODES
255.82 331.81 741.62 73.29 137.36 262.09
-------
Table 5
(continued)
MOBILE1 Emission Factors
CAL. YEAR: 1978
REGION: 49-STATE
LDV
EXHAUST CO: 81.59
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
TEMP: 20.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
15.0:15.0/15.0/15.0 MPH (15.0) 10.O/ 20.O/ 10.0
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC ALL MODES
88.72 109.83 356.75 38.42 50.23 94.53
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
TEMP: 20.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
19.6:19.6/19.6/19.6 MPH (19.6) 10.O/ 20.O/ 10.0
CAL. YEAR: 1978
REGION: 49-STATE
LDV
EXHAUST CO: 65.28
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC ALL MODES
71.31 87.01 273.90 30.04 40.92 75.06
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
TEMP: 20.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
30.0:30.0/30.0/30.0 MPH (30.0) 10.0/ 20.0/ 10.0
CAL. YEAR: 1978
REGION: 49-STATE
LDV
EXHAUST CO: 44.88
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC ALL MODES
49.45 60.41 177.19 19.35 29.85 51.13
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
TEMP: 20.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
45.0:45.0/45.0/45.0 MPH (45.0) 10.O/ 20.O/ 10.0
CAL. YEAR: 1978
REGION: 49-STATE
LDV
EXHAUST CO: 31.99
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC ALL MODES
35.58 43.39 140.37 13.66 22.53 37.12
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
TEMP: 20.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
5.0: 5.0/ 5.0/ 5.0 MPH ( 5.0) 10.0/ 20.0/ 10.0
CAL. YEAR: 1980
REGION: 49-STATE
LDV
EXHAUST CO: 198.65
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC ALL MODES
236.73 310.72 666.18 71.69 118.96 224.06
-------
Table 5
(continued)
MOBILEI Emission Factors
CAL. YEAR: 1980
REGION: 49-STATE
LDV
EXHAUST CO: 69.43
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
TEMP: 20.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
15.0:15.0/15.0/15.0 MPH (15.0) 10.O/ 20.O/ 10.0
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC ALL MODES
84.09 103.63 340.90 37.12 41.36 83.34
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
TEMP: 20.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
19.6:19.6/19.6/19.6 MPH (19.6) 10.O/ 20.O/ 10.0
CAL. YEAR: 1980
REGION: 49-STATE
LDV
EXHAUST CO: 56.04
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC ALL MODES
68.20 82.33 268.25 28.84 33.24 66.86
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
TEMP: 20.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
30.0:30.0/30.0/30.0 MPH (30.0) 10.O/ 20.O/ 10.0
CAL. YEAR: 1980
REGION: 49-STATE
LDV
EXHAUST CO: 38.55
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC ALL MODES
47.33 57.16 180.88 18.27 23.45 45.84
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
TEMP: 20.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
45.0:45.0/45.0/45.0 MPH (45.0) 10. O/ 20. O/ 10.0
CAL. YEAR: 1980
REGION: 4 9 -STATE
LDV
EXHAUST CO: 27.57
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC ALL MODES
34.18 41.08 144.64 12.53 17.17 33.49
In trying to reproduce the correction factor tables in Volume 9, we
discovered that Volume 9 appeared to use MOBILE1 at speeds less than 5 mph.
Since MOBILEI calculations below 5 mph were never supported, the Volume 9
correction factors at the speed labeled zero mph are suspect.
-------
Updating Volume 9
One way to update the emission factors in Volume 9 would be to
derive new acceleration, deceleration and cruise modal emissions to
replace those developed from the original Modal Model. It would then be
possible to correct these basic factors for specific vehicle operating
conditions by using the already updated MOBILE3 mobile source emissions
model. Developing new modal emission factors, however, would require an
extensive and expensive test program. In the short term, one could apply
MOBILES correction factors to the original Modal Modal derived cruise,
acceleration and deceleration curves found in Volume 9.
Table 6 contains a sample of MOBILES output for selected years and
vehicle speeds. Tables 7-12 contain the new emission correction factors
based on Table 6 and other MOBILES outputs. These correction factors
were derived in exactly the same way as were those for Volume 9. The only
difference is that the released version of MOBILES was used instead of
MOBILE1. Since the base year for this table is still 1977, these
correction factors can be applied directly to the cruise, acceleration
and deceleration curves found in Figures 6 and 7 of Volume 9.
-------
Table 6
MOBILES Emission Factors
Total HC emission factors include evaporative HC emission factors.
Cal. Year: 1977
Region: Low
I/M Program: No
Anti-tarn. Program: No
Veh. Type: LDGV LDGT1 LDGT2 LDGT
Veh. Spd.: 5.0 5.0 5.0
VMT Mix: 0.670 0.134 0.088
Altitude: 500. Ft.
Ambient Temp:
Operating Mode:
HDGV LDDV LDDT
5.0 5.0 5.0
0.040 0.001 0.000
Composite Emission Factors (Cm/Mile)
Exhst C0:174.23 203.38 282.76 234.87 551.46
75.0 (F)
0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0
HDDV MC All Veh
5.0 5.0
0.060 0.007
2.56 4.2? 38.75 103.85 194.01
Cal. Year: 1977
Region: Low
I/M Program: No
Anti-tarn. Program: No
Veh. Type: LDGV LDGT1 LDGT2 LDGT
Veh. Spd.: 15.0 15.0 15.0
VMT Mix: 0.670 0.134 0.088
Altitude: 500. Ft.
Ambient Temp:
Operating Mode:
HDGV LDDV LDDT
15.0 15.0 15.0
0.040 0.001 0.000
Composite Emission Factors (Gm/Mile)
Exhst CO: 58.11 68.72 91.77 77.86 257.90
75.0 (F)
0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0
HDDV MC All Veh
15.0 15.0
0.060 0.007
1.27 2.10 19.28 38.31 67.97
Cal. Year: 1977
Region: Low
I/M Program: No
Anti-tarn. Program: No
Veh. Type: LDGV LDGT1 LDGT2 LDGT
Veh. Spd.: 19.6 19.6 19.6
VMT Mix: 0.670 0.134 0.088
Altitude: 500. Ft.
Ambient Temp: 75.0 (F)
Operating Mode: 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0
HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh
19.6 19.6 19.6 19.6. 19.6
0.040 0.001 0.000 0.060 0.007
Composite Emission Factors (Gm/Mile)
Exhst CO: 46.10 54.77 72.09 61.64 195.75
0.98
1.62 14.87 31.28 53.52
Cal. Year: 1977
Region: Low
I/M Program: No
Anti-tarn. Program: No
Veh. Type: LDGV LDGT1 LDGT2 LDGT
Veh. Spd.: 30.0 30.0 30.0
VMT Mix: 0.670 0.134 0.088
Altitude: 500. Ft.
Ambient Temp:
Operating Mode:
HDGV LDDV LDDT
30.0 30.0 30.0
0.040 0.001 0.000
Composite Emission Factors (Gm/Mile)
Exhst CO: 31.33 37.39 49.04 42.01 124.60
75.0 (F)
0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0
HDDV MC All Veh
30.0 30.0
0.060* 0.007
0.63 1.04 9.52 22.95 36.04
-------
Table 6
(continued)
MOBILES Emission Factors
Cal. Year: 1977
Region: Low
I/M Program: No
Anti-tarn. Program: No
Veh. Type: LDGV LDGT1 LDGT2 LDGT
Veh. Spd.: 45.0 45.0 45.0
VMT Mix: 0.670 0.134 0.088
Altitude: 500. Ft.
Ambient Temp:
Operating Mode:
HDGV LDDV LDDT
45.0 45.0 45.0
75.0 (F)
0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0
HDDV MC All Veh
45.0 45.0
0.040 0.001 0.000 0.060 0.007
Composite Emission Factors (Gm/Mile)
Exhst CO: 22.03 26.44 34.43 29.61
98.75 0.47 0.77 7.08 17.42 25.83
Cal. Year: 1980
Region: Low
I/M Program: No
Anti-tarn. Program: No
Veh. Type: LDGV LDGT1 LDGT2 LDGT
Veh. Spd.: 5.0 5.0 5.0
VMT Mix: 0.666 0.133 0.088
Altitude: 500. Ft.
Ambient Temp:
Operating Mode:
HDGV LDDV LDDT
5.0 5.0 5.0
0.040 0.005 0.001
20.0 (F)
0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0
HDDV MC All Veh
5.0 5.0
0.060 0.007
Composite Emission Factors (Gm/Mile)
Exhst CO:165.67 214.65 304.31 250.31 603.99
2.60 4.29 39.13 97.45 192.87
Cai. Year: 198C Region: Low Altitude: 500. Ft*
I/M Program: No Ambient Temp: 20.0 (F)
Anti-tarn. Program: No Operating Mode: 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0
Veh. Type: LDGV LDGT1 LDGT2
Veh. Spd.: 15.0 15.0 15.0
VMT Mix: 0.666 0.133 0.088
LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh
15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0
0.040 0.005 0.001 0.060 0.007
Composite Emission Factors (Gm/Mile)
Exhst CO: 60.00 77.05 98.07 85.41 282.47
1.29 2.14 19.47 31.54 71.53
Cal. Year: 1980
Region: Low
I/M Program: No
Anti-tarn. Program: No
Veh. Type: LDGV LDGT1 LDGT2 LDGT
Veh. Spd.: 19.6 19.6 19.6
VMT Mix: 0.666 0.133 0.088
Altitude: 500. Ft.
Ambient Temp:
Operating Mode:
HDGV LDDV LDDT
19.6 19.6 19.6
0.040 0.005 0.001
Composite Emission Factors (Gm/Mile)
Exhst CO: 47.61 62.02 76.18 67.65 214.40
20.0 (F)
0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0
HDDV MC All Veh
19.6 19.6
0.060 0.007
1.00 1.65 15.01 24.69 56.32
-------
Table 6
(continued)
MOBILES Emission Factors
Cal. Year: 1980
Region: Low
Altitude: 500. Ft.
I/M Program: No Ambient Temp:
Anti-tarn. Program: No Operating Mode:
Veh. Type: LDGV LDGT1 LDGT2 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT
Veh. Spd.: 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
20.0 (F)
0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0
HDDV MC- All Veh
30.0 30.0
VMT Mix: 0.666 0.133 0.088
0.040 0.005 0.001 0.060 0.007
Composite Emission Factors (Gm/Mile)
Exhst CO: 30.85 41.07 49.58 44.46 136.46
0.64 1.05 9.61 16.99 36.53
Cal. Year: 1980 Region: Low
I/M Program: No
Anti-tarn. Program: No
Veh. Type: LDGV LDGT1 LDGT2 LDGT
Veh. Spd.: 45.0 45.0 45.0
VMT Mix: 0.666 0.133 0.088
Altitude: 500. Ft.
Ambient Temp: 20.0 (F)
Operating Mode: 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0
HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh
45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0
0.040 0.005 0.001 0.060 0.007
Composite Emission Factors (Gm/Mile)
Exhst CO: 20.22 28.03 32.98 30.00 108.15
0.48 0.78 7.15 11.99 24.94
Summary
The acquisition of the original documentation for the figures and tables
in Volume 9 made it possible to reproduce the methodologies which created
them. Although new data for updating the cruise/ acceleration and
deceleration curves are not yet available, we did update the emission
correction factors to MOBILES specifications.
However, while replacing the MOBILEI derived correction factors with
those derived from MOBILE3 is an improvement, Volume 9 still suffers from the
fact that there are no post 1976 model year cars represented in the base
acceleration, deceleration and cruise curves. Unfortunately, it is unlikely
that three-way catalyst with feedback technology vehicles produce the same
pattern of emissions as do the earlier technology vehicles found both in the
Modal Model and in Volume 9.
-------
Future Work
To address this lack of information on current technology emissions,
it seems that we have the following three options:
The first option involves reweighting the Modal Model vehicle groups
to more reflect the current, 1986 calendar year vehicle technology mix.
This would mean increasing the Group 18 fraction and reducing in a
corresponding manner the earlier model year group fractions. Once done,
we could generate new acceleration, deceleration and cruise curves and
correspondingly new MOBILE3 based correction factors. Since Group 18
represents open loop oxidation catalyst technology, it would be an
improvement over the current situation but would still be subject to the
same criticism of not including any three way catalyst feedback
technology vehicles.
The second option involves looking at five three way catalyst
feedback technology vehicles we tested in an earlier misfueling program.
Although the data from these tests were never keypunched, it may be
possible to extract and analyze the relevant information to develop the
required curves. MOBILES would still be used to develop correction
factors.
Finally, the third option would involve developing and funding a
test plan to at least partially duplicate the modal analysis performed
earlier. Although this option is longer term and much more dependent on
resource constraints, we are considering it.
-------
TABLE 7
LOW ALTITUDE
CO EMISSION FACTOR RATIOS AT 5.0 MPH
Cold/Hot Start
Year
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
VM i V vrcantMyesi
PCCN PCHC PCCC
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
20-F
0.9509
0.7543
5.7250
1.2532
2.2146
3 . 4369
1 .6433
0.5773
0.4579
3.7243
0.7732
1 .4003
2.2047
1.0277
0.4419
0.3773
2.8901
0 . 5966
1.0831
1 . 7094
0 . 79S4
0.3825
0 . 3450
2.4712
0.5163
0.9314
1.4662
0.6869
0.3096
0.3068
1.9175
0.4162
0.7375
1. 1504
0 . 5498
0.2916
0.2927
1.7805
0 . 39 1 2
0.6895
1 .0720
0.5154
40-F
0.8761
0.7806
3.7443
1.0594
1 .6363
2.3712
1 . 2940
0.4980
0.4456
2 . 4000
0.6176
0.9961
1.4830
0.7718
0.3560
0.3420
1 .8588
0.4534
0.7518
1 . 1372
0.5765
0.2927
0.2978
1.5960
0.3793
0.6385
0.9731
0.4873
0.2164
0.2454
1 . 2603
0.2898
0 . 4988
0.7675
0.3784
0.2002
0.2304
1 . 1808
0 . 2698
0.4666
0.7192
0.3534
t f\f U -
l_UuV
60-F
0.8127
0.8103
2.4550
0.9234
1.2533
1.6752
1 . 0599
0.4351
0.4391
1 .4834
0 . 5040
0.7120
0.9814
0 . 590 1
0 . 29 1 6
0.3152
1 . 1142
0.3479
0.5110
0.7229
0.4166
0.2275
0.2610
0.9429
0.2782
0.4204
0 . 6049
0.3389
0.1519
0.1969
0.7328
0. 1961
0.3126
0.4629
0.2470
0. 1374
0. 1814
0 . 6848
0. 1796
0.2897
0.4313
0.2278
75-F
0.7713
0.8348
1 . 7899
0.8479
1.0522
1.3152
0.9356
0 . 3963
0.4375
0.9679
0.4376
0.5507
0.6986
0.4861
0.2537
0 . 2998
0.6718
0.2855
0.3681
0.4768
0.3219
0. 1903
0.2389
0.5397
0.2182
0.2873
0.3785
0.2492
0.1168
0.1673
0.3826
0. 1403
0. 1935
0.2632
0. 16SI
0. 1037
0.1517
0.3476
0.1256
0.1747
0.2387
0.1486
80-F
0.8794
0.9484
1 .6214
0.9360
1.0835
1.2757
0.9998
0.4683
0.5001
0.8837
0.4964
0.5772
0.6851
0.5305
0.3009
0.3386
0.6167
0.3236
0.3851
0.4677
0 . 3504
0.2234
0.2657
0.4988
0.2447
0.2986
0.3709
0.2688
0.1288
0. 1782
0.3577
0.1493
0.1950
0.2554
0.1708
0.1111
0.1592
0.3264
0 . 1 309
0. 1741
0.2308
0.1514
20-F 40-F 60-F 75-F 80-F 0-100F 0-100F 0-IOOF
1.4367 1.3262 1.2310 .1685 .3026 0.0149 0.0246 0.2246
1.1712 1.2062 1.2438 .2738 .4396 0.0253 0.0428 0.2246
8.1842 5.3954 3.5724 .6301 .3544 0.0312 0.0524 0.2246
1.8705 1.5920 1.3941 .2827 .3910 0.0174 0.0289 0.2246
3.2367 2.4152 1.8674 .5781 .6025 0.0208 0.0347 0.2246
3 . 4666
3.2205
2.9936
2.8350
3.1505
4.9658 3.4588 2.4691 .9555 .8752 0.0253 0.0424 0.2246
2.4262 1.9281 1.5911 .4106 .4850 0.0194 0.0324 0.2246
1.0864 0.9583 0.8508 0.7814 0.9121 0.0155 0.0179 0.1908 2.7873
0.8290 0.8329 0.8398 0.8468 0.9731 0.0242 0.0313 0.1908 2.5963
6.3781 4.0810 2.6019 1.8429 1.6542 0.0317 0.0383 0.1908 2.4243
1.4015 1.1453 0.9612 0.8559 0.9623 0.0177 0.0210 0.1908 2.3061
2.4423 1.7587 1.3045 1.0638 1.1055 0.0211 0.0253 0.1908 2.5814
3.7955 2.5583 1.7546 1.3384 1.2985 0.0255 0.0310 0.1908
1.8202 1.3926 1.1020 0.9445 1.0230 0.0196 0.0236 0.1908
0.8753 0.7442 0.6385 0.5723 0.6816 0.0156 0.0174 0.1740
0.6781 0.6571 0.6421 0.6343 0.7332 0.0243 0.0305 0.1740
5.2458 3.3463 2.0929 1.4253 1.2828 0.0323 0.0373 0.1740
1.1344 0.9003 0.7305 0.6323 0.7212 0.0178 0.0204 0.1740
1.9898 1.4091 1.0144 0.7984 0.8365 0.0214 0.0247 0.1740
,8303
.6875
.5595
.4723
.6268
3.1074 2.0757 1.3886 1.0195 0.9933 0.0259 0.0301 0.1740
1.4790 1.1062 0.8476 0.7035 0.7701 0.0198 0.0230 0.1740
0.7611 0.6273 0.5228 0.4591 0.5503 0.0156 0.0173 0.1662 .3642
0.6037 0.5.663 0.5375 0.5205 0.5998 0.0243 0.0304 0.1662 .2486
4.5775 2.9037 1.7883 1.1818 1.0696 0.0324 0.0372 0.1662 .1452
0.9883 0.7653 0.6039 0.5105 0.5847 0.0178 0.0204 0.1662 .0749
1.7347 1.2102 0.8508 0.6510 0.6843 0.0214 0.0246 0.1662 .1807
2.7106 1.7935 1.1767 0.8387 0.8200 0.0260 0.0301 0.1662
1.2896 0.8461 0.7064 0.5712 0.6272 0.0198 0.0229 0.1662
0.5581 0.4191 0.3182 0.2607 0.3084 0.0157 0.0176 0.1561
0.4905 0.4195 0.3630 0.3284 0.3682 0.0246 0.0311 0.1561
3.3753 2.1058 1.2451 0.7542 0.6929 0.0332 0.0380 0.1561
0.7323 0.5277 0.3824 0.2991 0.3375 0.0181 0.0208 0.1561
1.2858 0.8593 0.5647 0.3959 0.4123 0.0217 0.0251 0.1561
0.8038
0.7248
0.6545
0 . 6068
0.6502
2.0075 1.2926 0.8041 0.5247 0.5133 0.0265 0.0307 0.1561
0.9584 0.6652 0.4601 0.3425 0.3711 0.0201 0.0234 0.1561
0.4616 0.3220 0.2252 0.1726 0.1922 0.0160 0.0180 0.1508
0.4370 0.3495 0.2804 0.2382 0.2557 0.0250 0.0318 0.1508
2.7737 1.7085 0.9786 0.5476 0.5104 0.0340 0.0388 0.1508
0.6110 0.4166 0.2812 0.2046 0.2195 0.0183 0.0212 0.1508
1.0713 0.6930 0.4316 0.2793 0.2828 0.0221 0.0256 0.1508
0.6171
0.5516
0.4936
0.4544
0.4768
1.6648 1.0500 0.6267 0.3776 0.3666 0.0270 0.0313 0.1508
0.8010 0.5330 0.3467 0.2391 0.2490 0.0204 0.0238 0.1508
0 20F
0 40F
0 60F
0 75F
0 80F
0 20F
0 40F
0 60F
0 75F
0 80F
0 20F
0 40F
0 60F
0 75F
0 80F
0 20F
0 40F
0 60F
0 75F
0 80F
0 20F
0 40F
0 60F
0 75F
0 80F
0 20F
0 40F
0 60F
0 75F
0 80F
TABLE 7
CO AT 5.0 MPH.
-------
TABLE 8
LOW ALTITUDE
CO EMISSION FACTOR RATIOS AT 10.0 MPH
Cal .
Year
I960
I960
I960
I960
1980
1980
1980
198S
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
?000
Cold/Hot Start
VMT F
PCCN
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
rceni
PCHC
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
gas
PCCC
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35. 0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100. 0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
20-F
1 . 0044
0.8015
6. 1503
1.3286
2 . 3598
3.6770
1.7474
0.6862
0.5647
4.6562
0.9357
1 .7237
2.7390
1.2571
0.5891
0.5234
3.9927
0.8066
1.4816
2.3529
1.0839
0 . 5498
0.5116
3.6343
0.7494
1.3618
2.1521
1.0021
0.4944
0.4925
3.0709
0 . 6657
1. 1807
1.8422
0.8799
0.4737
0.4753
2.8917
0.6354
1 . 1199
1.7411
0.8371
40-F
0.9196
0.8249
4.0019
1 . 1157
1.7328
2.5226
1.3670
0.5802
0.5377
2.9961
0.7346
1.2139
1 .8327
0.9313
0 . 463 1
0.4634
2.5712
0.6021
1.0204
1 .5614
0.7759
0.4124
0.4342
2.3525
0.5433
0.9290
1.4274
0.7048
0.3446
0.3928
2.0207
0.4626
0.7982
1 .2298
0 . 6049
0.3251
0.3742
1 .9177
0.4382
0.7578
1.1681
0.5740
LDGV
60- F
0.8478
0.8517
2.6086
0.9661
1.3182
1.7707
1 . 11 20
0.4974
0.5193
1 .8234
0.5863
0.8488
1 . 1900
0 . 6960
0.3700
0.4172
1.5233
0 . 4508
0.6794
0.9767
0.5480
0.3136
0.3734
1 .3798
0.3907
0.6027
0.8779
0.4819
0.2409
0.3142
1 . 1742
0.3121
0.4993
0.7408
0.3941
0.2231
0.2947
1.1121
0.2917
0.4704
0.7005
0.3700
75-F
0.8013
0.8741
1.8915
0.8829
1 . 1006
1.3822
0.9766
0.4471
0.5101
1.1472
0 . 4990
0 . 6369
0.8185
0.5589
0.3161
0 . 3895
0.8859
0 . 3608
0.4732
0.6216
0.4110
0.2579
0.3366
0 . 7689
0 . 2998
0.4010
0.5343
0.3458
0. 1845
0 . 2663
0.6104
0.2223
0.3077
0.4194
0.2621
0. 1683
0 . 2463
0 . 5645
0 . 2040
0.2837
0.3876
0.2414
80-F
0.9185
0.9940
1.7136
0.9784
1 . 1356
1.3417
1. .0463
0.5311
0.5822
1.0482
0.5672
0.6678
0.8025
0.6105
0.3743
0.4376
0.8148
0.4076
0.4936
0.6091
0.4458
0.3010
0.3719
0.7115
0.3341
0.4148
0.5226
0.3707
0.2027
0.2830
0.5710
0 . 2359
0.3096
0.4066
0.2706
0. 1804
0.2585
0.5301
0 . 2 1 25
0.2828
0.3749
0 . 2459
20-F 40-F 60-F 75-F 80-F 0-IOOF 0-100F 0-100F
1.4553 1.3408 1.2425 .1781 .3170 0.0208 0.0343 0.3131
1.1909 1.2236 1.2589 .2872 .4543 0.0353 0.0595 0.3131
8.3583 5.4964 3.6315 2.6700 2.3931 0.0435 0.0730 0.3131
1.8985 1.6119 1.4084 .2943 .4064 0.0243 0.0403 0.3131
3.2933 2.4509 1.8905 .5951 .6221 0.0290 0.0484 0.3131
4.6628
4.3317
4.0266
3.8133
4.2375
5.0618 3.5164 2.5045 .9804 .9011 0.0353 0.0591 0.3131
2.4660 1.9546 1.6092 .4246 .5020 0.0270 0.0451 0.3131
1.2415 1.0833 0.9517 0.8674 .0243 0.0216 0.0249 0.2660
0.9624 0.9581 0.9578 0.9597 .1054 0.0338 0.0436 0.2660
7.5463 4.7997 3.0341 2.1272 .9130 0.0442 0.0534 0.2660
1.6152 1.3056 1.0832 0.9560 .0839 0.0247 0.0294 0.2660
2.8460 2.0304 1.4887 1.2010 .2541 0.0295 0.0353 0.2660
3.7491
3.4922
3.2607
3. 1019
3.4720
4.4581 2.9824 2.0245 1.5275 .4857 0.0356 0.0432 0.2660
2. 11 Hi 1.5990 1.2505 1.0612 .1564 0.0274 0.0328 0.2660
1.076(i 0.9002 0.7600 0.6735 0.8118 0.0217 0.0243 0.2426 | 2.4619
0.85811 0.8189 0.7881 0.7701 0.8915 0.0339 0.0425 0.2426
6.7017 4.2632 2.6428 1.7698 1.5965 0.0450 0.0520 0.2426
1.411!> 1.1041 0.8809 0.7517 0.8645 0.0248 0.0285 0.2426
2. 5067 1.7588 1.2472 0.9644 1.0145 0.0297 0.0343 0.2426
2.2698
2.0977
1 .9804
2. 1881
3.945!> 2.6208 1.7321 1.2491 1.2197 0.0361 0.0420 0.2426
1.864IS 1.3707 1.0333 0.8439 0.9289 0.0276 0.0320 0.2426
0.9897 0.8004 0.6549 0.5674 0.6862 0.0217 0.0241 0.2317
0.8129 0.7487 0.6980 0.6672 0.76BS 0.0339 0.0425 0.2317
6.1700 3.9058 2.3844 1.5463 1.4026 0.0453 0.0519 0.2317
1.3009 0.9918 0.7682 0.63B7 0.7354 0.0249 0.0284 0.2317
2.3106 1.5971 1.1050 0.8287 0.8727 0.0298 0.0343 0.2317
.8350
.6794
.5404
.4458
.5882
3.6360 2.3935 1.5S09 1.0834 1.0603 0.0362 0.0420 0.2317
1.7106 1.2396 0.9094 0.7219 0.7950 0.0276 0.0319 0.2317
0.8351 0.6194 0.4640 0.3762 0.4444 0.0219 0.0246 0.2177
0.7494 0.6341 0.5424 0.4860 0.5430 0.0343 0.0434 0.2177
S.1344 3.2014 1.8845 1.1276 1.0376 0.0463 0.0530 0.2177
1.1032 0.7877 0.5639 0.4357 0.4905 0.0252 0.0290 0.2177
1.9461 1.2955 0.8435 0.5832 0.6062 0.0303 0.0349 0.2177
1 .0812
0.9749
0.8804
0.8163
0.8746
3.04fi>8 1.9593 1.2107 0.7796 0.7621 0.0369 0.0428 0.2177
1.44SIS 0.9991 0.6838 0.5023 0.5428 0.0280 0.0325 0.2177
0.7458 0.5197 0.3631 0.2780 0.3091 0.0222 0.0251 0.2103
0.7004 O.S645 0.4523 0.3838 0.4118 0.0349 0.0443 0.2103
4.4709 2.7595 1.5801 0.8829 0.8232 0.0473 0.0541 0.2103
0.9872 0.6728 0.4537 0.3297 0.3533 0.0255 0.0296 0.2103
1.7309 1.1193 0.6966 0.4503 0.4557 0.0307 0.0356 0.2103
0.8300
0.7419
0.6640
0.6112
0.6414
2.6BU4 1.6960 1.0118 0.6088 0.5910 0.0377 0.0437 0.2103
1.2943 0.8608 0.5594 0.3852 0.4009 0.0284 0.0332 0.2103
»V
0 20F
40F
60F
75F
80F
0 20F
0 40F
0 60F
7SF
0 80F
20F
0 40F
0 60F
0 7SF
0 80F
0 20F
0 40F
0 60F
0 75F
0 BOF
0 20F
0 40F
0 60F
0 75F
0 BOF
0 20F
0 40F
0 60F
0 75F
0 80F
TABLE B
CO AT 10.0 MPH.
-------
TABLE 9
LOW ALTITUDE
CO EMISSION FACTOR RATIOS AT 16.0 MPH
Cal .
Year
I960
I960
I960
I960
1980
1980
1980
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
Cold/Hot Start
VMT P^rcon t AQOS
PCCN PCHC PCCC
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20 .,0
27.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
20-F
1 .0325
0.8238
6.3431
1 . 3665
2.4299
3.7887
1.7983
0.7422
0.6171
5. 1 107
1.0177
1 .8847
3.0019
1 .3717
0.6631
0.5951
4.5324
0.9112
1.6789
2 . 6696
1.2270
0.6329
0.5935
4.2043
0.8647
1.5743
2.4894
1.1578
0.5861
0.5844
3.6415
0.7894
1 . 400 1
2. 1848
1.0435
0.5643
0 . 5663
3.4452
0.7570
1.3342
2.0743
0.9972
40-F
0.9418
0.8453
4.1165
1. 1433
1 . 7784
2.5916
1.4020
0.6223
0.5827
3 . 2860
0 . 7935
1.3218
2.0043
1.0107
0.5170
0.5230
2.9200
0.6763
1 . 1533
1 . 7699
0.8749
0.4719
0.5011
2.7235
0.6245
1 .0723
1 . 6508
0.8123
0.4080
0 . 4658
2.3970
0.5483
0.9465
1 .4586
0.7173
0.3874
0 . 4459
2 . 2848
0.5219
0.9029
1 .3917
0.6839
i r\f*\j «
LUuv
60-F
0.8653
0.8702
2.6753
0.9866
1.3481
1 .8131
1.1365
0.5292
0.5581
1.9881
0.6276
0.9165
1.2919
0 . 7486
0.4094
0.4667
1.7229
0.5020
0.7625
1. 1012
0.6130
0.3566
0.4283
1 .5937
0 . 4464
0.6925
1 . 0 1 20
0.5524
0.2850
0.3722
1.3925
0.3696
0.5916
0.8783
0.4667
0.2659
0.3511
1 .3249
0.3474
0.5605
0.8346
0 . 4409
75-F
0.8159
0.8914
1 .9346
0.8993
1. 1224
1.4115
0.9952
0.4729
0.5452
1.2332
0.5295
0.6794
0.8766
0 . 5949
0.3473
0.4331
0.9897
0 . 3980
0.5249
0.6923
0.4548
0.2915
0.3841
0 . 8804
0.3400
0 . 4569
0.6107
0.3932
0.2180
0.3153
0.7228
0.2629
0.3641
0.4965
0.3101
0.2005
0.2934
0.6725
0.2430
0.3380
0.4619
0.2876
80-F
0.9386
.0141
.7532
0 . 999 1
. 1599
.3712
.0683
0.5634
0.6218
1 . 1272
0 . 6030
0.7126
0.8596
0.6501
0.4113
0.4856
0.9109
0.4493
0.5471
0.6780
0.4930
0.3395
0.4237
0.8152
0.3781
0.4719
0.5968
0.4209
0.2392
0.3347
0.6763
0.2786
0.3662
0.4812
0.3199
0.2149
0 . 3080
0.6314
0.2531
0 . 3369
0.4466
0.2929
20-F 40-F 60-F 75-F 80-F 0-100F 0-100F 0-100F
1.4698 1.3514 1.2502 1.1840 .3271 0.0222 0.0368 0.3351
1.2013 1.2323 1.2660 1.2929 .4605 0.0377 0.0638 0.3351
8.4485 5.5459 3.6586 2.6871 2.4116 0.0466 0.0781 0.3351
1.9174 1.6245 1.4170 1.3005 .4159 0.0260 0.0430 0.3351
3.3273 2.4712 1.9026 1.6033 .6329 0.0310 0.0518 0.3351
4.8610
4.5157
4. 1976
3.9752
4.4177
5.1144 3.5464 2.5216 1.9916 .9141 0.0377 0.0633 0.3351
2.4908 1.9702 1.6192 1.4314 .5118 0.0289 0.0484 0.3351
1.3029 1.1318 0.9900 0.8993 .0673 0.0231 0.0267 0.2846 I 3.9083
1.0127 1.0046 1.0005 1.0002 .1528 0.0361 0.0466 0.2846
7.9809 5.0663 3.1927 2.2292 2.0067 0.0473 0.0571 0.2846
1.6983 1.3671 1.1289 0.9928 .1296 0.0265 0.0313 0.2846
3.0002 2..1332 1.5572 1.2509 .3092 0.0315 0.0379 0.2846
3.6407
3.3992
3.2337
3.6195
4.7075 3.1409 2.1241 1.5958 .5541 0.0380 0.0461 0.2846
2.2235 1.6773 1.3058 1.1038 .2060 0.0293 0.0351 0.2846
1.1606 0.9640 0.8086 0.7131 0.8637 0.0232 0.0260 0.2597
0.9327 0.8837 0.8455 0.8226 0.9527 0.0363 0.0454 0.2597
7.2922 4.6364 2.8653 1.9059 1.7209 0.0482 0.0556 0.2597
1.5262 1.1874 0.9413 0.7985 0.9212 0.0267 0.0305 0.2597
2.7197 1.9021 1.3412 1.0298 1.0850 0.0318 0.0368 0.2597
2.5665
2.3662
2. 1869
2.0645
2.2810
4.2879 2.8436 1.8709 1.3397 1.3092 0.0385 0.0449 0.2597
2.0096 1.4791 1.1081 0.8992 0.9916 0.0296 0.0342 0.2597
1.0890 0.8745 0.7104 0.6121 0.7426 0.0232 0.0258 0.2480 .9129
0.9033 0.8260 0.7646 0.7272 0.8374 0.0363 0.0454 0.2480 .7506
6.8498 4.3347 2.6383 1.6982 1.5417 0.0484 0.0556 0.2480 .6057
1.4364 1.0888 0.8375 0.6918 0.7978 0.0267 0.0305 0.2480 .5073
2.5596 1.7637 1.2132 0.9028 0.9511 0.0318 0.0367 0.2480 .6557
4.0336 2.6512 1.7104 1.1853 1.1606 0.0387 0.0449 0.2480
1.8928 1.3659 0.9954 0.7844 0.8646 0.0296 0.0342 0.2480
0.9637 0.7114 0.5302 0.4282 0.5051 0.0236 0.0263 0.2330
0.8699 0.7329 0.6238 0.5567 0.6211 0.0368 0.0465 0.2330
6.9436 3.7062 2.1781 1.2965 1.1936 0.0496 0.0566 0.2330
1.2753 0.9074 0.6467 0.4973 0.5589 0.0270 0.0310 0.2330
2.2549 1.4972 0.9713 0.6679 0.6933 0.0324 0.0373 0.2330
I . 1272
1 .0163
0.9177
0.8510
0.91 17
3.5312 2.2669 1.3973 0.8949 0.8745 0.0396 0.0458 0.2330
1.6772 1.1532 0.7861 0.5744 0.6199 0.0299 0.0348 0.2330
0.8842 0.6156 0.4295 0.3287 0.3650 0.0237 0.0268 0.2251
0.8379 0.6689 0.5355 0.4540 0.4868 0.0373 0.0475 0.2251
5.3098 3.2705 1.8721 1.0447 0.9742 0.0508 0.0578 0.2251
1.1705 0.7971 0.5371 0.3898 0.4175 0.0274 0.0317 0.2251
2.0521 1.3266 0.8252 0.5328 0.5388 0.0330 0.0382 0.2251
0.8653
0.7735
0.6921
0.6372
0.6687
3.1881 2.0103 1.1988 0.7204 0.6992 0.0403 0.0468 0.2251
1.5345 1.0201 0.6624 0.4557 0.4739 0.0305 0.0355 0.2251
20F
40F
60F
75F
80F
* 20F
40F
60F
75F
0 80F
0 20F
0 40F
0 60F
0 75F
0 80F
0 20F
0 40F
0 60F
0 75F
0 80F
0 20F
0 40F
0 60F
0 75F
0 80F
0 20F
0 40F
0 60F
0 75F
0 80F
TABLE 9
CO AT 15.0 MPH.
-------
TABLE 10
LOW ALTITUDE
CO EMISSION FACTOR RATIOS AT 19.6 MPH
Cal .
Vear
1980
I960
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
Cold/Hot Start
VMT F
PCCN
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
ercani
PCHC
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
ages
PCCC
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
20-F
1.0328
0.8232
6.3202
1 . 3657
2.4254
3.7779
1 . 7959
0.7484
0.6226
5. 1562
1.0269
1 .9026
3.0297
1.3846
0.6740
0.6052
4 . 606 1
0.9265
1 .7074
2.7141
1 .2477
0.6462
0 . 6063
4.291 1
0.8831
1 .6078
2.5419
1.1824
0.6028
0.6013
3.7445
0.8119
1 .4401
2 . 2469
1 .0733
0.5816
0.5835
3.5503
0.7800
1 .3748
2. 1375
1.0278
40-F
0.9412
0.8440
4 . 0998
1 . 1419
1.7744
2.5833
1.3993
0.6262
0.5866
3.3150
0.7993
1 .3332
2.0219
1.0189
0.5243
0.5306
2.9679
0 . 6866
1 . 1720
1 .7991
0.8887
0 . 48 1 1
0.5111
2.7807
0.6371
1.0948
1 .6857
0.8291
0.4195
0.4790
2.4651
0.5638
0.9735
1.5002
0.7375
0.3991
0.4594
2.3544
0.5380
0.9304
1 .4341
0.7048
" LDGV ~
60- F
0.8642
0 . 868 1
2.6633
0.9848
1.3445
1.8065
1.1336
0.5317
0 . 5605
2.0026
0.6310
0.9223
1 . 3009
0.7531
0.4143
0.4727
1 . 7495
0.5085
0.7735
1. 1178
0.6215
0.3627
0.4360
1.6260
0.4547
0.7061
1 .0323
0.5629
0.2928
0.3824
1 .4319
0.3798
0.6085
0.9033
0.4798
0.2740
0.3618
1 . 3655
0.3581
0.5774
0.8601
0.4542
75-F
0.8145
0.8885
1 .9254
0.8972
1 .1189
1.4059
0.9924
0.4744
0.5466
1.2375
0.5312
0.6818
0.8798
0.5970
0.3508
0.4377
1.0013
0.4024
0.5308
0.7004
0 . 4599
0.2963
0.3907
0.8959
0.3458
0.4646
0.6213
0.4000
0.2241
0.3239
0.7427
0.2701
0.3742
0.5102
0.3187
0.2067
0.3024
0.6931
0.2503
0.3484
0.4759
0.2963
80-F
0.9377
.0106
.7453
0.9974
. 1566
.3662
. 0657
0.5655
0.6234
1.1312
0.6052
0.7152
0.8627
0.6525
0.4154
0.4905
0.9217
0.4540
0.5531
0 . 6859
0.4983
0.3447
0.4304
0.8297
0.3842
0.4798
0.6072
0.4278
0.2456
0.3438
0 . 6950
0.2861
0.3761
0 . 4946
0.3286
0.2215
0.3174
0 . 6508
0.2610
0.3473
0.4603
0.3020
20-F 40-F 60-F 75-F BO-F 0-100F 0-100F 0-100F
1.4675 1.3486 1.2471 .1807 .3247 0.0217 0.0358 0.3256
1.1989 1.2291 1.2616 .2879 .4542 0.0367 0.0620 0.3256
8.407*1 5.5171 3.6390 .6729 .4007 0.0453 0.0759 0.3256
1.9130 1.6202 1.4126 .2961 .4124 0.0252 0.0419 0.3256
3.31611 2.4623 1.8952 .5972 .6275 0.0302 0.0503 0.3256
5.092(1 3.5304 2.5100 .9824 .9065 0.0367 0.0614 0.3256
2.483!. 1.9638 1.6134 1.4262 .5072 0.0282 0.0469 0.3256
1.2891) 1.1193 0.9785 0.8885 .0551 0.0226 0.0260 0.2766
1.0007 0.9918 0.9872 0.9863 .1367 0.0351 0.0453 0.2766
7.869I> 4.9965 3.1482 2.1965 .9781 0.0460 0.0555 0.2766
1.679(1 1.3512 1.1154 0.9805 .1161 0.0258 0.0306 0.2766
2.9631) 2.1072 1.5377 1.2345 .2924 0.0306 0.0367 0.2766
4.6451) 3.1000 2.0957 1.5735 .5330 0.0371 0.0449 0.2766
2.1974 1.6573 1.2896 1.0896 .1909 0.0284 0.0343 0.2766
1.1527 0.9557 0.8002 0.7050 0.8544 0.0226 0.0252 0.2523
0.9262 0.8757 0.8362 0.8126 0.9412 0.0354 0.0443 0.2523
7.2345 4.6017 2.8421 1.8861 1.7037 0.0469 0.0540 0.2523
1.5161 1.1779 0.9321 0.7896 0.9113 0.0258 0.0297 0.2523
2.7013 1.8883 1.3295 1.0189 1.0738 0.0310 0.0358 0.2523
4.2566 2.8228 1.8555 1.3258 1.2959 0.0375 0.0438 0.2523
1.9961 1.4679 1.0978 0.8892 0.9809 0.0286 0.0332 0.2523
1.0874 0.8711 0.7061 0.6076 0.7373 0.0226 0.0252 0.2410
0.9028 0.8234 0.7603 0.7219 0.8308 0.0354 0.0440 0.2410
6.8377 4.3288 2.6325 1.6896 1.5345 0.0471 0.0540 0.2410
1.4351 1.0859 0.8334 0.6870 0.7922 0.0258 0.0295 0.2410
2.5575 1.7610 1.2093 0.8974 0.9453 0.0310 0.0356 0.2410
4.0288 2.6479 1.7059 1.1790 1.1542 0.0377 0.0436 0.2410
1.8913 1.3631 0.9913 0.7794 0.8588 0.0286 0.0332 0.2410
0.9768 0.7193 0.5349 0.4310 0.5078 0.0228 0.0256 0.2265
0.8831 0.7423 0.6302 0.5612 0.6254 0.0358 0.0451 0.2265
6.0217 3.7557 2.2054 1.3089 1.2054 0.0482 0.0551 0.2265
1.29311 0.9187 0.6531 0.5013 0.5625 0.0262 0.0302 0.2265
2.28i6 1.5169 0.9826 0.6740 0.6989 0.0315 0.0364 0.2265
3.578)4 2.2976 1.4145 0.9033 0.8824 0.0384 0.0445 0.2265
1.7007 1.1681 0.7948 0.5794 0.6243 0.0291 0.0338 0.2265
0.90T4 0.6312 0.4401 0.3364 0.3731 0.0232 0.0260 0.2187
0.8601 0.6861 0.5488 0.4651 0.4983 0.0362 0.0462 0.2187
5.4473 3.3553 1.9200 1.0703 0.9983 0.0492 0.0562 0.2187
1.20113 0.8176 0.5505 0.3991 0.4271 0.0267 0.0308 0.2187
2.1061 1.3610 0.8460 0.5458 0.5516 0.0321 0.0371 0.2187
3.27114 2.0625 1.2293 0.7380 0.7161 0.0393 0.0456 0.2187
1.5748 1.0464 0.6792 0.4668 0.4850 0.0295 0.0345 0.2187
HOC
4.6508
4.3206
4.0161
3.8035
4.2267
3.7393
3.4833
3.2523
3.0939
3.4631
2.4555
2.2640
2.0922
1 .9753
2. 1824
.8302
.6751
.5364
.4421
.5839
1 .0783
0.9725
0.8781
0.8141
0.8722
0.8278
0.7401
0.6623
0 . 6095
0.6397
IV
0 20F
40F
60F
75F
80F
0 20F
« 40F
0 60F
0 75F
0 80F
0 20F
0 40F
60F
0 75F
0 80F
0 20F
0 40F
60F
0 75F
0 80F
0 20F
0 40F
0 60F
0 75F
80F
0 20F
0 40F
0 60F
0 7SF
0 aOF
TABLE 10
CO AT 19.6 MPH.
-------
TABLE 11
LOW ALTITUDE
CO EMISSION FACTOR RATIOS AT 30.0 MPH
Cal .
Vaar
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
Cold/Hot Start
VMT P
PCCN
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
erceni
PCHC
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
anus
PCCC
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
20-F
0.9847
0.7877
5.9387
1 . 2984
2 . 2956
3.5627
1.7032
0.6923
0.5739
4.7415
0.9489
1 .7558
2.7913
1 .2783
0.6195
0.5554
4.2247
0.8519
1.5694
2.4922
1.1468
0.5946
0.5579
3.9435
0 . 8 1 30
1.4801
2.3380
1 . 0884
0.5602
0.5589
3.4781
0.7545
1 .3380
2.0875
0.9974
0.5426
0.5445
3.3128
0.7277
1 .2828
1 .9946
0.9588
40-F
0.9007
0.8082
3.8650
1 . 0900
1 . 6859
2 . 4449
1.3326
0.5803
0.5410
3.0530
0.7399
1.2320
1.8653
0.9422
0.4816
0.4864
2.7249
0.6310
1 .0776
1 .6530
0.8168
0.4421
0 . 4695
2.5576
0.5860
1 .0077
1 .5512
0.7628
0.3894
0.4449
2 . 2905
0.5238
0.9046
1 . 3939
0.6853
0.3725
0.4287
2. 1969
0.5021
0.8682
1 .3380
0.6575
LDGV
60-F
0.8299
0.8321
2.5199
0.9438
1.2828
1 .7169
1.0843
0.4935
0.5174
1 .8458
0.5847
0.8535
1 .2014
0.6974
0.3805
0.4325
1 . 6055
0.4670
0.7105
1.0265
0.5707
0.3329
0 . 3996
1 . 495 1
0.4175
0.6492
0.9492
0.5174
0.2716
0.3549
1 .3300
0.3527
0.5650
0.8388
0.4456
0.2557
0.3377
1 .2742
0.3342
0.5388
0.8024
0.4239
75-F
0.7842
0.8519
1.8270
0.8624
1.0712
1 . 3406
0.9521
0 . 44 1 1
0 . 5049
1. 1401
0.4931
0 . 63 1 3
0.8126
0.5535
0.3221
0.4003
0.9161
0.3693
0.4868
0.6416
0.4216
0.2716
0.3575
0.8206
0.3169
0.4261
0.5694
0.3667
0.2078
0.3004
0 . 689 1
0.2506
0.3470
0.4733
0.2956
0. 1928
0.2822
0.6467
0.2336
0.3249
0.4440
0.2764
80-F
0.8995
0.9671
1 .6562
0.9556
1 . 1056
1.3019
1.0201
0.5247
0.5752
1.0425
0.5608
0 . 66 1 7
0.7967
0.6042
0 . 3808
0.4481
0.8436
0.4162
0.5069
0.6278
0.4564
0.3157
0.3932
0.7603
0.3517
0.4395
0.5563
0 . 39 1 6
0.2273
0.3185
0 . 6447
0.2649
0.3485
0.4587
0.3045
0.2065
0.2962
0.6071
0.2435
0.3240
0.4293
0.2815
20-F 40-F 60-F 75-F BO-F 0-100F 0-100F 0-100F
1.4191 1.3083 1.2139 .1526 .2889 0.0204 0.0335 0.3067
1.1685 1.1979 1.2298 .2553 .4143 0.0345 0.0584 0.3067
8.0348 5.2895 3.5011 2.5790 2.3176 0.0428 0.0715 0.3067
1.8465 1.5694 1.3734 .2636 .3734 0.0236 0.0396 0.3067
3.1880 2.3760 1.8363 .5519 .5800 0.0284 0.0476 0.3067
4.3556
4.0466
3.7613
3.5621
3.9585
4.8819 3.3961 2.4239 .9202 .8465 0.0345 0.0581 0.3067
2.3923 1.8991 1.5662 .3881 .4644 0.0265 0.0444 0.3067
1.1679 1.0169 0.8924 0.8130 0.9607 0.0211 0.0246 0.2608
0.9042 0.8975 O.B947 0.8950 .0297 0.0332 0.0428 0.2608
7.0182 4.4705 2.8257 1.9761 .7791 0.0434 0.0523 0.2608
1.5164 1.2244 1.0147 0.8947 .0150 0.0243 0.0287 0.2608
2.6633 1.9007 1.3926 1.1216 .1720 0.0287 0.0345 0.2608
3.5021
3.2624
3.0460
2.8975
3.2432
4.1586 2.7852 1.8899 1.4229 .3849 0.0348 0.0425 0.2608
1.9786 1.4979 1.1704 0.9920 .0814 0.0268 0.0322 0.2608
1.0306 0.8551 0.7169 0.6320 0.7638 0.0214 0.0236 0.2378
0.8251 0.7794 0.7440 0.7229 0.8366 0.0332 0.0415 0.2378
6.4153 4.0903 2.5292 1.6767 1.5142 0.0440 0.0511 0.2378
1.3537 1.0530 0.8340 0.7070 0.8139 0.0243 0.0281 0.2378
2.4066 1.6853 1.1880 0.9103 0.9579 0.0290 0.0338 0.2378
2.2997
2. 1203
1 .9595
1 .8500
2.0440
3.7836 2.5145 1.6546 1.1816 1.1538 0.0354 0.0412 0.2378
1.7801 1.3109 0.9815 0.7951 0.8755 0.0271 0.0313 0.2378
0.9726 0.7782 0.6301 0.5417 0.6556 0.0214 0.0236 0.2273
0.8056 0.7325 0.6751 0.6400 0.7360 0.0332 0.0415 0.2273
6.0798 3.8557 2.3447 1.5002 1.3626 0.0444 0.0508 0.2273
1.2825 0.9697 0.7434 0.6122 0.7044 0.0243 0.0278 0.2273
2.2825 1.5726 1.0788 0.7989 0.8407 0.0294 0.0335 0.2273
.7140
.5688
.4389
.3505
.4836
3.5892 2.3616 1.5209 1.0482 1.0255 0.0354 0.0412 0.2273
1.6888 1.2170 0.8845 0.6939 0.7635 0.0271 0.0313 0.2273
0.8851 0.6492 0.4810 0.3865 0.4536 0.0214 0.0239 0.2132 1 0099
0.8011 0.6706 0.5665 0.5030 0.5592 0.0335 0.0425 0.2132 0 9106
5.4408 3.3955 1.9914 1.1756 1.0833 0.0453 0.0520 0.2132 0.8222
1.1717 0.8302 0.5883 0.4497 0.5034 0.0246 0.0284 0.2132 0 7625
2.0705 1.3725 0.8867 0.6052 0.6266 0.0297 0.0342 0.2132 0 8171
3.2384 2.0785 1.2771 0.8114 0.7922 0.0361 0.0418 0.2132
1.5407 1.0565 0.7166 0.5199 0.5592 0.0274 0.0319 0.2132
0.8391 0.5828 0.4057 0.3096 0.3428 0.0217 0.0246 0.2062
0.7964 0.6342 0.5062 0.4283 0.4583 0.0342 0.0434 0.2062
5.0364 3.1025 1.7740 0.9866 0.9205 0.0463 0.0530 0.2062
1.1114 0.7555 0.5078 0.3677 0.3926 0.0249 0.0290 0.2062
1.9483 1.2585 0.7814 0.5027 0.5078 0.0303 0.0351 0.2062
0.7753
0.6933
0.6202
0.5710
0 . 599 1
3.0255 1.9071 1.1357 0.6802 0.6601 0.0370 0.0428 0.2062
1.4571 0.9674 0.6269 0.4299 0.4462 0.0278 0.0326 0.2062
0 20F
0 40F
0 60F
75F
80F
0 20F
0 40F
0 60F
0 75F
0 80F
0 20F
0 40F
0 60F
0 75F
0 80F
0 20F
0 40F
0 60F
0 75F
0 80F
w 20F
0 40F
0 60F
0 75F
0 80F
0 20F
0 40F
0 60F
0 75F
0 80F
TABLE 11
CO AT 30.0 MPH.
-------
TABLE 12
LOW ALTITUDE
CO EMISSION FACTOR RATIOS AT 45.0 MPH
Cal .
Vear
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
Cold/Hot Start
VMT P
PCCN
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
rceni
PCMC
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
27.3
PCCC
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
10.0
35.0
60.0
20.6
20-F
0.9178
0.7356
5.3917
1 . 2043
2.1112
3.2556
1.5724
0.5883
0.4757
3.8820
0.7966
1.4566
2.2982
1 . 0654
0.4930
0.4312
3.2832
0.6723
1.2297
1.9433
0.9006
0.4571
0.4217
2.9864
0.6219
1.1266
1 .7744
0.8298
0.4144
0.4122
2.5665
0.5574
0.9882
1.5411
0.7367
0 . 3999
0.4013
2.4426
0.5365
0 . 9460
1.4707
0.7072
40-F
0.8443
0.7567
3.5275
1 .0177
1.5606
2.2474
1.2383
0 . 4989
0 . 4535
2.5016
0 . 6269
1 .0277
1.5406
0 . 7907
0.3872
0.3808
2. 1162
0.5016
0.8470
1 .2901
0.6446
0.3423
0 . 3568
1 .9360
0.4503
0.7685
1 . 1779
0.5833
0.2882
0.3282
1 . 6900
0.3872
0.6682
1 .0291
0.5061
0.2746
0.3159
1 .6196
0.3700
0 . 6400
0 . 9864
0 . 4848
i r\f* w -
L.UUV
60-F
0.7826
0.7803
2.3141
0.8865
1 . 1961
1.5892
1 .0145
0.4285
0.4380
1 .5247
0.5020
0.7208
1.0023
0.5928
0.3091
0.3423
1.2524
0.3754
0.5633
0.8062
0 . 4548
0.2601
0 . 3055
1 . 1339
0.3232
0.4980
0.7231
0 . 398 1
0.201 1
0.2619
0.9814
0.2610
0.4176
0.6192
0.3291
0. 1884
0.2488
0.9392
0 . 2465
0.3972
0.5915
0.3123
75-F
0.7431
0.6003
1 .6877
0 . 8 1 39
1.0045
1 .2483
0.8956
0.3863
0 . 4308
0.9605
0.4285
0.5424
0 . 6909
0.4775
0.2642
0.3191
0.7249
0.3000
0.3913
0.5111
0 . 3404
0 . 2 1 38
0.2746
0.6278
0.2474
0.3300
0.4380
0.2846
0. 1539
0.2215
0.5084
0.1852
0.2565
0.3495
0.2188
0.1421
0.2079
0.4766
0. 1725
0.2397
0.3273
0 . 2038
80-F
0.8470
0.9056
1 .5302
0.8983
1 .0345
1 .21 15
0.9569
0.4580
0.4911
0.8774
0.4862
0.5683
0.6773
0.5211
0.3128
0.3581
0 . 6668
0.3386
0 . 408 1
0.5007
0 . 3695
0.2488
0.3028
0.5815
0.2755
0.3409
0.4281
0.3050
0.1689
0.2351
0.4757
0.1961
0.2578
0.3386
0.2251
0. 1525
0.2183
0.4476
0. 1793
0.2388
0.3168
0.2074
20-F 40-F 60-F 75-F 80-F 0-100F 0-100F 0-100F
1.36118 1.2606 1.1743 .1185 .2460 0.0218 0.0354 0.3246
1.1298 1.1589 1.1897 .2147 .3645 0.0363 0.0617 0.3246
7.56118 5.0041 3.3277 2.4603 2.2129 0.0449 0.0758 0.3246
1.7662 1.5084 1.3259 .2238 .3264 0.0250 0.0418 0.3246
3.0304 2.2701 1.7635 .4961 .5216 0.0300 0.0504 0.3246
4
4
4
4
4
4.61H6 3.2292 2.3164 .8425 .7717 0.0368 0.0613 0.3246
2.2810 1.8198 1.5079 .3418 .4126 0.0281 0.0468 0.3246
0.9805 0.8616 0.7631 0.7000 0.8189 0.0222 0.0259 0.2755
0.7508 0.7499 0.7517 0.7549 0.8656 0.0350 0.0454 0.2755
5.66116 3.6337 2.3150 1.6323 1.4685 0.0458 0.0554 0.2755
1.2624 1.0291 0.8616 0.7653 0.8620 0.0254 0.0304 0.2755
2.1911 1.5774 1.1675 0.9492 0.9877 0.0304 0.0368 0.2755
3
3
3
3
3
3.381)6 2:2664 1.5660 1.1902 1.1566 0.0368 0.0449 0.2755
1.63150 1.2501 0.9868 0.8434 0.9147 0.0281 0.0340 0.2755
0.8157 0.6827 0.5774 0.5125 0.6146 0.0227 0.0250 0.2515 2
0.6391 0.6083 0.5847 0.5710 0.6596 0.0350 0.0440 0.2515 2
4.9159 3.1453 1.9551 1.3059 1.1779 0.0468 O.OS40 0.2515 2
1.0626 0.8330 0.6659 0.5688 0.6514 0.0259 0.0295 0.2515 2
1.8706 1.3177 0.9365 0.7240 0.7599 0.0309 0.0354 0.2515 2
2.9197 1.9483 1.2910 0.9296 0.9069 0.0372 0.0436 0.2515
1.3886 1.0295 0.7776 0.6355 0.6972 0.0286 0.0331 0.2515
0.7476 0.6024 0.4916 0.4253 0.5116 0.0227 0.0250 0.2401 I
0.6055 0.5538 0.5134 0.4889 0.5620 0.0350 0.0440 0.2401
4.5524 2.8938 1.7662 1.1357 1.0309 0.0468 0.0536 0.2401
0.9787 0.7444 0.5751 0.4766 0.5465 0.0259 0.0295 0.2401
1.7281 1.1956 0.8257 0.6160 0.6468 0.0309 0.0354 0.2401
2.7009 1.7830 1.1539 0.8003 0.7826 0.0377 0.0436 0.2401
1.2819 0.9287 0.6795 0.5374 0.5897 0.0286 0.0331 0.2401
0.6482 0.4757 0.3522 0.2833 0.3318 0.0227 0.0254 0.2256
0.5824 0.4866 0.4108 0.3645 0.4049 0.0354 0.0449 0.2256
3.9405 2.4612 1.4435 0.8507 0.7839 0.0481 0.0549 0.2256
0.8557 0.6064 0.4299 0.3286 0.3672 0.0263 0.0300 0.2256
1.5070 0.9995 0.6459 0.4408 0.4557 0.0313 0.0363 0.2256
1
1
0
0
0
2.3509 1.5098 0.9278 0.5887 0.5747 0.0381 0.0445 0.2256
1.1226 0.7703 0.5225 0.3790 0.4072 0.0291 0.0336 0.2256
0.6123 0.4244 0.2946 0.2242 0.2478 0.0232 0.0259 0.2179 0
0.5815 0.4626 0.3681 0.3109 0.3323 0.0363 0.0458 0.2179 0
3.6718 2.2619 1.2923 0.7167 0.6691 0.0490 0.0563 0.2179 0
0.8107 0.5506 0.3695 0.2665 0.2842 0.0263 0.0304 0.2179 0
1.4212 0.9174 0.5688 0.3650 0.3681 0.0318 0.0368 0.2179 0
2.2070 1.3908 0.8271 0.4939 0.4793 0.0390 0.0454 0.2179
1.0631 0.7049 0.4662 0.3123 0.3236 0.0295 0.0345 0.2179
.9092 0 20F
.5611 0 40F
.2397 0 60F
.0150 0 75F
.4616 0 80F
.9473 0 20F
.6768 0 40F
.4330 0 60F
.2660 0 75F
.6555 0 80F
.5919 0 20F
.3899 0 40F
.2088 0 60F
.0849 0 75F
.3037 0 80F
.9319 0 20F
.7680 0 40F
.6219 0 60F
.5225 0 75F
.6723 0 80F
. 1384 0 20F
.0263 0 40F
.9269 0 60F
.8593 0 75F
.9210 0 80F
.8738 0 20F
.7812 0 40F
.6990 0 60F
.6437 0 75F
.6754 0 BOF
TABLE 12 : CO AT 45.0 MPH.
-------
10 Lead Plans and
Revisions
-------
UNITED STATES;ENV|RQNMENTAL.PROTECTION AGENCY
Office or Air Quality Planning anc Stardaras 10.1
J\JN ' 4 1<37S Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
ECT: Lead SIPs
JM: G. T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch, CPOD (MD-15)
TOi
Air Branch Chief, Regions 1-*
As you know, the SIP requirements for lead are set forth in
40 CFR Part 51, Subpart £, as promulgated on October 5, 1978. Questions
have arisen concerning the interpretation of these requirements in those
instances where no violations of the national ambient lead standard have
been recorded since January 1, 1974, no significant lead point sources
[as described in 40 CFR 51.80(a)] exist, and the State has no urbanized
area with a 1970 population greater than 500,000.
. . - ^
In cases where such conditions exist, a plan submission is still
required. This plan should minimally contain information pertaining
tc lead emissions data (Section 51.81) and air quality data (Section
51.82). It must be submitted by the State and demonstrate continued
attainment (i.e., maintenance) of the standard for a minimum of three
years. The specific information that should be contained in this type
of plan is as follows: /
*
1. A baseline emission inventory sunroarized in a form similar to
Appendix D of 40 CFR Part 51. Stationary sources emitting five or more
tons of lead per year must be included in such inventories. This inventory
must also contain area sources and mobile sources. [Section 51.81 (a)]
2. Projected lead emissions for at least three years from the date
by which EPA must approve or disapprove the plan. [Section 51.81(b)]
2. A summary of all lead air quality data measured since 1974 and
an evaluation of the data for reliability ana representativeness.
[Section 51.82(a)]
4. A projection of maximum air quality concentrations based on
projected emissions. [Section 51.82(c)]
If you have any questions concerning minimum SIP requirements for
the aoove mentioned situations, please contact Susi Jackson at 625-5365.
cc: Jim Cahan, OGC
<» MIS-* '»EV.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGbNCY
10.2
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PROM:
2 1 NOV 1979
Minimum Number of Samples for Determining Quarterly Average Lead
Concentration
Richard G. Rhoads, Director/^
Control Programs Development Division, OAQPS (MD 15)
TO: Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
In the preamble to the lead SIP regulations of October 5, 1978 (43
FR 46264), it was stated that EPA would provide guidance regarding the
minimum number of valid samples needed to determine quarterly average
lead concentrations. The preamble also cited the general practice that
at least 75 percent of the scheduled samples must be valid in order to
determine average concentrations. OAQPS has reviewed this Issue and has
concluded that the "75 percent rule" is appropriate for determining
attainment with the NAAQS for lead. This means that, at the sampling
frequency of one 24-hour sample every six days (15 samples per quarter),
at least 12 valid lead samples must be available to determine whether a
State is attaining the national standard.
*
This criterium applies to the review of existing data submitted as
part of the original lead plan, as well as all future data collected
through the required MAMS stations. In the event that situations arise
where the minimum number of valid samples are not available, further
guidance may be sought by contacting Mr. William Cox, Chief, Monitoring
ar.d Reports Branch at (FT3) 625-5312.
cc: Director, Surveillance & Analysis Division, Regions I-X
R.- Neligan
3. Cox
T. Helms
EPA
<». ].;
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning, and Standards
. ... -Research Triangle Park, North "Carolina 27711 10-3
DATE: APR 0 T980
SUBJECT New Source Review Requirements for Lead
TO:
S. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
Recently, several Regions have requested guidance regarding new
source review requirements for lead SIPs.
The "Supplementary Guidelines for Lead Implementation Plans"
contains a brief outline of general SIP requirements. This outline
discusses those portions of 40 -CFR 51 regulations "Requirements for
Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans" that were
not revised to account for the lead standard, but which are still
applicable to the lead SIPs. Specifically, the requirements of CFR
51.18 Review of New Sources and Modifications must be satisfied Tor lead
Existing permitting regulations adopted in accordance with Section
51.18 may be applicable to lead depending on the specific exemptions
included in the State's general permitting regulation. In general,
the NSR requirement for lead SIPs may be satisfied by simply revising
existing permit regulations to eliminate any exemption of sources
wrich have the potential to emit five tons/year or more of lead.
The source size limit is based on the definition of a point source
of lead which is five tons/year actual emissions of lead. The rationale
for this limit is based on an analysis contained in the "Supplementary
Guidelines for Lead Implementation Plans," pages 75-77. Briefly, this
rationale indicates that sources which emit five tons/year of lead
have tne potential to violate the ambient standard for lead.
If you have any Questions regarding new source review in lead SIPs,
contact Susi Jacfcson (629-5365) .of my staff.
cc: Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
Kike James, OGC
Ed Reich, DSSE
*FA P-~ 1320-*
-------
OATS
SUBJECT
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
14 MAR 1983
Issues on Lead SIP's
10.4
FROM-
TO
G. T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch (MD-15)
Conrad Simon, Director
Air and Waste Management Division, Region II
Thank you for your memorandum of January 11, and Bill Baker's
memorandum of February 9, 1983, on the status of lead SIP's in your
Region. In those memorandums, you also raised several issues to which I
would like to respond.
0 Attainment and maintenanceIn response to a petition by three
primary lead smelters in Missouri, EPA is expected shortly to propose to
revise EPA's policy on the interpretation of an attainment date. Under
that expected change, an attainment date for a criteria pollutant (other
than those covered by Title I, Part D, of the Clean Air Act) would be
three years from the date EPA actually approves (or promulgates) a SIP
for that pollutant. Thus the "record date" (i.e., the date of EPA
approval) for each SIP would be different. While States are projecting
their emissions, they will not know in advance the date of EPA approval.
Therefore, they will have to estimate their date of submission to EPA
and then add seven months to allow for EPA processing time (under the
"5-2/5-2" system for processing Federal Register notices). Adding three
years beyond that will yield the estimated attainment date. While the
revised policy on attainment dates is still technically under development,
other States are assuming that the policy will eventually be issued and
are basing their attainment dates on the anticipated policy. In one such
casePennsylvaniaEPA will propose to take no action on the attainment
date until EPA's policy is issued. When the revised policy is issued,
EPA would then approve the attainment date specified in the plan.
0 Summary of Pb air quality data since January 1974We agree that
only air quality data collected since January 1, 1978, need be submitted
with SIP's now being developed. We believe, however, that considering
only the last two years of data in developing a control strategy may be
misleading. For Instance, low levels of production at major stationary
sources during the last two years of economic stagnation may have resulted
in failure to Identify an ambient lead problem that would exist if the
sources were to Increase production. Therefore, as a compromise, we
recommend: (a) considering the last three years of air quality data (1980,
1981, and 1982) 1n control strategy development if sources in the analysis
area were operating close to capacity or if there are no significant
stationary sources, and (b) considering air quality back to January 1,
1978, where the sources were not operating close to capacity. Since these
recommendations conflict with the letter of the regulation, we will have to
check with OGC on how to implement-tthese recommendations legally.
EPA ?" 1370.4 (** 3-7*)
-------
0 Reentralned dust from paved roadwaysYou have been asked whether
this area source Is being double counted, since emissions from the tail-
pipe are already being considered. It is true that tailpipe emissions
contribute to local ambient air concentrations of lead before the lead
particles settle out. Once the particles settle out on highway pavement,
however, vehicular traffic will cause them to be resuspended in the air.
The emission factors for tailpipe emissions were developed based on
actual measurements of lead emissions from tailpipes of automobiles.
Thus, these emissions would exist even if resuspension did not occur.
On the other hand, the emission factor for reentrained dust was based on
tests in which ambient concentrations were measured upwind and downwind
of roadways; dispersion models were "run backwards" to back-calculate
emissions that would cause the measured concentrations; the estimated
emissions were then reduced by the calculated tailpipe emissions to yield
the reentrained fraction. The reentrained fraction is partially dependent
on the tailpipe emissions, however; as tailpipe emissions diminish over
time as a result of decreased lead in gasoline, the amount of lead
particles that settle out on highway pavement--and any resulting emissions
from their resuspensionwill also decline. In summary, inclusion of
reentrained lead dust from roadways in the lead emission Inventory is not
"double counting."
You also noted that a State might not include reentrained road dust as
a line item in the emission inventory even though it may consider this as
an area source when modeling. This practice appears acceptable.
0 Air quality dispersion modelingYou indicated that current
modeling techniques would have to be modified if States had to determine '
the impact of emissions from a combination of line, area, and point
sources of lead. This 1s not necessarily so. There are several cases
that may occur:
1. Isolated point source with .a few roads nearby and fugitive
area sources on plant property.Currently, the Industrial Source Complex
(ISC) model will handle this configuration (point, line, and area). A
background lead air quality concentration would have to be considered.
EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models (EPA-450/2-78-027), pp. 34-37,
provides techniques for estimating background concentrations.
2. Point source in the middle of a substantial road network.
In this situation, it is better to consider the lead concentrations that
result from the road network as background and model the source and any
nearby major roadways separately using, the ISC. Two cases come to mind
in applying the Guideline's techniques for estimating background:
a. If air quality data are available that are representative
of the roadway network in the vicinity of the plant, but not Influenced
by emissions from that plant, those data can be used as the baseline
background concentration.
-------
b. If air quality data representative of the roadway network
in the vicinity of the plant are not available, the agency should obtain
data that are representative of a similar roadway network that is located
elsewhere and also not influenced by lead point sources. The agency
should use those data as the baseline background concentrations.
In either (a) or (b), the baseline background concentration oust be
proportionately reduced to account for the reduction of mobile source
lead emissions over the period ending with the attainment date.
3. Several nearby point sources Page 35 of the Guideline on
Air Quality Models states that the "impact of nearby sources must be
summed for locations where interactions between the effluents of the.
point source under consideration and those of nearby sources can occur."
In summary, we do not see the need for modified models to account
for the above situations since the ISC and the modeling Guideline appear
to address them.
0 Calculation of grams per mile of lead emissions from mobile sources
You indicated that States need information regarding the effects of the
recent changes in the Federal regulation of lead in gasoline and changes
in projected vehicle mix that have taken place since 1979. We recently
have asked the Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control to revise
the methodology for projecting xobile source lead emissions in light of
the recent regulation and other information. This information will be
forwarded to the Regional Offices when it is available, which will probably
be around April. Until that guidance is issued, States can use the
former method for projecting mobile source emissions of lead (which will
likely over-predict emissions) or develop their own methods to account
for the recent changes.
0 Transporation control strategy development You indicated that States
need additional information on the effectiveness of various transportation
control measures if mobile sources must be considered in the development
of a control strategy. We anticipate that mobile source lead emissions
will not contribute significantly to any violation of the national ambient
air quality standard for lead anywhere in the United States because of
the Federal requirement for reducing lead in gasoline and the other
Federal programs that result in reduced automotive lead emissions. If,
however, an area must institute a transportation control strategy for
attainment of another criteria pollutant (e.g., carbon monoxide or ozone),
credit for reduced vehicle miles traveled that result from that control
strategy can and should be taken Into consideration in calculating mobile
source lead emissions. Note, however, that an increase in the average
vehicle speed as a resultof that control strategy will work to increase
mobile
0 Lead point source definition for significant sources Your interpretation
is correct analysis and dispersion modeling are required for the "significant"
source categories listed in 40 CFR 51.80 and 51.84 only if their actual
emissions of lead equal or exceed five tons per year.
-------
0 Statewide inventory developmentYour analysis is correctwe would
not recommend disapproval of a lead SIP for failure to provide a
emission Inventory, despite my memorandum of June 14, 1979, to the
Air Branch Chiefs.
I trust that this memorandum replies to your issues satisfactorily.
Because these issues and our replies are of general interest to the other
Regional Offices, I am sending copies of this memorandum to them.
cc: Air and Waste Management Division Director, Regions I, III-X
Lead Contacts, Regions I-X
W. Baker
J. Calcagni
J. SablesM
J. SHvasI
J. Ulfelder
R. Wilson
-------
10.5
10.5 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
April 21, 1983
Section 107 Designation Policy Summary
Sheldon Meyers, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Director
Air Management Division, Regions I-X
Summarizes and clarifies existing policy for reviewing
designations and provides new guidance on processing
these actions
6.3 (hard copy)
-------
i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 10.6
» Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
03 MAY 383
Memorandum
Subject: Acceptance Criteria for Lead Data Used 1n Control Strategy
Development
From: G. T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch (MD-1S)
To: Tom Harris
Montana Field Office, Region VIII
During the week of April 11, 1983, John Silvasl of my Branch had
several conversations with you concerning the acceptability of air quality
monitoring data for lead at a sampling site In East Helena, Montana, near
the ASARCO primary lead smelter. The site was SAROAD number 270860714002,
located at First Street, at the Flrehall. The sampler operated from raid-
January to mid-April, 1981, and produced a total of 25 observations. The
sampling frequency varied from once every three days to once every six
days, with several exceptions. Counting only the samples that occurred
on a once-every-s1x-day cycle during January, February, and March, however,
only 11 observations were made, yielding a mean of 7.51 ug/m3. You
indicated that ASARCO has argued that this quarter of data cannot be used
to f*x the design value for control strategy development since there must
be a sample recovery of at least 80 percent (or 12 samples), according to
page 7 of EPA's Guideline for Short-Terro Lead Monitoring in the Vicinity
of &oint Sources (Marcn 26, 19/9, QAQPS NO. i.z-122).
ASAPCO's conclusion is wrong for several reasons:
1. Regardless of whether the 80-percent criterion was met, the
intent of the lead control strategy regulations that were promulgated by
EPA in 1978 (as di stingui shed from the lead air quality monitoring regu-
latlons) wf»s to allow the use of whatever data were available it tne
State and tPA determined that they were representative of the situation
under study. Before the publication of the lead SIP requirements in
October 1378, there were no Federal requirements for ambient lead monitor-
ing. States who performed lead monitoring before that time could certainly
not have known that EPA would establish a quarterly standard or require
on-:«-every-s1x-day sampling. The EPA lead SIP regulations recognized
*.his fact and .encouraged the use of any representative data for developing
a control strategy (see 40 CFR 51.82). Therefore, representative data
that show a violation, even if the data do not meet requirements for
9imBl1ng froqutncy (or ivtn liWOUng «nd antlysli teehnldues), ean t>f usad
1n control strategy development. Once the lead SIP is approved and the
air monitoring provisions developed under 40 CFR Part 58 take effect,
determination of attainment will, of course, have to be based on quality-
assured data from an acceptable lead monitoring network.
-------
2. The 80-percent criterion was established mainly to ensure that
findings of attainment (as distinguished from nonattainment) were
sufficiently aocumented to ensure proper identification of health-related
problem's. This point Is made in the memorandum of November 21, 1979 from
Richard G. Rhoads to the Directors of the Regional A1r Management Olvisiors
(attached). At the site in question, even if the best possible monitor
reading of "0.00 ug/m3" were assumed for the "missing" observation in the
first quarter of 1981, the resulting concentration would be 6.88 ug/m3
considering only the values taken every six days. To Ignore the quarter's
data completely because of the 80-percent criterion would be a perversion
of the intent of EPA's guidance.
3. There was a co-located monitor (SAROAO number 270860714J07) that
ran concurrently with the monitor 1n question. This monitor, considering
only those samples collected on a once-every-s1x-day cycle, produced
only 10 observations during the January-to-March period, with a mean of
8.94 ug/m3 (compared to the mean of 7.51 ug/m3 for the subject monitor).
Statistically there 1s no significant difference 1n these quarterly
means. This fact provides additional assurance that the quarterly mean
is representative of the actual quarterly concentration.
4. Page 5 of the Guideline for Short-Tera Monitoring Indicates that
a short-term monitoring program that is designed for control strategy
analysis can begin at any time, even in the middle of a month, and does
not have to coincide with actual calendar quarters. The site in question
started sampling January 22, 1981, and ended April 13, 1981. A count of
the number of samples in a once-every-s1x-day cycle yields 12 samples for
a 90-day period, and, therefore, actually meets the 80-percent criterion.
Once the lead SIP 1s approved and the air monitoring provisions developed
under 40 CFR Part 58 take effect, determination of attainment will have to
be based on data averaged over a calendar quarter.
5. Page 5 of the Guideline for Snort-Term Monitoring encourages the
use of more frequent sampling; tne site in question nas ooservatlons more
frequent than once every six days, and, therefore, the other observations
should be included in the calculation of the quarterly average. MOAO
recommends that an adjustment in the quarterly mean be made where "non-
scheduled" sampling 1s performed on days 1n addition to- the days specified
in a systematic schedule, such as the case of the sampler in question.
The adjustment 1s Intended to reduce any bias toward higher (or lower)
means where more frequent monitoring is done during a portion of the
quarter, e.g., during an episode. MOAD recommends that all days in the
quarter be divided into 6-day groups, or "strata," and a 6-day mean be-
calculated based on all the observations in each stratum. If only one
observation is taken during a stratum, it constitutes that stratum's
mean. The mean of the strata means is then computed to yield the quarterly
mean. The formula for this calculation 1s:
mq kj
7q - (l/mq) x I I (x1;j/kj).
j«l 1-1
-------
I trust that this memorandum resolves the problems you raised wfth
the East Helena lead monitor; 1f you have further questions, please do not
hesitate to contact John S1lvas1.
Attachments
cc: J. S1lvas1
E. Rachel
S. Sleva
J. Summers
T. Curran
N. Frank
-------
where
7q » the quarterly average concentration for the quarter q
x-fj = the ith concentration value recorded 1n stratum j,
kj * the number of actual samples 1n stratum j, and
mq 3 the number of strata with data 1n the quarter.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Sampling over a period of 90 consecutive days should be performed to
obtain a representative quarterly mean. The period need not necessarily
be a calendar quarter. Table 1 presents a comparison of the means from
both co-located monitors using two different 90-day periods that account
for all the data collected. The table presents the means: (a) based on
once-every-s1x-day sampling; (b) based on all observations; and (c)
adjusted for "nonscheduled" sampling. The table shows considerable
difference 1n the means using different averaging methods, but not much
difference 1n the selection of 90-day periods. Perhaps the best estimate
of the quarterly mean to be used as the design value would be the average
of the adjusted means from both samplers during the period that had the
most number of 6-day strata with observations, viz., the period from
January 22, 1981 to April 21, 1981; 1n this period, both monitors had 14
strata with observations. Thus the average would be (5.92 + 6.28) * 2 »
6.1 ug/m3.
Even though the two monitors In question ran for little over 90
days, a valid quarter's worth of data Is available for purposes of control
strategy development. Since monitoring was terminated at the site shortly
after 90 days were collected, 1t 1s Impossible to determine if there may
have been other 90-day periods that had higher quarterly means. A control
strategy developed based on the design value recorded from this site's
available data may not be sufficient to attain the standard if higher
concentrations actually occurred in periods before January 1981 and after
April 1981. Therefore, we recommend that the Regional Office use its
authority under 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix 0, Section 2.7, to require the
State to monitor 1n the vicinity of the estimated maximum lead concentrations
to determine the effectiveness of whatever control strategy 1s submitted
in the lead SIP. If that monitoring shows violations after the control
strategy is implemented, the Regional Office may have to request the
State to revise Its lead SIP to provide for additional control.
-------
Table 1
COMPARISON OF SEVERAL CALCULATIONS OF QUARTERLY MEANS AT A LEAD MONITOR IN EAST HELENA. MONTANA
(Mg
Sampling Period
Simple Mean of Observations
Taken Once Every Six Days
Simple Mean Of
All Observations
Mean Adjusted For
"Nonscheduled" Sampling*
1/22/81 to 4/21/81
Site: 270860714J02
270860714J07
8.04 (n « 12)
9.14 (n =10)
5.77 (n « 25)
6.02 (n « 22)
5.92 (nv, - 14)
6.28 (mq = 14)
1/1U/81 to 4/9/81
Site: 270860714J02
270860714J07
7.51 (n = 11)
8.94 (n = 10)
5.55 (n 23)
6.09 (n = 21)
5.74 (mq = 13)
6.53 (mq = 14)
* Sec memorandum, paragraph 5,
x
q 1/mq x I [ («ijAj)
J31 1=1
-------
Oo , .... . UNITED STATE$ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE 26 iviAi (933
suajec-rOefinition of Ambient Air for>Lead
10.7
F"OMDarryl D. Tyler,
Control Programs Development DfvisTon (MO-15)
TOAllyn Davis, Director
Air & Waste Management Division, Region VI
This is in response to your memorandum of May 23, 1983, to
Sheldon Meyers. In that memorandum, you indicated that the Texas Air
Control Board (TACB) believes that an ambient lead monitor in El Paso
is not located in the ambient air, and therefore the data from that
monitor should not be used to develop a control strategy for lead.
The monitor is located at the International Boundary Water
Commission's (IBWC) property, about 1000 feet from the edge of the property
of ASARCO's primary lead smelter. TACB believes that the monitor is not
in the ambient air because public exposure at the IBWC property would at
most be only daily for a period of not more than eight hours, and there-
fore no one person is expected to be at the IBWC site continuously for a
full three months, the exposure time inherent in the lead standard.
TACB's logic runs counter to EPA's policy on ambient air. In
40 CFR 50.1(e), ambient air includes "that portion of the atmosphere,
external to buildings, to which the general public has access." That
definition does not account for any time limitation or averaging time.
Regardless of whether any member of the public is expected to remain at
a particular place for a specific period of time, ambient air is defined
in terms of public access, not frequency of access, length of stay, age
of the person or other limitations. The only exemption in EPA policy to
- compliance with the provisions of ambient air is for the atmosphere over
land owned or controlled by the source and to which public access is
precluded by a fence or other physical barriers. Since ASARCO does not
own the site of the IBWC monitor, it clearly falls within our definition
of ambient air.
Furthermore, any monitor can give only an estimate of the actual
maximum concentration of a pollutant in the vicinity of the monitor.
There may actually be higher concentrations of lead in the area between
ASARCO's boundary and the IBWC monitor, such as on the highway that runs
between the ASARCO smelter property and the IBWC property. The general
public may have more frequent or longer access to this location than to
the IBWC property itself. Therefore, the fact that the general public
may not be expected to remain at the IBWC site itself continuously for
three months is no reason to disallow the use of the monitor's data for
developing a control strategy.
EPA Fo»m 13204 'R.». 3-76)
-------
cc: J. Calcagni
J. Divita
K. Greer
T. Helms
J. Silvasi
0. Stonefield
J. Ulfelder
-------
11 Participate Matter
(TSP and PM10) SIPs
-------
DATE:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
16 «.AY 573 11.1
jutjECT: Options for Handling State Implementation
Plan Relaxations in- Face of Uncertainty
mo*-. Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development
TO: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
for Air And Waste Management -
During your discussions with Walt Berber regarding the Westvaco
situation, you asked how these types of situations had been handled in
the past, and how they might be handled in the future.
ThP main factor in our ooHcv has been that the State must dpm^n.
strete to EPA that the State implementation plan (SIP), or any revision
"hereto, is adeouate to attain and maintain the standards. Sperifiramy
tne tureen of proof is on the State. If the State fails to provide an
cceqjete demonstration, we do not (normally) feel obligated to conduct
e demonstration on behalf of the State; we believe we are authorized to
(and we have in the past) either defer action on the submission or
disapprove the submission.
A second factor in our policy is our strong reliance on air quality
-odeling. Most of the controls imposed under the the Clean Air Act
(CAA) of 1970 were justified on jnoueling. We strongly guard our legal
authority to impose controls based on modeling, and strongly resist any
implication that ambient monitoring is necessary in order to justify
controls, although we do agree that monitored data are very valuable
(but not essential) for calibration and verification of the models.
A third factor is that a source is bound by an approved SIP regula-
tion unless EPA has approved revisions to the regulation. If a State
adopts a revision to an approved regulation, the.revision must be submittec
to EPA for review, proposal, and promulgation of"t»ur approval/disapproval
decision. Until we have promulgated our approval of the revision, the
original regulation remains in effect. For these situations, Stan tegro
established an enforcement discretion policy for the interim period
fcetwe.en State adoption of a regulation relaxation and EPA approval. The
policy prohibits increases in emissions during the Interim period, but
it states that we generally should not require reductions in emissions
until after EPA makes the final determination. This, however, 1s only
an internal enforcement policy, and should-not Influence our regulatory
decisions.
In summary, the Agency has three options available to it. They .
are approval of the relaxation, disapproval of the relaxation, or deferral
cf action or, the relaxation. Generally, the specifics of each case dictate
which option must be followed. Specifically, approval of a relaxation
««tv.
-------
2 -
is only appropriate when the criteria outlined above are-met. Any
deviation from these criteria would result in arbitrary approvals of
SIP relaxations by this Agency, a situation which is disesterous.
Consequently, disapproval of the regulation would be in order, recog-
nizing, of course, that in many instances litigation and external
pressures .are a likely outcome. The third option, which .in some cases
can alleviate the problems associated with a disapproval action, is to
defer action on the SIP revision. However, this option is not free of
the problems associated with the disapproval action. For example-, in
some cases external pressures will force the Agency to make an affirma-
tive approval/disapproval decision. In other cases the Agency faces»the
possibility of litigation over the administrative decision to delay actior
I believe all three options, are available for every SIP relaxation
and the Agency must evaluate the application of each on a cese-by-case
basis to determine the most prudent approach. In the case of Westvaco,
it is obvious that because this issue escalated into a polarized adversary
situation before all the facts were straight, it is not prudent to delay
action on the revision any longer.
J further believe that in implementing the case-by-case determination
approach, we should maintain a fairly flexible policy in order to preserve
some options (e.g., approval of a relaxation may be granted based on the
good faith effort of the State to adopt and submit by January, 1979, a '
SIP which will demonstrate attainment by 1982). Nevertheless, the general
policy must be understood by the staff level to ensure consistency in
our decisions and to avoid inadvertent undesirable precedents.
To the extent possible, my staff will keep aware of pending activitie
in this area,-and will ensure that the critical decisions are ma.de at
the appropriate level.
cc: W. Barber
-------
11.2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
[1 1 MAY 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance on Accounting for Trends in Particulate
Matter Emission and Air Quality Data
FROM: Richard 6. Rhoads, Directory
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division (MD-14)
TO: Director, Air Management Division, Regions I, III, V, and IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division, Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides, & Toxic Management Division, Region IV
Director, Air, Pesticides, & Toxics Division, Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division, Regions VII, VIII, 4 X
The new 24-hour and annual. National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM) are expressed in terras of expected
annual values. In general, EPA has chosen a 3-year measurement period
for estimating an expected annual average concentration and expected
annual number of 24-hour exceedances. However, it is usually impractical
to wait 3 years to determine whether a SIP control strategy area has
attained the NAAQS and, when averaging is performed over a 3-year period
in which a change in emissions has occurred, the estimate of expected
air quality value can be biased.
Accordingly, Appendix K to 40 CFR 50 permits States and local agencies,
subject to the approval of the Regional Administrator in accordance with
EPA guidance, to use mathematical techniques to adjust expected annual con-
centrations to ensure that they are not inappropriately biased by nonrepre-
sentative data. Appendix K also states that "in the event of a trend or
shift in emission patterns, either the most current representative year(s)
could be used or statistical techniques or models could be used in conjunc-
tion with previous years of data to adjust for trends."
This memo provides guidance concerning the appropriateness of such
adjustments. The guidance is intended to (1) distinguish serendipitous and
random changes in emissions from permanent changes, (2) give credit toward
attainment determinations for those emission reductions that are permanent
and legally enforceable, and (3) use mathematical techniques together with
the emission reduction credits, to provide improved estimates of expected
annual values. Adjustment for trends should be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis.
-------
Procedures that simply extrapolate or interpolate available air
quality data without considering the reasons for the changes are not
appropriate. However, procedures which account for the contribution
that emissions from various sources make to concentration levels are
appropriate.
Receptor models, together with a modified rollback approach, may
be used to estimate the impact of changes in emissions on ambient con-
centrations. Alternatively, dispersion models may be used.
The following steps should be followed in making the trends
adjustment to areas which have recorded at least 1 year of air quality
data with no violations of the NAAQS:
(1) Apply the model using the base year emissions and then
the proposed attainment year (i.e., that year in which no violations
were recorded) emissions. With dispersion models, the most recent 5
years of meteorological data should be used for both applications. All
modeling should be in accordance with the "Guideline on Air Quality
Models."
(2) For each receptor or monitoring location to which the
adjustment procedure is applied, determine whether the difference
between the base year and proposed attainment year measured air quality
concentrations can be attributed to the emission reductions over the
period. If so, then the area could be determined to be in attainment
of the NAAQS if it also satisfies all other criteria for attainment.
This memorandum provides guidance referred to in Appendix K of
40 CFR Part 50 regarding attainment determinations for PM^o NAAQS. It
should not be interpreted as modifying any of the monitoring requirements
attendant on an area being classified as Group I or II under EPA's PMjn,
development policy. This guidance is also not applicable to attainment
designations under Section 107 of the Clean Air Act for other pollutants.
cc: 6. Emison
D. Tyler
ESD Director, Region I-VIII & X
Director, Office of Policy and Management, Region IX
-------
11.3
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
AUG
MEMORANDUM
/ 4
SUBJECT: Processing of Participate Matter State Implementation Plan
Revisions " """
/
FROM: Gerald A. Ennson, Di
-
/^Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: " Director, Ai r Managanent Division
Regions I, III, V, IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Division
Regions IV, VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division
Regions VII, VIII, X
Thei promulgation of the revised participate matter ambient air quality
standard (PMjo) raises a policy issue as to ho* to process total suspended
particulates (TSP) State implementation plan (SIP) revisions proposed by
State or local agencies. This memorandum suggests a method for categorizing
and processing these TSP SIP's.
Most pending TSP SIP actions fall into one of the following categories:
1. Those written specifically to control TSP to meet a
Part D nonattainment requirement;
2. Those which are not (or portions of which are not)
directly related to a Part D requirement but discuss
the TSP standard;
3. Those which are not directly related to the TSP
standard and do not discuss the TSP standard; and
4. Section 107 nonattainment/attainment redes i gnat ions.
Table 1 includes a list of pending SIP submittals and recommended
actions. Table 2 includes a list of SIP submittals which have been
proposed for approval or disapproval by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Pending and proposed SIP's would be handled the same.
Because SIP's are constantly being submitted and processed; these tables
should be considered as indicative of the general TSP SIP status, not an
absolute record.
-------
With the PMio standard, a SIP written specifically to control TSP to
meet a Part D nonattainraent plan requirement is no longer mandatory. The
State should be notified of the change in the standard and be given
the option to withdraw, modify, or amend these SIP actions. The EPA
will continue to process these revisions unless and until a State asks
us to stop. An example of this situation would be the revision to the
Michigan Iron and steel regulations (#3047). The Michigan SIP included
reasonably available control technology regulations for iron and steel
sources which were submitted specifically to meet a previous Part 0
conditional approval. The EPA will continue to approve or disapprove this
SIP action unless it Is withdrawn by the State. If the proposal is
judged to Include more stringent provisions, our general policy would be
to approve it. If it is judged to result in a relaxation, our general
policy would be to disapprove it unless it is accompanied by an acceptable
demonstration that the I*MIO standard will be attained and maintained.
Where only a portion of the SIP action refers to the old standard, it
may be possible to revise the Federal Register notice to approve a portion
of It; thus, we will work with the Regional Offices to develop appropriate
revisions to the rulemaking. An example of this situation would be the
Tennessee variance request (#3376) which refers to the TSP standard but
v/as not prepared specifically to meet a Part 0 requirement.
If the SIP action is not directly related to the old standard and
does not discuss the old standard, it will probably affect particulate
matter generally. An example of this situation would be the revision to
the North Carolina opacity regulations (#3380). The North Carolina
regulations are not directly related to the old particulate matter standard,
These can be processed as before.
We will continue to accept a request by the State to revise area
designations for TSP from nonattainment to attainment. The requests will
continue to be reviewed during the transition period for compliance with
EPA's redesignation policies as issued in memorandums dated April 21,
1983, and September 30, 1985.
I have instructed my staff to process the remaining TSP SIP's as
described herein. If you have any questions, please contact
Ted Creekmore at (FTS) 629-5699.
Attachments
-------
cc: Chief, Air Branch Regions I-X
R. Campbell
0. Rochlln
J. Silvasi
T. Creekmore
X. Woodard
D. Stonefield
J. Yarn
0. deRoeck
3. Gilbert
J. Sableski
8. Baunan
P. Uyckoff
-------
TABLE 1
TSP SIP ACTIONS IM-PROCESS IN HEADQUARTERS
Number State/Local
1. 3047
2. 3287
3. 3253
4. 3329
5. 3344
Michigan
Illinois
Wisconsin
t Kentucky
fiichigan
North Carolina
Tennessee
Philadelphia
Ohio
Syracuse
Action '
Conditional Part D approval
of RACT for iron and steel
sources
TSP boiler emission limit to
replace that vacated by court
order
Mandatory operating permit
on RO clock
Conditional Part 0 approval
Incorporate Wayne County regs.
in SIP
Revision to opacity regs.
Variance request
Redesignation to attainment
Redesignation to attainment
Redesignat ion to attainment
Recommended
Action
6. 3380
7. 3376
8. 3315
9. 3366
10. 3383
11.*
Recommended actions:
1. Process as usual (not tied to Part D unless it is a redesignation).
2. Send to RO for revision (currently refers to TSP NAAQ5).
3. Give State or local agency the option to withdraw (currently tied to Part D),
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
* Four other packages with redesignat ion to attainment.
-------
TABLE 2
PROPOSED SIP TSP ACTIONS IN FEDERAL REGISTER
\.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.'
10.
11.
Number
3199
325?
3304
2042
2064
3048
3050
3066
3093
3125
3148
_State
MT
f MI
NC
NY
PA
NC
' a
OH
IN
11. *
CA
Date
Proposed
5/14/87
2/25/87
5/26/87
11/14/86
1/20/37
3/26/87
11/21/86
1/02/87
4/02/87
M/07/86
5/14/87
12. 3273
II.
2/20/87
Action
Butte TSP plan
Revision to TSP plan
Relaxation TSP regs
Redesignation to attainment
Redesignat ion
Past regulations for
electric boilers
Disapproval of TSP variance
for LTV steel
Part 0
Industrial fugitive part reg
Disapproval of TSP variance
Approval of TSP. etc.
rules for 7 areas
Coke oven pushing and
charging rules
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
OCT 0 21987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Clarification of Implementation Policies for PHjo National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) /
.* * ^.* /
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Director ^ , '
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
/
TO: Director, Air Management Division
Regions I, III, IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
Regions IV, VI
Director, Air and Radiation Division
Region V
Director, Air and Toxics Division
Regions VII, VIII, X
Comments received from the PMjrj national workshops conducted last
month in Raleigh. North Carolina: Chicago, Illinois; Denver, Colorado; and
San Francisco, California, have shown that the workshops were extremely
successful and achieved their goal of providing a good understanding of
the need for high quality State implementation plans (SIP's) and the
methods and techniques to achieve such plans. This would not have been
possible without the strong support of the Regional Offices. Thank you
for your participation and support.
The true success of the workshops can only be measured by the
timeliness and quality of the SIP's and the ease with which the PMio
standards are implemented. A number of detailed questions resulted from the
workshops; responses to the questions and elaboration on existing guidance
is thus warranted. This memorandum provides additional clarification and
amplification of implementation issues of an immediate nature. Next
month we plan to issue additional memoranda, including a supplement to
the PMjo SIP Development Guideline.
We have selected the following issues for early resolution because
they deal with the first steps of the SIP development process or are
important in establishing the overall direction for developing SIP's.
PMin SIP DEVELOPMENT PLANS
Q. What milestones must be included in the SIP development plans
and must those plans show that the SIP's will be submitted in
9 months?
-------
A. In my August 11, 1987, memorandum I outlined the milestones to be
Included 1n the SIP development plans. I asked that the SIP
development plans represent realistic schedules; however, schedules
which extend beyond May 2, 1988, must be justified.
Q. Who 1s responsible for tracking the States1 progress, and will
sanctions be Imposed If a State falls to meet a milestone?
A. The Regional Offices are primarily responsible for tracking their
States progress In meeting the milestones. We are Investigating
the possibility of developing a national bulletin board tracking
system. In any case, we will be calling your staff on a routine
basis to check on the status of the SIP development. The development
plans can be revised and updated occasionally by the States. However,
any extension of the milestone should be justified. Although we
do not anticipate Imposing sanctions for missing just one milestone,
the State or local agency's record for meeting the milestones
will be considered 1n determining when to Impose any sanctions.
SIP REQUIREMENTS
Q. What SIP revisions are necessary 1n all areas regardless of their
groupings?
A. 1. Most SIP's Identify specific ambient air quality standards
which must be attained or protected, those SIP's must be
revised to protect the PMio. standards. If a SIP requires
protection of any NAAQS, Including any new or revised standard,
then 1t may not need revision. Therefore, all SIP's should
be reviewed to ensure that they provide for the attainment
and maintenance of the PMio standards and that PMio Is
regulated as a criteria pollutant.
2. Since the SIP must protect both the PMio standard and the
total suspended partlculates (TSP) prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) Increment, It must trigger preconst ruction
review for a major new or modified source which would emit
significant amounts of either TSP or
3. The significant harm level for parti cul ate matter was revised
1n 40 CFR 51.151 to eOOug/m3 measured as PM10 and the combined
sulfur d1 ox1 de-part 1 cul ate matter significant harm level was
deleted. In addition, the example alert, warning, and emergency
levels of parti cul ate matter 1n Appendix L to Part 51 were
also revised to PMio concentrations. Therefore, State emergency
episode plans must be revised to reflect these changes.
4. Revisions to 40 CFR 58 set forth the requirements for design
of national, State and local PMio air monitoring networks. The
revised monitoring networks must be submitted for EPA approval.
The Information presented at the PMio workshops and Included
in the workbook concerning the time required to fully Implement
-------
the PMio network was partially 1n error. The Information
Indicated that for national air monitoring stations (NANS) and
Group I State and local air monitoring stations (SLAMS) must
be operational by August 1, 1988, and the Group II and III SLAMS
(remainder of the network) must be operational by August 1, 1989.
The regulation actually requires the NAMS and Group I and II
areas to have PMio networks operational by August 1, 1988, and
Group III SLAMS (remainder of the network) by August lt 1989.
Additionally, 1t 1s Important to reenphasize that the
preferred approach to designing a PMio monitoring network is
to review the monitoring objectives the network must address.
The design should Include an assessment of existing PMio
concentrations and patterns, the location of PMio emission
sources and source category areas, and the consideration of
population and expected growth patterns. Consideration must
also be given to meteorology and topography. If the existing
TSP monitoring sites meet the PMio monitoring objectives the
network could consist of existing TSP sites only. If not, new
sites would be required. Further guidance on network design
can be found 1n the PMio workshop notebook Material entitled
SLAMS Network Design."
EMISSION INVENTORIES
Several questions at the workshops concerned the ewission inventory
requirements. Therefore, we prepared summaries of the emission inventory
requirements for each area group. They are shown In Attachment I.
COMMITTAL SIP's
Q. What format are the States to use for the committal SIP's?
A. The States should submit a letter committing the State to
carry out the actions prescribed for Group II areas in the
Federal Register notice of July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24681). The
letter must be signed by the State official (agency, board,
or governor) having the authority to obligate State resources
for these purposes. The commitments will be incorporated by
reference into the SIP.
Q. When can a Group II area request an extension of the attainment
date under section 110(e) of the Clean Air Act?
A. If a State believes it may need an extension of the attainment
date, it should include a statement in the conrittal SIP
letter that a 2-year extension of the attainment date may be
requested under section 110(e) of the Clean Air Act. If the
State determines that the Group II area is violating the
PMio NAAQS and 1t cannot develop a control strategy that will
attain the NAAQS within 3 years, the State can then submit
the request for the extension when it submits its SIP revision.
-------
REQUIREMENTS FOR GROUP III AREAS
Q. Other than the Statewide SIP revisions, are there any other
SIP revisions required for a Group III area?
A. In addition to the statewide SIP requirements, for Group III areas,
the State oust cite the control measures It 1s relying upon to
maintain the PMio NAAQS. Control measures that have not been
approved by EPA must be submitted for approval and incorporation
Into the SIP. The Regional Offices should establish a schedule
for submission of these revisions.
USE OF 'AMBIENT PMIQ DATA
Q. In the process of placing areas Into three groups to prioritize
SIP development, a zone of uncertainty was placed around the
NAAQS when determining the probability that an area would
violate the NAAQS. The PMio data collected with Sierra Anderson
SA-321A Instruments were discounted by 20 percent before calculating
the probability of PMio nonattainment for an area. This concept
was explained In footnote 7 on page 24680 of the Federal Register
Devel
notice, July 1, 1987, and 1n Section 2 of the PMio 51P Development
Guideline. How does a State consider the zone of uncertainty when
developing the SIP?
A. This procedure of discounting PMio data from SA-321A monitors was
only to be used for the SIP prioritization process. When PMio data
from SA-321A Instruments are used to determine the attainment
status of an area 1n accordance with 40 CFR 50, Appendix K, the
data are to be taken at face value. The data can be discounted
only if the State can demonstrate that the PMio monitor was
Influenced by coarse particles to the same extent as were the
Instruments In the Phoenix study conducted by EPA.
Q. What happens to data that has been flagged as an exceptional event?
A. High ambient values of PMio "** be figged by the State when they
are due to exceptional events as described in the "Guideline on the
Identification and use of Air Quality Data Affected by Exceptional
Events" (Guideline). The EPA will review the basis for flagging
the data and concur 1f the Guideline criteria are met. Use of
the flagged data for SIP regulatory activities shall be considered
on a case-by-case basis and discussed during the public review
process. Exclusion of the flagged data would only be allowed if the
responsible control agency determines in conjunction with a public
review that 1t Is Inappropriate to use the data (Guideline, page 11).
cc: Regional A1r Branch Chiefs
PMio Contacts
Monitoring Contacts
R. Campbell
C. Carter
-------
ATTACHMENT I
Emission Inventory Requirement*
States and State-designated local agencies will be required to compile and
submit certain PM and PMjo emission inventory data to EPA. The following
listing summarizes the required and recommended emission inventory data by
area grouping.
Group I Areas
Required For Submittal With PMm SIP;
o Base year annual inventory of actual point and area source PM and
emissions summarized by source category.
- Base year selected based on most recent, high quality data available.
PM data needed for PSD purposes.
o Projected baseline annual inventory of allowable PM^Q emissions for
attainment year summarized by source category.
- Allowable emissions estimated from criteria in Table 9-1 of EPA
Modeling Guideline, including any expected source changes through
attainment year, except for effect of PMio SIP control strategy.
Projected FH^Q 5IF strategy annual inventory of allowable PM^Q emissions
for attainment year summarized by source category.
- Same as projected baseline inventory, except that this inventory also
includes effect of additional controls resulting from implementation
of PMio SIP control strategy.
o Detailed point source data for all facilities emitting SO TPT or more of
based on uncontrolled or uncontrolled potential emissions.
- Data to be submitted in attached example format (version 1) or
equivalent. Detailed point source data needed to review attainment
demonstration analysis and to establish baseline for potential
emissions trading.
Required Annual NEDS Emissions Data Reporting;
o Actual annual emissions of PM/PMio* for point sources emitting 100 TPT or
more of this pollutant.
- Includes all such sources in each State, regardless of grouping.
* Reporting for PM through CY-87 data. PMio thereafter
-------
-2-
Group II Areas
Required for submittal on or before August 31. 1990, with determination
report of PMin attainment/nonattainment status and of adequacy of current
SIP to attain and maintain PMin NAAQS. Schedule for developing PMjg
inventory data required with Committal SIP by April 30, 1988.
o Current year annual inventory of actual PM and PMjg emissions summarized
by source category.
- Current year selected based on most recent, high quality data
available. PM data needed for PSD purposes.
o Current year annual inventory of allowable PM and PMjg emissions
sumarized by source category.
- Allowable emissions as calculated based on criteria in Table 9-1
of EPA Modeling Guideline. EPA will compare actual to allowable
emissions to assess potential for not maintaining PMio NAAQS.
Required Compilation, But Submittal Not Required (except as needed to
support assessments for emissions trading or other purposes under EPA
purview).
o Detailed point source data for facilities emitting 50 TPY or more of
PM}o based on actual emissions with any existing controls, as needed,
for sources with potential for emissions trading.
- Data compiled by entering applicable data in attached example format
(version 2) or equivalent. Data needed to establish baseline for
emissions trading.
Required Annual NEDS Emissions Data Reporting;
o Actual annual emissions of PM/PM^g* for point sources emitting 100 TPY
or more of this pollutant.
- Includes all such sources in each State, regardless of grouping.
* Reporting for PM through CY-87 data. PMjg thereafter.
-------
-3-
Group III Areas
Recommended Compilation. But No Submittal (except as needed to support
assessments for emissions trading or other purposes under EPA purview).
o Detailed point source data for facilities emitting SO TPY or more
of PMio» based on actual emissions with any existing controls, as
needed, for sources with potential for emissions trading.
- Data compiled by entering applicable data in attached example format
(version 2) or equivalent.
o Existing PM inventory maintained and updated.
- Primarily needed for PSD purposes.
Required Annual NEDS Emissions Data Reporting;
o Actual annual emissions of PM/PM^Q* for point sources emitting 100 TPY
or more of this pollutant.
- Includes all such sources in each State, regardless of grouping.
* Reporting for PM through CY-87 data. PMi0 thereafter.
-------
-4-
Other Emission Inventory Recommendations
It is strongly recommended, for Group I areas, that a draft of the
baseline inventory of actual emissions be submitted for EPA review at least
six months before the SIP is due. In addition, all agencies are encouraged
to develop PH emission inventories (within available time and resources)
for future use in implementing the PM^g ambient standards.
-------
VERSION I. EI4M11 FORM FOR HP «ASi
At Reviled »/25/l7
mo bittim Inforoatlon For Individual
Procettei/OferatiaM tilUo fowl Source Facility - I
NEBS Facility/Plant lOl
iourco Category of Facility (i.|., Petroleuo Refinoryli
Countyi
liat Tear of Inventory It.f.,
Facility
Ifrojoctad AttalMont fear (e.g., IfRIi
Facility Location IStml, City, State, Upended
lota) Facility tanked Uiuiont t »t*r tanked li.|., 10 lorn PHIO - IWIi
Actual Hour*
of Actual
Operation - 1 Operating
Facility Proem li.|., Oil tint toiler) NEK/Polnl
or Operation (1.9., MMtrlal Road) -2 II l/dayl
PraJtttetf SIP
lattllM SIP Stratejy
PMO Strategy PHIO
SrMtk blwioM Control bluiont
Factor - Factor - 10 Applicakli fejulatlm
-1 (tOM/yrl -1 IteM/yrl - II
UUiio*
- 12
Co^llanco
VNT-II
I Kit faml prmite4 I* tkli Mil U mmmtit lor Imwtaryiiii ittat MMTW (acilltlni (tat Mil 1TN ml PWO. Ottor toraiti altk ofvlvalwt ln«or«atlw aty kt tutalltuM.
2 IMM MlMlPM fkouU N MiuM « Mparate liM in§ M*MM MiMlOM n4 ItktM M Hth.
Mlcate ketk loir* per 4ay a* kowt per year of awn* actual prouu oporatiM
-------
VERSIW 2. EIAWlf FMMt FOR GROUP II AW III AHASi
A* Revised 9/23/87
mo UiHiont InforMtion For Individual
ProcesiM/u}eratiaM Nltklo A taint Source Facility -
(CDS Facility/Plant IDi
Source Cattjory o< Facility (t.|., Petroleue Rtflneryli
Counlyi
law Year of lata le.f., IWIi
Facility
lotal Facility lante* EoiuioM I Year lankea lt.|., 10 torn FMO - IWH
Facility Location (Strut, City, State, Zipcoooli
Facility Proem lt.|., Oil Fin* toiler) IMS/Point
or Operation (e.g., Muttrlal feaJI - 2 U
Actual Hour*
of
Operation - )
l/eay) l/yrl
mi
Actual
Operatic*
Rate-4
Iwitt/yrl
I*M Year PKIO
blMlOM
Actual -9
ItoM/yr)
- *
ItoM/yrl
Actual - 7 AlloMkle - I
ItoM/yr) ItoM/yrl
A»llcaftle
Aqulalion
Uinloi
Llaitatloi
-Iff
Ike foTMt prtunM to tkit takle i* rornMonoiJ for invwtoryi*| point fource facilities that eoit TPR art MM. Otfcer forMto uitk ewlvalMt taforMtion
nay ke MMtitota*.
take* MlMtoM rittiU ke Indicate* « toparate I lot fron o0*«M euMioM art lakeM M wdu
Mlcate kotk nourt per lay art kour* per year of avoraje actual procHf operatlM lavorafrt over OM| newt to ytaril.
Actual oMritliMj rale In will M ipocHirJ U Hit Source Glmlllullai CMn UCCI lf.|. tkowmtf |*lloM kurMfVyr, ton* art kouM/yr, ilc.l.
Actual total partlculate Miter (IrTO Minim IR wlti of tow per year.
AlloMble total particulate Miter ITfW MiuioM kaiotf « criteria in IM NoMlne Suioflinet Takle 11 for annual averajini period.
jtwl PMO Miuiom in unlit of Ion* per year. ^^_
i MitfioM iMtiMtitf for eiittini IW rejulalloM/pernltil kaie* M crlter^HPA IMellm Suloilinti Takle II for annual averajlnj perlag.
ilation appliee: to tt» proceu a* a rewll of tht reviieo" SIP. ^^
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
** 1 JUL 1938
11.5
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
TO:
SIP Checklist
FROM: David H. Stonefleld, Chief
Parti cul ate Matter Programs
on, SDPMPB (MD-15)
Chief, Air Branch
Regions I-X
The PMio SIP Checklist, which was mailed to all PMiQ contacts in
May, has been converted to an "expert system" that can be used on a
personal computer (PC). The program was developed by the Emission
Standards Division using the EXSYS Expert System Development Package.
The questions are grouped in modules based on subject as they are in
the paper version of the checklist. The program keeps track of the
sections that have been completed. Questions that are Irrelevant, such
as those pertaining to Group I areas for a State without Group I areas,
are never asked. Comments can be added to any response. The program can
be exited after any modu-le and the SIP reviewer can return tc that module
later. A condensed summary report can be printed out upon completion of
the review.
The EXSYS version of the checklist and operating instructions have
been sent to the PMio contact(s) on your staff. I hope they will find
this version of the PMio SIP Checklist to be helpful. Questions regarding
the program should be addressed to Tom Walton at FTS 629-5311. I would
also like your comments on the usefulness of this type of a checklist.
Should we provide future computerized checklists?
cc: R. Bauman
J. Calcagni
N. Frank
M. Martinez
Monitoring Contact, Regions I-X
PSD Contact, Regions I-X
Dispersion Modeling Contact, Regions I-X
Contact, Regions I-X, w/attachment
M. Smith
K. Woodard
T. Walton
A. Wehe
-------
.^£0 Sf<:f
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
6 1988
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: PMiQx^lopnreliJtr Status and Concerns
FROM: Jolii^al'
Mr Quality ^JifnagementjDivision (MD-15)
TO: Director, Air Division
Regions I-X.
In promulgating the new PMjo standards last year, we recognized that
the States did not have adequate resources to develop plans to demonstrate
attainment everywhere. Therefore, we initiated three mechanisms .to reduce
the planning burden, to allow time for the States to develop quality State
implementation plans (SIP's), and to provide us with information on the
status of the SIP development.
First, with your help, we classified all areas as Group I, II, or
III. We required only procedural revisions for Group III areas and
procedural revisions, increased monitoring, and commitment for Group II
areas. Full demonstration SIP's were required only for Group I areas and
Group II areas which observed violations of the standards..
Next, we asked you to work with your States to submit SIP development
plans. These plans allow the States to set reasonable deadlines for
developing and submitting the SIP's.
Then we developed a computerized bulletin board tracking system to
track the State-established milestones. This allows your staffs to
update the SIP development status and allows the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) to have the information necessary to
manage the program.
At the Atlantic City Division Directors meeting, you expressed
concerns about the status of SIP development and consequences of missing
deadlines. The purpose of this memorandum is to address those concerns.
Revisions to the SIP Development Plans
Last fall when we were reviewing the SIP development plans, we noted
that several of them appeared to be overly optimistic. Since these were
State commitments, we approved the plans. In addition, some States with
-------
schedules which seemed reasonable at the time have found the development
of the PMio SIP more time consuming than originally thought. Therefore,
some of the development plan milestones will have to be revised. The revised
milestones should show sustained progress for submission of the SIP's as
soon as possible. Revised milestones must be fully justified and cannot
extend beyond the end of FY 1988 for the Group II and III SIP's, and not
later than the end of FY 1989 for the Group I full attainment demonstration
SIP's. It is imperative that States fulfill their obligations to prepare
and submit SIP's as outlined above. If a State does not submit a SIP
revision for a Group I area by the end of FY 1989, the process leading to
the development of a Federal implementation plan should begin.
If a State requests a revision to its development plan, you should
review it to ensure it meets the above guidelines, then send me a memorandum
justifying the extended schedule. Please expedite your efforts to make
the necessary revisions to the schedules since we intend to use the
schedules to develop the FY 1989 Strategic Planning and Management System
(SPMS) commitments.
Missed Milestones
Attainment of the PMig standard is one of the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) top priorities. States should have planned for, and provided,
adequate resources to develop their SIP's. Where reasonable efforts are
not being made, the Region at this time should meet with the State to
discover the cause of the slippage. Although the milestone dates are not
legally enforceable, they were developed by the States, and the State's
record in meeting the milestone dates can be used to show that the State
is, or is not, making a good-faith effort to develop and submit a SIP.
If one of your States has missed or will miss a milestone, you
should renegotiate the development dates. The revised schedules and
justifications should be submitted as described above. If the slippage
results from a misunderstanding of EPA's priorities, you should use the
grant negotiation process to ensure proper attention is given to PMjo SIP
development. In this regard, you should note that failure to meet a
grant condition can be considered a basis for the withholding of section 105
grant funds. On the other hand, if a State is making good-faith efforts
and has justifiable reasons for not being able to meet the milestones,
documenting this fact and specific needs will be beneficial to us in
nationally evaluating options for assistance and for prioritizing future
resource allocations.
Changes in Groupings
We have received several requests to reclassify areas from one group
to another. Our basic purpose in developing the grouping process was to
prioritize and allocate resources; it was intended to be a one-time
-------
process based upon available data in July 1987. Therefore, all requests
to reclassify areas were evaluated to determine if the areas were erroneously
classified based upon the data available in July 1987. We believe that
only three areas need to be reclassified and we plan to issue a Federal
Register notice to amend the August 7, 1987 Federal Register listing.
Observed Exceedances in Group II and III Areas
As a State observes an exceedance of the PMio standards in the
Group II areas, it should initiate a chain of events which will lead to
the development and submittal of a SIP revision when a violation of the
standard is recorded. The first step in the process will be intensive
monitoring of the area. As additional exceedances are observed, the
State should begin planning SIP revisions for the area. The planning
process should include reviewing the status of the emission inventories,
conducting filter analyses, and evaluating the need for special studies.
If additional exceedances sufficient to constitute a violation are
observed, the State must notify EPA within 30 days and submit a SIP
revision within 6 months of that notification.
Therefore, it is important to identify exceedances as soon as possible.
Your staff should work with the State to review the Group II area monitoring
data to ensure early detection of the exceedances. If one is observed,
you should discuss its implications with the State. When a State notifies
you of a violation of the standard, or your own analysis indicates that a
standard is being violated, you should request that the State immediately
submit a SIP development plan. That plan should be sent to OAQPS for
review and, if acceptable, milestones will be extracted for the bulletin
board tracking system.
In promulgating the implementation regulations, we announced that we
would treat Group III areas which observed violations of the PMjo standards
as newly discovered nonattainment areas (52 FR 24682, Col. 1). If a
State reports a violation of a standard in a Group III area, you should
ask the State to investigate the cause of the problem and take appropriate
action. This may include revisions to the SIP. In addition, you should
notify us as soon as possible and, if necessary, work with the State to
submit a SIP development plan which meets the timeframes discussed above.
Technical Assistance
In developing their emission inventories, several States have
identified sources which are not covered in our "Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors" (AP-42). To estimate the emissions, States
had to develop their own emission factors. Although many of these factors
are very site-specific, the information they generate may be transferable
to other areas. Therefore, last year we instituted an emission factor
clearinghouse to assist in the transfer of information on PMig emission
-------
factors (see memorandum from Richard G. Rhoads to Regional Air Branch
Chiefs dated November 9, 1987). Emission factors obtained from the
clearinghouse will be deemed to be acceptable for SIP use.
In February 1988, we cosponsored with APCA a specialty conference on
PMio implementation. The transactions from that conference have been
published by APCA and the conferees should be receiving their copies this
month. We have sent a copy to each Regional Office Air Branch Chief.
Additional copies can be purchased from APCA.
If you have any questions, please contact Dave Stonefield at
FTS 629-5350.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
* vwy % Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards v
\ -*V\(4-'* Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
*»>. .rf * I
2 1 OCT 1988
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: PM10 Policy Memorandum
FROM: Gerald A. Emison, Oil _
Office of Air Quality'Planning and Standards (MD-10)
TO: Don R. Clay, Acting Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation (ANR-443)
The attached memorandum provides guidance to the Regional
Offices on how to deal with PM10 State implementation plans
(SIP's) that do not demonstrate attainment within the statutory
deadlines. It was developed and reviewed by the PM10 Long-Term
Nonattainment Task Force, which includes staff from OAQPS, OGC,
OPPE, and Regions VIII, IX, and X. We briefed you and the
Administrator on the major conclusions and recommendations of the
task force regarding policy and potential Act amendments in June.
At that time, we agreed to prepare a policy memorandum for your
signature outlining such guidance as we are able to give under
the current law.
As you recall, the task force concluded that our policy
options for PM10 are severely constrained by the section 110
pathway under the current law. It is difficult to force action
on recalcitrant States, and the Abramowitz case creates some
difficulties in approving measures without a demonstration of
attainment. In essence, the memorandum provides the following
guidance:
1) Clearly, SIP's that demonstrate attainment in the
statutory deadlines can be approved;
2) SIP's that do not demonstrate attainment within the
deadlines and do not include a reasonable control strategy, e.g.,
ignore our guidance on measures for nontraditional sources,
should be disapproved;
3) For SIP's that do not demonstrate attainment within the
deadlines but contain a reasonable control strategy, contact
OAQPS on a case-by-case basis. In general, we want to give
serious consideration to factors that would allow us to approve
particular control measures in such cases.
-------
The memorandum also reiterates our commitment to working for
Act amendments that encompass the PM10 long-term nonattainment
issue.
While this guidance is limited by legal considerations, it
serves to codify our approach pending new legislation. As such,
it should prove useful to the Regions. I, therefore, recommend
that you sign the memorandum.
Attachment
cc. C. Carter
G. Durman
J. Calcagni
R. Campbell
E. Claussen
PM10 Task Force Members
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
4 1933
OFFICE OF
MEMORANDUM A»U*D.A»
SUBJECT: Guidance on Long-Terra Nonattainraent of the PM10 Standards
FROM: Don R. Clay, Acting Assistant Administrato£l3V^r// C/L -- "
for Air and Radiation C/ J^/
TO: Regional Administrators, Regions I - X .
States are currently in the process of developing and
submitting to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) State
implementation plans (SIP's) to implement the PM10 national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS) with the highest priority being those
areas having the greatest probability of violating the standards
(Group I). This memorandum provides guidance to Regional Offices
regarding review of SIP's for areas that may not be able to provide
for attainment within 3 to 5 years, the statutory deadlines.
Background
Preliminary assessments of air quality and emissions
information from around the country indicate that a number of
areas, principally in the West, may not attain the PM^ primary
standards within 3 to 5 years, even with application of innovative
control technologies. These areas range in size and type from
small rural agricultural and mountain communities to a few major
urban areas. The most difficult control problems in these areas
are posed by "nontraditional" sources of PM10, such as wood stoves,
urban fugitive dust, agricultural and desert dust, diesel
emissions, atmospherically formed secondary particles such as
sulfates and nitrates, and prescription burning in forested and
agricultural areas.
Earlier this year, this office established a task force to
examine long-term nonattainment of the PM10 standards and suggest
approaches for dealing with it. In so doing, the task force found
notable constraints under the Clean Air Act (ACT) . Under the
section 110 pathway we are currently following for PM^, our tools
for forcing actions are limited. Furthermore, even in situations
where States are making a good faith effort to attain, the rigid
time constraints may force Federal intervention . \ The task force
concluded that consideration of amendments to the nonattainment
portions of the Act should be expanded to include PM10. I
strongly support this conclusion and we are encouraging the
-------
Congress to address PMi0 in Act legislation (see attached letter to
Congressman Dingell).
In the meantime, our options for dealing with long-term PM10
nonattainment must comply with our current authorities. We intend,
however, to do as much as we can to encourage real progress while
avoiding penalizing those States which are making good faith
efforts. The following presents guidance that we are able to
provide at the present time on the control of nontraditional
sources and action on PM10 SIP's.
Guidance on Control of Nontraditional Sources
The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)
previously has distributed to State and local air pollution control
agencies guidance on implementation of the PM.a standards, including
ttte PM,,, SIP Development Guideline (June 1987 fand this year's
supplement to that guideline. These materials also referenced a
number of previously-released publications on PM^ control
techniques and SIP development. In addition to providing written
guidance, OAQPS also held a series of workshops in August 1987 to
brief State and local agencies on requirements for implementing the
PM10 NAAQS. A list of reference materials pertaining to control
technology for point sources, fugitive sources, and wood stoves was
made available at the workshops. These references were also mailed
to those who requested copies.
The OAQPS has additional work underway on guidance for
measures to control emissions from nontraditional sources such as
urban fugitive dust, wood smoke, rural fugitive dust, open
burning/smoke management, and secondary particle formation. The
first technical guidance document, Control of Open Fugitive Dust
Sources (EPA-450/3-88-008), is now being distributed. Other
guidance documents will be forthcoming from workgroups formed to
provide example control measures for these nontraditional source
categories. We expect that the Regional Offices will consult with
States experiencing difficulty in providing for attainment of the
NAAQS by the statutory deadlines and will encourage adoption of the
measures identified in the guidance. Where the State control
strategy does not incorporate the measures in a guidance document,
the State should explain why the measures are not appropriate or
otherwise not included in the SIP. Where guidance on control
measures do not exist, the Regional Office should include a careful
evaluation of the reasonableness of the control strategy in the
Technical Support Document.
Action on PM^ SIP's
The EPA has previously determined that PM10 SIP submittals are
governed by section 110 of the Clean Air Act. Under section
110(a)(2)(A), however, these SIP's are to provide for attainment of
the primary standards "as expeditiously as possible but [(subject
-------
to subsection (e)] in no case later than 3 years from the date of
approval of such plan." Section 110(e) allows EPA, upon
application of the Governor of the State, to extend the attainment
deadline by as much as 2 additional years, if the technology or
other means necessary for attainment will not be reasonably
available with that 3-year period. Clearly, if EPA determines that
a PM10 SIP demonstrates attainment of the standards within these
time periods, the SIP can be approved.
Some PM^ SIP's submitted to Regional Offices may, however,
lack a persuasive demonstration of attainment of the primary
standards within 3 to 5 years. The SIP in such a case will likely
include control measures that are necessary to move the area toward
attainment and, therefore, constitute an improvement upon the
existing SIP. As a result of an adverse judicial decision in the
Ninth Circuit [fAbramowitz v. EPA. 832 F.2d 1071 (1987)], however,
some ambiguity exists as to whether EPA may approve individual
control measures for States unless it first determines whether or
not the SIP demonstrates that the area will attain the standard by
the statutory deadlines. (The Ninth Circuit encompasses all the
States in Regions IX and X, as well as Montana.) In Abramowitz,
which involved the South Coast (California) ozone/CO SIP, EPA had
approved a number of individual control measures but explicitly
declined to judge whether or not those measures would achieve
attainment of the NAAQS by December 31, 1987, the statutory
deadline in Part D of the Act, even though California had submitted
an attainment demonstration (which indicated the standards would
not be attained by the deadline). The court rejected this view,
holding that EPA exceeded its authority by approving the control
measures without requiring a demonstration of attainment. Id,, at
1079. The Abramowitz court did note that it was expressing no view
on the question of whether EPA may approve individual control
measures if they would strengthen the SIP and improve air quality,
at the same time it disapproves the attainment demonstration. Id.
While the holding does not apply directly to PM-10 SIPs, it
could be interpreted to require EPA to determine whether a PM-10
SIP demonstrates attainment within 3 to 5 years before approving
any individual control measures. At least in the Ninth Circuit,
this ruling poses some obstacles to approval of a SIP that does not
demonstrate attainment in 3 to 5 years, unless the SIP as a whole
is disapproved for failure to attain. In such a case, we should be
able to approve particular SIP measures that improve air quality.
In other circuits EPA is not bound by the Abramowitz precedent.
Based on current information, it is likely that some areas may
not be able to provide a persuasive demonstration of attainment
within the statutory deadlines even after adoption of reasonable
control strategy measures. These areas appear to have unique
combinations of factors which will prevent rapid attainment of the
standards. These factors include: (1) the variety and magnitude
of difficult-to-control sources that are the major causes of the
-------
elevated ambient concentrations, (2) the degree of control
required, and (3) the amount of time necessary to develop and apply
control measures to bring about attainment. Due to these factors,
it is not possible at this time to issue comprehensive and explicit
guidance which will pertain in all situations.
Each State has an obligation to attain the standards as
expeditiously as practicable but no later than 5 years, by adopting
necessary control measures. The Regional Offices can use the
control measures identified by the workgroups mentioned earlier as
a guide to judge whether the control strategy submitted by the
State is reasonable. A SIP which does not provide a persuasive
demonstration that attainment will occur by the statutory deadlines
and does not include a reasonable control strategy should be
disapproved. Where such an attainment demonstration cannot be
made, but the SIP includes a reasonable control strategy, the
Regional Office should consult with OAQPS and the Office of General
Counsel concerning action on the SIP.
We appreciate the assistance provided by the Regional Offices
in developing long-term nonattainment programs for PM^, and
encourage your continued participation in the further development
of guidance material. Should you have any questions, comments, or
further suggestions, please contact John Calcagni at FTS 629-5621.
Attachment
cc: G. Emison
A. Eckert
-------
\
3 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
? WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Honorable John D. Dingell
Chairman, Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Energy and Commerce
House of Representatives
Washington, O.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In your June 28, 1988 letter, you requested more information
on "PH10 litigation and PM10 implementation by the states,
including a discussion of the problems [we] foresee in the states
being able to comply with the requirements within the attainment
deadlines established by the Clean Air Act [Act]." My responses
which addresses (1) the status of PM10 litigation, (2) PM10
implementation, and (3) the prospects for attaining the PM10
standards by the statutory deadlines, is listed below.
1. PM10 Litigation
After the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated
the PM10 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) on July
1, 1987, petitions for judicial review of the standards were
filed by the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), the
American Mining Congress (AMC), the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC), and five northeastern States. In addition, AMC
and NRDC also filed petitions for judicial review of the
associated implementation plan and prevention of significant
deterioration requirements. The AISI then filed a petition for
administrative reconsideration of the standards and related
relief. The AMC later filed a separate petition for
administrative reconsideration on different issues relating to
the standards and EPA's implementation program. The five
petitions for judicial review have been consolidated into one
case, Natural Resources Defense Council v. Thomas. D.C. Circuit
No. 87-1437, which has been held in abeyance pending our response
to AISI's petition for reconsideration. The EPA is presently
preparing responses to both the AISI and AMC petitions for
reconsideration.
-------
As I discussed in my June 22, 1988 letter to you, we
established priorities for the use of both EPA'a and the States'
resources by dividing all of the country into Group I, II, or III
areas depending upon the probability of violating the PM10
standards. Two petitions for Judicial review of specific area
classifications were fiJed. Bethlehem Steel Corporation filed a
petition concerning Porter County, Indiana, on September 15, 1987
[Bethlehem Steel Company v. Thomas (7th Cir. 87-2476)J. ASARCO
filed a petition concerning El Paso County, Texas, on October 5,
1987 fASARCO. Inc. v. EPA et al (5th Cir. 87-4715) J. Both cases
are being held in abeyance at present. In addition, the city of
El Paso filed with EPA a petition for administrative
reconsideration of its classification.
2. Status of PM10 Implementation
Section 110 of the Act requires State implementation plans
(SIP's) to be submitted within 9 months of the date the PM10
NAAQS was promulgated. However, due to the complexity of the
problems, the time required to gather data, and States'
administrative procedural requirements, many States could not
meet that deadline. We anticipated this situation and requested
that the States submit development plans with milestones for
identifying when significant portions of the PM10 SIP development
would be completed. For Group I areas, those plans were to cover
data gathering and analysis, control strategy development and
analysis, and administrative processing. for Group II and III
areas, the development plans were to include milestones for
meeting the statewide PM10 SIP requirements and the
administrative processing of any revisions. Most Group I area
SIP's are scheduled to be completed and submitted to EPA between
May 1988 and October 1989. Most Group II and III area SIP's are
scheduled to be completed and submitted between May and October
1988.
3. Prospects for Attaining the PM10 Standards
Under section 110 of the Act, the PM10 standards are to be
attained as expeditiously as practicable but not later than three
years from EPA's approval of the SIP's, unless a two-year
extension has been approved under section 110(e). From
discussions we have had with State and local air pollution
control agencies, it appears that while the majority of areas
will attain the standards, many areas are likely to have great
difficulty meeting that deadline.
-------
The State and local air pollution control agencies that are
developing PM10 SIP's have identified a number of
"nontraditional" small point and area sources which are the major
contributors to high PM10 concentrations. These nontraditional
sources include paved and unpaved roads, residential wood
combustion, silviculture and agriculture burning activities,
windblown dust from open areas, and emissions of precursors of
secondary particles (particles which are formed in the air by the
chemical reaction of gaseous pollutants). Many of these are
sources that have not been specifically controlled in total
suspended particulate matter SIP's, and State and local agencies
are finding it difficult to identify the sources and reasonable
control measures for many of these pollution sources in large
urban areas. In rural areas, where the mix of sources tends to
be less complex, the burden of adopting and enforcing control
measures often falls on local agencies which have limited
technical and financial resources. In addition, some areas along
the international border with Mexico have significant PM10
contributions from sources in Mexico. All of these factors
contribute to the difficulty which we believe some areas will
have attaining the PM10 standards within the statutory deadlines
of section 110.
As you know, most of the discussions in Congress about the
problems with the Act have focused on the need for additional
guidance on how to deal with long-term nonattainment of the ozcne
and carbon monoxide standards. Based on whs"t we now see as the
potential for similar and unique issues to arise with respect to
PM10, we are concerned that Act amendments which deal only with
ozone and carbon monoxide could create the impression that the
current statutory authorities are adequate for PM10. In fact, as
indicated in the preceding discussion, we are concerned that the
current Act does not provide good mechanisms to address long-term
PM10 nonattainment.
If amendments are made to the Act, we would recommend that
they provide broad enough authority to enable EPA to deal with
the expected long-term problems with PM10. Issues which such
amendments vocrld need to address include: deadlines for SIP
submissions and attainment; consideration of cost and technical
feasibility; the requirements to ensure continued progress toward
attainment; the role of Federal measures; the role of sanctions
for failure to plan or to implement approved plans; and the role
of multiple small point and area sources in implementation plans.
In addition, under section 110, EPA could be faced with the
obligation to promulgate a number of Federal implementation plans
(FIP's) if the States are unable to attain the standards in the
short term.
-------
It Is important to note that some of the approaches now
under consideration in Congress for long-term ozone and carbon
onoxide nonattainment would not translate automatically into
workable solutions for PM10. In designing a workable PM10
framework, the unique nature and characteristics of the PM10
problem should be taken into account. For example, because of
the wide variety of sources which can contribute to long-tern
PM10 nonattainment, it would probably not be appropriate to
specify a single nationally applicable emissions reduction rate
or attainment date. However, elements in current congressional
proposals which focus on the need for area-specific planning for
measures, deadlines, and tracking of progress in meeting targets
would be a useful starting point in designing a workable
approach.
I appreciate this opportunity to be of service and trust
that this information will be helpful to you.
Sincerely,
Lee M. Thomas
OAQPS: OSTONEFIELD: FTS-62^5350
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 11<9
j Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
/ Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
NOV 2 1 1988
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Revision to Policy on the Use of EM,0 Measurement Data
FROM: Gerald A. Emison, Directj
Office of Air Quality P*Tannirig arid Standards (MD-10)
TO: See Attached List
A joint Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS)/Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory (EMSL)
committee has evaluated the issue of potential uncertainty in
measurement data produced by PM^ samplers. They considered
modifications and/or clarifications to existing Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) policy contained in the PM^ SIP
Development Guideline (Section 2.3), the supplementary Response
to Questions Regarding PM1P State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Development (published June 1988), and the data requirements of
Appendix K to 40 CFR 50 and Part 58. This.committee's issue
paper which incorporated comments from Regional staff is
attached. This memo follows their recommendations and presents
the revised EPA policy regarding the treatment of PM10 data
produced by reference and nonreference PMu, samplers. Treatment
of data produced by collocated PM^ samplers is also discussed.
Deviations to this general policy must receive concurrence of
OAQPS.
For this discussion, the terra reference sampler shall be
used to represent samplers using a reference method based on
Appendix J to 40 CFR 50 and designated by EPA in accordance
with 40 CFR 53, as well as samplers using an equivalent method
designated by EPA in accordance with 40 CFR 53. Nonreference
samplers are all other PM10 samplers which have not been
formally designated as such.
USE OF REFERENCE AND NONREFERENCE SAMPLER DATA
For purposes of evaluating PM10 air quality status, all
data produced by reference samplers shall be interpreted at
face value and can be used to make comparisons with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the purposes
of determining attainment or nonattainment, in accordance with
-------
Appendix K to 40 CFR 50. Data collected by nonreference
samplers may only be used to supplement and to corroborate data
collected by reference samplers where such data are
insufficient in quantity to make a determination of whether or
not the area is attaining or not attaining the standard.
Moreover, data collected by some nonreference PM10 samplers
shall be interpreted using gray zones to indicate the potential
uncertainty in these older data, which was the policy used for
determination of Group I, II and III areas. These details for
using data produced by nonreference samplers in order to
interpret status with respect to the 24-hour and annual NAAQS
are contained in Attachment A. Three situations are discussed:
attainment, nonattainment and indeterminate. The latter
situation is one in which sufficient reference and nonreference
data are not available to make an unambiguous attainment or
nonattainment determination.
Regulations in 40 CFR 58 require that State and Local
Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) Networks be established by
August lf 1988; therefore, data collected after this date by
nonreference samplers shall not be used. If a nonreference
sampler without further modification is designated as a
reference sampler in the future, then all of its historical
data is retroactively defined as data produced by a reference
sampler.
A table providing a general overview of this new policy
for interpretation of PM^, measurement data is included as
Attachment B. The treatment of reference and nonreference data
is described according to the dates associated with its
collection.
COLLOCATED PM^ SAMPLERS
In the event that more than one PM10 sampler is operating
concurrently at a location, data from reference method samplers
always takes precedence over data from nonreference samplers.
If multiple samplers are collocated for data quality assessment
purposes (i.e., precision and accuracy), similar sampler types
must be used and one sampler must be designated a priori for
data reporting purposes (Appendix A to 40 CFR 58). Further-
more, if more than one type of sampler is used by a reporting
organization, collocated precision sites should be established
for each sampler type.
In order to sample more frequently than every 6th day, more
than one sampler may be operated at a monitoring site. This
group of samplers, plus any samplers sited for data quality
assessment purposes, shall represent a single monitoring
-------
station. When more than one sampler (or group) is operated
independently by one or more monitoring agencies concurrently
for attainment assessment purposes, each sampler (or group)
shall represent a different monitoring station. The data, from
each monitoring station shall be used separately to assess
attainment or nonattainment with the NAAQS, provided that
the data meet all the requirements for SLAMS specified in
40 CFR 58, includes quality assurance and siting, and a quality
assurance program that has been approved by the appropriate
Regional Office.
Attachments
Addressees:
Director, Air Management Division, Regions I, III, IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division, Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
Region IV
Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division, Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division, Regions VTI, VIII, X
Director, Environmental Services Division, Regions I-VIII, X
Director, Office of Policy and Management, Region IX
cc. G. Foley, AREAL
A. Eckert, OGC
bcc. D. Novello, OGC
J. Bachmann (MD-11)
PMi,, Measurement Data Working Group
PM10 Monitoring Contacts
PM10 SIP Contacts
-------
ATTACHMENT A:
USE OF NONREFERENCE PMin DATA TO SUPPORT AND CORROBORATE
REFERENCE PMig DATA
COMPARISONS WITH THE 24-HR NAAQS
Data produced by nonreference samplers may be interpreted
subject to the following conditions: (l) Exceedances measured
with certain PM10 dichotomous samplers1 shall be treated the
same as exceedances measured with reference or equivalent
method samplers, but only when there also are one or more
exceedances subsequently measured with reference samplers at
the same location. (2) Data produced with other nonreference
samplers shall be interpreted using gray zones (as previously
defined in the PMlfl SIP Development Guideline and which were
used for SIP area grouping) as follows - (a) an exceedance
measured with a nonreference sampler outside its gray zone can
be treated as an exceedance of the NAAQS, only when there also
are one or more exceedances subsequently measured with
reference samplers at the same location, and (b) a PM10 value
produced by a nonreference sampler which is in its gray zone is
not treated as an exceedance of the NAAQS nor is it treated as
a nonexceedance of the NAAQS (i.e. it is treated as an
uncertain data value for purposes of making comparisons with
the NAAQS), but it does count as a measurement used to satisfy
data completeness and compute annual averages.
Accordingly, data produced by nonreference method samplers
in combination with data produced with reference method
samplers may be used to identify the following situations:
24-hr NAAOS - Attainment Situation
If (1) the total number of observed
exceedances measured by reference and
nonreference samplers results in an estimated
number of exceeedances to be less than or
equal to one (subject to the rounding
conventions and adjustments specified in
Appendix K), (2) uncertain data values
produced by nonreference samplers as defined
above do not exist, and (3) the combined data
produced by these samplers satisfy the data
completeness requirements in Appendix K and
are in accordance with the established EPA
guidelines, i.e. Guideline on Exceptions to
Data Requirements for Determining Attainment
of Particulate Matter Standards (EPA-450/4-
87-005, April 1987), then the State can
'Samplers with inlet models SA246B, GMW9200 and WA10.
-------
solicit approval by the appropriate Regional
Administrator to demonstrate attainment with
the 24-hr NAAQS.
24-hr NAAOS - Nonattainment Situation
If (1) the total number of observed
exceedances measured by a reference sampler
results in an estimated number of exceedances
to be greater than one, or (2) one or more
exceedances are observed by a reference
sampler and the total number of observed
exceedances measured by reference and
nonreference samplers results in an estimated
number of exceedances to be greater than one
(subject to the rounding conventions and
adjustments specified in Appendix K), then
the State should acknowledge that a
nonattainment problem exists and take
appropriate action.
24-hr NAAQS - Indeterminate Situation
If the total number of observed exceedances
results in an estimated number less than or
equal to one, but the available data is
insufficient to demonstrate attainment as
-^m3s+s\f3 iiv^s^s'N^ \ *-\v^^x*^xl 4 v V ^V\*"\ O^-a4"j»\ x%*» "1 r\s*^ 1
J ^y ^* trsr 9
monitoring agency must continue PM10 sampling
until attainment or nonattainment of the
NAAQS can be established.
COMPARISONS WITH THE ANNUAL NAAQS
When insufficient reference data are available to
estimate the PM10 expected annual mean according to Appendix
K, then nonreference data can be used to supplement and
corroborate data produced by the reference samplers. In
order to facilitate this discussion, the following
definitions are introduced:
(1) XB and XHH represent the annual means computed from data
produced by reference and nonreference samplers,
respectively.
(2) x'jn, represents the nonreference mean adjusted for the
effect of the gray zone, as follows:
-------
x'ra = 1.2 XTO, if nonreference data is Wedding2,
= 0.8 XHS, if nonreference data is Sierra
Anderson3,
= x^,, if nonreference data is produced by certain
dichotomous samplers specified in footnote 1.
(3) x and x7 represent the range of estimated annual means
resulting from a combination of data produced by
reference and nonreference samplers and the effects of
the gray zones:
x = p * xm + (1-p) * XR, and
x' = p * x'. + (1-p) * XR,
where p is the relative weight placed on the
nonreference data (e.g. p = 1/3 when 1 year of
nonreference and 2 years of reference data are
available).
Annual NAAOS - Attainment Situation
If XR is less than or equal to 50 ug/m3 and both
x and x' are also less than or equal to 50 ug/m3
(subject to the rounding conventions and
adjustments specified in Appendix K), then the
nonreference data have corroborated that the
expected annual mean is less than the level of
the NAAQS and the State can solicit approval by
the appropriate Regional Administrator to
demonstrate attainment with the NAAQS.
Annual NAAOS - Nonattainment Situation
If XR is greater than 50 ug/m1 and both x and x'
are also greater than that concentration level
(subject to the rounding conventions and
adjustments specified in Appendix K), then the
State should acknowledge that a nonattainment
problem exists and take appropriate action.
Annual NAAQS - Indeterminate Situation
If (1) XR is less than or equal to 50 ug/m1,
and x or x' is greater than 50 ug/m3, or (2)
XR is greater than 50 ug/m3, and x or x' is
less than or equal to 50 ug/m3, then the
2GMW9000 or any comparable Wedding designed high volume
sampler without a cleaning port.
3SA321A
-------
status with respect to the annual standard is
indeterminate and the State or local
monitoring agency must continue PM10 sampling
until attainment or nonattainment of the
NAAQS can be established.
-------
ATTACHMENT B
REVISED POLICY FOR INTERPRETATION OF PM10 MEASUREMENT DATA
DATA COLLECTION TIME PERIOD
Prior to
Aug. 1, 1987
(effective
date of
promulgation)
Aug 1, 1987
to
July 31, 1988
From
Aug. 1, 1988
PM1B Sampler:
Reference
Samplers
Face Value
Face Value
Face Value
Unapproved
Samplers1
SA & Wedding
(older)
Dichots
Gray Zone2
Face Value
Gray Zone
Face Value
Not to be
Used3
Not to be
Used3
1 Data produced by unapproved samplers may only be used to
support and corroborate data produced by reference
samplers.
2 A zone of uncertainty within which PM10 data are used with
less authority, as discussed in Attachment A; Gray zone
limits were defined in the PM,, SIP Development Guideline.
3 For attainment/nonattainment and design values only;
Regional Administrator approval for other SIP purposes
(40 CFR 58.l4(b)).
-------
12. VOC Revisions with
Extended Compliance Schedules
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
12.1
JUL,29B83
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Source Specific SIP Revlsfons
FROM: Sheldon Keyers, 01 rector /$ J
Office of Air Quality PI anntng and Standards (ANR-443)
TO: Director, A1r and Waste Management" Division
Regions II-IV, VI-VIII. X
Director, A1r Management Division, Regions I, V, IX
We have recently noticed a significant Increase 1n the number of
source specific SIP revisions being processed. While no single reason can
explain the Increase entirely, 1t appears that the Improved ability of
Regions to process such actions as well as the passage of compliance dates
has led to the Increase. It is Imperative that Regions determine whether
SIP revisions are the appropriate administrative mechanism to deal with
these actions and that these submlttals be adequately supported. In this
regard I am making the following recommendations:
0 Many of these submlttals consist of relaxations for individual
sources in nonattainment areas. Presumably, the States want not only EPA
approval of these relaxations, but also maintenance of the overall approval
status of their SIP's. Hence, they are not asking for EPA to approve
the relaxations 1f that would mean that the construction ban would come
into or continue in effect. For a State to secure EPA approval of a
relaxation and continue overall approval status, however, the State would
need to show that the SIP as a whole, despite the relaxation, would
continue to "provide for" attainment by the end of 1982 in the case of
nonextension areas or as exped1t1ously as practicable, but no later than
1987 in extension areas. For VOC this generally will require a data base"?.
and modeling demonstration consistent with that applied In extension j
rnj
areas. For TSP and SO?, this *111 require a modeling demonstration usl
reference modeling techniques -and best available data. I recommend that
the Regions return to the States as Incomplete any suborittal that does
not include the above demonstration.
0 Each Region that Is currently experiencing an Increase 1n the number
of -source specific SIP revisions for areas 1n attainment, or where the
attainment date has. not. passed, should discuss with Its States whether
individual SIP revisions are the most appropriate means to deal with an
action. Where alternative administrative mechanisms exist or can be
developed without adversely impacting the Federal enforceablHty of the
.' ,/j SIP, these mechanisms should be employed. For example. Regions could
^ ' '"** **" *»*' g» nimble source specific revisions into a more
number or
-------
0 Where the State Is considering submitting a revision of a temporary
nature, such as a compliance date extension for a limited period of time
(e.g., less than the time It would reasonably take to process the submittal).
Regions should evaluate whether processing the action will serve any
tangible'public Interest. Where the Region does not find any such circum-
stances exist. States should be discouraged from using the SIP process
for such actions.
I belleve-these recommendations should help yoo In your review of
future SIP revisions and help Regions maintain the excellent record for
SIP processing. If you have any quest Ions* regarding these recommendations,
please contact 6. T. Helms at FTS.629-5526
r.c: A1r Branch Chief, Regions I-X
Oarryl Tyler
Ed Reich. .
Bill Pedersen
M1ke Alushln
Cnuck Elklns
Jack Hldlnger
-------
12-2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
* WASHINGTON, D.C 20460
4UB-7BQ6
omctor
AIE AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Policy on SIP Revisions Requesting Compliance Date
Extensions for VOC Sources
FROM: J. Craig Potter
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation
TO: Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
A number of States have asked EPA to approve SIP revisions
granting compliance date extensions for individual VOC sources
in ozone nonattainment areas. The attached policy sets forth
EPA's position on when'approval of such SIP revisions is
appropriate and what the States must demonstrate in order for
EPA to approve them. Regional Offices should review the
requests for SIP revisions for conformance to this policy.
SIP revisions now.pending at Headquarters will also need to
be revi awed by the Regions in light of this policy.
Attachment
cc: Richard H. Mays, O.ECM
Gerald A. Emison, OAQPS
Alan Eckert, OGC
Air Division Directors, Regions I-X
Regional Counsels, Regions I-X
-------
Policy on SIP Revisions Requesting Compliance Date
Extensions for VOC Sources
In order to approve a source-specific compliance date
extension, two tests must be met. First, a State must
demonstrate that the extension will not interfere with timely
attainment (attainment by the formally established attainment
date) and maintenance of the ozone standard and, where relevant
"reasonable further progress" (RFP) towards timely attainment. I/
The attainment date will generally be December 31, 1982, or the
date established under Section 110 where the State has adequate-
ly responded to a request for SIP revisions under §110(a)(2)(H),
or December 31, 1987 in ozone extension areas. The demonstra-
tion may be based on a comparison between the margin for
attainment predicted by the demonstration submitted with the
approved ozone SIP 2/ and the increased emissions that would
result under the proposed compliance date extension. 3/ If
there is an adequate margin to absorb the increased emTssions
(and the extension would not interfere with RFP), then EPA
may conclude that the compliance date extension will not
interfere with the attainment and continued maintenance of
the ozone standard.
I/ The reference to a demonstration of RFP towards timely
attainment is not intended to redefine RFP but only reaffirms
that an RFP analysis is required.
_2/ For areas where revisions to the Part D SIP are required
(such as 1987 extension areas or SIP call areas) and those
revisions have not been fully approved, the State would have
to submit a demonstration the equivalent of that required
for EPA approval of t.he ozone SIP. Without an approvable
demonstration EPA cannot determine whether the individual
compliance date extension will interfere with timely attain-
ment and maintenance of the standard, or with RFP. A
de minimus showing would not be acceptable, since in the
aggregate even very small sources would contribute signifi-
cantly to ozone formation.
3/ In making such a comparison it will be necessary to
determine what, if any, portion of the margin has been utilized
by new sources of VOCs that may have located in the area
since the SIP was approved, as well as by existing VOC sources
that may have already been granted compliance date extensions.
-------
-2-
If the State or EPA believes that there has been a substantial
chanqe in the inventory of VOC sources or total VOC emissions
since the ozone SIP was approved so that the margin of attain-
ment has channel significantly, a revised demonstration in
support of the source-specific SIP revision should be submit-
ted. _4/
Second, time extensions also must be consistent with the
requirement that nonattainment area SIPs provide for "implemen-
tation of all reasonably available control measures as
expeditiously as practicable" ($172(b)(2)]. Expeditiousness
should be demonstrated by determining when the source was
first put on notice of the applicable requirement (e.g.,
adoption of the current regulation by the State) and the time
that has elapsed since then. EPA has generally determined
that for most voc sources this period is less than three
years. 5/ Any source-specific SIP revision for a compliance
date extension within these timeframes may be presumed to be
expeditious. Compliance date extensions for periods longer
than these timeframes, however, should be closely scrutinized
to determine whether or not they are truly expeditious. 6/
This should include an examination of the compliance status of
other sources nationally in the same VOC source category
(this examination would be the responsibility of the State),
and the most expeditious means of compliance.* available (includ-
ing add on control equipment, process change, or raw material
improvement) irrespective of the method proposed in the SIP
4/ Such a demonstration would be necessary, for example, in
areas originally demonstrating attainment by 1982, but for
which post-1982 monitoring data are indicating exceedances of
the ozone standard or raising serious questions about the
original prediction of attainment.
5/ For three source categories (can coating onerations,
graphic arts printing and automotive assembly plant paint
shop operations), -based on industry experience EPA has
through policy statements concluded that expeditiousness may
be longer than three years.
6/ The same holds true for review of individual compliance
date extensions incorporated in any area-wide ozone SIP
revisions submitted by a State (such as those being submitted
pursuant to an EPA SIP call under Section 110(a)(2j(H)). Any
change in the original deadline for an individual VOC source
incorporated in an area-wide ozone SIP revision must be
demonstrated to be expeditious (as well as not interfere with
timely attainment and maintenance).
-------
-3-
revision. Unless it can be shown that the original time frame
approved in the SIP did not allow sufficient time for an
economically and technologically feasible compliance plan to
be implemented/ a SIP revision for a compliance date extension
beyond the timefratnes set forth above should be denied.
In conclusion, both the demonstration of timely attainment
(including RFP where relevant) and maintenance and the
expeditiousness tests must be met before a State SIP revision
can be approved.
J. cpaig Potter
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation
AJ6-7B86
-------
12.3
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C 20460
AIB AND HADIATIOM
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SIP Compliance Date Extension Policy For VOC
Sources In Nonattainment Areas
FROM: Richard Biondi, Acting Chief'/ / /AV^ ,
Compliance Monitoring Branchy^/i. C^-"- ' "
TO: Steve Rothblatt, Chief
Air and Radiation Branch
Region V
I am writing in response to your October 28, 1986
memorandum regarding the August 7, 1986 policy on SIP compliance
date extensions for VOC sources in nonattainment areas. You
had several questions concerning one sentence in the policy
which reads:
"This should include an examination of the
compliance status of other sources nationally in the
same VOC source category (this examination would be
the responsibility of the State), and the most
expeditious means of compliance available (including
add on control equipment, process change, or raw
material improvement) irrespective of the method
proposed in the SIP revision."
You may be aware that this policy was initially requested
by Region V and was thoroughly reviewed in draft by all the
Regions before being issued. The particular issues raised in
your letter were discussed extensively and my staff tells me
they were resolved prior to issuance. However, I am happy to
discuss these issues further. Your questions are
addressed individually below:
Question: We are particularly interested in obtaining your
views on how this "examination of the compliance status of
other sources nationally" should be carried out.
-------
-2-
Answer: The examination of compliance status would be conducted
by the State initially. The State would examine the compliance
status of all the sources j^n the same VOC source category in
^ha_t_St_ate_using its own files. The state would have^EcT
demonstrate that none of these similar sources had been able
to comply expeditiously, that is, in the words of the policy*
"the original timeframe approved in the SIP did not allow
sufficient time for an economically and technologically
feasible compliance plan to be implemented". If the Region
accepted the demonstration as valid, then it would be the
responsibility of the Region to examine the compliance status
of the sources in th^t category within the Reoioji.This """
would oe aone^mainly by examining Regional files and contacting
agencies in the other States. In addition, the Region is
probably aware of sources which complied expeditiously and
can use these as examples of the feasibility of expeditious
compliance. If none of the sources had been able to comply
expeditiously, then it would be SSCD's responsibility to do a
national survey. '
Question: It would seem that the only way in which this
national survey can be accomplished is through use of the
Compliance Data System (CDS). Without use of CDS an enormous
effort would be required for each survey. However, CDS
appears to have the following drawbacks: 1) The States in
Region V do not have direct access to the National CDS data
base or personnel who have been trained to use CDS. Without
access to this data base each State basically has information
only for the sources within its own boundaries.
Answer: The examination of compliance status would be
conducted by the State initially. The State would examine
the compliance status of all the sources in the same VOC
source category in that State using its own files. The State
would not have to use CDS to do an analysis for the sources
within the State.
Question: 2) The specific CTG source categories are not
directly retrievable from CDS. A mapping would have to be
made between the SIC code and the respective CTG category.
while this may be straightforward in some cases (e.g., rubber
tire manufacturing), it would be virtually impossible for
others (e.g., miscellaneous metals). Although use of SIC
codes would greatly facilitate this process, we are concerned
that the SIC codes are not subject to very much, if any,
review by [5PA] and may be inaccurate.
-------
-3-
Answer: It is true that an analysis usinq CDS would be
tedious because the sources are not coded according to CTG
category. However, as noted above/ the Region is probably
aware of sources which complied expeditiously and can use
these as examples of the feasibility of expeditious compli-
ance.
Question: Despite these drawbacks, if use of CDS (or some
other alternative) is deemed to be acceptable, then what ....
do we do with the survey results? What if 25 percent of the
sources are in compliance?, or 50 percent or 75 percent?
Answer: As noted earlier, the State would have to demonstrate
that none of these similar sources had been able to comply
exoeditiously. If any one of these sources had been able to
comply within the required timeframe, then it is reasonable
to assume that other sources like it would have been able to
comply.
Question: An additional question is what is ,meant by a survey
of "sources nationally in the same VOC source category"? For
example, would a tractor coating operation be1 compared aqainst
other tractor coating operations or all other miscellaneous
metal sources?
Answer: "The same VOC source category" means the same CTG
category where there is an applicable CTG. If the State
believes that a smaller universe of sources should be used,
then the burden of proof is on the State. If there is no
CTG, then the category would be a group of sources which
could reasonably be grouped under a CTG, if a CTG existed.
Question: Another problem deals with those SIP packages
which have been returned, most of which are for Region V
sources. The policy specifies that the States will do this
survey, and Region V strongly supports this [SJtate requirement,
However, we will likely be subject to a considerable amount
of criticism (by the [Sjtates) if we merely return the pending
SIP revisions and tell them to perform the required (and very
time consuming) surveys. How do you suggest that we deal
with this problem?
Answer: As noted earlier, the State is only required to do
an analysis of the compliance status of sources within the
State for a particular VOC source category. The State should
use the State files. This should not be a protracted analysis
because the State is probably aware of sources which complied
-------
-4-
expeditiously and can use these as examples of the feasibility
of expeditious compliance. We do not feel that this is a
significant burden on the State. Note that the Clean Air Act
has always required attainment as "expeditiously as oractic-
able".
Question: In summary, can CDS be used to evaluate the
expeditiousness test in the VOC compliance date extension
policy? If not, then how do you suggest that we proceed? If
CDS can be used, then how can the national CDS data base be
made available to the [S]tates for their use in evaluating
expeditiousness? And finally, how do we evaluate the results
of this national compliance survey?
Answer: As noted above, the States would not be expected to
use CDS for the voc compliance survey and we do not necessarily
endorse the use of CDS for Region's survey; rather/ we suggest
the use of Regional files and State contacts by phone. The ,_
Region is probably aware of sources which complied expeditiousfcy
and can use these as examples of the feasibility of expeditious
compliance. CDS would be used as a last resort. In evaluating
the survey results, the Region will determine if none of the
sources in the same category had been able to comply.
If you have further questions on this matter, please
call me or Myra Cypser on my staff (382-2372).
-------
13. SOjSIPs
-------
13.1
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
FEB I 5 1983
OFFICE OP
AIM. NOISE AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown,
Maintenance/ and Malfunctions
FROM: Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise and Radiation
TO: Regional Administrators, Regions I-X
I have been asked to clarify my memorandum of
September 28, 1982, concerning policy on excess emissions during
startup and shutdown.
Specifically, I stated that "startup and shutdown of
process equipment are part of the normal operation of a source
and should be accounted for in the design and implementation of
the operating procedure for the process and control equipment.
Accordingly, it is reasonable to expect that careful planning
will eliminate violations of emission limitations during such
periods." I further stated that "UJf excess emissions occur
during routine startup and shutdown of such equipment, they
will be considered as having resulted from a malfunction only
if the source can demonstrate that such emissions were actually
caused by a sudden and unforeseeable breakdown in the equipment."
A question has been posed as to whether there can be
situations in which it is unreasonable to expect that careful
planning can eliminate violations of emission limitations
during startup and shutdown. I believe that there can be such
situations. One such situation, which was already mentioned
in the policy, is a malfunction occurring during these periods.
A malfunction during startup or shutdown is to be handled as
any other malfunction in accordance with the policy as
presently written.
Another situation is one in which careful and prudent planning
and design will not totally eliminate infrequent short periods
of excesses during startup and shutdown. An example of this
situation would be a source that starts up or shuts down once or
twice a year and during that period there are a few hours when
the temperature of the effluent gas is too low to prevent harmful
-------
formation of chemicals which would cause severe damage to
control equipment^-if the effluent were allowed to pass through
the control equipment.
»
Therefore, during this latter situation, if effluent gases
are bypassed which cause an emission limitation to be exceeded,
this excess need not be treated as a violation if the source
can show that the excesses could not have been prevented through
careful and prudent planning and design and that bypassing was
unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe
property damage.
I have clarified the policy concerning this issue. A copy
is attached.
Attachment
-------
Attachment
POLICT ON EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STARTUP, SHUTDOWN,
MAINTENANCE, AND MALFUNCTIONS
Introduction
Several of the existing State implementation plans (SIPs)
provide for an automatic emission limitation exemption during
periods of excess emission due to startup, shutdown, maintenance,
or malfunction.* Generally, EPA agrees that the imposition of
a penalty for sudden and unavoidable malfunctions caused by
circumstances entirely beyond the control of the owner and/or
operator is not appropriate. However, any activity which can
be foreseen and avoided, or planned is not within the definition
of a sudden and unavoidable breakdown. Since the SIPs must
provide for attainment and maintenance of the national ambient
air quality standards, SIP provisions on malfunctions must be
narrowly drawn. SIPs may, of course, omit any provisions on
malfunctions. [For more specific guidance on malfunction
provisions for RACT SIPs, see the April 1978 workshop manual
for preparing nonattainment plans].
I. EXCESS EMISSION FROM MALFUNCTIONS
A. AUTOMATIC EXEMPTION APPROACH
If a SIP contains a malfunction provision, it cannot be
the type that provides for automatic exemption where a malfunction
is alleged by a source. Automatic exemptions might aggravate
air quality so as not to provide for attainment of the ambient
air quality standards. Additional grounds for disapproving a
SIP that includes the automatic exemption approach are discussed
in more detail at 42 FR 58171 (November 8, 1977) and 42 PR
21372 (April 27, 1977). As a result, EPA cannot approve any
SIP revisions that provides automatic exemptions for malfunctions.
* The term "excess emission" means an air emission rate which
exceeds any applicable emission limitation, and "malfunction"
means a sudden and unavoidable breakdown of process or
control equipment.
-------
B. ENFORGB/rtINT DISCRETION APPROACHSIP EMISSION
LIMITATION ADEQUATE TO ATTAIN AMBIENT STANDARDS
r
EPA can approve SIP revisions which incorporate the
"enforcement discretion approach". Such an approach can require
the source to demonstrate to the appropriate State agency that
the excess emissions, though constituting a violation, were due
to an unavoidable malfunction. Any malfunction provision must
provide for the commencement of a proceeding to notify the
source of its violation and to determine whether enforcement
action should be undertaken for any period of excess emissions.
In determining whether an enforcement action is appropriate,
satisfaction of the following criteria should be considered.
1. To the maximum extent practicable the air pollution
control equipment, process equipment, or processes were maintained
and operated in a manner consistent with good practice for
minimizing emissions;
2. Repairs were made in an expeditious fashion when the
operator knew or should have known that applicable emission
limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift labor and overtime
must have been utilized, to the extent practicable, to ensure
that such repairs were made as expeditiously as practicable;
3. The amount and duration of the excess emissions
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent
practicable during periods of such emissions;
4. All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact
of the excess emissions on ambient air quality; and
5. The excess emissions are not part of a recurring
pattern indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance,
II. EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, AND
MAINTENANCE
Any activity or event which can be foreseen and avoided,
or planned, falls outside of the definition of sudden and
unavoidable breakdown of equipment. For example, a sudden
breakdown which could have been avoided by better operation and
maintenance practice is not a malfunction. In such cases, the
control agency must enforce for violations of the emission
limitation. Other such common events are startup and shutdown
of equipment, and scheduled maintenance.
-------
Startup land shutdown of process equipment are part of the
normal operation of a source and should be accounted for in the
planning, design and implementation of operating procedures for
the process and control equipment. Accordingly, it is reasonable
to expect that careful and prudent planning and design will
eliminate violations of emission limitations during such periods.
However, for a few sources there may exist infrequent short
periods of excess emissions during startup and shutdown which
cannot be avoided. Excess emissions during these infrequent
short periods need not be treated as violations providing that
the source adequately shows that the excess could not have been
prevented through careful planning and design and that bypassing
of control equipment was unavoidable to prevent loss of life,
personal injury, or severe property damage.
If excess emissions occur during routine startup and
shutdown due to a malfunction, then those instances will be
treated as other malfunctions which are subject to the malfunction
provisions of this policy. (Reference Part I above).
Similarly, scheduled maintenance is a predictable event
which can be scheduled at the discretion of the operator, and
which can, therefore, be made to coincide with maintenance on
production equipment, or other source shutdowns. Consequently,
excess emissions during periods of scheduled maintenance should
be treated as a violation unless a source can demonstrate that
such emissions could have been avoided through better scheduling
for maintenance or through better operation and maintenance
practices.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 13-2
Off ic» of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Resaarch Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
MAY 2 7 1983
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Summary of NAAQS Interpretation
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads, Director,
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division (MD-14)
TO: Gary L. O'Neal, Director'
Environmental Services Division, Region X
In response to your May 10, 1983 request, I have sumarfzed our current
guidance with respect to the data analysis aspects Involved In the Interpreta-
tion of the NAAQS. As you noted, several of the NAAQS are being reviewed and
1t Is our Intention to ensure that all revised standards be structured to
minimize the ambiguities associated with data handling conventions. However,
until this Is done, I understand your concern 1n resolving these Issues in
order to meet Immediate program needs. Therefore I have attempted to respond
to the specific questions that you raised and to Indicate the current status
of our guidance. The two guideline documents that provide most of the
supporting material are (1) "Guidelines for the Interpretation of Air Quality
Standards," OAQPS No. 1.2-008, which MS originally Issued In 1974 and then
revised In 1977 and (2) "Guideline for the Interpretation of Ozone A1r Quality
Standards/ OAQPS No. 1.2-108, which was Issued In 1979 with the promulgation
of the ozone NAAQS. These two documents provide answers for the majority of
questions and, when these are applicable, the discussion Is relatively brief.
For questions not addressed in these documents, or where a policy memorandum
was Issued to supersede this guidance, a more detailed discussion 1s Included.
Data Handling Conventions
Many of the problems that arise with respect to the data handling
conventions are a result of the fact that the Initial NAAQS, promulgated 1n
1971, Indicated a ug/m3 (or mg/nP) concentration level and a parenthetical
ppm concentration level that was not an exact equivalent. To ensure that an
attainment decision did not vary simply because of the measurement units
involved, our initial 1974 guidance was that the ug/o3 (orag/m3) concentra-
tion level took precedence and that the parenthetical ppm value should be
viewed as an approximate guide which may need to be modified to ensure equi-
valence. The 1974 guidance also stated the principle of "... letting
-------
the standard Itself dictate the nunber of significant figures to be used
1n comparisons..." For the NAAQS promulgated 1n 1971, this meant that the
comparisons with the standard were to be nade In terms of Integer values
of ug/m3 (or mg/m3) and 1t was stated that fractional parts of 0.5 were
to be rounded up. Extending this same approach to the lead standard, the
standard level of 1.5 ug/nn would mean that comparisons were to be made
to one decimal place and, In terms of the rounding convention, 1.55 ug/«3
would round up to 1.6 ug/m3.
The ozone NAAQS was promulgated 1n 1979 and 1n this case the ppm
value of the level, 0.12 ppm, was stated first because we felt this was
more consistent with the way the data are actually measured. The associated
guideline for the ozone standard stated that "... 0.125 ppn 1s the smallest
concentration value In excess of the level of the standard.* In effect,
the same principles for significant figures and rounding still apply but
the ppm value takes precedence for ozone. Although we anticipate that 1n
all of the revised NAAQS for the gaseous pollutants the ppm value would
be stated first, at the present time ozone 1s the only case where the ppm
value takes precedence when determining exceedances.
Basically, these data handling conventions adequately define how we
determine exceedances. When calculations are done In measurement units
other than the one that takes precedence 1n the NAAQS, then the equivalent
level of the standard should be selected to ensure that the results will
be consistent. For example, a dally maximum ozone value of 236 ug/m3
would not be counted as an exceedance of the ozone NAAQS because It 1s
less.than 0.125 ppm. The appropriate conversion factors between ppn and
ug/nr are 2620 for SO? and 1880 for NO?. To convert ppm CO values to
mg/m3, the factor 1s 1.15 and to convert ug/m3 to ppm for ozone the factor
1s 0.00051.
The other Issue which affects exceedance counts Is whether running
or block averages are used for CO and $03* The use of running 8-hour
averages for CO has generally been accepted with the convention that a
violation requires two non-overlapping 8-hour averages above the level of
the standard. Both the counting procedure and the determination of the
second highest non-overlapping value are documented In the 1977 guidance
(or the earlier 1974 version).
In contrast to the general agreement for CO, there has been considerable
discussion on the use of running averages for SOg. In 1981, the D.C.
Circuit Court remanded to EPA the record of Anblent A1r Quality Monitoring
and Data Reporting Regulations, 40 CFR 58, dealing with the 24-hour NAAQS
for S02- In effect, this Invalidated the portion of the monitoring
regulations requiring States to report ambient SOj data to EPA as running
averages. In a December 24, 1981 memorandum to the Regional Offices,
Kathleen Bennett, then Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise, and Radiation,
indicated that because the SO? NAAQS was under review she had decided to
defer any further rulemaklng dealing with the reporting of ambient SOg
levels although this would "... leave the States without any legal duty
to submit 24-hour running averages in the annual State and Local Air
tonltorlng Stations (SLAMS) report." She also stated that "... In most
-------
cases, M have relied on block averages and have not found It necessary
to examine running average data to Insure attainment and maintenance of
the 24-hour NAAQS." A related memorandum froa Ms. Bennett to Region Y on
March 24,1982 on the subject of the "Use of Running Averages for Detenatnlng
Compliance with the 24-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Standard" concerned the PPG
Barber ten Plant 1n Summit County, Ohio. She stated that she Mould "...
recommend that you base your decisions on the 24-hour standard solely on
the basis of midnight-to-m1dn1ght block averages 1n that case and In all
similar cases." This particular SIP revision Is now under review and the
use of running versus block averages 1s a key Issue.
Episode Monitoring
The Issues that you raise with respect to the reporting and use of
accelerated/episode monitoring data for ISP are basically concerned with
the appropriate use of the "extra" values obtained 1n addition to those
resulting from the minimum sampling schedule. Our recommendations would
be (1) all data collected at NAMS sites be submitted (2) for all sites,
all of the data should be used for comparison with the "once per year*
standards and (3) an appropriate weighting scheme can be used to compute
the annual geometric mean Incorporating all of the data rather than
simply Ignoring the "extra" days.
Because these Issues are not specifically addressed In our
Interpretation guideline, 1t Is probably useful to briefly comment on the
rationale. If a site had data for every day of the year, then all of the
data would be used to determine attainment with the "once per year"
standards. Therefore, It seems reasonable to continue to use all of the
data for these comparisons even when episode monitoring Is Involved. The
real problem with the use of all of the data In such cases 1s In the
computation of a summary statistic such as the annual geometric mean,
where there Is the possibility of bias because the higher days are over-
represented. One possible alternative would be to compute the geometric
mean by only using the once every sixth day data. While this may seem
appealing Initially because of Its simplicity, It would be difficult to
defend that Ignoring actual data values 1s better than Incorporating them
by an appropriate weighting scheme. The TSP NAAQS only refers to the
geometric mean and does not specify how It should be computed but, 1n the
case of unbalanced data sets, the use of a weighting scheme seems defensible,
Although episode monitoring data Is not specifically addressed, our 1974
"Guidelines for the Evaluation of A1r Quality Data/ OAQPS No. 1.2-015 does
discuss the use of weighted averages for cases with unbalanced seasonallty.
However, that particular discussion was limited to determining the annual
mean by using the quarterly means. A more general approach that would be
applicable to episode monitoring data has been considered as part of the
review of the partlculate matter NAAQS. Basically, the entire year would
be viewed as successive sets of six day periods. A geometric mean would
be computed for each of these six day periods. When a six day period
only contains a single data value (I.e. the normal scheduled sampling
day), the geometric mean for that six day period would simply be that
-------
single observed value. However, when the six day period contained more
than one value, all of the additional values would enter Into the calculation.
Once the geometric nean for each of these six day periods has been determined.
the annual geometric mean would be computed as If each of the six day
geometric Beans represented a single observation.
As I Indicated, this particular approach Is not presented In our current
guidance documents, but 1t 1s being considered as part of the participate
matter NAAQS review and does appear to be an acceptable Interim solution to
your question. I should note, however, that this computational scheme 1s not
currently Implemented on the National Aerometrlc Data Bank (NADB). At the
present time, NADB programs would Continue to compute the geometric mean by
giving equal weight to each value. Admittedly, this can result 1n a bias for
episode monitoring data and adjustment would be reasonable before developing
or approving specific actions.
Data Completeness
The data completeness requirements for the ozone NAAQS were specifically
treated In the 1979 standard and associated guideline. A dally maximum value
1s considered valid 1f at least 75 percent of the hourly values from 9:01 A.M.
to 9:00 P.M. (1ST) were present or 1f at least one hourly value was above the
level of the standard. The guideline Indicates that data for a year may be
considered adequate 1f the data set 1s at least 75 percent complete for the peak
pollution potential season. As other NAAQS are revised, we Intend to Incor-
porate this type of specific guidance. However, at the present time, the
earlier standards are not explicit with respect to data completeness require-
ments and our recommendation can probably best be viewed as relying upon
tradition and reflecting the summary criteria used on the NADB. "
In general, the validity criteria for continuous measurement methods
follows what could be termed the 75 percent rule. I.e., a year 1s valid If at
least 75 percent of the hourly measurements are present. The same approach
1s used for computing 8-hour average CO and both 3-hour and 24-hour average
SOj. This 75 percent requirement for 3-hour S0£ averages means that all
three hourly values must be present. In all of these cases, the average 1s
computed on the basis of the number of hourly values present. I should point
out that these completeness requirements are not Intended to discount obvious
exceedances. For example, 1f only five hourly CO values are available for an
8-hour period but the 8-hour average would exceed the level of the standard
even 1f the three missing values were set equal to one-half the minimum
detectable limit, then this should be counted as an exceedance. However,
this 1s not currently done as part of the routine NADB summaries.
The validity criteria for 24-hour data, typically resulting from
Intermittent sampling schedules, require at least five samples for a quarter
to be considered valid and 1f one month has no data the remaining months must
each have at least two observations. An annual statistic Is considered valid
no
64-4
-------
If all four quarters are valid. These requirements for the 24-hour data
trace back to the old bi-weekly sampling schedules that were typically
used until the early 1970*s. In view of the current every six day schedules,
they can certainly be viewed as minimal.
I hope that this summary will be useful to you In responding to the
Issues that you raised. Obviously, there are certain areas where a more
definitive response would be desirable. As these earlier NAAQS are
revised, we Intend to Incorporate the necessary guidance to minimize
potential ambiguities. For example. It Is relatively easy to give precise
responses with respect to the ozone NAAQS because many of these details '
were specifically addressed when the standard was promulgated. To a
large degree, this Is due to the Interaction that we have with the Regional
Offices In helping us to Identify those areas that need to be clarified
to facilitate the actual Implementation of the NAAQS.
cc: Director, Environmental Services Division, Regions I-YIII
Director, Office of Technical and Scientific Assistance, Region IX
Director, A1r and Waste Management Division, Regions II-IV,
YI-YIII. X
Director, Air Management Division, Regions I, V, IX
J. Padgett, Director, SASD
D. Tyler, W rector,.CPDD
E. Reich, EN-341
W. Pedersen, A-133
-------
13.3
13.3 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
October 10, 1985
Questions and Answers on Implementing the Revised Stack
Height Regulation
G.T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operation Branch
Chief
Air Branch, Regions I-X
Guidance on questions raised following promulgation of
the July 8, 1985 revised stack height regulations under
the general topic headings of: 1) interpretation of the
regulation, 2) SIP requirements, and 3) modeling
analyses
5.2 (hard copy), 7.2
-------
13.4
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
March 28, 1986
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Block Averages 1n Implemefltlw.. SOa NAAQS
FROM: Gerald A.
Office of A1r tjuarvty Planning and Standards (MD-10)
TO: Director, A1r Divisions, Regions I-X
As you know, the past Agency policy has been to use block averages
1n Implementing the 3- hour and 24-hour S02 NAAQS. The question has
arisen whether block averages are Indeed the proper Interpretation of the
NAAQS. We have Investigated this Issue, and concluded that block averages
are the proper Interpretation. Thus, we will continue to use block
averages 1n actions Implementing the 3-hour and 24-hour S02 NAAQS. This
statement of Interpretation 1s for the purpose of providing needed guidance
for current and future Implementation decisions; It 1s not Intended to
Initiate a reex ami nation of already approved Implementation plans. In
addition, States will continue to be permitted to develop requirements
that are more stringent than Federal requirements, as provided by
section 116 of the Act.
If this Issue arises In any Implementation decisions, e.g., SIP
revisions, redes 1gnat1ons, etc., please contact Tom Helms at FTS 629-5526
for assistance. Tom and his staff, along with OGC, are available to
assist you in responding to comments or preparing support documents on
this Issue.
cc: R. Campbell
B. Stelgerwald
Chief, A1r Branch, Regions I-X
-------
13'5
LMTED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
omctor
Alft AND RADIATION
Ms.. Nancy Maloley
Commissioner, Department
Environmental Management
Suite 319
311 west Washington Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Dear Ms.
I enjoyed our recent meeting and I have received your
followup letter of April 28, 1986 requesting clarification of
the Environmental Protection Agency's policy on use of 30-day
averaging as a compliance method for the Indiana State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for sulfur dioxide (SC>2). In this
connection, you raised the question of the use of a statistically-
based method such as the one approved by EPA in the Arizona
302 SI? -or smelters and upheld in Kamo v. Hernandez, 752 ?.2d
1444 (9th Cir. 19851 .
I understand the importance of this issue to tire coal
industry in your state, and of the concern that the significance
of coal variability be factored into the establishment of emission
limitations and appropriate compliance methods.
As you know, the current National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for SC>2 has both short term (i.e. 3-hour and
24-hour averages) as well as annual average components. Because,
under the Clean Air Act, State Implementation Plans (SIPs) must
demonstrate-attainment of these short-term standards, EPA has
had a long-standing policy to require emission limitations to be
enforceable on a short-term basis to protect the short-term
NAAQS. In recent years, EPA has not approved S02 30-day averaging
as a compliance method, unless accompanied by a short-term SC>2
limit established by a reference dispersion modeling analysis.
The Agency currently is in the process of reviewing the
NAAQS for S02r including consideration of a statistical.revised
standard. As part of that review, EPA also is reviewing the
feasibility of using alternative, statistically-based demon-
strations related to any such, revised SC>2 standard. Because
uny change in our policy on methodology would have nationwide
-------
- 2 -
implications for NAAQS attainment, we do not expect to change
the current position, if at all, prior to our completion of
che NAAQS review.
You specifically have asked for our position on whether
multipoint rollback or other statistical techniques could be
used to justify approval of 30-day averaging. As a general
matter, we require analytical techniques that are technically
and scientifically sound and that are practical and consistently
applied in similar circumstances. Based on my current under-
standing, it appears that multipoint rollback itself would
not be applicable for the type of situation presented by the
Indiana SI?. You should be aware that EPA approved the
multipoint rollback SIP in Arizona several years ago only
after expending considerable time and effort on the particulars
of each Arizona smelter. Although in most circumstances EPA
considers the rollback approach to be technically less sound
than approved modeling methods, the Agency finally approved
that approach for Arizona as a result of a wide range of
factors stemming, from the very unusual nature of the smelter
emission problems. As you know, the problems of smelters
have proven particularly difficult, as demonstrated by
Congress1 own special treatment of smelters in section 119
of the Clear. Air Act.
The Arizona smelters are isolated and are characterized
by extreme variations in emission levels, resulting from the
particular characteristic of the smelting process, rhe chemical
composition of the ores, and other factors. Use of traditional
modeling methods for these sources was complicated by the
presence of associated fugitive emission sources and complex"or
mountainous terrain. Due to these limitations on the use of
standard modeling techniques, the State turned to the Arizona
rollback approach, which included, for example, collection of
additional monitoring-and emission data, additions to the
existing monitoring network, study and commitment to a State
fugitive emission control program, 80-90 percent emission
control, and running 3-hour average compliance determined by
continuous emission monitors (CEMs).
My understanding is that the Indiana SIP for SC>2, in
contrast, is .dominated by utility power plants and large
industrial boilers, whose emissions do*not vary nearly so
much as smelters and which do not have large associated
fugitive emissions sources or complex terrain. Approved models
already exist and have been used nationally to account for
multiple source interactions and stack height adjustments
(where stack heights greater than GEP must be discounted).
The existing air quality modelling methods for establishing
emission limitations have been used successfully in different
state SIPs which have sources similar to. Indiana.
-------
At this point, I cannot give you much encouragement on'"
trying to use the multipoint rollback approach or a similar
method for the Indiana SIP. Any attempt to develop a statistical
approach, as demonstrated by the Arizona experience, would
require significant time and resource commitments from both
the state and EPA for activities such as data development
and analysis end program review. However, extensive attempts
in the past to develop ar. alternative- scatistical approach '
to-utility power plant attainment demonstrations did not ''""';
produce an acceptable technique, so success is unlikely.: '^
The end result of any analysis still must be a successful ."'!?
demonstration of compliance with short-term standards v,w.en ' "
coal sulfur content e>ceeds th*» average limit. We pr»for
that develop^. <=.--. I of a possible statistical approach hot be :
attempted on an ad hoc basis because of the significant '
natiorr.-:L-.1-4 Implications and the possible relsti-->-3h:j> with
the S02 standard review. We also are concerned that "'there'*'""";
not be further delay in the time when Indiana will-have--'a ""'
federally approved SIP. * v- "^
' 1:C
The most straightforward way of resolving this issue ' ;,
u/oul-* be for the state to remove the 30-day averaging method:
from the state S02 rule. Any subsequently developed compliance
sr.-rr-ac'-. .":".-* ':" s-.ib-;! tted as a source specific SIP revision
ur.-ler the alternative compliance method provision of the
applicable Indiana regulation, Short-term SI? limitations
for each source should be consistent with methods contained"6
in EPA reference guidelines, using source test metho'ds to '-= "
T.easjce compliance as specified in 40 CFR Part 60 Method 6;:-'-:
The EPA's policy and modeling guidance with regard to the- :"
requirements for approvable attainment demonstrations is :>
contained in its Guideline on Air Quality Models. .-':,.
v'
As a final note, I want to point out a factor which, !i
although unrelated to-the merits of the methodology questions,:
is o? concern tc me and also should be of csncsrn to your
state. A new bill to establish acid rain control plans, H.R.
4567, was recently introduced in Congress with 150 co-sponsors.
The Administrator t«s^*f*1 on the bill, opposing its passage,
while arguing a restrained approach to controls-, based on the
present uncertainties in our knowledge of acid precipitation. :
One of the principal reasons advanced by the Administrator
for deferring action is that current evidence suggests that -
SC>2 emissions in the midwest ar«j staMe. Thus, we. have"\:
tine for the required further research without the need for-
.v'oitional SO? controls at this time. It would be unfor--
r.unar** I.!/ because of methodology changes or other reasons", '""
-------
some states were perceived to significantly increase S02
emissions so that overall SC>2 emissions in th* Mi-iwvst
were to begin to trend upward, since su^h a trend would
support those in Congress who are pressing for additional
502 controls before the facts are in. I am "sure you are
as concerned abour this as I am.
I stand ready to discuss these matters further, or to
assist you in any way I can to resolve the Indiana S<>2 SIP
:ssue. I am sorry that I cannot be no;:t encouraging on the
part-ocular approach used for Arizona smelters, but I hope
t;.3t at least I have clarified EPA's current policy. Please
-1 > not hesitate to call on me if I can ^.
-------
13.6
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
1 0 DEC 1986
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Rulemaking on State Implementation Plans (SIP's) for
FROM: G. T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch (MD-15)
TO: A1r Branch Chief, Region I-X
The Office of International Activities (OIA) has advised us that the
Canadian Embassy must be Informed of all SO? SIP revisions and redes igna-
tlons before publication 1n the Federal Register. Therefore, Regional
Offices must now submit a communications strategy with all proposed and
final SIP rulemaklng actions Involving S0£ that are sent to Headquarters
for review.
Conrad Kleveno of the OIA will be the contact with the Canadian
Embassy. Before a SIP revision Is sent to the Office of the Federal
Register for publication, Denise Gerth will contact him at the same time
she contacts the Office of Public Affairs. He 1n turn will send a cover
letter and copy of the Federal Register notice to the Canadian Embassy.
Normally, press releases do not need to be submitted; however, 1f one 1s
planned, please attach it to the communications strategy.
If you have any questions on this, please call me or Denise Gerth.
cc: Conrad Kleveno
Denise Gerth
Sharon Reinders
-------
13.7
/^% \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
j Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
JUL 2 9 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: State Implementation Plans for Sulfur Dioxide
FROM: Gerald A. Emison, Direct
Office of A1r Quality Planning and'Standards (MD-10)
TO: Director, Air Management Division
Regions I, III, V, IX
Director, A1r and Waste Management Division
Region II
Director, A1r, Pesticides, and Toxics Division
Regions IV, VI
Director, A1r and Toxics Division
Regions VII, VIII, X
A number of sulfur dioxide (S^) State Implementation plan (SIP)
revision rulemaklng actions with potential problems have recently been
submitted for SIP processing. Several of these rulemaklng actions
establish S02 emission limitations but lack enforceable S02 compliance
test methods and procedures.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires that S02 SIP
emission limitations be established consistent with the short-term 3-hour
and 24-hour SQ^ national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). When a
State adopts an SOg emission limitation for its SIP without a stated
averaging period associated with it, EPA has accepted a Method 6 stack
gas test as the SIP compliance test method. The EPA also accepts continuous
emissions monitoring and short-term fueling sampling and analysis (3-hour
and 24-hour) as S02 SIP test methods. The EPA will accept separate
emission limitations with approved test methods associated with each
limitation.
As a minimum, make sure that there is a stack gas compliance test in
the State's plan when you review and forward S02 rulemaklng packages for
Headquarters approval. If the action Is an SO2 SIP revision, It may
reference the underlying EPA approved SIP for compliance test methods.
If so, make sure the underlying SIP contains acceptable test methods and
that the methods have been approved by EPA in the SIP.
cc: Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
John Seitz, SSCD
Darryl Tyler, CPDD
-------
13.8
13.8 DATE: April 22, 1988
SUBJECT: Interim Policy on Stack Height Regulatory Actions
FROM: J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator
Office of Air and Radiation
TO: Di rector-
Air Division, Regions I-X
DISCUSSION: Interim policy for processing SIP actions affected by
the January 22, 1988 remand of portions of the stack
height regulations
CR: 5.10 (hard copy), 7.4
-------
13.9
13.9 DATE: May 17, 1988
SUBJECT: Application of the Interim Policy for Stack Height
Regulatory Actions
FROM: John Calcagni, Director
Air Quality Management Division
TO: Chief
Air Branch, Regions I-X
DISCUSSIONS: Guidance on implementing interim policy, on processing
SIP actions affected by the stack height remand
CR: 5.11 (hard copy), 7.8
------- |