A Four Hour Satellite Seminar
BROADCAST LIVE To Over 82 I
February 10,1994
1994
Update:
Implementing The
Clean Air Act
EPA SPEAKS
Sponsored by;
XI ^V American Bar Association
Section of Natural Resources, Energy, and
Environmental Law and the
Division for Professional Education
^A^ Presented by:
^^ Air & Waste Management Association
In cooperation with:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Air & Waste Management Association
-------
7994 UPDATE:
IMPLEMENTING THE CLEAN AIR ACT
EPA SPEAKS
AN ABA SATELLITE SEMINAR
FEBRUARY 10, 1994
SPONSORED BY:
THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
SECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES, ENERGY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
AND THE
DIVISION FOR PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION
PRESENTED BY:
THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED HEREIN HAVE NOT BEEN APPROVED BY
THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES OR THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF
THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND, ACCORDINGLY, SHOULD NOT BE
CONSTRUED AS REPRESENTING THE POLICY OF THE
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
© COPYRIGHT, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, 1994
-------
1994 UPDATE: IMPLEMENTING THE CLEAN AIR ACT
AN ABA SATELLITE SEMINAR
FEBRUARY 10, 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PRESENTATION OF TOPICS (i)
FACULTY AND SPONSORS (H)
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY FOR THE (1)
CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1990
UPDATE 1993
By EPA Office of Air & Radiation
FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENTS PUBLISHED 1993 (25)
NONATTAINMENT (65)
FUEL SWITCHING TO MEET THE REASONABLY (W9)
AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT)
REQUIREMENTS FOR NITROGEN OXIDES (NOx)
MEMORANDUM
By Michael H. Shapiro
STATUS OF AIR TOXICS RULES AND REPORTS (121)
REPORT TO CONGRESS ON IMPLEMENTATION (123)
OF SECTION 112 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
AMENDMENTS OF 1990
By EPA Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards
CLARIFICATION OF ISSUES REGARDING THE (165)
CONTINGENCY MEASURES THAT ARE DUE
NOVEMBER 15, 1993 FOR MODERATE AND
ABOVE OZONE NONATTINMENT AREAS MEMORANDUM
By D. Kent Berry
GUIDANCE ON ISSUES RELATED TO 15 PERCENT (175)
RATE-OF-PROGRESS PLANS MEMORANDUM
By Michael H. Shapiro
CREDIT TOWARD THE 15 PERCENT REQUIREMENTS (193)
FROM ARCHITECTURAL AND INDUSTRIAL
MAINTENANCE COATINGS MEMORANDUM
By John S. Seitz
-------
1994 UPDATE: IMPLEMENTING THE CLEAN AIR ACT
AN ABA SATELLITE SEMINAR
FEBRUARY 10, 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS cont'd
OPERATING PERMITS PROGRAM
OFFICE TELEPHONE NUMBERS AND
ADDRESSES OF HEADQUARTERS OFFICES
NATURAL RESOURCES & ENVIRONMENT - CLEAN AIR (311)
HOW STATES CAN SUCCESSFULLY
IMPLEMENT THE NEW OPERATING
PERMIT TITLE
By Michael R. Bair
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 2288 - CALIFORNIA (319)
CHAPTER 1166
TITLE 31. NATURAL RESOURCES AND (329)
CONSERVATION - PART III TEXAS AIR
CONTROL BOARD • CHAPTER 122 FEDERAL
OPERATING PERMITS
By The Texas Register
VOLUNTARY SOURCE SPECIFIC PLANTWIDE (365)
APPLICABILITY LIMIT (PAL) ISSUES
By EPA
WILDERNESS ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT (375)
By John D. Peine & Douglas G. Fox
A SCREENING PROCEDURE TO EVALUATE AIR POLLUTION f3B7]
EFFECTS ON CLASS I WILDERNESS AREAS ' '
By Douglas G. Fox, Ann M. Bartuska, James G. Byrne,
Ellis Cowling, Richard Fisher, Gene E. Likens,
Steven E. Lindberg, Rick A. Linthurst,
Jay Messer, and Dale S. Nichols
STRUCTURED ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY (391)
By Douglas G. Fox
-------
7994 UPDATE: IMPLEMENTING THE CLEAN AIR ACT
AN ABA SATELLITE SEMINAR
FEBRUARY 10, 1994
PRESENTATION OF TOPICS
12 Noon EST LIVE INTERVIEW WITH ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
AIR PROGRAMS, MARY D. NICHOLS
12:15 BREAK
12:20 PANEL I: Reforming the New Source Review Process
Andrea Bear Field, Moderator
Lydia N. Wegman
Pamela Faggert
Douglas G. Fox
Michael R. Barr
12:55 BREAK
1:00 PANEL 2: NONATTAINMENT
Andrea Bear Field, Moderator
John Seitz
A. Stanley Meiburg
Thomas M. Allen
David Aldorfer
1:50 BREAK
2:10 PANEL 3: AIR TOXICS
Kathleen Bennett, Moderator
Bruce C. Jordan
Donald F. Theiler
David M. Driessen
Joseph C. Hovious
2:55 BREAK
3:00 PANEL 4: PERMITTING AND ENFORCEMENT
Kathleen Bennett, Moderator
Alan W. Eckert
Michael Trutna
Robert H. Co/torn
Ernie Rosenberg
3:55 National Transmission Ends
(i)
-------
1994 UPDATE: IMPLEMENTING THE CLEAN AIR ACT
AN ABA SATELLITE SEMINAR
FEBRUARY 10, 1994
FACULTY AND SPONSORS
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Andrea Bear Field
Partner
Hunton & Williams
Washington, D.C.
MODERATORS
Andrea Bear Field
Partner
Hunton & Williams
Washington, D.C.
Gale Hoffnagle
Past President, A&WMA
Vice President
TRC Environmental
Consultants
Hartford, Connecticut
Jeffrey Clark
Special Assistant to
the Director, Office
of Air Quality Planning
& Standards
U.S. EPA
Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina
Kathleen Bennett
Vice President, Environmental Affairs
James River Corporation
Richmond, Virginia
FACULTY
David M. Aldorfer
Senior Manager
Regulatory/Legislative
Direction Group
General Motors Corporation
Detroit, Michigan
Thomas M. Allen, P.E.
Director, Division of Air
Resources, New York State
Department of Environmental
Conservation
Albany, New York
Michael R. Ban
Partner, Pillsbury,
Madison & Sutro
San Francisco, California
Alan W. Eckert
Associate General Counsel,
Air and Radiation Division
Office of General Counsel
U.S. EPA
Washington, D.C.
Pamela Faggert
Executive Director - Air
Division, Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality
Richmond, Virginia
Douglas G. Fox
Director, Terra Laboratory
U.S. Forest Service
Fort Collins, Colorado
(ii)
Mary D. Nichols
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation
U.S. EPA
Washington, D.C.
Ernie Rosenberg
Director of Environmental
External Affairs
Occidental Petroleum
Washington, D.C.
John Seitz
Director, Office of Air
Quality Planning and
Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. EPA
Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina
-------
1994 UPDATE: IMPLEMENTING THE CLEAN AIR ACT
AN ABA SATELLITE SEMINAR
FEBRUARY 10, 1994
FACULTY cont'd
Kathleen Bennett
Vice President, Environmental
Affairs
James River Corporation
Richmond, Virginia
Robert H. Co/torn
Cheif, Air Protection Branch
Environmental Protection
Division
Georgia Department of Natural
Resources
Atlanta, Georgia
David M. Driesen
Attorney
Natural Resources Defense
Council
Washington, D.C.
Joseph C. Hovious
Assistant Director,
Environmental Affairs
Union Carbide Corporation
Danbury, Connecticut
Bruce C. Jordan
Director, Emmission Standards
Division
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. EPA
Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina
A. Stanley Meiburg
Director
Air, Pesticides & Toxics
Division
U.S. EPA
Dallas, Texas
Donald F. Theiler
Director, Bureau of Air
Management
Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources
Madison, Wisconsin
Michael Trutna
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. EPA
Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina
Lydia Wegman
Deputy Director, Office of
Air Quality Planning and
Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. EPA
Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina
SPONSORS
ABA SECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES, ENERGY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Frank Erisman R. Kinnan Golemon
Chair Chair-Elect
Denver, Colorado Austin, Texas
Philip A. Fleming Kristy Neihaus Bulleit
Vice Chair CLE Officer
Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.
Donna R. Black
Budget Officer
Los Angeles, California
Larry D. Feldcamp
Chair, Air Quality
Committee
Houston, Texas
AIR &, WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
Douglas G. Fox Anthony J. Buonlcore David W. Hoffman
President First Vice President Past President
Fort Collins, Southport, Connecticut Indianapolis, Indiana
Colorado
Clyde Hampton
Secretary
Denver, Colorado
Richard G. Stoll
Chair,
Teleconference
Programs
Washington, D.C.
Martin E. Rivers
Executive Vice
President
Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania
-------
7994 UPDATE: IMPLEMENTING THE CLEAN AIR ACT
AN ABA SATELLITE SEMINAR
FEBRUARY 10, 1994
SPONSORS confer
A&WMA GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS STEERING COMMITTEE
Leslie S. Ritts
Chair
Washington, D.C.
Jerry Pell
Washington, D.C.
Michael H. Levin
Washington, D.C.
Richard D. Siegel
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Bruce K. Maillet
Andover, Massachusetts
Kenneth N. Weiss
Exton, Pennsylvania
Christ! Veleta
Jacksonville, Florida
Rao Kona
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania
David P. Novello
Washington, D.C.
A&WMA PROFESSIONAL STAFF
Courtland P. Gould
Developmental Program
Manager
Robert D. Hurley
Member Services
Division Manager
ABA STANDING COMMITTEE ON CONTINUING EDUCATION OF THE BAR
R. Clark Wadlow
Chair
Washington, D.C.
Douglas G. Houser
Chair
Liaison to the American Law Network
Portland, Oregon
ABA DIVISION FOR PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION
Terrence J. Brooks
Interim Director
Theresa K. Livingston
Seminars & Marketing
Coordinator
Consortium for Professional
Education
William H. Hamblin
Director
Consortium for Professional
Education
Annette J. Cook
Assistant Director
Consortium for Professional
Education
Kenneth D. Scruggs
Course Materials Coordinator
Consortium for Professional Education
-------
1994 UPDATE:
IMPLEMENTING THE CLEAN AIR ACT
EPA SPEAKS
AN ABA SATELLITE SEMINAR
FEBRUARY 10, 1994
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Air And Radiation
(6102)
EPA410-K-93-001
November1993
&EPA
Implementation Strategy
For The Clean Air Act
Amendments Of 1990
Update. 1993
INTRODUCTION
The Environmental Protection Agency is
committed to implementing the Clean Air Act
(CAA) Amendments of 1990 in a manner which
will protect health and the environment,
minimize costs, and encourage pollution
prevention and innovative technologies.
The implementation of the Amendments is
based on a two-year strategy developed and
continually updated to inform Congress and the
public on the status of CAA implementation
activities.
Since Congress passed the Amendments,
EPA has issued over 150 proposed and final
rules and guidance documents. When fully
implemented in the year 2005, the CAA will
remove an estimated 57 billion pounds of
pollution from the air. To date EPA has
proposed or promulgated rules that will
account for 85 percent of those 57 billion
pounds. Figure 1 shows emission reductions
addressed to date and the number of actions
included in the revised two-year
implementation strategy.
CAA REGULATORY/IMPLEMENTATION
HIGHLIGHTS
Under the Clinton Administration, EPA has
taken a number of steps to accelerate our rapid
implementation pace and enforce the CAA.
Highlights of our accomplishments from January
through October 1993 are as follows:
Title I (Non-Attainment)
Final Rules
• New source performance standards for SOCMI
Reactor Processes
• Guidelines for air quality models for SIPs
• PM-10 increments for PSD program
• Decision on ozone NAAQS
• Enhanced ozone monitoring
Emissions Reductions To Date
(In Blllloni of Pound* p*r y*»r)
85% Addressed To Date
15% To Be Addressed
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Number of Major
Regulatory Actions
1991 1992 1993 1994 199S
HI Completed CD Proposed
Figure 1
1
-------
Proposed Rules
• General conformity criteria for federal agencies
• Order of sanctions
• Economic Incentives Program
Title II (Mobile Sources)
Final Rules
• Urban bus PM standards
• Urban bus retrofit standards
• NOX standards for 1998 model year and later
heavy duty engines
Proposed Rules
• Emission standards for non-road
engines >50 hp
• Clean fuel fleet vehicle standards
• Credit programs for heavy duty vehicles
• California Pilot test program
• Clean fuel vehicle standards for passenger cars
and light duty truck
• On-board vehicle diagnostics
Title ID (Air Toxics)
Final rules
• Dry Cleaners MACT standards
• Coke Ovens
Proposed Rules
• Procedures for approving state air toxic
programs
• Case by case MACT determinations under
section 112(j) - (MACT hammer)
• General provisions for MACT standards
• MACT standards for Chromium from
Industrial Cooling Towers
Title IV (Acid Rain)
Final rules
• Phase n utility allowance allocations
Proposed Rules
• Opt-in regulation for combustor sources
Title VI (Stratospheric Ozone Protection)
Final rules
• Section 608 refrigerant recycling program
Proposed Rules
• Federal procurement regulations for ozone
depleting chemicals
• Accelerated phase out of CFCs and listing of
methyl bromide as a Phase I ozone-depleting
substance
• Class II non-essential products ban
• Significant new alternatives program (SNAP)
Title VII (Enforcement)
Proposed Rules
• Enhanced Monitoring requirements from air
pollution sources
Studies, Reports and Guidance
• Report to Congress on Air Toxics Efforts
[Section 112(s)]
• 185B NOX/VOC Study
• Joint EPA/DOT report to Congress: Clean Air
Through Transportation
• Guidance to states on writing emission
inventories, ozone non-attainment, and Title V
permits
Other Significant Accomplishments
• Enhanced I/M legislation - the following
eleven states have passed enhanced I/M
legislation since January, 1993: Colorado,
Connecticut, Louisiana, Maine, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island,
Texas, Virginia.
• Operating Permits Legislation - 48 states have
enacted operating permits legislation. EPA has
to determine whether all the legislation meets
the standards.
• EPA is working with the Small Business
Administration on an MOU implementing
Section 507, the Small Business Assistance
Program.
• EPA settled an $11.1 million enforcement
action against Louisiana Pacific Corporation.
This is the largest penalty EPA has collected
ever under the Clean Air Act and the second
largest civil penalty under any environmental
statute. The settlement also resulted in industry
agreement to install new state-of-the-art controls
built by American workers that will result in
-------
about 22,000 tons of reductions of volatile
organic compounds, particulate matter, and
carbon monoxide from 11 wood panel facilities
nationwide.
• Voluntary Emission Reduction Programs - The
Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) initiated
innovative voluntary programs that reduce
emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon
dioxide and methane, and other air pollutants.
Three of these non-regulatory "Green Programs"
promote use of energy-efficient lighting,
building energy systems and computers. Other
programs will encourage reduction in emissions
from natural gas transmission and distribution;
assist in the profitable capture of methane from
coal beds during and prior to mining; and
encourage steps to prevent water and air
pollution from feedlot waste stored in lagoons.
In each program, emissions reductions are
achieved through private-public partnerships
with businesses and other organizations. The
Green Programs are an example of how we are
working cooperatively with the private sector to
arrive at economically attractive ways to protect
the environment while improving productivity
and competitiveness.
• Market-Based Programs - The Clean Air Act
has stimulated demand for pollution prevention
and control technologies, and in the process has
created new business opportunities and jobs in
the billion-dollar air pollution control industry.
We are working with the Department of
Commerce and the business community to
identify these business opportunities. OAR has
established a database to document the vast
array of technological advances and new
business and export ventures that have arisen
since passage of the Amendments. OAR is also
developing regulations that give sources
flexibility on ways to comply and encourage
prevention and innovative technologies. OAR
will encourage market-based solutions, such as
those that the Congress wrote into the acid rain
provisions of the Clean Air Act The emissions
trading market under the program is now
developing; we expect this market will provide a
model for future market-based systems.
IMPLEMENTATION GOALS
As we move forward to fulfill our obligations
under the Clean Air Act there are four major
principles that will guide our efforts:
L Enhance EPA's partnerships to work with
state and local governments.
As more rulemaking occurs, state and local
governments bear ever greater responsibility
for implementing requirements ranging from
the new operating permit program to
enhanced vehicle inspection-and-maintenance
programs. We need to build true
partnerships with state and local
governments.
n. Seek to eliminate the adversarial nature of
the rulemaking and regulatory process.
An important part of public outreach effort is
to encourage consensus through broad public
consultation with outside parties. We must
reach out to all who have an interest in and
are affected by our rules and regulations.
Encourage pollution prevention and
innovative technologies for reducing pollution.
Where possible we will encourage solutions
such as our proposed industrial process
cooling tower rule that eliminates chromium
emissions through a change in feedstocks, not
through end-of-pipe controls.
IV. Examine the environmental justice
questions associated with implementing the
Clean Air Act
We will initiate projects to identify and
reduce air pollution that is disproportionately
affecting the poor and people of color.
Earlier in the year OAR held a public meeting
in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to discuss our
proposed toxic rule on the chemical
manufacturing industry (HON) with the local
communities affected by air pollution and to
provide them with an opportunity to express
their concerns about the proposed rule.
-------
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
The implementation of the CAA is based on a
strategy which outlines the regulatory agenda
that will serve to guide our activities in the most
effective manner for the forthcoming two year
period. The strategy document (Attachment A)
contains a chart showing OAR's schedule for
carrying out the law through December 1995, as
well as those actions already completed.
The chart is reprinted below with changes to
bring it up-to-date. For each entry/ the chart
shows the following information:
• whether or not the action has been
completed, and if so, when
• the Agency's current target date for
completion of planned actions
• the statutory deadline for the action, if
one exists
The chart contains most but not all significant
actions needed to carry out the 1990
Amendments through December 1995. The chart
does not include, for example, some of the
requirements implemented by EPA offices other
than the Office of Air and Radiation, such as the
Office of Research and Development Target
dates for future actions are subject to change
based on new risk assessments, court decisions,
changes in available resources and other factors.
The remainder of this report will focus on the
Agency's communication/outreach efforts.
OAR OUTREACH TOOLS/PUBLICATIONS
One of OAR's primary goals in implementing
the Clean Air Act is to reach out to all affected
parties and help them understand the
implications of the Amendments. OAR has
developed and distributed a series of learning
tools mat can be used to understand the
complexities of the amendments. These include
brochures, citizen guides, slide presentations,
telephone hotlines, interactive computer bulletin
boards, and a number of public service
announcements. A partial list highlighting
current OAR's communication tools follows.
The listing is part of an OAR publication entitled
"OAR Outreach/Communication Tools" which
can be obtained by contacting Jeanette Brandon
at (202) 260-7400.
GENERAL INFORMATION - WRITTEN
MATERIALS (October 1993)
The Plain English Guide to the Clean Air Act -
Published April 1993. Explains in non-
technical, straightforward language the
provisions of the Clean Air Act of 1990 and
how they will clean the air. [Contact NCEPI
(513) 891-6561].
What You Can Do To Reduce Air Pollution -
Published October 1992. A citizen's guide to
what individuals can do to help meet the
goals of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990. Also outlines the causes and effects of
air pollution. [Contact NCEPI (513) 891-
6561].
The Clean Air Act of 1990: An Introductory
Guide to Smart Implementation —
Published by the Clean Air Act Advisory
Committee in May 1992. A concise five page
guide, written in layperson's terms, which
covers the background, benefits, and
philosophy of the new Clean Air Act.
The Clean Air Act of 1990: A Primer on
Consensus-Building -
Published summer 1992. Outlines
collaborative decision-making processes to
assist agencies, organizations, and individuals
embarking on consensus-building activities in
the implementation of the Clean Air Act.
The Clean Air Act of 1990: A Guide to Public
Financing Options ~
Published November 1992. Outlines ways for
state and local governments to meet the
funding obligations of the Clean Air Act of
1990, both within current air program
financing arrangements and within the
provisions of the Act.
-------
The Clean Air Marketplace -
First issue published in June 1993. Periodic
newsletter on business opportunities created
by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
[Contact Steve Harper (202) 260-5580]
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990: Detailed
Summary of Titles -
Published in 1990. A highly detailed and
relatively technical treatment of Titles I
thrpugh XI of the Clean Air Act. [Contact
NCEPI (513) 891-6561].
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990:
Overview Summary Materials ~
Published on November 15,1990. Contains
an overview of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, one page summaries of
the key titles, a glossary of terms, and a
legislative chronology. This document can
serve as useful background, but has not been
recently updated.
Clean Air Update -
A 2-3 page document, published monthly,
with information on upcoming public
meetings, upcoming regulatory actions,
reports, and major Federal Register notices.
[Contact: Heidi Farber (202) 260-2632]
Implementation Strategy for the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 -
Published on January 15,1991. Summarizes
plans to implement the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 within the timeframes
set by Congress. Multi-year document.
[Contact: Heidi Farber (202) 260-2632]
Update of Implementation Strategy for the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 ~
Published July 1992.
EPA Journal, "The New Clean Air Act What it
Means to You" (Vol. 17, No. 1) -
Published in January/February 1991 by the
Office of Communications, Education and
Public Affairs. The entire edition of the
Journal is devoted to discussions of various
issues concerning the new Clean Air Act.
[Contact NCEPI (513) 891-6561].
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990: A
Guide for Small Businesses -
Published September 1992. Explains how the
various parts of the Clean Air Act
Amendments can affect small businesses and
how small businesses can obtain information
and assistance. [Contact NCEPI (513) 891-
6561].
GENERAL INFORMATION - OTHER
FORMATS
Technology Transfer Network (TIN): Clean Air
Act Computer Bulletin Board —
A system of integrated electronic bulletin
boards. The Bulletin Board is run by the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
and contains general documents, rules, and
guidance documents that can be accessed
electronically by the public. The system
allows users to call in from anywhere in the
world and download information on air
quality models, air inventories, recently
signed rules, and extensive information on
operating permits, including model permits -
all for the price of a phone call. A one page
instruction sheet on how to access the bulletin
board is available. [Bulletin Board Number
(919) 541-5742 (8 bits, no parity, 1 stop bit,
VT100 emulation) Contact: Jerry Mersch (919)
541-5635]
Slide Presentation
Marketplace -
The Clean Air
"The Clean Air Act: Spurring Innovation,
Jobs, and Exports". Slides and talking points
-------
on tine relationships between clean air and the
economy. [Contact: Steve Harper (202) 260-5580]
Videotapes -
PBS Teleconference on the Clean Air Act
The Legal Winds of Change: Business and the
New dean Air Act, broadcast on November
28,1990. Tape of a videoconference in which
panelists explain provisions of the 1990 Clean
Air Act and their implications for business
and the environment (Limited quantities
available.) [Contact NOSPI (513) 891-6561].
Air and Waste Management
Association/American Bar Association
Teleconferences on the Clean Air Act —
Update: Implementing the Clean Air Act -
EPA Speaks, broadcast in February 1991,
1992, and 1993. Satellite seminars in which
four panels address different aspects of the
1990 Clean Air Act. Each panel features key
decision makers from EPA, as well as
representatives from industry, state
governments, and the major environmental
groups. [Contact: The American Bar
Association, Division for Professional
Education; one copy available for loan from
Heidi Farber (202) 260-2632]
-------
ATTACHMENT A
The Clean Air Act Implementation Strategy
(Revised October 1993)
Dec-90
J*v01
MMH
Mar-91
Apr-91
May-91
Title 1 - Nonattalnment
Title 1 - Nonattainment
Title VI - CFCs
Title 1 - Nonattainment
Title 1 - Nonattainment
Title VI - CFCs
Title 1 - Nonattainment
Title 1 - Nonattainment
Title 1 - Nonattainment
Title II - Mobile Sources
IS : : I1S21S
Issue 'Getting Started" letter to Governors
States submit request/Justification for 5 % classification adjustments
Publish two-year implementation strategy
Publish notice of initial PM-10 moderate nonattainment areas
Initiate additional PM-10. SO,, lead designation process
Listing of depleting substances
Act on 5% classification adjustment requests
States submit nonattainment area designations
Direct final 1991 production limits
States submit PM-10 areas unable to attain by 1994
States respond to list of PM-10, SC^, lead nonattainment areas
States deadline for PACT corrections
Notify States of intent to modify suggested boundaries
Convene NE ozone transport commission
Finalize gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure regulations
Finalize Tier 1 car and truck standards
Propose reformulated gasoline requirements
Propose clean fuels fleet and CA pilot credit programs
Propose urban bus regulations
Prooose emission control diagnostic rule
fpp&^'
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Partial
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
'"" '^SfiriK'^'S'-i^iPw
Oec-90
Jan-91
Feb-91
Mar-91
May-91
May-91
May-91
May-91
These dates are subject to change based on new risk assessments, court decisions, and changes in available resources.
-------
The Clean Air Act Implementation Strategy
(Revised October 1993)
Msy«1
Jurvfll
JuWI
Sep<1
OcWI
No*91
Oo«1
j|l||:I:: ;:;|l
Title IV • Acid Rain
Title V - Permit
TWe III - Air Toxics
Trtto II - Mobil* Sources
Title VII • Enforcement
Title VI - CFCs
Title 1 - Nonattainment
Title II • Mobile Sources
TWe 1 • Nonattainment
Title III • Air Toxics
TitJe 1 • Nonattainment
'r""'i:
.
Propose regulations for auctions and sales
Propose State permit regulations
Publish draft list of source categories
Propose list of high risk pollutants, 90/95% early reductions guidance
Propose early reductions rulemaking
Propose lead substitute gasoline additives
Propose administrative penalties rules of practice
Propose CFC phase-out regulations
Propose mobile air conditioning recycling regulations
Publish VOC and CO emission Inventory guidance
Publish study on non-road engines
Publish guidance on control cost-effectiveness
States submit PM-10 SIPs
Publish air quality and emission trends report
Establish Grand Canyon visibility transport commission
Propose PM-10 area reclassffications
Finalize ozone, CO, PM-10, and lead nonattainment boundaries
Propose MACT for dry cleaners (per court order)
ProDOse outer continental shelf rule
f^fS^^iiiOS
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Partial
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Jul-91
Nov-91
Nov-91
Nov-91
Nov-91
Jun-91
Jul-91
8
-------
The Clean Air Act Implementation Strategy
(Revised October 1993)
BUB
4 csjs&SJjjjji
I Dso«1
JMttt
Fsb-82
Mar-82
Apr-02
M*«2
Jun-92
TOe IV- Acid Rain
Title V - Permits
TWevl-CFCs
into VII - Enfbfcofflont
TWe II - Mobile Sources
Tlaljfc 1 hL-»rt»*imIjLi i»r*l
i nw i • nonauainrnvrn
TWe II - Mobile Sources
Title 1 - Norattainment
THto II • Mobile Sources
TWevl-CFCs
TWe VI - CFCs
llifllflp " :-; " i"'' S ' ' :; .;.::;:.;;>:;-x ;.::,. :»: ; >: '.•-.• . } ;. ;.;!;:; ;i!:^^^^
HnaHze regulations for auctions and sales
Propose allowance trading system
Propose add rain permit program
Propose excess emissions rules
„_
Publish guidance on State programs to assist small businesses
Propose ban on non-essential products
Finalize administrative penalties rules of practice
Finalize onboard controls regulatory decision
Publish Titie 1 General Preamble
Propose rules for ozone, NQ,, and VOC monitoring
Propose rule on reformulated gasoline SNPRM (supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking)
Publish guidance on TCM's (transportation control measi-es)
Finalize cold temperature CO standards
Propose CFC labeling regulations
Finalize mobile air conditioning recycling regulations
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Nov-91
Nov-91
Nov-91
Nov-91
Nov-91
Nov-91
-------
The Clean Air Act Implementation Strategy
(Revised October 1993)
J£4B
Aug42
Sap-02
OMB
Nwtt
Title II - Mobile Sources
Title III - Air Toxics
Trtte IV - Add Rain
Title V - Permits
Title VI - CFCs
Title I - Nonattainment
Title I - Nonattainment
TrUe III - Air Toxics
Title I - Nonattainment
TrUe II - Mobile Sources
Tftie III - Air Toxics
Title I - Nonattainment
Revise two-y*ar implementation strategy
StalM submit SIPs for Initial SC^ nonattainment anas
Propose enhanced I/M regulation
Publish final list of source categories
Propose list of Phase II utility allowances
Finalize State permit regulations
Finalize CFC phase-out regulation
Finalize guidance on transportation air quality planning
Propose additional PM-10 nonattainment areas
Propose discretionary sanction rules
Finalize outer continental shelf rules
Propose regulatory schedule for all source categories
Publish 1991 air quality data and emission trends report
Finalize oxygenated fuel credit guideline
Propose MACT for hazardous organic chemical manufacturing
States.aubmit RACT catch-up rules, NSR rules, CO attainment demonstration
and contingency measures
Y
Partial
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Partial
May-92
Nov-91
Dec-91
Nov-91
Sept-91
Aug-91
Nov-91
Aug-91
Nov-92
10
-------
The Clean Air Act Implementation Strategy
(Revised October 1993)
No*ae
Dec-flC
JMV03
TWj I - Nonattainment
Title II - Mobile Sources
Title IV -Add Rain
Title 1 • Nonattainment
Title II • Mobile Sources
TMe III - Air Toxics
Title VI - CFCs
THIe 1 - Nonattainment
Title II - Mobile Sources
;
States submit small business assistance programs
States submit base ozone, CO emission inventories
Finalize PM-10 BACM technical guidance
Publish TMe I Nq, guidance
Rnalize enhanced I/M regulation
Propose NQ, requirements for Group 1 utility boilers
Publish alternative control technology document for VOCs from bakeries
Propose revisions to motor vehicle certification procedures (certification short
test)
Rnalize California pilot credit program
Propose MACT for coke ovens
Rnalize early reductions rulemaking
Propose emission reduction program
Approve/disapprove first PM-10 SIPs
Rnalize PM-1Q area ^classifications
Rnalize vehicle evaporative emissions regulations
Rnalize emission control diagnostic rule
Publish draft mobile source air toxics study
Propose reformulated gasoline complex model
Rnalize dean fuels fleet (TCM's)
Partial
Partial
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Partial
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
}
iaani^HB
iM-* !
Nov-92
Nov-92
May-92
Nov-91
Nov-93
Nov-91
Jan-92
Jan-93
Dec-91
Aug-93
May-92
Nov-91
5
11
-------
The Clean Air Act Implementation Strategy
(Revised October 1993)
ite£:;.:
JMV03
FiM3
Mv-flS
w
TrUe III • Air Toxics
Title IV -Add Rain
TWeVI-CFCs
Title I - Nonattalnment
,
Title II - Mobile Sources
Title IV -Add Rain
TWeVl-CFCs
THJe VII - Enforcement
Title 1 - Nonattalnment
Title II - Mobile Sources
u
Propose list of substances for accidental releases prevention program
Finalize excess emission requirements
Finalize allowance trading system
Finalize continuous emission monitoring requirements
Finalize conservation and renewable Incentives
Finalize add rain permit program
Finalize ban nonessential products
Finalize rules for ozone, NQ,, VOC enhanced monitoring
Propose economic Incentive rules
Propose transportation conformity criteria
Finalize urban bus 94+ (PM standard)
Finalize procedures of enforcement for urban bus standards
Sources submit Phase 1 permit applications and proposed compliance
plans
Finalize CFC labeling regulations
Propose rules for citizen suits
Issue draft 185B report
0. -<-
Finalize urban bus retrofit
Finalize procedures of enforcement for urban bus standards
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
, -i^^-MSm
MvDMBflBHK^ I
KsTOr-B-raratSHwRjwwyj!;*
__J
May-92
May-92
May-92
May-92
May-92
Nov-91
May-92
Jan-92
May-92
Feb-93
May-92
Nov-91
May-92
6
12
-------
Hie Clean Air Act Implementation Strategy
(Revised October 1993)
Msf-03 ™« IV - Add Rain
Initiate auctions and tale* of allowances
Mar-93
Finalize list of Phase II utility allowances
Dec-92
Raking by lottery of Phase I extension applications
Title VI-CFCs
Propose procurement regulations
May-92
Propose accelerated CFC phase-out
TrUe I - Nonattalnment
States submit lead SIPs (18 months from designation)
Partial
Jul-93
Publish alternative control technology document for VOCs from pesticide
applications
Nov-93
Title II. Mobile Sources
Publish final mobile source related air toxics study
May-92
Propose non-road emission standards >50 hpr.
Nov-92
Title III - Air Toxics
Propose guidance for State air toxics program 112(1)
True VI - CFCs
Finalize emission reduction program (Section 608)
Jan-92
May-93
TrUe I - Nonattainment
PM-10 PSD Increments (11/92 court agreement)
TrUe II - Mobile Sources
Propose dean fuel fleet vehicle standards, conversions and general
provisions
Nov-92
Title VI - CFCs
Propose safe alternatives
Nov-92
Title II - Mobile Sources
Propose California pilot, dean vehicle standards, and opt-in provisions
Title III - Air Toxics
Propose rule on case-by-case MACT determination 112Q)
Propose rules for risk management plans and prevention programs (OSWER)
13
-------
The Clean Air Act Implementation Strategy
(Revised October 1993)
4 '•.-' VL_
KsBBi>>:'-:--:>*
i§"^iI«HI
JurHB
JuM8
Aug-83
Ssp«3
TrtteVI-CFC*
THto I • Nonattalnment
THIe III - Mr Toxics
TTC« (V - Add Rain
Titto I - Nonattainment
TWe II - Mobil* Sources
Trtte III - Air Toxics
THJe IV - Add Rain
THto I - Nonattainment
THto III - Air Toxics
TOe IV - Add Rain
Htw vu - cniorooffwnt
^3 ^Mro^'^'' ••••-.: ' : . • : "'''^^^^^i
}••:. '"'. • • :' !• -."• ...• ^If&liKi^jj^ii^
Propose Class II Non-essential ban
Publish 185B NCt/VOC study
Complete study of the hazards of hydrofluoric add (OSWER)
Begin submission of applications for Energy Conservation & Renewable Reserve
Publish SOCMI distillation processes CTG
Publish SOCMI reactor processes CTQ
Publish SOCMI batch processes CTG
Submit transportation systems report to Congress
Propose general provisions for MACT standards
Propose MACT for Industrial cooling towers
Section 112(s) Report
Draft add rain permits issued for public comment
Propose Certification Program for solid waste and fossil-fuel combustor
operators (OSWER)
Finalize MACT for dry deaners
r»_
Propose permits for early reduction sources
Propose opt-In regulations - combustion sources
Propose rules for enhanced monitoring
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Nov-91
Feb-92
Nov-92
Nov-93
Nov-93
Nov-93
Nov-92
8
14
-------
The Clean Air Act Implementation Strategy
(Revised October 1993)
O*B3
Nov-S3
Title I - Nonattainment
Title II • Mobile Source*
Trtto III - Air Toxics
Title IV - Acid Rain
TrttoVI-CFCs
Tffle VIII • Miscellaneous
Title I - Nonattainment
Title II - Mobile Sources
Title III - Air Toxics
Publish air quality and emission trends report
Finalize additional PM-10 and SO, nonattainment areas
Finalize revisions to motor vehicle certification procedures (I/M short test)
Finalize testing protocols for fuels and additives
Propose MACT for pulp and paper
Publish study of hydrogen sulfide emissions from extracting natural gas and oil
Finalize MACT for coke ovens
Finalize NCI requirements for utility boilers
Begin issuing allowances to small diesel refineries
Finalize procurement regulation
Section 81 1 Report (International Competiveness)
States receive emission source statements
Publish alternative control technology documents for NQ, sources
States submit selected SIP provisions for moderate and above ozone areas
finalize general conformity criteria
Propose detergent additive regulations
Submit Great Lakes study report to Congress
Issue urban area strategy • research report
finalize rules for risk management plans and prevention programs
Y
Y
Y
Nov-91
Nov-92
Dec-92
May-92
Oct-93
May-92
May-92
Nov-93
Nov-93
Nov-93
Nov-93
Nov-93
Nov-93
9
15
-------
The Clean Air Act Implementation Strategy
(Revised October 1993)
Ncw-93
Daott
Trtte III - Air Toxics
Title IV - Add Rain
Title V - Permits
TOe VI-CFCs
Tttle VIII - Miscellaneous
Title I - Nonattainmerrt
Title II - Mobile Sources
Title III • Air Toxics
" : v ' : :-•-•. : .': : ;
Publish guidance for state air toxics programs 1 120)
Propose MACT for chromium electroplating
Finalize list of substances for accidental releases prevention program
Rnallze regulatory schedule for all source categories
Propose Degreasing MACT
States submit add rain permit program proposals
Promulgate SQj new source performance standards (NSPS) for new fossil
fuel utility units
EPA action on final Phase I permits
States submit operating permit programs
Finalize CFC phase-out
Finalize Class II Non-essential Ban
Propose rules for field citation
Issue report on the impact of the 1990 CM Amendments on visibility
Propose Part C & D new source review requirements
Finalize economic incentives rules
Finalize discretionary sanctions rules
Finalize reformulated gasoline regulations
Finalize reformulated gasoline complex model
Finalize CNG/LPG vehicle standards
Propose guidance for modification provisions
lilMHii
Nov-91
Nov-92
Nov-92
Nov-83
Nov-93
Aug-93
Nov-93
Nov-91
Nov-92
Nov-91
10
16
-------
The Clean Air Act Implementation Strategy
(Revteed October 1993)
HB^H
••
f""1*""™'"^^
Oso«
Jan*
Feb-«4
IHralHini
jjjJiim&Ss^^BBm
TM* \IH PfAliyian
* VH * enforcement
TWe 1 - Norattalnnwnt
THto II • Mobile Sources
Tlte III - Air Toxics
TWelV-AcldRaln
Title VI-CFCs
Title VII • Enforcement
TW« III - Air Toxics
IPlft
PropOM ruto for contractor listing
PropOM ruto for morwtvy awvards
findings)
Approvs/disapprov* ozons & CO submittals du* 11/92
HnaRzs on-board rafuellno vapor recovery regulations
Deliver program-specialized Inspection training course at three regional
locations (radlonudldes)
Develop inspection manual and training materials for coke ovens
Issue HAP list petition procedure guidance
Propose standards for large MWC's
Propose standards for small MWC's
Propose Stage 1 gasoline marketing MACT
Promulgate NQ, NSPS for fossil fuel-fired boilers (utility and nonutility units)
Enhance regional compliance components
Finalize safe alternatives program
Prepare clarification guidance for EPA supplementary environmental project for
air
Propose MACT for solid waste TSDF
Finalize MACT for hazardous organic chemical manufacturing
Propose MACT for magnetic tape coating
Finalize general provisions for MACT standards
Jun-93
Jan-94
Nov-93
Nov-91
Nov-92
Jan-94
Nov-92
Nov-92
11
17
-------
The Clean Air Act Implementation Strategy
(Revised October 1993)
K&SSSafcSKWwSix
ill&R^iiiii
I " '-;3»88§llls
Ub*Jft4
Apr-»4
htey-04
THto II - Mobile Sources
Title IV - Add Rain
TWe 1 - Nonattalnment
Title II - Mobile Sources
Title III - Air Toxics
TWe IV - Add Rain
THIe VII - Enforcement
Tftte 1 - Nonattainment
HHPTa-. J^^^^^,
Publish web offset lithography CTG
Submit consumer/commercial products study report to Congress
Propose revision for federal test procedures
Conduct second allowance auction
Publish petroleum/Industrial wastewater CTG
Publish plastic parts coating CTG
Publish storage tanks CTG
Propose tank vessel rule
Publish results of ozone design value study
Propose non-road emission standards < 25 HP - Phase 1
Finalize dean fuel fleet vehide standards, conversions, and general provisions
Finalize California pilot, dean vehide standards, and opt-in provisions
Propose MACT for polymers and resins II
Final permits for early reduction sources
Finalize case-by-case MACT determinations 112Q)
Certify continuous emissions monitors for Phase I units
Begin Issuing allowances to small diesel refineries
Finalize rules for citizen suits
RedaMify marginal ozone areas failing to attain by 11/93
Propose NSR Simplification rule
|ga89&j9££Biii&
Nov-93
Nov-93
Mar-94
Nov-93
Nov-93
Nov-93
Nov-93
Nov-92
Nov-94
May-94
12
18
-------
The Clean Air Act Implementation Strategy
(Revised October 1993)
fejm«silliiss
s&SSR??' §§§§
! ;.:::-J:; :-:•':« :t:
••'•":»;:?:'«<<'»
i^H-A
N^FV*
Jun-94
JuW4
Tite II • Mobile Sourem
Tite III - Air Toxics
Tite IV - Add Rain
Titio V - Permits
rite 1 - Nonattalnmant
Tite II - Mobil* Sources
Tite III - Air Toxics
Title IV - Acid Rain
Tite III - Air Toxics
IL^^islllllllIlilMiP^ :'v::'-'^-: •'.-'•:•••:'•.."••• • ' '•';•:•"•''
l8l;|liBlllll11llif?l;:;:;; ': • ' ' '••- "
Finalize non-road emissions standards tor >50 HP diesel engines
Publish draft risk assessment and management commission report
Propose MACT for secondary lead smelters
Submit MAS study to Congress
Propose NQ, NSPS for new fossil fuel utility units (407(c)]
Propose Federal operating permit regulations
Approve/disapprove lead SIPs due 4/93
States implement Phase II of the enhanced ozone monitoring network
Report to Congress on the Cal. low-emissions vehicle
Propose locomotive emissions standards
Finalize lead substitute gasoline additives
Proposed mobile source air toxics regulation
Develop inspection manual and training materials for medical waste
incinerators
Propose medical waste incinerator rule
Propose MACT for Petroleum refineries
Prepare implementation guidance for Phase II - affected units
Propose MACT for aerospace industry
Promulgate industrial cooling towers standards
Propose MACT for shipbuilding (surface coating)
Propose MACT for printing/publishing industry
Prooose asbestos MACT
ftftOfttflL:;::;-.--
Illllflllll
May-94
May-93
Jun-94
Jun-94
Nov-91
13
19
-------
The Clean Air Act Implementation Strategy
l||PPs*W':>:
i*'
*£*«
8qpM
OoMM
Mw4M
.: -. ,..v;:-
:
TrUe III - Air Toxics
Title IV - Add Rain
Title VII - Enforcement
Title 1 - Nonattainment
Titte II - Mobile Sources
Title III • Air Toxics
Title IV - Add Rain
Title 1 - Nonattainment
Title III - Air Toxics
S
Publish surface coal mining study
Produce inspection and compliance checklists tor new CTGs completed in
FY1993
Propose non-road emission standards for marine engines
Final certification program for solid waste and fossil-fuel combustor
operators
Develop inspection manual and training materials for dry deaners
Finalize Opt-In Regulation - Combustion Sources
Finalize rules for enhanced monitoring
Finalize rules for monetary awards
Publish air quality and emission trends report
Finalize detergent additive regulations
Finalize guidance for modifications provisions
Propose opt-in regulations - process sources
Publish final add deposition standards study
Publish wood furniture CTG
States submit ozone SIP's demonstrating attainment
Promulgate MACT chromium electroplating
Nov-83
Nov-92
May-92
Nov-92
May-92
Nov-93
Nov43
Nov-92
20
14
-------
The Clean Air Act Implementation Strategy
(Revised October 1993)
No*04
Dec-04
Jen-85
Fetors
Mar-96
Apr-05
May-95
Title V - Permits
Trtto VU - Enforcement
Tito I - Nonattainment
Title VII - Enforcement
THto III - Air Toxics
Trde 1 - Nonattainment
Title IV - Add Rain
Title 1 - Nonattainment
Title IV • Add Rain
Title 1 - Nonattainment
| • ; : : : - : 111
Submit mercury study to Congress
Submit risk assessment and management commission report to Congress
Promulgate MACT for 25% of source category list (includes about 30
categories)
Promulgate MACT for commercial sterilizers
Promulgate degreasing MACT
Promulgate Stage 1 gasoline marketing MACT
Finalize MACT for magnetic tape coatings
Finalize Federal operating permit program
Finalize guidance/rule for field citations
Issue enhanced monitoring reference document
Finalize Part C & D new source review requirements
Finalize rule for contractor listing
Finalize MACT for polymers and resins II
Propose auto body refmishing
Conduct third allowance auction
Finalize tank vessel rule
Finalize NQ, NSPS for new fossil fuel utility units [407(c)j
Final NSR Simplification rule
'•:':••• :'..
: .;•,;:,,:':
Nov-94
Nov-94
Nov-94
Nov-94
Nov-94
Nov-94
Mar-95
15
21
-------
The Clean Air Act Implementation Strategy
(Revised October 1993)
p
ltay-85
Jun-65
JuM5
Atie4S
Ssp-95
0*96
Tttle II - Mobil* Sources
Title III - Air Toxics
Title IV - Acid Rain
Title III - Air Toxics
Title VII - Enforcement
Title III - Air Toxics
Title rV-AcW Rain
Title III - Air Toxics
Title III - Air Toxics
Tttle 1 - Nonattalnmerrt
Title IV - Add Rain
Ht
Finalize non-road emission standards for < 25 HP SI engines
Finalize mobile source air toxics regulations
Promulgate asbestos MACT
Final MACT for secondary lead smelters
Certify continuous emissions monitors for Phase II units
Promulgate medical waste incineration standards
Finalize MACT for petroleum refineries
Update enhanced monitoring referencing document
Final MACT for aerospace industry
Final MACT for printing/publishing industry
Final MACT for shipbuilding (surface coatings)
Propose NQ, requirements for Group 2 utility boilers
State must submit plans for implementing MWC standards
Develop inspection manual and training materials for Stage 1 vapor
recovery systems
Develop inspection manual and training materials for industrial cooling
Promulgate paper & pulp MACT
Publish air quality and emission trends report
Finalize opt-in regulations - process sources
Nov-94
Nov-94
Nov-94
Nov-94
Jan-95
Nov-94
Nov-94
22
16
-------
The Clean Air Act Implementation Strategy
(Revised October 1993)
THto II • Mobile Sources
Finalize marine engine emission standards
Finalize locomotive emission standards
Nov-95
THto III • Air Toxics
Study of electric utilities generating units
Nov-93
17
23
-------
ERRATA
(November 1993)
These proposed and final rule dates were incorrectly listed in the Implementation Strategy.
Title
Date*
Activity
Statutory
Deadline
Title II -
Mobile Sources
Tide HI - Air Toxics
Title HI - Air Toxics
Title ffl - Air Toxics
Title IV - Acid Ram
Title IV - Acid Rain
Tide IV - Acid Rain
Tide VI - CFCs
Tide VI - CFCs
4/94 Finalize testing protocols for fuels
additives
11/94 Propose standards for large MWCs Nov-91
11/94 Propose standards for small MWCs Nov-92
5/95 Propose medical waste incinerator rule
2/94 Finalize NOX requirements for May-92
utility boilers
Delete Promulgate NOX NSPS for fossil fuel- Jan-94
1/94 fired boilers (utility & nonudlity
units) - Listed twice; current date
is 5/94
Schedule Promulgate SO2 new source performance Nov-93
under review standards (NSPS) for new fossil fuel
utility units - Listed as 11/93
2/94 Finalize safe alternatives program Nov-92
1/94 Finalize Class II Non-essential Ban Nov-91
These daces are subject to change based on new risk assessments, court decisions, and changes in available
resources.
24
-------
UMENTS PUBLISHED
1993
Notice
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone;
Labeling Supplemental Proposal (Notice
of Proposed Rule/3348)
Acid Rain Program; Permits and Allowance
Permits and Allowance System Proposed
Regulations (Change in Public Comment
Period for the Proposed Revisions to the
Rules/3319)
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Ban of
Nonessential Products Containing Class II
Ozone-Depleting Substances Under Section
610(d) of the CAA, as Amended (Notice of
Final Rule/3267)
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Amend the
Class I Nonessential Products Ban Published
in the FR of 1/15/93, and Promulgated Under
Section 610(b) of the CAA, as Amended
(Direct Final Rule/3385)
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Establish
Baseline Production & Consumption Allowances
for Chemicals (methyl bromide and hydro-
bromofluorocarbons) Added to List of Class I
Ozone-Depleting Substances in FR Signed
11/30/93 and Published 12/10/93 (Notice of
Final Rule/3374)
Control Techniques Guideline Document;
Industrial Wastewater (Release of draft CTG
document for public review)
Control Techniques Guideline Document;
Batch Process (Release of draft CTG document
for public review)
Date Published
December 30,1993
December 30,1993
December 30, 1993
December 30, 1993
December 30, 1993
December 29,1993
December 29,1993
25
-------
Federal Operating Permit Programs; Permits
for Early Reductions Sources (Notice of
Proposed Rule/3942)
Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles
and New Motor Vehicle Engines; Nonconformance
Penalties for Heavy-Duty Engines and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles, Including Heavy Light-Duty Trucks
(Notice of Final Rule/2801)
December 29,1993
December 28,1993
Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives; Renewable
Oxygenate Requirement for Reformulated Gasoline
(Notice of Proposed Rule/3395)
State Implementation Plans for Lead Nonattainment
Areas; Addendum to the General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments
(3278)
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes (Final Action to Redesignate Areas
as Nonattainment for PM-10 and Sulfur Dioxide
NAAQS/3144)
Amendments to the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Categories; Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning
Facilities (Notice of Final Rule/2360)
Environmental Radiation Protection Standards
for the Management & Disposal of Spent Nuclear
Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive
Wastes (Notice of Final Rule/2590)
Certification Testing and Selective Enforcement
Audit Testing Waivers for on-Highway Heavy-Duty
Diesel Engine Smoke Standards (Direct Final
Rule/3153)
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants, Off-Site Waste Operations (Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking)
December 27,1993
December 22, 1993
December 21,1993
December 20,1993
December 20,1993
December 20,1993
December 20, 1993
26
-------
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment
Standards, and New Source Performance Standards:
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category; National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Source Category: Pulp and Paper Production
(Notice of Proposed Rule/2712 & 2914)
Standards for Chromium Emissions from Hard and
Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium
Anodizing Tanks (Notice of Proposed Rule/2841)
Enhanced Monitoring Program (Proposed Rule;
Notice of Comment Period Extension/2942)
Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives;
Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives;
Emissions Control System Performance Warranty
Regulations and Voluntary After-market Part
Certification Program (Notice of Final Rule
(3308)
New Source Review Reform Subcommittee
(Notice of Public Meetings)
Fuels and Fuel Additives; Extension of Time
and Finding Concerning Fuel Additive (MMT)
Waiver Application
Clean Fuel Fleet Program: Definitions
and General Provisions (Notice of Final
Rule/3070
Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission
(Notice of Meetings)
Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives:
Standards for Deposit Control Gasoline
Additives (Notice of Proposed Rule/3018)
National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants Schedule for the Promulgation
of Emission Standards Under Section 112(e)
of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (Notice of the
Source Category Schedule Standards/2971)
December 17,1993
December 16, 1993
December 15,1993
December 15, 1993
December 9,1993
December 9,1993
December 9,1993
December 8, 1993
December 6,1993
December 3,1993
27
-------
Control Techniques Guideline Document;
Volatile Organic Liquid Storage in Floating
and Fixed Roof Tanks (Release of draft (CTG)
document for public review)
Determining Conformity of General Federal
Actions to State or Federal Implementation
Plans (Notice of Final Rule/3207)
Opting Into the Acid Rain Program (Change
in Public Comment Period for the Proposed
Rule/3009)
National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants; Amendments to Compliance
Extensions for Early Reductions (Notice
of Final Rule/2819)
National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants; Halogenated Solvent Cleaning
(Notice of Proposed Rule, Test Methods, and
Notice of Public Hearing/2839)
Approval of State Programs & Delegation of
Federal Authorities EPA is Required to Publish
Under Section 112(1) of the CAA Amendments
Novice of Final Rule/3142)
Criteria and Procedures for Determining
Conformity to State or Federal Implementation
Plans of Transportation Plans, Programs, and
Projects Funded or Approved Under Title 23
U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act (Notice of
Final Rule/2963)
Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of State
Implementation Plans; Methods for Measurement
of Visible Emissions (Notice of Proposed Rule
and Notice of Public Hearing/2915)
Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations;
Denial of Petition for Reconsideration of
Corresponding Onshore Area Designation
(Notice of Final Rule/2947)
December 2,1993
November 30,1993
November 30,1993
November 29,1993
November 29,1993
November 26, 1993
November 24,1993
November 22,1993
November 19, 1993
28
-------
Outer Continential Shelf Air Regulations;
Petition for Reconsideration (Notice to
Announce EPA's Proposal Not to Change the
Corresponding Onshore Area Designations for
Eight Outer Continental Shelf Platforms)
Acid Rain Program; Permits and Allowance
System Regulations Under Title IV of the
CAA Amendments (Notice of Proposed Rule
and Notice of Public Hearing/3319)
Health and Environmental Standards for
Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings (Notice
of Final Rule Amending General Environ-
mental Regulations Pertaining to Uranium
Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act
(UMTRCA) of 1978/3039)
Control Techniques Guidelines Document;
Reactor Processes and Distillation
Operations Processes (Release of CTG
Document)
Listing of Marine Vessel Loading Operations
Under Section 112(c) of the CAA (Notice of
Category Listing/2858)
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone (Notice
of Proposed Rule to Establish Baseline
Production and Consumption Allowances for
Chemicals EPA has Proposed to Add to the List
of Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances/3374)
Inspection/Maintenance Program Requirements;
Correcting Amendments (Notice of Corrections
to Final Regulation/3004)
Control Techniques Guideline Document Offset
Lithographic Printing (Release of draft (CTG)
document for public review)
Listing of Categories and Regulatory Schedule
Schedule for Air Emissions from Other Solid
Waste Incineration Units under Section 129 of
the CAA and a Schedule for Promulgation of
Regulations (Notice of Listing)
November 19,1993
November 18,1993
November 15, 1993
November 15, 1993
November 12, 1993
November 9, 1993
November 9,1993
November 8, 1993
November 2,1993
29
-------
Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Vehicles & New Motor Vehicle Engines: Short
Test Emission Regs for 1996 and Later Model
Year Light-Duty Vehicles and Light Duty-Trucks,
and Revised Performance Warranty Regulations
(Notice of Final Rule)
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Source Categories and for Coke
Oven Batteries (Notice of Final Rule)
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone (Final Rule
for Federal Procurement Requirements Under
Title VI Section 613 of the CAA Amendments)
November 1, 1993
October 27,1993
October 22,1993
Enhanced Monitoring Program (Notice of Proposed
Rule; Notice of Opportunity for Public Hearing)
New Source Review Reform Subcomittee (Notice of
Public Meeting)
October 22, 1993
October 20, 1993
Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON)/Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT) Interface
Draft Guidance (Draft Guidance for Public
Comment)
State Implementation Plans for Nonattainment
Areas for Lead (Notice Announces Findings of
Failure to Submit Required SIP's for Lead)
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Source Categories: Perchloroethylene
Dry Cleaning Facilities (Notice of Public Meeting)
October 20,1993
October 19, 1993
October 19,1993
1994 and 1995 Nominations for Essential for
Essential Use Exemptions for Halons 1211,1301,
and 2402 (Notice Announces the Results of the
Call for Nominations for 1994; A Call for
Nominations for 1995; and Formation of the
Halon Recycling Corporation)
October 18,1993
30
-------
National Emission Stds for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Source Categories: Organic
Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry
(SOCMI) and Seven Other Processes (Notice
to Reopen Comment Period and Correct
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification)
Draft Student Handbook & Statement of Intent
to Develop Training & Certification Programs
for Operators of High Capacity Fossil Fuel-Fired
Plants (Notice of Availability)
Asbestoes NESHAP Clarification of Intent
(Notice of Clarification)
Control of Air Pollution; Emissions of Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen & Smoke From New Nonroad
Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 50
Horsepower (Notice to Reopen Public Comment
Period)
Application Sequence for CAA Section 179
Sanctions (Notice of Proposed Rule)
New Source Review Reform Subcommittee
(Notice of Cancellation of Public Mtg.)
CAA Contractor Access to Confidential
Business Information (Notice)
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Ban of
Nonessential Products Containing Class II
Ozone-Depleting Substances Under Section 610(d)
of the CAA, as Amended (Notice of Proposed Rule)
Opting Into the Acid Rain Program (Notice
of Proposed Rule)
National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for Source Categories:
Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Facilities
(Notice of Final Rule)
October 15,1993
October 6, 1993
October 5,1993
October 4, 1993
October 1, 1993
September 27,1993
September 27,1993
September 27,1993
September 24, 1993
September 22,1993
31
-------
Territory of Guam Petition for Exemption
From the Diesel Fuel Sulfur Requirement
(Notice of Direct Final Decision)
Announcement of Fuel Economy Retrofit
Device Evaluation for the Fuelon Power
Gasoline Fuel Additive (Completion of EPA
Evaluation)
National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants; Compliance Extensions for
Early Reductions (Notice of Complete
Enforceable Commitments Received Through
August 9,1993)
Codification of Corresponding Onshore
Area Designations & Notice of Convening
Proceeding for Reconsideration of Certain
Corresponding Onshore Area Designations
(Notice of Correction)
New Source Review Reform Subcommittee
(Notice of Public Meeting)
Approval of South Carolina's Petition
to Relax the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure
Volatility Standard for South Carolina
from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi (Direct Final
Rule)
Standards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
Emissions from the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Reactor
Processes (Notice of Final Rule)
September 21,1991
September 15,1993
September 10,1993
September 9, 1993
September 1,1993
September 1,1993
August 31, 1993
Hazardous Air Pollution; Proposed Regs
Governing Equivalent Emission Limitations
by Permit (Notice to Extend Public Comment
Period)
State of Alaska Petition for Exemption from
Diesel Fuel Sulfur Requirement of Section 211(i)
of the CAA as Amended (Notice of Proposed
Decision)
August 30, 1993
August 27, 1993
32
-------
Petition to Remove the Compound Caprolactam
from Hazardous Air Pollutant List (Notice of
Receipt of Petition)
CAA Contractor Access to Confidential Business
Information (Notice)
National Primary Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Sulfur Oxides (Notice Extending Public Comment
Period on the Sulfur Dioxide Criteria Document and
Staff Paper Supplements)
Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (Request for
Candidates)
Special Exemptions from Requirements
Section 325(a) of the CAA, Territory of
Guam (Notice of Final Rule)
National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for Chromium Emissions from
Industrial Process Cooling Towers (Notice
of Proposed Rule)
August 26, 1993
August 25, 1993
August 20, 1993
August 13, 1993
August 12, 1993
August 12, 1993
National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for Source Categories;
General Provisions (Notice of Proposed Rule)
Workshops Sponsored Committees of the Grand
Canyon Visibility Transport Commission
(Notice of Meetings)
Final Agency Actions Regarding the Motor
Vehicle Provisions of the CAA (Notice of
Mobile Source Final Agency Actions)
Clean Fuel Fleet Emission Standards,
Conversions, and General Provisions and the
Clean-Fuel Vehicle Standards for Light-Duty
Vehicles and Light-Duty Trucks (Proposed
Rules; Extension of the Comment Period)
Standards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources: Calciners and Dryers in Mineral
Industries; Amendment (Notice of Correction)
August 11, 1993
August 10,1993
August 10,1993
August 9,1993
July 29, 1993
33
-------
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone (Section 114 July 27,1993
Information Request to Establish Baselines for
Newly Listed Ozone Depleting Chemicals and to
Meet UNEP Reporting Requirements)
Policy Regarding the Sale of 1985 and July 22,1993
Subsequent Model Year California Vehicles
(Notice of Public Workshop and Request for
Comments)
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone (Request July 20, 1993
for Comments on the Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements of Newly Listed Ozone-Depleting
Substances)
CAA Contractor Access to Confidential July 20, 1993
Business Information (Notice)
Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and July 20, 1993
Submittal of Implementation Plans; Revised
Guideline on Air Quality Models (Notice of
Final Rule)
Acid Rain Program (Notice of Draft Permits July 16,1993
and Public Comment Period)
Hazardous Air Pollution (Proposed Regulations July 13,1993
Governing Equivalent Emission Limitations by
Permit Under Section 112(j) of the Clean Air
Act, As Amended)
Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993 and July 9, 1993
Earlier Model Year Urban Buses (Notice of
Public Workshop for Equipment Certifiers)
Fuels and Fuel Additives (Ethyl Corporation July 2,1993
Waiver Application for Methylcyclopentadienyl
Tricarbonyl (MMT) and Petition for Review -
Circuit Court Remand)
Clean Fuel Fleet Emission Stds, Conversions, July 1, 1993
and General Provisions & Amended Heavy-Duty
Averaging, Banking, & Trading Credit Accounting
Regs (Notice of Clarification Concerning the
Comment Period and Opportunity to Request a
Public Hearing)
34
-------
California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control July 1,1993
Stds (Notice of Opportunity for Public Hearing
and Public Comment)
Emission Defect Reporting Requirements (Notice June 30,1993
of Public Workshop and Request for Comments)
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) June 30,1993
for Particulate Matter (Notice of Correction
to Final Rule)
The California Pilot Test Program & Clean-Fuel June 29,1993
Vehicle Standards for Light-Duty Vehicles and
Light-Duty Trucks (Notice of Proposed Rule)
Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles June 28,1993
& New Motor Vehicle Engines: Evaporative Emission
Regs for Gasoline and Methanol-Fueled Light-Duty
Vehicles & Light-Duty Trucks and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles (Notice Technical Correction on FRM)
Draft Acid Rain Permits Public Comment Period June 28, 1993
(Notice of Correction)
Intent To Form an Advisory Committee To Negotiate June 25,1993
Small Nonroad Engine Regulations Under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA)
Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles June 23, 1993
and New Motor Vehicle Engines; Regs Requiring
On-Board Diagnostic Systems on 1994 and Later
Model Year Light-Duty Vehicles and Light-Duty
Trucks (Notice of Public Workshop & Reopening
of Comment Period)
Standards of Performance for New Stationary June 21,1993
Sources & Guidelines for Control of Existing
Sources: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
(Notice of Availability of New Information
for NPRM)
35
-------
Control of Air Pollution from New Motor June 17,1993
Vehicles & New Motor Vehicle Engines;
Refueling Emission Regs for Light-Duty
Vehicles & Trucks & Heavy-Duty Vehicles
(Notice of Change in Date for Public
Hearing & Additional Request for Comment
on Proposed On-Board Refueling Vapor
Recovery Regs)
Approval of State Programs & Delegation June 16,1993
of Federal Authorities EPA is Required
to Publish Under Section 112(1) of the
CAA Amendments (Notice of Public Hearing
& Extension of Public Comment Period)
Draft Acid Rain Permits (Notice of Draft June 11, 1993
Permit and Public Comment Period)
Control of Air Pollution from New Motor June 10, 1993
Vehicle Engines; Gaseous & Paniculate
Emission Regs for 1994 & Later Model Year
Light-Duty Vehicles & Light-Duty Trucks
Notice of Final Rule; Technical Amendments)
Oxygenated Gasoline; Utah Waiver Application June 10,1993
and Proposed Establishment of Control Periods
for the Salt Lake/Ogden, MSA (Notice of
Public Hearing)
Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission June 10,1993
and Operations Committee (Notice of Meetings)
Clean Fuel Fleet Emission Standards, and June 10,1993
General Provisions & Amended Heavy-Duty
Averaging, Banking, & Trading Credit
Accounting Regs (Notice of Proposed Rule)
Acid Rain Program; Announcement of Open June 9,1993
Meeting on Continuous Emission Monitoring
(CEM) Data Acquisition & Handling Systems
(SAHS) Certification, & Electronic and
Magnetic Data Reporting for the CEM Rule
36
-------
In-Use Urban Bus Testing Program (Notice June 8,1993
of Availability of Advisory Circular)
Health and Environmental Standards for Uranium June 8,1993
and Thorium Mill Tailings (Notice of Proposed
Rule)
Prevention of Significant Deterioration June 3,1993
(PSD) for Paniculate Matter (PM-10)
(Notice of Final Rule)
Draft List of Categories and Regulatory June 2,1993
Schedule for Air Emissions from Other Solid
Waste Incinerator Units under Section 129
of the CAA (Notice of Availability)
Control of Air Pollution from New Motor May 27,1993
Vehicle Engines & New Motor Vehicle Engines;
Refueling Emission Regs for Light-Duty
Vehicles & Trucks & Heavy-Duty Vehicles
(Notice of Public Hearing & Reopening of
Comment Period on Proposed Onboard Vapor
Recovery Regs)
Control of Air Pollution from New Motor May 24, 1993
Vehicles & New Motor Vehicle Engines;
Federal Test Procedure Review
(Notice of Availability of a Preliminary
Report, EPA Document #420-R-93-007, and
Solicitation of Comments
Air Pollution Control; Motor Vehicle Emission May 20,1993
Factors (Notice of Availability of Updated
& Corrected Highway Motor Vehicle Emission
Factor Model MOBILESa)
Request for Nominations for Essential Use May 20,1993
Exemptions for CFCs, Methyl Chloroform,
Carbon Tetrachloride, and HBFCs
Approval of State Programs & Delegation May 19,1993
of Federal Authorities EPA is Required
to Publish Under Section 112(1) of the
CAA Amendments (Notice of Proposed Rule)
37
-------
Regulation of Fuels & Fuel Additives May 18,1993
Standards for Reformulated Gasoline &
Conventional Gasoline (Notice to Extend
Public Comment Period & Notice of Public
Workshop)
Control of Air Pollution from New May 17,1993
Nonroad Mobile Sources; Determination
of Significance for Nonroad Sources &
Emission Stds for Oxides of Nitrogen
& Smoke from New Nonroad Compression-
Ignition Engines At or Above 50
Horsepower (Notice of Proposed Rule)
Economic Incentive Program Rules/Interim May 14,1993
Guidance on the Generation of Mobile
Source Emission Reduction Credits
(Extension of Public Comment Period)
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; May 14,1993
Refrigerant Recycling Program Under
Section 608 of the CAA Amendments
(Notice of Final Rule)
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; May 12,1993
Significant New Alternatives Policy
(SNAP) Program on Substitutes for Ozone
Depleting Compounds Under Section 612
of CAA Amendments (Notice of Proposed
Rule)
Clean Air Act; Acid Rain Provisions; May 10,1993
1993 EPA SO2 Allowance Auctions Results
Motor Vehicle-Related Air Toxics Study May 7 1993
(Notice of Availability) '
CAA Contractor Access to Confidential May 6, 1993
Business Information (Notice)
38
-------
National Emission Standards for Hazardous May 6,1993
Air Pollutants; Compliance Extensions for
Early Reductions (Notice of Complete
Enforceable Commitments Received Through
April 6,1993)
Approval of Colorado's Petition To April 30,1993
Relax the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure
Volatility Standard for Colorado in
1992 and 1993 (Notice of Final Rule)
Amended Schedule for the Phaseout of April 28,1993
Ozone-Depleting Substances and Request
for Comment on the Allowance Level for
1995 Class I, Group I Substances (Notice
Extending the Deadline for Submission
of Comments on the 3/18/93 NPRM)
CAA Contractor Access to Confidential April 27, 2993
Business Information (Notice)
Availability of Draft Model V Operating April 27,1993
Permits (Notice of Availability)
Oxygenated Gasoline; Waiver Application April 23,1993
Submitted by the State of California
(Notice of Public Hearing)
Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993 April 21,1993
& Early Model Year Urban Buses; Fuel
Quality Regs for Certification Diesel
Test Fuel (Notice of Final Rule)
National Ambient Air Quality Secondary April 21,1993
Standards for Sulfur Oxides (Notice of
Final Decision)
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; April 12,1993
Federal Procurement Requirements Under
Section 613 of the CAA Amendments
(Notice of Proposed Rule)
39
-------
Control of Air Pollution From New Motor
Vehicles and New Motor Vehicles & New
Motor Vehicle Engines; Nonconformance
Penalties for Heavy-Duty Engines & Heavy
Light-Duty Trucks (Notice to Reopen
Comment Period)
Model Standards & Techniques for Control
of Radon in New Buildings (Notice publishes
stds for public review & comment as required
by section 304 of the Title HI of the Toxic
Substances Control Act)
Proposed Model Construction Standards and
Techniques for Control of Radon in New
Buildings (Public Review & Comment)
CAA Advisory Committee (Notice of Special
Meeting)
Regulation of Fuels & Fuel Additives; Stds
for Reformulated Gasoline & Conventional
Gasoline (Notice of Public Hearing & Notice
of Correction for Proposed Rule)
National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants; Halogenated Solvent
Emissions from Organic Solvent Cleaners
(Public Review & Comment)
April 12, 1993
April 12, 1993
April 7, 1993
April 6, 1993
April 1, 1993
March 31,1993
Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Vehicles & New Motor Vehicle Engines;
Evaporative Emission Regs for Gasoline &
Methanol-Fueled Light-Duty Vehicles,
Light-Duty Trucks & Heavy-Duty Vehicles
(Notice of Final Rule)
Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Vehicle & New Motor Vehicle Engines;
Paniculate Emission Regulations for 1993
Model Year Buses, Paniculate Emission Regs
for 1994 & Later Model Year Urban Buses, and
Oxides of Nitrogen Emission Regs for 1998 &
Later Model Year Heavy-Duty Engines
(Notice of Final Rule)
March 24, 1993
March 24,1993
40
-------
National Emission Stds for Hazardous Air March 23,1993
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Benzene Waste
Operations; request for comment on possible
future rulemaking to propose alternative
compliance option for NESHAP: Benzene
(Advance Notice of Proposed Rule)
Acid Rain Allowance Allocations and March 23,1993
Reserves (Notice of Final Rule)
Notice of Availability of the National March 23,1993
Allowance Data Base (Notice announces
final data base upon which the Agency
is basing the allowance allocations).
Environmental Radiation Protection Stds March 22,1993
for the Mgmt & Disposal of Spent Nuclear
Fuel, High-Level & Transuranic Radioactive
Wastes (Extension of Public Comment Period)
Criteria for the Certification of Compliance March 22,1993
with Environmental Radiation Protection Stds
for the Mgmt & Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel,
High-Level & Transuranic Radioactive Wastes
(Extension of Public Comment Period)
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: March 18,1993
Accelerating the Phaseout of Class I
& Class II Ozone Depleting Substances
and Adding Methyl Bromide and Hydro-
bromofluorocarbons to Class I
(Notice of Proposed Rule)
Volatility Regs for Gasoline & Alcohol March 17,1993
Blends (Notice of Final Rule)
Codification of Corresponding Onshore Area March 16,1993
Designations and Notice of Convening
Proceeding for Reconsideration of Certain
Corresponding Onshore Area Designations
Motor Vehicle Certification Short Test March 15,1993
& Performance Warranty Procedures
(Extension of Comment Period & Notice
of Availability)
41
-------
Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission Work Plan Committees
(Notice of Meetings)
Determining Conformity of General
Federal Actions to State or Federal
Imlementation Plans (Notice of
Proposed Rule)
Special Exemptions from Requirements;
Section 325(a) of the CAA Territory
of Guam (Notice of Proposed Rule)
Final Documents: Employee Commute
Options Guidance (Notice of Availability)
CAA Contractor Access to Confidential
Business Information (Notice)
March 15, 1993
March 15, 1993
March 12, 1993
March 12, 1993
March 12, 1993
Regulation of Fuels & Fuel Additives: Stds
for Fuel Quality-Sulfur Content; and Control
of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles &
New Motor Vehicle Engines: Stds for Oxides
of Nitrogen Emissions from Heavy-Duty Diesel
Engines & Correction of Type 2-D Diesel Test
Fuel Specification for Light-Duty Vehicles,
Light-Duty Trucks & Heavy-Duty Engines
(Announcement of Public Meeting on Enforce-
ment of Diesel Desulfurization Regulations)
March 11, 1993
National Ambient Air Quality Stds for Ozone
(Notice of Final Decision)
Section 185B Report on Trospospheric Ozone
(Notice of Report for Public Review)
Regulation of Fuel & Fuel Additives: Stds
for Reformulated Gasoline (Notice of
Proposed Rule)
New Source Review Simplification Workshop
(Notice of Public Meeting)
March 9, 1993
February 26, 2993
February 26,1993
February 26, 1993
42
-------
National Emission Stds for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (HAP) for Source Categories:
Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from the
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry (SOCMI) (Notice of Public Hearing
& Extension of Public Comment Period)
Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Vehicles & New Motor Vehicle Engines;
Federal Test Procedure (FTP) Review
(Notice of Public Workshop)
February 24,1993
February 24,1993
National Emission Stds for Hazardous Air
Pollutants; Compliance Extensions for Early
Reductions (Notice of Complete Enforceable
Commitments Received Through 1/7/93)
Interim Guidance on the Generation of Mobile
Source Emission Reduction Credits (Notice of
Proposed Guidance for Comment)
Economic Incentive Program (Notice of
Proposed Rule & Notice of Public Hearing)
Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Vehicles & New Motor Vehicle Engines;
Federal Test Procedure (FTP) Modifications
(Notice of Availability)
t
Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Vehicles & New Motor Vehicle Engines;
Regulations Requiring On-Board Diagnostic
Systems on 1994 & Later Model Year Light-
Duty Vehicles & Light-Duty Trucks (Notice
of Final Rule)
Ambient Air Quality Surveillance; Revise
Regs to Include Provisions for the Enhanced
Monitoring of Ozone (Notice of Final Rule)
Environmental Radiation Protection Stds
for the Management & Disposal of Spent
Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Wastes (Notice
of Public Hearings on Proposed Stds and
Establishment of Dockets)
February 23, 1993
February 23,1993
February 23,1993
February 22, 1993
February 19,1993
February 12,1993
February 11,1993
43
-------
Criteria for the Certification of Compliance
with Environmental Radiation Protection Stds
for Management & Disposal of Spent Nuclear
Fuel, High-Level & Transuranic Radioactive
Wastes (Advance Notice of Proposed Rule)
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Labeling
Requirements for Products Manufactured with,
Containers of, & Products Containing Specific
Ozone-Depleting Substances Pursuant to
Section 611 of the CAA, as Amended
(Notice of Final Rule)
Regulations Governing Prior Notice of
Citizen Suits Brought Under Section 304
of the Clean Air Act (Notice of Proposed
Rule)
February 11, 1993
February 11,1993
February 10,1993
Environmental Radiation Protection Stds
for the Management and Disposal of Spent
Nuclear Fuel, High-Level & Transuranic
Radioactive Wastes (Notice of Proposed
Rule)
Air Pollution Control; Motor Vehicle
Emission Factors (Notice of MOBILES
Model Availability)
February 10,1993
February 9,1993
Request for Nominations for Essential
Use Exemption for Halons 1211, 1301,
and 2402
Acid Rain Program; Nitrogen Oxides
Emission Reduction Program (Extend
Public Comment Period)
February 2,1993
January 25,1993
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone;
Ban of Nonessential Products Releasing
Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances Under
Section 610 of the CAA, as Amended
(Notice of Final Rule)
January 15,1993
44
-------
Motor Vehicle-Related Air Toxics Study
(Notice of Availability of Public Review
Draft)
California State Motor Vehicle Pollution
Control Stds; Waiver of Federal Preemption
(Decision)
Hazardous Air Pollutants List; Denying a
Petition to Remove Five Specific Substances
from the Category of Glycol Ethers as Listed
in CAA Section 112(b)(l)
(Notice of Denial)
January 13, 1993
January 13, 1993
January 13, 1993
Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle Engines;
Regulations for Light-Duty Vehicle and
Light-Duty Truck 1994,1995 & 1996 Model
Year Durability Testing Procedures, and
Later Model Year Allowable Maintenance
(Notice of Final Rule)
Criteria & Procedures for Determining
Conformity to State of Federal Implementa-
tion Plans, Programs, & Projects Funded or
Approved Under Title 23 U.S.C. or the
Federal Transit Act (Notice of Proposed
Rule)
Acid Rain Program: General Provisions
and Permits, Allowance System, Continuous
Emissions Monitoring, Excess Emissions
and Administrative Appeals (Notice of
Final Rule)
Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Vehicles & New Motor Vehicle Engines;
Gaseous & Paniculate Emission Regulations
for 1994 & Later Model Year Light-Duty
Vehicles & Light-Duty Trucks, and Revised
Performance Warranty Regulations; Addition
of Certification Short Test Standards and
Procedures (Notice of Proposed Rule)
January 12, 1993
January 11, 1993
January 11,1993
January 8, 1993
45
-------
46
Air Quality Designations & Classifications
Amendments; Reclassification of Moderate
PM-10 Nonattainment Areas to Serious Areas
(Notice of Final Rule)
National Emission Stds for Hazardous Air
Pollution; Benzene Waste Operations
(Notice of Final Rule)
January 8, 1993
January 7,1993
National Emission Stds for Hazardous Air
Pollutants; Coke Oven Batteries (Notice of
Public Hearing)
January 5,1993
Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission
Work Plan Committees (Notice of Meeting)
January 5,1993
-------
12/19/93
NEW SOURCE REVIEW REFORM
New major stationary sources of air pollution and major
modifications to stationary sources of air pollution are re
-------
New Source Review Reform
With passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) began to revise its new source review (NSR) rules to
incorporated the requirements of the 1990 Amendments. In conjunction with the
revision, the EPA began considering ways to simplify the NSR process. To
facilitate its efforts to identify potential methods for simplifying the NSR process,
the EPA decided to conduct a workshop, open to the public, to solicit comments
from interested parties.
The first workshop was held in August 1992. The EPA invited
representatives from industry, EPA Regions, State and local air pollution control
agencies, and environmental organizations to participate in a NSR Simplification
workshop. The workshop was announced in the Federal Register and was
designed to provide EPA with input from the affected interest groups as to possible
revisions that would simplify but maintain the legislative requirements of the NSR
process. The representatives were requested to identify issues of concern and to
present any conceptual or specific ideas for simplifying the NSR process. The EPA
shared its own preliminary ideas and options for modifying NSR applicability with
the group.
A second NSR Simplification workshop was held in March 1993. Like the
August 1992 meeting, this meeting was announced in the Federal Register and
was open to the public. The primary purpose of the workshop was to explore in
greater detail a number of the specific issues identified .at the August 1992
workshop and to discuss EPA's proposed responses to many of the comments.
Among the agenda topics was an in-depth discussion of the plantwide emissions
limit concept for NSR applicability; the definition and treatment of environmentally-
beneficial projects for NSR purposes; and ways to simplify the pre-construction
monitoring requirements in attainment areas. In addition, the best means for
ensuring continued public involvement in the NSR simplification rulemaking process
was also discussed. Options discussed were subsequent public meetings,
formation of smaller workgroups and regulatory negotiation.
In June 1993, the EPA held a public workshop to discuss the issues and
potential solutions associated with pollution control projects (PCP) and pollution
prevention projects (PPP). The main topics for this meeting were the definition of
PCP and PPP and NSR applicability of PCP and PPP. Some of the issues discussed
were identifying criteria (e.g., add on controls, process changes, environmentally
beneficial and emission reductions) to use in defining a PCP. Another issue was
the! distinction between voluntary versus mandatory, required by the Clean Air Act
48
-------
(e.g., reasonably available control technology or maximum achievable control
technology), PCP and whether these types of projects should be subject to NSR.
The EPA considered the input provided by these three public workshops as
invaluable and that it was time to select appropriate options in order to formulate
policy and regulations. To accomplish this, EPA decided that a subcommittee,
constituted as part of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, be formulated to
assist in choosing a course of action.
On July 7, 1993, the EPA gave notice of the establishment of the NSR
Reform Subcommittee (58 FR 36407) under the auspices of the Clean Air Act
Advisory Committee (55 FR, No. 217, 46993) which was established pursuant to
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app I). The Subcommittee's
purpose is to provide independent advice and counsel to the EPA on policy and
technical issues associated with reforming the NSR rules. The subcommittee is
consulted on environmental, technical, scientific, economic, policy, and guidance
issues. Representatives from industry, State and local air pollution control
agencies, and environmental organizations are members of the Subcommittee. In
addition, representatives from other Federal agencies (e.g., National Park Service,
Forest Service and Department of Energy) and various EPA offices participate in
these meetings.
The Subcommittee met for the first time on July 20-21, 1993. This meeting
addressed NSR issues related to best available control technology (BACT) and
Class I areas. As a result of the discussions, the Subcommittee decided to form
six subgroups to address broad BACT and Class I area topics. A description of the
issues to be addressed by each subgroup and their respective goals are attached.
The Subcommittee charged the subgroups with discussing the identified issues and
developing recommendations for resolving their respective issues.
Another Subcommittee meeting was held on November 8-9, 1993, to review
draft options and recommendations developed by the subgroups on specific areas
regarding Class I area impacts and BACT. In addition, the Subcommittee
addressed NSR applicability-related issues. At this meeting, two new subgroups
were formed: NSR Applicability and Existing Source Impacts on Class I Areas. A
description of the issues to be addressed by these two subgroups and their
respective goals are attached.
Currently, the Subcommittee is scheduled to meet on January 20-21, 1994.
The primary focus of this meeting will be to have the Subcommittee reach a final
consensus regarding recommendations on Class I area permitting issues, control
technology determinations and NSR applicability.
49
-------
New Source Review Reform Subgroups
• Permitting Sources With Class I Impacts
- Procedures and Coordination
- Determination of Adverse Impacts (Increments & AQRVs)
- Mitigation of Source Impacts
• BACT/LAER Determinations
- BACT/LAER Clearinghouse and "Presumptive" BACT
- BACT/LAER Criteria
- Innovative Control Technologies and Pollution Prevention
• New Source Review Applicability
• Existing Source Impacts on Class I Areas
50
-------
Permitting Sources With Class I Impacts: Procedures and Coordination
Description: Proposed sources which may, or actually do, have an adverse impact
on Class I areas sometimes experience delays in receipt of a final permit
determination. In part, such delays are usually due to the time-intensive steps
needed by the Federal land managers (FLMs) in fulfilling their statutory
responsibility for protecting the air quality related resources of the Class I area.
Identifying steps that can be taken to ensure early and continued involvement by
the FLMs and the public during the PSD permit review process may help avoid
such delays. Also, existing PSD regulations may not adequately address the
important interrelationship between the FLM and the permit granting authority
concerning the analysis of possible adverse impacts on air quality related values
and the ultimate determination as to whether such impacts warrant denial of a PSD
permit.
Goals: Provide proposed recommendations regarding changes (regulatory and
other) that will improve the overall coordination between FLMs, permitting
authorities, permit applicants and the public to ensure Class I impact issues are
raised and addressed in a timely and appropriate manner.
Potential Questions:
1. , What steps can be taken to reduce permitting delays resulting from separate
FLM and permitting authority reviews? Also, when considering any potential
approaches for additional coordination of project reviews concerning a
possible adverse impact on a Class I area, how should the administrative
burden be fairly distributed among the involved parties?
2. Preapplication meetings between the applicant, permitting authority and
FLMs as well as advanced FLM notification of the proposed project promote
early discussion of Class I concerns and can reduce "late hits" on a project
during the public comment period. How can FLM notification and input (in
advance of the public comment period) be formalized within the PSD review
process? In addition, how can public input and concerns be addressed early
in the PSD review process for a source with potential Class I area impacts?
3. What can be done to ensure that FLMs have adequate opportunity to assess
impacts of proposed sources (or projects) and to ensure that adequate
consideration is given to the FLM's adverse impact determinations?
4. What alternative means are available for resolving disagreements between
the permitting authority, the FLM, applicant and public over a finding of
adverse impacts before a final permit is issued?
51
-------
Permitting Sources With Class I Impacts: Determination of Adverse
Impacts
Description: Congress established the Class I increments as well as the concept of
air quality related values (AQRVs) as the measures fqr assessing whether proposed
emission increases can be allowed near Class I areas. The Clean Air Act provides
that the burden of proof for determining adverse impacts to AQRVs, and ultimately
whether a PSD permit may be issued, turns on the proposed project's consumption
of the available Class I increment. If no increment violation is predicted, then it the
FLM's burden to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the State that an adverse
AQRV impact will occur. If, however, an increment violation is predicted, then the
source must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FLM that no adverse AQRV
impact will result from the source's emissions.
Regarding the AQRV analyses, specific AQRVs, must be identified for each
Class I area. Also, specific data needs and criteria should be defined in order to
analyze the potential impacts of a proposed source on a given AQRV. De minimis
thresholds may be appropriate for determining impacts on both the increments and
AQRVs; however, such EPA issued, national thresholds do not currently exist. In
addition, some assessment of cumulative impacts i4 necessary to account for the
net impacts on AQRVs.
Goals: Propose recommendations for establishing the necessary procedures and
criteria for performing and evaluating adverse impact determinations.
Potential Questions:
1. More specific information concerning the particular AQRVs associated with
individual Class I areas is needed by the permit applicants and permitting
authorities to analyze Class I impacts. What kinds of information and
common criteria related to AQRVs and effects is available, or can be made
available, to industry, the permitting authorities and the public to improve
the AQRV analyses and evaluation of the analyses (e.g., FLM screening
values)?
2. After a Class I analysis is found to be necessary, what is the extent of the
area over which existing source emissions should be considered. What
criteria should be used to determine which existing source emissions are
included in the Class I impact analysis?
- continued-
52
-------
3. Class I increments do not exist for tropospheric ozone. In the absence of
modeling techniques for predicting ambient ozone levels, a PSD increment
would be meaningless. Yet high ozone levels in many Class I areas have
been identified. Where none exist, what alternatives to a numerical PSD
increment are,available to protect Class I areas?
4. There are often disagreements as to what distance from a Class I area a new
source must locate in order to avoid a Class I impact analysis. EPA's current
policy is that sources within 100 km. be addressed, with case-by-case
consideration of more distant sources. What changes to this existing
guidance would improve the current system?
5. The EPA uses significance levels for determining significant ambient impacts
on the NAAQS and PSD increments. Are national significance levels for
Class I increments appropriate where there are existing violations (e.g.,
Virginia and National Park Service significance levels) and how would such
levels be set? Conceivably, significance levels could allow new sources to
continue to be constructed and potentially exacerbate violations of the
increment indefinitely (i.e., the overflowing cup analogy). How should the
use of significance levels be restricted in such circumstances? What
objective criteria, e.g., significance levels, can be developed for determining
adverse impacts on AQRVs? Should significance levels be developed
specifically for each AQRV and how would such levels be set?
6. What opportunity during the permitting process can be made available to
rebut presumptions concerning impacts less than and greater than a de
minimis level and what would be the criteria by which these presumptions
could be rebutted?
7. Should a standard analytical approach (and evaluation criteria) be prescribed
which by default result in a finding of adverse impacts (e.g., rules of thumb,
such as distance and pollutant relationships resulting in adverse impacts on
Class I areas)?
8. An AQRV Clearinghouse is being considered as a means to better inform
applicants and permitting authorities of the particular AQRVs of interest or
concern for a particular Class I area. What type of information would be the
most useful for such a clearinghouse to contain and what mechanisms exist
to ensure that the information be submitted?
53
-------
Permitting Sources With Class I Impacts: Mitigation of Source Impact
Description: Once it has been demonstrated that a proposed source will adversely
impact a Class I area, the source may be afforded an opportunity to mitigate its
adverse impact in order to receive its PSD permit. For example, one suggestion is
that once an AQRV has been determined to be adversely impacted, sources
seeking to locate near the affected Class I area would comply with nonattainment
area type permitting requirements such as
BACT and LAER.
Goals: Propose recommendations as to the range of mitigation measures that
should be considered for new major sources to mitigate their own Class I adverse
impacts in order to receive a PSD permit.
Potential Questions:
1. What specific, mitigation measures (e.g., offsets, LAER) can be considered
or imposed on sources locating in the vicinity of Class I areas already
experiencing, or projected to experience, adverse impacts on AQRVs?
Should the measure be shown to be related to the particular impact?
2. What role can preconstruction or post-construction monitoring serve in areas
where projected adverse Class I area impact from the proposed source is of
concern?
54
-------
BACT/LAER Determinations: BACT/LAER Clearinghouse and
"Presumptive" BACT
Description: Currently there is no single comprehensive repository of BACT/LAER
technology information, including cost, which permitting agencies, applicants and
the public can access, to provide a common definitive basis for selecting and
comparing BACT/LAER candidates. This leads to uncertainty regarding the control
options which are available to the sources.
Availability of new or improved BACT (and LAER) technologies which
sometimes emerge after a permit application has been submitted is another
uncertainty in the technology review. Current policy requires consideration of new
technologies for BACT and LAER are available for consideration up to the permit
issuance date causing some permits to be appealed and renegotiated which may
result in project delays. Balancing these concerns, environmental groups and the
public have expressed interest in greater opportunity to review and comment on
control technology determinations. Often the public first learns of the proposed
technology for a source shortly before or during the public comment period on a
proposed permit. There is also some concern about the consideration of
technology from other countries, because of differing environmental regulations
and potentially unproven performance of technology.
Goals: Propose recommendations for improvements in storing, characterizing and
disseminating control technology information including the use of a presumptive
approach to the BACT analysis.
Potential Questions:
1. What revisions and improvements to the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
(RBLCH) can be implemented to ensure a comprehensive, all inclusive data
base and what mechanisms exist to ensure the RBLCH is current with
respect to available technologies?
2. How would a presumptive BACT/LAER be established and how would the
development of new or improved control technologies be factored into a
presumptive BACT/LAER to ensure it remained current?
3. Is there a way to reconcile the case-by-case nature of BACT with a
"presumptive" or guideline control technology determination for a category
of sources?
4. What additional mechanisms exist to involve the public early in the control
technology review?
8
55
-------
5. How should technology demonstrated outside of the U.S. be considered for
BACT or LAER purposes?
56
-------
BACT/LAER Determinations: BACT/LAER Criteria
Description: In brief, EPA current guidance on BACT provides that all available
control technologies be ranked In descending order of control effectiveness. The
PSD applicant first examines the most stringent--or "top"--alternative. That
alternative is established as BACT unless the applicant demonstrates, and the
permitting authority agrees, that technical considerations, or energy,
environmental, or economic impacts justify a conclusion that the most stringent
technology is not "achievable" in that case. If the most stringent technology is
eliminated In this fashion, then the next most stringent alternative Is considered,
and so on.
LAER is the most stringent emission limitation derived from: 1) the most
stringent limitation contained in the implementation plan of any State for such
class or category of source; or 2) the most stringent emission limitation achieved In
practice by such class or category of source.
While the existing procedures for consideration of technologies (starting with
the most stringent) appears to be relatively straight forward, there is apparently
some uncertainty in the evaluation of the parameters that are considered in the
BACT analysis and in satisfying LAER.
Goals: To identify within the framework of EPA's current BACT and LAER policies,
proposed clarifications or information that would add more certainty to the
evaluation of the parameters that are considered in the BACT and LAER analyses.
Potential Questions:
1. Is It appropriate for the financial condition or competitive position of a
company to play a role In the BACT or LAER analysis? If yes, how?
2. What criteria are appropriate for determining If a otherwise demonstrated
technology Is a candidate for technology transfer?
3 In terms of EPA Involvement In the BACT analysis, what type of practice
should EPA Implement regarding when a, technology Is or Is not available for
BACT consideration purposes? How shbuld a cutoff date be Implemented
for the purpose of limiting what is an available control technology for
consideration In the BACT processes?
4. What additional guidance on environmental, energy and economic Impacts
would add more certainty to the BACT process?
5 To what extent Is It appropriate for the BACT analysis to require the source
,to consider other alternatives to the source configuration that are either
10
57
-------
inherently less polluting (e.g., alternative fuels or processes) or provide an
overall environmental benefit?
11
58
-------
BACT/LAER Determinations: Innovative Control Technology and
Pollution Prevention
Description: The subcommittee identified the need for additional guidance on how
innovative control technology and pollution prevention could be incorporated into
new source review (NSR).
The NSR rules, 40 CFR 51.166 (s) and 40 CFR 52.21 (v), provide a
mechanism for permitting an innovative control technology. To obtain approval for
an innovative control technology, the owner or operator of a proposed major
stationary source or major modification must petition EPA's Administrator in
writing before the close of the public comment period. The owner/operator must
agree to achieve a level of continuous emissions reduction equivalent to that which
would be required if BACT was installed. Additional requirements are outlined in
these two portions of the NSR rules. To date, requests for innovative control
technology waivers have been limited.
The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 defined pollution prevention as "any
practice which reduces the amount of any hazardous substance, pollutant or
contaminant entering any waste stream or otherwise released into the
environment." In a memorandgm dated June 15, 1993, Carol Browner, EPA
Administrator, outlined the Agency's position on pollution prevention. In this
memorandum, Ms. Browner committed EPA to adopting a major policy integrating
pollution prevention into every EPA activity, program, and operation.
Goals: Propose recbmmendations for improving the utilization of the innovative
control technology waiver and evaluating pollution prevention projects in relation to
BACT/LAER determination.
Potential Questions:
1. What changes to the current PSD innovative control waiver can be made to
encourage development of innovative controls and strategies?
2. How can pollution prevention, as defined by the Pollution Prevention Act of
1990, be recognized and encouraged in BACT/LAER determinations?
3. What special considerations should be provided for innovative control
technologies when applied as LAER?
12
59
-------
Existing Source Impacts on Class I Areas Subgroup
Description: Currently emissions from existing sources have an adverse impact on
Class I areas' air quality related values. These impacts are primarily related to
visibility impacts, acid deposition impacts and related terrestrial and aquatic
effects, and damage from ozone on sensitive species. Current programs under the
Clean Air Act are likely to address at least some of these impacts yet no programs
are specifically targeted at effects in Class I areas. EPA is considering
development of options for addressing Class I area impacts from existing sources
and seeks the advice of the subgroup on potential solutions to the problem.
Goals: Provide review and comment on short-term and long-term program options
for specifically addressing ozone, deposition, and visibility impacts on Class I areas.
Assess and provide advice on how options mesh with current clean air programs.
13
60
-------
HOGANkHAKISON
MEMORANDUM
November 30,1993
TO: David Aldorfer, General Motors
Michael R. Barr, Piilsbury, Madison & Sutro
John Bunyak, National Park Service
Larry B. Feldcamp, Baker & Botts, L.L.P.
David Hawkins, Esq., Natural Resources Defense Council
.Bill Lewis, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & BocMus
David McAvoy, Eli Lilly and Company
William F. Pedersen, Esq., Perkins Coie
Donald Theiler, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Bill Tyndall, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Richard S. Zbur, Latham & Watkins
FROM: Patrick M. Raher
RE: Subgroup Approach and Schedule
As EPA would like the Applicability Subgroup of the NSR Reform
Subcommittee to propose specific recommendations in January, we have very little
time to work. Attached you will find a schedule I am proposing to develop our
recommendations. I am gathering relevant comments regarding NSR
reconsideration that have been submitted to EPA over the last several years. I will
use this, and any other written input or ideas you can provide prior to December 6,
to complete an issue paper on the pros and cons of various applicability approaches
by December 17, Subgroup members will then have until January 4'to review the
issue paper and provide written comments, but if you, can comment before
Christmas, please do. I have scheduled a conference call on January 7, 1994 at
10:00 am EST to discuss the issues and develop a consensus recommendation for
EPA. I will be sending a reminder along with the telephone number after the New
Year's holiday. Based on this discussion, we will revise the issue paper for
distribution to the full subcommittee prior to the January 20 and 21 meeting.
I also have enclosed a brief outline of the topics to be addressed by the
subgroup. Despite the rigorous timetable we face, I believe we can be very
productive as a team. I look forward to working with you.
cc: Lydia Wegman
David Soloman
61
\\\DC\58377N0016\ME000601.DOC
-------
11/30/93
11/30/93.
12/6/93
12/6/93
12/17/93
1/4/94
1/7/94
1/10/94-
1/13/94
APPLICABILITY SUBGROUP SCHEDULE
Distribute outline of topics for comments
Pat Raher to review/compile past filings on NSR applicability
Written) input and ideas foi draft issue paper due to Pat Raher
Draft issue paper distributed to subgroup
Written comments on issue paper due to Pat Raher
Conference call on issues and consensus recommendations
Issue paper revised and consensus write-up distributed for comment
1/13/94 Package sent to EPA for distribution to full subcommittee
62
• 2
\\\DC\56377\0016NME000601.DOC
-------
PROPOSED TOPICS TO
BE ADDRESSED IN THE SUBGROUP
APPLICABILITY ISSUE PAPER
(1) Changes to the base time period and definition of recent actual
emissions (average emissions of last two years, highest two years of
previous five, longer periods for more cyclical sectors, use of typical
ozone season emissions vs. annual emissions, etc.)
(2) Changes to the current vs. future comparison basis:
• recent actual vs. future allowable
• recent actual vs. expected future actual
• recent potential v. future potential
• recent allowable vs. future allowable
• PAL's
(3) Use of different applicability rules for specific circumstances:
• pollution control projects
• pollution prevention projects
.3- 63
\\DC\9WT7\OOieNME000601.DOC
-------
NONATTAINMENT
f«AAn. national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) for six "criteria" pollutants (ozone or smog, carbon
-«S°? Si nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter,
and lead) .The primary air quality standards are designed to
protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. The
secondary standards are designed to protect against welfare
effects. The air quality management process that is in place to
meet the NAAQS involves tailoring control programs to address the
nature and magnitude of a given area's air quality problem.
Areas that do not meet air quality standards, i.e. nonattainment
areas, must design and implement control programs that make sense
for the area in question.
The EPA has designated all areas of the country as
"attainment", "nonattainment", or "unclassifiable" with respect
to each of the six criteria pollutants. Areas SPA designates as
"nonattainment" for a given pollutant must then take a series of
steps to meet the applicable NAAQS as outlined in the
nonattainment provisions of the 1990 Clean Air Act.
The following materials outlining the status of
nonattainment area designations and guidance are provided in this
section.
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment
Map and List of Classified Ozone Areas
Map and List of Classified CO Areas
Map and List of Not Classified CO Areas
Recent Significant Guidance for Ozone and CO
Particulate Matter (PM-10)
Fact Sheet
Map and List of Nonattainment Areas
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) and Lead
SO2 Fact Sheet
Map and List of S02 Nonattainment Areas
SO2 Enforceability Deficiencies Issue Paper
Map of Lead Nonattainment Areas
Status of Lead NAAQS Attainment Strategy and Multi-
media Targeting Effort
List of Policy Memoranda Issued in 1993
65
-------
Copies of Guidance Materials Provided:
Guidance on Correcting 502 Enforceability Deficiencies,
April 16, 1993
Impact of Recent Onboard Decision on Stage II
Requirements in Moderate Nonattainment Areas, June 23,
1993
Impact of Conditional Approvals on Sanction and Federal
Implementation Plan Clocks, July 14, 1993
Fuel Switching to Meet The Reasonably Available Control
Technology Requirements for Nitrogen Oxides, July 30,
1993
Guidance on Issues Related to 15 Percent Rate-of-
Progress Plans, August 23, 1993
Addressing Potential NAAQS Violations for PM-10, S02,
and Lead, August 24, 1993
Credit Toward the 15 Percent Requirements from
Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings,
September 10, 1993
Responses to violations of the Lead NAAQS, September
16, 1993
State Implementation Plan Requirements for Areas
Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of
the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide NAAQS on or After
November 15, 1992, September 17, 1993
Clarification of Issues Regarding the Contingency
Measures that are due November 15, 1993 for Moderate
and Above Ozone Nonattainment Areas, November 8, 1993
Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations
for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,
November 30, 1993
Credit for 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans for
Reductions from Architectural and Industrial
Maintenance Coating Rule, December 9, 1993
66
-------
Classified Ozone Nonattainment Areas
* LINCOLN COt
PORTLAND
tKTSMOUTH
•WOHCESTEft
IfLD
OM'ATtlTcbNHICTICUT
YORK
:H*NTON
ALLENTOWN
MJUNNO (Mod)
HAMNMUM PMLADtlFHIA
YOMC "•""•Vfl.ANTK CITY IM.dl
»ALTMe«E
KENT > OMEN ANNE'I COt. MO
•UttEX CO. OE
-------
Classifications of Ozone Nonattainment Areas1
Extreme (201 Of
Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA
Severe (2007)
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN New York-N New Jersey-Long lsland,NY-NJ-CT
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX Southeast Desert Modified Air Quality
Milwaukee-Racine, Wl Maintenance Area (AQMA), CA
Severe (2005)
Baltimore, MD San Diego, CA
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton,PA-NJ-DE-MD Ventura County, CA
Serious (1999)
Atlanta, GA Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester, NH
Baton Rouge, LA Providence (All Rl), Rl
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX Sacramento Metro, CA
Boston-Lawrence-Worcester, MA-NH San Joaquin Valley, CA
El Paso, TX Springfield (Western MA), MA
Greater Connecticut Washington, DC-MD-VA
Moderate (1996)
Atlantic City, NJ Monterey Bay, CA
Charleston, WV Muskegon, Ml
Chartotte-Gastonia, NC Nashville, TN
Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY Parkersburg, WV
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH Phoenix, AZ
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA
Dayton-Springfield, OH Portland, ME
Detroit-Ann Arbor, Ml Raleigh-Durham, NC
Grand Rapids, Ml Reading, PA
Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY Richmond, VA
Kewaunee County, Wl Salt Lake City, UT
Knox & Lincoln Counties, ME San Francisco-Bay Area, CA
Lewiston-Aubum, ME Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc, CA
Louisville, KY-IN Sheboygan, Wl
Manftowoc County, Wl St Louis, MO-IL
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-W. Palm Beach, FL Toledo, OH
Marginal (1993)
Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY Lake Charles, LA
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ Lancaster, PA
Altoona, PA Lexington-Fayette, KY
Birmingham, AL Manchester, NH
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY Memphis, TN
Canton, OH Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA
Columbus, OH Owensboro, KY
Door County, Wl Paducah, KY
Edmonson County, KY Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA
Erie, PA Poughkeepsie, NY
Essex County (Whiteface Mtn), NY Reno, NV
Evansville, IN Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA
Greenbrier County, WV Seattle-Tacoma, WA
Hancock & Waldo Counties, ME Smyth County, VA (White Top Mtn)
Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle, PA South Bend-Elkhart, IN
Indianapolis, IN Sussex County, DE
Jefferson County, NY Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL
Jersey County, IL Walworth County, Wl
Johnstown, PA York, PA
Kent & Queen Anne's Counties, MD Yoqngstown-Warren-Sharon, OH-PA
'A* til October 7,1993 (Transitional and Incomplete Area Not Included) 'Dates in parenthesis are when the ozone standard must be met (.MX. 7,
68
-------
Classified Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas
Serious & Moderate > 12.7 ppm
Moderate <- 12,7 ppm
Not Classified Areas Excluded
ON
-------
Classified Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas
Listed Alphabetically
Albuquerque, NM
Anchorage, AK
Baltimore, MD
Boston, MA
Chico, CA
Cleveland, OH
Colorado Springs, CO
[Denver-Boulder, CO
Duluth, MN
B Paso, TX
Fairbanks, AK
Fort Collins, CO
Fresno, CA
Grants Pass, OR
Hartford-New Britain-Middletown, CT
Klamath Falls, OR
Lake Tahoe South Shore, CA
Las Vegas, NV
Longmont, CO
Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA
Medford, OR
Memphis, TN
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN
Missoula, MI
Modesto, CA
New York-N. New Jer-Long Is, NY-NJ-CT
Ogden, UT
Philadelphia-Camden Co, PA-NJ
Phoenix, AZ
Portland-Vancouver, 'OR-WA
Provo, UT
Raleigh-Durham, NC
Reno, NV
Sacramento, CA
San Diego, QA
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA
Seattle-Tacoma, WA
Spokane, WA
Stockton, CA
Syracuse, NY
Washington, DC-MD-VA
Winston-Salem, NC
Bold type for emphasis only
Moderate<«12.7 ppm
Moderate >12.7 ppm
Moderate<=12,7 ppm
Moderate<=12.7 ppm
Moderate<=12.7 ppm
Moderate*:=12.7 ppm
Moderate<=12.7 ppm
Moderate >12.7 ppm
Moderate<-12.7 ppm
Moderate<=12,7 ppm
Moderate<=12.7 ppm
Moderate<-12.7 ppm
Moderate >12.7 ppm
Moderate<=12.7 ppm
Moderate<=12.7 ppm
Moderate<=12.7 ppm
Moderate<«12.7 ppm
Moderate >12.7 ppm
Moderate<-12.7 ppm
Serious
Moderate <=12.7 ppm
Moderate<=12.7 ppm
Moderate<=12,7 ppm
Moderate<=12.7 ppm
Moderate<=12.7 ppm
Moderate >12.7 ppm
Moderate<=12.7 ppm
Moderate<=12.7 ppm
Moderate<=12.7 ppm
Moderate<=12.7 ppm
Moderate >12.7 ppm
Moderate<=12.7 ppm
Moderate<=12.7 ppm
Moderate<=12.7 ppm
Moderate<=12.7 ppm
Moderate<=12.7 ppm
Moderate >12.7 ppm
Moderate >12.7 ppm
Moderate< = 12.7 ppm
Moderate< = 12.7 ppm
Moderate< = 12.7 ppm
Moderate< = 12.7 ppm
70
-------
Not Classified Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas
Prior Designation Retained by Operation of Law
-------
Not Classified Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas
Prior Designation Retained by Operation of Law
Listed Alphabetically
Atlantic City, NJ
Bakersfield, CA
Billings, MT
Boise-Northern Ada Co, ID
Burlington, NJ
Charlotte, NC
Detroit, Ml
East Chicago, IN
Eugene-Springfield, OR
Freehold, NJ
Great Falls, MT
Greeley, CO
Indianapolis, IN
Lake Tahoe Nevada
Lake Tahoe North Shore, CA
Lowell, MA
Manchester, NH
Morristown, NJ
Nashua, NH
New Haven-Meriden-Waterbury, CT
Penns Grove, NJ
Perth Amboy, NJ
Pittsburgh, PA
Salem, OR
Salt Lake City, UT
Somerville, NJ
Springfield, MA
St Louis, MO
Toms River, NJ
Trenton, NJ
Tucson, AZ
Waltham, MA
Worcester, MA
Yakima, WA
72
-------
October 14, 1993
Significant Changes since the
November 6, 1991 Federal Register (56 FR 56694)
on Air Quality Designations and Classifications
for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas
November 30. 1992 Federal Re&ster (57 FR 56762)
California - Carbon Monoxide
San Diego boundary change (small reduction)
Oregon - Carbon Monoxide and Ozone
Salem Area boundary change from City of Salem
to Salem Area Transportation Study
Michigan - Ozone - Muskegon Area
Muskegon County classification change (Serious to Moderate)
New York - Ozone
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island Ozone Nonattainment Area -
Orange and Putnam Counties: The November 6,1991 notice indicated that the State
requested time to study the boundaries and classification for these two counties and that
EPA would evaluate the State study. Both counties are in the New York City CMSA.
The following action was taken in the November 30,1992 notice:
The portions of Orange County that remain with the New York City
nonattainment area (classified Severe-17) are: Blooming Grove, Chester,
Highlands, Monroe, Tuxedo, Warwick, and Woodbury.
The remaining portions of Orange County (16 towns and cities) are designated as
attainment.
- Putnam County was placed in the Poughkeepsie Nonattainment Area (classified
Marginal).
Washington - Ozone- Seattle Area boundary change (small reduction)
Wisconsin - Ozone - Sheboygan Area
Sheboygan County classification change (Serious to Moderate)
Other areas had small typo changes (see notice)
Redesignations to Attainment
Kansas - Kansas City Area - Ozone (previously Sub-Marginal)
Johnson and Wyandotte Counties
See the June 23,1992 Federal Register (57 FR 27936)
Missouri - Kansas City Area - Ozone (previously Sub-Marginal)
day, Jackson and Platte Counties
See the June 23,1992 Federal Register (57 FR 27936)
South Carolina - Cherokee County - Ozone (previously Marginal)
See the December 15,1992 Federal Register (57 FR 59300)
Minnesota - City of Saint Cloud - Carbon Monoxide
Benton, Sherburne and Stearns Counties
See the June 28,1993, Federal Register (58 FR 34532)
North Carolina - Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point - Ozone (previously Moderate)
Davidson, Davie, Forsyth & Guilford Counties
See the Sept 9,1993 Federal Register (58 FR 47391) Effective Nov 8,1993
Tennessee - Knoxville - Knox County - Ozone (previously Marginal)
See the Sept 27,1993 Federal Register (58 FR 50271)
New York - Syracuse - Onondaga County - Carbon Monoxide
See the Sept 29,1993 Federal Register (58 FR 50851 )(
For tuther information contact Valerie Broadwell (919-541-3310) or Barry Gilbert (919-541-5238)
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, AQMD, MD-15, OAQPS, EPA, RPT, NC, 27711
73
-------
Recent Significant Guidance for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Documents which have been released recently include:
Federal Register - State Implementation Plans: General Preamble
for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990; Proposed Rule - Thursday, April 16, 1992.
Guidelines for Estimating and Applying Rule - Effectiveness for
Ozone/Co State Implementation Plan Base Year Inventories -
November, 1992 - EPA-452/R-92-010.
Guidance on the Adjusted Base Year Emissions Inventory and the
1995 Target for the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans - October,
1992 - EPA-452/R-92-005.
Guidance for Growth Factors, Projections, and Control Strategies
for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress plans - March, 1992 - EPA-
452/R-93-002.
Guidance on thi Relationship Between the 15 Percent Rate-of-
Progress Plans and Other Provisions of the Clean Air Act - May,
1993 - EPA-452/R-93-007.
Guidance on Preparing Enforceable Regulations and Compliance
Programs for the 15 Percent Rate-Of-Progress Plans - June, 1993 -
EPA-452/R-93-005.
Federal Register - State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides
Supplement to the General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule - Wednesday,
November 25, 1992.
Technical Support Document to Aid States With the Development of
Carbon Monoxide State Implementation Plans - EPA-452/R-92-003 -
July, 1992.
In addition to the documents listed above, several guidance
memoranda have been issued. Copies of these memoranda are
attached*
74
-------
December 14, 1993
PM-10 Fact Sheet
I. Present number of PM-10 Nonattaiment areas: 83
O The original number was 70 areas, but 3 additional areas
were redesignated this Fall by the Regional Offices.
O The final action for 10 additional areas was signed by
the Administrator on December 14, 1993.
II. Present number of Serious areas: 5
O A total of 5 areas were reclassified to serious on
January 8, 1993.
III. The following policy memoranda were issued during 1993:
1. Impact of Conditional Approval Actions on Sanction and
Federal Implementation Plan clocks, July 14, 1993.
2. Addressing Potential New NAAQS Violations for PM-10, SO2,
and Pb, August 24, 1993.
3. PM-10 Serious Area Guidance: Final Staff Work product.
O This document was issued as a staff work product
September 24, 1993. It went through work group
closure on November 18, 1993 and is next scheduled
to go to the Office of Management and Budget for
review.
4. PM-10 SIP Development Guideline Document, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C.,
EPA-452/R-93-008, April 1993. Available through the
National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal
Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
O This document is a compendium of previously issued
guidance on PM-10 SIP development policies and
procedures.
75
-------
ON
AREAS DESIGNATED NONATTAINMENT
FOR PM10 PARTICULATES, BY EMISSION TYPE
AREAS NONATTAINMENT DUE TO STATIONARy SOURCE EMISSIONS
AREAS NONATTAINMENT DUB IN PART TO WOOD SMOKE EMISSIONS
AREAS NONATTAINMENT DUB IN PART TO FUGITIVE DUST EMISSIONS
AREAS NONATTAINMENT DUE TO MULTVLB TYPES OF EMISSIONS
CIRCLE DIAMETER O
INDICATES RELATIVE SIZE
OF AFFECTED POPULATION
OAQPS. AQMD, SDPMPB
December 17.1993
-------
December 17, 1993
PM-10 Nonattainment Area Update
EPA Reg
I
I
II
III
III
V
V ,
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
VI
VI
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
Nonattainment Area
New Haven, CT
Presque Isle, Maine
Guaynabo , PR
Clairton, PA
Follansbee, WV
Lyons Township, IL
Southeast Chicago, IL
Granite City, IL
LaSalle County, IL
Lake
County , IN
Vermill ion, IN
Cuyahoga County, OH
Mingo Junction, OH
Detroit, MI
St. Paul, MN
Rochester ,
MN
Anthony , NM
El Paso, TX
Aspen , CO
Canon City, CO
Denver , CO
Pagosa Springs, CO
Telluride, CO
Lamar , CO
Butte, MT
Kalispell, MT
Lame Deer, MT
Classification
(Moderate or
Serious)
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
77
-------
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
X
X
X
X
Columbia Falls, MT
Poison, MT
Ronan , MT
Libby, MT
Missoula, MT
Utah County, UT
Salt Lake County, UT
Sheridan , WY
Douglas, AZ
Hayden/Miami , AZ
Phoenix, AZ
Nogales , AZ
Paul Spur, AZ
Rillito, AZ
Yuma , AZ
A jo, AZ
Coachella Valley, CA
Imperial Valley, CA
Mammoth Lake, CA
Owens Valley, CA
South Coast Air Basin,
CA
San Joaquin, CA
Searles Valley, CA
Las Vegas, NV
Reno, NV
Eagle River, AK
Juneau , AK
Boisie, ID
Bonner County, ID
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M /Reclassif ied
to Serious
M
M
M/ Reclassified
to Serious
M/Reclassified
to Serious
M/Reclassified
to Serious
M
M
M/Reclassified
to Serious
M
M
M
M
78
-------
X
X
X
X I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(
Pinehurst, ID
Pocatello, ID
Grants Pass, OR
Klamath Falls, OR
Springfield/Eugene, OR
Medford, OR
LaGrande , OR
Kent, WA
Olympia, Tumwater, and
Lacey , WA
Seattle, WA
Spokane , Wa
Tacoma , WA
Wallula, WA
Yakima , WA
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
I. List of new PM-10 nonattainment areas:
A. Just signed by the Administrator:
1. Payson, Arizona
2. Bullhead City, Arizona
3. Sacramento County, California
4. San Bernadino County, California
5. Steamboat Springs, Colorado
6. Shoshone County, Idaho
7. Thompson Falls, Montana
8. New York County, New York
9. Oakridge, Oregon
10. Weirton, West Virginia
B. Redesignated by Regional offices:
1. Mono Lake, California
2. Lakeview, Oregon
3. Whitefish, Montana
II. List of areas for which PM-10 SIP's have not been submitted:
1. New, Haven, CT
2. Guaynabo, PR
3. Clairton, PA
4. Rillito, AZ
5. Yuma, AZ
79
-------
III. No. of proposed SIP rulemaking actions - 15
1. Follansbee, WV
2. La Salle County, IL
3. Vermillion County, IN
4. Cuyahoga County/Mingo Junction, OH
5. St. Paul/Rochester, MN
6. Anthony, NM
7. El Paso, TX
8. Canon City, CO
9. Butte, MT
10. Missoula, MT
11. Utah/Salt Lake, UT
12. Eagle River, AK
13. Grants Pass, OR
14. Kent, HA
15. Thurston, WA
* The total number of PM-10 areas with proposed SIP
rulemaking actions is 18. The Regions, in some cases, as
indicated above, proposed more than one nonattainment
area in a Federal Register package.
IV. No. of final rulemaking actions taken - 9
1. Anthony, NM
2. El Paso, TX
3. Eagle River, AK
4. Grants Pass, OR
5. Kent, WA
6. Thurston County, WA
7. Cuyahoga County/Mingo Junction, OH
8. St. Paul/Rochester, MN
9. Vermillion County, IN
80
-------
December 16, 1993
Fact Sheet on the Sulfur Dioxide (S02)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Program
8 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Primary (40 CFR 50.4): - 80 ug/m3 (0.03 ppm), Annual
(Arithmetic mean), and
- 365 ug/m3 (0.14 ppm), 24-hour,
not to be exceeded more than once
per year.
Secondary (40 CFR 50.5): - 1300 ug/m3 (0.5 ppm),'3-hour, not
to be exceeded more than once per
year.
£ Part D SIP's for nonattainment areas were due May 15, 1992.
% Number of nonattainment areas for:
Primary NAAQS = 32
Secondary NAAQS = 4
Both Primary and Secondary NAAQS = 12
Total = 48
The above tally includes two additional nonattainment areas
that were signed by the Administrator on 12/14/93.
I National SO2 emission estimates, 23 tons/year
8 Typical sources of SO2 emissions:
Fossil-fuel fired power plants
Fossil-fuel fired boilers
Petroleum refineries
Sulfuric acid plants
Pulp and paper mills
Nonferrous smelters
Steel Mills
Municipal incinerators
Wet corn milling operations/ ethanol production
8 SO2 Guideline Document - This compendium of SO2 NAAQS
implementation policy and guidance has been revised to reflect
changes per the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and is in the final
stages of review within the EPA. It will be distributed to State
agencies in the Spring of 1994.
81
-------
AREAS DESIGNATED NONATTAINMENT FOR SO2
O DESIGNATED NONATTAINMENT AREAS FOR SO2, Dec. 17,1993
OAQPS, AQMD, SDPMPB
December 17,1993
-------
12/16/93
Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Areas
REGION
1
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
3
3
STATE
ME
NJ
PA
PA
PA
WV
KY
KY
TN
TN
TN
IL
IL
IL
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
MN
MN
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
WI
WI
NM
MT
MT
UT
DT
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
GM
GM
NV
PA
WV
COUNTY
PENOBSCOT
WARREN
ALLEGHENY
ARMSTRONG
WARREN
HANCOCK
BOYD
MUHLENBERG
BENTON
HUMPHREYS
POLK
PEORIA
PEORIA
TAZEWELL
LAKE
LAPORTE
MARION
VIGO
WAYNE
AQCR 131
OLMESTED
COSHOCTON
CUYAHOGA
GALLIA
JEFFERSON
LAKE
LORAIN
LUCAS
MORGAN
WASHINGTON
MARATHON
ONEIDA
GRANT
LEWIS AND CLARK
YELLOWSTONE
SALT LAKE
TOOELE
COCHISE
GILA
GREENLEE
PIMA
FINAL
FINAL
PITI-CABRAS
TANGUISSON
WHITE PINE
WARREN
Hancock
AREA STANDARD
Millinocket P
6 areas P/S
Clairton portion P
5 areas (TWPS) P
CONEWANGO TWP P
New Manchester Grant P
portion P
all S
portion P/S
portion P/S
all P/S
HOLLIS TWP P/S
PEORIA P
GROVELAND TWP P
portion P
portion P
portion P
all P
portion P
7 Co.'s; Dakota, etc P
CITY OF ROCHESTER P
FRANKLIN TWP P
portion P
ADDISON TWP S
portion P
portion P
portion P
portion P
CENTER TWP S
WATERFORD TWP S
3 areas P/S
RHINELANDER portion P/S
portion P
EAST HELENA AREA P/S
LAUREL P
all P/S
portion P/S
DOUGLAS (3 AREAS) P
MIAMI (9 AREAS) P
MORENCI (8 AREAS) P
AJO (5 AREAS) P
SAN MANUAL (11 AREAS P
HAYDEN (9 AREAS) P
PITI POWER PLANT P
TANGUISSON POWER PLT P
CENTRAL STEPTOE VALL P
Warren, Pleasant,Gla P/S
portion P/S
P= Primary NAAQS
S= Secondary NAAQS
P/S = Both Primary and Secondary NAAQS
83
-------
S02 Enforceability Deficiencies Issue Paper
Background
In the past, EPA has had difficulty enforcing emission
limitations that have longer averaging times than those
associated with the attainment demonstration and the KAAQS.
These difficulties have resulted in lack of referrals of cases to
the Department of Justice and lost enforcement cases. State and
industry resistance to short term averaging times in emission
limitations and/or compliance methods stems from the inherent
variability of sulfur in the coal burned at power plants. In the
past, limits specifying allowable sulfur emissions were derived
by assuming that the sulfur content of the particular fuel supply
is essentially invariant. However, this assumption is not valid
for coal. The short term compliance averaging periods provide
less opportunity for extreme random deviations from the norm to
be "averaged down." Thus, shortening the averaging times
effectively tightens the source's emission limitation by forcing
the source to use a lower sulfur coal to assure high peaks will
be under the limit. Therefore, in the past few years, EPA has
not approved 30-day averaging as a compliance method, because it
does not guarantee continuous compliance with the emission
limitation or protection of the short term standard.
In addition to the issues associated with sulfur
variability, EPA has encountered other deficiencies in the SIPs
that have led to problems in enforcing the rules pertaining to
S02 emissions. EPA developed a 12 point checklist of the most
common enforcement deficiencies (Nov .28, 1990 memo from Bauman
and Biondi to the Regional Air Branch Chiefs). This checklist
was used to review the SIPs. The results of this review are
compiled in the SO2 Yellow Book (June 12, 1991).
In order to address the SIP deficiencies identified in the
SO2 Yellow Book,EPA created the S02 implementation work group.
The work group is composed of representatives from AQMD, SSCD,
OE, O6C, ARD and Regions III, IV and V, as well as eight States,
which have (had) Phase I acid rain sources located in SO2
nonattainment areas. Their task is to address these outstanding
issues in the most practical way, using the authorities under
Titles I, IV, V and VII of the 1990 Clean Air Act as Amended.
The work group has developed a policy memorandum for
addressing the noncontroversial S02 issues (April 16, 1993), and
worked to refine options for addressing the long term averaging
issues. The efforts of the work group are currently on hold
pending the completion and evaluation of the statistical
compliance methods currently being developed by OAQPS.
84
-------
AREAS DESIGNATED NONATTAINMENT FOR LEAD
O DESIGNATED NONATTAINMENT AREAS FOR Pb, Dec. 17,1993
OAQPS, AQMD, SDPMPB
December 17.1993
00
-------
December 17, 1993
Status of the Lead NAAQS Attainment Strategy and
Multi-media targeting effort
GOAL - Target lead implementation efforts where they are most
needed, e.g., in communities with the most risk to lead
exposures.
Lead NAAOS Attainment Strategy Approach - To identify areas of
highest potential exposure to lead, and determine if an
environmental problem exists. Address environmental problems
using existing regulations and programs to the fullest extent
possible. Finally, where exisitng regulations are inadequate,
initiate the regulatory process (SIP calls, nonattainment
designations) to develop programs that will address the
identified environmental problem.
Current Status - The first phase of the lead NAAQS attainment
strategy targeted 29 primary and secondary lead smelters. Since
its initiation in 1990, ambient air monitors were sited around
all of these sources. Compliance inspections were conducted at
all sources and appropriate actions were taken where compliance
problems were identified. Ambient air concentrations have been
reduced around 14 of the original sources. In 15 of these areas,
where compliance actions did not address the problem (or where
the requirements were obviously lacking), regulatory action was
initiated. '
In additjLon, the EPA Regions have identified additional
sources to target and address any subsequent problems. The
Regions identified three additional areas with air quality
problems. In all of the.se areas, compliance actions were taken,
but have proven insufficient to address ,the air quality problems
and further regulatory action is under consideration or is
underway. The Regions have also investigated other areas and
determined that no problems exist and no additional follow-up is
needed.
Expanding the Strategy - EPA is expanding the Lead NAAQS
Attainment Strategy in two ways.
First - identify additional source categories which have the
potential to emit enough lead to violate the lead NAAQS.
OAQPS will provide this information to the Regions to aid
them in their implementation efforts. The list of new
areas/sources included in the Strategy is on schedule for
completion in January, 1994.
Second - Identify ten Regional hot spots where there are
potential multimedia exposures to lead, as well as a list of
100 hot spots nationwide (may be different from the Regional
hot spots). The identification the priorities within a
specific media is currently underway. Once this is
completed and agreed on by the other media offices the
86
-------
mapping will take place to begin to identify the hot spot.
The final step is to prioritize these hot spots by looking
at the magnitude of potential exposure, and the demographic
information (population, age, income level, race, etc).
The long term goal of all of these efforts is to address
environmental problems where they pose the greatest potential
health risk. The targeting efforts are used to indicate where
potential problems exist, the areas identified will indicate
where the further investigation is needed to determine if an
environmental problem truly exists.
87
-------
Policy Memoranda Issued in 1993
April 16, 1993 - Guidance on Correcting SO2 Enforceability
Deficiencies (Attached)
August 12, 1993 - Lead Guideline Document EPA-450/R-93-009
Available through NTIS #PB94-111846
September 16, 1993 - Responces (actions by the Region) to
i Violations of the Lead NAAQS. (Attached)
December 14, 1993 - Lead Addendum to the General Preamble of
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
Signed by the Administrator, to be published in
the Federal Register.
-------
APR 161993
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance on Correcting S02 Enforceability Deficiencies
FROM: D. Kent Berry, Acting Director
Air Quality Management Division (MD-15)
t
TO: Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and,Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
As you may recall, the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS) has identified correction of sulfur dioxide
(SO ) enforceability deficiencies as a priority in the detailed
operating guidance for 1992 and 1993. This effort targets the
deficiencies, documented in the June 12, 1990 SO2 Yellow Book,
which could impede or complicate the issuance of the permits
under title V or complicate the implementation of the acid rain
program.
The OAQPS, in coordination with eight State representatives
with interests in both the acid rain and S02 nonattainment
programs, and several Regional and Headquarters offices, is
developing guidance to address these deficiencies. Based on
discussions with this group, we now believe that many
deficiencies (e.g., lack of record keeping and .reporting
requirements, ambiguities in averaging times, etc.) may be
resolved more expeditiously through the title V permits, thus
avoiding the need for a formal State implementation plan (SIP)
revision. Generally, the permits can be used to clarify
ambiguities or fill gaps in noncontroversial SIP requirements.
89
-------
The States and Regions, however, should be cautious not to
address deficiencies that may be controversial through the
permits program. If a State has an indication that the public or
the industry will challenge the permit, the State should address
the issue in a SIP revision. For instance, when addressing the
issue of long averaging times, affected industries could be very
sensitive about changing these requirements. Several have
indicated that they will challenge any permit that does not
reflect what they believe to be the current SIP requirements.
Permit challenges from the industry or the public may encumber
the permitting process and could lead to unfavorable legal
precedents and risk a more difficult and confusing permitting
process, thus defeating the purpose of avoiding the more
cumbersome SIP process.
In addressing these deficiencies, an affected State should:
(1) document to EPA satisfaction that there is no deficiency
where the State disagrees with the Yellow Book items; (2) where
there are deficiencies in the SIP, correct them via the permit if
the State demonstrates that it has adequate general authority in
its operating permits program and/or SIP to clarify (or fill)
these requirements in the permit; and (3) correct the deficiency
through a SIP revision .if the State does not have adequate
general authority, or if the State is concerned about potential
challenges from the industry or the public.
In order to clarify the state's intent and to establish a
record of how it is addressing these problems, the Regional
Office may wish to prepare a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with
the State explaining that the permit will be the federally-
enforceable vehicle for clarifying the deficiency(ies). The MOA
should acknowledge the deficiency(ies) and identify any
impediments to its authority to correct these deficiencies in the
permit. The State and EPA should establish in the MOA that, if
the permit is not consistent with the current guidance on an
enforcement issue, EPA may exercise its veto authority on the
grounds the permit is not enforceable1.
I believe that this approach will provide the States with a
series of practical options for dealing with most of the
identified Yellow Book deficiencies. I am attaching more
detailed information on how the individual checklist deficiencies
can be addressed and where additional guidance can be found. We
*The SIP revision is always an option for the State in
resolving any of these issues. A benefit of undertaking a SIP
revision would be to avoid a case-by-case review of all of the
permits for sources with the affected deficiency.
90
-------
X
will continue to work on refining the guidance for dealing with
the long-term averaging time issues. If you have any questions
or comments, please feel free to contact me at (919) 541-5505 or
Laura McKelvey at (919) 541-5497.
Attachment
cc: W. Becker, STAPPA/ALAPCO
G. Foote, OGC
B. McLean, ARD
R. Ossias, OGC
J. Rasnic, SSCD
M. Winer, OGC
Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-
bcc: D. Campbell
J. Dills
P. Dubenetsky
P. Embrey
E. Flowers
P. Hansen
N. Hartman
K. Harmon
T. Helms
Z. Kosim
L. Lay
E. Lillis
M. Miller
S. Miller
S. Mitoff
M. Onischak
R. Patterson
J. Rinertson
S. Sallie
J. Slade
M. Trutna
T. Tucker
R. Vogel
L. Wegman
SDPMPB:LMcKelvey:pfinch:MD-15:541-5628:3-22-93
McKelvey 2B:DEFMEM2.GUD
91
-------
Attachment
Background
On June 12, 1990, OAQPS released the "S02 Yellow Book," which
documented deficiencies in the S02 SIPs. OAQPS initiated this
effort because of the concern that leaving these issues
unresolved would impede or complicate the implementation of
Titles I, IV and V of the CAA.
Even though resolution of these issues has been identified
by EPA as a priority in. the subsequent operating guidance, many
States have made little progress in correcting the deficiencies,
perhaps due to a lack of clear guidance. Consequently, OAQPS
established an S02 Implementation Work Group. This work group
consists of representatives from eight States (chosen from the
States that have Phase I acid rain units located in SO2
nonattainment areas), the Regions in which these States are
located; and the appropriate Headquarters offices. The work
group is charged with developing guidance for correcting these
"Yellow Book" deficiencies and with developing model permits for
the ambient SO2 requirements.
Since the effort to identify and correct these problems in
the SO2 SIPs was initiated, Part 70 regulations which implement
the Title V operating permits program have been completed.
Recently, the work group met to discuss the development of
guidelines and the interaction between this effort and Title V
operating permits. In response to the opportunities provided by
this new program, the work group determined that of the
deficiencies caused by ambiguities or omissions (gaps) in the SIP
requirements and which are noncontroversial, could be resolved
more expeditiously through the Title V permits.
Checklist Deficiencies
The following is the checklist that was used in reviewing
the SO2 SIPs:
1) The rule does not clearly specify sources subject to the
rule.
2) The rule does not clearly specify the applicable
averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
emission limitation.
3) The averaging time in the rule is inconsistent with the
averaging time for the NAAQS. For instance, if the rule
allows 30-day averaging or weekly fuel sampling then there
may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are
being protected.
92
-------
4) The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.
5) The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Reg. Method 6, stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no freguency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling, GEM is feasible but is not
required).
6) The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
the protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reported data). Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with the shorter term
averaging times.
7) The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).
8) The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data record keeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).
9) The rule contains an alternative approach for compliance
(e.g., variable or multiple limits among a number of
affected sources) where the emission limits which apply to
each affected sources are a) unclear, b) the period of time
and length of time the alternate limits are in effect are
unclear, c) there is no requirement for the source to notify
the regulatory agency prior to changes in the applicable
emission limit, and/or d) the rule does not contain
continuous monitoring requirements that enable EPA to verify
that all sources are in compliance with an applicable limit
scenario.
10) The rule contains an alternative compliance approach
other then alternative emission limits (e.g., load derating)
but it does not clearly state the method of determining
continuous compliance.
93
-------
11) The rule contains director's discretion authority
without provision for EPA review.
12) The rule has Section 123 deficiencies; including non
compliance with the 1985 regulations, sources affected by
the NRDC vs Thomas. 838 F.2d 1224 (D.C. Cir., 1988) remand
and restrictions on Intermittent or Supplemental Control
Systems (ICS or SCS).
Note that checklist items #5, 9, and 10 which require a
method for determining compliance on a continuous basis may meet
the requirement for periodic monitoring or testing. However, as
stated above, a one time stack test would not be considered
periodic monitoring or testing. Additionally, the permit
regulations would require the periodic monitoring data to be used
in compliance certifications. Therefore, if a state believes
that using continuous compliance or periodic monitoring or
testing data for direct enforcement may be controversial, the
state may wish to address this through a SIP revision.
Checklist items 1,2,4,7,8,9, and 10 (See attached checklist)
can be corrected in the permit. The permit can also be used to
fill a gap in the SIP for to checklist item # 5, to the extent
that there is an omission or ambiguity in the continuous
compliance method. However, where the compliance method is
clearly stated, but does not provide for continuous compliance
(e.g., requires an annual stack test) more extensive rule making
will be necessary.
Items 12 and 13 are issues where there is on going policy
development and it is not yet clear how they will be resolved.
Thus, we are unable determine if these will require revisions of
the SIP or if they, too, can take advantage of the permit
program.
For the remaining checklist items (3 and 6) and any of the
above deficiencies that may be controversial in the particular
State. The States and Regions should be cautious not to
implement address these items through the permit. If the State
has an indication that the public or the industry will challenge
the permit, the State should address the issue in a SIP revision.
For instance, when addressing the issues of long averaging times,
the industries could be very sensitive about changing these
requirements. They may challenge any permit that does not
reflect the current SIP requirements. Permit challenges from the
industry or the public on these issue, may encumber the
expeditious permitting process and may lead to unfavorable legal
precedents, both of which would risk a more difficult and
confused permitting process defeating the purpose of avoiding the
more cumbersome SIP process.
94
-------
Process
Affected States should employ a three-tiered approach for
dealing with these problems.
1) If the State does not agree that there are deficiencies
in their SIPs, the State should document their reasons to
the Region's satisfaction.
2) If the SIP is unenforceable, the State may correct these
noncontroversial deficiencies through the permit if the
State demonstrates that they have adeguate general
authorities in their operating permit program and/or SIPs to
clarify (or GAP fill, i.e., rely on general authorities to
satisfy pollutant/program specific reguirements) these
requirements in the permit. Evidence of the States ability
to demonstrate that they have "adeguate general authority"
could include operating permits issued pursuant to the
existing SIP which impose the missing reguirements.
3) If the State does not have adeguate general authorities,
or if the State is concerned about potential challenges from
the industry or the public, then the state can correct the
deficiency through a SIP revision.
Mechanism
In order to clarify the State's intent and to establish a
record of how it is addressing these problems, the State should
prepare a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the Regional office
explaining that the permit will be the Federally enforceable
vehicle for clarifying the deficiency(ies). This MOA could be
included in the State-Regional agreements developed with their
Title V permit program. The MOA should acknowledge the
deficiency(ies) and identify any impediments to its authority to
correct these deficiencies in the permit. The State should also
agree that the permit will reflect the current EPA policy on that
particular issue. For instance, if there is no averaging time
associated with the emission limitation, the MOA and the permit
should specify an appropriate (3 or 24 hour) averaging time. The
State and EPA should agree in the MOA that, if the permit is not
consistent with the current guidance on an enforcement issue,
then EPA may exercise its veto authority.on the grounds the
permit is not enforceable.
95
-------
\,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
OFFICE OF
AIR QUALITY PLANNING
AND STANDARDS
JUN 23 1998
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TOi
Impact of the Recent Onboard Decision on Stage II
Requirements in Moderate Nonrattainment
John S. Seitz, Director
Office of Air Quality PI
-10)
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxic Division,
Region VI
Director? Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
As you are probably aware, on January 22, 1993, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under section
202(a) (6) of the Act, has a mandatory duty to issue regulations
requiring installation of onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR)
systems on light duty motor vehicles (Natural Resources Defense
Council v. Reillv. 983 F.2d 259). The EPA has since entered into
a proposed settlement agreement (subject to the section 113(g)
public comment process) under which the Agency would promulgate
final ORVR standards by January 22, 1994.
In a memorandum dated March 9, 1993, I addressed the issue
of how the new court opinion related to potential legal
obligations under section 182(b)(3) to install vehicle refueling
(Stage II) controls in moderate ozone nonattainment areas. I
indicated there that the opinion would not abrogate such Stage II
requirements since the requirements remain until EPA actually
promulgates ORVR standards. In light of the more recent
developments noted above, I would now like to supplement my
96
-------
earlier memorandum/ particularly with respect to the issue of
whether EPA intends to invoke sanctions for State implementation
plans which fail in some manner to implement the Stage II
requirement contained in the Act.
As I indicated in my March 9 memorandum, EPA has "started the
18-month time clock for mandatory sanctions for failure to submit
Stage II programs in about 20 moderate ozone nonattaihment areas.
This would result in the first sanction being imposed in July
1994. However, since EPA plans to promulgate ORVR rules by
January 1994, mandatory sanctions in these moderate areas would
not be imposed. The EPA also has the authority to implement
sanctions earlier than 18 months from issuance of a findings
letter; however, given our plans to promulgate ORVR rules, EPA
does not intend to impose such sanctions for a State's failure to
adopt or implement Stage II programs in moderate ozone areas.
The Office of General Counsel has previously communicated this
information to the industry petitioners (see attached).
I note that States may still need to require installation of
Stage II for reasons independent of section 182(b)(3). One
possible reason, as explained in my March 9 memorandum, would be
to meet the 15 percent volatile organic compounds (VOC) reduction
requirements in section 182(b)(l). A second reason would be the
need to include Stage II in a maintenance plan to ensure
maintenance of the standard. (EPA, of course, is not promising
that it would not invoke discretionary sanctions for failure to
carry out the 15 percent VOC reduction requirements.)
i
I would appreciate your sending copies of this memorandum-
to all State air program directors in States in your Region that
contain moderate ozone nonattainment areas, as well as to any
State air program director otherwise interested in this issue.
Attachment
cc: M. Shapiro
D. Wilson
97
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
MAR 9 I993
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Impact of the Recent Onboard Decision on Stage II
Requirements in Moderate Ngnattainment Areas
John S. Seitz, Director
Office of Air Quality PI
ds (MD-io)
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director) Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
On January 22, 1993, the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) previous decision not to require
onboard vapor recovery controls be set aside and onboard
standards be promulgated pursuant to the Clean Air Act (Act),
section 202(a)(6). The EPA is currently studying a schedule for
complying with the court's ruling.
As a result of that court decision, several States have
contacted EPA Regions and asked how the decision will affect
Stage II requirements in moderate ozone nonattainment areas.
States are required to adopt Stage II rules for such areas under
section 182(b)(3). Section 202(a)(6) states that "the
requirements of section 182(b)(3) (relating to Stage II gasoline
vapor recovery) for areas classified under section 181 as
moderate for ozone shall not apply after promulgation of such
standards [i.e., onboard controls] . . . .«
These Act provisions indicate that a State's obligation to
adopt, implement, and enforce Stage II rules for moderate areas
continues until onboard rules are actually promulgated. The EPA
will process Stage II rules as revisions to State implementation
plans (SIP's). When onboard rules are promulgated, a state may
withdraw its Stage II rules for moderate areas from the SIP (or
98
-------
from consideration as a SIP revision) consistent with its
obligations under sections 182(b)(3) and 202(a)(6), so long as
withdrawal will not interfere with any other applicable
requirement of the Act. Further guidance on Stage II
requirements for moderate nonattainment areas seeking-
redesignation will be forthcoming.
The EPA has recently issued findings of failure to submit
Stage II rules covering about 20 moderate ozone nonattainment
areas. If EPA has not promulgated the onboard rules and a State
still has not submitted complete Stage II rules within 18 months
of the findings letter, the Act imposes sanctions in that area.
There are compelling reasons for keeping Stage II
requirements even after an onboard rule is promulgated. Vehicles
equipped with onboard controls are not required to enter the
market until the fourth model year after the onboard standards
are promulgated, and even then only 40 percent of that model
year's production would be required to have onboard controls.
Full coverage of all new vehicles is not required until 6 model
years after promulgation [see section 202(a)(6)]. It will take
several more years for the fleet to turn over so that most cars
in use have onboard controls. Thus, it could take 10-15 years
before onboard controls may achieve the same overall degree of
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions reductions as Stage II
controls.
i
In the meantime, section 182(b)(1)(A) requires moderate and
above nonattainment areas to achieve a 15 percent VOC reduction
by 1996. The VOC reductions achieved from Stage II controls may
contribute significantly toward this 15 percent reduction
requirement. Early indications are that many areas will have
difficulty demonstrating the 15 percent reduction in VOC
emissions needed to meet section 182(b)(l)(A) even when
reductions from Stage II are included. Given the stringent
criteria for receiving a waiver from the 15 percent reduction
requirement, it is unlikely that many areas will receive a
waiver. Therefore, areas that do not adopt Stage II may be faced
with adopting much more stringent and less cost-effective
controls on other sources in order to meet the 15 percent
requirement. States that fail to submit approvable 15 percent
demonstrations and fail to waive the requirement will also
subject themselves to sanctions and Federal implementation plans.
In addition to the 15 percent requirement, moderate ozone
nonattainment areas must demonstrate attainment of the ozone
standard by December 31, 1996. Therefore, regardless of whether
Stage II is necessary to meet the 15 percent reduction, Stage II
may be needed for moderate areas to attain the ozone standard by
the end of 1996. Moderate areas failing to attain by that date
will be "bumped up" to a serious classification and will become
subject to the requirements for serious areas, including the 1999
99
-------
attainment date. At that time the area would then be subject to
the Stage II requirement as well as the additional control
requirements for serious areas [see section 182(i)]. These
reclassif ied areas will have less than 3 years to adopt and
implement additional controls before the serious area attainment
date of 1999. Furthermore, failure to attain by that date will
subject the areas to being "bumped up" to a severe classification
and the more stringent requirements applicable for those areas.
The EPA is further considering how this court ruling affects
a state's obligation under jsection 184(b)(2) regarding Stage II
or measures that get equivalent emission reductions in the
Northeast Ozone Transport Region. The section 184(b)(2)
requirement applies to all areas in the Region regardless of the
ozone designation or classification. Guidance concerning the
Northeast Ozone Transport Region will be issued at a later date.
cc: MT Shapiro
D. Wilson
100
-------
JUN 2 1933,
Alice Crowe
American Petroleum Institute
1220 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Hs. Crowe:
This letter documents the substantive points to be made in
EPA's? letter regarding the relationship of Stage II requirements
under the clean Air Act (CAA) section 182 (b) (3) and on-board
refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) requirements in section
202 (a) (6), as well as the Agency's position with respect to
discretionary sanctions for siPs which fail, in some manner, to
implement the section 152(b)(3) Stage II requirement.
EPA would state that, because the section 182 (b), (3) stage II
requirement is waived in moderate ozone.'.non-attainment areas once
EPA promulgates an ORVR requirement, arid because the Agency has
committed to promulgating on ORVR requirement by January 22^
1994, EPA therefore does not intend to invoice discretionary
sanctions (pursuant to section lio(m)) in any of <1;he following
situations; a) foe moderate ozone non-attainment ^areas that fail
to submit a. SIP revision addressing section 182 (bji(3); b) for SIP
submittals that do not require Stage II in moderate ozone non-
attainment areas; and c) for States that require stage II in
moderate ozone non-attainment areas but fail to implement the
requirement. The letter would also note that states may still
need to require installation of Stage II for reasons independent
of section 182 (b) (3), such as to meet the 15 % VOC reduction
requirement in section I82(b)(l).
Within two weeks, EPA will disseminate a letter making all
of these points to EPA Regional Offices, and will request the
Regional Administrators to send copies of the letter to state air
SSILVERMANJse:OGC:LE-132S:RM.509WT:260-7716:F: \STG21182B:
revised: nt:F:\... \PILES\STGII: 6/1/93: revised :lh:OGCS:LE132S:
SUBJ:F:\...\PILES\STG±I:6/2/93
101
-------
program directors in each of their states. We will send you a
copy of the letter at the time it is sent to the EPA Regional
Offices.
Sincerely,
Alan W. Eckert
Associate General Counsel
Air and Radiation Division
102
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
JUL141993
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Impact of Conditional Approvals on Sanction and
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) Clocks
D. Kent Berry, Acting Director I) r^ 1'.^
Air Quality Management Division (MD-15)
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division,-Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify the impact of
conditional approvals on the sanction and FIP clocks initiated by
findings of failure to submit a State implementation plan (SIP)
or complete SIP under sections 179(a) and 110(c)(l),
respectively, of the Clean Air Act (Act), as amended.1 A July
9, 1992 memorandum from John Calcagni to the Air Division
Directors entitled "Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Submittals" provides guidance on how the sanction and FIP clocks
function but does not address the effect of conditional approval
on the sanction and FIP clocks. The July 1992 guidance indicates
that to stop the sanction clock following a section 179(a)
finding, the State must correct the deficiency prompting the
finding. A finding of failure to submit a plan or complete plan
is corrected when the State submits a plan the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) finds complete. Regarding the FIP clock,
section 110(c)(l) requires that the EPA promulgate a FIP
memorandum does not address the effect of conditional
approval on sanction and FIP clocks initiated by SIP
disapprovals, which will be addressed in future guidance.
103
-------
within 2 years of findings of failure to submit a plan or
complete plan unless two conditions are met: the State corrects
the deficiency, and the EPA approves the plan.
The Effect of Conditional Approval on Clocks Initiated by
Findings of Nonsubmittal
Sanction Clock Permanently Stops, FIP Clock Temporarily
Stops
As indicated in the July 9, 1992 guidance, when the EPA
finds that a State has failed to submit a plan or complete
plan,2 the sanction and FIP clocks start on the date of the
finding. If the EPA subsequently finds the late plan submittal
complete, the sanction clock will permanently stop. If the EPA
then takes final rulemaking action to conditionally approve the
same plan, the FIP clock will temporarily stop.
The sanction clock will permanently stop because the
submittal of a SIP that the EPA finds complete corrects the
finding of failure to submit.3 The FIP clock will temporarily
stop because both conditions for stopping the FIP clock will have
been met. The complete SIP submittal correcting the deficiency
prompting the finding satisfies the first condition for stopping
the FIP clock, and the EPA taking final rulemaking action
approving the plan satisfies the second FIP clock condition.
The EPA believes that the FIP clock should only stop
temporarily because the Act does not require the EPA to take
duplicative FIP promulgation action to address the SIP's
inadequacy during the time intended for the State to meet the
commitment of the conditional approval. However, the FIP clock
does not permanently stop because a conditional approval can
convert to a disapproval if a State fails to meet the commitment
by submitting a plan revision that the EPA can fully approve.
Thus, although the State has met the second condition, it is
temporary, and if the conditional approval converts to a
disapproval, the FIP clock resumes where it stopped and a new
sanction clock starts.
2Note that plan or complete plan refers also to any
submittal which we have indicated explicitly in guidance or
elsewhere that we could accept as a committal SIP.
3For guidance on finding committal SIP's complete, see
memorandum entitled "State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions
Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act (Act) Deadlines" from John
Calcagni to Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, October 28,
1992.
104
-------
Following Conditional Approval, When Does FIP Clock Stop or
Resume?
The FIP clock will stop permanently if the State fulfills
its commitment and the EPA takes final action fully approving the
plan. The clock will resume where it stopped (and the EPA will
remain under its FIP obligation) and a new sanction clock will
start if any one of three events occurs where the conditional
approval converts to a disapproval. (See attached flowchart for
graphic representation of how this process works.)
One, if the State fails to submit anything to meet its
commitment/ the clock will resume on the date of the letter from
the EPA to the State finding that it had failed to meet its
commitment and that the SIP submittal has now been converted to a
disapproval. The letter will be sent shortly after the final
date for the State to meet its commitment. Two, if the State
submits an incomplete SIP to meet its commitment, the clock will
resume on the date that the EPA sends a letter of incompleteness
to the State. If the EPA finds the SIP incomplete prior to the
final date for meeting the commitment (i.e., in the case where
the State submits the SIP before the due date), the FIP clock
will resume on the final date for meeting the commitment if the
State has not remedied the incompleteness finding by making a
submittal the EPA finds complete. On that date, the EPA will
notify the State by letter that ihe plan remains incomplete and
that the FIP clock resumes.* Three, if the State submits a SIP
for which the EPA takes final disapproval action, the clock
resumes on the effective date of the final action. (The July 9,
1992 guidance explains in detail how conditional approvals
function.)
4The guidance provided here clarifies the discussion in the
July 9, 1992 guidance of how conditional approvals may be
converted to disapprovals in the event the State fails to submit
anvthinq and/or where the State makes a submittal that EPA finds
incomplete. In the first case, if the State fails to submit
anything, the sanction and FIP clocks start on the date of the
letter from EPA to the State finding that it had failed to meet
its commitment and the SIP has been converted to a dJJW"™1;
The letter is sent shortly after the "M\ ^5« f;jjj^ **"*• **
meet its commitment. In the second case, if EPA "»*•«»;»
incomplete, the sanction and FIP clocks start on the date of the
EPA letter making the finding of incompleteness and notifying the
State that it, therefore, failed to meet its commitment.
Sowever, if EPA finds the submittal incomplete Before the date
the submittal is due under the commitment, the sanction and FIP
clocks do not start until the final date for meeting the
commitment Short" after which time EPA will notify the State by
letter that the SIP remains incomplete.
105
-------
General questions on this clarification should be directed
to Chris Stoneman of the Sulfur Dioxide Particulate Matter
Programs Branch (919/541-0823). Questions regarding application
to specific programs should be directed to the appropriate
program branch within OAQPS.
Attachment
cc: Jane Armstrong, QMS
William Becker, STAPPA/ALAPCO
Phillip Lorang, QMS
Rich Ossias, OGC
Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
Regional Air Counsel, Regions I-X
106
-------
Attachment (page 1 of 2)
Submitted Due
i
Submittal Made?
Yes
(Process^
Submittaly
No
(EPA Makes Nonsubmittal Finding)
( Sanction and FIP Clocks Start j
I
Submittal Made?
No / Proceed with
Sanctions
and FIP's
i \ ana rn
1 Yes I
^ 1 No T
kWh•
-------
M«*OSI!»>.
>r — T
-------
The EPA guidance identifies presumptive RACT for certain
types of electric utility boilers in pounds of NOx per million
British thermal units (Btu) on a 30-day rolling average:
1. 0.45 for tangentially-fired coal burning.
2. 0.50 for dry bottom, wall-fired (other than cell burner)
coal burning.
3. 0.20 for tangentially-fired gas/oil burning.
4. 0.30 for wall-fired gas/oil burning.
For other source categories, the EPA guidance states that NOx
RACT may be set at levels that are comparable to the above levels
for certain utility boilers.
The EIP guidance is intended to stimulate the adoption of
incentive-based, innovative programs that will assist States in
meeting air quality goals through flexible approaches which allow
for less costly control strategies and which provide stronger
incentives for the development and implementation of innovative
emissions reductions technology. As described in that guidance,
long-term emissions averaging programs can be used by States to
.meet the Act's RACT requirements. Key provisions of the EIP
guidance, with respect to the use of fuel switching to meet the
NOx RACT requirements, are described below.
III. Definitions
A. Fuel Switching
As used in this guidance, fuel switching refers to instances
where a unit historically burned one primary fuel, such as coal,
and under a "fuel switching" program the unit would burn a
cleaner fuel, such as natural gas, during the ozone season and
may switch back to the "historic" fuel for some or all of the
non-ozone season.
B. Base Year Fuel
For purposes of this guidance, the historical fuel refers to
the fuel that a unit primarily used during calendar year (CY)
1990. The EPA believes that CY 1990 is appropriate since many
Act requirements (such as reasonable further progress) stem from
this date. States are required to develop a comprehensive 1990
inventory, and the CY 1990 inventory is likely to be the most
accurate information readily available. Further, since this
guidance utilizes an annual emissions equivalency (described
below), the historical fuel needs to be based on an annual
period.
110
-------
J ™« Precisely the historical fuel is defined as the fuel
J«2? ? Btu-weighted basis, during CY 1990. Where CY
J 9? is den?nstrated to be more representative of
actual operating conditions, those years may be used.
ie' ?5eTe a m^ burned 9° percent coal during 1990-
;???! t5at ""^ i« considered subject to the presumptive NOx RACT
limits for coal-fired units; if the same unit used 60 percent gas
i™a*rr.vear.s, it would still be subject to the presumptive NOx
RACT limits for coal-fired units.
C. Ozone Season
For purposes of this guidance, the ozone season generally
means the period of time that ozone monitoring is required for an
area as defined in 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 2.5.
D- Presumptive NOx RACT
For purposes of this guidance, presumptive NOx RACT means
the more stringent of the requirements:
1. adopted by the State into the State implementation plan
(SIP) to meet the NOx RACT requirements, or
2. defined in EPA's guidance published in 57 FR 55620,
November 25, 1992.
IV. NOx RACT for Fuel Switchers
Limited data indicate that, in some cases, a switch to
natural gas from coal could result in emissions in the 0.10 to
0.40 (pounds of NOx per million Btu) range as compared to the EPA
presumptive NOx RACT emissions rates for gas/oil of 0.20 to 0.30
and for coal of 0.45 to 0.50. This is a relatively broad range
and is based on very little data. The EPA has determined that
there is not enough data available to establish a presumptive NOx
RACT level for a fuel-switcher category.
As a result, units that switch, for example, from coal
(historic fuel) to gas could fall under either the presumptive
coal or gas/oil NOx RACT limits. However, if fuel-switcher units
were required to meet the presumptive gas RACT limits, those
units would face the costs of both fuel switching and add-on
controls, which would remove an important incentive for coal
units to switch to gas. In these cases, EPA believes that the
presumptive RACT limits for coal are appropriate for establishing
the program baseline in an EIP because it is consistent with the
EIP guidance, data are not available to set a fuel switcher
presumptive NOx RACT level, there are clear environmental
benefits (noted below) when units switch to clean fuels, and fuel
switching might only occur under a coal baseline.
Ill
-------
V. Fuel Switching to Meet NOx RACT Through Loncr-Term Averaging
A. EIP Approach
State rules which allow fuel switching to meet the NOx RACT
requirements are approvable where the rules are consistent with
the EIP guidance for long-term averaging and the guidance in this
memorandum. This approach is applicable to utility boilers as
well as any other source subject to the NOx RACT requirements.
Any source which meets the NOx RACT requirements through a long-
term averaging EIP must also meet all other relevant Act
requirements. *
B. Emissions Limitation Requirements
The State rules must include emissions limits on both an
annual and ozone season basis, as described below.
C. Annual Emissions Limit
The EIP guidance provides States with the flexibility to
meet new RACT requirements, such as the NOx RACT requirements,
through an EIP that yields reductions in emissions at least
equivalent to those which would result from unit-by-unit
compliance with the presumptive RACT limit for that source
category. Under a long-term emissions averaging EIP to meet NOx
RACT, annual emissions of NOx must be less than or equal to
annual emissions that would result from compliance with
presumptive NOx RACT. The specific calculation methodology for
determining annual equivalence is described in the enclosed
appendix to this guidance.
D. Ozone Season Emissions Limit
An EIP that uses long-term emissions averaging to meet the
RACT requirements must include long-term emissions requirements,
as described above, and other requirements to show that the EIP
is equivalent to the presumptive RACT on a short-term basis. For
purposes of NOx RACT, a short-term emissions limit, in
conjunction with an annual emissions limit, satisfies these EIP
requirements. The short-term emissions limit must be applicable
in the ozone season and at least as stringent as the presumptive
NOx RACT limit. The more stringent of the State-adopted or EPA
presumptive NOx RACT must be required during the ozone season.
As discussed in the long-term averaging section of the EIP
guidance, a 24-hour averaging time is generally used to construct
attainment demonstrations in ozone nonattainment plans.
Accordingly, EPA believes that daily emissions limits should be
considered in the development of the EIP short-term emissions
limit requirements.
112
-------
VI. EIP Cost/Environmental Considerations
In general, the EIP guidance indicates (58 FR 11121) that
savings in compliance costs can result from EIP's and that
consideration might be given to the sharing of that benefit
between the regulated sources and the environmental goals of the
Act. The EIP guidance also states (58 FR 11117) that new RACT
requirements must be based on an analysis that considers the
incentive mechanism upon which the EIP is based. The EPA's
assessment of these issues_for fuel switching is summarized
below.
A. Fuel-Switching Cost Considerations
In general, a fuel-switching program would provide new
flexibility to States and industry in meeting certain Act
requirements, including the NOx RACT requirements. , Fuel
switching is a viable option for units where natural gas is
readily available since the price of natural gas in the ozone
season may be competitive with other fuels. While still meeting
the Act requirements, industry could, in some cases, avoid much
of the initial capital and operating costs associated with
combustion modifications.
As described above, fuel switching is expected to reduce the
cost to industry of meeting the NOx RACT requirements in some
cases. In other cases, the cost of a fuel-switching program may
exceed the cost of compliance with a presumptive RACT technology
such as a low-NOx burner and overfire air. The costs of a fuel-
switching program to industry will vary greatly from unit to unit
due to the availability of gas, price of gas, extent of needed
modifications to the boiler, and monitoring requirements.
B. Fuel-Switching Environm
ental Considerations
The EPA has considered the relative environmental benefits
for fuel switching and presumptive NOx RACT. In terms of the
primary purpose of NOx1 RACT, that is reducing ozone effects in
areas of high concentrations, it is clear that the increased NOx
emissions reductions due to burning a cleaner fuel during the
ozone season would be much more effective than lesser emissions
reductions at the presumptive NOx RACT levels, which would be
evenly spread over an entire year. The use of natural gas
instead of coal could also substantially reduce annual and
summertime emissions of sulfur dioxide (S02), carbon dioxide
(CO,), PM-10 (particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or
equal to a nominal 10 micrometers), and associated toxic
emissions such as mercury. Further, emissions reductions of
these pollutants may be especially effective in the summer with
respect to reducing regional haze and sulfate-related PM-10, both
113
-------
of which tend to peak in the summer. Thus, the potential
benefits that go beyond the title I ozone and NOx PACT goals
include helping attain/maintain the NAAQS for S02 and PM-10,
reducing mercury and other air toxic emissions, improving
visibility, and cutting emissions of C02, a global warming gas.
The EPA has also considered evidence suggesting that, for
certain ecosystems, reductions in nitrogen deposition that occur
only during the summer would be less effective at reducing acid
deposition and nutrient impacts than reductions that occur
uniformly throughout the year. It is not possible at this time
to fully determine or quantify this relative ecological impact.
Moreover, due to the inherent limits on the amount of fuel
switching that can occur and the effect of titles II and IV KOx
reductions, wintertime nitrogen deposition would be projected to
decrease in most areas regardless of fuel switching. In
contrast, the ozone related and many of the additional potential
benefits of fuel switching noted above are well known and
quantifiable. In EPA's judgment, substantial additional ozone
reductions occur from fuel switching; this benefit and the
accompanying improvements in visibility, PM-10, air toxics, and
global warming that also occur from fuel switching clearly
outweigh the reduced wintertime benefits.
C. Conclusion
The above environmental and cost considerations are
important in interpreting the EIP guidance for the use of fuel
switching to meet NOx RACT. Based on these considerations, EPA
believes that, in cases where fuel switching results in a lower
cost to the source, requiring further environmental benefits
would not be necessary for fuel switching. Moreover, the
potential cost savings may need to be preserved to provide some
incentive to sources to achieve these substantial environmental
benefits.
VII. Enforcement
Each affected source in a long-term averaging program must
comply with all requirements imposed by the program. Each long-
term averaging program must:
1. Specify credible, workable, replicable and otherwise
fully enforceable methodologies for appropriately determining
compliance at all emissions units participating in the averaging
program, including methodologies for quantifying emissions, where
appropriate.
2. Require recordkeeping and reporting, consistent with the
required compliance determination methodologies, including
emissions quantification methodologies sufficient for determining
114
-------
and documenting compliance with the program. These requirements
must contain a mechanism for determining required data, including
emissions at subject emissions units when data are missing,
inadequate, or erroneous. This mechanism must ensure that owners
of emissions units have a strong incentive to properly perform
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting in the first instance.
3. Provide adequate civil and criminal sanctions for
failure to comply with applicable program requirements, including
emissions limitations and monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements. The program regulatory requirements and
enforcement authorities must preserve the level of deterrence to
noncompliance, at both the State and Federal levels, which would
have otherwise applied in the absence of the averaging program.
VIII. Projected Results and Audit Procedures
A SIP revision that contains an EIP must include projections
of the emissions reductions the State expects to achieve through
implementation of the program. All EIP submittals must include
documentation which clearly states how sources in an EIP are or
will be addressed in the emissions inventory, reasonable further
progress (RFP) plan (i.e., where the 3 percent RFP plan includes
NOx substitution for required volatile organic compounds
reductions) and attainment or maintenance plan, as applicable.
All EIP's must also contain program audit procedures
designed to evaluate program implementation and track program
results in terms of the actual emissions reductions obtained
during program implementation. The program audit provisions must
include a State commitment to ensure timely implementation of
programmatic revisions or other measures which the State, in
response to the audit, deems necessary for the successful
operation of the program.
IX. Emissions Reduction Credits fERCl
Annual emissions reductions achieved through the EIP that
exceed the annual emissions reductions that would result from
compliance with presumptive RACT may be used to establish ERG.
However, this guidance does not address establishing or trading
of seasonal ERC.
115
-------
Appendix; Annual Equivalency Calculation Methodology
A. Emissions Averaging or Emissions Cap
As described below, a long-term averaging EIP may use either
an emissions averaging or emissions cap basis to establish annual
equivalency! Under emissions averaging, if production increases,
emissions may increase proportionately; and if production
decreases, emissions must decrease accordingly. Shutdowns and
curtailments do not provide credit under an emissions averaging
program. Where an emissions cap is set, actual emissions must be
within the emissions cap for all appropriate averaging periods in
the future. Shutdowns and curtailments may provide credit under
an emissions cap under circumstances that will be described in
future guidance.
Both of these options assume that the State has determined a
RACT emissions rate value for each fuel i (up to N fuels) burned
in equipment j (for M types of equipment). The constraints in
this guidance presume that RACT is designated as an emissions
rate per unit of production (in this case heat input). The RACT
may also be designated as a percent reduction from representative
historical emissions rates.1 If a source wishes to implement a
long-term average percent reduction, the values must be converted
to emissions rate limits per unit of production.
Note, where multiple fuels are used in the base year, EPA
generally expects the presumptive RACT to be applicable to the
one primary fuel, and that different emissions rate limits would
be used for other fuels. For example, where coal has been
historically used 80 percent and oil 20 percent of the time in a
wall-fired boiler, the EPA presumptive RACT emissions limit of
0.5 (pounds of NOx per million Btu) might be used in the coal-
fired portion of the calculation; however, the EPA presumptive
RACT of 0.30 for oil might not be appropriate for the oil-fired
portion of the calculation since the presumed low NOx burner
technology designed to meet 0.5 when burning coal might not be
designed to meet 0.3 when burning oil. In this example, 0.35
might be more appropriate to include in the oil-fired portion of
the calculation; the State needs to determine the appropriate
emissions rate for the secondary fuel(s), considering the control
equipment designed to meet the primary fuel limit.
1 Generally speaking, the term "historical" means calendar
year 1990 unless another 12-month: period is more representative
of normal source operation. This alternative 12-month period
must fall between January 1990 and December 1992.
116
-------
B. Emissions Averaging
Emissions averaging allows an emissions unit to use a
production-weighted average to meet the prescribed emissions rate
limitation (in this case the presumptive RACT limit) on an annual
basis. Actual annual emissions in each future compliance period
(mass per year) must be less than the emissions that would have
occurred if the presumptive RACT limit was met.
If RACT is designated as an emissions rate limitation, then
mathematically the constraint that must be met for every annual
compliance period in the future is as follows:
Si.w,2j_i_MRACTs X Annual Heat Inputy £
Total Annual Actual NOX Emissions
Where RACTy generally equals the lowest federally enforceable
emissions rate limitation that applies to unit j using fuel i.
There are limited exceptions to this generalization where an
emissions rate lower than RACTy would apply (e.g., see the
baseline section of the EIP guidelines) . Further guidance is
expected to be released on this soon.
C. Emissions Cap
An emissions cap is an averaging approach that imposes a
limit on annual mass emissions from an emissions unit. The cap
is set using historical production rates and RACT emissions rate
limitations as shown below:
Emissions Cap = Ziml_NZj.,..MHistorical Production Rates X RACTg
Where RACT;j is defined the same as above.
D. Example Determinations of Annual Equivalency
i
a. Sinle Fuel Emissions Averaging Example
s X Annual Heat Input,,- £
Total Annual Actual NOS Emissions
i « 100% coal
j - wall-fired utility boiler
assume presumptive coal RACT » 0.5 (pounds NOx/MMBtu)
if 1996 actual annual heat input - 4 X 10* MMBtu
then actual |1996 annual emissions could not exceed:
(0.5) X (4 X 106) » 2 million pounds or 1000 tons NOx
117
-------
3
b. Single Fuel Emissions Cap Example
i = 100% coal
j - wall-fired utility boiler
assume presumptive coal RACT "0.5 (pounds NOx/MMBtu)
if historic (CY-90) production rates » 3 X 10* MMBtu/year
then the emissions cap is:
(3 X 106) X (0.5) - 1.5 million pounds or 750 tons NOx/vear
Annual emissions must1, therefore, not exceed 750 tons for all
future years.
c. Multiple Fuel Emissions Averaging Example
Zit.i.*iZj.i_MRACTs X Annual Heat Inputy £
Total Annual Actual NOX Emissions
i - 75% coal; 25% oil
j - wall-fired utility boiler
assume presumptive coal RACT =0.5 (pounds NOx/MMBtu)
assume the State has determined that the low NOx burner
technology designed for coal will result in a 0.35 emissions
rate when burning oil
if 1996 actual annual heat input (coal) = 3 X 10* MMBtu and
1996 actual annual heat input (oil) = 1 X 106 MMBtu
then actual 1996 annual emissions could not exceed:
(0.5) X (3 X 106) -1.5 million pounds plus
(0.35) X (IX 106) - 0.35 million pounds
which - 1.85 million pounds or 925 tons NOx
d. Multiple Fuel Emissions Cap Example
Emissions Cap - Z^j^Ej^^Historical Production Rate8 X RACTe
i = 66.6% coal; 33.3% oil
j - wall-fired utility boiler
assume presumptive coal RACT =0.5 (pounds NOx/MMBtu)
assume the State has determined that the low NOx burner
technology designed for coal will result in a 0.35 emissions
rate when burning oil
118
-------
if historic (CY 1990) production rates for coal - 2 X 10*
MMBtu/year and
historic (CY 1990) production rates for oil - 1 X 10* MMBtu/year,
then the emissions cap is:
(2 X 10*) X (0.5) - 1 million pounds plus
(1 X 10') X (0.35) - 0.35 million pounds
which -1.35 million pounds or 675 tons NOx
Annual emissions must, therefore, not exceed 675 tons for all
future years.
119
-------
12/19/93
STATUS OF AIR TOXICS RULES AND REPORTS
Under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to
issue, by the year 2000, regulations governing major sources of
189 hazardous air pollutants; perform, or participate in, 13
special studies of national scope, evaluate and update the EPA's
risk assessment methodologies, provide guidance to State and
local air pollution control agencies on particular provisions of
the Act; establish and maintain publicly-available data bases and
Clearinghouses; initiate voluntary emission reduction programs;
and establish a prevention program for accidental releases.
Significant progress has been made in all of the areas
mentioned. Progress has been made on proposal of standards and
reports to Congress covering the following:
Proposed Rules Issued:
Section 112(j) Equivalent Emission Limitations
Hazardous Organic NESHAP
Pulp and Paper
Industrial Cooling Towers
Chromium Electroplating
Degreasers
General Provisions
Reports to Congress:
Section 112(s) - Status Report on Toxics Program
Hydrogen Sulfide Report
A copy of the executive summary from the section 112(s)
report is provided on the following pages.
Fact sheets summarizing requirements of final regulations
issued in the last year are also provided. These include:
Final Rules Issued:
Coke Ovens
Dry Cleaning
Section 112(1) Delegation of Federal Programs
Source Category List and Schedule
Early Reductions Program
121
-------
United Slates
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
EPA/453/R-93-024
August 1993
Report to Congress on Implementation
EPA of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990
123
-------
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
i
X. INTRODUCTION
This report is being submitted to Congress in fulfillment
of the requirements of section 112(s) of the CAA. Section 112(s)
requires the EPA to submit a status report every 3 years,
beginning in 1993, on the measures taken by the EPA and the
States to implement the provisions of section 112 of the CAA.
Section 112 pertains to emissions of hazardous air pollutants
from routine as well as accidental releases. As required by
section 112(s), this report includes a summary of standards-
setting activities under section 112(d), information with respect
to the costs of compliance with such standards, and discussions
of the national urban air toxics program and the accidental
release program.
Section 112 of the CAA requires EPA to issue, by the year
2000, regulations governing major sources of 189 hazardous air
pollutants; perform, or participate in, 13 special studies of
national scope; evaluate and update the EPA's risk assessment
methodologies; provide guidance to State and local air pollution
control agencies on particular provisions of the Act; establish
and maintain publicly-available data bases and clearinghouses;
initiate voluntary emission reduction programs; and establish a
prevention program for accidental releases. The EPA has not met
all of the deadlines required by section 112 to date. However,
significant progress has been made in all of the areas mentioned
above.
In addition to section 112, other efforts the EPA has
underway under the authority of the CAA will reduce air toxics
emissions. Section 129 of Title III requires EPA to regulate
emissions from municipal solid waste incinerators. This
regulation will have a significant impact on air toxics emissions
from these sources. Title I of the CAA contains provisions
requiring the control of volatile organic compounds, and Title II
provisions relate to control of mobile source emissions. Actions
under both of these Titles will reduce air toxics. The EPA has
also initiated a voluntary emissions reduction program - the
33/50 program - which asks companies to voluntarily reduce
releases of 17 air toxics to air, land and water. All of these
efforts are also discussed in the Executive Summary because all
are means to a common ends protection of public health and the
environment from the effects of air toxics emissions.
This Executive Summary is divided into ten areas of air
toxics activities and provides an overview of each area as well
as highlights of some of the EPA's accomplishments in each. The
ten areas ares
- Emission Standards,
- Implementation Programs,
124
-------
- Special Studies/Programs,
- Technical Assistance,
- Regional Activities,
- State Activities,
- Risk Assessment Activities,
- Voluntary Programs,
- Outreach Activities, and
- Titles I and II Air Toxics Accomplishments.
Projects specific to section 112 are described individually in
Section 4.0 of this report, including discussions of compliance
costs where applicable. Other activities the EPA has undertaken
to reduce emissions of air toxics that are not required by
section 112 are also described in Section IV of this Executive
Summary, but are hot included in the detailed descriptions
provided in Section 4.0.
II. SECTION 112 REQUIREMENTS OVERVIEW
Section 112 of the CAA requires EPA, over a 10 year period,
to issue "maximum achievable control technology" (MACT) standards
which cover all major sources of 189 specified hazardous air
pollutants (SAP's). The'primary consideration in establishing
these standards must be demonstrated technology. Costs, non-air
quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements
may also play a role in setting these standards. Standards are
effective immediately, except that industries may have up to
3 years to comply with a standard for an existing source,
according to a schedule established by EPA. If EPA determines,
after MACT standards are applied, that additional standards to
protect public health and the environment are required to provide
an ample margin of safety, EPA will promulgate additional
standards.
Other provisions of section 112 require controls on area
sources to address the urban air toxics problem, measures to
prevent accidental releases, and measures to protect the Great
Lakes and coastal waters from atmospheric deposition of air
toxics. A voluntary early emissions reduction program is also
required to be established. The new amendments also place
greater emphasis than in the past on health effects other than
cancer and on the prevention of ecosystem damage.
Section 112 also recognizes the considerable role that State
and local air pollution control agencies will play in the
successful implementation of the CAA. Several provisions require
the EPA to provide guidance addressing source modifications,
delegation of State programs, and case-by-case equivalency
determinations in the event the EPA fails to issue a standard
according to the established regulatory schedule. National data
bases and clearinghouses for technical and risk assessment
ES-2
125
-------
information are also to be maintained to assist State and local
agencies and any other interested parties.
i
ZZZ. SECTION 112: THE FIRST TWO TEARS AND WHAT'S AHEAD
This section of the Executive Summary highlights the
progress the EPA has made in implementing section 112. While
this section highlights certain projects, Section 4.0 of this
report summarizes the status and achievements of all section 112
activities. The following areas are discussed here:'
- Emission Standards,
- Implementation Programs,
-.Special Studies/Programs,
•- Technical Assistance,
- Regional Activities, and
- State Activities.
Emission Standards
Although significant actions have been taken since passage
of the 1990 CAA, the EPA has not met all of the section 112
deadlines for issuance of emissions standards. Reaching the
degree of consensus necessary to issue the rules and to lay the
groundwork for effective implementation has proven to be a
lengthy process.
To date, three emission standards have been proposed. These
standards regulate synthetic organic chemical manufacturing
(otherwise known as the Hazardous Organic NESHAP, or HON
standard), commercial and industrial dry cleaners (two distinct
source categories), and steel coke ovens.
In developing the regulations implementing section 112 and
consistent with CAA section 101(c), EPA is committed to promoting
pollution prevention approaches. As part of the Source Reduction
and Review Project (SRRP), the EPA has identified 17 industrial
categories which may be affected by the development of
environmental regulations, and has committed to identifying and
promoting pollution prevention options as part of the regulatory
development process. The emission standards that are being
considered for the SRRP include:
Industrial process cateogry,
Acrylic fibers/modacrylic fibers,
Degreasing operations,
Integrated iron and steel manufacturing,
Metal products and machinery,
- Paint stripper users,
- Paints, coatings, adhesives manufacturing,
Paper and other web coatings,
ES-3
126
-------
Pesticide formulating,
Pharmaceuticals production,
Plywood/particle board manufacturing,
Polystyrene production,
Printing/publishing,
Pulp and paper production,
Reinforced plastic composite production,
Rubber chemicals manufacturing,
Styrene, butadiene latex and rubber, and
- Wood furniture manufacturing.
Related to the section 112(d) emission standards is the
Early Reductions Program required by section 112(i). The Early
Reductions Program gives industries an incentive to achieve at
least a 90 percent reduction in emissions prior to proposal of an
applicable MACT standard. In exchange, the facility would be
given 6 additional years to comply with the final emissions
standard. This program has the potential to result in
substantial emission reductions well before the compliance date
for individual section 112(d) standards. '
Achievement Highlights
The proposed HON standard requires reductions in
emissions of 149 HAP's and affects nearly 370 chemical
manufacturing plants across the nation. The HON
standard will reduce HAP emissions from this industry
by 80 percent, or an estimated 552,000 tons per year -
more than any other air toxics rule to be issued under
the CAA. This rule will also reduce volatile organic
compounds, which react to form ozone, by 1.1 million
tons per year. The proposed rule, announced in October
1992, includes requirements to reduce equipment leaks;
these requirements were developed through a regulatory
negotiation which included industry, environmental
groups, and State representatives. Also reflected in
the proposal are the results of dozens of meetings the
EPA held with the chemical industry, environmental
groups, States, and other Federal agencies.
Control technology standards for about 3,700 industrial
and large commercial dry cleaners were proposed in
November 1991 and will be finalized in September 1993.
This proposal includes a "consumption cutoffs"
provision that will exempt many small dry cleaners and
thus minimize the regulatory impacts on small business.
Regulatory negotiations produced an agreement on
regulations to reduce toxic emissions from steel
industry coke ovens. These regulations should be
finalized in September 1993. The regulatory
ES-4
127
-------
negotiation committee included 22 parties representing
EPA, States, the steel industry, labor unions and
environmental and citizen groups. Use of regulatory
negotiation also resulted in more control of emissions
than required by the CAA, as well as a lower estimate
of compliance costs for industry than was originally
anticipated during Congressional debate over the CAA.
The EPA has initiated work on 35 additional emission
standards. These include the emission standards due
4 years after enactment and several that are due 7
years after enactment. Table 1 lists the source
categories covered by this ongoing work.
The final rule for the Early Reductions Program was
announced in December 1992. As of July 1993, 91
enforceable commitments have been received and are
being reviewed. If all of these commitments are
carried out, the resulting reductions in SAP's would
total 36 million pounds by January 1, 1994.
Implementation Programs
Nine implementation programs are being developed to assist
State and local air pollution control agencies in implementing
the requirements of section 112. The EPA is working to develop
guidance for State and local agencies and, where necessary, rules
establishing EPA policy and requirements. The nine programs are:
the General Provisions which create the technical and
administrative framework for implementing section 112
standards and programs,
the section 112(c)(l) Source Category List which is an
initial list of major and area sources of SAP's,
the section 112(e) Source Category Schedule for Standards
which is a schedule for the regulation of all source
categories by November 15, 2000.
the section 112(g) Modifications rule which requires control
technology reviews for constructed, reconstructed, and
modified major sources of pollutants,
the section 112(j) Equivalent Emissions Limitations by
Permit rule which requires States to issue operating permits
to major sources based on a case-by-case control technology
assessment, if the EPA fails to promulgate a standard within
18 months of the scheduled date,
ES-5
128
-------
Table 1. Emission Standards Currently Under Development
SOURCE CATEGORY
Aerospace Industry
Auto/Light-Duty Truck
Cbelating Agents Production
Chlorine Manufacturing
Chromium Electroplating
Commercial Sterilizers
Electric Arc Furnaces: Carbon/Stainless Steel
Ferroalloys
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning - Degreasing
Iron/Steel Foundaries
Magnetic Tape
Medical Haste Incineration
Oil and Gas Production
Paper and Pulp (Combustion Sources)
Paper and Pulp (Nonconbustion Sources)
Petroleum Refinery
Polymers and Resins I
Polymers and Resins II
Polymers and Resins III
Polymers and Resins IV
Portland Cement
Primary Copper
Primary Aluminum
Printing/Publishing
Rubber Chemicals Production
Secondary Lead
Secondary Lead Smelters
Secondary Aluminum
Shipbuilding
Solid Haste Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities
Stage I (Gasoline Marketing)
Steel Pickling
Hood Treatment
Hood Furniture
Hool Fiberglass
gsggggi^aSS^SSSSSSfSSSSssssssssssi^^ssss^ssss^mmi^ ••nm m
ES-6 129
-------
the section 112(1)(1) State Programs rule which establishes
EPA requirements for the approval of State or local air
toxics rules or programs, so that the federal air toxics
program can be integrated with existing State programs,
the section 112(1)(2) State Guidance for Implementation of
Section 112(r)/ which provides guidance to States
implementing the section 112(r) accidental release
provisions,
the section 112(r) List of Regulated Substances and Risk
Management Program, which requires any facility having
greater than the established threshold quantity of listed
substances to -develop a risk management program, and
the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, which
will investigate accidental releases resulting in a
fatality, serious injury, or substantial property damage.
Achievement Highlights
In July 1992, an initial list of 174 industrial
categories potentially subject to MACT standards was
published. The list also includes eight categories of
"area sources" which are sources that emit smaller
amounts of HAP's than major sources, but were
determined by the Administrator to present a threat of
adverse effects to human health or the environment
warranting regulation under section 112.
A 10-year schedule for issuing the MACT standards was
announced for public comment in September 1992. The
draft schedule calls for the first standards to be
issued for the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing
industry, commercial and industrial dry cleaners, and
steel industry coke ovens.
A rule implementing the section 112(g) Modifications
requirements, including a list of the 189 HAP's ranked
in order of estimated hazard, has been drafted and is
currently undergoing EPA review. The technical support
documents for implementing this requirement, including
case-by-case control technology assessment, have also
been completed and are under EPA review.
The section 112(1) State Programs rule was proposed on
May 19, 1993.
The section 112(j) rule, the equivalent standard
provision was proposed on July 13, 1993.
ES-7
130
-------
The General Provisions were proposed on August 11,
1993.
Under section 112(r), EPA is required to develop a list
of at least 100 chemicals which are known or reasonably
anticipated to cause death, injury, or serious adverse
effects to human health or the environment in the event
of an accidental release. A proposed rule listing 162
substances was announced in January 1993.
Special Studies/Programs
Section 112 requires the EPA to either conduct or
participate in 13 special studies on topics ranging from risk
assessment methodologies to urban air toxics; work has been
initiated on all of them. Several special studies, such as the
Hydrogen Fluoride Study, the Hydrogen Sulfide Study and the
National Academy of Sciences Study will be completed in 1993.
The first in a series of biennial reports on the Great Waters
Program and an interim report for the Utility Study will also be
submitted to Congress in 1993. The special studies and programs
are:
Atmospheric Deposition to Great Lakes and Coastal
Waters (Great Waters Program)
Urban Area Source Program
Electric Utilities Steam Generating Units
Mercury Study
Mercury Health Effects Study
National Academy of Sciences Study
Hazardous Materials Accident Safety Review
Hydrogen Fluoride Study
Hydrogen Sulfide Study
Residual Risk Report
Coke Oven Production Technology Study
Publicly-Owned Treatment Works Study
Mickey Leland Urban Air Toxics Research Center
Achievement Highlights
The Great Waters Program under section 112(m) is
evaluating the deposition of toxic air pollutants to
the Great Lakes, Lake Champlain, Chesapeake Bay, and
other coastal waters. Master research stations have
been established in each of the Great Lakes and the
data are being used to develop Lakewide Management
Plans. The Chesapeake Bay Atmospheric Deposition Study
is providing monitoring data on deposition to this
region and other monitoring and research initiatives
are'either underway or under development for other
geographic regions. The 1993 Great Waters report to
Congress is on schedule for submission in
ES-8
131
-------
November 1993. The report will address sources of air
pollutants, relative loading of air pollutants to the
Great Waters, and exposure and effects of airborne
pollutants in those waters.
The Urban Area Source Program has a number of
activities underway that will assist in drafting the
national urban air toxics strategy, due to Congress in
1995. Three major geographical initiatives in
Baltimore, Bouston, and Chicago have been undertaken to
develop improved emission inventories. Ambient air
monitoring and receptor modeling, which is a tool for
associating emission sources with samples from the
ambient air, are also included in these efforts. A
series of national surveys has also been commenced to
better characterize the emissions of several selected
SAP's. The EPA's Office of Research and Development
has drafted a research report, which is currently
undergoing review, covering ambient monitoring, source
characterization, and consideration of atmospheric
transformation. The final research report will be
published in 1995 to complement the national urban air
toxics strategy.
The Utility Study is being coordinated with the
Electric Power Research Institute and the Department of
Energy to exchange information related to HAP emissions
from utilities and to conduct several emission tests at
representative facilities. The initial development of
a Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy system has
been completed. This system will be used to
characterize BAP emissions from utility stacks. Work
is also ongoing to design impact analyses and risk
assessments. The study is scheduled to be submitted to
Congress in November 1995.
The Mercury Study program is receiving input from
numerous interested parties including State agencies,
industry and environmental groups, other Federal
agencies and scientists in academia. A national
emissions inventory for mercury is near completion as
well as a health effects summary. Efforts well
underway include long-range transport modeling and the
enhancement of EPA's indirect exposure model. The
Report to Congress, due in November 1994, is on
schedule. The National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences has completed a final draft of their
findings on threshold levels for mercury health effects
as required by section 112(n)(l)(C) of the CAA. This
report is on schedule for a November 1993 submittal to
Congress.
ES-9
132
-------
In order to provide input to the National Academy of
Sciences' Study on risk assessment methodologies, the
EPA completed and transmitted a report to the Academy
which provided extensive information on air toxics,
regulatory case studies, and past and present
applications of EPA's risk assessment methods. The
Academy currently plans to release its report in
October 1993.
The EPA has a,lso completed a report to Congress
entitled "Review of Federal Authorities for Hazardous
Materials Accident Safety" as required by section
112(r)(10). The report is currently being reviewed by
OMB.
The reports on hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen sulfide
are both being finalized for publication in September
and October 1993, respectively.
The Mickey Leland Urban Air Toxics Research Center has
been established and has received $300,000 in funding
which will be used to fund research focused on the
effects of air toxics on human populations.
Technical Assistance
Section 112(s) requires EPA to maintain a data base on
pollutants and sources subject to the provisions of section 112
and to include aggregate information from the data base in each
triennial report. Individual data bases have already been
established for several of the emissions standards projects.
Where applicable, information from these data bases has been
included in the project updates in Section 4.0 of this report.
In addition, there are efforts underway to expand and enhance
EPA's national data base, the Aerometric Information Retrieval
System (AIRS), to include air toxics information, specifically
for major sources of HAP's. Thus, information collected on the
major sources|of these pollutants would be stored in one data
base. The EPA is also exploring what types of information will
be needed for area sources of HAP's and what data base or data
bases will be used to manage these data. Subsequent reports on
section 112 implementation will include updated information from
the data bases.
Section 112(1)(3) of the CAA requires the EPA to maintain an
air toxics clearinghouse and centers to provide technical
information and assistance to State and local agencies and, on a
cost recovery basis, to others on control technology, health and
ES-10
133
-------
November 1993. The report will address sources of air
pollutants, relative loading of air pollutants to the
Great Waters, and exposure and effects of airborne
pollutants in those waters.
The Urban Area Source Program has a number of
activities underway that will assist in drafting the
national urban air toxics strategy, due to Congress in
1995. Three major geographical initiatives in
Baltimore, Houston, and Chicago have been undertaken to
develop improved emission inventories. Ambient air
monitoring and receptor modeling, which is a tool for
associating emission sources with samples from the
ambient air, are also included in these efforts. A
series of national surveys has also been commenced to
better characterize the emissions of several selected
HAP's. The EPA's Office of Research and Development
has drafted a research report, which is currently
undergoing review, covering ambient monitoring, source
characterization, and consideration of atmospheric
transformation. The final research report will be
published in 1995 to complement the national urban air
toxics strategy.
The Utility Study is being coordinated with the
Electric Power Research Institute and the Department of
Energy to exchange information related to HAP emissions
from utilities and to conduct several emission tests at
representative facilities. The initial development of
a Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy system has
been completed. This system will be used to
characterize HAP emissions from utility stacks. Work
is also ongoing to design impact analyses and risk
assessments. The study is scheduled to be submitted to
Congress in November 1995.
The Mercury Study program is receiving input from
numerous interested parties including State agencies,
industry and environmental groups, other Federal
agencies and scientists in academia. A national
emissions inventory for mercury is near completion as
well as a health effects summary. Efforts well
underway include long-range transport modeling and the
enhancement of EPA's indirect exposure model. The
Report to Congress, due in November 1994, is on
schedule. The National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences has completed a final draft of their
findings on threshold levels for mercury health effects
as required by section 112(n)(l)(C) of the CAA. This
report is on schedule for a November 1993 submittal to
Congress.
ES-9
132
-------
In order to provide input to the National Academy of
Sciences' Study on risk assessment methodologies, the
EPA completed and transmitted a report to the Academy
which provided extensive information on air toxics,
regulatory case studies, and past and present
applications of EPA's risk assessment methods. The
Academy currently plans to release its report in
October 1993.
The EPA has also completed a report to Congress
entitled "Review of Federal Authorities for Hazardous
Materials Accident Safety" as required by section
112(r)(10). The report is currently being reviewed by
OMB;
The reports on hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen sulfide
are both being finalized for publication in September
and October 1993, respectively.
The Mickey Leiand Urban Air Toxics Research Center has
been established and has received $300,000 in funding
which will be used to fund research focused on the
effects of air toxics on human populations.
Technical Assistance
Section 112(s) requires EPA to maintain a data base on
pollutants and sources subject to the provisions of section 112
and to include aggregate information from the data base in each
triennial report. Individual data bases have already been
established for several of the emissions standards projects.
Where applicable, information from these data bases has been
included in the project updates in Section 4.0 of this report.
In addition, there are efforts underway to expand and enhance
EPA's national data base, the Aerometric Information Retrieval
System (AIRS), to include air toxic's information, specifically
for major sources of HAP's. Thus, information collected on the
major sources Iof these pollutants would be stored in one data
base. The EPA is also exploring what types of information will
be needed for area sources of HAP's and what data base or data
bases will be used to manage these data. Subsequent reports on
section 112 implementation will include updated information from
the data bases.
Section 112(1)(3) of the CAA requires the EPA to maintain an
air toxics clearinghouse and centers to provide technical
information and assistance to State and local agencies and, on a
cost recovery basis, to others on control technology, health and
ES-10
133
-------
ecological risk assessment, risk analysis, ambient monitoring and
modeling and emissions measurement and monitoring.
Three technical assistance centers and a bulletin board
system that deal primarily with air toxics issues are being
operated and maintained. These are:
the Control Technology Center (CTC), which, in 1986,
began to provide emission and control technology
assistance to State and local agencies as well as
industry. The CTC services include a hotline, a
computerized bulletin board which provides access to
numerous other information systems, in-depth analysis
of specific questions and publication of technical
guidance on issues of national or regional interest.
In early 1992, the CTC became the focal point for
coordination of efforts among the four EPA information
centers participating in the Federal Small Business
Assistance Program. This program provides support
primarily to the State small business assistance
programs required under section 507 of the CAA.
Assistance provided by this program includes
information on Federal air pollution standards, air
pollution control technologies, air emission testing
and monitoring methods, accidental chemical release
prevention, hazardous chemical emergency planning, and
pollution prevention methods.
the National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse
(NATICH), which was established in 1984 as a
cooperative effort by EPA, the State and Territorial
Air Pollution Program Administrators, and the
Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials.
Components of NATICH include a computerized data base
containing State and local information on air toxics
and air toxics programs, a bimonthly newsletter, a
telephone helpline, and publication of various special
reports.
the Air Risk Information Support Center (Air.RISC),
established in 1988, assists State and local agencies,
other Federal agencies, and the public with questions
concerning risk, exposure, and health effects of air
pollutants. Air RISC serves as a focal point for
providing health effects information primarily through
operation of a hotline staffed by EPA scientists. The
Air RISC also publishes special reports such as
citizen's guides and publications dealing with specific
pollutants.
ES-11
134
-------
the EPA Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) computer
bulletin board system that contains information on air
toxics. The bulletin board is easily accessed with a
computer and modem and stores information such as text
of recently-signed air toxics rules, policy and
guidance documents, and summaries of air toxics and
other provisions.
The EPA is also currently operating two information centers
which deal with ambient modeling and monitoring and emissions
measurement and monitoring. These are the Emissions Measurement
Technical Information Center (EMTIC) and the Ambient Monitoring
Technical Information Center (AMTIC).
Achievement Highlights
Services provided by the CTC were accessed over 15,000
times in fiscal year 1992. This includes over 2,700
calls to the hotline and more than 5,800 requests for
CTC documents. This includes over 300 requests for
documents specifically prepared for small businesses.
The CTC bulletin board system was accessed more than
4,400 times, while the Reasonably Available Control
Technology/Best Available Control Technology/Lowest
Achievable Emission Rate (RACT/BACT/LAER) Clearinghouse
Information System was accessed almost 2,000 times.
Since enactment of the CAA, NATICH has expanded its
bulletin board system to include the NATICH Newsletter,
files from the Toxics Release Inventory, and a list of
annual publications from the Office of Research and
Development. Also since enactment, the NATICH helpline
has received more than 1,200 calls and the NATICH data
base of State and local air toxics information was
accessed more than 5,400 times. The NATICH Newsletter
is currently distributed to approximately 2,100
subscribers.
The Air RISC hotline has seen demand for its services
increase by over 30 percent since enactment of the CAA.
The hotline staff has responded to over 3,500 calls
since 1988 with the average number of calls received
numbering about 900 per year. The Air RISC has also
expanded its services to include all air pollutants
rather than just air toxics.
The EPA's AIRS data base is being expanded to
accommodate air toxics information. The plan is for
States to provide information on pollutants and sources
available from their files and for EPA to provide
information from source surveys. With these
ES-12
135
-------
enhancements, the EPA expects the data base to become a
national repository of air toxics information.
EPA Regional Activities
The ten EPA Regional offices have all made implementation of
section 112 a high priority. Significant efforts have focused on
conducting outreach activities for the Early Reduction program,
including workshops, guidance materials, and numerous meetings
and presentations. The outreach activities have included
industry as well as the States in the various Regions. The
Regional offices are also working with individual States to
ensure that the necessary State legislative authority exists to
implement and enforce the section 112 requirements. Regional
office staff are also extensively involved in EPA work groups
that are working to interpret and implement the CAA provisions.
State Activities
Major efforts at the State and local level since enactment
of the CAA have focused on how best to integrate the new CAA
requirements into existing State and local air toxics programs.
Representatives from State and local agencies are active
participants bn informal EPA work groups for every section 112
program and emission standard with emphasis on the Early
Reductions Program, section 112(g) Modifications, and
section 112(1) State Programs. Considerable effort is also being
expended on helping the States develop rules to expand their
legal authority to accept delegation of section 112 requirements.
IV. BEYOND SECTION 112: OTHER AIR TOXICS ACTIVITIES
Although section 112(s) requires the body of this report to
address only ongoing section 112 air toxics activities, the EPA
is including discussion of how it is implementing other programs
to reduce emissions of air toxics. This section of the Executive
Summary highlights several of these activities. The following
areas are discussed here, but are not included in the detailed
descriptions in Section 4.0 of this -report:
- Risk Assessment Activities,
- Outreach Activities,
- Voluntary Programs, and
- Titles Z and II Air Tbxics Accomplishments.
Risk Assessment Activities
Although the more immediate focus of Title III is on
development of control technology-based emission standards, the
EPA also has several efforts underway to improve the EPA's risk
assessment capabilities. These efforts range from acquiring
ES-13
136
-------
better health effects data to improving exposure models. The EPA
will then be prepared to meet the provisions of section 112(f)
which requires the EPA to evaluate whether additional standards
are necessary to protect human health and the environment after
application of section 112(d) controls. The risk assessment
activities currently underway include:
development of health effects benchmarks to evaluate
short-term exposures,
development of a tiered modeling approach (level of
modeling/monitoring increases as available data
increases) for conducting risk assessments,
revision of the EPA's cancer guidelines,
toxicity testing efforts, being performed by EPA's
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances,
to generate needed health data for toxic pollutants,
and '
improvement of EPA's exposure models.
Achievement Highlights
The EPA's exposure modeling capabilities have been
significantly improved by adding a feature that allows
better characterization of uncertainties associated
with risk estimates.
A tiered modeling approach for conducting risk
assessments was published in February 1992.
A pilot study to write a test rule for 16 HAP's is in
progress to determine if testing options under the
Toxics Substances Control Act would provide sufficient
health data for CAA purposes.
Revisions to the EPA's cancer guidelines have been
drafted and are undergoing EPA review.
Voluntary Programs
In addition to the Early Reductions Program discussed above,
the EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
has initiated another voluntary program. The 33/50 project,
begun in February 1991, asks companies to voluntarily reduce
releases of 17 pollutants to the air, water, and soil.
ES-14
137
-------
Achievement Highlights
As of July 1993, 1157 companies had pledged their
support for the 33/50 program by agreeing to reduce
their releases of the 17 chemicals by 354 million
pounds.
Outreach Activities
The EPA has devoted considerable effort to outreach
activities beyond providing the technical assistance required by
section 112(1). For example, the EPA developed and sponsored the
Hazardous Air Pollutants Implementation Workshop for State and
local agencies, and a workshop highlighting risk assessment
issues.
Achievement Highlights
The EPA developed and sponsored the Hazardous Air
'Pollutants Workshop which dealt specifically with
section 112 issues. The workshop was attended by 240
participants with representatives from 37 State
agencies, 22 local agencies, and all ten EPA regional
offices. Also in 1992, a workshop was convened to
facilitate discussion between EPA and State and local
agencies on risk assessment issues. Three EPA offices
were represented along with nine State and local
agencies. As a result of this workshop, EPA now hosts
a monthly conference call on risk assessment issues
which is open to all State and local agencies and EPA
Regional offices.
Titles I and II Air Toxics Accomplishments
In addition to Title III, Titles I and II of the CAA contain
provisions that, when implemented, will also serve to reduce air
toxics emissions. Title I deals with attainment and maintenance
of the national ambient air quality standards. For geographical
areas that do not achieve a national ambient air quality standard
(called nonattainment areas), Title I includes a system that
classifies the areas by the severity of the ozone pollution
within their borders. In order of increasing severity, the
classifications are marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and
extreme. Title I requires EPA to publish Control Techniques
Guidelines (CTG's) for several source categories. The CTG's
describe reasonable achievable control technologies (RACT)
effective in reducing emissions of volatile organic compounds
(VOC's) which react to form ozone. Because most HAP's are also
VOC's, concomitant control of HAP's will generally occur when
the CTG's are implemented. Similarly, numerous provisions under
Title II of the CAA will significantly reduce air toxics
ES-15
138
-------
emissions from mobile sources. For example, requirements for
reformulated gasoline will reduce toxic emissions by at least 15
percent by 1995, and 20 percent by the year 2000. Reductions in
toxic emissions will also be realized from vehicle inspection and
maintenance programs, reductions in evaporative emissions and
diesel particulate emissions, and clean-fuel vehicle programs.
Achievement Highlights
Significant progress has been made on 11 CT6 documents.
Eight CTG's are in the process of being finalized, and
three others are being coordinated with work ongoing to
develop national emission standards for the same source
categories. The status of the CTG's is summarized in
Table 2.
States were required to submit as part of their Title I
State implementation plans (SIP's) VOC RACT rule
corrections by May 15, 1991, for all ozone nonat-
tainment areas rated marginal and above. These
corrected rules now have tighter limits or are more
easily enforced. The corrections cover VOC source
categories for -;hich EPA had issued CTG's prior to the
CAA and other major sources of VOC. This has resulted
in greater VOC emission reductions.
States were required to submit, as part of their
Title I SIP's, VOC "RACT catch-up" rules by November
15, 1992, for all moderate and above ozone nonat-
tainment areas. Rules had to cover VOC source
categories for which EPA had Issued CTG's prior to the
CAA and other major sources of VOC. These rules will
shortly result in VOC reductions from new VOC rules
that were never previously required in new
nonattainment; areas or new portions of existing
nonattainment areas.
States were required to submit, as part of their
Title I SIP's, Stage II (vehicle refueling) vapor
recovery rules by November 15, 1992, for all moderate
and above ozone nonattainment areas. Moderate areas
may eventually not be required to install Stage II
vapor recovery since EPA plans to issue regulations for
onboard refueling controls for new vehicles. Even so,
serious and above ozone nonattainment areas were to
have adopted the program and will shortly begin
experiencing VOC emission reductions from the controls.
• The EPA has implemented reformulated gasoline
initiatives to reduce motor vehicle pollut (including
air toxics). In July 1991, April 1992, and February
1993, standards were proposed addressing several
ES-16
139
-------
different aspects of the reformulated gasoline
regulations which, as described above, will
significantly reduce emissions of toxic air pollutants.
Final rules announced in 1991 that affect the sulfur
content of diesel fuel will substantially cut diesel
particulate pollution from urban buses. The EPA also
finalized rules in March 1993 for urban buses that will
reduce diesel particulate emissions (including HAP's
that are particulates) 95 percent from uncontrolled
levels.
Vehicle inspection and maintenance programs, required
in certain ozone nonattainment areas were finalized in
November 1992. These programs will reduce emissions of
VOC's (including HAP's) by 5 to 30 percent.
A study on motor vehicle-related air toxics, required
by section 202(6) of the CAA, was finalized on
April 30, 1993. Section 202(6) also requires EPA to
promulgate regulations by May 15, 1995 that apply at a
minimum to benzene and formaldehyde.
ES-17
140
-------
Table 2. Status of Control Techniques Guidelines Documents
CT6 Source Category*
SOCMI Distillation
SOCMI Reactors
Industrial Wastewater
Volatile Organic Liquid
Storage Tanks
Batch Processes
Offset Lithography
Plastic Parts - Auto
Plastic Parts - Other
Wood Furniture
Aerospace
Shipbuilding
Status
(as of July 1993)
Final document scheduled for
publication in Summer 1993.
Draft in OMB review.
Draft in final EPA review,
prior to submittal to OMB.
Being coordinated with section
112 standards due i*» November
1994.
SOCMI means synthetic organic cnemxcal manufacturing industry.
ES-18
141
-------
FACT SHEETS
FOR FINAL
MACT STANDARDS
142
-------
FACT SHEET
COKE OVEN NESHAP
* Coke is used in_blast furnaces for the conversion of iron
ore to iron, which can be further refined to produce steel.
The conversion of coal to coke is performed in coke oven
batteries. A battery consists of a group of ovens connected
by common walls.
« Coke oven emissions are among the most toxic of all air
pollutants. Emissions from coke ovens include a mixture of
polycyclic organic matter, benzene, and other chemicals that
can cause cancer. Occupational exposure studies of coke
oven workers have shown statistically significant excess
mortality from cancers of the respiratory tract, kidney, and
prostate and all cancer sites combined.
* At the current level of control, coke oven batteries emit an
estimated 1660 MG/yr of coke oven emissions (810 MG from
doors, lids, offtakes, and charging; and 850 MG from by-pass
stacks).
* The risk of contracting cancer for the population exposed to
coke oven emissions is high. The risk to an individual
exposed to the maximum concentration (maximum individual
risk) ranges from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100 with more than
half the facilities having a maximum risk greater than 1 in
1,000.
REGULATORY BACKGROUND
« EPA and states have long been concerned about the health
effects associated with coke oven emissions.
4 EPA initiated a regulatory examination of coke oven
emissions in the late 1970's and proposed a regulation to
control these emissions in 1987.
+ EPA and the Administration worked with Congress to develop
new provisions to control coke oven emissions in the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990. In the Amendments, Congress
recognized the significant health effects associated with
coke oven emissions.
* The new coke oven standards were proposed in the Federal
Register on December 4, 1992. The 1987 proposal was
withdrawn.
* A public hearing was held in Philadelphia, PA on January 15,
1993 to allow participation by local citizens who requested
the public hearing.
143
-------
A total of 61 comments were received and considered in
developing the final standard.
N AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1990
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 include sweeping and
complex provisions to limit emissions from both new and
existing coke ovens.
The Amendments require EPA to issue by December 31, 1992
coke oven emissions standards for maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) for new and existing sources, and an even
tighter control limit called "lowest achievable emissions
rate" (LAER) for certain existing sources to be promulgated
by December 31, 1992. The coke oven MACT and LAER standards
will establish emission limits for a variety of different
aspects of coke oven facilities, including coke oven doors,
lids, offtakes, and seconds of charging.
The Clean Air Act also requires EPA to issue "work practice
standards" with Industry compliance by November 15, 1993,
and so-called "residual risk" standards by November 15,
2000. These residual risk provisions require EPA to examine
the remaining risk to the public after technology-based
standards are imposed and to further reduce emissions, if
appropriate.
The coke oven emissions standards apply to all new and
existing facilities that produce coke. The Amendments allow
the coke oven industry a choice of two tracks of compliance.
We call these tracks the "LAER" extension track and the
"MACT" track.
LAER EXTENSION TRACK: Affected companies can elect to
qualify for an extension of compliance with the "residual
risk" standards beyond the 01/01/03 compliance date by doing
the following:
Comply with Clean Air Act limits by 11/15/93
Comply with LAER limits by 01/01/98
Comply with revised LAER limits by 01/01/10
Comply with residual risk standard by 01/01/20
MACT TRACK; Companies can elect not to defer compliance
with residual risk standards. These ovens must:
Comply with existing source MACT limits by 12/31/95.
Comply with residual risk standard by 01/01/03.
Companies commencing construction of their ovens after
December 4, 1992 (proposal date) must meet New Source MACT
requirements, except for replacement capacity.
144
-------
EPA has made widespread use of consultation in developing
rules under the Clean Air Act. In some rulemakings
including coke oven emissions, EPA has used formal
regulatory negotiation, where parties negotiate and sign a
formal agreement that becomes the basis for EPA's proposed
rule.
The Coke Ovens Regulatory Negotiation Committee is comprised
of several interested parties: Environmental groups such as
the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Group
Against Smog and Pollution (GASP), Industry associations
such as American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) and
American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute (ACCCI),
representatives from the Steel Worker's Union, and State and
local agencies.
The Committee held a series of public meetings and informal
workshops to identify and resolve the many issues associated
with the regulation. At the final negotiating session on
October 8, 1992, the Committee members conceptually resolved
all outstanding major issues and decided to reach final
agreement after reviewing and concurring on the draft
regulation. The final Coke Oven Standard reflects the
agreements reached by this Committee.
The negotiated agreement meets -- and in some cases
exceeds -- the environmental goals of the coke oven
provisions in the Clean Air Act. The agreement also
provides industry with flexibility that will significantly
reduce compliance costs.
Increased Emission Reduction; The Committee has agreed
that flares be required to control emissions of raw
coke oven gas during venting episodes. Flares will
eliminate 850 MG/yr of coke oven emissions. The MACT
and LAER standards will result in reductions of coke
oven emissions from the doors, lids, offtakes and
charging ranging from 540 to 720 MG/yr. (66% to 90%
reduction)
Consistent Monitoring; Under the agreement, coke oven
inspectors will have to undergo a rigorous
certification program to qualify as observers. Also,
the inspectors will be chosen by the enforcement agency
instead of the company. These requirements ensure
fairness and consistency in the application of the
method.
145
-------
Improved Compliance; Industry has agreed to pay the
enforcement agency or an independent contra'ctor to
monitor their coke oven batteries daily. This means
there will be enforcement presence at every battery in
the country every day. This is another significant
result which we would not have achieved through normal
regulation development.
Work Practices; The work practice standards would
require new or existing coke oven batteries to develop
a written plan describing emission control work
practices to be implemented for each battery. The plan
must include provisions for training and procedures for
controlling emissions from the battery. Work practices
are implemented when performance standards are not in
effect or when emission limits are violated.
Alternative Door Leak Standard; The agreement provides
industry the flexibility of an alternative door leak
standard for coke oven batteries equipped with sheds.
The alternative standard will be determined on a case-
by-case basis, but it must achieve a greater reduction
of coke oven emissions than the original door leak
standard.
IMPACTS
4 Coke Oven emissions: reduction of 1390 to 1570 MG/year.
* Annualized cost: increase of $84 million by 1998.
• MACT Captial cost: $66 million by 1995.
« LAER Capital cost: $444 million by 1998.
PRE
Another provision of the Clean Air Act Amendments is for the
Department of Energy and EPA to jointly undertake a 6 -year
study to assess coke oven emission control technologies and
assist in the development and commercialization of viable
control technologies which have the potential to
significantly reduce emissions from coke ovens. Each
proposed project must be cost- shared, with Federal funding
not to exceed 50% of the cost. A solicitation for research,
development, and demonstration projects was announced by DOE
in the June 2, 1992, issue of Commerce Business Daily.
146
-------
MACT AND LAER: The negotiated agreement includes the
emission limits outlined in the following table. All
numbers are rolling averages of the last thirty readings;
that is, if no reading is taken on a day, nothing is entered
for that day. The states are responsible for conducting the
daily readings and nothing in this rulemaking precludes
citizen suits under the Clean Air Act.
smcT TRACK
LIDSPLL
% leaking lids
OFFTAKES FLO
% leaking offtakes
CHARGING Gog)
s/charge
DOORS PLD
% leaking doors
TALL
SHORT
FOUNDRY
12/31/95
0.6
3.0
12
6.0
5.5
5.5
Beyond 2003
(most meet
residual risk)
0.6
3.0
12
5.5
5.0
5.0
LASR. TRACK
11/15/93
(Act's
Limits)
0.83
4.2
12
7.0
7.0
7.0
1/1/98
0.4
2.5
12
4.3
3.8
4.3
1/1/10
0.4
2.5
12
4.0
3.3
4.0
147
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
3 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FROM PERCHLOROETHYLENE DRY CLEANING FACILITIES--FINAL RULE
FACT SHEET
BACKGROUND
• Dry cleaners are a major source of perchloroethylene
(also referred to as PCE, PERC, tetrachloroethene, and
tetrachloroethylene), one of the toxic air pollutants
Congress has required the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to regulate under the Clean Air Act of 1990. PCE
is known to cause cancer in animals and is suspected to
cause cancer in humans. PCE also has non-cancer toxic
effects that make it desirable to minimize PCE emissions.
• Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, the EPA proposed
on December 9, 1991, national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) to limit PCE emissions
from both new (constructed on or after December 9, 1991)
and existing (constructed before December 9, 1991) dry
cleaning facilities.
• In response to public comments received on the proposal,
a notice of availability of new information on control of
PCE emissions during clothing transfer was published on
October 1, 1992. Additional comments were received.
i
• The final rule was published on September 22, 1993, in
the Federal Register, volume 58, starting on page 49356.
REQUIREMENTS OF THE EPA DRY CLEANER RULE
• The rule breaks dry cleaners into three separate
categories--small "area" sources, large "area" sources,
and ^major" sources--and contains different requirements
for each category. (See Table 1.)
• There are two types of dry cleaning machine systems:
dry-to-dry and transfer. A dry-to-dry machine consists
of one machine, which does both the washing and the
drying of the articles being cleaned. A transfer machine
consists of two machines: a washer and a dryer.
Transfer of clothing between a washer and a dryer is
considered to be a significant source of emissions.
1 of 6
148
-------
TABLE 1. REQUIREMENTS OF THE PCE DRY CLEANING NESHAP (PAGE 1 OF 2)
Requirement
Small Area Source
Large Area Source
Major Source
Applicability!
Dry Cleaning
Facilities with:
(1) Only Dry-to-Dry
Machines
(2) Only Transfer
Machines
(3) Both Dry-to-Dry
and Transfer
Machines
Consuming less than:
140 gallons PCE/year
200 gallons PCE/year
140 gallons PCE/year
Consuming equal to
or between:
140-2,100 gallons
PCE/year
200-1,800 gallons
PCE/year
140-1,800 gallons
PCE/year
Consuming more
than:
2,100 gallons
PCE/year
1,800 gallons
PCE/year
1,800 gallons
PCE/year
Process Vent Controls
Existing
Facilities
None
Refrigerated condenser (or equivalent)
Carbon adsorbers installed on existing
machines before 9/22/93 can remain
New Facilities
Refrigerated condenser (or equivalent)
Refrigerated
condenser and small
carbon adsorber
(or equivalent)
Fugitive Controls:
Existing
Facilities
Leak deteci. ton/repair -
Store all PCE solvent & waste in sealed
containers
Transfer machine
systems are
contained inside a
room enclosure
New
Leak detection/repair
Store all PCE solvent & waste in sealed containers
No new transfer machine systems allowed
-------
TABLE 1. REQUIREMENTS OF THE PCE DRY CLEANING NESHAP (PAGE 2 OF 2)
Requirement
Small Area Source
Large Area Source
Major Source
Monitoring;
New: Same as large
area source
Existing: None
Refrigerated condenser (RC): Measure the
RC outlet temperature at the end of the
cycle on a dry-to-dry machine or dryer.
(Needs to be less than or equal to
45 OF.) Measure the RC inlet and outlet
temperature difference on a washer.
(Needs to be greater or equal to 20 °F.)
Carbon adsorber (CA): Measure the PCE
concentration out of the CA with a
colorimetric detector tube. (Needs to be
less than or equal to 100 ppm.)
Operation/Maintenance:
Operate and maintain dry cleaninc
manufacturer's specifications anc
systems according to
recommendations.
o
en
Records;
Each facility must maintain records of PCE purchases and the
calculation of yearly PCE consumption each month, along with
dated records of all monitoring and leak detection and repair
activities. The last five years of records must be kept.
Reporting &
Compliance;
Existing
Facilities
Each facility must submit an initial report by December 20, 1993
and compliance report by January 19, 1994. Reports must be
certified by a responsible official. Each facility also has
until December 20, 1993 to comply with pollution prevention and
record-keeping requirements. Large Area and Major facilities
must comply with process controls by September 23, 1996 and must
submit an additional compliance report by October 22, 1996.
New
Facilities
All other new facilities must comply upon start-up with all
requirements and submit a compliance report within 30 days from
the date the dry cleaner must be in compliance. However, there
are special compliance and notification requirements for dry
cleaning systems that were constructed during December 9, 1991
and September 21, 1993.
-------
The EPA's final rule requires all new dry cleaning
machines to be dry-to-dry machines. It does not,
however, require the replacement of existing transfer
machines with new dry-to-dry machines.
There are two sources of PCE emissions at dry cleaning
facilities: process vent emissions (that is, the dry
cleaning machine vent); and fugitive emissions (for
example, clothing transfer, equipment leaks, and solvent
exposed to air, and so forth) . Process vent emissions
are controlled through the use of refrigerated condensers
or carbon adsorbers. Fugitive emissions from clothing
transfer at transfer machines are controlled through room
enclosures. Other fugitive emissions are controlled
through leak detection and repair, keeping PCE and PCE
wastes in sealed containers, keeping machine doors shut,
and proper operation and maintenance of equipment .
The EPA' s rule requires control of process vent emissions
at all new dry cleaning facilities. It also requires
control of process vent emissions at existing large area
source and major source dry cleaning facilities.
The rule requires control of fugitive emissions at all
new dry cleaning facilities. It also requires control of
fugitive emissions at all existing dry cleaning
facilities. However, only transfer machines at major
source dry cleaning facilities are required to control
fugitive emissions by installing a room enclosure.
The rule requires the use of refrigerated condensers to
control process vent emissions at new dry cleaning
facilities. It also requires the use of refrigerated
condensers to control process vent emissions at existing
dry cleaning facilities, except those existing facilities
that have already installed a carbon adsorber for control
of process vent emissions prior to September 22, 1993.
These facilities may continue to use this carbon adsorber
to comply with the requirements of the rule.
All existing dry cleaners must submit an initial
notification report by December 20, 1993, to the EPA
Region for each of their locations. The notification
reporting requirements are in the rule. Forms supplied by
EPA may be used to fulfill this notification requirement.
Dry cleaning systems that were constructed between
December-9, 1991, and September 21, 1993, can .either meet
the requirements for new facilities or comply with the
special rule of Section 112 (i) (2) of the Clean Air. Act.
For assistance with complying with the special rule,
refer to the EPA forms or contact EPA.
4 of 6
151
-------
• Each existing facility must comply with all requirements
of the rule except for the refrigerated condenser by
December 20, 1993. Existing large area source and major
source dry cleaning facilities must comply with
installing a refrigerated condenser and also, for any
major source transfer machines, a room enclosure, by
September 23, 1996. All new dry cleaning facilities must
comply with the rule when they begin operation. However,
dry cleaning systems that were constructed between
December 9, 1991, and September 21, 1993, can either
comply with the requirements for new facilities or comply
with the special rule of Section 112 (i) (2) of the Clean
Air Act. For assistance with complying with the special
rule, refer to the EPA forms or contact EPA.
• Each existing facility must submit a compliance report to
'EPA certifying that the facility is in compliance with
all the requirements of the rule except for the
refrigerated condenser installation requirement by
January 19, 1994. Existing large area source and major
source dry cleaning facilities must submit an additional
compliance report to EPA certifying that the facility is
in compliance with the control requirements for a
refrigerated condenser and also, for any major source
transfer machines, a room enclosure, by October 22, 1996.
All new dry cleaners must submit a compliance report
within 30 days from the date the dry cleaner constructs
the new facility or installed the new dry cleaning
machine or dry cleaning system.
IMPACTS
• Nationwide Impacts
Note: Impacts are estimates given for 1996. 1996
is the year that all facilities must comply with the
rule, and will be the first year that the
rule is expected to have its maximum impact.
In 1996 about 25,000 commercial and industrial dry
cleaning facilities will be in.operation. Although
the dry cleaning industry's growth is currently
stable, about 7,700 of these 25,000 facilities will
be new facilities built to replace existing
facilities that retire. Of these 7,700 new
facilities, about 400 are estimated to be
uncontrolled in the absence of the rule and, as a
result of the rule, will be required to install
process vent control. In addition, the EPA rule
will require about 3,200 existing uncontrolled
facilities to install controls on process vents.
5 of 6
152
-------
The rule will result in a total maximum national
PCE emissions reduction of 6,600 megagrams (Mg)
(7,300 tons) from projected 1996 emission levels.
Energy: Total maximum national increase in
electricity use (needed to operate the control
devices) of 280,000 kilowatt hours per year
(kwh/yr) in 1996 for new facilities and 2.5 million
kwh/yr for existing facilities.
Annualized Cost: Total national increase of
$0.5 million per year for new dry cleaning
facilities and $3.4 million per year for existing
facilities in 1996.
Capital Cost: Total national increase of
$3 million for new dry cleaning facilities and
$32 million for existing dry cleaning facilities in
1996.
• Typical facility impacts for an existing, uncontrolled,
35-pound dry-to-dry machine located at an area source:
Perchloroethylene Emission Reductions: Individual
reduction of 0.82 megagrams per year (0.91 tons per
year) from projected 1996 emission levels.
Wastewater: Total maximum increase of
0.03 kilograms per year (0.07 pounds per year) of
PCE in wastewater in 1996.
f
Solid Waste: No increase for the typical facility.
Noise: No incremental impacts.
Energy: The increase in electricity use (needed to
operate refrigerated condenser) of 604 kilowatt
hours (kwh) per year in 1996.
Annualized Cost: Increase of $1,100 per year in
1996. This includes the annualized cost of
purchasing a refrigerated condenser and the annual
operation and maintenance costs associated with the
refrigerated condenser.
Capital Cost: Increase of $6,300 year in 1996.
This is the average cost of a refrigerated
condenser.
Please Note; This fact sheet is not a substitute for reading and
understanding the EPA PCE dry cleaning rule.
6 of 6
153
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
* ^"97 8 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
\ ^\'/~ * Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
FACT SHEET
SECTION 112 (1) - DELEGATION OF FEDERAL AIR TOXICS PROGRAMS
TO STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES
WHAT IS SECTION 112(1) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT?
* Section 112(1) provides flexibility for State and local
agencies in meeting Federal requirements for controlling air
toxics. Air toxics are air pollutants known or suspected of
causing cancer or other serious health or environmental
effects, such as birth defects or reproductive effects.
• Section 112(1) allows State and local air pollution control
agencies, at their option, to:
• substitute a Federal air toxics rule with an EPA
approved industry-specific State rule that is no less
stringent (e.g. an existing or new State rule requiring
equivalent or greater emission reductions from the
chemical manufacturing industry) or
• substitute Federal air toxics rules with an EPA
approved State air toxics program that is not less
stringent than the Federal air toxics rules
• Section 112(1) also establishes the framework for EPA to
delegate to States the authority to implement and enforce
unchanged Federal air toxic standards.
WHO CAN USE THE SECTION 112(1) nnrfTf?
State and local air pollution control agencies, territories,
Indian tribes that wish to receive approval for delegation of
authority to implement and enforce:
1) air toxics standards established by EPA under section
112 of the Act.
2) State rules and programs that differ from Federal
air toxics standards under section 112 of the Act.
154
-------
HOW DOES THE SECTION 112(1) ROLE WORK?
* States that wish to obtain approval of State rules that
differ from the Federal section 112 standards have options
of one or any combination of:
1. Adjusting a Federal rule - For this option, there is a
"pre-approved" list of adjustments that the State or local
air pollution control agency may make to a Federal rule.
2. Substituting State authorities for a Federal rule -
This option involves a comparison of a state rule or broad
State authorities to a Federal rule. Demonstration of
stringency is based on source-level emission reductions.
3. Substituting a State program for Federal emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants - For this option,
States provide an upfront commitment through State law to
regulate every source and emission point affected by Federal
standards, and to incorporate the requirements into the
operating permit in a format that matches the Federal
requirement .
• The following are applicable to all options as well as for
delegation of unchanged Federal section 112 standards:
* States submit approval packages for EPA review
• State rules or programs must meet specified criteria
for approval
* Opportunity for public notice and comment
* State rules cannot be less stringent than Federal rules
» Once approved, State rules or programs are federally
enforceable in lieu of otherwise applicable Federal
rules
* In addition, State and local agencies are subject to periodic
program reviews and audits by EPA. Based upon the findings,
the EPA may withdraw approval.
WHAT ARE THE
1. Public Health/Environment: The new air toxic programs
required under the Clean Air Act will help achieve
significant reduction in risk to public health and the
environment. This rule will allow States to maintain
existing rules/programs that are at least as stringent as
Federal rules.
2. industry: The final rule can eliminate dual regulation
wherever State rules or programs are at least as stringent
as Federal rules. This will reduce regulatory agency and
155
-------
industry costs and time involved in permitting and
enforcement. J
States and Local Governments: The final rule provides
State and local agencies the opportunity to preserve and
build upon existing State programs. It also makes Federally
enforceable State or local air toxics rule/programs that are
at least as stringent as the Federal requirements and that
meet the approval criteria.
156
-------
**
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
0fflce of Air QualitV Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1
November 15, 1993
Final Schedule for Regulating Air Toxics Emissions
under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.
i
Today's Action: This Schedule sets the deadlines for
establishing Federal emission standards , based on maximum
achievable control technologies (MACT) , for 174 listed categories
of sources emitting hazardous air pollutants (air toxics). The
174 listed categories are divided into 4 groups with regulatory
deadlines of either 2, 4, 7, or 10 years following enactment of
the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.
The categories were prioritized by considering a number of
factors including: (1) the quantity and location of emissions of
hazardous air pollutants; (2) potential adverse effects of the
hazardous air pollutants on public health and the environment;
(3) the efficiency of grouping categories in the • same timeframe
due to similarities in processes or technologies; and (4) time
needed to develop standards.
The Schedule has been developed such that the Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry, and five categories of
the dry cleaning industry are scheduled for regulation within
2 years of enactment of the 1990 Amendments. A total of
45 categories are scheduled for regulation by November 15, 1994.
The remaining 129 categories are scheduled for regulation within
either 7 years of enactment of the 1990 Amendments (by
November 15, 1997), or within 10 years (by November 15, 2000).
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shall promulgate
Federal emission standards for each of the categories according
to the deadlines in this Schedule. If the EPA misses the
deadlines in this Schedule for promulgating Federal emission
standards by at least 18 months, section 112(j) of the
1990 Amendments requires State and local agencies to establish
case-by-case emission standards. These case-by-case standards
must be equal to the level of control that would have been
required by the Federal emission standards.
157
-------
THE SCHEDULE FOR PROMULGATING EMISSION STANDARDS FOR
CATEGORIES OF SOURCES EMITTING HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
Source Categories with Emission Standards Due by November 15. 1992
SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING l
COMMERCIAL DRYCLEANING (PERCHLOROETHYLENE) - DRY-TO-DRY MACHINES 2'4
COMMERCIAL DRYCLEANING (PERCHLOROETHYLENE) - TRANSFER MACHINES 2'4
COMMERCIAL DRYCLEANING (PERCHLOROETHYLENE) - TRANSFER MACHINES 2
INDUSTRIAL DRYCLEANING (PERCHLOROETHYLENE) - DRY-TO-DRY MACHINES 2
INDUSTRIAL DRYCLEANING (PERCHLOROETHYLENE) - TRANSFER MACHINES 2
Source Categories with Emission Standards Due by November 15. 1994
ACRYLONITRILE-BUTADIENE-STYRENE PRODUCTION.
AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES
ASBESTOS PROCESSING 4
BUTYL RUBBER PRODUCTION
CHROMIC ACID ANODIZING
CHROMIC ACID ANODIZING 4
COKE OVENS: CHARGING, TOPSIDE AND DOOR LEAKS (CAA MANDATED
PROMULGATION BY DECEMBER 31, 1992) 3
COMMERCIAL STERILIZATION FACILITIES
COMMERCIAL STERILIZATION FACILITIES 4
DECORATIVE CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING
DECORATIVE CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING 4
EPICHLOROHYDRIN ELASTOMERS PRODUCTION
EPOXY RESINS PRODUCTION
ETHYLENE-PROPYLENE RUBBER PRODUCTION
GASOLINE DISTRIBUTION - STAGE 1
HALOGENATED SOLVENT CLEANERS
HALOGENATED SOLVENT CLEANERS 4
HARD CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING
HARD CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING 4
HYPALON (TM) PRODUCTION
INDUSTRIAL PROCESS COOLING TOWERS
MAGNETIC TAPES (SURFACE COATING)
METHYL METHACRYLATE-ACRYLONITRILE-BUTADIENE-STYRENE PRODUCTION
METHYL METHACRYLATE-BUTADIENE-STYRENE TERPOLYMERS PRODUCTION
NEOPRENE PRODUCTION
NITRILE BUTADIENE RUBBER PRODUCTION
NON-NYLON POLYAMIDES PRODUCTION
PETROLEUM REFINERIES - OTHER SOURCES NOT DISTINCTLY LISTED
POLYETHYLENE TEREPHTHALATE PRODUCTION
POLYBUTADIENE RUBBER PRODUCTION
rule proposed on December 31, 1992
2 rule promulgated on September 22, 1993
3 rule promulgated on October 27, 1993
4 area source category
158
-------
gnurce Categories with Emission Standards Due bv November 15. 1994
(CONTINUED)
POLYSTYRENE PRODUCTION
POLYSULFIDE RUBBER PRODUCTION
PRINTING/PUBLISHING (SURFACE COATING)
SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING
SHIPBUILDING AND SHIP REPAIR (SURFACE COATINGS)
SOLID WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, & DISPOSAL FACILITIES (TSDF)
STYRENE-ACRYLONITRILE PRODUCTION
STYRENE-BUTADIENE RUBBER AND LATEX PRODUCTION
WOOD FURNITURE (SURFACE COATING)
Source Categories \vith Emission Standards Due by November 15. 1997
4-CHLORO-2-METHYLPHENOXYACETIC ACID PRODUCTION
2,4-D SALTS AND ESTERS PRODUCTION
4,6-DINITRO-O-CRESOL PRODUCTION
ACETAL RESINS PRODUCTION
ACRYLIC FIBERS/MODACRYLIC FIBERS PRODUCTION
AMINO RESINS PRODUCTION
BUTADIENE DIMERS PRODUCTION
CAPTAFOL PRODUCTION
CAPTAN PRODUCTION
CHLORONEB PRODUCTION
CHLOROTHALONIL PRODUCTION
CHLORINE PRODUCTION
CHROMIUM CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING
CYANURIC CHLORIDE PRODUCTION
DACTHAL (TM) PRODUCTION
FERROALLOYS PRODUCTION
FLEXIBLE POLYURETHANE FOAM PRODUCTION
HYDROGEN CYANIDE PRODUCTION
MINERAL WOOL PRODUCTION
NON-STAINLESS STEEL MANUFACTURING - ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE (EAF)
OPERATION
NYLON 6 PRODUCTION
OIL AND NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION
PETROLEUM REFINERIES - CATALYTIC CRACKING (FLUID AND OTHER) UNITS,
CATALYTIC REFORMING UNITS, AND SULFUR PLANT UNITS
PHARMACEUTICALS PRODUCTION
PHENOLIC RESINS PRODUCTION
POLYCARBONATES PRODUCTION
POLYETHER POLYOLS PRODUCTION
PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURING
PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION
PRIMARY COPPER SMELTING
PRIMARY LEAD SMELTING
PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS (POTW) EMISSIONS (CAA MANDATED
PROMULGATION BY NOVEMBER 15, 1995)
PULP & PAPER PRODUCTION
159
-------
Source Categories with Emission Standards Due bv November 15. 1997
(CONTINUED)
REINFORCED PLASTIC COMPOSITES PRODUCTION
SECONDARY .ALUMINUM PRODUCTION
SODIUM CYANIDE PRODUCTION
SODIUM PENTACHLOROPHENATE PRODUCTION
STAINLESS STEEL MANUFACTURING - ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE (EAF) OPERATION
STEEL PICKLING - HC1 PROCESS
TORDON (TM) ACID PRODUCTION
WOOD TREATMENT
WOOL FIBERGLASS MANUFACTURING
Source Categories with Emission Standards Due by, November* 15. 2000
AEROSOL CAN-FILLING FACILITIES
ALKYD RESINS PRODUCTION
ALUMINA PROCESSING
AMMONIUM SULFATE PRODUCTION - CAPROLACTAM BY-PRODUCT PLANTS
ANTIMONY OXIDES MANUFACTURING
ASPHALT CONCRETE MANUFACTURING
ASPHALT PROCESSING
ASPHALT ROOFING MANUFACTURING
ASPHALT/COAL TAR APPLICATION - METAL PIPES
AUTO AND LIGHT DUTY TRUCK (SURFACE COATING)
BAKERS YEAST MANUFACTURING
BENZYLTRIMETHYLAMMONIUM CHLORIDE PRODUCTION
BOAT MANUFACTURING
BUTADIENE-FURFURAL COTRIMER (R-ll)
CARBONYL SULFIDE PRODUCTION
CARBOXYMETHYLCELLULOSE PRODUCTION
CELLOPHANE PRODUCTION
CELLULOSE ETHERS PRODUCTION
CELLULOSE FOOD CASING MANUFACTURING
CHELATING AGENTS PRODUCTION
CHLORINATED PARAFFINS PRODUCTION
CHROMIUM REFRACTORIES PRODUCTION
CLAY PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING
COKE BY-PRODUCT PLANTS
COKE OVENS: PUSHING, QUENCHING AND BATTERY STACKS
DODECANEDIOIC ACID PRODUCTION
DRY CLEANING (PETROLEUM SOLVENT)
ENGINE TEST FACILITIES
ETHYLIDENE NORBORNENE PRODUCTION
EXPLOSIVES PRODUCTION
FLAT WOOD PANELING (SURFACE COATING)
FUME SILICA PRODUCTION
HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATION
HYDRAZINE PRODUCTION
HYDROCHLORIC ACID PRODUCTION
HYDROGEN FLUORIDE PRODUCTION
160
-------
TABLE 2. CONCLUDED
Categories with Emission Standards Due by November 15. 2000
(CONTINUED)
INDUSTRIAL BOILERS
INSTITUTIONAL/COMMERCIAL BOILERS
INTEGRATED IRON & STEEL MANUFACTURING
IRON FOUNDRIES
LARGE APPLIANCE (SURFACE COATING)
LEAD ACID BATTERY MANUFACTURING
LIME MANUFACTURING
MALEIC ANHYDRIDE COPOLYMERS PRODUCTION
MANUFACTURE OF PAINTS, COATINGS & ADHESIVES
METAL CAN (SURFACE COATING)
METAL COIL (SURFACE COATING)
METAL FURNITURE (SURFACE COATING)
METHYLCELLULOSE PRODUCTION
MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS & PRODUCTS (SURFACE COATING)
MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS
OBPA/1,3-DIISOCYANATE PRODUCTION
ORGANIC LIQUIDS DISTRIBUTION (NON-GASOLINE)
PAINT STRIPPER USERS .
PAPER AND OTHER WEBS (SURFACE COATING)
PHOSPHATE FERTILIZERS PRODUCTION
PHOSPHORIC ACID MANUFACTURING
PHOTOGRAPHIC CHEMICALS PRODUCTION
PHTHALATE PLASTICIZERS PRODUCTION
PLASTIC PARTS AND PRODO'CTS (SURFACE COATING)
PLYWOOD/PARTICLE BOARD fciANUFACTURING
POLYESTER RESINS PRODUCTION
POLYMERIZED VINYLIDENE CHLORIDE PRODUCTION
POLYMETHYL METHACRYLATE RESINS PRODUCTION
POLYVINYL ACETATE EMULSIONS PRODUCTION
POLYVINYL ALCOHOL PRODUCTION
POLYVINYL BUTYRAL PRODUCTION
POLYVINYL CHLORIDE AND COPOLYMERS PRODUCTION
PRIMARY MAGNESIUM REFINING
PRINTING, COATING & DYEING OF FABRICS
PROCESS HEATERS
QUATERNARY AMMONIUM COMPOUNDS PRODUCTION
RAYON PRODUCTION
ROCKET ENGINE TEST FIRING
RUBBER CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING
SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING
SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION
SITE REMEDIATION
SPANDEX PRODUCTION
STATIONARY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES
STATIONARY TURBINES
STEEL FOUNDRIES
SYMMETRICAL TETRACHLOROPYRIDINE PRODUCTION
TACONITE IRON ORE PROCESSING
TIRE PRODUCTION
URANIUM HEXAFLUORIDE PRODUCTION
VEGETABLE OIL PRODUCTION
161
-------
EPA's Early Reductions Program
for Ha2ardous Air Pollutants
FACT SHEET
• On October 29, 1992, EPA issued its final rule establishing
its Early Reductions Program for emissions of air toxics.
Background
The Clean Air Act Amendments for 1990 contain specific
provisions that allow EPA to establish a program to give
industry incentives for voluntarily achieving reductions in
emissions of toxic air pollutants.
Title III of the Clean Air Act Amendments establishes a 10-
year regulatory schedule for implementing "maximum
achievable control technology" (MACT) standards for
controlling emissions of 189 statutorily-listed air toxics.
• One of the new features of the Act is a provision [Section
H2(i)(S)] that allows existing sources to be granted six
additional years to comply with the applicable MACT
standards by volunteering to achieve early reductions of
their emissions.
• On June 13, 1991, EPA proposed a rule in the Federal
Register to implement the early reductions provisions of the
Act.
in order to be eligible for the extension, a source must
obtain a 90% or more reduction of its air toxic emissions.
Benefits of the Early Reductions Program
The program will benefit the environment by ensuring that
reductions in potentially dangerous air toxics are achieved
significantly earlier than would have been the case under
the MACT schedule prescribed in the Clean Air Act
Amendments.
* Companies1 will have flexibility to design cost-effective
reduction plans. Moreover, the six year compliance
extension affords companies time to develop less-costly
approches to eventual compliance with MACT standards,
including pollution prevention options.
• Companies participating in the early reduction program also
benefit from the demonstrated marketing advantages
associated with being a good corporate citizen and reducing
public exposure to harmful toxics.
162
-------
Draerran Recruireraentft
In most cases the emissions reduction will have to be
achieved before EPA proposes applicable MACT standards. For
the first set of MACT standards, however, sources that
achieve the reduction after proposal, but before January 1,
3.994, nay qualify for the compliance extension if the source
makes a commitment to achieve such reduction before EPA
proposes the standard.
An important aspect of the program is how SPA defines
combinations of emission points for which the reduction roust
be achieved (the so-called "definition of source11). The
proposed rule provides flexibility for industry to design
their program for reductions from the entire plant site or
for'parts of the plant site, subject to certain limitations.
Emission reduction will be determined by comparing the post-
reduction emissions with verifiable and actual emissions in
a base year of 1987 or later.
To obtain a compliance extension under the early reductions
program, a source must submit an application for an
operating permit that contains a demonstration of the early
reduction.
For additional information on the Early Reductions program,
interested parties may contact one of the EPA Regional
Office representatives listed below.
Region I
Region IZ
I
Region III
Region IV
Region V
Region vi
Region VII
Region vm
Region IX
Region x
- Janet:Beloin
- Harish Patel
Umesh Dholakia
- Jim Baker
- Anthony Toney
- John Pavitt
- Tom Driscoll
(617) 835-2734
(212) 264-6683
(212) 264-6676
(215) 597-3499
(404) 347-2864
(312) 886-6858
(214) 655-7549
carmen Torres-Ortega (913) 551-7873
Cory Potash (303) 293-1886
Ken Bigos (415) 744-1240
ChriS Hall (206) 553-1949
163
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1
NOV 0 8 1993
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Clarification of Issues Regarding the Contingency
Measures that are due November 15, 1993 for Moderate
and Above Ozone Nonattainment Areas
D. Kent Berry, Acting
Air Quality Management Division (MD-15)
Director, Air Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Regibn II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
The August 23, 1993 memorandum "Guidance on Issues Related
to 15 Percent Rate-of -Progress Plans," from Michael H. Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to you, set
forth the policy on accepting nitrogen oxide (NOx) measures for a
portion of the contingency measures that are due November 15,
1993, and for allowing committal State implementation plans
(SIP's) for the contingency measure submittal. This memorandum
provides additional clarification on a number of related issues
that were raised after issuance of the August 23 memo.
NOx Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
Section 172 (c) (9) of the Clean Air Act (Act) states that
moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas "... shall provide
for the implementation o'f specific measures to be undertaken if
the area fails to make reasonable further progress, or to attain
the national ambient air quality standard."
In addition, section 182 (c) (9) of the Act states that
serious and above areas "... shall provide for the
implementation of specific measures to be undertaken if the area
fails to meet any applicable milestone."
165
-------
Because the Act says that specific measures must be
undertaken if the area "fails to meet a milestone, any measures
that are already required in any ozone nonattainment area would
not be creditable for the 3 percent contingency measure
requirement.1 Therefore, since NOx RACT is already a
requirement, it would not be accepted as a contingency measure.
The only exception would be the early implementation of required
measures scheduled for implementation at a later date in the SIP.
In this case, if an area then failed to meet a milestone which
triggered the implementation of the contingency measures^ the
State would have 1 year to backfill the shortfall.
Note that measures that provide for emissions reductions
beyond RACT would be creditable as contingency measures.
Control Techniques Guidelines fCTG'sl
States may adopt, as a contingency measure, rules for
categories where the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans
to issue a CTG. When EPA finally issues the CTG, however, the
State will have to revise its SIP to ensure implementation of the
RACT rule by a date certain. In other words, the rule can no
longer be a "contingency measure11 that is triggered by failure to
attain or failure to meet reasonable further progress. The rule
would thus have to be replaced with another contingency measure
after EPA issues the CTG because of the rationale stated above.
When a CTG is issued by EPA, States can consider moving a rule or
measure from its 15 percent plan to its contingency plan and
replacing the 15 percent rule or measure with the CTG rule. This
type of transaction would require a SIP revision.
Maximum Available Control Technology fMACTl. and Other Federal
Rules
Any reductions that occur because of implementing MACT or
any Federal rule are not creditable toward the contingency
measure requirement, because of the rationale stated above.
States may, however', use as contingency measures rules for
categories for which EPA plans in the future to issue Federal
rules. Note that such contingency measures must be replaced when
EPA finally issues the rule. As stated in the discussion of
CTG's, a SIP revision would be required when a State replaces
rules or measures in their 15 percent plan with the new MACT
standard or Federal rule and moves the replaced rule or measure
to its contingency plan.
'Note that an area may use as a contingency measure a rule
or measure that is required for another pollutant (such as carbon
monoxide) as long as it would provide reductions in volatile
organic compounds (VOC) or NOx.
166
-------
Episodic Strategies
Section 123 of the Act states that an emissions limitation
may not be affected by any dispersion technique, which includes
"any intermittent or supplemental control of air pollutants
varying with atmospheric conditions." According to EPA guidance
documents,2 by November 15, 1993, EPA expects the regulations or
measures that are adopted for the 15 percent rate-of-progress
plan to be fully adopted, real, permanent, quantifiable, and
enforceable. Therefore, since episodic strategies do not result
in real, permanent, quantifiable, and enforceable emissibn
reductions, they will not be approvable for the contingency
measure requirement, as well as the 15 percent plan requirement.
The EPA's policy was set forth in, "Stack Height Regulation;
Final Rule," 50 PR 27892, July 8, 1985.
Committal SIP's '
If a State elects to submit in its SIP a commitment for the
contingency measure requirement, it must include a commitment to
adopt, by November 15,'1994, the measures or rules for the entire
3 percent required. The commitment must provide as much
information as possible, but we recognize that in some cases it
may be difficult to list the measures that an area is considering
with a schedule because the area's modeling may not yet be
complete. Completion of modeling may be necessary in cases where
a State is considering NOx controls as part of the contingency
measures. Therefore, EPA will accept such commitments without a
list of specific measures, but the commitment should at least
note the possible kinds of measures under consideration for NOx
and VOC.
Please forward this information to your State and local
agencies. Your staff may contact Kimber Scavo at (919) 541-3354
with questions.
2Two of which are: "General Preamble for the Implementation
of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990," 57 FR 13498,
April 16, 1992, and "Guidance for Growth Factors, Projections,
and Control Strategies for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress
Plans," EPA-452/R-93-002, March 1993.
167
-------
cc: Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X William Becker
Gary Dolce Doug Grano
Howard Hoffman Phil Lorang
Rich Ossias Kimber Scavo
Sara Schneeberg Laurel Schultz
John Seitz John Silvasi
Lydia Wegman
168
-------
/\ •» UNITE° STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTtCllON AGtlMCY
Offlce of Air Quality Planning and Sland;mis
Research Triangle Park, North Ccimhna Tll\\
iwH*1'
NOV 3 0 1993
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations
for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas
* ^V
/ A*
FROM: D. Kent Berry, Acting Director L 4 —
Air Quality Management Division (MD-15)
TC. Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II '
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air,/ Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics. Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
This memorandum provides guidance on the use of actual
emissions in maintenance demonstrations for ozone and CO
nonattainment areas seeking redesignation to attainment. This
guidance supersedes previous Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) guidance set forth in the September 4, 1992 memorandum from
John Calcagni to Air Division Directors, "Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment"
(redesignation policy), which required emission projections for
these areas to be based on allowable emissions.
The EPA has previously issued guidance on the use of actual
emissions in projecting , emissions to meet the requirements for
the is percent rate-of-progress plans for ozone nonattainment
areas.1 For consistency, this memorandum extends the policy of
using actual emissions to maintenance projections for ozone and
CO areas, as well. This guidance is not intended to apply to
emission projections in control programs for the other criteria
pollutants (see discussion under "Other Pollutants") .
'See Guidance for Growth Factors. Projections, and Control
Strategies for the 15 Percent Rate-of Progress Plans (EPA-452/R-
93-002, March 1993).
169
-------
Ozone and CO Policy
Actual emissions from a source are the emissions based on
the source's actual operating hours, production rates, and
control equipment for the processes carried out at the source.
Actual emissions take into consideration normal operating
conditions as well as instances when deviations occur. For ozone
and CO areas, the term allowable emissions refers to emissions
estimates based on enforceable emission rates and actual
production rates and hours.
Consistent with the earlier rate-of-progress plan guidance,
ozone and CO maintenance projections may be based on actual
emissions for sources or source categories that are currently
subject to a regulation and that the State does not anticipate
subjecting to additional regulation. Similarly, the maintenance
projections may be based on actual emissions for sources or
source categories that are currently unregulated and are not
expected to be subject to future regulation. (The State still
has the option of using allowable emissions for these two cases.)
However, for sources that are expected to be subject to
additional regulation, the projections must be based on the new
allowable emissions limits because the new actual emissions are
not yet known. •'
Upon approval of a redesignation request and associated
maintenance plan by EPA, all future emissions calculations or
projections to implement other air quality requirements for an
area must be consistent with the maintenance demonstration
(unless a more stringent requirement applies). For example, if
projected emissions from a source used in the maintenance
demonstration are based on actual emissions, that source must use
actual emissions in determining the credit available for
emissions trading, innovative strategies, economic incentive
plans, and emissions budgets.
Other Pollutants
Under the redesignation policy, emissions projections for
particulate matter (PM-10), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen
dioxide, and lead (Pb) nonattainment areas are still required to
follow current EPA modeling guidance.2 The modeling guidance
requires that maximum 'allowable emission limits for major point
sources be used in demonstrating maintenance of short-term
2The EPA-approved modeling guidance may be found in the
following documents: "Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised)"
(EPA-450/2-78-027R, July 1987) and "PM-10 SIP Development
Guideline" (EPA-450/2-86-001, June 1987).
170
-------
standards.3 It is necessary to continue the use of maximum
allowable emissions when projecting emissions for these
nonattainment areas because, in some cases, large point sources
operating at full capacity could by themselves cause an
exceedance of the applicable national ambient air quality
standard. In contrast, large point sources are not likely to be
dominant emission sources in inventories for ozone and CO
nonattainment areas, and it is unlikely that the multitude of
smaller sources would be operating at maximum capacity
simultaneously.
*.
For further information regarding the use of actual and
allowable emissions for maintenance demonstrations for ozone and
CO areas, please contact Carla Oldham at (919) 541-3347. For
information on projecting emissions for S02, PM-10, and Pb
nonattainmeht areas, please contact Robin Dunkins at (919) 541-
5335.
cc: Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
John Cabaniss, QMS
Mary Henigin, OAQPS
Bob Kellam, TSD
Rich Ossias, O6C
John Rasnic, SSCD
John Seitz, OAQPS
Ann Goode, OAR
Lydia Wegman, OAQPS
'Maximum allowable emissions are calculated using the
enforceable (i.e., allowable) emission rate multiplied by the
maximum operating capacity of that source at continuous operation
(unless there are federally-enforceable limits on the hours of
operation).
171
-------
'«<
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DEC g I993
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Credit for 15 Percent Rate-of-Progr«
Reductions from the Architectural
Maintenance (AIM) Coating
John S. Seitz, Directo:
ice of Air Quality
Plans for
ndustrial
nd Standards (MD-10)
Director, Air, Pesticides and'Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
This memorandum supplements my memorandum of September 10,
1993 concerning State credit for reductions from the forthcoming
Federal AIM coating rule. As you know, a number of States have
indicated that reductions from this source category are crucial
to their 15 percent rate-of-progress plans. In order to allow
States to take credit for expected reductions from the Federal
rule while still providing necessary safeguards, EPA will approve
a committal state implementation plan (SIP) under section
110(k)(4) if the following conditions are met:
1. States must submit a SIP by April 1994 committing to
adopt an AIM rule if EPA does not promulgate a national rule by
February 1995.
2. The commitment must be to adopt and submit a State rule
by March 1995 and to implement the rule and achieve reductions by
November 1996.
3. Emissions reductions in the State-adopted rule must be
equivalent to the committal SIP, or else a new plan must be
submitted to make up the shortfall.
172
-------
4. States that submit such a commitment will be allowed to
take credit in their 15 percent rate-of-progress plans for these
reductions.
If you have any questions or comments concerning this
approach, please contact Laurel Schultz at (919) 541-5511.
cc: Kent Berry
Alan Eckert
Bruce Jordan
Mary Nichols
Rich Ossias
173
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON D.C. 20460
AUG a3 1893
OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance on Issues Related to 15 Percent Rate-of-
Progress Plans
FROM: Michael H. Shapiro,, . _,
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation (ANR-443)
TO: Director, Air Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air a"nd Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
As you know, section 182(b)(l) of the Clean Air Act (Act)
requires States to submit, by November 15, 1993 for all ozone
nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above, a State
implementation plan (SIP) that provides for a 15 percent
reduction in emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) by
November 15, 1996. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide
guidance related to these SIP submissions.
r
Committal SIP's for 15 Percent Plan Control Measures
Several States asked to what extent will the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) accept committal SIP's for the measures
necessary to achieve the 15 percent reduction. Under section
110(k) (4) of the Act, EPA has the authority to conditionally
approve a SIP submittal based 'on a commitment by the State to
adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain. A
previous memorandum identified specific cases in which EPA would
accept commitments for submittals which were due by November 15,
1992. For the 15 percent rate-of-progress plans, EPA will not
allow commitments to adopt the measures needed to meet th« 15
percent reduction requirement and any such plans would not be
considered approvable.
•Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soyttanola Ink oh paper thai
contain* at toaat 50% recyctod tltxr
175
-------
NOx Substitution for Contingency Measures
Section 172 (c) (9) of the Act requires moderate and above
ozone nonattainment areas to adopt contingency measures by
November 15, 1993. These measures would have to be implemented
if the area fails to make reasonable further progress (RFP) or to
attain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) by the
applicable attainment date. In addition, section 182(c)(9) of
the Act requires serious and above areas to adopt contingency
measures which would be implemented if the area fails to meet any
applicable milestone. When triggered, the contingency measures
must be implemented without further action by the State or the
EPA.
The "General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990" (57 FR 13498, April 16,
1992) requires that the contingency measures generally must
provide reductions of 3 percent of the emissions from the
adjusted base year inventory. The reductions must be achieved in
the year following that in which the failure has been identified.
Throo percent represents 1 year's worth o£ reductions under the
post-1996 rate-of-progress requirement.
The contingency measures that are required to be adopted by
November 15, 1993 are for both failure to achieve RFP and failure
to attain. While the contingency measures to address failure to
achieve RFP must be for VOC, the contingency measures for failure
to attain may be for VOC and/or NOx. Since these measures will
be implemented after 1996, and because these measures serve two
purposes (i.e., failure to achieve RFP and failure to attain),
the contingency measures could provide for less than 3 percent in
voc reductions as long as some of the measures are for VOC and
the area would have the difference (up to 3 percent) in NOx
reductions. Based on discussions with EPA's Office of General
Counsel, we have determined that States must adopt a minimum of
0.3 percent in VOC measures of the 3 percent contingency measure
requirement to be legally defensible. Therefore, in an area that
has demonstrated that NOx controls are needed for attainment, 2.7
percent of the required 3 percent could be NOx contingency
measures; at least 0.3 percent must still be VOC to cover the
contingency requirement for meeting RFP. Note that this applies
to moderate areas as well; moderate areas must submit an
approvable plan that shows how they will achieve the 15 percent
requirement but are not required to submit a demonstration that
the milestone was achieved. Moderate areas, of course, must
demonstrate that they have attained the NAAQS for ozone by
November 15, 1996.
176
-------
In order for NOx contingency measures to be acceptable, the
State roust adhere to EPA's forthcoming guidance on NOx
substitution. In addition, States must show with modeling
evidence that NOx reductions are needed in a particular
nonattainment area. Therefore, in order to give States enough
time to consult EPA's guidance on NOX substitution and to
determine if NOx reductions are needed, EPA will accept
committals for contingency measures that are due November 15,
1993. If the contingency measures themselves are not included
with the November 15, 1993 submittal, that submittal must include
a commitment, with schedule, for contingency measures to be
adopted by November 15, 1994.
\
We believe that this is acceptable due to the fact that the
earliest a contingency measure would be implemented would be in
1997. The first attainment date and milestone date for areas
that "are required to adopt contingency measures is November 15,
1996. The EPA will expect all actions needed to make the
measures fully effective to occur within 60 days after EPA
notifies the State of its milestone failure or within 6 months Of
its attainment failure.' Therefore, the State would not need to
implement the contingency measures until 1997 and EPA could
accept measures that could not be implemented until 1997.
Upon activation of the contingency measures, reductions of
up to 3 percent (or such lesser percentage that will cure the
identified failure) roust be achieved 1 year following the date on
which the failure had been identified. The State must achieve
these reductions while conducting additional control measure
development and implementation as necessary to correct the
shortfall if it is beyond the 3 percent the state would have
already adopted. In determining what measures should be
implemented if less than 3 percent reduction is needed to cure
the failure,1 all voc contingency measures should be required
first followed by the appropriate percentage of NOx measures that
will correct the shortfall.
15 Percent Waiver Provision
Under section 182(b)(l)(A)(ii), areas can submit plans
demonstrating less than a 15 percent emission reduction if the
following conditions are met. First, the State must demonstrate
that the area has a new source review program equivalent to the
requir-conotvt in extreme areas [section 182 (e) ], except that a
"major source" must include any source that emits, or n«t» the
potential to emit, 5 tons per year (tpy) of VOC. Second, all
major sources (down to those with emissions of 5 tpy of VOC or
greater) in the area must be required to have RACT-level
controls. Third, the State must demonstrate that the SIP
includes all measures (both stationary and mobile) that are
achieved in practice by sources in the same source category in
nonattainment areas of the next higher classification. Fourth,
177
-------
4
the plan must include all measures that can be feasibly
implemented in the area, in light of technological achievability
and cost
If an area chooses to meet the requirements of section
I82(b) (1) (A) (ii) to get a waiver of the 15 percent provision, EPA
interprets title V to require operating permits for all VOC
sources in that area that emit or have the potential to emit 5
tpy of VOC. This is because the definition of "major source" in
title V expressly refers to "major stationary source" as defined
in part D of title I. Since, under the waiver provision, "major
stationary source" would be defined as having the potential to
emit 5 tpy .for the purposes of title I, this would become the
definition^of major source for the purposes of title V.
I suggest that you provide a copy of this memo to your
affected State and local agencies. Inquiries nay be directed to
John Silvasi at (919) 541-5666.
cc: Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
William Becker
Rich Ossias
Lydia Wegman
Dick Wilson
178
-------
%
*
\
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
AUG241993
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Addressing Potential New National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) Violations For PM-10, S02, and Lead
FROM: D. Keijt Berry, Acting Directorx^vM*^ )' WW l
Air Quality Management Division (MD-15)
Robert G. Kellam, Acting
Technical Support Division (MD-14)
TO: Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
This memorandum provides the Regional Offices with a status
of the potential new PM-10 (particles with an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers) NAAQS
violations, first presented in the January 19, 1993 memorandum to
the Air Branch Chiefs. It is the Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards' (OAQPS') intention to address PM-10 NAAQS
violations and progress toward their resolution in a nationally
consistent manner as part of the memorandum of agreement (MOA)
process beginning in fiscal year (FY) 1994. The attachment to
this memorandum includes the current information necessary to
start this process. This approach (albeit much simpler) will be
initiated next year for sulfur dioxide NAAQS exceedances and
potential violations. The air quality data for lead will
continue to be tracked through the lead NAAQS attainment
strategy. New reporting procedures for the Regional Offices for
PM-10 exceedances and potential NAAQS violations will be
discussed in more detail in future guidance.
179
-------
The potential new PM-10 NAAQS violation sites included in
this memorandum are based on the January 19, 1993 memorandum to
the Air Branch Chiefs. The Regional Offices were asked to review
the material on exceedances for the sites in each Region and
update the status as appropriate. The OAQPS received responses
both in writing and through conversations with Regional Office
staff. The responses are incorporated in the attached table and
writeup of each site. This information shows the status of the
information received and OAQPS' recommended NAAQS violation
status of each site which has recorded one or more exceedances.
The attachment includes detailed information for 52 sites.
Of the 52 sites on the January list which had one or more
exceedances, 19 sites are recommended as not yet being in
violation, 20 sites are recommended as being in violation, and 13
are in a provisional violation category. The sites in the
provisional category include sites in which OAQPS has not
received adequate documentation about recurrence claims. The
other 19 sites are identified as not in violation, but must be
reevaluated in the future pending results of daily sampling or
saturation sampling results.
In order to resolve the status of each site in a nationally
consistent manner, the FY 1994 MOA process should include each
Regional Office's plan for addressing each site which has
recorded one or more exceedances, as well as a priority on
resolving recurrence claims and monitoring issues for the sites
in the provisional category. For the Regional Offices addressing
these issues in their MOA's, OAQPS would like a mid-year and end-
of-year status report indicating progress toward their resolution
through the MOA reporting system.
In the future, OAQPS plans on providing more formal guidance
and procedures for making this decision-making process easier.
Issues to be addressed include exceedance and violation
reporting, handling of data affected by special events and
conditions, and enhancing Aerometric Information Retrieval
System-Air Quality Subsystem data storage and reporting
capabilities. These changes will provide the Regional Offices
with real-time data necessary to track exceedances and make
potential violation determinations as they occur. If you have
any questions, please contact Joe Paisie at 919-541-5556
concerning the MOA issues and reporting procedures, or Bill Hunt
at 919-541-5559 concerning data contained in the attachment and
any monitoring issues.
Attachment
cc: Joe Paisie
Bill, Hunt
Jerry Stubberfield
Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I-X
Director, ESD, Regions I-X
PM-10 Contact, Regions I-X
180
-------
ATTACHMENT
STATUS OF PM-10 POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS BY SITE
Region I
• Darien, CT (09-001-1401)
* Site had 1 exceedance in 199I, and was caused by the
sandblasting of a bridge near the sampler. Sandblasting
only occurs during infrequent repair of bridges and Region I
believes the exceedance in Darien at this specific location
should be classified as a nonrecurring event. Site still
sampling on 1/6 frequency. Concentrations since July 1992
have been less than 58 ug/m3. Recommend no violation.
Region II
• Buffalo, NY (36-029-0017)
• Site had 1 exceedance in 1990 and was the result of
nearby construction activities which were occurring at the
time. Region II believes that exceedances like this one are
not likely to recur, and indeed have not recurred. Site
still sampling on 1/6 frequency. Concentrations since June
1990 have been less than 75 ug/m3. Recommend no violation.
Region III
• Vansant, VA (51-027-0003)
• Site had 2 exceedances in 1991 and have been flagged by
Virginia as due to a forest fire. Region III does not
believe the event is likely to recur. The site was sampling
on a 1/2 frequency through January 1992 when the site was
discontinued. Recommend no violation.
• Covington, VA (51-580-0007)
• Site had 1 exceedance in 1991 and has been flagged by
Virginia as due to a forest fire. Region III does not
believe the event is likely to recur. The site is still
sampling on a 1/6 frequency. Concentrations since December
1991 have been less than 57 ug/m3. Recommend no violation.
Region IV
• North Charleston, SC (45-019-0019)
• Site had 1 exceedance in 1991 and was due to "an unusual
occurrence at a nearby coal pile." An analysis of the
filter showed the primary constituent to be bituminous coal.
South Carolina has flagged the data as a special event.
181
-------
Region IV does not believe that this event Is likely to
recur. Site still sampling on 1/6 frequency. Concentra-
tions since the event in November 1991 have been less than
75 ug/m3. South Carolina has agreed to install a continuous
PM-10 sampler at this site as soon as one can be procured
and installed. South Carolina is in the process of applying
for a special grant from Region IV to buy the sampler.
Region IV will approve the request when received and have
the sampler operational by September 30/ 1993. Recommend
status determination be delayed and be dependent upon review
of 1 year of continuous data with a minimum of 75 percent
data capture.
Region V
• Randolph County, IL (17-157-0002)
• Site had 2 exceedances in 1989, 2 in 1990, 1 in 1991, and
1 in 1992. The exceedances were due to emissions from a
surface coal mine and its associated haul road. Daily
sampling was begun in October 1989 and continued until the
site was discontinued in December 1992. Mine ceased
operation during third quarter 1992. Everyday sampling
initiated January 1993 at site 17-157-0003. Although the
site recorded violations, the source of the exceedances has
been discontinued. Recommend violation since estimated
exceedances greater than 1.0.
• Randolph County, IL (17-157-0003)
• Site had 4 exceedances in 1991 and 1 in 1992. The
exceedances were due to emissions from an unpaved road used
to haul coal refuse and clean coal. The site was sampling
on a 1/6 frequency through the end of 1992 and then everyday
sampling was supposedly begun. Mine ceased operation during
third quarter 1992. Although the site recorded violations,
the source of the exceedances has been discontinued.
Recommend violation since estimated exceedances greater than
1.0.
• Rockdale, IL (17-197-1009)
• Site had 1 exceedance in 1990, and has been flagged by
Illinois as being due to high winds. The site is still
sampling on a 1/6 frequency. There is no statement as to
recurrence claim. Concentrations since May 1990 have been
less' than 80 ,ug/m3. Since everyday sampling not initiated
and no recurrence claim was made, recommend classification
as a violation.
182
-------
• Jeffersonville, IN (18-003-0003)
« Site had 1 exceedance in 1985 with a nonreference
sampler. The site was discontinued in 1987, and moved to
site 18-003-0005. Recommend no violation since exceedance
was not corroborated by a reference sampler.
• Indianapolis, IN (18-097-0073)
« Site had 1 exceedance in 1991. Concentrations since the
event have been less than 64 ug/m3. The site is still
sampling on a 1/6 frequency. Since increased sampling not
initiated, recommend classification as a violation.
• Bay County, MI (26-017-0906)
« Site had 1 exceedance in 1989. The site was discontinued
in March 1991. The exceedance was probably due to either
agriculture and/or Monitor Sugar. Three additional sites
were started in April 1992 with everyday sampling. One of
these sites (26-017-0911) measured 494 ug/m3 on June 17,
1992 and 286 ug/m3 on December 25, 1992. Recommend
classification as a violation.
• Ludington, MI (26-105-0004)
• Site had 1 exceedance in 1990. Michigan has flagged the
exceedance as due to chemical spills. The site is still
sampling on a 1/6 frequency. Concentrations since September
1990 have been less than 96 ug/m3. Region V believes the
evenib to be non-recurring. Recommend no violation.
• Muskegon, MI (26-121-0919)
• Site had 1 exceedance in 1989. The exceedance was
flagged as due to construction. The site was discontinued
in November 1989. Recommend violation subject to
clarification of future construction activity in the
monitoring area and non-recurrence claim.
• Noble County, Ohio (39-121-0001)
• Site had 1 exceedance in 1991 and has been flagged as due
to infrequent large gatherings. The site is still sampling
on a 1/6 frequency. Concentrations since July 1991 have
been less than 82 ug/m3. There is no statement as to
likelihood of recurrence. Recommend violation subject to
demonstration that this was a rare event and is not likely
to recur.
183
-------
• Alliance, OH (39-151-4004)
• Slta had 1 exceedance In both 1990 and 1991. Both
exceedances have been flagged as due to chemical spills.
There is no statement as to recurrence claim. The site is
still sampling on a 1/6 frequency. Concentrations since
February 1991 have been less than 69 ug/m3. Recommend
violation since events are recurring with 2 exceedances in 2
years.
Region VII
• Mason City, IA (19-033-0011)
• Iowa has flagged 1 exceedance from the primary sampler
and 2 exceedances from the collocated sampler in 1990 as
being caused by high winds. The exceedance at the primary
sampler occurred on January 11 and the collocated also
measured an exceedance on the same day. However, the
collocated sampler measured an exceedance on May 17, and
there was no sample collected by the primary sampler on that
day. Site continues to sample on 1/6 schedule.
Concentrations since May 1990 have been less than 79 ug/m3,
although no data reported to AIRS since July 1992. Daily
sampling started at site 19-033-0014 (which is considered to
be the area of maximum concentration) in October 1992 for 1
year. The everyday sampling at site 0014 was the result of
exceedances measured at that site in May and June of 1992.
Recommend violation since everyday sampling was not
initiated in 1990 and there is no recurrence claim.
• Kansas City, KS (20-209-0011)
• There were 3 exceedances in 1987. These concentrations
were due to construction activity in the vicinity of the
sampler. The sampling site was discontinued, because the
building site it was located on was demolished due to the
construction activity. (Note: This, information was
documented in Attachment A of a November 4, 1989 memo from
William Hunt to David Stonefield.) Region VII does not
believe the construction is likely to recur. A continuous
PM-10 sampler is expected to be installed this spring at
site 20-209-0020. ' Recommend no violation.
Region VIII
• Alamosa, CO (08-003-0001)
• Site had 1 exceedance in 1989 and 1 in 1991. Daily
sampling was begun in September 1989 and continues to the
present with no additional exceedances through February
1993. Data not flagged due to insufficient documentation.
184
-------
No statement as to what caused the exceedances or likelihood
of recurrence. Recommend no violation since estimated
exceedances for 1989-1992 are less than 1.0.
• Anaconda-Deer Lodge County, MT (30-023-0007)
* Site had 1 exceedance in 1985 with a nonreference
sampler. Site was shut down in 1985, and replaced with a
max concentration site. No exceedances reported at new
superfund site and it may have been shut down 9/92. Based
on 2i years of data from 4 sites which show no exceedances,
Region VIII believes area is in attainment. Recommend no
violation since exceedance was not corroborated by a
reference sampler.
• Jefferson County, MT (30-043-0711)
• Site had 1 exceedance in 1990 during a day when company
was maintaining and repairing a haul road and holding pond
dam. The company wanted to designate this exceedance as an
special event, but Montana would not agree. Site was
sampling on a 1/6 frequency through December 1992. Company
has stopped all mining and property is up for sale.
Although the site recorded violations, the source of the
i exceedances has been discontinued. Recommend Region
consider the likelihood of problem recurring after the sale
of property.
• Madison County, MT (30-057-0005)
• Site is on company property (not ambient air) near mining
activities and had 1 exceedance in 1989. State requested
better fugitive dust controls and negotiated agreement to
operate 1 sampler an a 1/2 schedule for 2 years beginning
6/91 and implement better fugitive dusts controls. Numbers
have been low since exceedance. Recommend no violation
pending verification that property is inaccessible to public
(i.e. presence of fence) and not ambient air.
\N
• Park County, MT (30-067-0002)
* Site is on company property and not an ambient monitoring
site. Site had 2 exceedances in 1988, 6 in 1989, 1 in 1990,
1 in 1991, and 1 in 1992. Sampling frequency went to 1/3 in
May 1991. State wants this site to track tailing pile
fugitive emissions and controls. Recommend no violation
pending verification that property is inaccessible to public
(i.e. presence of fence) and not ambient air.
185
-------
• Sanders County, MT (30-089-0005)
• Site was a short-term site operated during a study in
Thompson Falls. The site had 2 exceedances in 1991 and was
discontinued in March 1991. The area is nonattainment based
on another site.
• Fargo, ND (38-017-1001)
• Site had; 1 exceedance in 1990 and has been flagged as
being due to high winds. Site continues to operate on a 1/6
sampling frequency. Concentrations from February 1990-March
1993 show concentrations less than 63 ug/m3. Region VIII
believes the event is not likely to recur. Recommend
violation determination be made pending the receipt of
additional information to support high wind claim.
• McLean County, ND (38-055-0111)
• Site was located on coal mine property and was not
ambient air. The samplers were located incorrectly and the
site has been moved away from the coal mine property with a
new contractor to do the analyses. The site had 1
exceedance in 1988' and 2 in 1990. All of the data from this
site have been deleted from AIRS. Recommend no violation
pending verification that property is inaccessible to public
(i.e. presence of fence) and not ambient air.
• Williston, ND (38-105-0001)
• Site had 1 exceedance in 1990 and has been flagged as
being due to high winds. Site continues to operate on a 1/6
sampling frequency. Concentrations November 1990-March 1993
have been less than 40 ug/m3. Region VIII believes the
event is not likely to recur. Recommend violation
determination be made pending the receipt of additional
information to support high wind claim.
• Brookings, SD (46-011-0002)
• Site had 1 exceedance in 1990. It has been flagged as
due to high winds. Site continues to operate on a 1/6
frequency. Concentrations February 1990-December 1992 have
been less than 89 ug/m3. Region VIII believes the event is
not likely to recur. Recommend violation determination be
made pending the receipt of additional information to
support high wind claim.
186
-------
0 Rapid City, Sti (46-103-1001)
* Site had 1 exceedance in February and 1 in December 1991.
Daily sampling was started in July 1991 and continues with
no additional exceedances through February 1993. Expected
exceedances 1990-1992 are 0.75. Recommend no violation.
t Moab, UT (49-019-0004)
• Site had 1 exceedance in 1991. Utah presented
information, which they believe shows the exceedance was due
to high winds blowing desert sands. They did not flag the
data. Based on Utah's interpretation, the exceedance was a
special event, therefore no further action was required.
However, there is no special event flag on AIRS for this
event. Negotiations are on-going regarding this matter.
Site* continues to operate on a 1/6 frequency. Recommend
violation determination be made pending the receipt of
additional information to support high wind claim.
• Sweetwater County, WY (56-037-0013)
• Site had 1 exceedance in March 1991, and daily sampling
performed July 1991-August 16, 1992. Site now samples on a
1/6 schedule. No exceedances recorded through December
1992. Estimated exceedances for 1990-1992 are less than
1.0. Recommend no violation.
Region IX
• Yosemite National Park, CA (06-043-1001)
* Site had 3 exceedances in 1990 and 1 in 1991. The site
is still sampling on a 1/6 frequency. Region IX has
indicated that there is no evidence these are special
events, and will initiate the redesignation process for the
area in 1993.
• Merced, CA (06-047-1001)
* Site had 1 exceedance in 1990. The site is still
sampling on a 1/6 frequency. Merced County is part of the
San Joaquin Valley PM-10 planning area and was addressed in
the San Joaquin Valley PM-10 SIP submitted in 1991. When
EPA published the revision to 40 CFR 51, Merced County was
inadvertently left off the list of counties included in the
nonattainment area. When EPA takes action on the PM-10
submittal, Region IX will correct 40 CFR Part 51 to include
Merced County.
187
-------
8
• Quincy-East Quincy/ CA (06-063-1006)
• Site had 1 exceedance in 1991. The site is still
sampling on a 1/6 frequency. Region IX is working with the
California Air Resources Board and the Nevada Sierra Air
Quality Management District to determine whether the
District will initiate every day monitoring. Everyday
sampling had not been started as of December 1992. Since
increased sampling frequency not initiated, recommend
classification as violation.
• Lucerne Valley (06-071-0013)
• Site had 2 exceedances in 1990 and 1 in 1991. The site
was discontinued in September 1991. Lucerne is in San
Bernardino County and has been proposed for redesignation to
nonattainment for PM-10 (FR 57 43846).
• San Francisco, CA (06-075-0005)
• Site had 1 exceedance in 1990. The site is still
sampling on a 1/6 frequency. 'The Bay Area Air Quality
Management District chose not to initiate every day
monitoring at this site. Region IX intends to initiate the
redesignation process for this area in 1993. The boundary
of the proposed area may include San Francisco County, Santa
Clara County, and Alameda County. Everyday sampling had not
been started as of December 1992. Since increased sampling
frequency not initiated, recommend classification as
violation.
• Stockton, CA (06-077-1002)
• Site had 1 exceedance in 1986 and 1987 with a
nonreference sampler. One exceedance was also measured in
1990' with a reference sampler. The site is still sampling
on a 1/6 frequency. Stockton is in San Joaquin County and
is part of the San Joaquin Valley PM-10 Planning area.
Everyday sampling had not been started as of December 1992.
Since Increased sampling frequency not initiated, recommend
classification as violation.
• San Jose, CA (06-085-2003)
• Site had 1 exceedance in 1990 and 3 in 1991. The
exceedances in 1991 have been deleted from AIRS. The site
is still sampling on a 1/6 frequency. The Bay Area Air
Quality Management District chose not to initiate every day
monitoring at this site. The boundary of the proposed
area may include San Francisco County, Santa Clara County,
and Alameda County. Region IX intends to initiate the
redesignation process for this area in 1993.
loo
-------
• Modesto, CA (06-099-0002)
* Site had 1 exceedance in 1990 and 1 in 1991. , The site is
still sampling on a 1/6 frequency. Modesto is in Stanislaus
County and is part of the San Joaquin Valley PM-10 Planning
area.
• Modesto, CA (06-099-0003)
• Site had 1 exceedance in 1986 with a nonreference sampler
and 1 in 1988 with a reference sampler. The site was
discontinued in April 1990. Modesto is in Stanislaus County
and is part of the San Joaquin Valley PM-10 Planning area.
Everyday sampling had not been started as of December 1992.
Since increased sampling frequency not initiated, recommend
classification as violation.
Region X
• Anchorage, AK (02-020-0026)
• Site had 2 exceedances in April 1990 and 11 exceedances
in 1992 all due to volcanic eruptions. Region X has
concurred with the 1990 exceedances. Site started sampling
on aNl/l frequency in July 1990 and continues 1/1 through
December 1992. Region X stated the volcanic eruption event
is not likely to recur after 1990, but it did. Recommend
Region X further investigate the cause(s) of the 11
exceedances in 1992 prior to violation determinations.
• Pocatello, ID (16-005-0005)
• Site was designated as nonattainment in 1988. This site
was included in the list because it could not be determined
from the FR listing whether this site was located in the
nonattainment area. This site had 1 exceedance in 1989.
The site has been terminated due to noise complaints.
• Soda Springs, ID (16-029-0027)
* Site had 2 exceedances in 1988. The first exceedance was
flaoaed as due to a forest fire. The second event in
October was not a special event and the frequency was
increased to 1/1 from October 1988-March 1989, then reduced
to 1/1 In March 1989, and to 1/6 in April 1990. The site
was discontinued in June 1990. Collocated data with an
exceedance was deleted from AIRS. Recommend Region X
further investigate this issue prior to violation
determination.
189
-------
10
• Hayden, ID (16-055-0007); Post Falls, ID (16-055-0009);
Lewiston, ID (16-069-0009); and Lewiston, ID (16-069-0010)
• All sites had exceedances on the same day due to a wind
storm. State has Inserted flag as special event. Region X
has conditionally ruled that the wind storm was rare. Site
16-055-0007 appears to have been discontinued In January
1992 and site 16-069-0010 discontinued in August 1992. The
other 2 sites continue to operate on a 1/6 sampling
frequency. Site 16-055-0009 also had 3 exceedances in 1992.
Recommend violation determination be made pending the
receipt of additional information to support high wind
claim.
• Rosenburg, OR (41-019-0121)
• Site was sampling on a 1/2 frequency at the time of the
exceedance in December 1990 during the winter (impact)
season, and 1/6 frequency during the summer months. The
property was sold and the site discontinued 3/92. Two
replacement sites were established and one site operates 1/1
during the winter and 1/6 during the summer. The other site
operates 1/6 year round. Recommend no violation.
• Lakeview, OR (41-037-0001)
• Site had 3 exceedances in 1991 and 1 in 1992, and none
were due to special events. The site samples at 1/1 during
the winter months and 1/6 during the summer months. Region
X says the area is in the process of being classified as
nonattainment.
• Portland, OR (41-051-0003)
• Site had 1 exceedance in 1991. The site was still
operating on 1/6 frequency through December 1992. Frequency
will be increased to 1/1 during the upcoming winter season.
Recommend no violation at this time.
• Portland, OR (41-051-0009)
• Site had 1 exceedance in 1991. Site also had an
exceedance in 1986 with a nonreference sampler. A
saturation study will be performed in Portland during the
winter months of 1992, 1993, and 1994. Recommend no
violation pending results of saturation study.
• Pendleton, OR (41-059-0002)
• Site had exceedance on same day in November 1991 with
other sites in the surrounding area. Region X has
determined that the winds met the special event criteria.
190
-------
11
However, there is no flag on data in AIRS indicating high
winds. Site still sampling on 1/6 schedule. Recommend
violation.
• Pendleton, OR (41-059-0121)
• Site had 1 exceedance in 1991 due to high winds, but
there is no flag on AIRS for high winds. The site presently
samples at 1/1 during the winter months and 1/6 during the
summer months. Recommend no violation.
191
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
g Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1
SEP JO,
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Credit Toward the 15 Percent Requirements from
Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings
FROM: John S. Seitz, Director */Gr*Ht, s
Office of Air Quality Planning and S^Bda#*s
i S
TO: Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently
involved in negotiations concerning the development of a
regulation for architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM)
coatings. The AIM coatings are defined as coatings applied to
stationary structures and their appurtenances, portable
buildings, pavements, and curbs. These coatings include off-the-
shelf paints sold to consumers, as well as certain industrial
specialty products (e.g., traffic paints and coatings for such
items as bridges and petroleum storage tanks) . The negotiations
are still under way, but it appears that the regulation will be
successfully developed, possibly as a national rule.
States which are currently developing their 15 percent
volatile organic compounds (VOC) plans which are due November 15,
1993 may want to take credit for reductions from this emissions
category since it seems apparent that reductions will be achieved
by the AIM rule by 1996. We anticipate that this rule will
reduce AIM emissions by approximately 25 percent from current
emissions from the same level of paint use. It will be
acceptable for States to assume a 25 percent reduction from their
AIM coatings emissions inventory and incorporate this reduction
into their 15 percent VOC plan. Portions of plans incorporating
such an assumption will be approvable by EPA.
193
-------
I trust that this information will be helpful to you. If
you have any questions, please call Bill Johnson at (919) 541-
5245.
cc: Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I-IX
194
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
o A'r Quallty Plann|ng and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
* SEP 1993
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Responses to Violations of the Lead National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) .
FROM: Joseph W. Paisie, Chief \M^JW- 1*+**^
SO2/Particulate Matter PfibgjTams Branch (MD-15)
TO: Chief, Air Branch
Regions I-X
As you may recall John Seitz announced the lead NAAQS
attainment strategy in September of 1990. Generally, the lead
strategy identifies two steps to address ambient concentrations
of lead: (1) identify any environmental problems; and (2)
correct problems with the most appropriate tool available. To
assess air quality, the strategy suggests operating at least two
ambient monitors around the sources of concern. However, there
appears to be some confusion about how to address subsequent
monitored violations.
Currently, the EPA has three different tools [authorities
under the Clean Air Act (Act)] which can be employed in
correcting air quality problems. They include: (1) using the
administrative or judicial enforcement authorities under section
113 of the Act for problems caused by lack of compliance with the
existing requirements, (2) using the authority under section
107(d) to designate the area nonattainment, and/or (3) issuing a
SIP call under section 110(k)(5) of the Act to notify the
Governor of the State that the SIP is inadequate to attain and
maintain the lead NAAQS and to call for a SIP revision as
necessary to correct such inadequacies. Both of the latter
actions are intended to strengthen the existing requirements
applicable to affected sources.
In keeping with the philosophy of the lead NAAQS attainment
strategy of addressing the air quality problems in the most
efficient manner, OAQPS has encouraged Regions and States to
pursue, where appropriate, the enforcement options first. In
many cases, air quality problems are due to poor operation and
maintenance or other resolvable compliance problems. In these
instances, enforcement action can result in timely resolution of
violations and avoid the sometimes lengthy regulation development
195
-------
process. However, the Region should pursue one of the two
regulatory options where: (1) the regulations are clearly
inadequate/ either because there are no applicable lead SIP
requirements/ or the source is in compliance with the existing
regulations and an air quality problem still exists; or (2) the
Region otherwise believes that even if the source were in
compliance with the existing regulations, there would continue to
be air quality problems.
There are advantages and disadvantages in using either the
nonattainment designation or SIP call approach. For instance,
the nonattainment designation process/ in addition to requiring
expeditious attainment of the standard, imposes the requirements
applicable under part D, title I of the Act (e.g./ RACM, RFP/
nonattainment new source review and contingency measures)/ and
requires sanctions and FIP's if the SIP is not developed and
implemented. These part D requirements might be useful in
effectively addressing the air quality problem.
The SIP submitted in response to a SIP call under section
110 must also provide for attainment of the NAAQS. In addition/
plan development in the area may proceed quickly in response to a
SIP call because the SIP call does-not require the notification
of the Governor and the subsequent notice and comment rulemaking
associated with the nonattainment designation. However/ a
possible disadvantage associated with the SIP call is that some
sanctions may apply only to nonattainment areas that are subject
to SIP calls. The FIP requirement is wholly available for either
option/ however.
Regions should determine on a case-by-case basis which of
these two approaches is most appropriate for each area. In
making this decision, the Regions should also consult with OGC
and OAQPS in determining the most appropriate path to take. The
OAQPS in turn will arrange a peer review call with the Regional
contacts. The purpose of the call will be to discuss the Regions
preferred response and ensure national consistency. Following
the peer review call, the Region should also be careful to
document, for the record with a dated note "to the file," the
rationale used in determining which option to use. The OAQPS has
not required the use of one of the regulatory options over the
other, but generally recommends that serious consideration be
given to designating to the area as nonattainment.
Decisions about which regulatory approach to use should
consider factors specific to the area. Among the factors the
Region should consider are the following:
(1) The compliance record of the source to determine if the
source is recalcitrant and may require the full leverage
available under the designation process. Alternatively, the
compliance record might show that the source has complied
196
-------
with existing requirements and, thus, that the regulations
themselves are inadequate.
(2) The magnitude of the violation. The Region should
consider whether, in cases of extreme concentrations, the
Agency's response demonstrates the appropriate level of
action.
(3) The persistence of violations. The Region should
consider whether, in the case of recurring violations, the
Agency's response demonstrates both the appropriate level of
action, and a consideration of timeliness.
(4) The source location (e.g., is it near a population
center, near a school or preschool).
(5) The State's regulatory process (e.g., is it lengthy,
does the legislature only meet periodically, would the
timeline of one option fit better within the State's
regulatory frame work).
(6) Other sources in the area (e.g., can culpability be
clearly determined, would one process facilitate that
determination of culpability over the other, is new source
growth anticipated).
(7) The need for a more objective level of control (e.g.,
RACM/RACT).
(8) The type of information available for indicating a
problem exists (monitoring, modeling, high blood lead
levels, others).
(9) If there is uncertainty associated with modeling and/or
past history of failing to attain the standard, does the
action taken provide for appropriate contingencies that can
be implemented if the area fails to provide a SIP or to
attain and maintain the standards.
(10) Is there a need for long-range planning for the area
and does the approach taken facilitate this planning effort.
The Region should also consider whether the approach taken
would reduce the possibility of legal challenge; would one
approach elevate public awareness of a problem and/or result in a
more expeditious resolution.
This list is by no means exhaustive, and the decision to use
one approach over the other can be difficult. However, because
of the serious health problems associated with exposure to lead,
I would urge the Regions to make their decisions as quickly as
possible.
197
-------
I hope this information is useful to you in the future. If
my office can be helpful in any way during this process, please
feel free to contact us. I can be reached at 919/541-5556 or you
can speak with Laura McKelvey at 919/541-5497.
cc: Lead Contact, Regions I-X
198
-------
I hope this information is useful to you in the future. If
my office can be helpful in any way during this process, please
feel free to contact us. I can be reached at 919/541-5556 or you
can speak with Laura McKelvey at 919/541-5497.
cc: Lead Contact, Regions I-X
bcc: L. Byrd
L. McKelvey
C. Oh
V. Patton
AQMD:SDPMPB:LMCKELVEY:vwyatt:x5585:MD-12:09-15-93
DISK: BNSIPDES.CMP
199
-------
,o*
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP | 1 1993
OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas
Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of
the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO^National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or ,a/yer November 15, 1992
Michael H. Shapiro
Acting Assistant A«
for Air and Radiation (ANR-443)
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
I. Purpose
The purpose of this memorandum is to address State requests
to redesignate from nonattainment to attainment of the ozone and
CO NAAQS under section 107. Specifically at issue are requests
submitted on or after November 15, 1992 where outstanding Clean
Air Act (Act) requirements have not been met. This memo provides
guidance on the statutorily-mandated control programs that must
be in the EPA-approved SIP if EPA is to approve the redesignation
request. The Act's requirements for redesignation and a list of
EPA's redesignation policy and guidance are included in
Attachments A and B. In the future, further guidance may be
provided for redesignations submitted after November 15, 1993.
200
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that
contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
II. Policy Summary
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the Act as amended (amended Act)
provides that the State must have met all applicable requirements
of section 110 and part D in order to be redesignated.
Furthermore, section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) provides that the State
must have a fully-approved SIP for the area seeking
redesignation.
The EPA is interpreting these section 107 provisions to
require satisfactory completion of the current Act planning
requirements. Specifically, before EPA can act favorably upon
any State redesignation request, the statutorily-mandated control
programs of section 110 and part D (that were due prior to the
time of the redesignation request) must have been adopted by the
State and approved by EPA into the SIP.
Thus, with respect to redesignation requests submitted on or
after the Act's deadline for submittal of the required programs,
States must generally adopt and provide for implementation of
their regulations for all of the programs that were due. States
must submit these plans to EPA for incorporation into the SIP.
This would include such requirements as emissions inventories
and/or emission, statements. Such requirements must be met in
order for the area to have a fully-approved SIP that meets all
requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D.
The amended Act, however, also provides that upon
redesignation, a State may move measures from the implemented SIP
to the contingency plan portion of the SIP if the State
demonstrates that such measures are not needed for maintaining
the NAAQS. Many areas sought redesignation at or about the same
time they were required to adopt and implement the requirements
due on November 15, 1992. In many instances, the State will be
able to immediately move these measures to the contingency plan
without implementation.
III. Exceptions to Policy
The EPA decided to review the requirements to determine if
something less than full adoption of these regulations would be
acceptable under the Act for areas seeking redesignation.
Exceptions to this policy on the States' need to complete the
full planning and adoption process for the November 15, 1992
mandated programs are very limited. The language in the Act
allows a degree of flexibility in only four program areas.-These
are- m basic inspection and maintenance (I/M), (2) annual
updates of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) forecasts and annual
'Note that this represents a departure from earlier guidance
for part D new source review (NSR) regulations.
201
-------
estimates of actual VMT for CO nonattainment areas, (3) nitrogen
oxides (NOx) reasonably available control technology (RACT), and
(4) small business programs (SBP).
These exceptions are only applicable in areas for which EPA
approves a redesignation. The States should be aware that if EPA
denies a redesignation request, rules submitted in accordance
with this guidance may also be disapprovable. Finally, because
EPA anticipates issuing onboard regulations by January 1994,
States seeking redesignation of areas classified as moderate may
have some flexibility with respect to the Stage II requirement.
Our guidance for State submittals covering these four
programs is described in the following paragraphs.
Basic I/M
For areas where maintenance plans do not rely on
implementation of a basic I/M program immediately following
redesignation, the I/M component of the SIP should include:
1. Legislative authority for basic I/M such that
implementing regulations can be adopted without any further
legislative action.
2. A provision in the SIP providing that basic I/M be
placed in the contingency measures portion of the maintenance
plan upon redesignation.
3. An enforceable schedule and commitment by the Governor
or his designee for adoption and implementation of a basic I/M
program upon a specified, appropriate triggering event.
Note that, for purposes of consideration of a redesignation
request submitted after November 15, 1992, the commitment as
described in the I/M regulation (see 57 FR 52950, November 5,
1992) is not sufficient to meet the Act's requirement for a
fully-approved SIP.
In addition, please note that, EPA's final I/M regulations
in 40 CFR part 51 require a fully-adopted I/M program by
November 15, 1993. At this time, our preliminary interpretative
guidance on basic I/M in this memo is not discussed in the I/M
regulations. Therefore, EPA is proceeding to establish this
interpretation through regulatory action, thus enabling EPA to
accept legislative authority and a commitment to adopt and
implement basic I/M regulations for those areas being
redesignated to attainment.
202
-------
VMT Forecasting
The VMT forecasting SIP for CO should include:
1. Annual forecasts of VMT (i.e., average daily VMT for the
peak 3-month CO1 seasons for 1993, 1994, and 1995 in moderate
areas above 12.7 ppm, and until 2000 in serious areas).
2. An enforceable commitment by the Governor or his
designee to estimate actual annual VMT for each of these years
(by September 30 of the following year) and to update the
forecast of the VMT in the remaining years.
3. A request that the commitment be moved to the
contingency plan portion of the SIP upon redesignation, becoming
a contingency provision triggered by a specified triggering
event.
4. Adopted contingency measures to reduce CO emissions.
The implementation of such measures is contingent upon either:
(a) an annual estimate of actual VMT or updated forecast of VMT
exceeding the previous forecast for that year, or (b) the area
failing to attain by the CO attainment deadline. These
contingency measures must meet the requirements of section
187(a)(3) as interpreted by the April 16, 1992, "General Preamble
for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990," including the requirement that no further action by the
State is needed for them to take effect.
NOX RACT
Section 182(f) provides that States may request an exemption
from the NOx RACT requirements. The NOx RACT requirements of
section 182(f) do not apply if additional reductions of NOx would
not contribute to attainment.2 In an area that did not implement
the section 182 (f) NOx requirement but did meet the ozone
standard, as demonstrated by adequate monitoring data consistent
with EPA guidance, it is clear that the additional NOx reductions
required by section 182(f) would not contribute to attainment,
although they might contribute to maintenance. Therefore, EPA
believes that if a State submits a redesignation request along
with a section 182(f) exemption request based on monitoring data
demonstrating attainment of the ozone NAAQS, further
documentation is not required. The State may follow one of two
approaches in making such a submittal:
2Note that the section 182 (f) exemption for NOx RACT and NSR
requirements described in this section is applicable only for
States outside an ozone transport region, since only those States
fall under the section 182(f) "contribute to attainment"
provision.
203
-------
1. Submit a redesignation request along with a section
182(f) exemption request based solely upon monitoring data
showing that the area's air quality is meeting the ozone NAAQS;
and submit a maintenance plan SIP revision, which includes a NOx
RACT program as a contingency measure. In lieu of adopted NOx
RACT rules, such a NOx RACT program may consist of an enforceable
schedule and commitment by the Governor or his designee to adopt
and implement the NOx RACT rules upon a specified, appropriate
triggering event.
2. An exemption request based on both ambient monitoring
and urban airshed modeling consistent with EPA guidance that
shows additional NOx reductions would not contribute to
attainment in the area. In this case, NOx RACT rules do not have
to be included as a contingency measure of the maintenance plan.
SBP
For several reasons, the Act can be interpreted as not
requiring the section 507 SBP submittal in order for EPA to
approve a redesignation request. The SBP submittal is required
regardless of whether there are any designated nonattainment
areas within the State. In addition, the SBP is not a control
measure intended to contribute to the emission reductions
achieved by an area; rather it is a service provided to help
small businesses comply with requirements of the Act. For the
above reasons, EPA is interpreting the SBP as not being an
applicable requirement for any specific nonattainment area that
is seeking redesignation. However, EPA will continue to ensure
that States make SBP submittals in a timely fashion.
Stage II Vapor Recovery
Stage II vapor recovery remains an applicable requirement
for moderate ozone nonattainment areas until EPA promulgates
onboard vapor recovery regulations. Section 202(a)(6) of the Act
provides that once onboard regulations are promulgated, the Stage
II regulations required under section 182(b)(3) are no longer
applicable for moderate ozone nonattainment areas. Therefore,
final redesignation for a moderate nonattainment area that occurs
after EPA's onboard regulations are promulgated does not have to
include a Stage II SIP control program. For redesignation
requests that are submitted before EPA promulgates onboard rules
and that do not include Stage II rules for moderate areas,
Regional Offices may prepare rulemaking actions proposing to
approve the redesignation, if appropriate, as long as final
approval occurs after EPA promulgates onboard regulations.
204
-------
IV- Coordination of SIP Submittals and Redesianation
Requests
1 If the State elects to follow the approach above, the State
should submit the SIP control program as described above along
with the redesignation request and maintenance plan. The EPA
will review the required SIP submittal(s) against EPA policy and
guidance and in coordination with the redesignation request and
maintenance plan. Approvability of the redesignation is directly
related to the approvability of the SIP submittals (i.e., EPA is
precluded from approving a redesignation to attainment if the SIP
is not approvable).
As a general policy, a State may not relax the adopted and
implemented SIP for an area upon the area's redesignation to
attainment. States should continue to implement existing control
strategies in order to maintain the standard. However, section
17 5A recognizes that States may be able to move SIP measures to
the contingency plan upon redesignation if the State can
adequately demonstrate that such action will not interfere with
maintenance of the standard. The type of demonstration necessary
is dependent upon the pollutant for which the area has been
redesignated to attainment.
In order to make such a demonstration for an area
redesignated to attainment for CO, EPA believes that the State
could submit a revised control strategy demonstration showing
that the measure is not necessary to maintain the standard. For
ozone, the State would need to submit an attainment modeling
demonstration consistent with EPA's current "Guideline on Air
Quality Models," showing that the control measure is not needed
to maintain the standard. The EPA intends to be very cautious in
approving such revisions in cases where the control measures were
implemented during the time the area attained the standard; the
State's demonstration should indicate an ample margin of safety
with respect to maintenance of the standard.
V. Conclusion
In summary, full adoption of all of the statutorily-required
programs, as well as a schedule and an enforceable commitment for
an implementation date, are necessary for redesignation to
attainment from nonattainment for ozone or CO if the
redesignation request is submitted after the statutory due date
for the program. The few exceptions to this requirement are
basic I/M, annual updates of VMT forecasts, and estimates of
actual VMT, NOx RACT, and SEP.
If you have any questions, please contact Sharon Reinders at
(919) 541-5284, or Annie Nikbakht at (919) 541-5246.
205
-------
Attachments
cc: Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
Kent Berry, AQMD
Rob Brenner, OAR
Mary Henigin, OAQPS
Alan Eckert, OGC
Robert Kellam, TSD
Rich Ossias, OGC
John Seitz, OAQPS
Paul stolpman, OAR
Jan Tierney, OGC
Lydia Wegman, OAQPS
Dick Wilson, QMS
206
-------
Attachment A
Criteria For Redesianation Under Section 107 fd)
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act states five criteria that
must be met before the Administrator may redes ignate an area to
attainment. The criteria are:
1. The EPA has determined that the NAAQS have been
attained.
2. The applicable implementation plan has been fully
approved by EPA under section 110(k).
3. The EPA has determined that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in
emissions.
4. The State has met all applicable requirements for the
area under section 110 and part D.
5. The EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan, including
a contingency plan, for the area under section 175A.
207
-------
Attachment B
The EPA policies for implementing section 107 of the Act for
redesignations are contained in the following memorandums.
1. "Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas
to Attainment," John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division, September 4, 1992.
2. "State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in
Response to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines," John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992.
3. "Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations," G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide
Programs Branch, June 1, 1992.
4. "Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas," G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992.
In the event that EPA does not approve the redesignation,
the applicable I/M program requirements and guidance can be found
in 57 FR 52950, November 5, 1992 and in 40 CFR part 51. The
applicable VMT forecast guidance is described in the document
entitled, "Section 187 VMT Forecasting and Tracking Guidance,"
January 1992.
208
-------
OPERATING PERMITS PROGRAM
The Clean Air Act requires States to develop operating
permit programs that meet the requirements of Title V of the Act.
States were required to submit these programs to EPA by November
15, 1993. EPA has 60 days to determine if the program submittals
were complete, and if so, 1 year to determine if the program
submittals are approvable. In cases where States do not adopt
approvable programs, the statute requires EPA to adopt and
implement a federal permit program.
As of December 1, 1993, 31 States and a number of local
agencies submitted operating permit programs to EPA for review.
State agencies that have submitted programs to EPA are listed on
the following pages.
Copies of a number of program guidance documents that the
Agency has developed to guide permitting agencies in developing
their program submittals are, also provided. These guidance
documents include the following:
-Title V Program Approval Criteria for Section 112
Activities
-Delegations Issues Concerning Sections 111 and 112
Requirements and Title V
-Approaches to creating federally-enforceable emission
limits
i
-Guidance for Optional federally-enforceable emission
limits based on Volatile Organic Compound Use
-Reissuance of Guidance on Agency review of State Fee
Schedules for Operating Permits Programs Under Title V
-Definition of Regulated Air Pollutant for Purposes of
Title V
209
-------
January 10, 1994
STATUS OF OPERATING PERMIT PROGRAM SUBMITTALS
When Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1990, it included
a requirement in Title V for States and Territories to develop
and implement operating permit programs. While programs must be
implemented statewide, the Governor can designate local agencies
to implement the program within portions of the State. Title V
operating permit programs were required to be submitted to the
EPA for review and approval by November 15, 1993.
As of November 30, 1993, 31 States and a number of local
agencies submitted programs. Since then 3 additional States
(Alabama, Hawaii, and Nevada) have submitted their programs.
The program submittals listed below have not yet been fully
reviewed by EPA for either completeness or approvability. The
listing merely indicates if a submittal has been made. The CAA
gives EPA 60 days to determine if a program submittal is complete
and 1 year to approve or disapprove the submittal. The CAA also
requires that EPA implement mandatory sanctions within 18 months
in those cases where States do not submit a program by the
statutory due date. However, the subsequent submittal of a
complete program would stop the sanctions clock.
States (and local agencies) which have submitted operating
permit programs to EPA include:
EPA RO 1 NONE YET RECEIVED
EPA RO 2 NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY, PUERTO RICO, VIRGIN ISLANDS
EPA RO 3 WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA, PENNSYLVANIA, AND DELAWARE
EPA RO 4 MISSISSIPPI, NORTH CAROLINA (INCLUDING PROGRAMS FOR 3
LOCAL AGENCIES - FORSYTH COUNTY, MECKLENBERG COUNTY AND
WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA), SOUTH CAROLINA, FLORIDA,
GEORGIA, 2 LOCAL PROGRAMS IN TENNESSEE: KNOX AND
NASHVILLE/DAVIDSON COUNTIES, AND ALABAMA* (INCLUDING
PROGRAMS FOR HUNTSVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY*)
EPA RO 5 ILLINOIS, MINNESOTA, MICHIGAN, AND OHIO
EPA RO 6 TEXAS, NEW MEXICO (INCLUDING ALBUQUERQUE), LOUISIANA,
AND ARKANSAS
EPA RO 7 NEBRASKA (INCLUDING OMAHA AND LINCOLN) AND IOWA
210
-------
EPA RO 8 COLORADO, S. DAKOTA, AND WYOMING
EPA RO 9 18 OF THE 34 CALIFORNIA AIR DISTRICTS; ARIZONA
(INCLUDING PIMA COUNTY, PINAL COUNTY AND MARICOPA
COUNTIES); HAWAII*; AND NEVADA* (INCLUDING WASHOE
COUNTY*)
EPA RO 10 IDAHO, OREGON (INCLUDING 1 LOCAL PROGRAM), AND
WASHINGTON (INCLUDING 7 LOCAL AGENCIES)
* Submittals since last report
211
-------
vF ss>
P ^^ TJ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\
| VXiTy $ RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK. NC 27711
APR 1 3 199^ AIR QUALITY PLANNING
ni l\ J. t/ IC/OJ AiuncTAwnAons
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Title V Program Approval Criteria for Section 112
Activities
FROM: John S. Seitz, Director _
Office of Air Quality Piffling and 'StatfjdagLds^XKD-lO)
TO: Director, Air Division, Regions I-X
Under title V of the Clean Air Act (Act) and its
implementing regulations published at 40 CFR part 70, States are
required to submit operating permits programs to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by November 15, 1993.
Section 112 of the Act (hazardous air pollutants) contains
several types of applicable requirements which are intended to be
carried out by States as a precondition of their title V program
approval. While the broad authority contained in most States
enabling legislation should support the mandated program for
section 112, States may find it necessary to take certain interim
steps ,in order to incorporate section 112 requirements into title
V permits. A'lthough ongoing EPA rulemakings related to section
112 may ultimately affect the final response to such questions,
several Regions and States have asked for guidance now to direct
the development of title V operating permits programs submittals.
This memorandum, with its attachment, is intended to respond to
these requests based on the part 70 regulations and the general
structure and requirements of section 112. However, the policies
set out in this memorandum and its attachment are intended solely
as guidance, do not represent final Agency action, and cannot be
relied upon to create any rights enforceable by any party.
This memorandum defines current Agency policy for evaluating
part 70 submittals with respect to section 112 requirements.
Under this guidance, in order to obtain a full approval from EPA,
the part 70 submittal needs to contain authority and/or
commitments to assure the compliance of part 70 permits issued by
the State, or by independent permitting authorities therein, with
all applicable section 112 requirements. Specifically, the
Attorney General's statement should certify that the State has
authority to issue part 70 permits that assure compliance with
all currently applicable requirements (including section 112 of
the Act), and that the State will expeditiously adopt any new
authority needed to implement future EPA section 112
requirements. Where general statutory authority to issue permits
implementing section 112 is present, but the Attorney General is
212
-------
unable to certify explicit legal authority to carry out specific
section 112 requirements at the time of program submittal, the
Governor may instead submit commitments to adopt and implement
additional regulations as needed to issue permits that implement
applicable section 112 requirements. The EPA will rely on these
commitments in granting part 70 program approvals provided that
the underlying legislative authority would not prevent a State
from meeting the commitments.
As for part 70 program revisions, no formal amendment to the
initial title V program should typically be needed with respect
to section 112 Requirements taking effect after the effective
date of the program. The State's up-front commitment and
demonstrations (i.e., legal authorities and mechanisms to adopt
additional section 112 requirements) coupled with EPA's ability
to review individual permits and to audit part 70 programs
periodically should provide reasonable assurance of adequate
State implementation.
The EPA will make reasonable efforts to communicate to
States when additional legal, technical, and financial resources
may be necessary to implement new section 112 requirements as
they become applicable. The State, however, remains responsible
for maintaining and enhancing as necessary its authority to
implement section 112, including any new regulations. In light
of the demonstrations and/or commitments required for part 70
approval, the EPA will presume that a State's.request for
approval of its operating permits progfam will be an implicit .
request under section 112(1) for delegation of authority tb
implement federally-promulgated section 112 requirements in the
same form in which EPA issues them. In lieu of this arrangement,
States can opt to establish specific delegations where needed.
In the latter case, States should revise the implementation
agreement with a schedule for the timely adoption of all EPA
requirements promulgated after the time of program subraittal.
Under the above approaches, there should be few concerns
which would require the process in 40 CFR 70.4(i) to revise the
part 70 program. This process involves public participation and
publication in the Federal Register. An example of where this
process might be needed would be a pattern of proposed permits
which fail to assure compliance with a certain section 112
requirements due to a lack of State authority. In such a case a
part 70 program revision may well be needed. The EPA will be
prepared to veto any permit that does not assure compliance with
the Act and part 70, as required in section 70.8(c) and call for
appropriate correction to(the State program.
The attached information summarizes the guidance for Regions
to follow when reviewing State title V submittals for specific
section 112 concerns. The attachment also provides, where
indicated, the "current best advice" with respect to certain
213
-------
future section 112 rulemakings as they may affect title V
programs. Please note that States are responsible for
implementing all applicable requirements of section 112,
including making and enforcing the case-by-case maximum
achievable control technology decisions under sections 112(i)(5),
112(g) and (j), as well as making any offset determinations
required under section 112(g). The attachment also summarizes
EPA's position regarding fee demonstrations and interim approvals
for section 112 activities.
I trust this guidanpe will be useful. If you have any
questions, please contact Karen Blanchard at (919) 541-5503 on
section 112 concerns, Michael Trutna at (919) 541-5345 on how
title V interfaces with section 112 requirements, and Kirt Cox at
(919) 541-5399 on general approval criteria for title V programs.
Attachment
cc: J. Beale, OPAR
K. Berry, AQMD
E. Davies, OSWER
A. Eckert, OGC
E. .Gilberg, OE
B. Jordan, ESD
J. Rasnic, SSCD
L. Wegman, OAQPS
214
-------
ATTACHMENT - TITLE V APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR
SECTION 112 ACTIVITIES
The following information summarizes the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) guidance for evaluating title V
program submittals due on or before November 15, 1993 as well as
EPA's current best advice regarding future rulemakings under
section 112 in relation to title V programs. The result of
granting approval under title V is important because it confers
responsibility on the state for implementing all section 112
requirements. Citations are to the regulations published at 40
CFR part 70.
SCOPE OF THE PROGRAM
States must issue part 70 permits to all major sources of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP's) regardless of whether there is
any section 112 standard or requirement which currently applies
to such sources (section 70.3(a)). A source meets the definition
of "major" in section 70.2 if its potential to emit is 10 tons
per year (tpy) or more of any pollutant listed in section 112(b),
or 25 tpy or more for a combination of these pollutants. A
source that reduces its potential to emit HAP's below the major
source threshold would eliminate the need to obtain a part 70
permit and to comply with section 112 requirements that apply
only to major sources. Future EPA rulemakings may identify
additional means beyond those identified in the proposed part 70
regulations (see 56 FR 21725 which identifies several mechanisms,
including SIP limits and permit Conditions taken under EPA
approved new source, review -and operating permits programs) for
sources to reduce their potential to emit HAP's.
Under the final title V regulations, States may grant a
temporary exemption to nonmajor part 70 sources (other than acid
rain-affected sources and municipal waste incinerators) from the
requirement to obtain a part 70 permit, including any nonmajor
sources subject to section 112 standards in existence on July 21,
1992. The Agency intends to propose through rulemaking within 4
years of the first EPA-approved permit program whether to
continue some exemption opportunity for these sources. The need
to permit additional nonmajor sources which become subject to
section 112 standards promulgated after the final part 70
regulations will be determined at the time a new standard is
promulgated. In addition, EPA may at a later date establish
lesser quantity emission rates for some or all HAP's under
section 112(a) which increase the number of major sources which
are required to have part 70 permits.
LEGAL AUTHORITY
Under this guidance, in order to obtain a full approval from
EPA, the part 7,0 submittal needs to contain authority and/or
commitments to assure the compliance of part 70 permits issued by
the State, or by independent permitting authorities therein, with
215
-------
all applicable section 112 requirements. Specifically, the
Attorney General's statement should certify that the State has
authority to issue part 70 permits that assure compliance with
all currently applicable requirements (including section 112 of
the Act), and that the State will expeditiously adopt any new
authority needed to implement future EPA section 112
requirements. Where general statutory authority to issue permits
implementing section 112 is present, but the Attorney General is
unable to certify explicit legal authority to carry out specific
existing section 112 requirements at the time of program
submittal, the Governor in the part 70 program submittal may
instead submit commitments to adopt and implement additional
regulations as needed to issue permits that implement section 112
requirements. The EPA will rely on these commitments in granting
part 70 program approvals, provided that the underlying
legislative authority would not prevent a State from meeting the
commitments.
The approach with regard to part 70 approvals should
minimize the need for part 70 program revisions. Part 70 merely
requires States to have authority to incorporate applicable
requirements into part 70 permits, and to issue permits that
assure compliance with those applicable requirements. Part 70
does not, however, dictate or restrict the legal mechanisms by
which States may accomplish this result. The availability of
particular mechanisms will likely be determined by the legal .
regime of the individual.State. A State may, by virtue of its
own legal regime, be required to seek formal delegations from EPA
for-each section 112 requirement before it can incorporate those
requirements into permits (this mechanism reflects the historical
practice in many States that have chosen to implement and enforce
section 112 standards). Where the State does make use of
recurring delegations from EPA in order to meet the part 70
requirement, these delegations will not in the normal course
require a concomitant revision to the part 70 program.
States may alternatively possess mechanisms to satisfy this
part 70 requirement that do not involve separate delegations from
EPA for each section 112 requirement. For instance, State law
may allow incorporation of a Federal standard directly into the
part 70 permit without any interim steps to adopt the standard as
State law or to seek formal delegation of that standard from EPA.
The EPA would also consider this approach sufficient to meet the
ongoing part 70 obligation for States to have adequate authority
to implement through permits the applicable requirements of
section 112.
Delegation agreements for all section 112 requirements can
also be established on an automatic basis at the time of part 70
program approval. This approach can greatly improve the
efficiency of program transfer. Accordingly, EPA will presume
'that in light of the required demonstration and/or commitments
216
-------
required for part 70 approval, a State will automatically
implement each new requirement unless the State advises EPA to
the contrary. The EPA may request a review of individual State
actions to ensure that the needed legal authority and/or
technical capabilities are in place at the State level in time
for their use in the part 70 permit process. Such evaluations
should be limited to the exceptional case where EPA has strong
reasons to believe that legal and/or resource problems exist. In
lieu of general or automatic delegation arrangements, the State
could opt to meet its obligations under part 70 by establishing a
delegation agreement for each specific source category as
discussed above.
SECTION 112(d).(f).AND (h) - EPA EMISSIONS STANDARDS
All National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) standards, maximum achievable control technology (MACT)
standards, and residual risk standards must be incorporated and
implemented within the part 70 permit. When required under
specific standards, generally available control technology (GACT)
standards must also be implemented within the part 70 permit. As
described above, States are charged with acquiring all necessary
legal authorities in order to guarantee this result and
identifying a mechanism that ensures the timely acquisition of
authority for future EPA standards. Under the part 70 rules,
States must specifically agree: (1) not to issue any permit [or
permit revision addressing any emissions unit subject to a newly
promulgated section 112 standard] unless it would assure
compliance with all applicable section 112 standards [section
70.6(a)(l)], and (2) to reopen part 70 permits which have 3 or
more years remaining before their expiration date to incorporate
any newly promulgated standard [section 70.7(f)(1)(i)]. The
implementation agreement should be revised to contain specific
milestones for timely State acquisition of any needed authority
or capability to implement standards to prevent any unreasonable
delay in permit issuance (i.e., in no event longer than 18 months
after receipt of a complete application for any permit action).
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The implementation of all current NESHAP standards and
future MACT (and residual risk) standards includes the
implementation of any "general provisions" that EPA develops for
these standards., Initial title V approval must assure that
States will carry out these provisions as in effect at the time
of any permit issuance or revision. States should be aware that
EPA will soon be preparing revisions to the general provisions
and that they may have to update their implementation authorities
in accordance with EPA's rulemaking.
217
-------
Revisions to the general provisions will contain (as do the
existing general provisions) compliance-related requirements that
supplement the compliance requirements specified in individual
standards. These general provisions will also establish
definitions and administrative procedures to make applicability
determinations, grant compliance extensions, and perform
preconstruction review and approval for new and reconstructed
sources to assure compliance with applicable, promulgated
standards, among other functions. Future EPA rulemakings may
supplement the general provisions for new section 112 standards
and programs by further clarifying how and when sources may limit
their potential to emit toxic pollutants below major source
threshold levels.
SECTION 112 (a) - CASE-BY-CASE MACT FOR MODIFIED/CONSTRUCTED AKD
RECONSTRUCTED MAJOR TOXIC SOURCES
The EPA anticipates that section 112(g) will involve a
preconstruction review program with the subsequent incorporation
of its results into the part 70 permit. The EPA expects States
to implement this program fully.1 Therefore, in order to obtain
approval of a title V program, a State must commit to have
authority to make all required section 112(g) determinations as
well as subsequently to incorporate them into the part 70 permit.
'The preamble to the proposed operating permits rule stated
that States must have authority to "implement and enforce"
'certain section, 112 provisions, including authority to "develop
and enforce case-by-case determinations of MACT for new,
reconstructed, or modified sources where no applicable emissions
limitations have been yet established (112 (,g)) ." 56 Fed. Reg.
21722. The EPA believes that, for section 112(g), this is the
proper interpretation of the State's duty under section
502(b)(5)(A) to have authority to assure compliance with all
applicable requirements. The EPA interprets the phrase "the
Administrator (or the State)" (referring to the entity
responsible for making case-by-case determinations) in sections
112(g) and (j) to be a reference to the title V permitting
authority. That section 112(g) is triggered on the effective
date of the title V program further supports this reading of
Congressional intent. This interpretation also is reasonable in
that the title V permitting process will 'provide important
information to the permitting authority implementing section
112(g). The EPA expects this benefit will begin to manifest
itself even before sources are issued permits, as they will be
required to assess and report emissions-related data in their
permit applications.
218
-------
In addition, the State must, on the effective date of the
program, be able to implement section 112(g) in accordance with
EPA regulations. If EPA's rulemaking to implement section 112(g)
is not then final, the State must still implement section 112(g)
since this program is triggered by the effective date of the part
70 program. In such cases, EPA expects to work closely with the
State in making required section 112(g) determinations, including
providing to the State the use of centralized EPA data bases and
exploring with the State the possible use of general permits to
establish a presumptive MACT for certain qualifying source
categories.
SECTION 112 (i)(5) - EARLY REDUCTIONS
Each State must have adequate legal authority upon the
effective date of its part 70 program to carry out EPA's final
rule to implement section 112(i) (5) within the part 70 program.
Section 112(i)(5) requires that States implement fully the
requirements of the provision as part of its title V program. In
the absence of an approval of a more stringent program under
section 112(1),, in designing federally enforceable permit
conditions under the early reductions program, States may be more
stringent only to the extent that requiring a greater than 90
percent emissions reduction for organic HAP.'s or 95 percent
emissions reduction for particulate matter HAP's. The State may
also opt to take temporary delegation of EPA's program for
permitting sources that have entered into enforceable commitments
under section 112(i)(5), if such a program is promulgated prior
to the effective date of the part 70 program.
SECTION 112(T) - CASE-BY-CASE MACT HAMMER
i Section 112(j) requires that the permitting authority
perform case-by-case MACT determinations in the context of
issuing title V permits to categories of sources for;which EPA
has failed to meet by more than 18 months the regulatory schedule
established under section 112(e). Therefore, to obtain approval
of a part 70 program, States must first have authority upon
submittal of their part 70 program to require applications from
sources subject to section 112(j) within 18 months after a missed
deadline. A commitment', is also needed from each State that it
will obtain sufficient legal authority in a timely manner to make
any required section 112(j) case-by-case determination and to
incorporate it into a part 70 permit. Specific legal authority
to implement and enforce limits as needed can be obtained on a
source category basis for those sources and pollutants which are
subject to the section 112(j) hammer requirement before permit
issuance is required of the State under part 70. A revision to
the part 70 program would not be necessary, provided that the
State has made the general commitment to issue permits which
219
-------
assure compliance with section 112 and any implementing
regulations. States can, of course, also meet their part 70
responsibility by adopting a general legal authority to establish
case-by-case MACT consistent with any final EPA rulemaking
setting for the requirements of section 112(j).
SECTION 112(1) - STATE AIR TOXICS PROGRAMS
The applicable requirements, including those of section 112,
must each be included in part 70 permits and enforced (as
necessary) by the State. States are free under sections 116,
506(a), and 112(d)(7) to be more stringent than Federal
requirements as a matter of State law. However, any additional
State restrictions will in general be identified in the part 70
permit as not being federally enforceable [section 70.6(b)(2)].
Future rulemaking under section 112(1) could allow States to
establish alternative terras in the part 70 permit which would be
no less stringent than the corresponding requirement in section
112 and, once approved, would be federally enforceable in lieu of
the section 112 requirement.
Future guidance to implement section 112(1) will provide
additional insight into the available options for delegation of
section 112 standards, including where the State proposes to
implement the Federal standards exactly as promulgated by EPA
(see previous discussion in Legal Authority).
SECTION 112(r) - ACCIDENTAL RELEASE PLANS
States must demonstrate adequate legal authority to assure
compliance with the applicable requirements of section 112(r) for
any source subject to part 70. In order to qualify for full
approval of their part 70 submittal with respect to section
112(r), a State must have legal authority sufficient to: (1)
determine whether a part 70 source is obligated to register and
submit a risk management plan; (2) secure verification from part
70 sources that any required submittal was prepared and submitted
to appropriate authorities (permit authority, EPA, and/or another
State authority);2 (3) obtain annual certifications from these
sources as to whether their risk management plans are being
properly implemented; and (4) include the obligation, to submit
such a plan in accordance with a compliance schedule in the part
2States must identify the group in the State (if not the
permitting authority) which has been designated(to receive the
risk management plans for part 70 sources in accordance with
section 112 (r).
220
-------
70 permit for any source failing to make its required plan
submittal.
States can opt to implement more of this program through
part 70 permits, but States are not encouraged to put the actual
plan in the part 70 permit. In its demonstration of adequate
resources, a State must account for the costs associated with the
requirements listed above. The costs incurred from any other
permit review and subsequent oversight of these plans that is
accomplished within the permit program must also be addressed.
RESOURCE ADEQUACY
i
A State's submittal must contain demonstrations that
adequate resources will be available to implement its part 70
program [section 70.4(b)(8)]. In general, section 112
requirements, to the extent they are carried out through title V
permiting, must be supported by title V permit fees. These
requirements would include activities related to determinations,
incorporation and implementation of any standards under section
112(d), (f) and (h), and case-by-case MACT requirements under
sections 112(g) and 112(j), and oversight of accidental release
plans (to the extent required in the permit). The test for
initial approval of a part 70 program is that sufficient fees
must be collected to cover the costs of program implementation,
including all section 112 requirements (section 70.9(b)). The
EPA in reviewing a State's permit fee program submittal will
generally presume that it is adequate if the State would collect
in aggregate, revenues greater than the $25/tpy (1989 basis)
presumptive fee schedule. After the program is launched,
adjustments to any approved fee schedule can be required by EPA
if poor implementation is linked to inadequate resources.
Some States may, instead of relying on the presumptive
approach, opt to make a detailed showing that the indirect and
direct costs of their permits program will be offset from fee
revenues. Other States may be required to do so if compelling
evidence exists that the presumptive fee schedule is inadequate
(i.e., prediction of actual program costs are higher than the
revenue programs which would be obtained using the presumptive
fee schedules). In addition, a detailed demonstration would be
required where a State is trying to demonstrate the adequacy of a
fee schedule which is less than the presumptive one. States, in
making detailed fee demonstrations, should be aware of the
additional complexity associated with toxics programs. For
example, development of emissions estimates, measurement
strategies, and control technologies is much more contaminant
specific. For further discussion, please contact Karen Blanchard
at (919) 541-5503.
221
-------
8
INTERIM APPROVAL
Other issues dealing with title V program approval concern
when and how the concept of interim approval would be
appropriate. Under part 70, the State may 'be able to defer
applicability of the part 70 program to certain source categories
and obtain interim approval. However, the EPA views the source
category-limited option as a grant of extraordinary relief
available only for States that substantially meet the source
coverage requirements of part 70 but that, for compelling
reasons, fall short of the source coverage necessary for full
approval. All permits that are issued within the interim program
must address ail applicable requirements, including all section
112 requirements [section 70.4(d)] [but not title VI
requirements] that apply to sources subject to the interim
program. Therefore, a source must be totally exempted from title
V coverage under an interim program to avoid incorporation of
section 112 requirements into a title V permit.
(Notwithstanding, any exempted source would remain subject to
applicable MACT and NESHAP standards.) Of course, this could
occur only the extent that the interim program nevertheless
"substantially meets" the source coverage requirements of part
70.
Another issue related to interim approval concerns the
trigger for making section 112(g) determinations. Section 112(g)
provides that such determinations must be made for source
modifications upon the effective date of a title V program,
including interim programs. States should assume, in the case of
interim programs, that the section 112(g) responsibility is
triggered for only those sources covered by the interim approval.
This is consistent with the obligation of only sources covered by
the interim program to submit applications. However, EPA will
not grant interim approval where the proposed program would fail
to cover certain major source categories solely on the grounds
that applying section 112(g) to these sources would be too
burdensome.
222
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK. NC 27711
DEC 10 1993
OFFICE OF
AIR QUALITY PLANNING
AND STANDARDS
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Straight Delegations Issues Concerning Sections 111 and
112 Requirements and Title, V
FROM:
TO:
John S. Seitz, Director
Office of Air Quality Plann&ig and Standard
Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Divisipn,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region IIJ
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
Several questions have been raised concerning the ways in
which authority to implement and enforce sections ill and 112
requirements exactly as promulgated by EPA (i.e., "straight
delegations") can now be delegated to the States, both
independent of and in conjunction with State part 70 operating
permits programs being developed to meet the requirements of
title V. This memo and its attachment, ray April 13, 1993
memorandum ("Title V Approval Criteria for Section 112
Requirements"), and the final section 112(1) rules should be
taken as Agency policy regarding straight delegations of these
requirements. This guidance, however, does not represent final
Agency action and cannot be relied upon to create any rights
enforceable by any party. Approval of State requirements that
differ from and are no less stringent than section 112
requirements are addressed in EPA's recently signed regulations
to implement section 112(1).
Some of the key points found in the attachment are
summarized as follows:
1. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) ability to
delegate section 112 requirements to States is now governed by
the new section 112(1) rulemaking process added by the Clean Air
Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990. The approval of a part 70
operating permits program provides an excellent opportunity for
223
-------
States to receive concurrent EPA approval-under section 112(1) of
a "mechanism1' by which straight delegation of section 112 •
requirements, as they apply to sources covered by the permitting
program, can occur expeditiously. The detailed procedures
comprising this mechanism and the responsibilities of each party
should be specified in a title V implementation agreement or
other memorandum of agreement (MOA). (For the purposes of this
memorandum and attachment, the term "MOA" will refer to the
specific agreement used by a State and associated EPA Regional
Office for establishing specific procedures to implement the
section 112 delegations process, regardless of whether this
agreement is in the form of a title V implementation agreement or
a more general MOA between the State and the Region.) This
approval will eliminate the need to conduct a section 112(1)
rulemaking for each new requirement that applies to these
sources. In addition, this rulemaking should presumptively
accomplish section 112(1) delegation for any currently applicable
section 112 requirements which are delegatable, still
undelegated, and applicable to sources covered by the State's
part 70 permit program.- As noted in paragraph number 4 below and
discussed in the attachment there may be certain exceptions to
this (see question 6). It may also be possible for this
rulemaking to provide for partial delegation of certain
information-receipt responsibilities for some future section 112
requirements, as long as the details of this delegation are
agreed to in an MOA, and the State has the ability to obtain
necessary enforcement authority on a timely basis.
2. Until the time of part 70 approval or in cases where
sources not subject to the part 70 program are covered by a
section 112 requirement, Regions can, in many instances,
effectively transfer much of the technical and administrative
burden of implementing and enforcing a particular standard by
establishing an MOA with the State. Alternatively, the Region
can delegate responsibility for section 112 requirements by
accomplishing notice and comment rulemaking under section
112(1)(5) in the most efficient manner. Possible approaches
include use of "direct final" actions, where appropriate, and
programs which prospectively deal with delegation of section 112
requirements.
3. The options for delegation of section 111 standards
prior to the 1990 CAAA remain available to the States and EPA
since the language in section lll(c) was not changed. Again, the
title V program approval provides an excellent new opportunity
for delegation.
4. States must acquire any new legal authority as needed to
implement the applicable requirements of sections 111 and 112 on
a timeframe sufficient to assure timely issuance or revision of
part 70 permits. For applicable requirements existing at the
time of the State's part 70 program submittal, the State must
224
-------
demonstrate adequate existing legal authority to implement these
requirements presumptively'by the effective date of the part 70
program. Under certain circumstances, a State may negotiate with
the Region a later date for acquiring such' responsibility for a
particular standard. This approach will be acceptable only if it
is consistent with the timely phase-in of the part 70 program,
and if the State presents a detailed implementation strategy
convincing the Region that the necessary legal authority will be
secured consistent with its strategy.
5. There is no immediate need for a State to obtain
delegation for a standard which currently applies to sources not
in that State. However, the State and Regional Office should
develop a strategy describing how new sources of this type will
be addressed without delaying issuance of their part 70 permits.
*
6. The EPA anticipates that States will accept full
delegation to implement and enforce applicable sections 111 and
112 requirements for all major and nonmajor sources subject to
them. Some States have requested that EPA partially delegate
certain sections 111 or 112 requirements on the basis of source
coverage. This would be done by withholding delegation of
requirements as they apply to nonraajor sources and retaining this
responsibility for EPA implementation. The EPA Regions can
consider such requests on a case-by-case basis but this type of
delegation should be reserved for those rare cases where a State
can demonstrate that the approach would still meet the
requirements of title V (e.g., a standard clearly applies in part
to a set of smaller sources which are not potentially subject to
part 70).
The responses contained in the attachment have been
previously coordinated with your staff and will be placed on the
Technology Transfer Network bulletin board. If you have any
further questions on title Ill/title V delegation concerns,
please contact Michael Trutna at 919-541-5345, Rich Damberg at
919-541-5592, or Julie Andresen at 919-541-5339. For other title
III issues not involving title V, please contact Karen Blanchard,
who is managing the effort to guide the implementation of section
112, at 919-541-5647.
Attachment
cc: K. Berry
B. Jordan
A. Schwartz
L. Wegman
225
-------
ATTACHMENT
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS TO STRAIGHT DELEGATION ISSUES CONCERNING
SECTIONS 111 AND 112 REQUIREMENTS AND TITLE V
l. How can "straight delegation" (i.e., where the State will
implement and enforce the requirement exactly as promulgated
by EPA) of section 112 requirements be accomplished before
and after the approval of a part 70 program?
a« Section 112(1) Rulemaking Required for Future
Delegations
Section 112(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) provides the
mechanism for approval of programs for the delegation of Federal
standards and programs to the States: "A program submitted by a
State under this subsection may provide for partial or complete
delegation of the Administrator's authorities and
responsibilities to implement and enforce emission standards and
prevention requirements. ..." This language in section 112(1)
was enacted in 1990 and replaces that formerly found in section
112(d). Thus, section 112(1) now provides the exclusive pathway
for delegation of section 112 requirements. Section 112(1)(5)
prescribes the specific requirements for EPA approval, following
notice and comment rulemaking, of State air toxics programs
addressing, among other things, delegation of standards. There
is no basis to distinguish this rulemaking in its application to
pre-1990 section 112 standards versus its application to the
"new" standards and programs. As a result, this rulemaking
requirement applies to all future section 112 delegations,
regardless of whether they are for new MACT standards,
infrastructure programs (such as those in sections 112(g) and
(j))r or pre-1990 NESHAPS for which a State failed to take
delegation in the past.
Once a State's part 70 program has been approved, the State
typically will not have to submit a separate request for approval
under section 112(1*) for straight delegation of section 112
requirements which apply only to sources subject to the part 70
program. A separate request is presumptively not needed for two
main reasons: 1) meeting part 70 approval requirements will
suffice in meeting the section 112(1) approval requirements, and
2) approval of a part 70 program confers the responsibility to
implement and enforce all "applicable requirements" of section
112 for sources subject to the part 70 permit program. The
extent to which a part 70 program meets the requirements of
section 112(1) is further discussed in section (d).
States will need to take additional steps to receive
"straight delegation" of section 112 requirements which apply to
sources not covered by that State's part 70 program. For many
States, only major sources will initially be subject to the part
70 program. As 4 result, certain sources subject to section 112
226
-------
requirements will not face part 70 permitting obligations,
including area sources deferred from permitting requirements in
the part 70 rule, area sources deferred from permitting by
specific section 112 standards (e.g." dry cleaners)', or sources
subject to the 112(r) accidental release program but not required
to obtain a part 70 permit.
There are two primary options for obtaining delegation of
requirements as they apply to sources not subject to the part 70
permit program. Both involve section 112(1) rulemaking. The
most administratively streamlined rulemaking option is for a
State to submit a request to EPA for approval of a program for
"straight delegations'* under subpart 63.91 of the 112(1) rule.
Here EPA would conduct a 112(1) rulemaking which would provide
for public notice and comment on the State's proposed program for
receiving straight delegation from the EPA for section 112
requirements as they apply to sources outside the part 70 permit
program. Under this program, States would then, without further
rulemaking, receive delegation for specific section 112
requirements upon their request in accordance with the memorandum
of agreement (MOA) between the State and EPA.
The second rulemaking option would involve separate
submittals from the State requesting delegation of specific
section 112 requirements as they apply to sources not required to
obtain a part 70 permit. The EPA would need to conduct a 112(1)
rulemaking for each individual State request, although "direct
final" rulemakings could be used wherever appropriate [the
"direct final" process is discussed in section (b)]. Separate
section 112(1) rulemakings may be appropriate for expedited
delegation of section 112 requirements promulgated before the
State receives part 70 program approval (e.g., degreasing
National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP), the Hazardous Organic NESHAP, chrome electroplating
NESHAP, and cooling towers NESHAP).
Both of these rulemaking options require submittal of State
demonstrations that the State has adequate legal authority,
resources and an expeditious schedule for implementation. The
content of these submittals is discussed in section (c).
Another option, one which does not constitute section 112(1)
rulemaking but can provide quick transfer of many implementation
responsibilities to States, involves the expanded use of MOA's.
Where a section 112(1) rulemaking is not practical (e.g., short
time before part 70 approval expected), EPA can still enter into
an MOA with a willing State to transfer the effective workload of
a particular section 112 requirement. These MOA's, which can be
similar in form to the pre-1990 delegation practices under
section 112(d), can be used to contract with the State to perform
the technical and administrative implementation of the
requirement (and enforcement as well if the State has adequate
227
-------
legal authority to enforce in State court). However, an MOA
cannot, standing alone, be the basis for a formal delegation
under section 112(1). Therefore, while this approach, is
potentially valuable in certain situations, it would not serve to
formally delegate a section 112 requirement and so would not, for
example, allow the state to replace EPA as a point of receipt for
required reports or other information. The EPA Regions and
States must weigh the relative merits associated with this use of
MOA's as compared with delegations accomplished by section 112(1)
rulemaking before selecting the most appropriate means for
implementing a particular section 112 requirement.
b. Nature of Section 112(11 Rulemakincrs bv EPA
Procedurally, section 112(1) requires a State submittal of a
request for approval, notice in the Federal Register that EPA has
received a request for approval, a public comment period of at
least 30 days, and notice in the Federal Register that EPA has
approved or disapproved the request. The content of the EPA
rulemaking to transfer the responsibility to implement and
enforce section 112 requirements as promulgated can vary widely.
As discussed in section (d), the substance of a section 112(1)
notice can be extremely short where implementation in large part
depends on the adequacy of resources and legal authority
otherwise required under the part 70 permit program. Where the
State intends to, implement and enforce the section 112
requirement as promulgated by EPA, this notice and comment
rulemaking, even where it cannot be combined with the part 70
approval process, can also be expeditiously accomplished in many
cases.
One approach available to expedite future straight
delegations outside of a part 70 program approval is based on
EPA's ability to approve a program for the delegation of section
112 requirements as promulgated. Such an approval would have a
prospective effect in that it would obviate the need to repeat
the notice and comment procedures of section 112(1)(5) for each
delegation. The function of this rulemaking is to take comment
on a mechanism for the transfer of section 112 responsibilities
from EPA to the State, as well as on the State's general
authority and resource strategy to implement that mechanism. The
proposed section 112(1) approval notice would discuss the
delegations mechanisms proposed by the State and would include a
finding that the State has the broad statutory authority
necessary to implement the mechanism, as well as a finding that
the State now has or will be able to obtain the resources
necessary to implement and enforce section 112 requirements.
The approval of a program for straight delegation of section
112 requirements must also be accompanied by an MOA between EPA
and the State which details the mechanism for transfer of
responsibilities. Options for structuring such an agreement are
228
-------
essentially those that existed prior to the 1990 Amendments, as.
described in the Good Practices Manual. The MOA must also
establish some method of continuing oversight, so .that EPA can
continue to assure that the criteria of section 11-2(1) (5) are
met. If the State fails to meet these criteria subsequent to
approval of a program for straight delegations because it was
unable to meet its commitment to provide adequate resources, the
auditing and withdrawal mechanism in the section 112(1)
regulations would allow EPA to withdraw approval for all or part
of the program.
The approval of a program for straight delegation and the
actual delegation of existing section 112 standards are not
mutually exclusive. A section 112(1) approval can accomplish
both simultaneously if the State wishes to structure the approval
in that way. Accordingly, as part of any program for straight
delegations, a State that wishes to establish any delegations for
specific requirements under section 112(1) or modify any
delegations approved in the past might submit documentation of
adequate authorities, resources, and expeditious schedule for
section 112(1) at the same time it submits a request to EPA for
the program authorizing straight delegations. Alternatively, a
State could obtain approval of a program for straight delegations
and then accomplish those same specific delegation actions
pursuant to that program.
Where a prospective program is not chosen, the direct final
rulemaking approach may be a procedural streamlining mechanism
available.for accomplishing certain straight delegations. In
general, direct final rulemaking is more likely to be appropriate
where the only action being noticed is the delegation of a single
section 112 standard. In situations where EPA does not expect
any adverse comment upon'publication of a notice of approval, the
notice can specify that the approval would become effective in 30
days unless adverse comments were received. If adverse comments
were received, then EPA would have to re-propose the approval and
provide for a 30-day comment period. The time and resource
savings from this use of the direct final, approach would thus
depend on the correctness of the Agency's judgement regarding
whether or not any adverse comments would be submitted. For a
more complete discussion of the direct final procedure, see 47 FR
27073 (June 23, 1982).
The content of the Federal Register notice accomplishing a
straight delegation under section 112(1) can also be very brief.
It can be as simple as a re-statement of EPA's findings
concerning the adequacy of statements and/or demonstrations
contained in the State's submittal. The contents of State
submittals are discussed in the next section.
As part of the approval for either the delegation of a
particular standard or of a program for straight delegation, the
229
-------
Region may consider the appropriateness of one or more partial
delegations which would allow the State to become the point of
receipt .for notices and reporting required prior to the'
compliance date for a particular section 112 standard or
requirement. Such a partial delegation would precede the more
complete delegation that would occur once the State gains the
ability to fully implement and enforce the standard. The partial
delegation of information-receipt responsibilities may avoid
redundant reporting where the State will be the primary enforcer
of the standard, .as will be the case, for instance, for sources
covered by a part 70 program. In the case of approval of a
program for straight delegations, the availability of this type
of partial delegation should be detailed in the MOA that
accompanies the program approval.
Regions must make case-by-case judgements as to the
appropriateness of such a partial delegation based upon the
nature of the particular standard and the likelihood that the
State will be able to implement and enforce the standard for all
covered sources on a timely basis. The shifting of information-
receipt responsibilities would not be appropriate, for example,
where the State's jschedule for obtaining enforcement authority
may result in sources reaching the compliance deadline before the
State is able to enforce the standard. To guard against this
possibility, any such partial delegation should be accompanied by
an MOA which assures the Region that notices and reports received
by the state will be transferred to the Regional Office if the
State anticipates it will not be able to enforce the standard- on
a timely basis.'
c. State Submittals Required for Straight Delegations of
Section 112 Requirements
The EPA will consider a State's submittal for a part 70
operating permits program to be also an implicit request for
approval of a program for delegation of all section 112
requirements as they involve applicable requirements for sources
covered by the State's part 70 program (see next section). In
order to take delegation of section 112 requirements for other
sources, a State will need to provide EPA with a separate
submittal pursuant to one of two options described in this
section.
A submittal for approval of a program for the delegation of
section 112 requirements as promulgated by EPA must meet the
criteria in section 63.91(b). However, the content of a
submittal for approval of such a program will necessarily be less
detailed than a submittal for delegation of a specific
requirement, since the subject of a program approval will be a
more general mechanism for future delegation actions. As noted
in the previous section, the primary purpose of a program
approval is to provide for notice and comment on a mechanism for
230
-------
the future transfer of section 112 standards as promulgated. The
State must therefore indicate in its submittal the type of
mechanism (e.g.., automatic or case-by-case delegation) it intends
to use to accept, delegation. The details of this mechanism will
be established through the MOA between the State' and EPA. A
demonstration of authority to implement and enforce a particular
requirement will occur at the time of delegation of that
requirement pursuant to the MOA. In the case of a request for
approval of the 112(r) accidental release program as promulgated
by EPA, the State must also submit information necessary to meet
the approval criteria specified in section 63.95.
For approval of a program for straight delegations, the
State, pursuant to section 63.91(b)(l), must submit an opinion
from the State Attorney General (for local agencies, a similar
representative) demonstrating that it has the broad legislative
authority necessary to implement the chosen mechanism for
delegation. Authority to implement a particular standard need
not,be demonstrated as part of the opinion, although general
enforcement, inspection, and information gathering authority
required by section 63.91(b)(1) must be demonstrated. Once a
State has obtained approval of a program for straight
delegations, the EPA will not require additional Attorney General
opinions for each delegation accomplished pursuant to that
program.
Section 63.91(b)(3) requires a demonstration of resource
adequacy and certain descriptions of State agency organization.
Here, the State-submittal should include descriptions of current-
organization as appropriate, as well as a description of how the
State plans to obtain and maintain adequate resources to
implement delegations that occur pursuant to the approved
program. As with the requirement for adequate authority, a
demonstration of adequate resources to implement a particular
requirement should accompany requests for delegation performed
pursuant to the program. The content of this more specific
demonstration should be detailed in the MOA and can be relatively
brief, consistent with prior practice under the 1983 Good
Practices Manual. «
The remaining criteria in section 63.91(b) concern
demonstrations associated with the delegation of particular
requirements. For example, section 63.91(b)(2) requires
submittal of copies of all statutes, regulations, and other
material granting authority to implement and enforce the
requirement. Sections 63.91(b)(4) and (5) require submittal of
plans for expeditious implementation and enforcement,
respectively, of the section 112 requirement. These
demonstrations should be provided for in the MOA that accompanies
the program approval, so that EPA can ensure that these criteria
are met at the time each section 112 requirement is delegated and
on a continuing basis for as long as the State retains approval
231
-------
of the program. However, consistent with the prospective nature
of such a program for straight delegations, these demonstrations
will not require the repetition of a rulemaking under section
112(1) (5). -
State submit^als requesting delegation for individual
section 112 requirements (the second option discussed in the
previous section) must also meet the criteria set forth in
section 63.91(b) of the section 112(1) regulation. (Requests for
approval of programs to implement section 112(r) requirements as
promulgated by EPA must also meet the approval criteria specified
in section 63.95.) Here section 63.91(b)(l) requires an opinion
by the State Attorney General stating that the State has the
necessary legal authority to implement and enforce the section
112 requirement exactly as promulgated by ,EPA, as well as require
compliance by applicable sources with all emission limits, test
methods, and reporting and monitoring requirements specified in
the -Federal requirement. The State must also demonstrate that it
has adequate legal authority to bring enforcement actions against
noncomplying sources in State court.
Section 63.91(b)(3) requires in the case of a specific
section 112 requirement that the State show it has adequate
resources to implement and enforce the applicable section 112
requirement. A statement of resource adequacy should suffice
where the State has had experience regulating similar sources
through an existing State requirement. In other cases, the State
should show that the estimated workload for implementing and
enforcing* the standard does not exceed.available resources
(including any grants provided by EPA for non-part 70
activities).
The EPA wishes to clarify that, in requiring section 112(1)
submittals to have enforcement authority required by section
70.11, section 63.91 implicitly recognizes the same interim
flexibility as would be the case for a State seeking approval of
a part 70 program. Just as a State may receive interim approval
under part 70 for up to two years if its enforcement authority
"substantially meets" the requirements of section 70.11, a State
may receive approval of a section 112(1) program under the same
circumstances and subject to the same restrictions if its
enforcement authority "substantially meets" these criteria. Were
this not the case, a State could obtain approval of a part 70
program, be required to implement and enforce all section 112
requirements at part 70 sources, and yet not be able to receive
formal delegation from EPA to implement and enforce those same
requirements. This intent of the section 112(1) rule is
evidenced by statements in the preambles to the proposed and
final rule that a State submittal meeting part 70 criteria would
also meet the criteria for section 112(1) approval. See, e.g.,
58 F.R. 29299 (May 19, 1993), and 58 F.R. 62271 (November 26,
1993).
232
-------
<*• Relationship to Part 70 Program Approval
In order .to obtain approval of a part .70 operating permits
pr6graro, a State is obligated to incorporate all section 112
applicable requirements into permits and assume the primary
responsibility for enforcing these requirements. The part 70
submittal (see April 13, 1993 memorandum,entitled "Title V
Approval Criteria for Section 112 Requirements") must guarantee
this result by containing an Attorney General's statement of
adequate legal authority and/or commitments by the Governor to
adopt and implement additional requirements as needed to assure
timely issuance or revision of part 70 permits which implement in
part these section 112 requirements. The EPA, therefore,
considers the approval of the part 70 program to be an excellent
contemporaneous opportunity to approve a program for straight
delegations under section 112(1), to the extent that it applies
to sources subject to the permit program.
The approval notice addressing section 112(1) can be
extremely brief and can largely rely on the demonstrations
required for part 70 approval. This is because the part 70
approval will consider/essentially the same approval criteria
with respect to legal authority and resource adequacy required to
be met under section 112(1)(5) and will provide an adequate
opportunity for oversight of future State actions to implement
and enforce section 112 requirements at part 70 sources. Because
part 70 approval is conditioned on a State's ability to implement
and enforce section 112 requirements for sources subject to the
part 70 program, EPA will treat the request for approval under
part 70 as a request under section 112(1) for approval of a
program for straight delegation of all section 112 requirements
applying to part 70 sources subject to the permit program. The
EPA will so indicate this position in notices proposing to
approve the part 70 program. Unless a State specifically
requests otherwise, EPA intends to establish this program for
prospective straight delegations at the same time that a part 70
program would become effective for that State. This same
rulemaking could also accomplish straight delegations for any
existing section 13,2 applicable requirements for which the State
had not yet taken delegation.
As discussed in section (b) above, the approval of a program
for straight delegations may also, for certain standards, allow
for the partial delegation of information-receipt
responsibilities prior to the delegation of enforcement
responsibilities. Such partial delegations may be particularly
useful where there is some delay between Federal promulgation and
the time when the State is able to enforce the Federal Standard.
This will sometimes occur in the context of the part 70 program.
In these cases, partial delegation of the information-receipt
responsibilities with regard to part 70 sources may facilitate
the permitting of these sources, while reducing the reporting
233
-------
burden. As noted in the preceding discussion, partial
delegations of this sort will not be appropriate in all
instances, and should not be undertaken unless there is assurance
through an MOA that any, information received by the State will be
timely transferred to EPA where EPA will carry an enforcement
responsibility for any period of time. This understanding can be
included within the more comprehensive part 70 implementation
agreement.
One additional concern relates to the timing sequence of
these two rulemakings. Section 112(1)(5) requires that EPA's
notice and comment rulemaking occur within 6 months of a complete
State submittal, while the rulemaking in response to a part 70
submittal by a State needs to occur within 12 months of a
complete State submittal. Although approval under section 112(1)
in not necessarily a precondition for part 70 approval, a State
may want to propose the two rulemakings in the Federal Register
concurrently. In such cases, the EPA Region can delay the start
of the 6-month clock associated with section 112(1) rulemaking
until the time that the part 70 submittal for the State is
proposed for approval unless the State specifically requests a
different schedule for/approval under section 112(1). This
delayed start will facilitate compliance with section 112(l)'s
six month tiraeframe for approval in cases where the presumption
of an approved part 70 program is needed to demonstrate adequate
legal authority and resources. That is, unless a proposed
approval of the part 70 program occurs or an independent
demonstration of adequacy is provided, a submittal for section
112(1) rulemaking would be incomplete. Thus, a simultaneous
proposal for approval of a submittal under part 70 and section
112(1) would serve to start the 6-month time period for
conducting section 112(1) rulemaking. This strategy also offers
sufficient flexibility to complete the part 70 rulemaking within
the year following a complete submittal from the State.
The procedural steps necessary before a State may
incorporate a federally-promulgated standard into the part 70
permit will vary as a matter of State law. In several instances
this may require rurlemaking at the State level (perhaps through
incorporation of the Federal requirement by reference). A State
may also have mechanisms available to satisfy part 70
requirements that allow incorporation of a Federal standard
directly into the part 70 permit without any interim steps to
promulgate the standard through State rulemaking or to seek
formal delegation of the standard from EPA. Regardless of the
necessity under State law for a formal delegation, EPA will
consider the formal delegation for all delegatable provisions to
have occurred, at the latest, when the part 70 permit is issued,
so that the point of receipt for any reporting requirements will
shift from EPA to the State at that time (unless some earlier
time is established pursuant to section 112(1) rulemaking).
234
-------
The EPA may request a review of individual State rulemaking
and/or other actions taken to ensure that the needed legal
authority and/or technical capabilities are in place at the State
level in time for their use in the part 70 permit process. Such
evaluations should be limited to the exceptional case where EPA
has strong reasons to believe that legal and/or resource problems
exist. Thus, unless a State is legislatively barred or has made
a specific request for delegation under section 112(1), EPA will
presume that the State receiving approval for its part 70 program
will implement the Federal sections 111 and 112 requirements as
promulgated and will adopt any new authority at the State level
needed to assure timely inclusion as applicable in part 70
permits in order to maintain its part 70 approval.
2. How can section 111 standards be transferred before and
after the approval of a part 70 program?
Section lll(c), which governs the transfer of new source
performance standards (NSPS), was not changed by the 1990
Amendments. Therefore, the prior options for delegating such
standards remain in effect.
Approval of part 70 programs requires, in part, that States
must be able to implement and enforce current section 111
standards and commit to take any necessary steps to implement and
enforce future standards promulgated by EPA so as to assure the
timely issuance or revision of part 70 permits. Therefore, this
approval process provides a new and convenient opportunity to
establish a prospective delegation agreement with the State to
implement future NSPS, as well as to implement NSPS in effect at
this time. Accordingly, EPA will assume that the part 70
submittal is an implicit request to establish a delegation
agreement for the State to implement, as promulgated by EPA, all
section 111 requirements applicable to sources subject to the
part 70 program. States retain the option, however, of
submitting separate requests for delegation authority pursuant to
section lll(c) when this arrangement for automatic delegation is
not appropriate. Eyen in this case, EPA will explore options
with individual States to establish the presumption where
possible that the point of receipt for any section 111 reporting
requirement will shift from EPA to the State and any separate
delegation requests will involve petitions to obtain the
remaining implementation and enforcement responsibilities.
i
I
3. Are there portions of any section 111 requirement which
cannot be delegated to States?
Most provisions of these requirements can be delegated to
States. However, as stated in the Gobd Practices for Delegation
of NSPS and NESHAPS (February, 1983), certain activities such as
10
235
-------
issuance of certain waivers, approval of alternate test methods
and monitoring, and some general authority provisions cannot be
delegated.
4. Must States accept delegation for all existing and all new
sections ill and 112 standards/ or only for those for which
applicable sources currently exist in the State?
Under current part 70 rules States must have adequate legal
authority to issue or revise part 70 permits in a timely fashion
to all major sources of hazardous air pollutants. States may
also opt to subject nonmajor sources covered by a particular
national standard to their part 70 permit program. Explicit
legal authority to implement a particular standard, however, may
not be necessary if the State determines that there are presently
no sources located in the State subject to a given standard, and
there is no likelihood that such a source would construct in the
State in the immediate future. It is important that States
acquire the appropriate legal authority on a timeframe
commensurate with the probability that sources will locate in the
State. The State must,be able to demonstrate that it can acquire
any necessary legal authority quickly enough to issue a timely
part 70 permit, or revision if a new source of this type were to
locate in the State. The States are encouraged to provide for a
strategy to address such a prospect (e.g., through milestones in
a MOA or part 70 implementation agreement).
5. If a State applies under section 112(1) to substitute a
State requirement as being no less stringent, must the State
implement the otherwise applicable section 112 requirement "as
is" until it receives section 112(1) approval?
Part 70 requires States to issue permits in a timely fashion
which assure compliance with all applicable requirements,
including those developed pursuant to section 112. The section
112 requirements are those promulgated by EPA, unless the State
obtains section 112,(1) approval to substitute a specific State
requirement for a Federal requirement. If the State submits its
own "equivalent" requirement for approval under section 112(1),
the State must still incorporate the•applicable Federal section
112 requirements into part 70 permits until it receives EPA
approval to dot otherwise.
A State may be able to obtain some relief in this interim
period by structuring its transition plan such that sources
affected by a different State requirement could be acted on last
during the 3-year phase-in of the part 70 program. Another
possibility for relief is for the State to issue a permit that
includes both its own State standard (designated in the permit at
issuance as not federally enforceable as required by section
11
236
-------
70-6(b)(2)) as well as the Federal standard it would replace upon
section 112(1) approval. This permit would contain a condition
that upon EPA's approval of the State requirement pursuant to
section 112(1), the permit will be administratively amended such
that the former requirement would supersede the latter as the
federally enforceable requirement.
6. Must States have delegation of authority for all existing
sections 111 and 112 requirements prior to submitting their
operating permit programs? If not, by what date must states take
delegation of these standards—prior to EPA's final program
approval or prior to issuing a title V permit to a source covered
by one of these standards?
States must acquire any new legal authority as needed to
implement both sections 111 and 112 in a timeframe sufficient to
assure timely issuance or revision of part 70 permits. The
procedural steps necessary before a State may incorporate a
federally-promulgated standard into the part 70 permit will vary
as a matter of State law. A State may have mechanisms available
to satisfy part 70 requirements that do not involve a delegation
from EPA under section 112(1) for section 112 requirements. For
instance, State law may allow incorporation of a Federal standard
directly into the part 70 permit without any interim steps to
promulgate the standard through rulemaking or to seek formal
delegation of the standard from EPA. Regardless of the necessity
under State law, EPA will consider delegation pursuant to section
112(1) to have occurred for all applicable requirements which can
be delegated, at the latest, when the part 70 permit is issued,
so that after part 70 program approval the point of receipt for
any reporting requirements required qf sources subject to the
permit program will shift from EPA to the State.
For applicable section 112 requirements in effect on
November 15, 1993 (the date for subraittal of part 70 programs),
the States must demonstrate adequate existing legal authority to
implement these requirements presumptively by the effective date
of the part 70 program. Only under unusual circumstances could
the Region negotiate with the State a later date to acquire such
authority for a particular standard, but it still must be
consistent with the timely issuance of permits to applicable
sources as they are phased-in as part of the part 70 program.
This could only be done if the State presents a detailed
implementation strategy to do so, has no legislative impediment
to the delegation, and demonstrates to the Region that the legal
authority necessary to accomplish this delegation will be secured
in a timely manner.
7. If a State intends to defer area sources from title V
applicability, can the State accept delegation of a section 111
12
237
-------
or 112 requirement only for the major sources which exist in the
State and not for the nonmajor or area sources to which the
standard may also apply?
Although EPA strongly encourages States to take full
delegation of all section 112 requirements, states may submit a
request to EPA for partial delegation of such requirements. In
addition to previously discussed options for shifting the initial
implementation responsibilities of certain section 112
requirements (see response to question 1), partial delegations
can also be accomplished with respect to source coverage. For
example, the request for delegation may exclude those nonmajor
sources which the State within its discretion under part 70 has
allowed to be exempt from the requirement to obtain a part 70
permit. The EPA may partially delegate such standards to a State
and withhold delegation of the area sources in that category for
EPA implementation. However, this type of partial delegation
should be reserved for those rare cases where total delegation
does not meet the requirements of title V. To qualify for this
delegation, the State must demonstrate that such a delegation
would only apply to source categories subject to a section 111 or
112 standard which can -easily be separated into exempt and
subject sources (i.e., not involve difficult section 111 or 112
applicability decisions), and only to'sources which are not
otherwise required to get a part 70 permit (e.g., are not major
sources due to emissions of some criteria pollutant).
8. Will EPA have to issue operating permits to sources if states
do not take timely delegation of a particular MACT standard? If
EPA has to issue the permit, will it only cover the MACT
requirement(s), or will it cover all CAA requirements applicable
to the source?
The EPA will object to any proposed part 70 permit which
does not contain sufficient terms and conditions to assure
compliance with all applicable requirements of the CAA, including
those of section 112. If the State does not adequately respond
to an EPA objection, (e.g., for failure to include a recently-
established section 112 standard), the Agency must veto the
permit and issue a Federal permit addressing all applicable CAA
requirements (not just those pertaining to the deficiency
identified by EPA). A failure to adopt new legal authority as
needed to impose a new section 112 standard would likely lead to
the issuance of a comprehensive EPA permit for sources subject to
the new section 112 standard. A significant number of such
situations may lead EPA to conclude that the State has failed to
administer its approved part 70 program and that EPA should
implement a Federal title V program in that State.
13
238
-------
9. Will the delegations of section 112 standards be tracked on a
national data base? Can the delegations themselves be tracked
and implemented through the APS Permitting Enhancements Title V
data management system?
There are currently no plans to track the national progress
in accomplishing the delegations of section 112 standards.
Individual Regions may choose to use a MOA or a part 70
implementation agreement to establish milestones for State
enhancement of their legal authority as needed to implement
section 112 standards and to submit (at the option of the Region)
evidence of this enhancement (e.g., rules or policy statements).
10. What type of sections 111 and 112 commitments can qualify a
State submittal for part 70 program approval?
In order to obtain full approval from EPA, the part 70
submittal must contain authority and/or commitments adequate to
ensure that the part 70 permit will assure compliance with all
applicable sections 111 and 112 requirements. Where general
statutory authority to/issue or revise permits implementing
sections 111 and 112 is present, but the Attorney General is
unable to certify explicit legal authority to carry out certain
specific requirements at the time of program submittal, the
Governor may instead submit commitments to adopt and implement
additional regulations as needed to issue part 70 permits. The
EPA will rely on'these commitments in granting part 70 program
approvals, provided that (1) the underlying legislative authority
would not prevent a State from meeting the commitments, and (2)
the State can demonstrate the commitments will be satisfied by
the time the State has to issue or revise permits to sources
subjject to the sections 111 and/or 112 requirements for which the
State now lacks adequate authority to implement.
,The nature of such commitments can vary widely depending on
what is needed by the State to implement and enforce a particular
standard. For example, one State might be able to carry out a
particular section ,111 or 112 requirement under its existing
program while another State might require rulemaking to allow it
to enforce this Federal.requirement. The commitments contained
in the letter of submittal from the Governor should outline the
timetable by which any required additions to existing legal
authority would be acquired and any major interim milestones
needed to ensure that this deadline will be met.
14
239
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
„ Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
NOV 3 1993
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Approaches to Creating Federally
Emissions Limits
FROM: / John S. Seitz, Directc
Ice of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10)
TO: Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
The new operating permits program under title V of the Clean
Air Act (Act), combined with the additional and lower thresholds
for "major" sources also provided by the 1990 Amendments to the
Act, has led to greatly increased interest by State and local air
pollution control agencies, as well as sources, in obtaining
federally-enforceable limits on source potential to emit air
pollutants. Such limits entitle sources to be considered "minor"
for the purposes of title V permitting and various other
requirements of the Act. Numerous parties have identified this
as a high priority concern potentially involving thousands of
sources in each of the larger States.
The issue of creating federally-enforceable emissions limits
has broad implications throughout air programs. Although many of
the issues mentioned above have arisen in the context of the
title V permits program, the same issues exist for other
programs, including those under section 112 of the Act. As
discussed below, traditional approaches to creating federally-
enforceable emissions limits may be unnecessarily burdensome and
time-consuming for certain types and sizes of sources. In
addition, they have been of limited usefulness with respect to
creating such limits for emissions of hazardous air pollutants
(HAP's).
The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to these needs
by announcing the availability of two further approaches to
creating federally-enforceable emissions limits: the extension
of existing criteria pollutant program mechanisms for HAP program
240
-------
purposes, and the creation of certain classes of standardized
emissions limits by rule. We believe that these options are
responsive to emerging air program implementation issues and
provide a reasonable balance between the need for administrative
streamlining and the need for emissions limits that are
technically sound and enforceable.
Background
Various regulatory options already exist for the creation of
federally-enforceable limits on potential to emit. These were
summarized in a September 18, 1992 memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division. That memorandum
identified the five regulatory mechanisms generally seen as
available. These are: State major and minor new source review
(NSR) permits [if the NSR program has been approved into the
State implementation plan (SIP) and meets certain procedural
requirements]; operating permits based on .programs approved into
the SIP pursuant to the criteria in the June 28, 1989 Federal
Register (54 FR 27274); and title V permits (including general
permits). Also available are SIP limits for individual sources
and limits for HAP's created through a State program approved
pursuant to section 112(1) of the Act.
i
Regional Office and State air program officials realize that
these five options are generally workable, but feel that the
programs emerging from the 1990 Amendments present certain
further needs that are not well met. They note that NSR is not
always available, title V permitting can be more rigorous than
appropriate for those sources that are in fact quite small, and
that general permits have limitations in their usefulness. The
use of State operating permits approved into the SIP pursuant to
the June 28, 1989 Federal Register is generally considered to be
a promising option for some of these transactions; however,- these
programs do not regulate toxics directly.
State Operating Permits for Both Criteria Pollutants
and HAP/s
As indicated above, State operating permits issued by
programs approved into the SIP pursuant to the process provided
in the June 28, 1989 Federal Register are recognized as federally
enforceable. This is a useful option, but has historically been
viewed as limited in its ability to directly create emissions
limits for HAP's because of the SIP focus on criteria pollutants.
Since that option was created, however, section 112 of the
Act has been rewritten, creating significant new regulatory
requirements and conferring additional responsibilities and
authorities upon the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the States. Section 112 now mandates a wide range of activities:
241
-------
source-specific preconstruction reviews, areawide approaches to
controlling risk, provisions for permitting pursuant to the
title V permitting program, and state program provisions in.
section 112(1) that are similar to aspects of the SIP program. A
result of these changes is that implementation of toxics programs
will entail the use of many of the same administrative mechanisms
as have been in use for the criteria pollutant programs.
Upon further analysis of these new program mandates and
corresponding authorities, EPA concludes that section 112 of the
Act, including section 112(1), authorizes it to recognize these
same State operating permits programs for the creation of
federally-enforceable emissions limits in support of the
implementation 'of section 112. Congress recognized, and
longstanding State practice confirms, that operating permits
are core-implementing mechanisms for air quality program
requirements. This was EPA's basis for concluding that
section 110 of the Act authorizes the recognition and approval
into the SIP of operating permits pursuant to the June 28, 1989
promulgation, even though section 110 did not expressly provide
for such a program. Similarly, broad provision of section 112(1)
for "a program for the implementation and enforcement ... of
emission standards and other requirements for air pollutants
subject to this section" provides a sound basis for EPA
recognition of State operating permits for implementation and
enforcement of section 112 requirements in the same manner
as these permitting processes were recognized pursuant to
section 110.
In implementing this authority to approve State operating
permits programs pursuant to section 112, it should be noted that
the specific criteria for what constitutes a federally-
enforceable permit are also the same as for the existing SIP
programs. The June 28, 1989 Federal Register essentially. -
addressed in a generic sense the core criteria for creating
federally-enforceable emissions limits in operating permits:
appropriate procedural mechanisms, including public notice and
opportunity for comment, statutory authority for EPA approval of
the State program, and enforceability as a practical matter. The
EPA did this in the context of SIP development, not because these
criteria are specific to the SIP, but because section 110 of the
Act was seen as our only certain statutory basis for this prior
to the 1990 Amendments. Based on the discussion above, States
can extend or develop State operating permits programs for toxics
pursuant to the criteria set forth in the June 28, 1989 Federal
Register. The EPA is also evaluating analogous opportunities to
enhance State NSR programs to address toxics and will address
this in future guidance.
This is a significant opportunity to limit directly the
emissions of HAP's. It also offers the advantage of the
administrative efficiencies that arise from using existing
242
-------
administrative mechanisms, as opposed to creating additional
ones.
States are encouraged to consult with EPA Regional Offices
to discuss the details of adapting their current programs to
carry out these additional functions. The EPA will consider
State permitting programs meeting the criteria in the June 28,
1989 Federal Register as being approvable for HAP program
functions as well. States may submit their programs for
implementing this process with their part 70 program submittals,
or at such other time as they choose. The EPA has various
options for administratively recognizing these State program
submittals. The EPA plans initially to review these state
programs as SIP review actions, but with official recognition
pursuant to authorities in both sections 110 and 112. Once
rulemaking pursuant to section 112(1) of the Act is completed,
EPA expects to use the process developed in that rule for
approving State programs for HAP's. The section 112(1) process
may be especially useful prior to EPA approval and implementation
of the State title V programs. The reader may wish to refer to
the process for certain section 112(1) approvals proposed on May
19, 1993 (58 FR 29296) (see section 63.91).
The General Provisions (40 CFR part 63) establish the
applicability framework for the implementation of section 112.
In the final rule, EPA will indicate that State operating permits
programs which meet the procedural requirements of the June 28,
1989 Federal Register can be used to develop federally-
enforceable emissions limits for HAP's, thereby limiting a
source's potential to emit. In addition, after we gain
implementation experience, EPA will be evaluating the usefulness
of further rulemaking to define more specific criteria by which
this process may be used in the implementation of programs under
section 112 of the Act. Any such rulemaking could similarly be
incorporated into the General Provisions in part 63.
State-Standardized Processes Created by Rule to Establish
Source-Specific. Federally-Enforceable Emissions Limits
State air program officials have highlighted specific types
of sources that are of particular administrative concern because
of their nature and number. These include sources whose
emissions are primarily volatile organic compounds (VOC) arising
from use of solvents or coatings, such as automobile body shops.
Another example is fuel-burning sources that have low actual
emissions because of limited hours of operation, but with the
potential to emit sulfur dioxide in amounts sufficient to cause
them to be classified as major sources.
The EPA recognizes that emissions limitations for some
processes can be created through standardized protocols. For
example, limitations on potential to emit could be established
243
-------
for certain VOC sources on the basis of limits on solvent use,
backed up by recordkeeping and by periodic reporting. Similarly,
limitations on sulfur dioxide emissions could be based on ..
specified sulfur content of fuel and the source's obligation to
limit usage to certain maximum amounts. Limits on hours of
operation may be acceptable for certain others sources, such as
standby boilers. In all cases, of course, the technical
requirements would need to be supported by sufficient compliance
procedures, especially monitoring and reporting, to be considered
enforceable.
The EPA concludes that such protocols could be relied on to
create federally-enforceable limitations on potential to emit if
adopted through rulemaking and approved by EPA. Although such an
approach is appropriate for only a limited number of source
categories, these categories include large numbers of sources,
such as dry cleaners, auto body shops, gas stations, printers,
and surface coaters. If such standardized control protocols are
sufficiently reliable and replicable, EPA and the public need not
be involved in their application to individual sources, as long
as the protocols themselves have been subject to notice and
opportunity to comment and have been approved by EPA into the
SIP.
To further illustrate this concept and to provide
implementation support to the States, EPA has recently released
guidance on one important way of using this process. This
document, entitled "Guidance for State Rules for Optional
Federally-Enforceable Emissions Limits Based on Volatile Organic
Compound Use," was issued by D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air
Quality Management Division, on October 15, 1993. It describes
approvable processes by which States can create federally-
enforceable emissions limits for VOC for large numbers of sources
in a variety of source categories. ~- -
States have flexibility in their choice of administrative
process for implementation. In some cases, it may be adequate
for a State to apply these limits to individual sources through a
registration process rather than a permit. A source could simply
submit a certification to the State committing to comply with the
terms of an approved protocol. Violations of these
certifications would constitute SIP violations, in the case of
protocols approved into the SIP, and be subject to the same
enforcement mechanisms as apply in the case of any other SIP
violation. Such violations would, of course, also subject the
source to enforcement for failure to comply with the requirements
that apply to major sources, such as the requirement to obtain a
title V permit or comply with various requirements of section 112
of the Act.
Some States have also indicated an interest in more
expansive approaches to implementing this concept, such as making
244
-------
presumptive determinations of control equipment efficiency with
respect to particular types of sources and pollutants. While
such approaches are more complicated and present greater numbers
of concerns in the EPA review process, they offer real potential
if properly crafted. The EPA will evaluate State proposals and
approve them if they are technically sound and enforceable as a
practical matter.
States may elect to use this approach to create federally-
enforceable emissions limits for sources of HAP's as well. Based
on the same authorities in section 112 of the Act, as cited above
in the case of operating permits, EPA can officially recognize
such State program submittals. As with the operating permits
option discussed in the preceding section, EPA plans initially to
review these activities as SIP revisions, but with approval
pursuant to both sections 110 and 112 of the Act, and approve
them through the section 112(1) process when that rule is final.
Implementation Guidance
As indicated above, the creation of federally-enforceable
limits on a source's potential to emit involves the
identification of the procedural mechanisms for these efforts,
including the statutory basis for their approval by EPA, and the
technical criteria necessary for their implementation. Today's
guidance primarily addresses the procedural mechanisms available
and the statutory basis for EPA approval.
The EPA will be providing further information with respect
to the implementation of these concepts. As described above, the
first portion of this guidance, addressing limits on VOC
emissions, was issued on October 15, 1993. My office is
currently working with Regional Offices and certain States in
order to assist in the development of program options under-
consideration by those States. We will provide technical and
regulatory support to other State programs and will make the
results of these efforts publicly available through the Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Technology Transfer
Network bulletin board.
We will provide further support through the release of a
document entitled "Enforceability Requirements for Limiting
Potential to Emit Through SIP Rules and General Permits," which
is currently undergoing final review within EPA. In addition,
EPA will be highlighting options for use of existing technical
guidance with respect to creating sound and enforceable emissions
limits. An important example of such guidance is the EPA "Blue
Book," which has been in use by States for the past 5 years as
part of their VOC control programs.
245
-------
States are encouraged to discuss program needs with their
EPA Regional Offices. The OAQPS will work with them in
addressing approvals. As indicated, additional technical
guidance for implementing these approaches is underway and will
be made publicly available soon. For further information, please
call Kirt Cox at (919) 541-5399.
cc: Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
Regional Counsel, Regions I-X
OAQPS Division Directors
A. Eckert
M. Winer
A. Schwartz
E. Hoerath
246
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
OCT I 5 I993
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance for State Rules for Optional Fader/ally-
Enforceable Emissions Limits Based on Vplat
Organic Compound (VOC) Use
FROM
TO:
D. Kent Berry, Acting Director
Air Quality Management Division, OAQPi
Air Division Director, Regions I-x
(MD-15)
The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act (Act) , including
the title V operating permits program, have made source status as
a "major" stationary source of considerably greater relevance to
air quality programs. The lower major source thresholds now
included in the Act have made an unprecedented number of sources
"major." Many of these sources are actually emitting air
pollutants in amounts less than the major thresholds but are
major on the basis of their potential to emit. Certain
categories of these sources are comprised of sources that are in
fact rather small and, in some cases, are not addressed in detail
by State air quality programs. Examples include auto body shops,
dry cleaners, printers, and surface coaters.
Many of these sources will seek federally-enforceable limits
in their potential to emit so as to avoid the obligation to
obtain a title V operating permit. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), State air agencies, and industry are all interested
in creating these emissions limits in the most efficient manner
consistent with having reasonable assurance that these are in
fact enforceable and being complied with. There are a, variety of
approaches available for creating federally-enforceable emissions
limits. While the creation of federally-enforceable emissions
limits generally requires a source-specific evaluation created
through an approved State permitting program, EPA recognizes
that, for certain types of sources or emissions, the limits can
be created through more streamlined processes that do not involve
detailed review or public process for each individual source.
247
-------
Probably the greatest need for such limits involves those
sources, such as auto body shops and surface coaters, that would
be major on the basis of use of raw materials containing VOC's.
To aid States in developing generic enforceable emissions limits
for such sources, we have developed technical guidance materials
that States can use in creating such requirements. States
seeking to use these approaches may submit appropriate
regulations as State implementation plan revisions or, in the
case of toxics, as section 112(1) plan provisions. The technical
guidance materials, along with draft forms that States may use in
implementing this process are attached to this memorandum.
States may, of course, opt to develop their own approaches for
creating such documents. The attached language and forms are
provided as technical support to States and to provide an
indication of what sorts of practices EPA considers approvable.
Alternate approaches will be considered on their individual
merits.
For further information about this guidance, please contact
Kirt Cox at (919) 541-5399 or Eric Noble at (919) 541-5362. To
discuss individual State regulatory provisions and issues, please
contact your Regional Office title V permits program contact.
Any questions on practical enforceability should be brought
to the attention of Sally Mitoff at (703) 308-8692 or Clara
Poffenburger at (703) 308-8709. The EPA is considering further
options for use of these streamlined procedures with other
pollutants and is interested in working with States in developing
such approaches. Suggestions are invited and may by made by
calling Mr. Cox or Mr. Noble.
Attachments
cc: Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
Operating Permits Program Contact, Regions I-X
Regional Counsel, Regions I-X
Division Directors, OAQPS
A. Schwartz, OGC
E. Hoerath, OE
248
-------
Attachment 1
CRITERIA FOR A DRAFT MODEL RULE
FOR VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC'S)
AND HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT (HAP) SOURCES
PURPOSE: To provide a federally-enforceable mechanism by which
certain sources emitting VOC's may certify that they are not
major sources of those pollutants in a manner that can be
recognized as federally enforceable. For the purpose of this
guidance, "VOC" also encompasses HAP's as defined pursuant to
section 112 of the Clean Air Act (Act) that are VOC's (including
those that are not photochemically reactive).
APPLICABILITY: This approach is available to sources which opt
to assume limitations on the quantities of materials used in
their production processes which contain VOC's. It does not
apply to VOC's that are produced as part of the manufacturing
processes. That is, this approach applies limits on emissions
resulting from the use of VOC-containing materials. To that end,
all the VOC's and HAP's present in the source materials, such as
paints and solvents, are assumed to be emitted to the atmosphere
(VOC in equals VOC out). Because this rule relies on simple
calculation procedures based on recordkeeping, sources seeking
recognition of emissions limits based on the use of emissions
control devices, which require more complex determinations, would
not be able to take advantage of this approach. This approach
would not be available to sources which are subject to title V
requirements for other reasons (e.g., that have the potential to
emit other pollutants in major amounts).
To be approvable, a State rule must require that the source
owner or operator specifically apply for coverage. Such
applications could take the form of a relatively simple
certification of compliance with the applicability criteria and
the requirements of the rule. An example of such a certification
that EPA would find acceptable is attached as Attachment 2.
BASIS FOR THE CRITERIA: This approach applies to sources which
agree to limit their annual emissions. The basis for determining
compliance is the maintenance of records with respect to the use
of VOC-containing materials and the periodic submittal of this
information to the permitting authority. States may elect to
streamline this process further by reducing the frequency and
level of detail of this reporting for those sources accepting
limits on emissions that are very substantially below the
threshold for major source status. As described below, EPA
suggests three different levels of reporting requirements for
sources, depending on the degree of limitation that the source
opts to take. Individual State rules developed pursuant to this
approach should, of course, replace the threshold percentages
249
-------
listed herein with actual quantities in tons per year appropriate
to the areas subject to those rules. For example, the threshold
for major source status for VOC's in ozone nonattainment- areas
designated as "serious" is 50 tons per year.
1. Sources which commit only to limiting their VOC
emissions to less than the major source threshold.
These sources would be required to do more comprehensive
recordkeeping and reporting than those smaller sources that
accept more limited emissions caps. The EPA suggests that these
requirements include: '
a. Preparation of monthly consumption records of all
materials used containing VOC's. Sources would make a separate
record for each such material. These records would include the
VOC and/or individual HAP content of each such material on the
same form. Table 2 of Attachment 3 provides an example of such a
form that States might find useful.
b. Summation of VOC and individual HAP emissions on a
monthly or more frequent basis. Table 1 of Attachment 3 is
offered as an example form. Such reports would be submitted to
the State agency on a monthly basis.
c. Submittal of an annual inventory to the reviewing agency
listing monthly VOC totals and total VOC emissions for the
previous year,
d. Maintenance of purchase orders and invoices of VOC-
containing materials which must be made available to the State
agency upon request for u,se in confirming the general accuracy of
the reports submitted pursuant to item b, above, regarding
materials usage.
e. Retention of purchase orders and invoices for a period
sufficient to support enforcement efforts.
f. Reporting of any exceedance of a requirement of this
rule within I week of occurrence.
g. Certification of all submittals as to the truth
completeness, and accuracy of all information recorded and
reported.
250
-------
2. Sources which commit to limiting their VOC emissions to
25 percent of the major source threshold.
These sources would also be required to meet all the above
requirements, except that annual reports would need to be
submitted annually, rather than monthly, for compliance with
item b.
3. Truly small sources which commit to limiting their VOC
emissions to 5 percent of the major source threshold.
These sources could dramatically limit their recordkeeping
and reporting obligations. Such sources need only report total
gallons of paints or solvents used on an annual basis. Table 3
of Attachment 3 could serve as a standard means for sources to
maintain this tabulation and could be submitted to satisfy the
annual reporting requirement of item c above. Such sources would
be required to meet the same general obligations regarding
purchase records and general compliance reporting obligations as
sources in the other categories (items d-g).
ADDITIONAL CRITERIA:
t
• A source cannot rely on these emissions caps to justify
violation of rate-based emissions limits or other applicable
requirements of the Act.
• A State may require additional restrictions, e.g.,
limitations on monthly VOC use in the peak ozone formation
season.
The State must make a list of the sources which are subject
to these requirements publicly available.
• All records shall be maintained at the site and available
for inspection on demand.
• A violation of these requirements is a violation of the SIP
or of the State's section 112 program, or both, depending on
the particular EPA approval mechanism used. A violation
also subjects the source to enforcement action for failure
to meet requirements applicable to a major stationary
source.
There are, of course, a variety of ways in which States may
elect to implement this concept based on their particular air
quality program needs and policy inclinations. The above is
offered as one suggestion that states might find useful. States
wishing to develop alternative approaches should contact their
EPA Regional Office to discuss their approvability.
251
-------
Attachment 2
OPERATING AGREEMENT
FOR A
SURFACE COATING OPERATION
Source Name:
Address:
Source Description:.
Emission Units: re.cr.. Paint Sprav Booths]
Number fe.cr.. 31
Actual Usage
Material Used Over Past 12 Months:
Product
#VOC/gal*
Maker Type Number (MSDS) gal/day gal/mo gal/year
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Maximum Annual Material Usage in Future:
Product Maximum Predicted Usage
#VOC/gal*
Maker Type Number (MSDS) gal/day gal/mo gal/year
1) :
2)
3)
4) ;
5)
6)
* Sources may require this input to be in #VOC/gallon solids
(paint or solvent less water).
CERTIFICATION:
I certify that this source will not emit volatile organic
compounds or volatile hazardous air pollutants (as defined
pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act) in excess of the
amounts specified in [indicate which of the 3 size classes]. I
further certify that all information submitted pursuant to this
agreement is true, accurate, and complete.
Plant Owner/Operator
Name (print) Signature
Date
252
-------
Attachment 3
Table 1
MONTHLY EMISSIONS RECORD1
Plant Name
Address
Report for (month/ vearl
Report Date (day/month/year)
Months
Units
PAINT A
PAINT B
PAINT C
PAINT D
SOLVENT 1
SOLVENT 2
SOLVENT 3
SOLVENT 4
TOTALS
POTENTIAL EMISSIONS2
Volatile Organic
Compound (VOC) Totals
1
pounds
200
[from T X]
650
Last 12
tons
2.5
4.2
Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) Totals
High Individual
1
pounds
16
900
Last 12
tons
0.096
5.4
All HAPS
1
pounds
100
2100
Last 12
tons
1.25
12.6
1 Data in this table summarizes information from the table 1 worksheets for
individual paints and solvents and other VOC and HAP sources at the listed stationary
source.
2 Assumes all VOC and HAPs in paint or solvent are released into the atmosphere.
Is)
u\
CO
-------
Attachment 3
Table 2
EMISSIONS WORKSHEET
FOR MINOR VOC AND HAP SOURCES
Plant Name
Address
(month/year)
Paint/Solvent Manufacturer
Paint/Solvent Name A
Record for
Date Prepared fdav/month/year)
Code No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Paint /Solvent
Constituents
Paint / Solvent
Total VOC
Total HAP "
HAP A
HAP B
High Individual HAP
A
Fraction in
Paint/Solvent
_—
.40
[uj
.20
[V]
w
X
B
C
Usage/Emissions Totals
Last Month
500 Ibs
[gal x S.6. ]
200 Ibs
[A2 x Bl]
100 Ibs
[A3 x Bl]
[A4 X Bl]
etc.
16 Ibs
Last 12 Months
6.25 tons
[sum of totals for
last 12 months]
2.5 tons
[A2 x Cl]
1.25
[A3 X Cl]
[A4 X Cl]
etc.
0.096 tons
3 Assumes all VOC and HAPs in paint or solvent are released into the atmosphere.
4 Separate worksheet (table 1) required for each paint or solvent used.
-------
Attachment 3
Table 3
Plant Name
Address
EMISSIONS WORKSHEET
FOR MINOR VOC AND HAP SOURCES
Record for
fmonl
Date Prepared fday/month/vear)
Paint/
Solvent
Paint A
Paint B
Paint C
Solvent A
Solvent B
Solvent C
Solvent D
Totals
Usage Totals (gallons)
Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1.2
Month
Total
1 Assumes all VOC and HAPs in paint or solvent are released into the atmosphere.
6 Separate worksheet (table 1) required for eachjpalnt or solvent used.
Lft
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
AUG 4 I993
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Reissuance of Guidance on Agency Rev
tl Schedules for Operating Permit^ Prog
FROM: *4^\Tohn S. Seitz, Directo
fl Office of Air Quality
TO:
ling
Air Division Director, Regions
|of State Fee
imfi Under Title V
(MD-10)
On December 18, 1992, I issued a memorandum designed to
provide initial guidance on the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) approach to reviewing State fee schedules for operating
permits programs under title V of the Clean Air Act (Act).
Today's memorandum updates, clarifies, revises, and replaces the
earlier memorandum.
Section 502(b)(3) of the Act requires that each State
collect fees sufficient to cover all reasonable direct and
indirect costs required, to develop and administer its title V
permits program. [As used herein, the term "State" includes
local agencies.] The final part 70 regulation contains a list of
activities discussed in the July 21, 1992 preamble to the final
rule (57 FR 32250) which must be funded by permit fees. This
memorandum and its attachment provide further guidance on how EPA
interprets that list of activities, as well as the procedure for
demonstrating that fee revenues are adequate to support the
program.
The memorandum and attachment set forth the principles which
will generally guide our review of fee subraittals. The EPA
believes that these positions are consistent with the preamble
and final rule and are useful in explaining the broad language in
the promulgation, but in no way supplant the promulgation itself.
In evaluating State program submittals, EPA will make judgments
based on the particular design and attributes of the State
program, as well as the requirements of section 70.9 of part 70.
256
-------
The policies set out in this memorandum and attachment are
intended solely as guidance, do not represent final Agency
action, and cannot be relied upon to create any rights
enforceable by any party.
Several substantive revisions to the earlier guidance that
are reflected in this document deserve special mention. First,
with respect to Activities which relate to provisions of the Act
in addition to title V, the revisions clarify that the cost of
those activities would be permit program costs only to the extent
the activities are necessary for part 70 purposes. For example,
this qualification would apply to activities undertaken pursuant
to sections 110, 111, and 112 of the Act. In determining which
of the activities normally associated with State Implementation
Plan (SIP) development are to be funded by permit fees, for
instance, States should include those activities to the extent
they are necessary for the issuance and implementation of part 70
permits. Accordingly, if a SIP provision requires that a State
perform or review a modeling demonstration of a source's impact
on ambient air quality as part of the permit application process,
the State's costs which .arise from the modeling demonstration
(which are ordinarily ndt permit program costs) must be covered
by permit fees.
Second, the revisions provide that case-by-case maximum
achievable control technology determinations for modified/
constructed and reconstructed major toxic sources under
section 112(g) of the Act are considered permit program costs,
even if the determination preceded the issuance of the part 70
permit. This position is consistent with the Agency's guidance
on Title V Program Approval Criteria for Section 112 Activities
(issued April 13, 1993). In that guidance, EPA explained that in
order to obtain approval of their title V permit programs, States
must take responsibility for implementing all applicable
requirements of .section 112, including section 112(g), to fulfill
their broader obligation to issue title V permits which
incorporate all applicable requirements of the Act. For this
reason, these section 112 activities are appropriately viewed as
permit program costs and thus funded with permit fees.
Third, the revisions clarify in section II.L that
enforcement costs incurred prior to the filing of an
administrative or judicial complaint are considered permit
program costs, including the issuance of notices, findings, and
letters of violation, as well as development and referral to
prosecutorial agencies of enforcement cases. This approach is
based on legislative history which indicates that Congress viewed
the filing of complaints as the beginning of enfbrcement actions
for purposes of the statutory provision that excludes "court
costs or other costs associated with any enforcement action" from
the costs to be recovered through permit fees.
257
-------
Fourth, the revisions take a different approach to
"State-only" requirements which are part of the title V permit by
concluding that part 70 does not require that permit fees cover
the costs of implementing and enforcing such conditions, since
theirule requires that States designate these requirements as not
federally enforceable.
Fifth, the attachment modifies the discussion of the extent
to which title V fees must fund the costs of permit programs
under provisions of the Act other than title V. After carefully
considering section 110(a)(2)(L) (which requires that every major
source covered by a permit program required under the Act pay a
fee to fund the permit program), as it relates to section
502(b)(3) in general, and section 502(b)(3)(A)(ii) in particular,
EPA has concluded that title V fees must cover the costs of
implementing and enforcing not only title V permits but of any
other permits required under the Act, regardless of when issued.
This result makes sense, since the title V permit will
incorporate the terms of other permits required under the Act so
that enforcing title V permits will have the effect of
implementing and enforcing those permit requirements as well.
However, the costs of reviewing and acting on applications for
permits required under Act provisions other than title V need not
be recouped by title V fees. In conclusion, the costs of
implementing and enforcing all permits required under the Act
must be considered in determining whether a State's fee revenue
is adequate to support its title V program. However, States may
opt to retain separate mechanisms and procedures for collecting
permit fees for other permitting programs under the Act, provided
the fees covering the costs of implementing and enforcing permits
are included in the determination of fee adequacy for purposes of
title V.
Although most of the changes outlined today are not expected
to affect significantly whether EPA will find fee programs based
on the earlier guidance adequate, we will assist States in
resolving any difficulties which may have resulted from reliance
on the December 18 guidance.
As a means of providing support for the Regional Offices and
States on fee approval issues, we invite early submittal of fee
analyses (separate from the entire program submittal) from
States, particularly those which propose to charge less than the
presumptive fee minimum. We will assist Regional Offices in
reviewing these submittals with respect to the requirements of
title V. Case-by-case reviews of fee programs which you believe
are ripe for review offer a timely opportunity to provide
additional guidance on this issue.
258
-------
If you would like us to assist with review of a State's fee
program, please contact Kirt Cox. For further information,
you may call Kirt at (919) 541-5399 or Candace Carraway at _
(919) 541-3189.
Attachment
cc: Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
Regional Counsel, Regions I-X
M. Shapiro
J. Kurtzweg
A. Eckert
B. Jordan
R. Kellam
J. Rasnie
259
-------
ATTACHMENT
GUIDANCE FOR STATE FEE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
States must collect, from part 70 sources, fees adequate to
fund the reasonable direct and indirect costs of the permits
program.
Only funds collected from part 70 sources may be used to
fund a State's title V permits program. Legislative
appropriations, other funding mechanisms such as vehicle
license fees, and section 105 funds cannot be used to fund
these permits program activities.
• The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act (Act) generally
require a broader range of permitting activities than are
currently addressed by most State and local permits
>programs. Title V and part 70 contain a nonexclusive list
of types of activities which must be funded by permit fees.
Title V fees present a new opportunity to improve permits
program implementation where funding has been inadequate in
the past.
The fee revenue needed to cover the reasonable direct and
indirect costs of the permits program may not be used for
any purpose except to fund the permits program. However,
title V does not limit State discretion to collect fees
pursuant to independent State authority beyond the minimum
amount required by title V. The evaluation of State fee
program adequacy for part 70 approval purposes will be based
solely on whether the fees will be sufficient to fund all
permit program costs.
Any fee program which collects aggregate revenues less than
the $25 per ton per year (tpy) presumptive minimum will be
subject to close Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
scrutiny.
If credible evidence is presented to EPA which raises
serious questions regarding whether the presumptive minimum
amount of fee revenue is sufficient to fund the permits
program adequately, the State must provide a detailed
demonstration as to the adequacy of its fee schedule to fund
the direct and indirect costs of the permits program.
260
-------
The EPA encourages State legislatures to include flexible
fee authority in State statutes so as to allow flexibility
to manage fee adjustments if needed in light of program
experience, audits, and accounting reports. States should
be able to adapt their fee schedules in a timely way in
response to new information and new program requirements.
II. ACTIVITIES EXPECTED TO BE FUNDED BY PERMIT FEES
A. Overview.
Permits program fees must cover all reasonable direct
and indirect costs of the title V permits program
incurred by State and/or local agencies. For example,
fees must cover the cost of permitting affected units
under section 404 of the Act, even though such sources
may be subject to special treatment with respect to
payment of permit fees.
In making the determination as to whether an activity
is a title V permits program activity, EPA will
consider the design of the individual State's title V
program and its relationship to its comprehensive air
quality program. State design of its air program,
including its State Implementation Plan (SIP), will in
some cases determine whether a particular activity is
properly considered a permits program activity. For
example, if a SIP provision requires that a State
perform or review a modeling demonstration of a
source's impact on ambient air quality as part of the
permit application process, the State's costs which
arise from the modeling demonstration (which are
ordinarily not permit program costs) would be part of
the State's title V program costs. Because the nature
of permitting-related activities can vary from State to
State, the EPA intends to evaluate each program
individually using the definition of "permit program
costs" in the final regulation.
In general, EPA expects that title V permit fees will
fund the activities listed below. However, in
evaluating State program submittals, EPA will consider
the particular design and attributes of the State
program. It is important to note that the activities
lasted below may not represent the full range of
activities to be covered by permit fees.
Implementation experience may demonstrate that
additional activities are appropriately added to this
list. Additionally, some States may have further
261
-------
program needs based on the particularities of their own
air quality issues and program structure.
States may use permit fees to hire contractors to
support permitting activities.
B. Initial program submittal, including:
Development of documentation required for program
submittal, including program description, documentation
of adequate resources to implement program, letter from
Governor, Attorney General's opinion.
Development of implementation agreement between State
and Regional Office.
C. Part 70 program development, including:
Staff training.
- Permits program infrastructure development, including:
* Legislative authority.
* Regulations.
* Guidance.
* Policy, procedures, and forms.
* Integration of operating permits program with
other programs [e.g., SIP, new source review
, (NSR), section 112].
* Data systems (including AIRS-compatible systems
for submitting permitting information to EPA,
permit tracking system) for title V purposes.
* Local program development, State oversight of
•local programs, modifications of grants of
authority to local agencies, as needed.
* Justification for program elements which are
different from but equivalent to required program
elements.
Permits program modifications which may be triggered by
new Federal requirements/policies, new standards [e.g.,
maximum achievable control technology (MACT), SIP,
Federal implementation plan], or audit results.
262
-------
D. Permits program coverage/applicability determinations,
including:
Creating an inventory of part 70 sources.
Development of program criteria for deferral of
nonmajor sources consistent with the discretion
provided to States in part 70.
Application of deferral criteria to individual sources.
Development of significance levels (for exempting
certain information from inclusion on permits
application).
Development and implementation of federally-enforceable
restrictions on a source's potential to emit in order
to avoid it being considered a major source.
E. Permits application review, including:
- Completeness review of applications.
Technical analysis of application content.
Review of compliance plans, schedules, and compliance
certifications.
F. General and model permits, including:
Development.
Implementation.
G. Development of permit terms and conditions, including:
Operational flexibility provisions.
- Netting/trading conditions.
Filling gaps within applicable requirements (e.g.,
periodic monitoring and testing).
i
Appropriate compliance conditions (e.g., inspection
and entry, monitoring and reporting).
Screen/separate "State-only" requirements from the
federally-enforceable requirements.
4
263
-------
Development of source-specific permit limitations
[e.g., section 112(g) determinations, equivalent SIP
emissions limits pursuant to 70.6(a)(1)(iii)]•
Optional shield provisions.
H. Public/EPA participation, including:
Notices to public, affected States and EPA for
issuance, renewal, significant modifications and (if
required by State law) for minor modifications
(including staff time and publication costs).
Response to comments received.
Hearings (as appropriate) for issuance, renewal,
significant modifications, and (if required by State
law) for minor modifications (including preparation,
administration, response, and documentation).
Transmittal to EPA of necessary documentation for
review and response to EPA objection.
90-day challenges to permits terms in State court,
petitions for EPA objection.
I. Permit revisions, including:
Development of criteria and procedures for the
following different types of permit revisions:
* Administrative amendments.
* Minor modifications (fast-track and group
processing).
i
* Significant modifications.
Analysis and processing of proposed revisions.
J. Reopenings:
For cause.
Resulting from new emissions standards.
264
-------
K. Activities.relating to other sections of the Act which are
also needed in order to issue and implement part 70 permits,
including:
Certain section 110 activities, such as:
* Emissions inventory compilation requirements.
* Equivalency determinations and case-by-case
reasonably available control technology
determinations if done as part of the part 70
permitting process.
Implementation and enforcement of
preconstruction permits issued to part 70
sources pursuant to title I of the Act,
including:
* State minor NSR permits issued pursuant to a
program approved into the SIP.
* Prevention of significant deterioration/NSR
permits issued pursuant to Parts C and D of
title I of the Act.
Implementation of Section 111 standards through part 70
permits i
Implementation of the following section 112
requirements through part 70 permits:
* 'National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) promulgated under
section 112(d) according to the timetable
specified in section 112(e).
* The NESHAP promulgated undet section 112(f)
subsequent to EPA's study of the residual risks
to the public health.
* Section 11,2(h) design, equipment, work practice,
or operational standards.
Development and implementation of certain section 112
requirements through part 70 permits, including:
* Section 112(g) program requirements for
constructed, reconstructed, and modified major
sources. ;
6
265
-------
* Section 112(1) early reductions.
* Section 112(j) equivalent MACT determinations.
* Section 112(1) State air toxics program activities
that take place as part of the part 70 permitting
process.
* Section 112(r)(7) risk management plans if the
plan is developed as part of the permits process.
L. Compliance and enforcement-related activities to the extent
that these activities occur prior to the filing of an
administrative or judicial complaint or order. These
activities include the following to the extent they are
related to the enforcement of a permit, the obligation to
obtain a permit, or the permitting regulations:
- Development and administration of enforcement
legislation, regulations, and policy and guidance.
- Development of compliance plans and schedules of
compliance.
! - Compliance and monitoring activities.
* Review of monitoring reports and compliance
certifications.
* Inspections.
* Audits.
* Stack tests conducted/reviewed by the permitting
authority.
* Requests for information either before or after a
violation is identified (e.g., requests similar to
EPA's section 114 letters).
Enforcement-related activities.
* Preparation and issuance of notices, findings, and
letters of violation [NOV's, FOV's, LOV's].
* Development of cases and referrals up until the
filing of the complaint or order.
266
-------
Excluded are all enforcement/compliance monitoring
costs which are incurred after the filing of an
administrative or judicial complaint.
M. The portion of the Small Business Assistance Program which
provides:
Counseling to help sources determine and meet their
obligations under part 70, including:
* Applicability.
* Options for sources to which part 70 applies.
Outreach/publications on part 70 requirements.
' - Direct part 70 permitting assistance.
N. Permit fee program administration, including:
Fee structure development.
Fee demonstration.
* projection of fee revenues.
* Projection of program costs if detailed
demonstration is required.
Fee collection and administration.
Periodic cost accounting.
0. General air program activities to the extent they are
also necessary for the issuance and implementation of
part 70 permits.
Emissions and ambient monitoring.
Modeling and analysis.
Demonstrations.
Emissions inventories.
Administration and technical support (e.g., managerial
costs, secretarial/clerical costs, labor indirect
costs, copying costs, contracted services, accounting
and billing).
267
-------
Overhead (e.g., heat, electricity, phone, rent, and
janitorial services).
i
States will need to develop a rational method based on
sound accounting principles for segregating the above
costs of the permits program from other costs of the
air program. The cost figures and methodology will be
reviewed by EPA on a case-by-case basis.
III. FLEXIBILITY IN FEE STRUCTURE DESIGN
A. A State may design its fee structure as it deems
appropriate, provided the fee structure raises sufficient
revenue to cover all reasonable direct and indirect permits
program costs.
B. Provided adequate aggregate revenue is raised, States may:
Base fees on actual emissions or allowable emissions.
Differentiate fees based on source categories or type
of pollutant.
Exempt some sources from fee requirements.
Determine fees on some basis other than emissions.
Charge annual fees or fees covering some other period
of time.
IV. INITIAL PROGRAM APPROVABILITY CRITERIA
A. Elements of State program subraittals which relate to permit
fees.
Demonstration that fee revenues in the aggregate will
adequately fund the permits program.
Initial accounting to demonstrate that permit fee
revenues required to support the reasonable direct and
indirect permits program costs are in fact used to fund
permits program costs.
Statement that the program is adequately funded by
permit fees (which is supported by cost estimates for
the first 4 years of the permits program).
268
-------
B. Methods by which a State may demonstrate that its fee
schedule is sufficient to fund its title V permits program:
i
Demonstration that its fee revenue in the aggregate
will meet or exceed the $25/tpy (with CPI adjustment)
presumptive minimum amount.
Detailed fee demonstration.
* Required if fees in the aggregate are less than
the presumptive minimum or if credible evidence is
presented raising serious questions during public
comment on whether fee schedule is sufficient or
information casting doubt on fee adequacy
otherwise comes to EPA's attention.
C. Computation of $25/tpy presumptive minimum.
The emissions inventory against which the $25/tpy is
applied is calculated as follows:
* Calculate emissions inventory using actual
emissions (and estimates of actual emissions).
* From the total emissions of part 70 sources,
exclude emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) and
other pollutants consistent with the definition of
"regulated pollutant (for presumptive fee
purposes)."
* States may:
Exclude emissions which exceed 4,000 tpy per
pollutant per source.
Exclude emissions which are already included
in the calculation (i.e., double-counting is
not required).
Exclude insignificant quantities of emissions
not required in a permit application.
* States have two options with respect to emissions
from affected units under section 404 of the Act
during 1995 through 1999.
/
If a State excludes emissions from affected
units under section 404 from its inventory,
fees from those units may not be used to show
that the State's fee revenue meets or exceeds
the $25/tpy presumptive minimum amount (see
paragraph IV.E below).
10
269
-------
If a State includes emissions from affected
units under section 404 in its inventory, it
may include non-emissions-based fees from
those units in showing that its fee revenue
meets or exceeds the $25/tpy presumptive
minimum amount (see paragraph IV. E below.)
Computation of the presumptive minimum amount is a
surrogate for predicting aggregate actual program
costs. Once this aggregate cost has been determined,
the method used for computing it does not restrict a
State's discretion in designing its particular fee
structure. States may impose fees in a manner
different from the criteria for calculating the
presumptive amount (e.g., charging fees for CO
emissions and for emissions which exceed 4,000 tpy per
pollutant per source).
D. Establishing that fee revenue meets or exceeds the
presumptive minimum.
Fee revenue in the aggregate must be equivalent to
$25/tpy (as adjusted by CPI) as applied to the
qualifying emissions inventory.
States have flexibility in fee schedule design as
outlined in paragraph III above and are not required to
adopt any particular fee schedule.
E. Fees collected from affected units under section 404.
States may not use emissions-based fees from "Phase I"
affected units under section 404 for any purpose
related to the approval of their operating permits
programs for the period from 1995 through 1999. The
EPA interprets the prohibition contained in section
408(c)(4) of the Act as preventing EPA from recognizing
the collection of such fees in determining whether a
State has met its obligation for adequate program
funding. Furthermore, such fees cannot be used to
support the direct or indirect costs of the permits
program. However, States may, on their own initiative,
impose title V emissions-based fees on affected units
under section 404 and use such revenues to fund
activities beyond those required pursuant to title V.
* All units initially classified as "Phase I" units
are listed in Table I of 40 CFR part 73. In
addition, units designated as active substitution
units under section 404(b) are considered
"Phase I" affected units under section 404.
11
270
-------
States may collect fees which are not emissions based
(e.g., application or processing fees) from such units.
Role of nonemissions-based fees in determining adequacy
of aggregate fee revenue.
* Such fees may be used as part of a detailed fee
demonstration (which does not rely on the $25/tpy
presumption).
* Such fees may not be used to establish that
aggregate fees meet or exceed the presumptive
minimum amount unless the State exercises its
discretion to include emissions from affected
units under section 404 in the emissions inventory
against which the $25/tpy is applied.
F. Fee program accountability.
Initial accounting (required as part of program
submittal) comprised of a description of the mechanisms
and procedures for ensuring that fees needed to support
the reasonable direct and indirect costs of the program
are utilized solely for permits program costs.
- Periodic accounting every 2-3 years to demonstrate that
the reasonable direct and indirect costs of the program
were covered by fee revenues.
- Earlier accounting or more frequent accountings if EPA
determines through its oversight activities that a
program's inadequate implementation may be the result
of inadequate funding.
G. Governor's statement assuring adequate personnel and funding
for permits program.
Submitted as part of program submittal.
A statement supported by annual estimates of permits
program costs for the first 4 years after program
approval and a description of how the State plans to
cover those costs.
* Detailed description of estimated annual costs is
not required if the State has relied on the
presumptive minimum amount in demonstrating the
adequacy of its fee program,.
12
271
-------
* Detailed description of estimated costs for a
4-year period showing how program activities and
resource needs will change during the transition
period is required if State proposes to collect
fee revenue which is less than the presumptiye
minimum amount.
Projection of annual fee revenue for a 4-year period
with explanation of how State will handle any temporary
shortfall (if projected revenue for any of the 4 years
is less than estimated costs).
V. FUTURE ADJUSTMENTS TO FEE SCHEDULE
A. Continuing requirement of fee revenue adequacy.
Obligates the States to update and adjust their fee
schedules periodically if they are not sufficient to
fund the reasonable direct and indirect costs of the
permits program.
B. Changes in fee structure over time are inevitable and may be
required by the following events:
Results of periodic audits/accountings.
Revised number of part 70 sources (discovery of new
sources, new EPA standards, expiration of the deferral
of nonmajor sources).
Changes in the number of permit revisions.
Changes in the number of affected units under
section 404 (e.g., substitution units).
CPI-type adjustments.
Different activities during post-transition period.
13
272
-------
NOTICE
The policies set out in this guidance document are
intended solely as guidance and do not represent final
Agency action and are not ripe for judicial review.
They are not intended, nor can they be relied upon, to
create any rights enforceable by any party in
litigation with the United States. The EPA officials
may decide to follow the guidance provided in this
guidance document, or to act at variance with the
guidance, based on an analysis of specific
circumstances. The EPA also may change this guidance
at any time without public notice.
14
273
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 2771 1
APR 26 1993
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Definition of Regulated Air Pollutant for
Purposes of Title V
FROM: Lydia N. Wegman, Deputy Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-iO)
TO: Air Division Director, Regions I-X
I
In response to requests for guidance on the definition of
regulated air pollutant, this memorandum clarifies the approach
set forth by the definition in the 40 CFR part 70 regulations and
indicates the ways in which the class of regulated air pollutants
can change. The attachment provides a compilation of the lists
of pollutants which are considered regulated air pollutants for
purposes of the operating permits programs under title V of the
Clean Air Act (Act) . This memorandum also provides guidance on
the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) definition of air
pollutant, as that term is used in determining major source
status pursuant to section 302 of the Act. Finally, this
memorandum emphasizes the ability of permitting authorities to
designate certain quantities of emissions of regulated air
pollutants as "insignificant" with respect to the obligation to
report emissions of those pollutants in permit applications. The
policies set out in this memorandum and attachment are intended
solely as guidance, not final Agency action, and cannot be relied
upon to create any rights enforceable by any party.
I, Regulated Air Pollutants
The definition of regulated air pollutant, found at
40 CFR 70.2, is important because it determines which pollutants
and emissions units must be addressed in a source's title V
permit application. In addition, this definition can affect
whether a State's fee revenue is presumed adequate to fund its
title V program and, in some cases, the amount of permit fees a
source must pay. Each of these roles is discussed below.
Once a source is subject to a title V permitting program,
its emissions of all regulated air pollutants (except those which
meet the permitting authority's criteria for "insignificant"
274
-------
emissions) must be described in the permit application along with
all emissions of pollutants for which the source is considered
major. Similarly, applications must describe all emissions units
which emit regulated air pollutants (except those deemed
insignificant).
In addition!, the concept of regulated air pollutant plays a
significant role in the area of permit fees. Most importantly,
the definition of regulated air pollutant is the starting point
for determining which pollutants must be included when relying on
the $25 ton per year (as adjusted by the Consumer Price Index)
presumptive minimum program cost as a basis for demonstrating the
adequacy of a State's projected fee revenue. As part of this
demonstration, the State projects its revenue using a subset of
regulated air pollutants (i.e., regulated pollutant (for
presumptive fee calculation)].
The population of regulated air pollutants is composed of
the following categories of pollutants:
(1) Nitrogen oxides (NOJ and volatile organic compounds
(VOC). The definition of regulated air pollutant specifically
includes these two significant precursors to ozone (O3)
formation. This approach is consistent with the Act's treatment
of VOC and NOK pursuant to part D of title I of the Act [these O3
precursors are combined with the criteria pollutants for purposes
of the attached list of regulated pollutants].
(2) Any pollutant for which a national ambient air quality
standard has been promulgated (i.e., particulate matter (measured
as PM-10: particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or
equal to a nominal 10 micrometers), sulfur dioxide, O3/ nitrogen
dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead].
(3) Any pollutant that is subject to a new source
performance standard promulgated under section 111 of the Act
(including section lll(d)], which requires new and modified
sources to satisfy emissions standards, work practice ,standards,
and other requirements.
(4) Any of the O3-depleting substances specified as a
Class I (primarily chlorofluorocarbons) or Class II substance
(hydrochlorofluorocarbons) under title VI of the Act (all of
which became regulated pollutants when they became subject to
standards and requirements for servicing of motor vehicle air
conditioners, and restrictions on the sale of O3-depleting
substances promulgated into 40 CFR part 82 (57 FR 31242, July 14,
1992)].
275
-------
(S) Any pollutant subject to a standard promulgated under
section 112 or other requirements established under section 112
of the Act, including section 112(g)(2), (j), and (r) of the Act.
It is important to note that it is EPA's interpretation that
if a pollutant is regulated for one source category by a standard
or other requirement, then the pollutant is considered a
regulated air pollutant for all source categories. This concept
is relevant to all the pollutants listed under items (3), (4),
and (5) above, with one exception: those which are the subject
of case-by-case maximum achievable control technology (MACT)
determinations under section 112(g)(2).
The issue of when a substance regulated under section 112
becdmes a regulated air pollutant merits further discussion.
• When a permitting authority makes a case-by-case MACT
determination under section 112(g)(2), then the pollutant
for which the determination is made is regulated even though
EPA has not issued a standard for that pollutant. However,
the pollutant is considered regulated only with respect to
the individual source for which the MACT determination was
made.
• A pollutant will become regulated under section 112(j) of
the Act [the MACT hammer] if the Administrator fails to
promulgate a standard by the date established pursuant to
section 112(e) of the Act. Pursuant to section 112(j),
permitting authorities will be required to make case-by-case
MACT equivalent determinations. The pollutants become
regulated nationwide upon the date this provision takes
effect for the pollutant [i.e., 18 months after the missed
deadline for the standard, but not prior to 42 months after
the enactment of the Act Amendments of 1990 (1990
Amendments)]. Pollutants so regulated are considered
regulated air pollutants for all sources that emit the
pollutant because the hammer provision is a broadly-
applicable surrogate for the promulgation of a MACT
standard. This is in contrast to the section 112(g)(2)
determinations which are triggered only for the single
source subject to the requirement, rather than nationwide.
• The EPA's proposed rule [required by section 112(r)(3)]
listing substances which could cause, or may reasonably be
anticipated to cause, death, injury, or serious adverse
effects to human health or the environment, if accidentally
released, was published in the Federal Register on
January 19, 1993 (58 FR 5102). All of the listed pollutants
will become regulated air pollutants upon promulgation of
the list.
276
-------
The attachment to this memorandum contains a list of
pollutants which are regulated, as well as a list of pollutants
which are subject to regulation under section 112 in the future,
as discussed above. It is also important to note that the
attached lists are dynamic and subject to change. For example,
the EPA is required to review periodically the statutory list of
pollutants in section 112(b) and is authorized to delete and add
substances if the scientific data demonstrate that such a change
is appropriate.
i
We have attempted to note the likely near-term changes in
the regulations that determine which pollutants are regulated air
pollutants, and we will provide updates to this guidance
periodically.
The definition of regulated air pollutant does not limit the
air pollutants which a State may choose to regulate, nor does it
limit the information (such as for permit applications) which a
State may require of a source. States are free to adopt more
expansive approaches to the regulation of toxic air pollutants
than is required by part 70.
II. Definition of Air Pollutant Pursuant to Section 302
Considerable interest has been expressed in a related but
distinct area: the definition of air pollutant contained in
section 302 (g) of the Act. This definition governs which
pollutants are to be considered in determining whether a source
is "major" pursuant to section 302(j) of the Act. This is
important to the operating permits programs because all major
sources must obtain a title V permit. Although section 302(g)
can be read quite broadly, so as to encompass virtually any
substance emitted into the atmosphere, EPA believes that it is
more consistent with the intent of Congress to interpret this
provision more narrowly. Were this not done, a variety of
sources that have no known prospect for future regulation under
the Act would nonetheless be classified as major sources and be
required to apply for title V permits. Of particular concern
would be sources of carbon dioxide or methane.
As a result, EPA is interpreting "air pollutant" for
section 302(g) purposes as limited to all pollutants subject to
regulation under the Act. This would include, of course, all
regulated air pollutants plus others specified by the Act or by
EPA rulemaking. This approach results in the inclusion of the
pollutants on the list of hazardous air pollutants in section
112(b) that are not otherwise regulated. It should be noted that
the 1990 Amendments did include provisions with respect to carbon
dioxide (section 821) and methane (section 603), but these
requirements involve actions such as reporting and study, not
277
-------
actual control of emissions. Therefore, these provisions do not
preempt EPA's discretion to exclude thesfe pollutants in
determining whether a source is major. If the results of the
studies required by the 1990 Amendments suggest the need for
regulation, these pollutants could be reconsidered at that time
for classification as pollutants subject to regulation under the
Act.
This approach to interpreting section 302(g) is similar to
the traditional practice of the prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) program under part C of title I of the Act
[e.g., Implementation of North County Resource Recovery PSD
Remand, Gerald Emison, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, dated September 22, 1987].
III. De Minimis Thresholds
With the 1990 Amendments, the Act expressly addresses a
significantly broader range of pollutants. The EPA believes that
this will confer real benefits to air quality management, and
that the title V permits program offers the flexibility for
efficient implementation of these requirements. This function
includes providing information about emissions of these
pollutants, through the permit application process, even if the
particular pollutant is not currently required to be controlled
at the individual source. The EPA also realizes that in many
cases these pollutants are emitted in amounts of no significance
to air quality management. It would be unduly burdensome to
require permit applicants to quantify all emissions of these
pollutants, especially given their considerable number and, in
some cases, difficulty in quantification.
The part 70 promulgation recognized this fact but gave only
very general guidance as to the approvable options for States in
developing their part 70 programs. Section 70.5(c) provides that
"[T]he Administrator may approve as part of a State program a
list of insignificant activities and emissions levels which need
not be included in permit applications." The regulation further
provides that M[T]he permitting authority shall require
additional information related to the emissions of air pollutants
sufficient to verify which requirements are applicable to the
source, and other information needed to collect any permit fees
owed under the fee schedule approved pursuant to section 70.9(b)
of this part" [section 70.5(c)(3)(i)].
In order to aid States in establishing their approaches to
insignificant activities and emissions levels, EPA intends to
review various approaches to setting de minimis thresholds for
reporting of emissions of air pollutants and provide advice and
guidance as needed on what constitutes acceptable approaches for
setting de minirois levels. This effort will include evaluation
of data compiled by EPA's national toxics program as well as
278
-------
review of current practices among some States that have been
regulating these pollutants. The EPA recognizes that the
particular thresholds selected by individual states can vary
based on their air quality management needs and professional
judgement. The EPA's further efforts in this area will be
offered as technical support and guidance to State and local
programs in addressing these challenging issues, not as mandatory
program minima. The EPA will work with states to develop part 70
programs that will best meet their program needs.
For further information, please contact Kirt Cox or
Candace Carraway of my staff at (919) 541-5399 and
(919) 541-3189, respectively.
Attachments
cc: Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
Operating Permits Program Contacts, Regions I-X
OAQPS Division Directors
279
-------
Attachment 1
LIST OF REGULATED AIR POLLUTANTS
(AS Of April 1993)
I. Pollutants for Which National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) Have Been Established
lead
sulfur dioxide
nitrogen dioxide
carbon monoxide
particulate matter (PM-10)
ozone, including precursors:
nitrogen oxides (NO, NO2, NO3/ N2O, N2O3, N2O<, N^)
volatile organic compounds (VOC)
As defined in 40 CFR 51.100(s), the term VOC includes any
compound of carbon (excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide,
carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium
carbonate) which participates in atmospheric photochemical
reactions. The EPA has developed a list of substances (which is
subject to change) which are excluded from the VOC definition
because of their negligible reactivity. The EPA's proposal to
exclude perchloroethylene from the definition was published in
57 FR 48490 (October 26, 1992).
The following organic compounds are excluded from the
definition of VOC because they have been determined to have
negligible photochemical reactivity:
methane
ethane
raethylene chloride (dichloromethane)
1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform)
1,1,l-trichloro-2,2,2-trifluoroethane (CFC-113)
trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11)
dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12)
chlorodifluoromethane (CFC-22)
trifluoromethane (FC-23)
1,2-dichloro 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (CFC-114)
chloropentafluoroethane (CFC-115)
1,1,1-trifluoro 2,2-dichloroethane (HCFC-123)
1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a)
1,1-dichloro l-'f luoroethane (HCFC-141b)
1-chloro 1,1-difluoroethane (HCFC-142b)
2-chloro-l,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HCFC-124)
pentafluoroethane (HFC-125)
1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134)
1/1,1-trifluoroethane (HFC-143a)
1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a)
280
-------
perfluorocarbon compounds which fall into •these classes:
(i) Cyclic, branched, or linear, completely
fluorinated alkanes;
N
(ii) Cyclic, branched, or linear, completely
fluorinated ethers with no unsaturations;
(iii) Cyclic, branched, or linear, completely
fluorinated tertiary amines with no
unsaturations; and
(iv) Sulfur containing perfluorocarbons with no
unsaturations and with sulfur bonds only to
carbon and fluorine.
II. Pollutants Regulated Under New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS)
Criteria pollutants (including VOC and NOX) plus:
dioxin/furan (defined in 40 CFR 60.53a to mean total tetra
through octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans)*
fluorides
hydrogen chloride*
hydrogen sulfide (H2S)
sulfuric acid mist
total reduced sulfur
reduced sulfur compounds
total suspended particulate
* The NSPS for municipal waste combustors (MWC) controls
emissions of dioxin/furans and hydrogen chloride gas (40 CFR
60.53a and 60.54£) as surrogates for controlling emissions of
organic compounds and acid gases which are emitted in the exhaust
gases from MWC units. Thus, the indicated dioxin/furan compounds
and hydrogen chloride are regulated pollutants.
Note that the EPA has drafted a proposed revision to the
NSPIS for MWC's which will regulate substances like cadmium which
are not currently regulated air pollutants. As this revised NSPS
and other standards are developed, there.may be additions to the
list of regulated pollutants. ,
281
-------
III. Class I and Class II Substances Under Title VI
Class I Substances:
carbon tetrachloride
chlorofluorocarbon-11
chlorofluorocarbon-12
chlorofluorocarbon-13
chlorofluorocarbon-111
chlorofluorocarbon-112
chlorofluorocarbon-113
chlorofluorocarbon-114
chlorofluorocarbon-115
chlorofluorocarbon-211
chlorofluorocarbon-212
chlorofluorocarbon-213
chlorofluorocarbon-214
chlorofluorocarbon-215
chlorofluorocarbon-216
chlorofluorocarbon-217
halon-1211
halon-1301
halon-2402
methyl chloroform
Class II Substances:
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-21
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-2 2
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-31
.hydrochlorofluorocarbon-121
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-122
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-123
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-124
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-131
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-132
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-133
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-141
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-142
hydrochlorofIuorocarbonf221
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-222
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-22 3
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-2 2 4
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-2 2 5
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-2 2 6
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-2 31
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-232
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-233
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-2 3 4
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-2 3 5
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-241
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-2 4 2
(CFC-11)
(CFC-12)
(CFC-13)
(CFC-111)
(CFC-112)
(CFC-113)
(CFC-114)
(CFC-115)
(CFC-211)
(CFC-212)
(CFC-213)
(CFC-214)
(CFC-215)
(CFC-216)
(CFC-217)
(HCFC-21)
(HCFC-22)
(HCFC-31)
(HCFC-121)
(HCFC-122)
(HCFC-123)
(HCFC-124)
(HCFC-131)
(HCFC-132)
(HCFC-133)
(HCFC-141)
(HCFC-142)
(HCFC-221)
(HCFC-222)
(HCFC-223)
(HCFC-224)
(HCFC-225)
(HCFC-226)
(HCFC-231)
(HCFC-232)
(HCFC-233)
(HCFC-234)
(HCFC-235)
(HCFC-241)
(HCFC-242)
282
-------
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-243
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-24 4
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-2 51
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-252
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-253
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-2 61
hydrochlorof luorocarbon-2 6 2
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-271
(HCFC-243)
(HCFC-244)
(HCFC-251)
(HCFC-252)
(HCFC-253)
(HCFC-261)
(HCFC-262)
(HCFC-271)
IV. Pollutants Regulated Under § 112
Pollutants for which national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) have been established:
arsenic
asbestos
beryllium
benzene
mercury
radionuclides
vinyl chloride
283
-------
Attachment 2
POLLUTANTS SUBJECT TO REGULATION UNDER S 112
I. Pollutants listed in § 112(b):
The 189 pollutants listed in S 112 (b) are not considered
regulated air pollutants until addressed in a requirement that
the pollutant be controlled by a source. None of the listed
pollutants meets ,the definition except asbestos, benzene, and
vinyl chloride (ror which NESHAP have been established); and
hydrogen chloride (gas), dibenzofurans, and 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (regulated under the municipal waste
combustor NSPS). Most of the listed pollutants will become
regulated when EPA promulgates the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON)
which is discussed below. The remaining pollutants will become
regulated: (1) when EPA promulgates a maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) standard for the pollutant under S 112(d);
(2) for a particular source, when case-by-case MACT
determinations are made under S 112(g) for the source; or
(3) the later of June 15, 1994 or 18 months after EPA fails to
issue emissions standards for categories of sources in compliance
with the timetable promulgated pursuant to § 112(e) as mandated
by § 112(j). ;
The § 112(b) list contains some technical errors which will
be corrected in subsequent rulemaking. The majority of the
technical corrections likely to be made are noted below. Also,
the pollutants from the S 112 (b) list which are addressed in the
proposed HON are followed by an asterisk.
Chemical
Abstract
Service
(CAS)
Number Chemical Name
75070 Acetaldehyde"
60355 Acetamide"
75058 Acetonitrile*
98862 Acetophenone*
53963 2-Acetylaminofluorene*
107028 Acrolein*
79061 Acrylamide*
79107 Acrylic acid*
107131 Acrylonitrile"
107051 Allyl chloride* ^
92671 4-Aminobiphenyl*
62533 Aniline*
90040 o-Anisidine*
1332214 Asbestos .
284
-------
71432
92875
98077
100447
92524
117817
542881
75252
106990
156627
105602
133062
63252
75150
56235
463581
120809
133904
57749
7782505
79118
532274
108907
510156
67663
107302
126998
1319773
95487
108394
106445
98828
94757
334883
132649
96128
84742
106467
91941
111444
542756
62737
111422
Benzene (including benzene from gasoline)*
Beilzidine"
Benzotrichloride*
Benzyl chloride*
Biphenyl*
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP)*
Bis(chloromethyl)ether*
Bromoform*
1,3-Butadiene*
Calcium cyanamide
Caprolactam*
Captan
Carbaryl
Carbon disulfide*
Carbon tetrachloride"
Carbonyl sulfide*
Catechol*
Chloramben
Chlordane
Chlorine
Chloroacetic acid*
2-Chloroacetophenone*
Chlorobenzene*
Chlorobenzilate
Chloroform"
Chloromethyl methyl ether*
Chloroprene*
Cresols/Cresylic acid (isomers and mixture)*
o-Cresol*
m-Cresol*
p-Cresol*
Cumene"
2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, including
salts and esters)*
DDE* [recommended technical correction: CAS number
72559] (Itl-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)
ethylene)
Diaz omethane*
Dibenzofurans* [recommended technical correction:
Dibenzofuran]
1,2-Dibrorao-3-chloropropane*
Dibutylphthalate*
l,4-Dichlorobenzene(p)* [recommended technical
correction: 1,4-Dichlorobenzene]
3,3-Dichlorobenzidene* [recommended technical
correction: 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine]
Dichloroethyl ether (Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether)*
1,3-Dichloropropene"
Dichlorvos
D ie thano lam ine*
285
-------
121697
64675
119904
60117
119937
79447
68122
57147
131113
77781
51285
121142
123911
122667
106898
106887
140885
100414
51796
75003
106934
107062
107211
151564
technical
75218
96457
75343
(1,1-Dichloroethane)
N,N-Diethyl aniline (N,N-Dimethylaniline)"
[recommended technical correction:
N,N-Dimethylaniline]
Diethyl sulfate*
3,3-Dimethoxybenzidine" [recommended technical
correction: 3,3*-Dimethoxybenz idine]
Dimethyl aminoazobenzene*
3,3',-Dimethyl benzidine* [recommended technical
correction: 3,3',-Dimethylbenz idine]
Dimethyl carbamoyl chloride* [recommended
technical correction: Dimethylcarbamoyl chloride]
Dimethyl formamide* [recommended technical
correction: N,N-Dimethylformamide]
1,1-Dimethyl hydrazine* [recommended technical
correction: 1,1-DimethyIhydraz ine]
Dimethyl phthalate*
Dimethyl sulfate*
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol, and salts* (recommended
technical correction to remove CAS number]
2,4-Dinitrophenol*
2,4-Dinitrotoluene*
1,4-Dioxane (1,4-Diethyleneoxide)*
1,2-DiphenyIhydrazine*
Epichlorohydrin (l-Chloro-2,3-epoxypropane)"
1,2-Epoxybutane*
Ethyl acrylate*
Ethyl benzene* [recommended technical correction:
EthyIbenzene]
Ethyl carbamate (Urethane)"
Ethyl chloride (Chloroethane)"
Ethylene dibromide (Dibroinoethane)"
Ethylene dichloride (1,2-Dichloroethane)*
Ethylene g],ycol*
iroine (Aziridine) [recommended
correction: Ethyleneimine (Aziridine)]
Ethylene oxide"
Ethylene thiourea"
Ethylidene dichloride
Formaldehyde*
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene*
Hexachlorobutadiene*
Ethylene
50000
76448
118741
87683
77474
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane*
Hexamethylene-1,6-diisocyanate*
Hexamethylphosphoramide*
Hexane*
Hydrazine*
67721
822060
680319
110543
302012
286
-------
7647010
7664393
123319
78591
108316
67561
72435
74839
74873
71556
78933
60344
74884
108101
624839
80626
1634044
101144
75092
101688
101779
91203
98953
92933
100027
79469
684935
62759
59892
56382
82688
87865
108952
106503
75445
7803512
7723140
85449
Hydrochloric acid [recommended technical
correction: Hydrochloric acid (hydrogen
chloride)(gas only)]
Hydrogen fluoride (Hydrofluoric acid)
Hydroquinone*
Isophorone"
Lindane (all isomers) [Recommended technical
correction: -1,2,3,4,5,6-Hexachlorocyclohexane (all
stereo isomers, including lindane)]
Haleic anhydride*
Methanol*
Methoxychlor
Methyl bromide (Bromomethane)"
Methyl chloride (Chloromethane)*
Methyl chloroform (1,1,1-Trichloroethane)*
Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone)*
Methyl hydrazine" [recommended technical
correction: Methylhydrazine]
Methyl iodide (lodomethane)*
Methyl isobutyl ketone (Hexone)*
Methyl isocyanate*
Methyl methacrylate*
Methyl tert butyl ether* [recommended technical
correction:, Methyl tert-butyl ether]
4,4-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline)* [recommended
technical correction: 4,4'-Methylenebis(2-
chloroaniline]
Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane)*
Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI)"
[recommended technical correction:
4-4' Methylenediphenyl diisocyanate (MDI)]
4,4,-Methylenedianiline"
Naphthalene"
Nitrobenzene"
4-Nitrobipheny1*
4 -N i tr opheno 1*
2-Nitropropane*
N-Nitroso-N-methylurea*
N-Nitrosodimethylamine*
N-Nitrosomorpholine"
Parathion
Pentachloronitrobenzene (Ouintobenzene)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol*
p-Phenylenediamine*
Phosgene"
Phosphine
Phosphorus
Phthalic anhydride*
287
-------
1336363
1120714
57578
123386
114261
78875
75569
75558
91225
106514
100425
96093
1746016
79345
127184
7550450
108883
95807
584849
95534
8001352
120821
79005
79016
95954
88062
121448
1582098
540841
108054
593602
75014
75354
1330207
95476
108383
106423
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)"
1,3-Propane sultone"
beta-Propiolactone*
Propionaldehyde*
Propoxur (Baygon)"
Propylene dichloride (1,2-Dichloropropane)"
Propylene oxide*
1,2-Propylenimine (2-Methyl aziridine)"
Quinoline
Quinone"
Styrene*
Styrene oxide*
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin*
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane*
Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene)*
Titanium tetrachloride
Toluene*
2,4-Toluene diamine* [recommended technical
correction: 2,4-Toluenediamine]
2,4-Toluene diisocyanate*
o-Toluidine*
Toxaphene (chlorinated camphene)
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene*
1,1,2-Trichloroethane*
Trichloroethylene*
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol*
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol*
Triethylamine*
Trifluralin*
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane"
Vinyl acetate*
Vinyl bromide*
Vinyl chloride"
Vinylidene chloride (1,1-Dichloroethylene)*
Xylenes (isomers and mixture)*
o-Xylenes* [recommended technical correction:
o-Xylene
m-Xylenes" [recommended technical correction:
m-Xylene]
p-Xylenes* [recommended technical correction:
p-Xylene]
Antimony Compounds
Arsenic Compounds (inorganic including arsine)
Beryllium Compounds
Cadmium Compounds
Chromium Compounds
Cobalt Compounds
Coke Oven Emissions
Cyanide Compounds [1]
Glycol ethers* [2]
288
-------
6
0 Lead Compounds
0 Manganese Compounds
0 Mercury Compounds
0 Fine mineral fibers [3]
0 Nickel Compounds
0 Polycylic Organic Matter [4]* [recommended
technical correction: Polycyclic Organic Matter]
0 Radionuclides (including radon) [5]
0 Selenium Compounds
NOTE: For all listings above which contain the word "compounds"
and for glycol ethers, the following applies: Unless otherwise
specified, these listings are defined as including any unique
chemical substance that contains the named chemical (i.e.,
antimony, arsenic, etc.) as part of that chemical's
infrastructure.
1 X'CN where X = H1 or any other group where a formal
dissociation may occur.
For example KCN or Ca(CN)2
2 Includes mono- and di- ethers of ethylene glycol, diethylene
glycol, and triethylene glycol R-(OCH2CH2)n-OR« where
n = 1, 2, or 3
R = alkyl or aryl groups
R1 = R, H, or groups which, when removed, yield glycol ethers
with the structure: R-(OCH2CH)0-OH [recommended technical
correction: R-(OCH2CH2)n-OH]. Polymers are excluded from the
glycol category.
3 Includes mineral fiber emissions from facilities
manufacturing or processing glass, rock, or slag fibers (or other
mineral-derived 'fibers) of average diameter 1 micrometer or less.
4 Includes organic compounds with more than one benzene ring,
and which have a boiling point greater than or equal to 100°c.
[Recommended technical correction: limited to, or refers to,
products from incomplete combustion of organic compounds (or
material) and pyrolysis processes having .more than one benzene
ring, and which have a boiling point greater than or equal to
100CC.]
5 A type of atom which spontaneously undergoes radioactive
decay.
289
-------
II. Pollutants subject to the HON:
As part of the effort to regulate pollutants listed in
S 112 (b), the EPA has developed the HON which will apply to
the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry and will
control emissions of 149 volatile hazardous air pollutants
(HAP's). All of the pollutants listed in the HON are among the
189 HAP's listed in S 112(b) and are identified (with an
asterisk) in the preceding section of this document. Pollutants
addressed by the HON will become regulated on the effective date
specified in the HON.
III. Pollutants Listed Under § 112(r):
Section 112(r)(3) requires that EPA promulgate an initial
list of at least 100 substances with threshold quantities which
would cause or may reasonably be anticipated to cause death,
injury, or serious adverse effects to human health or the
environment if accidentally released. The EPA's proposed rule to
implement § 112 (r) (3) was published in the Federal Register on
January 19, 1993 (58 FR 5102). The proposed list of substances
includes 100 acutely toxic substances, 62 flammable gases and
volatile flammable liquids, and commercial explosives (classified
by the Department of Transportation in Division 1.1). The listed
pollutants will become "regulated" for purposes of title V upon
final promulgation of the list.
i
The toxic and flammable substances listed in the proposed
rule are arranged alphabetically and by CAS number on the
attached lists.
NOTICE
The policies set out in this guidance document are
intended solely as guidance and do not represent final
Agency action, and are not ripe for judicial review.
They are not intended, nor can they be relied upon, to
create any rights enforceable by any party in
litigation with the United States. The EPA officials
may decide to follow the guidance provided in this
guidance document, or to act at variance with the
guidance, based on an analysis of specific
circumstances. The EPA may also change this guidance
at any time without public notice.
290
-------
I TO §68.130.—UST OF REGULATED Tone SUBSTANCE
PREVENTON
(Ode*—100 SutxuiKw]
Janu«y 19.1993 / Proposed Rules 5121
TmesHOU) QUANHTIES RM AOCOENTAL Ra£Asc
Ctamial name
Ae*OMCy*Mhr«ta .
AeraWn ______________________________________
AuWtMajW* __
_*m^ul«V
A«*M
S^fSy^^ii.^^^^:
AMi^ef-Md.. ^i-m-i
ffryjq fr-BtfQAjfr - _.—..
ltaimMfcja__MUjrU^Ua
ObmNhMtfrforMBanf
Piimur^ 01.^1 'ifi'f
fllm-UhLir jSvuu+u m u 4 A tAlnlhlnato
ftHcNofn}»S*»
rSiLt^afSmia-
tttiytaioimha'* '
frKITWMa^Wl.
Fofmaldortydo cyanohydtln - ..— . . «. -
Hydf%zirM
HydfocNorfc acid (sokxtoo, cone 25% or greater] .__...„.... ....... ...
Hydrocyanfc acW - —
HyQ'iQO40 pyofWfl * .........
HydnjQfln pt>mid(1fl (cone > S?%) - ...... «....- -_ ,. .-.-..—-...—,..,... -n, , ,
Hvricnofln Cfllrtnirtfl * "• , T n-.-ti n-mwi
MuHmnln A«V
-------
federal K/eguter / VoL S8t No. 11 / Tuesday. January 19. 1883 / Proposed Bale*
~m*^SSSSSSS£S^^^^—> •
TO S6&1X.—4JST of REGULATED Twee SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOU> Quwnriesfro ACCIDENTAL <%LEA - —
TaMM$t3R*4£ywiM • , ,
Ttfmnt <8toyy»n«H (unynrfHKl twwn)
TrtchkxoflthyWtanc ' "
Tlfcn^hylcllloHB*|«« _ ._.., ;„
Wy tcataM mw"*'
CAS NO.
7719-12-2
11O-89-*
107-12-0
109-61-5
7S-SS-6
75-S6-8
140-76-1
7446-00-5
7664-03-9
7763-60-0
7446-11-4
75-74-1
509-14-6
106-66-6
7SSMS-0
fm* mM ft
•1-06-7
26471-62-6
115-21-9
75-77-4
1 0S-OS-*
7S-01-4
•JwttfwW
<»u»nwy(«)*)
s.ooo
5.000
1.000
S.OOO
10.000
10.000
1.000
1jOOO
5.000
1.000
IjOOO
1.000
1.000
1.000
soo
1jOP°,
1.000
1.000
1.000
1X100
5.000
. 10jOOO
ettfcfcr
•sang
<*J
CJ
o
0
«
i**i
o
o
<**j
0
o
w
o
f)
o
o
o
o
«
*O« CMS IB. •mtai pnttum AS
•On e« W.
'Tade
TABLE 2 TO § 68.130.—*JST OF REGOLATEO Toxic SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOLD QUANTITIES FOR ACCIDENTAL RELEASE
PREVENTION
(CAS NumMr Onar—100 Srt»sant«l
CAS No.
TiHQVlOIQ
for
feting
so-oo-o.
56-36-2.
57-14-7 .
FooMktaiiyJa.
DiM6Uiytiyvii4£jiw .
62-53-3 .
67-66-3 .
74-63-9 .
74-67-3
74-90-8 .
74-93-1
75-01-4
75-15-0
75-21-8
7S~t4-S
75-65-8
75-56-9
7Sr74-1
75-77-4
75-79-6 -
75-66-S .
78-62-0 _
78-97-7 -
79-21-0 .
79-S2-1 _
91-C6-7 .
96-C7-7 .
96-16-6-
96-67-3-
86-65-3-
100-44-7.
106-69-6 .
107-02-6.
107-07-3.
107-11-9 .
107-12-0 .
107-13-1 .
107-15-3 .
500
1.000
5.003
5.000
Chfexotonn *._.»»».
M«(hy1 brooMa
M«my1 cNorfcto
Hydrocyanic acM ....
M«lhy( meccapon ...
Vinyl cftkxWe
Cartxxi disuf KM
Ettiytane oxkM
Ptvjsg«o«.
10.000
5,000
10.000
930
1.000
10.000
10.000
5.000
500
10,000
10.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
' vox
5.000
10,000
5.000
1.000
B0flZOIricMotfdi .
BenzwwmlM. 3-(Mft>
•OqD.
t.OCO
SCO
1.0CO
(1
o
o
n
n
n
ft
o
n
n
n
C")
n
o
n
o
o
n
o
n
n
n
n
«
1.000
10.000
1.000
1.000
f^vm'um'ilMm
»T"Op*OnlU»6 .
IjOOQ
•107-16-6 .
107-30-2.
10.000
SjOOO
1JOOO
292
-------
TA8UE 2 TO § 68.130.—UST OF REGULATED TOMC SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOLD Oil
PREVENTION—Continued
(CAS Number O«S0r—100 Subconcec}
CAS No.
Chemical nine
Butt lor
fetng
*A*L_dC_£
100 •* •• •
106-96-4.
109-61-6
110-00-8
150-67-6
T«»-1.4-4
,,1-44-4
U5-21-*
,2>73-9
126-96-?
140-89-4
(4046-1
,Si-S6-4
S8-01-2
3S3-«-<
806-77-4
S09-14-6
$42-66-1
SS6-64-fl
Tiwrwroethjtei tone.
Benzyl
menyf-Si
•«*•
«-*««*«-
:1)
S94-42-3
624-63-9 .
52%)
CNortrw
Hydrogen tetenMe.
SuBur tetrafluorUe .
Pfiocpriine
Pftocptwfva oxycMorlde —
Iron, pemacarbonyl.
Toluene dUsocyanalc (uncpedOed (comer) ...
S.OOO
5.000
5.000
10.000
1.000
5.000
1.006
i.ood
5.900
10.300
'.OQOJ-O
10.0&1
i.oac
i.ooo
1.00C
LOGO
S.O30
5.000
1.000
1.000
soo
10.000
1400
1.000
1.000
1400
1400
10400
1.000
1400
soo
1400
1400
S.OOO
soo
1400
S.OOO
5.000
5400
5400
5400
1.000
soo
1.000
1.000
soo
1.000
1.000
S.OOO
soo
1.000
1.000
500
1.0001
1400
soo
soo
soo
1.000
6«it tor CUno:
• WmltMd lor Ming by Conorvu.
• On EH6 he. vmor prncm 0^ mrnHg or om«lw.
• On GHS tat. vwor prawn IM« «wn 03 mtHo- ** *•• *•*" *"«»'•* *» <
tidng In dMft or Ir4u()r.
Mi «nrj Mtnryaf «a*J«r«.
TABLE 3 TO §68.130.—UST OF REGULATED FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOLD QUANTITIES FOR ACCIDENTAL
RELEASE PREVENTION
(AlphatMflcal Orttef-62 Substances]
Chemical name
Acetridahytki •
1>8uta(Senfl
CAS No.
7S-07-0
74-«6-2
696-7»^
108-99-0
ThflWhoW
qu*«)r^>«)
10.000
10400
10400
10400i
8osls for
.teang
«
O
8
293
-------
3124
Federal Roister / VoL 58. No. 11 / Tuesday. January 19. 1993 / Proposed Rotes
T*i«c 1TT\ Rftfl 11rt__f «T/^Cf?IVtfB «TIT> ft AUUAfVF StfRSTANfy^ AMH TMHF^&irV ft f
Ra£Ase PREVENTION— Continued
9./>tln>nnm(K/4ivwi '
nifliitunjlmu l
MUM* ' ""^^
FlM Ottviri*
... .i—. , , i,
ttoowtarm
fcnjwina
tea>Mnpy<rf«n«uvi fTV.
Pn)parM ...
Silana , -,,,.- , ., ...
Tatrafluoroeitiylana , . , , .. ..,., „
TalmnMaiylsllafM ... ,,„„„,„
TricMonKilafle . _ .„
TlMuom- ctinmattiyiana ' ...
VMy< «my< olh<>r
Vinyl fluorirfa _ ._ .
VtnyCktera fluaMa
Vinyl malhyl «KMT , ._ „ , ,
juAMTTnes fo« ACCIDENTAL
CAS NO.
106-07-8
106-96-9
107-01-7
25167-67-3
SflO-16-1
624-64-6
463-59-1
7781-81-1
557-06-2
590-21-6
460-19-5
75-19-4
4109-96-0
7S-37-6
124-40-3
463-62-1
74-64-0
107-00-6
75-04-7
75-00-3
74-65-1
6049-7
75-08-1
109-95-6
1333-74-0
75-28-6
78-78-4
• 78-79-5
7S-31-0
7S-29-6
74-82-6
74-69-5
S63-45-1
963-46-2
115-10-6
W7-31-3
115-11-7
S04-60-9
109-68-O
109-67-1
646-04-8
627-20-3
74 08 6
, 115-07-1
74-99-7
7603-62-6
116-14-3
75-76-3
1002S-76-2
79-38-9
75-60-3
689-07-4
109-92-2
75-02-6
75-35-4
7S-38-7
107-25-5
Thractaid
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
• 10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
1OOOO
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
^S"
3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333X333333333333333
1
Bttlt tor LhHrv
• VoWM ««nnui>l. iauti ~
TABLE 4 TO §68.130.—LIST OF REGULATED FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOLD QUANTITIES FOR ACCIOEKTIAL
, RELEASE PREVENTION
(CAS Number Order—62 Substances)
CAS No.
60-29-7
74-82-8
74-64-0
T4_«R.1 ,
7X_flA-9
IL-fG-f,
74-9B-6
Chentical nam«
E*V«h«' — :.
Methane
RtaM
FfhyUn.
Uothytamlrvi
PRVVUM
TNwhoW
qu«tty(ibi)
1
-------
Federal Register / VoL S6. No. 11 / Tuesday. January 19. 1993 /
**ii^^^^^^^*mfi^SSiSSSSf^ss^s*mm^m*^^^^^^siiii^^^s^s^sss*slsSS^^^SSSSSSSSmS!^^^£^f^^^^^^ii^^m
TABLE 4 TO §68.130.—UST OF RCGULAtED FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES ,
S12S
ACODCNTIAX.
fCAS NunOor O«J«r-62 Sul)CUno.»|
CAS NO-
.1 rrt ,-T
7S-09-9
7S-0*-6
1****
TS-or-o
75-08-t
7S-1.M
75-«6-« —
1*4*6
7S-31-«
7S-3S-4
7S-37-6
75-38-7
75-60-3
TS-76-3 _
18-78-4
Ignr79-S _.
TMB-fl -. —
106-07-8
106-98-9
106-69-0
107-00-6 __-
107-01-7 ....
107-45-6
107-31-3
109-66-0
109-67-1
VM-K-Z
109-95-5
11S-07-1
115-10-6
115-11-7
116-14-3
124-40-3
460-19-6
463-49-0
463-66-1
463-62-1
504-60-fl
SS7-86-2
S63-4S-1
5S3-46-2 .___
590-18-1
590-21-6
S96-73-2
624-64-6
627-20-3
646-04-8
689-«7-4
1333-74-0
4100 06 0
7791-31-1
7803-62-5
10025-78-2 ....
2S167-67-3 ....
Ctwmlcal nanw
P^tyn .
Pityj-Mnrf*. . „.
i*y H..VM.
EKiylanikM -
AoM.M^rt.
f*y HMM^P^II _. _
esfeirtpmp*** _____
hnhmn. _.,. • ,
Ignpmpyl rtWrtAtu
lc^p«Jp) VI j , , M1 „,„„„
PflfVBIV*
^-P^m^vg _ : i LI
VS^yl «fhy< *h«f
£y -ftj|
-------
OFFICE TELEPHONE NUMBERS AND ADDRESSES
HEADQUARTERS OFFICES
Office and Address Telephone Number
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of the Assistant Administrator (202) 260-7400
U.S. EPA, 6101
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Office of Program Management Operations (202) 260-7415
U.S. EPA, 6102
401 M StreegSW
Washington, DC 20460
Office of Policy Analysis and Review (202) 260-5580
U.S. EPA, 6103
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (202) 233-9320
U.S. EPA, 660U
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (919) 541-5615
U.S. EPA, MD-10
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Office of Mobile Sources (202) 260-7645
U.S. EPA, 6401
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Office of Atmospheric Programs (202)233-9140
U.S. EPA, 620U
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
297
-------
Office and Address Telephone Number
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and (202) 260-8600
Prevention Office
U.S. EPA, 5101
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
Office of General Counsel
Air and Radiation Division (202) 260-7606
ILS. EPA, 2344
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Office of Research and Development
Office of the Assistant Administrator (202) 260-7676
U.S. EPA, 8101
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
REGIONAL OFFICES
Office and Address Telephone Number
Region I - Air, Pesticides and Toxics (617) 565-3800
Management Division
U.S. EPA - Region I
One Congress Street
John F. Kennedy Building
Boston, MA 02203-2211
(Connecticut, Maine,Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont)
Region II - Air and Waste Management Division (212) 264-2301
U.S. EPA - Region II
Jacob K. Javits Federal Building
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands)
298
-------
Office and Address Telephone Number
Region III - Air, Radiation and Toxics Division (215) 597-9390
U.S. EPA - Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia)
Region IV- Air, Pesticides and Toxics (404)347-3043
Management Division
U.S. PA - Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee)
Region V - Air and Radiation Division (312) 353-2212
U.S. EPA - Region V
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
(Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin)
Region VI- Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division (214)655-7200
U.S. EPA - Region VI
First Interstate Bank Tower at Fountain Place
1445 Ross Avenue, 12th Floor, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas)
Region VII - Air and Toxics Division (913) 551-7020
U.S. EPA - Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska)
Region VIII - Air and Toxics Division (303) 293-1438
U.S. EPA - Region VIII
999 18th Street
1 Denver Place - Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
(Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, Wyoming)
299
-------
Office and Address Telephone Number
Region IX - Air and Toxics Division (415) 744-1219
U.S. EPA - Region DC
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, American Samoa, Guam)
Region X - Air and Toxics Division (206) 553-4152
U.S. EPA - Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington)
300
-------
CLEAN AIR CONTACTS
TAA GENERAL
OZONE (GROUND LEVELS GENERAL
Areas Affected/Nonattainment
Boundaries
Air Quality Data
Data for Nonattainment
Classifications and Designations
Mobile Source Requirements (See Below)
Stationary Source Requirements
CTG's, Stationary Source Controls
* see list of CTG's on last page
Marine Vessel Loading
Architectural/Structural Coatings
Reg/Neg
Control Strategy Development/
Demonstration of Attainment
Emissions Inventory Guidance
Emission Statements
Ozone Modeling
RACT Fixups
Tracking/ % Reduction Calculations
Rob Brenner/John Beale
(202)260-5580
John Bachmann/Jeff Clark
(919)541-5359/(919)541-5557
Tom Helms/John Silvasi
(919)541-5527/(919)541-5666
Barry Gilbert
(919)541-5238
Tom Quran
(919)541-5467
Barry Gilbert
(919)541-5238
Bill Johnson
(919)541-5245
Susan Wyatt/Bill Johnson
(919)541-5674/(919)541-5245
David Markwordt
(919)541-0837
Bruce Madariaga
(919)541-5290
John Silvasi
(919)541-5408
David Misenheimer/David Mobley
(919)541-5473/(919)541-4676
Mary Warner-Selph
(919)541-1192
Ned Meyer/Joe Tikvart
(919)541-5594/(919)541-5562
Bill Johnson
(919)541-5245
Kimber Scavo
(919)541-3354
301
-------
Enhanced Ozone and VOC Monitoring
OZONE (STRATOSPHERIC); GENERAL
Recycling
Mobile Sources
Stationary Sources
Labelling
Nonessential Uses
Safe substitutes
CFC Phaseout
CFC Enforcement
Greenlights Program
MOBILE SOURCES; GENERAL
Reformulated Gasoline
Clean Fueled Cars
Oxygenated Fuels
Auto Tailpipe Requirements
Inspection/Maintenance
CARBON MONOXIDE! GENERAL
302
Ogden Gerald/Geri Dorosz-Stargerdt
(919)541-5652/(919)541-5492
Stratospheric Ozone Protection
Hotline
(800)296-1996
Lena Nirk
(202)233-9147
Debbie Ottinger
(202)233-9149
Kate Van Slyck
(202)233-9742
Matt Dinkel
(202)233-9194
Drusilla Hufford
(202)233-9101
Peter Voigt
(202)233-9185
Bob Labens
(703)308-8683
Greenlights Hotline
(202)775-6650
Paula Van Lare
(202)260-3450
Paul Machiele
(313)668-4264
Jeff Alson
(313)668-4296
Al Mannato
(202)233-9050
Paula Van Lare
(202)260-3450
Gene Tierney
(313)668-4456
Tom Helms
(919)541-5527
-------
Mobile Source Requirements (See Above)
Nonattainment Classifications
and Designations/Boundaries
Data for Nonattainment Classifications
and Boundaries
Air Quality Data
CO Modeling
Emission Inventories
Control Strategy Development/
Demonstration of Attainment
PARTICULATE MATTER (PM-IO): GENERAL
Areas Affected
Control Requirements (
SIPs
Air Quality Data
Emissions Inventory Guidance
RACM/BACM Technical Guidance
t
Residential Wood Combustion
Fugitive Dust
Smoke Management
Air Quality Modeling
Barry Gilbert
(919)541-5238
Barry Gilbert
(919)541-5238
TomCurran
(919)541-5467
Tom Braverman
(919)541-5383
David Misenheimer
(919)541-5473
John Silvasi
(919)541-5666
Joe Paisie
(919)541-5556
Larry Wallace
(919)541-0906
Ken Woodard/Charlene Spells
(919)541-5697/(919)541-5255
Larry Wallace
(919)541-0906
Neil Frank
(919)541-5560
Bill Kuykendall
(919)541-5372
Chris Stoneman
(919)541-5497
Robin Dunkins
(919)541-5335
Andy Smith
(919)541-5398
Gary Blais
(919)541-5223
303
-------
NAAOS REVIEW; GENERAL
LEAD
SIPs
SULFUR DIOXIDE; GENERAL
Areas Affected
SIP Requirements
Air Quality Modeling/Stack Heights
Air Quality Data
ACID RAIN; GENERAL
Allowance Trading
t
Auctions/Sales
Allowance Tracking
Allowance Allocations
Opt-In
Conservation/Energy Reserve
Permit Issuance
Permits Phase I Extension/Forms
Compliance Certification
304
John Haines
(919)541-5533
Laura McKelvey
(919)541-5497
Ken Woodard
(919)541-5697
Andy Smith
(919)541-5398
Andy Smith
(919)541-5398
Gary Blais
(919)541-3223
Lee Byrd
(919)541-5367
Acid Rain Hotline
(617)674-7377
Linda Critchfield/Kenon Smith
(202)233-9087/(202)233-9164
Linda Critchfield
,(202)233-9087
Kenon Smith
(202)233-9164
Kathy Barylski/Craig Hillock
(202)233-9074/(202)233-9105
Julie Rosenberg
(202)233-9154
Barry Solomon
(202)233-9166
Donna Deneen/Drew Willison
(202)233-9089/(202)233-9175
Karen Kent
(202)233-9119
Donna Deneen
(292)233-9089
-------
Data Recordation and Reporting
Flow Monitors and Alternative
Systems ,
Accuracy of Data
Excess Emissions
Program Evaluation
Low NOx Burner Technology
NOx Compliance Options
Research, US/Canada Negotiations, NAPAP
VISIBILITY; GENERAL
Report to Congress on
Progress/Improvements
Report to Congress on
Modeling, Source Impact
Visibility Transport
Commissions
TOXICS; GENERAL
Source Category List/Source Category
Sources
Pollutants/Pollutant Categories
Technology
Automobile Coatings
Larry Moritz
(202)233-9144
John Schakenbach
(202)233-9158
Brian Bloomer
(202)233-9078
Donna Deneen
(202)233-9089
Robert Newman
(202)233-9104
Arthur Lee
(202)233-9133
Peter Tsirigotis
(202)233-9171
Dennis Leaf
(202)233-9129
Bruce Polkowsky/John Bachmann
(919)541-5532/(919)541-5359
Bruce Polkowsky
(919)541-5532
Joe Tikvart/Ned Meyer
(919)541-5562/(919)541-5594
Bruce Polkowsky
(919)541-5532
Bruce Jordan/Fred Dimmick
(919)541-5571/(919)541-5625
Chuck French/Dave Svendsgaard
(919)541-0467/(919)541-5608
Nancy Pate
(919)541-5347
Susan Wyatt/Jim Crowder
(919)541-5674/(919)541-5596
David Salman
(919)541-0859
305
-------
Petroleum Refineries
Paints and Coatings
Waste/Wastewater
Benzene Waste
Bakeries
i
Gasoline Marketing
POTW
Storage Vessels
Batch Operations
Pulp and Paper
Polymer and Resins
Painting
Accidental Releases
Electric Utilities
Great Lakes
Coke Ovens
Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON)
306
Jim Durham
(919)541-5672
Jim Berry
(919)541-5605
KC Hustvedt
(919)541-5395
Bob Lucas
(919)541-0884
Martha Smith
(919)541-2421
Steve Shedd
(919)541-5397
Eric Crump
(919)541-5032
Randy McDonald
(919)541-5402
Randy McDonald
(919)541-5402
Penny Lassiter
(919)541-5396
Bob Rosensteel
(919)541-5608
David Salman
(919)541-0859
Elaine Davies
(202)260-8600
Bill Maxwell/Jim Crowder
(919)541-5430/(919)541-5596
John Bachmann/ Melissa McCullough
(919)541^5359/(919)541-5646
Sims Roy/Amanda Agnew
(919)541-5263/(919)541-5268
Jan Meyer/Linda Herring
(919)541-5654/(919)541-5358
-------
Drycleaning
OPERATING PERMITt PROGRAM
ENFORCEMENT
COSTS/ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
NEW SOURCE REVIEW/PSD
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
RADIATION/RADIONUCLIDES
Subpart T (Uranium Mill Tailings
Subpart I (NRC-licensed Facilities
Facilities not under Subpart H
Phosphogypsum
INDIANS
TRAINING
SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE
OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF
ECONOMIC INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
Fred Porter/George Smith
(919)541-5251/(919)541-1549
Mike Trutna/Ed Lillis
(919)541-5345/(919)541-5586
John Rasnic
(703)308-8600
Mamie Miller/Sally Mitoff
(703)308-8685/(703)308-8692
Jim DeMocher/Rob Brenner/Alan Basala
(202)260-8980/(202)260-5580/(919)541-5622
David Solomon
(919)541-5375
Jean Croft/Judy Rohrer/Stacy Katz
(202)260-7678/(202)260-7678/(202)260-7669
Albert Colli/Fran Jonesi
(202)233-9300/(202)233-9229
Gale Bonanno
(202)233-9219
David O'Very
(202)233-9483
Jacolyn Dziuban
(202)233-9474
Denise Gerth
(919)541-5550
Ron Townsend
(919)541-2498
Raqueline Shelton/Deborah Elmore
(919)541-0898/(919)541-5437
Karen Brown/Bob Rose
(703)305-5291
Bill Johnson
(919)541-5245
Karen Martin/Bill Beal
(919)541-5274/(919)541-5667
307
-------
SIP GUIDANCE RULEStRECLAIM KawaMartta
308
-------
CTG's BEING PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS
FOR 11 CTG's IN THREE YEARS (ACTIVE PROJECTS)
PROJECT
SOCMI* Distillation
SOCMI Reactor Vents
Batch Operations
VoL Organic Liquid
Storage
Wastewater (SOCMI,
Paper and Pulp
Pesticides,
Pharmaceuticals,
Hazardous Waste)
Plastic Parts -
Business Machines
Plastic Parts - Other
Wood Furniture
Offset Lithography
Autobody Refinishing
Cleanup Solvents
SECTION CHIEF
Bob Rosensteel
(919)541-5608
Bob Rosensteel
(919)541-5608
Bob Rosensteel
(919)541-5608
Bob Rosensteel
(919)541-5608
Kent Hustvedt
(919)541-5605
Jim Berry
(919)541-5605
Jim Berry
(919)541-5605
Jim Berry
(919)541-5605
Jim Berry
(919)541-5605
Bob Rosensteel
(919)541-5608
Jim Berry
(919)541-5605
ENGINEER
Les Evans
(919)541-5410
Les Evans
(919)541-5410
Randy McDonald
(919)541-5402
Mark Morris
(919)541-5416
Penny Lassiter
(919)541-5396
Dave Salman
(919)541-0859
Dave Salman
(919)541-0859
Madeline Strum
(919)541-2383
Dave Salman
(919)541-0849
Mark Morris
(919)541-5416
Mohammed Seragddm
(919)541-2379
OTHER CTG's REQUIRED BY AMENDMENTS
(Not Active; Plan to Start FY9?.)
Aerospace
Shipbuilding and
Repair
Linda Herring
(919)541-5358
Jim Berry
(919)541-5605
Vickie Booth
(919)541-0164
Mohammed Seragddin
(919)541-2379
*SOCMI - Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry
309
-------
Natural Resources
& Environment
Volume 7, Number 2, Fall 1992
Clean Air?
Section of Natural Resources, Energy, and Environmental Law
American Bar Association
311
-------
How States Can
Successfully
Implement the
New Operating
Permit Tide
Michael R. Ban-
Are the states ready to adopt operating per-
mit programs to carry out new Title V of the
Clean Air Act and EPA's recent part 70 imple-
menting regulations? Not yet. Is EPA worried
about states not being able to adopt approvable
Title V operating permit programs by the No-
vember 1993 deadline? Very. Is there still a
chance that states can successfully implement
the new operating title? Maybe, but decisive,
early action by states will be critical. The final
pan 70 rules give states many options and states
should use them fully. Perhaps most important,
the early and constructive involvement of the
regulators, industries and EPA regions to help
each state choose appropriate options under Ti-
tle V will make the implementation of a suc-
cessful' operating permit program much more
likely.
Operating permit programs for air pollut-
ant sources are not new to the states. More than
forty states have operating permit programs,
many of which have been up and running for a
decade or more. Large, industrialized states like
California and Texas have issued tens of
thousands of operating permits to air pollutant
sources for years without major problems. Many
states also followed the development of the new
part 70 regulations closely and even partici-
pated in the rulemaking. It would be reasonable
to suppose that most states will have few prob-
lems implementing permitting programs under
the new pan 70 rules.
However, serious concerns remain about
the states' abilities to carry out Title V. Title V
started out in Congress as a simple provision
aimed at raising fees so that states and local
agencies could prepare nonattainment plans,
regulate major sources in nonattainment areas,
track emissions of nonattainment pollutants, and
enforce newnonattainment regulations. When
the President signed the bill, though, Title V
had grown to more than five thousand words
and one hundred subsections. Its coverage had
expanded to many mid-sized (and even small-
sized) sources located in all nonattainmem and
attainment areas and to air toxics and acid rain
precursors. The federal operating permit pro-
gram will now affect all states and many sources
for the first time. States will have to amend all
of their existing permit programs and the
amendments will add complex mandatory pro-
gram elements (such as EPA permit review)
which are completely new and controversial.
A second reason for concern is that Title V
is based on EPA's Clean Water Act NPDES per-
mitting program implemented in the early
1970s. That program was difficult for EPA to
implement, even though it only applied to sev-
eral hundred sources which individually had
only one or a handful of water pollutant dis-
charge points. States were very reluctant to take
over even that limited permit program. By con-
trast, Title V will apply to tens of thousands of
sources across the country, many of which con-
tain dozens or even hundreds of separate emis-
sions points. States do not have the resources to
apply a Clean Water Act-type program to air
pollution sources.
Third, the current recession has put enor-
mous pressure on state and local agencies and
the regulated community. This has already re-
sulted in greater resistance to state regulatory
expansion, especially when the new regulation,
like part 70, imposes large public and private
costs. The significant and complex economic
and administrative burdens of implementing Ti-
tle V by the statutory deadline of November 15,
1993, will tax the financial resources and po-
litical will of many states to the limits. There is
hope for successful state implementation, how-
ever, if states keep the main objectives of Title
V in mind and sensibly exercise the options EPA
has provided for them in the final part 70 reg-
ulations.
Essential Purposes of Title V
Title V aims to achieve three essential pur-
poses:
• Realizing the burdens imposed by the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Congress
wanted to find a way to raise more money for
state and local air pollution control agencies
without federal subsidies.
• Title V is also intended to improve the
tracking of emissions and emissions changes.
Better emissions data will be used for a variety
of purposes including calculating fees, plan-
ning in nonattainment areas, identifying prior-
ities for air toxics regulation and implementing
Mr. Barr is a partner
with Pillsbury
Madison & Sutro in
San Francisco. He is
currently chair of
SONREEL'sAir
Quality Committee.
312
JVJUkE/FALL 1992
-------
Title V tries to
improve federal,
state and local
enforcement of air
quality regulations.
8
plantwide emission limits or other market-based
approaches.
• Title V tries to improve federal, state and
local enforcement of air quality regulations.
Enhancements include requiring permit writers
to express clearly all applicable emission lim-
itations and other requirements in the operating
permit itself for ease of reference by any inter-
ested party and requiring EPA review of oper-
ating permits issued by state and local agencies.
Like so many titles and sections of the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments, the statute itself is
just the beginning. EPA proposed Title V rules
on May 10. 1991, six months before the Title
V rulemaking deadline. On June 25, 1992, more
than a year later. EPA Administrator Reilly signed
the final Title V regulations (40 C.F.R. part 70).
Because of the looming November 15, 1993,
deadline for states to submit their operating
permit programs for EPA approval, state deci-
sionmakers should focus immediately on sev-
eral basic options and numerous specific
options available to them under EPA's final Ti-
tle V regulations.
Basic State Options
Many existing state permit programs al-
ready achieve the three essential purposes of
Title V. Can a state simply substitute the state
or local operating permit program for the Title
V program? Many states commented in the Title
V rulemaking that their existing operating per-
mit programs should simply be dovetailed or
grandfathered into the Title V program. EPA se-
riously considered a broad "equivalency" op-
tion, as requested by California EPA Secretary
James Strock, but declined to include it in the
final pan 70 rules. However, EPA recently wrote
Secretary Strock that it will not insist that each
state program element be identical to the part
70 rules. "Similar" program elements will be
approvable.
Before discussing detailed options availa-
ble to states under EPA's flexible approach, it
is important to consider several basic options.
The first is for the state to do nothing and let
EPA impose sanctions, CAA§ 502 (d); 40 C.F.R.
§70.10.
This option would avoid changes to the ex-
isting state permit program and the difficulties
of obtaining sufficient new state legislation.
Legislative difficulties can be significant. In New
Jersey, for example, the state agency hoped to
obtain an attorney general's opinion that no leg-
islative changes would be necessary to imple-
ment the Title V program because it feared that
the New Jersey legislature would not pass leg-
islation authorizing higher fees of any sort. An-
other problem is that some state legislatures only
.VRftB/FALL 1992
meet every other year or for a very short annual
legislative session. Letting EPA implement Title
V could save the state money up front (includ-
ing state and local rulemaking resources) and
allow EPA to take the heat and bear the burden
of shaking down the Title V program.
However, the disadvantages of this¥irst op-
tion are daunting. The state or local agency could
appear inept and unwilling to protect the en-
vironment. It may lose significant new permit
fees to EPA. This option could also lead to an
independent or duplicative EPA permit pro-
gram in the state. Perhaps worst of all, EPA has
various new, expensive sanctions to use against
states in expressing its unhappiness with any
state which chooses this option. Given the flex-
ibility for states built into the final part 70 rules,
it should not be necessary for any state to choose
this option.
A second basic option is for the state or
local agency to apply for interim approval, CAA
§ 502(g); 40 C.F.R. § 70.4(d). States can im-
plement this approach quickly. It also quickly
channels new fees to state and local agencies,
and may qualify the agencies for EPA grants.
Another very important benefit is that this op-
tion will do the least damage to the existing
state operating permit program.
Interim approval also allows the state or
local agency and industry to "ramp up" the state
permitting program to full EPA approval. In fact,
many state agency officials are adopting a
"ramping up" approach to gain some experi-
ence with the new operating permit program
before launching a full Title V program. Texas.
a state with significant air quality permitting
experience and a high level of preparedness for
Title V, experimented with one of its own per-
mits as a simulated Title V permit application.
On their first run, issuing the Title V permit
took six months and six engineers dedicated to
the task. Ramping up to Title V may be critical
to the success of many state permitting pro-
grams over the next few years.
Interim approval may also make it easier to
obtain state legislative approvals for adoption
and implementation of the full Title V program
because the agency can pick the right time for
new legislation and rulemaking. Under an in-
terim approval, the additional time available
may be as long as three to four years (including
EPA's one- to two-year approval period). The
interim approval option also lowers the politi-
cal stakes, imposes the least burden on the state's
economy, and' allows the most chance to de-
velop innovative rules, performance-based ap-
proaches and other permit improvements.
There are several disadvantages of interim
approval. It delays full approval and could re-
duce leverage for imposing the toughest pans
313
-------
of the full Title V program. It also requires two
rounds of changes to the state or local program,
which is probably the biggest downside of this
approach.
The third approach, applying for full ap-
proval, puts all the issues on the table up front
and finishes the job. It offers the best oppor-
tunity for industry and others to work proac-
tively with states and EPA regions to install the
most flexibility in the revised state or local op-
crating permit program.
However, the final pan 70 rules make it
very clear that this approach will require a ma-
jor effort in many states, which may be difficult
given the tight economy and agency budgets. It
also maximizes disputes up front (concerning
problems that may be largely theoretical) and
may lead to long delays in state or local sub-
missions of Title V programs, perhaps well past
the Act's submission deadline of November 15,
1993.
In summary, states which have the re-
sources and authority to apply for full approval
should probably do so. But states, local agencies
and interested parties should al'so seriously con-
sider the interim approval approach because EPA
has made this approach so relatively easy. When
applying for interim approval, states and local
agencies can use their existing public partici-
pation procedures, enforcement authorities and
fee structures. These are some of the most con-
tentious potential issues for states under Title
V. In adopting the part 70 rules, EPA has rec-
ognized that many states have had long expe-
rience with operating permits and that both
states and EPA need a sensible transition. The
interim approval approach can promote public
health and the environment as well as provide
a useful ramp up to a full Title V program.
Specific State Options
For states wishing to adopt the full program
or complete elements of a partial or interim
program, 'EPA has practiced what it has often
preached—at least in terms of providing flex-
ibility to state and local permitting agencies.
The following are some of the specific options
offered to the state and local agencies under the
final pan 70 rules:
1. Definitions, 40 C.F.R. § 70.2. EPA al-
lows departures from its defined terms. How-
ever, in most cases states and local agencies
should probably adopt the EPA definitions, with
the fewest changes to fit state statutes and rule
books. Departing from EPA definitions has cre-
ated some of the thorniest and most unnecessary
problems facing California agencies over the
years. Other states should be wary.
2. Exemption for Non-Major Sources, 4 0
C.F.R. § 70.3(b). State and local agencies should
seriously consider opting in favor of the ex-
emption in pan 70 for non-major sources. This
is a built-in transition provision and is not likely
to harm larger sources or the area's long-term
air quality goals. Alternatively, states and local
agencies should consider adopting a ramp up
approach: require smaller sources to report and
pay fees, but impose no other requirements for
five years. This would accomplish two of the
three essential purposes of an operating permit
program (fees and tracking) without overload-
ing the agency or smaller sources.
3. Interim Approval, 40 C.F.R. § 70.4(d).
States and local agencies should seriously con-
sider interim approval (as discussed above).
They also should use "partial approval" for sub-
state regions, like local air districts, 40 C.F.R.
§ 70.4(c).
4. CoHy&fenfl^,40C.F.R§70.4(b)(3)(viii).
States and local agencies should add confiden-
tiality protections at least as broad as EPA's.
5. Application Time, 40 C.F.R. § 70.5(a)(l).
States and local agencies should provide the full
twelve-month period for initial permit appli-
cants and for new sources to apply for an op-
erating permit after commencing operation. This
is very imponant for smooth functioning as the
program ramps up.
6. Completeness Criteria and Processing
Deadlines, 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.5(a)(2), 70.7(a)(l).
States and local agencies should add detailed,
clear permit application completeness criteria
and procedures, if they do not already have
them. The final rules contain an imponant pro-
vision deeming applications complete if the
agency does not request additional information
within sixty days, 40 C.F.R. § 70.7(a)(4). Cal-
ifornia's system is a well-tested model. Califor-
nia air districts are now moving beyond the
statutory minimum requirements for expedi-
tious processing. One progressive California lo-
cal agency is even shooting for one day permits
for the 30 percent or so of permit and renewal
applications which are most simple and repet-
itive.
7. Forms, 40 C.F.R. § 70.5(c). States and
local agencies are allowed to and should utilize
existing state forms as much as possible. States
can continue to utilize lists of insignificant ac-
tivities and should continue to use them.
8. Operating Flexibility, 40 C.F.R. § 70.7.
States and local agencies should provide for full
operating flexibility, netting and emission trad-
ing. This is essential to the early success of the
new program. Title V does not change netting
under Title I or affect emission reduction credit
banks or similar, substantive elements of the
state or local program.
Continued on page 4 7
States which have
the resources and
authority to apply
for full approval
should probably
do so.
314
.VR&ETALL 1992
-------
Successful Implementation
Continued from page 9
9. Paperwork, 40 C.F.R. § 70.6(a)(3).
States and local agencies should minimize com-
pliance paperwork and only require reports that
will actually be read and used by the state or
local agency, especially in terms of frequency
of submissions (annually, if possible, but no
more often than every six months). States may
find it necessary to require more reporting as
part of market-based approaches, such as plant-
wide emission limits. A reasonable price for
companies to pay to use more flexible compli-
ance methods is likely to be real-time daily
monitoring, monthly reporting, and quarterly or
monthly plantwide emissions limits.
10. Permit Terms, 40 C.F.R. § 70.6(a)(2).
States and local agencies should issue operating
permits for the full five-year terms allowed by
the part 70 rules to minimize the costs and bur-
dens of the program to agencies and the affected
sources. Shorter terms of less than three years
may not be worth the now very limited "permit
shield" protection, 40 C.'F.R. § 70.6(f). EPA will
accommodate states and local agencies whose
existing permit programs do not technically
meet this requirement of the Title V program.
For instance, a state agency which renews per-
mits every fifteen years—instead of the re-
quired five or less—could still qualify for
program approval if the state had the authority
to reopen permits and either had an administra-
tive pattern and practice of doing so every five
years or supplemented its program submittal
with a commitment to reopen permits every five
years.
11. Monitoring, 40 C.F.R. §70.6(a)(3).
States and local agencies should use the full
flexibility provided by EPA to allow a variety of
cost-effective monitoring methods. Continuous
emissions monitors (CEMs) are no* required by
Title V. The final permit rules require "periodic
monitoring sufficient to yield reliable data from
the relevant time period that are representative
of the source's compliance with the permit,"
40 C.F.R. § 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B).
12. State Permit Terms, 40 C.F.R.
§ 70.6(b)(2). Some permit terms will be re-
quired only by state law. States and local agen-
cies should use the full authority allowed by
EPA to designate these permit terms as not fed-
erally enforceable. Based on experience in Cal-
ifornia, this will avoid confusion once permits
are issued. '
13. General Permits, 40 C.F.R. § 70.6(d).
States and local agencies should promote gen-
eral permits for "numerous similar sources" and
they should use the full flexibility allowed by
general permits. For example, a system for
sources to notify the agency by postcard when
they are relying on a general permit can mini-
mize applicability disputes.
14. Permit Shield, 40 C.F.R. § 70.6(f).
States and local agencies should consider allow-
ing sources to use the permit shield (even
though it may be more of a fig leaf than a shield).
Industry should consider using the shield only
where it is really needed and makes sense, such
as where recent pollution control investments
make further equipment changes highly costly
and marginally beneficial.
15. Permit Amendments and Modiflca-
JVJMkfi/FALL 1992
States and local
agencies should use
the full flexibility
provided by EPA to
allow a variety of
cost-effective
monitoring
methods.
47
315
-------
Industry should
work with state and
local agencies to
provide for
adequate fees to
cover "permit
program costs."
flows, 40 C.F.R. § 70.7. States and local agen-
cies should adopt the streamlined permit
amendment and modification procedures al-
lowed by EPA. This will be very important for
smooth functioning of the program during its
early years. These sections of the final pan 70
rules were the focus of so much debate and con-
troversy on the federal level that it will not be
wise to repeat the debate on the state or local
level.'
16. Reopening for Cause, 40 C.F.R.
§ 70.7(0- EPA's final regulation allows states
and local agencies to define "cause" to fit their
own needs and current state or local operating
permit program requirements. Doing so should
reduce the burden on states, local agencies and
permit holders of unnecessary or unproductive
permit reopenings by invoking "cause" only
when reopening can provide a significant en-
vironmental benefit.
17 "Significance" Levels, 40 C.F.R;
§ 70.7(e)(4). States and local agencies should
take the opportunity to define which changes
are "significant" and which are not, using es-
tablished state or local permit program criteria
where they exist. Examples include the Texas
standard exemption list and California de min-
imis exemption lists. "Insignificant" changes
will be reviewed on a fast track while signifi-
cant changes will require the full permit review
process.
18. Public Participation, 40 C.F.R.
§ 70.7 (h). States and local agencies should use
their existing public participation procedures,
Illustration Credits
Cover photo by Bob Woolley, depart-
ment art for Trends & Insights on page 38
and Nuggets on page 42 by Susan Wise;
department art for Vantage Point on the
inside front cover by Bob Woolley.
as allowed by EPA, rather than copying EPA's.
Current EPA procedures are incomplete and
have not been tested for Title V purposes.
19. Fees, 40 C.F.R. § 70.9- Industry should
work with state and local agencies to provide
for adequate fees to cover "permit program
costs." Fair and adequate fees will be essential
to the smooth and effective functioning of the
program. In exchange, the state or local agency
should justify its fee schedule, submit to annual
audits and publish the results in an understand-
able form.
20. State Reports to EPA, 40 C.F.R.
§ 70.8(a). States and local agencies can and
should supply their EPA regions with summa-
ries of applications for operating permits rather
than copies of all complete applications. States
and local agencies should focus EPA's attention
only on those operating permit applications
which are truly significant. This will help avoid
confusion in EPA regions.
21. State Role During EPA Review, 40
C.F.R. § 70.8. States and local agencies will have
an opportunity to defend any permits which are
questioned by EPA or other states during the re-
view periods required by the final part 70 reg-
ulations. To protect the integrity of operating
permits issued by state and local agencies, the
agencies should be provided with adequate re-
sources to defend their permits and specific di-
rections to do so.
22. Enforcement, 40 C.F.R. §70.11.
States and local agencies should use existing
'state enforcement authorities to the maximum
extent to satisfy EPA's requirements for enforce-
ment authority. Solid enforcement may be a very
significant determinant in the level of autono-
my and flexibility states are able to obtain and
maintain in the Title V operating permit pro-
gram.
These are not all of the options available to
states under the new part 70 rules. States de-
veloping new operating permit programs should
tailor their statutes and rules to take advantage
of all of the flexibility allowed by EPA. For the
forty or so states that have existing permitting
programs, understanding and exercising the op-
tions available under (he Title V regulations can
significantly reduce the changes required to
adapt the state program to meet the Title V man-
date.
As with any new program as complex and
massive as Title V, a substantial risk exists that
it may become so burdensome or unmanageable
as states try to implement it that it fails to achieve
the essential purposes of Title V. It would be
especially unfortunate if the Title V program in-
terferes with state and local initiatives to apply
quality management approaches to permitting,
improve agency permitting services, and reduce
48
316
1992
-------
permitting costs and delays. The flexibility al-
lowed to states and local (agencies under EPA's
final pan 70 rules significantly reduces the risk
of failure and increases their ability to innovate.
Every state and local agency which creatively
uses the options provided by EPA to meet the
unavoidable mandate of Title V will help both
its economy and its environment. 9.
Reprinted by Permission
JVR&E/FALL 1992
49
317
-------
CALIFORNIA
Assembly BUI No. 2288
CHAPTER 1166
An act to amend Sections 40507,40752,42300,42301,42350,42400,
42400.3, 42402, and 42402.3 of, and to add Sections 39053.3, 39053.5,
42301.10, 42301.11, 42301.12, and 42400.4 to, the Health and Safety
Code, relating to air pollution.
[Approved by Governor October 11,1993. Filed with
Secretary of State October 11,1993.]
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 2288, Quackenbush. Air pollution: permits.
(1) Existing law authorizes an air pollution control district or air
quality management district to establish a permit system, requires
the district regulations to provide that a permit is valid only for a
specified period, renewable upon the payment of specified fees, and
limits to one year the time during which an order of the South Coast
Air Quality Management District Board granting a permit shall be
effective.
This bill would delete that one-year limit in the case of the south
coast district, and, in the case of the districts generally, delete the
provision for renewal on payment of specified fees, and require the
expiration date of a permit to be extended upon completion of an
annual review, except as specified.
(2) Existing law requires the air pollution control officer of a
district to observe and enforce all orders, regulations, and rules
prescribed by the district board.
This bill would require the officer to additionally observe and
enforce permit conditions, thereby imposing a state-mandated local
program, and would authorize the officer to enforce an applicable air
quality implementation plan.
(3) Existing law requires a permit system adopted by a district to
prohibit the issuance of 4 permit unless the permitted article,
machine, equipment, or contrivance will comply with prescribed
orders, rules,'regulations, and statutes.
Thjs bill would authorize a district air pollution control officer to
subject the issuance of a permit to compliance with an applicable
implementation plan, and would subject the issuance of the permit
to other specified requirements of federal law. The bill would impose
additional requirements on the districts, and impose penalties for
violations, relating to the federal law, thereby imposing a
state-mandated local program by imposing new duties on the
districts and creating new crimes.
(4) Existing law authorizes any person to apply for a variance
from a specified statute or from rules and regulations of the district,
but not from the requirement for a permit to build, erect, alter, or
94 90
319
-------
Ch. 1166 ~ S —
replace.
This bill would also prohibit the granting of a variance from1 the
requirement for a permit to operate or use, and would authorize the
issuance of a permit for activities for which a variance has been
granted, fooliifting an abatement order which has the effect of a
variance.
(5) This bill would also make additional changes proposed by AB
2107, to be operative only if AB 2107 and this bill are both chaptered
and become effective on January 1,1994, and this bill is chaptered
last.
(6) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for specified reasons.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature that this act
provide authority in state law for the implementation of the
operating permit program required by Tide V of the federal Clean
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7661 et seq.) without affecting the issuance of
permits as required by any other provision of state law.
SEC. 2. Section 39053.3 is added to the Health and Safety Code,
to read:
39053.3. "Title V" means Title V of the federal dean Air Act (42
U.S.C. Sec. 7661 et seq.).
SEC. 3. Section 39053.5 is added to the Health and Safety Code,
to read:
39053.5. 'Title V source" means only a stationary source required
by federal law to be included in an operating permit program
established pursuant to Tide V of the federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
Sees. 7661 to 7661f, incl.) and the federal regulations adopted
pursuant to Tide V.
SEC. 4. Section 40507 of the Health and Safety Code is amended
to read:
40507. The south coast district board, in making any order
granting* a permit, may specify the time during which the order shall
be effective and may require the payment of fees established by the
south coast district board.
SEC. 5. Section 40752 of the Health and Safety Code is amended
to read:
40752. The air pollution control officer shall observe and enforce
all of the following:
(a) This part and Part 4 (commencing with Section 41500).
(b) All orders, regulations, and rules prescribed by the district
board.
M ISO
320
-------
— 3— Ch. 1166
(c) All variances and standards which the district hearing board
has prescribed.
(d) All permit conditions imposed pursuant to Sections 42301 to
42301.10, inclusive.
SEC. 6. Section 42300 of the Health and Safety Code is amended
to read:
42300. (a) Every district board may establish, by regulation, a
permit system that requires, except as otherwise provided in Section
42310, that before any person builds, erects, alters, replaces, operates,
or uses any article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance which
may cause the issuance of air contaminants, the person obtain a
permit to do so from the air pollution control officer of the district.
(b) The regulations may provide that a permit shall be valid only
for a specified period. However, the expiration date of any permit
shall be extended upon completion of the annual review required
pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 42301 and peyment of the fees
required pursuant to Section 42311, unless the air pollution control
officer or the hearing board has initiated action to suspend or revoke
the permit pursuant to Section 42304,42307, or 42390, that action has
resulted in a final determination by the officer or the board to
suspend or revoke the permit, and all appeals have been exhausted
or the time for appeals from that final determination has been
exhausted.
(c) • The annual extension of a permit's expiration date pursuant to
subdivision (b) does not constitute permit issuance, renewal,
reopening, amendment, or any other action subject to the
requirements specified in Tide V.
SEC. 7. Section 42301 of the Health and Safety Code is amended
to read:
42301. A permit system established pursuant to Section 42300
shall do all of the following:
(a) Ensure that the article, machine, equipment, or contrivance
for which the permit was issued does not prevent or interfere with
the attainment or maintenance of any applicable air quality
standard.
(b) Prohibit the issuance of a permit unless the air pollution
control officer is satisfied, on the basis of criteria adopted by the
district board, that the article, machine, equipment, or contrivance
will comply with all of the following:
<1) All applicable orders, rules, and regulations of the district and
of the state board.
(2) All applicable provisions of this division.
(c) Prohibit the issuance of a permit to a Title V source if the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency objects to its
issuance in a timely manner as provided in Title V. This subdivision
is not intended to provide any authority to the Environmental
Protection Agency to object to the issuance of a permit other than
that authority expressly granted by Title V.
94 190
321
-------
Ch. 1166 —4—
(d) Provide that the air pollution control officer may issue to a
Tide V source a permit to operate or use if the owner or operator of
the Title V source presents a variance exempting the owner or
operator from Section 41701, any rule or regulation of the district, or
any permit condition imposed pursuant to this section, or presents
an abatement order mat has the effect of a variance and mat meets
all of the requirements of this part pertaining to variances, and the
requirements for the issuance of permits to operate are otherwise
satisfied. The terms and conditions of any variance or abatement
order may be incorporated into the permit as a compliance schedule,
to the extent required by Title V.
(e) Require, upon annual renewal, that each permit be reviewed
to determine that the permit conditions are adequate to ensure
compliance with, and the enforceabulry of, district rules and
regulations applicable to the article, ™»*»hfaM», equipment, or
contrivance for which the permit was issued which were in effect at
the time the permit was issued or modified, or which have
subsequently been adopted and made retroactively applicable to an
existing article, ™***n»l equipment, or contrivance, by the district
board and, if the permit conditions are not consistent, require that
the permit be revised to specify the permit conditions in accordance
with all applicable rules and regulations.
(f) Provide for the reissuance or transfer of a permit to a new
owner or operator of an article, machine, equipment, or contrivance.
An application for transfer of ownership only, or change in operator
only, of any article, TT»nohin^i equipment, or contrivance which had
a valid permit to operate within the two-year period immediately
preceding the application is a temporary permit to operate. Issuance
of the final permit to operate shall be conditional upon a
determination by the district mat the criteria specified in
subdivisions (b) and (e) are met, if the permit was not surrendered
as a condition to receiving emission reduction credits pursuant to
banking or permitting rules of the district. However, under no
circumstances shall the criteria specify that a change of ownership
or operator alone is a basis for requiring more stringent emission
controls or operating conditions than would otherwise apply to the
article, machine, equipment, or contrivance. ,
SEC. 8. Section 42301.10 is added to the Health and Safety Code,
to read:
42301.10. In any district that has a permit system established
pursuant to Section 42300, the air pollution control officer may
• include, in any permit issued to a Title V source, emission limits,
standards, and other requirements that ensure compliance with all
federal Clean Air Act "applicable requirements," as that term is
defined in regulations adopted by the Environmental Protection
Agency pursuant to Title V, including those requirements specified
in an applicable implementation plan as defined by Section 7602 (q)
of Title 42 of the United States Code, and Parts C (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7470
94 210
322
-------
—5— Ch. 1166
et seq.) and D (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7501 et seq.) of Title 1 of the Clean Air
Act
SEC. 9. Section 42301.11 is added to the Health and Safety Code,
to read:
42301.11. It is the intent of the Legislature that, in implementing
Title V, districts do all of the following:
(a) Develop, in recognition that districts are obligated to issue
one-third of the Titie V permits within one year of die Title V
program's approval by the Environmental Protection Agency, and in
recognition that sources are allowed one year to submit a Title V
permit application, an equitable program for ensuring that all
sources receive as much time as feasible to develop and submit
permit applications. In developing die program the districts shall
recognize the complexity and size of the facilities, the number and
similarity of facilities within each industry category, the level of
effort required to develop the permit application, and the resources
available to complete the application. The districts should also
consider potential incentive programs to promote voluntary early
permit application submissions.
(b) Consider the merits and benefits of including the permit
shield authorized by subsection (f) of Section 70.6 of Title 40 of the
Code of Federal, Regulations in all Title V permits to clarify the
federal compliance responsibilities of Title V sources.
(c) Consistent with state and federal regulations, allow the use of
emission monitoring alternatives, when available and having the
accuracy required to ensure enforcement and compliance, in lieu of
the use of continuous emission monitors.
(d) Give priority to the issuance of Title V permits for five-year
terms.
SEC 10. Section 42301.12 is added to the Health and Safety Code,
to read:
42301.12. (a) Any district permit system or permit provision
established by a district board to meet the requirements of Title V
shall minimize the regulatory burden on Title V sources and the
district and shall meet all of the following criteria:
(1) Apply only to Title V sources, as defined in Section 39053.5.
(2) Issue permits pursuant to Title V only after the
Environmental Protection Agency has approved the district's Title
V permit program.
(3) Identify in the permit, to the greatest extent feasible, permit
terms and conditions which are federally enforceable and those
which are not federally enforceable, so that requirements imposed
only by the state are not made federally enforceable solely as a result
" " " t of a Title V permit. A district may make that
identification by either of the following means:
(A) Identifying in the permit the terms and conditions which are
federally enforceable because they are imposed pursuant to a federal
requirement
94 250
323
-------
Ch. 1166 —6—
(B) Identifying in the permit- the terms and conditions which are
imposed pursuant to state law or district rules and are not federally
enforceable.
(4) Utilize, to the extent reasonably feasible, general permits and
similar methods to reduce source and district permitting burdens for
Tide V sources.
(5) Establish clear and simple application completeness criteria.
(6) To die extent possible, minimize the burden of federally
mandated paperwork such as recordkeeping and reporting
documents.
(7) Allow sources maximum flexibility in selecting cost-effective,
reliable, and representative monitoring methods consistent with
applicable state and federal requirements.
(8) If a permit is required to be reopened to comply with Title V
requirements, base the reopening upon the federal criteria for
reopening and lunit the reopening to only the federal component of
the Title V permit This paragraph is not intended to limit in any way
the authority under state law to reopen permits.
(9) Authorize administrative permit amendments and minor
permit modifications as required by federal law.
(10) Provide that, unless the district determines that a Title V
application is not complete within 60 days of receipt of the
application, the application shall be deemed to be complete.
(11) Authorize, to the extent consistent with existing state law,
mandatory operational flexibility provisions required pursuant to
subparagraphs (i) and (iii) of paragraph (12) of subsection (b) of
Section 70.4 of, and paragraphs (9) and (10) of subsection (a) of
Section 70.6 of, Part 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and
consider optional operational flexibility provisions established
pursuant to subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (12) of, and paragraphs
(14) and (15) of, subsection (b) of Section 70.4 of, and subparagraph
(iii) of paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of Section 70.6 of, Part 40 of
die Code of Federal Regulations. Nothing in this paragraph is
intended to affect whatsoever any pending litigation.
(12) Make every reasonable effort, in partnership with Title V
sources and the state board, to evaluate and respond to the substance
of any objection to a proposed permit and to obtain expeditious
approval of Title V permits submitted to the Environmental
Protection Agency.
SEC. 11. Section 42350 of the Health and Safety Code is amended
to read:
42350. (a) Any person may apply to the hearing board for a
variance from Section 41701 or from the rules and regulations of the
district.
(b) (1) If the district board has established a permit system by
regulation pursuant to Section 42300, a variance, or an abatement
order which has the effect of a variance, may not be granted from
the requirement for a permit to build, erect, alter, or replace.
94 270
324
-------
_7— Ch. 1166
(2) Title V sources shall not be granted a variance, or an
abatement order which has the effect of a variance, from the
requirement for a permit to operate or use.
SEC. 12. Section 42400 of the Health and Safety Code is amended
to read:
42400. (a) Except as otherwise provided in Section 42400.1,
42400.2, or 42400.3, any .person who violates this part, or any rule,
regulation, permit, or order of the state board or of a district,
including a district hearing board, adopted pursuant to Part 1
(commencing with Section 39000) to Part 4 (commencing with
Section 41500), inclusive, is guilty of a misdemeanor and is subject to
a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or
imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months, or
both,
(b) If a violation under subdivision (a) with regard to the failure
to operate a vapor recovery system on a gasoline cargo tank is
directly caused by the actions of an employee under die supervision
of, or of any independent contractor working for, any person subject
to this part, the employee or independent contractor, as the case may
be, causing the violation is guilty of a misdemeanor and is punishable
as provided in subdivision (a). That liability shall not extend to the
person employing the employee or retaining the independent
contractor, unless that person is separately guilty of an action that
violates this part.
(c) The recovery of civil penalties pursuant to Section 42402,
42402.1, 42402.2, or 42402.3 precludes prosecution pursuant to this
section for the same offense. When a district refers a violation to a
prosecuting agency, the filing of a criminal complaint is grounds
requiring the dfcmi«"d of-any civil action brought pursuant to this
article for the same offense.
(d) Each day during any portion of which a violation of
subdivision (a) occurs is a separate offense.
SEC. 13. Section 42400.3 of the Health and Safety Code is
amended to read:
42400.3. (a) Any person who willfully and intentionally emits an
air contaminant in violation of any provision of this part or any rule,
regulation, permit, or order of the state board or of a district,
pertaining to emission regulations or limitations is guilty of a
misdemeanor and is subject to a fine of not more than fifty thousand
dollars ($50,000) or imprisonment in the county jail for not more
than one year, or both.
(b) The recovery of civil penalties pursuant to Section 42402,
.42402.1, 424022 or 42402.3 precludes prosecution pursuant to this
'section for the same offense. When a district refers a violation to a
prosecuting agency, the filing of a criminal complaint is grounds
requiring the *«mtaMl of any civil action brought pursuant to this
article for the same offense.
(c) Each day during any portion of which a violation occurs
94 300
325
-------
Ch. 1166 —8—
constitutes a separate offense.
SEC. 14. Section 42400.4 is added to the Health and Safety Code,
to read:
42400.4. (a) In any district where a Tide V permit program has
been fully approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, any
person who knowingly violates any federally enforceable permit
condition or any fee or filing requirement applicable to a Title V
source is guilty of a misdemeanor and is subject to a fine of not more
than ten thousand dollars ($10,000).
(b) In any district in which a Title V permit program has been
fully approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, any person
who knowingly makes any false material statement, representation,
or certification in any form or in any notice or report required of a
Title V source of a federally enforceable permit requirement, or who
knowingly renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method
required of a Title V source, is guilty of a misdemeanor and is subject
to a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000)'.
(c) The recovery of civil penalties pursuant to Section 42402,
42401.1, 424022, or 42404.3 precludes prosecution pursuant to this
section for the same offense. When a district refers a violation to a
prosecuting agency, the filing of a criminal complaint is grounds
requiring the dismissal of any civil action brought pursuant to this
article for the same offense.
(d) Each day during any portion of which a violation of
subdivision (a) or (b) occurs is a separate offense.
(e) This section shall not become operative in a district until the
Environmental Protection Agency fully approves that district's Title
V* permit program.
(f) This section is applicable only to federally enforceable permit
conditions which are not otherwise enforceable pursuant to Sections
42400, 42400.1, 424002, and 42400.3.
SEC. 15. Section 42402 of the Health and Safety Code is amended
to read:
42402. (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b) or in
Section 42402.1,424022, or 42402.3, any person who violates this part,
any order issued pursuant to Section 42316, or any rule, regulation,
pejrmit, or order of a district, including a district hearing board, or
of the state board issued pursuant to Part 1 (commencing with
Section 39000) to Part 4 (commencing with Section 41500), inclusive,
is strictly liable for a civil penalty of not more than one thousand
dollars ($1,000).
(b) (1) Any person who violates any provision of this part, any
order issued pursuant to Section 42316, or any rule, regulation,
permit, or order of a district, including a district hearing board, or
of the state board issued pursuant to Part 1 (commencing with
Section 39000) to Part 4 (commencing with Section 41500), inclusive,
is strictly liable for a civil penalty of not more than ten thousand
dollars ($10,000).
94 330
326
-------
— 9— Ch. 1166
(2) Where a civil penalty in excess of one thousand dollars
($1,000) for each day in which the violation occurs is sought, there
is no liability under this subdivision if die person accused of the
violation alleges by affirmative defense and establishes that the
violation was caused by an act which was not the result of intentional
or negligent conduct In a district in which a Title V permit program
has been fully approved, this paragraph shall not apply to a violation
of federally enforceable requirements that occurs at a Title V source.
(c) Each day during any portion of which a violation occurs is a
separate offense.
SEC. 15.5. Section 42402 of the Health and Safety Code is
amended to read:
42402. (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b) or in
Section 42402.1,42402J2, or 42402.3, any person who violates this part,
any order issued pursuant to Section 42316, or any rule, regulation,
permit, or order of a district, including a district hearing board, or
of the state board issued pursuant to Part 1 (commencing with
Section 39000) to Part 4 (commencing with Section 41500), inclusive,
is strictly liable for a civil penalty of not more than one thousand
dollars ($1,000).
(b) (1) Any person who violates any provision of this part, any
order issued pursuant to Section 42316, or any rule, regulation,
permit, or order of a district, including a district hearing board, or
of the state board issued pursuant to Part 1 (commencing with
Section 39000) to Part 4 (commencing with Section 41500), inclusive,
is strictly liable for a civil penalty of not more than ten thousand
dollars ($10,000).
(2) (A) Where a civil penalty in excess of one thousand dollars
($1,000) for each day in which the violation occurs is sought, there
is no liability under this subdivision if the person accused of the
violation alleges by affirmative defense and establishes that the
violation was caused by an act which was not the result of intentional
or negligent conduct. In a district in which a Title V permit program
has been fully approved, this paragraph shall not apply to a violation
of federally enforceable requirements that occurs at a Title V source.
(B) This paragraph does not apply to a person who is determined
to have violated an annual facility emissions cap established pursuant
to a market-based incentive program under Section 39620.
(c) Each day during any portion of which a violation occurs is a
separate offense.
SEC. 16. Section 42402.3 of the Health and Safety Code is
amended to read:
42402.3. (a) Any person who willfully and intentionally emits an
air contaminant in violation of this part or any rule, regulation,
permit,- or order of the state board, or of a district, pertaining to
emission regulations or limitations, is liable for a civil penalty of not
more than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000).
(b) Each day during any portion of which a violation occurs is a
94 370
327
-------
Ch. 1166 —10—
separate offense.
SEC. 17. Section 155 of this bill incorporates amendments to
Section 42402 of the Health and Safety Code proposed by both this
bill and AB 2107. It shall only become operative if (1) both bills are
enacted and become effective on or before January 1,1994, (2) each
bill amends Section 42402 of die Health and Safety Code, and (3) this
bill is enacted after AB 2107, in which case Section 15 of this bill shall
not become operative.
SEC 18. (a) No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant
to Section 6 of Article Xm B of the California Constitution for those
costs which may be incurred by a local agency or school district
because this act creates a new crime or infraction, changes the
definition of a crime or infraction, changes the penalty for a crime
or infraction, or eliminates a crime or infraction.
(b) No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section
6 of Article XDIB of the California Constitution to the extent that the
local agency or school district has the authority to.levy service
chaises, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level
of service mandated by this act
(c) Notwithstanding Section 17580 of the Government Code,
unless otherwise specified in this act, the provisions of this act shall
become operative on the same date that the act takes effect pursuant
to
94 380
328
-------
TEXAS
TITLE 31. NATURAL RE-
SOURCES AND CON-
SERVATION
Pan m. Texas Air
Control Board
Chapter 122. Federal Operating
Permits
Tlw Texas Air Control Board (TAGS) adopts
raw §§122.10-122.12. 122. 120. 122.122.
122.130.122.132-122.134.122.136. 122.138.
122.139. 122.141. 122.143. 122.145.
122.150. 122.1S2-122.155. 122.161.
122.163-122.165.122201.122502.122204.
122210-122213. 122215-122217.
122219-122221.122231.122233.122241.
122243.122410-122312.122314, 122316.
122.410.122.411,122.420-122.422,122.425.
122.427, 122.430. 122.432. 122.434,
122.435. 122. 437. 122.438.' and 122.440.
concerning Federal Operating Permits. Sec-
lions 122. 10-122.12. 122.120. 122.122.
122.130.122.132-122.134,122.136.122.138.
122. 139. 122.141, 122.143. 122.145.
122.150. 122.152*122.155. 122.161.
122.163-122. 165. 122201. 122202.
122204, 122210-122213. 122215-122.217.
122219-122. 221. 122231. 122233.
122241, 122243, 122311. 122312.
122314. 122316. 122.411. 122.420,
122.421. 122.430. 122.432. 122.434.
122.435. 122.437. and 122.440 are adopted
with changes to the proposed text as pub-
fished in the May 11. 1833. issue of me
Texts fleodttr (18 Texfleg 3017). Sections
122. 310. 122.410. 122.422. 122.425.
122.427, and 122.438 are adopted without
changes and win not be repubtshed.
The new chapter is written to adopt the teds-;
ral operating permit program as required in
new Part 70 of Chapter t: rule 40 oi the Code
of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 70). Title V
of the Federal dean Air Act Amendments of
1990 (FCAAA or the Ad), enacted on No-
vember 15.1990. requires the United Stales
Environmental Protection' Agency (EPA) to
promulgate regulations within 12 months of
enactment that require and specify the mini-
mum elements of stale operating permit pro-
grams. The new CFR Part 70 contains these
provisions. The new TAGS Regulation XII is
created to m*flyn the regulatory authority ot
the federal operaliim permit pi 091 am required
under §70.4
-------
wMn the sfte. 3M suggested language tor
two raw subsections under $122.141to alow
tor both these changes. The staff recognizes
that boJh emissions trading and alternate op-
erating scenarios were inducted in 40 CFR
70. Iha staff designed the proposed operat-
ing permit program (permt content and
icope) to alow such changes provided mat
such changes do not altoet an appicable
requkement, and provided that Regulation VI
end the Texas Slate Implementation Plan
(SIP) alows such emission trading and alar-
nate operating scenarios. Regulation VI does
not allow tor a facHy to trade emissions-
without best avalable. control technology
(BAC1) and an emissions impacts review.
Nor does Regulation VI alow a source to vary
its operating scenario, unless expressly al-
lowed under an existing preconstruction au-
*• T- —.* ^n*A mlmM h*I^M^k0
monzanon. ine sum Deieves
emissions trading and alemate
scenarios are appropriately adores
the currant Regulation VI New Source
(NSR)i
Union Carbjdsi commented that the TACffs
proposed vttenm cppiovsJ wes ttppropnejte
tor the stato. The commerter suggested that
the maximum afiewabte control technology
(MACT) determinations required under the
FCAAA. §ll2(g) and $112® 'not be imple-
mented across al sources until they are tor-
maUy covered by the (stale's) complete/final
program.' The staff believes the responsMBy
to implement §ll2(g) and $112® is not re-
stricted only to the time after the ful program
approval is obtained. The staff understands,
based on guKfance from EPA,i that the
$1120) provisions (case-by-case MACT de-
terminations, triggered by new construction,
or modifications of
named sources) of the FCAAA apply only to
those sources for which a permit is required.
This would mean the responsibility to apply
tor §112(0) MACT determinations would fed
only to those sources required to submit per-
mit applications under the interim program.
i AN sources would be raqured to meet
§112(0) requirements upon full delegation of
the program. The staff has added
$122.161(0) to reflect the effective date of
§l12(g). The omission of similar guidance
concerning the §1120) program by EPA is
interpreted by the staff to mean that all
sources affected by §1120 wll be required to
apply for MACT determination regardless of
their status under an interim program. The
§112® program requires the stales to make
source category wide MACT determinations if
theEPA fails to promulgate a standard ac-
cudiiu to a predetei iiiimJ schedule. Smce
this program is not isolated1 to source by
source determinations of a standard, as is the
§H2(g) program, basing source applicability
determinations on the date a source becomes
subject to the permitting program is not ep*
propriate. The staff believes the MACT stan-
dards are Mended to apply to aN major
sources covered by the §112(c) source cate-
gory list. The rasponsbiMy of an individual
source to abide by the standards is not a
function of the appHcabiUty date of the permit
program, but rather the applicability date of
the standard. The staff Mends to request
delegation of the §112® program from EPA
after the proposed §112® and §112(1) rules
are promulgated. For those sources not cov-
end by the interim program. $112® stan-
dards wil be determined and administered by
thestate after delegation through $112(1). No
cfienge has been uniHfiv to the proposal svwe
this comment is outside the scope of this rule
package. The staff believes these implemen-
tatm icsues are best addressed during
rule making specific to these xograms. Al
determinations wfl eventually I icome part of
the permits issuad under Reguation xn and
authority is provided in the pro-
TMOGA eommenM that language should be
added in the preamble or in a guidance docu-
ment to itdcata that the appficant can assign
a numbering schema to the emission unto, 9
to desired. The commemer pointed out that
this would aflow tor consistency wan the cur-
rent system used in emission inventories. The
staff agrees with this suggestion but proposes
to address it in.the gwdance documents,
rather man in me final rule.
PenmcH requested that the staff develop and
issue the General Appfication Form tar Fede-
ral Qparejaig Panni vvjerenced ei
§t22.l32(a)) as soon as possbte. Natural
Gas suggested that a standard parma appS-
be developed tar the natural
gas transmission industry in order to stream-
Ime the review process tar both the Musky
3Mi
staff develop a "Perma: Manual* to hajpappi-
carvs navigate through the new appication
and review process and trtatucl that such a
manual would greatly assist apuicBnu. jn
to comply wfth the regulations
re staff resources by acting as a
practical reference
lily. The staff
•user friendly*
tor the regulated commit*
that wel written and
andap-
phc&bort forms we esseiatieJ to tfie vnpiemen*
tfltion of this propwn. ThQ proposed timing of
theprogrwn subnttta! to EPA is such thai the
kdiift wil to Among the find rtems submitted
to EPA by November 15, 1993. The staff
beieves tW it it exrt^ in^»iert to have
ctee/ end ooncase
-------
EPA noted that, at this time, there is no final
EPA policy on what constitutes an acceptable
phase-in schedule tor sources under an in-
terim program. EPA further staled that the
staff must provide any required information in
the request tor interim approval. The staff
Mends, in the program cubmittal. to provtte
competng reasons tor interim program ap-
proval by EPA. The staff wil provide al htor-
mation requested by EPA related to interim
approval wah the program submataL
One MMdual requested mat the fine) rates
require mat a poeution prevention plan be
developed and submitted Mm each permit
application and mat TACB should pressure
EPA Mo an agreement win Mexico to de-
velop a program similar to the tederal operat-
ing permit program. Pollution prevention
Plans are not required under Part 70; conse-
quently, this request is beyond the scape of
H* rutsmaking. The staff agrees that poeu-
tton prevention is a worthwhie objective.
However, the federal operating pomtts are
Mended to be codifying permits only, the
program is not Wended to address this issue.
The second comment does not require any
changes to the proposed rules and is beyond
the scope of this rule package.
One individual opposed atowing any general
permits to be issued under me final rule, hi
B*pp^"* of this position, the commenter ctfod
the staffs tong held belief in case-by-case
determinations. 40 CFR Part 70 §70.6(d) pro-
vides that general permits must comply with
all requirements apptcable to other Part 70
permits and the general permit must identity
me criteria by which a source may qualty tor
such a permit. The staff does believe that the
proposed uHHzation of general permits wil
resut in efficient use of state resources to
provide effective and enforceable permits.
The general permits concept has many
similarities to the Standard Exemption List
which the TAC8 has administered tor years.
For these reasons, the staff is retaining the
general permits, as proposed.
TCC suggested changes to various sections
of the proposed rate to make dear that the
federal operating permit does not affed the,
ability to commence construction or medifica-
tion of a lacifity, only the ability to operate the
taciity under certain eircumstances. The staff
agreed with the intent of TCC's suggestion
and $122.161$) is added tor clarification.
In addition to the testimony received, the staff
has identified two areas where rate changes
are necessary to ensure the smooth imple-
mentation of the new permittng process.
First, the staff has added a new §122.i52(d).
relating to Notification of TAGS and Others, to
provide tor notice to the agency of publication
of public notice. The staff also noted during
review of the comments that the proposed
rules tailed to make it dear that an owner or
operator of a site which satisfies the criteria of
$122.120. concerning Applicability, must not
only apply tor, but also obtain, a permit in
oraV- to operate. A new subsection (f) to
$122201, concerning Permits addresses this
oversight.
hi the preembte of the proposed rate the
agency requested comments from the public
on 16 issues for consideration in determining
whether or not to include a perms shield as
an option in the Federal Operating Perm!
Program. A number ol oommemers who sup-
ported inclusion of the permit shield chose to
those issues. One commenter
who opposed inclusion of the permit shield
also responded to the 16 issues. Fottowmg
this paragraph are the sixteen issues from the
proposed ride and a brief summary of the
commentars* responses.
Should a permit shield as written in 40 CFR
STQjfMf). or some variation of mat permit
shield, be part of the Federal Operating Per-
mit Program in Texas?
Generally, the commenters responded that
the permit shield, since stowed by federal
rule. shouBateatea included in the state rule
and consequently, the state program. As
i of
the perntit shield. Many of the oommenteis
who supported the inclusion of a permit shield
also noted mat the permit sNotd should be
included in order to provide the permittee
protection from enforcement due to a reMer-
pretation of an appicable requvement by the
How would enforceable regulatory
be written which would provide toransnw
ptWTui shield (tar •xkvnpto« lor fwtittf$vviiik)ii
of an applicable requirement in the permit)?
Overall, the comreenters stated met the per-
ma shield had been narrowed sufficiently dur-
ing federal rulomaMng. Several <
I that in general they old not support a
pemat shield which weuB alow the staff to
reMeipret an aiyBMftte reqwroment, after a
permit is issued and daring its Sve-year term,
without reopening the permit punuent to the
procedural requirements in the final rules.
One commenter slated that 8 is unnecessary
to define narrow language tor a shield be-
cause proper operation is the only *shiekr
necessary. i
bi what ways is a permit shield necessary to
One<
menter acknowledged that the exist-
ence ol a permt shield in Texas is not neces-
sary to make proper appUcapity
determinations but noted that it would prated
them from enforcement for reimerpretation of
applicable requirements after permit issu-
ance. Other eommenters meinlained that me
availability cf a permit shield offers an added
incentive to industry to come forwent with
tfirfcuR appieatsBy questions early in the
permit application in enter to obtain a,perm*
shield for protedion from enforcement when
apphcabiily detenvvnations are rerteipretod
by the staff subsequent to issuance of the
permit. One commenter stated that a permit
shield is not necessary to make a proper
applicability determination.
What additional planning certainty would the
permit shield provide to the regulated com-
munity beyond what is currently available
through proper applicability determinations?
Generally, the commenters responded that
the permit shield provides stablity to the reg-
ulated community since it offers protection
from enforcement due to reMerprelation of
the applicable requirements by the staff or
general public. The eommenters oebeved that
the permMees would be able to operate with
a high degree of confidence that compliance
wMMtepermit wllresut in avoidance of
enforcement proceedings, hence the pwmu
would provide a credtote base tor business
and cofflptianoe ptsnnng. One oommenter
stated that planning certainly is not the goal
of the Texas Chan Air Act. protection of the
dean air resources and pubJc health is the
goal. Proper plant operation, accurate permit
Mormatnn, and compliance wa give plan-
ning certainty to the regulated community
A permajhKrtd woutt only apply to the oper-
fltinQ ptWtMl. Tiwotore, how would tfac poniM
shield be written such that it does not pro-
mote confusion over what applicable require-
ments are subject to enforcement because of
their inclusion in other permits or regulations.
even though they are shielded in me cperal-
The commenteni were spfit in their aprons
9COOH. Sovw ooswiMfttsfs
Ottamt tt*A ev^woHetA mlnaiierll
(MB Dlv |JHmU avMND
requvemeiftt. ragardtess of whether the appfi-
eabte requirement was in a permit or rule
outside of the federal opsratng permit pro-
gram. Other eommenters believed that the
permit shield would not extend to sat* arty
reqwremonts. These commenters suggested
• that me parmk must delneate which require-
ments are tedsraly enforceable and requie*
marts that an included pursuant to the
state's authority, One oommenter stated that
to avoid confusion over entoraement, the staff
should avoid writing a permit sNett that some
might construe as a defense against agency
or pubic adion against corporate abuse, nui-
sance, or health hazard even write operating
under the terms of the permit since the permit
may not be complete and may not be ade-
quate to avoid impacts.
Since the Operating Permit Program is being
implemented as a separate program from the
pre-certttraaien^NSR program in Texas, how
would the psrmt shield be written in order to
avoid enforcement ineonsietensies in a two-
uemw system?
Again, the commenters varied in their re-
sponses, depending on their opinion of how
extensive the enforcement protedion pro-
vided by the permit shield would be. Those
commenters who believed that the permit
shield would provide complete protection
tram enforcement 0^ the anplicsMe require-
ment Act^wwlAOQttd that inopnsisienciet
could occur. However, these comments be-
lieved that the inconsistencyjn^enforcement
would be fesdved when the operating permit
was modffiad to incorporate the NSR permit,
at renewal ol the operating permit, or when
the staff reopened and revised the operating
permit. Other commenters, who befeeved mat
the permit shield would shield only enforce-
ment action under the operating permit, be-
lieved no inconsistencies would occur. One
commenter stated that eomplianee with the
representations in the permit application and
the operating permit is necessary and non-
compiiBnce should be cause for agency ac-
tion.
Adopted Sections September 7, 1993
18 TexReg 5991
331
-------
How would the perma sNeti be written such
mat I woukl not imariere w»» the uss of the
operating perml as an onforanwnt tool?
The commentars pointed out that tJ»
shield would offer m protection from i
paenee wsh the terms and eondleas of the
pom*. One eommaisar <" nuBMBjeiy oaiBmBnadons can oe
made in permit apjrteaiiena. 7!w staff agrees
that I is the appropriate rasponsbilty of the
agency to provide interpretations of regula-
tory language and believes thai one of the
functions of the operating permit program is
to provide wctt ifltsrpretatiem. Therefore.
$122.145 (Permit Content Requirements) h*s
been revised to tngude a subsection (e)
which allows tor interpretations of specific
language and the definition of specific term
in an appUeabta requiramam to be attached to
the permit. Thereafter, those interprttaiione
may not be modified and subsequent en-
18 TexReg 5992
332
September 7, 1993 Texas Register *
-------
tata
notified and the fMRnl revised. This tubiac-
Han serves the dual purpose of insuring con-
ol tho •ppfiCo»i)to ivQuifvnwnis by
the staff and providing consist*!* and timely
compfiance tor lha regulated community. At
tht sama time. Ma regutatod community «-
tams responsMty tar mar oparations and
Marathon, TMOQA, Amoco. Exxon Baytown.
Ethyl DuPont and_Chavren supported tha
tmtnods outlined to •ctflbish ^•ndtathor
rates. Bght individuals stated that grandfa-
ther tacMes. should ba penntted at their ex-
isting emission rates and>not in excess ot
their verified historical production rates. Tha
proposed raws. The staff dees not believe
that it is necessary to have a single permit
systemi to aettesstn^ grandfather issue in
the opening permit. Therefore, the ui at Mile-
ther rules win be retained as proposed.
SPSC commenied that biting grandtathered
units to maximum emission rates based on
known or approximated actual, historical
emissions is an unconstitutional taking of
property and a comraaTclioii of legislative in-
tant The TCAA, $3824518 requires a con-
struction permi tor any person who
constructs any new tadly or engages in the
modification of any existing facely which may
emt air contaminants into the air. The staff
i and believes the procedures out-
fined in tha proposed rutos piovide tor tha
concerns raised by the ccmiueiiars. Tha pro-
posed rutos requte the appficant to propose
an actual grandfather rate or a presumptive
grandfather rate tor each pandlalhei amis-
•ton unit Tha actual gnwitthar rate, as da-
prior to August 30. 1971. and that mat the
requirements of now rapeatodS382.060,
were not reoju^ed to obtavt a parml tram the
TAC8 at the time the TCAAA were amended
lo provric piVmttNiQ flulnonlly to HMI TACB*
annual emission rate or
tare that are related to emissions (e.g., i
auction, fuel firing raw. throughput.
content, etc., as appropriate) at wHchthe
emission unit actually operated and emitted
prior to September 1.1971. tor 12 consecu-
tive months. The staff believes this approach
allowing the units to eml or operate at their
vorifiaMl htttorCetf production fttw. Tno
sumptive grandMhar rate wM seek to i
tsh a grandfather rate that as ctosaty as
possUe refiects the actual uiandfathar rate.
Tha staff review involves the determination of
the reasonableness of the information pro-
vided to estabfish the actual grandfather rate
or the presumptive grandfather rate. H the
information is delei mined to not reflect grand-
lather rates, additional Jntermalion may be
requested or atemate procedures may be
required tor establishing the grandfather rate.
The estabfishment of a grandfather rate she!
not affect the requirement that any facHy
must operate in compliance with al TACB
rutos and regulations including 31 TAG Chap-
ter 116.
Pamzoil suggested that approval of rates tor
grandtamsred factties should be made at the
regional office level The staff befieves that
mis is an appropriate function of the appfica-
tion review process and approval should re-
main a central office function. The regional
office wil be involved at me request _of the
central office in conducting the appficauon
that those sources that mat ttw
criteria ware slowed to operate at U design
capacity H may had not previously operated
effective date of September 1.1971. tor reg-
istration ol new or modified sources. March 1,
1972. was the effective date tor requiring a
permi tor construction of new or meowed
sources. If a source needed k> increase as
operating capacity on or after March 1.1972.
the source was. and is. required to obtain a
construction pern* from ma TACB. The
TCAA. $382403(a) defines a -modification'
to ba 'any physical change in. or change in
the method of operation of a stationary
source which increases the amount of any air
polutant emitted by such source into'the at-
moaphara or that resuts to the emission of
any air polutant not previously emttod.' The
definition of •modificatiorr set a regulatory
limit on a tsctties operation and any physical
change or operational change which results
in a signHtaant increase in emissions requires
such a tacflfty to obtain a TACB permit
pursuant to §382.05i8(a). The staff also cfis-
t that the tongstanolng interpretation of
ttonal taking of design capacity. Tha defintton
- M •^•••^•CdBMi^M^ J^M^Mkj ifW^iMl^A Ml^A ttMf
01 mooncanorr cwany HMXIIH mei any
changes to the method of operation that re-
sult in • significant increase in air poUaras
or resuB in the emission of a new pollutant
wil require a permit. The staff does not agree
thaii the Regulation XII requirement tor estab-
isMng grandfather rates is a taking of prep-
arty.* Any activity that meets the criteria of a
•mooroeatiorr is merely requred to undergo a
TACB Regulation VI preconstruction permit
Jonas-Day questioned why the establishment
of grandfather levels was being undertaken in
the Title V operating permit program. It is
rates and units are appKcabto only to Regula-
tion VI permits. Since Regulation VI permits
and Title V permits are to be separated into a
dual permit system, they believe that TACB
should deal wth the grandfather issue in the
context of Regulation VI, or combine new
source review and Title V into « single permit
system. This issue was discussed at the
raunolabtes and there was general agree-
ment to establish grandfather rates in the
Chevron Production and Union Carbide
stated that the presumptive grandfather rate
procedure should provide amnesty tor any
company found in violation of 31 TAC Chap-
ter 116. This issue was discussed in the
roundtobtos and the staff agreed to the estab-
lishment ol presumptive grandfather rates in
addition to actual grandfather rales to ad-
dross the concerns of the regulated commu-
nity regarding tha impact of the final rule on
staff has not added any proviso) to the final
rule to gram amnesty tor any violation ol
Chapter 116 or any other chapter of this title.
EPA and SPSC commented that Kansas or
Colorado could fan under the definition of
affected states since both those states are
within SO mUes of a Texas border toon
Chem and Exxon Baytown recommended
that the term be more narrowly defined as a
stan whose ar quality is affected to the ex-
tont that a Prevention of Sigrtfcant Deteriora-
tion (PSD) increment may be exceeded. The
AA^JI A^HAA«» M»^ VA*MIA* «w /%^WAjfc« JMMA4
stan agiaas mat Kansas or uomoo uuuu
potentialy ba affected states and racom-
mends thar inclusion on the fist of potentialy
At^M*law4 ettflBMB •! Mill) Afa^af^aWt 4ttStAC ^llrftVlB*
tbn. LMing the right of an affected state to
comment on a permil application is prohtoSed
by 40 CFH 70; consequently, the staff has not
incorporated the second revision.
Chi
iPredu
nted that the staff
has exceeded the requirements of 40 CFH 70
by defMng under air poHutanl. in $122410.
al poMants listed under Tale I of the Act
$112(0) or $112(T). rather man those pofiut-
ants fisted under Tito I of me Act. $112(b) or
$112fjr) and which are atso subject» a start-
dard UNSMIU a ipaciBc source »^l^>ny.
EPA commented that the definition was not
complete since subparagraph (F) did not spe-
eiScaly reference the Act, $112(0) or ®. EPA
stated that potentialy some pofiutants regu-
latod under Titis I of the Act. $112 would not
M under the proposed definition. HUP sug-
gested modifying suupaiauiaph (E), to alow
tor an EPA detenninanon that Title VI reojuve-
opanting permit. The staff agrees with Chav-
sutpanigraph (F) has bean revised to reisct
me requirements of 40 CFR 70. The staff
points out mat suUpaiayiaph (F) of tha define
tion does reference the Act, $112(b) which
fists al potutants regulated under the Act.
§112(0) or 0). Subparagraph (E) has been
revised to alow tor such an EPA exclusion
through future rutemalong.
EPA made the fofiowng comments on tha
definition of appficsblo requiement. Pirst, un-
der subparagraph (A). EPA stated that the
specific references to the Texas SIP ap-
proved chapters are IMUIOCI. EPA recom-
mended that al references to speofic slaw
rules be deleted and the final ruto just refer-
ence the SIP in general terms
under subparagraph (B). EPA
that references to Part C and Part D of Tata I
of the Act should be deleted, finely, under
subparagraph (L) ot the definition, EPA sug-
gested that the final mte should not exptcitly
state that the National Ambient Ar Qualify
Standards (NAAQS) are not applicable re-
quirements. The TCC and DuPont recom-
mended reviling subparagraph (B) in order to
clarify which preconstrucoon permits are ap-
plicable requirements under tha final rule.
Pemzori commented that the language in
subparagraph (A) in the definition clarifies the
SIP w^4Momeni& which may be appficabie to
a facSty. Pennzoi supported such dartty in
that I w« enhance both compfiance and en-
forcement of lha final rule.
HUP. SPSC, and Pennzoi noted an appar-
ent publishing error in subparagraph (D).
PemzoiJ requested that the error ba cor-
rected eccorduig to the pnnted copy of the
proposed rule distributed by the staff. TCC
commenied that subparagraph (F) should be
Adopted Sections September 7, 1993
18 TesMeg 5993
333
-------
datetad am* the proposed rate, in effect
would to adopting by reference various EPA
rotes thai have not yet barn promulgated.
This would, TCC commented, constitute an
unconstitutional delegation at TACB*
TCC made the same
be assigned a smote amiacian unii numbar.
EPA requested that the defintwn mil be clar-
ified with regard to fugitive emissions. The
staff agrees with these comments
comment on sybparagraphc (A)00 and (B) in
the daMbon of major source, as waH as in
other sections. TCC suggested that, to aflay
EPA* concerns about fa»ure to adopt Mure
rotes', the agency should make a eomrn*-
mant in the submtttd package tb EPA to
Mbate rutemaking at such time «s EPA Mi-
atos its rutemetarig.
In the staffs opinion, irfe'defintian forms the
cornerstone tor the federal operating pern*
program. The staff befieves that the regulatad
community and the general public must have
avaaabte a detaiad and wdsrstandabb tin of
the stale and federal requirements which are
appSeafate requirements under this program.
To accomplish this goal, the staff has dafn-
eated. vary carahdy. the specific appficabte
requirements under this program. The staff
beteves that the uiupoMd definition in the
final rate meats the reqwrements of 40 Cf R
70, and therefore, the changes suggested by
EPA wil not be incorporated. In the interest of
clarification the staff has made the change in
subparagraph (B) suggested by TCC and
Dupont. The error noted by HUP. SPSC.
and Pennzol was apparently a printing error
and does not appear in the final rate. 40 CFR
70 requres that the state submit a program
that, at a minimum, assures adequate author-
ity to issue permits in compSance with a the
requnmerts ofTitteVoftheActandof40
CFR 70 (including any requirements estab-
fished pursuanl to the Ad. §504
-------
§122.12 (Acid Rain Definitions); thr
We proposed rule, affected soiree is used
arty as defined in the definition. Conse-
quently. Pemzors suggested change has not
TU and TMOGA commented that the station-
ary sources included in the definition of site
should be fcwted to those belonging to a
single major industrial grouping. To support
the* positon, TU and TMOGA cited consis-
tency win 40 CFR 70. and the federal permit-
tihg programs. The TU and TMOGA also
proposed language to accomplish the
change. The staff believes that a great deal ol
contusion would be created in attempting to
sort out which emission unfs belong or sup-
port a particular major industrial grouping.
The integrity of the site as tar as appficabtty
under the final rule has been maintained.
DuPont recommended that the Definition of
state only requirement be rewritten to ad-
dress whether the state arty requirement is
an appficatate requirement under the final
rule. EPA commented that the reference to
the federal operating permit program should
be deleted torn the definition. The staff
i that the portion of the proposed rule
a state only requirement was not
intended to be an applicable requirement un-
der the proposed rute. The staff has revised
the definition to clarity that applicable require-
roonts 4W not sfc&te only nBojumntnts. Th§
staff agrees with EPA and has revised the
definition to delete the reference to Federal
Operating Permte.
EPA suggested that the definition of Tite I
modification be deleted from the final rule. In
to. promote a general unuenJaikfc^i of
the program, the staff has attempted to pre-
sent the requirements of the federal operating
program as dearly as possible in the pro-
posed rute. The staff believes that the mean-
ing of Title I modification is subject to
misinterpretation and the term wil not be de-
Pennzoil and SPSC commented that in an
apparent misprint, the Texas Register version
of the proposed rule combined the definitions
of Title I modification and stationary source.
The error noted was apparently a printing
error and does not appear in the final rule.
GSU, LCRA. SPSC, TU. El Paso. CPftX. and
HL8P commented that the grandfather defini-
tions in §122.11 would make it very dHfioutt
for them to operate their electric
grandlamered generators in the. manner that
is often required to meet peak electrical de-
mands or to respond to major electrical out-
ages in the power grid. They stated that the
units are designed with a maximum power
generation potential and while the use of ful
potential may not have been required prior to
September 1.1971. the un* and/or units may
currently be operating at much Ivgher levels
than any level of operation prior to September
1. 1971. and it would be impossxHe to drop
back to the pre-1971 operational level. TMs
issue was also raised in the roundtabtos held
on the draft Regulation XII. The sttH re-
sponded to these issues by conducting two
separate meetings with the electric utiHties to
discuss the issues raised during the
roundtables and the issues commented on
during the public comment period of the
rutemaking procedure. The first meeting was
conducted on May 25. 1993. and the main
topic of d«fa ration centered on the
operational strategies employed by the ut*
ties during dmerent seasonal peaks and
emergencies. At this meeting, a revised defi-
nition for actual grandfather rate was pres-
ented to the staff tor consideration. The
problem, as defined, was fimoed to electric
unities and most of the units involved would
be required to obtan an acid rain permit
under 40 CFH 72 as a pert of a federal
upeialMig permi. The staff revised the defini-
tion proposed by the electric utifilies at the
May 25. 1993. meeting and distributed me
revised definition to each maty by tetter dated
June 30, 1993. Another meeting was con-
ducted on July 14.1993. to consider a final
definition. During this meeting a final defini-
tion was agreed upon by the parties ewotved.
Therefore, the staff has included a definition
for actual grandfather nta tor electric utitiss
in Subchapar_EjAcid Rain) o) the final rules.
The final definition, oont&iis the loon *Max^
mum Continuous Rating.* This term has been
added to the definitions in §122.12 (Acid Rain
Definitions) as The heat input required to
HtMlf*1 IrW ffWXttnum OOiSUSBSfltetl SwtWt COft**
dMon or to achieve the maximum
documented electrical output*
Sierra commented, in §122.11 (Definitions).
that the actual granlliilhai rate should be
defined as the emission rate, production rate
tar today, supported by accurate historical
date to support the representations made by
the appficanf The staff agrees and befieves
the procedures outfined in the proposed rule
provided lor the concerns of the commenter.
The proposed rule requires the apnfifiant to
estabfish for each grandfather emission unit
an actual grandfather rate or a presumptive
grandfather rate. The definition tor actual
grandfather rate, as proposed, is consistent
with established policy for defining grandfa-
ther rates. The proposed grandfather rate is
subject to review by me staff at the time the
appScation is submitted. Section 122.
132(a)(5M8)(S) provides for review of an ac-
tual grandfather rate representation and al-
lows for the staff to require revisions to the
application if the representations for an actual
grandfather rate do not appear to be correct
The staff may also require the determination
of a presumptive grandfather rate in lieu of an
actual grandfather rate. Section
l22.132(aX5)(E) states that establishment of
the presumptive grandfather rate does not
remove any tiabttilies or potential enforce-
ment action tor past or future exceedances of
the actual grandfather rate in violation of 31
TAG Chapter 116. In addition, the revised
definition tor presumptive grandfather rate
makes it dear that regardtess of grandfather
rates compliance with al rules and regula-
tions of the TACB mduding Chapter 116 is
required. Therefore, the proposed methods of
establishing the grandfather rates will remain
in the final rule with only minor clarifying
changes made in §122.132 rather than in the
definitions.
AOGC. DuPont. and TCC suggested lan-
guage changes to the defirulion of grandla-
ther tadfities to clarify the terms. There are
minor revisions to the first three definitions in
§122.11 to clarify the definitions.
EPA suggested mat aR definitions contained
in 40 CFR §722 or, at a minimum, the defini-
tions contained in the Model Aed Rain Rule
be incorporated by reference. Section
I22.4ii(b) has been revised to clarify that
the final rule incorporates al of the Acid Rain
Rute. nctudmg the definitions, by reference.
Chevron Production requested that me staff
formally exempt in §122.120 of the proposed
rules al non-major sources untt EPA, as out-
fined in 40 CFR 70. removes any non-major
source type from exemption. DuPont made
the same request fora specific category of
non-major sources. TCC requested that the
final rute contain the specific source category
exemptions identified in 40 CFR 70 The staff
has no objecion to the final rule noting the
general exemption of the non-major sources
under 40 CFR 70 and the change
|^__ ttAAdt _- „ ,j , i in i mi mr Mttt jiIjiH bw^* it
nas oeen mane fiowevor, me sun nsu& n
redundant to fist each specific source cate-
gory exemption.
TU requested that the final rules merer 40
CFR 70 and speorficaly state, in §122.120
(Appfieabity), that a source is not required to
obtain a permit solely because it is subject to
regulations or requirements under the Act.
§112(r). The staff agrees that it is appropriate
to narrow the 1st of non-major sources which
may be brought under the final rule through
further EPA ndemaking. and this change has
i as §122.120(4X8).
EPA noted that §122.120 dees not provide for
the appfirahilify of non-major sources which.
as a result ol rutomaking by EPA. are no
longer exempt torn the obligation to obtain a
federal operating permit. EPA further noted
that apphcabttty of sofict waste monoramn
units had not been addressed in the proposed
rule. The staff agrees with both comments
and §122.120 has been revised to acknow-
ledge the apphcabflity ol sold waste incinera-
tion units and the potential appNcabXly of
non-major sources.
Pennzoil recommended that in order to clarity
that the certified registrations discussed in
§122.122 of the proposed rules wil be a
means to limit a site's potential to emit, the
staff should either define in §122.10 the term
'certified registration * or reference §122.122
in the definition of potential to emit The intent
of §122.122 (concerning Potential to Emit) is
to atow federally enforceable emission traits
at a site in order tor the site to Brno its
potential to emit. The staff understands the
concerns of the commenter and clarifications
have been made to §122.122.
Chevron Production noted that §122.122 (Po-
tential to Emit) would allow federally enforce-
able limitations on a source's potential to
emit. TCC and DuPont suggested rewriting
this section to clarify both the federal enforce-
ability of the registrations and the source's
ability to tower the emission rates even below
past operational rates. Section 122.122 has
been revised to clarify that the registrations
are toderaly enforceable. Regarding the
emission rates, in the proposed rule no lower
limn was placed on the emission rates listed
in the registrations. This issue wil not be
addressed to any greater extent.
An individual requested that under §122.122
al upsets, releases, spies, etc. be included in
« Adopted Sections September 7, 1993 IS TexKeg 5995
335
-------
ttw certified registration ol ernssions, end
only so many per year alowed. Emissions
from upsets, releases, and spits are not in-
cluded in calculating a site's potential to emit
as defined m the ledert rules. Therefore.!!*
section has been left Mad with regard to this
comment. Situations regsflSng upsets am ad-
dressed under TACB Chapter 101.
EPA commented that §122.122 must be in-
corporated into the Teas SIP in order tor
those certiSed registrataon ol emissions, pro-
posed under $122.122. to be federaty en-
forceable. The stall Mends to submit to EPA.
as a SIP revision, the adapted version of
§122.122. ,- .
Exxon Chem recommended that §l22/l22(b)
apply only to those emissions which taJ under
an applicable requirement. The intent ol the
proposed section is toeetabfith a toderely
entarceable emission Jjreit tor the entire site
to 0M0iiiun6 jpfrftrtfy"^y of tho fiml nM.
Regardess of whether an appfcable require-
ment exists tor a particular PptuMnt it that
site, applcahifiiy wW be detenwned on the
bass of whellier any air polutant is emitted at
rates defined as major. Therefore, staff has
not placed any father fimiiation on the type of
emssions included in the roQAhsluw. flow
ever, the staff has added §122.122(4) to
dearly place the burden on the appicanl to
nsure that the loyj&liatnn adequately imils
the site's potential to emit.
An individual requested that §122.122(d) be
rewritten to require registration to be kept at
the site and to maintavi constant accassoisy
of the registration. This issue was Discussed
at the roundtabtes. where the staff was re-
mnded that many of Ihe sites which may
maintain these registrations are in remote lo-
cations and without a physical structure avail-
able to house the registration. The staff
agreed that alowing access at an agreed
location is sufficient tor enforcement and
compliance purposes.
AOGC commented that the proposed interim
application submittal schedule in §122.130
does not track the federal requirement such
that ono-thfd ol the amfcraiions for those
sources received during me interim
may be either approved or disapproved in me
first year of the interim program. The staff
disagrees witti this comment and believes
that one-third of the pei mils in the ntenm
program wll be issued under the proposed
schedule in the first year after program ap-
proval torn EPA.
Chevron Production commented thafthe pro-
posed interim application submittal schedule
in §122.130 imposes a significant burden on
the smaler sources. Chevron Production re-
quested that the staff consider other options
tor scheduling the application submittal. This
issue was dscussed at the rouraftabtas and
general understanding tor the proposed
schedule was reached. In determining which
sources to put into the interim program, the
staff considered a number of options includ-
ing delineating sources by SIC codes, coun-
ties, attainment/nonattainment areas, and
complexity of the source types. The staff be-
fieves that the schedule proposed in the final
rule atows the most reasonable utilization of
resources on the part of both the state and
private sector.
HLRP recommended staggering the issuance
of the Title IV Acid Rain Permits in order to
best utiflze staff resources both in the TAC8
and in the regulated community. The
commenter recommended avowing a 12-
month application schedule tor afl sources
subject to the final rule. The proposed rule
provided tor as much fbxttftty as pccsUe
white sta assuring EPA that appfcations wfl
be submitted in sufficient time to alow tor
issuance of omHlttd of the parmte ta *» Srsl
year as reputed m 40 CFR 70. ki drier to
the federal Acd Rail Rules, the staff befieves
it is necessary to cal the affected sources in
as quickly as possfcte and opposes the sug-
Natural Gas requested that the natural gas
transmission Musty be given 18 months un-
tf^feV M^K ^rt^MMM ^^^BliB^SAA A ^^BiMAl MM^kMfe^A
oerme iraenm anieumii suamaai ecnent»
in §122.130(0) to submit afl applications. 40
CFR 70 requies at •rrs':ifat"*- under both
the Meiim and M program to be submitted
112 months after each approval
TCC, OuPont, ENRON. Pemzoi. TMOGA,
and Oow recommended that §122.130 be re-
written in order to clarify the intent of this
section. SPSC commented mat §122.1300})
.- « mat al
are required to subml _
waft SBC months of the effective date of the
interim program arid are ate required, in
§122.130
-------
merits tor each relevant emission una,
Consequently, the suggested changes are
proMbted by the federal rule.
An indrvidual requested thai the term •rele-
vant" be removed from §122.132(a)(2). stal-
ing that al emission units are relevant.
Relevant emission unit is a defined term in
the proposed rub. The term Tetevant" refers
only to whether any appficabto requirements
apply to mat unit, not to the relative value or
importance ot the unH at the site.
AOGC commented that §122.l32(a)(5)(A)
does not provide tor determining emissions
imitations as required for compressor en-
gines regulated under TAGS Standasd Ex-
emption s. AOGC recommends that a
procedure similar to that for grandfather units
be used to estal^sh emission limitations. The
engines or engine trains instaBed under Stan-
dard Exemption 6. referenced by AOGC.
were apparently instated in accordance win
appK»aht« provisions of Regulation VI, and
therefore, appear to be in eempfiance with the
Standard Exemption as it existed at that time.
The units are not grandfathered and cannot
utize the procedures for presumptive grand-
father emission units. However. Regulation VI
provides tor establishing federally enforce-
able emission limitations tor starstos exemp-
tore. Also, tor determining the appliiiaMity of
the federal operating permit program, station-
ary sources without other federally enforce-
able emission Hm^atione may limit their
potential to em* by maintaining a certified
registration of emissions. Therefore, the staff
believes that the ruto wU adequately address
AOGC-S concerns.
OuPont commented that §122.132(8) re-
quires the submittal of too much information.
some of which could be supplied through
other agency programs. OuPont recom-
mended using these programs to supply in-
formation to the federal operating permit
program. The staff believes that in order to
process the applications in a timely manner,
the reviewing permit engineer should receive
information directly from the applicant rather
than searching the other programs in the
agency for data which may be out-of-date or
incorrect. The staff agrees that the amount of
information required under this program is
significant. The staff envisions a sophisticated
computer database as the only reasonable
means of handling the large volume of infor-
mation necessary tor this program. The staff
is actively pursuing the development of such
a computer system.
Enron and Exxon Houston commented that
§122.132(a) should require only reasonable
and reasonably avaiiabte information rather
than any information deemed necessary by
the staff. The staff envisions the applicalion
as the end resuR of a thorough regulatory
review of the applicable requirements for the
emission units at the site. In order to audM
such a review, the staff must have access to
information on those emission units. The pro-
posed rule allows the staff the authority to
review the necessary information. The staff
understands the eommmenter's concerns and
believes that the application forms and the
guidance document will more appropriately
address the type of information the reviewing
•ngineer might require.
HUP commented that no basis, exists in 40
CFR 70 tor the requirement in §122.132(8) to
submit information identifying potentially ap-
phcahlo requvements. Hl&P recommended
this reqwrement be taken out. Enron.
TMO8A. and Marathon cemmentad that the
battt tor why an appesabte requirement does
not i^4*y should not be a requvement of this
section. The oommenters further suggested a
statement of negative itppfffilnffly be substi-
tuted tor UBS requirement. In order to property
audit an appfcabon, the staff beieves that the
reviewing engineer should be aware of me
reason why a potentially applicable requn-
ment does not apply to a particular emission
unit. A simple slatement ot negativity would
not provide an acoeptalite degree of assur-
ance.
Enron m
uuenticd that the requirement in
§122.132(8). to submit a risk management
plan in acosrdsnee with the Aet. §tl2(rX7),
be revised to n«eet the pessraty that the
tsdcral rule may not be pramutgated prior to
the appBeatfen submftM datdana. The staff
unterssands Sat the last timwni of tlte fede-
ral rule referenced wil be proposed in No-
vember of 1993. The staff also understands
that the federal rate is scheduled to ba pro-
mulgated prior to the first amiraiilion
submittal deadine Ssted in the final rule. Con-
sequenHy. §122.132(8) hasbww retained in-
ties with tv^Bfd to Ihte
TMOQA commented that §l22.l32
-------
does not believe thai TMOGA's suggested
language provides any additional clarification,
except tor changing the word 'impose1 in
§122.132(8) to 'codify.'
An individual opposed §122.134(b) which al-
lows, unless the agency notifies the applicant
otherwise, automatic completeness 60 days
alter receipt by the agency. 40 CFR 70
specHtes that the states' program wiB provide
an automatic completeness determination 60
days after me application is received by the
state, unless the state otherwise notifies the
applicant that the application submrttal was
Exxon Chem requested $122.136(8) be modi-
fied to allow applicants, who taiied to submit
viforrnation or submatod noon net. Biforma-
ton. more than ©0 days to correct the appli-
cation. The staff believes that 60 days is
sufficient time tor an applicant to correct an
OuPont commented that §122.136(0 should
allow the staff to request additional informa-
tion from an applicant only after consuKalion
with the applicant.
The determination of what information is re-
quired to continue or complete the permit
review should be made by the reviewing engi-
neer. This win provide greater Nexibilily and
can potentially reduce review time.
Enron and TMOGA commented that
§122.138 should include language which
states that the applicant is not required to
comply with the condrtions of the peuiid until
after the permit is issued, and for permit mod-
ification application, the permit holder need
only CQfTiply with thB tenns flno oonoihoflS ol
the existing permit until a modified permit is
issued. The stad believes that the initial per-
mits are not enforceable until issued by the
board or its designee. However, it was not
clear in the proposed rule which terms and
conditions, the proposed or existing, the
permittee shall comply with during the time
period between commencing operation and
the issuance or denial of the permit revision.
In order to comply with the intent of 40 CFR
70. which allows changes to be made and
operation of those changes to commence
prior to issuance of a permit revision,
$122.217 (Permit Addition Procedures) and
§122.219 {Significant Permit Modifications)
have been reviewed to allow the permittee to
comply with the terms and conditions of the
proposed permit, rather than those of the
existing permit during this interim period.
EPA commented thai the reference to permit
modification in §122.136 should be deleted.
40 CFR 70 requires significant permit modifi-
cations to meet all the procedural require-
ments of permit issuance. As a result, the
applications for a significant permit modifica-
tion must meet the timely and complete crite-
ria in the federal rule. The staff interprets 40
CFR 70 as allowing the application shield tor
those sources which are subject to the proce-
dural requirements and meet the timely and
complete criteria in the federal rule. This sec-
tion has been retained intact with regard to
this comment and does allow the application
shield for significant permit modifications.
TCC requested revising §122.138 to allow the
application shield tor sources that submitted
only a timely application, rather than, as pro-
posed, a timely and complete appScaSon. 40
CFR 70 specifies that me appication shield
may be extended only to those applications
which are both timely and complete, as de-
scribed by the federal rate.
TMOGA recommended clarifying $122-138 to
eteminffle confusion on who sets the deacSine
tor the submttai of additional Mormatien. The
staff acmes with the oommenter and
§122.138 has been clarified to ctearty attow
the executive Director the rmwessary authority
to set deaovnes tor the submttai of addtional
intormation.
An individual opposed §122.139(4) and sug-
gested that the nine month time frame be
revised to 12 months. The requirement in
§122.139(4) to late action wit* nine months
of receiving the application is a toderal re-
quirement of 40 CFR 70.
AOGC commented that the annual compS-
anee eertaentonfc requrad under §122.143
should be required to be submitted at the
same lime the annual emaskr; inventorias
are requrad to be submtted so to avoid a
dupseation of effort on the part of the regu-
lated community. The staff agrees w«h the
goal ol minimizing duplicative effort where 40
CFH 70 alows. However, it is unclear to staff
at this time how much Wade is avaaabte in
--• submission of compliance
. _, <•"•-* 11 BPII w^tm iMaja mpmaa^^u*
Therefore, the phrase 'at teasT has been
added before the phrase'every 12 months'in
§122.143(4) to alow tor maximum fiexttfily in
submission of compianea onrtifcctlions.
3M suggested language to be added to
§122.141 regarding atatnative-operating sce-
narios as addressed in 40 CFR §70.6
-------
at any film...* in §122.l43(l)(CXa) be
changed to read Inspect, at reasonable
times,* whfeh reflects the language of
§70.6(c)(2)(ii). The basis tor mis comment is
that in certain situations, such as an emer-
gency, it may not be appropriate tor repre-
sentatives of tt» TACB to t» atowed ensue.
This issue was addressed during the draft
Regulation XII round-tables. Stae many
sources operate continuously, the staff be-
fieves that it is important to have access to a
source at any tima. The TACB regional staff
befieves that the waning should be 'inspect.
at any time* The basis tor This is mat repre-
sentatives of the TACB would rot voluntarily
endanger themselves during an emergency
or knowingly hinder efforts to control an
emergency. Consequently, in enter to ad-
dress both the concerns of the regional staff
and the commenters. the staff has added
language to §122.143 which provides tar to-
spectton at any time other man when the
presence of the TACB personnel would inter-
fere with the abMy of the permittee to re-
spond to en emergency situation.
able period of
An individual asked thai *ra
time' as used in §122.143(1)(D) be defined.
This paragraph addresses the amount of time
that a permittee has to present records re-
quired by a permit to representatives of the
TACB or the local air poBulion program with
jurisdiction. The staff has retained this section
as proposed with regard to this comment.
This wording was dscussed in the draft Reg-
ulation XII rourseUabtes at some lengm. 8 was
determined that inspectors from the TACB or
local program could best determine what con-
stitutes « reasonable amount of time en a
case-by-case basis.
Pennzoil commented that §122.143(1 )(E) did
not include the alternative defense of emer-
gency contained in §70.6 M*^ f&^m^^ — J.l IAM^M ifcA* * ---- Mjfe4^d4
von, me pnrase ai teasr nas Deen aooeo
before the phrase 'every 12 months* in
§122.143(4) to attow tor maximure BexMty in
submissnn of compliance certificaliont.
DuPont requested that the wordwg of
§122.143(3HC) be changed to reflect the
wording contained in §70.6(g)(3). The ratio-
nale is that the subparagraph, as currently
worded, and specrlicaly the reference to
Chapter 101 (TACB General Rules), is too
vague to be used as an affirmative defense of
emergency. The staff believes thai §101.6
and §101 .1 1 of the TACB General Rules tutu
the requirements of 40 CFR §70.6(g). and
that an affirmative defense of emergency can
be butt by using those sections.
An individu
mmented that the word *pre-
ventative* in §122.143(3)(B) should be 'pre-
ventive.* Staff agrees and this suggestion has
Exxon Chemical asked that §122.143(4) be
changed to incorporate the idea that the com-
pliance certification should contain a blanket
statement of oompiance and should detail
only noncomnhance through the requirements
of subparagraphs (A)-(0). Compliance certifi-
cation requirements are slated in §70.6(c)(5).
The staff understands that these require-
ments are mandated and can not be
changed.
Exxon Baytown and Marathon supported all
of TMOGA's comments on §122.143 (Permit
CoKfitions). In addition. Exxon Baytown sup-
ported the commertfs of Exxon Chem on
§122.143. TMOGA. Marathon. TCC. DuPont
AEA. Tl. and Exxon Houston commented that
the language of §122.145(a) requving certifi-
cation by a responstete official tor any docu-
ment required by a permit is overly
burdensome. AEA commented that the re-
quirement to certify reports in §122. i4S(a)
should not be extended to sm>orunu docu-
mentation such as catibration data, strip
dierts. etc. The
changing the language in §l22.l4S(a) to re-
quvo certification by a responsisle official
only tor those documents that win be submit-
ted to the TACB.
The staff agrees that the language contained
in §122.14S(a) could be overly I
and has incorporated language as i
j—^^^-ad.-u^j* «|A|^MM M»A &«4 »Aa&_
recommenoeo oweung me *m sen-
of §122.14S(a). The <
n
§122.143. and that restatement is confusing.
The conditions included in §122.143 are gen-
eral perm» condraonsttMwilbeincluded by
reference in every operating perrnt, much as
TK«A* fUCB •^^^•^•tat JhM^^t^Mh ^•••••t I^MM^.
exas Non Petiivu coniaei uenerai now*
sons. Section J22.145(a) provider authorty
to Mdude conditions in each operating per*
mil, >icUiinfl(| those that go beyond the gen*
Enron. TMOGA. and Marathon
that language should be
to
§l22.l45(a) such mat the subsection would
not be construed to require compiance certifi-
cation, testing, montomg, recordkeeping,
and loporung tor an emssion units. The lalio-
nate was mat the rote, in andot teen, should
not requve testing and moiMoiing until en-
hanced monitoring rules are promulgated.
The staff beieves that §70.6
-------
en a easa-by-case basis, father than in the
TMOGA, Marathon. TCC, ml DuPont ex-
pressed concern that the use ot the phrase
•operating conditions- in §122.145(0(6) is too
broad and needs «o be defined, the phrase
•which are teems nseesswy to characterize
emissions' has be jn added after the phrase
YMOGA and Marathon esmmented with re-
gad to §122.145(4), raiding to sites with
emission units net h eompiance at the time
el permit issuanoa, thai the TACB snoutt
publish a giridance document within six
months ol 'issuance* of the final rule on eom-
piance plans pursuant to §122.132$). The
ecRwneRtsfs further s&tad. that enforcement
pcScaes should be developed which give con-
siderettxt to those companies which made
•good faith efforts* to comply with appfieable
nqwwnents. The staff Mends to develop
guidance dssumants, not only relating to
eompKance issues, but tor a wide variety ol
of the fe-
deral operating perma program. However, an
exact time-trams on issuance ol these docu-
ments wiS not be estabtsned. but guidance
wM be developed as seen as possbte after
the effective date ot Jhe final rule. The stall
befieves (net me comments on eniorcement
policy are outside the scope ol this rule pack-
age.
DuPont commented ttaat §122.145(d)<2MA)
requires permiaees to provida an explanation
ol why any dates in the schedule ol eompf-
anse (lor sites not in eomptance) *were not
or w« not be met* The eammenter argued
thai most 'conscientious permittees" wil not
intentionaly miss a compfiance date and ihat
there is no need to predict •non-compliance
of a non-oompNanca schedule. * They recom-
mend deleting the phrss® 'or wil not be*
This specific site refers to submission of pro-
gress reports tor sites with units not in com-
pliance, tt a conceivable thai at the time of
progress report ssjbrraaa!, a permittee may be
aware ol a eomptance schedule dale mat wil
be missed lor whatever reason. The lan-
guage which is identical to §70.6
The appropriate methodology hi these mat-
ters is to review the tacts ol each request on
a cBse-oycase basis in otder to determine
whether the person is affected by emissions
or H the request is a reasonable request as
•lowed by the Texas Heath and Safety
Code. §382.0561(0. Any further definition of
•affected person* would sttt have to alow tor
case-oy-case determination of the relevant
factors. Therefore, the staff wH not be defin-
ing •affected person- in the final rule.
The TCC eommemed mat §122.154(a) and
(c) should be changed to alow the Executive
Director to have the discretion « approve
atemative placement of signs in the event
mat the current requirements prove to be
•inadequate or awkward* The staff has
added §i22.l54(d) to allow for aftemata sign
phcement where H is impractical to comply
with the staled requirements, and where the
akemale placement wil provide equivalent
Exxon Chem and Exxon Baylown recom-
mended changing §122.155(0 to include the
permittee when notifying interested parties ol
the board's proposed final action. This sec-
tion has been revised.
EPA commented that §122.163(a) should re-
fled the 40 CFR 70 requirement that the final
rule shal be effective upon EPA approval of
the federal operatng ueiiiut program
submmai, and not 30 days after pubfcation of
the approval date, as written in the proposed
rule. The TCC suggested addtog language to
§l22.i63(a) to clarify that the effective date of
the final rule is the date that the approval of
the operating permit program is published in
the Federa/ Register. The TCC also sug-
340
18 TexReg 6000 September 7, 1993 Texas Register «
-------
gestad that the caveat in $122. 163(0 regard-
ing the taiure of the TAC8 to punish notice
elite data of approval of the operating permit
program be daMad.
40 CFR Part 70.4(g) provides that the effec-
tive date of an operating permi program,
including any partial or interim program shal
be the effective date of approval by the Ad-
mMatrator. The atafl agrees win the TCC
comment that the date at approval should be
tiedtopubfcatjon of the approval in me fiede-
ml flecfettr. EPA wB pubtfeh notice of at
approval of the Texas program in the Federa/
Register. The FederaT Aepstar wB indicate
the actual date of approval, which ehould be
30 days after the dale of pubficatton in the
fiedaraf Aaoomr. EPA correctly noted that
$70. 4••«*•» **
regulations shal to My •ftactivo by the tone
"
•no Sstoly Coon*
during the 1898 Legislative Season by Houee
M 2049. Sedian 28 of Houae M 2049 pro-
vttes that 9m sections of Chapter 382
panaMng to federal operating parmto chaJ
take effect on the effective dale of the bi,
which was signed and became elective (with
the exception of $29 on June 9. 1993. How-
ewer, the Texas Heath and Safety Code.
$382.064. provides mal appicatiorB for fede-
ral fl|>f ^"fj ueiiiisb an not required to be
aubmiited to the boaid batare the approval of
the Tide V permitting (program by the Admin-
aJiaUi In oroer to address the concanis of
the regulated community, the staff initially
,
proposed that the final rule becomes effectMo
30 days after the date of approval of the
operating permit program by EPA. APTRA,
$10(aK3) provides that if a federal regulation
requires that an agency implement a rule by a
certain date, then the rule is effective on the
proscribed date. In this instance, since
$70.4 be published in the Federal
The TCC commented that the word "•tread/
in $122.164 makes no sense, and would po-
tontiely create unlawlul lestnctions on piottic-
lion accorded by Slate law. The staff agrees
that the proposed language in this section
' could arguably be interpreted to mean thai
any later laws regarding confidentiality would
not apply to documents applicants believe to
be confident*!. consequently, the word •al-
ready* has been deleted from the final rule
One indwdual requested that the agency de-
termine whether or not documents submitted
as confidential are Meed entitled to confi-
dential treatment. The Texas Heath and
Safety Code. $382.041 provides that mem-
bers, employees, or agents of the board may
no) disclose information submitted to the
board relating to secret processes or meth-
ods of manufacture or production that are
'it* .iltiinrt ^ i>iMifciB..linl itthmin ••^Miiitlnfi TilA
floraraoo as cuHiuoniiai wnen sionneo. i ne
agency maintains documents marked as con-
fidential in closed Has and notes in the public
fto that certain information is held confiden-.
tiaL HI the event a request is received to view
the documents, the agency is authorized by
the Texas Open Records Act. Article
625M7a, to request an opinion tram the
Texas Attorney General as to whether or not
the documents meet any of the exceptions
from disclosure provided for in that act. The
Open Records Act. $7(e). states that in cases
where a third party's privacy or prapertyMar-
ests are vnpficated by a reojuest for •Ncrme*
tion. the governmental body may. but is not
required, tosubmi its reasons as to why the
information should or should not be wthheld.
The agency has not made i a practice to
submit such reasons as the agency is not in
the best position to provide such reasons.
Section 382.040 provides that all information.
documents, and data collected by the board
in pei taming to dulies are state property and
subject to the Imilations in §382.041 (and
those of the Open Records Act), and that al
laoords are open to the pirtc during regular
agency hours.
The TCC and TMOGA commented that the
last sentence of $122.185 should be deleted
because $122211 already requns thai the
TACB be notified of any change regaroTng the
responsive official. This section has been
revtad to reference $122211 rather than re-
peat those requirements.
HLAP recommended revising §122.201 (b)
and $122241 (a) to mandate bed terms lor
the federal operating permits. For two rea-
sons, the staff believes that the final rules
should retain the flexfciiy to renew the per-
mits prior to the end of the five-year term.
first, this allows a permittee the option of
scheduling smuaaneous NSR and federal
operating pet mils reviews. Secondly, if in the
future, the agency moves to a one perm*
system, then the permits would almost cer-
tainly be combined at a renewal. Again, flexi-
DiHy in scheduling the renewal review would
be an advantage.
Chevron Production. TMOGA. and Marathon
commented that $122202 should require the
TACB to notify afl holders of a general perm*
if that perm* is repealed or revised. The staff
understands the commenters' concerns; how-
ever, the staff befieves that the procedural
requirements of nitemakjng. including public
notice wil serve as adequate notice of the
general permit's proposed revision or revoca-
tion and insures efficient use of resources.
EPA commented that $122202 should be
changed to require renewal of the general
permits every five years. Pursuant to 40 CFR
70, the proposdd rule provides for general
permits to be promulgated through future
rutomaking. Since state rules are not required
to go through a renewal process, general
permits ere net required to go through re-
HLS.P noted that the term 'general permT in
$122202 may also be used, with a different
meaning, under other rules. HLAP recom-
mended using a different term, such as *stan-
dam permi* or •general federal operating
permit* to avoid any potential confusion. The .
inter's i
potential confusion in terminology. Statutory
authorityalows tar the issuBneeofboth stan-
dard poHiiiu> and ueneial penwts. Since
•general permits- is a federal term under Tale
V of the Act, the general permits wi be
issued only under this rule. If other permits by
rule are issued pursuant to the NSR program.
Mutadh __-^_^_ u^l k
nose ueiiiitt <™ o
•^ — «fc -- • A,M4
uupora ano
$122202 be rewritten to al
qw*y. to
hich
wthout actualy applying tar the general per-
mi. The federal rate. 40 CFR 70. requires
thai each source which qusHes for a general
muat appry for that general permi.
TCC recommended that $l22202(b) be re-
vised to require that the terms of each gen-
eral permi be set out as an appencfix to the
final rule, so that individuals trom oul-ol-state
can obtain a copy of the general permits by
obutbting a copy of the pubfished rule. The
Texas Asfltsfer, which pubfishes proposed
and adopted rules issued by Texas state
•M* —•—-— bu «i_ jlhllnatlLrLiT fA
nOI UOAr Wr pUUHUaWUM Of
e or attachments to rules. The only
method is to include the fist of
nits wthin the rule asefl. This is
an option which may be considered in Mure
rutamaMng. The general permts have bean
incorporated by reference, simiar to the way
into
VI.
Marathon and TMOGA recommended thai
$l22202(d) specHicaly allow the use of gen-
eral permits to incorporate, at a saa. new
i requirements which were not pro-
mulgated prior to Bsuanoa of the original par-
the staff does onvison the general pamto
serving this function and the proposed var*
Stan of the rule old alow tar such use. How-
ever, since the staff cannot envision every
possbto use of these permits, narrowly defin-
ing their use in the final rule wK not bo dona.
TCC and TMOGA requested mocffying
$l22202(d) and (e) to remove the raquire-
ment that the general permi must to granted
to each individual applicant. TCC commented
that athough under 40 CFR 70 the sources
must apply for a general permit, i is not
required that the state respond to each indi-
vidual application. 40 CFR 70 dearly states
that*To sources that qua%, the permating
authonty shal grant the condMions and terms
of the general permi.* The proposed rule
aJtows each general permi to specify whether
such grant wil be made^tar each individual
general ^unu HHifcUum or whether the
general permi may specify a reasonable time
period after which a source that has submit-
ted an apofccaton wil be deemed to be au-
thorized to operate under the general permi.
TCC requested that $l22202(t) be revised to
alow the general permit to remain in effect
uml is expiation date at the end of the five-
veer renewal cycle, regaroless of any action
• Mopttd Sections Stpttmber 7, 1993
19 TtxRtg 6001
341
-------
on the part of the agency revising or repeal-
ing the general perml. Sine* each general
perm* remains perpetually in elfed until revi-
sion or npMl ol Iho ipeiiul, this section wil
not to revised.
Exxon Chem and Exxon Baytown recom-
mendad, under $122.202(9), where the ger-
era) pern* has been revised or revoked,
hriting enforcement action far operation wfth-
out a perml to those periods of operatjon
subsequent to Me last possible appicalion
date or the date the perm* is issued. The
regarding entorcement during an interim
period between revocation of an easting per-
ml and the granting ol«-new general permit.
Section 122202(i) has been revised to ad-
dress such interim periods and §l222029(e)
has been revised to darHy that the appfcation
shield wil to in place for those ainpiflnirttft
who make a tamely and complete 'ii'ipft'iU'fl*1
EPA commented that §122204 should clearly
state that temporary sources which are in and
of themselves major, must obtain a federal
operating perml. The daft has revised the
fa» JMMHM^* •*«•
10 comply we
IAOC requested clarification in §l22204(c)
as to which perml wil not require revision:
that of the temporary source or the site. The
staff agrees that §122204(c) should to dan-
fed with regard to this comment. This section
§-— f * ---- W«MjM4d **h MwdaMMtA ffthMA MAMkMV MftA
nas oeen cunneo 10 ncKate mai INMIIOI me
status of the temporary source or the site B
affected by a temporary source which re-
al the sto tor six months or toss.
IADC commented that the staff did not spec-
ify what efled a temporary source w* have
on the site's perml status if the temporary
source remains longer than six months.
IADC cited potential costly delays in opera-
tions and suggested removng the mplied
requirement in §l22204(c) for a sle permit
revision tor temporary sources which remain
on-site longer than six months. The staff be-
ieves that a temporary source should to el-
lowed to remain on site tor a reasonably short
period of time without affecting the peimu
status of the sle. The staff defined a six-
month period and believes that this is a mere
than reasonable length of time. Section
122204(c) has been revised to clarify the
requirement for a sle perml revision for tem-
porary sources which remain on sle longer
than six months. IAOC commented that me
staffs proposal in §l22204(d) to requre the
SflffIB AppHCfltlOn HlfOffnfllHtft If Gill uOin p0f•
manent and temporary sources |s unworkable
because much of the information requred
under Subchapter B of the proposed rules is
sle-specific. The staff believes thai the same
appfccabtty determinations , required under
$122.132 (Application and Required Informa-
tion) apply to both types ol sources. However.
the staff understands the commmenter's con-
cerns and believes that the application forms
and the guidance document wil more appro-
priately address the type of information the
reviewing engineer might require.
IAOC commented that the requirement in
§122204(1) to provide ten day's notice prior
to moving a temporary source is. in some
cases, impractical it not dangerous. IADC
cited emergency situations, foV example.
moving a rig on-site to drifl a reief wel at the
site of a blowout. The staff agrees with the
oommenter and this section has been revised
to aUow a shorter notification in me event of
an emergency.
EPA suggested that $§122211 -122221 to
rewritten in order to clarify the requirements.
TCC suggested that due to the mmarous
varieties of permit revisions. She staff should
provide examples of the types of changes
oontemptatod by each. The staff has revised
these sections to generally clarify the intent of
the requirements. The staff intends to provide
examples of the different types of perml revi-
sions in the guidance documents.
and Exxon Chem commented that the
proposed Regulation ^detsnat adequately
addimfc procediies to B*eaipcrais MACT oTe-
tanrinations. made under the FCAAA,
§112(8). into the proposed federal operating
permits. TCC aomreenied that case-fey-case
MACT (Merninatiere could to handled
through the state's preoowtuaien permitting
program and the rasubng detenninaiion(s)
iroBrpcrsted rtothe operaling ^wma by ad-
amendment procedures. TCC
that some changes to Regulation VI
would to necessary to make the requre-
mants of the $H2(g) MACT datenwnasww.
federally enforceable as well as revision of
$122221 of the proposed rotes. The staff
agrees that the most appropriate method to
administer §H2(g) MACT attamtinations is
through tho stflfeo's wosttfiQ pfBconsttucjiOifs
|wmiH»fio prQQnuit. HMIQW, the st&fl Atso
beleves the appropriate time to resolve Ms
issue is after the §ll2(g) and §1120) (Ap-
proval of State Programs and Delegation of
Federal Authorities) rules are promulojaled.
Tec's recommendation to add language
allowing administrative incorporation ol case-
by-case MACT determinations into Regula-
tion XII (and. by reference, rutemafeing to
modify Regulation VI) is premature. The com-
ment is outside the scope of this rute pack-
age. Appropriate ndemaMng w3l to
implemented to alow adoption of the §H2(g)
program after promulgation ol the federal
EPA commented that §122211 must specify
the types of changes which the staff win allow
under administrative amendments. Sedion
12221 t(a)(5) is identical to the language
used ii 40 CFR 70 for the same purpose.
Since the staff cannot envision every possible
change that might qualfly under §112.221(5).
the staff does not recommend narrowly defin-
ing Is use in the final rule.
An individual requested that §12221 i(c) be
rewritten to alow public input. The
oommenter further requested that §12221 l(f)
to rewritten to alow input from local air pollu-
tion control agencies. The staff cannot ad-
dress these comments since §122211 does
not contain either subsection (c) or (I). How-
ever, the staff believes that the proposed
rules provide substantial opportunities tor
comment and input from both the general
public and local air pollution control agencies,
as appropriate.
EPA commented that §122.215(5) would al-
low, under permit additions, changes which
involved reasonably available control technol-
ogy, PSD. BACT, lowest achievable emission
rate. §111. or any case-by-case determina-
tions, with the exception of $112(0) or §112©
determwafons. The staff beteves that the
proposed rule is consistent with the intent of
Congress. 40 CFR 70. the staffs understand-
ing throughout the Tile V federal rownctabte
discussions prior to the promulgation of 40
CFR 70. end EPA staff comments at Air and
Waste Management Association workshops.
EPA OQRMientad tat §122215(7) should
spesiSeaSy prohibl teas* changes which
quaHy as significani mediations from the
perml afldisof* procedures. The section, now
identified as §122215fcM3). has been re-
vised to comply wen IPA* comment
An individual requested thai §122217 (P«rmit
Addition Procedures). §122220 (Significant
PsnM Mcd&catjon Application and Proce-
dures), §122221 (Operational FtexfeOiy), and
$1222^ (Perml Reopening Procedures) to
rewritten to fi«ow both teal air poeutien con-
trol eguney input and a 30-day public com-
meat period. The proposed rules do not
pronto! the review at the applications by the
jocai air poUution control agencies. To deter-
mine the breadm and depth of the local pro-
grams' participalion in the federal operating
perml. the st&fl intends to hold discussions
with *s tesaJ programs to develop an agree-
ment much lite the impeementaiion agree-
ment with EPA. The staff tofieves that such
invotvemeni shmdd to addressed through
egensy policy and guidance documents
rathe? than in the final rule. In order to meet
the provisions of 40 CFR 70, which require
adequate, streamlined, and reasonable pro-
cedures for expediiously processing perml
revisions, the staff did not propose that
changes quaifying as pern* additions. SMI*
lar to minor modifications in the federal rule.
go through a pubbe comment period. The
staff toleves that the changes which quafify
as perml additions are either minor changes
at the ste. and as such should not require
puttfe comment, or involve operational
changes which wiH require review under Reg-
ulation VI and a subsequent determination
under that chapter as to whether public notice
is appropriate for the change at the sle.
Therefore, the proposed changes to §122217
w« not to made. Section 122220 and
§122233 already required a 30-day public
comment period. 40 CFR 70 requires that the
states' program aHow for operational flesfeility
with only the procedural requirements fisted
in §122221. Adding public notice for the
changes which qualify under this section is
prohibited by the federal rule.
An individual requested that §i222l7(b) to
rewritten to allow 180 days rather than 90
days to complete action on a perml addition
application. In order to meet the provisions ol
40 CFR 70. which require adequate, stream-
lined, and reasonable procedures for expedi-
ttously processing permit revisions, the
90-day review requirement has been re-
tained.
EPA commented that §122219 does not re-
quire a permittee with a change qualifying as
a significant permit modification to revise the
permit prior to commencing operation ol the
equipment subjed to the modification. The
staff finds no such requirement in 40 CFR 70.
The stall believes that the only prohibition on
342
18 TexReg 6002 September 7, 1993 Texas Register
-------
opmfisn in «® federal rute is ft me ease
where a change is • Tttte I modifieation end
the change is also prohtt&d by the existing
pom* lanns and eangfem. That prohfttien
was feted in §122.219 o! the proposed rates.
An MMdurt opposed alo<^ changes qual-
ifying under $122219 (Significant Permit
Modifications) to be made prior to a 304ay
piitfT corofiierit period and v^iut from local
air potution cental agencies. The sisSJ be*
loves thai tha federal operaj&sg parent pro-
gram serves a sigiifeanUy jfiflwKsJt, yet
An individual epposed fenaatg cause tor re-
Bering a psrasft ID these dsfeed at
best interest of both to caressl p*&*e »nd
She ragged community to efewly Site the
eondUors under which the permit must be
reopened.
MSB program. The NSH program is designed
to review appfeaiiofe to bu* or modify e
facOty. Tlw purpe^ ot thai review is to insure
that .appropriate ©ortrol technology w« to
«t the tectKjf and 0wt the proposed
not adverse* affea the heath
or aatety of any citizen, the awrapriaie time
tar this review, and when requires!, the «•
companyins pubMs eommsnt perieft is prior
to construction or gpeatton of She nsw or
modified teeSty. The t&dsmj oparaling par-
mils, on tha sfflwr hand, are designed to eed>
•y aB the appisabte ra^rawsenis at the site.
The best lime lor such a regutefory review is
after the tedSSy has been censtrusied and is
in operation. This is why, in both 40 CFR 70
and the proposed rule, the permit application
review and the accompanytfig pubic com"
men* period usuaSy takes place ester tha ep-
OuPont, Marathon, Permzoa. TCC, TMOGA
and Natural recommended that the tength of
time required tor prior notification under
operalionai ftoxfesfity in §122221 be changed
from 30 days to seven days. In supporting
this position. Natural and TCC cited, as unac-
ceptable, the additional delay involved in
lengthening the minimum seven-day notifica-
tion period requred under 40 CFR 70. Mara-
thon and TMCX3A pointed out that the agency
should react in a prompt manner to these
notifications. This issue was diseusssd in
great detai at the roundtabtes, and tha staff
understands the esnesms of tha commenters
and the roundtabte pertjcjpsifis regarding
their companies' abSty to make changes. To
at toast parttsiy address those eenewm, the
staff has revised §l2222l(b) to allow the
proposed operational changes at the expira-
tion o» ihe notifeatkm period, rather than
allowing the permittee to make the proposed
change, i.e., begin construction, at that time.
The staff will have sufficient time to review
the written notification tor applicability under
this section, and the permittee wil have the
additional latitude to make physical changes
at the site as necessary while wailing tor the
expnbon of the notification period.
EPA requested that the staff add language, in
§122221, incorporating the federal terms
•emissions allowable' and °502(b)(iO)
changes* to define those changes which
qualify under operational fleifciity. In order to
promote a general understanding of the rule,
the staff has attempted to present the require-
ments of the federal oporatng perrrnt pro-
gram as clearly as possible in the proposed
rule. For this reason, the staff chose in the
proposed rule to clearly define the changes
allowed under §502
-------
by • decision* is not in mad of • special
definition as the wads are Mended to mean
usl whet they say: that any person who is
•Heeled by a decision ol the Board or its
designee may file a citizen review petition
wth the EPA. Lfcawise. the stall does not see
a need to define 'impracticable- nor * a nec-
essary to delete the phrase •with reasonable
specificity ' Section 122314(c) is intended to
provide petitioners with the abMy to petition
EPA H the EPA tote to objoes to the issuance
ol an upeialing
An mdrnduai stated that a «ac»y should not
be allowed to operate if EPA Has an
objection with the TAGS as a rasul oi a
citizen petition. 40 CFR §70.8(d) provides
that if the EPA objects and the permit has
been issued, the permit « effective. There is
no requirement that cals tar a cessation of
operation in the event that an EPA objection
is received. However, the procedural require-
ments to revok* a permit. La.. the site author-
ity to operate. ere dearly bid out in the
proposed rule.
EPA commented that §1223160MA) refer-
ences federal source.' and requested that
this phrase be defined. Bather than adding
another definition to the final rule; the refer-
ences to federal source have been deleted
end a description of such sources substituted.
TCC and HL&P commenled that a reference
was needed to S* §122316 back to
§122.155(0) regarding the 30-day time period
during which a hearing may b» requested.
The staff agrees with the comments of the
TCC and HL&P and a ssmtenop tas been
added to the first paragraph of §1)22316 to
incorporate this suggestion.
TCC suggested that language be added to
§122.316(1)(A) that would require persons
who request a hearing on an operating permit
to provide, at the time of the hearing request.
a written statement of interest and a basis for
chatenging the operating permit application.
The staff believes it is not appropriate to
requre persons requesting a hearing to sub-
mil the information suggested by the TCC in
the actual hearing request. This change
would go beyond the scope of the proposed
rule because it would require a new proce-
dure to be added to how a hearing is re-
quested and it is inconsistent, with regard to
timing, with TACB Procedural Rule
§103.33(0).
TCC commented that the provisions of
§122.316(2X0 have the potential to aHow tor
hearing requests to be made after the period
during which one may be requested. Exxon
Chem noted that the hearings examiner's
ability to extend the comment period should
be limited and HUP suggested that the com-
ment period not be allowed to extend beyond
the initial 30 days provided tor in the public
notice. The staff opposes making the change
suggested by Exxon Chem and HL&P. The
staff disagrees that allowing pubic commeiBt
to be submitted untH the dose of any pubKc
hearing wiV unnecessarily delay the permit'
process. If a hearing is requested, the staff is
required to provide 30 day's advance notice
of such hearing. Allowing public comment to
be submitted during this 30-day period or at
the public hearing will not unduly interfere
with the process. The staff does not believe
that it is necessary to fimi a hearing examin-
er's discretion to extend the public comment
period during any hearing. If this were to
become an rssus during a heamg. the parties
would be able to present arguments regard-
ing an appropriate deadUne. The TCC*s sug-
gested changes make it dear that even
though the public oaff-tent period is automat-
ically extended to th?. dose of any public
hearing, the opportunity to request a pubfc
hearing is fruited to that time specified in^ihB
pubfiCfattKXt otiho nofiCB oft&ta juirrt BppMiiiV
ten as required by §122.155. A reference in
§122.155$) has teen added to reflect the
Changs.
An individual commented that "may be af-
fected* in §122316(1MA). •unreasonable'
and 'reasonable* in paragraph (1KB), •rea-
sonable' in paragraph (2XQ. and 'reason-
ably ascertainaMa* and •reasonably
avaiiaW in paragraph (2XE) should be de-
fined. The
aubparagraph (F) aheuM require the TAGS to
provide copies oi the imparae to eemntentr>
to the public or individuals who request to be
notified of sueti inta-maSon. The staff has not
defined what an •affected person* is tar the
purposes of hearing requests, tor ether Reg-
ulation VI hearings or tor operating pen-its.
The preference in these matters is to review
the facts of each request on a ease-by-case
basis in order to determine whether the per-
son is affected by emissions or 9 the request
is a reasonable request as allowed by the
Texas Health and Safety Code,
§382.0561(0. The staff does not taefieve that
there is a need to spadficaty define the terms
eitad by the eommenler. These terms are
Mended to provide tor ftexfcUty in the hear-
ng process. In response to the comment to
place a two-week response (rail on the board
to respond to a hearing request, the staff
does not believe that it is necessary to place
a time limit on the actions of the Board or its
designee regardvig notification of persons
who have requested a hearing. Operating
permits are required to be issued by the
Board within 18 months of the receipt of a
complete permt appfcaijon. Due to the pro-
cedures required by the hearing process tor
answering comments and notifying affected
states and EPA, the staff does not believe
that there is any potential tor a significant
delay in responding to those persons who
request a hearing. In response to the com-
ment regarding subparagraph (F), the staff
points out that §122.155(C) provides that the
TACB will provide notice of its proposed final
action to any person who commented during
the public comment period or during any
hearing and to the applicant. For clarification
purposes, the staff proposes to add language
to subparagraph (F) to make it dear that the
staff wil respond to comments and win pro-
vide copies ol the response to inowsduals
who participate in a particular hearing.
EPA stated that Regulation XII does not in-
dude the exemption provisions allowed tor by
40 CFR §72.7 and 40 CFR §72.8. EPA also
stated that the proposed rule do not clearly
state .the type of units subjed to the Add Rain
Program. The intent of the rules was to incor-
porate by reference all provisions of 40 CFR
72. Language has been added to §122.411 (b)
to specHicaly incorporate 40 CFR 72 by ref-
erence.
EPA commenled that §122.410 addresses
Standard Add Rain Requirements, but it does
not dearly state that both the Acid Rain Per-
mit and the Acid Rain permit appfeafcon need
to include the standard requirements. The
intent of the proposed rule was to incorporate
al ol the requfements of the Acid Rain
Rules, indudng the requirements expressed
in EPA's comment. The rule incorporates by
reference al provisions of 40 CFR 72; how-
the staff recommends that addtonal
language be added to §122.411 to clarify the
incorporation by reference of the Acid Rain
Rules.
EPA commented that §122.411$) states that
H the Add Rain Rules are in contact "wih
other requirements of this chapter' then the
Add Rain Rules shaR take precedence. Thfc
could be interpreted as incorporating by refer-
ence any previsions of the federal rule mat
are not specalcaly ndudod in the proposed
rule. The staff intended that, under the lan-
guage in the rate, the Act Rain Rules shafl
Wa precedence over the requirements of the
rule, hi w-Jer to darify this intent, language
has been added to §122.411 u incorporate
by reference al provisions of 40 CFR 72.
EPA commented that §122.421 requires the
designated representative whose units be-
come subjed to the Add Rah rules to (He an
.ppiiMiiMB no later than 12 months after the
affected unit becomes subjed to the federal
operating permit program. EPA stated that
this appears to contradict 40 CFR §72.30$),
which requires a source with an affected irt
to submit a complete application at toast 24
months before the later of January 1.2000, or
the date on which the unit commences opera-
tion. Section 122.421 (b) has been reworded
to darity the language.
EPA stated that §122.425 did not include
many of the compliance plan provisions re-
quired under 40 CFR §72.40. The staff in-
tended to incorporate by reference all
provisions of 40 CFR 72 and language has
been added to §122. 411 to
SPSC suggested that the avaiabifity of an
annual 304ay true-up period tor allowances
should be clarified in §122.411. Section
122.411 has been revised to eliminate any
uncertainty regardng this matter.
TCC suggested changes to §122.430 with
regard to addng the term 'suHur dioxide*
when addressuig eNcwanoes. The defntaon
of atowanca under §122. 12 makes it dear
that an allowance is speeificaly related to
suHur dioxide emissions at the rate of one
afnwance per one ton of sulfur dioxide emis-
sions.
EPA commented that §122.432 does not
dearly state that a permit will rat be issued
unless the designated representative submits
a certificate of representation. EPA further
stated that each submission by a designated
representative must also meet certification re-
quirements. The incorporation of 40 CFR 72
by reference in §122.411 has been added
andshould eliminate any confusion wth this
comment.
HL&P suggested a minor revision in
§122.435(0). Section 122.43S(b) has been re-
vised to replace 'duration' wth term.'
18 TacReg 6004 September 7, 1993 Texas Register «
344
-------
EPA cammeMd that §122.43§ does not
clearly stat« that §122515, §122217. and
§122221 (concerning permit Aliens and
operational ftoxUffily) do not apply to Acid
Ram permits. Section 122.43S(a) has been
clarified to comply with this request.
EPA commented that 40 CFR §7242 alows
for fast-track modification, which is another
permit revision option the designates repre-
sentative is allowed under 4© CFR 72. Sac-
lion 122.437(b) has been added to alow tor
the tasMraek modification procedure as eon*
tamed in 40 CFR 72.
An individual commented mat §122.437 does
not provide for a 30-day pubic comment
period. Section 122.411(B) of the proposed
rules specifies that, unless specifically noted
otherwise, al affected sources shati comply
win the requirements of the final rule for
permit issuance, revision, reopening, and re-
newal including any such requromems for
eppBeafion, pubic partiejsefein, review by at-
faded stales, and review by IPA. The pubic
notice requirements of me proposed rate re-
quite a 30-day puofie eminent period. Any
exceptions noted in the acid rein section are
required by 40 CFR 72.
TCC recommended that §l22.440(c) regard-
ing jufictal appeal be deleted from the final
rule. TCC commented that ink *»efon » re-
dundant with me HeaBti anT Safety Cade.
§382.032. The fta* aesats with the
commenter and §i22.*40(e) has been re-
moved from the inal ruto.
EPA commented thai §122.440 addresses
the imitation on time for fing a judfeiei ap-
peal, but further stales that the Federal Acid
Rain Rutos §ml the admMstrative appeal
period to 90 days or toss after issuance of the
Acid Rain portion of the permit The
commenter suggested that the language of
this section be clarified. The proposed rate
dM not provide for an adminstrative appeal to
the Board regarding actions tafcesi concerning
operating permits. This restrietisn in m way
impacts on the federal appeals process for
acid rein permits. ,
Subchapter A. Definitions
• 31 TAG §6122.10-122.12
The new rules are adopted under the Texas
Heath and Safety Code (Varan 1990).
Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA). §7382.017.
which provides the TAGS with the authority to
adopt rates consisted with the pofiey and
purposes of the TCAA.
§122.10. General Definitions. Unless spe-
cifically defined in the Texas Oean Air Act
(TCAA or the Act) or in the rules of the
Texas Air Control Board (TACB). the terms
used by the TACB have the meanings com-
monly ascribed to them in the field of air
pollution control. IB addition to the terms
which are defined by the TCAA, and in
J101.1 of this title, (relating to the General
Rules), the following terras, when used in
mis chapter..«hall have the following mem-
ings, unless the context clearly indicates
otherwise.
Act-The Federal dean Air Act as
amended 42 United States Code 7401. et
Affected states-May be New Mex-
ico. Oklahoma, Kansas. Colorado. Arkan-
sas, or Louisiana if either of the following
criteria are met
(A) that State's sir qualt
may be affected by the issuance of a federa
operating permit, permit revision, or permit
renews!; or
(B) that State is within 50
miles of the site or proposed site.
Air PoUutant-For purposes of mis
chapter, any of the following regulated air
pollutants:
(A) nitrogen oxides:
pounds:
(B) volatile organic eem-
(Q any potent for which a
National Ambient Air Quality Standard has
been promulgated:
(D) any pollutant that is sub-
ject to any standard promulgated under the
Act. $111:
(E) unless otherwise speci-
fied by the Administrator by role, aay Gass
I or n substance subject to a standard pro-
mulgated under or established by Title VI
of the Ace or
(F)
in the
Act. 5112(b) or §H2(r) and subject to a
standard promulgated under the Act. fl!2.
Applicable requirement-All of tbe
following as they apply to the emission
units it a site (including lequiiements that
have been promulgated or approved by the
United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) through rulemaking at the
time of issuance of the permit but have
future-effective compliance dates):
(A) any standard or other re-
quirement provided for in the applicable
plan approved or promul-
gated by EPA through rulemaking under
Title I of the Act that implement^ the rele-
vant requirements of me Act, including any
revisions to that plan promulgated in 40
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 52. For
purposes of the Federal Operating Permit
Program. Chapters 111-115. and 117-119 of
this title (relating to Control of Air Pollu-
tion From Visible Emissions and Paniculate
Matter; Control of Air Pollution From Sul-
fur Compounds. Control of Air Pollution
From Toxic Materials; Control of Air Pollu-
tion From Motor Vehicles; Control of Air
Pollution From Volatile Organic Com-
pounds: Control of Air Pollution From Ni-
trogen Compounds: and Control of Air
Pollution from Carbon Monoxide) are the
only state standards that implement relevant
requirements of Title I of the Act;
(B)
struct
any term or condition of
t permits issued pursuant
MVP-
to the undesignated headings of
116 of this title (relating to Prevention of
Significant Deterioration or Nonattainment
Review) as necessary to implement the re-
quirements of fegulations approved or pro-
mulgated through rulemaking under Part C
(Prevention of Significant Deterioration) or
Part D (Nonattainment) of Title I of the
Act
(Q say standard or other
requirement under the Act, fill, relating to
New Source Paf&mm® Standards
(NSPS). including iUl(d);
(D) eny standard or other it-
quireraem under the Act. §112. relating to
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS), includ-
ing any requirement coacemsag aeddeat
prevention under the Act $112(r)(7);
(E) any standard or other re-
quirement of the add tm provisions of the
Act or the acid rain rotes;
(F) any requirements estab-
lished pursuant to the Act, §504(b) or
§114(a)(3). regarding Monitoring. En-
hanced Monitoring, and Compliance Certi-
fication;
(G) any standard or other re-
quirement governing solid waste iacnen-
tion. under the Act. {129 (NSPS):
(H) any standard or other re-
quirement for consumer and commercial
products, under the Act. §183(e) (Federal
Ozone Measures);
(C any standard or other re-
quirement for tank vessels, under the Act.
§183(f). (Tank Vessel Standards):
(J) any standard or other re-
quirement of the program to control air
pollution from outer ""•'T'Ml shelf
sources, under the Act, §328;
(K) any standard or other re-
quirement of the regulations promulgated to
protect stratospheric ozone under Title VI
of the Act unless EPA has
such requirements need not be contained in
a federal operating permit; and
Adopted Sections September 7, 1993
IS TtxRtg 6005
345
-------
(L) any National Ambient
Air Quality Standard or increment or visi-
bility requirement under Part C of Title I of
the Act but only as it would apply to
temporary sources permitted pursuant to the
Act. §504(e). Except as noted »a this
subparagraph. ambient air quality standards.
net ground level conceatratioa limits, or
ambient atmospheric concentration limits,
either state or federal are not applicable
requirements tinder mis chapter.
Deviation-Any condition that indi-
cates that an emissions unit has failed to
meet an ff'*""" limitation or standard im-
posed by an applicable requirement If pa-
rameter monitoring is used, a period of
indeterminate compliance that maty occur
«h«ii not necessarily be considered a devia-
tion.
Draft permit-The version of a fede-
ral operating permit available for purposes
of public notice and affected state review
under Subchapter B of this chapter (relating
to Public Notification and Comment Proce-
dures).
Emission allowable under the per-
mit-A federally enforceable permit term or
condition determined at issuance to be re-
quired by am applicable requirement, mat
emissions limit p*"**1"*"^ a
work practice standard) in the form of the
applicable requirement or a federally en-
forceable gmieeimiie cup that the owner or
operator of a site his assumed to avoid an
applicable requirement to which the site
would otherwise be subject
Emission unit-The *ma1feff discrete
or identifiable structure, device, item.
equipment, or enclosure that constitutes or
contains a point of origin of air pollutants as
defined in this Section. A point of origin of
fugitive emissions from individual pieces of
equipment e.g.. valves, flanges, pumps, and
compressors, shall not be considered an in-
dividual emission unit Such fugitive emis-
sions shall be collectively considered as an
emission unit based on their relationship to
the nfWM'ff) process and those emissions
shall be included in the permit application.
This term is not meant v> alter or affect the
definition of the term "unit" for purposes of
the acid rain provisions of the Act.
United States Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) or Administrator-The
Administrator of the EPA or his designee.
Final action-Issuance or denial of
the proposed permit by the board or its
designee after the EPA review period as
provided in Subchapter D of this chapter
(relating to Affected State Review. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Review.
and Citizen Petition).
Fugitive emissions-Those emissions
which could not reasonably pass through a
stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally-
equivaient opening.
General permit-A federal operating
permit that meets the requirements of
§122.202 of this title (relating to General
Permits).
Major soufce-Any site which emits
or has the potential to emit air pollutants as
described in subparagraphs (A). (B). or (Q
of this definition.
(A) Any site which, in whole
or part is a major scarce under the Act
§112. which is defined as:
(i) for pollutants other
man radioauclides. any site that emits or
has the potential tc emit in the aggregate.
10 tons per year (ipy) or more of any single
h^tf^rc »ir pollutant which has been
listed pursuant to the Act §112(b). 25 tpy
or more of any combination of such hazard-
ous air pollutants, or such lesser quantity as
the Administrator may establish by rote; or
(ii) for radiotnirM-s
"major mice" shall hive the meaning
specified by the Administrator by rate.
(B) Any site which directly
emits or has me potential to emit. 100 tpy
or more of any air pollutant (including any
major source of fugitive emissions of any
United States Environmental Protection
Agency). Tne fugitive emissions of a sta-
tionary source shall not be coasadered in
determining whether it is a major source.
unless the stationary source betongs to one
of the following categories of stationary
sources:
(i) coal cleaning plants
(with thermal dryers);
(ii) kraft pulp mills:
(iu) poitland cement
plants;
(iv) primary zinc smelt-
ers;
(v) iron and steel mills;
(vi) primary aluminum
ore reduction plants;
(vii) primary ' copper
smelters;
(viii) municipal incinera-
tors capable of charging more than 250 tons
of refuse per day;
(ix) hydrofluoric, sulfuric.
or nitric acid plants;
(x) petroleum refineries;
(xi) lime plants;
(xii) phosphate rock pro-
cessing plants;
(xiii) coke oven batteries;
(xiv) sulfur recovery
plants;
(xv) carbon black plants
(furnace process);
(xvi) primary lead smelt-
ers;
(xvii) fuel conversion
plant:
(xviii) sintering plants:
(six) secondary metal
production plants;
(xx) chemical process
plants;
(x») fossil-fuel boilers
(or combination thereof) totaling more than
250 million British thermal units (BTU) per
hour heat input;
(jotii) petroleum storage
and transferunits with a total storage capac-
ity exeesdifflg 300,000 barrels;
(xxiu) taconite ore pro-
cessing plants;
(xiv) glass fiber process-
ing plants:
(xxv) charcoal production
plants:
(xxvi) fossil-fuel-fired
sseasst electric plants of more than 250 mil-
lion Btu per hour heat input; or
(xxvii) any other station-
ary source category which as of August 7.
1980. is being regulated under the Act
§111 or §112.
(Q Any site which, in whole
or in part, is a major source under Part D of
Title I of the Act. including:
(i) any site with the po-
tential to emit volatile organic compounds
(VOQ or oxides of nitrogen in a quantity of
100 tpy or more in Colttn. Dallas. Demon.
or Tarrant Counties, or in any other ozone
nonattainment area classified as "marginal
or moderate;" 50 tpy or more in B Paso.
Hardin. Jefferson, or Orange Counties, or in
any other ozone nonattainment area classi-
fied as "serious:" 25 tpy or more in
Brazpha. Chambers. Fort Bend. Galveston.
Harris. Liberty. Montgomery, or Walter
Counties, or in any other ozone
flflffif'y* as "severe;"
and 10 tpy or more in any ozone
nonattainment area rlassifi"^ as "extreme;"
(ii) for Victoria County.
sites with the potential to emit 100 tpy or
more of VOC;
(iii) for the carbon mon-
oxide nonattainment area in El Paso
County, sites with the potential to emit 100
tpy or more of carbon monoxide:
(iv) for the City of El
Paso, sites with the potential to emit 100
tpy or more of inhalable paniculate matter
(PM-10);
(v) for the lead
nonattainment area in Collin County. ™lr*
with the potential to emit 100 toy or more
of lead.
18 TexReg 6006 September 7, 1993 Texas Register
346
-------
(D) The fugitive exclusions
which apply to subparagraph (B) of this
definition shall also apply under
subparagraph (Q.
(E) Notwithstanding the pre-
ceding source categories, emissions from
any oil or gas exploration or production
well (with its associated equipment) and
emissions from any pipeline compressor or
pump station shall not be aggregated with
emissions from other similar units, whether
or not such units are in a contiguous area or
yiyjur ccmmoa control, to determine
whether such units or stations are major
sources under subparagraph (A) of this defi-
nition and. in the case of any oil or gas
coloration or production well (with its as-
sociated equipment), w^ CTniff'WT «^n
not be aggregated for any purpose under
subparagraph (A).
Permit or federal operating per-
mit-Any federal operating permit or group
of federal operating permits covering a site
that is issued, renewed, amended, or revised
pursuant to this chapter, or general permit
or group of general permits promulgated or
granted pursuant to this *ht|Mfr
Permit Application-An application
for a federal operating permit, permit revi-
sion, permit renewal, permit reopening, and
any other such application as may be re-
Quired.
Permit revision-Any permit addi-
tion, significant modification, or administra-
tive permit amendment that meets the
related re<)uirements of Subchapter C of this
chapter (relating to Permit Issuances. Revi-
sions. Reopenings. and Renewals).
Potential to emit-The maximum ca-
pacity of a stationary source to emit any air
pollutant under its physical and operational
design or configuration. Any certified regis-
tration or preconstruction authorization re-
stricting emissions or any physical or
operational limitation on the capacity of a
stationary source to emit an air pollutant.
including air pollution control equipment
and restrictions on hours of operation or on
the type or amount of material combusted.
stored, or processed, shall be treated as pan
of its design if the limitation is enforceable
by the Administrator. This term does not
alter or affect the use of mis term for any
other purposes under the Act. or the term
"capacity factor" as used in acid rain provi-
sions of the Act or the acid rain rules.
Preconstruction auihorization-Any
8uthon7ati"n to construct or modify an ex-
isting facility or facilities under Chapter 116
of this title (relating to Control of Air Pollu-
tion by Permits For New Construction or
Modification). In this chapter, references to
preconstruction authorization tinder Chapter
116 of this title also include, where appro-
priate, preconstruction authorization under
Chapter 120 of this title (relating to Control
of Air Pollution fom Hazardous Waste or
Solid Waste Management Facilities) or
Chapter 121 of this title (relating ID Control
of Air Pollution from Municipal Solid
Waste MaasgeBsent Facilities).
Proposed permit-The version of a
federal opefHiqg permit that to Texas Air
Control Board (TACB) forwards ta United
States iavironmeattl Protection Agency for
a 45-day nview period in eompUanee with
Subchapter D of this chapter (reUnog to
Affected State Review, linked States Envi-
ronmental Protectioii Agency Review, and
driven petition).
Relevant emissien unit-Those emis-
sion units having OK, or mere applicable
requirements as defined in mis chapter.
Renewal-The process by which a
federal operating permit is reissued at me
cad of its term.
Responsible official-One of the fol-
(A) for a corporation: a
president, secretary, treasurer, or vice-
president of the corporation in charge of a
principal business function, or any other
person who performs similar polky or
decision-making functions for the corpora-
tion, or a duly authorised representative of
such person if the representative is responsi-
ble for the overall operation of oae or more
manufacturing, production, or operating fa-
cilities applying for or subject to a federal
operating permit snd either
(i) the facilities employ
more than 250 persons or have gross annual
sales or expenditures exceeding $25 miUkrn
(in second quarter 19SO dollars); or
(ii) tte delegation of au-
thority to such representative is, approved in
advance by the TACB;
(B) for a partnership or sole
proprietorship: a general partner or the pro-
prietor, respectively.
(Q for a municipality, state.
federal, or otto public agency: either a
principal executive officer or ranking
elected official For the purposes of this
chapter, a principal executive officer of a
federal agency includes the chief executive
officer having responsibility for the overall
operations of a principal geographic unit of
the agency (e.g.. a Regional Administrator
of the United States Environmental Protec-
tion Agency): or
(D) for affected sources:
(i) the designated repre-
sentative insofar as actions, standards, re-
quirements, or prohibitions under the acid
rain provisions of the Act or the acid rain
rules are concerned: and
(ii) the designated repre-
sentative for any other purposes under this
chapter.
Significant permit modification-A
revision to a federal operating permit that
meets the seqwremsas of §122.219 of this
tide (relating to i gnifkant Permit Modifi-
cations).
Site-The total of all stationary
sources located on one or more contiguous
or adjtsMM properties, which are under
eseafflea control of the seme person (or
persons under common control). Research
tad development operations shall be treated
as a separate site from any manufacturing
facility with which they are co-located. A
site muy contan multiple relevant emission
units aod grandfathered **"'TTK*' units.
. Stele only reqiarement-A require-
meat which is set federally enforceable un-
der thi' chapter or is not an applicable
requirement uecfesj- this chapter.
Stationary seutce-Any building.
sffjaaBffe, facility, or installation that ••"it*
or may emit any air pollutant.
Title I modification—Changes at a
site that qualify as a modification under
Titte I of the ACL §111 (New Source Per-
{armanee Standards) or Title I of me Act.
§112(g). or as a major modification under
Part C (Prevention of Significant Deteriora-
tion) or Part D (Nosssauksnsni Review) of
Title I of me Act.
§122.11. Grandfather Definitions for Suae
Only Requirements. The following words
and terms, when used in this section shall
have the following meanings, unless the
seated; dearly indicates otherwise.
Actual grandfather emission "**'*
(definition used for state only require-
meat)-An emission unit for which construc-
tion or operation started prior to September
1. 1971. and at which either: no modifica-
tion ha$ occurred since September 1.1971
and. therefore, for which no authorization
has been required under Chapter 116 of mis
title (relating to Control of Air Pollution by
Permits for New Construction or Modifica-
tion); or modifications have been authorized
only pursuant to a standard exemption un-
der Chapter 116 of this tide. Those emis-
sion units which started construction
between September 1. 1971 and March 1.
1972. and which registered in aecoidance
with Texas Health and Safety Code.
§382.060. as that section existed prior to
September 1. 1991. are also considered
grandfathered units.
Actual grandfather rate (definition
used for state only requirement)-The maxi-
mum annual emission rate at which the
emission unit actually operated and *TPMW)
prior to September 1.1971. for 12 consecu-
tive months, including any increases autho-
rized by standard exemption under Chapter
116 of this title. A grandfather rate shall not
be established which violates any
Adopted Sections September 7, 1993
18 TexReg 6007
347
-------
«• aaaiaid s«jui«d
dopier of this title.
Presumptive graadfi&er emission
unit (definition for state esly require-
ment)-^ amissicB uak or method of oper-
ation for which construction or operation
stuted prior to March 1. 1972. sinless the
total filial n*f*'|t'w> sasissiaa rate or
limit* rti«> de related to the
TfKffls (e*g.. production, fuel fir*
ii^ throughput, sulfur ccntftnt. operating
hours. c*c., as appropriate) for the f*pfTP"a
unit IK ftfttiMhhBd in* a peimit. special
permit or special or standaid exemption
issued pursuant to Chapter 116 of this title.
Resumptive grandfather rate (dafesi-
tion used for suss only requiremenO-Tise
fflflxiiny^ fHMtByi emission rate or dats tii&t
are related to emissions (64.. production.
fuel firing, throughput, sulfur eoa&ns. ete.,
as appropriate) which are selected to rea-
sonably approximate the actual gcsiKifiite?
rate based upon a review of actual historical
operations using the procedure outlined in
$122.132(«)(5) of this title (relating to Ap-
plication and Requised Inronnatkm). A
grandfather rats shall not be established
which violates any emission MmitBtiQn or
tide.
§122.12. Acid Rain Dtfutaism. The fal-
lowing words and terms, when used in this
section. shaU have the following meanings.
unless the context clearly indicates other-
wise.
Acid rain compliance option-One of
the methods of compliance used by an af-
fected unit as described in a compliance
plan submitted and approved in accordance
with the acid rain rates or the Act. §407.
Acid rain permit-Toe legally bind-
ing portion of tte federal operating permit
issued by the Texas Air Control Board
(TACB) under this chapter including.any
permit revisions, specifying the acid rain
requirements applicable to an affected
source, to each affected unit at an affected
source, and to the owners and operators and
the designated representative of the affected
fffljfpy of goc affected unit.
Acid rain mles-The regulations pro-
mulgated pursuant to the acid rain provi-
sions of the Act contained in 40 CFR Part
72. et at
Actual grandfather rate (definiuea
used for state only requirement)-Fw af-
fected units, auxiliary support systems for
affected units, simple combustion turbines.
and units which serve a generator with a
nameplate capacity of 25 megawatt or less.
the actual grandfather rate for actual grand-
father emission units shall be me maximum
annual emission rate or data related to emis-
sions (e.g.. fuel firing, sulfur content, etc..
as appropriate) at the documented Maxi-
mum Continuous Rating, on a continuous
operating basis, of generating units used to
meet or to prepare to meet requirements of
the cleans power grid. Each actual grand-
father emission unit that is an affected unit
shall be operated in compliance with appli-
cable provisions of the Acid Rain Rules, as
fifffinfffj in th« section. TBchtd*nt any emis-
sion allowance limitiiP""* '
Affected source-A ate that includes
one or store affected units.
Affected unit-A unit mat is subject
to *m*ftiflri reduction requirements or bjni-
Jsukms under te acid rain rules.
Allowance-An authorization, under
the acid rain rules, by me United States
Environmental Protection Agency to emit
up to one ton of sulfur dioxide during or
after a specified calendar year.
OEM and COM-Abbrevistkms for
caobanous emission moaneKs) and a §ea-
tejjm opacity monitoKs). respectively.
Cettifiew! of rapreientBtkHi-m
completed m& signed submission required
by the aeM rato iuks. for certifying the
appoteaent of a daJgnatgd representative
for m affected seisms or a group of kienii-
This agency hereby certifies ftat the ruto as
cdopled has tnsn rovimwd by tae*l count**
and found to et a va« •xereisa oJ ttta agnv
cys toeai authority.
issuKl in Austin, Texas, on August 30, t983.
; owaas and operators ef such sources)
and of the affected units at such souree(s)
with regard to matsere of tot acid rain re-
Designated represemative-The re-
sponsible individual authorized by me own-
ers and operators of an affected* source and
of all affected nabs at fee sitt. as evidenced
by a certificate of representation submitted
in accordance wife the add rain rules, to
represent and legally bind each owner and
operator, as a matter of federal law, in
matters pertaining to the acid rain require-
ments. Such matters include, but are not
; £jjj Boidings, transfeis, or dispo-
f loauniti and
the submission of or compUance with acid
rain permits, peimit apphcauons, compli-
ance plans, emission monitoring plans. CQR-
tinuous emissions momtor (CEM). and
continuous opacity monitor (COM) certifi-
cation notifications. CEM and COM certifi-
cation sad applications, quarterly
nual cmralianee certifications. Whenever
the tei isponsibie official" is used in
mis ciuy*-. it shall refer to the "designated
representative'' with regard to all matters
under the acid rain requirements.
Maximum continuous rating-The
heat input required to attain the maximum
dcomenusd steam conditions or to achieve
the maximum documented eiectric&l output
Unit-For the purposes of the acid
rain provisions of the Act. a fossil-fuel fired
combustion device.
Upgraded units-An affected unit
that did not serve a generator with a name-
plate capacity greater than 25 mepwatts on
November 15.1990. but serves such a gen-
erator after November 15. 1990.
, cwputy OtoMor. Ak
Gumy punning
Tains Air cornel Bowd
«S@se: Septen^er 20. 1998
Proposal pub&aten data: M»y 11, 1983
far ta&m Mcnnaiian. ptoese caft (512)
* * «
Subchapter B. Permit Require*
meats
Applicability
• 31 TAG §§122.120, §122422
The Raw rates ant adopted under me Texas
Healh and Safety Code. Texas Ctean Ar Act
(TCAA). 5382.017. which provides the TACB
trim the authority to adopt rute eonciattiit
ttttt the paiey and pumoees of ma TCAA.
§122.120. Applicability. The owner or op-
eian- of a site shall submit an applica-
£330(3) to the Texas Air Control Board
(TACB) for a federal operating permit un-
der roe requffements of this chapter if the
site has one or more of the following:
(1) any major source as defined
in §122.10 of this title (relating to General
Definitions);
(2) any affected source as de-
fined in §122.12 of this title (relating to.
Acid Rain Definitions);
(3) any solid waste incineration
unit required to obtain a federal operating
permit pursuant to the Act. §129(e) of Title
I;
(4) any non-major source which
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
through further rulemaking. h»y designated
as no longer exempt from the obligation to
obtain a federal operating permit. For the
.purposes of this section, non-major source
shall be defined as:
(A) any source, including an
area source, subject to a standard, limita-
tion, or other requirement under the Act.
§111 (NSPS);
(B) any source, including an
area source, subject to a standard or other
requirement under the Act. §112 (Hazard-
ous Air Pollutants), except that a source is
not required to obtain a permit solely be-
cause it is subject to regulations or require-
ments under the Act. §112(r) (Prevention of
Accidental Releases); or
18 TexReg 6008
348
September 7, 1993 Terns Register «
-------
(O any source in a source
by the Administrator
category
pursuant to Tide ID of the Act
§122.122. Potential to Emit.
(a) For purposes of determining ap-
plicability of the Federal Operating Permit
program under this chapter, the owner or
operator of stationary sources without any
other federally enforceable •""««"»« rate
may limit their sources' potential to emit by
maintaining a certified registration of emis-
sions. which shall be federally enforceable.
rates in permits.' standard exemp-
tuns, other preconstruction authorizations.
and registrations of m**"""* provided for
under Chapter 116 of this title (relating to
Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New
Consouciton or Modification) are also fed-
erally enforceable emission rates.
(b) All representations in any regis-
tration of emissions under this section with
regard to emissions shall become conditions
upon which the stationary source shall oper-
ate. It shall be unlawful for any person to
vary from such representation wO*** the
registration is first revised.
(c) The registration of raniaMorB
shall include documentation of the basis of
emission rates and a certification, in accord-
ance with f 122.165 of this title (relating to
Certification by a Responsible Official).
that the maximum emission rates listed on
the registration reflect the reasonably antki- •
pated maTfjmumft for operation of the sta-
tionary source.
(d) In order to qualify for registra-
tions of emissions under this section, the
maximum emission rates listed in the regis-
tration must be less than those rates defined
for a major source in §122.10 of this title
(relating to General Definitions).
(e) The certified registrations of
emissions and records demonstrating com-
pliance with such registration shall be main-
tained on-site. or at an accessible designated
location, and shall be provided, upon re-
quest during regular business hours to rep-
resentatives of the Texas Air Control Board
or any air pollution control agency having
Trw agency Iwraby certifies that the rule as
adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel
and found to be a valid exercise of the agen-
cy's toga) authority.
Issued in Austin. Texas, on August 30.1993.
TRD-9327950 Cyrt Dunmbwpir
Acting D«puty Dwoor. Air
Quality Purring
T«XM Air Cwtrol Board
Effective dele: September 20. 1993
Proposal publication date: May 11. 1993
For further information, please call: (512)
908-1451
Permit Application
• 31 TAG §§121130,
122.132-122.134, 122.136,
122038,122.139
The new rules are adopted under the Tans
HeaBh and Safety Coda, Tens CSean Air Act
(TCAA). 5382.017, which prevfctes the TAGS
wait the authority to adopt rules earaistant
wih me polcy and ewpaaes of me TCAA.
§122 J30. Responsibility to Appfy.
(a) General requirement After the
effective date of this chapter, the own&r or
operator shall submit to the Texas Air Con-
trol Board (TACB) a timely and complete
permit application for each site subject to
me requirements of this chapter and in ac-
(b) Interim program. The fouownig
sites are subject to the inietim federal oper-
ating permit psograsi and as such, the own-
ers or operators of these sites thaD submit
imfj«i rMffmit applications according to the
application submittal yh***"** for the In-
terim Ptugianii
(1) any site with n afffcttd
source as defined in §122.12 of this title
(relating to Acid Rain Definitions);
(2) any site whose primary Stan-
dard Industrial OassiScaaon (SIC) code (as
described in the Standard Industrial das-
aiilcaikm Manual. 1987) is one of the fol-
lowing (for purposes of this subsection.
each site shall have only one primary SIC
code):
Gas. 1311:
(A) Petroleum and Natural
1321;
(B) Natural Gas Liquids,
(Q Electric Services. 4911;
(D) Natural Gas Transmis-
sion. 4922;
(E) Natural Gas Transmis-
sion and Distribution. 4923; or
(F) Petroleum Bulk Stations
and Terminals. 5171.
(c) Application submittal schedule
for the interim program.
(1) No later than six months af-
ter the effective date of the interim federal
operating permit program, the designated
representative of each affected source shall
submit a permit application for at least the
affected units at the site. Regardless of the
effective date of the program and the re-
quirement to file i permit application de-
fined in this section, applications for initial
Phase n acid rain permits shall be submitted
to the TACB no later than January 1.1996.
for sulfur dioxide, and by January 1.1998.
for nitrogen oxides pursuant to the Act
(407. This subsection shall not apply to
affected sources that elect to become af-
fected pursuant to the Act §410.
(2) No later than six months af-
ter the effective date of the interim federal
operating permit program, the owner or op-
erator of any site listed in subsection (bX2)
of this section shall submit a permit applica-
tion, except that if any owner or operator
has more than one site listed in subsection
(b) (2) of this section, then the owner or
operator shall submit permit appucatitas for
no lea than 10ft of such sues.
(3) No later thaa 12 months af-
ter the effective date of the interim federal
operating permit program, the iyuttHf or op-
erator T^fi11 f"t»»«t an i*"*"1 permit tpplif*-
tioa for those remaining siteU) listed in
subsection (bX2) of this section which did
not submit an application pursuant to sub-
section (c)(2) of this section.
(d) Application submittal schedule
after full program approval. All sues, other
{122.120 of this title (relating to Applica-
bility). shall be subject to the fully approved
federal operating permit program and shall
than 12 months after the effective date of
me fully approved federal operating permit
program.
(e) Owners or operators of sites that
become subject to this chapter after the
program shall submit permit ffr"'ttrgnt no
later than 12 months after the issuance or
approval date of the preconstruction autho-
rization required under Chapter 116 of mis
title (relating to Control of Air Pollution by
Permits for New Construction or Modifica-
tion).
§122.132. Application and Required Infor-
mation.
(a) A permit application shall in-
clude any information, including CTfifidfn-
tial information, deemed necessary by the
Texas Air Control Board (TACB) to deter-
mine the applicability of. or to codify any
applicable requirement except that applica-
tions for a general permit shall only be
required to provide the information neces-
sary to determine qualification for, v<4 to
assure compliance with, the general permit
The federal operating permit application
shall include, but is not limited to. a Gen-
eral Application Form for Federal Operating
Permit all information requested by that
form, and the information described as fol-
lows:
« Adopted Sections SepUmtxr 7, 1993 IB TtxRtg 6009
349
-------
(1) for each emission unit, or
group of similar emission units:
(A) information identifying
each applicable requirement, airy corre-
sponding emission limitation, and any cor-
responding monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements;
(B) iofofinafion identifying
potentially applicable requirements for mat
particular type of emission unit and the
basis for the determinatjem that those appli-
cable requirements do hot apply;
(2) a proposed monitoring, test-
ing, recordkeeping. and reporting protocol
for each relevant emission unit at the site;
(3) information as requested by
the nationally standardized forms for acid
rain portions of permit applications and
compliance plans, as required by the acid
rain rules;
(4) a statement certifying that a
risk management plan, if applicable, or a
schedule to submit such plan has been sub-
mitted in accordance with the Act.
§112(r)(7);
(5) (state-only requirement) the
following identifications on the application:
(A) Each grandfather unit at
the site shall be identified as a presumptive
grandfather unit or an actual grandfather
unit, regardless of whether or not that unit
is a relevant emission unit.
(B) Each emission unit that
would be a presumptive grandfather except
for the fact that the total annual maximum
emission rate or operational limits that are
related to the annual emissions (e.g.. pro-
duction, fuel firing, throughput, sulfur con-
tent, operating hours, etc.. as appropriate)
for the emission unit arc established in a
permit, special permit, or special or stan-
dard exemption issued pursuant to Chapter
116 of this title (relating to Control of Air
Pollution by Permits for New Construction
or Modification).
(i) For each emission
unit, the application shall identify the total
annual maximum emission rate or
operational limits that were previously de-
fined and documented, and the permit, spe-
cial permit, or special or standard
exemption number in which this informa-
tion was established and any documentation
or basis for that determination.
(ii) If. during the permit
application review, the TACB determines
that such emission rates or operational lim-
its that were defined or documented do not
reflect actual grandfather rates, then the ap-
plicant must supply me information re-
quired ia subparagraphs (Q or (D) of this
paragraph to establish the presumptive
(Q The application shall
provide information to define and document
me presumptive grandfather rate for each
unit defined in stibpamgraph (A) of mis
paragraph at me site. laformanoa provided
in this section & define and document me
presumptive grandfather rate shall include
available data related to emissions prior to
January 1. 1994 as follows.
(i) The documentation of
the presumptive grandfather emission rate
shall be based on the best available of data
m the emission rale, equipment configura-
tion. and other emissions-related data dur-
ing tfse seven-year period prior to January 1.
1994 which best reflect the presumptive
grandfather rate.
0i) The best available
data would be me average of 24 consecutive
months of emissions data w data that can be
related » emissions (such as production
rate, fuel firing, throughput, sulfur cement,
etc.) during the seven-year period refer-
'eae&d in clause (i) of tins subparagnph.
Less than 24 consecutive months of rf«ti
may be used, upon approval by the TACB
during the permit application review, if it is
more representative of the range of opera-
tions' which cCTiM be reasonably expected
from the existing equipment coofiguratkxt.
(iii) Any other method
proposed by the applicant during the permit
application review and that the Executive
Director approves as representative of the
operations and resulting emissions which
.may reasonably have occurred prior to 1971
may be ussd to define the presumptive
grandfather rate.
(D) In any event, the actual
grandfather rate for the emission unit shall
be established if the applicant provides 12
consecutive months of emissions or
emissions-related data from prior to Sep-
tember 1. 1971 documenting the operations
prior to September 1. 1971. Less than 12
consecutive months of data prior to Septem-
ber 1. 1971 may be used, upon approval by
the TACB. if it is determined by the TACB
during the permit application review that
mere is sufficient data to demonstrate mat it
reflects operations prior to September 1.
1971.
(E) Upon issuance of the
permit, the presumptive or actual grandfa-
ther rate established by the dvt submitted
shall be the grandfather rate in
subparagraph (D) of this paragraph which
the unit may not operate without first ob-
taining or qualifying for preconstruction au-
thorization in accordance with the
requirements of Chapter 116 of this title.
This grandfather rate does not remove the
responsibility of me applicant to obtain or
qualify for any necessary preconstruction
authorization in accordance with the re-
quirements of Chapter 116 of this title prior
to making any- physical changes or con-
structing a new facility source at the emis-
sion unit regardless of whether this
rate is exceeded as s result of
that physical change or construction. A
grandfather me shall not be established
which violates any emission limitation or
standard required under any chapter of mis
title The establishment of this grandfather
rate does not remove any liabilities or po-
tential enforcement action for past or future
exeeedtnces of the actual grandfather rate
in violation of Chapter 116 of mis title.
(b> Each federal operating permit
jpplicaoon shall include a compliance plan.
Such plan shall contain the following:
(D • description of the compli-
ance status of each relevant emission unit at
the site with respect to all applicable re-
qmremeots;
(2) a statement that all relevant
emission units at the site will:
(A) except as provided in
paragraph (3) of this subsection, continue to
comply with the applicable requirements;
and
(B) comply, as required, with
any applicable requirements that become
effective during the permit term:
(3) for those relevant emissions
units not in compliance with applicable re-
(A) a narrative description of
how the emission unit will come into com-
pliance with the applicable requirements;
(B) a compliance schedule
containing a schedule of remedial measures.
including, but not limited, to an enforceable
sequence of actions; and
(Q a schedule for submis-
sion of certified progress reports. After issu-
ance of the permit, the certified progress
reports shall be submitted no less frequently
than every six months.
(c) A compliance certification shall
be included with the federal operating per-
mit application consistent with the r^uire-
ments of §122.143 of this title (relating to
Permit Conditions).
(d) The applicant shall provide to
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
a copy of the permit application.
18 TexReg 6010
350
September 7, 1993 Texas Register «
-------
(e) A responsible officiil shall cer-
tify, consistent with {122.165 of this title
(relating to Certification by a Responsible
Official), all information submitted under
flllS 96CtiOO> *
§122.133. Timely Application.
(a) A timely application for a site
applying for a federal operating permit for
liift first Qm& is ooc ttttt is supffiittpo in
accordance with (122.130 of this title (re-
lating to Responsibility to Apply).
(b) A timely application for a sig-
nificant permit modification to a federal
operating permit is one filed no later..thaa
12 months after the owner or operator has
obtained or Qualified for any
TACB Chapter 116 of mis tide (relating to
Control of Air Pollution by Permits For
New Construction or Modification).
(c) A timely application for a per- •
rait renewal is one that is submitted at least
six months, but no earlier than 18 months.
prior to the date of permit expiration.
$122.134. Complete Application.
(a) To be complete, an application
shall provide all information required in
$122.132 of this title (relating, to Applica-
tion and Required Information) except that:
(1) applications for revision to
a federal operating permit shall only be
required to provide information related to
the proposed change; and
(2) applications for a general
permit shall only be required to provide the
information necessary to determine qualifi-
cation for. and to assure compliance with.
the general permit.
(b) The application shall be deemed
complete, unless the Texas Air Control
Board requests additional information or
otherwise notifies the applicant of incom-
pleteness within 60 days of receipt.
§122.136. Application Deficiencies.
(a) Any applicant who fails to sub-
mit any relevant facts or who has submitted
incorrect information in a federal operating
permit application shall, upon becoming
aware of such failure or incorrect submittal.
submit such supplementary facts or cor-
rected information no later than 60 days
after such discovery.
(b) An applicant shall provide addi-
tional information as necessary to address
any applicable requirements, as defined in
this chapter, that this site becomes subject
to after the date the owner or operator filed
a complete application.
(c) If while processing an applica-
tion that has been deemed to be complete.
the Texas Air Control Board determines
that sdfiitiomBl information is necessary to
evaluate or take final action on that applica-
tion, it may request such information in
writing and set a reasonable deadline for a
response.
§122 J38. Application Shield. If the owner
or operator of a site submits a timely and
complete applications) for permit issuance.
significant permit modification to a permit.
or renewal, the site's Mure to have a fede-
ral operating permit is not a violation of this
chapter until the Executive Director takes
final action OB the permit application. This
protection shall cease to apply if. subse-
quent to the application being deemed com-
plete, the applicam fails n rabmit in writing
to the Executive Director, by the deadline
" d. any additional information identi-
fied as necessary to process the application.
§122.139. Application Review Sched-
ule. The Board shaD:
(1) under an interim program.
for those sites required to file initial appli-
cations within the first year of the effective
date of the interim program, take final ac-
tion on at least one-third of those applica-
tions annually over a period not to exceed
three years after such effective date;
(2)- under the fully approved
program, for those sites required te file
initial applications prior to or within one
year of the effective date of the fully ap-
proved program, take final action on at least
one-third of those applications annually
over a period not to exceed three years after
such effective date;
(3) except as noted in paragraph
(1) or (2) of this section, take final action
on an application for a permit, significant
permit modification, or permit renewal
within 18 months of the date on which the
Texas Air Control Board (TACB) deemed
an application complete; and
(4) take final action on any
complete permit application containing an
early reduction demonstration under the
Act. §112(i)(5). within nine months of re-
ceipt of the complete application.
This agency hereby certifies thai the rote as
adopted has been reviewed by legal cmmse)
and found to be a vafes exercise of the agen-
cy's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on August 30, 1993.
TRD-9327951 Cyril Duirantorger
Acting Deputy Director. Air
Permit Content
• 31 TAG §§122.141, 122.143,
122.145
The new rutes are adapted under the Texas
Heath and Safety Code. Texas Clean Air Act
(TCAA). §382.017. which provides the TACB
with the authority to adopt rules consistent
with me policy and pwpesss of the TCAA.
§122.141. Authority
(a) Federal operating permits may
contain general and special terms and con-
ditions. The permittee shall comply with
any and all such terms and conditions.
(b) The board shall not grant a vari-
ance, pursuant to the Texas Health and
Safety Code. $382.028. from the require-
ments of this chapter to apply for or operate
under a permit.
§122.143. Permit Conditions. Unless oth-
erwise specified in the permit the permittee
shall comply with esch of the following
conditions
(1) General permit
, Texas Air Control Beard
Effective' dote: September 20, 1993
Proposal plication dale: May 11. 1993
For further information. please call: (512)
908-1451
(A) Compliance with the fe-
deral operating permit does not relieve the
permittee's obligation to comply with any
other applicable Texas Air Control Board
(TACB) rules, regulations, or orders.
(B) The federal operating
permit shall expire five years from the issu-
ance of the proposed permit
(O The permittee shall allow
representatives from the TACB or the local
air pollution control program having juris-
diction to perform the following:
(i) enter upon the
permittee's premises where an emission unit
is located or emissions-related activity is
conducted.-or where records must be kept
under the conditions of the permit:
(ii) have access to and
copy any records that must be kept under
the conditions of the permit;
(iii) inspect, at any time
other than when the presence of the TACB
personnel would interfere with the ability of
the permittee to respond to an emergency
situation, any emission unit equipment (in-
cluding monitoring and air pollution control
equipment), practices, or operations regu-
lated or required under the permit; and
(iv) sample or monitor
substances or parameters for the purpose of
assuring compliance with the permit or ap-
plicable requirements at any time.
« Adopted Sections Septestber 7, 1993 18 TexRtg 6011
351
-------
(D) Records requited under
this permit shall be provided, upon request.
to representatives from the TACB or the
local air pollution control program having
jurisdiction within a reasonable period of
time.
(E) The permittee shall com-
ply with all conditions of the permit Any
permit ftflflfffr>fipliiM*c$ constitutes' a viola*
schedule in §101.27 of this title (relating to
pees),
months, or more frequently if required by
an applicable requirement. The compliance
certification shall include at a
two of the Act and is grounds for enforce-
ment action; for permit termination.
revocation and reissuance. or revision; or
for denial of a permit renewal application. It
shall not be a defense, for a permittee in an
enforcement action that it would have been
necessary to halt or reduce the 'permitted
activity in order to maintain compliance
with the conditions of this permit
(F) The permit may be re-
vised. revoked, reopened and reissued, or
terminated for cause as defined in $121231
of t*"$ tide (relating to Permit Reopenings).
The filing of a request by the permittee or
notice of intent by the TACB for a permit
revision, revocation and reissuanee. or ter-
mination. or of a notification of planned
change* or mtjqp*ml noncoraplianee does
not stay any permit condition.
(C) Unless the time is ex-
tended by the Board or its designee. the
permittee shall furnish within 60 days any
information that me Executive Director may
request in writing to determine whether
cause exists for revising, revoking and reis-
suing. or terminating the permit or to deter-
mine compliance with the permit. Upon
request, the permittee shall also furnish to
the Executive Director, copies of records
required to be kept by the permit, including
any confidential-information. It may be re-
quired that such records be sent directly to
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) along with any claim of confidential-
ity. Any such claim should be made in
accordance with federal law. including 40
Code of Federal Regulations 2.
(H) If at the time of promul-
gation of a new applicable requirement, the
permit has three or more years remaining in
its term, the permittee shall request a re-
opening and revision of the permit within
12 months of promulgation of a new appli-
cable requirement not already incorporated
into a permit. No such reopening is required
if the compliance date of the requirement is
later than the permit expiration date, or if
the new requirement is incorporated in any
federal operating permit held by the site
which addresses the emission unit(s) subject
to the new requirement.
(I) The permittee shall pay
fees to the TACB consistent with the fee
(I) Each portion of the per-
mit is severable. Permit requirements in un-
challenged portions of the permit shall
remain valid in me event of a challenge to
other portions of the permit.
(K) Thf permit does not con-
vey any property rights of any sort, or any
exclusive privilege.
(2) Recordkeeping conditions.
The permittee shill m*ififiip records of all
support infor-
mation for a period of at least five years
from the <***»- of the monitoring WTtpltn
rBetanremisrat. report, or application. Sup-
port information may include, but shall not
be limited to. the data from all
recording* for eemiattous monitoring instru-
mentation, and copies of all reports required
by the permit The data may be stored
electronically. However, it shall be made
available, within a reasonable period of
bme. in a rftMablft electronic or hard copy
form upon request by an Brtjiorirad repre-
sentative of the TACB or any local air
pollution control program having jurisdic-
tion.
(3) Reporting conditions. The
permit shall incorporate all applicable moni-
toring data reporting requirements as fol-
lows.
(A) After issuance of the
permit, reports of any required monitoring
shall be submitted to the TAGS at least
every six months or more frequently if re-
quired by an applicable requirement. All
instances of deviations shall be clearly iden-
tified in such reports. All required reports
shall be certified by a responsible official.
(B) Within two weeks after
occurrence, the permittee shall report, in
writing, to the TACB any deviations, the
probable cause of such deviations, and any
corrective actions or preventative measures
taken, except iu such cases that all informa-
tion required under this subsection is sub-
muted, in writing, under subparagraph (Q
of this paragraph.
(C) Emissions from any up-
set, start-up, shutdown, or maintenance ac-
tivities shall be reported as required under
Chapter 101 of this title (relating to Notifi-
cation of Upset and Maintenance Require-
ments).
(4) Compliance certification
conditions. After issuance of the permit.
compliance certifications shall be submitted
to the TACB and EPA at least every 12
(A) the identification of each
tenn fm^"*"1 or applicable requirement
of me permit for which trie permittee shall
certify compliance;
(B) the compliance status of
the relevant emission "•'*« listed in the
permit relative to any applicable term, con-
dition. or applicable requirement over the
entire 12-month certification period;
(Q a statement of whether
compliance was continuous or intermittent;
(D) me method(s) used for
determining the compliance flttw of each
relevant emissicsi unit; and
(E) a certification by a re-
sponsible official, consistent with §122.165
of this title (relating to Certification by a
Responsible Official), of all the information
submitted under this section.
§122.145. Permit Content Requirements.
(a) Each federal operating permit
shall contain terms and conditions regarding
fjnireinn limi^u^ jixj scndards. compli-
ance certification, testing, monitoring, re-
porting. and recordkeeping requirements
sufficient to assure compliance with the ap-
plicable requirements. Any document (in-
cluding reports) submitted to the Texas Air
Control Board (TACB) that is specifically
required by a permit shall contain a certifi-
cation by a responsible official.
(b) Each permit shall contain the
following terms and conditions with respect
to monitoring:
(1) all emissions monitoring and
analysis procedures or test methods required
under the applicable requirements, includ-
ing any enhanced monitoring procedures
and methods promulgated pursuant to the
Act 5504(b) and §114(«) (3);
(2) where the applicable require-
ments do not require periodic testing or
instrumental or nnn*ngffi)fWrftfal monitoring
(which may consist of recordkeeping de-
signed to serve as monitoring), terms and
conditions which require periodic monitor-
ing sufficient to yield reliable data from the
relevant time period that are representative
of the site's compliance with the permit.
Such monitoring conditions shall assure use
of terms, test methods, units, averaging
periods, and other statistical conventions
consistent with the applicable requirement.
Recordkeeping may be sufficient to meet
the requirements of this paragraph; and
18 TexReg 6012
352
September 7, 1993 Texas Register *
-------
(3) conditions, as necessary.
concerning the use. maintenance. and where
appropriate, installation of monitoring
ttpiipimnt or methods.
(c) Each permit shall contain terms
tad conditions that would require
recordk.eping of monitoring information in-
cluding, but not limited to:
(1) the date, place as defined in
the permit, and time of sampling or mea-
surements
(2) the date
-------
(8) notifkation mat * p»on
who mty be affected by the emission of tir
pollutants horn the site is entitled to request
a bearing pursuant to §122. 316 of this title
(relating to Hearing and Comment Proce-
dures); and
(& name, address, sad phsae
number of .ae TACB regional office to be
contacted for further information.
(b) Publication elsewhere in the
newspaper. Another notice witfi a size of fit
least 96.8 square centimeters (IS square
inches), and whose shortest dimension is at
least 7.6 centimeters (three inches), shall be
published in a prominent location elsewhere
in the same issue of the newspaper and shall
contain the information specified in subsec-
tion (aXIM*) of this section and note thai
additional information is eoataJaed in the
notice published puraiant to subsection (a)
of mis section in the public notice section of
the, same issue.
§122,154. Sign Posting Requirements.
(a) At the applicant's es^ensg. «
sign or signs shall be placed at the site
declaring the filing of an application for i
permit and stating the manner in which the
Texas Air Control Board (TACB) may be
contacted for further information. Such
signs shall be provided by the applicant and
shall meet the following requirements:
(1) signs shall consist of dwk
lettering on a white background and shaU be
no smaller than 18 indies by 28 inches;
(2) signs shall be headed by the
words "APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL
OPERATING PERMIT in no less than
two-inch, bold-face, block-printed capital
lettering:
(3) signs shall include the words
"APPLICATION NO." and the number of
the permit application in no less than one-
inch boldface, block-printed capital lettering
(more than one number may be included on
the signs if the respective public comment
periods coincide);
(4) sigjs shall include the words
"for further information contact" in no less
than 1/2-inch lettering;
(5) signs shall include the words
Texas Air Control Board." and the address
of the appropriate TACB regional office in
no less than one-inch, boldface, capital let-
tering and 3M-ineh. boldface, lower-case
lettering; and
(6) signs shall include the phone
number of the appropriate TACB regional
office in no less than two-inch, boldface
numbers.
(b) The sign or signs shall be in
place by the date of publication of the
newspaper notice required by §122.153 of
tim title (relating to Public Notice, Format)
and shall seasain is place and legible
thceyghout Ae period of public comment
provided for in §122.155 of this title (relat-
ing to Public Comment Period).
(c) Each siga placed at the site shall
be located wimin am feet of each (every)
property Mas paraHelicg a street or other
publk totougnfare. Signs shaU be visible
from the stiett and spaced at not more than
1300-foot intervals. A wmaam of one
siga, but m mse than tares signs shall be
required along any property fins paralleling
a public moroughfare.
(d) The TACB may approve varia-
tions from the requirements of subsection
(c) of mis section if the applicant has dem-
onsffated Aat it is not pfaetkai to comply
with tbe sjEfiofw fequsremeiits of suosectiQn
(e) of mis section sad alternative sign pett-
ing plans proposed by me applicant are at
teas m effective ia povidiag aotke to tbe
public. The approval from ft* TACB uffider
this .subsection ssust be sesssved Ijtwwe
posting signs for purposes of $@nsfyB9g the
of this section.
(e) Tease siga requirements do net
apply to properties under the same owner-
ship which are aoBeoatigttous aod/er sepa-
rated by izstefvesuffig public thoroughfares.
unless directly involved by the pennk appli-
§122,155. Public Comment Period.
(a) A 30-day publk comment
period shall be held by the Board or its
designee on a federal operating permit or
renewal application, or on a reopening of a
federal operatug permit
(b) Tbe Board or its designee shall
receive public comment for 30 days after
the last day on which notice of the public
comment period is published. During the
30-day publk eommeat period, any person
may submit written comments on the draft
permit or may. in writing, request a notice
and eomragnt hearing pursuant to §122316
of this title (reMng to Hearing and Com-
meat Procedures for Operating Permits).
(c) After the publk comment
period and the conclusion of any notice and
comment heanng convened pursuant to
Subcnspter D of the chapter (relating to
Affected State Review. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Review, and Citizen Pe-
tition), the Board or its designee shall send
notice of its proposed final action on the
permit application, or renewal application
or on the reopening of a federal operating
permit, to any person who commented dur-
ing the publk eomraw period, and to the
applicant. The notice shall include:
(1) the response to any com-
fflsnts submitted during the publk comment
period:
(2) identification of any change
in tile conditions in the draft permit and the
reasons for the change: aad
(3) a description of the process
for citizen petitions to the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant
to §122312 of mis titte (relating to U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Review).
This agency hewtoy certifies that the rule as
and found to be a vaJM exereise of the agen-
cy* toga) aut&orsy.
issued to Austin, Texas, on August 30,1993.
TBB-938TSS3 OK* OunnnbeiBir
Aeune Dtpuiy OhMer. A»
Oudty PiamMa
TSWB AK Ceiwei Bawd
Efieetiwe daM: Seotsmner 20. 1993
Propose! pubSealion date: May 11. 1999
Far feather WermaSon. ptease eaft (51«
§tm>l45l
Miscellaneous
• 31 TAG §§122.161,
I22J6.5-i22.I65
The MW rules ara adopted under the Tens
HetSft and Safety Code. Texas Clean Air Aa
(TCAA). §382.017. which provides the TACB
*»> tie authority te adapt rules coreasiem
w*H th» posey and purposes of tf» TCAA.
§122.161. Miscellaneous.
(a) Unless specifically noted other-
wise, requirements under this chapter do not
supersede, substitute for. or replace any re-
quirement under any other rate, regulation,
or order of the Texas Air Control Board:
(b) None of the requirements in
this chapter shall be construed as prohibit'
ing the construction of new or modified
facilities, provided thtt the ®waer or opera-
tor has obtained any necessary
precoostruction authorization, ss defined in
§122.10 of this title (relating to Defini-
tions).
(c) The Act. §112(g). concerning
modifications of sources of hazardous air
pollutants, shall apply oaly to those sites
satisfying the criteria of §122.130 of this
title (relating to Responsibility to Apply).
The Act. §112(g). shall apply at the earliest
time at which those sites are required to
apply in accordance §122.130 of this title.
§122.163. Effective Dote.
(a) Compliance with the require-
ments of this chapter will be required on the
date of approval, as published in tbe Fede-
ral Register, of the Texas Air Control
Board's (TACB) federal operating permit
program by the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency.
IS TexReg 6014
354
September 7, 1993 Jssas Register «
-------
(b) Sites satisfying the criteria of
(122.120 of this title (relating to Applica-
bility) become subject ID this chapter either
on the effective date of this chapter or upon
issuance or approval of a preconstruction
authorization required by Chapter 116 of
this title (relating to Control of Air Pollu-
tion by Permits For New Construction or
Modification), whichever is later.
(c) Notice shall be published by the
TACB in the Texas Register of the effective
• date of the interim federal operating peiinit
program and the fully approved program.
Failure of the TACB to publish shall not
affect the effective program dates.
§122.164. Corfaential liformation. Any
information provided to the Texas Air Con-
trol Board pursuant to this chapter that re-
lates to secret processes or methods of
manufacture or production may be identi-
fied as confidential when submitted. Any
information so identified is entitled to pro-
tection from disclosure to the ft?ctftflit pi'O—
vided by law. If i-««fiH««iri«i information is
submitted, an unclassified synopsis of con-
fidential information shall be provided to
ensure a complete public record file. Any
information required to be submitted to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) may be submitted pursuant to EPA's
procedures governing confidential informa-
tion.
§122.165. Certification by a Responsible
Official. Any certification submitted
pursuant to this chapter shall contain a certi-
fication of truth, accuracy, and complete-
ness by a responsible official. Unless
specified otherwise, any certification re-
quired under this chapter shall state that.
based on information and belief formed af-
ter reasonable inquiry, the statements and
information in the document are true, accu-
rate, and complete. The Texas Air Control
Board shall be notified, pursuant to
§122211 of this title (relating to Adminis-
trative Permit Amendments), of any ap-
pointment of a new responsible official.
This agency hereby certifies that the rute as
adopted has own reviewed by togal counsel
and found to be a valid exercise of the agen-
cy's legal authority.
Issued in Austin. Texas, on August 30.1933.
TAO4327954 Cyril DurrenOtrg*
Acting Ctapuiy Dincnr. Air
CkMtty Pfenning
TMM Air Cortrol Botrt
Effective date: Septemtew 20, 1999
Proposal publication date: May 11. 1993
For further information, please call: (512)
908-1451
Subchapter C. Permits Issu-
ances, Revisions, Reopen-
ings, and Renewals
Permit Issuance
• 31 TAG §{121201, 122202.
122204
The new rubs an adapted under me Texas
Heatt and Safety Code. Texas Qean Air Act
(TCAA). $382.017. which provides the TACB
win the authority to adopt nJn consJstmrt
*fto the pcfcy and puposas of the TCAA.
§122201. Permits.
(a) A federal operating permit may
be issued by the Board or its designee only
if all of the following conditions have been
met
(1) the Texas Ak Control Board
has received a complete permit application;
(2) the applicant his complied
wall the requirements for public participa-
tion under Subchapter B of this chapter
(relating to Permit Requirements);
(3) the requirements for notify-
ing and responding ID affected states under
Subchapter D of this chapter (relating to
Affected State Review. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Review and Citizen Peti-
tion) have been satisfied;
(4) the conditions of the permit
provide for compliance with all applicable
requirements and the requirements of this
chapter; and
(5) the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) has received a copy
of the proposed permit, any notices re-
quired, and has not objected to issuance of
the proposed federal operating permit
within the time period specified for the EPA
review in Subchapter D of this chapter.
(b) All initial federal operating per-
mits, and all subsequently issued or re-
newed permits, shall be issued by the Board
or its designee with terms not to exceed five
years from the issuance of the proposed
permit.
(c) Final action by the Board or its
designee on an application for a federal
operating permit shall be the issuance or
denial of the proposed permit as provided in
Subchapter D of this chapter.
(d) The Board or its designee may
issue more than one federal operating per-
mit at a site.
(e) General permits shall not be re-
quired to meet the requirements of this sec-
tion.
CO Except as otherwise provided in
§122.138 of this title (relating to Applica-
tion Shield). the owner or operator of a site
which satisfies the criteria of §122.120 of
this title (relating to Applicability) shall not
operate such site unless the owner or opera-
tor has obtained the authority to do so under
this chapter.
§122202. General Permits.
(a) The Texas Air Control Board
(TACB) may adopt a general permit cover-
ing numerous ""ii"" stationary sources if
the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) the conditions of the general
permit provide for compliance with all ap-
plicable requirements and the requirements
of this chapter.
(2) the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency is provided the opportunity
to object and affected state(s) are provided
the opportunity to comment on the general
permit prior to its final adoption pursuant to
paragraph (3) of this subsection; and
(3) adoption of the general per-
mit complies with the Administrative Proce-
dure and Texas Register Act (Texas Civil
Statutes. Article 67S2-13a).
(b) After adoption of a general per-
mit, such permit shall be listed in the Gen-
era! Permit List. Pursuant to the Texas
Health and Safety Code. §381 051(b). the
permit listed in the General Permit List as
filed in the Secretary of State's Office and
herein adopted by reference, satisfies' the
permit requirements of the Texas Health
and Safety Code. §382.054.
(e) Each general permit shall iden-
tify the terms and conditions with which
stationary sources shall comply.
(d) Owners or operators of station-
ary sources that would qualify for a general
permit may apply to the Board or its desig-
nee for approval inder the terms and condi-
tions of the general permit. Those owners or
operators of stationary sources that apply
for a general permit in accordance with mis
section shall satisfy the requirements of
Subchapter B of this chapter (relating to
Permit Requirements). An application for a
general permit shall include all informatics
necessary to determine qualification for.
and to assure compliance with, the general
permit
(e) If the applicant satisfies the re-
quirements of a timely and complete appli-
cation, the applicant may operate under the
application shield until such time as the
Board or its designee grants or denies the
application for the general permit
(f) The Board or its designee shall
grant a request for authorization to operate
under a general permit to owners or opera-
tors of stationary sources that qualify. Such
a grant shall not be a final action by the
TACB. and therefore, is not subject to judi-
cial review.
Adopted Sections September 7, 1993 18 TtxRtg 607.5
355
-------
(g) The owner or operator of a sta-
tionary source shall be subject to enforce-
ment action for operation without • perant
if the stationary source, hiving been granted
a general permit, is later determined not »
qualify for the conditions and terms of the
general permit.
(h) General permits shell net be
authorized for gfleeted units under the acid
rain
rary sows at multiple
6) The Board may revise or repeal
any general permit oa the General Permit
List pursuant to me Administrative Proce-
dure and Texas Register Act (Texas Civil
Statutes. Artiek 6252-13*). Subsequent to
such action, tad if the grantee's authority to
operate under a general permit is affected
by such action, the grantee of me revised or
repealed permit shall apply for a federal
opeiMmg permit, if me grantee's authority
to operate under a general permit is affected
by sack actiss and me grantee wishes to
main aumority to operate tinder a general
permit, the grantee shall:
(1) apply by the date specified
by the new or revised general permit, but no
later than 12 months after the effective date
of the new general permit:
(2) prior so applying for the new
or revised ge&srel permit. continue to Kin-
ply with the terms and conditions of Us
existing geaeral permit; and •
(3) subsequent $9 applying for
the new or revised general permit, comply
with the terraw and conditions of the new
general permit, rather then me terms and
conditions of the existing permit
§122204. Temporary Sources.
(a) A temporary source is a station-
ary source which changes location to an-
other site at least once during any five-year
period'
(b) Any temporary source which
satisfies the criteria of $122.120 of this title
(relating to Applicability) shell apply to the
Texas Air Control Board (TAGS) for a
federal operating permit consistent with this
chapter.
(e) Eteh temporary souree which is
located at a site for test man six months
shall not affect the deteraination of major
for other stationary sources at a site under
this chapter, mr does this addition of a
temporary source trigger me requirement to
revise the existing permit at the site. Each
temporary source shall maintain records of
duration of its stay & i site.
(d) Applications by temporary
sources shall include all information re-
quired under Subchtpter B of this chapter
(relating to Permit Requirements).
(e) The Board or its designee may
issue a single permit authorizing emissions
from similar operations by the same tempo-
nporary locations.
Any permit issued to a temporary source
shall meet all requirements under this chap-
ter for issuance of a federal operating per-
mit.
(f) The ewer or operator of a tem-
porary source, permitted under mis chapter.
shaO notify the TACB at least 10 days in
advance of each change in location, unless
me Board or its designee allows for a
shorter notice due to an emergency.
(g) No affected usiss under the acid
rain program shall be permitted as a tempo-
rary somes.
Thfe mgsaef hereby ®ssti®m that tna ruto as
adopted has bean ravfewad by togal eaunatl
and tound » to * vefifl a*sreiM of mt awn-
c/* togai authority.
Stand in Austin, Ton. on Augutt 30,
QMttyPlMMna
Ifisdfoa
-------
(e) The TACB shall take no mote
than 60 days from receipt of an application
fat in administrative permit amendmrint to
take final action on such application.
(d) The owner or operator may im-
plement the changes addressed in the appli-
cation for an administrative permit
amendment immediately upon receipt by
the TACB of the application, if the owner
or operator has obtained or qualified for any
preconstruction authorization require! by
TACB Chapter 116 of mis tide. If no
preconstruction authorization is required for
the change, then the change may be imple-
mented upon filing the application for an
administrative permit amendment
(e) The site stall be subject to ea-
fbrcement action if the change at the site is
later determined not to qualify for an ad-
ministrative permit amendment
(f) The TACB shall submit a copy
of the revised permit to the US. Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
§122215. Permit Additions.
(a) A change at a site may qualify
as a permit addition if me change satisfies
all of the requirements of either subsection
(b) or subsection (c) of this section.
(b) The change at the site:
(1) is not addressed or prohib-
ited by the federal operating permit;
(2) does aot violate any existing
term or condition of the federal operating
permit;
(3) does not violate any applies-
blc fcouircmcnt* Md
(4) is not a Title I modification.
or otherwise required by the Texas Air Con-
trol Board (TACB) to be processed as a
significant modification.
(c) The change at the site:
(1) does not violate any appli-
cable rf^rir>rnfflt
(2) does not involve removal of
monitoring, recordkeeping. or reporting
terms w*4 conditions, or a flrtyytiturjff* in
those terms and conditions promulgated
pursuant to federal New Source Perfor-
mance Standards or National Emissions
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants;
(3)
does not require or change a
of an ffniTT""* limitation un-
der the Act. §112(g) or §1120) of Title I. or
a source-specific determination for tempo-
rary sources of ambient impacts, visibility
analysis, or increment analysis; and
(4) does not seek to establish or
change a permit term or condition for which
there is no corresponding underlying appli-
cable requirement and that the site has
assumed to avoid an applicable requirement
to which the site would otherwise be sub-
ject Such terms and <**""< fo^s inrinA*-
(A) a federally enforceable
emissionr cap «*n«»rej to avoid *i«««ifa««
tion as a aodificahco yfo* any provision
of Title I. and.
(B) an alternative emissions
limit approved pursuant to regulations pro-
mulgated under the Act 5112(i)(5); and
(5) is not a Title I modification,
or otherwise required by the TACB to be
processed ss a significant modification.
$122216. Application jar Permit Addition.
(a) The permittee shall submit to
me Texas Aii Control Board (TACB) an
application requesting a permit addition that
meets the requirements of {121215 of this
title (relating to Permit Additions) and shaO
include the following:
(1) a description of the change.
the emissions resulting from the «*"y
will apply/if the change occurs;
(2) the permittee's suggested
draft permit conditions; and
(3) certification by a renponsi-
We official, consistent with § 122.165 of this
tide (relating to Certification by a Responsi-
ble Official), mat the proposed change
meets me criteria for the use of me permit
addition procedures and a request that such
procedures be used.
(b) Applications for changes that
qualify wftfcr this wtior? shall be submitted
to the TACB by the permittee no later than
90 days after the owner or operator has
obtained or qualified for any
preconstruction authorization required by
Chapter 116 of this title (relating to Control
of Air Pollution by Permits For New Con-
struction or Mortification).
§122217. Permit Addition Procedures.
(a) The Texas Air Control Board
(TACB) shall notify the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (EPA) and any af-
fected $titt(s) of the requested permit
addition.
(b) Within 90 days of the TACB's
receipt of a complete application under
§122216 of this title (relating to Applica-
tion for Permit Addition); or subsequent to
the permittee obtaining or qualifying for
any preconstruction authorization required
by Chapter 116 of this tide (relating to
Control of Air Pollution by Permits For
New Construction or Modification), which-
ever is later, the TACB shall:
(1) determine that the requested
change does not meet the permit •Hd'tam
criteria in §122215 of ***" tills (relating to
Permit Additions) and whether the re-
quested change should be reviewed under
the $>£p'ficapt permit nKKftficition proce-
dures; or
(2) revise the draft permit addi-
tion and transmit to EPA the proposed per-
mit addition as required by Subchapter D of
this chapter (relating to Affected State Re-
view, u. S. Environmental Protection
Agency Review, and Citizen Petition).
(c) The Board or its designee may
issue a permit ftffrft*fati for thMf changes at
a tff* ***** qualify as an "M**"*** ^m/w
§122215 of this title. The owner or opera-
tor may make the requested change prior to
approval of the permit afhtitunn provided
that the ©wiser or operator has I'Hit'f^ or
qualified for any piemmlrncrmn authoriza-
tion required by Chapter 116 of this title
(relating to Permits) for the requested
(d) The permit addition shall not
become final until after EPA's 45-day re-
view period at renewal of the permit or until
EPA has notified the TACB that EPA win
not object to issuance of the permit addi-
tion, whichever is first
(e) ' Until fifil. the permit
shall be a state only requirement of the
federal operating permit
(f) Prior to the issuance or denial of
a permit addition by the board or its desig-
nee, the owner or operator of the relevant
emission *,""*« affected by the change *h«!1
comply with the proposed permit turns and
owner or operator need not comply with the
the application seeks to modify. However.
if the o*Mf or operator of the relevant
emission units auected by the change rails
to comply with the proposed permit terms
and conditions during *h»y font ptsriod. *****
expiring permit terms and conditions that
the application seeks to modify shall be the
§122219. Significant Permit Moderations.
(a) A change at a site may qualify
as a significant permit «i*nH*fiMri>»» only if
the change satisfies one or more of the
following:
(1) is a Title I modification;
(2) does not qualify as a permit
addition, as an administrative amendment
or for operational flexibility.
(3) is a removal of existing
stitution in those terms and """ditkmt pro-
mulgated pursuant to federal New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS). or National
Adopttd Stetuiu September 7,1993 18 TtxRtg 6017
357
-------
Bmisskns Standards for Hazardous Air M-
iatanis (NESHAF); or
(4) is a removal of
recordkeepiag or reporting terns and condi-
tions. or a substitution in a recordkeeping or
reporting requirement promulgated passant
to NSPS or NESHAP.
(b) Applications for changes &at
qualify under this section shall be submitted
after me OWBST or opeff&or has obtained cc
Qualified for any pracos^ructioR authonza*
two required by Chapter 116 of this tide
(relating to Control of Air Boiutkm by Per-
raits For New CoissfiTK&ia or Modification)
for me change.
(c) Per changes that quaUfy as Title
I mmdififjfifflm and ^hae- the easting fede-
rai operating permit prohibits such change.
te permittee shall obtain the significant
any operation.
(d) Except as required in subsection
(c) of this section, ftose changes that quai-
uY as swuucaot Dcrmit flfnontiftfiatiftfts nsay
of any corresponding
change immediatefy after obtaining or qual-
ifying for my preconnuiuffiim authorisation
required under Chapter 116 of Sfeis tills.
(e) Except ss provided in sisbiee-
tion (c) of this sectipe. prior to the issuance
or denial of a significant permit racdHks-
tion by the Board ®r its designee, &e «WE»
or operator of the relevant eosission units
affected by the change shall comply wife
the proposed permit terms and conditions.
During mis time period, the owner or opera-
tor ami not comply with me existing per-
mit terms and conditions that the
application seeks so modify. However, if
the owner or operator of the relevant emis-
sion units affected by me cheap; fails to
comply with the proposed permit terras and
conditions during this time period, the exist-
ing permit terms and conditions mat the
gpplicttinn seeks to modify shall be the
enforceable terms and
§122.220. Significant Permit Modficatioss
Application and Procedures. The Board
or its designs; may mue s significant per-
mit modification only for those changes at a
site that qualify as a "fpiifintnt modifica-
tion and meet the following conditions:
(1) the Tessas Air Comrol Board
(TACB) has received a complete applica-
tion;
(2) the applicant has complied
with the requirements for public paniesps-
tion wider Subchapter B of this chapter
(relating to Permit Requirements);
(3) the requinaaenB for notify-
ing and responding to affected States under
Subchapter D of this chapter (relating to
Affected State Review. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Review, and Citizen Pe-
tition);
(4) the conditions of the permit
provide for compliance with all applicable
jequireragats and fee requirements of this
chapter, and
(S) the US. Environmental Pro-
jection Agency has received a copy of the
proposed pen nut, any notices required, and
b&si not objected 19 isswsss of the mnifi-
*fffinf sennit BttoslioffffltiOB wjfliiffl the y^mff
period spsified is Subchaeter D of this
§122221. Operational Flexibility.
(a) A permittes may make changes
within si penxiittfid site wiiiMNit applying ws
or ctoinieg a permit revision provided that
(1) ite ehanges ®® not Title I
O) the _
and
do not emceed
aider me permit:
(3) tbs owner @r q>erator has
obtained or qualified for any
premssjafssksi affithonzation fequimd by
the Texas Air Control Board (TACB) Chap-
ter 116 of this Me (relating to Control of
Air Pollution by Permits For New Goastroe-
tioa «• Msdifteetas).
(b) Far changes to me fedsnl oper-
ating permit which qualify under ids sec-
tion, the permittee shall provide the U.S.
imruoramental Protection Agency (EPA)
sad the TACB with written notification.
The wfiittn notifkatm sbaU be received by
the TACB ss least 30 days in advance of
operation of me proposed changes unless
me Board or is designer approves a shorter
period, but in m esse shtM feai period be
less than seven days prior to the propsaed
change.
(e) Written notification shall in-
dude me following jnformation:
(1) a desmptio® of the change.
the date on which the operation resulting
from the change is proposed to occur, the
emissions resulting from the change, any
aew applicable requirements mat will apply
if the change occurs, and any permit tefsn or
condition that is no longer applicable *s a'
result of the ebange; and
(2) certification by a responsible
offkkl consistent with §122.165 of this
title (relating to Certificate by ?, Responsi-
ble Official), that the proposed change
meets die criteria for the use of operational
flexibility under this section and a request
that such procedures be used.
(d) The permittee. TACB. and EPA
shall attach each such notice «© their copy
of me relevant -. :,irast
(e) Changes that qualify under mis
section are not subject to the procedural
requirements for permit revisions.
(0 Upon satisfying the require-
ments of this section, the permittee may
begin operations which result from the pro-'
posed change at the expiration of the time
period provided for in subsection (b) of this
section.
Tl* aaancy hereby certnTes that the rule as
adopted tas bam roviwwd by tog» count*
and iound to ba a veld exercise of Iha agm-
cr* tegsl cumorty.
tesawS in Austin, Taxes, on August 30.1993.
Cym i
AcHig Otoiinr OkMer. Air
EStoefe* MK.
For furtar
999-1451
T«M Ate Gem* Boert
20, 1993
May 11. 1993
aa CS12)
Permit Reopenings
« 31 TAC 512&231, §122.233
The mm ndas are adopted under me T»
HeMsami SaSety Cede. Texas Ctean Ar Act
(TCAA), §388,017, twMefc poviMB the TACB
wish the aytnortty to adopt rates constant
wMh me psScy «d PSBI^SSS of ia TCAA.
§122231. Permit Reopening*.
(a) A permit shall be opened and
revised for eatsse only under one or more of
the following circumstaficesi
(1) additional applicable re-
quiremenis become applicable to a permit-
ted site which, at the date of promulganon
atm years remaining prior to expiration.
except that no such reopening is required if
the new requirement is incorporated in any
federal operating permit which addresses
the emission unit(s) subject to the new re-
(2) additional requirements be-
come applicable to an affected unit under
the add rain program;
(3) the federal operating permit
contains a material mistake or if
statements were made in establishing the
emissions standards or other terms and con-
ditions of the federal operating permit; or
(4) a determination is made by
the Texas Air Control Board that the permit
sbaU be revised or revoked to assure com-
pliance with the applicable requirements.
(b) The Board or its designee shall
terminate, revise, or revoke and reissue a
federal operating permit for cause.'
358
IS TexReg 6018 Septewbtr 7, 1993 Ttses togister •
-------
(c) After receipt of a petition for
reopening for cause, as defined in this sec-
tion. the board or its designee may termi-
nate. revise, or revoke and reissue the
permit
(d) No later than 180 days of re-
ceipt of mitten notification by the US.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
that cause, as defined in this section, exists
lo terminate, revise, or revoke and reissue a
permit pursuant to this section, the Board or
its desigoee snail Iflinitnate, revise, or re-
voke and reissue the permit in accordance
with EPA's direction.
(e) No reopening is required under
subsection (a) of this section, if the effec-
tive date of the requirement is later than the
permit expiration dale.
§122233. Permit Reopening Procedures.
(a) Reopenings and revisions under
§121231 of this tide (relating to Permit
Reopenings) shall comply with the require-
ments of this chapter for permit issuance,
including such requirements for application.
public particqution. review by affected
stales, and review by the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency. These procedures
shaU' affect only those parts of the permit
for which cause, as defined in $122.231 of
this title, to reopen exists.
(b) For reopemngs and
under §122.231 of this title, the Texas Air
Control Board (TACB) shaU provide 30
days notice of intent to reopen, unless the
board or its designee allows for a shorter
notice due to an emergency.
(c) Reopenings and revisions under
§122.231(8X1) and (2) of this title shall be
completed by the TACB not later than 18
months after promulgation of the applicable
This agency hereby certifies that the rule as
adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel
and found to be a valid exercise of the agen-
cy's toga! authority.
Issued in Austin. Texas, on August 30. 1933.
TRO-93273S8 Cyril Dumnbwgw
Acting CXputy Piwaor. Mr
Quaky Hewing
Teas Air Control Bowd
Effective date: September 20. 1993
Proposal publication date: May 11, 1933
For further information, piease caJt (512)
908-1451
Permit Renewals
• 31 TAC 5122JM1, $122.243
The new rules are adopted under the Texas
Heath and Safely Code, Texas Clean Air Act
(TCAA), §382.017, which provides the TACB
with the authority lo adopt rules eonsistnecit
wth the policy and purposes of the TCAA.
$122241. Permit Renewals.
(a) Each federal operating permit
issued or renewed by the Texas Air Control
Board (TACB) shall be subject to review at
least every five years after the dr.* of issu-
ance of the proposed permit to Jetermme
whether the authority to operate should be
renewed.
(b) The TACB shatt provide written
notice to the permittee that the permit is
scheduled for review. Such notice will be
provided by certified or registered U.S. mail
no Hess than 12 months prior to the expira-
tion of die permit. The notice shall specify
the procedure for filing an application. In
order to qualify as a timely application. the
application shall be filed by the permittee
with the TACB at least six months, but no
earlier than 18 months, prior to the date of
pel nut expiration. The application shield is
not available to sites that do not submit a
timely and t^uifMete BpphMU&A. Failure to
receive nonce is described in this subsec-
lion does not affect the applicability of the
application shield or the lack thereof, as
determined pursuant to Subchapter B of this
chapter (relating to Permit Requirements).
(c) A federal operating permit may
be renewed by the Bond or its designee
only if all of the foUowmg condiiB&ns have
been met
(1) the TACB has received a
(2) the applicant has complied
with the requirements for public participa-
tion under Subchapter B of this chapter.
(3) the requirements for notify-
ing and responding to affected states under
Subchapter D of this chapter (relating to
Affected State Review. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Review, and Citizen Pe-
tition);
(4) the conditions of the permit
provide for compliance with aU applicable
requirements and the requirements of this
chapter, and
(5) The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency has received a copy of
the proposed permit, any notices required.
and has not objected to issuance of the
proposed federal operating permit within
the time period specified in Subchapter D of
uiis chaiptcr.
(d) In determining whether and un-
der what conditions a permit should be re-
newed. the Board shall consider
(1) all applicable requirements
as defined in Subchapter A of this chapter
(relating to Definitions); and
(2) the site's compliance status
with this chapter and the terms and condi-
tions of the existing permit.
(e) The Board may not impose re-
quirements less stringent man those of the
existing permit unless the Board determines
that me proposed changes will meet the
requirements of this chapter.
(f) At the time of renewal, the
Board or its designee may combine into a
single permit, any federal operating permits.
including general permits, at the same site
which have satisfied the requirements of
this section.
§122243. Permit Expiraion. Permit expi-
ration terminates the site's right to operate
unless a timely and complete renewal appli-
cation has been submitted consistent with
§122.133 of this title (relating to Timely
Application) and §122.134 of this title (re-
lating to Complete Application). Subse-
quent to a timely and complete application
submittal. the site may continue to operate
under the terms and conditions of the permit
final action on the permit renewal applica-
tion.
Thisjtpeney hereby certifies that the rute as
adtupbtd has been reviewed by legal counsel
and found to be a vaH exercise of the agen-
cy's tsgal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on August 30,1999.
TBO-8327857
Cyril I
Acting 0*puy MMOT, Air
OMtty Purring
Ta«» Air Conm Boerd
Effective date: September 20. 1993
Proposal pubfcation date: May 11, 1993
For further information, please cat): (512)
908-1451
Subchapter D. Affected State
Review U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Review,
and Citizen Petition
• 31 TAC §§121310-122312,
122314, 122J16
The new rules are adopted under the Texas
Heath art Safety Cede, Texas Clean Ar Act
(TCAA). §382X117. which provides the TACB
with the authority to adopt rules consistent
wth the policy and purposes of the TCAA.
§122310. Transmission of Information to
the US. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). The Texas Air Control Board shall
provide the EPA with a copy of each pro-
posed permit and each final federal operat-
ing permit.
§122311. Affected State Review.
(a) The Texas Air Control Board
(TACB) shall provide notice of the draft
permit for permit issuance, renewal, permit
» Adopted Section* September 7, 1993 18 TexReg 6019
359
-------
revision, and permit reopening to toy af-
fected sate oo or before the time notice is
provided to the public under Subchapter B
of this chapter (relating to Permit Require-
ments).
(b) Affected states) shall have 30
days from date of notification of the draft
permit ID comment on the draft y»miit
(c) The TACB shall notify me U.S.
Environmental Protection -Agency and any
affected stale, in writing, of its refusal to
incorporate any or all recommmrtatkim into
the proposed permit that the affected state
submitted during the affected state review
period. The notice shall include the TACB's
reasons for not accepting any such recom-
mendations that are not baaed on applicable
fCQUifCIHCfltS
§122312. US. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Review.
(a) After the end of the public com-
ment period provided for by {122. 155 of
this title (relating to Public Comment
Period), the Board or its designee shall sub-
mit the proposed permit to the EPA. Upon
receipt of a proposed permit, die EPA shall
have 45 days to object, in writing, to the
issuance of the proposed permit by the
Board or its designee pursuant to
Subchapter B of this chapter (relating to
Permit .Requirements) if EPA determines
the proposed permit is not in compliance
with applicable requirements of the federal
operating permit program or the rules pro-
mulgated thereunder. If EPA submits such
an objection, the proposed permit shall not
be issued by the Board or its designee.
(b) If the Board or its
fails, within 90 days after the date of an
objection under subsection (a) of this sec-
tion, to revise the proposed permit and sub-
mit a revised permit in response to the
objection, the EPA will issue or deny the
permit in accordance with the requirements
Oi tuft ZCQftTU pFQffrBffl pPOUiUJfHUBQ UfloCf
Title V of the Act
$>122J14. Public Petitions to US. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA).
(a) If the EPA does not file an
objection with the Board or its designee.
pursuant to Subchapter D of this chapter
(relating to Affected State Review. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Review
and Gtizen Petition). any person, including
the applicant, affected by a decision of the
Board or its designee under tNT cnapter
may petition the EPA to make such an
objection within 60 days of the expiration
of tne EPA's 45-day review period.
(b) A copy of the petition shall be
provided to the Texas Air Control Board
(TACB) and to the applicant by the peti-
tioner.
(c) The petition for review to EPA
under this section does not limit the effec-
tiveness of a permit issued by the board or
its designee or the finality of the board's or
its designee's action for purposes of an
appeal under the Texas Health and Safety
Code. $382.031
(d) Petitions shall be based oa/ on
objections to the permit that were raised
with reasonable specificity during the public
comment period provided for in Subchapter
B of this chapter (relating to Permit Re-
quirements), unless the petitioner demon-
strates in the petition to the EPA that it was
impracticable to raise such objections
within the public comment period, or that
the grounds for such objection arose after
the public comment period. The petition
shall identify all objections.
(e) Prior to issuance of me permit.
if the EPA objects to' the permit as a result
of a petition filed under this section, the
Board or its designee shall not issue the
permit until EPA's objection has been re-
solved.
(f) If die Board or its designee has
issued a permit prior to receipt of an EPA
objection based on a citizen petition, the
permit remains effective and the board or ia '
designee shall have 90 days from the receipt
of the EPA's objection to resolve the
objection and to terminate, revise, or revoke
and reissue the permit In the event addi-
tional information is needed from the
permittee, the TACB may request from
EPA a 90-day extension to resolve the EPA
objection. If the TACB fails to resolve the
objection, EPA will revise, terminate, or
revoke such permit, and the Board or its
designee may thereafter issue only a revised
permit that satisfies EPA's objection. In any
case, the owner or operator of the site will
not be in violation of the requirement to
have submitted a timely and complete appli-
cation.
§122316. Hearing and Comment Proce-
dures for Operating Permits. Any hear-
ing regarding a federal operating permit will
be conducted according to the following
procedures and not under the Administra-
tive Procedure and Texas Register Act
(Texas Civil Statutes. Article 6252-13a).
Such hearing shall be convened pursuant to
a request in accordance with Subchapter B
of this chapter (relating to Permit Require-
ments).
(1) Requests for notice and
(B) After reviewing a request
for e hearing the Board or its designee shall
decide whether to call the hearing and shall
provide written notice to each person who
requested a hearing and to the applicant
wimtoTreasonable time after receipt* the
bearine request. The Board or its designee
^reqSedio hold a hearing if the basis
rftelequS by « person wno may be
affected is determined ID be unreasonaoie.
(2) Procedures for notice and
comment hearing.
(A) The Texas Air Control
Board CTACB) shall provide 30 day's ad-
vance notice of any hearing »eg«ding a
federal operating permit. In addition to pub-
IrariffH in the Texas Register, notice wiH be
sot to all persons who have made time*
written requests for a hearing and to the
applicant The notice shall mctode:
(i) a statement of the
time, place, and nature of the hearing;
(ii) a reference to the par-
ticular sections of the statutes and regula-
tions involved: and
(iii) a brief description of
the purpose of the hearing.
(B) Whenever a hearing will
be held, the Board or its designee shall
designate a presiding officer for the hearing
who shall be responsible for its scheduling
and orderly conduct
(Q Any person, including
the applicant, may submit oral or written
nmuamatpt jtuf /}•»• concerning the draft
permit Reasonable limits may be set upon
the time allowed for oral statements, and
the submission of flate""*1** in writing may
(A) Any person who may be
affected by emissions from a site regulated
under this chapter may request the Board or
its designee to hold a bearing on mat owner
or operator's application for a federal oper-
ating permit or renewal application or the
reopening of a federal operating permit
be required. The period for submitting writ-
ten comments shall be automatically ex-
tended to the close of any public hearing.
The hearing officer may also extend the
period for submitting written comments by
so stating at the hearing
(D) A tape recording or writ-
ten transcript of the hearing shall be made
available to the public.
(E) Any person, including
the applicant who believes mat the condi-
tions of the draft permit do not provide for
compliance with all applicable requirements
as defined in Subchapter A of this chapter
(relating to Definitions) or that any condi-
tion of a draft permit is inappropriate or that
the Board or its designee's preliminary de-
cision to issue or deny the draft permit is
inappropriate, shall raise all reasonably as-
certainable issues and submit all reasonably
18 TexXeg 6020 September 7, 1993 Texas Register «
360
-------
available arguments supporting his or her
position by the close of the public comment
period, including any public hearing. Any
supporting materials shall be included in
full and may not be incorporated by refer-
ence, unless they are already part of the
ti***"1'*"•"*"* record in the same proceed-
ing. or consist of state or federal statutes
and regulations. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency documents of general applica-
bility, or other generally available reference
materials.
(F) All comments received
either during the public comment period or
during any hearing shall be considered by
and responded to by the Board or its desig-
nee. The response to comments shall be
available to the public and shall be seat to
the applicant and any person participating in
the public hearing. This response shall:
0) specify which provi-
sions, if any. of the draft permit have been
changed in the proposed permit and the
reasons for the change; and
(ii) identify the party
making -the comments, and briefly describe
and respond to all comments on the draft
permit raised during the public comment
period or during any hearing.
(G) The TACB shall keep a
record of all comments and also of the
issues raised in die public hearing. This
record shall be available to the public.
This agency hereby certifies that the rule as
adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel
and found to be a valid exerciM of the agen-
cy* legal authority.
Issued in Austin. Tens, on August 30,1993.
TRD-M97IS* Cyrt Dumnbcrgw
Acting Dtpuiy OkMor. Mr
ChMfty Planning
T«cw Mr Cenuol Bond
Etfacnve date: September 20. 1993
Proposal publication date: May 11. 1993
For further information, pirns* calk (512)
908-1451
Subchapter E. Acid Rain
General Acid Rain Permit Re-
quirements
• 31 TAG $122.410, $122411
The new ruhw an adopted under the Texas
Heath and Safety Code. Texas Clean Air Act
(TCAA), 5382.017. which provides the TACB
wth ma authority to adopt rubs consistent
win the policy and purposes oi the TCAA.
§122.411. Operating Permit Interface.
(a) Unless specifically noted in this
subchapter. all affected sources shall com-
ply with the requirements of this chapter for
permit issuance, revision, reopening, and
renewal: including any such requirements
for application, public participation, review
by affected states, and review by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
(b) The Texas Air Control Board
(TACB) hereby adepts and incorporates by
reference the provisions of 40 Code of Fe-
deral Regulations (CFR) 72 as in effect on
the date of this action for purposes of im-
plementing en acid rain program that meets
the requirements of TJtte IV of the Act If
the provisions or requirements of 40 CFR
72 conflict with er are not included in this
chapter, the 40 CFR 72 provisions and re-
quirements shall apply and take precedence.
This agency hereby ceftiSes that me ruta as
adopted ha* been reviewed by legal eounsel
and found to be a vaft) excrete of the agen-
cy* legal authority.
Issued Sn Austin, Texts. OB Aupati 30.19®.
TRD-taafffffi CWl DWIMBMRJM'
• Atone Dqwiy Meow. Mr
OMB* Pfenning
T«w Mr r
EffecnVe date: September 20, 1993
Proposal pubfeotion date: May 11, 1993
For further jntamtfttten. pleas* eeS: (512}
908-1451
Acid Rain Application
• 31 TAC 88122420.122.422;
122.425, 122.427 ,
The new rates are adopted under the Texas
Maalh and Safety Code. Texas Ctoan Air Act
(TCAA). 8382.017. which provides the TACB
wfch $19 ftuttWaty to Adopt inutes €09%Ett0m
wth the policy and pupates of th* TCAA.
§122.420. Eifoneabiliiy of Acid Rain Per-
mil Application. A complete acid rain per-
mit application dull be binding on the
owners and operators and the designated
representative of the affected source and all
affected units at the affected seme gov-
erned by the acid rain permit application.
The application shall be enforceable as an
acid rain permit from die date of submission
of the permit application until the issuance
or denial of the acid rain permit
§122.421. Timely Application.
(a) Applications for initial Phase B
acid rain permits shall be submitted to the
Texas Air Control Board no later than six
months after the effective date of the in-
terim federal operating perau't program, but
. BO later than by January 1. 1996. for sulfur
dioxide, and by January 1. 1998. for nitro-
gen oxides pursuant to the Act. §407.
(b) The designated representative of
affected units that become subject to the
acid rain rules after these filing dates shall
file applications no later than 12 months
after the affected units beeorae subject to
those rules, unless otherwise specified in
the acid rain rules.
This agency hereby eartifias that the ruta es
adopted has been reviewed by iagal eaynsel
and found to * a valid mxeres® o« the agen-
cy* Isgal an
-------
the designated representative of the affected
source in accordance with the ccid rain
rules.
(b) Etch sod rain permit shall have
a fixed term of five years commencing on
its effective date. Bach acid rain permit
issued on or before December 31. 1997 in
accordance with subsection (c) of this sec-
tion shall take effect by the later of January
1.2000. or. where the permit governs a new
unit or upgraded unit, the deadline for mon-
itor certification under 40 Code of Federal
Regulations 75.
(c) The Board or its designee shall
issue or deny an acid rain permit on or
before December 31.1997. (if the operating
permit program has received full or interim
approval by My 1.1996) to each affected
source provided that the designated repre-
sentative of the affected source submitted a
timely and complete acid rain psrmit appli-
cation and meets the requirements of the
acid rain rules sad of to chapter. Other-
wise, the Board or its desigaee shall issue
or deny an acid rain permit within 18
months of receiving a complete acid rain
permit application.
§122.434. Acid Rain Permit Shield. Each
affected unit operated in accordance with
the acid rain permit that governs the af-
fected unit, and mat was issued in compli-
assse with die acid rain provisions pf the Act
and the tckJ rain rules i^nV be pfnwl to
be operating in compliance wim the acid
rain requirements, except as provided in 40
Code of Federal Regulations 72.9(g)(6).
§122.435. Acid Rain Permit Revisions.
(a) The provisions of mis
subchapter supplement Subchapter C of this
chapter (relating to Permit Issuances, Revi-
sions. Reopenings. and Renewals). Where
the provisions of this subchapter conflict
with Subchapter C of this chapter, the pro-
visions of 40 Code of Federal Regulations
72 shall supersede the ©periling permit re-
vision procedures with regard to revision of
any acid rain permit provision.
(b) No acid rain permit revision
shall affect the term of the acid rain permit
to be revised. No acid rain permit revision
shall exosse any violation of an iind rain
requirement that occurred prior to the effec-
tive date of the revision.
(c) The existing terms and condi-
tions of the acid rain permit shall apply
while any acid rain permit revision is pend-
ing.
(d) The standard requirements con-
tained in the acid rain rules shall not be
modified or voided by an acid rain permit
revision.
(e) Changes that are prohibited by
the acid rain permit or changes which are
not addressed by the acid rain permit shall
not be made by me permittee without first
revising the acid rain permit if such
changes are subject to any requirements
under the acid rain rules.
§122.437. Acid Rain Permit Revision Pro-
cedures.
(a) Permit modifications. The fbl-
modifications and shall follow the permit
issuance procedures of this chapter and
Subpart C of 40 Code of Federal Regula-
tions (CFR) 72:
(1) relaxation of an excess
emission offset requirement after approval
of the offset plan by me US. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (EPA):
(2) incorporation of a final ni-
troaen oxides alternative emission limitation
following a demonstration period: and
(3) determinations concerning
failed repowenng projects.
(b) Fast track modifications. Not-
withstanding subsection (a) of this section.
at the option of the designated repre-
sentative, permit revisions which meet the
criteria in 40 CFR 72 for fast track modifi-
cations may follow the procedural require-
ments for fast track modifications listed in
40 CFR 72.
(c) Administrative permit amend-
ments. The following acid rain permit revi-
sions are administrative permit amendments
and snail follow the administrative permit
except mat the Texas Air Control Board
(TACB) shall submit the revised portion of
the permit to me EPA within ten working
days after the date of final action on the
request for an administrative """"frrcCTf
(1) activation of a compliance
option conditionally approved by the
TACB: provided mat all requirements for
activation under the acid rain rules are met:
(2) changes in the designated
representative or alternative ^'ipiifod rep-
resentative: provided that a new certificate
of representation is submitted;
(3) changes in the owners or op-
erators; provided that a new certificate of
representation is submitted within 30 days
of the change;
(4) termination of a compliance
option in the permit; provided that all re-
quirements for termination under the acid
rain rules shall be met and this procedure
shall not be used to terminate a repowering
plan after December 31, 1999:
(5) changes in the date, speci-
fied in a new unit's acid rain permit, of
commencement of operation or the deadline
for, monitor certification, provided that they
are in accordance with the acid rain rules;
(6) the addition of or change in
a nitrogen oxides alternative emissions limi-
tation demonstration period: provided that
the requirements of the Act. §407 are met:
and
(7) incorporation of changes mat
the EPA has fetermined to be similar to
those in paragraphs dMQ of mis subsec-
tion.
(d) The following permit revisions
shall be deemed to amend automatically and
become a part of the affected unit's acid
rain permit by operation of law without any
(1) upon recordation by the
EPA. all allowance allocation to. transfers
to and deduct""** &om *° affected unit's
Allowance Tracking System account: and
(2) incorporation of an offset
plan that has been approved by the EPA.
That agency hereby cartHte that m> rute as
adopted has been reviewed by legal count*!
and tound to to • vaH exercise of me agen-
cy* toga) authority.
issued in Austin, Texas, on August 30. 1883.
TRD4327M! C>l« &MW**gr
Acting Deputy DM*. Air
OuaMy Planning
TMM Air Central Bean)
Eftactw* date:* September 20, 1993
Proposal pubfceafion date: May 11. 1999
For lurlnsr information, please cafc (512)
908-1451
Acid Rain Appeals
• 31 TAG §122440
The naw rules are adopted under the Texas
Heath and Safety Cote. Texas Qean A* Act
(TCAA). $382.017. which provttes me TAGS
witti ttw Authority to 4tfopl nilM coftMtfiMt
with me pofey and purposes of the TCAA.
§122.440. Aeid Ram Appeals Procedure.
(a) Appeals of the acid rain portion
of an operating permit issued by the Texas
Air Control Board (TACB) or its designee
that do not challenge or involve decisions or
actions of the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) under the acid rain pro-
visions of the Act and the acid rain rules
shall be conducted according to procedures
of the Texas Health and Safety Code. §382.
032.
(b) Appeals of the acid rain portion
of such a permit that gh«»fflgp or involve
such decisions or actions of the EPA shall
follow the procedures specified 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) 78 and the Act.
§307. Such decisions or actions include, but
are not limited to. allowance •"~-irimi
determinations concerning alternative moni-
toring systems, and determinations of
18 TexReg 6022 September 7, 1993 Texas Register •
362
-------
a technology is a qualifying
lepowering technology.
(c) The TACB shall serve written
notice on the EPA of any judicial appeal
concerning an acid rain provision of any
operating permit or denial of an acid rain
portion of any operating permit within 30
days of the filing of the appeal.
(d) The Administrator may inter-
vene as a matter of right in any permit
appeal involving an acid rain permit provi-
sion or denial of an acid rain permit.
(e) The TACB shall serve written
notice on the EPA of any determination or
order in a stale administrative or judicial
or otherwise relates to any portion of an
acid rain permit Following any such deter-
order, the ^""""ttiUBf win
have an opportunity to review and veto the
acid rain permit or revoke the pwitik for
cause.
(f) A failure of the board or its
designee to issue an acid rain permit in
accordance with the acid rain rules shall be
grounds for filing an appeal
(g) No appeal concerning an acid
rain requirement shall result in a stay of any
provision of me acid raia permit for which a
stay is barred under 40 OR 78.
TNe aoancy hereby certifies mat the ruto as
aft^hnbemrevtorad by teoal counsel
am found to be a vaftd •xaraias of me agen-
cy* tegsJ authority.
Issued in Austin, TOMS, on August 30.1993.
TRD4327M3 Cyrt OumrtMrgw
o OtfOif DkMMr. Air
T«Mi Air ConM I
20. 1993
11.11
For further
909-1451
(512)
Aiofltd Stetiau Stpumbtr 7,1993 18 Ta**g 1023
363
-------
EPA
This following information has been developed by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
staff for the sole purpose of facilitating discussion on the concept of implementing
voluntary plantwide applicability limits for new source review (NSR) applicability purposes.
It does not, nor it is intended to, represent Agency position on any of the topics discussed.
Voluntary Source Specific Plantwide Applicability Limit (PAL) Issues
(Background paper, October 28, 1993}
In August 1p92, the EPA invited representatives from industry, State/local
air poilution control agencies, environmental organizations, EPA Regional offices,
and other Federal agencies to participate in a workshop. The workshop was
designed to provide EPA with input on possible revisions that would streamline and
simplify the new source review process in a manner consistent with the statutory
requirements. The participants identified issues regarding the NSR process and
discussed conceptual and specific ideas for simplifying the NSR process. The
Agency also shared its own preliminary ideas and concepts with the participants.
New source review applicability was a major issue identified and discussed
by the participants at the workshop. At a previous workshop, EPA presented
several alternative applicability approaches. One of the alternatives was the
concept of a source-wide cap under which a source could make various physical
and operational changes without triggering major NSR applicability. In a
subsequent March 1993 workshop, EPA presented a detailed description of a PAL
option as an area-wide change to a State's NSR program.
Since that time various industries have talked to EPA regarding the
possibility of developing source specific NSR capst. To date, one facility has been
issued a PAL type permit and several others are considering the possibility. In an
effort to build on this, EPA is now considering a cap approach which would allow
sources the option of taking an emissions cap as a basis of determining NSR
applicability.
The following pages provide an overview of some of the larger jjuestions
that have been identified and discussed by prospective^AL candidates, State/local
authorities, public interest groups, and EPA relating to implementation of source
specific PALs.
365
-------
1. Establishing an Emissions Cap1
Description:
A "cap" limits the amount of actual emissions from a source. The cap
becomes a permanent allowable level of emissions for a source. From the source's
perspective, the "margin" between the cap and the day-to-day and year-to-year
operating emissions levels below the cap affect the flexibility provided by the cap.
An actual emissions cap assures that "actual emissions" do not increase as the
result of any physical or operational changes at the source and thereby avoiding
NSR review.
The EPA may define, within reason, an "actual emissions baseline" for
determining the cap limit. Because the cap limits any increase in actual emissions,
including changes which would not otherwise be subject to current NSR, it maybe
reasonable to encourage greater flexibility in setting the baseline than the current
rules allow. Therefore, for the purpose of any future rulemaking on cap type
permits, an objective may be to consider a methodology for determining an actual
emissions baseline, where physical or operational changes may not increase actual
emissions above the cap, while reasonable flexibility is provided for production
changes under the cap.
Possible Strategies for Establishing the Cap:
A. Use current definition of actual emissions to determine baseline (See e.g., 40
CFR 52.21 (b)(21)(ii):
"the average rate, in tons per year, at which the unit actually emitted
the pollutant during a two year period which precedes the particular
date and which is representative of normal source operation. The
Administrator shall allow the use of a different time period upon a
determination that it is more representative of normal source
operation."
B. Use the current definition of actual emissions in the NSR rules, but allow an
"operating margin" (e.g., 2, 5, 10, or 20 percent) be added to the actual
emissions baseline in establishing the cap.
C. Define actual emissions baseline as the highest two years of operation in the
five years immediately prior to the application to establish the cap, or :
1 "cap" permits issued or being evaluated under the existing regulatory structure contain an actual emissions baseline
consistent with the current NSR regulations.
366
-------
another two years within the ten previbus years if determined by the
permitting authority or Administrator to be more representative of sourc
operation and does not represent an unreasonable impact on air quality.
D. Set an actual emissions baseline at some reference date (e.g., November 15,
1990) or some interval after a new source has commenced operation, and
then deduct a fixed percentage per year (e.g., 1, 3, or 5 percent) for every
year between that date and the date the cap is to be set. In nonattainment
areas, the cap would have to be reconciled with levels used in area's
attainment demonstration.
E. Allow the cap to be established, but not implemented until a physical or
operational change which would trigger NSR. The change could go through
NSR or the cap could be implemented and the baseline established at that
point. The actual emissions baseline would then be set based on the two
years of operation immediately prior to the implementation of the cap (not
the application date).
Questions:
1. What are the legal limitations on each approach? For example, current EPA
regulations may limit the duration of a PAL to 5 years.
2. What are the practical limitations of each?
3. What data would be necessary and how useful and accurate would the data
be (e.g., changes in emission factors and operating data).
4. What are the flexibility and air quality consequences of each?
5. Which is the best approach?
6. What are the best "stringency/flexibility levels" to apply? (For example,
under options B, C and D, respectively, the levels might be a 5 percent
margin, a highest 2-in-5_baseline, or a 3 percent per year depreciation rate.)
367
-------
2. Changes Under the Cap Approach
a. Changes which Increase Emissions Above the Cap
Some sources with an emissions cap will eventually request to increase their
caps. The request may occur as a result of two basic scenarios. First, an increase
in emissions resulting'from a physical change or change in the method of operation
at the source (e.g., the addition of a new unit at the source or a modification to an
existing unit). In applying for a major NSR permit for the emissions increase it is
clear that the requirement for control technology review, best available control
technology/lowest achievable emissions rate (BACT/LAER), and modeling/offsets
would apply to the emissions units and emissions increases associated with the
physical or operational change.
The second scenario involves an increase in emissions resulting from an
increase in the hours of operation or production rate at the source without any
other physical or operational change occurring. (It is important to note that any
emissions increase above a cap would be considered a physical or operational
change requiring review). This scenario becomes problematic in that it is unclear
which emissions units would be required to apply BACT/LAER when a NSR permit
is obtained for the increased emissions. For example, a request to increase a cap
because of a need to increase the source's production or hours of operation may
result in the emissions increase being spread evenly across all emissions units at
the plant. Modeling/offsets for the increase could be accomplished without
pinpointing an individual unit or process to be subject to BACT/LAER.
At issue is at what emissions units BACT/LAER would apply in the case of
such a increase to a cap?
Question:
* When multiple emission units are involved in the emissions increase, shpuld
the source be allowed to control only some portion of the units involved or
should controls be installed on all units involved in the increase? Does the
control technology have to be BACT/LAER?
368
-------
b. Changes Within the Cap
In principal, sources should be able to make any changes desired without
triggering NSR so long as the cap is not exceeded. However, this will mean that
new emissions units may be added and other changes can take place without
undergoing technology review or other limitations. Some have suggested that this
is a concern.
Questions:
* Should a source be allowed to install a new unit(s) without going through
major NSR if it can remain below the cap, regardless of the area's
attainment status?
* Should the source, be required to install control technology on a new or
reconstructed unit even though it can remain below the cap? Does the
control technology have to be BACT or LAER depending on the area's
attainment status? Should such a requirement be applied only if the PAL
extends beyond 5 years?
369
-------
c. Reductions in the Emissions Cap
Currently, permitting authorities may reduce permitted emissions levels for a
number of reasons. For example, a reasonable available control technology (RACT)
or state implementation plan (SIP) requirement may be applied in a nonattainment
area to reduce emissions from an existing source. Maximum available control
technology (MACT) and national emission standard for hazardous air pollutant
(NESHAP) standards have similar effects on existing sources of air toxics. Under
NSR, emission limits for BACT and LAER can be revisited under certain
circumstances resulting in lower emissions limits. An emissions cap requires direct
consideration of these and other changes to insure that the air quality
improvements sought by these unit specific requirements are "seen" through the
cap. In addition, caps developed under the current NSR program (e.g., Oregon)
recognize that technical adjustments are needed in the cap when emission factors
are updated (e.g., uncontrolled fugitive emission factors, changes in storage tank
emissions equations, etc.). Industry, State/local, and the public will need to
understand and know what adjustments to a cap may be necessary, both
immediately and during some periodic (e.g, 5 year) review cycle.
Questions:
1. Under what circumstances and how should caps be lowered?
2. When should adjustments be made? What type of adjustments should be
immediate and which can be deferred until end of the permit cycle?
3. How should adjustments be made when a reduction may be available for
netting but not for offsets (e.g., early reductions program under CAA §112)?
370
-------
3. Air quality impacts
A goal of the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) regulations is to
protect the public health and welfare from any adverse effect which might occur
even at air pollution levels below the relevant national ambient air quality standard.
An additional goal is to preserve, protect, and enhance the air quality and air
quality related values (AQRV) in areas of special natural recreational, scenic, or
historic value, such as national parks and wilderness areas.
An applicant for a PSD permit is required to conduct an air quality analysis
of the ambient impacts associated with the construction and operation of a
proposed new source or modification. The main purpose of the air quality analysis
is to demonstrate that new emissions will not cause or contribute to a violation of
any applicable national ambient air quality standard or PSD increment or adversely
impact an AQRV. The PSD permitting process specifically provides the Federal
Land Managers with a formal role in reviewing impacts on AQRV in Class I areas.
Air quality demonstrations may be required for some changes under a PAL
which change the source's impact area, such as significant changes in effective
source stack parameters. Requirements for when demonstrations should be
required may be similar to emissions trading policy statement requirements for
stack parameter changes.
Questions:
* When should a source be required to model changes at a facility?
- increases in emissions limit,
- increases in emissions rate but with no increase in emissions limit,
- changes in modelling parameters (stack height/diameter).
* Is the "Emissions Trading Policy Statement" (ETPS) useful for addressing air
quality concerns for a PAL? Are specific elements of the ETPS more useful
than others? Are specific elements inappropriate?
* How can the Federal Land Manager Class I area interests be preserved under
a PAL?
371
-------
4. Enforceability
For the PAL to be enforceable, compliance methods and related monitoring
requirements are regarded to be included in the permit. In addition to the cap
itself, short-term limit compliance methodology is needed to assure practical
enforceability. All compliance terms, including any unit specific emission limits or
conditions and the total PAL needs to be specified in the permit to be both
federally and practically enforceable.
Generally, demonstrations of compliance are possible through use of
traditional measures such as monitoring of unit specific limits. Minor NSR or other
procedural requirements could be used to change unit specific limits. Alternative
operating scenarios could also be permitted in advance for additional flexibility
while assuring enforceability of the PAL under each of the operating scenarios
without requiring minor NSR permits for each change. To obtain maximum
flexibility under a PAL and ensure enforceability, continuous emissions monitors
(CEMs) and\or other continuous process monitoring may be necessary. In any
event, enforcement for PALs must be consistent with general EPA requirements of
practical enforceability.
Usual Conditions to be included in the PAL permit
• Methods to be used to quantify all emissions of all pollutants subject to the
PAL
• Methods to determine compliance including:
- monitoring requirements
- recordkeeping requirements
- reporting requirements
- test methods l
• Practically enforceable averaging time, for all limits (allow for determination
of compliance readily)
- short term limits, generally not to exceed 1 month
- rolling limits not be exceed 12 months or 365 days
• A reasonable description of all emissions units (54 FR 27283)
• Emission limits must be verifiable:
- Louisiana Pacific: plantwide emissions limits are not federally enforceable
because they are not generally verifiable
- use of continuous emissions monitoring to verify total emissions at a
source may allow for plantwide emissions limits
8
372
-------
- otherwise, verifiable emissions limits assigned to all units or groups of units
- an emission limit expressed only in tons per year is not practically
enforceable (54 FR 27283 and LP)
- where monitoring cannot be used to verify emissions directly, limits on the
parameters established for the units or source and monitoring verify
compliance with those limits
Monitoring sufficient to yield data from the relevant time periods that are
representative of the source's compliance with the permit
"Monitoring" refers to many different types of data collection, including
periodic stack sampling, continuous emission or opacity monitoring,
measurements of various parameters of process or control devices (e.g.,
temperature, pressure drops, fuel usage)
The Title V applicability requirements include the emissions limits
established, the limits on parameters (operating hours, production,
temperature, fuel specifications, etc.), the monitoring requirements, the
averaging time period, and the methods for determining compliance
The permit may contain approved alternative scenarios that incorporate
alternative compliance requirements.
Issue:
* How much monitoring is required for enforceable PAL?
Questions
* What conditions are placed on the source to show compliance with the
limit? (methods of compliance, methods of quantification, plantwide annual
emission limits, unit specific emission limits, short term limits or averaging
time)
* Are all of these conditions to be considered Title V applicable requirements?
* How are emissions to be quantified?
* Should emission limits be placed on individual units or groups of units? To
what extent are unit specific limits or limits on groups ot units required?
373
-------
* What type of averaging times are adequate for purposes of the PAL?
* How do alternative operating scenarios affect or assist compliance?
* What are the consequences of exceeding the cap and when are they set
forth?
5. Public Review/Participation
Federal NSR permits are subject to public review requirements. Minor NSR
permits also generally must undergo public review. Therefore, public participation
of some form could be required at several steps in the PAL process.
Questions:
When should a PAL permit undergo public review?
- initial establishment of a PAL,
- adjustment .of cap based on technical revision of emission factors
and other assumptions in baseline,
- "ratcheting down" of cap because of more stringent State or
Federal requirements,
- other modification of cap limits,
- BACT/LAER process, if any, for new or reconstructed units under a
PAL,
- changes in emission limits within a PAL, i.e., shifting emissions
from one emission limit to another within the PAL,
- renewal of PAL.
How can Title V public participation requirements be satisfied in" a PAL.
What monitoring data and other compliance information should be available
to the public, and what process should be used for making such information
available.
10
374
-------
WILDERNESS ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
A summary report of one of five scientific panels associated with the National Wilderness
Research Committee assembled for the Society of American Foresters by the US Forest Service to
conduct an evaluation of wilderness research: state of knowledge and research needs for the 1990's.
John D. Peine Douglas G. Fox
Cooperative Park Studies Unit USDA Forest Service
National Park Service . TERRA Lab
108 Hoskins Library 315 W. Oak St. Suite 101
University of Tennessee Ft. Collins, CO 80521
Knoxville, TN 37862
INTRODUCTION
Objectives of the Science Panel
The Wilderness Management Working Group of the Society of American Foresters has established
a National Wilderness Research Committee to evaluate the status and adequacy of wilderness
research in the United States, and to make recommendations to address identified needs. This
committee established select panels of scientists to assist by identifying and prioritizing wilderness
research needs.
Research issues and questions pertinent to wilderness were judged by the following criteria: 1)
Managerial Relevance: studies important to support management of the National Wilderness
Preservation System (NWPS); 2) Wilderness Dependency: potential contributions to science
through basic studies that depend on natural, wilderness conditions; and 3) Baseline Monitoring
and Assessment: baseline measures of wilderness environmental conditions and natural processes,
and systems for monitoring and assessing change of wilderness conditions for comparison with
managed conditions (Cordell 1992).
Managerial relevance. The concept that wilderness areas require active management is a
relatively new perspective. Research has provided documentation of the risks to resources of many
units of the NWPS (Peine et al. 1988). Baseline information on natural resources and research to
define risk to those resources provides a foundation for the development of an effective resources
management program..
Wilderness dependency. Wilderness designation implies an area remaining in a "natural state"
which is relatively free of perturbations associated with humans. Research focused on how natural
systems function becomes more and more dependent on protected areas as the ever escalating rate
of land use conversion continues on the continent. The environmental impact assessment process
requires that protected areas to be used as laboratories to define relatively undisturbed ecosystems
as points of comparison.
Baseline monitoring and assessment. With the 1980's came an institutional awareness among
federal land managers of the need for resource inventorying and monitoring on undisturbed
ecosystems and the resolve to begin building programs to address the need. In the 1990's, the
theory and procedures for natural resource inventorying, monitoring and assessment are being
375
-------
developed via appropriate research and will ultimately be widely implemented and routinely
maintained.
The Sustainability Question
The Wilderness Act of 1964 specifically mentions "science" as one of the purposes of wilderness:
"Wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific,
educational, conservation and historic use." (PL 88-577, Sec.4b). Research should focus on the
development of a theoretical basis for the monitoring of resources in order to build models to
describe ecosystem productivity, structure and function, and ultimately predict how these processes
might be altered by perturbations, thus defining elements critical to the conduct of risk assessment
of resources. Natural resource Sustainability can be described in terms of ecosystem productivity,
structure and function. The protection of biological diversity is an inherent goal of the Wilderness
Act. The bottom line for research is to become able to predict with a reasonable degree of
certainty the Sustainability of the resource base over the long term for every unit of the NWPS.
Definition of Terms
Monitoring is based on a set of measurements, made in such a manner that they are repeatable in
time and space, have an identifiable representation associated with the system being monitored, can
be made by anyone with appropriate training and can be quality assured and quality controlled.
Information based on such monitoring can then be assembled into an assessment of the health of
wilderness ecosystems. Environmental health may be defined to be comprised of a set of measures
of the productivity, structure and function of the ecosystem. Assessment is a process that
compares these measures against some appropriately defined normal range of measures.
Control of the Potential Adverse Impacts from research
Field research' can be quite destructive, becoming a risk itself to wilderness values. Examples
include the placement of instrumentation that is highly visible, indiscriminate flagging,
manipulative research wherein a treatment is applied creating disturbance to an ecosystem, the
creation of "people" ways in the vacinity of intensive research activity, and the movement or taking
of specimens of rare species. The provision of access to remote research sites can create problems
as well. Caution should be exercised as to the potential adverse impact of research activity on the
resources of these protected areas.
STATE OF KNOWLEDGE AND CURRENT RESEARCH
The Paucity of Understanding
The ongoing process of research on natural ecosystems has barely begun. Natural resource related
research has traditionally been focused on ecosystems and species that are of direct interest to
humans. We tend to study what we consume. Icons of wildlife, fisheries and forest ecology
research in the Southeastern U.S., for instance, include black bear, wood ducks, brook trout, and
species of oak and southern pine trees. Vertebrates and woody plants tend to be best understood.
For the vast majority of plant species, information on phenology and definition of thresholds of
nutrients, temperature, moisture and other parameters that influence population density and range
are rarely understood. Modeling the interdependency of species populations is in the formative
376
-------
stages for most ecosystems as well. Risk assessment of the sustainability of biodiversity on these
protected landscapes is seriously restricted do to this lack of basic knowledge.
A Lack of Emphasis
t
Federal land managing agencies have historically not placed emphasis on ecological research in
designated wilderness areas. Pridrities for research into more intensely managed landscapes have
taken precedence. The awareness of the need for emphasis on research in natural protected
landscapes is growing as evidenced by the emergence of the following research and monitoring
programs.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). This innovative research,
monitoring and assessment program is designed to determine the condition of the Nation's
ecological resources. The principle goal is to provide decision makers with sound data on which to
base environmental risk management decisions. The program is designed to provide "America's
Ecological Report Card." It has four strategic objectives:
1. estimate the current status, trends and changes in selected indicators of the condition of the
Nation's ecological resources on a regional basis with known confidence;
2. estimate the geographic coverage and extent of the Nation's ecological resources with known
confidence; !
3. seek associations among selected indicators of natural and anthropogenic stresses and indicators
of the condition of ecological resources; and
4. provide annual statistical summaries and periodic assessments of the Nation's ecological
resources.
EMAP has three functional components: resource monitoring and research, integration and
assessment, and program coordination. Using a probabilistic sampling design and ecological
indicators, EMAP is assessing the condition of seven ecological resources (defined within EMAP
as: agroecosystems, arid ecosystems, estuaries, forests, Great Lakes, surface waters and wetlands).
In addition to these resource groups, EMAP also has an integrated landscape ecology component.
An ambitious task such as EMAP requires the participation of the Nation's best scientists. More
than 12 Federal agencies, 20 States and 40 universities are currently active in various program
components (EPA 1993).
National Park Service (NPS)
Resources inventory and monitoring. The NPS has launched a resource inventory and
monitoring program in 1990 in 4 demonstration parks. A hierarchical guideline for phasing in a
system for biological, physical and chemical elements of the program is included in NPS-75, the
Resources Management Handbook (NPS 1991). The strategy is particularly helpful in defining a
well balanced program that can be phased in without major expense at the initial stages. Standard
protocols are being developed for a variety of monitoring initiatives in the demonstration parks.
These guidelines are applicable to other units of the NWPS with similar biogeophysical resources.
In fiscal year 1994, the research aspects of this initiative are being transferred to the DOI National
Biological Survey.
377
-------
Climate change. The NFS global climate change program includes a network of 20 biogeographic
areas (including 74 NFS units) representing all of the major biomes of the United States, and three
thematic initiatives (involving 18 additional NFS units). The NFS global change research program
combines paleostudies, ongoing monitoring, field and laboratory research, and monitoring. The
program will help determine the influence of global change on populations, the structure and
functions of ecosystems and their adaptability.
The NFS program embraces integrated, interdisciplinary studies of park ecosystems, as well as
three thematic initiatives mat transcend geographic boundaries and study the dynamics of coastal
barriers, glaciers and coral reef systems. All of these programs not only increase the understanding
of park systems for improved resources management decision-making, but also support the
development and testing of regional global-change models (NFS 1992).
Air quality monitoring and effects. The NFS Air Quality Program includes initiatives in
monitoring, effects research and regulation (primarily new source permit reviews), in support of
the responsibility of the federal land manager to protect air quality related values of Class I areas.
The NFS program has provided leadership in defining the role of the federal land manager and the
development of instrumentation to monitor visibility. EPA protocols are followed in the operation
of air quality monitoring stations for pollutants in paniculate, gaseous and liquid form in 20+ park
units. Effects research has focused on visibility degradation, acid deposition and ozone.
Fumigation chambers have been used to develop protocols for field identification of foliar injury
from ozone on native species of vascular plants.
US Forest Service (USFS)
Forest health monitoring. The USFS and EPA have launched a joint program to monitor the
health of forests in the United States. The program is still in the initial stages of implementation,
but several indicators of forest health are undergoing development and permanent plots have been
established in 12 states. The primary function of the program is to gather and maintain an
objective data base capable of supporting appraisals of forest health at the regional and national
scales. Some of the intended program outputs include the evaluation of potential problems
associated with anthropogenic stressors, the interaction of these stressors with natural pathogens,
the recognition of developing problems before they reach crisis proportions, and the ability to judge
the effectiveness of regulatory programs (Bechtold 1991).
Protocols for resource monitoring in wilderness areas. In response to the mandate of the 1977
Amendments to the Clean Air Act, the USFS established a research program in air pollution and
it's implications for those USFS wilderness areas designated as Class I by the Act. A number of
products resulted from this activity. Among the most lasting was the development of a set of
protocols for the measurement of effects on "air quality related values" of the Class I areas (Fox et
al. 1987). This document has been used widely throughout the USFS and other management
agencies to provide guidance on what should be measured and how it should be measured to
maintain air quality related values in an acceptable state. Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs)
are attributes of a wilderness Class I area that can be effected by air pollution or atmospheric
deposition. They include such things as visibility, water quality, snow quality, soil quality, flora
and fauna abundance and health, species diversity, preservation of threatened and endangered
species, and similar "values" of the area.
378
-------
AQRV Screening. The Clean Air Act provides protection to the AQRV's of a wilderness through
the Prevention of Significant Degradation (PSD) Section of the Act. The operative mechanism of
the protection is a permit that must be issued prior to construction of any major emitting facility.
Development of this permit requires projection of the impact potential from the proposed facility on
the wilderness. This projection, obviously, cannot be based on measurement but must be estimated
through the use of an air quality model. USFS air resource research has developed a number of
models for use in this process and has been instrumental, along with the EPA, in establishing
modeling standards (Fox 1981, 1984). However, a major concern has remained estimation of
impacts on AQRVs, and moreover, what constitutes an "adverse" impact. To make some progress
in this difficult determination, USFS air resources research proposed the adaptation of a screening
technique (Fox et al. 1989). This screening technique proposed red, green and yellow lines on a
multiparameteric relationship between nitrogen and sulfur deposition, acid neutralizing capacity
and watershed ratio of precipitation to runoff for aquatic systems, levels of deposition of sulfur and
nitrogen and ozone concentration for terrestrial ecosystems and just noticeable difference for
visibility impacts. It was further recognized that these screening techniques were of limited utility
because of the real diversity in actual wilderness areas. The Forest Service therefore proceeded to
establish screening values for each region and for specific wilderness areas. These procedures are
available from the air resource management officials in each USFS Regional Office.
Climate change. The Forest USFS Global change research program is a broad national program
aimed at developing an understanding of the exchange processes between atmosphere and
biosphere, the role of disturbance in ecosystems, the dynamics of ecosystems and the role of
humans in natural resource management. Much of this process is germane to the understanding of
wilderness ecosystems because of the influence of climate and climate change as well as other
stresses on the natural system will be studied (USFS 1993).
TERRA Laboratory. In partnership with the Agricultural Research Service, Soil Conservation
Service, US Geological Survey, CIESIN, IBM and ESA's Sustainable Biosphere Initiative, the
Terrestrial Ecosystems Regional Research and Analysis (TERRA) Laboratory in Fort Collins has
recently been formed to develop a structured analysis of regional effects of global change. TERRA
is developing a "structured analysis methodology" to involve scientists, stakeholders, policy
makers, land managers and regulators in the conceptualization of overall frameworks to integrate
their needs and design conceptual models for problem resolution (DeCoursey et al. 1993).
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Gap analysis. This program provides a quick overview of the distribution and conservation status
of several components of biodiversity. It seeks to identify gaps that may be filled through
establishment of new reserves or changes in land management practices. Gap analysis uses the
distribution of vegetation types and vertebrate and butterfly species as indicators of, or surrogates
for, biodiversity, Digital map overlays in a geographic information system (GIS) are used to
identify individual species, species rich areas, and vegetation types that are unrepresented or
underrepresented in existing areas managed for biodiversity (Scott 1993). The significance of the
role of desigiiated wilderness areas to protect biological diversity in the greater scheme of land use
patterns may be evaluated. Such analysis is particularly important for smaller units of the NWPS.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
379
-------
Monitoring. The BLM has developed an extensive monitoring program based on the USFS
protocols. This monitoring program features dry deposition measurements using a network of
measurements all over the world (Riebau 1992). An additional feature of the BLM program is the
development of paired ecosystems where similar measurements are made in US ecosystems and
similar systems around the world, especially in Russia and the former Soviet Union and China.
KNOWLEDGE GAPS AND RESEARCH NEEDS
A System-wide Approach
Since several federal agencies manage areas designated as wilderness by the U.S. Congress, there
has been little attention to treating the designated units as a system. There is no unifying advocacy
in the federal government for treating the designated wilderness area as a system. Therefore, it
may be entirely unrealistic to expect that a system-wide approach to monitoring and assessment
could be accomplished. There would be considerable value to designing a conceptual framework
for a system-wide program perspective that could be used as guidance by the various participatory
land managers. Many such strategies have been proposed but none adopted. There is a need to
seek greater consensus among the scientific community concerning the theoretical rational and
predictive power of such a framework to describe ecosystem dynamics and predict response to
perturbations.
Description of Biogeographic Regions and Ecosystems
There is a need to better describe the natural resource base at a landscape scale for units of the
NWPS. Technology has improved in the utilization of remote sensing data to develop detailed
resource maps. Remote sensing data can be used to more precisely define major biogeographic
regions and related ecosystems. Geographic information systems have become commonplace but
the level of sophistication at the applied resources management level lags behind this rapidly
evolving technology. There would be great advantage to combining the resources of the federal
land managing agencies with EPA, NASA, NOAA, USGS and DOD to develop a common GIS
and remotely sensed inventory of resources for the entire NWPS. Such an effort would go a long
way toward promoting the cultural recognition of the designated wilderness areas as a system.
Continent-wide/Landscape Level Assessment of Risks
Design of a resource monitoring program must reflect mechanisms to track the potential adverse
impacts from threats. This principle was recognized by those who organized the scientific panel
reported here. Air pollution was singled out as of particular concern to the entire NWPS. Surveys
of managers of wilderness areas have revealed a wide variety of perceived threats (Peine et al.
1988, Machlis and Tichnell 1985). In addition to airborne pollutants, other common threats
include both ground and surface water pollution from nearby mining, industrial and residential
areas, the invasion of exotic species, aircraft overflights, border effects from urban encroachment
such as the occurrence of domestic animals ranging into the protected areas, the illegal taking of
plants and animals, vandalism to natural and cultural resources, infestations of pests and
pathogens, and the severing of migration and movement corridors linking designated wilderness
areas to other natural areas. Then there is the mother of all threats, global climate change.
Combinations of threats frequently have synergistic effects on sensitive organisms in the biosphere.
380
-------
Panels of experts can be assembled to provide a cost effective means to define system-wide and
unit specific threats.
Theoretical Framework for a Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy
As alluded to above, there is a need for scientific debate to build a consensus concerning a unifying
conceptual framework for resource monitoring and assessment programs conducted within the
NWPS in order to facilitate landscape scale and system-wide assessment. An underlying premise
that is more frequently ignored than not is to design monitoring programs so as to build models to
describe ecosystem processes and population dynamics and to predict how those dynamics are
influenced by known perturbations. The linkage among scales of inventory, monitoring and
assessment must be addressed in the debate as well. Almost invariably, intensive monitoring
activity at specific sites are difficult to interpret at the landscape scale. By carefully choosing
parameters to describe at the landscape scale that can provide key linkage to intensive study sites
(such as temperature and moisture gradients), the extrapolation of research findings from intensive
study sites to the landscape scale can be much more robust.
Application of Continent-wide Ecosystem Monitoring Programs to Wilderness Areas
Once a theoretical framework is defined, the various research and monitoring programs mentioned
previously can be evaluated as to their relevance to the needs of the NWPS. A safe assumption is
that no one program will be considered adequate to meet the needs of the NWPS. There is also the
important matter of a reality check; i.e., what can be practically initiated in the short term. A key
principle is to encourage the various agencies to focus their emerging inventory and monitoring
initiates in designated wilderness areas to the extent practical.
Adoption of Standardized Protocols for Priority Monitoring
The institutions engaged in large scale resources monitoring programs are actively developing
standardized protocols for resource monitoring. As theory and technology evolves, there will
invariably be changing perspectives on methodology. There is something to be said for constancy
however. In a review by faculty at Cornell University,of successful long term ecological studies,
the one universal commonalty found among programs was a tenacious dedication by one or two
people to keep the project focused and operational (Strayer 1986). This element of long term
personal commitment tends to be missing from the culture of government and scientific institutions
which tends to reward new ideas and short term payoff.
A PROPOSED WILDERNESS RESEARCH AGENDA
Research Mission
i
The primary mission of a research program for federally designated wilderness areas should be to
support management of the NWPS by providing methodology for the conduct of baseline
environmental inventory and monitoring to describe ecosystem processes and community dynamics
and study the response to perturbations, such as air pollution, fire suppression, exotic species,
pes^s and pathogens, recreational activity, and potential adverse effects from adjacent land uses.
381
-------
Landscape Characterization
Resource characterization at the landscape scale utilizing remotely sensed data is the most cost-
effective means to devise a coarse scale resources inventory and document large scale change in
land cover categories over time. Remote sensing can be applied to characterize vegetation types,
stress and mortality in forest stands, and sedimentation in water.
Biological. Remote sensing should be used to define vegetation types in wilderness areas. Such a
characterization would provide a foundation for evaluating the representativeness of specific
research sites. Biological diversity associated with these broad scale vegetation types can be
estimated as well as some forest health parameters.
Two national programs to characterize biological diversity at a landscape scale include the EPA
EMAP program and the USFWS Gap Analysis. Placing priority on the implementation of these
programs in wilderness areas should be encouraged. Defining the relevance of the EMAP program
to a regional landscape assessment should be a priority research initiative.
Geophysical. Digital elevation models are indispensable to characterize landscape topographic
features. Landscape position is a key factor in defining temperature and moisture gradients that
are determents of vegetation patterns and ecosystem processes. This same data base can be used to
characterize streams and rivers by order, snow fields and glaciers, and reservoirs and lakes. The
USGS Environmental Data Center (EDC) can provide the needed digital elevation maps.
Chemical. In wilderness areas where air pollution is a problem, an air quality monitoring station
should be established at a site where pollutant deposition is maximized to determine pollution
loading in the liquid, gaseous and paniculate form.
Research priorities. The following priorities are suggested:
1. combine efforts of the federal land managing agencies and NASA, USGS, NOAA and EPA to
create a system-wide GIS and resource inventory using remote sensing technology for the NWPS.
This could be accomplished using the structured analysis methodology developed at TERRA in
cooperation with the wilderness research community; and
2. conduct research into the relevance of the EMAP protocols to landscape level assessment
appropriate to the NWPS.
Ecosystem Productivity, Structure and Function at the Watershed Level
The designation of paired research watersheds provides a key mechanism to encourage
interdisciplinary research into ecosystem processes and functions. Watershed scale research lends
itself well to building models to describe ecosystem processes and how they relate to the biological
systems in place.
i
Biological. A system of nested plots and line transects in the research watersheds can be used to
characterize species composition of vascular plants, small and large mammals, birds, insects, etc.
A similar system can be applied to characterize aquatic resources as well.
382
-------
Geophysical and chemical. Flumes and stream gauges can be installed in the research watersheds
to record stream flow, temperature, pH, and nutrient flow from the system. Sample soil pits are
sometimes appropriate to characterize soils and monitor nutrient cycling.
Research priorities. The following priorities are suggested:
1. recruit research institutions to establish research watersheds in wilderness areas following a
framework protocol designed for the NWPS; and
2. use existing research watersheds in wilderness areas to test the representativeness of the EMAP
protocol.
Community and Species Level Characterization
Circumstances on individual units of the NWPS will dictate priorities for conducting research at
the community and species level. Studies might describe or monitor phenology, structure,
reproduction and productivity.
Research priorities. A typical hierarchy ranging from high risk to dominant communities and
species is as follows:
1. rare and endangered species;
2. exotic species and the level of threat they pose;
3. sensitive communities and/or species to perturbations such as ozone, acid rain, pests and
pathogens, fire or fire suppression, and disturbance from adjacent land use;
4. wide ranging species that utilize habitat outside of the boundaries of the protected areas; and
5. dominant communities and species that best represent the biome of the reserve.
Viability of Units of the System to Sustain Biological Diversity
Given the above mentioned levels of research activity, one must not lose site of the big picture of
the relevance of the research activity to management of resources within individual units of the
NWPS. A risk assessment and predictive models must be an overriding objective that remains
constant as the research and monitoring activity evolves.
Institutional Framework
Building an integrated strategy among federal land management agencies. If there is ever to be
a systematic and somewhat uniform approach to management of the NWPS, there needs to be a
conceptual framework for management, research and monitoring whose specificity goes beyond the
tenants of the federal legislation authorizing the system. This could be accomplished through a
memorandum of understanding among federal land managers responsible for units of the NWPS.
An additional unifying factor would be the establishment and maintenance of a system-wide GIS
and resource inventory generated by remote sensing reflectance data. The model of the TERRA
Laboratory designed for a similar purpose within the global change research community could be
utilized.
Leveraging university involvement. The research needs in units of the NWPS are far greater
than are the capabilities of the federal land managers. Universities and independent research
institutions should be encouraged to use designated wilderness areas to conduct nondestructive
research deemed priority in the conceptual research plan. Mechanisms to encourage such
involvement include the establishment of designated research watersheds and provisions for
383
-------
eviration of specimens from reference and environmental collections. Documentation of research
site locations and appropriate documentation and storage of data is of critical importance as well.
Mechanisms to facilitate research activity. The federal land manager should arrange for access
to a nearby field research station to facilitate staging of research and monitoring activity.
Providing transportation to field study sites can be most helpful as well.
Setting Priorities
Priorities tend to reflect a combination of pressing resource crises, short term agency-wide program
emphasis, and individual scientific interest. An effective approach to system-wide research and
monitoring in the NWPS should reflect the needs for orderly implementation of a conceptual
framework for the program. Suggested overriding priorities are as follows:
1. develop a conceptual framework for system-wide research and monitoring strategies;
2. establish a landscape level initiative to cost effectively inventory resources and detect indicators
of environmental stress using a system-wide application of remote sensing and the establishment of
a'GIS for the NWPS which would provide a foundation and continuity for all other research and
monitoring activities;
3. strengthen interest by the research community in units of the NWPS;
4. focus on those ecosystems, communities and species at greatest risk; and
5. contribute to the basic understanding of ecosystem processes and function.
LITERATURE CITED
Bechtold,W., W.Hoffard, and R.Anderson. 1991. Summary Report Forest Health Monitoring in
the South. USDA Forest Service, Southeast Forest Experiment Station, Ashville, N.C. 40pp.
I
Cordell,K. January 31,1992 correspondence on the Wilderness Management Working Group.
USDA Forest Service, Southeast Forest Experiment Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory,
Athens, GA.
DeCoursey, D.Fox, R.Watts, R.Woodmansee, B.Faber, and W.Wallace. 1993. Terrestrial
Ecosystems Regional Research and Analysis: an Interagency Laboratory. In Wang, sam S.Y.,
comp ed. Advances in hydro-science and engineering. Washington, D.C. International Committee
for Hydraulic Engineering^ 1-70.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. EMAP The Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program. Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C. EPA/620/N-
93/001. 2pp.
Fox,D. 1981. Judging Air Quality Model Performance. Bull. Amer. Met. Soc. 62 (5):599-609.
Fox,D. 1984. Uncertainty in Air Quality Modeling. Bull. Amer. Met. Soc. 65:27-36.
Fox D J.Bemabo, and B.Hood. 1987. Guidelines for Measuring the Physical. Chemical and
Biological Condition of Wilderness Ecosystems. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest &
Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, CO. General Tech Report RM-146. 48pp.
384
-------
Fox,D., A.Bartuska, J.Byme [and others] 1989. A Screening Procedure to Evaluate Air Pollution
Effects on Class I Wilderness Areas. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest & Range
Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, CO. General Tech Report RM-168. 36pp.
Machlis,G. and D. Tichnell. 1985. The State of the World's Parks: An International Assessment
for Resource Management, Policy, and Research. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. 131pp.
Peine,J., J.Burde, and W.Hamitt 1988. Threats to the National Wilderness System, in Benchmark
1988:Proc. National Wilderness Colloquium. Tampa, FL:21-29.
Reibau.A 1992. Wildland Resources Inventory Display System. USDI Bureau of Land
Management, Wyoming District Office, Cheyenne, WY.
Scott, M., F.Davis, B.Csuti [and others]. 1993.GAP Analysis: a Geographic Approach To
Protection Of Biological Diversity. Wildlife Monographs. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. 41pp.
Stryer,D., J. Glitzenstein, C.Jones [and others]. 1986. Long Term Ecological Studies: An
Illustrated Account of Their Design, Operation, and Importance to Ecology. The Institute of
Ecosystem Studies, The New York Botanical Garden, Mary Flagler Cary Arboretum. Millbrook,
NY. 36pp.
USDA Forest Service. 1992. Forest Service Global Change Research Program Plan Update
USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C. PA-1497. 36pp.
USDI National Park Service. 1991. NFS 75 Resource Inventory and Monitoring. USDOI National
Park, Service, Washington, D.C. 75pp.
USDI National Park Service. 1992. Global Change Research in U.S.National Parks USDOI
National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 19pp.
385
-------
USDA Forest Service January, 1989
General Technical Report RM-168
A Screening Procedure to Evaluate
Air Pollution Effects on
Class I Wilderness Areas
Douglas G. Fox1, Ann M. Bartuska,
James G. Byrne, Ellis Cowling,
Richard Fisher, Gene E. Likens,
Steven E. Lindberg, Rick A. Linthurst,
Jay Messer, and Dale S. Nichols
1 Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. The Station's headquarters is in
Fort Collins, in cooperation with Colorado State University. Supervision was provided by
Douglas G. Fox, Chief Meteorologist and Project Leader for The Research Work Unit,
Effects of Atmospheric Deposition on Natural Ecosystems in the Western United States.
387
-------
oo
oo
Wilderness area"!
Nitrogen deposition^ Sulfur deposition Ozone concentrations
Green Ln Red Line Green Ln Red Line Green Ln Red Ln
Alpine Lakes, WA
Hoover, CA
San Gorgonio, CA
Bob Marshall, MT
Bridger, WY
Superstition, AZ
Joyce Kilmer, NC/Slick Rock, TN
Otter Creek, WV
Boundary Waters Canoe Area, MN
ir ^ i
Kg i
5-7
3-5
5
3-5
3-5
3-5
7-10
7
3-5
Wha-y —
15
10
15
10-15
10
15
15
10-15
10
— kg S/ha-y—
3-5
3-5
3-5
5
5
5-7
5-7
5
5
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
«
P
35/75
35/75
35/75
35/75
35/75
35/75
35/75
35/75
35/75
55/110
55/110
55/1 10
55/110
55/110
55/110
55/110
55/110
55/110
7 See appendix B for description of wildernesses.
2Nitrogen and sulfur deposition are total values including all forms, wet, dry, NH+N and NOx-N, SCXf-S,
SO2-S, etc.
^Growing season average/second highest 1 hour average value in a year.
-------
14
12
10
8
6
60-70% Runoff
40-50%
.. Runoff
x-x-• • vXvX-:-;/
V. •.*.*.• • ••««.. ,',W
•!«V.*.V.V.V.*.V,y
•v.y.v.v.v.v.Jr
•••••• • ••••• w
XvXvX
.V.V.V.V
e e e e e a e*e'
i e e e e e*e*e*
e e e e e e e <
Red values - acidification
likely
——• Green values - no
acidification likely
I.MM.M Yellow values - uncertain
whether or not acidification
occurs
1 e a e e
• t e e
' • • e e
40 80 120 160 200
Base cations - Ca + Mg + K + Na (adjusted for marine influence)
Figure 1.~Oreen and Red Line values for effects of deposition on freshwater ayatema. Total
depoalllon la total aulfur deposition except for selected locations aa noted In the text where 25%
of total Nitrogen deposition should be Included.
389
-------
Structured Analysis Methodology
SCIENTISTS AND
COLLABORATORS
FACILITATION
ftifthft
POLICY MAKERS
DECISION MAKERS
INTERESTED PUBLIC
LAND MANAGERS
REGULATORS
STEPS IN COMPLETING THE
STRUCTURED ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
ISSUE TO BE
ANALYZED
f
TEMPORAL AND
SPATIAL SCALE
QUALITATIVE EFFECTS
OF ISSUE
CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM
OF ANALYSES
I
FORMAL MODEL
OF ANALYSES
I
ANALYSES AND
ASSESSMENT
INTERPRETATION AND
PRESENTATION
VO
Figure
------- |