PROGRESS th
PREVENTION &
CONTROL AIR
POLLUTION in 1974
Report to Congress
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY • 4TH & MSTREET SOUTH WEST
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2O46O
-------
PROGRESS IN THE PREVENTION AND
CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION
IN 1974
ANNUAL REPORT
OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
TO
THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
IN COMPLIANCE WITH
THE CLEAN AIR ACT AS AMENDED
-------
Table of Contents
Chapter Page
Preface ............ ................. v
I. Introduction .......................... 1
II. Progress and Problems Associated with Control of
Mobile Source Emissions and the Research Efforts
Related Thereto ................... ...... 5
- Measures Taken to Implement Mandated Title II
Emission Standards
- Transportation Control Plans ................. 12
- Additional Activities in the Mobile Source Area ....... 1C
ID
- Mobile Source Research and Development ............ oc
£0
III. The Development of Air Quality Criteria and Recommended
Emission Control Requirements ................. ~
- National Ambient Air Quality Standards
- National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPS) ...................... 33
- New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), section 111 -
Clean Air Act ......................... 34
- Health Effects Research ................... 39
IV. The Status of Enforcement Actions Taken Pursuant to this Act. . . ^
- Stationary Source Enforcement ................. ^
- Mobile Source Enforcement .............. ..... 53
V. The Status of State Implementation Plans Approvals,
Disapprovals, and Promulgations, and Progress Towards
Attainment of National Standards ................ 61
-------
Chapter Page
- Attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards 63
- Issues Affecting Development and Implementation of
State Implementation Plans 67
VI. Status of Air Monitoring and Trends in Air Quality 79
- Air Quality Trends: 1970 - 1973 81
- Monitoring Strategy and Methods 85
VII. The Development of New and Improved Air Pollution
Control Techniques 97
- Stationary Source Air Pollution Control 97
VIII. The Development of Instrumentation to Monitor Emissions and
Air Quality 103
- Monitoring Development 104
- Quality Control 105
IX. Standards Set or Under Consideration Pursuant to Title II of this
Act 107
X. The Status of State, Interstate, and Local Pollution Control
Programs Established Pursuant To and Associated By This Act . . H3
- Federal Financial Assistance to Air Pollution Control
Agencies 114
- Progress of State and Local Air Pollution Control Programs . .114
Appendix - Summary of EPA's Stationary Source Air Enforcement
Actions 123
ii
-------
TABLES
Page
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
-Major Air Pollution Control Regulations and
Standards Issued During 1974
-Existing Emissions Standards.
-Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Gasoline and
Diesel Engines
Table 4 -Areas Requiring Transportation Control Plans.
Table 5 -Status of Standards of Performance.
Table 6 -Mobile Source Enforcement Actions
2
7
8
15
36
60
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14
Table 15
-Status of State Implementation Plans, Summary,
-National Summary of Air Monitoring Stations Reporting
1973 Data To the National Aerometric Data Bank,
June 1974
-National Summary of AQCR Status Versus Particulate
Standards, 1973
-National Summary of AQCR Status Versus Sulfur Dioxide
Standards, 1973
-National Summary of AQCR Versus Carbon Monoxide
Standards, 1973
-National Summary of AQCR Status Versus the Oxidant
Standard, 1973
-Growth in Number of Monitoring Instruments, 1970-1974
-Summary of Grant Awards to State and Local Air Pollu-
tion Control Agencies, by State
-Personnel Employed by State and Local Air Pollution
Control Agencies
62
87
88
89
90
91
92
115
118
m
-------
Table of Figures
Page
Figure 1 -National and Regional Trends in Total
Suspended Particulates, 1970-1973 93
Figure 2 -National and Regional Trends in Sulfur
Dioxide, 1970-1973 94
Figure 3 -Composite Averages of Second High Annual 1-hour
Oxidant Values for Areas Within
California 95
Figure 4 -Annual Average Percent of Values Above the 8-hour
Carbon Monoxide Standard for Selected Areas,
1970-1973 96
Figure 5 -Comparison of Actual and Needed State and Local
Air Pollution Control Program Manpower 121
Figure 6 -Comparison of Actual and Needed State and Local
Air Pollution Control Program Funds 122
IV
-------
PREFACE
The Clean Air Act, as amended, authorizes a national program of
air pollution research, regulation, and enforcement activities. This
program is directed at the Federal level by the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). However, primary responsibility for the prevention
and control of air pollution at its source rests with State and local
governments. EPA's role is to conduct research and development programs,
set national goals (via standards and regulations), provide technical and
financial assistance to the States, and, where necessary, supplement State
implementation and enforcement programs.
Section 313 of the Clean Air Act requires the Administrator to
report yearly on measures taken toward implementing the purpose and intent
of the Act. Section 313 reads as follows:
"Not later than six months after the effective
date of this section and not later than January
10 of each calendar year beginning after such date,
the Administrator shall report to the Congress on
measures taken toward implementing the purpose and
intent of this Act including, but not limited to,
(1) the progress and problems associated with
control of automotive exhaust emissions and the
research efforts related thereto; (2) the develop-
ment of air quality criteria and recommended emission
control requirements; (3) the status of enforcement
actions taken pursuant to this Act; (4) the status
of State ambient air standards setting, including
such plans for implementation and enforcement as
have been developed; (5) the extent of development
and expansion of air pollution monitoring systems;
(6) progress and problems related to development
of new and improved control techniques; (7) the
development of quantitative and qualitative in-
strumentation to monitor emissions and air quality;
-------
(8) standards set or under consideration pursuant
to title II of this Act; (9) the status of State,
interstate, and local pollution control programs
established pursuant to and assisted by this Act;
and (10) the reports and recommendations made by
the President's Air Quality Advisory Board."
This report covers the period January 1 to December 31, 1974, and describes
the major elements of progress toward the prevention and control of air
pollution that have been made by EPA since the last report.
VI
-------
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
This report reviews the progress that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has made during the year 1974 in the control and
prevention of air pollution. It follows the order of topics listed in
Section 313 of the Clean Air Act, except that additional measures of progress
have been added where appropriate.
The major events which took place during 1974 are briefly summarized
here, and discussed more fully in the text of the report. Table 1, which
follows, lists the major regulations and standards to control air pollution
which were issued by EPA during 1974.
o Passage of the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination
Act, which:
- set a new deadline of 1977 for interim auto-
mobile emissions standards for hydrocarbons and
carbon monoxide, with the possibility for a 1-year
extension.
- calls for a review of each State Implementation Plan
to determine whether revisions can be made to alleviate
the shortages of clean fuels without interfering with
attainment of NAAQS.
o Identification of 34 areas requiring transportation
controls, and review of air quality data to determine
whether additional areas will need these controls.
o Initiation of alternative automotive fuels feasibility program
o Review of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by
the National Academy of Sciences, which supported the standards
and the bases on which they were set.
0 Revisions and amendments proposed to the National Emissions
Standards for Hazardous Pollutants asbestos and mercury.
o Promulgation of New Source Performance Standards for seven
source categories, and proposal of standards for eight
additional categories.
o Submission of EPA's final response to the remand of the NSPS
petition for review in Portland vs Ruckelslwist on November
5, 1974.
1
-------
ro
Table 1
Major Air Pollution Control Regulations and Standards Issued During 1974
Subject .
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Pollutant
-Clarifying Amendment
-Increased Applicability
New Source Performance Standard (Group II)
New Source Performance Standard (Group II-A)
New Source Performance Standard (Group III)
New Source Performance Standard - general regulations
Regulations for the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of Air Quality
Indirect Source Regulations
Emission Standards for Supersonic Aircraft
Date
Published
in Federal
Reqister
May 3, 1974
Oct. 25, 1974
March 8, 1974
Oct. 16, 1974
October, 1974
Sept/Oct, 1974
Dec. 5, 1974
Feb. 25, 1974
July 22, 1974
Status
Final
Proposed
Final
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Final
Final
Proposed
Discussed
in Chapter
III
III
III
III
III
III
V
V
II
-------
Proposal under New Source Performance Standards of general
regulations concerning the definition of modifications for
NSPS application, procedures for submission of State plans
for non-criteria pollutants, and use of continuous emission
monitors.
Initiation of 271 enforcement actions against stationary
sources.
o Proposal of 188 potential problem areas for maintenance
of air quality, with final designation of these areas
scheduled for early in 1975.
o Promulgation of the area classification plan for prevention
of significant deterioration of air quality, with a request
to Congress to further review this issue.
o Promulgation of regulations requiring States to develop
procedures to assess the air quality impact of indirect
sources, later suspended until July 1, 1975.
o Discovery of data from CO and Ox monitors in Priority III
AQCP.'s showing values exceeding the national ambient air
quality standards for these two pollutants.
o Monitoring which shows average concentrations of TSP and S02
on a predominant downward trend in the nation as a whole.
o Techniques for detection of vinyl chloride developed as a
laboratory prototype.
o Promulgation of regulations for control of emissions from
diesel powered, light-duty trucks.
o Issuance of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to
control emissions from new motorcycles.
o Publication of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for
conversion of standards for motor-vehicle hydrocarbon exhaust
emissions to a non-methane basis.
o Promulgation of regulations requiring certification of new
vehicles offered for sale in high altitude regions.
o Proposal of emissions standards for supersonic aircraft.
o Increase of EPA support of State and local control agencies
from $50.5 million in Fiscal Year 1973 to $51.5 in Fiscal
Year 1974.
-------
Increase of State and local control agency personnel from
6195 in Fiscal Year 1973 to 7236 in Fiscal Year 1974.
Increase of State and local control agency funding by 13%
and manpower by 15% from 1973 to 1974.
-------
II. THE PROGRESS AND PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH CONTROL OF MOBILE SOURCE
EMISSIONS AND THE RESEARCH EFFORTS RELATED THERETO
Title II of the Clean Air Act mandated at least 90 percent reductions
in carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), and oxides of nitrogen (NOX)
emissions from light-duty vehicles and engines, and gave the Administrator
authority to prescribe certain other emission standards for automobiles,
trucks, and planes.
MEASURES TAKEN TO IMPLEMENT MANDATED TITLE II EMISSION STANDARDS
Suspension of HC and CO Emission Standards for 1975 Model Year Autos
In 1972, EPA denied the requests of five manufacturers for 1-year
suspension of the nationwide statutory 1975 automobile emission standards
for HC and CO. As a result of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit, EPA in 1973 was required to reconsider
its earlier decision. Following extensive public hearings, EPA on April 11,
1973, suspended the statutory 1975 HC and CO emission standards until
1976 and established a set of interim standards for 1975. A more restrictive
set of interim standards was established for vehicles sold in California than
for vehicles sold in the rest of the country. The California standards were
designed to require the use of catalyst systems on automobiles sold in that
State. Suspension of the nationwide standards was intended to avoid economic
difficulties involved in forcing catalyst technology on all 1975 domestic
vehicles, while the State of California adopted standards which provide for
a gradual phasing-in of catalyst technology prior to 1976. However, many manu-
facturers have opted to use catalysts on most of their "non-California" 1975
vehicles, due to the fuel economy advantage that catalysts offer.
-------
Suspension of NOx Emission Standard for 1976 Model Year Light-Duty Vehicles
On July 30, 1973, after 9 days of public hearings, the Administrator granted
Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, and Chrysler Corporation a
suspension of the effective date of the statutory 1976 NOx emission standard
for light-duty vehicles for 1 year as allowed by Section 202(b)(5)(D) of the
Clean Air Act.
The Administrator established an interim standard of 2.0 grams per
mile. The suspended standard was 0.4 grams per mile.
Extension of Deadlines for Statutory Emission Standards by the Environmental
Supply and Energy Coordination Act of 1974 — With the passage of Energy
Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974, the status of the interim
standards changed and new deadlines were set for achievement of the standards,
corresponding to the 90% reductions mandated by the Clean Air Act of 1970.
The new Act provides that those statutory standards for HC and CO (originally
to be met by the 1975 model year) are now to be met by the 1977 model year with
the possibility of an additional 1-year extension. The Clean Air Act statutory
standards for NOx (originally to be met by the 1976 model year) are now to be
met by the 1978 model year. Current standards reflecting the Energy Act
provisions and EPA promulgations are summarized in Tables 2 and 3.
Certification Testing
Certification of new passenger cars for compliance with Federal
emission standards began with 1968 model year vehicles. The program in-
cludes testing prototype vehicles which represent all new motor vehicles
sold in the United States. The manufacturer is required to submit data
showing that prototypes conform to Federal standards for exhaust, crank-
case, and fuel evaporative emissions. EPA carries out a review of the
manufacturer's data and performs conformatory tests on selected prototypes.
-------
TABLE 2
EXISTING EMISSIONS STANDARDS
1975
1976
1977-
1978
TYt'E OF VEHICLE
bxgnt-duty gasoline
passenger vehicle
Light-duty diesel
passenger vehicle
Light-duty gasoline
truck
light* duty diesel
truck (proposed)
(National)
(California)
(National)
(California)
(National;
(California)
(National ;
HC CO
1.5 15
.9 9
L.5 15
.9 9
>.0 20
>.0 20
NOx
HC CO
(emissions
3.1
2.0
3.1
2.0
3.1
2.0
1.5
.9
1.5
.9
2.0
.9
2.0
NOx
HC CO NOx
HC CO Ntt-:
expressed as grams per mile)
15
9
15
9
20
17
20
3.1
2.0
3.1
2.0
3.1
2.0
3.1
0.41 3.4 2.0
0.41 3.4 2.0
2.0 20 3.1
2.0 20 3.1
0.41 3.4 0.4
0.41 3.4 0.4
— MOTE: the 1977 emission standards for hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide are listed in this table.
The guidelines for determination of a 1 year suspension of HC and CO are found in House Report 93-1013 (pages 23-25).
-------
TABLE 3
EMISSIONS STANDARDS FOR
HEAVY - DUTY GASOLINE AND DIESEL ENGINES
(a)
1975 and 1976 Model years
(grams/brake horespower/hour)
(b)
HC and NOx CO
Heavy-duty
Gasoline engine
Heavy-duty
Diesel engine
(National)
(California)
(National)
(California)
16
10
16
10
40
30
40
30
a) Standards for 1977 and 1978 have not been set,
b) Standards apply to the combined emission of hydrocarbon and
nitrogen oxides.
8
-------
During the past year, certification of most 1975 model year light-
duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines was completed, and certification
of 1976 models is now underway. The certification program for the 1975
model year involved monitoring the test programs of approximately 60
manufacturers, and reviewing durability data from approximately 450 vehicles
and engines, and emission data from 700 vehicles and engines. These figures
represent an increase over the previous model year of 100% for durability
checks and 42% for emissions checks. To reach this level of certification,
EPA conducted approximately 2,500 planned emissions tests, or an increase
of 100% over the previous year. The increase resulted primarily from
California's adoption of a separate set of emission standards which most
manufacturers met by producing a different vehicle to be marketed only in
California.
As a result of the unauthorized and unreported maintenance practices
by Ford Motor Company on 1973 certification vehicles, EPA has expanded its
certification program to increase surveillance of domestic manufacturers1
testing programs. EPA inspectors now perform periodic checks of manufacturers'
facilities and records to insure that established test procedures were
followed, and investigate reports of possible violations of regulations. In-
depth inspections of major manufacturers' programs are made annually.
In addition to the requirements for certification of motor vehicles
and engines prior to mass production, EPA has regulations governing changes
to vehicles and engines during mass production and during introduction of
new models. Approximately 850 requests for such changes during this past
calendar year were reviewed and more than 200 tests were conducted to determine
compliance with standards.
-------
Since the 1971 model year, emission test results have been published
in the Federal Register. Beginning with the 1973 model year, the fuel
consumption during the emission test has also been determined and published
in the Federal Register, as well as in a booklet for consumer use. Fuel
economy information was presented to car buyers by manufacturers participating
in the EPA/FEA sponsored fuel economy labeling program. The driving cycle
used in that emission test is representative of typical city driving common
to urban commuting. To provide the consumer with additional fuel economy
information, a highway fuel economy test procedure was developed early this
year for testing 1975 and later model year vehicles. EPA will be able to
provide emission test results and a broad picture of fuel economy test results
for consumers who are concerned with both air quality and fuel economy.
Assessment of Mobile Source Technology
More than 70 percent of all 1975 model cars are expected to be equipped
with catalysts, a considerably larger number than EPA's earlier expectations.
The 49-State interim standards for the 1975 model year (excluding California)
permit manufacturers to choose between catalyst and noncatalyst systems. The
greater than expected use of catalysts for the 1975 model year results from
the fuel economy advantage they offer, A problem recently discovered - sulfate
emissions from catalysts - is discussed o
The sales-weighted fuel economy of the 1975 model year fleet, assuming the
same model mix in 1974 and 1975, is 13.5 percent better than the 1974 fleet
according to EPA certification data. In addition to catalysts changes in
carburetion, lower axle ratios, and electronic ignition systems will contribute
to improved fuel economy.
10
-------
In meeting past emission standards, most manufacturers used the
same basic approach of engine modification (i.e., spark retard, intake
manifold preheating and faster acting chokes) and exhaust gas recircula-
tion. The 1975 models are utilizing a greater variety of control
approaches. Saab, for example, is using fuel injection and no catalyst
to meet both the Federal and California interim standards. Mazda is
using a thermal reactor. Honda will use its compound vortex controlled
combustion (CVCC) stratified charge engine to meet the California interim
standards.
EPA's technical staff have analyzed extensive information provided
by automobile manufacturers under the provisions of Section 202(b)(4)
concerning their progress toward meeting the Federal emission standards.
The paragraphs which follow represent the collecti ve judgement of EPA
engineers directly responsible for the interpretation and analysis of
the information.
It is expected that manufacturers will not need to drop many, if
any, of the line of vehicles offered in the 1975 model year in order
to meet the 0.41 grams/mile HC, 3.4 grams/mile CO, and 2.0 grams/mile
NOV standards required by Congress for the 1977 model year. Fuel
A
economy at these levels will depend heavily on the advances made beyond
the systems designed to meet the 1975 California interim standards. If
manufacturers do nothing but add spark retard to their California systems,
there will be significant losses of fuel economy on 1977 models relative
to 1975 models. If manufacturers are willing to increase the costs of
emission control systems, such techniques as improved catalyst formulation
and configuration, improved quick-heat manifolds, and improved exhaust
11
-------
gas recirculation can be used to make the average fuel economy of
1977 models as good or better than that of 1975 models.
Automobile industry research to meet the Clean Air Act statutory
levels was drastically reduced during 1973 due to the uncertainty of
the need to meet a 0.40 grams/mile NOx standard. The primary obstacle
to meeting the standard with reducing catalysts or single bed oxidation-
reduction catalysts appears to be the lack of an advanced fuel metering
system and advanced hydrocarbon control techniques. The use of an oxidation
catalyst in front of the reduction catalyst shows promise of avoiding
sudden increases in oxygen concentration caused by the lack of precise
fuel metering. In general, a 0.40 NOx standard, the present legislative
target for light-duty passenger vehicles, would be expected to solidify the
use of catalytic technology.
TRANSPORTATION CONTROL PLANS
Some 34 metropolitan areas in 23 States (including the District
of Columbia) are currently required to implement transportation control
measures, in addition to stationary source emissions controls and the
Federal new car emission controls, to attain ambient air quality standards
for CO or photochemical oxidants. In addition, the latest air quality
data are being examined to identify other metropolitan areas in which
air quality standards for CO or photochemical oxidants might be exceeded.
Initial review of these data indicates that measures similar to transporta-
tion controls may be needed in 20 additional areas. (See Chapter VI.)
A number of States submitted transportation control plans for
EPA's approval. When review of the State plan did not demonstrate that
12
-------
air quality standards would be attained, EPA (1) published notice to
that effect in the Federal Register, and (2) proposed a transportation
control plan. EPA's proposed plans were presented at hearings to
permit public participation in the proposed rulemaking. For those States
that did not prepare and submit transportation control measures, EPA
published in the Federal Register proposed strategies to reduce CO or
HC emissions from motor vehicles. Public hearings were also held to
consider thes'a proposed transportation control plans. The promulgation of
EPA-proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register was generally completed
in January of 1974. Table 4 summarizes the actions EPA has taken to
date on transportation control plans. It is EPA policy to withdraw its
proposed or promulgated plans as soon as an approvable State plan is
submitted. In certain areas, such as Colorado, additional portions of
plans have been submitted and approved since the plan was promulgated
by EPA.
The transportation control plans have been worked out through
close cooperation between Federal, State, and local officials. The
following control measures may be used in transportation control plans:
filling storage tanks at service stations; filling auto tanks; loading
and unloading barges; solvent and degreasing operations; architectural
coating operations; operations of dry cleaning establishments; inspection
and maintenance of both light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles; improved
mass transit; improved traffic flow; bus-car pool lanes; car-pool
matching system; transportation by-pass; parking restrictions; bridge tolls;
13
-------
vehicle-free zones; delivery bansj Idling and taxi cruise restrictions;
motorcycle limits; mechanical retrofit by vacuum spark advance dis-
connect, air bleed, catalyst, high-altitude modifications, and truck
retrofit; and gasoline limitations. In the California cities where auto-
related air pollution is generally considered to be among the worst in
the Nation, the transportation controls include most of those listed. Most
of the other urban plans contain some combination of these controls, depending
on the severity of the local air pollution problem.
Progress has been made in implementing all these controls, especially
with inspection/maintenance programs, bus lanes, employer incentive programs,
and parking management plans. The need for these strategies has generated
a great deal of local activity, particularly in the development of parking
management plans for five California cities as well as for Portland, Oregon
and for Seattle, Washington.
During 1974 court suits involving transportation control plans in
Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas were decided. Wherever the
issue was raised, these upheld EPA's authority to impose transportation
control-type measures requiring compliance by both private parties and govern-
mental entities. In two cases, EPA was required to further validate its data
base before completing implementation of some features of the plans. These technical
reviews are being completed at this time, and are tending to show the need
for measures,equal to or more stringent than those in the original plans.
EPA has asked Congress for flexibility in working out achievable
schedules for those cities requiring drastic control measures. On March 22,
1974, EPA proposed amendments to the Clean Air Act in order to deal realis-
tically with specific problems of inability to achieve the statutory deadline
for the ambient air quality standards in severe problem areas such as
Los Angeles. However, EPA believes that all of the control techniques are
technically feasible, and except for severe gasoline limitations, reasonable
for most areas.
14
-------
Table 4
Areas Implementing Transportation Control Plans
1. Boston, Massachusetts (E)
2. Springfield, Massachusetts (E)
3. New York City, New York (S)
4. Rochester, New York (S)
5. New Jersey Suburbs of N.Y.C. (E)
6. New Jersey Suburbs of Philadelphia (E)
7.; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (S/E)
8. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (E)
9. Baltimore, Maryland (E)
10. Maryland Suburbs of Washington, B.C.
(S/E)
11. Virginia Suburbs of Washington, D.C.
(S/E)
12. Washington, D.C. (S/E)
13. Chicago, Illinois (E)
14. Indianapolis, Indiania (E)
15. Minneapolis, Minnesota (S)
16. Cincinnati, Ohio (S/E)
17. Austin-Waco, Texas (E)
18. Corpus Christi, Texas (E)
19. Houston-Galveston, Texas (E)
20. Dallas - Fort Worth, Texas (E)
21. San Antonio, Texas (E)
22. El Paso, Texas (E)
23. Denver, Colorado (S/E)
24. Salt Lake City, Utah (S/E)
25. Phoenix-Tucson, Arizona (S/E)
26. San Francisco, California (S/E)
27. Los Angeles, California (S/E)
28. San Diego, California (S/E)
29. Fresno, California (S/E)
30. Sacramento, California (S/E)
31. Portland, Oregon (S)
32. Seattle, Washington (S/E)
33. Spokane, Washington (S/E)
34. Fairbanks, Alaska (E)
(E) = EPA promulgated controls
(S) = State submitted controls
(S/E) = Both acceptable State controls and promulgation of additional EPA measures
15
-------
ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES IN THE MOBILE SOURCE AREA
NOX Emission Standard
EPA has recommended (November 1973) that Congress consider the
revision of the 90% NOX emission reduction for passenger cars required
in 1978. The NOX emission standard will be discussed, along with the
HC and CO standards and fuel economy in the combined 202(b)(4) and
202(b)(5) hearings to be held by EPA in the spring of 1975. Further
recommendations for the level and timing of passenger car emission
standards will follow those hearings.
Automotive Exhaust Emission Survey
As often as practical, EPA develops current data on emissions
of in-use vehicles so that State and local agencies, Federal Air
pollution officials, engine and vehicle manufacturers, and concerned
citizens can estimate the impact of motor vehicle emissions on air quality.
Light Duty Vehicles. — The most recent study involved testing of over 1,000
1966 to 1972 model year vehicles based on the procedures applicable to
certification of 1975 model year vehicles. This study, the second in this
series, continues to show a significant downward trend in HC and CO emissions
since the advent of Federal emissions standards. During the same time period
that HC and CO levels decreased levels of NOx emissions increased. NOx emis-
sions were not regulated until the 1973 model year and have remained somewhat
stable since that time. Comparison between this study and the prior one
shows that average HC and CO emission levels are adversely affected by
increasing vehicle age and mileage.
The third program in this series, the results of which are in a
preliminary form, indicate that the general year-to-year downward trend
in HC and CO emissions is continuing. Data on 1973 and 1974 model year
16
-------
vehicles also shows that the recent standards for NOx emissions have resulted
in a drop in levels of this pollutant from the 1968-1972 model year values.
The fourth program in this series will begin soon and will be the first
to provide large scale testing of catalyst-equipped automobiles in the hands
of private owners.
A report entitled "Refinement of the Automobile Exhaust Emission Modal
Analysis Model" has been completed for EPA. This report updates an earlier
work in describing a mathmatical model and allied computer programs for
calculating the emissions of groups of vehicles over any specified driving
sequence. The techniques prescribed in this report will be used in air
quality impact analysis.
Heavy-Duty Vehicles. — A contract was completed which provided for monitoring
exhaust emissions from 1970 and 1971 model year heavy-duty gasoline-powered
vehicles. This work involved simulation of the 1970 Federal Test Procedure
on a chassis dynamometer. A similar contract covering emission surveillance
of heavy-duty vehicles powered by diesel engines has been completed.
A third contract is underway to measure exhaust emissions from pre-
controlled gasoline-powered vehicles during actual operation over a prescribed
road route. This will complete the work initiated earlier on diesel-powered
and controlled gasoline-powered trucks and will result in a consolidated
report on all three programs.
The most recent program in this series is directed toward testing
various types of heavy-duty vehicles in a manner similar to that used in
certification of light-duty vehicles. Both diesel and gasoline-powered
trucks will be operated on chassis dynamometers using transient driving cycles
representative of typical operation in urban and suburban situtations. This
type of testing differs from the current Federal Test Procedure which provides
17
-------
that engines alone be operated at various steady state conditions on an
engine dynamometer. Results from this program will be more directly useful
in air quality assessments as well as providing an evaluation of such techniques
for potential use in certification testing.
Auto Fuel Economy Labeling Program
In the President's Energy Message to Congress of April 16, 1973, EPA
was assigned, in cooperation with the Department of Commerce and the
Council on Environmental Quality, the responsibility for developing a program
to inform the public of fuel economy characteristics of new automobiles. EPA
instituted a voluntary fuel economy labeling program for automobiles in the
1974 model year and expanded the program in the 1975 model year.
Presently over 90% of all cars sold in the United States are covered
by the voluntary labeling program. Usually these cars bear a label which
gives a sales-weighted average fuel economy for all cars tested by EPA
which represent cars of that same manufacturer, engine size and car line.
In some cases, the label may also specify that the fuel economy results
are representative also of cars of the same weight, transmission, and axle
ratio. Each label bears two fuel economy figures—one for city driving and
one for highway driving. The city fuel economy figure is derived from the
EPA emission certification test; the highway fuel economy figure is derived
from a special highway driving cycle test performed on all certification
cars tested by EPA.
EPA has also published, in cooperation with the Federal Energy
Administration, a fuel economy guide which provides a complete listing of
fuel economy results for all 1975 model year passenger cars and light
trucks. This pamphlet describes the concept of fuel economy and stresses
its importance as a purchase criterion for new car buyers.
18
-------
Emissions at Nonstandard Temperatures
Ambient temperatures outside the 68° to 86° F range specified in
the Federal procedure for emission testing of light-duty vehicles were
studied in a program conducted for EPA by the U. S. Bureau of Mines.
The vehicles tested included precontrol (1967) models, production cars
from model year 1969 through 1974, several developmental cars equipped
with advanced emission control systems (including catalytic converters),
and a diesel and a stratified charge powered car. The test temperature
ranged from 20° to 110°F. Cars equipped with air conditioners were also
tested at 110°F with the air conditioner in operation. The tests show
that exhaust emissions are adversely affected by deviations from the
standard test temperature of 75°F and by air conditioner operation. Fuel
economy is adversely affected by temperatures lower than 75°F and by air
conditioner operation. Emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide are
more sensitive to ambient temperature changes than emissions of nitrogen
oxides. In general, as the absolute level of emissions in the newer and
developmental cars drops, the sensitivity to change in temperature becomes
greater. Of all 26 cars tested, the diesel and the stratified charge cars
are lowest in emissions, highest in fuel economy, and least sensitive to
ambient temperature.
Characterization of Currently Unregulated Emissions
In prior years, studies on unregulated emissions from motor vehicles
have concentrated on characterization of reactive hydrocarbons, aldehydes,
polycyclic organic matter (POM) and particulate emissions. More recently,
other unregulated pollutants have been identified and are being thoroughly
investigated by EPA. These new compounds include sulfates, platinum and
19
-------
other noble metal emissions from catalysts, and miscellaneous compounds
such as nickel and hydrogen sulfide.
EPA's Office of Research and Development has recommended classifying
all hydrocarbons as reactive except for five compounds (one of which is
methane) which are generally considered totally non-reactive photochemically.
>
Instrumentation for measuring reactive hydrocarbons has been developed at
EPA's National Environmental Research Center in Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. The Motor Vehicle Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor is
setting up this instrumentation to measure reactive hydrocarbons by this
reactivity scale. However, EPA is also investigating the feasibility of
having a non-methane emission standard, which would be inherently simpler
than the reactivity approach. Thus, lower priority has been given this area
of investigation.
While aldehyde compounds are a distinct chemical class from hydro-
carbons, they are considered in conjunction with reactive hydrocarbons
since both are photochemical ly reactive. Routine measurement of aldehyde
emissions is conducted on advance prototype vehicles sent to EPA for
testing. Although isolated points show high aldehyde levels, this work
continues to show that aldehydes generally amount to only about 10 percent
of the total hydrocarbon emissions.
Since previous work showed that properly functioning advanced light-
duty vehicles (including those equipped with catalytic converters) emit
significantly small amounts of POM, little has been done in this area the
past year. However, investigations of POM emissions from light and heavy-
duty diesel vehicles are currently being conducted.
20
-------
Under EPA contract, higher participate emissions from catalyst-
equipped vehicles were measured in 1972. During this work, the contractor
discovered that these cars also emit higher levels of sulfates. EPA
then began intensive research in the sulfate area. Contract work was
recently completed to measure total particulate emissions from advanced
prototype vehicles. EPA has recently aquired the in-house ability to
measure particulate emissions from light-duty vehicles, so the total
level and composition of these emissions are being assessed.
Sulfate Emissions from Catalyst-Equipped Vehicles
Since the discovery of sulfate emissions, more extensive characteriza-
tion of these emissions has been done by various groups, including EPA's
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control and Office of Research and
Development.
EPA has measured sulfate emissions on a number of different catalyst,
noncatalyst, and alternative engine automobiles. Measurements were made
by a variety of methods under various steady state cruise conditions and
on the LA-4 driving cycle used in certifying light-duty vehicles. The
lack of a standard measurement procedure has hindered the comparison of
data and to some extent, impeded further research.
Results to date on the sulfate question point to the following
tentative conclusions:
0 Noncatalyst cars with conventional internal combustion
engines emit very low levels of sulfates. Data from EPA-
ORD, 6M, Ford, and Exxon show sulfate emissions to be about
0.001 grams per mile or less than 1 percent of the fuel
sulfur with the remainder being S02. Chrysler data indicates
that sulfate emissions from noncatalyst cars are lower for
leaded than non-leaded fuel.
21
-------
0 Catalyst-equipped cars emit more sulfates than non-catalyst
cars.
0 Pelleted catalysts emit substantially lower levels of sul-
fates than monolith catalysts in the EPA Test Procedure. At
higher speeds, the emission levels of the two types of
catalysts appear to be similar. The difference may be
due to sulfate storage on the pelleted catalysts at low
speeds.
Using available data on sulfuric acid emissions from catalyst-
equipped cars and anticipated fuel sulfur levels, the EPA has also
employed several predictive models to estimate the increase in exposure
to acid sulfates likely to result under various assumptions of traffic,
meteorology, and extent of use of catalysts on cars. These studies,
whose results were presented by the EPA to the Senate Public Works
Committee early this year, show that when catalyst-equipped cars account
for about 25% of miles driven (roughly two model 'years equipped with
catalysts), the additional exposure of commuters on our busiest express-
ways to acid sulfates during periods of low atmospheric dispersion would
exceed levels associated with adverse health effects in susceptible
segments (about 10%) of the population. In less busy areas, such levels
would be anticipated after perhaps six model years were catalyst-equipped.
It should be emphasized that while these projections have been based on
preliminary information, they indicate a need for close study of this
potential adverse side effect of catalyst usage. Additional studies of
automotive sulfate emissions which the EPA is conducting will obtain
addtional characterization data, develop more reliable measurement methods
and further assess the technology for control of sulfate emissions.
If it is confirmed that continued use of oxidation catalysts would
result in dangerous levels of sulfates or other pollutants, EPA will
take regulatory action to prevent such a condition from occurring. With
22
-------
respect to sulfate emissions in particular, EPA would have basically
two options.
One would be to restrict the amount of sulfur contained in the unleaded
gasoline used by catalyst-equipped cars. Removing the sulfur-containing
impurities from the gasoline would eliminate the sulfate emissions. The
technology for doing this in the refining process is known, but implementa-
tion of this approach would be expensive and it would take some time for
all refiners to build up the required capacity. EPA is studying this
further, as well as possible interim steps to maximize the use of low sulfur
refinery products in the unleaded gasoline.
The other alternative would be to adopt an emission standard limiting
the auto manufacturer in terms of the amount of sulfates his cars may emit.
The manufacturer would have two possible ways of responding to such a
standard. One would be to drop the catalyst and change over to an alternative
engine. This would take a number of years to fully implement since the lead
time for manufacturers to obtain the new tooling needed to manufacture an
alternative engine is quite long. Alternatively, the manufacturers might be
able to change the design of their catalyst systems to minimize the formation
of sulfates or install devices to trap or neutralize the sulfates and prevent
their emission. Such devices are theoretically possible, but proven technology
to accomplish this doesn't exist at this time.
Alternative Automotive Fuels
In 1974, the Environmental Protection Agency initiated a program to
investigate the feasibility of alternative automotive fuels to conventional
gasoline and distillate fuels from petroleum. Feasibility studies were
initiated for the selection of the most promising future fuels. As a result
23
-------
of these studies which were completed at the beginning of FY 1975, research
investigations are currently in progress to characterize the properties and
auto engine performance of the following fuels:
0 Gasoline-like fuels from coal and oil shale.
0 Unconventional fuels from non-petroleum energy resources -
e.g., methanol from coal.
These alternative fuels are considered as promising additions to
the use of conventional fuels for the time period 1980-2000. Beyond
this time period it is contemplated that synthetic hydrocarbons, and
possibly hydrogen, will be produced for automotive transportation from
one or more non-fossil energy resources.
Clean Car Incentive Program
The Federal Clean Car Incentive Program is designed to foster
development of new types of low-emission vehicles capable of meeting
1978 standards. EPA leases a candidate prototype which is subjected to
stringent emission and performance tests. If the prototype passes the
initial tests, EPA may purchase additional prototype cars for testing.
Up to 500 vehicles may be purchased for further evaluation and limited
fleet use.
Approximately 20 proposals were received when the program began
in January, 1971, of which seven were accepted for more detailed study.
Two candidate vehicles entered the testing phases of the program. One,
a vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine with catalytic after
treatment, has been rejected because of unacceptable emissions degrada-
tion performance with mileage accumulation. The second vehicle, powered
by a hybrid system involving a rotary engine and electric storage battery
combination, has completed the initial test phase and the data are currently
24
-------
undergoing analysis.
Low Emission Vehicle Procurement Program
The 1970 Amendments to the Clean Air Act established Section 212
which provides for a Low Emission Vehicle Certification Board (LEVCB).
The Board has the responsibility for certifying vehicles which EPA has
determined to have emissions substantially lower than existing Federal
standards. If certified, the vehicle qualifies for preferential purchase
at increased cost by agencies of the Federal Government. The vehicle,
to be certified, must meet all the requirements of some existing class
of vehicles used in Federal service and to date no vehicle submitted has
met these requirements. The three applications submitted since inception
of the program in 1970 have all been electric storage battery powered
vehicles which comply with the emissions requirements of Section 212,
but do not meet the performance requirements of any current Federal procure-
ment specification applying to existing classes of vehicles used by the
various agencies.
Recognizing that there may be some applications in Federal service
which electrically powered vehicles might serve, the LEVCB has conducted
a survey of the major Federal agencies which utilize vehicles to determine
whether such vehicles could be used. In addition, a detailed study has
been made of the problems limiting the success of the Section 212 program
which the LEVCB may use as a basis for recommendations for changes in this
section of the Clean Air Act.
25
-------
MOBILE SOURCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Research and Development on Automotive Emissions
The Alternative Automotive Power Systems (AAPS) Program was announced
by the President in his February 1970 Message on Environment. At that time,
there was concern in the Executive Office of the President that increasingly
stringent exhaust emission standards for automobiles would be required during
the decade of the 70's and that the conventional internal combustion engine
might not be capable of being controlled to meet the expected low emissions
levels required by the standards. In 1970 serious work to develop alternative
power systems was not underway nor was such work planned by industry. Thus,
the AAPS program was initiated with the goal of objectively evaluating
alternative power systems for automobiles. It was intended that the program
provide a basis for government decisions regarding the technological feasibility
of new engine systems in meeting the standards. Within five years (by 1975)
as part of the evaluation process and as announced by the President, the
Federal government would demonstrate virtually pollution-free engines for
automobiles. To accomodate this demonstration goal, the exhaust emission
levels to be met were made equivalent to achievement of the Federal emissions
standards originally planned for model year 1976.
The work of the AAPS program was formally initiated in July 1970.
There were initially five types of candidate power systems in the AAPS
program. These systems included: Rankine cycle systems, gas turbines, two
types of hybrids (heat engine/battery and heat engine/fly wheel) and battery
powered electric systems. It was planned that each system would be carefully
studied, designed, component or system test data gathered on each; that the
systems would be ranked on the basis of their potential for being practical,
energy efficient systems which would be capable of meeting the original 1976
26
-------
Federal emissions standards; and that the highest ranked systems concepts
would be developed into prototype hardware appropriate for the demon-
strations by 1975.* It was anticipated that other types of alternative
systems could be brought into the program for evaluation as time went on.
It was recognized from the beginning that only prototypes of these type
systems could be demonstrated by 1975/76 and that none could be mass
produced by that date. It was felt that if the needed technologies were
•successfully advanced in the program, and the systems demonstrated were
practical and met the emissions standards and numerous road performance
goals of the program, then the program would serve to catalyze industry to
pick up these advances and produce their own versions (improved) of the
systems which would be demonstrated.
The two versions of hybrid systems were judged to be not viable
replacements for the conventional engine for several reasons, including
their requirement for exhaust after-treatment, high degree of system
complexity, and relatively high cost to produce. Continued work on the
all electric system has been deferred because the most essential component
of the system, the battery, requires a development program longer than the
five-year commitment encompassed by the current program. Other government
agencies continuing with the battery development work are the National Science
Foundation, the Atomic Energy Commission, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Transportation,
*The original program plan called for demonstration of the new power systems
in full size (4500 Ib) passenger cars by 1975. In 1973 the program was
reoriented to emphasize more the achievement of good fuel economy and,
as part of this reorientation, the program plans were changed to provide
a compact car (3500 Ib) demonstration by 1976 rather than the original
1975 goal.
27
-------
As noted earlier it was anticipated that other alternative systems
might be brought into the program after the program had started. This
was the case for the stratified charge versions of Otto cycle engines. In
1971 the AAPS program assisted in funding the continued development of
open-chamber stratified charge engines through the U. S. Army Tank
Automotive Command (ATAC) which had initiated work on these systems in
the early 60's. The development of two versions (Ford PROCO and Texaco
TCCS) proceeded to the point where in 1973 the TCCS was selected by the
Army to proceed into a final development phase before production. At that
time AAPS funding was terminated because the engine development had
progressed to the point where different members of industry were continuing
development of their own versions of this type of combustion process.
The current engine candidates in the program are the Rankine cycle
system and the Gas Turbine. Combustion systems research and combustor
component development on these systems had progressed sufficiently by
1973 to where tests of these components confirmed that the stringent
emissions standards appeared achievable when installed in complete power
systems. At that time the emphasis in the AAPS program changed to focus
on improving the fuel economy of the best type systems.
Four versions of the Rankine cycle system have been under development
since the program began in 1970. These systems included the steam/reciprocator,
steam/turbine, organic/reciprocator and organic/turbine version. Early in
1974 the number of competing systems was reduced to the two which offered the
most promise. These two are the steam/reciprocator which is the prime
candidate and the organic/reciprocator which is the backup system. As of
October 1974 only the steam/reciprocator remains in the program.
28
-------
Unlike the work on the Rankine cycle system, the Gas Turbine
activity has focused on problem-solving research and not on the develop-
ment of a completely new version of engine. This approach is being used
because in the past, industry has made serious efforts to develop auto-
motive gas turbines and has invested considerable funds in this area.
As a result, the problem-solving approach appears to be the most efficient
use of Federal funds to properly evaluate the gas turbine for automobile
application.
The problems of the gas turbine that are being attacked include:
NOx reduction, development of low cost materials and manufacturing processes,
and improvements in fuel economy. Teams of technical specialists from many
industries and from the U. S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
currently are working on solutions to these problems for the regenerated
free-turbine.
To ensure that the resulting solutions from the problem solving
research on the turbine are practical, a test bed or baseline engine
program is being conducted in parallel with a problem solving research
activity. The baseline engine program is providing the automotive type
turbine engines needed to demonstrate the hardware developed in the
research program. In addition, the baseline engine program contractor,
Chrysler Corporation, is conducting a similar problem solving research
activity to that of the independent research contractors. Chrysler will
update the turbine engine with all component improvements integrated into
the system and will demonstrate the improved gas turbine engine sized for
29
-------
a compact car by 1976. In this process the current baseline of 180 hp
is being redesigned by Chrysler to a 100 hp level to meet the compact car
requirements.
The oil embargo in 1973 added emphasis on the need to improve energy
efficiency in motor.vehicles to effect a reduction in demand for petroleum.
New projects dealing with energy efficiency.include: feasibility studies
relating to use of non-petroleum based fuels for automotive ground
transportation, use of Rankine bottoming cycle on diesel trucks, use of
turbo-compounding and new engine accessory drives.
Research and Development on Aircraft Emissions
Studies have continued in support of the regulations which EPA has
promulgated limiting the emissions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons,
nitrogen oxides, and smoke in commercial and private aircraft. Current
efforts are concentrated in the following areas:
1. Improvement of the precision of the emissions sampling and
measurement techniques specified in the EPA regulations.
2. Assessment of progress by private industry and other government
agencies in development of techniques for reducing emissions
from turbine-powered aircraft.
3. Assessment of progress by private industry and other government
agencies in development of techniques for reducing emissions
from piston engine powered general aviation aircraft.
In conducting the above programs, maximum advantage is taken of on-
going efforts by other Federal agencies active in the aircraft emissions
30
-------
area. These are principally the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
the United States Air Force, and the Federal Aviation Administration. In
addition, the Department of Transportation's Climatic Impact Assessment
Program is being closely followed in order to ascertain whether the EPA
aircraft regulations already promulgated require modification to respond
to upper atmosphere problems.
31
-------
III. THE DEVELOPMENT OF AIR QUALITY CRITERIA AND RECOMMENDED EMISSION
CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (NAAQS)
EPA has a continuing program for review of the existing criteria
pollutant standards and for assessing the requirement for establishing
new ambient air quality standards for other pollutants. Assessments
completed in 1974 by EPA and independent groups do not indicate the
need for new or revised standards.
A recent in depth review by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)*
concluded that there was no substantial basis, relative to health and
welfare effects, for changing the standards. This assessment has been
supported by research conducted through EPA's laboratory and community
studies.
* Air Quality and Automobile Emissions Control, A report by the Coordina-
ting Committee on Air Quality Studies, National Academy of Sciences,
National Academy of Engineering (4 Volumes) dated September 1, 1974.
Prepared for the Committee on Public Works, U. S. Senate.
32
-------
NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (NESHAPS)
On May 3, 1974, the Agency issued clarifying amendments to the NESHAPS
promulgated in April 1973. These amendments generally advised the public
how the regulations were being interpreted in Agency enforcement actions.
On October 25, 1974, the Agency proposed amendments to the asbestos
and mercury NESHAPS which, in addition to amending test methods and pro-
cedures, proposes to revise the scope of the regulations. For asbestos,
•
it has been proposed that the manufacture of shotgun shells, manufacture
of asphalt concrete, and asbestos waste disposal be added to the list of
nine source categories covered by the regulations. Asbestos fabrication
operations are excluded and changes have been proposed in the regulations
concerning demolition and renovation. The October 25 proposal also in-
cludes the addition of sewage sludge incinerators as a source of mercury
emissions regulated by the NESHAPS.
33
-------
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS), SECTION 111- CLEAN AIR ACT
In 1974, the number of sources regulated by promulgated NSPS more
than doubled, and an additional 12 NSPS were proposed with promulgation
planned for early 1975.
Promulgated March 8, 1974, were NSPS for new asphalt concrete plants,
catalytic cracking units in petroleum refineries, petroleum storage tanks,
secondary lead smelters, secondary brass and bronze ingot plants, basic
oxygen furnaces in iron and steel mills, and sewage sludge incinerators.
The proposed standards, all issued during October 1974, were for primary
copper, zinc and lead smelters, ferroalloy production facilities, five
categories of sources in the phosphate fertilizer industry, primary alumi-
num plants, and coal preparation plants. Proposed and promulgated NSPS
at the close of 1974 totaled 24, nearly five times the number of NSPS a
year ago. Table I summarizes all 24 NSPS.
Only one of the new NSPS has been challenged; a petition for review
of the asphalt concrete regulations was filed by the National Asphalt Paving
Association. The final EPA response to a court remand on a 1971 NSPS
petition for review (portland cement plants) was issued November 5, 1974.
The use of visual opacity observations, a major issue in the remand, was
supported by extensive field investigations.
Requirements concerning continuous emission monitoring and performance
testing were proposed on September 11, 1974. Generally, the proposal
established a procedure whereby continuous emission monitors are checked
against the manual performance tests required of new sources. Performance
specifications for acceptable monitors are included in the Regulations.
34
-------
On October 7, 1974, the Agency proposed regulations to implement
Section lll(d) of the Clean Air Act. Under Section lll(d) States are to
submit plans for the control of non-criteria pollutants from existing
sources after the Agency promulgates NSPS for the source category. The
proposed regulations would require States to adopt emission standards
which reflect best available retrofit technology, but States would be
able to impose less stringent standards where special circumstances
exist.
Amendments to the general provisions to the standards of performance
were proposed on October 15. The amendments generally defined the Agency's
interpretation of when the NSPS would be applied to modified sources. Under
the Clean Air Act NSPS apply to existing sources when a modification has
been made which increases atmospheric emissions. The basic policy stated
in the proposed amendments would limit application of the NSPS to those
situations wherein the modification required a significant capital expenditure.
35
-------
Table 5
STATUS'OF STANDARDS* OF PCRFORMAKCt
SOURCE
Steam Generators
[>250 million Btu/hr]
Municipal Incinerators
[>50 tons per day]
Portland Cement Plants
Nitric Add Plants
Sulfurlc Add Plants
; Asphalt Concrete Plants
Petroleum Refineries
Petroleum Storage
Secondary Lead Smelters
and Refineries
AFFECTED FACILITY
Coal and oil fired boilers
Coal and Oil fired boilers
Coal, o17, and gas- fired
boilers
Incinerator
K1ln, clinker cooler
Process equipment
Process equipment
Process equipment
Process gas combustion
Catalytic regenerators
Gasoline, crude oil. and
distillate storage tanks
>65,000 gallons capacity
Blast and reverberatory
furnaces
POLLUTANT
Parti culate
S0x
NOX
Parti culate
Parti cul ate
NO,
SOX
Add M1st
Parti cul ate
sox
Participate
CO
Hydrocarbons
Parti cul ate
OPACITY
REGULATION
4
'
'
'
'
PROMULGATION
DATE
12/23/71
12/23/71
12/23/71
12/23/71.
12/23/71
12/23/71
3/8/74
3/8/74
3/8/74
3/8/74
3/8/74
3/8/74
REMARKS
Under remand.
Final Response Filed
November 5 , 19 7 ^
Under remand.
Undergoing judicial
review.
CO .
-------
Tiblt 5 (Cont'd)
STATUS OF STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
SOURCE
Phosphate Fertilizer
Plant
Iron and Steel Mills
Ferroalloy Production
Coitinuous Monitoring
Section lll{d) Regulations
Modification
Revision to Hazardous
Pollutant Regulations
AFFECTED FACILITY
Met process phosphoric
Superphosphoric acid
D1ammon1um phosphate
Tflple superphosphate
Triple Superphosphate Storage
Electric arc furnaces
Specific furnaces
POLLUTANT
Fluorides
Fluorides
Fluorides
Fluorides
Fluorides
Particulate
Particulate
CO
General Provisions
General Provisions
General Provisions
Asbestos and
Mercury
OPACITY
REGULATION
PROMULGATION
DATE
REMARKS
Proposed 10/22/74.
Proposed 10/21/74.
Proposed 10/21/74.
Proposed 9/11/74.
Proposed 10/7/74.
Proposed 10/15/74.
Proposed 10/25/74.
-------
Table 5 (cont'd)
STATUS OF STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
SOURCE
Secondary Brass and
Bronze Reftnlng
Facilities
Iron and Steel Mills
Sewage Treatment Plants
Primary Copper Smelters
Primary Zinc Smelters
Primary Lead Smelters
Primary Aluminum
Reduction Plants
Coal Cleaning Plants
AFFECTED FACILITY
Reverberatory furnaces
Basic oxygen furnace
Sludge incinerators
Roaster, smelting furnace,
converter
Roaster
Sintering machine
Sintering machine, electric
smelting furnace, converter
Blast or reverberatory,
furnace, sintering mach.
Pot lines
Anode Bake Plants
Air Tables
Thermal dryers
POLLUTANT
Partlculate
Participate
Parti cul ate
SOX
SOX
Parti cul ate
S0x
Partlculate
Fluorides
Fluorides
Particulate
Parti cul ate
OPACITY
REGULATION
/
/
/
/
/
J
J
J
/
/
PROMULGATION
DATE
3/8/74
3/8/74
3/8/74
REMARKS
Proposed 10/16/74.
Proposed 10/16/74.
Proposed 10/16/74.
Proposed. 10/33/74,
Proposed 10/24/74.
co
00
-------
HEALTH EFFECTS RESEARCH
The Community Health Effects Surveillance Studies (CHESS) program
was initiated to provide data relating to human health effects to
long and short-term exposure of population subgroups to SOX, respirable
particulates, NOx, CO, and photochemical oxidants. The CHESS Studies
have demonstrated the benefits from improved air quality with respect
to the chronic respiratory disease experience of subjects who have
•
moved to communities having cleaner air. Also, the studies have shown
that children living for 3 or more years in communities having high
levels of air pollution have more acute respiratory disease episodes
than recent immigrants to the community.
Data obtained from the CHESS program indicate that adverse health
effects are consistently associated with exposure to suspended sulfates,
indeed, more so than to S02 or total suspended particulates. This
information has initiated further study in the transport processes and
control techniques for suspended sulfates.
Studies were initated to evaluate potential health effects of fuel
and fuel additive emissions from internal combustion engines. As a
result of this work it has been determined that the physiological
availability of lead compounds from street dust is similar to that of
other lead compounds. A study of various lead components associated
with auto exhaust and paint has shown positive correlation between
blood lead levels and lead levels in bone, kidney, liver and spleen.
Studies have been undertaken to investigate the effects of exposure
to total emissions from mobile sources with and without oxidation
39
-------
catalysts, as well as to catalytic attrition products. Preliminary
results underscore the benefits of reduced morbidity when carbon
monoxide; nitrogen oxide and hydrocarbon emissions are reduced but
a risk of increased morbidity from acid mist produced by the
catalyst. Research and analysis are being conducted to evaluate
these risk/benefit tradeoffs associated with automotive emissions.
40
-------
IV. THE STATUS OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO THIS ACT
STATIONARY SOURCE ENFORCEMENT
The Clean Air Act amendments of 1970 approached the task of protect!ng
health and welfare from the effects of air pollution from stationary sources
in three key sections:
o §110. State Implementation Plans (SIPs) -
which provide for establishing State air pollution limit-
ations designed to achieve health related (primary standards)
and welfare related (secondary standards) air quality goals.
o §111. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) -
which require EPA to develop emission limitations for newly
constructed or modified major emitters, based on best available
control technology and cost; these standards are to be a major
factor in the maintenance of acceptable air quality achieved
under |110. After their promulgation, States are encouraged to
assume responsibility for the enforcement of these standards.
o §112, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPS) - which require EPA to develop emission
limitations for especially toxic pollutants for which air
quality standards cannot be adequately established. As
under §111, States may request delegation of these standards.
While the Act placed the primary responsibility for attainment and main-
tenance of air quality standards upon the States, EPA's enforcement authority
was also greatly strengthened under the 1970 amendments, ill4 of the Act
authorizes EPA to make inspections, require reports and recordkeeping
and require sources to sample their emissions in order to verify compliance
41
-------
with the emissions limitations established above. §113 of the Act authorized
EPA to actively enforce against sources violating requirements established
under sections 110, 111, 112, and 114 by issuing an order to comply or
commencing civil or criminal action. In accordance with the intent of the
Act, it is EPA's policy to defer to State enforcement where effective
progress is being made. EPA enforcement actions to ensure compliance with
emission limitations established under the State Implementation Plan are
therefore undertaken to stimulate or assist State enforcement programs, and
States are encouraged to request delegations of the enforcement of NESHAPS
and NSPS. Much of EPA's stationary source air enforcement program to
bolster State efforts is carried out through the provision of technical
and legal assistance, provision of specialized skills or expertise, special
contractual efforts, and control agency grants.
The effectiveness of EPA and State enforcement efforts under each of
the above sections of the Act over the past year is addressed separately
below.
42
-------
§110, State Implementation Plans (SIP)
The Act established a stringent timetable for EPA and States to abate
air pollution. In accordance with this schedule, EPA promulgated ambient
air quality standards on April 30, 1971, for six air pollutants: participate
matter, sulfur dipxidq, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, photochemical
oxidants, and hydrocarbons. Under the Act, the States then had just 9 months
to develop comprehensive implementation plans (which included enforceable
emission limitations) designed to achieve these ambient standards, and EPA
was allotted 4 months for the review and approval or disapproval of these
plans. These deadlines were substantively met when EPA approved most portions
of the SIPs in May 1972. With a few notable exceptions (e.g., sulfur oxide
emission limitations in the State of Ohio), all states now have fully enforce-
able emission limitations affecting stationary sources. The Act allows three
years from the date of State plan approval for EPA and the State to reduce
pollution levels to the health-related ambient air quality standards. Except
for portions of 16 States, where an extension of up to 2 years has been granted
for one or more pollutants, these primary ambient air quality standards are
required to be met by July 1975.
State and Federal programs face an immense task in achieving compliance
since there are estimated to be over 200,000 stationary sources subject to
SIP emission standards. Of this number, however, approximately 20,000 are
major emitters (i.e., facilities individually capable of emitting over 100
tons of a pollutant per year) which, as a class, produce about 85% of all
air pollution emitted by stationary sources. Accordingly, EPA and State
enforcement programs have focused on ensuring compliance by this class of
emitters in order to have the greatest impact on pollution abatement. From
approval of most SIPs in May 1972 until May 1973, EPA and the States had
43
-------
investigated only some 7,000 of these sources. By January of 1974, some
13,500 of these major emitters had been identified and investigated.
A vigorous program mounted over the last year to locate and inspect
these sources has resulted in the identification of about 19,175 facilities,
nearly all of the estimated 20,000 major sources.
As reported in the last review of EPA enforcement under the Clean Air
Act, only 6 enforcement actions had been taken against stationary sources in
1972 (4 notices of violation, and 2 administrative orders). In 1973, the
number of EPA enforcement actions increased to 112 (82 notices of violation
and 30 enforcement orders), and in 1974 EPA took 271 enforcement actions
(179 notices of violation and 92 enforcement orders or civil or criminal
actions). A summary of these actions is contained in the Appendix. As shown
in the Appendix, State action for many of these sources has been stimulated
by EPA initiation of enforcement. The actions also represent the results of
a major effort on the part of EPA to establish the compliance status of sources
subject to SIP emission limitations. In 1972, only about 100 compliance
investigations were made under the authority of §114 of the Act, in 1973 the
number of field actions increased to 2,000 (including some 1,200 plant
inspections, opacity observations, and emission tests, and 800 required
reports), and in 1974 some 3,600 such investigations (comprising some 1700
field investigations and 1900required reports) were completed.
This increase in enforcement activity was mirrored by the State enforcement
programs, resulting in a great increase in the number of major sources brought
into compliance.
Of the 19,000 identified major sources mentioned above, a total of 13,585
(71%) now comply with applicable emission limits or are meeting compliance
schedules; this has increased from some 7,890 known to comply a year ago.
Of the 13,585 in compliance* 10,618 are in final compliance with all require-
ments, and 2,967 are meeting increments on their compliance schedule.
44
-------
On the order of 6,500 major sources had yet to be identified or investigated
at the beginning of 1974; as of December 1974, less than 1000 major sources
are thought to remain outside State and EPA inventories, and 3,400 of the
identified major sources are the targets of EPA and State investigations to
complete determinations of compliance status. Nearly 2,200 major sources
(11%) are known to violate emission limitations or compliance schedules at
the present time - these sources are the subject of current EPA and State
case development programs.
Despite this progress in SIP enforcement, several categories of major
sources may not achieve compliance with emission standards within the time
limits prescribed by the Act. Notable among these sources are coal-fired
power plants, iron and steel manufacturing plants, smelters, and industrial/
commercial boilers. Special efforts are now being implemented by EPA to
ensure compliance by these classes of sources as quickly as possible.
Coal-fired power plants.— Control of emissions from power plants is essential
to the attainment of the health-related air quality standards for sulfur oxides
in many areas of the U.S. As a class, coal-fired steam electric plants emit
about 60% of the total sulfur oxides produced by all sources. During the
summer of 1973, it became increasingly apparent to EPA that progress to meet
applicable State-adopted sulfur oxide emission limitations by this sector of
industry was severely lagging. New supplies of low-sulfur content coal, the
favored approach to reducing sulfur oxide emissions,were becoming increasingly
scarce and utilities were extremely reluctant to use flue gas desulfurization
(FGD) systems (scrubbers) to remove sulfur oxides from the stack after high
sulfur content coal has been burned. EPA held national public hearings in the
fall of 1973 to review the status of power plant compliance with sulfur oxide
emission limitations and to determine whether FGD offered an available control
45
-------
alternative to the use of cleaner fuels. On the basis of testimony by
utilities, FGD vendors, and other authorities on the subject, the hearing
panel concluded that the basic technological problems associated with FGD
raised by the utilities had been solved or were within the scope of current
engineering and that FGD could be applied at reasonable cost.
In light of these recommendations, a special enforcement program for
power plants was implemented. As detailed in the Appendix, 31 notices of
violation have been issued to power plants (6 in 1973, 25 in 1974), 14
enforcement orders have been issued, and 13 consent orders establishing firm
schedules of compliance have been signed.
A measure of the effectiveness of EPA's power plant efforts is the rise
of the use of flue gas desulfurization control devices. In 1974 the number of
FGD installations in operation, under construction, or otherwise committed to has
more than doubled—from 44 units at the time of the hearings to about 100 units by
the end of 1974. These 100 units represent approximately 40 percent of the coal-
fired capacity that will need flue gas desulfurization systems by the end of 1980.
EPA estimates that approximately 90,000 megawatts of coal-fired generating
capacity will need to install these systems by the end of 1980.
The number of units now on-line has doubled—from 10 to 20, and additional
systems are scheduled for startup in January 1975.
Increasingly high reliability factors (in the 80 to 90 percent range) are
being evidenced and several companies have purchased systems to treat sludge by-
products from nonregenerable scrubber systems. It is anticipated that 12 more
units will be operable by the end of 1975, and 12 more at the end of 1976, bringing
the total number of on-line systems to 44 by the end of 1976. A few units are
scheduled for startup later than 1977, and some startup dates are unknown because
installation is tied to the startup dates of new plants, but the bulk of the 100
units committed to will be on-line by December 1977.
46
-------
However, we will not see nationwide compliance by coal-fired power plants
by mid-1975 deadlines contained in most SIPs. As of December 1974, only
about half of the coal being used by utilities met SIP sulfur content limits.
Of the remaining 50% of 1974 utility coal, about 12% was burned at noncomply-
ing plants owned by utilities with firm plans to comply, about 16% was burned
at plants having no known compliance plans, and about 22% was used at plants
covered by SIPs that are under legal challenge or that are being revised.
In order to ensure that health-related ambient air quality standards
for sulfur oxides are attained as quickly as possible, EPA has, over the
last year, given enforcement priority to those noncomplying plants (about 90)
having an impact upon these primary standards. Of these plants, 3 have
achieved compliance, 23 are now subjects of state and EPA enforcement actions,
and 20 are now on acceptable federal, state, or local compliance schedules.
Unfortunately, enforcement against about half of these priority plants is
stayed pending conclusion of litigation or is prevented by ongoing SIP
revisions.
Iron and Steel Mills and Coke Plants.— Iron and steel mills and associated
coke plants represent one of the larger and more complex categories of problem
sources in stationary source enforcement. There are about 200 of these sources
in the U.S., they are large, and the processes that occur in these plants are
diverse. In addition, the enforcement effort is made more complex by a number
of SIP regulations that limit emissions of particulate matter from only certain
portions of the coking cycle, such as charging, under-firing, etc.
About 70 major U.S. facilities are equipped with coke ovens, and the
majority of these are out of compliance with SIP regulations. There are
another 45 major non-coking iron and steel facilities which produce pig iron
using blast furnaces and raw steel using open hearth or basic oxygen furnaces
47
-------
or a combination thereof. Nearly all of these facilities have at least one
process that is out of compliance. EPA enforcement priorities in 1974 have
concentrated on these 115 major sources of particulate matter. There are,
in addition, some 85 iron and steel plants producing raw steel with electric
furnaces that charge mostly scrap metal instead of pig iron. Although
these sources have not yet received close enforcement scrutiny, EPA
estimates that approximately 201 are out of compliance.
In 1974, EPA expanded its enforcement program to inspect and document
violations occuring at iron and steel mills and coking facilities; this
expanded program resulted in an increase in enforcement actions taken --
from 8 in 1973 to a total of 33 by December 1974.
During 1974, efforts were also directed toward identifying those state
implementation plans containing deficient regulations or regulations that
did not limit emissions from all aspects of the coking cycle. In addition,
the Agency initiated a program to test and then determine the applicability
and effectiveness of control technologies for coke oven emissions. Although
much remains to be accomplished in bringing steel mills and coke plants
into compliance., it is anticipated that most of these facilities will be
inspected, and by mid-75 will be subjects of EPA enforcement actions
leading to firm compliance schedules.
Primary Non-Ferrous Smelters. — Most of the Agency's problems in assuring
compliance by the Nation's 28 primary non-ferrous smelters have centered in
the Western U. S., where 13 of these smelters are not subject to federally-
enforceable regulations for the control of sulfur oxides. In May 1972, the
SIPs for the States of Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah
were disapproved insofar as they applied to these very large sources of
particulates and sulfur oxides. Federal replacement regulations have not
been promulgated since May 1972 due to controversies over the availability
of controls and the possible use of intermittent control systems and tall
48
-------
stacks. However, resolutions to these problems were approached in
late 1973 and EPA is now finalizing federal regulations for the
control of SOX from primary non-ferrous smelters. Regulations that
will soon be proposed require the application of the best available
retrofit control technology, and, if necessary, allow the interim use
of supplementary control systems (SCS) and tall stacks until adequate
constant control techniques become available. Each smelter using SCS
is further required to conduct a research and development program to
hasten the development of such technology.
Six smelters in Eastern regions are in violation of an SIP-approved
regulation; with few exceptions, State agencies are adequately responding
to the problem. In one case, EPA has filed suit to enforce the regulation,
and in another, enforcement is stayed by a §307 challenge to the SIP.
The national program for assuring compliance from primary non-ferrous
smelters is making headway. Regulations for the control of sulfur oxides have
been proposed for two smelters and promulgated for another. The additional
regulations are in the final stages of development, and should be proposed
in the near future. In nearly all cases, smelters are taking steps to comply
with regulations, including several which are not yet subject to final
regulations.
About half of the primary non-ferrous smelters are located in air quality
control regions where statutory attainment dates have been extended to
July 1977. No major obstacles are anticipated that might prevent achievement
of final compliance by these sources by the mid-77 deadlines. Those subject
to mid-75 deadlines are, for the most part, nearing compliance.
49
-------
Industrial Boilers.-- There are about 3500 coal-fired industrial and
commerical boilers in the United States. Control of these sources is
especially needed in urban areas not yet meeting the primary ambient air
quality standards for sulfur dioxide. Basic enforcement problems are
presented by the large number of these sources and the difficulty in
establishing reasonable and expeditious compliance schedules when the supply
of low-sulfur fuels may be in question and the supply of FGD systems is
limited. In selective enforcement actions, EPA issued 26 notices of
violation to facilities having industrial boilers, resulting in the issuance
of 11 orders to comply.
Summary. in summary, significant orooress is beinn made in the enforcement
of SIP emission standards. Most national average concentrations for the six
criteria pollutants show a general, but distinct, downward trend from the
1960's into the 1970's, especially in those areas having the worst pollution
problems. While many areas may be delayed in achieving the health-related
air quality goals past dates mandated by the Act, the progress being made
in enforcement of SIPs will ensure attainment as quickly as possible.
50
-------
§111. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
New source performance standards were first promulgated on December 23,
1971, for 5 categories of major emitters (steam electric power plants, municipal
incinerators, nitric and sulfuric acid plants, and asphalt cement plants).
A second group of NSPS covering an additional 7 source categories was promulgated
on March 8, 1974 and NSPS for 5 more categories were proposed in October 1974.
By June of 1974 over 100 detailed investigations were made by EPA of sources
suspected of being subject to NSPS. Of this number, 28 sources were determined
to be subject to the first set of NSPS; five of these are now operating in
full compliance, and the remainder are still being built. Enforcement of
provisions covering both groups of NSPS was initiated during the summer of
1974 by EPA. As of December 31, 1974, 104 sources have been found subject
to these provisions (the three-fold increase of sources in the past six months
reflecting the promulgation of the second group of standards). To date, all
of these sources are under construction or have yet to be fully assessed for
final compliance.
While relatively little enforcement activity has developed to date from
the promulgation of these standards, additional promulgations of standards
is expected to result in a great increase in enforcement. The importance of
these standards as a means of maintaining the improving air quality will also
increase in years to come.
51
-------
§112, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)
On April 6, 1973, EPA promulgated regulations limiting emissions from
certain sources of three air pollutants deemed hazardous to human health
under the Clean Air Act provisions establishing National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS). The pollutants were asbestos, beryllium,
and mercury, and the regulations required that certain categories of sources
of these pollutants be brought into compliance within 90 days, be shut down,
or be placed on EPA-approved schedules bringing them into compliance by
April 1975.
EPA determined that only 620 of 13,000 potential sources were actually
covered by the regulations, and has since brought 500 sources into compliance;
of 120 sources suspected or known to be in violation of NESHAPS requirements,
50 are completing increments of progress in EPA-approved schedules to achieve
compliance by April 1975. EPA enforcement orders to comply have been issued
to ten additional violating sources and evidence for additional enforcement
actions is being developed.
NESHAPS provisions also cover two stationary, but temporary, sources of
asbestos: spraying of asbestos insulation and demolition of asbestos-containing
buildings. EPA estimates that at least 30,000 spraying and demolition
operations occur each year. Because of the transitory nature of these sources,
enforcement at the federal level is difficult; the controls can best be imposed
at the State and local levels. Therefore, EPA is making every effort to
delegate responsibility for these efforts to the States. While these provisions
are still the responsibility of EPA, the agency's enforcement program has focused
on the most recalcitrant violators. As detailed in the Appendix, EPA has issued
8 enforcement orders and initiated 7 criminal actions against transitory sources.
52
-------
MOBILE SOURCE ENFORCEMENT
Under various provisions of Title I and Title II of
the Clean Air Act, the Mobile Source Enforcement Division
has the responsibility for enforcement of motor vehicle emission
standards for new and in-use vehicles, for enforcing transportation
control plans where the states fail to do so, and for regulating
fuels and fuel additives.
NEW SOURCES ACTIVITIES
Under Section 206(c) of the Clean Air Act, the Mobile
Source Enforcement Division is entrusted with enforcement of
requirements for "new" motor vehicles or engines -i.e., motor
vehicles or engines which have not yet been sold to the
ultimate purchaser
Since January 1, 1974, the Mobile Source Enforcement
Division has conducted 17 inspections of domestic and foreign
motor vehicle manufacturer certification procedures. Such
inspections include detailed audits of procedures and visual
inspection of facilities and vehicles in order to determine
whether manufacturers are and have been acting in compliance
with the Clean Air Act and its regulations.
The Mobile Source Enforcement Division has also conducted
a total of 10 vehicle manufacturer investigations since
January 1, 1974, some of which arose from the inspections.
This activity consists of a search of vehicle manufacturer
53
-------
records and documents and interrogation of individuals to
determine whether violations of the Clean Air Act and its
regulations have occurred. Issuance of orders for production
of information pursuant to Section 208 of the Act frequently
accompany such investigations, and such orders have recently
been expanded to include requiring the manufacturer to develop
emission test data where technical violations may be accompanied
by effects on emission performance. Since January 1, 1974/38
§ 208 letters have been issued by Mobile Source Enforcement.
Out of the 17 investigations, 1 case was referred to the
Department of Justice for enforcement action. That referral,
which included 2 violations by Volkswagen of America, has
been prosecuted. A complaint against Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen
of America for the unreported existence of emission control
"defeat devices" on certain 1973 Volkswagens was settled by
stipulation in the amount of $120,000.
IN-USE SOURCES
The Mobile Source Enforcement Division is also responsible
for enforcing provisions of the Clean Air Act relating to in-use
54
-------
motor vehicles. Such provisions relate to tampering, recall,
warranty, and imports.
Tampering
Section 203(a) (3) makes it a prohibited act for any
manufacturer or dealer knowingly to remove or render inoperative
a vehicle's emission control system after sale of the vehicle
to the ultimate purchaser. From January 1, 1974, to January
1, 1975, the Mobile Source Enforcement Division conducted
approximately 15 investigations with the regional offices
responding to many alleged violations of the tampering
prohibition of the Clean Air Act. Five cases were referred
to the Department of Justice for action. Since January 1, 1974,
a total of four tampering cases have been successfully prosecuted.
A prosecution against Haney Chevrolet, of Orlando, Florida, in
February, 1974, resulted in a fine in the amount of $500.
Other cases and penalties were Gowin Dodge, Milton, Florida
for $2500, Haney Chevrolet of Larchmont, New York for $1,000
and Jim Wanger Chevrolet of Milwaukee, Wisconsin for $1,200. This re-
presents the first tampering prosecution under the Clean Air Act.
Recall
Section 207(c) of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to
order recall of vehicles if they do not conform to emission
standards.
One recall under the Clean Air Act has been ordered since
January 1, 1974. On March 6, 1974, EPA ordered Chrysler
Corporation to recall 826,000 motor vehicles to correct
55
-------
defective temperature sensing devices. In addition, 282,863
vehicles have been voluntarily recalled by manufacturers to
repair vehicles not conforming with standards.
The Chrysler CCEGR Recall Campaign, ordered by EPA on March 6, 1974, is
a large scale campaign requiring a relatively low cost repair and has cost
about $6 per car or a total of approximately $2.4 million to date. This is
based on EPA's estimate that fixed costs in this campaign were approximately
$1 million and parts and labor for each car fixed amounted to $3.50 per car
(400.000 X 3.50 = $1,400,000).
The Agency estimates the fixed costs of an EPA ordered recall campaign
(initial notification, overhead, provision for subsequent notification record-
keeping, etc.) to be in the range of $1-3 per car campaigned and expect that
voluntary campaigns would be of similar or slightly lower costs due to greater
flexibility available to the manufacturer in a voluntary campaign.
Since January, 1974, the Mobile Source Enforcement Division
has conducted 29 investigations of possible recalls. MSED
is currently conducting investigations involving General
Motors, Ford, Chrysler, and Volkswagen of America for possible
recalls.
Warranties and Aftermarket Parts
The warranty provisions of the Clean Air Act are designed
to help assure that manufacturers develop and produce vehicles
that meet emission standards throughout their useful life.
the 207(a) production warranty provision of the Clean
Air Act requires that the manufacturer warrant that the vehicle
56
-------
or engine meets applicable emission standards at the time of
sale, and is free from defects which may cause the vehicle or
engine to fail to comply with the emission standards.
The 207(b) performance warranty provision of the Clean
Air Act requires that a manufacturer warrant vehicles and
engines comply with emission standards when in actual use.
EPA is working to develop these warranties into meaningful
remedies for purchasers of nonconforming vehicles. In support
of the warranty programs, and to protect against any resulting
anti-competitive effects in the automobile aftermarket, EPA
56a
-------
has endorsed a voluntary self-certification program for certain
automotive aftermarket parts, and MSED is working toward
its development.
Imported Vehicles
Sections 203(a)(l) and 203(b)(2) gives the Mobile
Source Enforcement Division the responsibility for enforcing
compliance of imported motor vehicles with emission standards.
In conjunction with the Bureau of Customs, the Mobile Source
Enforcement Division has monitored importation of an estimated
3 million commercial and privately owned vehicles since
January 1, 1974. Through that program, a total of 284
administrative orders to modify noncomplying vehicles have been
issued as well as 72 orders to export nonconforming vehicles
imported under bond. Thirty-nine bond forfeitures have been
assessed through Customs for noncompliance with the regulations.
The Mobile Source Enforcement Division has conducted 46
investigations of alleged illegal importations. One case was
referred to Justice Department for prosecution against the
Grossman Motor Car Corporation of West Nyack, New York. On
June 12, 1974, a civil penalty of $25,000 and a criminal
penalty of $30,000 (remitted to $4,500) were assessed against
the Corporation for the illegal importation of 14 motor vehicles
Transportation Control Plans
Under sections 110 and 113 of the Clean Air Act
57
-------
(Title I) EPA has the authority to ensure enforcement of
Transportation Control Plans. Mobile Source Enforcement Division
coordinates the accompanying regional enforcement program.
During the past year, since January 1, 1974, Section 113
notices of violation were issued to 390 employers in the Boston
area for failure to submit employee parking space reduction
plans, one Spokane parking lot operator for operating a parking
facility in violation of a freeze in Spokane, Washington,
22 service station operators in the Denver area for failure
to submit control plans pursuant to Stage I Vapor Recovery
Regulations, and the State of New York for failure to meet
a number of implementation milestones. In addition, 99
section 114 letters of inquiry have been sent.
58
-------
Fuels Enforcement
The Mobile Source Enforcement Division has responsibility
for enforcing section 211(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act relating
to the regulations of fuels and fuel additives. On January
10, 1973, EPA promulgated regulations requiring the general
availability of unleaded gasoline by July 1, 1974 for use
in 1975 and later model cars equipped with catalytic emission
control systems.
The Mobile Source Enforcement Division has established a
nationwide Fuels Enforcement Program for ensuring that affected
retail outlets are in compliance with these regulations.
This program entails sampling of the fuel at retail outlets by
Regional EPA Field Inspectors, though the use of a mobile
van test facility.
During the past year, beginning with the effective date
of the lead-free fuel regulations on July 1, 1974, EPA has
conducted 5,360 inspections of service stations to ensure
compliance with the lead-free fuel regulations. EPA has
detected 1895 minor violations of the lead-free fuel regulations
and 66 violations for contamination of lead-free gasoline.
There have been 796 warning letters and 97 complaints issued,
18 settlement conferences held, and 3 ($1750) penalties collected,
59
-------
Sixty-six (66) cases of contaminated unleaded gasoline were detected
during the first two quarters of Fiscal Year 1975. In each case both the
retailer and the supplier of the gasoline (refiner and/or distributor) are
deemed in violation. In those cases which have been settled, the supplier
has usually been found to be liable for the contamination. The contamination
most often occurs in that link of the distribution chain which connects the
terminal or bulk plant to the retail outlet. Common causes of contamination
include the retention of some leaded gasoline in the delivery truck or its
manifolding which mixes and adulterates a subsequent batch of unleaded gasoline,
or misdirected unloading of leaded gasoline into an unleaded underground
storage tank.
During the same period of time, 1, 895 cases of minor violations were
detected. However, because many of the stations in violation contained
multiple violations, the number of stations out of compliance is estimated
at 650. For the most part, the retailer is responsible for complying with
these nozzle, sign and label provisions. Most of these cases are handled
on an informal basis; a warning letter rather than a complaint is issued to
the retailer notifying him of the nonconforming situation at his outlet.
If the retailer remedies the situation within a stated grace period, the
case is closed without the issuance of a complaint. Only when the retailer
fails to bring the station into compliance in a timely manner is a complaint
issued against the retailer assessing a civil penalty. As set out in Guide-
lines from Headquarters, the penalties are uniformly lower than those assessed
against distributors and refiners.
59a
-------
Table 6
MOBILE SOURCE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
TYPE OF SOURCE
INSPECTIONS
INVESTIGATIONS
ADMINISTRATIVE
ORDERS
REFERRAL TO
DEPT. OF
JUSTICE
PROSECUTED
FINE
NEW SOURCES
Automotive
Manufacturers
IN-USE SOURCES
Tampering
Recall
Imports
FUELS
TOTAL
10 Inspections
17 Investigations 36 11 $120,000
15 0 54 $5,200.
29 1 0
46 395 1 1 $29,500.
5360 3 $1750.
5477
432
$ 154,700.
-------
V. THE STATUS OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN APPROVALS, DISAPPROVALS.
AND PROMULGATIONS, AND PROGRESS TOWARDS ATTAINMENT OF NATIONAL
STANDARDS
On April 30, 1971, EPA promulgated National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for five pollutants—sulfur dioxide, particulate matter,
carbon monoxide, photochemical oxidants, and nitrogen dioxide. Subsequent
to that action, each of the 50 States, four U.S. territories, and the
District of Columbia, were required to submit a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) to EPA which described the procedures and control actions that would
be taken to reduce existing ambient concentrations for each pollutant to
levels at or below the national standards. For purposes of SIP development,
the entire geographic area of the nation was divided by EPA, after con-
sultation with State agency officials, into 247 Air Quality Control Regions
(AQCR's). SIP's which demonstrated the attainment and maintenance of
NAAQS were required to be submitted for each of the AQCR's and for each of
the pollutants.
Each of the States submitted SIP's for EPA approval (or disapproval)
as required under the Act. These plans were more or less complete, with
the exception of 42 AQCR's which were granted an 18-month extension to
develop SIP's for secondary standards for particulate matter or sulfur
dioxide. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA has the authority to propose and
promulgate regulations to overcome States1 regulatory deficiencies. Table 7
shows the current status of the 55 SIP's with respect to the need for EPA
promulgation and the degree to which these promulgations have been made.
61
-------
Table 7 STATUS OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS, SUMMARY(a)
SIP's approved through State submittal 3
SIP's submitted by States and requiring EPA
promulgation 52
SIP's with all regulatory deficiencies corrected
by EPA promulgation 38
SIP's with all regulatory deficiencies not yet
corrected (finalized) by EPA promulgation 14
plans are disapproved with respect to "significant deterioration"
and"maintenance of the national standards."
62
-------
While most parts of many SIP's have been approved, one or more elements
of the SIP's was deficient, resulting in a small number of SIP's being
totally approved.
The State and EPA control regulations were believed to be adequate
at the time of SIP approval to reduce ambient levels to the national
standards. While it is premature in many cases to determine if in fact
the national standards will be attained by the implementation of these
control plans, (primarily because numerous emission limiting regulations
and compliance schedules do not require compliance until the 1975 time
period), some general conclusions can be drawn.
ATTAINMENT OF NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR DUALITY STANDARDS
$ul_fur_j)i oxide
With regards to sulfur dioxide, significant progress has been made
in reducing ambient concentrations throughout the nation. Nationally, a
25% decrease in annual average S02 concentrations has been observed. For
the most part* the AQCR's with air quality not yet meeting the national
standards generally have emissions from large uncontrolled point sources,
such as power plants. In most cases, it is believed that enforcement of
existing regulations will be adequate to attain national sulfur
dioxide standards.
Particulate Matter
Some progress has been made in reducing particulate matter concentrations,
but reductions are made more slowly for particulates than for S0£. On a national
average, a 75% decrease has been observed. However, two distinct problems have
been noted which may affect the attainment of the national particulate matter
63
-------
standards. These problems include the impact of fugitive or windblown
dust on air quality, particularly in the West where windblown dust from
farms, unpaved roads, and construction sites may cause high ambient concen-
trations. The second particulate problem involves the high background con-
centrations in many urban areas. It is believed that numerous miscellaneous
sources contribute to high background concentrations such that the attain-
ment of national standards may be difficult without the application of new
and long range control techniques. Background sources include: tire
particles, pollen, vegetative matter, sand and salt particles from snow
control, windblown dust from exposed surfaces, reentrainment of street dust
caused by wind and traffic flow, as well as secondary particulate formation
in the atmosphere from the conversion of gaseous pollutant emissions by
complex atmospheric transformations.
Preliminary evaluations in major problem cities have indicated that
the measures necessary to attain national standards for particulate matter
would include: conversion to gaseous fuels> extremely stringent emission
limitations; elimination of small incinerators; extremely low sulfur content
fuels; elimination of additives such as lead in fuels; comprehensive
fugitive dust control; and tight control of hydrocarbons (to reduce
photochemical aerosols). Replanning of future growth and development
would also be involved in at least some areas.
Carbon Monoxide and Photochemical Oxidants
The attainment of national standards for photochemical oxidants and
carbon monoxide in major cities is directly associated with control of
transportation sources. Twenty-seven cities have been determined to need
64
-------
a transportation control plan (TCP) to meet the oxidant standard, while
TCP's for carbon monoxide are needed in 26 AQCR's. TCP's may require
such measures as traffic flow improvements, mass transit improvements,
car pool locator services, or, in extreme cases, gasoline limitations
and selective vehicle exclusion from downtown areas. Such measures are
planned to reduce the emission of photochemical oxidant precursors such
as unburned hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides. Since these measures would
have major social and economic impact, the Agency has suggested to Congress
an amendment of the Clean Air Act that would allow the attainment date for
ambient air quality standards for these nollutants to be extended
thereby eliminating the need for rapid application of control
actions that would have serious adverse social or economic effects.
The oxidant attainment problem is further complicated by the fact
that recent measurements of oxidant levels in rural areas have shown that
national standards are exceeded regularly, in some cases more than 20% "of
the time. Though it is known that natural emissions from such sources
as coniferous forests can cause the formation of photochemical oxidants,
data from remote ambient air monitoring sites,'when correlated with
meteorological data, indicate that oxidants are advected into these remote
areas from large metropolitan areas that may be hundreds of miles distant.
Additionally, east of the Mississippi River, where large cities are in close
proximity, research data show that oxidanfcin remote areas may come from
different source cities depending on wind direction. Further research
is being done on this problem to identify the source of oxidants in remote
65
-------
areas and to determine if the greater distances between cities in the
western part of the country decreases the oxidant levels in remote areas.
Mi t ro gerr Pi o xi de
An issue related to the attainment of national standards for nitrogen
dioxide was the discovery, in 1973, that the routine ambient sampling
method for the pollutant was faulty. The method generally indicated higher
than actual ambient levels of nitrogen dioxide. Because of this finding,
the Agency proposed to reclassify 43 of the 47 AQCR's from Priority I
to Priority III. This action was deemed appropriate since new sampling
methods did not indicate an NOp problem throughout the nation as had the
original method.
On May 8, 1973, EPA finalized in the Federal Register the reclassi-
fication of 42 of the 47 Priority I AQCR's to Priority III. Five AQCR's will
remain Priority I, i.e., where air quality levels are near or above the
national standards. These AQCR's include Los Angeles, Chicago, Baltimore,
Salt Lake City, and New York-New Jersey-Connecticut. Additionally, a
limited amount of air quality data from the Denver AQCR (Priority III)
suggested that this AQCR may need to be reclassified Priority I. Additional
data are being collected by the Agency in these areas.
In those AQCR's which were reclassified Priority III and where the States
had previously adopted emission regulations calling for control of NO from
A
stationary sources, EPA will favorably consider States' requests for plan
revisions that would rescind such regulations.
66
-------
ISSUES AFFECTING DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION
PLANS
Maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards
As directed by a 1973 court decision, EPA reviewed its initial approvals
and disapprovals of State implementation plans regarding the maintenance
of NAAQS. The review indicated that no plans adequately provided for the
continued maintenance of national standards for a significant time beyond
1975-77. Consequently, EPA promulgated in the Federal Register on June 18,
1973, requirements that the implementation plans provide for both indirect
source review and continued long-term maintenance of the national air
quality standards. The regulations require in part that SIP's identify
areas that may, as a consequence of current air quality and/or the projected
growth rate of the areas, have the potential for exceeding any national
air quality standard within the subsequent 10-year period. EPA is to
publish, based upon the information submitted by the State, a list of
potential problem areas. Each State is required to submit a detailed
analysis of the impact on air quality of projected growth in each potential
problem area designated by the Administrator. Where the analysis indicates
that an area will not maintain the national standards, once attained, for
the following 10 years, the State must also submit a plan containing
measures to ensure the maintenance of the NAAQS during the ensuing 10-year
period. Furthermore, to ensure the continued maintenance of the national
standards, States must perform the area identification-analysis-pian
development process at least every 5 years.
67
-------
During 1974, EPA published guidance to the States concerning the
process of problem area identification, analysis, and plan development.
Additional guidance will be published in early 1975. EPA proposed a list
of potential problem areas in the Federal Register on July 10 and August 12,
1974. A total of 188 areas for at least one pollutant were proposed. Of
these, 167 were for particulate matter, 56 for sulfur dioxide, 29 for
carbon monoxide, 54 for photochemical oxidants, and 9 for nitrogen dioxide.
The final area identifications are scheduled to be published in early 1975.
The problem area analyses and plans are scheduled for submission to EPA
later in 1975. If EPA determines that a potential problem area will not
attain a primary national ambient air quality standard by the attainment
date, EPA will issue a notice to revise the implementation plan for both
attainment and maintenance. In this case, the maintenance plan would not
necessarily be due in 1975, but would be due on the date stated in the
notice to revise the implementation plan. Detailed requirements for pre-
paring, adopting, and submitting air quality maintenance plans are scheduled
for promulgation in mid-1975.
Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality
On May 30, 1972, as a result of a suit filed by the Sierra Club,
EPA was ordered by the District Court of the District of Columbia to
disapprove all SIP's which do "not prevent significant deterioration of
air quality" in currently clean areas and to promulgate new regulations
which would prevent signfficant deterioration. The District Court order
was appealed to the Court of Appeals where it was affirmed, and subse-
quently to the Supreme Court, where it was affirmed by a tie vote
68
-------
(June, 1973). As a result of the initial court action, all SIP's were
disapproved on Nov. 9, 1972, to the extent that they did not explicitly
"prevent significant deterioration."
In the absence of firm judicial or legislative guidance as to just
what constitutes significant deterioration and what are acceptable means
to prevent such deterioration, EPA solicited widespread public comment.
In order to establish the conceptual issues and assist in their resolution,
four alternative plans were proposed in the Federal Register of July 16,
1973. The analysis of considerable public comment together with several
contract studies and numerous interfaces with governmental agencies
at all levels (all of which extended well into 1974) suggested that an
allowable air quality increment concept was preferable.
In response to a timetable for court compliance established in
mid-1974, EPA reproposed the favored air quality classification plan
for procedural and technical comment on August 27, 1974. The results
of the 30 day public comments were considered and further multi-agency
review was undertaken. Some changes were made and the area classification
plan was promulgated on November 27, 1974. The regulations as promulgated
would affect all new sources of 18 major types commencing construction
after June 1, 1975. However, both the Sierra Club and Dayton Power and
Light have petitioned for a court to review the details of EPA's promul-
gation.
EPA's activities on significant deterioration in 1974 also included
the March 22 transmittal of a proposed amendment to the Clean Air Act
69
-------
which would eliminate any requirements to prevent significant deterior-
ation of air quality. Although EPA did not support this proposal, the
Agency believes that the significant deterioration issue should be
examined by th Congress. Because of the potential for further liti-
gation, the importance of this issue to our environment and our
energy problems, and the potential impact of EPA's regulations on State
and local land use responsibilities, EPA has encouraged Congress to explore
all alternatives for dealing with the significant deterioration issue.
Supplementary Control Systems
EPA proposed regulations on September 14, 1973, for the use of
Supplementary Control Systems (SCS) and requested public comment. This
proposal depicted SCS as a temporary measure applicable only to sulfur
oxide emissions from isolated non-ferrous smelters and coal-fired power
plants, where the sole alternatives are permanent curtailment 6f
production, closing of the plants, or delays in attainment of the standards.
The essence of SCS is to allow the pollution source, subject to certain
restraints, to cut back or modify its operation as necessary to permit
adequate dispersion of air pollutants and thus avoid air concentrations
in excess of national standards. However, constant emission limitation is
the preferred strategy for attaining and maintaining the standards in the
long term. SCS is acceptable only as a temporary measure where its use is
necessary to augment constant emission limitation techniques as determined on
a case-by-case basis, and only in circumstances wherein SCS can be expected to
exhibit a high degree of reliability and enforceabi 1 ity and where the
emission sources can be readily and unequivocally identified.
70
-------
EPA is currently proceeding with the development of control plans for
all affected non-ferrous smelters to correct the currently deficient State
plan and to satisfy the 18-month extension for submittal of a plan for
attaining and maintaining the secondary sulfur dioxide standard. To date,
EPA has proposed regulations allowing the use of SCS at two smelters
located in Idaho and Nevada. These regulations require the installation
of emission control equipment to the extent technically feasible and further
state that SCS may be employed only if certain conditions outlined in the
regulations are met, and its use is needed to achieve national standards. Other
proposed regulations and the finalizing of the two proposals can be
expected in the near future.
A similar concept is being developed for application to specific
coal fired power plants which will alleviate some of the problems created
by the current deficit in low sulfur fuels as well as the extensive time
required to retrofit flue gas desulfurization systems on existing facilities.
Indirect Sources
In response to a court order requiring EPA and the States to take further
measures to insure maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards,
EPA issued regulations requiring States to develop procedures to assess the
air quality impact of new facilities, such as shopping centers and sports
arenas, which could generate significant auto traffic, i.e., indirect sources.
Approximately seventeen States and territories have submitted such
provisions of which EPA has approved six. Indirect sources located in the
remaining 49 States or territories are subject to an EPA regulation promulgated
on July 9, 1974, following receipt of public comments pertaining to a
February 25, 1974 proposal.
71
-------
On December 30, 1974, EPA suspended the effective date of the
Federally promulgated provisions from January 1, 1975, to at least July 1,
1975. Thus, the Federal regulations will not be effective for facilities
that commence construction prior to July 1, 1975 and perhaps later.
Tall Stacks
EPA proposed regulations on September 14, 1973, limiting the use of
stacks taller than that consistent with "good engineering practice" as
a control strategy measure except as part of an approved supplementary
control system. This general concept was confirmed on February 8, 1974,
by a Court of Appeals opinion which stated that dispersion techniques could
not be employed as a substitute for available emission controls.
Final regulations have not yet been promulgated to formally implement
this policy due to the difficulty in defining "good engineering practice
stack height" and "available control measures" applicable to all sources
on a nationwide basis. Extensive consultations and analyses have been
conducted, and regulations are expected to be published in 1975.
Clean Fuels Shortage
Because of a known shortage of clean fuels (low sulfur fuels), the
Agency developed the Clean Fuels policy in November 1972. Under this
policy, States were (and still are) encouraged to revise their adopted
emission regulations to permit the continued burning of any fuel from
established sources, provided that primary air quality standards are not
violated. This action reduces the demand for the more scarce low sulfur
fuels in those locations where the primary standards are already being met,
72
-------
thereby increasing their availability to other areas where severe
environmental problems exist.
This policy relies on cooperative efforts by EPA and State
environmental agencies to extend compliance timetables for secondary
standards or to revise emission regulations where primary standards
would not be jeopardized. This program has thus far resulted in 42
million tons of coal being made legally acceptable through revisions
in the sulfur regulations of SIPs. EPA expects that an addition 70
million tons will be realized by July 1, 1975.
The three procedures by which this policy are being realized are:
1. the revision of sulfur emission regulations in the applicable
SIPs to permit the burningof "air quality acceptable" coal,
2. the granting to applicable utilities variances permitting them
to continue burningtheir present quality coal, and
3. the attainment of the secondary S02 standard (i.e., to protect
for welfare effects) at a reasonable date.
To overcome any sudden shortages of acceptable clean fuels
due to strikes, embargo, etc., the Agency established in October 1974
procedures for the processing of variance requests (permitting the use
of high sulfur fuels) for all fuel types and consumption sources. Any
variance would be considered an SIP revision, therefore, requiring approval
by the Administrator. The expedited procedures are designed to assure
expedited action on the requests, while protecting the public health and
welfare.
Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act
During 1974, the Agency became further involved with the energy
situation, primarily as directed by Section 4 of the Energy Supply and
Environmental Coordination Act (ESECA). The Act requires EPA to review
73
-------
each SIP with respect to fuel-burning stationary sources, and to determine
If revisions can be made which would alleviate the fuels shortage without
Interfering with attainment of any NAAQS or otherwise adversely affecting
public health. Further, the Act requires the Agency to report to the
States on the SIP raview findings.
Although the ESECA is related to the "Clean Fuels Policy" it is larger
In scope, and therefore requires a larger coordination effort with the
responsible State agencies. The review of SIP's will principally address
total suspended particulate and sulfur dioxide emissions relative to the
achievement of both primary and secondary standards and will focus on
emissions from power plants, very large industrial sources, and area sources
Approximately twenty SIP's were reviewed in 1974 and the remaining SIP
reviews are scheduled to be completed by early 1975.
In-Stack Emission Monitoring for Existing Sources
When SIP's were first developed, it was the Agency's position that
continuous in-stack emission monitoring systems were not sufficiently
reliable to warrant their inclusion as part of the SIP requirements. At
that time, States were required to have legal authority to require such
monitoring but were not required to implement that authority. Since then,
the performance and reliability of these monitors has improved such that
the Agency has now defined realistic minimum performance specifications
for continuous monitors for certain source categories.
On September 11, 1974, the Agency proposed regulations to require
continuous monitoring of emissions from the following source categories:
-------
1. Specified fuel-fired steam generators of more than 250
million BTU per hour heat input {particulates/opacity, sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and oxygen);
2. Nitric acid plants (nitrogen dioxide);
3. Sulfuric acid plants (sulfur dioxide); and
4. Petroleum refineries' fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst
regenerators (particul ates/opaci ty).
The source categories were chosen to coincide with the development of
Mew Source Performance Standards (NSPS) since the NSPS are directed toward
the most significant stationary sources and more information on the
performance of continuous monitoring equipment is available for these
source categories.
Extensions for Developing and Implementing SIPs
The Clean Air Act provides for extensions of up to 2 years beyond
the 1975 goal for attainment of primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards
in those AQCR's where needed technology or other alternatives either are not
available or will not be available soon enough to attain the primary standards.
At present, twenty-eight AQCR's in sixteen States have been granted extensions
for attainment of primary standards. The majority of these extensions have
been granted in the latter part of 1973 primarily for those Regions requiring
transportation control plans. Therefore, these extensions mainly affect the
attainment of the carbon monoxide and photochemical oxidant standards. In
addition, many States containing non-ferrous smelters have been granted
extensions for attainment of the sulfur dioxide standards. In fourteen of
75
-------
the sixteen States granted extensions, EPA is required to promulgate
regulations and the extension was provided as part of EPA's control
strategy.
The Clean Air Act also provides for 18-month extensions for submitting
plans for attaining secondary standards. On May 31, 1972, EPA granted
18-month extensions to 24 States involving 42 AQCR's to prepare control
strategies for the criteria pollutants for which secondary standards have
been set, i.e., participate matter and sulfur dioxide. Thirteen States
were required to submit particulate matter control plans by July 31, 1973.
Of these, plans for eight States, covering 16 AQCR's, have been submitted
to EPA. Because of the announcement on May 12, 1973, that SO,, secondary
standards might be revised, States had until January 30, 1974, to submit
their SOp control strategies. Only three of the required twelve States
have submitted a plan for the attainment and maintenance of the secondary
SOp standard. The remaining plans for particulate matter and sulfur
dioxide are under development by EPA. This includes specific regulations
for control of sulfur dioxide emissions from non-ferrous smelters in six
States (Nevada, New Mexico, Montana, Utah, Arizona, and Idaho) where
extensions were not requested by the State but were provided by EPA.
Court Actions on Variances
As a result of suits filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC), the First, Second and Eighth Circuit Courts have held that
source compliance dates could be deferred through the mechanism of a
State-issued and EPA-approved variance or enforcement order but only up
to the attainment date for meeting the primary ambient air quality standards.
76
-------
In most instances, the date for meeting the primary standards is July 31,
1975. However, in some air quality control regions (AQCR's), primary
standard attainment dates have been deferred up to two years through
extensions granted under authority of illO(e) of the Act.
When the same issue was brought before the Fifth Circuit Court,
this Court held that lllO(f) of the Act is the exclusive means of
postponing a compliance date even where the postponement does not go
beyond the date for meeting the primary standards. The Agency believes
that compliance date deferrals which do not go beyond applicable attainment
dates should be treated as plan revisions, and should not be subject to
the procedures of lllO(f). Upon request by EPA, the Supreme Court stayed
the Fifth Circuit's decision until it completes a review of the decision.
Although final Agency action must await the outcome of this review, the
proposed regulations for the six States within the Fifth Circuit jurisdiction
are those the Agency intends to promulgate should the Supreme Court reverse
the Fifth Circuit's decision.
From a technical standpoint, the opinions of the three circuit courts
referred to above can be treated as applying only to those States which
are within the jurisdiction of these courts. However, when three appellate
courts uniformly resolve an issue which is common to every State, the
decisions of the courts constitute strongly persuasive guidance for
Agency action in all States. Therefore, on September 26, 1974, EPA
published disapprovals for all States having postponement authority in-
consistent with the terms of 40 CFR Part 51 and proposed substitute
regulations for those disapproved plans.
77
-------
Review of SIPs for Reasonableness
Three separate court cases, involving challenges of the reasonableness
of regulations contained in SIP's approved by EPA, resulted in the ruling
that EPA must consider technical feasibility and economic practicality when
approving SIP regulations. In the future, EPA policy will be to consider avail-
ability of technology, economic practicality, vagueness of definitions or test
methods, and adequacy of compliance time in determining the enforceability
and approvability of SIP regulations.
Other court cases have stated that EPA has the duty to disapprove
State statutes and regulations which are submitted by a State as part of an
SIP, but which fail to meet Clean Air Act requirements or which have no
relationship to the attainment of the NAAQS. The Courts pointed out that
if there were a class of regulations or laws submitted by the States which
EPA took no action to disapprove, the result would be substantial confusion,
unnecessary litigation, and a hampering of EPA's enforcement efforts.
Because it is critical that the SIP as finally approved sets forth precisely
what is required, it will be EPA's policy to specifically identify those
measures submitted by a State Which are related to attainment of the
National ambient air quality standards and are therefore part of an
approved implementation plan enforceable by EPA.
78
-------
VI. STATUS OF AIR MONITORING AND TRENDS IN AIR QUALITY
The State air pollution control agencies have been delegated the
responsibility to install adequate air monitoring networks for criteria
pollutants (those for which air quality standards have been set), as part
of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) process.
EPA bases its assessments of national air quality to a major extent
on the data submitted from these networks. The States submit their data
to EPA's data storage and retrieval system. Summaries are then compiled
of both the status of air quality with respect to Federal standards and
the current scope of the composite national monitoring effort. In addi-
tion, companion computer files of data on point source and area emissions,
plus meteorological data afford researchers within EPA and outside a
sophisticated tool for investigating these complex influences on air
quality. As of mid-1974, EPA's data bank contained information from over
6000 air monitors, and emission data on some 77,700 point sources and
3,300 (counties) area sources.
Before the formal status of compliance with a standard can be con-
ferred on an Air Quality Control Region (AQCR), a reasonable history of
data (at least one year) must be compiled from a representative network
of monitors. A single station, reporting two values or an annual mean
over a standard, is sufficient to document a violation; compliance must
usually be demonstrated by more extensive evidence from a multiple-
station network. The target date for completing these networks was,
in most cases, July 1974. Table 8 summarizes the progress made by the
states through 1973 in completing the networks obligated in their SIP's.
The picture of the nation's air quality status with respect to standards
79
-------
remains partially incomplete to the extent that some areas were as yet
unmonitored or incompletely monitored when these summaries were prepared.
The number of AQCR's reporting violations of standards is summarized
in Tables 9 through 12.
Table 9, for suspended particulate matter, shows the number of AQCR's
in each Priority Classification (I = substantial problem, II = moderate
problem, III = minor problem). The second column shows the number of
AQCR's reporting at least a bare minimum of analyzable data , namely 75% of the
scheduled measurements for at least one quarter from one or more stations.
(The differences from the Priority Class totals in the first column are
the numbers of AQCR's reporting no usable data for 1973, as of June 1974).
The next column shows the number of reporting stations within an AQCR
that violated the 24-hour particulate standard (a primary or health related
standard). The next column shows the number of AQCRs that have reported
data for a full year from one or more stations in 1973, thus affording at
least a tentative appraisal of the annual (primary) particulate standard.
The final column shows how many of these AQCRs reported one or more stations
violating the annual standard for particulates. As indicated above, the
complementary group of AQCR's whose reported data include no violations will
not be conferred the status of compliance until sufficient data have been
reported, subsequent to the network completion date of July 1974,to appraise
the adequacy of each AQCR's network coverage.
The diagrams at the bottom of Table 9 portray the distribution of the
AQCR's in each Priority Class above and below the particulate standards.
This analysis is based on data from stations in AQCR's reporting the highest
second maximum daily value or highest annual mean.
80
-------
TablelO presents a similar summary of sulfur dioxide (802) data
for 1973.
Tablesll and!2 summarize AQCR status for carbon monoxide (CO) and
ozone/oxidants (0 ), respectively. Note that, for these two pollutants,
A
there are only Priority Classes I and III, and that the Priority III
AQCR's are not required to monitor for these two pollutants. However, a
number of states have elected to install monitors in some Priority III
AQCR's and many of these stations are recording values exceeding the CO
and oxidant standards.
If a comparison were to be made with these corresponding tables in
last year's report, it would appear that the number of AQCR's violating
standards for each pollutant had increased this year. However, these
AQCR totals are not yet a reliable measure of changes in air quality
because the coverage of monitoring networks is still expanding and
improving. More stations reported data in 1973 than in 1972 (see Table 13);
still more can be expected when the 1974 summaries are complete. It can
also be expected that some of these additional stations mav reveal
additional violations in areas not previously monitored.
To discuss trends, a selected group of stations consistently reporting
data over a period of years must be examined. That analysis is discussed
in the next section.
AIR QUALITY TRENDS: 1970-1973
All the data used in this analysis are from the National Aerometric
Data Bank which is comprised of State and local data submitted to EPA
along with data from the Federal networks. National and regional trends
81
-------
are examined for total suspended participate (TSP) and sulfur dioxide (S02),
while trends in specific geographical areas are examined for oxidant (Ox)
and carbon monoxide (CO).
In order to be selected, a site had to have valid data for a year for
TSP and S02, at least a valid quarter per year for CO and at least a
valid third quarter per year(summer season) for Ox. For TSP and S02
non-continuous sampling instruments, a valid year of data is defined as
a year of data with 4 valid quarters, where a valid quarter must have a
minimum of five samples. If no samples are collected in one month, neither
of the other two months in that quarter may have less than two samples
reported. For 0 , CO and S09 continuous sampling instruments, both a valid
A £
quarter and valid year must have at least 75 percent of the total number
of possible observations. Finally.to be included in this analysis a site
had to meet these criteria in either 1970 or 1971 and 1972 or 1973. There
are 984 sites meeting the requirements for TSP, 213 for S02, 66 for CO
and 28 for 0 . The reason for the extremely limited data base for CO
/\
and 0 is the fact that many States have not had monitoring networks in
J\
operation for these pollutants until this year.
For purposes of making regional comparisons in TSP and S02 the
nation was divided into five geographical areas: Northeast, South,
North Central, Midwest and West. In terms of EPA Regions, the Northeast
consists of EPA Regions I, II and III, the South is EPA Region IV, the
North Central is EPA Region V, the Midwest consists of EPA Regions VI,
VII and VIII and the west consists of EPA Regions IX and X.
National and Regional Trends in Total Suspended Particulates
As demonstrated in Figure 1, the trend in TSP is downward for the
national composite of all stations and in each of the geographical areas
82
-------
examined during the period 1970 to 1973. The decreasing trend is also
evident when the 1970-1971 time period is compared with the 1972-1973 time
period. Using the averages for these two time periods, it was found that
45% of the sites exceeded the primary annual mean standard in 1970-1971
compared with 32% in 1972-1973. This general improvement was also reflected
3 3
in a 14% decline (from 77.9 ug/m to 66.7 ug/m ) in the national composite
average during this time period. Interestingly enough, the composite
average of the second highest values showed a 15% decline (from 202.3 ug/m
•D
to 171.1 ug/m ) in this same period which is quite comparable with the
trend in average levels. Of course, for a specific site the percent decline
in annual average level may not be as closely matched by a corresponding
decrease in the peak value because the latter is more subject to temporary
influences ^f atypical meteorology and emissions. There were 35 background
sites used in the trend analysis, and these showed a slight decline due
primarily to decreases in the Midwest.
National and Regional Trends in Sulfurjjjoxlde
As with TSP, the predominate S02 trend is downward in the nation
and in the geographical areas during the period 1970-1973/Figure 2). These
low levels of S02 generally result from the successof control measures for S02,
regulations on the sulfur content of fuels, strong enforcement practices ,
and fuel switching to cleaner fuels. In contrasting theT970-1971 period
with the 1972-1973 period, the composite average shows a 25% decline (from
36.8 ug/m3 to 27.5 ug/m3, while the composite average of the peak values
shows a 26% decline (from 175.6 ug/m3 to 130.3 ug/m3). Therefore, as for
TSP, there is good agreement between the trends in composite averages and
composite peak values. Only 10 background sites satisfied the validity
criteria and these showed no predominant pattern.
83
-------
Trends in Oxidant
Most of the sites measuring oxidant which were able to meet our
minimum data requirement are located in California. Essentially three
areas were examined: Coastal Los Angeles, Noncoastal Los Angeles and the
San Francisco Bay Area. Figure 3 presents the yearly trend in the composite
average of the second high one hour oxidant values. The Coastal Los Angeles
sites were the only sites which showed a sharp increase in the composite
average of the second high value. The California Air Resources Board
attributes this to adverse meteorological conditions in 1973.
The general improvement seen in the Noncoastal Los Angeles area, the
fan Francisco Bay Area and the Coastal Los Angeles area prior to 1973 can
be explained in part by the reduction in total hydrocarbon emissions.
Trends in Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide trends are presented for four groupings: Los Angeles,
New Jersey, Washington State and U. S. Remainder. As can be seen in
Figure 4, the percent of values above the eight hour standard has generally
declined in each of the groupings. The progress seen in the reduction in
the percent of values above the eight hour standard can be attributed in
part to the success of the Federal Motor Vehicle Emissions Control Program.
Monitoring Implications of the Energy Supply and Environmental
Coordination Act (ESECAT ~~ ' ~~
Fossil fuel fired electric generating plants and other major fossil
fuel users are being encouraged, where feasible to convert from oil or
gas to coal. Adaptability of the equipment is, of course, an essential
element of this feasibility. The Act provides that air quality in the
area shall also be a guiding determinant of whether the fuel conversion
84
-------
should be made, and if so, then the nature of the emission control equip-
ment that may be required. EPA is considering the possibility of requiring
the owners or operators of those facilities that are granted suspensions
or compliance extensions to install sulfur dioxide monitors around such
facilities and to report the resulting data to EPA. These data would
supplement the state and local monitoring network data in EPA's evaluations
of AQCR compliance, progress toward compliance, or potential deterioration
of air quality.
MONITORING STRATEGY AND METHODS
In addition to the supplemental monitoring to be required of specific
point sources, under ESECA, EPA is evaluating modifications to the recom-
mended monitoring strategy employed by state and local agency networks.
Growing experience in interpreting the existing data, plus concerns over
newly emerging aspects of the nation's air pollution picture recommend
more comprehensive monitoring in three principal categories:
1. AQCR's classed Priority III for CO and oxidants. Originally,
an AQCR that was classed Priority III for one of these pollutants was not
required to monitor for that pollutant. As remarked in a previous section,
some states have elected to place CO and/or oxidant monitors in some
Priority III AQCR's and a surprising number of these monitors are recording
violations. The Environmental Protection Agency is recommending that
urbanized areas with a population greater than 250,000 in AQCRs that are
Priority III for one or both of these pollutants install at least two
monitors for one or both pollutants.
85
-------
2. In AQCR's where discrete sample monitors (hi-vols and 24-hour
SOp bubblers), operating on the prescribed every sixth-day schedule report
one value over the corresponding 24-hour standard, there is a substantial
probability that the standard was in fact exceeded a second time, consti-
tuting a violation, on one of the intervening, unmonitored days. In
these borderline cases, EPA recommends that the sampling schedule at
such sites be increased to every third day. This increase in measurement
frequency will substantially improve either the probability of detecting
actual violations or the confidence with which the status of compliance
is assigned.
3. Recent evidence of elevated oxidant concentratiops in rural areas
lead EPA to recommend inclusion of nonurban oxidant monitors in monitoring
network plans. These data will help to establish the origin and fate of
those high oxidant concentrations.
Status of Nitrogen Dioxide Monitoring
The reference method for nitrogen dioxide (N02) has been found to be
inadequate. Subsequent to the revocation of the original reference method
for measuring ambient N02 concentrations, eight other candidate methods
have been evaluated. As the study of these candidate methods nears its
conclusion, it is apparent that the chemiluminescence method will be named
the reference method. Two other methods, the TGS and the sodium arsenite
methods, are likely to be named as acceptable equivalent methods. When
these method selections are formally confirmed, a report will be prepared
reviewing AQCR status in the light of available current data.
86
-------
TABLE 8 National Summary Of Air Monitoring Stations
Reporting 1973 Data To The National Aerometric
Data Bank, June 1974
Stations registered
with EPA: 1973
SIP Stations:
Others:
TOTAL:
TSP
3022
569
3591
Continuous
350
72
422
Bubbler
1104
402
1506
0
238
60
298
216
36
252
Obligated baseline
SIP stations:
3512
698
1434
457
455
co
Total stations
reporting at least
-one valid quarter;
-valid annual data:
3390
1306
250
51
1385
394
213
62
188
52
-------
TABLE 9. National Summary of AQCR Status Versus
Parti cul ate Standards, 1973
AQCRs Reporting AQCRs
Priority Number At Least One Exceeding
Class of AQCRs Station-Quarter 24-hr. Std.
I/IA
II
III
Total
120
70
57
247
118
66
41
225
83
16
16
115
AQCRs Reporting AQCRs
At Least One Exceeding
Station-Year Annual Std.
92
50
30
172
66
23
10
99
PRIORITY
RATIO TO
STANDARD
> 3.0
2.51 - 3.0
2.01-2.5
1.71-2.0
1.41 -1.7
1.21 - 1.4
1.11-1.2
1.01 -1.1
0.91-1.0
0.81 • 0.9
0.61 • 0.8
0.31 • 0.6
<0.3
1
Tl" 1
114
18
119
117
|6
— T?9
112
0
II
0
[l
D3
IT
J2
_)*
4
122
116
12
III
0
J2
0
~|3
~J4
15
nil
it
|14
11
24-hour
STANDARD
a. SECOND HIGH 24-hour VALUE
RATIO TO
STANDARD
>3.0
2.51-3.0
2.01 - 2.5
1.71-2.0
1.41 • .7
1.21 - .4
1.11- .2
1.01 • .1
0.91 - .0
0.81 • 0.9
0.61 - 0.8
0.31 - 0.6
< 0.3
1
1
1
=8
16
16
J10
19
111
17
H-U
P5
0
PRIORITY
II
0
0
0
3»
33
|6
^i,
16
18
112
Jl
0
III
0
0
h
-L2
_h
J3
43
14
18
iX
DfflMADV AMMIIAI MPAU
STANDARD
b. MAXIMUM ANNUAL f.iEAN VALUE
-------
TABLE 10. National Summary of AQCR Status Versus
Sulfur Dioxide Standards, 1973
AQCRs Reporting
Priority Number At Least One
Class of AQCRs Station-Quarter
AQCRs
Exceeding
24-hr. Std.
AQCRs Reporting
At Least One
Station-Year
AQCRs
Exceeding
Annual Std.
I/IA
II
III
Total
60
41
146
247
55
35
97
187
12
4
1
17
33
24
43
100
8
2
0
10
RATIO TO
STANDARD
> 3.0
2.51 • 3.0
2.01-2.5
1.61-2.0
1.31-1.6
1.11-1.3
1.01 - 1.1
0.91-1.0
0.81-0.9
0.61 • 0.8
0.31-0.6
S 0.3
PRIORITY
1 II III
;
EL,
119
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
113
117
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
k,
a IBS
PRIMARY 24-hour
STANDARD
a. SECOND HIGH 24-hour VALUE
PRIORITY
RATIO TO
STANDARD
> 3.0
2.01 • 3.0
1.71-2.0
1.41-1.7
1.21-1.4
1.01-1.1
0.91-1.0
0.81 • 0.9
0.61 • 0.8
OJ1 - 0.6
1 H III
1
1
1
1
0
0
113
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
114
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
]36
ANNUAL MEAN
STANDARD
b. MAXIMUM ANNUAL MEAN VALUE
89
-------
TABLE 11. National Summary of AQCR Status Versus
Carbon Monoxide Standards, 1973
Priority
Class
I
III
Total
AQCRs Reporting
Number At Least One
of AQCRs Station-Quarter
30
217
247
26
34
60
AQCRs
Exceeding
1-hr. Std.
9
1
AQCRs
Exceeding
8-hr. Std.
25
28
10
53
PRIORITY
RATIO TO
STANDARD
> 1.5
1.21 -1.5
1.01 -1.2
0.81 -1.0
0.61 - 0.8
0.31 - 0.6
<;0.3
-
1 III
1
1
]l
T?
0
0
"11
H
nil
117
LI.
1-hour
STANDARD
RATIO TO
STANDARD
a. SECOND HIGH 1-hour VALUE
PRIORITY
> 3.0
2.01 - 3.0
1.51-2.0
1.21-1.5
1.01-1.2
0.81 -1.0
0.61 - 0.8
0.31 - 0.6
s 0.3
_14
111
18
1
1
0
0
|1
0
0
|y
111
(9
ST
0
0
8-hour
STANDARD
b. SECOND HIGH 8-hour VALUE
90
-------
TABLE 12. National Summary of AQCR Status Versus the
Oxidant Standard, 1973
Priority
Class
I
III
Total
Number
of AQCRs
55
192
247
AQCRs Reporting
At Least One
Station-Quarter
41
16
57
AQCRs Exceeding
1 hr. Standard
39
12
51
PRIORITY
RATIO TO
III
>4.0
3.01 - 4.0
2.01 • 3.0
1.51-2.0
1.21-1.5
1.01-1.2
0.81-1.0
0.61-0.8
0.31 - 0.6
<0.3
[jj
^7
JlO
[7
-?
J2
0
0
0
0
0
]l
|2
-rP7
J3
]l
0
0
1 -hour
STANDARD
91
-------
Table 13. Growth in Number of Monitoring Instruments,3 1970-1973
so2
Year
1970
1971
1972
1973
Parti cul ate
1345
2099
3033
3591
(Continuous)
107
223
335
422
(Bubblers)
332
596
1080
1506
CO
82
171
241
289
Ox
53
95
181
252
aBased on stations registered with E.P.A.; some are not yet reporting
comprehensive data.
92
-------
100
JO
H
n
a
SO
H
M
Zfl
«
100
N
N
;o
60
50
10
;i
r T
NORTHEAST
i
5
o
r T ~r T
NATIONAL COMPOSITE
NATIONAL SITES
35 BACKGROUND SITES
NORTH CENTRAL
1
MIDWEST
1
WEST
i
70 71 72 73 70 71 72 73 70 71
YEAR
Figure 1 . National and regional trends in total suspended participate, 1970 - 1973.
72
73
-------
<.
1"
90
70
60
SO
40
30
"e ZO
•I
* 10
z
O n
CT 0
«x 100
K
H-
cj 90
z
O
80
fl
60
; •
40
30
20
1C
D
1 1 ' '
NATIONAL COMPOSITE
— —
NATIONAL SITES
• 4R-
— • •
| 10 BACKGROUND SITES j
T T ~T T
NORTH CENTRAL
— —
riii
"T T T T
— —
NORTH EAST
— ^ — ^
^^^** -A
-— ^*—
— — —
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
MIDWEST
— . ""—
— -^~
_— "•"
"•^^^ 0
1 1 1 1
_ T"
SOUTH
•" 000
1 1 1 1
riii
WEST
* A • •
III!
ri
n
re
i
71 72
YEAR
Figure 2. National and regional trends in sulfur dioxide. 1970 - 1973.
rn
71 72
-------
800
700
£00
a
P
at
o
u
500
toe
NON COASTAL L.A. (5 SITES)
COASTAL L.A. (4 SITES)
8AY AREA (6 SITES)
70
7]
72
YEAR
Figure 3. Composite averages of second high annual 1-hour oxidant
values for various areas within California. 9
-------
II
16
U
12
10
E
o
1 '
I 4
I I
LOS ANGELES
I
NEW JERSEY
*> 1
Ul
3
5"
1"
UI
1"
10
£
1
4
2
1
~r ~r ~r
— WASHINGTON STATE
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
- *^^*^^«
— —
1 1 1 1
71 72
YEAR
73
REMAINING U.S.
71 72
YEAR
n
Figure 4 . Annual average percent of values above the 8-hour carbon monoxide standard
for selected areas, 1970 - 1973.
96
-------
VII. THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW AND IMPROVED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNIQUES
STATIONARY SOURCE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
The development and demonstration of stationary source air pollution
control technology is one of EPA's largest tasks. Approximately $28 million
were spent on this activity in FY '74. Seventeen million dollars was pri-
marily for on-going programs to demonstrate control methods for sulfur and
nitrogen oxides, particulates and other pollutants. Over eleven million
dollars (energy supplement) was to expand the programs to respond to the
control technology research and development required by the accelerated
development of energy resources in the United States.
The purpose of these activities is fourfold:
- To describe at least one method of control for each major
source of pollution.
- To provide a technical base for EPA enforcement activities.
- To establish technical and economic data to support New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS).
- To provide information required to make environmentally
sound decisions on energy development policy.
97
-------
Sulfur Oxides
The emphasis of the SOX control program has been on demonstrating
4 methods of flue gas cleaning which are applicable to new, existing,
and future coal and oil-fired utility and industrial combustion units.
The four control systems are:
- A wet lime/limestone scrubber at the TVA Shawnee steam plant
at Paduca, Kentucky.
- A magnesium oxide scrubber at Boston Edison's oil fired
Mystic Station, Everett, Massachusetts.
- A catalytic-oxidation scrubber at Illinois Power System's
Wood River Station.
- A sodium-ion scrubber (Wellman-Lord) at Northern Indiana
Public Service Company, Gary, Indiana.
On the basis of this and other work, EPA has concluded that demon-
strable control technology does exist for SOX emissions from utility plants.
Completion of these demonstrations will advance the technology closer to
the maturity level so that it is routinely applicable.
In addition to utilities, smaller industrial and commercial sources
make a significant contribution to the ambient SOX problem. Additional
emphasis will be placed on the developing SOX control technology for these
sources.
Lime and limestone flue-gas scrubbing processes produce a sludge
by-product that creates a disposal problem. Work has been initiated to
assess existing techniques and develop technology to stabilize these sludges
for environmentally sound disposal and to find uses for these by-products.
98
-------
A second technique to reduce the sulfur oxide emissions is to re-
move the sulfur from the fuel prior to combustion. EPA is supporting
research in this field particularly in coal-cleaning methods and fuel
oil desulfurization. Feasibility studies have been completed for several
fuel cleaning processes and demonstrations are being planned. The Energy
Research and Development Agency will now have lead agency responsibility
for fuel cleaning research and development. EPA will continue supporting
research in environmental assessment and control technology.
A third technique in the SOX control strategy is combustion process
modification. This is the modification of the combustion process which
will reduce both sulfur oxide emissions and nitrogen oxide emissions.
Several processes are under consideration, including fluidized bed com-
bustion and submerged combustion. The Energy Research and Development
Agency will also have lead agency responsibility for fluidized bed
combustion. ERDA, EPA and other agencies have developed a National
Fluidized Bed Program which will be supported by EPA.
Particulates
The control technology for large particulates is fairly well
developed; therefore EPA efforts are mainly concerned with Research
and Development for control of fine particulates, that fraction of the
participate emission smaller than 3 micrometers. These small particles
remain suspended in the atmosphere and are easily respirable and
absorbable into the body. Fine particulates may contain toxic trace metals
and sulfates, each of which has considerable impact on health. Control
technology for fine particulates is seriously deficient. Current EPA
efforts center on developing adequate devices and on field testing as well
99
-------
as development of control methods.
EPA is working both to improve and demonstrate already available
collection for fine participate control devices and to identify and
ultimately demonstrate novel devices.
Nitrogen Oxides
Combustion modification is the only demonstrated method for control
of NO/ emissions from fossil fuel burning. Tests of flue gas treatment
techniques have shown little promise to date. Presently, the application
of combustion technology will allow NOX emissions from gas and oil-fired
utility boilers to be controlled to the NSPS that have been set for these
fuel categories.
EPA programs for combustion modification to control NOX include:
o Air/fuel mixture control (low excess air combustion)
o Staged combustion
o Boiler component design
Other Pollutants
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs)
have been set for mercury, asbestos, and beryllium. Other materials which
are considered pollutants but for which standards have not been set include
trace metals, polycyclic organic matter (POM) and miscellaneous hydrocarbons,
fluorides, odors, etc. In general, control technology research efforts are
necessary for these materials.
One current goal of the Air Technology Program is to characterize the
major sources and the specific chemical and physical properties of trace
metal emissions. This is a necessary first phase in the development of
control systems.
100
-------
Several tasks are being funded for field testing coal-fired utility
and industrial boilers, and for limited source characterization of gas-
and oil-fired units. A field testing program is also planned for residential
and commercial heating units.
In addition, control technology development is planned for certain
chemical processing sources. These include the zinc compounds industry, a
significant source of metallic particulates, and the glass industry, which
emits large quantities of arsenic, fluorides, and fine particulates.
Efforts are underway to establish control techniques both for open
sources and for selected closed sources of asbestos. The key sources in-
clude mining, milling, and manufacturing sites; the latter source tends to
be located predominantly in urban areas and contributes substantially to human
exposure to asbestos. The objective of the efforts is to develop and demonstrate
control technology for handling, unloading, and disposal operations, in
addition to demonstrating the operation of a specific methodology for
controlling closed sources of asbestos in manufacturing operations. This
work is undertaken to supplement control via NESHAPS, since their effectiveness
is still unknown.
In control of mercury, an effort is being undertaken to remove
mercury from waste gases containing SOX (such as those gases derived from
combustion and nonferrous metallurgical sources) via a combined SOX and
mercury control system. Because both of these substances come from
combustion sources, it would be highly useful to have a single system that
could effectively control both.
Current methods of POM detection and analysis are generally complex,
costly, and time-consuming. Also, it is unknown to what extent POM may
101
-------
actually be emitted as a gas which condenses to a participate substance,
rather than emitted as a particulate. There is, in addition, a problem
in obtaining quantitative data on POM emissions, whether in particulates or
gaseous form. In situ methods for measuring POM and determining its
characteristics are required, as well as techniques for upgrading combustion
processes to avoid POM formation. The air program will focus attention on
these problems.
EPA has begun to develop control systems through the pilot plant
stage of development for the following sources—acrylonitrile plants, refinery
crackers, asphalt roofing plants, and ethylene dichloride plants.
102
-------
VIII. THE DEVELOPMENT OF INSTRUMENTATION TO MONITOR EMISSIONS AND
AIR QUALITY
Methods for the quantitative detection of pollutants in air are
essential to EPA's abatement and control program. Initially, methods
are needed to determine the extent and causes of a pollution problem
and in investigations of the health and welfare effects of the
pollutants. When standards are promulgated, reference or compliance methods
must also be promulgated, for determining achievement and maintenance
of the standards. Furthermore, implementation plans call for determining
ambient air quality levels and stationary and mobile source emission levels.
For these applications, the methods and associated devices employed must
be low cost, reliable, and capable of unattended operation or use by
relatively untrained personnel.
In the area of air quality measurements technology, the major problems
relate to the reduction in cost to allow more economical deployment in
monitoring networks and to improve sensitivity for use in background
locations. For source emissions, the major problem is that of the proper
interfacing of instruments with the source so as to allow representative
samples to reach the instrument. There is also the time-consuming and
expensive problem of evaluation on all relevant sources, since inter-
fering substances and conditions vary from source to source. Source
emissions measurements technology is still in a developmental stage.
103
-------
MONITORING DEVELOPMENTS
Equivalency
On October 12, 1973, EPA published in the Federal Register a notice
of proposed rule making for determining equivalence of ambient air
monitoring methods. When finalized, the proposal will establish require-
ments and procedures applicable to determinations as to whether methods
for sampling and analyzing the ambient air may be designated "equivalent"
to the established "reference methods."
During 1974 the equivalency document has been reviewed and revised
by the Steering Committee and the Office of Management and Budget.
Concurrence is expected soon and, following this, publication in the
Federal Register is anticipated.
Source Emission Measurement
During 1974 performance specifications and test procedures were
developed for SOX, NOXj and opacity monitors. A stationary source
simulator test facility was constructed for the purpose of evaluating
measurement methods for gas and particulate emissions. New instrument
developments included: an X-ray fluorescense multispectrometer system; a
prototype continuous monitor for mass vs. size distribution of particulates
(range 0.1 to 10 urn diameter); an automated procedure for the analysis of
sulfate emissions from vehicles; an objective quantitative method for
diesel odor assessment; and a gas correlation instrument designed and
built for measuring the low levels of carbon monoxide associated with
well controlled vehicles.
104
-------
Ambient Air Measurement
The X-ray fluorescence unit developed in 1973 has been successfully
operated to analyze up to 35 elements in several hundred ambient air
aerosols. The concept of the size selective sampling of particulates
presented in the 1973 report has been pursued with the development of a
prototype dichotomous instrument. Routine field use of this type of
instrument will be investigated.
New, highly sensitive instrumentation for the primary pollutants
carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide and the secondary pollutant N02 was
developed. These instruments are currently being evaluated. A
chemiluminescence technique for detection of the alleged carcinogen
vinyl chloride has been developed as a laboratory prototype and is being
fabricated for monitoring applications. Laser techniques for monitoring
over distances of one kilometer have been used for the first time in
a regional air pollution study.
QUALITY CONTROL
A quality control strategy was adopted by the Environmental Protection
Agency in February 1973. Its goal is to improve and document the quality
of all environmental measurements, ensuring that data collected by EPA,
contractors, or State and local agencies have the highest validity. The
program incorporates five major functions: 1) standardization of measure-
ment methods, 2) distribution of standard reference materials, 3) pub-
lication of procedures and guidelines, 4) evaluation of on-going
monitoring activities, and 5) training and technical assistance.
105
-------
Standard measurement methods have, been established for the regulated
ambient air pollutants, and testing of systems required for measuring
source emissions has progressed on schedule. Measurement methods pursuant
to Section 304(g) of PL 92,500, "National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System," are undergoing performance testing. Repositories of standard
reference materials have been established for ambient air and water,
pesticides, radiation, and lead in fuels. A number of quality control
guidelines manuals are now available for air, water, radiation, and
pesticides measurement. Training in the use of quality control guidelines
and calibration standards is proceeding on schedule. A pilot project is
underway to automate routinely used instruments at four EPA laboratories
by means of minS-computers, and a prototype Regional laboratory data
measurement system has been developed. Inter-laboratory performance testing
programs have been initiated for measurements in air, water, pesticides,
and radiation. On-site evaluations of all EPA monitoring laboratories
were initiated in April 1974, and 7 Regional laboratories have been
evaluated. Procedures are being developed to evaluate any field monitoring
laboratory, and a feasibility study of a certification system for
environmental monitoring laboratories is nearing completion.
106
-------
IX. STANDARDS SET OR UNDER CONSIDERATION PURSUANT TO TITLE
II OF THIS ACT
A number of emission standards have been set, and many regulations
have been issued to support EPA's control program in the mobile source
area.
Regulations for Light Duty Diesel Trucks
Regulations for the control of emissions from diesel-powered light-
duty trucks, effective with the 1976 model year, were promulgated on
October 22, 1974 (39 F.R. 37610). Emission regulations for this light-
duty category were not issued previously since no light-duty diesel-
powered trucks were being marketed in the United States. The regulations
were in response to notification by one manufacturer of plans to market
a light-duty diesel truck for the 1976 model year. Other manufacturers
have since indicated that they may also market a light-duty diesel
truck as early as the 1976 model year.
The standards contained in the proposal are the same as those
promulgated for light-duty gasoline-fueled trucks and are expected to
be met through application of existing technology. The standards would
be applicable beginning in the 1976 model year.
Motorcycle Regulations
An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to control emissions
from new motorcycles was published on January 17, 1974, (39 F.R. 2108).
The need for control of motorcycle emissions stems from the increasing
numbers of motorcycles in the urban environment and their relatively
high emission levels compared to new cars. The Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking communicates to motorcycle manufacturers the course
107
-------
of action EPA is considering regarding the stringency and timing of
motorcycle regulations, thus providing them with the maximum possible
lead time, and also seeks comments on technical aspects of the regula-
tions.
Many factors ~ for example, increased personal income, increased
leisure time, improved products and greater general public acceptance —
have caused the motorcycle population to expand sharply over the past
few years. EPA estimates that 2.3 million motorcycles will be offered
for sale in 1976, compared with a projected 12 million automobiles. On
the average, an uncontrolled motorcycle emits 20 times more hydrocarbons
per vehicle mile than an automobile controlled to the 1977 standards.
The average motorcycle however, annually travels only one-third the
miles of the average automobile. Based on these data, the new motorcyles
sold in 1976 and thereafter will, if left uncontrolled, add a greater
hydrocarbon burden to the atmosphere than all new automobiles sold in
each of those years.
In addition, the proposed rulemaking for the Approval and Promulgation
of Implementation Plans (40 CFR Part 52) for the States of Arizona,
California, and New Jersey includes certain limitations on the regulation
and operation of motorcycles. These limitations are necessary to reduce
total hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide levels in those regions and to
prevent a counterproductive shift from automobiles to motorcycles as
a result of other elements of the control strategy. The proposed
rulemaking states, "In an attempt to remove the ceiling on motorcyle
registration, the Agency will evaluate the feasibility of establishing
108
-------
emission standards for new motorcyles and will evaluate the availability
of motorcycle emission control technology for meeting emission standards
for retrofit." In comments submitted to EPA in response to this proposed
rulemaking, the motorcycle industry stated that technology is available
and can be implemented with reasonable production lead time.
Proposed regulations for new motorcycles are expected to be published
in mid-1975.
Non-Methane Hydrocarbon Exhaust Emission Standards
On May 10, 1974, an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was
published for conversion of current standards for motor vehicle hydro-
carbon exhaust emissions to a nonmethane basis (39 F.R. 16904). This
action was in response to a formal petition by Ford Motor Company for
such an amendment.
The rationale set forth in Ford's petition may be summarized as
follows: (1) methane is a photochemically non-reactive hydrocarbon;
(2) catalyst-equipped vehicles are likely to have a greater proportion
of methane in their exhaust than current vehicles; (3) current standards
limit emissions of all hydrocarbons including methane, thereby penalizing
catalyst-equipped vehicles; and (4) this penalty creates a hardship by
making it more difficult to control NOX and causing fuel economy to
suffer.
Ford did not provide any evidence to support its contention of
hardship and informal contacts with other manufacturers indicated a
difference of opinion on the need to adopt a non-methane based standard.
109
-------
Therefore, EPA's position was that additional information justifying
the need for the change was required before it could embark on a program
to develop regulations. The Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was
aimed at obtaining the comments of other manufacturers and interested
parties so as to allow EPA to base its decision on the merits of the
issue. The comments on the Advance Notice have been received and are
presently being reviewed by EPA.
Regulations for Certification of New Vehicles Intended for Sale at
High Altitudes
On October 18, 1974, EPA promulgated rulemaking which would require
that new motor vehicles offered for sale in high altitude regions in the
Nation be certified for compliance with Federal emission standards at
high altitudes (39 F.R. 37300). Under the previous certification process,
all certification test vehicles including those intended for sale at
high altitude areas were tested in Ann Arbor, Michigan, at essentially
sea level conditions; those complying with the standards could be sold
anywhere in the Nation.
The Clean Air Act requires that all new vehicles, wherever sold
or operated, meet Section 202 emission standards. EPA has promulgated
these regulations because its studies of comparative emission levels
of various United States cities show that vehicles at high altitude
have higher emissions than those same vehicles at low altitude. For
1968 through 1971 model year vehicles tested in Denver, carbon monoxide
and hydrocarbon levels were 60 percent and 50 percent respectively,
above the national average. Three air quality control regions at high
110
-------
altitudes — Denver, the Wasatch Front (Salt Lake City, Odgen, and Provo,
Utah), and El Paso, Texas/Las Cruces Alamogordo, New Mexico — have
ambient air levels high enough to require transportation controls.
Substantial improvements in ambient air quality in these regions are
expected to come from the new Federal emission standards for autos
when the new 1977 autos are equipped to meet the emissions standards
at high altitude.
Regulations for Certification of Low-Emission Vehicles
The purpose of regulations for certification of low emission
vehicles is to encourage development of vehicles with significantly
lower emission levels than vehicles certified to meet Federal emission
standards. Vehicles so certified are then eligible for purchase by
the Federal Government at premium prices. Low emission vehicle certifica-
tion regulations, applicable to 1973 and 1974 model year light duty
vehicles, were issued by EPA in 1971. On September 10. 1974 EPA promulgated
regulations extending the provisions to 1975 and later model year light-
duty vehicles (39 F.R. 32612).
Aircraft Emissions Regulatory Actions
EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking applying to emissions
from engines powering supersonic aircraft on July 22, 1974 (39 F.C. 26653).
This followed up a commitment made in the preamble to the basic EPA
aircraft regulations promulgated on July 17, 1973, stating that because
of specialized technological constraints limiting the ability of supersonic
aircraft to meet the same standards applicable to subsonic aircraft,
separate standards would be published for this class.
Ill
-------
The regulations proposed reflect the same types of combustor
design technology but make due allowances for the less efficient
engine cycles used for propulsion of aircraft designed for super-
sonic flight speeds. Public hearing were held concerning this
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in Boston, Massachusetts! on November
19, 1974, and in Los Angeles, California, on November 26, 1974.
112
-------
X. THE STATUS OF STATE, INTERSTATE, AND LOCAL POLLUTION CONTROL
PROGRAMS ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO AND ASSISTED PY THIS ACT
A single agency is designated to administer Air Quality
Control Programs in each of the 50 States, the District of
Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and American
Samoa. In addition, approximately 265 local agencies, concerned
with air pollution control at the municipal level, work in
coordination with the 55,State agencies. The State agencies are
generally organized as follows:
o 32 environmental agencies combining air, water and
possibly other environmental protection programs, and
in at least 6 States exercising significant natural
resources management.
o 17 health agencies combining air pollution control
functions (and possibly other environmental protection
programs) with traditional medical health protection
functions.
o 6 air agencies specializing predominately in the control
of air pollution
Local governmental agencies (cities, counties, etc) have
traditionally carried out the major portion of the regulatory and
enforcement aspects of air pollution control, including air monitor-
ing. In recognition of the regional nature of air pollution
problems, several of these local agencies have organized into
regional organizations in recent years. Outside of major
113
-------
cities, the provision of air pollution services by a sinqle
agency in several governmental jurisdictions has resulted in a
number of multi-county agencies. In 1974 only 26 percent of the
local agencies were in city governments,while 40 percent were
at the county level, and 34 percent were in a city-county,
multi-county, multi-city or some other broaden coverage kind
of organizational arrangement.
FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCIES
EPA provided financial assistance to 54 State agencies (the
single exception being American Samoa) and 150 local agencies.
Twenty-two local agencies also received Federal monies as specified
through State grants. The: total expenditures of these 204 agencies
represented approximately 95% of the total expenditures of all State and
local air pollution control agencies in FY1974. This assistance takes the
form of grants for planning, developing, establishing, or improving or
maintaining programs for the prevention and control of air pollution,
supplemented by special contractual assistance for the conduct
of specific Federally-required planning activities. Grants awarded
in Fiscal Years 1972, 1973, and 1974 are summarized in Table 14.
PROGRESS OF STATE AND LOCAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAMS
Total expenditures for the support of air pollution control
programs have grown at an average annual rate of approximately
30 percent, from $13 million in Fiscal Year 1965 to an estimated
$129 million in Fiscal Year 1974. The percentage of these expenditures
provided by Federal financial assistance has increased from
114
-------
Table 14
Summary of Grant Awards to State and Local
Air Pollution Control Agencies
by State
State or Territory
Al abama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
D. C.
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
1972
527,324
69,775
207,049
208,527
3,690,260
900,784
1,355,796
189
225,000
885,741
630,218
96,445
81,687
2,423,520
826,034
559,243
335,761
159,028
175,000
1973
786,059
183,240
718,104
280,295
3,637,559
595,626
1,014,406
388,454
80,823
1,153,204
600,366
175,400
148,237
2,897,780
772,809
• 645,258
596,319
1,115,903
349,959
245,349
1974
Preliminary
1,443,312
165,100
658,761
407,000
3,611,240
646,333
1,240,972
256,069*
334,134*
924,493
684,250
189,435
205,100
2,914,358
1,183,822
579,780
476,293
953,267
807,200
106,000
19752
Estimated
875,000
186,000
715,000
250,000
3,863,000
710,000
1,414,000
270,000
240,000
1,025,000
780,000
251 ,000
214,000
2,945,000
1,310,000
540,000
479,000
1,170,000
385,000
192,000
115
-------
Mary!and
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
987,000
794,385
1,613,520
365,669
421,724
717,574
231 ,460
231,929
245,702
185,409
2,135,581
706,440
3,967,790
1,489,039
45,000
1,798,153
484,906
486,828
2,080,700
133,899
111,783
32,025
703,614
2,603,299
1,206,184
1,247,799
1,999,772
661,174
269,852
1,145,850
265,000
247,116
247,956
227,609
1,837,292
302,543
4,748,350
1,157,038
61 ,950
2,450,000
481 ,408
567,060
2,559,125
197,117
773,546
32,000
1,165,570
2,789,526
164,100
1,365,901*
1,116,982
1,999,424
674,098
392,875
1,090,698
326,000
408,642
293,311
172,546
2,178,144
328,800
4,849,997
1,361,523
69,000
2,605,619
471 ,600
668,400
2,689,400*
265,000
493,967
27,667
884,317
2,398,800
150,000
1,153,000
1,123,000
1,875,000
705,000
470,000
1,114,000
340,000
324,000
388,000
211,000
2,230,000
495,000
4,980,000
1,450,000
120,000
2,522,000
520,000
729,000
3,290,000
185,000
550,000
95,000
1,010,000
2,910,000
165,000
116
-------
224,426
1,062,000
1,129,910
317,620
965,448
68,133
-0-
54,774
464,417
100,043
jets
^40,317,581
;t
173,669
1,005,674
1,209,263
586,935
883,700
88,824
-0-
-0-
691,552
72,806
47,882,510
2,964,259
50,846,769
50,804,800
150,000
*
991 ,381
1,083,400
*
700,470
824,170
100,000
-fl-
ee, 150
226,124
77,735
49,289,060
2,915,999
52,205,059
51,518,000
180,000
954,000
1,151,000
458,000
905,000
130,000
-0-
156,000
400,000
80,000
51,182,000
336,000
51,518,000
51,518,000
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Subtotal
Special Support
Multiregional Projects
Total
Federal Fiscal Yr Budget
Awards are related to Federal Fiscal Year and include Federal Assignees, and
dollars carried from previous year. For most states, dollars do not relate
to budgets for the State's Fiscal year.
The estimates for 1975 include Special Support monies (contractor assistance
and demonstration grants) provided States.
o
Special support include grant and contractor assistance for State Implementation
plan revision, development, and evaluation.
For these States preliminary 1974 estimates are related to awards made during
Fiscal year 1974.
117
-------
approximately 31 percent in Fiscal Year 1965 to a peak of 43%, and took
a downward turn to 41 percent in FY 1974. However, the portion of these
expenditures provided by State and local revenue sources has
grown eight-fold during the same period, from $9 million in
Fiscal Year 1965 to an estimated $76.7 million in Fiscal Year
1974.
The increase in the number of employees of State and local
control agencies is an indicator of the Nation's growing capability
to control air pollution. Table 15 shows that the number of on-
board personnel has more than doubled in the last 5 years. The
on-board positions represent approximately 6500 equivalent full-
time manyears of effort.
Table 15
Personnel Employed by State and Local Air Pollution
Control Agencies (On Board) Full and part-time
Fiscal Year
Agency Level 1969
State 997
Local 1,840
Total 2,837
1971
1,537
2,628
4,165
1973
2,929
3,266
6,195
1974
3,261
3.975
7,236
manpower level by FY 75 of about 8,500 would be necessary to accomplish
clean air objectives. The trend indicated in Table 15 is encouraging; it
is hoped that the original manpower estimates will be met. However, it
118
-------
should be noted that since this estimate was made additional
requirements have been put on the States because of additional
actions required on transportation controls implementation,
prevention of significant degradation of air quality, and indirect
sources/maintenance of standards.
Additional resource estimates made in December 1973 indicate
that a total level of 9500 manyears is required to implement the
SIPs in 1974 and 10,200 manyears would be required by 1975. The
1973 estimates accounted for some of the program demands anticipated
in the above actions. However, these reassessments may be low
in States where revisions to control plans must be made to attain
standards, where air quality maintenance plans must be implemented,
and where implementation of Federal programs such as enforcement of
new source performance standards will be carried out. In addition
the involvement of States in the Federal Energy Act policies con-
cerning air pollution control strategies may also result in the
States making an additional upward projection of their resource
needs.
Figures compares the actual growth of agency manpower with
estimated levels (original and revised for SIP achievement) as
well as with estimates derived from a manpower model. In
July 1974, the agencies had available approximately 70 percent of
the manpower stated as being needed by 1975 to accomplish the basic
SIPs and revisions to those SIPs. However, approximately two-fifths
of the States did not expend in 1974"a manyear effort equivalent to
60 percent of the State needs.
119
-------
Figure 6 .compares actual State and local program funds to
estimates of SIP needs - original and revised - and to estimates
based on program costs commensurate with the manpower model. The
anticipated 1975 and 1977 expenditures for the accomplishment of
the basic SIP and anticipated revisions are approximately $188
million and $210 million, respectively. In 1974, the agencies
had available approximately 69 percent of the funds stated as
needed by 1975. Approximately one-third of the States spent less
than 60 percent of their revised 1975 needs.
Significant increases were made between July 1973 and July
1974 in agency resources. Funding increased by approximately 13
percent ($15 million) and manyears of effort by 15 percent
(850 manyears). State and local funds increased by 21 percent
over a similar period (July 73 - July 74), while available
Federal funds increased by only 4 percent.
Accomplishments of the State programs have been reflected
throughout this report in the sense of their activities in
developing, implementing, and enforcing SIPs.
120
-------
(11.000)
to
UJ
>-
I
•z.
-------
Z
• '
.
.
•
'
(?00|
•
I I I I I I I I I I I I
• !
1965
1970
1975
1977
YEAR
Figure 6 Comparison of actual and needed State and local air pollution control program funds.
-------
APPENDIX
Summary of EPA's Stationary Source Air
Enforcement Actions
May 1972 - November 1974
123
-------
NOTE:
STATE/CITY
SUMMARY OF EPA ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
SECTION 110 - STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
December 1974
SOURCES ARE LISTED IN ALPHABETIC ORDER FOR EACH .STATE WITHIN EACH EPA REGIONAL OFFICE.
(EG AAA MFG. CO.) ARE LISTED AT THE END OF EACH STATE
COMPANY/TYPE REGION I.
FACILITIES WITH ACRONYMS FOR NAMES
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESOLTS/STATOS
Connecticut:,
Rockville
Connecticut,
Bridgeport
Connecticut,
Derby
Connecticut,
Middle-town
Connecticut,
Waterbury
Anerbelle Corp.
Printing
Plant
Bullard Castings,
Inc.
Cupola Furnaces
Bull Dye and Print
Works
Textile
Plant
Russell Mfg. Div.
Fenner America Ltd.
PVC Belting
Operation
Waterbury Rolling
Mills, Inc.
Metallurgical
Operation
Violation of hydro-
carbon emission
standard.
Violation of parti-
culate (opacity
process weight,
and fugitive dust)
emission stds.
Violations of
opacity, and
hydrocarbon emis-
sion std. caused
by uncontrolled
emissions from the
drying operation.
Violation of opa-
city std.
Violations of
opacity std.
Notice of violation
issued 8/5/74. Admin.
order issued 9/13/74.
Notice of violation
issued 10/12/73
Admin, order issued
2/14/74.
Notice of violation
issued 12/5/73. Admin.
Order issued 2/11/74.
Order amended 6/14/74.
extending date for
final compliance to
Notice of violation
issued 12/14/73.
Admin, order issued
7/5/74.
Notice of violation
issued 10/31/73.
Admin, order issued
2/14/74.
Co. has chosen reformulation
as means of compliance. The
order requires submittal of
all formulations used which
it has not fully complied with
to date.
Co. has complied with second
set of increments in order.
State is monitoring compliance.
Co. complied with the first
increment on 9/15/74. Com-
pletion of Installation of
control equipment should
take place by 1/1/75. State
is monitoring their progress.
Appear to be in final compliance
as of 12/1/74. Compliance status
to be established.
Due to continued financial
problems the Co. is shut down
indefinitely. The order
remains in effect should
they decide to reopen.
-------
STATE/CITY
Maine,
Winalow
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOORCB_
Scott Papex Co.
Paper Mfg.
IN5
Has sachusetts,
Boston
Massachusetts,
Norwood
Massachusetts,
Boston
Massachusetts,
Boston
Ma ssachusetts,
Everett
American Barrel
Co.
Incinerator
American Biltrite
Boston, City of
Incinerator
Boston Edison Co.
L street Station
Power Plant
Boston Edison Co.
Mystic Station
Power Plant
POLLUTION PROBLEM
Violation of
State compliance
increments of
progress.
Violation of
opacity and open
burning regs.
Violation of hydro-
carbon regs.
Violation of opaci-
ty and particulate
emission limitat-
ations.
Violation of parti-
culate (opacity)
emission regs.
Violation of parti-
culate (opacity)
emission regs.
TYPE OF ACTION
consent order was
issued 6/7/74.
Notice of violation
issued 3/15/73. Admin.
Order issued 9/18/73.
Notice of violation
issued 10/11/74.
Notice of violation
issued 11/20/74.
Notice of violation
issued 11/9/73.
Notice of violation
issued 11/9/73.
RESULTS/STATES
EPA is monitoring co.'a
progress in accordance with the
Consent Order, State implementation
dates. The co. has complied with
the 3rd increment of the consent
order which is to achieve the
specified interim SO2 emission
limitation by 10/30/74.
Source complying with terms
of order.
Conference held, order will be
issued.
Conference held 12/20/74.
Stack testing program has been
completed. Edison is presently
compiling data and preparing
report for Dec. 1974. submittal.
Stack testing program has been
completed. Edison is presently
compiling data and preparing
report for Dec. 1974 submittal.
-------
CO
STATE/CITY
Massachusetts,
Boston
Massachusetts,
Quincy
Massachusetts,
Lynn
Ma ssachusetts,
Boston
Ma ssachusetts,
Lawrence
Massachusetts,
Lowell
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Boston Edison Co.
New Boston Sta-
tion
Power Plant
General Dynamics
General Elec. Co.
Electronics
Mfg.
H.N. Hartwell s Son
Fuel Oistrib.
Lawrence, city of
Open Burning
Lowell, city of
Incinerator
POLLOTjCpN PROBLEM
Violation of
particulate (op-
acity stds.
Violation of parti-
culate (fugitive
dust) & hydro-
carbon regs.
Violation of hydro-
carbon regs.
Violation of sul-
fur oxide std.
(regs prohibiting
sale of high sul-
fur fuel)
Violation of open
burning regs.
violation of parti-
culate emission
limitations.
TYPE OP ACTION
Notice of violation
issued 11/9/73.
Notice of violation
issued 10/4/74.
Notice of violation is-
sued 10/4/74. Order
issued 12/18/74.
Notice of violation
issued 3/16/73.
Notice of violation
issued 6/6/73.
Notice of violation
issued 11/20/74.
RESPLTS/STATOS
Edison is presently preparing
report of emission test results
as evidence of compliance status.
Conference held. Co.
submitted hydrocarbon process
info, as per sl!4 Itr. Consent
order will be issued for open
shot blasting & spray paint
operations. Pending.
First increment not due at this
time.
Ac.i:?j*vad final compliance.
The transfer station has been
completed and is operational
confirmed by EPA inspection.
Dump is currently being closed
in accordance with MA DPH regs.
-------
STATE/CITY
Massachusetts*
Marblehead
Massachusetts
Somerset
Massachusetts,
Boston
Massachusetts,
Watertown
Massachusetts,
Needham
Franklin
Framingham
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Marblehead Town of
Incinerator
Hew England Power
Co.
Brayton Point
Power Plant
Northeast Utilities
service
Power plant
Odell Co.
Penn Central Trans.
Company
Passenger S
Freight
Terminals
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE Of ACTION
Violation of parti- Notice of violation
culate emission issued 11/20/74.
limitations.
Violation of sulfur
oxide and particu-
late emission stds.
Violation of sul-
fur oxide emission
limitation.
Notice of violation
issued 9/6/73.
Notice of violation
issued 3/16/73.
Violation of hydro- Notice of violation
carbon regs. issued 10/11/74.
Transfer of cement
products violating
particulate (opac-
ity) emission stds;
trucks idling con-
trary to require-
ments of MA SIP
Notice of violation
issued 7/2/73. Admin.
Order issued 4/12/74
for commuter passenger
service
RESULTS/STATUS
Conference held. 12/13/74.
Electrastic precipitators are
being upgraded. Further studies
will be conducted on flue gas
desulfurization.
Achieved final compliance.
Conference held. Order will be
issued.
Commuter passenger service
order to cease excessive idling
violations. Presently in
compliance.
Massachusetts,
Canton
Massachusetts,
Salem
Plymouth Rubber Co.
Rubber Mfg.
Salem, City of
Incinerator
Violation of parti- Notice of violation
culate (opacity) issued 9/27/74.
emission regs.
Violation of opac-
ity and particulate
emission limita-.
tions.
Notice of violation
issued 11/20/74.
Conference held with Co.,
order to be issued.
Conference held 12/16/74.
-------
BTfcTB/CITY
OOMfftNT/TXPE
QT 80ORCE
POU.DTTOH PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESOLTS/OTATUS
en
Massachusetts,
Somerville
Massachusetts,
North Easton
Massachusetts,
Boston
Massachusetts,
Boston
Massachusetts,
Weymouth
Ka ssachusetts,
Arlington
Rhode Island,
Bistol
Rhode Island,
Middletown;
Rhode Island,
Newport
Rhode Island,
Johnston
Somerville smiting
Metallurgical
Process
Steadfast Rubber
Co. Inc.
Rubber Mfg.
Texaco, Inc.
Fuel distrib.
Onion Petroleum
Corp.
Fuel distrib.
Heymouth, Town of
Incinerator
Wilfret Bros.
Realty Trust
Incinerator
Bristol, City of
Open dump
Middletown, City of
Open dump
Newport, City of
Open dump
Seaboard Foundry
Inc.
Grey Iron
Foundry
Violation of opa-
city reg.
Violation of hydro-
carbon emission
standard.
Violation of
sulfur oxide emis-
sion limitations
(regs prohibiting
sale of high sul-
fur fuel)
Violation of sul-
fur oxide std.
(regs. prohibiting
sale of high sul-
fur content fuel)
Violation of parti-
cnlate emission
limitations.
Violation of parti-
culate emission
stds.
Violation of
open burning
violation of open
burning reg.
violation of open
burning reg.
violation of par-
ticulate (opacity
and process weight)
stds.
Notice of violation Co. issued purchase order *
issued 1/8/74. Admin, submitted installation schedule
order issued 4/30/74, per 4/30/74 Order. Order amended
ammended 8/29/74. 8/29/74 to incorporate installation
schedule.
Consent Order issued
11/11/74.
Notice of violation
issued 2/1/73.
Notice of violation
issued 3/16/73.
Notice of violation
issued 11/20/74.
Notice of violation
issued 7/2/73. Admin.
order issued 12/3/73.
Notice of violation
issued 4/23/73.
Notice of violation
issued 10/13/72.
Notice of violation
issued 10/23/72.
Enforcement order
issued 1/11/73.
Notice of violation
issued 8/1/73.
Achieved final compliance
2/12/73.
Achieved final compliance
Conference held 12/23/74.
Presently in compliance with
terms of order.
In final compliance.
Achieved final compliance
Achieved final compliance
Achieved final compliance.
-------
>
CTl
STATE/CITY
Hew Jersey,
Rldgefield
Park
New York,
Niagara Fall
New York,
Tonawanda
New York,
Babylon
New York,
Schenectady
New York,
Port Edward
New York,
Green Island
New York,
New York
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Arnatex Dyeing ft
Finishing Co., Inc.
Textile Mf r.
Airco Alloys.
Foundry
Ashland Petro. Co.
Refinery
Babylon, city of
Incinerator
Cashing Stone
Company, Inc.
Rock Crushing
Decora, Div. of
United Merchants
6 Manufacturers,
Inc.
Ford Motor Co.
Industrial Boiler
Frank Mascali and
Sons Inc.
Asphalt concrete
Mfr.
REGION H
POLLUTION PROBLEM TYPE OF ACTION
Violation of opac-
ity reg.
Failure to respond
to section 114
inquiry.
Failure to respond
to a section 114
inquiry.
Violation of opac-
ity reg.
Failure to file
NYS recertifica-
tion forms.
Failure to file
NYS recertifica-
tion forms.
Violation of opa-
city reg.
Violation of opac-
ity reg.
Notice of violation
issued 9/26/74.
Admin. Order issued
11/20/74.
Admin, order is-
sued 10/10/74.
Admin, order is-
sued 10/24/74.
Notice of violation
issued 8/28/74.
Notice of violation
issued 9/11/74.
Notice of violation
issued 9/19/74.
Notice of violation is-
sued 1/11/74.
Notice of violation
issued 11/4/74.
RESULTS/STATUS
Source in compliance
with EPA order.
Source complied with EPA
order.
Source complied
with EPA order.
Conference held 9/30/74.
Negotiating order.
Source in compliance.
Source in compliance
Source installed new boiler and
upgraded operating procedures;
presently in compliance.
Conference held 12/3/74.
-------
STATE/CITY
New York,
Waterford
New York,
Buffalo
Hew York,
Hickersville
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
General Electric
Co., Silicons
Prods. Dept.
Electronics Mfg.
The Ranna Furnace
Corp. ,
Steel Mfg.
Hooker cbem. Corp.
Ruco Div.
Chem. Mfr.
PHOBLEM
Failure to file
NYS recertifica-
tion forms.
Failure to respond
to section 114
inquiry.
ypz
Notice of violation
issued 9/19/74.
RE80LT8/STATD-S
Source in compliance.
Order issued 10/15/74. Source in compliance.
Failure to file Notice of violation
NYS recertification sent 9/12/74.
forms*
Source in compliance
New York,
Boslyn
Puerto Rico,
Ponce
North Hempstead
Municipal Inci-
nerator
Incinerator
Puerto Rico Cement
Inc.
line kilns
Violation of opac-
ity regs.
Violation of opac-
ity reg.
Notice of violation
issued 6/7/74;
Administrative order
issued 9/25/74;
amended 10/11/74.
Notice of violation
issued 5/9/74. TWO
consent orders signed
8/12/74.
Conference held on 6/26/74 and
10/3/74.
Conference heId-covered
Ponce* facility also.
Puerto Rico*
San Juan
Puerto Rico,
San Joan
Puerto Rico Cement
Inc.
Lime Kilns
Puerto Rico Water
Resources Authority
•Palo Seco" (Toa
Ba j a) station/power
plant.
Violation of opac-
ity reg.
Violation of opac-
ity reg.
Notice of violation Source in compliance with
issued 5/9/74. consent consent order.
Order signed 8/12/74.
Notice of violation
issued 9/19/74.
Additional information submitted
and being reviewed. Conference
held 11/21/74.
-------
Puerto Rico,
San Juan
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Puerto Rico Hater
Resources Authority
Puerto Nuevo
Station.
POU.UTION PROBLEM
Violation of opac-
ity reg.
OF ACTIOM
Notice of violation
issued 9/19/74.
RESULTS/STATUS
Conference held 11/21/74.
Additional info submitted and
being reviewed.
U.S. Virgin
Islands
Virgin Islands,
St. croix
Virgin Islands,
St. Croix
QD
Power Plant
St. Croix Petro-
chemical Corp./
petrochemical
company.
St. croix Petro-
chemical Corp.
Chemical Mfg.
Vir. Us. Water
6 Power Authority
Power Plant
Violation of feder
ally promulgated
new source review
requirements of
SIP.
Violation of feder-
ally promulgated
new source review
requirements of
SIP.
Violation of fed-
erally promulgated
SIP new source re-
view regulations.
Notice of violation
10/18/74.
Notice of violation
issued 10/10/74.
Notice of violation
issued 11/8/74.
Co. stopped construction
until approval to con-
struct was granted.
Co. stopped construction
until approval to con-
struct was granted.
Sourc* has filed required
new source review data.
-------
REGION III
STATE/CITY
Delaware,
Claymont
COMPANY/TYPE
o;sovp.cz
Allied Chemical
Corp*
POLLDTjON PROBLEM
Violation of emis-
sion std for sulfur
oxides.
Delaware,
Delaware City
i
10
Delaware,
Edge Moor
Maryland,
Eastern Shore
Maryland,
sabillesville
Maryland,
Emittsburg
Maryland,
Thurmond
Delmarva Power 6
Light Co.
Power Plant
E.I. duPont de
Nemours Co. Inc.
Sulfate
Mfg.
Bayshore Foods,
Grain Dryer
Benchoffs Dump
Open Dump
Charles Wetzel Dump
Open Damp
Fogels Dump
Open Dump
Violation of sulfur
oxide emission
standard.
Violation of parti-
culate emission
std.
Violation of opac-
ity stds.
Violation of parti-
culate (open burn-
ing) std.
Violation of parti-
culate (open burn-
ing) std.
Violation of parti-
culate (open burn-
ing) std.
TYPE OF ACTIQK
Notice of violation is-
sued on 5/24/72. Order
comply issued on
6/18/72.
Amended order is-
sued on 6/18/74.
Notice of violation
issued 3/6/72 En-
forcement order
issued 4/17/72.
Consent order issued
10/25/74.
12/28/73 - Notice Of
violation issued.
Consent* order issued
10/10/74.
Consent order issued
10/10/74.
Consent order issued
10/10/74.
RESOLTS/STATOS
Commencing on 11/10/72
bimonthly progress re-
ports have been submitted
to EPA resulted in con-
struction schedule with
increments of progress,
schedule is presently being
complied with. Amended order
issued to discontinue monthly
reporting.
Getty Oil (supplying high sulfur
fuel to Delmarva) litigated the
EPA order. Court upheld EPA
in Getty Oil vs. Ruckelshaus
(342 F. Suppl. 1006; 467 F. 2d.
349;l/15/73). Source is presently
in compliance with emission std.
1/24/73 - conference held
7/5/74 - draft consent
order mailed to co.
Letter of intent received
in December 1974.
-------
10
Maryland,
Bethesda
Maryland,
Silver Spring
Maryland
O.C. Area
Maryland
D.c. Area
o Maryland
D.C. Area
Maryland,
Eastern Shore
COMPAW/T1CPE
OF SOORCE
National Med.
Center
Industrial Boiler
and Incinerators
Naval Ordinance
Laboratory
Incinerator
PEPCO chalk
Point Station
Power Plant
PEPCO Dickerson
Station
Power Plant
PEPCO Morgantown
Station
Power Plant
Perdue, Inc.
Grain Dryer
POLLUTION PROBLEM
Violation of parti-
culate emission
std.
o ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Consent agreement
signed 12/1/74.
Violation of parti- consent agreement
culate emission signed 12/16/74.
std.
Violation of sulfur
oxide and parti-
culate emission
standard.
Violation of sulfur
oxide and Parti-
culate 'emission
std.
Violation of sulfur
and particulate
emission std.
Violation of opac-
ity stds.
Notice of violation
issued 6/04/74.
Notice of violation
issued 6/01/74.
Notice of violation
issued 6/04/74.
12/28/73 - Notice of
violation issued.
Conference held on 7/25/74.
Conference held on
Conference held on
1/24/73 - conference held
7/5/74 draft consent orders
mailed to co. Letter of intent
received Dec. 1974.
-------
11
STATS/CITY
Maryland,
Eastern Shore
Maryland,
Baltimore
Maryland,
Eastern shore
Pennsylvania,
Meadville
Zl Pennsylvania,
Evansvilie.
Pennsylvania,
Delaware
Pennsylvania,
Kittanning
Pennsylvania,
Wyomissing
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Snow Bill Grain
(drain Dryer
Southern states
Grain coops.
Grain Dryer
Whittington Poul-
try Farms
Grain Dryer
Abex Corp.
Smelting
Allentown Port-
land cement Co.
Cement Plant
Delaware county
Municipal Inci-
nerator
Incinerator
Manor Minerals,
Inc.
Mineral
Processing
Metals Engineer-
ing, Inc.
POLLUTION PROBLEM TYPE OF ACTION
Violation of opac-
ity standards
Violation of opaci-
ty stds.
Violation of opac-
ity stds.
Violation of parti-
culate emission
stds.
Failure to respond
letter.
12/28/73 - notice of
violation issued.
12728/73 - Notice of
violation issued.
12/28/73 - Notice of
violation issued.
Notice of violation
issued 5/1/74.
Consent order signed
9/4/71.
RESPI.TS/STATOS
1/24/73 - conference held
7/5/74 draft consent orders
nailed to co. Letter of intent
received Dec. 1974.
1/24/73 - conference held
7/5/74 draft consent orders
mailed to co. Letter of intent
received Dec. 1974.
1/24/73 - conference held
7/5/74 - draft consent
mailed to co. Letter of
intent received Dec. 1974.
In compliance with terms
of order.
Order issued on 5/3/74. Co. complied wit^ order.
Violation of parti-
culate emission
stds.
No response to sill
letter requesting
information re-
garding facilities
emissions.
Failure to respond
to sllU letter.
Notice of violation
issued 6/25/74.
Order issued 4/3/74.
Order issued on
4/3/74.
Conference held on
6/19/74. Delco determining
applicability of ESP as
central technique.
Company complied with
order.
Company complied with
Metallergy Shop
-------
12
STATE/cmC
COMPANY/TYPE
or SOURCE
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Pennsylvania,
New Florence
Penn. Elec. Co.
Conemaugh sta-
tion
Power Plant
Violation of parti-
culates and sulfur
•oxide emission
stds.
Notice of violation
issued 6/19/7a. Con-
sent order issued
11/18/74.
Company is complying with
terms of the order.
Pennsylvania,
Erie
Penn. Elec. Co.
Front St. Station
Power Plant
Violation of parti-
culates and sulfur
oxide emission stds
Notice of violation
issued 6/19/74. Con-
sent order issued
11/18/74.
Company is complying with
terms of the order.
Pennsylvania,
Homer City
Penn. Elec. Co.
Homer City Sta-
tion
Power Plant
Violation of parti-
culates and sulfur
oxide emission
stds.
Notice of violation
issued 6/19/74. Con-
sent order issued
11/18/74.
Company is complying with
terms of the order.
Pennsylvania,
Shelocta
—i Pennsylvania,
^ Saxton
Penn. Elec. Co.
Keystone Station
Power Plant
Penn. Elec. Co.
Saxton Station
Power Plant
Violation of parti-
culates and sulfur
oxide emission
stds.
Violation of parti-
culates and sulfur
oxide emission
stds.
Notice of violation
issued 6/19/74. Con-
sent order issued
11/18/74.
Notice of violation
issued 6/19/74. Con-
sent order issued
11/18/74.
Company is complying with
terms of the order.
Company is complying with
terms of the order.
Pennsylvania,
Seward
Penn. Elec. Co.
Seward Station
Power Plant
Violation of parti-
culates and sulfur
oxide emission
stds.
Notice of violation
issued 6/19/74. Con-
sent order issued
11/18/74.
Company is complying with
terms of the order.
Pennsylvania,
Clearfield
Penn. Elec. Co.
Shawville Sta-
tion.
Power Plant
Violation of parti-
culates and sulfur
oxide emission
stds.
Notice of violation
issued 6/19/74. Con-
sent order issued
11/18/74.
Company is complying with
terms of the order.
-------
13
STATE/CITY
Pennsylvania,
Warren
Pennsylvania,
Williamsburg
Pennsylvania,
Phila.
Pennsylvania,
Phila.
Pennsylvania,
Reading
Pennsylvania,
Clairton
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Penn. Elec. Co.
Warren Station
Power Plant
Penn. Elec. Co.
Williamsburg
Station
Power Plant
Philadelphia
Electric Co.
Comby station
Power Plant
Philadelphia
Electric Co.
Eddystone
Station
Power Plant
Reading Gray
Iron Casting,
Gray Iron
Foundry
U.S. steel Clairton
works
Coke Ovens
POLLUTION PROBLEM
Violation of parti-
culates and sulfur
oxide emission
stds.
Violation of parti-
culates and sulfur
oxide emission
stds.
Violation of parti-
culates and sulfur
oxide emission
stds.
Violation of parti-
culates and sulfur
oxide emission
stds.
Failure to respond
to s!14 letter.
Violation of opac-
ity and particulate
emission stds.
TYPE OF ACTION
Notice of violation
issued 6/19/74. Con-
sent order issued
11/18/74.
Notice of violation
issued 6/19/74. Con-
sent order issued
11/18/74.
Notice of violation
issued 6/19/74. Con-
sent order issued
11/18/74.
Notice of violation
issued 6/19/74. Con-
sent order issued
11/18/74.
Order issued on 4/3/74.
Notice of violation
issued 11/8/73.
Referred to U.S. Atty.
for combustion stacks
door leaks, £ topside
emission on 6/7/74.
Referred to O.S. Atty.
for pushing sent on
7/11/74.
RESULTS/STATUS
Company is complying with
terms of the order.
Company is complying with
terms of the order.
Company is complying with
terms of the order.
Company is complying with
terms of the order.
Company responded to order
on 5/15/74.
On 11/29/74. Honorable J.L.
Miller stayed effect on
subpeonas until 1/6/75.
-------
1U
STATE/CITY
Pennsylvania,
Courtney
Virginia,
Arlington
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
West Perm Power
Co. Mitchell
Station
Power Plant
Arlington Cty.
Incinerator
Sludge
Incinerator
POLLUTION PROBLEM
Violation of parti-
culate and sulfur
oxide stds.
Violation of parti-
culate emission
stds.
TYPE OF ACTION
Notice of violation
issued 9/13/73.
Notice of violation
sent on 3/14/74.
Order to stack test
issued 7/2/71.
RESDLTS/STATOS
Conference held 12/13/74.
Awaiting stack test
results.
Virginia,
Danville
Boise Cascade
Indust. Boiler
Violation of parti-
culate emission
stds.
Notice of violation
issued 3/15/74. En-
forcement order issued
6/7 /74.
Company complied with
first increment of order
On 10/16/74 company notified
EPA that it will shut down
in January 1975 due to
economic reasons.
Virginia,
Danville
Brantly Generating
Station
Power Plant
Violation of parti-
culate emission
limitation.
Notice of violation
issued 6/4/74.
Conference held on 7/29/7'4.
Virginia,
Richmond
Federal Paper
Board Inc.
Industrial
Boiler
Violation of parti-
culate emission
limits.
Notice of violation
issued 4/17/74.
Awaiting stack test
results.
Virginia,
Alexandria
PEPCO Potomac
Station
Power Plant
River • violation of opac-
ity limitation.
Notice of violation
issued 1/30/74.
Administrative order
issued 6/25/74.
Conference held 2/27/74.
Meeting to discuss order
with Co. scheduled for
7/25/74
-------
15
i '
en
gTATE/CI*Sf
Alabama,
Tuscombia
Alabama,
Stevenson
Florida,
Pierce
Florida,
Lakeland
Florida
Bradley
Florida.
Joy Oil Field
Florida,
Chatahoochie
Florida,
Gibsonton
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
TVA-Colbert Sta.
Power Plant
TVA-Widows Creek
Station
Power Plant
Agrico. chemical Co.
Rockdryers
Bordon Chemical Co.
Rock dryers
Brewster Phosphate
Co.
Rock Crushing
Exxon Louisiana
Land Corp.
Refinery
Florida State Hosp.
Industrial
boiler
Gardinier Inc.
Phosphate rock
dryers
REGION IV
POLLUTION PROBLEM TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Violation of par-
ticulate emission
std.
Violation of par-
ticulate emission
std.
Violated particu-
late std.
Violation of par-
ticulate emission
std.
Violation of
Federally approved
compliance schedule
for particulate
emission std.
Violation of sul-
fur oxide emis-
sion std.
Violation of par-
ticulate emission
std.
Violation of par-
ticulate and sul-
fur oxide stds
Notice of violation
issued 12/4/71.
Notice of violation
issued 12/4/74.
Notice of violation
issued 8/26/74.
Notice of violation
issued 8/30/74.
Notice of violation
issued 8/26/74. Enforce-
ment order issued
10/9/74.
Notice of violation
issued 9/13/74.
Notice of violation
issued 8/27/74.
Notice of violation
issued 6/11/74. Admin.
order for particulate
issued 9/6/74.
-------
16
Florida,
Bartow
Florida
chatahoochie
Florida,
Linhaven
Florida,
Pensacola
Florida
Palatka
Florida,
Nichols
Florida,
White Springs
Florida,
Bartow
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
W. R. Grace
Phosphate rock
dryers
Gulf Power Co.
Power plant
Gulf Power Co.
Power plant
Gulf Power Co.
Power Plant
Hudson Pulp 6
Paper Co.
Pulp and Paper
Plant
Mobile Chem. Co.
Phosphate rock
dryers
Occidental Chemical
Co.
Swift Chemical Co.
Rock dryers
POLLUTION PROBLEM
Violation of Par-
ticulate and sul-
fur oxide emission
stds.
Violation of par-
ticulate and sul-
fur oxide stds.
Violation of par-
ticulate and sul-
fur oxide stds.
Violation of par-
ti culate and sul-
fur oxide stds.
Source missed 1st
increment of State
adopted, federally
approved compliance
schedule for sulfur
oxide and par-
ticulate matter.
Violation of Fla.
PM and SO2 reg.
Violation of
sulfur oxide
std.
Violation of par-
ticulate emission
std.
OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATIC
Notice of violation
issued 6/11/74. Admin.
order issued 9/6/74.
Notice of violation
issued 8/30/74.
Notice of violation
issued 8/30/74.
Notice of violation
issued 8/30/74.
Notice of violation
issued 12/20/73. Admin.
order issued 1/21/74.
Notice of violation
issued 6/11/74. Admin.
order issued 9/6/74.
Notice of violation
issued 8/26/74.
Notice of violation
issued 9/13/74.
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OP SOURCE
POXXOTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RES QMS/STATUS
Florida,
Tampa
Florida,
Bartow
Florida,
Ft. Meade
Kentucky,
Paradise
Tampa Electric Co.
Power Plant
U.S.S. Agrichemical
• Co.
Rock Dryers
U.S.S. Agrichemical
Co.
Rock Dryers
TVA-Paradise Sta.
Power Plant
Violation of par-
ti culate and sul-
fur oxide emissions
limitations.
Violates particu-
late std.
Violates particu-
late std.
Violation of par-
ti culate emission
std.
Notice of violation
issued 8/23/7a.
Notice of violation
issued 8/26/74.
Notice of violation
issued 8/26/74.
Notice of violation
issued 12/1/74.
Kentucky,
Paducah
TVA-Shawnee Sta.
Power Plant
Violation of par-
ticulate emission
std.
Notice of violation
issued 12/4/74.
Mississippi,
Jackson
Mississippi,
Natchez
Tennessee,
Columbia
Tennessee
Oak Ridge
Tennessee,
Gallatin
Tennessee,
waverly
Tennessee,
Kingston
Cook Construction
Co,
Open burning
International Paper
Co.
Pulp & Paper Mill *
Monsanto Industries
Chem. Co.
Rotary kilns
TVA-Bull Run Sta.
Power Plant
TVA-Gallatin Sta.
Power Plant
TVA-Johnston Sta.
Power Plant
TVA-Kingston Sta.
Power Plant
Violation of
particulate emis-
sion std.
Violation of par-
ticulate emission
std.
Violation of sulfur
oxide emission stds.
Violation of par-
ticulate emission
std.
Violation of par-
ticulate emission
std.
Violation of par-
ticulate emission
std.
Violation of par-
ticulate emission
std.
Notice of violation
issued 11/29/74.
Notice of violation
issued 9/24/74.
Notice of violation
issued 4/20/74.
Notice of violation
issued 9/12/74. Admin.
Order issued 12/4/74.
Notice of violation
issued 12/4/74.
Notice of violation
issued 12/4/74.
Notice of violation
issued 12/4/74.
-------
STATE/CITY
Illinois,
Chicago
COMPANY/TOPE
OF SOURCE
American Brick
Company
Brick Kiln I
Crusher
18
REGION
POLLOTIOM PROBLEM
Violation of 111.
opacity and parti-
•culate emission
standards.
TYPE OF ACTION
Notice of violation
issued 1/21/74.
RESDLTS/STATD8
State suit filed, no
further Federal action
at this time.
Illinois,
Quincy
Celotex Corp.
Violation parti-
culate stds.
Consent order
Issued 11/20/74.
00
Illinois
East Peoria
Illinois,
Bartonville
Industrial
Boilers
Central Illin-
ois Light Co.
Power Plant
Central Illinois
Light co. Edward
Station
Power Plant
Violation of Feder-
al compliance
schedule for Illi-
nois particulate
stds.
Violation of sulfur
oxide std &
Federal compli-
Notice of violation
issued 12/20/73.
Notice of violation
Issued 5/31/74.
Conference held 8/1/74.
Draft consent order sent to company
for comment.
Conference held 8/1/74.
Draft consent order sent to Co.
for comment.
Illinois,
Wood River
Illinois,
Granite City
Illinois,
Blue Island
Clark Oil Refinery
Refinery
Granite City
Steel Co.
Coke ovens
Illinois Brick
Company
Brick Mfg.
FCC unit violates
particulate, hydro-
carbon 6 carbon
monoxide stds.
Violation of
particulate std.
and federal
compliance
schedule for coke
ovens.
Kilns violate par-
ticulate std.
Notice of violation
issued 10/24/74.
Notice of violation
issued 3/13/74.
Notice of violation
issued 3/4/74.
Conference held 11/19/74.
Awaiting decision of 111.
APCB on new carbon monoxide stds.
State action anticipated,
further EPA action deferred.
Complaint field before
Illinois Pollution Control
Board, further Federal
action deferred pending State
action.
-------
19
STATE/CITY
Illinois,
Alton
Illinois,
Chicago
COMPANY/TYPE
Of SOURCE
Illinois Power Co.
Power Plant
Interlake, Inc.
Coke ovens
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
Violation of sulfur Notice of violation
oxides stds. issued 9/3/74.
Coke oven (pushing
6 quenching) Opera-
ting violate parti-
culate stds.
Notice of violation
issued 8/16/74.
RESDLTS/STATOS
Conference held 10/10/7 4.
Conference held 9/27/74.
Co. will submit data in January
on new control egpt.
Illinois,
Chicago
Illinois,
Thornton
i Illinois,
^ sterling
Illinois.
Chicago
Illinois,
Chicago
Illinois,
Chicago
Illinois,
Skokie
International
Harvester Co.
coke ovens
Marblehead Lime
Company
Quarry
Northwestern steel
6 Wire
Steel Mfg.
Republic steel Co.
Steel Mfg.
Republic Steel
Corp.
steel Mfg.
Sheffield Foundry
Foundry
Skokie, Village
of
Municipal
Incinerator
Violation of
federal compliance
schedule for coke
oven quenching
and pushing
Violaton of parti-
culate std.
Electric arc
furnaces violate
particulate stds.
Melt shop 6 Elec.
arc furnaces vio-
late particulate
stds.
Violation of fed-
eral compliance
schedule for coke
oven pushing and
quenching.
Cupala violates
particulates
emissions stds.
Violation of parti-
culate matter
emission std.
Notice of violation
issued 11/29/73.
Consent order
issued 4/11/74..
Notice of violation
issued 3/19/74. Order
issued 7/3/74.
Notice of violation
issued 8/2/74.
Notice of violation
issued 8/28/74.
Notice of violation
issued 11/29/73.
Order issued 4/11/74.
Notice of violation
issued 10/24/74.
In compliance with terms of order.
terms of order.
In compliance with terms
of order.
Conference held 8/28/74.
Meeting in mid-December to discuss
compliance schedule.
Conference held 9/27/74.
In compliance with
with terms of order.
Now in compliance. No further
Federal action.
Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance with
sued 2/20/74. Consent terms of order
order issued 4/2/74.
-------
20
ro
o
STATE/CITY
Illinois,
Lawrencevllle
Illinois,
Cahokia
Illinois,
Venice
Illinois,
Chicago
Illinois,
Elgin
Indiana,
Newburg
Indiana,
Hunster
COMPANY/TYPE
OF 8OORCE
Texaco Refinery
Inc.
Refinery
Union Elec. Co.
Power Plant
Onion Elec. Co.
Power Plant
U.S. steel Corp.
South Works
Steel Mfg.
Woodruff
Edwards, Inc.
Foundry
ALCOA
Aluminum Smelter
American Brick Co.
Brick Kiln &
Crusher
POIflrOTION PROBLEM
Violation of car-
bon monoxide and
hydrocarbon stds.
by storage tanks.
Violation of parti-
culate & sulfur
oxides stds.
Violation of parti-
culate 6 sulfur
oxides stds.
Violation of parti-
culate emission
stds.
Coupola violates
carbon.monoxide
stds.
Violation of parti-
culate stds.
Violation of parti-
culate and opacity
standards.
TYPE OF ACTION
Notice of violation
issued 3/26/74.
Order issued 7/3/74.
Notice of violation
issued 10/23/74.
Notice of violation
issued 10/23/74.
Notice of violation
issued 9/5/74.
Notice of violation
issued 6/7/74.
Notice of violation
issued 1/4/74.
RESULTS/STATUS
Presently in compliance
with terms of order.
Conference held 12/5/74. Draft
order being prepared.
Conference held 12/5/74. Draft
Order being prepared.
Conference held 9/27/74.
Meeting mid-January to discuss
Consent Order.
Awaiting results of
stack test.
Now din compliance with terms
of state order.
Notice of violation is- Awaiting results of stack test.
sued 1/21/74.
-------
21
STATE/CITY
Indiana,
Whiting
Indiana,
Noblesville
Indiana,
Bast Chicago
Indiana,
Chesterfield
Indiana,
Bast Chicago
Indiana,
Terr* Haute
Indiana,
Bloondngton
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SQDRCE
American Oil Co.
Oil Refinery
Hamilton Cty.
Asphalt, Inc.
Asphaltic
Concrete
Atlantic Richfield
Corp.
Refinery
Bethlehem steel
Corp., Burns Harbor
Plant
Steel plant
Blaw-Know Foundry
Foundry
Bloomington
Ammonium Nitrate
Process.
Bloomington
Crushed Stone
Co.
Quarry
Violation of sulfur
oxide and opacity
standards.
Violation of parti-
culate matter emis-
sion standard.
Violation of sul-
fur oxide stds.
Violation of par-
ticulate (opacity
and process weight
stds.
Open hearth furn-
ace violates parti-
culate stds.
Violation of opaci-
culate matter emis-
sion standards.
Violation of opaci-
ty and particulate
matter emission
standards.
TYPE OF ACTION
Notice of violation
issued 9/10/73.
RESULTS/STATO S
Presently on enforceable
state order, further EPA
action obviated.
Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance with
issued 11/19/73. Admin, terms of order.
order issued 1/28/71*.
Notice of violation
issued 9/10/73.
Notice of violation
issued 7/11/73
Notice of violation
issued 1/21/74. Admin-
istrative order is-
sued 4/15/74.
Source in compliance.
ovens placed on satisfactory
state schedule, other points of
emission achieved compliance.
Presently in compliance with
terms of order.
Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance with
sued 10/9/73, Admin. ' terms of order.
order issued 1/31/74.
Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance with
sued 10/31/73. regulation
-------
22
i
ro
no
STATE/CITY
Indiana
Cannellon
Indiana
Largo
Indiana
Indianapolis
Indiana,
Cayuga
Indiana,
Wabash
Indiana,
Richmond
Indiana,
Terre Haute
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Can-Tex Industries,
Inc.
Rock Crushing
Celotex corporation
Indust. Boilers
Central Soya Co.
Indust. Boilers
Colonial Brick Corp.
Brick Mfg.
Container Corp. of
America
Industrial
Boilers
Dana Corp.
Foundry
J.W. bavis Co.
Boilers
POtLOTIQN PROBLEM TYPE OF ACTIOM
RESULTS/STATUS
Violation of parti-
culate matter emis-
sion standard.
Violation of parti-
culate matter emis-
sion standard.
Violation of parti-
culate matter emis-
sion standard.
Violation of parti-
culate emission
standard.
violation of parti-
culate and sulfur
oxide stds.
Cupolas violate op-
acity and partic-
ulate stds.
Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance with
sued 10/17/73 Admin. terms of order.
order issued 1/24/74.
Notice of violation Presently in compliance with
issued 1/23/74. Admin, order.
order issued 3/26/74.
Notice of violation
issued 10/12/73.
Presently in compliance
Notice of violation is-
sued 12/4/73.
Notice of violation is- State schedule adopted, further
sued 10/9/73. EPA action obviated.
Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance.
sued 10/30/73.
Violation of parti- Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance
culate matter and sued 4/26/74; Admin. with terms of order.
opacity emission order issued 6/15/74.
standards.
-------
23
STATE/CITX
Indiana,
Indianapolis
Indiana,
Marion
l
ro
co
Indiana,
Petersburg
Indiana,
Blooming-ton
Indiana,
East Chicago
Indiana,
.Indianapolis
Indiana,
Richmond
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Ford Motor Co.
Boilers paint
spraying, drying
oven 6 degreaser.
'Poster Forbes
Glass Co.
Glass Mfg.
Indust. Boilers
Indiana Rural Elec.
Coop., Inc.
Power Plant
Indiana University
Power Plant
Inland Steel Co.
Steel Mill
International
Harvest Co.
Indust. Boiler
Johns-Manville Corp.
Glass Mfg.
POLLPnON PROBLEM
Violation of hydro-
carbon and particu-
late matter stds.
TYPEQF ACTIOft
Notice of violation
issued 6/11/74.
Consent order for
particulate issued
10/11/74.
Source refused info.Admin, order issued
requested in sec- 11/21/73.
tion lit letter.
Violation of parti- Notice of violation
culate matter emis- issued 1/2/74.
sion standard.
RESUMS/STATDS
In compliance with order for
boilers. Action for other
sources pending legal inter-
pretation of HC stds.
Awaiting stack test.
Violation of opac-
ity and particula-
te standards.
Violation of parti -
culate standard.
Violation of opaci-
ty emission stand-
ard.
Violation of parti-
culate matter emis-
sion standard.
Consent order is-
sued 7/10/74.
In compliance with terms
of consent order.
Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance
sued 10/24/73 admin. with terms of order
order issued 1/8/74.
Notice of violation is- At present time, no further
sued 7/18/73. Federal action anticipated
since cited source is on en-
forceable state schedule.
Notice of Violation
issued 10/26/73.
In compliance with regulations.
Violation of parti- Notice of violation is- Order to be issued 1/1/75.
culate matter emis- sued 6/26/74. Notice of
sion standard. violation issued
Forming lines 9/16/74.
violate parti-
culate std.
-------
STATE/CITY
Indiana,
Brownstown
Indiana,
Mitchell
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Kieffer Paper Mill
Boilers
Lehigh Cement Co.
Kilns
POLLOTION PROBLEM TYPE OF ACTION
R ESOLTS/STATtiS
Violation of parti
culate matter emis
sion standard.
Violation of parti
culate matter emis
sion standards.
Notice of violation is- Now on enforceable State
sued 10/12/73. schedule.
Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance with
sued 11/26/73. Admin. terms of order.
order issued 1/25/74.
3*
i
INJ
Indiana,
Mt. Summit
Indiana,
Muncie
Indiana,
Richmond
Indiana,
East Chicago
Indiana,
Derby
Indiana,
Indianapolis
Magaw Construction
Inc.
Asphalt Plant
Magaw Construction
Inc.
Asphalt Plant
Magaw Construction
Inc.
Asphalt Plant
Mobil Oil Corp.
Refinery *•
Mulzer Crushed Stone
Company
Quarry
Nat'l Starch $ Chen.
Corp.
Industrial Boiler
Violation of opaci-
ty and particulate
matter emission
standards.
Violation of opac-
ty and particulate
matter emission
standards.
Violation of opaci-
ty and particulate
matter emission
standards.
Violation of opa-
city 6 sulfur oxide
limitations.
Violation of parti-
culate matter and
opacity standards.
Violation of parti-
culate matter and
sulfur oxide emis-
sion standard.
Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance.
sued 12/19/73.
Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance
sued 12/9/73.
Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance
sued 12/19/73.
Notice of violation Source in compliance.
issued 9/10/73.
Notice of violation is-'Presently in compliance
sued 2/7/74.
Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance with
sued 11/19/73 admin. terms of order.
order issued 2/13/74.
-------
25
r\j
SlATB/CICT
Indiana,
Gary Vicinity
Indiana,
Indianapolis
Indiana,
Terre Baute
Indiana,
Indianopolis
Indiana,
Indianapolis
Indiana,
Sellersburg
Indiana,
Bammend
Indiana,
LaPorte
COMPANY/TYPE
Or SOORCB
NIPSCX)
Bower Plant
Phillips Petro.
Company
Refinery
Public Service Co.
of Ind. Habash Sta.
Power Plant
RCA Corp.
Electronics
Manufacturer
Rock Island
Refining Corp.
Refinery
Sellersburg Stone
Company
Rock Crushing
Stauffer Cbem.
Company
Sulfuric acid
Manufacturer
Teledyne casting
Service
Foundry
POLLUTION PROBLEM
Violation of sulfur
oxide emission
standard.
TYPE OF ACTION
RBSCT.T3/31ATQ8
Notice of violation is- Administrative order pending
sued 9/13/73. Seventh circuit decision.
Violation of hydro- Notice of violation is- EPA action pending legal inter-
carbon emission sued 5/30/74. pretation of HC reg.
standards.
Violation of sulfur
oxide emission
standard.
Violation of hydro-
carbon emission
standard.
Violation of hydro-
carbon and carbon
monoxide emission
standards.
violation of opaci-
ty and particulate
matter emission
standards.
Violation of sulfur
dioxide emission
Cupola violates
particulate matter
emission standard.
Notice of violation.
sued 9/13/73.
Notice of violation is-
sued 7/1/74.
Notice of violation
issued 3/13/74.
Notice of violation
issued 1/10/74.
Notice of violation
issued 1/10/74.
In compliance with State
enforcement order.
Achieved compliance with
regulations.
In compliance with terms of order
issued by local agency.
Notice of violation is- Evaluating stack test
sued 4/6/74. report.
-------
26
STAyE/CITY
Indiana,
East Chicago
Indiana,
Indianapolis
Indiana,
Shoals
Indiana,
Wabash
Indiana,
Gary
PO
en
Indiana,
Wabash
COMPANY/TYPE
OP SOORCE
U.S. Gypsum Co.
Milling
Onion carbide Corp.
Industrial Boiler
U.S. Gypsum
Plaster Mfg.
U.S. Gypsum Co.
Mineral wool
cupolas
U.S. Steel Corp.
Gary works
Steel Mill,
Cement Plant
Wabash Smelting
Corp.
Aluminum
Plant
POLLUTION PROBLEM
Violation of Parti-
culate matter and
opacity standards.
Violation of par-
ticulate matter
emission standard.
Violation of parti-
culate matter emis-
sion standard.
Violation of par-
ticulate matter
std.
Operation of a ste-
el mill with cement
production facil-
ities (Universal
Atlas Co.) in
violation of opaci-
ty and particulate
emission standards.
Violation of opaci-
ty standards.
TYPE
Notice of violation is-
sued 10/5/73.
Notice of violation
issued 5/29/74.
Notice of violation
issued 10/5/73.
Notice of violation
sued on 10/5/73.
Notice of violation
issued 4/18/73. Order
issued June 22, 1973.
Notice of violation
issued 3/28/73. Order
issued 5/30/73.
BESOMS/STATUS
On enforceable State
schedule.
On enforceable state Schedule
On enforceable State
schedule
On enforceable State Schedule
U. 8. steel brought suit in the
U.S. District Court, Hammond,
Ind. to void the EPA order. The
Court issued a consent decree on
11/21/7I*, establishing a compli-
ance schedule for the facility.
The first increment of progress
requires the closing of open
hearth furnace * 4 in January 1975.
Presently in compliance with
terms of the order.
-------
27
>
ro
STATE/CfTY
Indiana,
Wabash
Indiana,
East Chicago
Michigan,
Hillsdale
Minnesota,
International
Falls
Minne sota,
Brainerd
Minnesota,
Red Wing
Minnesota,
Minneapolis
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Wabash Smelting,Inc.
Smelter
Youngstown Sheet
and Tube Co.
Steel Mill
Hillsdale Foundry
Boise Cascade Corp.
Kraft, pulp and
paper mill.
Burlington Northern
Inc.
Ind. Boilers
Conwed Corp.
Foundry
L. Dreyfus Corp.
Grain Handling
POLLUTION PROBLEM
Violation of parti-
culate matter and
opacity standards.
Violation of parti-
culate and opacity
standards.
Violation of parti-
culate matter emis-
sion standard.
Violation of parti-
culate matter emis-
sion standard.
Violation of parti-
culate matter emis-
sion standard.
Cupola 6 blow
chambers violate
sion standards.
particulate stds.
Marquette grain
elevator, rail
dump, storage
bins violate
particulate stds.
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Notice of violation is- Conference held 7/22/7*.
sued 6/27/71.
Notice of violation is- On enforceable State order.
sued 7/18/73.
Notice of violation
issued 4/9/74.
Notice of violation
issued 4/18/74.
Consent order is-
sued on 5/20/74.
Notice of violation
issued 2/20/74.
Notice of violation
issued 2/20/74.
Notice of violation
issued 8/8/74.
Enforcement Order
issued 11/15/74.
State legal action has been
initiated to enforce schedule.
Presently in compliance with
terms of order.
State order issued 6/26/74.
On enforceable State order.
-------
28
SyATE/CITY
Minnesota,
Buhl
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Public Utilities
commission
Power Plant
POLLUT^op PpOBfrgH
Violation of
particulate
stds.
pYPE OF ACTION
Notice of violation
issued 7/25/74.
RESULTS/STATUS
State handling conversion of
customers to fuel oil. Hill
continue to monitor.
Minnesota,
Springfield
Minnesota,
Collegeville
co Minnesota,
0> Ouluth
Minnesota,
City of
Two Harbors
Ohio,
Portsmouth
Ohio,
Cleveland
Ohio,
Norwalk
Public Utilities
Commission
Power Plants
St. John*s Univ.
Industrial Boiler
U.S. Steel-
south Works
Coke Ovens
Hater S Light
Plant
Power Plant
Empire-Detroit Steel
Steel Co.
Steel Mfg.
Jones 6 Laughlin
Steel Corp.
steel Mfg.
Ohio Liquid Dispos-
al, Inc.
Violation of par-
ticulate stds.
Violation of parti-
culate emission
standard.
Coke ovens violate
particulate stds.
Boiler §2
violates parti-
culate stds.
Open hearth furnace
violate particulate
stds.
Notice of violation
issued 9/4/74.
Enter agreement with State for
compliance early 1976.
Notice of violation la- Evaluating stack test report
sued 2/20/74.
Notice of violation
Issued 5/2/74.
Notice of violation
issued 11/5/74.
Notice of violation
issued 11/1/74.
Sinter plant viola- Notice of violation
tes particulate issued 11/29/74.
stds.
State filed suit 10/7/74. Further
federal action deferred.
Violation of parti-
culate std.
Notice of violation
issued 9/6/74.
Conference held 12/5/74.
conference held 12/2/74<
State initiated action; Co.
now out of business.
Incinerator
-------
29
STATE/CITy
Ohio
Canton
Ohio,
Cleveland
COMPANX/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Republic Steel Corp.
Steel Mfg.
Republic steel Corp.
Steel Mfg.
POLLUTION PROBLEM
Elec arc furnace
violate particulate
stds.
Sinter Plant, EOF,
OHF, 6 Coke Batter-
ies violate parti-
culate stds.
TYPE Of ACTION
Notice of violation
issued 9/27/71».
Notice of violation
issued 9/29/74.
RESULTS/STATUS
Conference held 11/8/74.
Awaiting policy decision on
pending 307 challenge.
Conference held 11/8/74.
i
PO
ID
Ohio,
Massillon
Ohio,
Alliance
Wisconsin,
Whitewater
Wisconsin,
Hixton
Wisconsin,
Milwaukee
Wisconsin,
Milwaukee
Wisconsin,
Milwaukee
Republic Steel Corp.
Coke ovens
Transue & wms.
Foundry
Industrial
boilers
Alpha Cast, Inc.
Foundry
Husky Industries,
Inc.
Charcoal Mfr.
Miller Brewing Co.
Brewery
Milwaukee Solvay
Coke Co.
Coke Ovens
Pabst Brewing Co.
Brewery
Coke Batteries vio-
late particulate
stds.
Forging operation
6 boilers violate
particulate stds.
Violation of parti-
culate stds.
Violation of parti-
culate matter emis-
sion standard.
Notice of violation
issued 9/27/74.
Notice of violation
issued 8/15/74.
Notice of violation
issued 9/25/74.
Conference held 11/8/74.
control program for boiler house
being evaluated.
conference held 10/25/74.
Co. to submit control plans
in mid-December.
Notice of violation is- State order issued 6/28/74.
sued ft/3/74.
Violation of parti-
culate matter emis-
sion. Federal com-
pliance schedule
for hydrocarbon
emission standard.
Violation of parti-
culate matter opa-
city and hydrocarbon
emission standards.
Violation of parti-
culate matter emis-
sion standard.
Notice of violation
issued 4/3/74. Con-
sent order issued
6/6/74.
Incompliance with terms of consent
order.
Notice of violation is- State order issued 6/11/74.
sued 1/9/74.
Notice of violation is- State order issued 6/20/74.
sued 4/3/74.
-------
30
i
CO
•o
Louisiana,
Shreveport
Louisiana,
Elizabeth
Louisiana,
Pollock
Louisiana,
Tallulah
Louisiana,
Dodson
Louisiana,
Baton Rouge
Louisiana,
Laxose
COMPANY/TYPE
_QF SOURCE
Bird * Son Inc.
Calcasieu Paper Co.
Inc.
Indus, boilers,
pulp mill
Carroll H. Maxwell
Co., Inc.
Conical Inciner-
ator
Chicago Mill 6
Lumber Co.
Indus. Boiler
Bunt Lumber Co.,
Inc.
conical
Incinerator
Ideal cement
Cement Kilns
LaFourche Parish
Police Jury
Open burning
REGION VI
POLLUTION PROBLEM TYPE OF ACTION
Violation of parti- Notice of violation is- Conference waived negotiating
culate matter sued 11/11/74. agreed order.
(fugitive dust) reg.
Violation of opaci- Notice of violation
ty and particulate issued 11/11/74.
matter regs.
Conference scheduled for
12/17/74.
Violation of opaci- Notice of violation is- Conference requested not
ty and incinerator sued 11/29/74. yet scheduled.
regs.
Violation of parti- Notice of violation is- Conference waived, compliance
culate matter regs. sued 11/21/74. to fce reverified.
Violaton of opacity
particulate matter
and open burning
regulations.
Notice of violation it
sued 6/27/74.
Violation of parti- Notice of violation
culate matter regs. issued 8/12/74.
Violaton of open
burning reg.
Notice of violation
issued 10/3/74.
Conference held 11/21/74.
Order being prepared.
Conference waived, source
reports compliance, inspection
to be conducted.
-------
31
?TATE/CITY
Louisiana,
Florien
Louisiana*
Oodson
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Vancover Plywood
Co., Inc.,Florien
Plywood
conical
Incinerator
Willamette Ind.,
Inc., Louisiana
Plywood Corp.
Conical
Incinerator
POLLUTION PROBLEM TYPE OF ACTION
Violation of opaci- Notice of violation
ty and incinera- issued 9/30/7«.
tor regs.
Violation of opaci- Notice of violation
ty, incinerator, issued 9/30/7U.
and open burning
rege.
RESULTS/STATUS
Conference held 11/19/7H.
Order being prepared.
Conference waived. Consent
order being prepared.
order sent to DSSE on 12/10/74.
i
CO
-------
32
oo
STATE/CITX
Iowa
Clinton
Iowa,
Ft. Dodge
Kansas,
Kansas City
Missouri,
N. Kansas City
Missouri,
Affton
Missouri,
Glover
Missouri,
Jefferson City
Missouri
Kansas City
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Clinton Corn
Processing Co.
Grain Dryers
Georgia Pacific
Corp.
wallboard Mfg.
Ennan Corp.
Railroad Car
Salvage
ADM Milling CO.
Grain Mill
Alpha Portland
Cement
Cement Mfg.
Asarco
Lead Smelter
Central Electric
Pwr Co-op.
Power Plant
centropolis Crusher
Inc.
Rock Crushing
REG ION VII
POLLUTION PROBLEM TYPE OF ACTION
Violation of par-
ti culate emission
standard
Violation of par-
ticulate and
opacity stds.
Violation of open
burning (particu-
late matter) reg.
Violation of par-
ticulate emission
standard.
Clinker cooler
violates particu-
late std.
Violation of
sulfur oxide emis-
sion standard
Co. refused to
submit data
required by section
114 letter.
Co. refused to
submit data
required by sec-
tion 114 letter.
Notice of violation
issued 6/3/74. En- •;
forcement order issued
7/31/74.
Notice of violation
issued 7/11/74.
Enforcement order
issued 10/21/74.
Notice of violation
issued 5/3/74
Notice of violation
issued 1/14/74.
Notice of violation
issued 9/28/73.
Notice of violation
issued 6/2/73. Admin.
order issued 10/23/73.
Admin, order is-
sued 5/2/73.
Admin, order
issued 6/6/73.
RESULTS/STATUS
Presently complying with
terms of order.
Source presently in com-
pliance with terms of
order.
Open burning ceased, source
now in compliance.
Source is now meeting
terms of EPA approved
compliance schedule.
Source is now meeting terms
of EPA approved State com-
pliance schedule, further
EPA action deferred.
Order has been rescinded
mooting present litigation.
Entering into stipulation with
company to resolve case.
Company complied with order.
Company complied with order.
Missouri,
Columbia
Columbia Hater &
Light Dept.
Power plant
Source did not test
boilers 6 £ 7 as
required in Sec-
tion 114 letter.
Admin, order issued
8/«/73.
Information received, boilers
6 & 7 in compliance.
-------
33
STATE/CITY
Missouri,
Louisiana
Missouri,
Lebanon
CO
CO
Missouri,
Hannibal
Missouri,
Parkville
Missouri,
St. Louis
County
Missouri,
St. Louis
County
Missouri,
St. Louis
County
Missouri,
Hannibal
Missouri,
Bonne Terre
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Hercules, Inc.
Fertilizer Mfr.
independent Stave
Co,, Inc.
Industrial
Boilers
Marion county
Milling
Grain Dryers
Mid-continent
Asphalt and
Paving Co.
Asphalt Mfg.
Union Electric Co.
Labadie Station
Power Plant
Union Electric Co.
Meramec Station
Power Plant
Union Electric Co.
Sioux Station
Power Plants
Universal Atlas
Cement Co.
Cement Mfr.
Valley Mineral
Prod. Corp.
Rock Crushing
POLLUTION PROBLEM
In violation of
particulate matter
emissions atds.
Violation of par-
ticulate matter
(process emissions)
and opacity stds.
Violation of opaci-
ty standard
violation of opaci-
ty standard
Violation of
sulfur oxide emis-
sion limitation
Violation of
sulfur oxide emis-
sion limitation.
Violation of
sulfur oxide emis-
sion limitations
Co. refused to
submit data
required by sec-
tion 114 letter.
Violation of
particulate and
opacity stds.
TYPE OF ACTION
Notice of violation
issued 5/16/73.
Order issued 10/15/73,
Notices of violation
issued 7/9/73 and
10/10/73. Enforce-
ment order issued
10/18/73. Criminal
conviction returned
on 11/20/74 for
violating order.
Notice of violation
issued 6/16/74.
Notice of violation
issued 10/19/73.
Admin, order issued
4/25/74.
Notice of violation
issued 5/31/74.
Notice of violation
issued 5/31/74.
Notice of violation
issued 5/31/74.
Adminis. order
issued 10/1/73.
Notice of violation
issued 1/14/74.
RESULTS/STATUS
Presently in compliance with
terms of order.
Awaiting sentencing.
Source presently complying
with acceptable State
compliance schedule
Source has completed
installation of control
equipment and is in
compliance.
Company filed suit under
section 307 of the CAA
against EPA for review of
Missouri SIP.
Company filed suit under section
307 of the CAA against EPA for
review of Missouri SIP.
Company filed suit under section
307 of the CAA against EPA for
review of Missouri SIP.
Company complied with order.
On acceptable State
compliance schedule.
-------
34
COMPANY/TYPE
STATE/CITy OF SOURCE POLLUTI PROBLEM
Nebraska, Dempster Industries cupola violates Admin, order issued Company meeting requirements
Beatrice Inc. EPA promulgated 7/2/74 " of order.
particulate matter
Foundry emission std.
Nebraska, Nebraska Public Violation of emis- Notice of violation Source complying with
Bellevue Power Kramer sion limitations issued 2/4/74. terms of order.
Station for particulates Admin, order issued
3/14/74.
Power Plant
-------
35
STATE/CICT
Colorado,
Pueblo
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SqURCE
CFSI Steel Cozp.
Steel Mill
REGION VIII
POLLUTION PROBLEM TYPE OF ACTION
Violation of
opacity std.
Notices of violation
issued 5/8,15,17 and
6/6/74. Orders issued
8/27/74 and 10/17/74.
RESULTS/STATUS
Company complying with
terms of order.
i
ICO
Ln
Utah,
Salt Lake City
Utah,
Woods Cross
Utah,
Salt Lake City
Otah,
Salt Lake City
Utah,
ttoods cross
Utah,
Salt Lake City
Utah,
Salt Lake City
Wyoming,
Sundance
concrete Products
Co.
Cement Mfg.
Crown Refining Co.
Refinery
W. B. Gardner
Granite Mill and
Fixture Co.
Rock Crushing
Lloyd A. fry Roof-
ing Co,
Roofing Mfg.
Utah, sand & Gravel
Rock Crushing
western states
Engineering 6
Milling
Roberts Construction
Company
Quarry
Violation of
opacity std
Violation of SIP
new source review.
Violation of
opacity std.
Violation of
opacity standard.
Violation of
opacity std.
violation of
opacity std.
Violation of
opacity standard
Violation of
ambient air std
for total sus-
pended particulates
as provided in
Wyoming SIP.
Notice of violation
issued 8/28/74.
Notice of violation
issued 5/6/74. Order
issued 7/26/74.
Notice of violation
issued 8-23-74
Notice of violation
issued 6/20/74.
Notice of violation
issued 1/23/74.
Notice of violation
issued 6/20/74.
Notice of violation
issued 8/6/74.
Notice of violation
issued 8/16/73.
Order issued 9/28/73.
In compliance. Ceased
operation.
complying with order
Plant production unit
closed.
Presently in compliance.
Presently in compliance
EPA action pending out-
come of State adminis-
trative hearing deter-
mination.
Conference held 8/7/74.
No further violations noted.
Requesting improvement of
O6M Plan.
In compliance.
Presently in compliance with
terns of order.
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
36
REGION IX
POLLUTION PROBLEM TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Arizona
Benson
Arizona,
Mineral Park
Arizona,
Payson
Apache Powder Co.
Nitric acid
plant, and
open burning.
Duval Corp.
Mining, ore
roasting
Kaibab Industries
Incinerators
Violation of opaci- Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance.
ty open burning, sued 11/13/73. Order
and nitrogen oxide issued 2/13/74.
emission standards.
Violation of sulfur
oxide emission
stds.
Two notices of viola-
tion issued 10/7/74.
State to hold hearing
1/9/75.
Violation of opaci- Notice of violation Is- Achieved compliance
ty standards. sued 7/24/73. Admin. 1/10/74.
order issued 9/26/73.
Arizona,
Douglas
Phelps Dodge Corp.
copper Smelter
Violation of opac-
ity 6 particulate
matter emission
standards.
Notice of violation is- Presently employing
sued 3/27/74; Admin. with terms of order.
order issued 6/6/74,
amnended 11/12/74.
Arizona*
Page
Arizona,
Snowflake
Arizona,
Snowflake
California,
Richmond
California,
North Holly
wood
Salt River Navajo
Plant
Power Plant
Western Moulding Co.
Industries
Incinerators
Western Pine
Inc.
Incinerators
Allied Chem. Corp,
Sulfurlc Acid
Plant
ALCO Gravure
Printing Co.
Violation of Feder-
ally promulgated
compliance sched-
ule for particulate
matter.
Violation of opaci-
ty standards.
Violation of opaci-
ty standards.
Violation of sulfur
oxide emission
standard.
Violation of Hydro-
carbon emission
standard.
Notice of violation is- Presently employing with
sued 6/10/74. Order terms of order.
issued 9/18/74.
Notice of violation
issued 7/24/73.
Placed on State schedule.
Final compliance verified 5/8/74.
Notice of violation is- Placed on state compliance
sued 7/24/73. schedule. Achieved final
compliance 8/26/74.
Notice of violation is- EPA is disapproving existing
sued 7/18/74. regs. New regs to be promulgated.
Notice of violation is- Presently complying with terms
sued 4/26/74. Order of order.
issued 10/16/74.
-------
37
STATE/CITY
California,
Azuza
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Avery Label Co.
Printing
POLLUTION PROBLEM
violation of hydro-
carbon stds.
TYPE OP ACTIO^
consent order is-
sued 8/30/74.
RESULTS/STATUS
Source complying with
terms of order.
California,
Brawley
Batley-Janss
Enterprise
Alfalfa Mill
Violation of parti-
culate and opaci-
ty emission
standards.
Notice of violation is- In compliance (source shut-
sued 12/14/73 down).
California,
Cloverdale
Cloverdale Plywood
Co. (Fibreboard
Corp.)
Incinerator
Violation of opaci-
ty standards.
Notice of violation is- Order expired 7/1/74.
sued 8/10/73. Admin. Compliance status will be
order issued 12/21/73. verified.
California,
Long Beach
California,
Vernon
California,
Cloverdale
Dept. of Mater
Power
Power Plant
Fibreboard Corp.
Incinerator
GSR Lumber Co.
Incinerator
Violation of nitro-
gen oxide emission
Violation of opaci-
ty standard.
Violation of opaci-
ty standards.
Consent order issued
7/9/74.
Source is late in meeting
some increments of progress
while ahead in others.
Notice of violation is- Achieved final compliance
sued 3/11/73. Admin. 7/8/74.
order issued 12/21/73.
Notice of violation is- Achieved final compliance.
sued 8/10/73. Admin.
order issued 12/20/73.
-------
38
STATE/CITY
California,
south Gate
California,
Fort Bragg
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Gen. Motors Corp
Auto Mir.
Georgia Pacific
Corp.
Incinerator
POLLUTION PROBLEM
failure to submit
a compliance
schedule for hydro-
carbon emission
standards.
OF ACTION
Consent order is-
sued 6/3/74.
RESULTS/STATUS
Achieved final compliance
8/5/74.
Violation of opaci- Notice of violation is- Achieved final compliance
ty standard. sued 8/10/73. Admin. 7/13/74.
order issued 12/20/73.
>
California,
Los Angeles
California,
Fontana
California,
Covelo
California,
Fort Bragg
Gravure W. Printing
Co.
Printing
Kaiser Steel Corp.
steel Hill
Louisiana Pacific
Corp.
Incinerator
Louisiana Pacific
Co,
Incinerator
Violation of incre-
ments of progress
of schedule to meet
hydrocarbon emis-
sion standard.
Violation of opaci-
ty, sulfur oxide
emission standards,
Violation of opaci-
ty standards.
Violation of opaci-
ty standard.
Notice of violation is- APCD also adopted enforceable
sued 5/10/74. Order compliance schedule. Source is
issued 10/16/74. presently complying with terms
of schedules.
Notice v>f violation is- Presently in compliance
sued 8/7/73; consent with terms of order.
order issued 6/11/74,
amended 11/11/74.
Notice of violation is- Achieved final compliance 5/1/74.
sued 8/10/73 Admin.
orders Issued 12/20/73.
Notice of violation is- Achieved final compliance
sued 8/10/73. Admin. 5/14/74.
order issued 12/20/73.
-------
39
OJ
to
California,
Calpella
California,
Cloverdale
California,
Monolith,
California,
Martinez
California,
Martinez
California,
Ukiah
California,
Anderson
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Masonite Corp.,
Incinerator
Masonite Corp.
Incinerator
Monolith Portland
Cement Plant
cement Kilns
Monsanto-Avon Plant
Indus. Boilers
Phillips Petro.
Co. - Avon Plant
Refinery
Redwood Coast
Lumber Co.
Incinerator
Simpson lee
Paper Co.
Boiler
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Violation of opaci- Notice of violation is- Achieved final compliance
ty standards
sued 8/10/73. Admin. 6/1/74.
orders issued 12/20/73.
Violation of opaci- Notice of violation is- Achieved final compliance
ty std. sued 8/10/73. Admin. 6/27/7 4.
order issued 12/20/73.
Violation of opaci- Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance
ty and particulate sued 11/20/73; admin. with terms of order.
emission standards, order issued 5/10/74.
Violation of sulfur
oxide emission std.
Violation of sulfur
oxide emission std.
Violation of opaci-
ty standard reg. •
Violation of opaci-
ty particulate and
sulfur oxide (TRS)
emission standard.
Notice of violation is- Conference held 8/29/74. JRPA is
sued 7/18/74. disapproving reg., new regs to be
promulgated by EPA.
Notice of violation is- Conference held 8/29/74. EPA is
sued 7/18/74. disapproving reg., new regs to be
promulgated by EPA.
Notice of violation is- Achieved final compliance
sued 8/10/73. Admin. 7/8/74.
order issued
12/21/73.
Notice of violation is- Presently in compliance
sued 3/21/74. Admin. with terms of order.
order issued 4/9/74.
-------
40
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
California,
El Segundo
California,
Richmond
California,
Carson
California,
Kern cty.
California,
Los Anoeles
Hawaii,
Halaula
Nevada,
Gabbs
Nevada*
S. Calif.
Standard Oil of
Calif.
Oil Refinery
Standard Oil of
Calif.
Texaco, Inc.
Sulfur Rec-
overy Plant
O.S. Borox
Mining
Uniroyal, Inc.
Rubber Mfr.
Kobala Corp.
Sugar Mill
Industrial
Boiler
Basic Industries
Quarry Mill
S. Calif. Edison
Power Plant
Violation of Calif.
review of new
sources and mod-
ifications regs.
Violation of sulfur
oxide emission
standard.
Violation of sulfur
oxide emission
standards.
Violation of opac-
ity std.
Failure, to submit
approvable com-
pliance schedule
pursuant to Fed-
erally promulgated
regulation.
Violation of opaci-
ty and particulate
matter emission
standards.
Violation of parti-
culate 6 opacity
emission stds.
Violation of opaci-
ty and sulfur oxide
emission stds.
Notice of violation is- Achieved final compliance 6/12/74.
sued 1/31/74. Admin
order issued 3/5/74.
Notice of violation is- Conference held 8/13/74. EPA is
sued 7/18/74. disapproving regulation; will pro-
mulgate new requirements.
Notice of violation is- Achieved final compliance 11/5/74.
sued 2/22/74; admin.
order issued 5/9/74,
Notice of violation
issued 10/10/74.
Conference held 12/9/74.
U. 6. Borax to submit
compliance schedule to EPA.
Notice of violation is- Complying with terms of order.
sued 3/11/74; consent
order issued 6/18/74.
Consent order is-
sued 7/16/74.
Notice of violation is-
sued 5/2/74.
Notice of violation is-
sued 7/25/73; order is-
sued 11/1/73, ammended
9/18/74.
Conference held 6/13/74.
State adopted revised reg *
placed source on compliance.
schedule 11/8/74.
Presently in compliance
with terms of order
-------
STATE/CITY
Idaho
Pocatello
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOORCB
FMC Corp.
Phosphorus Mfg.
REGION X
POLLOTION PROBLEM TYPE OF ACTION
Cooler fl violates
particulate stds.
Notice of violation
issued 3/8/7U. Order
issued 11/21/74.
RBSqLTS/STATUS
Idaho
Lewiston
Washington,
Cornell
Washington,
Dayton
Washington,
Lament
Washington,
Oaksdale
Washington,
Long Beach
Washington,
Whitman
Potlatch Corp.
Kraft Pulp Mill
Indust. Boilers
Connell, City of
Open burning
Dayton, City of
Open burning
Lamont, City of
Open burning
Oaksdale, City of
Open burning
Peninsula Sani-
tation Service
Open burning
Whitman County
Open burning
Violation of
opacity and
particulate emis-
sion stds.
Violation of open
burning (Particu-
late) Stds.
Violation of open
burning {Particu-
late) stds.
Violation of open
burning (partic-
ulate) stds.
Violation of open
burning (Particu-
late) Stds.
Violation of open
burning (particu-
late) stds
Violation of open
burning (particu-
late) Stds.
Presently in compliance
with terms of order.
In compliance with order.
Notice of violation
issued 2/8/74.
Order issued 4/8/74.
Notice of violation
issued 9/21/73.
Admin, order issued
12/11/73. Amended
order issued 9/19/74.
Notice of violation Presently complys with
issued 9/21/73. Admin, order*
order issued 12/12/73.
Notice of violation
issued 9/21/73.
Admin, order
issued 12/12/73.
Presently complying with
order.
Notice of violation Presently complies
issued 9/21/73. Admin, with order.
order issued 12/12/73.
Notice of violation
issued 10/17/73.
Compliance status being
reverified.
Notice of violation In technical violation
issued 9/21/73. Admin, of order, county
order issued 12/12/73. taking action.
-------
SUMMARY OF CURRENT EPA ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
UNDER
§112 - NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (NESHAPS)
December 1974
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
REGION I
Massachusetts,
* N. Brookhaven
Rhode, Island,
Pawtucket
Vermont
Eden
Asbestos Textile
Textile Mfr.
American Insula-
ted Wire
Wire Mfr.
Eden, Town of
Road surfacing
Violation of NESHAPS
(asbestos) standards
Violation of NESHAPS
(asbestos) standards
Asbestos Tailings;
source failed to
res pond ~to §114:
letter.
Admin, order is-
sued 7/17/74.
Administrative
Issued 8/1/74.
Administrative
order Issued
5/9/74.
Source is also in violatior
with OSHA Regulations.
Will shutdown or comply
with EPA & OSHA requirement
b/1273T/74
-Maintenance to control
device ceased violation,
presently in compliance.
3ll4 response received.
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Vermont,
Hyde Park
Vermont,
Jay
Vermont,
Lowell
Vermont,
Newport
Hyde Park, Town of Asbestos Tailings;
Road surfacing source failed to
respond to §114
letter.
Jay, Town of
Road surfacing
Lowe!1, Town of
Road surfacing
Newport, Town of
Road surfacing
Asbestos Tailings;
source failed to
respond to §114
letter.
Asbestos Tailings;
source failed to
respond to §114
letter.
Asbestos Tailings;
source failed to
respond to §114
letter.
Administrative order
issued 5/9/74.
Administrative order
issued 5/9/74.
Administrative order
issued 5/9/74.
Administrative order
issued 5/9/74.
Possible Cease and Desist
Order.
Possible Cease and Desist
Order.
§114 response received.
§114 response rceived.
-------
- STATE/ CITY .
REGION II
New Jersey,
Patterson
New Jersey
Millington
i, New Jersey,
•"» Boundbrook
New York
Solvay
New York,
Watervliet
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Brassbestos Mfg.
Corp.
Friction mtl .
mfg.
National Gypsum
Co.
Asbestos shingle
mfg.
Union Carbide Corp.
Plastic mfg.
Allied Chemical
Corp.-Ind.
Chemical Div,
Chi or-al kali plant
Passonno Corp.
POLLUTION PROBLEM
Violation of NESHAPS
reporting requirements
Violation of NESHAPS
reporting requirements
Violation of NESHAPS
reporting requirements
Violation of NESHAPS
reporting requirements
Violation of NESHAPS
reporting requirements
TYPE OF ACTION
§113 enforcement order
issued 11/22/74.
§113 enforcement order
issued 10/24/74
§113 enforcement order
issued 10/16/74
§113 enforcement order
issued 6/25/74.
§113 enforcement
order issued 2/8/74.
RESULTS/STATUS
Report received, under
review.
Report received, under
review.
Source indicates use of
asbestos will be discontinuec
Awaiting confirmation.
Source complied with order.
Source complied with order.
Bldg. Demolition
-------
STATE/CITY
REGION V
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Illinois,
Chicago
Illinois,
Chicago
01
Illinois,
Chicago
Illinois,
Branderberg
Wrecking Co.
Demolition
Harvey Wrecking
Co.
Demolition Co.
Keystone Wreck-
ing Co.
Demolition Co.
Nardi Wrecking
Co.
Demolition Co,
Failed to notify EPA
prior to demolition
of building containing
as required by NESHAPS
regs.
Failed to remove
friable asbestos
from building prior
to demolition as
required by NESHAPS
regs.
Failed to remove friable
asbestos from building
prior to demolition
as required by NESHAPS
regs.
Failed to notify EPA
prior to demolition of
building containing
friable asbestos and
did not remove asbestos
as required by NESHAPS
regs.
Criminal action re-
referred to U.S. Attorney
7/28/74.
Criminal action re-
ferred to U. S. Attorney
1/28/74.
Administrative order
issued 12/18/73.
Criminal action referred
to U. S. Attorney 1/28/74.
Dependent motion to dismiss
criminal information
pending before court.
Dependent motion to dismiss
criminal information
pending before court.
Presently in compliance
with term of order.
Dependent motion to dismiss
criminal information
pending before court.
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
.POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Illinois,
Chicago
Illinois,
Chicago
Toledo,
Ohio
Michigan,
Detroit
Nat'l Wrecking Co. Failed to remove friable
asbestos from building
Demolition Co. prior to demolition as
required by NESHAPS regs.
Speedway Wreck-
ing Co.
Demolition Co.
Failed to notify EPA
prior to demolition of
required by NESHAPS regs.
B & C Trucking & Failed to respond to
Wrecking, Co. 9114 letter concerning
NESHAPS asbestos demoli-
Wreckers tion standards and noti-
fication requirements.
Adamo Wrecking
Co.
Demolition Co.
Failed to notify EPA
prior to demolition
of building containing
friable asbestos and
did not remove asbestos
as required by NESHAPS
regs.
Criminal action
referred to U. S.
Attorney 1/28/74.
Administrative order
issued 12/18/73.
Admin, order issued
1/11/74.
Administrative order
issued 12/18/73; criminal
action, referred to U. S.
Attorney 4/30/74.
Dependent motion to dismiss
criminal information
pending before court.
Presently in compliance
with term of order.
Presently in compliance
with terms of order.
Case awaiting trial.
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
Michigan,
Detroit
Michigan,
Detroit
Cuyahoga Wreck-
ing Co.
Sarko Equip. Inc.
Demolition Con-
tractor
Failed to remove friable Admin, order issued
asbestos from building issued 12/18/73.
prior to demolition as re-
quired by NESHAPS regs.
Violation of NESHAPS
asbestos demolition
regs. (demolition
procedures and re-
porting requirement).
Admin, order issued
4/8/74.
Presently in compliance.
Presently in compliance.
-------
i
-fa.
oo
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/ TYPE
of SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/ STATUS
REGION VI
Louisiana,
New Orleans
Big Chief, Inc
Bldg. Demolition
Violation of NESHAPS Criminal action re-
asbestos requirements ferred to U. S.
Attorney 8/29/74.
Awaiting U. S. Attorney
to initiate criminal
action
Texas,
Dallas
J&J Wrecking and
Excavation Co.
Bldg. Demolition
Violation of NESHAPS Admin. Order issued
reporting requiremeni; 2/22/74.
Source is complying with
terms of order
-------
STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION
RESULTS/STATUS
REGION VII
Kansas,
Topeka
Missouri,
Kansas City
Missouri,
Hannibal
Vince Bahm Wreck-
ing Co.
Demolition
Failure to report as re-
quired in NESHAPS re-
gulations.
Centropolis Crusher Refused to submit in-
Inc. formation required in
Section 114 letter.
Stone Crusher
Universal Atlas
Cement
Cement Process
Refused to submit in-
formation requested by
Section 114 letter.
Criminal action re-
ferred to U. S.
Attorney on 8/16/73.
Administration order
issued Feb. 25, 1974.
Order issued on
6/6/73.
Admin, order issued
10/1/73.
Presently in compliance
with order.
All information required in
the order has been provided.
Source now in final complian
Source complied with terms
of order.
-------
STATE/CITY COMPANY/ TYPE POLLUTION PROBLEM TYPE OF ACTION RESULTS/STATUS
OF SOURCE
REGION IX
Arizona, Jaquays Mining Corp. Violation of NESHAPS Administrative Order Presently in compliance
Globe (asbestos) emission issued 11/29/73. with terms of order
Asbestos Mill limitation.
California, Certain-Teed Prod. Violation of NESHAPS Aministrative Order Presently in compliance
Riverside Corp. (asbestos) emission issued 9/23/74. with terms of order
Rock crushing limitation
I
U1
o
------- |