EPA
Air Programs
Policy and Guidance
Notebook
United States Offics of Air QAjeluty
Environmental Protection Planning and Standards
Agency Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Air
•rr
4 ii ,
— I ; is i

-------
ST4P 5
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
______ Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

WR 28 (990
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook
FROM: / Gerald A.. Emison,
/O1 9ffice of Air Quality Planning and Stan rds (MD-lU)
TO: V Recipients of the Air Programs Policy and
Guidance Notebook
am pleased to inform you that we have recently completed another update
to the Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook. Attached are the documents
that you will need to update your existing Notebooks. Please follow the
instructions below in order to minimize any possible confusion during the
updating process.
Instructions
1. Replace the existing Subject Index in bbth Volume 1 and in
Volume 2 with the new subject indices provftled. The subject indices
fov Volume 1 and Volume 2 are identical; either can be placed in
eithe ’ volume.
2. Replace the existing document title listings for Sections 110,
112, 165, and 172 of Volume 2 of the Notebook with the revised title
listings that are provided. Similarly, replace the existing Section
165 documen-t title listing for Volume 1 with the new listing that is
provided. The revised section title listings are to be placed
imediately behind the dividers for the respective sections. The
individual memos and other documents (see below) are then placed
behind the individual section title listings.
3. Transfer document PN 165-85-06-28-023 (Memorandum to William S. Baker
on Seasonal Afterburner Policy) from Volume 2 to Volume 1. This document
was inadvertently placed in Volume 2; since it was published prior to
January 1, 1986 it should be in Volume 1.
4. There are 4 new documents to be added to the Notebook this time,
all of which are to be added to Volume 2 of the Notebook. Place these
documents into the appropriate sections of Volume 2, inserting them
so that the last 3 digits of the PN numbers , which are located in the
upper right hand portion of the first page of each new document, are in
descending order.

-------
2
5. Refer to Attachment 1 (“Complete Listing of the Contents of
Volume 1 of the Air Programs Policy and Guid hce Noteb ’1i ndw
Attachment 2 (“Complete Listing of the Contents of V oiajiie Of ’ the
Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook”).to check
have all of the documents in your Noteb okthat you shdui f ’ ve. !f
any. documents are missing contact Bill -liamilton, U .SEPA,EM l DroØ ’
15, Research Triangle Park, NC 27.711. Telephone numb P
or FTS 629-5498.
Every effort has been taken in orde to”maI e the Arr P ifis:PolTi y and
Guidance Notebook the best possible compilation of ‘its kTh Ho éve -, users
of the Notebook cannot assume that the Notebook alone cor t Pl’ oT the
policy and guidance that they may need in a given situá i,% ticiil Ty in
the case of newly-issued materials which are not included irl P oteboók. In
addition, the Notebook is not intended to be the primary m distributing
policy and guidance to the implementers of air quality ma i programs.
As in the past, policy memorandums and other guidance wil -- e to be sent
to the EPA Regional Offices for their use and for possible subsequent
distribution to State and local air pollution contro1 agenctes 5 - .
As we mentioned the last time that we updated the Notebook, we realize
that the Notebook, particularly Volume 2, has nearly exceédeo -uw’ c-apacity of
the 3-ring binders. At this time, however, we do not intend t 4is% bute
additional 3-ring binders to the Notebook users. In the füt J e\’ intend to
revise the Notebook in order to be compatible with any Cleaw* r- c%
amendments that are passed by Congress. During that
other things, examine the need for additional binders for the Notebook.
Any comments that you might have on how to improve the 4 bk ouVd be
appreciated. If you have any suggestions please contact BiW ’41 mi’lton-at the
address and telephone number listed above. In addition, lé re ee 1 f .f ee to-
contact Bill if you have any questions regarding this updato 0 € 1e --H tebook.
Attachments
cc: W. Hamilton

-------
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
Introduction
The Air rograms Policy and Guidance Notebook is a
collection of, previously-distributed material which can be used
as a conveni nt’reference document for anyone who is involved in
the development and implementation of air pollution control
programs. he material is organized according to sections of the
Clean AirAct” and is cross-indexed by subject.
The documents in each section Shave been assigned code
numbers re1 ed to the respective section of the Clean Air Act,
the date of iss ance of the document, and a number denoting the
order or ] opation of the document in each section of the
NoteI ook. - ‘9r example, a document coded PN 172-80-06-16-027
would 1 indi ca t :
o]4-çy jotebook
Sect Qn 172 of the Clean Air Act
O—06—16 June 16, 1980 — date of initial distribution
of the document
027 — 27th item included in the Section 172 area of
the Notebook
Docum tsyithin each section of the Notebook are arranged
such that b e 1 most current documents generally appear at the
fror t o a y iven section. To accomplish this, the documents
should be cp) ced in each section so that the last three digits of
the d im r,are in descending order.
The subject index in the Notebook lists the code number,
Notebook vp] ime, and document subject for all documents relating
to a part ar ?.ndex category. For example, economic
asibi1ity bas wo documents listed: PN 110—86-04—11-074 and PN
110-87—01-20—080. Both documents can be found in the Section 110
section of Volume 2 of the Notebook. They can readily be located
in the book by referring to the last three digits of the code
numbers as explained above.
Users of the Notebook should be aware that it does not
necessarily contain all of EPA’s policy and guidance related to a
given topic. It is intended to be a comprehensive compilation of
policy and guidance documents but the users cannot necessarily
rely only upon the Notebook for all of their needs. Users should
be aware of other policy compilations which might be useful. One
such compilation is the Clean Air Act Compliance/Enforcement
Manual - Compendium of Operative Policies , which is maintained by
EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring. Another
compilation is the New Source Review — Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and Nonattaininent Area Guidance Notebook , which is
also published by EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. For matters related to the processing of State
implementation plans, refer to Guidelines for the Review of State
Implementation Plan Revisions by EPA Regional Offices , also
published by EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.

-------
- y&i ) 2’
Sr 4 , ,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENT,\L PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
— Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 2771 1
AUG 2 4 1920
MEMORANDUM
suBJEcT: Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook
FROM: John S Seitz, Director
Office of Air Quality Planni g end Standar s (MD-b)
TO: Recipients of the Air Programs Policy and
Guidance Notebook
aiji ‘leased to inform you that we have completed another update of the
Air PrO ’ams Policy and Guidance Notebook. Attached are the documents that
you will now need to include in your existing Notebooks. Please follow the
instru tions below in order to minimize any possible confusion during the
updating process.
Instrtic,t lQfl5
1’., Replace the existing Subject Index in both Volume 1 and in
voill’ 3,a with the new subject indices provided. The subject indices
for Volume 1 nd Volume 2 are identical; either can be placed in
eitti r volume.
. Replace the existing document title listings for Sections 110,
165,’ and 172 of Volume 2 of the Notebook with the revised title
1 , ,,1. tings. that ‘a e provided. The revised section title listings are
t be placed ininedlately behind the dividers for the respective
se t’ions, Th ’ individual niernos and other documents (see below) are
t1iettp1aced be1 nd the individual section title listings.
3 There are 8 n ?w,,documetits to be added to the Notebook this time,
all ‘of wh ch are to be added to Volume 2 of the Notebook. Place these
documents. into the appropriate sections of Volume 2, inserting them
.sp that the last ? digits of the PN numbers, which are located in the
• upper.right hand portion, of the first ‘page of each new document, are in
descend1n order. The documents to be added are listed below:
PN 110-90-07-05-106 “PM-lU SIP Demonstrations for Small
Isolated Areas with Spatially Uniform
Emiss ions”
PN 110-90-06-18 1O5 “Replacement of Surrogate PM-JO Monitors”
PN 165-90-06-08-050 Letter to John Boston from William G.
Rosenberg on WEPCO Determination
Ptl 165-90-01-18-049 Letter to Morton Sterling of Detroit Edison
from Gerald A. Emison

-------
2
PN 165-89-09-11-048 Letter to Christopher J. Daggett from
Gerald A. Emison on use of urea injection
for NOx control from municipal waste
combustors
PN 165-89-08-09-047 “LAER Determination for a Previously
Constructed Source”•
PN 172-90-06-18-079 “Ozone and Carbon:Monoxide O sign Value
Calculations”
PN 172-90-02-28-078 ‘Lowest Achievable ‘Emis sion L4mits (LAER) fpr
Ozone Nonattainrnent Areas”
4. Refer to Attachment 1 (“Complete Listing of the Contents of
Volume 1 of the Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notébo k ) an
Attachment 2 (“Complete Listing of the Contents of Volun 2 of the
Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook”) to check to see, that jou
have all of the documents in your Notebook that you should have. if
any documents are missing contact Bill Hamilton, USEPA, M’all Orop . ;
15, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. Telephone number 919-541-5498
or FTS 629-5498.
Every effort has been taken in order to make the Air’Prc grams Policy and
Guidance Notebook the best possible compilation of its kind wHOwever, ’users
of the Notebook cannot assume that the Notebook alone contains’ ali pf the
policy and guidance that they may need in a given situation, part1cul’a ly in
the case of newly-issued materials which are not included in the Notebook. In
addition, the Notebook is not intended to be the primary mëa ’ns. bf distr ibuting
policy and guidance to the implementers of air quality mariagem nt programs.
As in the past, policy memorandums and other guidance will conti nue to’be sent
to the EPA Regional Offices for their use and for possible sut s quent
distribution to State and local air pollution control agerides, ,
As we have previously mentioned, we realize that the Notebcok,
particularly Volume 2, has nearly exceeded the capacity of the 3-riñg binders..
At this time, however, we do not intend to distribute additiQn&l 3-ring
binders to the Notebook users. In the future we intend to revise he Notebook
in order to be compatible with any Clean Air Act amendments that are passed by
Congress. During that process we will, among other things, examine the need
for additional binders for the Notebook.
Any comments that you might have on how to improve the Notebook would be
appreciated. If you have any suggestions please contact Bill Hamilton at the
address and telephone number listed above. In addition, please feel free to
contact Bill if you have any questions regarding this update to the Notebook.
Attachments
cc: W. Hamilton

-------
, November 29, 1989
NOTE TO BILL HAMILTON
Enclosed are copies of your attachments for Volumes 1 and 2
of the Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebooks which list
the contents of these volumes. I have made copies and marked
the materials that I am missing, please forward them to me
when you can.
Thanks!
JEANNETTE CARABALLO-DELIZ
(GINA DELIZ) (c”
O C’
P.S. Please don’t forget to send me another copy of the subject index.

-------
Page No. 2
09/01/89
ATTACHMENT 1
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1989)
** PN11O-80-03-1O-030 /
EMISSION OFFSET REQUIREMENTS/IN SECONDARY STANDARD TOTAL SUSPENDED
PARTICULATE PLANS /1
** PN11O-80-04-O8-032
NEW SOURCE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR LEAD
** PN11O-80-05-09-034A /‘
CLARIFICATION OF REQUIRE IENTS FOR INCLUSION OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION
MONITORING PROVISIONS IN STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
/
PN11O-80-07-31-039 .J
APPLICABILITY OF VOC CONTROL TECHNIQUE GUIDELINES (CTGS) TO THE
AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
/
** PN1IO-80-08-04-040
A??.:cr :iLITY OF ciTING, FABRIC COATING, AND GRAPHIC ARTS
CTGS /
** PN11O-80-08-08-041
THE BUBBLE POLICY ,- ‘D STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS UNDER CLEAN AIR
ACT SECTION hiD //
* PN11O-80-09-25-043
INCORPORATION BY RE ERENCE OF SIP REVISIONS
** PNIIO-80-1O-23-044 ‘ 7’
GRO’dTH RESTRICTIONS IN yCONDAR? NAAQS NONATTAINMENT AREAS
** PN11O-81-07-22-052
EXPERIMENTAL STATE IMPLEM 9 1T ATION PLAN (SIP) PROCESSING TECHNIQUES
** PN11O-81-1i-09-055 /
NEW PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
** PNI1O-82-06-23-059 7
REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPA 4 ION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-NEW SIP PROCESSING PROCEDURES TO SAVE TIME
AND RESOURCES (FR CITATIOV -
/
REV 1 E HJF 1982 CZC: AND CO SIPS
-11-2
S ’ i . AND T’ OtL1 TANT

-------
Page No.
09/01/89
3
ATTACHMENT 2
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1989)
** PN11O-89-O1-30-102
PROCEDURES FOR LETTER
** PN113-86-04-11-028
TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE
** N110-88- -21-
REVISION TO POLICY ON THE {OF PM1O MEASUREMENT DATA
** PN11O-89-O1-19-100 /
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 9M ETENESS REVIEW (FR CITATION)
** PN11O-89-01-19-101
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN P 9 SSING REFORM (FR CITATION)
NOTICE ft?PROVAL OF MINOR SIP ACTIONS
** PN1IO-89-06-30-103
RESPONSE TO PM1O CONTROL S1R)TEGY ISSUES
** PN111E-86-09-11-004 I
DELEGATION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) AND NATIONAL
EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (NESHAP) AUTHORITY
TO STATE/LOCAL AGENCIES
** PN1I2-86-1O-O1-009
GUIDELINE S-26 - ENFORC E T OF THE ARSENIC NESHAP FOR GLASS
MANUFACTURING PLANTS
** PN112-88-03-31-O1O
REVISED ASBESTOS NESHAP STRATEG -’
** PN113-86-O1-17-027
ISSUES #3(E) AND #5 OF THE VOC ISSUE RESOLUTION PROCESS:
ESTABLISHING PROOF OF VOC EMISSIONS VIOLATIONS, AND BUBBLES IN
CONSENT DECREES RESOLVING CIVIL ,ACTIONS UNDER SECTION 113(b) OF
THE CLEAN AIR ACT
EN 6 CEMENT RESPONSE GUIDANCE
** PN113-86-04-11-029
GUIDANCE ON FEDERALLY-REPORTA LE VIOLATIONS FOR STATIONARY AIR
SOURCES
** PN113-86-04-22-030
TRANSMITTAL OF NATIONAL OGRAM GUIDANCE - ENFORCEMENT
APPLICATIONS OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEM DATA

-------
Page No. 4
09/01/89
ATTACHMENT 1
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1989)
** PN112-78-03-30-OO1
STATE ENFORCEMENT OF ASBESTOS DEMOLITION REGULATIONS IN LIGHT OF
ADAMO WRECKING COMPANY V. i ITED STATES
** PN112-82-03-24-0O2 7
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO STATES: NESHAPS
** PN112-84-O6-OI-OO4
BENZENE NESHAP GUIDANCE
** PN112-84-07-11-005 7’
VINYL CHLORIDE NESHAP ENF RCEMENT 7 1RATEGY
** PN112-85-02-08-006
REVISIONS TO ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION CIVIL PENALTY
POLICY
** PN112-85-06-xx-007
REPRINT OF THE EPA AIR TOA CS ,STRATEGY (REFERENCE ONLY)
** PN112-85-09-17-008
PREPARATION OF QUANTITATIVE A YSIS IN AGENCY DECISION-MAKING
** PN113-75-11-05-O01
NON-DISCRETIONARY ENFORCEMENT DUTIES - ISSUANCE OF NOTICES OF
VIOLATION
** PN113-76-06-25-002 /
DOCUMENTATION OF VIOLATION EXTEND 0 30 DAYS BEYOND NOTICE OF /
VIOLATION UNDER SECTION 113 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
** PNI13-76-08-12-003
ENFORCEMENT OF SIPS UNDERG I REVISION
** PN113-76-08-13-O04
“REVIEWABILITY” OF EPA DET KMINATIONS IN SIP ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
** PN113-78-07-27-005 -
ENFORCEMENT UNDER CLEAN IR AC T AMENDMENTS - ORDERS UNDER SECTION
113(A) AND 113(0) /7
** PN113-8O-03-11-006 V ’
INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROL’
** PN113-80-05-27-007
DELAYED COMPLIANCE ORDERS REQUIRING SIP COMPLIANCE THROL’GH
TEMPORARY CONTROL 1EASURES - AMENDED GUI DANCE

-------
Page No. 7
09/01/89
ATTACHMENT 1
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS 2OLI CY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1989)
** PN123-85-09-19-006 I /
GUIDANCE ON FLUID MODEL DEMQ$ STRATIONS FOR DETERMINING GEP STACK
HEIGHT IN COMPLEX TERRAI , 11 /
** PN123-85-1O-1O-007
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON IMPJLEMENTING THE REVISED STACK HEIGHT
REGULATION
** PN123-85-1O-28-008
IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS - EXCEPTIONS FROM
RESTRICTIONS ON CREDIT F0rMERGED STACKS
** PN123-85-1O-28-009
IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK NEIrzflT REGULATIONS - PRESUMPTIVE NSPS
EMISSION LIMIT FOR FLUID J 56DELING STACKS ABOVE FORMULA GEP HEIGHT
** PN123-85-1O-28-O1O ‘ /‘
DETERMINING STACK HEIGHTS,> N EXISTENCE’ BEFORE DECEMBER 31, 1970
** PN124-78-07-31-OO1
IMPLEMENTING SECTION 12, /OF THE CLEAN 11R ACT
** PN126-78-0-16-OO1
OUT OF STATE SOURCES EFFECT o : 1 TON LAN REVISIOr
** PN165-78-12-22-OOi V
BACT INFORMATION FOR COAL- jRED POWER PLANTS
** PN16S-81-04-03-006 /
LETTER TO NATIONAL PARK SERVICE FROM ED ARD F. TUERK REGARDING PSD
P E RM ITS
** PN165 -80-12-16-007
INTERPRETATION OF “SIGNIF ,çANT CONTRIBUTICN’
** PN165-84-O1-09-012 V
INTERPRETATION OF THE POLICY ON COMPLIANCE WITh THE PROVISIONS OF
PARTD /
** PN165-84-O1-20-O13
PSD INCREMENT CONSUMPTION/CALCULATIONS
/
** PNi65-S4-O6- - -
APPLICABILITY OF i! CREMENTS TO BUT i’ RO3FTO7S

-------
MEMORANDUM
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
F 7 SEP 1989
FROM:
TO:
SUBJECT: Air Programs Policy and Guidan
Gerald A. Emison, Di
Office of Air Quality Planfiin and Stai
Recipients of the Air Programs Policy and
Guidance Notebook
I am pleased to inform you that we have recently completed another update
to the Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook. Attached are the documents
that you will need to update your existing Notebooks. Please follow the
instructions below in order to minimize any possible confusion during the
updating process.
1. Remove document PN 107-87-04-06-011
/ Policy”) from Volume 2 of the Notebook.
‘\J duplicate of document PN 107-87-04-06-013.
(“Ozone Redesignation
This document is a
2. Replace the existing Subject Index in both Volume 1 and in
Volume 2 with the new subject indices provided. (Note that you will
have to 3-hole punch the new subject indices.) The subject indices
for Volume 1 and Volume 2 are identical; either can be placed in
either volume.
3. Replace the existing document title listings for Sections 110,
123, 165, and 172 of Volume 2 of the Notebook with the revised title
listings that are provided. (Note that the revised title listings
will have to be 3-hole punched.) The revised section title listings
are to be placed immediately behind the dividers for the respective
sections. The individual memos and other documents (see step 4
below) are then placed behind the individual section title listings.
4. Insert the attached documents into the appropriate sections of
the Notebook. All of the documents included in this update are to
be placed in Volume 2 of the Notebook. Refer to the first 3 digits
of the PN number on the top right hand corner of each document for
the section code and insert the documents so that the last 3 digits
of the PN number are in descending order for each section of the
Notebook.
S? 4
)
PRO1
Insftuct ions
I

-------
2
5. Refer to Attachment 1 (“Complete Listing of the Contents of
Volume 1 of the Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook”) and
Attachment 2 (“Complete Listing of the Contents of Volume 2 of the
Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook”) to check to see that you
have all of the documents in your Notebook that you should have. If
any documents are missing contact Bill Hamilton, USEPA, Mail Drop
15, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. Telephone number 919-541-5498
or FTS 629-5498.
Every effort has been taken in order to make the Air Programs Policy and
Guidance Notebook the best possible compilation of its kind. However, users
of the Notebook cannot assume that the Notebook alone contains all of the
policy and guidance that they may need in a given situation, particularly in
the case of newly-issued materials which are not included in the Notebook. In
addition, the Notebook is not intended to be the primary means of distributing
policy and guidance to the implementers of air quality management programs.
As in the past, policy memorandums and other guidance will continue to be sent
to the EPA Regional Offices for their use and for possible subsequent
distribution to State and local air pollution control agencies.
Any comments that you might have on how to improve the Notebook would be
appreciated. If you have any suggestions please contact Bill Hamilton at the
address and telephone number listed above. In addition, please feel free to
contact Bill if you have any questions regarding this update to the Notebook.
Attachments
cc: W. Hamilton

-------
May 19, 1989
NOTE TO JEANNETTE CARABALLO-DELIZ
Attached are the Policy and Guidance Notebook materials that
you recently requested. I hope that you now have all of the memos
that you need. As I said before, I will send you a section 111(e)
divider as soon as I get them from the printer. Hopefully, this
will be next week. Give me a call at 919-541—5498 if there is
anything else that I can do for you.
Bill Hamilton
P.S. Sorry that I spelled your name wrong the last time.

-------
May 26, 1989
NOTE TO JEANNETTE CARABALLO-DELIZ
Attached is a section 111(e) divider for your Air Progranis
Policy and Guidance Notebook. I hope that you now have everything
that you need for a complete Notebook. Give me a call at 919-541-
5498 if there is anything else that I can do for you.
/
Bill Hamilton

-------
}IEMORANDUM
DATE: May 15, 1989
SUBJECT: AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
FROM: Jeannette Carabal].o-Deljz
TO: Bill Hamilton
Thank you for sending me the materials I requested. After
comparing the materials I have against all the documents listed
in Attachments 2 & 3, I have verified that I am missing the
documents highlighted in blue on the attached list. I would
appreciate copies of those documents at your earliest
convenience.
Thanks!!
cc: Bill Anderson

-------
April 24, 1989
NOTE TO GINA DEL 1 IV
Attached, with the exception of a section 111(e) divider for
Volume 2, are the Policy and Guidance Notebook materials that you
requested a few weeks ago. I will send the 111(e) divider in about
a month which will be when the printer is scheduled to deliver some
more dividers to me. Give me a call at 919-541 54 -8if there is
anything else that I can do for you.
/c
Bill Hamilton

-------
ST 4 .
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
PROIcP
MAR 7 1989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook - Update
FROM: Gerald k. Emison,
Office of Air Quality Planning and tandards (MD-b)
TO: Recipients of the Air Programs Policy and
Guidance Notebook
I am pleased to inform you that we have recently completed
another update to the Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook.
Attached are the documents that you will need to update your
existing Notebooks. Please follow the instructions below in order
to minimize any possible Confusion during the updating process.
Ins yruc t ions
J 1. Remove the documents list d o ttachment 1 from your
current edition of the Note Ok. These materials are
either outdated or have been superseded by other
documents to be added to the Note 00k.
2. Replace the Table of o ents in both Volume 1 and in
Volume 2 of your current otebook wi the new tables of
contents provided.
3. Replace the existing Subjec Index in both Volume 1
I and in Volume 2 with t e n subject indices. (The
subject indices for Volu and Volume 2 are identical;
either can be placed in her volume.)
4. Replace the existing document title ll.stings for both
Volume 1 and Volume 2 with the revsed title listings
that are provided. Not that new title listings have
been provided for each s ction both volumes of the
Notebook. The title isti s are to be placed
immediately behind the divi er for each section of each
volume. The individual me and other documents (see
step 5 below) are to be placed behind the individual
title listings.

-------
2
5. Insert the attached documents into the appropriate
section of the Notebook (refer to the first 3 digits of
the PN number on the top right hand corner of each
document for the section code and insert the documents
so that the last 3 digits of the PN number are in
descending order for each section of the Notebook).
of the documents, with the exception of PN 110—83-03-14-
087 (“Issues on Lead SIPs” are to be placed in Volume
2 of the Notebook . PN 110-83-03—14-087 is to be placed
in Volume 1 since it is dated prior to January 1, 1986,
the cut-off date for placing material into Volume 2. A
Section 169A divider for Volume 2 of your Notebook is
enclosed. Dividers for Section 126 and Section 167 of
Volume 2 will be sent to you in the near future.
6. Refer to Attachment 2 (“Complete Listing of the
Contents of Volume 1 of the Policy and Guidance
Notebook”) and Attachment 3 (“Complete Listing of the
Contents of Volume 2 of the Policy and Guidance
Notebook”) to check to see that you have all of the
documents in your Notebook that you should have. If any
documents are missing contact Bill Hamilton, USEPA, Mail
Drop 15, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. Telephone
number 919—541—5498 or FTS 629—5498.
Every effort has been taken in order to make the Air
Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook the best possible
compilation of its kind. That does not mean, however, that other
documents might not comprise appropriate policy or guidance in a
particular situation. Users of the Notebook cannot assume that
the Notebook alone contains all of the policy and guidance
information that they need, particularly in the case of newly-
issued materials which are not yet included in the Notebook. In
addition, the Notebook is not intended to be the primary means of
distributing policy and guidance to the implementers of air
quality management programs. As in the past, policy memorandums
and other guidance will continue to be sent primarily to the
Regional Offices for their use and for possible subsequent
distribution to State and local air pollution control agencies.
Any comments that you might have on how to further improve
the Notebook would be appreciated. If you have any suggestions
please contact Bill Hamilton at the address and telephone number
listed above. In addition, please feel free to contact Bill if
you have any questions regarding this update to the Notebook.
Attachments
cc: W. Hamilton

-------
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771+— (‘
- ;
3 i9 H/i
4- 1 1’ I M R 7 989
L L L L5t
-
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook - Update
FROM: G:::ld k. Emison,
Office of Air Quality Planning and tandards (MD-b)
TO: Recipients of the Air Programs Policy and
Guidance Notebook
I am pleased to inform you that we have recently completed
another update to the Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook.
Attached are the documents that you will need to update your
existing Notebooks. Please follow the instructions below in order
to minimize any possible confusion during the updating process.
Instructions
1. Remove the documents listed on Attachment 1 from your
current edition of the Notebook. These materials are
either outdated or have been superseded by other
documents to be added to the Notebook.
2. Replace the Table of Contents in both Volume 1 and in
Volume 2 of your current Notebook with the new tables of
contents provided.
3. Replace the existing Subject Index in both Volume 1
and in Volume 2 with the new subject indices. (The
subject indices for Volume 1 and Volume 2 are identical;
either can be placed in either volume.)
4. Replace the existing document title listings for both
Volume 1 and Volume 2 with the revised title listings
that are provided. Note that new title listings have
been provided for each section of both volumes of the
Notebook. The title listings are to be placed
immediately behind the dividers for each section of each
volume. The individual memos and other documents (see
step 5 below) are to be placed behind the individual
title listings.

-------
2
5. Insert the attached documents into the appropriate
section of the Notebook (refer to the first 3 digits of
the PN number on the top right hand corner of each
document for the section code and insert the documents
so that the last 3 digits of the PN number are in
descending order for each section of the Notebook).
of the documents, with the exception of PN 110—83—03-14—
087 (“Issues on Lead SIPs”) are to be placed in Volume
2 of the Notebook . PN 110-83—03—14—087 is to be placed
in Volume 1 since it is dated prior to January 1, 1986,
the cut—off date for placing material into Volume 2. A
Section 169A divider for Volume 2 of your Notebook is
enclosed. Dividers for Section 126 and Section 167 of
Volume 2 will be sent to you in the near future.
6. Refer to Attachment 2 (“Complete Listing of the
Contents of Volume 1 of the Policy and Guidance
Notebook”) and Attachment 3 (“Complete Listing of the
Contents of Volume 2 of the Policy and Guidance
Notebook”) to check to see that you have all of the
documents in your Notebook that you should have. If any
documents are missing contact Bill Hamilton, USEPA, Mail
Drop 15, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. Telephone
number 919—541—5498 or FTS 629—5498.
Every effort has been taken in order to make the Air
Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook the best possible
compilation of its kind. That does not mean, however, that other
documents might not comprise appropriate policy or guidance in a
particular situation. Users of the Notebook cannot assume that
the Notebook alone contains all of the policy and guidance
information that they need, particularly in the case of newly-
issued materials which are not yet included in the Notebook. In
addition, the Notebook is not intended to be the primary means of
distributing policy and guidance to the iinplementers of air
quality management programs. As in the past, policy memorandums
and other guidance will continue to be sent primarily to the
Regional Offices for their use and for possible subsequent
distribution to State and local air pollution control agencies.
Any cont inents that you might have on how to further improve
the Notebook would be appreciated. If you have any suggestions
please contact Bill Hamilton at the address and telephone number
listed above. In addition, please feel free to contact Bill if
you have any questions regarding this update to the Notebook.
Attachments
cc: W. Hamilton

-------
Page No. 1
03/01/8 9
ATTACHMENT 2
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
V PN1O7—82—09—16—007
MILWAUKEE S02 NONATTAINMENT DESIGNATION
/ PN1O7—83—04—21—008
SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY StJMMARY
/ ** PN1O7—85—04—08—009
LETTER TO JUDGE TERRY ROBERTS FROM GERALD A. EMISON
/ *
OZONE AIR QUALITY DATA FOR REDESIGNATIONS
7 ** PN11O—78—02—24—002
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
/ PN11O—78—03—24—003
PLANS UNDER SECTION hiD OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
/ * PN11O—78—07—17—007
INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE POLICY
PN11O—79—04—04—015
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINNENT AREAS (FR
CITATION)
PN11O—79—06—14—016
LEAD SIPS
(I ’ ** PN11O—79-07—02—017
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN
REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINHENT AREAS - SUPPLEMENT (ON PUBLIC COMMENT
AND CONDITIONAL APPROVAL)
/ PN 11O—79—09—17—020
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN
REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS - (SUPPLEMENT ON CONTROL
TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES) (FR CITATION)
PN11O—79—h1—21—023
MINIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES FOR DETERMINING QUARTERLY AVERAGE LEAD
CONCENTRATION
/ E’N110—80—01—10—023A
ALTERNATE PROCEDURE FOR SECTION 110(F) RELIEF IN LOCALIZED, SHORT
TERM ENERGY EMERGENCIES

-------
Page No. 2
03/01/89
ATTACHMENT 2
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
J** PN1]0—80—03—10—030
EMISSION OFFSET REQUIREMENTS IN SECONDARY STANDARD TOTAL SUSPENDED
PARTICULATE PLANS
v ** PN11O—80—04—08—032
NEW SOURCE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR LEAD
i ** PN11O—80—05—09—034A
CLARIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR INCLUSION OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION
MONITORING PROVISIONS IN STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
v ** PN11O—80—0’—31—039
APPLICABILITY OF VOC CONTROL TECHNIQUE GUIDELINES (CTGS) TO THE
AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
** PN11O—80—08—04—040
APPLICABILITY OF PAPER COATING, FABRIC COATING, AND GRAPHIC ARTS
CTGS
I ** PN11O—80—08—08—041
ThE BUBBLE POLICY AND STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS UNDER CLEAN AIR
ACT SECTION hiD
** PN11O—80—09—25—043
INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF SIP REVISIONS
** PN11O—80—i0—23—044
GROWTH RESTRICTIONS IN SECONDARY NAAQS NONATTAINMENT AREAS
“ ** PN11O—81—07—22—052
EXPERIMENTAL STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) PROCESSING TECHNIQUES
j ** PN11O—81—h1—09—055
NEW PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
J ** PN11O—82—06—23—059
REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-NEW SIP PROCESSING PROCEDURES TO SAVE TIME
AND RESOURCES (FR CITATION)
I ** PN11O—82—08—h1—060
REVIEW OF 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
/ ** PN11O—82—1i—24—061
SIP ACTIONS AND TOXIC POLLUTANTS
** PN11O—83—03—18—063
LETTER TO HARRY H. HOVEl RE EPA POLICY WITH REGARD TO AMBIENT AIR

-------
Page No. 3
03/01/89
ATTACHMENT 2
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
/ ** PN11O—83—05—27—064
SUMMARY OF NAAQS INTERPRETATION
/** PN11O—77—07-08—065
(CITATION OF FR NOTICE ENTITLED “RECOMMENDED POLICY ON CONTROL OF
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS”)
** PN11O—79—06—18—066
REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION AND SUBMITTAL OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS: INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONSULTATION (FR CITATION)
** PN11O—80—07—22—067
(CITATION OF FR NOTICE ON SOLVENT REACTIVITIES)
L/ PN11O—83—05—26—068
DEFINITION OF AMBIENT AIR FOR LEAD
j’** PN11O—84—11—28—069
CORRECTING ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION MODEL RESULTS TO STANDARD
TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE
,,** PN11O—85—0].—02—07o
REGIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF MODELING GUIDANCE
PN11O—85—08—27—071
CLASSIFICATION OF BENZENE AS A VOC
** PN11O—85—12—16—072
BASELINE TIME PERIODS FOR VOC TRANSFER EFFICIENCY CREDITS
/ ** PN11O—83—03—] .4—087
ISSUES ON LEAD SIPS
L.- * PN111D—81—09—14—001
EPA POLICY ON WELFARE-RELATED POLLUTANTS UNDER SECTION hiD
V ** PN111E—76—05—03—OO1
ENFORCEMENT OF NSPS REQUIREMENTS
** PN111E—82—05—07—002
RESTATEMENT OF GUIDANCE ON EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SOOT BLOWING
/** PN112—78—03—30—OO].
STATE ENFORCEMENT OF ASBESTOS DEMOLITION REGULATIONS IN LIGHT OF
ADAMO WRECKING COMPANY V. UNITED STATES

-------
Page No. 4
03 / 01/89
ATTACHMENT 2
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
sJ ** PN11282—03—24 0 O 2
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO STATES: NESHAPS
1/ ** PN112—84—06- 0100 4
BENZENE NESHAP GUIDANCE
** PN112—84—0711OOS
VINYL CHLORIDE NESHAP ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
LI** PN112—850208 OO 6
REVISIONS TO ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION CIVIL PENALTY
POLICY
J** PN112—85—06—XX—00 7
REPRINT OF THE EPA AIR TOXICS STRATEGY (REFERENCE ONLY)
I ** PN112—85—091 7 OO 8
PREPARATION OF QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS IN AGENCY DECISION-MAKING
/** PN] .13—75—11—05—OO 1
NON-DISCRETIONARY ENFORCEMENT DUTIES - ISSUANCE OF NOTICES OF
VIOLATION
** PN113—76—06 25OO 2
DOCUMENTATION OF VIOLATION EXTENDING 30 DAYS BEYOND NOTICE OF
VIOLATION UNDER SECTION 113 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
** PN113—76—0812—OO 3
ENFORCEMENT OF SIPS UNDERGOING REVISION
** PN113—76—08—13—004
“REVIEWABILITY” OF EPA DETERMINATIONS IN SIP ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
.1 ** PNL13—78—07—27—00 5
ENFORCEMENT UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS - ORDERS UNDER SECTION
113(A) AND 113(0)
** PN113—80—031100 6
INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
/ ** PN1L3—80—05—2700 7
DELAYED COMPLIANCE ORDERS REQUIRING SIP COMPLIANCE THROUGH
TEMPORARY CONTROL MEASURES - AMENDED GUIDANCE
** PN113—82—05—04—013
GUIDANCE ON POLICY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF VE VIOLATIONS AGAINST
SOURCES W}IICH ARE MEETING AN APPLICABLE MASS EMISSION STANDARD

-------
Page No. 5
03/01/89
ATTACHMENT 2
COMPLETE LISTING OF ThE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
** PN113—82—08—12—014
GUIDANCE CONCERNING EPA’S USE OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING
DATA
/** PN113—83—02—15—017
POLICY ON EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, MAINTENANCE,
AND MALFUNCTIONS
V ** PN113—83—01—12—018
GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1982 DEADLINE ENFORCEMENT POLICY
ISSUED SEPTEMBER 20, 1982
/ ** PN113—83—04--12—019
LETTER TO ROBERT R. WAHLER FROM KATHLEEN BENNETT RE ENFORCEMENT
POLICY ON INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
J** PN113—83—04—26—020
PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW AND FEDERAL REGISTER PUBLICATION OF DELAYED
COMPLIANCE ORDERS UNDER SECTION 113(D) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
‘-“** PN113—84—10—05—021 —
FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON THE REVIEW AND USE OF EXCESS EMISSION
REPORTS
.—‘ ** PN113—84—12—20—022
POLICY ON NO-ACTION ASSURANCES
‘-“** PN113—85—04—24—023
ACHIEVING VOC COMPLIANCE FROM DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACTOR
FACILITIES
PN113 —8 5—06—28—024
PARTICULATE MATTER INTERIM ENFORCEMENT POLICY
** PN113—85—10—30—025
FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON THE REVIEW AND USE OF COAL SAMPLING
AND ANALYSIS DATA
PN113—85—].1—27—026
REVISED ENFORCEMENT POLICY RESPECTING SOURCES COMPLYING WITH CLEAN
AIR ACT REQUIREMENTS BY SHUTDOWN
— ** PN114—77—12—02—OO1A
GUIDANCE FOR SECTION 114(D) OF THE CAA
v ** PN114—81—05—13—002
REGIONAL OFFICE CRITERIA FOR N UTRAL INSPECTIONS OF STATIONARY
SOURCES - AMENDED GUIDANCE -

-------
Page No. 6
03 / 01/89
ATTACHMENT 2
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
PN114—83—12—15—003
EXECUTION OF CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS UNDER SECTION 114 OF THE
CLEAN AIR ACT
i/ ** PN114—84—09—06—004
FINAL GUIDANCE ON USE OF UNANNOUNCED INSPECTIONS
/ ** PN115—78-01—31—001
ACCOUNTING FOR POLLUTION ACROSS INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES
v ** PN115—78—03—20—002
INTERNATIONAL POLLUTION (EL PASO/JUAREZ)
** PN12O—80—09—12—001
PRIORITIES FOR ISSUING NOTICES OF NONCOMPLIANCE
** PN12O—81—02—12—003
IMPLEMENTATION OF NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTY PROGRAM UNDER SECTION 120
OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
v ** PN12O—81—04—02—004
SETTLEMENT OF NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 120
OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT, AS AMENDED
f** PN120—81—04—30—005
ISSUANCES OF NOTICES OF NONCOMPLIANCE UNDER SECTION 120 OF THE
CLEAN AIR ACT TO SEASONAL SOURCES
/** PN12O—85—03—19—006
PERMISSIBLE GROUNDS FOR SETTLEMENT OF NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTIES
UNDER SECTION 120 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
** PN12O—85—03—19—007
GUIDANCE CONCERNING IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 120 OF THE CLEAN AIR
ACT IN FISCAL YEAR 1985
** PN123—80—12—19—001
LETTER TO HONORABLE JENNINGS RANDOLPH FROM DOUGLAS M. COSTLE
REGARDING DEFINITION OF AMBIENT AIR
I ** PN123—85—09—19—006
GUIDANCE ON FLUID MODEL DEMONSTRATIONS FOR DETERMINING GEP STACK
HEIGHT IN COMPLEX TERRAIN -
** PN123—85—10—10—007
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON IMPLEMENTING THE REVISED STACK HEIGHT
REGULATION

-------
Page No. 7
03/01/89
ATTACHMENT 2
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
PN123—85—10—28—008
IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS - EXCEPTIONS FROM
RESTRICTIONS ON CREDIT FOR MERGED STACKS
** PN123—85—10—28—009
IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS - PRESUMPTIVE NSPS
EMISSION LIMIT FOR FLUID MODELING STACKS ABOVE FORMULA GEP HEIGHT
** PN1.23—85—10—28—01O
DETERMINING STACK HEIGHTS “IN EXISTENCE” BEFORE DECEMBER 31, 1970
/** PN124—78—07—31—001
IMPLEMENTING SECTION 124 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
/ ** PN126—78—03—16—00].
OUT OF STATE SOURCES EFFECT ON IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISION
/ ** PN165—78—12—22—0O].
BACT INFORMATION FOR COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS
/ ** PN165—81—04—03—006
LETTER TO NATIONAL PARI( SERVICE FROM EDWARD F. TIJERK REGARDING PSD
PERMITS
** PN165—80—12—16—007
INTERPRETATION OF “SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION”
** PN165—84—01—09—012
INTERPRETATION OF THE POLICY ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
PART D
** PN165—84—O1—20—013
PSD INCREMENT CONSUMPTION CALCULATIONS
‘ ** PN165—84—06—11—014
APPLICABILITY OF PSD INCREMENTS TO BUILDING ROOFTOPS
/ ** PN165—85—05—09—015
IMPROVED NEW SOURCE REVIEW/PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(NSR/PSD) PROGRAM TRANSFER
/** PN167—83—12—14—001
GUIDANCE ON ENFORCEMENT OF PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT
PN169A—85—03—25—OO1
VISIBILITY MONITORING STRATEGY REQUIRE1ENTS

-------
Page No. 8
03 / 01/89
ATTACHMENT 2
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
I ** PN172—78—03—10—002
EXAMPLE DEMONSTRATION OF ATTAINMENT FOR PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANTS
J ** PN172—78—06--30OO 3
VAPOR RECOVERY REGULATIONS REQUIRED TO MEET RACT REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE 1979 SIP
J ** PN172—78—08-04OO 4
REQUIREMENT FOR VOC RACT REGULATIONS IN ALL OXIDANT NONATTAINMENT
AREAS
** PN172—78—0824 0 O 6
CLARIFICATION OF EPA POLICY ON EMISSIONS FOR METHYL CHLOROFORM
** PN172—78—10—06OOB
COMMENTS ON AUTO INDUSTRY PROPOSALS
/** PN172—78—10—2600 9
OZONE TRANSPORT VALUES FOR SIP REVISIONS
** PN172—79011 6 O 12
CONTINUITY OF SIP REGULATIONS - REVISED ENCLOSURE
** PN172—79—03—06O 14
CUTBACK ASPHALT VOC REGULATIONS
** PN172—79—05—250l 6
SUBMISSION OF STATE AIR PERMITS AS SIP REVISIONS
** PN172—79—05—25-01 7
CLARIFICATION OF AGENCY POLICY CONCERNING OZONE SIP REVISIONS AND
SOLVENT REACTIVITIES
, ** PN172—79—06—20—018
MODIFICATIONS TO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOLVENT METAL CLEANING
L/ ** PN172—79—08—21—019
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS: GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED
RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINNENT AREAS -
SUPPLEMENT (ON REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMISSION OF VOLATILE
ORGANIC CHEMICAL PACT REGULATIONS)
** PN172—79—08—22020
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS/REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMITTING PACT
REGULATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES OF VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS (VOC)

-------
Page No. 9
03 / 01/89
ATTACHMENT 2
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
/ ** PN172—79—10—04—021
CLARIFICATION FOR FINAL SIP ACTIONS ON ASPHALT REGULATIONS
/ ** PN172—79—12—12—023
EXEMPTIONS FOR DEGREASERS
/ ** PN172—78—06—14—026
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGARDING
THE INTEGRATION OF TRANSPORTATION AND AIR QUALITY PLANNING
/ ** PN172—80—06—16—027
GASOLINE TANK TRUCK REGULATIONS
/ ** PN172—80—07—02—029
EXEMPTION FOR COLD CLEANER DEGREASERS
/ ** PN172—80—09—03--030
MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS CTG - EMISSION LIMITS FOR
COATING OF SHIPPING PAILS AND DRUMS
/ ** PN172—80—11—20—032
COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR CAN COATING
OPERATIONS
“ ** PN172—80—12—01—033
REVISED SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
I ** PN172—80—12—02—034
COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR RACT APPLICATION TO LEAKS FROM PETROLEUM
REFINERY EQUIPMENT
I ** PN172—80—12—02—035
RACT FOR SPECIALTY PRINTING OPERATIONS
** PN172—8 —02—06—036
êRAGE - - POR--BkL JC&”REQUIREMENTS -AT S N’N &I.&3 .* - -
PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS MANUFACTURE FACILITIES
7 ** PN172—81—05—21—038
1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE SIP GUIDANCE INDEX
I ** PN172—B1—O1—22—039
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON
MONOXIDE PLAN REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE
EXTENSION (FR CITATION)

-------
Page No. 10
03/01/89
ATTACHMENT 2
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
** PN172—82—10—29—041
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
** PN172—80—08—11—043
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS: CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
LIMITATION PROVIDED BY SECTION 316 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT: POLICY
AND PROCEDURES (FR CITATION)
** PN172—83—11—02044
COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART D OF THE CLEAN
AIR ACT (FR CITATION)
** PN172—84—01—20—045
AVERAGING TIMES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITS - SIP
REVISION POLICY
V ** PN172—84—06—25046
APPLICABILITY OF GROUP III CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES (CTG’S)
** PN172—84—06—25047
CONFIRMATION OF DEFINITION OF “100 TON-PER-YEAR (100 TPY) SOURCE”
** PN172—84—09—14—048
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) TEST METHODS OR PROCEDURES FOR
SOURCE CATEGORIES IN GROUPS I, II, AND III CONTROL TECHNIQUES
GUIDELINES (CTGS)
** PN172—84—12—21-049
CONNECTICUT VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) ISSUES
** PN172—85—04—25—050
CONSIDERATION OF ORGANISOLS IN VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC)
COMPLIANCE CALCULATIONS
I ** PN172—85—07—02—05].
RESIDUAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) CONTAINED IN COATING LINE
PRODUCTS
J ** PN175—79—02—12—004
REGIONAL OFFICE ASSISTANCE IN EXPEDITING HEADQUARTERS REVIEW OF
SECTION 175 GRANT APPLICATIONS
/ ** PN175—80—04—23—006
IMPLEMENTATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 12185, CONSERVATION OF PETROLEUM
AND NATURAL GAS
/ ** PN175—80—06—12—008
PROCEDURES F R CONFORMANCE OF TRANS PORTAT ION PLANS, PROGRAMS AND
PROJECTS WITH CLEAN AIR ACT STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

-------
Page No. 11
03 / 01/89
ATTACHMENT 2
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
/** PN175—80—06—23—009
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN -
TRANSPORTATION REVISION PROCESS: EXPANDED GUIDELINES (FR CITATION)
/** PN176—79—06—08—001
IMPACT OF CLEAN AIR ACT NONATTAINMENT SANCTIONS
PN3O1—81—O1—20—001
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REGIONAL CONSISTENCY REGULATIONS

-------
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME 1
INTRODUCTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUBJECT INDEX
CM SECTION TITLE
107 Air Quality Control Regions
110 Implementation Plans
111(d) Standards of Performance for Existing Sources
111(e) New Source Performance Standards Enforcement
112 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants
113 Federal Enforcement
114 Inspections, Monitoring, and Entry
115 International Air Pollution
120 Noncompliance Penalty
123 Stack Heights
124 Assurance of Adequacy of State Plans
126 Interstate Pollution Abatement
129 Nonattajnment Areas
165 Preconstructjon Requirements
167 -PSD Enforcement
169A Visibility Protection
172 Nonattainment Plan Provisions
175 Grants
176 Limitations on Certain Federal Assistance
301 Administration

-------
Page No. 1
09/01/89
ATTACHMENT 1
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1989)
** PN1O7-82-09-16-007
MILWAUKEE S02 NONATTAINMENT DESIGNATION
** PNIO7-83-04-21-008
SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY SUMMARY
** PN1O7-85-04-08-009
LETTER TO JUDGE TERRY ROBERTS FROM GERALD A. EMISON
** PN1O7-85-10-08-O1O
OZONE AIR QUALITY DATA FOR REDESIGNATIONS
PN11O-78-02-24-002
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
** PN11O-78-03-24-003
PLANS UNDER SECTION hiD OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
** PN11O-78-07-17-007
INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE POLICY
* PN11O-79-04-04-015
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS (FR
CITATION)
** PN11O-79-06-14-016
LEAD SIPS
** PN11O-79-07-02-017
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN
REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS - SUPPLEMENT (ON PUBLIC COMMENT
AND CONDITIONAL APPROVAL)
** PN11O-79-09-17-020
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN
REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS - (SUPPLEMENT ON CONTROL
TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES) (FR CITATION)
* PN11O-79-11-21-023
MINIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES FOR DETERMINING QUARTERLY AVERAGE LEAD
CONCENTRATION
** PN11O-80-O1-1O-023A
ALTERNATE PROCEDURE FOR SECTION 110(F) RELIEF IN LOCALIZED, SHORT
TERM ENERGY EMERGENCIES

-------
Page No. 2
09/01/89
ATTACHMENT 1
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1989)
** PN11O-80-03-1O-030
EMISSION OFFSET REQUIREMENTS IN SECONDARY STANDARD TOTAL SUSPENDED
PARTICULATE PLANS
** PN11O-80-04-08-032
NEW SOURCE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR LEAD
** PN11O-80-05-09-034A
CLARIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR INCLUSION OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION
MONITORING PROVISIONS IN STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
** PN11O-80-07-31-039
APPLICABILITY OF VOC CONTROL TECHNIQUE GUIDELINES (CTGS) TO THE
AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
** PNJ1O-80-08-04-040
APPLICABILITY OF PAPER COATING, FABRIC COATING, AND GRAPHIC ARTS
CTGS
** PN11O-80-08-08-041
THE BUBBLE POLICY AND STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS UNDER CLEAN AIR
ACT SECTION 1110
** PN11O-80-09-25-043
INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF SIP REVISIONS
** PN11O-80-1O-23-044
GROWTH RESTRICTIONS IN SECONDARY lIAAQS NONATTAINMENT AREAS
** PN11O-81-07-22-052
EXPERIMENTAL STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) PROCESSiNG TECHNIQUES
** PN11O-81-11-09-055
NEW PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
** PN11O-82-06-23-059
REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-NEW SIP PROCESSING PROCEDURES TO SAVE TIME
AND RESOURCES (FR CITATION)
** PNJ1O-82-08-11-060
REVIEW OF 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
** PN11O-82-11-24-061
SIP ACTIONS AND TOXIC POLLUTANTS

-------
Page No. 3
09/01/89
ATTACHMENT 1
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1989)
** PN11O-83-03-18-063
LETTER TO HARRY H. HOVEY RE EPA POLICY WITH REGARD TO AMBIENT AIR
** PN11O-83-05-27-064
SUMMARY OF NAAQS INTERPRETATION
** PN11O-77-07-08-065
(CITATION OF FR NOTICE ENTITLED “RECOMMENDED POLICY ON CONTROL OF
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS”)
** PN11O-79-06-18-066
REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION AND SUBMITTAL OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS: INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONSULTATION (FR CITATION)
** PN11O-80-07-22-O67
(CITATION OF FR NOTICE ON SOLVENT REACT! VITIES)
** PN11O-83-05-26-068
DEFINITION OF AMBIENT AIR FOR LEAD
** PNI1O-84-11-28-069
CORRECTING ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION MODEL RESULTS TO STANDARD
TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE
** PNJ1O-85-01-02-O70
REGIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF MODELING GUIDANCE
** PNIIO-85-08-27-071
CLASSIFICATION OF BENZENE AS A VOC
** PN11O-85-12-16-072
BASELINE TIME PERIODS.FOR VOC TRANSFER EFFICIENCY CREDITS
** PNI1O-83-03-14-087
ISSUES ON LEAD SIPS
** PN1I1O-81-09-14-OO1
EPA POLICY ON WELFARE-RELATED POLLUTANTS UNDER SECTION hiD
** PN1I1E-76-05-03-OO1
ENFORCEMENT OF NSPS REQUIREMENTS
** PNI11E-82-O5-07-002
RESTATEMENT OF GUIDANCE ON EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SOOT BLOWING

-------
Page No. 4
09/01/89
ATTACHMENT 1
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1989)
** PN112-78-03-30-0O1
STATE ENFORCEMENT OF ASBESTOS DEMOLITION REGULATIONS IN LIGHT OF
ADAIIO WRECKING COMPANY V. UNITED STATES
** P11112-82-03-24-002
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO STATES: NESHAPS
** PN1I2-84-06-01-004
BENZENE NESHAP GUIDANCE
** PN1I2-84-07-11-005
VINYL CHLORIDE NESHAP ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
** PN1I2-85-02-08-006
REVISIONS TO ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION CIVIL PENALTY
POLICY
** PN1I2-85-06-xx-007
REPRINT OF THE EPA AIR TOXICS STRATEGY (REFERENCE ONLY)
** PN1I2-85-09-17-008
PREPARATION OF QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS IN AGENCY DECISION-MAKING
** PN1I3-75-11-05-O01
NON-DISCRETIONARY ENFORCEMENT DUTIES - ISSUANCE OF NOTICES OF
VIOLATION
** PNJI3-76-06-25-002
DOCUMENTATION OF VIOLATION EXTENDING 30 DAYS BEYOND NOTICE OF
VIOLATION UNDER SECTION 113 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
** PN113-76-08-12-003
ENFORCEMENT OF SIPS UNDERGOING REVISION
** PN1I3-76-08-13-004
“REVIEWABILITY” OF EPA DETERMINATIONS IN SIP ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
** PN1I3-78-07-27-005
ENFORCEMENT UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS - ORDERS UNDER SECTION
113(A) AND 113(0)
** P11113-80-03-11-006
INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
** PN113-80-05-27-007
DELAYED COMPLIANCE ORDERS REQUIRING SIP COMPLIANCE THROUGH
TEMPORARY CONTROL MEASURES - AMENDED GUIDANCE

-------
Page No. 5
09/01/89
ATTACHMENT 1
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1989)
PN113-82-05-04-013
GUIDANCE ON POLICY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF VE VIOLATIONS AGAINST
SOURCES WHICH ARE MEETING AN APPLICABLE MASS EMISSION STANDARD
PN113-82-08-12-014
GUIDANCE CONCERNING EPA’S USE OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING
DATA
** PN113-83-02-15-017
POLICY ON EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, MAINTENANCE,
AND MALFUNCTIONS
** PN113-83-01-12-018
GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1982 DEADLINE ENFORCEMENT POLICY
ISSUED SEPTEMBER 20, 1982
** PN113-83-O4-12-019
LETTER TO ROBERT R. WAHLER FROM KATHLEEN BENNETT RE ENFORCEMENT
POLICY ON INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
PN113-83-04-26-020
PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW AND FEDERAL REGISTER PUBLICATION OF DELAYED
COMPLIANCE ORDERS UNDER SECTION 113(D) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
PN113-84-1O-05-021
FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON THE REVIEW AND USE OF EXCESS EMISSION
REPORTS
** PN1I3-84-12-20-022
POLICY ON NO-ACTION ASSURANCES
PN113-85-04-24-023
ACHIEVING VOC COMPLIANCE FROM DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACTOR
FACILITIES
PN113-85-06-28-024
PARTICULATE MATTER INTERIM ENFORCEMENT POLICY
PN1I3-85-1O-30-025
FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON THE REVIEW AND USE OF COAL SAMPLING
AND ANALYSIS DATA
** PN113-85-11-27-026
REVISED ENFORCEMENT POLICY RESPECTING SOURCES COMPLYING WITH CLEAN
AIR ACT REQUIREMENTS BY SHUTDOWN

-------
Page No. 6
09/01/89
ATTACHMENT 1
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1989)
** PN114-77-12-02-OO1A
GUIDANCE FOR SECTION 114(0) OF THE CAA
** PN114-81-05-13-002
REGIONAL OFFICE CRITERIA FOR NEUTRAL INSPECTIONS OF STATIONARY
SOURCES - AMENDED GUIDANCE
** PN114-83-12-15-003
EXECUTION OF CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS UNDER SECTION 114 OF THE
CLEAN AIR ACT
** PN1I4-84-09706-004
FINAL GUIDANCE ON USE OF UNANNOUNCED INSPECTIONS
** PN1J5-78-O1-31-0O1
ACCOUNTING FOR POLLUTION ACROSS INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES
** PN115-78-03-20-002
INTERNATIONAL POLLUTION (EL PASO/JUAREZ)
** PN12O-80-09-12-0Ol
PRIORITIES FOR ISSUING NOTICES OF NONCOMPLIANCE
** PN12O-81-02-12-O03
IMPLEMENTATION OF NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTY PROGRAM UNDER SECTION 120
OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
** PN12O-81-04-02-004
SETTLEMENT OF NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 120
OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT, AS AMENDED
** PN12O-81-04-30-005
ISSUANCES OF NOTICES OF NONCOMPLIANCE UNDER SECTION 120 OF THE
CLEAN AIR ACT TO SEASONAL SOURCES
** PNI2O-85-03-19-006
PERMISSIBLE GROUNDS FOR SETTLEMENT OF NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTIES
UNDER SECTION 120 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
** PNI2O-85-O3-19-007
GUIDANCE CONCERNING IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 120 OF THE CLEAN AIR
ACT IN FISCAL YEAR 1985
** PN123-80-12-19-O01
LETTER TO HONORABLE JENNINGS RANDOLPH FROM DOUGLAS M. COSTLE
REGARDING DEFINITION OF AMBIENT AIR

-------
Page No. 7
09/01/89
ATTACHMENT 1
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1989)
** PN123-85-09-19-006
GUIDANCE ON FLUID MODEL DEMONSTRATIONS FOR DETERMINING GEP STACK
HEIGHT IN COMPLEX TERRAIN
** PN123-85-10-10-007
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON IMPLEMENTING THE REVISED STACK HEIGHT
REGULATION
** PN123-85-1O-28-008
IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS - EXCEPTIONS FROM
RESTRICTIONS ON CREDIT FOR MERGED STACKS
** PN123-85-10-28-O09
IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS - PRESUMPTIVE NSPS
EMISSION LIMIT FOR FLUID MODELING STACKS ABOVE FORMULA GEP HEIGHT
** PN123-85-1O-28-O1O
DETERMINING STACK HEIGHTS “IN EXISTENCE” BEFORE DECEMBER 31, 1970
** PN124-78-07-31-OO1
IMPLEMENTING SECTION 124 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
** PN126-78-03-16-OO1
OUT OF STATE SOURCES EFFECT ON IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISION
** PN165-78-12-22-0O1
BACT INFORMATION FOR COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS
** PN165-81-04-03-006
LETTER TO NATIONAL PARK SERVICE FROM EDWARD F. TUERK REGARDING PSD
PERMITS
** PN165-80-12-16-007
INTERPRETATION OF “SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION”
** PN165-84-O1-09-012
INTERPRETATION OF THE POLICY ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
PART 0
** PN165-84-01-20-O13
PSD INCREMENT CONSUMPTION CALCULATIONS
** PN165-84-06-11-014
APPLICABILITY OF PSD INCREMENTS TO BUILDING ROOFTOPS

-------
Page No. 8
09/01/89
ATTACHMENT 1
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1989)
** PN165-85-05-09-015
IMPROVED NEW SOURCE REVIEW/PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(NSR/PSO) PROGRAM TRANSFER
* PN167-83-12-14-0O1
GUIDANCE ON ENFORCEMENT OF PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT
** PN169A-85-03-25-OO1
VISIBILITY MONITORING STRATEGY REQUIREMENTS
** PN172-78-03-10-002
EXAMPLE DEMONSTRATION OF ATTAINMENT FOR PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANTS
PN172-78-06-30-003
VAPOR RECOVERY REGULATIONS REQUIRED TO MEET RACT REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE 1979 SIP
** PN172-78-08-04-004
REQUIREMENT FOR VOC RACT REGULATIONS IN ALL OXIDANT NONATTAINMENT
AREAS
** PN172-78-08-24-006
CLARIFICATION OF EPA POLICY ON EMISSIONS FOR METHYL CHLOROFORM
** PN172-78-10-06-008
COMMENTS ON AUTO INDUSTRY PROPOSALS
** PN172-78-1O-26-009
OZONE TRANSPORT VALUES FOR SIP REVISIONS
PN172-79-O1-16-012
CONTINUITY OF SIP REGULATIONS - REVISED ENCLOSURE
** PN172-79-03-06-014
CUTBACK ASPHALT VOC REGULATIONS
* PN172-79-05-25-016
SUBMISSION OF STATE AIR PERMITS AS SIP REVISIONS
** N172-79 -O5-25-0I7
CLARIFICATION OF AGENCY POLICY CONCERNING OZONE SIP REVISIONS AND
SOLVENT REACTIVITIES
** .PN172-79-06-20-018
MODIFICATIONS TO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOLVENT METAL CLEANING

-------
Page No. 9
09/01/89
ATTACHMENT 1
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1989)
** PN172-79-08-21-019
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS: GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED
RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS -
SUPPLEMENT (ON REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMISSION OF VOLATILE
ORGANIC CHEMICAL RACT REGULATIONS)
** PN172-79-08-22-020
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS/REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMITTING PACT
REGULATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES OF VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUNOS(VOC)
** PN172-79-1O-04-021
CLARIFICATION FOR FINAL SIP ACTIONS ON ASPHALT REGULATIONS
** PN172-79-12-12-023
EXEMPTIONS FOR DEGREASERS
** PN172-78-06-14-026
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGARDING
THE INTEGRATION OF TRANSPORTATION AND AIR QUALITY PLANNING
** PN172-80-06-16-027
GASOLINE TANK TRUCK REGULATIONS
** PN172-80-07-O2-029
EXEMPTION FOR COLD CLEANER DEGREASERS
** PN172-80-09-03-030
MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS CTG - EMISSION LIMITS FOR
COATING OF SHIPPING PAILS AND DRUMS
** PN172-80-11-20-032
COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR CAN COATING
OPERATIONS
** PN172-80-12 -O1-033
REVISED SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
** PN172-80-12-02-034
COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR PACT APPLICATION TO LEAKS FROM PETROLEUM
REFINERY EQUIPMENT
** PN172-8O-12-02-035
RACT FOR SPECIALTY PRINTING OPERATIONS

-------
Page No. 10
09/01/89
ATTACHMENT 1
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1989)
** PN172-81-02-0 6 -O 36
STORAGE TANK VAPOR BALANCE REQUIREMENTS AT SYNTHESIZED
PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS MANUFACTURE FACILITIES
** PN172-81-O5-2l- 038
1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE SIP GUIDANCE INDEX
** p 172_81-o1-22-O3g
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON
MONOXIDE PLAN REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE
EXTENSION (FR CITATION)
** PN172-82-1O- 29 O 41
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
** PN172-80-08-ll-O 43
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS: CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
LIMITATION PROVIDED BY SECTION 316 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT: POLICY
AND PROCEDURES (FR CITATION)
** PN172-83-11-O 2 - 044
COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART D OF THE CLEAN
AIR ACT (FR CITATION)
** PN172-84-O1-2O-O 45
AVERAGING TIMES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITS - SIP
REVISION POLICY
** PN172-84-06-2 5 - 046
APPLICABILITY OF GROUP III CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES (CTG’S)
** PN172-84-06-25-O 47
CONFIRMATION OF DEFINITION OF “100 TON-PER-YEAR (100 TPY) SOURCEN
** PN172-84-09-1 4 -O 48
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) TEST METHODS OR PROCEDURES FOR
SOURCE CATEGORIES IN GROUPS I, II, AND III CONTROL TECHNIQUES
GUIDELINES (CTGS)
** PN172-84-12- 21 - 049
CONNECTICUT VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) ISSUES
** PN172-85-04- 25 - 050
CONSIDERATION OF ORGANISOLS IN VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC)
COMPLIANCE CALCULATIONS

-------
Page No. 11
09/01/89
ATTACHMENT 1
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1989)
** PN172-85-07-02-051
RESIDUAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) CONTAINED IN COATING LINE
PRODUCTS
** PN175-79-02-12-004
REGIONAL OFFICE ASSISTANCE IN EXPEDITING HEADQUARTERS REVIEW OF
SECTION 175 GRANT APPLICATIONS
** PN175-80-04-23-006
IMPLEMENTATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 12185, CONSERVATION OF PETROLEUM
AND NATURAL GAS
** PN175-80-O6-12-008
PROCEDURES FOR CONFORMANCE OF TRANSPORTATION PLANS, PROGRAMS AND
PROJECTS WITH CLEAN AIR ACT STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
** PN175-80-06-23-009
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN -
TRANSPORTATION REVISION PROCESS: EXPANDED GUIDELINES (FR CITATION)
** PN176-79-O6-08-OOI
IMPACT OF CLEAN AIR ACT NONATTAINMENT SANCTIONS
** PN3O1-81-O1-20-OO1
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REGIONAL CONSISTENCY REGULATIONS

-------
Introduction
-‘
0
a.
C
C,
‘-4
0

-------
P GRA?’ Lic ND GJID .N kY1E OK
Introduction
The Air Prograns Policy ax Guidar Notebook is a collection of
previously-distrihited material which can be used as a convenient
reference do .nT ent for anyone who is involved in the develc nent ai
im 1 ntation of air pollution control progran . The material is
organized a rding to sections of the Clean Air Act arx is oss-iix exed
by subject.
The docunents in each section have been assigned code n nbers
related to the respective section of the Clean Air Act, the date of
issuance of the dooiment, arx3 a muter denoting the order or location of
the docwient in each section of the Notebook. For exan le, a doc .ntent
coded 172—80—06—16—027 would ir .icate:
2olicy Notebook
Section of the Clean Air Act
80—06—16 June 16, 1980 — date of initial distribution of
the do .ment
- 27th it inoluded in the Section 172 portion of
the Notebook
1 aments within each section are arranged such that the nost
a.irrent doo nents generally appear at the frc ut of any given section. To
acoc ,lish this, the docunents sb ild be placed in each section so that
the last three digits of the code number are in descexx3.ing order.
The subject ln ex in the Notebook lists code rnm bers for all
doaurents relatirg to the lMividual subject. For example, economic
feasibility has two do .nnents listed: R1 110—86—04—11—074 ar W 110—87—
01-20-080. This lr icates that both doa.ments can be f u in the
Section 110 chapter of the Notebook. They can readily be located in the
book using the code information as explained above.
Users of the Policy ai Guidance Notebook shs ild be aware that it
does not necessarily contain all of EPA’s policy ar guidance related to
a given topic. It is a c ilation of policy ai guidance doa.xments bot
the users cannot rely only upon the Notebook for all of their needs.
Users sh .z1d be aware of other policy coir ilations which might be useful.
One such cc ,ilatian is the Clean Air Act C m liance/Enforcement Manual -
- Cnlperkiii..nn of Operative Policies , which is maintained by EPA’s Office
of Enforce ent az Compliance Monitoring. Another compilation is the
Source Revi , - Prevention of Significant terioration ar i Nonattairn ent
Area Guidance Notebook , which is also p. blished by EPA’s Office of Air
.iality Planning ar Standards.

-------
Distribition of the Notebook is to EPA R ional Offices ar to
officials of State az local agencies. Recipients of the Notebook will
receive periodic updates. For aklltional info nation relat I to the
Notebook please call Bill Hamilton, Office of Air Quality Plannir ar
Star ards, at FIS 629—5498 or 919—541—5498.

-------
Table of Contents

-------
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME 1
INTRODUCTI ON
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUBJECT INDEX
CAA SECTION TITLE
107 Air Quality Control Regions
110 Implementation Plans
111(d) Standards of Performance for Existing Sources
111(e) New Source Performance Standards Enforcement
112 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
P01 lutants
113 Federal Enforcement
114 Inspections, Monitoring, and Entry
115 International Air Pollution
120 Noncompliance Penalty
123 Stack Heights
124 Assurance of Adequacy of State Plans
126 Interstate Pollution Abatement
129 Nonattainment Areas
165 Preconstruction Requirements
167 PSD Enforcement
169A Visibility Protection
172 Nonattaininent Plan Provisions
175 Grants
176 Limitations on Certain Federal Assistance
301 Administration

-------
Subject Index

-------
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(S TEMBER 1990 UPDATE) -
EMISSIONS FROM LANDFILLS
CONFIRMATION OF DEFINITION OF “100 TON-PER-YEAR (100 TPY) SOURCE”
CONNECTICUT VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) ISSUES
INCLUSION OF CLEAN-UP SOLVENTS IN DETEEXIIIDIG APPLICABILIT? TO THE
100-TON PER YEAR NON-CTG REQUIREMENTS
** AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
P11172—89—07-06-076 VOLUME 2 AEROSPACE AND SIMILAR RULES IN OZONE STATE IMPLEX TATION PLANS (SIP’S)
MEND TO WILLIAM S. BAKER ON SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
REVISED SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY TEE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTN r
OF JUSTICE
MILWAUKEE 502 NONATTAINNEWr DESIGNATION
SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY SUIOVLRY
CORRECTING ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION MODEL RESULTS TO STANDARD T ERATUR2
AND PRESSURE
REGIONAL IMPLE1 TATION OF MODELING GUIDANCE
AMBIENT AIR
AMBIENT AIR
AMBIENT AIR DEFINITION
GUIDANCE ON ACCOUNTING FOR TRENDS D l PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSION AND AIR
QUALITY DATA
VOLUME 2 P11-10 SIP DEMONSTRATIONS FOR SMALL ISOLATED AREAS WITH SPATIALLY UNIFORM
EMISSIONS
VOLUME 1 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON !MPLRNERTING TEE REVISED STACK HEIGHT REGULATION
VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF EXISTING GUIDANCE ON DISPERSION MODELING REQUIREMENTS FOR
PLANTS WITH “TALL STACKS” AND OTHER PROHIBITED DISPERSION TECEMIQUES
VOLUME 1 PSD INCREMENT CONSUMPTION CALCULATIONS
VOLUME 2 IMPLEMENTATION OF TEE REVISED MODELING GUIDELINE FOR PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
VOLUME 2 APPLICATION OF- BUILDING DOWNWASB IN PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT
DETERIORATION (PSD) PERMIT ANALYSES
VOLUME 1 EXAMPLE DEMONSTRATION OF ATTAINMENT FOR PHOTOCEEXICAL OXIDANTS
VOLUME 1 STATE U(PLEMERTATION PLANS—APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING All ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (46 FR 7182)
VOLUME 2 IDENTIFICATION OF NEW AREAS EXCEEDING THE NAAQS
VOLUME 2 REQUIRED MONITORING PERIOD FOR OZONE REDESIQ(ATION IN UNCLASSIFIED AREAS
VOLUME 1 MINIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES FOR DETERMINING QUARTERLY AVERAGE LEAD
CONCENTRATION
Page No.
08/07/90
NUMBER
DOCUMENT
SUBJECT
NOTEBOOK
VOLUME
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 2
** 100 TPY SOURCES
P1(165—87-10—06-029
P11172-84—06-25-047
P1(172-84-12-21-049
P11172-86-10-30-053
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
** A?! U
P11165—85—06—28—023
- P1(172—80—12—01—033
P1(172—86—02—28—052
‘** AIR QUALITY MODELING
P1(107—82-09—16—007
P11107—83-04—21—008
P1(110—84—11—28—069
P1 (110—85-01-02—070
P1(110—87-04—30—082
P1(110—87—04—30—083
P11110—87-09—21-086
P1(110—87—05—11—088
P11110—90-07—05—106
P1(123—85—10—10—007
P11123-86—02—11—012
P11165—84-01-20—013
P11165—87-01-29—027
P11165-89-03-31-040
P11172-78-03-10-002
P11172—81-01—22—039
P1(172-89-05-03-074
** AIR QUALITY MONITORING
P11107—86—04—11—012
P1(110—79—11-21—023

-------
PageNo. 2
08/07/90
AIR PROGRAKS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(S r ER 1990 UPDATE)
DCC W(ENT NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
P11110-83-03-18-063 VOLUME 1 L ffER TO HARRY if. HOVEY RE EPA POLICY WITH REGARD TO ANBIDIT AIR
P11110-83-05-27-064 VOLUME 1 SUIOIARY OF HAAQS INTERPRETATION
PM11O-87-05-11- 088 VOLUME 2 GUIDANCE ON ACCOUNTING FOR ThEN IN PARTICULATE IIATYKR EMISSION AND AIR
QUALITY DATA
P11110-88-11-21-099 VOLUME 2 REVISION TO POLICY ON TEE USE OF P1 (10 MEASUREMENT DATA
P11110-90—06—18-105 VOLUME 2 REPLACEMENT OF SURROGATE P11—10 MONITORS
P11172-81-05-21-038 VOLUME 1 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE SIP GUIDANCE INDEX
P11172-81-01-22-039 VOLUME 1 STATE I LENENTATION PLANS—APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING All ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (46 FR 7182)
** AMBIENT AIR
P11110-83-03-18-063 VOLUME 1 LETTER TO HARRY if. HOVE? RE EPA POLICY WITH REGARD TO AMBIENT AIR
P11110-83-05-26-068 VOLUME 1 DEFINITION OF AMBIENT AIR FOR LEAD
P11110—87-04—30—082 VOLUME 2 AMBIENT AIR
P11110-87-04-30—083 VOLUME 2 AMBIENT AIR
PNLIO—87-09-21-086 VOLUME 2 AMBIENT AIR DEFINITION
P11123-80-12-19-001 VOLUME 1 LETTER TO HONORABLE JENNINGS RANDOLPH FROM DOUGLAS N. COSTLE REGARDING
DEFINITION OF AMBIENT AIR
P11165-84-06-11-014 VOLUME 1 APPLICABILITY OF PSD INCREMENTS TO BUILDING ROOFTOPS
** ARSENIC
P11112-86-10—01-009 VOLUME 2 GUIDELINE 3-26 - ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARSENIC NESHAP FOR GLASS MANUFACTURING
PLANTS
** ASBESTOS
P11112-78-03-30-001 VOLUME 1 STATE UMYORCEMENT OF ASBESTOS DEMOLITION REGULATIONS TN LIGNT OF ADAMO
WR! ING COMPANY V. UNITED STATES
P11112-85-02-08-006 VOLUME 1 REVISIONS TO ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
P11112-88-03-31-010 VOLUME 2 REVISED ASBESTOS NESHAP STRATEGY
P11113-88-03-11-046 VOLUME 2 LISTING ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION COMPANIES PURSUANT TO SECTION
306 OF TEE CLEAN AIR ACT
P11113-88-06—30-050 VOLUME 2 ASBESTOS CONTRACTOR LISTING
** ASPHALT REGULATIONS
P11172-79-03—06—014 VOLUME 1 CUTBAQ( ASPHALT VOC REGULATIONS
P11172-79-10—04-021 VOLUME 1 CLARIFICATION YOR FINAL SIP ACTIONS ON ASPHALT REGULATIONS
P11172-86-09—29—058 VOLUME 2 SE .SONAL VOC CONTROLS
** ATTAINMENT DATE POLICY
P11172-79-01-16-012 VOLUME 1 CONTINUITY OF SIP REGULATIONS - REVISED ENCLOSURE
P11172-82-10—29—041 VOLUME 1 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 011 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
** ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION
P11107-83-04—21-008 VOLUME 1 SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY SU]O(ARY
P11107-85-04-08-009 VOLUME 1 LETTER TO JUDGE TERRY ROBERTS FROM GERALD A. EXISON

-------
PageNo. 3
08/07/90
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(SEPT ER 1990 UPDATE)
DO NOTEBOOK D0
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT - - - _______
P 1 (110—83—03-18-063 VOLUME 1 LETTER TO HAIR! H. HOVE! RE EPA POLICY WITH REGARD TO AMBIENT AIR
P1(110-87-05-11-088 VOLUME 2 GUIDANCE ON ACCOUNTING FOR TRENDS IN PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSION AND AIR
QUALITY DATA
P11110-88-06-17-094 VOLUME 2 DEMONSTRATION OF “REPRESENTATIVE EMISSION CONDITIONS FOR USE IN “EXPECTED
EXCEEDANCE” DETERMINATIONS
P1(172-78-03-10-002 VOLUME 1 EXAMPLE DEMONSTRATION OF ATTAINMENT FOR PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDAJITS
** ATTAINMENT EXTENSIONS
P1(172-81-01-22-039 VOLUME 1 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (46 FR 7182)
P1(172—82-10-29-041 VOLUME 1 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
** AUTO COATINGS
P1(110-80-07-31-039 VOLUME 1 APPLICABILITY OF VOC CONTROL TECHNIQUE GUIDELINES (CTGS) TO THE AUTOMOBILE
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
P1(165-88-04-25-030 VOLUME 2 LAKE EMISSION LIMITS FOR AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK TOPCOAT
-- OPERATIONS
P1(172-78-10-06-008 VOLUME 1 COMMENTS ON AUTO INDUSTRY PROPOSALS
P1(172-88-06-21-062 VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF AUTOMOBILE TOPCOAT PROTOCOL
P1(172-88-12-01-066 VOLUME 2 RACT REQUIREMENTS IN OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREAS
P1(172-89-10-24-077 VOLUME 2 COMPLIANCE TINE PERIOD FOR ELECTROPHORETIC PRIME-COATING OPERATIONS
‘ BACT DETERMINATIONS
P11165-78-12-22-001 VOLUME 1 BACI’ IIffORMTION FOR COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS
P11165-86-11-24-016 VOLUME 2 NEED FOR A SHORT-TERM BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (BACT) ANALYSIS
FOR THE PROPOSED WILLIAM A. ZI1O POWER PLANT
P1(165-87-04-22-019 VOLUME 2 HUNTSVILLE INCINERATOR - DETERMINING BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
(BACT)
P1(165-87-06-26-020 VOLUME 2 OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE ON CONTROL TE OWGY FOR NEW AND MODIFIED MUNICIPAL
WASTE COIWUSIORS(MWCS)
P1(165-87-09-22-021 VOLUME 2 IMPLEMENTATION OF NORTH COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY PSD REMAND
P1(165-87-12-01-022 VOLUME 2 IMPROVING NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) IMPLEMENTATION
P1(165-88-07-28-033 VOLUME 2 SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE IN IMPLEMENTING TEE NORTH COUNTY PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) REMAND
P1(165-89-06-13-043 VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF BACKGROUND STATEMENT ON “TOP-DOWN’s BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY (BACT)
PN165-89-09-11-048 VOLUME 2 LETTER TO CHRISTOPHER J. DAGGETT FROM GERALD A. EMISON ON USE OF UREA
INJECTION FOR 1(01 CONTROL FROM MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
P1(172-88-06-21—062 VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF AUTOMOBILE TOPCOAT PROTOCOL
** HART GUIDELINES
P1(123—85-10-28—009 VOLUME 1 IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS - PRESUMPTIVE NSPS EMISSION
LIMIT FOR FLUID MODELING STACKS ABOVE FORMULA GEP HEIGHT
P1(123—89-04-20-017 VOLUME 2 LETTER TO JOHN PROCTOR FROM G. EXISON

-------
Page No. 4
08/07/90
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
- (S T ER 1990 UPDATE)
DOCUMENT NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
* BENZEN!
P1(110—85-08-27-Oil VOLUME 1 CLASSIFICATION OF BENZENE AS A VOC
PN112-84-06-01-004 VOLUME 1 BENEENE NESKAP GUIDANCE
** BLOCK AVERAGES
P1(110—83-05-27-064 VOLUME 1 SUMMARY OF MAAQS INTERPRETATION
P1(110-86-03-28-073 VOLUME 2 BLOCK AVERAGES IN IMPLEMENTING 502 NAAQS
** BUILDING DOWNWASM
P1(165-89-03-31-040 VOLUME 2 APPLICATION OF BUILDING DOWNWASH IN PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT
DETERIORATION (PSD) PERMIT ANALYSES
** BUILDING ROOFTOPS
P1(165-84-06-11-014 VOLUME 1 APPLICABILITY OF PSD INCREMENTS TO BUILDING ROOFTOPS
** CAN COATINGS
P1 1172-80-11-20-032 VOLUME 1 COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LD(ITATIONS FOR CAN COATING OPERATIONS
CAPTURE EFFICIENCY
P1(172-89-05-25-075 VOLUME 2 CORRECTING CAPTURE EFFICIENCY (CE) REGULATIONS
CIVIL PENALTIES
P 11112-85-02-08-006 VOLUME 1 REVISIONS TO ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
P1(113-87-03-25—035 VOLUME 2 REVISED CLEAN AIR ACT STATIONARY SOURCE CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
P1(113-88-03-02-045 VOLUME 2 REVISIONS TO VOLATILE HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT (TRAP) CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
** COAL SAMPLING AN!) ANALYSIS
PN113-85-lO-30-025 VOLUME 1 FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON TEE REVIEW AND USE OF COAL SAMPLING AND
ANALYSIS DATA
** COLD CLEANER DEGREASEES
P1(172-80-07-02-029 VOLUME 1 EXEMPTION FOR COLD CLEANER DEGREASERS
** COMPLIANCE
PN I1O—80—01-1O—023A VOLUME 1 ALTERNATE PROCEDURE FOR SECTION 110(F) RELIEF IN LOCALIZED, SHORT TERN
ENERGY EMERGENCIES
PN11O-80-05-09-034A VOLUME 1 CLARIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR INCLUSION OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION
MONITORING PROVISIONS IN STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
PN111E-76-O5—03—001 VOLUME 1 ENFORCEMENT OF MSPS REQUIREMENTS
P1(111E-82-05-07-0 02 VOLUME 1 RESTATEMENT OF GUIDANCE ON EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SOOT BLOWING
P1(112-84-06-01-004 VOLUME 1 BENZENE NESHAP GUIDANCE
P1(112—84-07-11-005 VOLUME 1 VINYL CELORIDE NESEAP ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
P1(112—85-02-08-006 VOLUME 1 REVISIONS TO ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
P1(112-86-10-01-009 VOLUME 2 GUIDELINE S-26 - ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARSENIC KESHAP FOR GLASS MANUFACTURING
PLANTS

-------
Page No. 5
08/07/90
AIR PROGRAJIS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUP.JECT INDEX
(SEPTEEBER 1990 UPDATE) -
DOCUMENT NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
N1(BKR — VOLUME SUBJECT - - -
P11112-88—03-31-010 VOLUME 2 REVISED ASBESTOS MESKAP STRATEGY
P11113-76-06-25—002 VOLUME 1 DOCUMENTATION OF VIOLATION EXTENDING 30 DAYS BEYOND NOTICE OF VIOLATION
UNDER SECTION 113 0? TEE CLEAN AIR ACT
P11113-80-03-11-006 VOLUME 1 INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
P11113-82-05-04-013 VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE ON POLICY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF VE VIOLATIONS AGAINST SOURCES WHICH
ARE MEETING AN APPLICABLE MASS EMISSION STANDARD
P11113-83-02—15-017 VOLUME 1 POLICY ON EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, MAINTENANCE, AND
MALFUNCTIONS
P11113—83-01-12-018 VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE ON INPLENENTATION OF TEE 1982 DEADLINE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ISSUED
SEPTEMBER 20, 1982
P11113-84-12-20-022 VOLUME 1 POLICY 011 NO-ACTION ASSURANCES
P11113-85-04-24-023 VOLUME 1 ACHIEVING VOC COMPLIANCE FROM DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACTOR FACILITIES
P11113-85-06-28-024 VOLUME 1 PARTICULATE MATTER INTERIM ENFORCEMENT POLICY
P11113-85-11-27-026 VOLUME 1 REVISED ENFORCEMENT POLICY RESPECTING SOURCES COMPLYING WITH CLEAN AIR ACT
REQUIREMENTS BY SHUTDOWN
‘P11113-86-01-17-027 VOLUME 2 ISSUES 13(E) AND 15 OF TEE VOC ISSUE RESOLUTION PROCESS: ESTABLISHING
- PROOF OF VOC EMISSIONS VIOLATIONS, AND BUBBLES IN CONSENT DECREES
RESOLVING CIVIL ACTIONS UNDER SECTION 113(b) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
PN113—86- 04-11- 023 VOLUME 2 TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE ENFORCKI(ENT RESPONSE GUIDANCE
P11113-86—04-11-029 VOLUME 2 GUIDANCE ON FEDERALLY-REPORTABLJ VIOLATIONS FOR STATIONARY AIR SOURCES
P11113-86-04-22-030 VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF NATIONAL PROGRAM GUIDANCE - ENFORCEMENT APPLICATIONS OF
CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEM DATA
P11113-86-08-22-033 VOLUME 2 SAMPLE FEDERAL REGISTER LANGUAGE FOR PROPOSAL AND FINAL DCO’S
P11113—87-01-09—034 VOLUME 2 LETTER TO TOM BISPHEAN ON CUS DATA REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
P11113-87-03-25—035 VOLUME 2 REVISED CLEAN AIR ACT STATIONARY SOURCE CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
P11113-87-06-25—037 VOLUME 2 PROPER AND TIMELY REVIEW OF STATE IPL FPATION PLAN (SIP) REVISIONS
P11113-87-09-23—041 VOLUME 2 REVIEW OF STATE I] LENEWrATIoN PLANS AND REVISIONS FOR ENFORCEABILITY AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
P11113—87-11-23-042 VOLUME 2 SETTLING ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS IN CLEAN AIR ACT NONATTAINMENT AREAS AGAINST
STATIONARY SOURCES WHICH WILL NOT BE 111 COMPLIANCE BY THE APPLICABLE
ATTAINMENT DATE
P11113-87-12-31-043 VOLUME 2 GUIDANCE ON EVALUATING CLEAN AIR ACT ENFORCEMENT OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN VIOLATIONS INVOLVING PROPOSED STATE REVISIONS
P11113-88-03-02—045 VOLUME 2 REVISIONS TO VOLATILE HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT (VUAP) CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
P11113-88-03-11-046 VOLUME 2 LISTING ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION COMPANIES PURSUANT TO SECTION
306 OF TEE CLEAN AIR ACT
P11113-88-03—31—048 VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF REISSUED OAQPS CENS POLICY
PN] 14-77—12-02—OOI.A VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE FOR SECTION 114(D) OF TEE CAA
P11114-81-05—13-002 VOLUME 1 REGIONAL OFFICE CRITERIA FOR NEUTRAL INSPECTIONS OF STATIONARY SOURCES -
AMENDED GUIDANCE
i N114-83-12—15-0O3 VOLUME 1 EXECUTION OF CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS UNDER SECTION 114 OF THE CLEAN AIR
ACT
P11114-84-09—06—004 VOLUME 1 FIliAL GUIDANCE ON USE OF UNANNOUNCED INSPECTIONS
P11167-83-12-14-001 VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE ON ENFORCEMENT OF PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT

-------
Page No. 6
08/07 /90
AIR PROGRA1IZ LICT AND GUIDANCE N TEBCOX
su cr INDEX
(SEPT ER 1990 UPDATE)
MOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUNM SUBJECI’
P 1 (167-82-07-15-003 VOLUME 2 PROCEDURES FOR EPA TO ADDRESS DEFICIENT NEW SOURCE PERMITS UNDER THE CLEAN
AIR ACT
P1(172-80-11-20-032 VOLUME 1 CO1(PLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR CAR COATING OPERATIONS
PN172-89-1O—24-Ofl VOLUME 2 COMPLIANCE TIRE PERIOD FOR ELECTROP ORETIC PRIME-COATING OPERATIONS
COMPLIANCE MONITORING
P1(110-86-04-11-074 VOLUME 2 RESPONSES ¶0 FIVE VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPAR JT
OF JUSTICE
P1(113-82-08-12-014 VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE CONCERNING EPA’S USE OF CONTINUOUS 11SSION MONITORING DATA
P1(113-86-04-22-030 VOLUME 2 TIANSXITi’AL OF NATIONAL PROGRAM GUIDANCE - ENFORCEMENT APPLICATIONS OF
CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEM DATA
P1(114-88-03—31-006 1OLUXE 2 COMPLIANCE MONITORING STRATEGY FOR FT 89
COMPL C SCE ULES
P 1 (110-79-04-04-015 VOLUME 1 GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RUL W(ING ON APPROVAL OF STATE
IXPLEXENTATIOtI PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTAD (XENT AREAS (44 FR 20372)
P1(110-86-08-07-076 VOLUME 2 POLICY ON SIP REVISIONS REQUESTING COMPLIANCE DATE EXTENSIONS FOR VOC
SOURCES
P1(113-83-04—12-019 VOLUME 1 LETTER TO ROBERT 2. WAKLKR FROM KATHLEEN BENNETT RE EN}ORCEMENT POLICY ON
INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
P1(113-86-08—07-032 VOLUME 2 POLICY 0 (8 THE AVAILABILITY OF WW-SOLVENT TECHNOLOGY SCHEDULES IN CLEAN
AIR AC? ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
P1(172—78-10—06-008 VOLUME 1 CVM1(ENTS ON AUTO INDUSTRY PROPOSALS
P1(172-81-01-22-039 VOLUME 1 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL 0? 1982 OZONE AND CAR N- MONOXIDE PUll
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (46 FE 7182)
** CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS
P11114-83-12-15-003 VOLUME 1 EXECUTION OF CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS UNDER SECTION 114 OF THE CLEAN AIR
ACT
** CONSENT DEGREES
P11113-85-11-27-026 VOLUME 1 REVISED ENFORCEMENT POLICY RESPECTING SOURCES COMPLYING WITH CLEAR AIR ACT
REQUIREMENTS BY SHUTDOWN
P11113-87-03-25-035 VOLUME 2 REVISED CLEAN AIR ACT STATIONARY SOURCE CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
P11113-87-11-23-042 VOLUME 2 SETTLING ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS IN CLEAN AIR AC? NONATTAINXENT AREAS AGAINST
STATIONARY SOURCES WHICH WILL NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE BY THE APPLICABLE
ATTAIID(ENT DATE
P1(113-88-03-02-045 VOLUME 2 REVISIONS TO VOLATILE HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT (VEAP) CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
** CONSTRUCTION BAN
P1 1110-80—10-23-044 VOLUME 1 GROWTH RESTRICTIONS IN SECONDARY NAAOS JIOMATTAIJIXENT AREAS
P1(165-84—01-09-012 VOLUME 1 INTERPRETATION OF THE POLICY ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF PART D
** CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE
P11113-84-10-05-021 VOLUME 1 FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON THE REVIEW AND USE OF EXCESS EMISSION REPOETS

-------
Page No. 7
08/07/90
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(S Tz ER 1990 UPDATE)
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
PNU3-86-04-11-029 VOLUME 2 GUIDANCE ON F RALLY-REPORTABLE VIOLATIONS FOR STATIONARY AIR SOURCES
P1(113-88-07-05-051 VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF 502 CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
** CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING
PNUO-80-05-09—0341 VOLUME 1 CLARIFICATION OF REQUII (ENTS FOR INCLUSION OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION
MONITORING PROVISIONS IN STATE INPLENENTATION PLANS
P1(113-82-08-12-014 VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE CONCERNING EPA’S USE OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING DATA
P1(113-84-10—05—021 VOLUME 1 FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE 01 THE REVIEW AND USE OF EXCESS EMISSION REPORTS
PHU3-86—04-22-03 0 VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF NATIONAL PROGRAM GUIDANCE - ENFORCEMENT APPLICATIONS OF
CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEM DATA
P1(113-88-03-31—048 VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF REISSUED OAQPS CEMS POLICY
*1 CONTRACTOR LISTING PROGRAM
P1(113-87-10-08-044 VOLUME 2 POLICY ON CORRECTING TUE CONDITION GIVING RISE TO LISTING UNDER TUE
CONTRACTOR LISTING PROGRAM
P1(113-88—03-11-046 VOLUME 2 LISTING ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND Rfl VATION COMPANIES PURSUANT TO SECTION
306 OF THE CLEAN All ACT
P1(113-88-06-30—050 VOLUME 2 ASBESTOS CONTRACTOR LISTING
ft CONTROL STRATEGY
P1(107-83—04-21-008 VOLUME 1 SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY SUJO(&RY
P1(110-80-07-31-039 VOLUME 1 APPLICABILITY OF VOC CONTROL TE (IQUE GUIDELINES (CIGS) TO TEE AUTOMOBILE
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
P1(110-90—07—05-106 VOLUME 2 PM—1O SIP DEMONSTRATIONS FOR SMALL ISOLATED AREAS WITh SPATIALLY UNIFORM
EMISSIONS
** COST EFFECTIVENESS
P1(172-80-12-02-034 VOLUME 1 COST EFFECTIVEMESS FOR RACT APPLICATION TO LEAKS FROM PETROLEUM REFINERY
EQUIPHENT
CROSS LINE AVERAGING
P1(172—89—04-07-073 VOLUME 2 BASELINE FOR CROSS-LINE AVERAGING
PN11O—79-09-17-020 VOLUME 1 GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR
NONATTAINMENT AREAS - (SUPPLEMENT OR CONTROL TE (IQUES GUIDELINES) (44 FR
53761)
P1(110-80-07-31-039 VOLUME 1 APPLICABILITY OF VOC CONTROL TECHNIQUE GUIDELINES (C1’GS) TO THE AUTOMOBILE
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
PN11O-80-08-04-044) VOLUME 1 APPLICABILITY OF PAPER COATING, FABRIC COATING, AND GRAPHIC ARTS CTCS
rPN17278—08-04004 VOLUME 1 REQUIREMENT FOR VOC RACT REGULATIONS IN ALL OXIDANT MONATTAINNENT AREAS
P1(172-78—10-06-008 VOLUME 1 COMMENTS ON AUTO INDUSTRY PROPOSALS
P1(172-79—06-20-018 VOLUME 1 MODIFICATIONS TO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOLVENT METAL CLEANING
P1(172-79—08-21-019 VOLUME 1 STATE D LEMENTATION PUNS: GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING Oil
APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINNENT AREAS - SUPPL (T (ON
REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMISSION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICAL RACY

-------
PageNo. 8
08/07/90
AIR PROGRAMS LICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
— (SEPT ER 1990 UPDATE )
NOTEBOOK DO
NUMEER VOLUME SUBJECT
- - - ___
PN172-79- 08-22- 02 0 VOLUME 1 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS/REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMITTING RACT
REGULATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES OF VOLATILE ORGANIC CO )U](DS(VOC)
PN172-80- 06-16— 027 VOLUME 1 GASOLINE TANK TRUCK REGULATIONS
PN172-80-07-02-029 VOLUME 1 EXEMPTION FOR COLD CLEANER DEGREASERS
PN172-80- 09-03-03 0 VOLUME 1 MISCELLANEoUS METAL PAN’S AND PRODUCTS CTG - EMISSION LIMITS FOR COATING
OF SHIPPING PAILS AND DRUMS
PN172-8 0-1.2- 02- 03 4 VOLUME 1 COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR RACI’ APPLICATION TO LEAKS FROM PETROLEUM REFINERY
EQUIPM
P 1 1172-80-12-02-035 VOLUME 1 RACT FOR SPECIALTY PRINTING OPERATIONS
P11172-84-06—25-046 VOLUME 1 APPLICABILITy OF GROUP III CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES (CTG ‘S)
P11172-84-06-25-047 VOLUME 1 CONFIRMATION OF DEFDII 1 TIOM OF “100 TON-pgR- EAR (100 TRY) SOURCE”
P11172-84-09—14-048 VOLUME 1 VOLATILE ORGANIC COM UND (VOC) TEST METBO1 OR PROCEDURES FOE SOURCE
CATEGORIES IN GROUPS I, II, AND III CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES (CTGS)
PW172-84-12- -049 VOLUME 1 CONNECTICUT VOLATILE ORGANIC COM )UND (VOC) ISSUES
P1172-85-07-02-051 VOLUME 1 RESIDUAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) CONTAINED IN COATING LINE
PRODUCTS
PN172-86- 02-28- 052 VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTJ (T
OF JUSTICE
P 1172-87- 06-25- o54 VOLUME 2 EMISSION CUT-OFF FOR CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUND SOURCES
P11172-86—01-09—057 VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATIoN OF crc RACT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NIGH—DENSITY POLYETHYLENE,
POLYPROPYLENE, AND POLYSTYRENE
P11172-88-08-23—063 VOLUME 2 LETTER TO IILLIAN JURIS ON VOC EMISSION CUTOFF
DECREASER REGULATIONS
PN172-78- 08-24- 0 06 VOLUME 1 CLARIFICATIoN OF EPA POLICY ON EMISSIONS FOR METHYL CHLOROFORM
P11172-79-12-12-023 VOLUME 1 EXEMPTIONS FOR DEGREASERS
PN172-80-07- 02- o29 VOLUME I EXEMPTION FOR COLD CLEANER DEGREASEPS
P11172-84—06-25—047 VOLUME 1 CONFIRAATIOII OF DEFINITION OF “100 TON-PEP-TEAl (100 TRY) SOURCE”
** DELAYED COMPLIANCE ORDERS
P11113-78-07-27-005 VOLUME 1 ENFORCEMENT UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS - ORDERS UNDER SECTION 113(A)
AND 113(D)
P1113-80-05-27-007 VOLUME 1 DELAYED COMPLIANCE ORDERS REQUIRING SIP COMPLIANCE TERO GH TEI(PORARY
CONTROL MEASURES - AMENDED GUIDANCE
P11113-83-01-12-018 VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1982 DEADLINE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ISSUED
SEPTEMBER 20, 1982
P11113—83-04-26-020 VOLUME 1 PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW AND FEDERAL REGISTER PUBLICATION OF DELAYED
COMPLIANCE ORDERS UIIDER SECTION 113(D) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
P11113—86—06—02—031 VOLUME 2 113(d)(4) LETTER TO CAN MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE
PNU3-86- 08-22- 033 VOLUME 2 SAMPLE FEDERAL REGISTER LANGUAGE FOR PROPOSAL AND FINAL DCO’S
P1172—89—03-16-071 VOLUME 2 COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES FOR VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC’s)
** DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
PN1IIE-86- 09-fl-0 04 VOLUME 2 DELEGATION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (liSPS) AND NATIONAL
EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (NESRAP) AUTHORITY TO
srf ,c A& ?MC,E

-------
Paqe No. 9
08/07/90
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE)
DOCUMENT NOTEBOOK DO 11IENT
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
P1(112-82-03-24-002 VOLUME 1 DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO STATES: NESHAPS
P 1 (165-85-05-09-015 VOLUME 1 IMPROVED NEW SOURCE REVI W/PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT D TERXORATI0N
(NSR/PSD) PROGRAM TRANSFER
P11165—89-02-15-037 VOLUME 2 GUIDANCE ON EARLY DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY FOR THE NITROGEN DIOXIDE (N02)
INCREMENTS PROCRAI(
** DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FACILITIES
P11113-85-04-24-023 VOLUME 1 ACHIEVING VOC OUMPLIANCE FROM DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NTRACTOR FACILITIES
** DESIGNATION CRITERIA
P11107-82-09-16-007 VOLUME 1 MILWAUKEE 502 NONATTAINI(ENT DESIGNATION
P11107-83-04-21-008 VOLUME 1 SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY SUMMARY
PN1O7-85-04- 08-0 09 VOLUME 1 LETTER TO JUDGE TERRY ROBERTS FROM GERALD A. ENISOI(
* DIRECT FINAL SIP PROCESSING
PN11 O—87-12-23— 092 VOLUME 2 EXPANDED USE OF DIRECT FINAL SIP PROCESSING
** DISPERSION TECHNIQUES
P11123-85-10-28-008 VOLUME 1 IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS - EXCEPTIONS FROM RESTRICTIONS
ON CREDIT FOR MERGED STACKS
P 1 (123-86-02-11-Oil VOLUME 2 PRIORITY FOR REVIEW OF PARTICULATE MATTER SOURCES FOR OOMPLIANCE WITH
REVISED STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS
P1 (123-88-05-17-016 VOLUME 2 APPLICATION OF THE INTERIM POLICY FOR STACK HEIGHT REGULATORY ACTIONS
** DRUM AND PAIL OOATINGS
P11172-80-09-03-030 VOLUME 1 MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS CTG - EMISSION LIMITS FOR ATING
OF SHIPPING PAILS AND DRUMS
** DUAL DEFINITION
P1(165-84-01-09-012 VOLUME 1 INTERPRETATION OF THE POLICY ON CONPLIANCE WITH TEE PROVISIONS OF PART D
** ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY
P1(110-86-04-11-074 VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FIVE VOC ISSUES RAISED BY TEE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
P1110-87-01-20-080 VOLUME 2 DETERMINATION OF ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY
P1(172—78-10-26-009 VOLUME 1 OZONE TRANSPORT VALUES FOR SIP REVISIONS
P1172-81-01-22-039 VOLUME 1 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAiMUIT DATE EXTENSION (46 FR 7182)
EMERGENCY SIP SUSPENSIONS
PN110-80-01-10- 023A VOLUME 1 ALTERNATE PROCEDURE FOR SECTION 110(F) RELIEF IN LUCALIZED, SHORT TERM
ENERGY EMERGENCIES

-------
Page No. 10
08/07/90
AIR PROGRAMS 1 LICT AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUITECF INDEX
- (SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE)
DOCUMENT NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
** EMISSION INVENTORIES
P1(172-79—03-06-Old VOLUME 1 CUTBACK ASPBALT VOC REGULATIONS
P1(172-80-12-02-034 VOLUME 1 COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR PACT APPLICATION TO LEAKS FROM PETROLEUM REFINERY
EQUIPMENT
PN172-81-05-21-038 VOLUME 1 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE SIP GUIDANCE INDEX
P11172-81-01-22-039 VOLUME 1 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPBOVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (46 FR 7182)
P11172-89—01-27-069 VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON EMISSION INVENTORIES FOR POST—1987
OZONE AND CARSON MONOXIDE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CALL AREAS
** EMISSION OFFSETS
P 1(110-80-03-10-030 VOLUME 1 EMISSION OFFSET REQUIREMENTS IN SECONDARY STANDARD TOTAL SUSPENDED
PAETICULATE PLANS
P11110-80-10-23-044 VOLUME 1 GROWTH RESTRICTIONS IN SECONDARY MAAQS NONATTAINJIENT AREAS
P11165-85-05-09-015 VOLUME 1 I1(PROVED NEW SOURCE REVIEW/PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(NSRIPSD) PROGRAM TRANSFER
P11172-79-05-25-016 VOLUME 1 SUBI(ISSION OF STATE AIR PERMITS AS SIP REVISIONS
** EMISSIONS TRADING
PNUO-80-07-31-039 VOLUME 1 APPLICABILITY OF VOC CONTROL TE IIQUE GUIDELINES (CTGS) TO TEE AUTOMOBILE
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
P1(110-80-08-08-041 VOLUME 1 THE BUBBLE POLICY AND STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT
SECTION hiD
P11110-82-11-24-061 VOLUME 1 SIP ACTIONS AND TOXIC POLLUTANTS
P1(110-85-01-02-070 VOLUME 1 REGIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF MODELING GUIDANCE
P11110-86-12-04-077 VOLUME 2 EMISSIONS TRADING POLICY STATEMENT (51 FR 43814)
P 1113-86-01-17—027 VOLUME 2 ISSUES 13(E) AND 15 OF THE VOC ISSUE RESOLUTION PROCESS: ESTABLISHING
PROOF OF VOC EMISSIONS VIOLATIONS, AND BUBBLES IN CONSENT DECREES
RESOLVING CIVIL ACTIONS UNDER SECTION 113(b) OF TEE CLEAN AIR ACT
P1(165-84-01-20-013 VOLUME 1 PSD INCREMENT CONSUMPTION CALCULATIONS
P11172-84-01-20-045 VOLUME 1 AVERAGING TINES FOR CONPLLANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITS - SIP REVISION
POLICY
P11172-89-04-07-073 VOLUME 2 BASELINE FOR CROSS-LINE AVERAGING
** ENERGY CONSERVATION
P11175-80-04-23-006 VOLUME 1 IMPLEMENTATION-OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 12185, CONSERVATION OF PETROLEUM AND
NATURAL GAS
** ENERGY EMERGENCIES
PNIIO-80-01-1O-023A VOLUME 1 ALTERNATE PROCEDURE FOR SECTION 110(F) RELIEF IN LOCALIZED, SHOET TERN
ENERGY EMERGENCIES
** EXCESS EMISSIONS
P11113-83-02-15-017 VOLUME 1 POLICY ON EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, MAINTENANCE, AND
MALFUNCTIONS

-------
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOO1
SUBJECT INDEX
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE)
VOLUME 2 DEMONSTRATION OF “REPRESENTATIVE EMISSION CONDITIONS” FOR USE IN “EXPECTED
EXCEEDAIICE ” DETERMINATIONS
VOLUME 1 APPLICABILITY OF PAPER COATING, FABRIC COATING, AND GRAPHIC ARTS CTGS
VOLUME 1 RACT FOR SPECIALTY PRINTING OPERATIONS
VOLUME 1 BENZENE NESHAP GUIDANCE
VOLUME 1 VINYL CHLORIDE NESHAP ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
VOLUME 1 REVISIONS TO ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
VOLUME 2 GUIDELINE S-26 - ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARSENIC NESKAP FOR GLASS MANUFACTURING
PLANTS
VOLUME 2 REVISED ASBESTOS NESBAP STRATEGY
VOLUME 1 ACHIEVING VOC COMPLIANCE FROM DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACTOR FACILITIES
VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF NATIONAL PROGRAM GUIDANCE - ENFORCEMENT APPLICATIONS OF
CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEM DATA
VOLUME 2 REVISED CLEAN AIR ACT STATIONARY SOURCE CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
VOLUME 2 SMALL VOC SOURCE COMPLIANCE STRATEGY - FINAL
VOLUME 2 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE: SMALL VOC SOURCE
COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
VOLUME 2 REVIEW OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS AND REVISIONS FOR ENFORCEABILITY AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
VOLUME 2 SETTLING ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS IN CLEAN AIR ACT NONATTAINNENT AREAS AGAINST
STATIONARY SOURCES WHICH WILL NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE BY THE APPLICABLE
ATTAI1O(E} T DATE
VOLUME 2 GUIDANCE ON EVALUATING CLEAN AIR ACT ENFORCEMENT OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN VIOLATIONS INVOLVING PROPOSED STATE REVISIONS
VOLUME 2 REVISIONS TO VOLATILE HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT (VEAP) CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
VOLUME 2 IMPLEMENTATION OF RULE EFFECTIVENESS STUDIES
VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF NEW SOURCE REVIEW POLICY ON AVERAGING TIMES FOR
PRODUCTION LIMITATIONS
VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE ON ENFORCEMENT OF PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT
VOLUME 2 OPINION 111 U.S. V. WUISIANA-PACIFIC CORPORATION
FEDERALLY-REPORTABLE VIOLATIONS
U3-86- 04-11-029 VOLUME 2 GUIDANCE ON FEDERALLY-REPORTABLE VIOLATIONS FOE STATIONARY AIR SOURCES
VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE ON FLUID MODEL DEMONSTRATIONS FOR DETERMINING GEP STACK HEIGHT IN
COMPLEX TERRAIN
Page No. 11
08/07/90
DOcW
NUMBER
DOC
SUBJECT
NOTEBOOK
VOLUME
P11113-84-10-05-021 VOLUME 1 FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON THE REVIEW AND USE OF EXCESS EMISSION REPORTS
** EXPECTED EXCEEDAXCE
P11110-88-06-17-094
** FABRIC COATING
P1 (110—80—08—04—040
P11172-80-12-02-035
*1 FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT
P11112-84—06—01—004
• P11112—84—07—11—005
P11112-85—02—08—006
11112-86-10-01-009
‘P11112-88—03—31—010
P11113-85-04-24-023
P11113—86—04—22—030
P11113-87-03-25-035
P11113-87-07-06-038
PN113-87-09-11-040
P11113-87-09-23-041
P11113-87-11-23-042
P11113-87-12-31-043
P11113-88-03-02-045
P11113—88—03—31—049
P11165—87—04—08-018
P11167—83—12—14-001
P11167—88—03—29102
h* FLUID MODELING
P11123—85—09—19-006

-------
Page No. 12
08/07/90
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(SEPTEMEER 1990 UPDATE)
D0 NOTEBOOK D0 KENT
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
P11123-85-10-28-009 VOLUME 1 IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEICET REGULATIONS - PRESUMPTIVE NSPS ENISSION
LIMIT FOR FLUID MODELING STACKS ABOVE FORMULA CEP HEIGHT
P1(123-85-10—28-010 VOLUME 1 DETERIWIING STACK HEIGHTS “IN EXISTENCE” BEFORE DECEMBER 31, 1970
** FUEL SNOETAGES ANALYSIS
P11124-78-07-31-001 VOLUME 1 IMPLEMENTING SECTION 124 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
** GASOLINE TANK TRUCKS
PN172-80-06—16-027 VOLUME 1 GASOLINE TANK TRUCE REGULATIONS
** GLASS MANUFACTURTIG
P1 1112-86—10—01-009 VOLUME 2 GUIDELINE S—26 - ENFORCr iwri OF TEE ARSENIC IIESEAP FOR GLASS MANUFACTURING
PLANTS
** GRAPHIC ARTS
P11110-80-08-04-040 VOLUME 1 APPLICABILITY OF PAPER COATING, FABRIC COATING, AND GRAPHIC ARTS CTGS
PN172-80-12- 02-035 VOLUME 1 RACY FOR SPECIALTY PRINTING OPERATIONS
P1(172-84-06-25-047 VOLUME 1 CONFIRMATION OF DEFINITION OF “100 TON-PER-TEAR (100 WY) SOURCE”
PN172-87- 09-09-055 VOLUI(E 2 ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE FOR GRAPHIC ARTS RACY
** INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
P1 (110-80-09-25-043 VOLUME 1 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF SIP REVISIONS
** I1(SPECTIONf MAINTENANCE
PN1AO-78-07-17- 007 VOLUME 1 INSPECTIOt I/MAI1(TENANCE POLICY
PNI1O—82-08-11- 06 0 VOLUME 1 REVIEW OF 1982 OZONE AND 0) SIPS
PN172-81-05—21— 038 VOLUME 1 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE SIP GUIDANCE INDEX
P1(172-81-01-22-039 VOLUME 1 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (46 FR 7182)
** INSPECTIONS AND ENTRY
PNU4-77-12-02-OO1A VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE FOR SECTION 114(D) OF THE CAA
P1(114-84-09—06-004 VOLUME 1 FINAL GUIDANCE ON USE OF UNANNOUNCED INSPECTIONS
** INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONSUI TATION
P1(110-79-06-18 -066 VOLUME 1 REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION AND SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION
PLANS: INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONSULTATION (FR CITATION)
** INTERIM CONTROL POLICY
P1(113-88-03-31-047 VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF QAQPS INTERIM CONTROL POLICY STATEMENT
** INTERNATIONAL POLLUTION
P1(115-78-01-31-001 VOLUME 1 ACCOUNTING FOR POLLUTION ACROSS INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES
P1(115-78-03-20-002 VOLUME 1 INTERNATIONAL POLLUTION (EL PASO/JUAREZ)

-------
D0c NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
** I1tTEESTATE AIR LLUTION
P11126—78—03—16—001
PN126—89—01-11-005
*1 LAER DETERMINATIONS
P1(165—87-06-26-020
P11165—87—12—01—022
P11165—88-04-25-030
P11165—88—08-29—034
P1(165—89—02—28—038
P1(165—89—02—24-046
P1(165—89—08—09—047
P11172-88-06-21-062
P11172—90—02—28—078
** LANDFIUS
P1(165-87-10-06-029
** LEAD SIPS
P1(107—83—04-21—008 VOLUME 1
P1(110—79—06—14—016 VOLUME 1
P1(110—79—11-21—023 VOLUME 1
P1(110—80-04-08—032 VOLUME 1
P1(110—83-05-26-068 VOLUME 1
P11110-83-03-14-087 VOLUME 1
** L ER NOTICE
P11110-89—01-30—102
** LOW SOLVENT COATINGS
P1(113-86-08-07—032
P1(172—80—11-20-032
** MARINE VESSELS
N172-89—02—15—070
** METAL CAN MANUFACTURING
P11113—86-06—02-031 VOLUME 2
Page No. 13
08/07/90
AIR PROGRAMS LIC1 AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(SEPW ER 1990 UPDATE)
VOLUME 1 OUT OF STATE SOURCES EFFECT ON IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISION
VOLUME 2 L ITER TO THOMAS JORLING REGARDING INTERSTATE AIR LLUTI0N CRITERIA
VOLUME 2 OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE ON CONTROL TE 1OLOGY FOR NEW AND MODIFIED MUNICIPAL
WASTE COXBUSTOES(XW )
VOLUME 2 IMPROVING NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) IMPLEMENTATION
VOLUME 2 LANE EMISSION LIMITS FOR AUTOMOBILE Alfi) LIGRT-DUTY I’RUCH TOPCOAT
OPERATIONS
VOLUME 2 TRANSFER OF T! (OLOGY IN DETERMB(TJG LOWEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSION RATE
(LAER)
VOLUME 2 GUIDANCE ON DETERMINING LOWEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSION RATE (LAIR)
VOLUME 2 CUT-OFF DATE FOR DETERMINING LAZE Ill MAJOR NEW SOURCE PERMITTING
VOLUME 2 LAKE DETERMINATION FOR A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED SOURCE
VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF AUTOMOBILE TOPCOAT PROTOCOL
VOLUME 2 LOWEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSION LIMITS (LAKE) FOR OZONE 1IONAI TAIRMENT AREAS
VOLUME 2 EMISSIONS FROM LANDFILLS
SECTION 107 DESIQ(ATION PCLICY SUMBARY
LEAD SIPS
MINIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES FOR DETERMINING QUA.RTERLY AVERAGE LEAD
CONCENTRATION
NEW SOURCE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR LEAD
DEFINITION OF AMBIENT AIR FOR LEAD
ISSUES ON LEAD SIPS
VOLUME 2 PROCEDURES FOR LETTER NOTICE APPROVAL OF MINOR SIP ACTIONS
VOLUME 2 LICY ON THE AVAILABILITY OF LOW-SOLVENT TECHNOLOGY SCHEDULES IN CLEAN
AIR ACT ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
VOLUME 1 COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR CAN COATING OPERATIONS
VOLUME 2 MARINE VESSEL VAPDR CONTROL
113(d)(4) LETTER TO CAN MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE

-------
Paqe No. 14
08/07/90
AIR PROGRAIS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(SEPTEIffiER 1990 UPDATE)
DO CUMEN’r N TEB0OK DO JMENT
NUMBKR VOLUME SUBJECT
** METAL PARTS COATINGS
P1(172-80-09-03-030 VOLUME 1 MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS CTG - EMISSION UNITS FOR COATING
OF SHIPPING PAILS AND DRUMS
P1(172-89—04-03-072 VOLUME 2 APPLICABILITY OF MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS COATINGS
REGULATIONS TO ADHESIVES, SEALANTS AND FILLERS
P1(172-89—04-07-073 VOLUME 2 BLSELD (E FOR CROSS-LINE AVERAGING
** METHYL L0ROFORM
P1(172—78—08-24-006 VOLUME 1 CLARIFICATION OF EPA POLICY ON EMISSIONS FOR METHYL CHLOROFORM
P1(172-79—05-25-017 VOLUME 1 CLARIFICATION OF AGENCY POLICY CONCERNING OZONE SIP REVISIONS AND SOLVENT
REACTIVITIES
** METEYLENE CHLORIDE
P1(172—79—05—25—017 VOLUME 1 CLARIFICATION OF AGENCY POLICY CONCERNING OZONE SIP REVISIONS AND SOLVENT
REACTIVITIES
** MODIFIED SOURCE
P1(165-86—07—07—024 VOLUME 2 PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) DEFINITION OF “NODIFICATION”
P1(165-86-10—21-025 VOLUME 2 APPLICABILITY OF PSD TO PORTIONS OF A PLANT CONSTRUCTED IN PHASES WITHOUT
PERMITS
P1(165-86-12—01-026 VOLUME 2 NEED FOR EMISSION CAP ON COMPLEX NETTING SOURCES
P1(165-89-04—10-041 VOLUME 2 PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) APPLICABILITY TO SULFUR
DIOXIDE (502) EMISSIONS FROM INCINERATION OF TOTAL REDUCED SULFUR (TRS)
COMPOUNDS
P1(165-90-01-18-049 VOLUME 2 LETTER TO MORTON STERLING OF DETROIT EDISON FROM GERALD K. ENISON
** MUNICIPAL WASTE INCINERATION
PN165-87-04-22-019 VOLUME 2 HUNTSVILLE INCINERATOR - DETERMINING BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECRIICLOGI
(BACT)
P1(165-87-06-26-020 VOLUME 2 OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE ON CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR NEW AND MODIFIED MUNICIPAL
WASTE COMEUSTORS(MWCs)
P1(165-88-06-07—031 VOLUME 2 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
APPLICABILITY DETERMINATION
P1(165-89-09-11-048 VOLUME 2 LETTER TO CHRISTOPHER J. DAGGETT FROM GERALD A. EMISON ON USE OF UREA
INJECTION FOR MOX CONTROL FROM MUNICIPAL WASTE COMEUSTORS
k* MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS
P1(172-80—08-11-043 VOLUME 1 MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS: CONSTRUCTION GRANTS LIMITATION
PROVIDED BY SECTION 316 OF TEE CLEAN AIR ACT: POLICY AND PROCEDURES (FR
CITATION)
P1(111E-86—09-11-004 VOLUME 2 DELEGATION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) AND NATIONAL
EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (NESUAP) AUTHORITY TO
STATE/LOCAL AGENCIES

-------
Page No. 15
08/07/90
AIR PROGRAMS LICT AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(SEPT 1990 UPDATE)
lUBBER VOLUME SUBJECT
- --s - - - -
P1112-78-03-30-001 VOLUME 1 STATE ENFORCEMENT OF ASBESTOS DENOLITIOI ( REGULATIONS IN LIGHT OF ADANO
WREOCING COMPANY V. UNITED STATES
P1112—82-03-24-002 VOLUME 1 DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO STATES: NESKAPS
P1112-84-06-01-004 VOLUME 1 BENZEN! HESUAP GUIDANCE
P1112-84-07-11-005 VOLUME 1 VINYL CELORIDE NESRAP ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
P1(112-85-02-08- 1 )06 VOLUME 1 REVISIONS TO ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION CIVIL PENALTY )LICY
P1112-86-10-01-009 VOLUME 2 GUIDELINE S-26 - ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARSENIC NESHAP FOR CLASS MANUFACTURING
PLANTS
P1112-88-03-31-010 VOLUME 2 REVISED ASBESTOS NESKAP STRATEGY
PNU3-85-11-27- 026 VOLUME 1 REVISED ENFORCEMENT LICY RESPECTING SOURCES COMPLYING WITH CLEAN AIR ACT
REQUIR S BY SHUTDDWN
P1113-86—04-11-023 VOLUME 2 TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT RES NSE GUIDANCE
P1114-81-05-13—002 VOLUME 1 REGIONAL OFFICE CRITERIA FOR NEUTRAL INSPECTIONS OF STATIONARY SOURCES -
AMENDED GUIDANCE
P1114-84-09—06-004 VOLUME 1 FIlIAL GUIDANCE ON USE OF UNANNOUNCED INSPECTIONS
12O-8O-O9—12-oO1 VOLUME 1 PRIORITIES FOR ISSUING NOTICES OF NONCOMPLIANCE
** NEW SOURCE REVIEW
P1110-80—04-08-032 VOLUME 1 NEW SOURCE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR LEAD
P1123-85-10-10—007 VOLUME 1 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON IMPLEMENTING THE REVISED STACK HEIGHT REGULATION
P1123-88—05—17-016 VOLUME 2 APPLICATION OF THE INTERIM LICY FOR STACK HEIGHT REGULATORY ACTIONS
P1165-80-12-16—007 VOLUME 1 INTERPRETATION OF ‘SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION”
P1165-34—01—09-012 VOLUME 1 INTERPRETATION OF THE LICY ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF PART D
P1165-84-06-11-014 VOLUME 1 APPLICABILITY OF PSD INC REMENTS TO BUILDING ROOFTOPS
P1165-85—05-09—015 VOLUME 1 IMPROVED NEW SOURCE REVIEW/PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(NSR/PSD) PROGRAM TRANSFER
P1(165—87—02-27-017 VOLUME 2 PLAITWIDE DEFINITION OF MAJOR STATIONARY SOURCES OF AIR LLUTION
P1165-87-04-08-018 VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF NEW SOURCE REVIEW LICY ON AVERAGING TIMES FOR
PRODUCTION LIMITATIONS
P1165—87-04-22-019 VOLUME 2 HUNTSVILLE INCINERATOR - DETERMINING BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECENOLOGY
(BACT)
P1(165-37-06-26-020 VOLUME 2 OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE ON CONTROL TECENOLOGY FOR NEW AND MODIFIED MUNICIPAL
WASTE CVIffiUSTORS(NWCS)
P1165—87-12-01-022 VOLUME 2 IMPROVING NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) IMPLEMENTATION
P1165-85-06-23-023 VOLUME 1 MEMO TO WILLIAM S. BAKER ON SEASONAL AFTERBURNER LICY
P1(165—87-10-06—029 VOLUME 2 EMISSIONS FROM- LANDFILLS
P1(165—88-07-05-032 VOLUME 2 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS FOR PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
P1(165—89—06—13-043 VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF BACKGROUND STATEMENT ON ‘TOP-DOWN” BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL
TE fOLOGY (BACT)
N165-89-02-24-O46 VOLUME 2 CUT-OFF DATE FOR DETERMINING LANE 111 MAJOR NEW SOURCE PERMITTING
165—89-08-09-047 VOLUME 2 LAKE DETERMINATION FOR A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED SOURCE
_167-88-07-15- 0 03 VOLUME 2 PROCEDURES FOR EPA TO ADDRESS DEFICIENT NEW SOURCE PERMITS UNDER THE CLEAN
AIR ACT

-------
Page Mo. 16
08/07/90
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(SEPT W 1990 UPDATE)
DO KKNT NOTEBOOK DOCUNEIPF
NUMBER VOLUME SU&ECT
** ND-ACTION ASSURANCES
PN113-84- 12-20-022 VOLUME 1 POLICY OW N0- CTIOU ASSURANCES
* N02 SIPS
PNUO-83-O5-27-064 VOLUME 1 SU)OIARY OF NAAQS I1fTKRPRETATION
PN165-89-02-15-037 VOLUME 2 GUIDANCE ON EARLY DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY FOR THE NITROGEN DIOXIDE (N02)
INCREMENTS PROGRAM
PN165-89-08-24-044 VOLUME 2 GUIDANCE ON IMPLXEBTING THE NITROGEN DIOXIDE (N02) PREVENTION OF
SIQ IFICA1fT DETERIORATION (PSD) INCREMENTS
** NON-DISCRETIONARY ENFORCEMENT DUTIES
PN113-75-11-05-OO1 VOLUME 1 NON-DISCRETIONARY ENFORCEMENT DUTIES - ISSUANCE OF NOTICES OF VIOLATION
NONATTAIIO(ENT AREAS
PW1O7-82-09-16-0O1 VOLUME l MILWAUKEE 502 NONAIWTAINMENT DESiGNATION
PM IO7-83- 04-21- 0 08 VOLUME 1 SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY SU1O(ARY
PN11O—78-02-24-0 02 VOLUME 1 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
PNUO-79— 04- 04-015 VOLUME 1 GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMA1WiC ON APPROVAL OF STATE
t1 LEMEN’rATION PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONA 7AINXENT AREAS (44 FR 20372)
PNUO-79—07-02- 017 VOLUME 1 GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR
NONATTADO(ENT AREAS - SUPPLEMENT (ON PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL) (44 FR 38583)
P 1 (110-79-09—17-020 VOLUME 1 GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING OK APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR
KONATTAINKENT AREAS - (SUPPLE)DIT OH CONTROL TE (IQUES GUIDELINES) (44 FR
53761)
PN11O-8 0—10-23-044 VOLUME 1 GROWTH RESTRICTIONS IN SECONDARY NAAQS NONATTAINXENT AREAS
PHL1 .O-88-11-04-098 VOLUME 2 GUIDANCE ON LONG-TERM NONATTADO1ENT OF TEE P1 (10 STANDARDS
PN113—83-O1-12-O18 VOLUME I GUIDANCE ON IXPL ENIATION OF TB! 1982 DEADLINE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ISSUED
SEPTEMBER 20, 1982
P 1(113-85-11-27-026 VOLUME 1 REVISED ENFORCEMENT POLICY RESPECTING SOURCES COMPLYING WITH CLEAN AIR ACT
REQUIREMENTS BY SHUTDOWN
P1(113-87-11-23-042 VOLUME 2 SETTLING ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS IN CLEAN AIR ACT NOIIATTAINNEIIT AREAS AGAINST
STATIONARY SOURCES WHICE WILL NOT BE I II COI(PLIARCE BY TEE APPLICABLE
ATTAINMENT DATE
P1(113—38-03—31-049 VOLUME 2 IMPLEMENTATION OF RULE EFFECTIVENESS STUDIES
P1 (172-83-11-02-044 VOLUI(E 1 COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART U OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT -
FINAL (48 FR 50686)
PN172-84- 06-25- 046 VOLU](E I APPLICABILITY OF GROUP III CONTROL TE 1IQ0ES GUIDELINES (C1’G’S)
PM172-84—06—25—047 VOLUME 1 CONFIRMATION OF DEFINITION OF “100 DON-PER-YEAR (100 TPY) SOURCE TM
P1(172—34-09—14-048 VOLUME 1 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) TEST METHODS OR PROCEDURES FOR SOURCE
CATEGORIES IN GROUPS I, II, AND III CONTROL TE NIQUES GUIDELINES (CTGS)
P1(172-34-12-21—049 VOLUME 1 CONNECTICUT VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) ISSUES
P 1 ( 172-85—07-02-051 VOLUME 1 RESIDUAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) CONTAINED D i COATING LINE
PRODUCTS
P1(172-86-10-30—053 VOLUME 2 INCLUSION OF CLEAN-UP SOLVENTS IN DETERMINING APPLICABiLITY TO THE
100-TON PER YEAR NOlf-CTC REQUIREMENTS

-------
Page No. 17
08/07/90
AIR PROGRAIIS FOLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SU&JECT INDEX
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE)
DOC NOTEBOOK DOC
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
PN172-87-06-25-054 VOLUME 2 EMISSION CUT-OFF FOR Q)NTROL TECEJIQUES GUIDELINES VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUND SOURCES
P11172-87-09-11-059 VOLUME 2 GEOGRAPHIC APPLICABILITY OF CLEAN AIR ACT SANCTIONS
P11172-87-12-10-060 VOLUME 2 LETTER TO LEONARD LEDBETTKR ON USE OF POTENTIAL VS ACTUAL EMISSIONS FOR
VOC REGULATIONS
P11172-88-05-27-061 VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF EPA GUIDANCE ON VOC ISSUES
P11172-88-09-07-064 VOLUME 2 AIR PROGRAMS APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS COMPLIANCE
WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART D AND SECTION 110 OF TEE CLEAN AIR
ACT (FR CITATION)
P11172-88-12-01-066 VOLUME 2 RACT REQUIREMENTS IN OZONE NONATTAINNENT AREAS
P11172—90—02-28-078 VOLUME 2 LOWEST ACEIEVABLE EMISSION LIMITS (LANE) FOR OZONE NONAZTAINMENT AREAS
P11172-90-06-18-079 VOLUME 2 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE DESIGN VALUE CALCULATIONS
P11175-80-06-12-008 VOLUME 1 PROCEDURES FOR CONFORMANCE OF TRANSPORTATION PLANS, PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
WITH CLEAN AIR ACT STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
P11175-80-06-23-009 VOLUME 1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN - TRANSPORTATION
REVISION PROCESS: EXPANDED GUIDELINES (FR CITATION)
P11176-79-06-08-001 VOLUME 1 IMPACT OF CLEAN AIR ACT NONATTADIMENT SANCTIONS
** NONCOMPLIANCE
P11120—80-09-12—001 VOLUME 1 PRIORITIES FOR ISSUING NOTICES OF NONCOMPLIANCE
P11120—81-02-12-003 VOLUME 1 IMPLEMENTATION OF NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTY PROGRAM UNDER SECTION 120 OF THE
CLEAN AIR ACT
P11120-81-04-02—004 VOLUME 1 SETTLEMENT OF NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 120 OF TEE
CLEAN AIR ACT, AS AMENDED
P11120—81-04-30-005 VOLUME 1 ISSUANCES OF NOTICES OF NONCOMPLIANCE UNDER SECTION 120 OF THE CLEAN AIR
ACT TO SEASONAL SOURCES
P 1 1120-85-03-19-006 VOLUME 1 PERMISSIBLE GROUNDS FOR SETTLEMENT OF NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTIES UNDER
SECTION 120 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
P11120-85-03-19-007 VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE CONCERNING IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 120 OF TEE CLEAN AIR ACT IN
FISCAL YEAR 1985
** NOTICES OF VIOLATION
P11113-75-11-05-001 VOLUME 1 NON-DISCRETIONARY ENFORCEMENT DUTIES - ISSUANCE OF NOTICES OF VIOLATION
P11113—76—06-25-002 VOLUME 1 DOCWIENTATION OF VIOLATION EXTENDING 30 DAYS BEYOND NOTICE OF VIOLATION
UNDER SECTION 113 OF THE CLEAR AIR ACT
P11113-83-01-12-018 VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE ON IJ LEMENTATION OF TEE 1982 DEADLINE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ISSUED
SEPTEMBER 20, 1982
**NSPS
Pt I l lO-80-05—09- 034A VOLUME 1 CLARIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR INCLUSION OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION
MONITORING PROVISIONS IN STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
(111E-76—05-O3-001 VOLUME 1 ENFORCEMENT OF NSPS REQUIREMENTS
PN111E-82- 05-07-002 VOLUME 1 RESTATEMENT OF GUIDANCE ON EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SOOT BLOWING
PM111E-86-09-11-0 04 VOLUME 2 DELEGATION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) AND NATIONAL
EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 1ESHAP) AUTHORITY TO
STATE/LOCAL AGENCIES

-------
Page No. 18
08/07/90
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
su cr INDEX
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE)
DOCUMENT NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
NUMBER VOLUME SU&IECI
P 1113-82 -08-12 -014 VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE CONCERNING EPA’S USE OF CONTINUOUS ENISSION MONITORING DATA
PN1I3-84-1O-05-021 VOLUME 1 FIlIAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON THE REVIEW AND USE OF EXCESS EMISSION RE IN)ETS
PNU3-85-10-30-025 VOLUME 1 FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON THE REVIEW AND USE OF COAL SAMPLING AND
ANALYSIS DATA
P 1 (113-85-11-27-026 VOLUME 1 REVISED ENFORCEMENT POLICY RESPECTING SOURCES COMPLYING WITH CLEAN AIR ACT
REQUIREMENTS BY SHUTDOWN
P1114-81-05-13-002 VOLUME 1 REGIONAL OFFICE CRITERIA FOR NEUTRAL INSPECTIONS OF STATIONARY SOURCES -
AMENDED GUIDANCE
P1120-80-09-12-001 VOLUME 1 PRIORITIES FOR ISSUING NOTICES OF NONCOMPLIANCE
P1123-85-10—28-009 VOLUME 1 IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS - PRESUMPTIVE lISPS EMISSION
LIMIT FOR FLUID MODELING STACKS ABOVE FORMULA GEP HEIGHT
P1165-86-07-07-024 VOLUME 2 PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) DEFINITION OF “MODIFICATION”
P1165-88-09-09-035 VOLUME 2 APPLICABILITY OF PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) AND NEW
SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (lISPS) TO THE WISO)NSIN ELECTRIC POWER
COMPANY (WE ) POET WASHINGTON LIFE EXTENSION P JECI
P1(165-88-10—14-036 VOLUME 2 LETTER TO JOHN BOSTON FROM LEE THOMAS ON WEPCO DETERMINATION
P1165-89-02-15—042 VOLUME 2 LETTER TO JOHN BOSTON TRoll DON CLAY ON WEPCO DETERMINATION
P1165-90-06-08-050 VOLUME 2 LETTER TO JOHN BOSTON FROM WILLIAM G. ROSENBERG ON WEPCO DETERMINATION
P1172-78-08-24-006 VOLUME 1 CLARIFICATION OF EPA POLICY ON EMISSIONS FOR METHYL CEI )ROFOR1(
** OPERATING PERMITS
P1172-79—05—25-016 VOLUME 1 SUBMISSION OF STATE AIR PERMITS AS SIP REVISIONS
** ORGANISOLS
P 1(172-85-04-25—050 VOLUME 1 CONSIDERATION OF ORGANISOLS ZN VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC) COMPLIANCE
CALCULATIONS
** OZONE/CO CONTROL
P1(107-85-04-08-009 VOLUME 1 LETTER TO JUDGE TERRY ROBERTS FROM GERALD A. EMISON
P1107-85-10-08-010 VOLUME 1 OZONE AIR QUALITY DATA FOR REDESIGNATIONS
P1(107-86-04-11-012 VOLUME 2 REQUIRED MONITORING PERIOD FOR OZONE REDESIGNATION IN UNCLASSIFIED AREAS
P1107-87-04-06-013 VOLUME 2 OZONE REDESIGNATION POLICY
P1(110-79-09-17-020 VOLUME 1 GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OP PLAN REVISIONS FOR
NONATTAINNENT AREAS - (SUPPLEMENT ON CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES) (44 FR
53761)
P1110-82-08-11-060 VOLUME 1 REVIEW OF 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
P1110-83-05-27-064 VOLUME 1 SUMEARY OF MAAQS INTERPRETATION
P1110-80-07-22-067 VOLUME 1 (CITATION OF FR NOTICE ON SOLVENT REACTIVITIES)
P1(110-85-08-27-Oil VOLUME 1 CLASSIFICATION OF BENZENE AS A VOC
P1110-86-08-07-076 VOLUME 2 POLICY ON SIP REVISIONS REQUESTING COMPLIANCE DATE EXTENSIONS FOR
SOURCES
P1110-87-01-08-079 VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF SEASONAL VOC CONTROL POLICY
P1(110-87-04-17-081 VOLUME 2 DEFINITION OF VOC
P1113-87-07-06-038 VOLUME 2 SMALL VOC SOURCE COMPLIANCE STRATEGY - FINAL
P1(113-87-09—11-040 VOLUME 2 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE: SMALL VOC SOURCE
COMPLIANCE STRATEGY

-------
Page No. 19
08/07/90
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE !IOTENOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE) -
CUN NOT OOK DOC
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
P1113-88-03-31-049 VOLUME 2 IMPLEMENTATION OF RULE EFFECTIVENESS STUDIES
P1172-78-03-10—002 VOLUME 1 EXAMPLE DEMONSTRATION OF ATTAINJIENT FOR PHOTO ENICAL OXIDANTS
P1172-78-08—04-004 VOLUME 1 REQUIREMENT FOR VOC RACT REGULATIONS IN ALL OXIDANT NONATTAINNENT AREAS
P1172-78-10—26—009 VOLUME 1 OZONE TRANSPORT VALUES FOR SIP REVISIONS
P1172-79-03-06-014 VOLUME 1 CUTBA ASPHALT VOC REGULATIONS
P1172-79-05—25-017 VOLUME 1 CLARIfiCATION OF AGENCY POLICY CONCERNING OZONE SIP REVISIONS AID SOLVENT
REACTIVITIES
P1172-79—06-20-018 VOLUME 1 MODIFICATIONS TO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOLVENT METAL CLEANING
P1172-79-08-22-020 VOLUME 1 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS/REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMITTING RACY
REGULATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS(VOC)
P1172-79—12—12—023 VOLUME 1 EXEMPTIONS FOR DEGREASERS
P1172-80-07-02-029 VOLUME 1 EXEMPTION FOR COLD CLEANER DEGREASERS
P1172-80-09—03-030 VOLUME 1 MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS CIG - EMISSION LIMITS FOR COATING
OF SEIPPING PAILS AND DRUMS
P1172-80-11-20—032 VOLUME 1 COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LD(ITATIONS FOR CAN COATING OPERATIONS
P1172-80-12—01-033 VOLUME 1 REVISED SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
P1172-80—12—02-034 VOLUME 1 COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR RACT APPLICATION TO LEAKS FROM PETROLEUM REFINERY
EQUIPMENT
P1172-80-12—02—035 VOLUME 1 RACY FOR SPECIALTY PRINTING OPERATIONS
P1172-81-02—06-036 VOLUME 1 STORAGE TAME VAPOR BALANCE REQUIREMENTS AT SYNTHESIZED PHARMACEUTICAL
PRODUCTS MANUFACTuRE FACILITIES
P1172—81-05—21—038 VOLUME 1 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE SIP GUIDANCE INDEX
P1172-81-01-22-039 VOLUME 1 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (46 FR 7182)
P1172-82-10—29—041 VOLUME 1 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
P1172-83-11-02-044 VOLUME 1 COMPLIANCE WITH TEE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART D OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT -
FINAL (48 FR 50686)
P1172-84—06-25-047 VOLUME 1 CONFIRMATION OF DEFINITION OF “100 TON—PER—YEAR (100 TPY) SOURCE”
P 1172-86-02-28-O S? VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
P1172-86-09—29-058 VOLUME 2 SEASONAL VOC CONTROLS
P1172-87—09—11-059 VOLUME 2 GEOGRAPHIC APPLICABILITY OF CLEAN AIR ACT SANCTIONS
P1172-87-12-10-060 VOLUME 2 LETTER TO LEONARD LEU8ETTER ON USE OF POTENTIAL VS ACTUAL EMISSIONS FOR
VOC REGULATIONS
P1172-88-06-21-062 VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF AUTOMOBILE TOPOOAT PROTOCOL
P1172-88-09—07-064 VOLUME 2 AIR PROGRAMS APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS COMPLIANCE
WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART D AND SECTION 110 OF THE CLEAR AIR
ACT (FR CITATION)
P1172-88-12-01-066 VOLUME 2 RACY REQUIREMENTS IN OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREAS
1 (172-89—01-27-069 VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON EMISSION INVENTORIES FOR POST-1987
OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CALL AREAS
P1172-90—02-28-078 VOLUME 2 LOWEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSION LIMITS (LAIR) FOR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREAS
P1172-90-06—18-079 VOLUME 2 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE DESIGN VALUE CALCULATIONS

-------
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
AIR PROGRAiIS POLICY AND GUIDANCE 1 ?EBOOk
SUBJECT INDEX
(S wRR 1990 UPDATE)
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
** PAPER COATING
P1(110—80—08-04—040
P1(172-80-12-02-035
VOLUME 1 APPLICABILITY OF PAPER COATING, FABRIC COATING, AND ( APHIC ARTS CTGS
VOLUME 1 RACT FOR SPECIALTY PRINTING OPERATIONS
** PARTICULATE NAI’TKR CONTROLS
P 1 (110-80—03-10—030
P1(110—87—08—11-085
P1(110—87—05—11—088
P1(110-87-08-11-090
P1(110-87-10-02-091
P11110-88-09-06-097
P 1 1110—88—11—04—098
P11110—88—11—21—099
P 1 (110—89—06—30—103
P1(110—89—08—14—104
P1(110—90—06—18—105
P11110—90—07—05—106
P11113—80—03—11—006
P1(113—83—04—12—019
P1(113-85—06—28—024
P11123—86—02—11-Oil
P11165-87-08-05-028
** PERFORMANCE TESTS
PN111E-76-O5—03-00i
PN111E—82—05—07-0 02
** PERMIT FORCEABILITY
P1(167—88—03—29-002
P1(167-88—07-15-003
P1(172—79—05—25—016
p’ REFINERY LEAKS
P1(172—80—12—02—034
VOLUME 1 EMISSION OFFSET REQUIREMENTS II SECONDARY STANDARD TOTAL SUSPENDED
PARTICULATE PLANS
VOLUME 2 PROCESSING OF PARTICULATE MATTER STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISIONS
VOLUME 2 GUIDANCE ON ACCOUNTING FOR TRENDS IN PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSION AND AIR
QUALITY DATA
VOLUME 2 DEVELOP1(ENT PLAN FOR P1110 STATE U LE1(KNTATI0N PLANS (SIP’S)
VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF U L (TATION POLICIES FOR P1110 NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR
QUALITY STANDARDS (NAAQS)
VOLUME 2 P1(10 SIP DE LOP1(ENT: STATUS AND CONCERNS
VOLUME 2 GUIDANCE 011 LONG-TERM IIONATTAINMENT OF THE P1(10 STANDARDS
VOLUME 2 REVISION TO POLICY ON TEE USE OF P1(10 MEAStJ1EKKNT DATA
VOLUME 2 RESPONSE TO P1(10 CONTROL STRATEGY ISSUES
VOLUME 2 REVIEW OF P11-10 IMPLEMENTATION POLICY
VOLUME 2 REPLACEMENT OF SURROGATE P11-10 NONITORS
VOLUME 2 P11-10 SIP DEMONSTRATIONS FOR SMALL ISOLATED AREAS WITH SPATIALLY UNIFORM
EMISSIONS
VOLUME 1 INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
VOLUME 1 LETTER TO ROBERT R. WABLIR FROM KATHLEEN BENNETT RE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ON
INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
VOLUME 1 PARTICULATE MATTER INTERIM ENFORCEMENT POLICY
VOLUME 2 PRIORITY FOR REVIEW OF PARTICULATE MATTER SOURCES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
REVISED STAQ REI T REGULATIONS
VOLUME 2 IMPLEMENTATION OF REVISED PREVENTION OF SIQ (IFICAIIT DETERIORATION (PSD)
PROGRAM FOR PARTICULATE MATTER
VOLUME 1 ENFORCEMENT OF lISPS REQUIREMENTS
VOLUME 1 RESTATEMENT OF GUIDANCE ON EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SOOT BLOWING
VOLUME 2 OPINION III U.5-. V. LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORPORATION
VOLUME 2 PROCEDURES FOR EPA TO ADDRESS DEFICIENT NEW SOURCE PERMITS UNDER TEE CLEAN
AIR ACT
VOLUME 1 SUBMISSION OF STATE AIR PERMITS AS SIP REVISIONS
VOLUME 1 COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR RACY APPLICATION TO LEAKS FROM PETROLEUM REFINERY
EQUIPMENT
Page No. 20
08/ 07/ 90

-------
PageNo. 21
08/07/90
AIR PROGRAMS LIC1 AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(SEPT ER 1990 UPDATE)
DOCUMENT NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
NWWER VOLUME SUBJECT
P 1 (172-81-02-06-036 VOLUME 1 STORAGE TANK VA R BALANCE REQUIR TS AT SYNTHESIZED PKARXACEUTICAL
PRODUCTS MANUFACTURE FACILITIES
** P0LYETHTL (E
P1(172—86-01-09—057 VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF crc RACT RECOMI(ENDATIOKS FOR 3.1CR—DENSITY LYETHYLENE,
POL1PROPYL 1E, AND FOLISTYREB’E
** LYPR0PYLKNE
P1(172-86—01-09—057 VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF CTG RACT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EIGN-DENSITY ROLYEThYL E,
LYPR0PYL 1E, AND LTSTYR (E
•* P0LYSTYR 1E
P1(172-86-01-09—057 VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF CTG RACT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 31CR—DENSITY P0LYEThYL 1E,
LYFROPYLENE, AND LYSTYR (E
** )WER PLANTS COAL FIRED
PN111Z-76—05-03-001 VOLUME 1 ENFORCEMENT OF NSPS REQUIREMENTS
P 1 (111E-82—05—07-0 02 VOLUME 1 RESTATEMENT OF GUIDANCE ON EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SOOT BLOWING
PN113-8 0- 03-u- 0 06 VOLUME 1 INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
P1(113-83-04-12-019 VOLUME 1 LETTER 10 ROBERT R. WA IR FROM KATHLEEN BENNETT RE EMPORC T LICY ON
INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
P1(165-73-12-22—001 VOLUME 1 BACT INFORMATION FOR COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS
** PRODUCTION LIMITATIONS
P11165-87-04-08-018 VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF NEW SOURCE REVIEW POLICY ON AVERAGING TIMES FOR
PRODUCTION LIMITATIONS
P11110-87-09—2 ,1-086 VOLI]1(E 2 AMBIENT AIR DEFINITION
P1(113-87-05—27-036 VOLUME 2 REACTIVATION OF NORANDA LAKESHORE MINES’ RLA PLANT AND PSD REVIEW
P11123-85—10—10-007 VOLUME 1 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS OK U(PLEJW (TING THE REVISED STACK HEIGHT REGULATION
PN123-88-05-17-016 VOLUME 2 APPLICATION CF THE INTERIM POLICY FOR STACK HEIGHT REGULATORY ACTIONS
P11165-81-04-03-006 VOLUME 1 LETTER TO NATIONAL PARK SERVICE FROM EDWARD F. TUERK REGARDING PSD PERMITS
P11165-80—12—16—007 VOLUME 1 INTERPRETATION OF “SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION”
PN165-84-O1-20- 013 VOLUME 1 PSD I NCREMENT CONSUMPTION CALCULATIONS
P1(165-84—06—11-014 VOLUME 1 APPLICABILITY OF PSD INCREMENTS TO BUILDING ROOFTOPS
P1(165-85—05—09-015 VOLUME 1 IMPROVED NEW SOURCE REVIEW/PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(NSR/PSD) PROGRAM TRANSFER
1f165-86—11-24-016 VOLUME 2 NEED FOR A SHORT-TERM BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECENOLOCY (BACT) ANALYSIS
FOR THE PROPOSED WILLIAM A. ZI1O POWER PLANT
P1(165-87—02—27-017 VOLUME 2 PLAIITWIDE DEFINITION OF MAJOR STATIONARY SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION
P1(165-87—06—26-020 VOLUME 2 OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE ON CONTROL TE 1 (OLOGT FOR NEW AND MODIFIED MUNICIPAL
WASTE COMEUSTORS(MWCs)
P1(165-87-09—22-021 VOLUME 2 IMPLEMENTATION OF NORTH COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY PSD REMAND

-------
PageNo. 22
08/07/90
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(SEPTEEBER 1990 UPDATE)
DOCUMENT NOTEBOOK DOCW
- VOLUME SU&J’ECT
P11165-87-12-01-022 VOLUME 2 IRPROVING NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) DIPLENENTATION
P11165—86—07-07—024 VOLUME 2 PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) DEFINITION OF “1 OIFICATI0K”
P11165-86-10-21-025 VOLUME 2 APPLICABILITY OF P 50 TO PORTIONS OF A PLANT CONSTRUCT EN PHASES WITHOUT
PERMITS
P11165-86-12-01-026 VOLUME 2 NEED FOR EMISSION CAP ON COMPLEX 1iETTING SOURCES
P11165—87-01-29-027 VOLUME 2 I] LEMENTATI0N OF THE REVISED MODELING GUIDELINE FOR PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD
P11165-87-08-05-028 VOLUME 2 IMPLEMENTATION OF REVISED PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (P50)
PROGRAM FOR PARTICULATE MATTER
P11165—88-06—07—031 VOLUME 2 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PREVENTION OF SIQIIIICANT DETERIORATION (P50)
APPLICABILITY DETERMINATION
P11165—88—07—05—032 VOLUME 2 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS FOR PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
P11165-88-07-28-033 VOLUME 2 SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE EN IMPLEMENTING THE NORTH COUNTY PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (P50) REMAND
P11165—88-09—09—035 VOLUME 2 APPLICABILITY OF PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (P50) AND NEW
SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) TO THE WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER
COMPANY (WEPCO) PORT WASHINGTON LIFE EXTENSION PROJECT
P11165-88-10-14-036 VOLUME 2 LETTER TO JOHN BOSTON FROM LEE THOMAS ON WEPO) DETERMINATION
P11165—89—02—15—037 VOLUME 2 GUIDANCE ON EARLY DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY FOR THE NITROGEN DIOXIDE (1102)
INCREMENTS PROGRAM
P11165—89—03-16—039 VOLUME 2 USE OF ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS FOR NATIONAL AMSIENT ArE QUALITY STANDARDS
(NAAQS) IMPACT ANALYSES UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
P11165-39-03-31-040 VOLUME 2 APPLICATION OF BUILDING DOWNWASH IN PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT
DETERIORATION (P50) PERMIT ANALYSES
P11165—69—04—10—041 VOLUME 2 PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) APPLICABILITY TO SULFUR
DIOXIDE (502) EMISSIONS FROM INCINERATION OF TOTAL REDUCED SULFUR (TES)
COMPOUNDS
P11165-89—02-15—042 VOLUME 2 LETTER TO JOHN BOSTON FROM DON CLAY ON WEPCO DETERMINATION
P11165-89—06-13-043 VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF BA GROUND STATEMENT ON “TOP-DOWN” BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL
TECENOLOGY (BACT)
P11165-89-08-24-044 VOLUME 2 GUIDANCE OK IMPLEMENTING THE NITROGEN DIOXIDE (NO2) PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) IN( PJffWTS
P11165-89—09—18-045 VOLUME 2 REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF POLICY REGARDING THE “NET EMISSIONS INCREASE”
P11165—89—08—09—047 VOLUME 2 LAIR DETERMINATION FOR A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED SOURCE
P11165—90—01-18-049 VOLUME 2 LETTER TO MORTON STERLING OF DETROIT EDISON FROM GERALD E. OIISON
P11165-90-06-08—050 VOLUME 2 LETTER TO JOHN BOSTON FROM WILLIAM G. ROSENBERG ON WEPCO DETERMINATION
P11167—83-12—14-001 VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE ON ENFORCEMENT OF PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
REQUIREMENTS UNDER TEE CLEAN AIR ACT
P11167—88—03—29—002 VOLUME 2 OPINION D I U.S. V. LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORPORATION
P11172—79—05—25—016 VOLUME 1 SUBMISSION OF STATE AIR PERMITS AS SIP REVISIONS
** PUBLIC COMMENT
P111.10—79—07-02-017 VOLUME 1 GENERAL PREAMELE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR
NONATTAI1O(ENT AREAS - SUPPLEMENT (ON PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL) (44 FR 38583)

-------
Page No. 23
08/07/90
AIR PROGRAJIS LICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SIIPJRCP LNDEX
(SEPT ER 1990 UPDATE)
DOC NOTEBOON DOC
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
P 1 1110-79-09-17-020 VOLUME 1 GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR
NONATTAINMENT AREAS - (SUPPLEMENT ON CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES) (44 FR
53761)
** RACT DETERMINATIONS
PN11O—82-08-11-060 VOLUME 1 REVIEW OF 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
P11110-87-01-20-080 VOLUME 2 DETERMINATION OF ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY
P11113-83-01-12-018 VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1982 DEADLINE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ISSUED
SEPTEMBER 20, 1982
P11172-80—11-20-032 VOLUME 1 CONPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR CAN COATING OPERATIONS
P11172-84-01-20-045 VOLUI(E 1 AVERAGING TIMES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITS - SIP REVISION
POLICY
P11172-85-07-02-051 VOLUME 1 RESIDUAL VOLATILE ORGANIC UMD (VOC) CONTAINED TN COATING LINE
PRODUCTS
P11172-86-02-28-052 VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTM P
OF JUSTICE
P11172-86-01-09-057 VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF CTG PACT RECO OD1DATION5 FOR HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE,
POLYPROPYLENE, AND POLYSTYRENE
P11172-88-06-21-062 VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF AU1 )MOBILE TOPCOAT PROTOCOL
P11172-88-08-23-063 VOLUME 2 LETTER TO WILLIAM JURIS ON VOC EMISSION GUTOFF
P11172-88-11-04-065 VOLUME 2 EPA AUTHORITY TO REQUEST CHANGES IN RACT RULES
P11172-88-12-01-066 VOLUME 2 RACY REQUIREMENTS IN OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREAS
P11172-90-02-28-078 VOLUME 2 LOWEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSION LIMITS (LAEP) FOR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREAS
k* REACTIVITY
P11110—77-07-08-065 VOLUME 1 (CITATION OF FR NOTICE ENTITLED “RECOMMENDED POLICY ON CONTROL OP VOLATILE
ORGANIC CONFOUNDS”)
P11110—85-08-27-071 VOLUME 1 CLASSIFICATION OF BENZENE AS A VOC
PN11O—87-04-17- 081 VOLUME 2 DEFINITION OF VOC
P11110—87-07-21-089 VOLUME 2 DEFINITION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC’s)
** REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS
P11165-85-05-09-015 VOLUME 1 IMPROVED NEW SOURCE REVIEW/PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(NSR/PSD) PROGRAM TRANSFER
P11172-81—01-22-039 VOLUME 1 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (46 FR 7182)
** REDESIGNATION PROCEDURES
P11107-82-09-16-007 VOLUME 1 MILWAUKEE S02 NONATTAINMENT DESIGNATION
P11107-83-04-21-008 VOLUME 1 SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICT SUMMARY
P11107-85-10-08-010 VOLUME 1 OZONE AIR QUALITY DATA FOR REDESIGNATIONS
i11O786-04-11012 VOLUME 2 REQUIRED MONITORING PERIOD FOR OZONE R!DESIQ(ATION IN UNCLASSIFIED AREAS
P11107-87-04-06-013 VOLUME 2 OZONE REDESIGNATION POLICY
P11107-88-04-05-014 VOLUME 2 LETTER TO MARCY MALOLEY ON REDESIGNATION OF 2 INDIANA COUNTIES
P11110-83—05—27—064 VOLUME 1 SUMMARY OF NAAQS INTERPRETATION

-------
Page No. 24
08/07/90
AIR PROGRANS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE)
DOCW( NOTEBOOK DO
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
P1(110—86-12-10-078 VOLUME 2 RULEMAKING ON STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIP’S) FOR 502
** REGIONAL CONSISTENCY
P11110—82-08-11-060 VOLUME 1 REVIEW OF 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
P1(301-81-01-20-001 VOLUME 1 IMPLEMENTATION OF TEE REGIONAL CONSISTENCY REGULATIONS
** REPRESENTATIVE EMISSION CONDITIONS
P11110—88-06-17-094 VOLUME 2 DEMONSTRATION OF “REPRESENTATIVE EMISSION CO(OITIONS” FOR USE TN “EXPECTED
EXCEEDANCE” DETERMINATIONS
** RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITIES
P1(165-87-09-22-021 VOLUME 2 IMPLEMENTATION OF NORTH COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVER! PSD REMAND
P11165-88-07-28-033 VOLUME 2 SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE [ N IMPLEMENTING TUE NORTH COUNT! PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) REMAND
** RISK ANALYSIS
P11112-85-09-17-008 VOLUME 1 PREPARATION OF Q(L!JITITATIVE ANALYSIS IN AGENCY DECISION-MAKING
** RISK REDUCTION
PN1 I2-85- 06-xx-O 07 VOLUME 1 REPRINT OF TEE EPA AIR TOXICS STRATEGY (REFERENCE ONLY)
** RULE EFFECTIVENESS
P11113-88-03-31-049 VOLUME 2 IJIPLEKENTATION OF RULE EFFECTIVENESS STUDIES
** RURAL NONATTAINMENT
P11172-84-06-25—046 VOLUME 1 APPLICABILITY OF GROUP III CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES (CTG’S)
** SANCTIONS
P1(110-80-10-23-044 VOLUME 1 GROWTH RESTRICTIONS IN SECONDARY NAAQS NONATTAINMENT AREAS
P1(115-78-03-20-002 VOLUME 1 INTERNATIONAL POLLUTION (EL PASO/JIJAREZ)
P11172-80-08-11-043 VOLUME 1 MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT RNS: CONSTRUCTION GRANTS LIMITATION
PROVIDED BY SECTION 316 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT: POLICY AND PROCEDURES (FR
CITATION)
P11172-83-11-02-044 VOLUME 1 COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART D OF TEE CLEAR AIR ACT -
FINAL (48 FR 50686)
P1(172-87-09-11-059 VOLUME 2 GEOGRAPHIC APPLICABILITY OF CLEAN AIR ACT SANCTIONS
P1(176-79-06-08-001 VOLUME 1 IMPACT OF CLEAN AIR ACT MONATTAINMENT SANCTIONS
k* SEASONAL CONTROLS
P11110-87-01-08-079 VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF SEASONAL VOC CONTROL POLICY
P11120-81-04-30-005 VOLUME 1 ISSUANCES OF NOTICES OF NONCOMPLIANCE UNDER SECTION 120 OF THE CLEAN AIR
ACT TO SEASONAL SOURCES
P 1(165-85-06-28-023 VOLUME 1 MEMO TO WILLIAM S. BAKER ON SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
P1(172-80-12-01-033 VOLUME 1 REVISED SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
P1(172-86-02-28-052 VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE

-------
Page No. 25
08/07/90
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTENOOK
SU JECT INDEX
(SEPrv ER 1990 UPDATE) --
D0cW TENOOK DO
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
P11172-86-09-29-058 VOLUME 2 SEASONAL VOC CONTROLS
** SECONDARY STANDARDS
P11110-80—03-10—030 VOLUME 1 EMISSION OFFSET REQUIREMENTS IN SECONDARY STANDARD TOTAL SUSPENDED
PARTICULATE PLANS
P11110—80-10-23-044 VOLUME 1 GROWTH RESTRICTIONS UI SECONDARY NAAQS N ATTAINMENT AREAS
SECTION hiD PLAN REQUIREMENTS
P11110-78-03-24-003 VOLUME I. PLANS UNDER SECTION 1U.D OF THE CLEAN All ACT
P 1 1110-30—08-08-041 VOLUME 1 THE BUBBLE POLICY AND STATE tMP1 EMEN T PATION PLANS UNDER CLEAN AIR AC!
SECTION IUD
PNI11D-81-09-14-001 VOLUME 1 EPA POLICY ON WELFARE-RELATED POLLUTANTS UNDER SECTION 111D
** SHUTDOWNS
P11113-83-02-15-017 VOLUME 1 POLICY ON EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, MAINTENANCE, AND
MALFUNCTIONS
P11113-85-11-27-026 VOLUME I REVISED ENFORCEMENT POLICY RESPECTING SOURCES COMPLYING WITH CLEAN AIR ACT
REQUIREMENTS BY SHUTDOWN
P11113-87-05-27-036 VOLUME 2 REACTIVATION OF NORANDA LAKESHORE MINES’ RLA PLANT AND PSD REVIEW
SIGNIFICANT VIOLATORS
P11110—88-08-05-096 VOLUME 2 DENTIFYING AND EXPEDITING SIP REVISIONS THAT IMPACT TEE ENFORCEMENT
PROCESS
P11113-83—01-12-018 VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE ON D LEMENTATION OF THE 1982 DEADLINE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ISSUED
SEPr ER 20, 1982
P11113-86-04-11-028 VOLUME 2 TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE GUIDANCE
** SIP COMPLETENESS CEITENIA
P11110—88—03-18-093 VOLUME 2 POLICY FOR DETERMINING COMPLETENESS OF SIP SUBMITTALS
** SIP ENFORCEMENT
P11110—78—03-24-003 VOLUME 1 PLANS UNDER SECTION hiD OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
P11110-80-03-10-030 VOLUME 1 EMISSION OFFSET REQUIREMENTS IN SECONDARY STANDARD TOTAL SUSPENDED
PARTICULATE PLANS
P11110-80—10-23-044 VOLUME 1 GROWTH RESTRICTIONS UI SECONDARY NAAQS NONATI’AINKENT AREAS
PN111D-81-09—14-O01 VOLUME 1 EPA POLICY ON WELFARE-RELATED POLLUTANTS UNDER SECTION hID
P11113-76-08-12-003 VOLUME 1 ENFORCEMENT OF SIPS UNDERGOING REVISION
P11113—76-08-13-004 VOLUME 1 “REVIEWABILITY” OF EPA DETERMINATIONS IN SIP ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
P11113-78—07-27-005 VOLUME 1 ENFORCEMENT UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS - ORDERS UNDER SECTION 113(A)
AND 113(0)
N113-8O-05-27-OO7 VOLUME 1 DELAYED COMPLIANCE ORDERS REQUIRING SIP COMPLIANCE TEROUGN T RARY
CONTROL MEASURES - AMENDED GUIDANCE
P11113-82—05-04-013 VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE ON POLICY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF VE VIOLATIONS AGAINST SOURCES WHICE
ARE MEETING AN APPLICABLE MASS EMISSION STANDARD
P11113-82—08-12-014 VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE CONCERNING EPA’S USE OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING DATA

-------
Page No. 26
08/07/90
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
suajEcT DIDEX
(S ’rENBEE 1990 UPDATE)
D0cWIEN’r NOTEBOOK DOCWIEWT
NUJIBER VOLUNE SUBI]ECT
- —a __ .—— - — ______ —n _ - - —
PN113-84-12-20-022 V0LW 1 POLICY 011 NO-ACTION ASSURANCES
PN113-85-06-28-024 VOLU1 1 PAkTICULATE MATTER LNTERD( EMFORCENENT POLICY
P11113-85-11-27-026 VOLU1 1 REVISD ENFORCEMENT POLICY RESPECTING SOURCES COIWLYP1G WITH CLEAN AIR ACT
REQUIREMENTS BY SHUTDO1 N
P11113-86-04-11-028 VOLUNE 2 TINELT AND APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE GUIDANCE
P11114-81-05-13-002 VOLUME 1 REGIONAL OFFICE CRITERIA FOR NEUTRAL INSPECTIONS OF STATIONARY SOURCES -
AJTIDED GUIDANCE
P11114-84-09-06-004 VOLUME 1 FINAL GUIDANCE ON USE OF U IOGIICED INSPECTIONS
P11120-80—09-12-001 VOLUME 1 PRIORITIES FOR ISSUING NOTICES OF NONCOJ LLUICE
P1(172-79—05-25-016 VOLUME 1 SUBMISSION OF STATE AIR PERMITS AS SIP REVISIONS
P1(172-86-02-28-052 VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARYXEIFI’
OF JUSTICE
SIP GRANDFATEERINC
P11110-88-06-27-095 VOLUME 2 GRAIIDFATHERINC OF REQUIREMENTS FOR PENDING SIP REVISIONS
ft SiP GUIDANCE INDEX
P 11172—81-05-21-038 VOLUME 1 1982 OZONE AND CARBON NONOXIDE SIP GUIDANCE INDEX
** SiP REQUIREIIENTS - NOX
P1(110-80-05-09-0341 VOLUME 1 CLARIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR INCLUSION OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION
NONITORDIG PROVISIONS Di STATE D tLE1(EBTATION PLANS
** SIP REVIEW PROCEDURES
P11107-83-04-21—008 VOLUME 1 SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY SUIOIARY
P11110—78-02-24-002 VOLUME 1 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
P11110-80—09-25—043 VOLUME 1 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF SIP REVISIONS
2 1 1110—81—07-22-052 VOLUME 1 EXPERIMENTAL STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) PROCESSING TECENIQOES
P11110—81-11-09-055 VOLUME 1 NEW PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW OF STATE UWLENENTATION PLANS
2 1 1110—82-06-23-059 VOLUME 1 REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF STATE
U(P!JEMENTATION PLANS-NEW SIP PROCESSING PROCEDURES TO SAVE TINE AND
RESOURCES (FR CITATION)
P11110-82-08-11-060 VOLUME 1. REVIEW 0? 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
2 1 1110-83 - 03-18-063 VOLUME 1 LE’FYER TO BARRY H. BOVEY RE EPA POLICY WITH REGARD TO AJ IENT AIR
P1(110-79—06-18-066 VOLUME 1 REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION MID SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION
PLANS: INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONSULTATION (FR CITATION)
P1(110-87-12-23-092 VOLUME 2 EXPANDED USE OF DIRECT FINAL SIP PROCESSING
P1(110—88-03-18—093 VOLUME 2 POLICY FOR DETERMINING COMPLETENESS OF SIP SUBMITTALS
P1(110-88-06—27-095 VOLUME 2 ‘GRA1IDFATBERING 0 OF REQUIREMENTS FOR PENDING SIP REVISIONS
P1(110-88-08-05-096 VOLUME 2 IDENTIFYING AND EXP ITD(G SIP REVISIONS THAT IMPACT THE ENFORCEMENT
PROCESS
P11110—89-01-19-100 VOLUME 2 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN COMPLETENESS REVIEW (FR CITATION)
P1(110—89-01-19-101 VOLUME 2 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN PROCESSING REFORM (FR CITATION)
P1(110-89-01-30-102 VOLUME 2 PROCEDURES FOR I2FTER NOTICE APPROVAL OF MINOR SIP ACTIONS
P1(113-87-06—25-037 VOLUME 2 PROPER AND TIMELY REVIEW OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) REViSIONS

-------
Page No. 27
08/07/90
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUB.JEC! INDEX
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE)
DOC NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
P11172-79-05-25-016 VOLUME 1 SUBMISSION OF STATE AIR PERMITS AS SIP REVISIONS
P11172-82—10-29-041 VOLUME 1 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
** SIP REVISIONS
P11107-83-04-21-008 VOLUME 1 SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY SUJOtARY
P1 1110—83-05—27-064 VOLUME 1 SUMMARY OF KAAQS INTERPRETATION
P11110—86—08-07-076 VOLUME 2 POLICY Oil SIP REVISIONS REQUESTING COMPLIANCE DATE EXTENSIONS FOR VOC
SOURCES
P11113-87-09-23-041 VOLUME 2 REVIEW OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS AND REVISIONS FOR ENFORCEABILITY AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
P11113-87-12-31-043 VOLUME 2 GUIDANCE ON EVALUATING CLEAN AIR ACT ENFORCEMENT OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN VIOLATIONS INVOLVING PROPOSED STATE REVISIONS
PN165-84-01-09-012 VOLUME 1 INTERPRETATION OF TEE POLICY ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF PART D
P11165—85-05-09-015 VOLUME 1 IMPROVED MEW SOURCE REVIEW/PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(NSR/PSD) PROGRAM TRANSFER
P 1 1169A—86—11-1O—002 VOLUME 2 VISIBILITY PROTECTION STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIP’S)—VISIBILITY SIP’S
PART II
P11172-78-08-04-004 VOLUME 1 REQUIREMENT FOR VOC RACT REGULATIONS IN ALL OXIDANT NONATTAINMENT AREAS
P11172-79-01-16-012 VOLUME 1 CONTINUITY OF SIP REGULATIONS - REVISED ENCLOSURE
P11172—83-11-02-044 VOLUME 1 COMPLIANCE WITH TEE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART D OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT -
FINAL (48 FR 50686)
P11172-84-01-20-045 VOLUME 1 AVERAGING TIMES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITS - SIP REVISION
POLICY
P11172-87-09-09-055 VOLUME 2 ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE FOR GRAPHIC ARTS RACT
PN172—88-09-07-064 VOLUME 2 All PROGRAMS APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS COMPLIANCE
WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART D AND SECTION 110 OF TEE CLEAN AIR
ACT (FR CITATION)
P11175-80-06-12-008 VOLUME 1 PROCEDURES FOR CONFORMANCE OF TRANSPORTATION PLANS, PROGRAJIS AND PROJECTS
WITH CLEAN AIR ACT STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
P11175-80-06-23-009 VOLUME 1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Ill THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN - TRANSPORTATION
REVISION PROCESS: EXPANDED GUIDELINES (FR CITATION)
** S02 SIPS
P11110—79-04-04-015 VOLUME 1 GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISIONS FOR IIONATTAINIWIT AREAS (44 FR 20372)
P11110-79-07-02-017 VOLUME 1 GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR
NONATTAINMENT AREAS - SUPPLEMENT (00 PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL) (44 FR 38583)
P11110-79-09-17-020 VOLUME 1 GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR
NONATTAIXMENT AREAS - (SUPPLEMENT ON CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES) (44 Fl
53761)
P0110—83-05-27-064 VOLUME 1 SUMMARY OF M&AQS INTERPRETATION
P11110—86-03-28-073 VOLUME 2 BLOCE AVERAGES IN IMPLEMENTING S02 NAAQS
P11110-86-05-23-075 VOLUME 2 LETTER TO NANCY lIALOLEY FROM CRAIG POTTER ON TEE INDIANA S02 SIP
P11110—86-12-10—078 VOLUME 2 RULEMAKING ON STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIP’S) FOR 302

-------
Page No. 28
08/07/90
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(SEPTE) ER 1990 UPDATE)
D0CW NOTEBOOK D0CW
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
P1(110—87-07-29-084 VOLUME 2 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS FOR SULFUR DIOXIDE
P1(113-83-02-15-017 VOLUME 1 POLICY ON EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, MAINTENANCE, AND
MALFUNCTIONS
P1(113-88-07-05-051 VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF S02 CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
P1(123-85-10-10-007 VOLUME 1 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON U(PLEMENTING THE REVISED STACK HEIGHT REGULATION
P1(123—88-05-17-016 VOLUME 2 APPLICATION OF THE INTERIM POLICY FOR STACK HEIGHT REGULATORY ACTIONS
P1(165-89-04-10-041 VOLUME 2 PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) APPLICABILITY TO SULFUR
DIOXIDE (S02) EMISSIONS FROM INCINERATION OF TOTAL REDUCED SULFUR (TRS)
COMPOUNDS
** SOLVENT REACTIVITY
P1(110-80-07-22-067 VOLUME 1 (CITATION OF FR NOTICE ON SOLVENT REACTIVITIES)
P1(172-79-05-25—017 VOLUME 1 CLARIFICATION OF AGENCY POLICY CONCERNING OZONE SIP REVISIONS AND SOLVENT
REAC I’IVITIE S
SOLVENT REGULATIONS
P11172-79-06-20-018 VOLUME 1 MODIFICATIONS TO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOLVENT METAL CLE.ANII(G
P1(172-79—12-12-023 VOLUME 1 EXEMPTIONS FOR DEGREASERS
P1(172-80-07-02-029 VOLUME 1 EXEMPTION FOR COLD CLEANER DEGREASERS
P1(172-86-10-30-053 VOLUME 2 INCLUSION OF CLEAN-UP SOLVENTS IN DETERMINING APPLICABILITY TO TEE
100—TON PER YEAR NON-C rC REQUIREMENTS
** SOOT BLOWING
PN111E-82-05— 07-002 VOLUME 1 RESTATEMENT OP GUIDANCE ON EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SOOT BLOWING
** SOURCE DEFINITION
P1(165—87—02—27—017 VOLUME 2 PLARTWIDE DEFINITION OF MAJOR STATIONARY SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION
** STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS
P1(123-85-09—19-006 VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE ON FLUID MODEL DEMONSTRATIONS FOR DETERMINING GEP STACK HEIGHT IN
COMPLEX TERRAIN
P1(123-85—10—10—007 VOLUME 1 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON IMPLEMENTING THE REVISED STACK HEIGHT REGULATION
P1(123-85-10—28-008 VOLUME 1 IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS - EXCEPTIONS FRON RESTRICTIONS
ON CREDIT FOR MERGED STACKS
P1(123-85-10—28-009 VOLUME 1 IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS - PRESUMPTIVE NSPS EMISSION
LIMIT FOR FLUID MODELING STACKS ABOVE FORMULA CEP HEIGHT
P1(123-85-10-28-010 VOLUME 1 DETERMINING STACK HEIGHTS “IN EXISTENCE” BEFORE DECEMBER 31, 1970
P1(123-86-02-11-Oil VOLUME 2 PRIORITY FOR REVIEW OF PARTIGULATE MATTER SOURCES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
REVISED STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS
P1(123-86-02-11-012 VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF EXISTING GUIDANCE ON DISPERSION MODELING REQUIREMENTS FOR
PLANTS WITH “TAIJ STACKS” AND OTHER PROHIBITED DISPERSION TECHNIQUES
P1(123-87-09-03-013 VOLUME 2 TECHNICAL SUPRORT FOR STACK HEIGHT NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS
P1(123-87-10-09-014 VOLUME 2 PROCESSING OF STACK HEIGHT NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS
P11123—88-01-07-015 VOLUME 2 STACK HEIGHT EMISSIONS BALANCING - FINAL POLICY STATEMENT (53 FR 480)
P1(123-88-05-17-016 VOLUME 2 APPLICATION OF THE INTERIM POLICY FOR STACK HEIGHT REGULATORY ACTIONS

-------
Page No. 29
08/07/90
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE *)TEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(S TE1WER 1990 UPDATE)
DOCUMENT NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
NUMBER VOLUME SUB.TECT
P 1 ( 123-89-04-20—017 VOLUME 2 LETTER TO JOHN PROCTOR FROM G. ENISON
** SURROGATE AIR QUALITY DATA
P1(107-85-10 —08-010 VOLUME 1 OZONE AIR QUALITY DATA FOR REDESIGNATIONS
** SURVEILLANCE ACTIONS
P1(114-81-05—13—002 VOLUME 1 REGIONAL OFFICE CRITERIA FOR NEUTRAL INSPECTIONS OF STATIONARY SOURCES -
AMENDED GUIDANCE
P1(120-80—09—12—001 VOLUME 1 PRIORITIES FOR ISSUING NOTICES OF NONCOMPLIANCE
‘ TOXIC SUBSTANCES
P1(110—82-11-24—061 VOLUME 1 SIP ACTIONS AND TOXIC POLLUTANTS
PN112-85-06— x—OO7 VOLUME 1 REPRINT OF THE EPA AIR TOXIC STRATEGY (REFERENCE ONLY)
PN112-89- 06-15- o]..l VOLUME 2 CONTROL OF AIR EMISSIONS FROM SUPERFUND All STRIPPERS AT SUPERFUND
GROUNDWATER SITES
‘P1(165-87-09-22-021 VOLUME 2 IMPLEMENTATION OF NORTH COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY PSD REMAND
P1(165-88-07-28-033 VOLUME 2 SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE Iii I](PLEI(ENTI](G TEE NORTH COUNTY PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) REMAND
** TRANSFER EFFICIENCY
P1(110—85—12-16-072 VOLUME 1 BASELINE TIME PERIODS FOR VOC TRANSFER EFFICIENCY CREDITS
PN11O-86-O4-j1- 74 VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FIVE VOC ISSUES RAISED BY TEE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
** TRANSPORT VALUES - OXIDANT
P1(172-78-08-04-004 VOLUME 1 REQUIREMENT FOR VOC RACT REGULATIONS IN ALL OXIDANT NONATTAINXENT AREAS
P1(172-78-10 —26-009 VOLUME 1 OZONE TRANSPORT VALUES FOR SIP REVISIONS
** TRANSPORTATION GRANTS
P1(175-79-02-12-004 VOLUME 1 REGIONAL OFFICE ASSISTANCE TN EXPEDITING HEADQUARTERS REVIEW OF SECTION
175 GRANT APPLICATIONS
** TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
P1(172-78-06-14-026 VOLUME 1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN TEE DEPARTIWIT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
TEE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGARDING TEE INTEGRATION OF
TRANSPORTATION AND AIR QUALITY PLANNING
P1(172-81-05-21-038 VOLUME 1 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE SIP GUIDANCE INDEX
P1(172—81-01-22-039 VOLUME 1 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS—APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (46 FR 7182)
P1(175—80-06-12-008 VOLUME 1 PROCEDURES FOR CONFORMANCE OF TRANSPORTATION PLANS, PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
WITH CLEAN AIR ACT STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
P1(175—80—06-23-009 VOLUME 1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN - TRANSPORTATION
REVISION PROCESS: EXPANDED GUIDELINES (YR CITATION)

-------
r e io. 30
08/01/90
AIR PROCRAJ(S POLICY AND CUIDANCE N( TEBO0K
sua izcr UCEX
(S T KR 1990 UPDATE)
] OOK DOCUBENT
NU VOLU1 SUBJEC?
** TRIC OROETKA1(E
P1(172-78-08-24-006 VOLW 1 CLARI2ICATION OF EPA POLiCY ON ENISSIONS FOR METHYL L0ROFORR
UNAN*)UNCED INSPECTIONS
PN114-84-09-06-004 VOLUME 1 FINAL GUIDANCE Oil USE OF ffNANNOUNC fl (SPECTIOHS
** VINYL CHLORIDE
P1(112-84-07-11-005 VOLUME 1 VINYL CHLORIDE HESKAP ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
** VINYL COATINGS
P 1 (172-85-07-02-05 1 VOLUME 1 RESIDUAL VOLATILE ORGANIC CONFOUND (VOC) CONTAINED EN COATING LINE
PRODUCTS
*‘ VISIBILITY PR TEClIOM
P 1 (169A-85—03-2.5—OO1 VOLUME 1 VISIBILITY MONITORING STRATEGY REQUIREKENTS
PN169A-86- 11 -1O—002 VOLUME 2 VISIBILITY PROTECTION STAT! IXPLEMENTATION PLANS (SLP’S)——VISIBILITY 5I? S
PART II
** VISIBLE EMISSIONS
P1(113-82-05-04-013 VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE ON POLICY FOR EIFORCINENI OF VE VIOLATIONS AGAINST sOURCES WEIGH
liE MEETING AN APPLICABLE MASS EMISSION STANDARD
** VOC COMPLIANCE
P1(113-87-07-06-038 VOLUME 2 SMALL SlOG SOURCE COMPLIANCE STRATEGY - FINAL
P1(113-87-09-11-040 VOLUME 2 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND SUPPLINENTAL GUIDANCE: SMALL SlOG SOURCE
COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
P1(172-85-04-25-050 VOLUME 1 CONSIDERATION OF ORGANISOLS IN VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC) COMPLIANCE
CALCULATIONS
P1(172-85-07-02-051 VOLUME 1 RESIDUAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) CONTAINED IN COATING LINE
PRODUCTS
P1(172-86-02-28-052 VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FOUR SlOG ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
P1(172 —89—03-16—071 VOLUME 2 COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES FOR VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (SlOG’s)
* SOC CONTROLS
PNI IO—79-04- 04-015 VOLUME 1 GENERAL PREANBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMA 
-------
AIR PROGRAMS LICT AND GUIDANCE WYTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(S vrt ER 1990 UPDATE)
P11110—82—11—24—061
P11110—77—07—08—065
P 1 1110-85—08—27—Oil
P11110—85—12—16—072
P11110—86—04—11-074
P11110-86-08-07-076
P11110—86—12—04-077
P11110-87-01-08-079
P11110—87—04-17—081
- P 1 1110—87—07— 1-089
P11112—89—06—15-Oil
N113-85-04-24-023
P11113-86—01-17-027
P11113-86-08-07-032
P11165—85—06—28-023
P11165—88—04-25-030
P11172—78—03-10—002
P11172—78—06—30—003
P11172-78-08-04-004
P11172—78—08-24-006
P11172-78-10-06-008
P 11172-79—03-06—014
P11172—79—05—25-017
P11172—79—06—20—018
P11172—79—08-21-019
P11172—79—08-22—020
P11172—79—12-12—023
P11172-80-06-16-027
P11172—80—07-02-029
P11172-80—09—03-030
VOLUME 1 SIP ACTIONS AND TOXIC POLLUTANTS
VOLUME 1 (CITATION OF FR NOTICE ENTITLED RECONNENDED POLICY ON CONTROL OF VOLATILE
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS”)
VOLUME 1 CLASSIFICATION OF BENZRNE AS A VOC
VOLUME 1 BASELINE TIME PERI0 FOR VOC TRANSFER EFFICIENCY CREDITS
VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FIVE VOC ISSUES RAISE BY TEE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPA rNENT
OF JUSTICE
VOLUME 2 POLICY ON -SIP REVISIONS REQUESTING COMPLIANCE DATE EXTENSIONS FOR VOC
SOURCES
VOLUME 2 EMISSIONS TRADING POLICY STATENENT (51 FR 43814)
VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF SEASONAL VOC CONTROL POLICY
VOLUME 2 DEFINITION OF VOC
VOLUME 2 DEFINITION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC’s)
VOLUME 2 CONTROL OF AIR EMISSIONS FROM SUPERFUND AIR STRIPPERS AT SUPERFUND
GROUNDWATER SITES
VOLUME 1 ACHIEVING VOC COMPLIANCE FROM DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACTOR FACILITIES
VOLUME 2 ISSUES 13(E) AND 15 OF THE VOC ISSUE RESOLUTION PROCESS: ESTABLISHING
PROOF OF VOC EMISSIONS VIOLATIONS, AND BUBBLES D i CONSENT DECREES
RESOLVING CIVIL ACTIONS UNDER SECTION 113(b) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
VOLUME 2 POLICY ON THE AVAILABILITY OF LOW-SOLVENT TE IOWGY S EDULES IN CLEAN
AIR ACT ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
VOLUME 1 MEMO TO WILLIAM S. BAKER OK SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
VOLUME 2 LAER EMISSION LIMITS FOR AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK TOPCOAT
OPERATIONS
VOLUME 1 EXAMPLE DEMONSTRATION OF ATTAINMENT FOR PHOTOCBEI [ [ CAL OXIDANTS
VOLUME 1 VAPOR RECOVER! REGULATIONS REQUIRED TO MEET RACT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 1979
SIP
VOLUME 1 REQUIREMENT FOR VOC RACT REGULATIONS IN ALL OXIDANT NONATTAII(MENT AREAS
VOLUME 1 CLARIFICATION OF EPA POLICY ON EMISSIONS FOR METhYL CHLOROFORM
VOLUME 1 COMMENTS ON AUTO INDUSTRY PROPOSALS
VOLUME 1 CUTBACK ASPHALT VOC REGULATIONS
VOLUME 1 CLARIFICATION OF AGENCY POLICY CONCERNING OZONE SIP REVISIONS AND SOLVENT
REACTI TITlES
VOLUME 1 MODIFICATIONS TO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOLVENT METAL CLEANING
VOLUME 1 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS: GENERAL FREANDLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON
APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINICENI AREAS - SUPPL NT (ON
REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMISSION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICAL RACT
REGULATIONS)
VOLUME 1 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS/REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMITTING RACI
REGULATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOWIDS(VOC)
VOLUME 1 EX FIONS FOR DEGREASERS
VOLUME 1 GASOLINE TANK TRUCK REGULATIONS
VOLUME 1 EX TION FOR COLD CLEARER DEGREASERS
VOLUME 1 MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS CTG - EMISSION LIMITS FOR COATING
OF SHIPPING PAILS AND DRUMS
Page No. 31
08/07/90
DOCO T
NUMBER
NOT OK
VOLUME
DO T
SUBJECT
-------
Page No. 32
08/07/90
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(S EXBER 1990 UPDATE)
DOCUMENT NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
P11172-80 —11-20—032 VOLUME 1 COMPLIANCE WITH VOC ENISSION LIMITATIONS FOR CAN COATING OPERATIONS
P11172-80-12-01-033 VOLUME 1 REVISED SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
P11172-80—12-02-034 VOLUME 1 COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR RACT APPLICATION TO LEAKS FROM PETROLEUM REFINERY
EQUIPMENT
P11172-80-12-02-035 VOLUME 1 RACY FOR SPECIALTY PRINTING OPERATIONS
P11172—81—02—06—036 VOLUME 1 STORAGE TANK VAPOR BALANCE REQUIREMENTS AT SYNTHESIZED PHARMACEUTICAL
PRODUCTS MANUFACI’TJRE FACILITIES
P11172-81-01-22-039 VOLUME 1 STATE I] L TATION PLANS-APPROVAL 0? 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN A1 TAI1INERT DATE EXTENSION (46 FR 7182)
P11172-84—01-20-045 VOLUME 1 AVERAGING TINES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH VOC ENISSION LIMITS - SIP REVISION
POLICY
P11172-84-09—14-048 VOLUME 1 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) TEST METHODS 02 PROCEDURES FOR SOURCE
CATEGORIES IN GROUPS I, II, AND III CONTROL TE 1IQUES GUIDELINES (CTCS)
P11172-84-12-21-049 VOLUME 1 CO (ECTICUT VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) ISSUES
P11172-85-04-25-050 VOLUME 1 CONSIDERATION OF ORGANISOLS 111 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC) COMPLIANCE
CALCULATIONS
P11172-87-06-25-054 VOLUME 2 ISSICN CUT-OFF FOR CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES VOLATILE ORGANIC
CO W SOURCES
P11172-86-09-29—058 VOLUME 2 SEASONAL VOC CONTROLS
P11172-87-12-10-060 VOLUME 2 LETTER TO LEONARD LEBBETTER ON USE OF POTENTIAL VS ACTUAL ENISSIONS FOR
VOC REGULATIONS
P11172-88-05-27—061 VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF EPA GUIDANCE ON VOC ISSUES
P11172-88—08-23-063 VOLUME 2 LETTER TO WILLIAM JURIS ON VOC ENISSION CUTOFF
P11172-88-12—16-067 VOLUME 2 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) DISPOSAL REGULATION
P11172-89—02-15-070 VOLUME 2 MARINE VESSEL VAPOR CONTROL
P11172-89-04-03-072 VOLUME 2 APPLICABILITY OF MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS COATINGS
REGULATIONS TO ADHESIVES, SEALANTS AND FILLERS
P11172-89—04—07-073 VOLU](E 2 BASELINE FOR CROSS-LIME AVERAGING
P11172—89—05—25—075 VOLUME 2 CORRECTING CAPTURE EFFICIENCY (CE) REGULATIONS
P11172—89—07—06-076 VOLUME 2 AEROSPACE AND SIMILAR RULES IN OZONE STAT! IMPLENENTATIOM PLANS (SIP’S)
P11172-89-10-24-077 VOLUME 2 COMPLIANCE IDlE PERIOD FOR ELECI’ROPHORETIC PRIME-COATING OPERATIONS
** VOC REQ)RDKEEPING
P11110-86-04-11-074 VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FIVE VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
** VOC TEST METHODS
P11110-86-04-11-074 VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FIVE VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
P11172-84-09-14-048 VOLUME 1 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) TEST METHODS OR PROCEDURES FOR SOURCE
CATEGORIES IN GROUPS I, II, AND III CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES (C!GS)
** VOC WASTE DISPOSAL
P11172-88-12—16-067 VOLUME 2 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) DISPOSAL REGULATION
-------
Page No. 33
08/07/90
AIR PROGRAItS LICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJEcI’ IIIDEI
(SEPr BER 1990 UPDATE)
DOaINEN’r NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
** VOLATILE EAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
P11113-88-03-02-045 VOLUME 2 REVISIONS TO VOLATILE HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT (VUAP) CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
-------
Section 107: Area Designations
-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 107
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 107
* PN1O7—82—09—16—007
MILWAUKEE SO2 NONATTAINMENT DESIGNATION
* PN1O7—83—04—21—008
SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY SUMMARY
* PN1O7—85—04—08—009
LETTER TO JUDGE TERRY ROBERTS FROM GERALD A. EMISOM
* PN1O7—85—10—08—010
OZONE AIR QUALITY DATA FOR REDESIGNATIONS
-------
PN 107-85-10—08-010
2 1
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
pqQ t
OCT 8 1985
MEMORANDUM -
SUBJECT: Ozone Air Quality Data for
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Devel opmer (MD—15)
TO: Director, Air Division, Regions I—X
This is to clarify the meaning of the term surrogateu as It applies
to EPA’s redesignation policy for ozone.
The EPA redesignation policy for ozone comprises two parts, both of
which relate to the underlying need to review all available information
relative to the attainment status of an area. One of these parts addresses
the necessity for sufficient measured data. The other part addresses the
need for evidence that some real and enforceable emission reductions have
caused the improv nent in air quality. Both of these parts must be
satisfied in order for a redesignation request to be considered.
The May 30, 1985, ozone policy sunmaryl states that TM for ozone,
redesignation requires either that the three most recent years of air
quality data not show more than an average of one exceedance per year or,
as a surrogate, that the most recent 8 quarters of air quality data show
no exceedances.’ 1 The reference is Sheldon Meyers’ April 21, 1983, n norandui
on redesignation criteria. That meiiorandtzn was developed to provide some
reasonable flexibility to all areas that, in 1983, had not had an adequate
monitoring network in operation for the necessary 3 years.
Recently, at least one agency has erroneously interpreted this past
ozone redesignation guidance to exclude valid existing data. The EPA
position is that valid data, which are representative of current conditions,
cannot be arbitrarily excluded. Therefore, when 3 years of valid data
are available, the term hlsurrogateu should not be interpreted to mean
that the most recent 8 quarters of data can be used in place of the most
recent 3 years .
1 Ozone Policy Summary, May 30, 1985, prepared by Larry 3. Wilson, OAQPS,
page 14.
-------
-2—
An exception to the requirement for 3 years of ozone data is possible
if a demonstration can be made that substantial reductions in ozone—forming
emissions have occurred within the same 3—year period. The reductions must
still be in effect such that earlier air quality data are no longer
representative of current conditions. -
This means that areas with substantial emission reductions occurring
over the 3—year period may make a demonstration that only the years after
the reductions occurred should be used as the basis for redesignation.
The EPA recognizes that the use of fewer than 3 years of data significantly
increases the uncertainty of whether attainment has been reached. The EPA
will review the demonstration as to whether the entire 3—year period or
only the post—reduction part is most representative of current emission
conditions. Accordingly, any request for actions using less than 3 years -
of ozone data should be coordinated in advance with OAQPS.
We recommend the following guideline in reviewing the demonstrations:
— Reductions must be substantial and of an order of magnitude
corresponding to the reduction in air quality values.
— Post-reduction data must be adequate to assure attainment. There
should be a minimuii of 2 years of data in the post-reduction period.
— Post-reduction emission levels must be real, quantifiable, and
maintained in the future.
Please make sure that this issue is clarified to all interested
parties and employed in all ozone redesignation actions. If your staff
have any questions, please contact Larry Wilson at 629—5540.
cc: Regional- Administrator, Regions I-X
chief, Air Branch, Regions I—X
Ron Campbell
Tom Curran -
Gerald Emison
Richard Rhoads
John Silvasi
B. J. Steigerwald
John Ulfelder
Ray Vogel
Larry Wilson
-------
PN 107-85-04-08-009

;‘g% ‘ UNITED STIATES ENVIRONMENTAL ‘PROTECTION AGENCY
Offidè’eeAir Quality Planning and Statdards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711

APR 08
Judge Terry Roberts
Boone County Fiscal Court
Post Office Box 77
Burlington, Kentucky 41005
Dear Judge Roberts:
am responding to your letter of February 25, 1985, to Administrator
Lee ! ‘I. Thomas which discussed the 1982 air quality management plan for
Boofle, Kenton, and Campbell Counties. As you indicated, EPA proposed to
disapprove this State Implementation plan (SIP) on July 25., 1984.
The Agency appreciates the substantive comments that you and your
colleagues made subsequent to this proposed rulemaking. These ano all
other comments were reviewed by EPA Headquarters staff both here and in
Washington, D.C., and by EPA Regional Offices in Chicago and Atlanta.
Tnese comments were thoroughly evaluated in the preparation of the final
rulemaking which is now undergoing Agency review
The notice will indicate that the present attainment demonstration
is not acceptable and the State of Kentucky will be asked to submit a new
plan. This new plan must meet the requirements for ozone extension
areas. These requirements are outlined in the January 22, 1981, Federal
Register (46 FR 7182) and, among other things, include the expeditious
implementation of a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program.
This decision is consistent with what has been required in other metropolitan
areas with similar ozone a.ir quality problems.
You raised the question of discarding or at least i ot considering at
this time the 1983 air quality data. This question has been raised
elsewhere and EPA has consistently held that all data should be considered.
Additionally, we have reviewed the information submitted to us regarding
the character of meteorological conditions in 1983. Several commenters
suggested that the summer of 1983 may have been hotter and drier than
normal, but this does not necessarily lead to a determination that the
combination of meteorological parameters’that are conducive to ozone in
excess of the national ambient air quality standards should be considered
unusual. The analyses submitted to date do not present a sufficient
basis to make such a case. Additionally, it is our opinion that the
basic character of 1983 would not lead us to a different decision regarding
the nonattainment status of the area. EPA will review any additional
analyses that the State may wish to perform but the Øevelopment or imple-
r entation of a revised SIP should not be delayed pending compietion of
those analyses.
-------
2
I hope this answers your concerns on these issues. I appreciate
your interest in the air quality problems in your area and look forward
to working with you on them.
Si ncerely,
is’
Gerald A. Enison
Director
Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards
-------
ç D S7
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 09 16 007
WASHINGTON D C 20460
\
SEP 1 6 1982
OFFICE OF
AIR. NOISE. AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Milwaukee SO Nonattainment Designation
FROM: Sheldon Meyers, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (ANR—443)
TO: David Kee, Director
Air Management Division, Region V
Thank you for your August 9, 1982, memorandum to Assistant
Administrator Bennett regarding Wisconsin’s request for a redesig-
nation to attainment of the sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) standard for the
Milwaukee area.
You asked four (4) separate questions in your memo. Those questions
are repeated in full below along with my responses.
Q) In nonattajnment areas with no emission limits, what is required to
support a redesignation to attainment? (It does not appear to be
sufficient to accept eight quarters of data showing no violations, even
if the monitors were located in the expected high concentration areas.)
A) The fact that no Federally enforceable emission limits are in place
does not affect the criteria applied in deterii iining the area’s atcain-
ment status. In general, Section 107 designati.,. changes should utilize
all available data, including both monito iIIL d nodeling data.
Whatever is available should certainly be u d. i or1itoring data should
be used only within the limits of being representative for a specific
geographic area. The object of any designation should be to make the
best decision based upon the maximum amount of avai (able information.
Q) What is the role of modeling in redesignations?
A) The need for dispersion modeling for Section 107 designation -
purposes is especially important when dealing with areas don nated y
point sources of SO 2 . In these cases, a small number f ambient air
107
7-1
-------
quality monitors will not be able to tell the whole story. Modeling i.s
essential to evaluate comprehensively and thoroughly the sources’
impacts as well as identify the areas of highest concentrations. It
must be included in a redesignation analysis where feasible.
For all other areas, if modeling already exists, it should be
considered. However, dispersion modeling is generally not required to
be performed strictly for the purposes of Section 107 redesignation
requests for such areas.
Q) Is a redesignation to attainment acceptable if there are eight
quarters of monitored data showing no violations but there is modeling
that predicts violations? (Note, this is not to say that the modeling
contradicts the monitoring since the modeling shows attainment at the
monitor locations, but nonattainment at other, nonmonitored locations.)
A) There is no answer that fits all possib e situations. However,
where valid dispersion modeling has been performed, such modeling
results should set the designation status. When the appropriateness
of the model is of some concern, Regional Offices must exercise judgment
after considering such things as how many monitors are in the network;
is complex terrain (terrain greater than stack height) involved; what
model is being used; is it a guideline model, if not, has it been
demonstrated to be appropriate; does the model tend to over- or under—
predict for the situation at hand?
Again, it should be emphasized that the objective is to make the
best determination possible using all relevant information as to what
the attainment status of an area really is.
Q) Mr. Barber’s letter says that adequate monitored data are necessary.
How is “adequate” defined? (We suggest that a determination of adequate
monitoring data involve reference modeling. That is, monitors must be
located in the areas of expected high concentrations, based on a
reference modeling analysis.)
A) Your suggestion is what ideally should be required. However,
monitors are seldom sited at the locations shown by later dispersion
modeling to be those of maximum impact.
Again, the responsibility lies with the Regional Office to make the
necessary judgments as to whether or not the existing monitor locations
are sufficient both in number and sp tiaI arrangement to allow them to
be representative of the air quality for the area. Some judgment as to
whether the potential problem is of a localized or more general areawide
nature should be made. This judgment will influence whether modeling or
monitoring should be given preference in the particular situation in
question. How much information is needed before such a judgment can be
made is subject to the complexity of the situation.
107
7-2
-------
I would like to add the following convuents regarding the particular
situation in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, as described in the background portion
of your August 9, 1982, memo.
In a situation where an area was originally designated nonattainment
based on measured violations but subsequently has air quality measure-
ments less than the ambient air quality standard, corinion sense would
recognize the need for a study of the situation, including modeling. It
could not reasonably be expected that violations would disappear by
themselves. If a source has voluntarily made some emission reduction
changes that eliminate violations, these changes need to be embodied
into regulation and then be made part of the approved State Implementa-
tion Plan (SIP) control strategy. The approval of such emission limits
as part of a SIP must be based on an adequate demonstration that ambient
air quality standards will be protected. Such a demonstration must
include a dispersion modeling analysis under worst case conditions.
If you have any other questions, please let me know.
107
7—3
-------
CO ST 4
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON 0 C 2 450
APR 2 1 83
OFFICE OF
AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: S ction 107 Designation Policy Summary
FROM: Sheldon Meyers, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (ANR-443)
TO: Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Regions II—IV, VI—Vill, X
Director, Air Management Division
Regions I, V, IX
On February 3, 1983, the Agency published a Federal Register notice
regarding the status of all areas designated nonattainment under Part D
of the Clean Air Act. This notice indicated that for a significant
number of nonattainment areas States are anticipated to be able to
demonstrate attainment of the primary national ambient air quality standards.
Accordingly, for those areas, States have been encouraged to update their
Section 107 designations. In addition, a number of nonattainment areas were
identified in the February 3, 1983, notice as “unlikely to attain standards.”
The Federal Register also stated that the basic existing policy will generally
be continued for redesignation. This memorandum summarizes and clarifies
existing policy for reviewing designations and provides new guidance on
processing these actions.
Policy For Reviewing 107 Designations
1. Data: In general, all available information relative to the attainment
status of the area should be reviewed. These data should include the most
recent eight (8) consecutive quarters of quality assured, representative
ambient air quality data plus evidence of an implemented control strategy
that EPA had fully approved. Supplemental information, including air
quality modeling emissions data, etc., should be used to determine if
the monitoring data accurately characterize the worst case air quality
in the area. Also, the following items can be considered in special
situations.
An attainment designation can be made using only the most recent four (4)
quarters of ambient data if an acceptable state of the art modeling analysis
(such as city—specific EKMA for ozone) is provided showing that the ba_sic
SIP strategy is sound and that actual, enforceable emission reductions are
responsi5le for ‘ he recent air quality improverneni .
107
-------
2
For nonattainment designations which were originally based solely on
modeling, redesignation to attainment is possible even if less than four (4)
quarters of ambient data are available provided that a reference modeling
analysis considering the sources’ legal emission limits shows attainment of
the standards. Information must also be presented showing that the sources
causing the problem are in compliance with the enforceable SIP measures.
Although the current ozone standard implies the need for three years
of data for attainment designations, two years of data with no exceedances
is an acceptable surrogate. As discussed previously, this should be
accompanied by evidence of an implemented control strategy that EPA had
fully approved.
2. Projected Future Violations : Projections of future violations can
provide the basis for continuing nonattainment designations. This
concept is particularly important because of the current economic downturn.
Information submitted to support attainment redesignations must adequately
and accurately reflect anticipated operating rates. Areas should remain
nonattainment where such projections reveal air quality violations.
3. Modeling : In most S02 cases, monitoring data alone will not be
sufficient for areas dominated by point sources. A small number of ambient
monitors usually is not representative of the air quality for the entire
area. Dispersion modeling employing the legally enforceable SO 2 SIP limits
will generally be necessary to evaluate comprehensively the sources’ impacts
as well as to identify the areas of highest concentrations. If either the
modeling or monitoring indicates that S02 air quality standards are being
violated, the area should remain nonattainment.
4. Boundaries : Current policies on appropriate boundaries for designation
of nonattainment areas by EPA remain in effect, i.e., generally political
boundaries such as city or county for TSP and SO 2 , county as a minimum for
rural ozone, entire urbanized area and fringe areas of development for
urban ozone, and urban core area for CO. When States redesignate, EPA
will continue to accept reasonable boundaries which are supported by
appropriate data, such as specific new monitoring and/or modeling data or
evidence of improvement due to control strategy implementation. Nonattain-
ment areas for ozone should include the significant VOC sources.
5. Dispersion Techniques : Areas which are projected to attain the TSP
or S02 standards because of the use of unauthorized dispersion techniques
should continue to be designated as nonattainment.
107
8—2
-------
3
Policy for Processing 107 Redesignations
1. SIP Review Actions : Section 107 designations have generally been
classified as minor actions, with only a few of the more significant
ones being processed as moderate. En the future, redesignations of Tier II
nonattainment areas should be classified as major actions so that they
can receive a comprehensive review to help ensure regional consistency.
Redesignation of Tier I nonattainment areas should continue to be handled
as minor or moderate actions, as appropriate.
2. “ Unclassifiable” Areas : Since EPA and the States have had nearly five
years to resolve discrepancies for nonattainment designations, it is now
inappropriate to redesignate any area from nonattainment to unclassi-
fiable. There has been ample time since the first designations were made
in 1978 to thoroughly study each nonattainment area. Sufficient data
should now exist to either make a redesignation to attainment or to keep
the nonattainment designation.
If you have any questions, please contact Tom Helms at (FIS) 629-5526.
cc: Regional Administrator, Regions I—X
Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I-X
107
8—3
-------
Section 110: Implementation Plans
-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 110
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 110
* PN11O—78—02—24—002
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
* PN11O—78—03—24—003
PLANS UNDER SECTION hiD OF ThE CLEAN AIR ACT
* PN11O—78—07—17—007
INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE POLICY
* PN11O—79—04—04—015
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS (FR CITATION)
* PN].i0—79—06—14—016
LEAD SIPS
* PN11O—79—07—02—017
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS
FOR NONATTAINNENT AREAS - SUPPLEMENT (ON PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL)
* PN11O—79—09—17—020
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS
FOR NONATTAINNENT AREAS - (SUPPLEMENT ON CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES)
(FR CITATION)
* PN11O—79—11—21—023
MINIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES FOR DETERMINING QUARTERLY AVERAGE LEAD
CONCENTRATION
* PN11O—80—01—10—023A
ALTERNATE PROCEDURE FOR SECTION 110(F) RELIEF IN LOCALIZED, SHORT TERN
ENERGY EMERGENCIES
* PN11O—80—03—10—030
EMISSION OFFSET REQUIREMENTS IN SECONDARY STANDARD TOTAL SUSPENDED
PARTICULATE PLANS
* PN11O—80—04—08—032
NEW SOURCE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR LEAD
* PN11O—80 —05—09—034A
CLARIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR INCLUSION OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION
MONITORING PROVISIONS IN STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
* PN11O—80—07—31—039
APPLICABILITY OF VOC CONTROL TECHNIQUE GUIDELINES (CTGS) TO THE
AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
I ,
-------
Page No. 2
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 110
(VOLUME 1)
* PN11O—80—08—04—040
APPLICABILITY OF PAPER COATING, FABRIC COATING, AND GRAPHIC ARTS CTGS
* PN11O—80—08—08—041
THE BUBBLE POLICY AND STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT
SECTION hiD
* P14110—80—09—25—043
INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF SIP REVISIONS
* P14110—80—10—23—044
GROWTh RESTRICTIONS IN SECONDARY NAAQS NONATTAINMENT AREAS
* P14110—81—07—22—052
EXPERIMENTAL STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) PROCESSING TECHNIQUES
* PN11O—81—11—09—055
NEW PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
* P14110—82—06—23—059
REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-NEW SIP PROCESSING PROCEDURES TO SAVE TIME AND
RESOURCES (FR CITATION)
* PN11O—82—08—h1—060
REVIEW OF 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
* PN11O—82—11—24—061
SIP ACTIONS AND TOXIC POLLUTANTS
* P14110—83—03—18—063
LETTER TO HARRY H. HOVEY RE EPA POLICY WITH REGARD TO AMBIENT AIR
* P14110—83—05—27—064
SUMMARY OF NAAQS INTERPRETATION
* P14110—77—07—08—065 /
(CITATION OF FR NOTICE ENTITLED “RECOMMENDED POLICY ON CONTROL OF
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS”)
* P14110—79—06—18—066 /
REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION AND SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTAT]
PLANS: INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONSULTATION (FR CITATION)
* P14110—80—07—22—067 ‘7
(CITATION OF FR NOTICE ON SOLVENT REACTIVITIES)
-------
Page No. 3
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 110
(VOLUME 1)
* PN11O—83—05—26—068
DEFINITION OF AMBIENT AIR FOR LEAD
* PN11O—84—11—28—069
CORRECTING ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION MODEL RESULTS TO STANDARD TEMPERATURE
AND PRESSURE
* PN11O—85—01—02—070
REGIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF MODELING GUIDANCE ‘/‘
* PN11O—85—08—27—07].
CLASSIFICATION OF BENZENE AS A VOC I
* PN11O-85—12—16—072
BASELINE TIME PERIODS FOR VOC TRANSFER EFFICIENCY CREDITS /
* PN11O—83—03—14—087
ISSUES ON LEAD SIPS
-------
UNITED STATES ENVI ONMEN AL ?RCTECTION ACENC
14 MAR 1983
Sue
Issues on Lead SIP’s PN 110—83-03—14-087
r OM
G. 1. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch (MD—iS)
•T O
Conrad Simon, Director
Air and Waste Management Division, Region II
Thank you for your memorandum of January 11, and Bill Baker’s
memorandum of February 9, 1983, on the status of lead SIP’s in your
Region. In those memorandums, you also raised several issues to which I
would like to respond.
Attainment and maintenance——In response to a petition by three
primary lead smelters in Missouri , EPA Is expected shortly to propose to
revise EPA’s policy on the Interpretation of an attainment date 1 Under
that expected change, an attainment date for a criteria pollutant (other
tnan those covered by Title I, Part D, of the Clean Air Act) would be
three years from the date EPA actually approves (or proaiilgates) a SIP
for that pollutant. Thus the record date ’ (i.e., the date of EPA
approval) for each SIP would be different. While States are projecting
their emissions, they will not know in advance the date of EPA approval.
Therefore, they will have to estimate their date of submission to EPA
and then add seven months to allow for Z?A processing time (under the
“5-2/5—2’ system for processing Federal Register notices). Adding three
years beyond that will yield the estimated attainment date. While the
revised policy on attainment dates Is still technically under development,
other States are assuming that the policy will eventually be issued and
are basing their attainment dates on the anticipated policy. In one such
case——Pennsylvania——EPA will propose to take no action on the attainment
date until EPA’s policy is issued. When the revised policy is issued,
EPA would then approve the attainment date specified in the plan.
0 Suuriary of Pb air quality data since January 19 74 --We agree that
only air quality data collected since January 1, 1978 , need be submitted
with SIP’s now being developed. We believe, however, that considering
only the last two years of data In developing a control strate ’ may be
misleading. For Instance, low levels of production at major stationary
sources during th. last two years of economic stagnation may have resulted
in failure to Identify an ambient lead problem that would exist If the
sources were to Increase production. Therefore, as a con rom1se, we
reconmiend: (a) considering the last three years of air quality data (1980,
1981, and 1982) In control strate ’ development If sources in the analysis
area were operatIng close to capacity or If there are no significant
stationary sources, and (b) considering air quality back to January 1,
1978, where the sources were not operating close to capacity. Since these
recon nendations conflict with the letter of the regulation, we will have to
check with OGC on how to in lement4these reconinendations legally.
!PA F..— I32 .4 (ts,. 3.7
-------
2
° Reentrained dust from paved roadways-—You have been asked wnether
this area source is being double counted, since emissions from the tail-
pipe are already being considered. It is true that tailpipe emissions
contribute to loca1 ambient air concentrations of lead before the lead
particles settle out. Once the particles settle out on highway pavement,
however, vehicular traffic will cause them to be resuspended in the air.
The emission factors for tailpipe emissions were developed based on
actual measurements of lead emissions from tailpipes of automobiles.
Thus, these emissions would exist even if resuspension did not occur.
On the other hand, the emission factor for reentrained dust was based on
tests in which ambient concentrations were measured upwind and downwind
of roadways; dispersion models were ‘run backwards’ to back—calculate
emissions that would cause the measured concentrations; the estimated
emissions were then reduced by the calculated tailpipe emissions to yield
the reentrained fraction. The reentralned fraction Is partially dependent
on the tailpipe emissions, h ever; as tailpipe emissions diminish over
time as a result of decreased lead in gasoline, the amount of lead
particles that settle out on highway pavement——and any resulting emissions
from their resuspension——will also decline. In su nary. inclusion of
reentrained lead dust from roadways in the lead emission inventory is not
‘double counting.’
You also noted that a State might not Include reentralned road dust as
a line item in the emission inventory even though it may consider this as
an area source when modeling. This practice appears acceptable.
Air quality dispersion modeling——You indicated that current
modeling techniques would have to be modified If States had to determine
the impact of emissions from a combination of line, area, and point
sources of lead. This is not necessarily so. There are several cases
that may occur:
1. Isolated point source with a f roads nearby and fugitive
area sources on plant procerty . Currently, the Industrial Source Comp1ex
CISC) model wlfl handle this confi jration (point, line, and area). A
background lead air quality concentration would have to be considered.
EPA’s Guideline on Air Quality Models (EPA-450/2-78-027), pp. 34—37,
provides techniques for estimating background concentrations.
2. Point source in the middle of a substantial road network .
In this situation, it is better to consider the lead concentrations that
result from the road network as background and model the source and any
nearby major roadways separately using. the ISC. Two cases come to mind
in applying the Guideline’s techniques for estimating background:
a. If air quality data are available that are representative
of the roadway network in the vicinity of the plant, but not Influenced
by emissions from that plant, those data can be used as the baseline
background concentration.
-------
3
b. If air quality data representative of the roaaway network
In the vicinity of the plant are not available, the agency should obtain
data that are representative of a similar roadway network that is located
elsewhere and also not Influenced by lead point sources. The agency
should use those iata as the baseline background concentrations.
In either (a) or (b), the baseline background concentration rI’IJst be
proportionately reduced to account for the reduction of mobile source
lead emissions over the period ending with the attainment date.
3. Several nearby point sources——Page 35 of the Guideline on
Air Quality Models states that the “in act of nearby sources rm.ist be
sunmed for locations where Interactions between the effluents of the
point source under consideration and those of nearby sources can occur.
In suimnary, we do not see the need for modified models to account
for the above situations since the ISC and the modeling Guideline appear
to address them.
° Calculation of grams per mile of lead emissions from mobile sources— —
You indicated that States need information regarding the effects of the
recent changes in the Federal regulation of lead In gasoline and changes
In projected vehicle mix that have taken place since 1979. We recently
have asked the Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control to revise
the methodology for projecting iobile source lead emissions In light of
the recent regulation and other Information. This information will be
forwarded to the Regional Offices when it is available, which will probably
be around April. Until that guidance is Issued, States can use the
former method for projecting mobile source emissions of lead (which will
likely over—predict emissions) or develop their own methods to account
for the recent changes.
o Transporation control strategy development——You Indicated that States
need addidonal information on the effectiveness of various transportation
control measures If mobile sources ni.ist be considered in the development
of a contro’ strategy. We anticipate that mobile source lead emissions
will not contribute significantly to any violation of the national arithient
air quality standard for lead anywhere In the United States because of
the Federal requirement for reducing lead in gasoline and the other
Federal program that result in reduced automotive lead emissions. If,
however, an area mist Institute a transportation control strategy for
attainment of another criteria pollutant (e.g., carbon monoxide or ozone),
credit for reduced vehicle miles traveled that result from that control
strategy can and should be taken Into consideration In calculating mobile
source lead emissions. te. however, that an increase In the average
veh1 je speed a result of that control strategy will wart to increase
mobil j p l i 4 e1Qn$
• Lead point source definition for significant sources-—Your interpretatiot
is correct——analysis and dispersion modeling are required for the wsignlficanl
source categories listed In 40 CFR 51.80 and 51.84 only if their actual
emissions of lead equal or exceed five tons per year.
-------
4
0 Statewide inventory develoornent——Vour analysis is correct——we would
not recorrinend disapproval of a lead SIP for failure to provide a statewide
emission inventory, despite my memorandum of June 14, 1979, to the Regi ‘1
Air Branch Chiefs.
I trust that this memorandum replies to your issues satisfactorily.
Because these issues and our replies are of general interest to the other
Regional Offices, I am sending copies of this memorandum to them.
cc: Air and Waste Management Division Director, Regions I, III—X
Lead Contacts, Regions 14
U. Baker
3. Calcagnl
3. Sableskl
3. SIlvasi
J. Ulfelder
R. Wilson
-------
PN 110-85-12-16-072
OSI4,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711

DEC 161385
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Baseline Time Periods for VOC Transfer Efficiency Credits
FROM: G. 1. Helms, Chief -
Control Programs Operations Branch (MD-15)
TO: Thomas 3. Maslany, Chief
Air Enforcement Branch, Region III
This is in response to your recent request for assistance and guidance
concerning the setting of a baseline time period for the State to determine
an industry norm (for the miscellaneous metal source category concerned)
for volatile organic compound (VOC) transfer efficiency crecflt.
As you are aware, at the time the control technique guideline documents
were issued, emission reductions due to transfer efficiency were not
considered as a credit. The main consideration at that time was that
source categories would apply control technology (low solvent technology
or conventional add—on controls) that was reasonably available.
In view of this, it is our opinion that the baseline time period for
determining transfer efficiency credit be established as the date the
State adopted the regulation.
Any transfer efficiency credit should relate to improvements in
transfer efficiency beyond the industry/category norm appropriate for the
subject source made subsequent to the date noted above. Transfer efficiency
credit would only be allowed to the extent that reductions in emissions
beyond reasonably available control technology were achieved.
Requests for transfer efficiency credit must be ubmitted as State
implementation plan revisions.
Should you have any questions, please contact me (FTS 629—5526).
cc: R. Campbell, OAQPS Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
R. Ossias, OGC VOC Regulatory Contacts, Regions I-X
D. Tyler, CPDD VOC Enforcement Contacts, Regions I—X
-------
PN 110-85-08-27-071
lE0 S74p
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
______ Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
4 L g 1t
AUG 27 1985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Classification of Benzene as V C -
FR(11: Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development ivisi (MD-15)
TO: thief, Air Branch, Regions I—X
Several Regions have inquired as to the classification of benzene as
a volatile organic compound (VOC). This memorandum is intended to reiterate
(see memorandum from Walter C. Barber, Director, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, to Stephen Wassersug, Director, Air and Hazardous
Materials Division, Region III, dated July 8, 1980) the Agency’s position
with regard to exe içtion of this organic compound from control as a VOC
in an ozone nonattainment State implementation plan.
Benzene has been indicated as having only negligible photochernical
reactivity (see uRecommended Policy on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds,”
42 FR 35314, dated July 8, 1977). However, under Section 112 of the
Clean Air Act, EPA has officially listed benzene as a hazardous pollutant
(see 42 FR 29332, dated June 8, 1977). Therefore, any exemption of this
compound should be discouraged because of the associated air toxics
implications. Exenpting toxic compounds such as this or encouraging
solvent substitutions involving toxic air pollutants does not represent
sound environmental policy.
We recommend that you adhere to the July 8, 1977, policy on the
control of volatile organic compounds and only exe t those compounds
that have been specifically exempted either in the recommended policy or
by listing in the Federal Register .
Should you have any questions concerning this memorandum, please
contact Tom Helms, Control Programs Development Division (FTS 629—5526).
At t acPinent $
cc: R. Campbell B. J. Steigerwald
G. Emison VOC Contact, Regions I—X
NOTE: Attachments not included In the
Policy and Guidance Notebook.
-------
PM 1iO_85_O1_02-070
qiD St
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
( Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
‘ , / search Triangle Park. North Carolina 2771 1
4 a
January 2, 1985
I EMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regional Implementation of Modeling Guidance
FROM: Joseph A. Tikvart, Chief -
Source Receptor Analysis ranch, MDAD (MD-14)
TO: Regional Modeling Contact, Regions I—X
Attached for your use Is information on the implementation of modeling
guidance. Attachment 1 Is an excerpt of a memorandum from 3. Wilburn to D. Tyler
(dated November 13, 1984) which Identifies several issues. Attachment 2
pr3vides our response to these issues.
It is our Intent that the response merely reiterate the way in which we
understand modeling guidance to be routinely implemented by all Regional Offices.
however, having formalizea that understanding we believe tnat its circulation
is desirable. if you have any questions, please call me.
Attachments
cc: Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions, I—X
B. Turner
ID. Wilson
-------
Attachment 1
(Excerpt of Memorandum from 3. Wil urn to D. Tyler, Dated November 13, 1984).
As discussed in this memo, we are quite concerned as to our credibility
regarding the development and approval of SIP revisions and bubbles which
consider complicated and involved modeling. While our Armco experience may
be viewed by some as atypical, we feel that the problem Is real enough to the
point that we request guidance on the following three questions:
1. When do changes in EPA modeling procedures become official Agency
policy? Do such forms as informal modeling protocols and consensus
opinions developed at meteorologist meetings and workshops constitute
official Agency policy? If so, how is management at the regional
division and branch level informed of those decisions (i.e., are such
decisions communicated by policy memorandum or must regional manage-
ment be dependent upon regional participants at such meetings and
workshops to accurately convey OAQPS s policy decisions)?
2. How do changes in Agency modeling policy affect In progress modeling
analyses? Do policy changes in modeling procedures Invalidate
modeling protocols which accurately reflected modeling policy at the
initiation of ongoing modeling analyses? If so, we would appreciate
copies of all policy memorandums which communicated such policies.
3. Will it be necessary in order for Armcoes bubble application to be
concurred with by OAQPS, for Region IV to require Armco to submit a
fourth revision to their modeling procedures which would provide an
analysis of the 46 days with more than 6 hours of calm which have
thus far been deleted for the submittal pursuant to the original
protocol? If so, we would like an explanation of the rationale for
this requirement in light of our discussion In this memo.
-------
Attachment 2
(Excerpt of Memorandum from R. Rhoads to J. Wilburn, Dated December 24, 1984)
Regarding your first question: Changes In EPA modeling procedures
become official Agency guidance when (1) they are published as regulations
or guidelines, (2) they are formally transmitted as guidance to Regional
Office managers, (3) they are formally transmitted to Regional Modeling
Contacts as the result of a Regional consensus on technical issues, or
(4) they are a result of decisions by the Model Clearinghouse that effec-
tively set a national precedent. In the last case, such issues and deci-
sions are routinely forwarded to all of the Regional Modeling Contacts.
In order for this system to work, the Regional Modeling Contacts must be
actively involved in all Regional modeling Issues and they must be con-
sulted on modeling guidance as necessary by other Regional personnel.
Regarding your second question: The time at which changes in
modeling guidance affect on-going modeling analyses is a function of the
type of agreement under which those analyses are being conducted. On-going
analyses should normally be “grandfathered” if (1) there is a written pro-
tocol with a legal or regulatory basis (such as the Lovett Power Plant) or
(2) the analysis Is complete and regulatory action is imminent or underway.
If the analysis is based on a less formal agreement and is underway, the
Regional Office should inform the source operators of the change and deter-
mine whether the change can be implemented without serious disruption to
the analysis. If for some reason any previous analysis must be redone,
then It should be redone in accordance with current modeling guidance. In
any event, consequences of failing to implement current guidance should be
discussed with the OAQPS staff (Heims/Tikyart) to ensure that inappropriate
commitments are not made by the Regional Office.
Regarding your third question: As previously discussed with your
staff, the recent Armco modeling analysis is technically inadequate and
not approvable so long as the approximately 46 days with calms are
ignored. At the time the originarprotocol was developed, the deletion
of calms was common practice because we had no consensus on technically
valid procedures for addressing calms. However, (largely due to the
assistance of RO IV staff in developing a technical solution to the
calms issue) this practice was discontinued by consensus of the Regional
Modeling Contacts who recommended immediate Implementation of the new
procedures (see Joe Tlkvart’s June 13, 1983, memo to Regional Modeling
Contacts). The subsequent Armco analysis which Ignored calms was, there-
fore, deficient since there is no rationale for “grandfatherlng” an analy-
sis which was Initiated after the new calms guidance was disseminated.
This issue Is no longer an issue since Armco has already submitted a
reanalysis that addresses the calms Issue.
-------
PN 110-84-11-28-069
November 28, 1984
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Correcting Atmospheric Dispersion Model Results to Standard
Temperature .and Pressure
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division (MD—14)
TO: Robert L. Duprey, Director
Air and Waste Management Division, Region VIII (8AW—AP)
We have considered your request on whether atmospheric dispersion
model estimates should be corrected to standard temperature and pressure
Conditions (SIP). Given the manner In which the SO 2 ambient air quality
standards are written, and to be Consistent with the handling of
monitoring data, it could be reasoned that the correction of model
estimates to SIP should be made.
From a historical standpoint, we can find no indication from our
records that we have provided written guidance on correcting model
estimates to STP. To provide additional background information, we
contacted all the other Regional Offices to find out what their current
policies are. In most cases the possible need to correct to SIP has
not arisen and in no case has a correction been made, other than possibly
in your Region.
Considering the historical precedent and how other Regions are
handling the SIP issue I do not believe It Is wise to institute a new
nationwide policy at this time. However, If a State wishes to make the
SIP correction, I would have no objection, since they have the right to
be more stringent than EPA.
If you have any questions please contact me.
cc: T. Helms
R. Neligan
Pt. Trutna
bcc: Regional Modeling Contacts, Regions I—X
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PN 110-83-05-26-068
)A1 2 C M’i icc:
SuBJECrDefjflitjofl of Ambient Air for ead
RoMDarryl D. Tyler, Director&
Control Programs Development Division (MD—15)
ToAllyn Davis, Director
Air & Waste Management Division, Region VI
This is in response to your memorandum of May 23, 1983, to
Sheldon Meyers. In that memorandum, you indicated that the Texas Air
Control Board TACB) believes that an ambient lead monitor in El Paso
is not loc teJ in the ambient air, and therefore the data from that
monitor should not be used to develop a control strategy for lead.
The monitor is located at the International Boundary Water
Commission’s (IBWC) property, about 1000 feet from the edge of the property
of ASARCO’s primary lead smelter. TACB believes that the monitor is not
in the ambient air because public exposure at the IBWC property woud at
most be only daily for a period of not more than eight hours, and there-
fore no one person is expected to be at the IBWC site continuously for a
full three months, the exposure time ir ,nerent in the lead standard.
TACB’s logic runs counter to EPA’s policy on ambient air. In
40 CFR 50.1(e), ambient air includes “that portion of the atmosphere,
external to buildings, to which the general public has access.” That
definition does not account for any tune limitation or averaging time.
Regardless of whether member of the public is expected to rer’ nn at
a particular place for a specific period of time, ambient air is aefined
in terms of public access , not frequency of access, length of stay, age
of the person or other limit3tions. The only exemption n EPA pohcy to
compliance with the provisions of ambient air is for the atmosphere over
land owned or controlled by the source and to which public access is
precluded by a fence or other physical barriers. Since ASARCO does not
own the site of the IBWC monitor, it clearly falls within our definition
of ambient air.
Furthermore, any monitor can give only an estimate of the actual
maximum concentration of a pollutant in the vicinity of the monitor.
There may actually be higher concentrations of lead in the area oetween
ASARCO’s boundary an the IBWC monitor, such as on the highway triat run..
between the ASARCO smelter property and the IBWC property. The general
public may have more frequent or longer access to this location than to
the IBWC property itself. Therefore, t ie fact that the general public
may not be expected to remain at the IB ,4C site itself continuously for
three months is no reason to di al1ow tne use of the monitor’s data for
developing a control strategy.
C
EPA o m 1320.6 (Re.. 3-76)
-------
Please feel free to call me or G. 1. Helms in this Division if you
have any further questions on this matter.
cc: J. Calcagni
J. Divita
K. Greer
T. Helms
J. Silvasi
D. Stonefield
J. Ulfelder
-------
PN 110—80-07-22-067
In order to conserve space, the Federal Register notice entitled:
Air Ouality; Clarification of Agency Policy Concerning
Ozone SIP Revisions and Solvent Reactivities (45 FR 48941)
Is not included in the Air Programs Policy and iuidance Notebook.
Please refer to this notice for EPA policy/guidance related to this
subject.
-------
PN 110-79-06-18-066
En order to conserve space, the Federal Register notice entitled:
Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans; Intergovernmental Consultation
(44 FR 35176, June 18, 1979)
s not included in the Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook. Please
efer to this notice for EPA policy/guidance related to this subject.
-------
PN 110-77-07—08-065
In order to conserve space, the Federal Register notice entitled:
Recommended Policy on Control of Volatile Organic
Compounds (42 FR 35314, July 8, 1977)
is not included in the Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook.
Please refer to this notice for EPA policy/guidance related to this
subject.
-------
PN 110-82-06-23-059
Federal Register / Vol 47. No 121 / Wednesday, June 23 1982 / Rules and Regulations 27073
SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is
to inform the public of EPA efforts to
shorten and streamline the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) review
process Specific new SIP processing
procedures, discussed in an earlier
rederal Register notice (September 4,
1q81. 46 FR 44476). are described, as are
the results of an EPA study of their
effectiveness.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John Calcagni, Chief, Plans Analysis
Section, Control Programs Operations
Branch, MD—15, Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Pdrk, North Carolina, 27711. (919) 541—
5665. FTS b29—5665
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Over the
p.ist sevei,il years. nurncgous concerns
hdve been raised both within EPA and
the air pollution control community in
general regarding the time and
complexities involved in processing SIP
revisions On July 22. 1981. as a result of
these concerns, EPA initiated a national
expeiirnental SIP processing program
designed to improve and enhance the
SIP process The program aimed at
shortening the time necessary to
complete rulemaking actions, avoiding
unnecessary 1 ’.PA review, providing the
State’ svitli EPA’s formal comments on d
ninety bdsis, and reducing the
Ufl( ci talilty States and industry kit
ie .irding IPA’s position on specific
‘“sues
At least 40 percent of all SIP revisions
processed between July 22. 1981, and
January 5, 1982, were processed using
one of three processing techniques To
determine the effectiveness of the
techniques. EPA conducted d study
comparing the existing system of
piocessirig SIP’s to these new
ptoce’dures ‘fhe results of the study
showed the new processes not only
saved significant amounts of time, but
generated an overwhelmingly positive
response within EPA and without As a
result, EPA is instituting these
procedures on a permanent basis
The following are descriptions of
___________________________________ these processing techniques and the
re’siilts of 1’.PA’s study to determine their
40 CFR Part 52 frt’i t,v’ness
I/ 0 FflL 2153-4j Parallel Processing
Iii the past. StP revisions were
Requtrements for Preparation, developed between the States and EPA
Adoption, and Submittal ol State through independent releinaking
tmplemcntation Plans. New SIP processes First, he State would
Processing P ocedures T Save Time . elop and adopt a ncgu ’aiiOn
and Resources iillo s’ , , its administrative piocedures
AGENCY Fiis iri,ni:ic’nt,jt I’rotocii&in I hen it would be submitted to l PA for
i} p\l I edetat ,ippruv,il/disapprovol action
I hi sequential/independent rutem kiuig
—— poLes’, oFten ted to tenSion het vciii t ie
110
59-1
-------
27074 Federal Register I Vol 47, No. 121 / Wednesday. June 23, 1q82 I Rules and Regulations
State and EPA. The total review piocess
was lengthy and there were many
opportunities for false stat Is,
miscommunication. and
misunderstanding over the approval of a
SIP revision, even though the State may
have spent a considerable amount of
time developing and adopting the
regulation. in some cases, if significant
changes were required by EPA, the State
would have to repeat its rulemaking
process.
Parallel processing was first
implemented in April 1981 in EPA
Region I In July 1981, the progiurn was
expanded to include all EPA Regions.
Using the parallel processing procedure
the EPA Regional Office works closely
with the State us at develops a major
regulation and proceeds through the
State rulemaking process. Whenever
possible, the State and EPA propose the
regulation at the same time, announce
concurrent comment periods, and jointly
review the comments. ‘rhe EPA Regional
Office will consult with all other
appropriate EPA offices as the
regulation is being developed and during
the State and Federal rulemaking
process to ensure that all issues are
identified before the State adopts the
regulation.
If the State or EPA receives no
comments that would necessitate
signilicant changes to the reguldtion. it
witl be adopted by the State and
submitted to EPA The State-adopted
regulation will then be processed by
EPA as a final rulemaking If significant
changes must be made to the proposed
regulation due to comments during the
public comment period. EPA would have
to repropose the regulation.
EPA rulemaking to incorporate a State
regulation in a Sit’ may also be initiated
when a rule has been proposed by the
State but not yet adopted This will
allow the total Federal/State processing
time to be reduced in cases where State
rulemakiilg has progressed too far to
allow the ideal parallel processing
procedure
To test the effectiveness of the
parallel processing technique. EPA had
to first find out the average time it took
to process a SIP using previously
established procedures A random
selection of 137 typical SIP ievisions
processed between 1978 and October
1981 were analyzed Using existirg
procedures, it took an average of 425
calendar days from the tune the SIP
revision was submitted to EPA by the
State until it was published aS a final
rulemaking in the l’ederah Register
A SIP revision plot e scd between
April 1981 and January 1982. using the
parallel processing technique, took an
average of 128 calendar days from the
time it was submttted to EPA until the
final rulemaking was published in he
Federal Register. Thus, the processing
time was reduced by 297 days.
In conclusion, paiallol processing is
not appropriate for all SIP revisions But
when issues are clearly understood and
the expected State action is well
defined, employing such an approach
can save in excess of 60 percent of the
normal processing time.
Immediate Final Rulemaking
The immediate final rulemaking SIP
processing approach was first used in
June 1981 In I’PA Region IV In July 1981.
the program WdS expanded to include
all Regions
Previously established procedures
required that all SIP revisions be
proposed for public comment before
going to final rulemaking The comment
period could be 30 or hO days depending
on the anticipated public interest in the
revision Because of the straightforward
nature of some actions, or the
narrowness of their scope, many SIP
revisions get few, ii any, comments from
the public during the comnient period
Therefore, as part of EPA’s new SiP
processing program. a SIP re siort that
is ludged by EPA to be noncunirova rsial
and where no adverse public comments
arc anticipated. will be published as a
final rulemaking without first going
through a proposed rulemaking phase
The public will be advised that no
comments are anticipated and that.
unless notice is received within 30 days
that someone wishes to submit adverse
or critical comments, the rulemaking
will be effective 60 days from the date
the notice is published if notice is
received that someone wishes to submit
adverse or critic.al comments, the final
rulemaking notice will be wubdiawn
and a proposed rulemaking notice will
be published The proposed rulemaking
notice wilt establish a comment period
As of January 5. 1982. 90 SIP revisions
had been processed using the immediate
final iulemakir.g approach Less than
five percent of these wc c withdrawn
becaase notice was ieceived that
someone wished to submit adveise or
ciitical comments To determine the
effectiveness of this technique. thin 90
SIP revisions ihut were processed using
it were compared to 81 SIP jevisions
processed between 1978 and October
1901 using previously established
pioceduics The 81 SIP revisions used in
the compai son tud fbi ici ftvf
110
59-2
comments duiing their proposed
rulemaking and therefore it was
assumed that most of them could have
been processed using the immediate
final rulemaking approach. The average
processing time for the SIP revisions
using existing processing procedures
was 419 calendar days Using the
immediate final rulemaking approach, it
took an average of 161 calendar days
Thus, there was an average savings of
258 days to process a SiP revision using
this technique
Other Agency Actions
EPA has also implemented a number
of administrative measures to
streamline internal Agency review. One
of these measures, which was first
implemented as an experimental
processing technique in EPA f gion V in
April 1981 and expanded in July 19131 to
include all Regions. eliminates
dupicative reviews by EPA
Headquarters olfices of SIP revisions
that do not change significantly daring
their proposed rulemaking This
technique saved art average of 149
caletidar days in processing time
Because use of these procedures has
been found to save considerable time as
well as rcsources. EPA intends, to use
them whenever possible to more
efficiently process SIP revisions Parallel
processing will be used for mator SIP
revisions that are likely to require
coordination and cooperation between
the State and EPA to identify and
resolve issues and to make policy
determinations in a more expedient
manner Immediate final rulemaking will
be used to process SIP revisions that dre
noncontroversial and are not likely to
elicit public comments Finally, EPA
I leadqiiai lers has eliminated its review
of final rulemaking notices for SIP
revisions that do not change
significantly during their proposed
rulemaking EPA guideline documents
for processing SIP revisions will be
updated to reflect these changes
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control. Ozone. Sulfur
oxides. Nitrogen dioxide. Lead,
Particulate matter. Carbon monoxide.
ilydiocarbons
L).iied tune It 19112
Kuihicen ht Beneti,
Assistant Ad,na,,,strntor for Air. Noise &
RucI,o lion
i C iio , - ii.9Y7 I kd 6— -E a 41 mI
OiLLiHC COOS 6 560-50 M
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE AU6 1 1 9 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
.1 8 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 110—82 —08_11_060
.JBJECT Review of 1982 Ozone and CO SIP’s
FROM Darryl D. Tyler, Acting Director
Control Programs Development Division
TO Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Regions II-IV, VI-Vill, X
Director, Air Management Division
Regions I, V, I
We have recerved a n ber of questions from Regions regarding their
1982 carbon no* de (CC) and QZOfl State Implementation Plan (SIP)
reviews. In order to assure consistency among Regions, we intend to
periodical1 prepare questions and answers and distribute them to all
Regions. This is the first memorandum, of that series, which has been
reviewed and agreed upon by all affected Headquarters offices.
1. What are the criteria for approval ?
The statutory requirements are spelled out in Sections 110 and 171
to 178 of the Clean Air Act. The criteria for approval were published
in EPA’s policy statement in the January 22, 1981, Federal P j ter.
While we intend to be appropriately flexible in so far as the law will
allow, there are four conditions which cannot be violated for approval.
These four essential conditions for plan approval are: the plan must
show attainment of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) by
1987, the plan must include an approvable inspection/maintenance (I/M)
program for all urban areas over 200,000 population, the plan must show
reasonable further progress (REP) toward attainment, and the plan must
include schedules for the adoption and implementation of any incomplete
SIP elements.
We will not expect reasonably available control technology (RACT)
regulations for the stationary sources covered by the Group III control
technique guide’ine (CTG) documents until after EPA publishes the final
documents. Failure to complete the adoption of these regulations by
July 1, 1982 should not be a basis for disapproval. On the other
hand, SIP’s should Include regulations that provide for RACT on all
major stationary sources of VOC that are not covered by a CTG or the
plan should demonstrate that the existing level of control represents
RACT.
When addressing SIP deficiencies (except as noted below), the
Regions must make several findings before we can accept schedules. The
necessary findings are: RFP is maintained, the State has made a
reasonable effort to address the requirements in its July submittal, the
proposed schedule is as expeditious as practicable, the schedule
includes specific submittal dates to EPA, and the governor is personally
coirmitted to ensure that the schedule will be met.
110
60-1
EPA Fom 32O-6 (R. . 3-7 )
-------
2
2. What pecific action should Regions take on 1982 03 SIP’s that
are missing reg lations for the Group ill VOC sources ?
For most affected States, the “Approval Status” section of Part 52
includes a statement that “ . . . continued satisfaction of the require-
ments of Part D of the ozone portion of the SIP depends upon the adoption
and submittal . . . by each subsequent January of additional RACT require-
ments for sources covered by CTG’s issued by the previous January.”
Where appropriate, States
will remain in effect and will
missing regulations. If this
Regions should Incorporate It
plan.
should be advised that this requirement
establish the submittal date for the
language is not currently in Part 52,
when final approval action Is taken on the
cc: Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
Charles Elkins
Jack Hidinger
Sheldon Meyers
Ed Reich
Lydia Wegman
Richard Wilson
110
60-2
-------
PN 110—82—11—24—061
; i L’. TED STATES E \P3N\ E’ TAL ‘1 OTECTION AGENCY
:
OrFICr cr
I , 1.’
YA’ Z4;
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SIP Actions and To ic Pollutants
FROM:
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: David Kee, Director
Air Management Division, Region V
This is a follow-up to my July 30, 1982 memo to you regarding your
recommendation that the Agency disapprove any SIP action which would result
in an increase of any pollutant which the Agency is “actively considering”
for designation as a hazardous air pollutant. You suggested using our
current assessment list of 37 chemicals in implementing such a policy.
My staff, in conjunction with the interagency group working on the proposed
emissions trading policy statement, has examined your suggestion as well as
other options for restricting emission trades involving potentially hazardous
air pollutants. We have concluded that we should not attempt to broaden the
restrictions on emission trades or other SIP actions beyond those pollutants
listed under section 112 or health-based designated pollutants for which NSPS
have been promulgated under section 111. Currently, only sulfuric acid mist
would be in this latter category.
As a legal matter, we do not feel the Agency could sustain a SIP
disapproval for a compound just because it appears on a “candidates list.”
While there is some evidence for concern over the compounds on our list of 37,
our evaluations to date indicate that the health evidence on many will fall
far short of that needed to list under section 112 or regulate under section
111/111(d). It would be equally tenuous to impose SIP restrictions on toxic
compounds that are subject to regulation under other EPA programs or by
other Federal agencies or to rely on determinations made by independent
groups such as the Mierican Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
or the International Agency for Research on Cancer. We feel that an
official Agency finding of adverse health effects, according to criteria
and procedures specified under the Clean Air Act, would be needed to
support SIP disapprovals involving increases of toxic compounds. As you
may know, the Agency attempted to restrict SIP actions involving potential
toxics as part of its Recommended PoliCy on Control of Volatile Organic
Compounds FR :531;, July 8, 1977). The Agency was forccd to ‘etreat
from that policy statement for lack of an adequate legal foundation.
As a policy matter, I feel your suggestion would also be contrary to the
Administrator’s emphasis on having a credible scientific basis, including appro-
priate peer review of the science, for all the Agency’s regulatory actions. The
assessment list of 37 compounds does not meet this test.
-------
2
We feel that the most appropriate Agency position would be to recognize
that SIP actions that increase emissions of certain unlisted compounds may
be unwise and that the Agency should provide whatever information it has
available to assist the States in making their decision in such situations.
We plan to include a discussion to this effect in the preamble to the final
issuance of the Agency’s Emission Trading Policy Statement.
cc: 1. Scopino, SSCD
B. Sih, OGC
1. Stander, CPDD
I. Tether, OPRM
110
61-2
-------
PN 110-83-03-18-063
1AR 18 83
Mr. Harry H. Hovey, Jr. P.E.
Director, Division of Air
New York State Dept. of
Envi ronmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233
Dear Mr. Hovey:
In response to your letter of January 11, please be advised that
there has been no major change in EPA policy with regard to ambient air
and the associated requirements of a SIP demonstration. We have defined
“ambient air’ at 40 CFR §50.1(e) to include “that portion of the atmosphere,
external to buildings, to which the general public has access.” Our general
policy is that the only exemption to compliance with the provisions of
ambient air is for the atmosphere over land owned or controlled by the
source and to which public access is precluded by a fence or other physical
barriers.
The national ambient air quality standards are designed to protect
the public health and welfare and apply to all ambient air which does include
the rooftops and balconies of buildings accessible by the public. While
EPA has the responsibility to develop the air quality standards, the
States have the initial responsibility to implement them. In effect, the
States have the prime responsibility to protect public health and welfare.
While EPA considers ambient air to include elevated building receptor
sites, it is not practical to analyze the air quality at every such existing
location. Therefore, both EPA and the States must exercise their best
technical judgment as to when such sites must be evaluated so as to
protect public health and welfare. Thus, we do not expect States, in
most circumstances, to evaluate the impact on elevated building receptors.
However, if the State has reason to believe that such an evaluation is
necessary to protect public health and welfare, then it is incumbent upon
the State to conduct such an analysis.
110
63-1.
-------
2
I appreciate your interest in this issue and am willing to discuss
it further if you desire.
Sincerely yours,
Kathleen ti. Bennett
Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation
cc: R. Campbell
J. Schafer
I 1.0
63—2
-------
PN 110-83-05-27-064
S7 41
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
c I .? Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
2
the standard Itsel f dictate the ntsnber of signi ficant figures to be used
in comparisons... For the NAAQS promulgated in 1971, this meant that the
comparisons with the standard were to be made in terms of integer values
of ug/m 3 (or mg/rn 3 ) and it was stated that fractional parts of 0.5 were
to be rounded up. Extending this same approach to the lead standard, the
standard level of 1.5 ug/m 3 would mean that comparisons were to be made
to one decimal place and, In terms of the rounding convention, 1.55 ugfm 3
would round up to 1.6 ug/m 3 .
The ozone NAAQS was promulgated in 1979 and In this case the ppm
value of the level, 0.12 ppm, was stated first because we felt this was
more consistent with the way the data are actually measured. The associated
guideline for the ozone standard stated that ... 0.125 ppm is the nallest
concentration value in excess of the level of the standard.u In effect,
the s e principles for significant figures and rounding still apply but
the ppm value takes precedence for ozone. Although we anticipate that in
all of the revised NAAQS for the gaseous pollutants the ppm value would
be stated first, at the present time ozone is the only case w$iere the ppm
value takes precedence when determining exceedances.
Basically, these data handling conventions adequately define how we
determine exceedances. When calculations are done in measuroi ent units
other than the one that takes precedence in the IIAAQS, then the equivalent
level of the standard should be selected to ensure that the results will
be consistent. For exanpie, a daily maximwi ozone value of 236 ug/m 3
would not be counted as an exceedance of the ozone 1MQS because it is
less than 0.125 ppm. The appropriate conversion factors between ppm and
ug/rri 3 are 2620 for SO 2 and 1880 for NO 2 . To convert ppm Co val ues to
mg/rn 3 , the factor is ‘1.15 and to convert ug/m 3 to ppm for ozone the factor
is 0.00051.
The other issue wtiich affects exceedance counts is whether running
or block averages are used for CO and SO 2 . The use of running 8-hour
averages for CO has generally been accepted with the convention that a
violation requires two non-overlapping 8-hour averages above the level of
the standard. Both the counting procedure and the determination of the
second highest non-overlapping value are docunented in the 1977 guidance
(or the earlier 1974 version).
In contrast to the general agre ent for CO. there has been considerable
discussion on the use of running averages for SO 2 . In 1981, the D.C.
Circuit Court rananded to EPA the record of M bient Air Quality l ’cnitoring
and Data Reporting Regulations, 40 CFR 58, dealing with the 24-hour NAAQS
for SO 2 . In effect, this invalidated the portion of the monitoring
regul ations requiring States to report ambient SO 2 data to EPA as running
averages. In a December 24, 1981 memorandun to the Regional Offices,
Kathleen Bennett, then Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise, and Radiation,
indicated that because the SO 2 NAAQS was under review she had decided to
defer any further rul naking dealing with the reporting of ambient SO 2
1 evel s al though this would ‘... leave the States wi thout any legal duty
to submit 24-hour running averages in the annual State and Local Air
P ’ nitoring Stations (SLNIS) report.” She also stated that “... in most
110
64—2
-------
3
cases, we have relied on block averages and have not found it necessary
to exanine running average data to insure attainment and maintenance of
the 24-hour NAAQS. ” A related memorandun from Ms. Bennett to Region V on
March 24,1982 on the subject of the ‘Use of Running Averages for Determining
Compliance with the 24-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Standards concerned the PPG
Barberton Plant in Summit County, Ohio. ie stated that she would ‘..
reccmnend that you base your decisions on the 24-hour standard solely on
the basis of midnight—to-midnight block averages in that case and in all
similar cases.’ This particular SIP revision Is now under review and the
use of running versus block averages is a key Issue.
Episode Monitoring
The issues that you raise with respect to the reporting and use of
accelerated/episode monitoring data for TSP are basically concern&d with
the appropriate use of the “extra” values obtained in addition to those
resulting from the minimun sampling schedule. (Xir recommendations would
be (1) all data collected at NAMS sites be submitted (2) for all sites,
all of the data should be used for comparison with the ‘once per year’
standards and (3) an appropriate weighting scheme can be used to compute
the annual geometric mean incorporating all of the data rather than
simply ignoring the ‘extra’ days.
Because these issues are not specifically addressed in our
interpretation guideline, it is probably useful to briefly comment on the
rationale. If a site had data for every day of the year, then all of the
data would be used to determine attairiiient with the ‘once per year’
standards. Therefore, It seems reasonable to continue to use all of the
data for these comparisons even when episode monitoring is involved. The
real problem with the use of all of the data in such cases is In the
computation of a sumnary statistic such as the annual geometric mean,
where there Is the possibility of bias because the higher days are over-
represented. One possible alternative would be to compute the geometric
mean by only using the once every sixth day data. While this may seem
appealing Initially because of its simplicity, It would be difficult to
defend that Ignoring actual data values is better than incorporating then
by an appropriate weighting scheme. The TSP NAAQS only refers to the
geometric mean and does not specify how it should be computed but, in the
case of unbalanced data sets, the use of a weighting scheme seems defensible.
Although episode monitoring data is not specifically addressed, our 1974
“Guidelines for the Evaluation of Air Quality Data,” OAQPS No.1.2-015 does
discuss the use of weighted averages for cases with unbalanced seasonality.
However, that particular discussion was limited to determining the annual
mean by using the quarterly means. A more general approach that uld be
pplicab1e to epi c e monitcrin t& ha c- i considere part of the
review of the particulate matter NAAQS. Basically, the entire year would
be viewed as successive sets of six day periods. A geometric mean would
be computed for each of these six day periods. When a six day period
only contains a single data value (i.e. the normal scheduled sampling
day), the geometric mean for that six day period would simply be that
110
64—3
-------
4
single observed value. However, when the six day period contained more
than one value, all of the additional values would enter into the calculation.
Once the geometric mean for each of these six day periods has been determined,
the annual geometric mean would be computed as If each of the six day
geometric means represented a single observation.
As I indicated, this particular approach Is not presented In our current
guidance docignents, but It is being considered as part of the particulate
matter NAAQS review and does appear to be an acceptable interim sol ution to
your question. I should note, however, that this computational scheme is not
currently implemented on the National Aerometric Data Bank (NADB). At the
present time, WADB programs would continue to compute the geometric mean by
giving equal weight to each value. Admittedly, this can result in a bias for
episode monitoring data and adjusbuent would be reasonable before developing
or approving specific actions.
Data Completeness
The data completeness requirements for the ozone NAAQS were specifically
treated In the 1979 standard and associated guideline. A daily maximiin value
is considered valid if at least 75 percent of the hourly values from 9:01 A.M.
to 9:00 P.M. (LST) were present or if at least one hourly value was above the
level of the standard. The guideline indicates that data for a year may be
considered adequate if the data set is at least 75 percent complete for the peak
pollution potential season. As other NAAQS are revised, we intend to incor-
porate this type of specific guidance. However, at the present time, the
earlier standards are not explicit with respect to data completeness require-
ments and our recommendation can probably best be viewed as relying upon
tradition and reflecting the summary criteria used on the NADB.
In general, the validity criteria for continuous measurement methods
follows what could be termed the 75 percent rule, i.e., a year is valid if at
least 75 percent of the hourly measurements are present. The same approach
is used for computing 8—hour average CO and both 3-hour and 24-hour average
SO 2 . This 75 percent requirement for 3—hour SO 2 averages means that all
three hourly values must be present. In all of these cases, the average is
computed on the basis of the nirber of hourly values present. I should point
out that these completeness requirements are not intended to discount obvious
exceedances. For example, if only five hourly CO values are available for an
8-hour period but the 8—hour average would exceed the level of the standard
even if the three missing values were set equal to one—half the minimuTi
detectable limit, then this should be counted as an exceedance. However,
this is not currently done as part of the routine NADB summaries.
The validity criteria for 24-hour data, typically resulting from
intermittent sampling schedules, require at least five samples for a quarter
to be considered valid and if one month has no data the remaining months must
each have at least t observations. An annual statistic is considered valid
110
64-4
-------
5
if all four quarters are valid. These requirements for the 24—hour data
trace back to the old bt-weekly sampling schedules that were typically
used until the early 1970’s. In view of the current every six day schedules,
they can certainly be viewed as minimal
I hope that this stzwnary will be useful to you In responding to the
issues that you raised. Obviously, there are certain areas where a more
definitive response uld be desirable. As these earlier NAAQS are
revised, we intend to incorporate the necessary guidance to minimize
potential ambiguities. For example, it is relatively easy to give precise
responses with respect to the ozone NkAQS because many of these details
were specifically addressed wtien the standard was promulgated. To a
large degree, this is due to the interaction that we have with the Regional
Offices In helping us to identify those areas that need to be clarified
to facilitate the actual implementation of the NAAQS.
cc: Director, Enviromental Services Division, Regions 1-Ylil
Director, Office of Technical and Scientific Assistance, Region IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division, Regions II-IV,
VI-Ylli, X
Director, Air Management Division, Regions I, V, IX
J. Padgett, Director, SASD
D. Tyler, Director, CPDD
E. Reich, EP4-341
W. Pedersen, A-133
110
64—5
-------
• PN-11O—81-11-9—055
., tO
UNITED STATES ENVJRON TENT L PROTECTION AGENCY
W.. 3r4’NG7c,\ 0 C 10463
9, 1 61
AIR NO $E ANO ACIATlCp
StJB3ECT: New Procedures for Re’n.ew of State Imp1ementa cn Plans
FRCM: (ath1een M. Bennett, Assi.stant dministrator
for Air, Noise and Rad aticri (ANR—443)
Regional Administrators, Reqicns I—X -
I am very encouraqed by the res nse of reaicnal off ices to the goal
of eliminatinq the ac. 1cç of Stat9 L9Ple!renta cn plan (SI ?) revisions.
The rit.miber of SI? revisions ceinq sent to headauarters has increased
dramatically over the past severs ]. rrcnths. There are, however, additional
steps that need to be taken to streamline the rev ew process arid improve
the overafl. quality of the SI? packages.
‘t help Lrnrrcve the flow of SIP :ev:s cns dur nc review by headcuar-
tars offices and ensure that eacn revision receaves ne arcrcor ate decr €
of review, I am 1nstitu:.r g new headcuarterz review procedures.
New Catecories of SI? Rav s ions
The t existing cacecories of SI? revisions, special and r oro’al, are
now reclacej with roree cateccr es rr.a-cr, cderace , and uror . The
caceccr into uch a SI? rev 5:cn falls cecends on the rocential affects
of the r!v: ai on air cual tv. The cr:t cna recLcnal offices sr oujd
use to identify the apcrcoriace category for a SIP revision are Lnciuded ifl
Attach, ent A. He3dqua ers staff iil helo regional offices adeoz , the
acorcpr ate catecocy and will do sc re initial screening to ensure tnat
revisions are procerly classified. The new categoraes sniculd be used for
afl Sip revlsicns sent to hee.dcuarters after Ncv noer 13, 1981.
Revised Procedures for Review
The three catecories will be used to determine the level of review for
each rev sicn. A major SI? revisicn will undergo the full 14—day review
previously given soeciil act ons. A rrc derace SIP revis cn will be rev ewed
primarily by the arpropriate offices wicrwi the Office of Air, Noise, and
Radiation. P minor SI? revision will be rev ewed primarily by the regional
office. The review Procedures for each category of revision are desc::bed
re fully in Attachment 3.
elat:cnsh p to Excerir ental ?rocessirq Technicues
The triree cateccr:es wil! a1 o be used :o deoe-nine ‘ et er El?
v s:cr r av € t-aj ie - c cu: f::s: >e_- rr sac f r
acorova!. ‘a:cr El? revis:cn a-’culd ‘cc :e 2rccessad as a
A rocerate SIp :ev :cn nay e : s as a direct :naj act:cn f
verse CO1n erits accear 2llikei”. minor navas:cn ra’i re rc&]t:ne!v
crcessed as a d:r c :‘al. se :5 naral !el rccasa:i-c ancouraced for
al! ree :acaqor:es of : v s cns.
-------
: Ic jcn of L r r-a
arw Cf the ac cn rre.-os aczCrnanvir.g nct.ces of J .aJ. ule.makinc for
SIP :ev:sions have nc: adetac. jy Lenr. .Led f c .s of .ne
rc sed Ct Ion a.i r cual .i :v, ine ex tent o ruc., the a.ffeced scat es
acree or disac i..-i cne ac ic , a nd oc.-ier Eaczcr u- r-aji to
Ad u.n scra r in dec .dinc wnec..-ler to Sign tne Federal ec star ctice.
Future ac: cn e r s should clear. .v describe ne sir ouaJ ’i 1..cac oc.s of
ine SIP revLsiCn. Ycu, as P.e cnal d nist r3cor, anculd ass-ura that the
state uncerstands the action to e :ai en. C cdj.nat cn with cne state
should be described in the act cr erro. t.f the staca es cc ree with
an action, ne rea.scn for the d saore v.ent should be idenr.if ed.
to fescrthjnc e effec ..s of tne ac:.cn i a.ir cuali:v and
on relac cnsnjos wj.to e states, ine CctiC rnei ancujd thscuss any
assoc aced lir.i.cacicn, descri e any Lccaj. ctov associs d with toe
ac:icn, and denzifv any organ acicns or individuals ar .icularly affected
cy the acz.icn. C i encs fr toe affected orga n iza t iC and indi’,iduaj.s
snouj.d be noted in the action enc. The s:atuco’j r re tent for the
actIon sncuj.d also be included.
As tu c cw, I am revIewing ea nctic cf r: sed I T 
-------
ATTACI T A: NEW C T CPj2 CF SIP REVISICNS
AOP. ACT ICNS
MaJor SIP actions have t.ie creacest cential effect on air
ualicv in te of the cu1acicns ar.d ge raciuc areas affected.
Major actions will include:
Actions escaolishing areawide or statewide control recuir ents
submitted to meet Part D recuire.’flents (e.g., See II ‘i
r ulat lens)
° Actions establishinq or rrcdifying state,n.de programs for
Preconstruc .on review of major new sources or source tr difica—
tions (e.g., revenc ort of significant deteriorac .cn plar s and
generic buobie rules)
Actions relaxing sulfur dioxide limits for rrajor wer plants
Acticn establishing new Agency precedents
‘ Actions involving litlgatlon
Actions likely to le to section 126 petitions
Acticns involving maJor unresolved Acenc-, licy issues
(e.g., stac nelghts)
‘ Act.iocs disa orovinc SIP re’;jsicns
EPATE CTIC
c erace acr .cns a.ffect the air iality of rr re limited e r3thic
areas. derate acticn will include:
Actions dianging the tu.ssiori limits for major int sources
Actions aporoving var Iances for major sources that delay
attaim ent dates
o Actions where a state does not fully agree
° Actions receiving signific local interest and cQr nts
Mfl’ R ACTIC S
Minor ac: ons are generally routine SIP revisions having b ::le
effect cn a r ualizv end generaein rru.ru.niaj. rublic nterest. Minor
act cns 4111 include:
Acz:cns ere ine Acenc.’ si. tly affi r5 a state action, exceot
ere ne acz cn falls into e T Jor cr icde:ace cacaccr-;
° ‘ .ria1 Cctjcns -rlere r o c ni ncs .ere ece1ve on tne rc sal,
even thcecn tne rcccsed c:1cn . as caceccrL:ed as T.ajcr or
rx e r : a
-------
2
‘ cticns generaU.v causing minimal c ances in air cual tv. ie
subjects of suc acicris incL.de:
— Section 111(d) necative declaracicri
— Lead SIPs relying- solely cm ne lead—in—fuel program
— Cc si.ticn er State wards
— Air cuality crucoring met orks and procedures
— iariances for sources ncc de1avir attair , c dates
— Section 107 desicna cn
— Aooroval of ussicn cffset.s for a ew source cer i:
— Relaxation of em.tssion limis for minor suLfur dioxide
sources
- Buboles for individual sources
-------
AT C 5 T 3: TE 1 REVIEW ? AJPES
‘ 1kCR crIC s
Ma:or actions will ce suoject to the s ne 14—day review crccess
used for the old special categoty of SI? revisions. Federal Register
cec. ca es for rajor actions should still be sent to the Office of
Regional Liaison.
CDEPATE ACTIONS
Moderate actions will be reviewed primarily by the appropriate
offices withrn the Office of Air, oise, and Radiation (Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Office of oile Scurce Air Pollution
Control, Office of Trans rtat cn and t.arid se Policy, and toe Office
of Air, wise , and Radiation EztforcEnenc). The Office of Genera].
Counsel will cartjcj.oace in the review when necessar-;. Review of
rtcderate act cns will be moleted in 14 days or less. The Office cf
Transtcrtac.icn and Land Use Pcficv will c rdinate the review. Federal
Register ackages for rrcderace ac: ons shculd be sent to the Federal
Reg scer Officer witfl cooies sent to the sa r of floes crevicuslv
:ece ving cc ies of normal acticns.
MI X)R P.CTICNS
incr acttcns will be reviewed rirnar lv by the reg:cnal of f ce.
Federal Recister oacka es should be sent to the Federal Register
Officer wito cturtesv ccoies sent to the saTie of f:ces that receive
iTcderate ac cr.s. Pro sed act cns will be sent c’i the Assistant
?thtizustrator to the Federal Rec ster fcr uol cac cn. F:nal actions
will be sen t by the Assi.sc.ant u.nist:atcr .o toe ? xnin1strator for
signature.
*T ese orocedures reolace those descr.oed in the ar 1’ 81 cu delirte,
?rccess1ng Procedures for S1? Rev sicns (.nd 1 11(d) Plans] ,“ precared
by toe OttlCe cf Air Quality ?lann ng and Standards. That guideline
will be u fated t reflect the new procedures.
-------
AC Y I’ C: .c:c; ‘ c
SL rECT:
F M: . eg cnal A Trinistrator
TC: inin.istracor ( .n&L ilernaicing action)
CR
Assi.stant . ninistrator for A.i, oise and
ad.i.aticn (Pro sed rulemaking a.ion)
:D irIPICTTCN CF Acr!C ’1
This br:e inrzodx.iccory r ra r r uld deecrthe ne ac .cri n
one or t serttences, indicate whether the acticn is a ro sed or
fi.r.aJ. ile, and ideirnify the categcry (major, rt derate, or rnir.or) into-
which the action falls.
S( 1 A CF AC IC 4
This section of the tr r o should dis .iss the action in re detail.
The dic.s.sion should include:
• Scurces or urce cateca e 5 affacted
• Cecgrahic area affeczed, ludi.ng the zerrtiaJ. for lcng - acge
t:anstorr
• ?otencial changes in air quality, in 1uding the e.ffec _s c c i
national. airbierit air çu ali.v standards and ;reventicn of
significant deter .oraticn incr ent5
• Statut f reuirerents for the action
Ct tTI WI S TE OR S ZTES
is section of the rretc should de - e the aoc tion bet eri
the state and e re iczial office and iridi e the st s s ition cc i
the acticn. The re n for any di gre ent b veen egicna].
office and the state should be tided. If the SI? revision affe -s
other states, a s ’ cy of any dis r.is wi.-th t. se states and, ii
act riate, cth gtcnal offices should aLso be isrcltided.
ISSJES
This section should den: fy the major issues associated with the
acticn and descoibe the restonse or rec .ndac cns of toe regional
of floe for these issues. This section t i1d discuss any as.soc ateo
litioac cn, des±e any local ccz e. / associated wLto the action,
and identify any or acizac cns or rartic..ilarly affac.ed y
the acz:cn. n action rnei for a octioe of final le aJc ng sncui.d
de.wribe any s oe .ived c i e I -
-------
,.• PH 110-81 -07-22—052
- r :‘ C ‘ -“
- ‘
. ‘ ci ;
JUL.22 1981
SUBJECT: Experimental State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Proc Ing Te es
FROM: E ‘ n Assistant .. dministratcf
for Air, oise, and Radiation (ANR-443)
ME! O TO: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division
Regions I-X
Over the past several years numerous concerns nave been raised both
within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the air pollution
control ccrr nunity in general, regarding the time and ccmplexities
involved in processing State Implementation Plan (SIP) revIsions. in
response to these concerns, EPA is developing ways to irnorove processing.
E. oerimental processing techniqueS have been ongoing in Regicre I, IV,
and V for several months. These techniques include:
o Parallel processing of SIP revisions by the States and E°A
(Region I).
o Going directly to final rulemaking with noncontroversial SIP
revisions while maintaining a public ccn r.ent period (Region I V).
o Eliminating unnecessary EPA Headauarters review by processing
as a no iria1 final rulemaking any SIP revision on which no
coments are received in response to the notice of proposed
rulemaking (Region V).
The first technique is applicable where a State is In the process
of developing a regulation and has not initiated the for na1 State
rulemaking process. The second and third techniques apply where the
State has adopted a regulation and submitted It to EPA for approval as
a SIP revision.
Th s procrarn is now being expanded to include all Regions. I
encourace you to use these experifliental tecnniqUeS for processing S ?
revisions and to identify additional ways to improve orocessing.
(NOTE. Attacrrnents and C are not included.)
-------
A more detailed descrj icn c i the three :echnicues identifiec
above is at:acned (Attacnment A). A so attacned are a Federal ecister
notice including examoe languace for the i ed,ate final rule oroca3s ng
tecnnicue (Attachment 3), and a status reDort cescrioing SI? revisions
that are currently being processed using one of the three techniques
(Attachment C).
There are other technicues that may 5e used to streamline the
preparation of Feceral Reistar notices. These include crouoinc
several SI? revisions into one Federal Recister notice, nc pro’ idinç
more detailed infoiirat,on In a technical support document, rather
than in the notice itself. Where a technical support document is used,
a reference to the document and a statement that the document is
a’iailable to the public must be included in the notice.
Cc entz received in response to a notice of orcpcsed rulemakir.c
may also be described in a technical support document, rather than in
tne final rule’naking notice. EPA’s resconse to the cor nentz rust,
however, be briefly surr iiarized in the final notice. This aporoacn was
descr bed in a February 2, 1981 memo to you entitled “Revisions Per:a’ning
t-o Processing of Federal Re iste Actions,” from Darryl Tyler, Actinc
Jirector, Control Programs Development Division (Attachment J).
The Control Programs Ocerations Branch ci the Office f Ar Quality
?lanning ana Standards is cocrd na:ir.g efrcrts to mplement ar,d oversee
these excerimental processing tecnniques. crcgram nas ceer es:abiisrec
to :rack and evaluate the results. A Federal Reciste’ - r.ctica will sccn
be published notifying the puolic of theseprcceoures. if you have any
questions regarding the procedures or wish to advise Head uarters on a
scecific action applying cne of znese tecnnicues, olease contact
Jane Kelly at 29— 66 .
Attachments
cc: Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I—X
Bill Becker, STAPPA/ALAPCO
Ed Reich, O5 E
Alan Jennings, OPM
Lydia Wegman, OGC
Ridiard Kczlowski, FOZC
Jack Kidinger, OTLIJP
Charles Gray, OMSAPC
Office of Regional Counsel, Reglonsl-X
Office of Regional Enforcement, Regions I-X
-------
Attachment A
Experimental S.? Processina Techniques
Parallel Processing
Presently, SIP revisions are developed between the State and EPA
through independent rulemaking processes. First, the State develops
and adopts a regulation following State administrative procedures.
Then, EPA incorporates the regulation in the SIP. This sequential
rulemaking may lead to tension bet’ een the State and EPA because the
total review process is lengthy. Also, if significant changes are
required by EPA, the State may have to repeat their rulemaking process.
Under the parallel processing procedure, the EPA Regional Office
will work more closely with tne State as the State develops a major
regulation and proceeds through the State rulemaking process. EPA
rulemaking will be carried on simultaneously with the State process.
Ideally, the State and EPA will propose the regulation at the same
time, announce concurrent conTnent periods, and jointly review the
coments. The Regicnal Office will consult with EPA Headquarters
offices as the regulation is being developed and during the State and
Federal rulemaking process to ensure tnat all issues are resolved before
the State adopts the re ulation. All substantive issues should be
raised by EPA Headouarters offices befcre the reoulation is proposed.
Procedures will be estaolished to quickly resolve any issues raised y
EPA Headouarters offic after notices of pr pos d rule nakir.g have
been published.
If no con nents are received by tne State or EPA that necessitate
significant changes to the regulation, the regulation will be adopted
by the State and submitted to EPA. The adooted regulation will then De
processed by EPA as a final rulemaking. If significant changes do have
to be made to the proposed regulation, EPA may need to reorcpose the
regulation.
EPA rulemaking to incorporate a State regulation in a SIP may also
be initiated when a State rule has been proposed but not adopted. This
will allow the total Federal/State processing time to be reduced in
cases where State rulemaking has progressed too far to allow parallel
processi ng.
A proposed rulemaking based on the parallel proce’ssifl9 technique
was published in the Federal Register on June 1, 1981 ( 6 F?. 29289).
The rulemaking revises the MassacnuSettS Part 0 SIP.
tirinediate Final Rulemaking
Presently, the SIP reviSion orocess recuires that all revisionsbe
roooseo for pu:lic c r3t 1t e cre OiflQ : fiflal rue a fl:. e
comment period is 30 or 60 d2ys deoe’iding on the antici ted ?U IC
-------
nteres: in zr e revision. 3ozn the Drocosad rulemaKIng arc t e final
rulemaking nust go through Headquarters review cefore being published.
Many SI? revisions get few, if any, ccr nents frcm the public curing the
cc ent perioc. Therefore, as part of the experime ta1 SIP processing
program, SIP revisions that are juaged by the Region to be noncontr —
versial will be oublished as a final rulemaking without going through a
procosed rulemaking. The public will be advised that no ccimnents are
anticloated and that unless notice is received within 30 days that
scineone wishes to submit adverse or critical ccinnents, the revision will
be effective 60 days frcin the date the Federal Register notice Is
published. However, if within 30 days notice is received that saneone
wishes to submit adverse or critical cc ments, the action will be
withdrawn and the Region will publish subsequent notices before the
effective date. One notice will withdraw the final action and the
other will begin a new rulemaking by announcing a proposal of the action
and establishing a cciitnent period.
This approach can save time arid resources while maintaining the
public’s right to cc ment. If SIP revisions do riot require substantial
changes due to public cocmients and past experience indicates that this
is the case, then the Regional Office will only have to write one
Federal e ister notice instead of two. Mso, Headquarters review will
be cut in na f.
Attach ent 3 is a Federal Recister notice redesignating two counties
in 1crth Carolina to attainment for particulate matte’-. It is included
as an example of a SiP revision that is being processed using the direct
final experimental processing technique. An asterisk identifies the
boilerplate language that has been approved for use by cGC.
Ellminatina Duolicative Review
SIP revisions designated as special actions must go through two
Headquarters reviews while those designated as normal actions are not
reviewed by Headquarters. This experimental technique involves pro-
cessing, as normal actions, those rulemaklngs that were proposed as
special actions but did not generate significant public ccirmients and
were not significantly changed fran the proposal. Sy doing so, only one
Headquarters review Is required and thus the SIP processing time is
decreased.
The Regional Office will be responsible for determining the
significance of cciTrlents received during the proposed rulemaking as well
as the sianificance of any changes t the proposal. tf there are any
questions as to the significance of c irent.s or changes, the Regional
Office should confer with the aporopriate Meadouarters ofT ices berore
proceeding.
-------
Attachment 0
UNITED STATES !NVR NMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
FF.. 2 ISSI
.2 — ‘.“ :r s —t -—’’ t ‘-OCeSS1PC of oe -a) Peoist r cticns
I
RC Darryl Tyler, Acting Director
Control Programs Development ‘Jiv sio (MD—is)
° Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
Tne purpose of this memorandum is to institute revised policies
regarding formal Agency rulemaking actions. These new policies are
intended to help expedite the processing of SIP revisions. Additionally,
it is hoped that thesemeasures will result in reduced Federal Recister
printing requirements and costs.
The new policies are sunTnarized below:
Corrrients received on orcoosed rulemakincs do not have to be exolicitly
addressed n final rulemakinc notices .
In the past, the gency has attempted to sumarize all cc ents
received on not ces of roposed rulemaking -and then list these cc erts
along with the Agency 1 s resoonse in the final rulemaking re istar. This
cooroaci oft n results in lengthy packages. More imocrzantly, since :ne
gency’s responses are induced witn a formal oublic ruie.rnak ng notice,
there is oarticuiar enpnasis in eadquarters review cn the policy and
legal imol caticr.s of these necessarily abbreviazec resoonses. encs,
often the rulemaking portion of the package is satisfactory out prooiams
witn the response to corrmienzs holes up the overall package.
Therefore, it is reco ended that responses to c: neizs be
incorporated into a technicai succort aoc’ ment. The rulemaking dis-
cussion should include some reference to this document and indicate that
it is available for publ c review. This tecnnical supper: cocument must
be forwarded with the Federal Reciste package for 14—day review.
Irrespective of this new oolicy, it is essential that the Federal
Recister clearly spell out the Açency’s final determination regarding
conmients received. This can normally be handled in a brief surriiary
statement.
Region V final rulemakings where no si nificant coments were raised
on the orocosal may now oe nanaie s ‘normal actions .
• t this time, we are fo aiiy initiating a oilct o gram in
e ion ‘I aimed at decreasing the time required to process final SIP
revisions. During the course of the pilot orocram, • egion V will process
as normal actions those final ruiemakinca that were r:posec af:ar
Fehr ary I s spec l c icns, cid not :an ra:e a.cn f cant :ublc
‘ 1320-4 (n . .. 3.761
-------
2
ner t3, and were r cz s : i icar.tly tianged r:m t e :rc:csai. -.e
ecional ic wi ii e res cnsi le ror etar nning z.- e sign icanca r
ar.y ccment.s rece 4 ved on : e proccsal package as well as the s gn fi—
canca of any changes to the roposal. For those c:r ient3 or cnanges
acout which there mignt 5e any cuestion as to their significance, the
egional Office will c nfer with the appropriate Headquarters offices
efore proceeding.
It is our intention to review the benefits of this pilot program
after six months to deternine if appreciable time savings can be
realized without unduly affecting the quality of the review process.
If this is the case, it is our Intention to institute this program In
all Regions. We will work with Region ‘I to develop a tracking and
evaluation system that will allow us to clearly judge the merits of
the pilot at that time.
These new policies are effective lrrwediately. !hould you or your
staff have any questions regarding their Implementation, please c:r.tact
either me or John Calcagni at 629—!365.
c:: Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I-X
David Menotti, CGC
Ed Reicn, DSZE
Jim Sakolosky, MSZD
Henry eai, SRED
Jack Hidinger, OTtUP
Charles Gray, M APC
Mary Rhones, OIR
Deborah Taylor, C?
-------
—
• 1*’,
OCT ctober , 1980
- C ‘
R ••:1 --
MEMORANDUM 1
SUBJECT: Growth Restrictions tn Secondary Th.AQS
Nonattajnznent Areas
FROM: Michael A. James, Associate General Counsel
Air, Noise and Radiation Division (A—133)
TO: Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division (MD-is)
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
You have asked for a legal opinion as to whether the
growth restrictions of section 110(a)(2)(I) of the Clean ? ir
Act would a oiv if a State fails to timely submit a Part D
plan for attainment of a secondary AAQS only. For the
reasons set out below, I conclude that the growth restric-
t ons wculd not aPply.
Background
Secticn 110 of the Act recuires each State to develop,
and to submit to EPA for approval, Implementation plans
(SIPs) which provide for the attainment and maintenance of
the primary an& secondary national ambient ato quali:-i stand-
ards (NAACS). Under section 109(b) of the Act, primary
standards for air pollutants are those which, al1owtnc an
adecuate margin of safety, are recuisIte to protect the
public health.” A secondary standard for an air pollutant,
on the other hand, specifies the level of air quality which
“is requisite to protect the public welfare from any ncwn
or anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence
of such air pollutant in the ambient air.”
In 1.977, to address the problem of continued noriattain-
ment of the NkAQS, Congress amended the Clean Air Act to add
Part D (sections 171—178). Part D required States to revise
their SIPs to include, for any area which was destgnated as
ot havtng attained an N AQS, the provisions specif:ed in
section 172(b), including the permit program specifted :n
section 173. Under sect .cn 172(a), the Part 0 plan ger eral±v
had to Prcvtce for attainment of the ‘TAAQS those cocas “as
exoedi-_ ous1v as orac: . cabje ’. In the case ti a or:mari
standard, however, it had to prov:de for attainment not Later
-------
—2—
than December 31, 1982. 1/ In additicn, under the newly-
added secti.on LlD(a)(2)(fl, beginn ng on July 1, 1979, no
a;or stationary source of a olLutant could be constructed
or nod fied n an area which was designated nonattair.rnent
for that ol1utant unless a Part 0 plan for that pollutant
had been aooroved for that area.
?inally, section 129(c) of Public Law 95—9 2/ estab—
1 .shed a general deadline of Januav 1, 1979, forsubmi.ssion
of Part 0 revisions. Under existing section 110(b), however,
the deadline for submissLon of ?a 0 plans for secondary
standard.s could be extended for up to eighteen months, or
until July 1., 1980.
Discussi.on
aead Literally, the growth restr .ctions contained in
section ll0(a)(2)(I) could be interpreted to apply, after
June 30, 1979, to any area which has not attained a NAAQS—
either primary or secondary——and for which EPA has nOt
approved a Part 5 plan. owever, I do not believe that such
an inter retation would be consistent with the intent of
Congress.
This conclusion is supported by the statutory scheme t-
seLf, which imposes m.uch more rigid requtrements on Part 0
plans for prirnary standards than on those for secondary
standards. Part 0 plans for rLmary, health-based standards
tust be submi ted to EPA by January 1, 1979 and must prov.de
for attainment no later than December 31, 1992. 3/ Part 0
1ans for secondary, welfare—based standards do ot have to
provide for attainment by any prescribed date. This demon-
strates t rat Ccng-re did not view attainment of secondary
standards w th the same urgency as it viewed attainment of
primary standards. It is therefore unli
-------
— —
‘ - L:n , n::l . .y ., ? O. The tef : .: a
seco darv ? r: ) o1 , : re ore , co’ 1 : : r e : ..L
La:er than the date that growth restr ctaons go into effect
if a olan has not ye: oeen a oroved . 1t 15 lflconcelvaole
that Congress intended such a discontinuity. If Congress
intended the construction restrictions to apply to secondary
standard nonattajrirnent situations, I think they would have
included language to harmonize section 110(b) with section
110(a) (2) (I).
The legislative history of Part D supports the interpre—
tatiort discussed above. Congress’ concern was that the pri-
mary, health—based standards had not yet been attained in
many areas of the country. Since allowing new industrial
growth in those areas would worsen the existing health prob—
Leins, the purpose of Part D was to assure that any new growth
would not jeo ardize the Act’s predominant goal of protec .ing
the public health. This focus on the health aspects of non—
attainment is reflected in the House Report on the 1977
Amendments 4/ the House debate on the House hill 5/; the
Senate Report on the 1977 Amendments 6/ ; the Senate debate on
the Senate bill 7/; the Conference Re ort or. the 1977 Amer.d—
ments 9/; the House debate on the Conference re ort 9/; and
the Senate debate on the Conference reocrt 10/. cr examole,
during the Senate debate on the Senate bill, Sena:or Muskac
remarked:
4/ H.R. Rep. o-. 95—294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (May 12,
1977), pp.33, 207—210, 213, 214—215. This report is
part of the comoendium entitled “A Legislative History
of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977,” Library of
Congress, Congressional Research Service, Serial No.
95—16 (hereinafter cited as the “Legislative History”).
The corresponding citations are Legislative History,
Vol. 4, pp. 2500, 2674—2677, 2680, 2681—2632.
5/ Legislative History, Vol. 4, pp. 3037, 3041, 3055.
6/ S. Reo. o. 95—127, 95th Cong., let Sees. (May 9, 1977),
p.3 4; Legislative History, Vol. 3, . 1429.
7/ Legaslative History, Vol. 3, pp. 717, 771, 1723—1125.
8/ H.R. Rep. No. 95—564, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. CAucus: 3,
— 197 ); Leg 1a-:v H torv, Vol. 2, o. 537.
9/ Lecaslat:ve H.sz:v, vol. 3, o . 319, 322, 336.
10/ Lecislatave Hist z Vol. 3, p. 367.
-------
—4—
T.s year the Ccomznittee s —e wa
sPe’it on :ne iss.. e of growth rea -tot
Yet ee:in .:cna1 eal:’ s .ar:s.
The threat to hur’ an health in these
areas iS serious. Yet the octential harrn
to welfare from prohibiting all naior
industrial growth is also great. 11/
r short, all the evidence we have in the history indicates
that Congress’ intent was to prevent new crowth unless attain—
nent of the rimary, health—based standards by the new statu-
tory deadline would be assured. The total lack of any dis-
cuss ion showing comparable concern for the secondary standards
indicates that they were not included in the protection scheme.
tn Light of the statutory scheme and the legislative
history of ?art D, I do not believe that the growth :est:.c-
tions of section llO(a)(2)(I) were intended to aooly in
situations where only the attainment of secondary, welfare-
based standards is involved.
IJ ./ egisla :ive stcry, Wol. L .77l.
-------
PN-I lO—8O-lO-23—04 ’
UNITED STATE$ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ur ice or ir Quality Planninc anc Scanoaros
Researc i ir’angie Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE OCT 2 EC
sus c Growth Restrictions in Secondary AAQS
?lonattai nment Areas
OM: Richard G. Rhoads, Directo
Control Programs Development Division
TO: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
Some uncertainty has existed concerning the aoolicabilizy of the
Section 11O(a)(2)(I) construction prohioition for areas wit no approvea
olans to attain the seconoary, welfare—related stanoaros.
Attached for your information is a memorandum from Mike Jame wrtci
resolves that uncertainty by explaining that Section liO(a)(2)(I) cuio
not apply for failure to have an approved SIP for seconoary nat onal
ambient air auaiity standaros.
I would also like to reiterate that t e emission offset colic”
remains in elrect in TSP nonattainment areas vio1at ng only t e sec:r.cary
standard until a SIP is cooroved for thcse areas. i am also attac -iirc a
CODY of the iarch 10, l 8C iemoranaum frtrn 1r. awk ns to zne egi r.ai
dninistratcrs, “Emission Offset e u1reneqts in Seccndary Etaraaro
otal Suspenoe Partic.flata ?lans, for your infc ation. (see ? I-1lO-aO-O3-lO-03
Please crovide this nformation to zne States and otne interes:ec
Darties in your Regions.
Attachments
cc: Dan Goodwin, STAPPA SIP Committee
Ed Reich, OSSE
Mike James, OGC
Regional Counsel, Regions I-X
E’A i:20-o 2 6)
-------
UNITED STATES NVIRONMENTAL PRCTECTf ON AGENCY
Office or Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE SEP 25 1980 PM 110-80-09-25-043
SUBJECT• Incorporation by Reference of SIP Revisions
FROM:Rj chard G. Rhoads, Dire c
Control Programs Development Division (MD—is)
To:Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I—X
We have received a few questions regarding my June 21, 1980 memo
in which minor changes were described In the procedures to be followed
in the submissions for incorporation by reference by the Cffice of the
Federal Register (OFR). The purpose of this memo iS to clarify a. .few
points.
1. A copy of the document described in the Icentification of the
Plan must be attached to the package intended for the OFR. This is
important since it is the document which is really being incorporated by
reference and is indexed and placed in OFR’s public information canter.
2. Some Identification of Plan sections are quite lengthy. In
such cases, there is no need for a verbatim repet :ion ii the identifica-
tion of the aocurnent section of the covemg memo. This memo submits
the package to OFR y EPA ’s Office of Federal Register (E?A/OF ). A
snort identification will do.
3. Final submission of all parts, including Part 81, should be
forwarded for incorporation by reference.
4. There may be public inquiries by mail to the OFR so the
zip code, 20408, should be added to the OFR adc ress.
5. The contract period has been recently extended to provide time
for the contractor to update the compilation to Septernoer 1, 1980
rather than to August 1, 1980. This means that there is no need to
submit any final aporoval action taken during the month of August to
the EPA/OFR.
If you have any further questions, please call Tom Gunning (629-5365).
F..... 132Q- R.. 3 7fl
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Fianninc and Standards
Research Triangle Par¼, North Carolina 27711
DATE. 1J.JG
PN 110-80-08—03-041
SUBJECT: The Bubble Policy and State Pla p
Under Clean Air Act Section 1 , d)
FROM: Walter C. Barber, Direc 4’ C .,
Office of Air Quality 1arir4 r id Standards (MD—1O)
TO: Director, Air and Hazardou ’ ’terials Division, Regions I-X
A number of inquirie /’have been received concerning the applicability
of the bubble policy with” respect to the noncriteria pollutants designated
under the requirements df Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. This
memorandum is a response to these inquiries.
The bubble policy, as published in the December 11, 1979 Federal
Register ( 4 FR 71780), may be applied to emission limitations developed
as part of State Implementation Plans recuired by Section 110 of the
Clean Air Act. The buoble colicy does not aopiy to sources wnich
must comply with the performance standaros for existing stationary
sources developec in accordance with the requirements of Section 111(d).
These performance standards are appliec to specific indiv ioual facilities
for certain designated pollutants.
Althoucn tne bubble policy does not apoly to Section 111(c), the
advantages of tne policy can be achieved, in some cases, simoly by
obser’iing EPA’s recuirements for implementir.g this Section as found in
40 CFR Part 60 Subpart 3. This is particularly true if tne Ad in strator
cetermines that a designated o1lutant may oniy cause or contribute to
the endanaerment of public welfare but not endanger puolic health. In
such cases, the States are not bound by the EPA guideline document but
may balance “other factors of public concern” against the EPA guidelines
when setting standards. These other factors nay include: (a) the c3st
of achieving such emission reductions; (b) any other health and environ-
mental impacts; Cc) energy requirements; and Cd) the remaining useful
life of the existing sources.
Under the regulations, States have less flexibility if the
Administrator determines the designated pollutant to be health related.
In such cases, the States are generally expected to set standards at
least as stringent as the EPA guidelines. Less stringent standards may
be set but only in situations where the State demonstrates comoelling
reasons to do so.
O.6 ( .— 3- 6)
-------
a
We er courace you to be receptive to Section 111(d) proposals. If a
Comoany t 1ls you or the State that they want to ‘bi bble” 111(d)
c 1utant contrcl recuirements, as sa their spec fi 7lan before
you give them an oo n,on. in many cases, it may be ossibie to adopt
the comoany’s preferreo cor.rol strategy. In part c iar, s nca TRS
regu1at ons are d e soon in many States and it i a welfare. re1ate
poi1ut nt only, you may want to rem-md ycur States tna.t they already
have substantial flexibility un .er cur reguiations to design sourc —
specific regulations for these sources.
Should you have any quest on conca in the reia - cnsnip ae een
EPA’s bubble policy and the requfremnents ef Section 111(d), p1ea e
contact Oick Rheads at PTS 629-5251 or Lea Stander of his staff at
FTS 629-5 6 .
-------
UNITED STATES EN’i I ONMENT, L ? OTECTCN .G E C’(
Ofice of Air Oua1i ” ann ’a ard tandarr s
2sa r:i Thiang ?ar , ‘ or: 2
? i 110-08-04-040
OATE August 4, 1980
J8.iECT: Applicability of Paper Coating, Fabric Coating, and Graphic Arts CTGs
FROM: Tom Helms, Chief (MD-15)
Control Programs Operations Branch, CPDD
1 O: Air Branch Chief, Regions I — X
Recent discussions with State agencies and industry indicate there
are misunderstandings concerning which coating processes are subject to
the Graphic Arts CTG (Volume VII I) and which are covered by the Paper
Coating and Fabric Coating CTGs (Volume II).
As stated in Section 1.2.4 of ‘Iolume viii, the Graphic Arts CTG is
intended to cover printing operations in the production of packaging
materials and publication rotogravure printing operations. Other types
of web coating operations are covered by Volume II in the Paper Coating
and Fabric Coating CTGs. These Volume II operations include some
printing operations, such as printing of wallpaper, floor coverings,
gift wra , shower curtains, and artificial leather ano wood grains.
industry spokesmen have requested that all rotogravure orinting
operations be covered under the Graphic Arts CIG (Volume V III). There
is a certain simplicity to having all rotogravure rinting coerations
included under ne RACT level; however, since publication printing and
flexible package printing would be included, such a general rotogravure
RACT level would, of necessity, be less Strict than the paper coating
and fabric coating RACT levels described in Volume II.
EPA engineers have observed that there are many rotogravure coating
operations which are as amenable to control as are paper and fabric
coated by reverse roll or blade coating techniques. Thus, in order to
obtain the maximum reasonable control, rotogravure operations (other
than publication printing and flexible packaging printing) have been
included in the Paper Coating and Fabric Coating GIGs along with roll,
reverse roll, blades, air knife, and other coating application tecnn lques.
Some types of printing, such as textile printing, are not covered
by either Volume II or Volume VIII, but may be covered in future CTGs.
cc: ‘IOC Contact, Regions I - X
J m Berry, ESED
E ‘A F.... I 2O-4 (a..
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE: JUL 3 11980 PN 110-80-07-31 -039
SUB4ECr: Applicability of VOC Control Technique Guidelines
(CTGs) to the Automobile Manufacturing Industry
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads, Direci
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
TO: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I - X
It has been brought to my attention that scrne confusion exists
concerning the applicability of EPA—CTG, Vol. II, ‘Surface Coating of
Automobiles and Light Duty Trucks” and EPA-CTG, Vol. VI, “Surface
Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products” in the automobile
manufacturing industry. This memorandum clarifies the applicability of
these two CTGs to the automobile manufacturing industry.
For the purposes of this discussion, r ctal coating operations in
the automobile manufacturing industry can be separated into the following
three distinct subdivisions:
I. Primer, guidecoat (surfacer), topcoat, and final repair coating
of main body and front end sheet metal parts.
II. Application of coatings other than those in I above to main
body and front end sheet metal parts.
III. Separate coating of metal parts other than main body and front
end sheet metal parts.
Coating operations in I above are covered by the Automobile and
Light—Duty Truck CTG. The reco miiended limits apply whether the main
body and front end sheet metal parts are coated as a single unit or
separately as is done at some stamping plants and some assembly plants.
Contrary to two statements (pages viii and 6—5) in the Automobile
and Light—Duty Truck CTG which indicate that all automotive metal
coating operations are covered by this CTG, all operations in- II and III
above should be covered by the Miscellaneous Metal Parts CTG. This wc.a
noted In the attached April 18, 1980 memorandum from F. W. Giaccone,
Region II to Don Goodwin, Director ESED.
The Miscellaneous Metal Parts CTG best takes into accDunt the broad
range of perfonnance requirements for coatings in II above such as
Diastisols, striping, trunk spatter, and undercoatings; and for coatings
aooljed to such varied parts in III as wheels, steering columns,
brac
-------
a
As i rmtad in the CT for Mis:cell arieou Metal Parts, when re .view in .
regulations, for these products., cansideratiart should. be given to the
possibility that ior some caerations. in IL aiid. ilL coirtroi to the level
recori nended in the Misc.alla.necus ’ Mstai art C.T nay oe tachnically
infeasibile-ar ’unreasortaaTy cas.tly.. cfrooerations.may be allowea. ta
corrtro.l to’ l stringent. le eV pr t a a eqILa.ta oemons rat art of
technical in feasibility or unreasoTTab’l co t. is, made. Consideration
might also ’ be given ta. the utilizat±oxt of aTt. native- i s.ian- contrc I
strategies. under the hubb.le ]i-c (44. FR 7T78a , De .c er 11, l97 ) for
those operations from ir and U1 a ’n± thereby p ’oss-i ly exempting small
(measured irr terms of absoluta .mas .s iission.) sourc -uir con-trur_
Please ccrrtac.t Bill Fbi gTase (Fit &2g-52 ’) or loin il 11 i’ams
(FTS €29—52ZE) should you. have any questions..
Attachment
cc: chief;. Mr rogrens’. Brancti’ Regfcns: L- G-
Del R ’e c±rir, Mtchigan DItR
-------
PM 110-80-05-09- 0341\
!EMORANDUM HAY 9 1930
SUBJECT: Clarification cf Recuirerients for Inclusion
of Continuous Eriission onitoring
Provisions in State Irnp1er entation Plans
FROM: Director. Division of Stationary Source
Enforcement
TO: Enforcement Division Directors,
Regions I—X
Air and Hazardous Materials Division Directors,
Regions I-X
During the course of a recent survey of state continuous
emission monitoring (CE 1) remilations for existina stationary
sources, the following question arose concerning the aorlicability
of 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix P, which recuires CEM at four
categories of existing sources (rower 1ants, sulfuric acid
plants, nitric acid plants, and fluid bed catalytic crackir.a unic
catalyst regenerators at petroleum refineries):
Appendix P recuires CE 1 at the four listed
sources if they exceed certain size thrcshho1r s
and, in the case of NOx C!! , cower lants and
nitric acid niants if they are located in
areas designated nonattain ent for r.itrcçer.
dioxide. If a state, due to the size threshHol s.
has no Appendix P sources, or if a state has no
areas designate’ ncnattainrient . or nitrocen
dioxide, must tl-e state nonetheless prcr’ul aze
a CEM reculation pursuant to 40 CF? 51.19(e) in
case a source exceedin.i the threshhcld is
subsequently constructed in that state or in
the event an area is later designated nonattainrent
for nitrogen dioxide?
The question arose because the reasons sore states ‘nave
given for not havinc complete Apper.dix I’ reculeticrs are chat e
sources in those states do not meet the size t’ reshholds or that
there are no areas in the states dcsignated nor.attainnent for
nitrogen dioxi e.
It is our view that a state nee’ not crcrulgate Cr” regu—
at cns to ap?LY to Apr cndjx P sources ct vet i e dstence i-
state. A rdi’ t’ by ‘ts terms err’ its states, in their C
reculaticns, to exerr t fron its c c race sources which ‘ ‘o i1 ’ ‘e
subJect to any SPS re ui:i CE’ . 1 four f the :curcc
110
3 & —1
-------
—2—
categories covered by Appendix P would, if new, be subject to s s
nucus monitoring requirements. S hould a source meeting the
Appendix P size threshhold be subsequently constructed in a state
it would be governed by the CLM provisions of the ap iicah1e
Coverage under Appendix P would therefore be unnecessary to
assuring the continuous monitoring of that new source.
1ith regard to the absence within a state of areas designated
nonattainxnent for nitrogen dioxide, a state need not tequire NOx
monitoring under Appendix P for power plants or nitric acid plants
where there are currently no nonattaixunent areas for nitrogen
dioxide. A reading of Sections 2.1.3 and 2.2 of Ap endix P
reveals that the presence of a nonattaininent area for nitrogen
dioxide is so much a part of the description of the covered source
categories that the absence of such an area would preclude
existing power plants and nitric acid plants from Appendix P -
coverage for NOx monitoring. There being no covered sources for
T0x monitoring, no regulations need be enacted to require such
monitoring.
In order, however, to encourage states to assess their C i
regulations and to exar ine those sources covered by them, we will
suggest to the working group presently involved in further
developing the Agency’s CEll requirements that 40 C R 51.19(e) and
Acpendix P be amended to include a provision requiring a state to
certify, in a manner sinilar to 40 CFR 6O.23( ) for NS?S, that
has no existing scurces of the type covered by the CE 1 requ r-
rents and therefore need not save comp1e e Appendix P regulations.
A procedure of this sort would enable the Agency to better or itor
both source and state comoliance with CEll reculatior.s for existing
sources.
If you have any questions on this matter, please feel free to
contact Mark Si1ve intz (FTS 755—2570) in this Division.
Edward C. Reich
cc: Richard PJ-toads
Director, CPDD
Joseoh ah1eski, CPDD
bcc: Lou Paley
1 10
34A- 2
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Plannina. and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
3ATE APR 8 1880
PM- 11O-80-04-08 ..o3z
New SOLrCC Reviaw ecuirements for Lead
-
F oMfr ichard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division (MD-l5)
° Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions r-x
Recently, several Regions have requested guidance regarding new
source review requirements for lead SIPs.
The “Supplementary Guidelines for Lead Imolementation Plans”
contains a brief outline of general SIP requirements. This outline
discusses those portions of 40 CFR 51 regulations “Requirements for
Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of rmplementaticn Plans” that were
not revised to account for the lead standard, but which are still
aoplicable to the lead SIPs. Specifically, the requirements of CFR
51.18 Review of New Sources and Modifications must be satisfied for lead
SIPs .
Existir.g permitting regulations adootad in accordance with Section
51.18 may be aoolicable to ‘ead depending cn the specific exemptions
included in the State’s general per lc:ing regulation. In general,
the NS recu,renienz ‘cr lead SIPs may be satisfied by s mo1y revisina
existing e it regulat ons to el im nate any exe Dtion of sources
wnich have the potential to emit five tons/year or more of lead.
The source size limit is based on th definition of a point source
of lead which is five tons/year actual emissions of lead. The rationale
for this limit is based on an analysis contained in the “Supplementary
Guidelines for Lead Implementation Plans ” pages 75—77. Briefly, this
rationale indicates that sources which emit five tons/year of lead
have the potential to violate the ambient standard for lead.
If you have any questions regarding new source review in lead SIPs,
contact Susi Jackson (629—5365) of my staff.
cc: Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
Mike James, OGC
Ed Reich, DSSE
EPA F,rm I 2O-6 Ro.. 76)
-------
_ t ) ‘.,,
7 uNITED ST4TES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIC ’ 1 ACE\JCY
Washington, D. C. 20460 80 03 10 030
Office of
MAR I i9 Air, Noise, and Radiation
SUBJECT. Emission Offset Requirements in Secondary
Standard Total Suspended Particulate Plans
FROM: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation
‘ IE.’IO TO: Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
The purpose of this memorandum is to reiterate Agency policy
regarding emission offset requirements in State Implementation Plans
(SIPs) for areas in which only the secondary TSP standard is violated.
For TSP nonattainment areas violating the secondary standard
only and where the Federal offset policy remains in effect, emission
offsets are required for all major new sources permitted prior to
approval of the SIP for that area. The Federal offset policy re-
mains in effect during any extended time allowed under Section
110(B) for development and approval of a SIP revision for an area
that violates the secondary standard only (44 FR 20379; kprtl 4,
1979, and 44 FR 50600; August 29, 1979). If the Federal offset
policy expires, however no major new sources may be pe itted to
commence construction prior to final approval of the SIP for the
area impacted by the source. Following approval by EPA of the
secondary standard SIP, emission offsets would no longer be required
for any new source locating in or impacting a secondary standard
nonattainment area dominated by agricultural and related fugitive
dust sources if offsets from industrial sources are not reasonably
available.
In order to assure thorough dissemination of Agency policy and
procedures with regard to the requirements of Part D of the Act, I
am having this memorandum published in the Federal Register .
cc: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
J. Miller
‘1. James
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Ac 4CT
2 OV 979 PM-1IO-79-11-Z1- Z3
SUBJECT Minimum Number of Samples for Determining Quarterly Average Lead
oncen r 1
ot Richard G. Rhoads, D1rect -
Control Programs Development Division, OAQPS ( MD 15)
r0 Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
In the preamble to the lead SIP regulations of October 5, 1978 (4
FR 46264), It was stated that EPA would provide guidance regarding the
minimum number of valid samples needed to determine quarterly average
lead concentrations. The preamble also cited the general practice that
at least 75 percent of the scheduled samples must be valid in order to
determine average concentrations. OAQPS has reviewed this issue and has
concluded that the “75 percent rule” is appropriate for determining
attainment with the MAAQS for lead. This means that, at the sampling.
frequency of one 24-hour sample every six days (15 samples per quarter),
at least 12 valId lead samples must be available to determine whether a
State is attaining the national standard.
This criteriujn aoplies to the review of existing data submitted as
part of the original lead plan, as well as all future data collected
through the required NAI’IS stations. In the event that SituaticnS arise
where the minimum number of valid samples are not available, fu her
guidance nay be sought by contacting Mr. William Cox, Chief, Monitoring
and Reports Branch at (FTS) 629—5312.
cc: Director, Surveillance & Analysis Division, Regions t-X
R. Nelican
W. Ccx
1. Helms
PA Po. T O.4 - 6)
-------
PN 11O-80-01-10-023A
tO Sr
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. 0 C. 20460
v_ jI 1
4 4 PQO ’
January 10, 1980
OFFICE OF !NFORCZM N1
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Alternate Procedure for Section 110(f)
Relief in Localized, Short Term Energy
Emergenc ies
From: Acting Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement
Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise
and Radiation
To: Regional Administrators
Regions I—X
Recent discussions with various state environ-
mental and energy personnel have focused our
attention on the inappropriateness Of our current
Section 110(f) guidance on procedures for obtaining
Presidential emergency declarations and subsecuent
suspension of State Impl nentation Plan requirerients
necessitated by short terit, localized situations
where no alternative action appears to be ade-
quate (e.g., harbor disruptions, unanticipated
distributor delivery delays). The Section 110(f)
mechanjsm is the only manner in which the Clean Air
Act permits suspension of State Implementation Plan
requirements, with the attendant release from federal
liability for their violation, under energy emergency
circumstances. Some of our existing orocedures for
handling Section 110(f) requests have occasionally
proved too cumbersome relative to the immediacy of
these short—term, localized energy problems.
Our staffs, in coordination with several
regional and State officials, have developed the
following procedures which we believe mitigate the
existing problems ‘hile co p1ving with the intent of
Section 110(f) for these limited emergency situa-
tions. National or regional energy emergencies which_
are inel a ble for the ex edited approach described
110
23A-1
-------
—2—
below, remain subject to earlier guidance of March 6,
and July 2, 1979. (Copies of these memoranda, as
well as a sample Presidential declaration for short
term emergencies falling within the scope of this
guidance, are attached for your convenience.)
Apolicabilitv of Expedited Procedures
Expedited procedures are available only where
relief necessary as a result of the emergency is
anticipated to last less than 30 days, and is limited
to a localized problem due to unavailability of con-
forming fuel. This expedited procedure may not be
used for 110(f) petitions based on unusually high
price differentials between conforming and noncon-
forming fuels; these petitions must conform to
earlier guidance. All other energy emergency
situations (e.g., a regional problem anticipated to
last 2 or 3 months) require literal compliance with
the statutory procedures of Section 110(f).
EPA will recommend that any Presidential dec—
laration granted under these expedited procedures
expire, by its own terms, no later than 30 days from
issuance, and permit suspensions of SI? requirements
only for those sources (inc1ud ng distributors where
applicable) affected by the unavailability of
conforming fuel. These expedited procedures are
generally inaporopriate where gubernatorial
suspensions across an entire state or thdustrv
category are necessary.
I. Procedures for Expedited Relief
A. State Notice and Ooportunitv for Hearina Prior
to Petition
Due to the short reaction time and short
possible effective period of any suspension, public
notice and opportunity for a hearing prior to a
petition, while strongly encouraged, are not required
for EPA to recommend a Presidential declaration.
Such hearings are held to consider both the existence
and extent of the emergency and the impacts of any
suspensions which may be granted should an energy
110
23A-2
-------
—3—
emergency be declared. Where no opportunity for a
hearing was offered prior to the Governor’s petition
to the President, EPA will recommend that any
declaration be conditioned on the requirement that
such hearings being held within 10 days after the
declaration, and that such a declaration expire by
its own terms if a hearing is not held within that
time.
Should the state later determine that the
emergency situation will or is likely to last longer
than the 30 days covered by the declaration, an
additional hearing, prior to the Governor’s
request for an extension of the Presidential declara-
tion, is required.
B. The Governor’s Petition to the President and
Supporting Documentation
Due to the short time period for 110(f) relief
effectiveness under these expedited procedures, an
extensive petition to the President from the Governor
is not needed; however, a written or telegraphic
recuest from the Governor for the declaration, based
on consultation with both State energy and environ-
mental personnel, is recuited. A prior teleDhone
communication from State staff to the a pro riate EPA
Regional Office, explaininc the circumstances of the
emergency and the forthcoming request, will expedite
the procedure. A brief statement of the basis for
the recuest, including the approximate number and
types of sources affected, the apparent cause of the
emergency, efforts made to alleviate the situation
through other means and why those efforts are in-
sufficient, a summary of available information on
possible unemoloyment and/or loss of necessary
residential energy supplies, arid (wherever possible)
a discussion of potential air quality impacts of
anticipated suspensions, should accompany the
Governor’s request. A brief discussion of alternate
measures for alleviation of the difficulty without
emission increases (e.g., load shifting,
conversion) should be included. If the petition is
made without prior notice and opportunity for a
hearing, the request should indicate why such notice
and hearings could not be held prior to the recuest.
110
-
-------
—4—
II. Subsecuent Documentation and Air Quality
Considerations
Additional documentation, including that
collected through the public hearing, should be sub—
mitted to EPA as soon as possible after the hearing.
This documentation should include detailed infor-
mation on the topics addressed briefly in the
petition as well as any air quality information, such
as monitoring data and records of emissions from
facilities granted suspensions during the period of
the declaration. In addition, where unavailability
of conforming fuel is involved, written documentation
of source/distributor efforts to obtain conforming
fuel must be submitted.
Many states have the capability of producing
ambient air quality projections in a tight time
frame, or have modeled sources and know the maximum
allowable emissions which will protect air quality.
States should be urged to perform any necessary air
quality modeling and other environmental impact
analyses before an energy emergency arises, iii order
to have this information quickly available.
III. EPA Involvement
EPA has two roles in the 110(f) process —— the
statutory authority to disaporove gubernatorial
suspensions and the respons:bilitv for recommendinc
action to the President on petitions for declarazions
of energy emergencies. To adequately perform its
responsibilities, the Agency must maintain close
communication with the state involved. The following
communication patterns should be followed to assure
expeditious EPA action:
1. Earliest possible telephone notification of
the emergency should be made by the State
to the EPA Regional office. The energy
contact in the Regional office should
immediately inform Jean Vernet of DSSE (FTS
755—2553) of this communication from the
State, in order to expedite any response.
Providing headquarters with names and
telethcne numbers of the involved State
personnel (e.g., energy, eviranmental, and
public utility commission staff) has proven
to be extremely useful, especially where
the immediacy cf the situation requires
speedy information gathering.
-------
—5—
2. A copy of the petition to the President
should be sent to the Administrator,
Attention: Edward Reich, Director,
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement,
at the same time as it is submitted tc the
President. A copy of the petition and all
supporting data should be sent to the EPA
Regional Office. This will eliminate the
delay involved in transmittal from the
White House, and will permit EPA to quickly
prepare a recdmmendatiori and draft a
declaration for signature of the
President.
3. The EPA Regional office should be given
notice of any state hearing. EPA will
attend and participate to the extent a
state requests and the Agency is able.
Copies of transcripts of all hearings
should be sent to the EPA Regional office.
4. Copies of all gubernatorial susper sions of
SIP requirements, together wits any sup-
porting materials, should be sent to the
EPA Regional office.
5. Copies of all source/distributor submittals
should be sent to the EPA Regional Office
directly by the source/d istr ibutor, if
possible or by the State.
6. The State environmental and energy offices
and the £PA Regional Office should maintain
close communication throughout the energy
emergency period, to monitor the existing
situation and hopefully to foresee any
additional, longer term or broader
problems.
7. The energy emergency contact in the
Regional Office should maintain close
communication with DSSE to facilitate any
necessary headquarters actions on the
emergency.
/
liler C. n iis
110
23A-5
-------
S AMPLE
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Based on a request submitted to me by the
Governor of —, I hereby declare that
a regional e iergy emergency exists in the State of
_______ of such severity that temporary suspension of
certain air pollution control regulations which apply
to under
the _______ Air Quality Implementation Plan may be
necessary, and that other r eans of responding to the
energy emergency may be inadequate. This deter-
mination shaJi expire ( 30 days from issuance) , and is
made upcn condition that the necessary hearings be
held with ten days. If hearings are not held, this
determination will ex ire ( ten days from issuance) .
If, during the emergency, I find that a regional
energy emergency no longer exists in , I will
di.rect that this determination be rescinded, and that
all suspension orders issued by the Governor be
110
23A-6
-------
terminated on the day of that rescission. Please
continue to work with State officials to monitor
carefully the situation in ________ and to inform me if
the emergency snould cease to exist. You will
continue to retain full authority to disapprove
temporary suspension of regulations in _______ and to
exercise your emergency powers authority under Section
303 of the Clean Air Act, when and •if necessary.
While my determination permits the temporary
suspension of certain c mission limiting requirements,
I urge Governor ______________ to exercise caution in
granting these susoensions, in order to protect, to
the fullest extent possible, the oublic healtn and
welfare. (This determination shall be oublished in
the Federal Register. )
110
A
-------
PN 110—79-09—17-020
In order to conserve space, the Federal Register notice entitled:
State Implementation Plans, General Preamble for
Proposed Rulemaking on Approval of Plan Revisions
for Nonattainment Areas--Supplement (on Control
Techniques Guidelines) (44 FR 53761, September 17, 1979)
is not included in the Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook.
Please refer to this notice for EPA policy/guidance related to this
subject.
-------
Federal Register/VoL 44. No. 128 / Moii’Jav. July
PN— 110—79-07-02 -017
(43 CPR Part 5.2
tFRI.. 1262.41
State Irriclementatlon Plans. Goneral
rean ble for Proposed Rulemaking on
Aoprovaj of Plan eviaions icr
4onattainment Areas—Supplement
(on Public Comment and Conditional
Approval)
AGEMCY Environmentai Protection
Agency
ACTION: General preamble Icr proposed
rulernaking—5uppiement .
5UMU4R Provt iori of the Ccari Air
Act enitcte in 197 require stutee to
revise their State Implementation Plan.
for Ii rees that have not attaioed
National i\mbtent Au Quality
Stancards. Statc, are to have submitted
he lecessary plan revisions to EPA by
J.inu ry . 1979 The A;encv is now
puolishung proposals inviung public
comment on wneilter j the
sut’mitt ls bou1o be aocroved. In the
April 4. 979 icsue of tne Feceral
Re ’ster, EPA puofisned a General
Preamule aer.tit.ing and sumn anztr.g
rh ,,aior corisicerations that witl guice
a evaiuancn of tr.e iubroittais (44
FR 2 ( Toeny s Supptci ent pro’ndes
ru_.ier elaborai:on or. two issues—
public cor rnen: coo canoitiorxaj
appro’. aL
JRrIiaa IM OPL4A11ON C’ 5C
ire p ropr lcie EP :e;icnai on:ce
on ‘he firs’ pete of ie Cc crnl
Prcamiue (44 FR Z 7 Cr the foliowing
hr,jdqunrters office’ C I Helms Chief,
C nt• l °‘ocrams Ooe-ac.ons Erencn.
Car ml °ro rams Deveioprricit Division,
EPA Cifice of Air Quality Planning and
Staridaros (MD—l5) Reaearcn margie
Parx “4cirth Carolina 711, ( 19) 541—
53G5 nr 541—5Z28
SUPPUNE,(rApy lNFORMAr1O The
background is set out at !angih in the’
April 4 Cc eral Preamble This
Supplement addrcssc issues that
appear to need further elaboration,
1. Public Comment
As explained in the April 4 General
Preamble. EPA Regional Admnir.istracora
are publishing Federal essIer
propos.ils ‘nvitin cnmment on hcther
the individii l plnn submittuli hotild be
approved The Coricral Preantute and
thu Supplement arc noticus of rcnosed
ulcmaxir . aooltcao(e to eacn dec:s;on
cy P.\ etnor o a;;rc a SIdle iaO
submittal EPA a inai action Nih be in
be fo of acproving or dasaoproving
‘he Irici’. cuat pian aubmit:aJ.
pan ma be ac -o ec criv ‘it
i ti2iits i ’ie eçuu’ nts o Lne C_e ..a
Air Act and EPA regul.ittons. To assist
the utjli iii coir.rner,1 1n2 on
E..\ nouid aporove or ulsaporove
noivicual pian Suumitius EPA
in the Cenc’ai Proamnule ano
i us Suppiement a ,um.mar/ ox ne most
irportarit requirements of we Act. EPA.
rc ulations. and E PA ’s inlerprotaitoas
ar.d polices. Since t.’ic General
Preamble is a notice of prooose
rulemaking, the iuterpretalions and
polices referred to iii it do not now
establish condusuvely how every issue
must be resolved. In reviewing eec
individual plan suomittaL EPA will
considrr the ;usttilcotioii tuljmatted by
the state with its clata ,.thc public
comments on whcther tie plan sbo d
be .approved, and other relevant
mnulcnul in the ruIcmn ttt ’ record—its’.
well as tho inic.pretauor.s nnd colicigs
referred to in the General Pream bla.
2. Canth ionol Appmvcls
For purposes of deterniriurig wnether
a SiP satiaiica the requirements of Part
. EPA intends to grant conditional
approvals under certain ctrcl.imstar.ces.
The Aci and existing SIPs provide for a
resir ction on construction of rna;or new
sources of pollution if a revised plan ‘a
not in effect by july 1. 1979. to satisfy
the requirements of Part D. The purpose
of the restriction on new sau. -ces is riot
to puriish a state icr failure to ccn’.rcl
pollution. uut miner to prevent the
oi(ution pmnc(e.’-i from geti:n; worse.
The rcst cion woulQ pestoone
construction that would worsen a
Jiciation of a r.at’anai standard until
after an accectable 2:an is ri ci ec: at
assures timety aitain ent cf me
sidnoaru. Where a plan has been
re’. ised so as to tie ri substantial
corr;iiance with ‘he requirements of
Part 0. and the state provides
ascitrances hat any rcmaimr.g minor
deficiencies will be remedied within a
short period. imposition of the
restriCtion on new sources during that
period would not serve th
congressional purpose Therefore. mindcr
suca circumstances EPA interprets the
Act ‘o permit he plan to be
conoittanalty approved as a ti fyiri;
Part C requirements.
If a state submits a SIP cor.tainulg
minor deficiencies, and the Stale
provides nicurunces thu it u ill submit
cOrrectiotis un a specified scheaule, CPA
slI conu:tionally approve the plan. The
‘ L Regional Offlc will recolor wlt
: me state on an aceptacie scrie ule
prior :o flr ial acuon. .A conditional
aeproval ‘.vilt ‘neon that the resu-c:ioi,
On rew scurce, .vitl not oo;tv ‘1tess ‘e
state a::s to t ’ . ’ :om— cm:c ’m 0’.
ec iie cate. or .,..-uues irme coreem. ,orms
are ustimatelv octrermined to be
:naJequ.ite. Condit onal acoroval will
rQ J e crantec wlirmoui sm ’nn as 5u:ance
J. .! . 2.Ero0rla(e aiaieeffic:a,s mat
t”eceiciencie, wiit n— ‘orrec’ec on
In cvvelcping comments on wrtet.aer
individual plans satis(y the
requirements of Pnrt 0. members of the
public should i eep in mind the three
possule outcomeam Full approval.
disapproval, and conditional aoprovaL
If this discus5ion of conditional approval
requires aiteratton of any comments on
a plan fur which the comment pcnoa
bus already ended. the commnnter
choiiid r,ant.ict the appropriate EPA
Rcgiunul Office imnmcdiutely so thnt the
issue cnn be opproprintcly denlt with,
Nuto,—4Jndcr Exeauuive Order O44 A
is rr’.tiircd is ud e t heihcr a rcguisuon .ta
“significant’ and therefore suo eci a the
procedural requurcmenis of the Order or
wrether it may (ottow other speciilizeii
evetopmrnt procs:urea EPA iaoçls U’.ese
othcr egiilation, ‘speCiaiizea ” I hs .
rcvIeweO hi, re ulauuon and aetermnined that
ii a soecializec reguLition aot auoiect to itie
procedural requte ern, of Lzecaiive Croar
5 cc ,. 11C J. 170. Cean A r Acu_ a, a.neo4gd
( Z US C. 74101al, ‘O2t).
aIed. June 07. 1979.
av:d C. Ii wku,s,
“ rrrn, ld. ’ sns1 ,- zc ’fcr 4.u ’ Noire cad
Cc,o:,cn.
ira n . a-.n.zo C.4 e- -.- i4
3IU .juG cooc -at-
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIR0NMENTAL.PR0T CTION AGENCY
Office of Ai Quality Planning and Standaros
-: . . 1979 Re rch Tr,anc1 o rk, Ncrth Carolfie 27711
- -T PN-LW-79 -06_14..0L6
_a - s
— I
/4 -
M G. 1. helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch, CPDD (MD-15)
TO: Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
As you know, the SIP requirements for lead are set forth in
40 CFR Part 51, Subpart E, as promulgated on OctoDer 5, 1978. Questions
have arisen concerning the interpretation of these requirements in those
instances where no violations of the national ambient lead standard have
been recorded since January 1, 1974, no significant lead point sources
[ as described in 40 CFR 51.80(a)] exist, and the State has no urbanized
area with a 1970 population greater than 500,000.
In cases where such conditions exist, a plan subnission is still
required. This plan should minimally contain information pertaining
to 1ea emissions data (Section 51.81) and air ouality data (Section
51.82). It must be suthiitted by the State ano demonstrate continued
attainment (i.e., maintenance) of tne standara for a minimum of three
years. he spec fic inTormation that should be contained in this type
of plan is as follows:
A baseline emission inventory sumari:ec in a form sirnii!r to
opendix 0 of 40 CrR Part 51. Stationary sources mitz nc i a or more
tons of lead per iear must be included in such inventories. :s inventory
must also contain area sources and rnooile sources. [ ection L8l (a)
2. Pro ectec lead emissions for at least three years rom the cate
by which EPA must aoprcve or disapprove the plan. [ Section 51 .81 (5)]
3. A summary of all lead air quality data measured since i97. ana
an evaluation of the data for reliability and representativeness.
[ Section 51 .82(a)]
4. A projection of maximum air quality concentrations based on
projected emissions. [ Section 51.82(c)]
If you have any questions concerning minimum SI reQuirements for
the above mentioned situations, please contact Susi Jackson at 629-5365.
cc: Jim Cahan, 0CC
.. .. , )• 6I
-------
PN 110—79-04-04—015
In order to conserve space, the Federal Register notice entitled:
State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for Proposing
Rulemaking on Approval of Plan Revisions for Nonattainment
Areas (44 FR 20372, April 4, 1979)
is not included in the Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook.
Please refer to this notice for EPA policy/guidance related to this
subject.
-------
. O S 7 i
‘ ,‘ ‘ ;p
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTI N NJ(Y
/ ANN ARBOR. M1C -UGAN PN 110 78-07-17-007

OF IC! CF
JUL 1 7 197 AIR . NO .‘IAT!R CC AMS
SU3JECT: Inspection/Naintenance Policy
FROM: David C. Eawkims, assistant èd’n(nistracor
for Air and Waste 1anage ent
f O TO: Regional Administrators, Regions I — I
A.s you know, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 sec forth
specific requirements for the implamentac±on of ocor vehicle -
inspection/maintenance (I/s!) programs. Attached is a policy paper
indicating wnat EPA will consider a .in . ally acceptable program
wherever rIM s :equired by cne Act. I: should aid your ef or:s
provide for adequate I/M submissions for the State Implemencat cn
Plan (SIP) revisions of January 1, 1979. Please continue to contact
e if problems i rIM implementation develop.
cc: Air and Hazardous Materials Division
Directors, Regions I, III — X
Environmental Programs Din .s on D rec: r,
Region II
Air ?rograms ranch Chiefs, Regions I - X
-------
Policy for the Development and Implementation of
Inspection/Maintenance Programs
The C] ean Air Act Amendments of 1977 provide new direction for the
development and imp1 mentacion of tor vehi.cla inspection/mainnenanc
(I/M) programs. I .E states are not able to demonstrate attainment of the
standards for oxida.nt (Ox) or carbon t onoxide (CO) by December 31, 1982,
a specific schedule for the implementation of t/M must be included tn
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) ravtsions of January 1, 1979 for the
plan to meet the requirements. of Section 172. The general requirements
for the I/M programs are set out in a February 24, 1978 memorandum from
the EPA strator to the Regional Adm.inistrators (reprinted in the
Federal aegister on May 19, 1978, 43 F.R. 21673). The requirements, for
these programs, are explained in tore detail below.
A.. tIM SIP Revision Development and the January 1, 1979, Subm±ttal
Ic. producing an tIM SIP revision, the states should provide for:
1. an analysis of the benefits and costs of the progam;
2. a pub1 .c in±or ac on effort;
3. a 1ag slat±va proposa; and
4. a schedule for tIM imp1 mentacion.
A copy of suggested sc ps for development of the SI? ravision is attached
(Ac:ac!- menc 1). Before the January 1, 1979 submittal, the SI? rav s .on
usc be adopted by the state a r ?ollutlon control board or ageflcy head as
appropriate. As a part of the SI? ravtsicn submittal itself, there cust
be a oi an: by the Governor to plemenc cne tiM program accorcizg to
the schedule subm.it:ed.*
*Seccjons 172(b) (7) and (10) pro’r de chat cne plan revisions required
for nonactainment areas shall —
(7) identify and coit the financ aJ. and oanpower resources
necessary to carry out the plan rOv_sLcns required by this su secc on;
(Emphasis added I
and shall —
(10) icclude evidence criac the state, the genera! uroose
local governenc or cverents, or a reg:onal agency des ;nacad oy 3eneral
purpose local ;ove’ . en:s for such ur?ose, I VC acootad oy stat ta, eg —
lac .on, ordi:aance, or ot.-ier legally enforceable document, t .e ecessa ’
recuirernents ar.d scnedule anc t ecabLes for corooltance , anc are :::::
to lament anc enforce : aooroor:a:e elerien:s of c e olan; i ohas:s
added]
-------
2
—these plan elements should be prepared in accordance with the guidance
on pages 186—188 of the Compilation of Presentations prepared by EPA’s
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) for the “Workshops
on Requirem ts for Nonattaient Area Plans” February -March 1978
(pages 218—220 in the April 1978 edition).
B. The tIM Implementation Schedule
The specific items listed below must be included as a part of the
States’ I/ implementation schedules with specified dates for implementation
of each item. The stringency planned for the program and other factors
affecting the potential for emission reductions should also be indicated.
Additional. .tems if necessary because of local factors may be required by
USEPA Regions.]. Offices.
1. Initiation (or continuation) of public iniormat±on
program including publicizing the t/ program in the
media, meeting and speaking with affected interest -
groups, etc.
2. Preparation of a draft legislative package and
submittal of legislation package to legislature
i.E additional legisLative authority is needed.
3. Certification of adequa: legal authority by ap rop—
nate state offic a1.
4. LnitiaJ. uod.ficatiot of garages ex 1a ing program
and schedule of imp1emencac on. *
5. Development and issuance of RYPs.*
6. Award to concraczor(s).*
7. Initiation of conszrucc on of facilicies.*
8. Completion of construcc on of facili: es.*
9. Adoption of ?rocedures and guidelines fot casting
and quality control including emission analyzer
requirements (and Licensing requirements for private
garages, if applicable*).
10. Nocifica: on of a d a: Liiac on to garages of ac: or
in step 9*
-------
Co p1etion of equipment purchase and delivery of
equipment.
12. Development and adoption of cutpoincs.
13. _lnitiation of hiring and training of inspectors or
hcensing of garages.*
14. Initiation of introductory program (voluntary main—
ten.ance with either voluntary or mandatory inspection)
if not previously initiated.
1.5. Initiation of mechanics tra ng and/or infornacion
program.
16. Initiation of mandatory inspect .on.
17. Iaitiac on of ndator- repair for failed vehicles.
If certification of adequate legal authority occurs after January 1979,
the States may modify prav ous cc i encs to imniement and enforce the elements
of the schedule to conform to the legal auchority.** These mod1fica ion. iJJ. be
approved by the EPA Regional Offices and ist be coas s:ent :h :ne Administ:a—
tor’s February 4, 1978, policy memorandun. The documents should be submic:ad
to the A Reglona! Offices for inclusion n the SIP revisions already ubmic:ed
by January 1, 1979. Any necessary adjus ents to the schedule may be made at
this time out must oe aaproved by the A Regional Offices.
C. Authority to Immlemenc t/
Normally, adequate Legal author cy to implement a SIP revisicu must exlst
Ear a revision to be appr.oved. bera a legislature has had adequate
OpPottunity to ado c enabling lagis1ac ou before January 1, 1979, the
Ragmonal Administrator sriouid raqe cerzif cac cn chat acaquaza legal
au: ormcy exists for Ihl imp1emencac on ov January 1, 1979. cwever,
for many states there -dill be insufficient opportunity to obtain adequate
legal authority before :he r legislatures meet in early 1979. Therefore,
a certm.ficacion of legal authority for the imv1ementac on of i/ in
these states must be made no lacer than June 30, 1979. An extension to
July 1, 1980, is possible, but only when the state ca n demonstrate chat
(a) there vas insufficient o vortuni j to conduct necessary technical
analyses ann/or (b) the 1eg slacu:e nas had no opportunity to cons der
any necessary enabling legisLation for Lnspecto.on/ maintenance between
euac ent of the 1977 Amendments to the Act and June 30, 1979. Cartif i—
cation of adacuace legal authority, or other av danca :nac legal authority
has been adootad, must ha submm::ed to the A Regional Offices to be
included in the 5P revis:on already suonicced. Failure to submit evidence
of legal auchor ty by the approtriace deadline will consc :u:e a failure
to submit an essenc:al element of the SIP, under Sections 113(a) (2) (1)
and 175(a) of the Ac:.
‘Deoendenc on :rme of s’s:em csen (sca:e—r n cenc:al zed, contractor
n::alized, or decenz:aii:ed).
**See footnote on cage 1.
-------
4
Prior to the respective deadlines for initiating mandatory inspection
tn mandatory repair of failed vehicles, the state, local government, or
regionai. agency shou .d adopt whatever legally enforceable requirements
are necessary o ens ira that vehicles are not used unless they co ly
with the inspection/maintenance requirements. Written evidence of
adoption of these requirements should be submitted to the A Regional
Offices, to be included in the SIP revision already submitted by January
1, l979.
D. t/ tm lementat on Deadlines
Implementation of I/ 1 “as expeditiously as practicable” shall be
defined as implementation of mandacor7 repair for failed vehicles no
later than c o and a half years after passage of needed 1eg slatiOn or
certification of adequate legal. authority for new centralized systems
and one and a half years after Legislation or certification for decen-
tralized systems or for centralized systems which are adding emission
inspections to safety inspect cnS. For the normal legis1at on deadlIne
of June 30, 1979, new centralized programs must star: by December 31,
1981, and all others must start by December 31, 1980. For the case of
the Laces: possible leg s].atiou date, July 1, 1980, this neans that a
new centralized program must star: by December 31, 1982, while all otner
programs must start by December 31, 1981. era iI 1 can be imniemented
core expeditiously, it must be. Each state thplementation schedule must
a looked at nd vidually to decernine if it is as e ecitious as prac:i—
.able. Implementation dates ordered by courts, i.f earlier than these
dates, take praceaance.
a. G ograohic Covera
t/ f should focus on metropolitan areas and should include the antla
urbanized area and adjacent fr nge areas of development. 3oundar as of the
area affected may be ad uszac if an equivalent emission :aduc:ion s achieved.
For urbanized areas of 200,000 opu1acion or greater which need t/ to obtain
an extension of the 1982 attainment data, fuil mandatory I/ must be implemented
by the deadlines indicated above. Statewide orograms are encouraged, especially
for chose states wnich are small and hi ’nJ.y ur arti d.
It should be amohasized that all nonat:air . ent areas must have SIPs
which are adequate to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) by 1982 or by no Lacer than 1987 should an
acceptable nonattaitnenc demonstrat On be made. For areas under 200,000,
EPA will not at this time automatIcally require t/ ( schedules in 1979 as a
condi:i n for SEP aporoval or an extension. owever, areas under 200,000
still have to attain and maintain NAAQS as ex ecicious1y as orac:ttable,
and t/ { is encouraged as a means of nel in to ?rovide for an adequate
SIP. EPA will review :h neec for I/ 1 in areas tinder 200,000 after the
1979 S ? rev:sions are sucn :zen, ann o s car a ::rna1
ments at chat rime.
e :oOCrtota 1.
-------
—
Emission Reductions Required for 1/M
I/M programs must produce at least a 25 percent reduction in light
duty vehicle DV) exhaust emissions of hydrocarbons and a 25 percent
reduction in LDV emissions of carbon monoxide by December 31, 1987,
compared to what emissions would be without tiM on the basis of the most
recent motor vehicle emission factors. However, the choices of stringency
factor to be used and ocher actions affecting the potential for emission
reduction should be made by the states. States should of course be
encouraged to develop programs which produce ‘ore emission reduction
when possible. The final revis on to Appendin (! O C.F.R., Part 51)
when pro lgated (along with its minimum program requirements) should be
used to determine if the program described in the implementation schedule
will meet the mfnim irn 25 percent CO/as percent ‘dC criterion. Should a
program not need to be this stringent to attain and maintain the AAQS
by 1982, the t/M program need be only as stringent as needed to assure
conformity with MsàQS. Should a state want to emphasize control of one
particular pollutant at the expense of the ocher, the plan for such an
t/M program must be submitted to the appropr:ace A Regional Offine for
approval.
G. Mininum ?ro gram Reci .: emen t s
In addition to the emission :educt on requirement above, all I/!
programs nust:
1. prcv da for regular Deriodic nsoec: cns of all veh:cles
for which emission reduct:ons are clai2ed;*
2. provide for incanance and rat2sclng of failed ‘,ah des
to pro da for compl ancs ch aDplicable emission
standards;
3. prohibit registration or provide some eqt.ally effac:ive
mechanism :o orevent vehicles - nicn do not comoly with
the applicable exoausc emission :squiremencs from operac ng
on oublic roads;
4. provide for ualL:7 control regulations and procedures
for the inspection system including:
*Raadom roadside chec cs, wnila a useful addition to an tIM orogram,
are not an acceptable subsc tuce for regular periodic :nspections.
-------
—6--
a. n(nimum specifications for emission analyzers
b. required calibrations of all types on analyzers and
. minimum record keeping;
5. provide for either a mechanics training program or a program
to inform the public of service establishments with approved
emission analyzers; and
6. inform the public of the reason for the I/M program plus
the locations and hours of inspection stations.
Decentral zed systems must also comply with the following require—
ments.
1. All official inspection facilities must be licensed.
Provisions for the licensing of inspection facilities
must insure that the facility has obtained, prIor to
licensing, analytic.al instrumentation which has been
approved for use by the appropriate state, local, or
regional gover anc agency. A representative of the
faciLity must have received i.nscruc:ions in the proper
use of the instruments and in veh c!a tasting methods
and must have demonstrated proficiency in these methods.
The facility must ag-rae to maintain records and : subm .i:
to inspection of the fac li:y. The appropr aca government
agency must have rovisions for penalties for faciic es
which fail to follow prescr bed proceoures and for m.s—
conduct.
2. Records required to be ma ntaiced should include the
descrlDtion (make, year, llcansa number, etc.) of each
vehicle inspected, and :ts emissions :asc results.
Records must also be maincained on :ne calibration of
testing equipment.
3. Suaries of these inspection racoras should be ub ittad
on a periodic basis to the governing agency for auditing.
4. The governing agency should i.nspecc each facility
periodically to check the facilitIes’ recorns, check
the calibratIon of the casting equipment and obse ie
that proper cast pr cedu:es ara followed.
5. The governing agency snculd have an affac: -;e
of unannounced/unscheduled inspec::ons both as a routine
neasura anc as a conoJain: veszi;acion neasure. :
also coneided c a sucn s3ec::on.s e ..sec z eck
the cor:elac.ori of s::-_nen: readings among :ns ec:ior.
facili : es.
-------
—7—
6. The gover’ ing agency should operate a “referee” station
where vehicle owners ay obtain a valid test to compare
eto a test from a licensed station. At least one ‘ eferee”
must be present in each I/N macropolitan area.
-------
Attachment 1
gesced I/M 1i1estones
1. Complete paan for preparing and implementing IJ SIP revision
including: -
a. technical analysis
b. public in.formation program
c. development of necessary legislation
d. development of I/M implementation schedule.
2. Comvleca .echnical analysis including:
a. emssion reduction benefits
b. fuel economy benefits
C. COStS.
3. Com lece elements of a uc uing public info cion program
including:
a. further publicity concerning oxidant (and/or carbon
nonoxide) ep sodes
b. neeting wicn and speaking to affaczed interest groups
(including the puoljc and puo].ic offici.aJ..s)
c. news releases.
4. Compleca development of lag:sLacive ?roposals.
5. Complete development of t/ implementation schedule.
6. Receive a proval of IIM, including lemencacion schedule, from
air pollution control board or agency head as applicable ann
introduce into state leg slacure.
7. Submit SI? revision for I/ , including implementation schedule, to
?A (due no lacer :ban January 1, 1979).
S. Obtain legal auchor::y needed to implement i/1 (raquirac by July 1,
1979, with some excepc:ons allowec m:il Julj 1, 1980).
-------
UNITED STATES EN’I RQNME 4TA PROTECT 0N AGENCY
OaT • 1 1AR 2 _ i
u e: ?lans uncer Section 1ll d) of the Clean A ir Act
PN—110— 78-03—24-003
FROM Richaro G. Rhoads, Cir ctor/ / —
Control Prcgrams Development Division
ro airector, Mr ano Hazardous Materials Division, Regions 1, tII-X
Director, Env ronmentai Programs Division, Region Ii
A question has been raised concerning Secticn 111(d) Plans anc
their relationship to the State imDlementation plan (SI?). Specifi-
cally, it was asked whether a State is requiret to develop and submit
a plan unc r Section 111(d) to control a facility if the facility is
currently controlled by the SP to a degree e ivalant to that of zne
Sacz on 1 11(c) requir nent3.
ne State must sucmi unc r Section li1( a Separate COntrQi-
olan for oesignated facilities as outi n ur.cer G CFR 0, Subpart -
A oo:icn & Suomittal of S: za Plans for 3es cnat Fac,i t,es.
icwever, certain plan recu rements can ce fUif1l 0 by refer ic ç : e
aporocri : crcv’sicn fcunc n tne State’s a pr:vac Si?. Section 11(c
piCr recu remer ,t3 :h cn can e fuifille in this anner are fo nc iT
C.S(o) and O C R O.Z o).
Sec::cn c0.. c) Ci - 0 :r :ne ce : - ce , ec a:i ns
a:a:es at the 7rcvis ns fcr mon Qr-nc :. e s:a s f c: no anc2
ii:i ti :ac1e erniss cn a:ar.car:s, :rtvi i r,s :. r c:r— lati n of th s
cnizcrinc aza acoi’caoie c mi Ssicr 3: ncar:s. arc :rovisicls for
rnak nc cne d ;a va iao e to tne bi c ray :e . cac r t.ie II :
olan cy referenc rc zne aoprC;ria :C :roviSicn in :na Si?. acc —
:icn, .vner. e ’iipioy ng tnis coorcaci, : e Szat nus: rake a camor S:ra-
:ion tnat t e Si? :rov’ ,sion oeinq referenced copi’cs :: the desi:-
iatec Ocilutant(s) fcr .•inicn the Secz cn llLc) an is ceinc S tmit:ec
anc t.iat : e Section 1: i(d) plan reçuire en:a or ec; cn c0.2 are, in
ract, net.
Section 50.!6(:) :f i:ie .C of the Coca of coera Reguiat cns
states :nat laws or reg a:icns wnicn orovice au:ncri :j to carry cut
:ne section i olan neec not be oirec: y su:mi::ec . it:i the oian
zr.e lecci a :horitj :0 co so nas Qeen approved as part or the
existing SI? ano the State de’nonscrates that the laws or reguiations
are aoo1icao1 to the desicn t c 70 iutant(s) ror wnich :ne 1 1(d) olan
is oeing s :n1z:ac. lie a orovec 51? Drovis on nust be scecir’cal y
icen: f,ec in the 3ec: :n i :; olin to satisfi this rs:u rcneri:.
-------
rac’j’r meits listed uicer S ct n C.2E b :) n: Section 6O.26 a)
are :ne cr y Section i o; olan reou’re nerts ,rci a’ :e sa: ’ec :‘
zi a::r ori ; aCOrC’/ec S r3vi r . we’ier. e De ’eve
any ai isaio zancarcs rncn nave been induced in ttie off’c ali” accroved
Si? can also cc inciucec n the Section i11( ) plan oy reference, pro—
v aed that the State makes demcns ratjcns similar to :nose cen:ified in
Section 60.25 and Section 60.25. All other requ1rernent ilust e specifi-
cally spellec out in the Section 111(d) plan.
Finally, it shoulo be notea tnat near rg recuire enes can oe waived,
pursuant to 3 c; on 50.23(c)(3), if certa n criteria are iet. All the
requirernent5 for Section 111(d) plans, including those wnich can cc
fulfiliec oy referencing tne appropriate portion of the Section 110 SIP,
are su i1arized in a checklist found in No. 1.2-072 of tie OAQ?S Guideline
Series, Recu rc en:s enc ?rccedures fcr plament . ia Sect on lil(C). This
. as seit to you ii iartn, 1977, and znculc prove helpf to S:a:es r 1 en
tney :eveco :r.ei 111(d) plans. : ncpe these coi er.za Cce:uazeiy responc
to jour ieecs; nowever, ir can be o any r rtner assistance, piease.
feel rree to Call.
cc: 4. SpraJin
—
i.. ‘cr
. Seoleski
. ariier
-------
Sl
.r ‘
UNITEU STATES EN\JIRC I’iENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
___ WASHINGTON DC 20460
PN-11O_7 8 _ 02 _ 24 _ 002
OFFICE OF
AIR AND WASTE MANAGEME
FEB 24 1 78
SUBJECT: Criteria for Approval of 1ft9 , IP Revisions
FROM: The Administrator (A-lOU)
TO: aegional Administrators, I-X
The attachment to this memo summarizes the elements
which a 79 State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
for a non-attainment area must contain in order to Se —
approved by EPA as meeting the requirements of Part D of
the Clean Air Act.
In summary, the Act requires the demonstration of
attainment of the air quality standards (primary and
secondary) as expeditiously as practicable, but i-i the
case of national primary standards not later than
Decernoer , 19 2. However, for caroon monoxide CO) an
oxidants if the State can demonstrate attainment
is not possine by 1982 despite the implementati r of il
reasonable stationary source and transpc: ation c’n:rol
neasures, : e ct rov des tor un to a five-’ear c(ter ,Lon.
:n those cases the plan revisions must de onstraz
atta:nment as exped tious1v as practicable Out r Iat .
tnar. Lecemo .r , i’ 8 7 . The exten jon is not aut mat1c;
a denonstrat:on of need must be made and :ne tat must
tuif 1l the otrter statutory requ rements
It is the intent of the .\ encv to s abl sh •eas ’. a51
anc acnaevable goals for SIP subg ssions •. d to to :rm
7osture on the imposition of sanctions re the reas . thle
goals are r ,ot achteved. \ccord n L’.’, wh:e the icy
reçu res a conm:tment to many SP3CLtLC stra:eg c in te
subniss ons (a.g., SACT on stat:cnar sourc -, lnpec-
Lon/ma intenance programs ...r.ere atta:nmerit fr c :bor.
no ox:de or o’c dants extends beyord 1032. ot er r , a5orn31e
Lr.1 D..)or zton control neis res, c:c. t.L T TO so
re rr s f r c1 cin an ox:dan:;, cc., itmn .:
to a con n -; :roc 5. This ?rucess n : e one n ch
e tes:v ” - c \es :ne • “ :;: as . eil as fza:e nd local
cf c als un . “tcn L1) t1DUS . -saes a
ra c of azerna: e .
-------
2
Since e1iance on stationary controls and Federal
new car star dards alone will not enable most areas with
oxidant and_carbon monoxide problems to attain these
standards by 1982, each Regional Office will need to put
particular emphasis on additional measures to reduce
transportation system emissions. The process committed
t-’ in the 1979 plan submission must lead to the
expeditious selection and implementation of comprehensive
transportation control measures. ifl judging the adequacy
of the 1979 plan submission for the transportation
sector, each Regional Administrator should ensure that
ambitious alternatives (as described in the draft
“Transportation Planning Guidelines” which have been
circulated) will be arialyted.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) , Housing and
Urban Developnent (HUD) and EPA are seeking to integrate
the transportation/air quality planning and implementation
required by the Clean Air Act into existing planning and
programming procedures. The air planning activities should
be included :n the Unified Work Program required by DOT
and the adopted transportation measures should be included
in the Transportation Improvement Program required by DOT.
In comolying with the Clean Air Act requirements, the Regions
should also :
-------
3
You sh u1d note that there are other SIP revisions
which are nott discussed in the attachment but which are
required by -the 1977 Amendments. These include:
1. Section 128 (relating to State boards)
2. Section 126 (relating to interstate pollution)
3. Section 127 (relating to public notification)
4. Part C (relating to prevention of significant
deterioration)
S. Section llO(a)(2)(K) (relating to permit fees)
5. Section 123 (relating to stack heights for
existing source in other than non-attainment
areas)
7. Section 121 (relating to consultation)
Although incorporation of these prOvisluns is required
by the law, fcilure to achieve final approval by
July 1, l07 does not trigger the ne source prohtb tion
of Section 110(a) (2) (I)
It is im ortant to emphas :e to the 5tates that all
current S? requirements rema:n in erfect ueso:te the
aevelopnient af the 1979 rev.Lslons. Any suspension or
d sconttnuance of an existing SIP j rov1siori must be
subm:tted for EPA approval. This should be cone as part
of the revision submitted in January 1079. Exceptions
to this procedure may be found in certain new Drovislons
of 5110 relating to reduction of on-street parking, bridge
tolls, and other measures.
The develoDment of the Junuar 19 9 St?s to meet the
minimum requ remeats o: the Clean Air Act raend r ents at
l9 , is a comple ana demanding tro ram. it . ill require
the commitment of significant resources on the part of the
air programs staff of the Regional Office to ensure that
tne States eve1op and brn t a com reieisi ’e 3nd
aa rova5le ian. Ic arc wo g W.Th ‘tour staf to develop
t e rcce scrv dance a o :o o. - a 7rOgrnTS \ Cn -
aSSit your crti c and t,e ttdte to carr’. uut th:s
d:ff:cul: .it rv o-tart nrt o.’cral. :r arogram.
-------
i ttachjiient
cc: !\ L- fazardous Divj ic. 11 L) rors
Air Brai 1 i:h Chiefs
-------
Criteria for Arproval of 197 ’ State_Implementation Plan Revisions
for Non-A tm inment Areas
Purpose
The purpose of this document is to define the criteria by which
State Impleme tation Plan (SIP) revisions for non-attainment areas
required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 (the Act) will be
approved. The%e revisions are to be submitted to EPA by January 1, 1979.
Categories of SIP Revisions
SIP revisions submitted by january 1, 1979 can be divided into
two categories:
1. Those which provide for attainment of t e Primary Ambient
Air Quality Standards (primary standards) for au criteria pollutants
on or before December 31, 1982.
2. Those whicn prov de for attainment of the primary standards
for sulfur Qioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter on or before
December 31, 1982 but show that despite the implementation of all
reasonable transportation and stationary source emission control measures
attainment of the primary standards for carbon monoxide and,’or oxidants
cannot be achieved until after this date. In these cases, the revisions
iiust ‘icnstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no later
tnari Cece iber 31 , 1987.
: order for an adequate SIP revision to fall into tie second
catecory, the State has an affirmative responsibility to aemonstrate
to tho satisfaction of EPA that attainment of the primary carbon
moncxide and/or oxidarts standards is not possible in an area prior
to Oeceiiber 3 , 1982.
It sneula be noted that SIP revisions of either category should
also provice for attainment of Secondary Pmb er,t Air ualitj Standards
(secondary standards) as expeditiously as practicaDle althougn tnere ms
no specific aaauline contained in the Act.
General Requirements of All 1979 SI? Revisions
Each 1979 SIP revision usc contain tne following.
1. A oefinition of the geographic areas or wn cn control
s -r teg es have been or will be ceveloped. consideration should be
given to the practical benefits f defining areas wn ch correspond
whenever possible to those substate d stricts established pursuant
to Par: I V, Attachment A of 0MB Circular o —95.
-------
2
p
2. r. accurate, comprehensive, nd cuii iit (1917 calnrdar year)
inventory or existing emissions.
3. . , determination of the level of control • ee 1id to demonstrate
attai menc oy 1982 ( nc1udthg growth). This Jemon’icrotion sh u1d he
made by the application 01 mcda!ing techniques as set i rtn in EPA’s
Guideline on ;‘ Quality ; odels. For xdar , any 1egitirr te c eling
Lechnicue (e.g., cnose referenced in Use, .m1tatio iiJ Technç
Bdsls of Proceaures for Quani fviig elationsh ns et ecn PhotoL c—,oa1
Oxidants and Precursors.” EPA 4 O/ 2 - 7 /-O2ld. November 1977) can be
used. Consideration of bac yround and transport for oxidonts should
generally be in accordance with the procedures ocumentc in “Procedures
for Quantifying Relationships et een Photochemical Oxidants and
Precursors.” In developing photocr.e iical oxidant control strat2gias
for a part cular area, states in, assume at a rinimum Lhat the t2ridàrd
‘ iiul be attained ln adjacont
If a state can demonstraLe that cr, le 1 e1 c- c.3n ro 1 neca ar ’ or
attainir ,e: t of the priadry standards for :abcn .unnxide and/or c, d nt
is not poss o e ov 982 esp-te t e ooiicat’or or al reasonaole
measures, an E LenS:on past 1922 but not eyoi’1 I 7T ls aucicrized.
‘ . d ptii fl r. legailj CnFoLeaDle f o rm l of all ieasuros nacessary
to orov ao cr t nr nt by the oroscribed dote or, he’e adoption of
all sucn measures by 1979 is ncc possiole, (e.g. certa n transportat on
control rneasur2s, ond certain moasur s to cont-ol the cx es of nitrogen
ana tccai suspend a art culate) a sLheaule for eApeoltious de’ielopment,
adoption, submittal, and implenentdt lon of thes ’ measures. The
it aticns in niicn acJoption of measures nay be scheduled after 1979
are discus d in _he pollutant spec f c Sections of this document. Each
scneuue nust provide for impLamentation of all reasonably ava lable
control measures aS expeditiously as practicable. Jur ng the aeniod
prior to atta nment, t iese measures must be lmplemented rapidly e i ’jah
to pro’,ice at a minimum for reascnabie further progress (see discussicn
r tten eviaence that the State, the general purpose local
government or governments, or a re onal agency des gnated by çereral
purpose local governments for such purpose, have adopted oy statute,
regulation, ordinance or other iegailj enforceable oocument, the
necessary ‘-eo i ements and schedules ar1 tirnezablas For ctrnpliance,
and are co’rc tted to imolenient anc en- ce tie prouraze ele ert
of tne p an. The relevant organ: tati Drs aral Jroiioe av :Geqce that
tne legally enfcrceao a attainment neosures and tie ‘criteria,
standards and lmplemrnt’rg racecjre necessary for effectiv&y ;uiding
and controlling a or oec’s cns a to nere ro ,tn sn 3 3 snail not
take place,’ oreoared oy State and jcal governments in connl ’ance ‘ith
Section 701 of tne housinc ct of 1954, as amended, are fully coord na tea
in the az:ainrent and maintenance of the NAAQS.
-------
3
below). Each schedule will be considered part of the applicable
implementation plan and thus will represent a commitment on the part
of the State torneet the key milestones set forth in the submitted
schedule. —
5. Emission reduction estimates for each adopted or scheduled
control measure or for related groups of control measures where
estimates for individual measures are impractical. It is recognized
that reduction estimates may cnange as measures are more fully
analyzed and implemented. As such estimates change, appropriate
responses will be required to insure that the plan remains adequate
to provide for attainment and for reasonable further progress.
6. Pr vision for reasonable further progress toward attainment
of the primary and secondary standards in the period prior to the
prescribed date for attainment. Reasonable further progress is defined
as annual incremental reductions in total emissions (emissions from
new as well as existing sources) to provide for attainment by the
prescribed date. The plan shall provide for substantial reductions in
the early years • ith regular reductions thereafter.
Reasonable further progress will be determined for each area
by div aina the total emission reductions required to attain the appli-
cable standard by the .iumber of years between 1979 and the date pro-
, ec:ed for attainment (not later than 1987). Th s is represented
9raphlcally by a straight line drawn from the emissions inventory sub-
mitted in 1979 to the allowable emis3 cns or tr.e attainment date.
owevor, EP recognizes that some measures cannot result n 1mmed ate
em ss’cn reduction. Tnerefore, if a State can show that some lag in
emissions recuct on is necessary, a SIP will be acceptaola even though
reductions s ,jff c ent to produce decreases at the ‘straioht-iine ate”
are not achieved for a year or two after 1979. This lag in achieving
the ‘stra cnt-line rate” for emissions resuctior is to be accepted
or’y to accornmcdace tne time required for compliance w th the first set
of regulations adopted on or before January 1, 1979, if immed ate
compi lance is not possible. It does not authorize delays in adopt ion
of ccntrol requirements.
The requirement to demonstrate reasonable furtner progress will,
n most areas aesignated non-attainment for ox dant or carbon monoxide,
necessitate a continuous, onased lmDlementation of trans ortat on
control measures. :n areas wnere attainment of all primary anolent
standards by 1982 is not poss b1e ?A will not accept mere reliance on
the Federal iotor Vehicle Control Program by itself as a demonstration
of reasonable further progress.
-------
4
In t-ermining “reasonable further progress”, those emission
reductions obtained from compliance between August 7, 1977, and
December 31, 1979, with (1) SIP revisions that have been submittec
after Augu-st 7, 1977, and (2) regulations which were approved by the
Agency prior to the enactment of the 1977 Clean Air Amendments, can
be treated as having been achieved during 1979. There should be an
assurance, however, that these are real emission reductions and not
just “paper” ones.
7. An identification and quantification of an emissions growth
increment which will be allowed to result from the construction and
operation of major new or modified stationary sources within the area
for which the plan has been developed. Alternatively, an emissions
offset regulation can be adopted to provide for major new source growth.
The growth rates established by states for mobile sources and new
minor stationary sources should also be specified, and in combYrr tion
with the growth associated with major new or modified stationary sources
will be accepted so long as they do not jeopardize the reasonable further
progress test and attainment by tne prescribed date. However, the growth
rate identified in tne Si? must be consistent with the growth rates used
(or impl ied by) the other planning programs in the area (e.g., FWPCA
Section 208 [ 201’, HIJO Section 701, FH A Section 134). A system for
monitoring the emissior growth rates from major and minor nc-w stat onary
sources and from transportation sources and assuring that they do not
exceed the specified amcunts mjst also be provided for in the revision.
8. Provision for a: nuel reporting on the progress toward meeting
the schedules summar zed r, (4) above as well as gro’. ith of mobile
SourceS, minor new stationary sources, major new or modified stationary
sources, and reduction in emissions from existing sources to provide for
reasonable further progress as in (6) above. This should include an
updated emission inventory.
9. A reQuirement that permits e issued for the construction anc
operation of new or modified major sources in accordance w th Section
173 and llO(a)(2)().
10. An identification of and commitment to the financial and
manpower resources necessary to carry out the plan. The ccw iritnent
should be iiaoe at :he n gnest executive level naving responsiblity for
SIP or that portion of it and having authority to hire new employees.
This corrinitment should include written evidence that the State, the
general pi rpose iccol government or governments, and all state, local or
rec1cn 1 agencies •‘ave i cUjced aopropriaze :rovlsion n their r_espect ie
budc ts and intend o ccnt nue to do so .n future years for which budgets
have not yet been finalized, to the extent necessary.
-------
5
11. Evid nce of public, local government, and state legislative
involvement and consultation. It shall also include an identification
and brief analysis of the air quality, health, welfare, economic,
energy, and social effects of the plan revisions and of tne alternatives
considered by the State, and a summary of the public comment on such
analysis.
12. Evidence that the SIP was adopted by the state after reasonable
notice and public hearing.
Additional Requirements br Carbon Monoxide and Oxidant sr Revisions
which Provide for Attainment of the Primary Standards Later than 1982
For those SIP revisions which demonstrate that attainment of the
primary standards for carbon monoxide and/or oxidants is not possible
in an area prior to December 31, 1982 despite the implementation of-all
reasonable emission control measures the following items must be
included in the January 1, 1979 submission in addition to all the
general requirements listed above :
1. ? procram wnich requires prior to issuance of any permit for
construct:on or mod fication of a ma2or emitting facility an analysis
of alternative sites, sl:es, production processes, and environmental
control techn’ques far such proposed source which demonstrates that
benefits of the proposed source significantly outweign the environmental
and social cost mposed as a result of ts location, construction, or
mod fication.
2. An inspect cn/ma ntenance program or a sohedule endorsed by
and committed to by the Governor for the development, adoption, and
implementation of such a program as expeditiously as pract cab1e.
Where the necessary legal authority does not currently exist, it must
be obtained by June 30, 1979. L m ted exceptions to the requirement
to obtain legal autrority by June 30, 19P9 may be poSSiDle if the state
can demonstrate that (a) tnere was nsufficient ccportunity to conduct
necessary technical analyses and/cr (b) tne legislature has had no
opportunity to cor: der any necessary enabi ng legislation for inspectioni
maintenance oetweer enactment of the 1977 mendements to the Act and
June 20, 1979. In addition, wnere a legislature nas adequate opportunity
t adopt enabl ng leg slation before January 1, 1979, the Reqional
,A:ministrator snouIJ require suornission of sucn legal author’.tj by
Jdnuary 1, 1979. In no case can the sc e uie suonitted prov de for
ootaining legal aut iority later tnan uly 1, 1380.
-------
6
Actual i nplementaLion of the lnsDection/maintenance proGram must
proceed as expeditiouslj as practicable. EPA considers two and one half
years from the tiie of legislative adoption to be the maximum time
required to implement a centralized ‘inspection/maintenancc program and
one and one half years to implement a decentralized proar m. tn no case
ma ‘mplementation of the program, i.e. , mandatory inspect cn and
mandatory repair of failed venicles be delayed beyond 1982 n trie case
of a centralized program (either state lanes or contractor lanes) or
beyond 1981 in the case of a decentralized (private garage) system.
3. A commitment by the responsible government official or
officials to establish, expand, or improve public transportation
measures to meet basic transportation needs as expeditiously as is
practicable.
4. A commitment to use insofar as is necessary Federal grants,
state or local funds, or any corno nation of such grants and funds as
may be consistent with the ter is of the legislation provicing such
rants and fLnds, for the purcose o establishiny, expanain or
moroving 2u ic transpcrtat cn measures to meet basic transportation
needs.
Note that iLU has prepared cu’del nes for iocal development codes
and ora nances to rc’,ide special requirements for areas ricn for
significant per’cds of time may exceed the prinary standaros. These
guidehnes sceci y cr teria for new construction operat’on of buildings
wnich m n mize ptl lutant concentcat ons to ensure a hea .tny nOOor and
outdoor en11ror ent States are encouraGed to acoot sucn measures as
part DT the ?
P 1 nt Soecilc equirements
Sulfur Jiox de
Sceci ica y. izn re;arc to tem ( ) of the General equirements,
the Januarj I 79 plan revisions dealing Iitfl sulfur d ox oe must contain
all the necesaarj emiss cn limitatons end legally enforceable procedures
6provde for a:calrment by no ‘ater than ecemoer 31, l 82 i.e.,
scheaules for tre deve cpment, acootion, and submittal of regulations
will not be acceptaoe).
-------
7
Nitrogen Oxides
E r.NO , the January 1979 plan must contain all the necessary
emissi& limitations and the legally enforceable procedures, or as a
minimum the appropriate schedules to adopt and submit the emission
limitations and legally enforceable procedures which provide for
implementation so that standards will be attained by no later than
December 31, 1982. EPA is currently evaluating the need for a short
term NO 2 standard and expects to promulgate such a standard during
1978. If such a standard for air quality is promulgated, a new and
separate SI? revision will be required for tnis pollutant.
Particulate Matter
The January 1979 plan revisions dealing with particulate matter
must contain all the necessary emission limitations and legally enforce-
able procedures for traditional sources. These emission limitations and
enforceable procedures must provide for the control of fugitive
emissions, where necessary, as well as stack emissions from these
stationary sources. Where control of non-traditional sources (e.g.
urban fucitiv dust, resuspension, construction, etc.) is necessary for
attainment, the plan shall contain an assessment of the impact of these
sources and a commitment on the part of the state to acopt appropriate
control measures. This commitment shall take the form of a scheoule to
develop, subm t, and implement the legally enforceable procedures, and
programs for controlling non-traditional particjiate matter sources.
These schedules must include milestcnes For evaluating arogress and
prcvide for at:a nment of the primary standards by no later thor
Cecember 31, 1982, and attainment of the secondary standaros as expe-
d tiousiy as practicable. States snouLi initiate the necessary studies
ann demonstrat on projects for controlling the non-traditional sources
as soon as poss ble.
Carbon Monoxide and Oxidant
An adenuate SIP for oxidant is one whicn provides fcr sjff cient
control of vc1at le organic compounds VOC) from stationary and mobi e
sources to o ov1Ce for attainment of the oxidant stanasrd. Accordingly,
the 1979 plan revision must set fortn the necessar, em ss on lim tat ons
and schedules to obtain sufficient control o IGC emiss:cns in all non-
a:ta iment a -eas. They must ae directed towaro reaLc ng tne peak
concentrations ntnin the maJor raanized areas to de ionstraze attainment
as expeditious 1 y as practicable but in no case later than Cece’nber 31, 19
This shculd also solve the rural ox dant problem by minlnll:ir.g ‘IOC
emissions and more importantl’i oxidants tnat may oc transported from
roa to r ra areas. The 1979 suom’ssian must ‘-ecresent a comorehensive
strategy r plar or each ncn—atta mer.t area, D1. n s.i:rn i;s loris that
aJdress •:r selected portions f non-attainment sre not aoequate.
-------
8
For the purpose of oxidant plan development, major urban areas are
those with an urbanized population of 200,000 or greater (U.S. Bureau
of Census, l- J0). A certain degree of flexibility will be allowed in
def ning the pecific boundaries of the urban area. However, the areas
must be large:enough to cover the entire urbanized 2 area and adjacent
fringe areas of development. For non-attainment urban areas, the highest
pollutant concentration for the entire area must be used in determining
tne necessary level of control. Additionally, uniform modeling tech-
niques must be used througrout the non-attainment urban area. These
requirements apply to interstate as well as intrastate areas.
Adequate ians must provide for the adoption of reasonably
available control measures for stationary and mobile sources.
For stationary sources, the 1979 oxidant plan submissions for
major urban areas must induce, as a minimum, legally enforceable
regulations to reflect the application of reasonably available control
technology (RACT) 3 to those stationary sources for which EPA has
published a Contrcl Techniques Guidel ne (GO) by January 1978, and
provide for the acoption and submittal of additional legally enforce-
able RACT regulations on an annual basis beginning in January 1980, for
those CTGs that have been puol shed by January of the preceedng year.
For rural ncn—atta nrr.ent areas, the Ox plan must provide the
necessary legally enforceable procedures for the control of large HC
sources (more than 100 ton/year potential emissions) for which EPA
has issued a GO by January 1973, and to adopt and submit adoitional
legally enforceable procedures on an annual bas s oeginning n
January 1980, after publication of subsequent CTOs as set fort.n acove.
For mobile sources in urbanized area (population 200,C00 SIPs
iiust provice for expedit aus implementation of reasonably available
control measures. Eacr of the measures for which ?A will publish
information docLments during 1973 is a reasonably available control
measure. These measures are listed on the following page:
2 As def’ned by the J.S. 3ureau of Census, urbanized area generally
include core c1t es plus any closely settlea suburban areas.
3 Wh’.le it i recccrnzed tnat ACT will be determ’neo on a case-by-
.case basis, t e criteria for s:P approval rely heavilj upon the
information contained in the CTG. Deviations from the use of the CTG
must be adequately documented.
-------
9
1. To be published by February 1978
a. ‘inspection/maintenance
b. vapor recovery
c. improved public transit
d. exclusive bus and carpool lanes
e. area wide carpool programs
2. To be publisned by August 1978
a. private car restrictions
b. long range transit improvements
C. on street parking controls
d. park and ride and fringe parking lots
e. pedestrian malls
f. employer programs to encourage car and van POOling,
mass transit, bicycling and walking
g. bicycle lanes and storage facilities
h. staggered work hours
i. road pricing to discourage sinQle occupancy auto trips
j. controls on extended vehicle idling
k. traffic flow .mprovements
1. aiternat ve fuels or engines and other fleet
vehicle controls
m. other than light outy venicle retrofit
n. extreme cold start emission reduction programs
The above measures (either 1ndi. idually or combined into pac¼ages
o measures) should 5e analyzed promptly and thoroughj and scheduled
for expeditious implementation. EPA recognizes that not all analyses
of every measure can be completed by January 1979 and, where necessary,
schedules may provide for the completion of analyses after January 1,
1979 as discussed below. (If analysis after January 1979 demonstrates
that certain measures WO id be unnecessary or ineffective, a dec’sion
not to implement such measures may be Justifiable. However, decisions
not to implement measures will have to be carefully reviewed to avoid
broad rejections of measures based on conclusory assertions of
infeasibility.
As described previcusly, annual incremental recuctions in total
emissions must occur in order to achieve reasonable further progress
during the period prior to attainment of the standards. Therefore,
not all transportation measure implementation activities should wait
nzil the com rehens;ve anaijsas of control neasures are completed.
emonsLratlcn st d,es are impor.an and houc accompany or precede
-------
10
full scale inipleinentation of the compreh’nsive strategy. rt is EPA’s
policy that each area will be required to schedule a representative
selection of reasonable transportation measures (as listed above) for
mplementat dn at least on a pilot or demonstration basis prior to the
end of 1980.
r
Every effort must be made to integrate the air quality related
transportation plan and implementation required by the Clean Air Act
into planning aria programming procedures administered by DOT. EPA will
pub h “Transportation Planning Guidelines’ which will, if followed
carefully, insure tnat an adequate transportation planning process
exi sts.
EPA recognizes that the planning and implementation of very
extensive air quality related transpcrtation measures can be a complicated
and lengthy process, arid in areas witn severe carbon monoxide or oxidant
problems, completion of some of the adopted measures may extend beyond
1982. Implementation of even these very extensive transportation
measures, however, must be initiated before December 31, 1982.
In the case of plan revisions that make the requisite sho’. iing to
justify an extension of tne aaze for attainment, the portiOn of the 1979
plan subm tza1 for transportation measures must:
1. Ccntar. procedures and criteria adopted into the SI? by , hich
it can be deter inec nezher the outputs of tne DOT Transportation
p1ann ng prccess conform to tne SIP.
2. ?rovi e for the expeditious implementat cn of currently
olar.ned reasonaoie transportaton control measures. Ths nciudes
reasonao]e ou: jnimolernented transoortation measures n ex stirg SiPs
and transportOtion controls with demonstrable air quality benefits
develoceo as Dart of tne transportation process funoed by OCT.
3. ?reser’vt a program for evaluating a range of alternative
packages of transportation options that includes, as a minimum, those
measures listed aoove for wnich EPA will develop informat on documents.
The analyses must identify a package of transportation control measures
to atta n the emission reduction target ascribed to it in tne SIP.
4. °rcv ce for the evaluation of long range (post-182) trans—
portaticn and arcwth policies. P,lternat ve growtn oo1ic es and/or
development oacterns must e examined to determine tne potent al for
modilying total travel demand. One of the growth alternatives evaluated
snould be tnat orepared in response to Section 701 of the r ousing Act of
195d, as amenced.
-------
11
5. Include a schedule for analysis and adoption of transportation
control measures as expeditiously as practicable. The comprehensive
analysis o alternatives (item 2 above) must be completed by July 1980
unless the designated planning agency can demonstrate that analysis
of individual components (e.g. , long range transit improvements) may
require additional time. Adopted measures must be imp1emen ed as
expeditiously as practicable and on a continuous schedule that demonstr
reasonable further progress from 1979 to the attainment date. Deter-
minations of the reasonableness of a schedule will be based cn the
nature of the existing or planned transportation system and the com-
plexity of implementation of an individual measure.
Addit onal Carbon Monoxide and Oxidant Monitoring Requirements
It is EPA ’s policy to require that all SIPs which provide for
attainment of the oxidant standard after December 31, 1982, must con-
tain corr intmerts to implement a complete oxidant monitoring program in
major urbanized areas in order to adequately characterize the nature
and extent of the problem and to measure the effectiveness of the
control strategy for oxidants. The 1979 plan submittal must provide
for a scne uie to conduct such CO monitoring as necessary to correct
any deficiencies as identifie oy the Regional Office.
SI?s for Unclassified -eas edesignated on— ttainment
With respect to unclass f ed areas which are later found to be
non-attainment areas the state will be required to s mit a 2ian
witnir nine months of the non-attainment determination. Jur ng plan
aeveioonert, the state will be required to implement the offset policy
for : at area. Howeve’-, it snould be noted that many cases, Decause
of previous Dian revisions or adoption of previous control regulations,
the baseline or offsets will be more restrictive and thus offsets may
be nore difficult to ootain. For oxidants, state-wioe regulatory
development (for at least all scurces greater than 130 tons/year),
however, would permit the state to utilize the regulations developed
for toe cot-re state as the aoplicable plan for tne newly designated
non—attainment area. This WG Th normally constitute an aoorovable SI?
per tne abcve criteria and coui essentially accommoU te the proposed
growth within tne prev ously submitted state alan and not require
offsets once the area is designated as non-attainment.
-------
Section 111(d): Standards of Performance for
Existing Sources
-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRANS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION hiD
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION hiD
* PN111D—81—09—14—001
EPA POLICY ON WELFARE-RELATED POLLUTANTS UNDER SECTION hiD
-------
PN—lll(d)-8l—9—14—0Ol
4ITED STATES ENvIpON I : T4L PPOTECT!ON AGENCY
v . SHINGTO J C C 20460
Sept. 14, 1981
FIC O
&t NOiSE. AND RAOIATION
SUBjECT: EPA Policy on Welfare-Related Pollutants Under 5111(d)
FROfl: Kathleen 1. Bennett, r ss1stant Administrator
for Air, hoise, and Radiation (ANR -4d3)
MEMO TO: Director, Air and Hazardous 1aterials Division, Regions I-X
Questions have arisen with regard to our policy in carrying out the
requirements of 5111(d) of the Clean Mr Act with reaard to welfare—
related pollutants. Soec fica1ly, a State has requested ciarificat on
of our policy for requiring 5111(d) plans esteolishing standards of
performance for existing kraft pulp mills emitting total reduced sulfur
compounos (IRS).
The principal purpose of listing welfare pollutants under 5111(d)
is to insure that new sources are well controlled ana that the equity
objectives of Sill are achievea. With regard to exist r o sources, the
resocnsicility for determining the cegree and timing of any control fcr
sucn pollutants is a State responsibility. This policy is stated in 40
CFR 60.24(d) as follows:
Th re the Administrator has determined that a desicnatea
pollutant may cause or contribute to endanoerment of publ c welfare
but tnat adverse e fect on public health nave not been demonstrated,
States may balance the emission cuidelines, tomoliance times, sra
other information provioed in the aoplicaoie gulaeline cocurnent
aaainst other factors of oublic concern in .astablisning emission
standards, compl ance scnedules, and variances.
Section 40 CFR 60.24(d) then goes on to spell out the factors of concern
as relating to aiailable control technology, welfare impacts, costs,
timing, environmental effects, information submitted at public hearinas,
etc.
Although EPA does have the authority to require States to submit
plans, or in the absence of a suciuittal, to prescribe a plan, it is our
general policy to rely on the judgment of the individual States to
develop and implement such plans. This is particularly true for the
tielfare—related pollutants, sucn as IRS, controlled under 111(d). I
believe this position is generally in Leeping filth the prior ty we have
assignea to 5111(d) actions and also with the regulator , philosopny of
the Administration.
-------
Section III (e): New Source Performance
Standards Enforcement
-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 111E
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 111E
* PN111E—76—05—03—O01
ENFORCEMENT OF NSPS REQUIREMENTS
* PN111E—82—05—07—002
RESTATEMENT OF GUIDANCE ON EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SOOT BLOWING y
-------
PN 111(e)-76-05-03-001
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
.
WASHINGTON 0 C O4 C
May 3, 1976
Z P: NDt 1
SU JC : tforc r.ent of NS?S P equiz ents
±orcet nc Division Directors
R ’gions I-K
Director, Division of Stationary Source iforc ent
The attached rn rorandun ncerns an NSPS en±orc tent orobl i which
occuired recently in Region IV.
‘ santo Ch ical had planned to use low sulfur ccal in a steam
ator sub ecz to ‘ S to achieve cortoliaric with the us icn
1L’tlon ovision Cf 40 ‘R §60.43. nsar.zc had asked to bu high
s Liur fuel for 180 days after staxz-up, beiore the erfo rance test
by §60.8. The issue was what fcrc nt c ti r.s were
a ve .... .e to the regiona.i office to prevent nsanto frcn burning a
hign : lfur aJ. up n start.-tip.
T:. conclusion reacned in the r. roraridu was that the 120—fey ceri t
ç cn L for in .O §60.3 is riot a grace peric during which a urce
r f : e no at- z to achieve w Liance with N 3PS. Father, it is a
::dc i-i oe.rL:d, wh.icn r av be t necessarv, to for fine tuning of
c tro1 e rit. t n a situat.on Like the one in Rsçlcn IV arises,
regional office s u.1d pursue whatever en.for tent echani. it feels
w Lil insure e eth.icus npl.iance with NSPS riii.r rents. forc ranz
options inclede an a inistrative order to buz:i carrplying lcw sulfnr
coal or, af appropriate, a civil or ininel action.
We have reviewed these issues with the Office of General Counsel
;hich concurs in the anproach endorsed in the r rcrar.duzn. Should you
have any cuestiori.s, please contact Earry ssell (202—755—2542) of rrtv ste.-f.
,./ f,, .. /
-,,/ //,,/ -
/ ‘2’
— rs
£\ic. rL LI.
ill
1_i
-------
. 5t
UN 1TED STATS ENVIRON 4ENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
W 5H NCTON 0 C. 20460
1 • 7r
L . . r . . i. ji J
St3J Cr: rc enz of N S P. uir -e .ts
ay rg , iaf
Legal Erar.ch, if or: r nt Dii.sjon
Region IV
:oar Reich, ief, cr: r nt ceedince
Divisicn of Stationary Sce Eii±crrr iit
s is in response to ot incuiry cc r iric the staazzt cenerazcr
s bj ec to NS?S at 1±e ? santo C erri.ce1 C razw in Ecatar, A a a.
As we ‘.ders nd the fac.s, r.santo plans to use lcw suf- . coal
to a±. eve c Liance with the ernission 1Jr t±cn ro isicn of 40
50.43. E etrar cnsento has asked to b n a high sul±.r fuel for 120
de-;s after steit— , but befe the er r .ance test r uired by 40
S tJ.3. D’r±n; this er±cd, the carrany will be ot’erat g at less than
the r a.’d..citt ‘Drcduct±cn rate. Yct in jv wriat ei . .for rent
if any, the region csn ptsua to prevent sa.- -o fr bu r.g
a r . .±gher sui± coal after start-tm but before the pe fcinance test
reired by 40 ( R G0. 8.
The accve circ _- stances i cuJ r.ct preclude the regiccal office
L iu using whatever eaforc rent rrec _ L.• it feels will insure
caiianoa with PS recuir rents - u the cariranc nt of coeration.
orczant c z c- ..s int’l ud an a is ative order to bui i r 1vii-
1c .i suJ± . coal or, if a prc iate, a civil or co±tr inel ac ici..
The rationale for this a oroach is as follows. Seczicn 111(e) of the
Cie.an ?ct provides that it shill be unlawful to operate a r scutce
in vj Le. jC of str.derds of perfcrance applicable to such so zce. Also,
40 60.8(a) provides:
O.2 Perifoence taste.
(a) Wit ±i 60 days after achieving the rraxiri
prcducoion rate at ich the affected facili j will be
‘ii
1 -2
-------
ctez zed, but not later than 130 days after initial
sarz- of such facili r and at such other tires as
r ay be recu zed by the A ‘..iszrazz under section 114
of tne ;o- tne cwnar or crerazcr of such acLL .zy shs.ll
c uco o orranoe test(s) &-.d fi ish tna ? Tis atcr
a raoc of the results of such per oance
test(s). ( he is a fed.)
The intent of 40 §50.8 was to orcvicie a shcrz tericd of tire
after star -t during tiJ .ch an affected facth j could adjust and
fine tr ..s ccntzol ecui rent before the cer ...r .oe test. This
czcv±sicn r ereiy sets fc th in re ’jlator, fon, those Ciro . Stances
where w’ 2.l exercise its c:cerenz disoreticn to a)Low fcr
reascnthis e—l n t rC. This forbearance on A ‘S tart is
cons senr with the stetutoty rrar te o r ± ing use of best
adecuataly d . cnsated con ol tec r.c1cçy (ccnsiderir.g costs)
on n tcn start-un and at the sex tirra ovides a reczebla
ceri . for e±fecz facilities to fine a ccnol soul ..enc.
Hcwever, 560.8 s necer ceant to irrply that, prior to the
rests, a ace ceriod e ’d.sts during which a source need treks r io atzerrt
to achieve c rr ).Lanca wirn NS?S r renzs In fact, 40 CZP §50 J2.(d)
cleerl7 cutLinas an affected facility’s ca cn to rinioiza -‘Lss .cne
at all z zres:
§ 50.11 Cnliance with stuzsrfs aid nrarance man -re -
* * *
(d) At a.ll tfres, including periods of star-t-- c, shur— ,
end iralfuncticn, c ners and oreracors shall, to tne e ar.z
acticable, i nta.in and operate any affected f cilic ’ in-
cluding associated air pollud.cn con oi eulrent in a r.ner
corsistenr ‘. rizn gccd air polluticn conol ctice for
rnnirttizing i .ssicris. Ceten ir.at!cn of whether ac:ec tab1e
operating and ez-.ance prccec .es are being used will be
based. on infcrn tlcn av iiahle to the sorator .ihich
ray include, but is not 1i ized to, itoring resulrc,
coacity cbsacva d.ors, view of cperatir.c and. raintenence
crocedas, a nd instection of the scurce.
Tn s , the 180—day uericd in 40 R §60.8 is riot a grace ceriod
during vt ich a source r d trake no att nz to achieve cc 1Lence
with NSPS. Father, it is a sha¼e-dc n peri for cor . ol equirrer±
which tray (as in the cresent case) be t n essav. hen such a
situation arises, the regional office should pursue whatever en±crc renz
echeni it feels will insure exceditious cotrrL .enc with NS?S
r rants.
Since lirication is certainly a ccssibiity in this case, :e
.iculd su=est that vcu cor -icete to cns zto EPA’ s
of ire re ulit:c - s as scon as cre 1a to lay a finn b.asis cr
whatever flcn- ilticatirn r.av he nacesssr;.
* j-’ .e . t - s the ;dnjnisorator could, ores ably, rec- ine a
per fcrence test even earlier than uli c r iasa be rectired dar
the re .Laticns.
11
1 —3
-------
PN 111(e) —82—05—07—002
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
____ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
7 ino’i OFFICE OF
i l x. AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Restatement of Guidance on Emissions Associated with
Soot-blowing
FROM: Kathleen M. Bennett
Assistant Administrato for Air, Noise and Radiation
TO: Directors, Air & Waste Management Divisions
Regions I—IV, VI—Vill, X
Directors, Air Management Divisions
Regions V and IX
This memorandum restates EPA’S guidance on emissions
associated with soot—blowing as it relates to sources under New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Subparts D and Da and State
Implementation Plans (SIPs). Soot—blowers remove ash adhering to
heat transfer surfaces in boilers. In new and larger boilers
subject to Subparts D and Da, automatic, semicontinuous soot—
blowers are used; while in smaller and older boilers subject to
the SIp’s, periodic soot—blowing is the dominant practice.
As required in 40 CFR 60.8(c), “performance tests shall be
conducted under such conditions as the Administrator shall specify
to the plant operator based on representative performance of the
affected facility.” Since soot—blowing occurs at regular
intervals for each generator, these emissions cannot be discarded
as being a result of an upset condition.
Recent data obtained for periodic soot—blowing for smaller
pulverized and spreader stoker boilers show that uncontrolled
emissions increase significantly during soot—blowing, while
emissions controlled to levels of 0.1 lb/b 6 Btu or less by
fabric filters and scrubbers are unaffected by soot—blowing. This
would indicate that the fraction of very fine particles is
relatively unaffected by soot—blowing and that other control
devices such as “cold side” electrostatic precipitators should be
unaffected, while less efficient systems such as mechanical
collectors may be affected.
For a source which blows soot on a semi—continuous basis,
emissions can be adequately represented by three sampling runs.
111 (e)
2-1
-------
2
For units which do not blow soot semi—continuously, data suggest
that the source’s ability to comply using fabric filters,
high—energy scrubbers, and medium to high efficiency scold side TM
ESP’s commonly used to meet design emission levels comparable to
Subparts 0 or Da should not be adversely affected by the inclusion
of soot—blowing. Testing should thus be done in accordance with
previous guidance issued by DSSE. A copy of this guidance, dated
March 6, 1979 and sent to all Regions, is attached for your
information.
Relative to SIP limits, demonstrations of attainment and
mainter ance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are
normally based upon continuously achieving the emission level
prescribed in State Implementation Plans, and the compliance
determinations should be based upon the performance of control
devices over the normal range of boiler operation. For fabric
filters, electrostatic precipitators, and wet scrubbers, the most
stringent test of their performance occurs at maximum boiler load.
For mechanical collectors, the most stringent test occurs at low
boiler loads. Therefore, it is recommended that SIP compliance
tests be made at both high and low loads, and include
soot—blowing per the March 6, 1979 guidance.
The attached March 12, 1979 guidance noted that it is
appropriate to interpret a never—to—exceed emission limit as
requiring control of soot—blowing emissions. This assumes that
the individual SIP does not specifically address the issue of
soot—blowing. If soot—blowing provisions are included in the SIP,
these SIP provisions will, of course, take precedence; if
provisions are not included, existing sources should be handled
using the same approach as the attached March 6, 1979
determination provides for handling new sources. (Of course,
inclusion of provisions in SIPs which provide exemptions in the
mass standard for soot—blowing presupposes a demonstration that
such exceptions will not interfere with the attainment and
maintenance of NAAQS.)
Sources which are in violation of emission limits during
soot—blowing operations and have not been exempted by the
applicable SIP provisions should be treated as violating sources
in accordance with other guidance. (See, for example, the
definition of a “significant violator” in my memorandum of -
December 29, 1981 entitled “EPA Accountability System——OANR Policy
Guidance.”)
Should you have any questions, please contact this office.
Attachments
111(e)
2-2
-------
E OI }1 X1M
SUBJE T: NSPS Determination — Subpart D
FROM: Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO* Enforcement Division Directors, Regions I—X
Air and Hazardous Materials Division Directors
Regions I—X
Surveillance and Analysis Division Directors
Regions I—X
This is a clarification of DSSE’s June 29, 1977, memo
on including the effect of non—continuous, non—automatic
soot blowing when performance testing steam generators that
are subject to NSPS.
Units which do not blow soot continuously may have the
effect of soot blowing included by performance testing in
the normal manner, provided that the follo iing precautions
are taken: 1) soot blowing is permitted only during one of
the test runs,* and 2) the soot blowing performance test
run should include as much of the soot blowing cycle as
possible.
When a short duration soot blowing period limits the
number of points which will be sampled during the portion
of the test run that the soot blowers are on, then all of the
sampling points lying on at least one stack or duct diameter
should be sampled while the soot blowers are on, if possible.
Single point sampling should always be avoided but may be
necessitated at sources with very short duration soot
blowing periods. Ideally, a point of representative velocity
should be selected when single point sampling is required,
if possible.
The representative average pounds of particulate emissions
per million BTU (E) must be calculated by the following
*If it is expected that >50% of particulate emissions
occur during soot ‘ winq periods, the i coot blowing should
be required during 2 test runs.
lll(e)
2-3
-------
generalized equation rather than by simple averaging as
outlined in 40 CFR 60.8(f). This equation insures proper
weighting of a soot blowing rerformarice test run reqardless
of whether the soot blowing lasts the entire time of the
test run,- nd also regardless of the number and duration of
the non—soot blowing test runs made while perforrnance
testing a team generator.
E C ( A+B) S + C ( RS — 3 5)
SBR AR !JOSB R AR
where:
C — pounds of particulate emissions per million BTU heat
input (lb/M1t BTU or ng/J)
E — average C for daily operating time
E average E of sample(s) containing soot blowing
SBR
E average E of sample(s) with no soot blowing
NOSB
A — hours soot blowing during sample(s)
B hours not soot blowing during sample(s) containing
soot blowing
R — average hours of operation per 24 hours
S average hours of soot blowing per 24 hours
For almost all steam generators with intermittent soot
blowing practices, the quantity of excess air is not expected
to vary significantly between periods of normal operation
and periods of soot blowing. However, if a significant
variation in the quantity of excess air is expected, then an
additional method 3 analysis should be conducted, as out-
lined in 40 CFR 60. 46(f)(ii) with coot blowers on in order
to determine the %0, while soot blowing. The %0 , of the
soot blowing run cafi be determined from the following equa-
tion:
a (%O )B + (%0 )A
2 SBR NOSB 2 SB
B +A
where:
— the %02 of the sample(s) containing soot blowing
SBR
111(e)
2-4
-------
%02 — the %02 while not blowing soot
NOSE
2 SB-’ -the % 02 while blowing soot
A — hou rs soot blowing during sample(s)
s — hours not soot blowing during sample(s) containing soot
blowing
Then the %02 should be used to calculate E as outlined
SBR SBR
in 40 CFR 60.46(f)
If you should have any further questions on this
determination, please contact craig Cobert (PTs 755—0103)
of my staff.
/5/ t,e
Edward E. Reich
•11 1 ( )
2-5
-------
t44R 1 2 79
SUBJECT: Ir tegration of Soot—Blowing Emissions with Routine
Operating Data for Existing Facilities
FROM: Director, Division of Stationary Source Cnforcement
TO: Leslie Carothers, Director
Enforcement Division, Region I
This is in response to your memo of January 25, 1979,
concerning the effect of soot—blowing emissions on determining
compliance with particulate emission limitations. We have
extensively examined the soot—blowing Issue and its impli-
cations when determining compliance with the new source
performance standard (NSPS) for fossil fuel—fired steam
generators. We have determined that soot—blowing emissions
must be included when performance tests are conducted to
satisfy the requirements of the NSPS Subpart D. See attached
memo for details on treatment of soot—blowing emissions.
The determination to include soot—blowing emissions under
NSPS were significantly affected by the language in Part 60
which requires U ,• 0 owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into
the atmosphere from any affected facility any gas vhich...
This language provides us with the justification to include
all emissions which are considered representative of the
operation of the affected facility. Since soot—blowing
occurs at regular intervals, these emissions cannot be
discarded as being a result of an upset condition.
We do not know whether the lancuage contained in the
Maine state implementation plan (SIP) is consistent with
the ? SPS language in that it provides for a never to exceed
emission limit. Any decision to include or exclude soot—
blowing emissions must be judged by the language in a
state’s SIP. However, we believe that if the state SIP is
silent on the issue of soot—blowing emissions in determining
compliance of a source it would appropriate to interpret
the never to exceed emission limit as requiring control of
soot—blowing emissions.
111(e)
2-6
-------
This approach in dealing with existing sources nay
be ir.ore stringent than the averaging approach (see attached)
we have elected to use in addressing new sources. There—
fore, inless the SIP in a state specifically requires
controlling soot—blowing emissions at all times, then we are
recomr’ &nding that the same method for determining cov pliance
with n w sources be used for existing sources.
The approach for including soot—blowing emissions as
described in the attached determination is to be used for
compliance deterninations for all new sources and all
existing sources unless otherwise provided in the state SIP
for existing sources.
If you have any additional questions or comments, please
give me a call.
Edward E. Reich
cc i Don Goodwin
Enforcement Division
Directors II—X
lll(e)
2 -‘2
-------
Section 112: National Emission Standardsfor
Hazardous Air Pollutants
-------
Page No.
03 / 01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 112
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 112
* PN112—78—03—30—001
STATE ENFORCEMENT OF ASBESTOS DEMOLITION REGULATIONS IN LIGHT OF ADANO
WRECKING COMPANY V. UNITED STATES
* PN112—82—03—24—002
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO STATES: NESHAPS
* PN112—84—06—01—004
BENZENE NESHAP GUIDANCE
* PN112-84—07—1].—005
VINYL CHLORIDE NESHAP ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
* PN112—85—02—08—006
REVISIONS TO ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
* PN112-85—06—xx—007 I
REPRINT OF THE EPA AIR TOXICS STRATEGY (REFERENCE ONLY)
* PN112—85—09—17—008 /
PREPARATION OF QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS IN AGENCY DECISION-MAXING
-------
3
ri
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP 1 1 1985
THE ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORAND ’-
SUBI ECT: Preparation of Quantitative Analysis in Agency
Decision—making
TO: Assistant Administrators
General Counsel
Inspector General
Associate Administrators
Regional Administrators
At our 3uly Senior Management Meeting we had a thorough
and enlightening discussion of the advantages and limitations
of quantitative health risk information as a decision—making
tool. Much of our time was spent on cost per—life—saved
estimates and how these have been developed and used. As we
agreed, I am writing my thoughts on the topic so that you can
share and discuss them with your staffs.
First, quantitative risk analysis is a valuable analytic
tool but we must be mindful of its limitations. The results
qf uniformly conducted risk assessments can help us compare
control strategies within a particular rulemaking or to look
across programs at the potential risk reduction from actions
that could be taken under different legal authorities or to
affect different exposure pathways. At the same time, we
must recognize that the very fact that these estimates can be
numerically expressed may imply a false precision both to the
affected public and to decision—makers. There are typically
large uncertainties associated with evaluating the toxicity
of and exposure to pollutants and contaminants. Uncertainties
and sirnplifying assumptions used in predicting human exposure
greatly compound the potential for differences between
predicted and actual risk.
Tierefore, it is important to me that we continue to
clearly identify assumptions and uncertainties In risk assess—
merits that accompany regulatory and policy decision documents.
To the extent possible, explicit measures of uncertainty (such
-------
—2-
as numerical ranges and toxicological “strength of evidence”
indices for carcinogens) should be consistently and prominently
presented. Qualitative descriptions of toxicity or exposure
inforznatic that cannot be quantified should be provided.
Qualitati - assessments of envirorunental or fish and’wjldlife
impacts i also be very important to certain risk—management
actions. n the overall context of uncertainties surrounding
human hea-.n risk estimates, these additional considerations
may tip t: balance in favor of one control approach over
another.
Secc’-d, decision—makers generally ought to evaluate both
the population risks and distribution of risks associated with
various risk management options. As a practical matter, this
should ir.clude identification of segments of the population
at relatively high risk, the size of those groups, the magnitude
of those risks, and estimates of overall population incidence.
When considering costs of reducing risks, it sometimes may be
pertinent to consider whether the costs will, be borne by the
at-risk population or distributed in some other way.
Additionally, risk estimates and cost estimates are -
frequently used to calculate cost—effectiveness or cost—benefit
values and ratios. This kind of analysis of health benefits
against cost does illuminate some aspects of risk management
decisions, but it is not a rigid formula for making those
decisions. These comparisons may not adequately accommodate
a range of scientific uncertainties, including “weight of evidence
considerations, and sometimes they may not express the non—health
aspects (or even the non-cancer aspects) of decisions. These
addi•tional factors are often important considerations in
fulfilling our statutory mandates.
For these reasons, I want to emphasize to the Agency
staff that they should not eliminate otherwise feasible and
sensible options from development and presentation to decision—
makers on the basis of any sp cific “rules of thumb” that,
in turn, are based on estimated risk ranges, population incidence
or cost—per--incidence avoided. Accordingly, staff should not
feel compelled to eliminate options solely because the estimated
cost—per—cancer case avoided exceeds the $7.5 million referred
to in the Regulatory Impact Analysis Guidelines. Options with
associated costs above that level can clearly be considered,
particularly where warranted by large uncertainties, or other
benef ts which would not be realized from alternatives.
-------
—3-.
Continued work to develop and improve risk assessment tech-
niques and analytical approaches will undoubtedly reduce some
of the re ining ilimitations on the use of these techniques.
As a decision—maker, I look forward to employing increasingly
refined aralytic tools. However, we are a long way from the
point at ich decisions can or should be made by mechanistic
applicati - of any acceptable risk or cost criterion. Therefore,
I will ex: ct to see decision packages which identify uncertainties
and assu;:ions, which provide qualitative descriptions of unquanti-
fiable ef: cts, and which present a broad range of realistic
options. —
Lee K. Thomas
-------
PN 112—85—06-XX-007
In order to conserve space, the EPA Air Toxics Strategy, published in
June 1985, is not included in the Air Programs Policy and Guidance
Notebook.
This document may be obtained through the National Air Toxics Information
Clearinghouse. For more information, contact Nancy Riley, U.S. EPA,
Emission Standards Division, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
Telephone 919—541—5353.
-------
PN 112-85-02-08-006
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
FEB 8 1985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Revisions to Asbestos D molitiun and Renovation
vil PenaJ .ty Po]Acy
(? —
FROM: 4, sep A. Cannon, Assistant Administrator
/ for Air and Radi tion
Courtney M. Price J44_L? -
Assistant Administrator or En o ent
and Compliance Monitoring
TO: Addressees
Attached is the revised Asbestos Demolition and Renovation
Civil enalty Policy. This replaces Appendix III to the
Clean Air Act Stationary Source Civil Penalty Policy, which
we issued on September 12, 1984.
The policy was revised to address concerns raised by the
Regions in referring cases to Headquarters in the last few
months. A draft revision to the policy was distributed to
the Regions and the Department of Justice for comment on
December 5, 1984. Most of the suggestions have been incor-
porated into the final policy.
Major changes in the policy include:
1) Distinguishing among notification violations based on
whether or not they are accompanied by substantive
violations;
2) distinguishing between first offenses and subsequent
offenses; and
3) Developing a matrix for assessing the gravity component
for substantive violations, based In part on the
amount of asbestos involved.
-------
—2—
We are also providing additional guidance on calculating
economic benefit and on apportionment of the penalty among
multiple defendants.
This policy applies to determining the gravity and
benefit components of the civil penalty settlement amount for
asbestos demolition and renovation cases. The general
Stationary Source Civil Penalty Policy should be used to make
adjustments, if appropriate, to arrive at a penalty settlement
amount.
We appreciate the considerable efforts which you and
your states have made to enforce the asbestos regulations.
We hope that you continue to emphasize enforcement of these
important public health standards.
Questions regarding this policy should be addressed to
Elliott Gilberg of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring at FTS 382—2864, or Robert Myers of the Stationary
Source Compliance Division at FTS 382—2875.
Attachment
Addressees:
Regional Administrators, Regions I—X
Ai 1 r and Waste Management Division Directors
Regions II, VI, VII, and VIII
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, V, and IX
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division Director, Region IV
Air and Toxics Management Division Director
Region X
Regional Counsels, Regions I—X
Regional Counsel Air Enforcement Contacts
Asbestos NESHAP Contacts
Richard Mays, OECM
Rich Robinson, OLEP
Thomas Gallagher, NEIC
Gerald Emison, OAQPS
David Buente, DOJ
Bill Becker, STAPPA—ALAPCO
-------
APPENDIX III
Asbestos Demolition and Renovation Civil Penalty Policy
The Clean Air Act Stationary Source Civil Penalty Policy
provides guidance for determining the amount of civil penalties
EPA will seek In pre—trial settlement of enforcement actions
under Title I of the Act. Due to certain unique aspects of
asbestos demolition and renovation cases, separate guidance
is provided here for determining the gravity and economic
benefit components of the penalty. Adjustment factors should
be treated in accordance with the general stationary source
penalty policy.
If t e Region is referring a civil action under Section
113(b) agaInst a demolition or renovation source, it should
recommend a civil penalty settlement amount. Consistent with
the general penalty policy, the Region should determine a
“preliminary deterrence amount” by assessing an economic
benefit component and a gravity component. This amount may
then be adjusted upward or downward by consideration of other
factors, such as degree of willfulness and/or negligence,
history of noncompliance, ability to pay, and litigation
practicalities. Since there is a wide variation in the size
of demolition contractors, ability to pay may be an important
adjustment factor In some instances.
The “gravity” component should account for factors such
as the .environmenta]. harm resulting from the violation, the
importance of the requirement to the regulatory scheme, and
the size of the violator. Since asbestos is a hazardous air
pollutant, the gravity factor associated with substantive
violations (i.e., failure to adhere to work practices or to
prevent visible emissions from waste disposal) should be
high. Also, since notification is essential to Agency
enforcement, a notification violation should also warrant a
high gravity component.
Gravity Component
The attached chart sets forth the gravity component of
the penalty settlement figure for notification violations and
for violations of substantive requirements for control of
asbestos emissions. The figures in the first line of the
chart apply as a general rule to failure to notify, including
those situations in which substantive violations occurred and
those instances in which EPA has been unable to determine if
substantive violations occurred. The reduced amounts in the
second line of the chart apply only if the Agency can conclude,
from its own inspection, a State inspection, or other reliable
information, that the source complied with substantive
requirements.
-------
—2—
Where notification is made late, the Region has discretion
to seek a lesser penalty. The penalty should reflect the
degree to which the Region’s ability to evaluate substantive
compliance has been hampered. If notification is late but
still allows sufficient opportunity to monitor the entire
project, little or no penalty is warranted. If notification
is given so late as to preclude any evaluation of substantive
compliance, the Region should determine a penalty as If no
notice were given.
Regions should exercise discretion in penalizing a timely
notification which is incomplete. A notification can be so
insufficient as to be tantamount to no notice, in which case
the Region should determine the penalty as if there were no
notice. Again, the important factor is the impact the company’s
action has on our ability to monitor substantive compliance.
Penalties for substantive violations are based on the
particular regulatory requirements violated. The figure is
the sum of the penalty assigned to a violation of each set of
requirements: removal, wetting, and stripping, 40 C.F.R.
S61.l47; collection, packaging, and transporting of asbestos—
containing waste material, S6l.l52(b); and disposal of wastes
at an acceptable site, §61.152(a). The figure also depends
on the ,amount of asbestos involved in the operation, which
relates to the potential for environmental harm associated
with improper removal and disposal. There are three categories
based on the amount of asbestos, expressed in ‘units,” a unit
being the threshold for applicability of the substantive
requirements. If a job involves friable asbestos on pipes
and other facility components, the amounts of linear feet and
square feet should each be separately converted to units, and
the numbers of units should be added together to arrive at a
total. Where the only information on the amount of asbestos
Involved in a particular demolition or renovation is in cubic
dimensions (volume), the amount can be converted to square
dimensions by dividing the volume by the estimated thickness
of the asbestos material.
Gravity components are adjusted based on whether the
violation is a first, second, or subsequent offense. By
“second” or “subsequent’ offense, we mean that the company
has violated the regulations after previously being notified
by the State or EPA of asbestos NESHAP violations. This
prior notification could range from simply a warning letter to
the filing o a judicial enforcement action. A “second”
violation could even occur at the same job as the first one
if, after be4-ng notified of violations by the State or EPA
-------
—3—
and having an opportunity to correct such violations, the
company continues to violate the regulations. If the case
Involves multiple potential defendants and any one of them Is
involved In a second or subsequent offense, the penalty
should be derived based on the second or subsequent offense.
In such Instance, the Government should try to get the prior—
offending party to pay the extra penalties attributable to
this factor. (See discussion below on apportionment of the
penalty.)
The Region should consider enhancing the gravity component
in situations where the duration of the violation increases
the potential harm. This would be particularly appropriate
where the source allows asbestos waste material to stay on
site without any effort to collect and dispose it for a
significant period of time.
Benefit Component
This component is a measure of the economic benefit
accruing to the contractor, the facility owner, or both, as a
result of noncompliance with the asbestos regulations.
Information on actual economic benefit should be used if
available. The attached chart provides figures which may be
used as a Nrule of thumb” to determine the costs of removing
and disposing asbestos in compliance with §61.147 and §61.152,
where actual information is difficult to obtain or is suspect.
The figures are based on rough cost estimates which the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards has developed in
considering revisions to the asbestos standard. These estimates
are within a range of numbers that OAQPS has considered in
determining the economic impact of the asbestos demolition
and renovation requirements. Also, if any party ultimately
pays to have all or part of the job done in compliance,
actual expenditures can be used to offse the benefit of
noncompliance.
Apportionment of the Penalty
This policy is intended to yield a minimum settlement
penalty figure for the case as a whole. In some cases, more
than one contractor and/or the facility owner will be named
as defendants. In such instances, the Government should
generally take the position of seeking a sum for the case as a
whole, which the multiple defendants can allocate among
themselves as they wish.
It is not necessary in applying this penalty policy to
allocate the economic benefft between the parties precisely.
The total benefit accruing to the parties should be used for
this component. Depending on the circumstances, the economic
-------
—4—
benefit may actually split among the parties in any combination.
For example, if the contractor charges for compliance with
asbestos removal requirements and fails to comply, the contractor
has derived a savings and the owner has not. If the contractor
underbids because it does not factor in compliance with
asbestos requirements, the facility owner has realized the
full amount of the financial savings. (In such an instance,
the contractor may have also received a benefit which is
harder to quantify — obtaining the contract by virtue of the
low bid.)
There are circumstances in which the Government may
try to influence apportionment of the penalty. For example,
if one party Is a second offender, the Government may try
to assure that such party pay the portion of the penalty
attributable to the second offense. If one party is known to
have realized all or most of the economic benefit, that party
may be asked to pay for that amount. Other circumstances
may arise in which one party appears more culpable than
others. We realize, however, that it may be impractical to
dictate allocation of the penalties in negotiating a settlement
with multiple defendants. The Government should therefore
adopt a single “bottom line” sum for the case and should not
reject a settlement which meets the bottom line because of
the way the amount is apportioned.
Apportionment of the penalty in a multi—defendant case
may be required if one party is willing to settle and others
are not. In such circumstances, the Government should take
the position that if certain portions of the penalty are
attributable to such party (such as economic benefit or second
offense), that party should pay those amounts and a reasonable
portion of the amounts not directly assigned to any single
party. However, the Government should also be flexible
enough to mitigate the penalty mewhat to account for the
party’s relative cooperativeness. If a case is settled as to
one defendant, a penalty not less than the balance of the
settlement figure for the case as a whole should be sought
from the remaining defendants. This remainder can be adjusted
upward, in accordance with the general Civil Penalty Policy,
if the circumstances warrant it. Of course, the case can
also be litigated against the remaining defendants for the
maximum attainable penalty.
Other Considerations
We expect that each Region may want to develop its own
strategy (some have already done so) for targeting enforcement
action against viorators of the asbestos demolition and
renovation requirements. The policy is intended to give
-------
—5—
Regions flexibility to Incorporate, as part of a coherent
strategy, a practice of addressing first—time notice violations
where there is at least probable compliance with substantive
requirements through findings of violation or administrative
orders. There is also the potential for “pre—settling”
judicial actions for modest penalties for such violations.
On the other hand, the policy penalizes substantive
violations and repeat violations in a significant way.
Penalties should generally be sought for all violations which
fit these categories. If a company knowingly violates the
regulations, particularly If the violations are severe or the
company has a prior history of violations, the Region should
consider initiating a criminal enforcement action.
Examples
Following are two examples of application of this policy.
Example 1
XYZ Associates hires America’s Best Demolition Contractors
to demolish a building containing 1300 linear feet of pipe
covered with friable asbestos, and 16,000 square feet of
siding and roofing sprayed with asbestos. Neither company
notifies EPA or State officials prior to commencing demolition
of the building. Tipped off by a citizen complaint, EPA
inspects the site and finds that the contractor has not been
wetting the asbestos removed from the building, in violation
of 40 C.F.R. §61.147. In addition, the contractor has left a
pile of dry asbestos waste material on site, and the inspector
observes visible emissions in violation of S61.152(b). The
contractor has also not deposited the waste In an acceptable
disposal site, in violation of S61.152(a). At the time of
the inspection 75% of the asbestos has already been removed
from the building and handled improperly. After discussion
with EPA officials, XYZ Associates hires another contractor
to properly dispose of the asbestos wastes and to remove the
remaining 25% of the asbestos in compliance with the asbestos
NESHAP.
Neither XYZ Associates nor America’s Best Demolition
Contractors has ever been cited for asbestos violations by
EPA or the State. Both parties have sufficient resources to
pay a substantial penalty.
-------
—6—
The penalty is computed as follows:
Gravity Component
No notice (first time) sio,ooo
Violations of S61.147, S61.152(b), and
561.152(a) (100 + 5 = 105 units of
asbestos +45,000
$55,000
Economic Benefit
$4/sq. foot x 16,000 sq. feet + $4/
linear foot x 1300 lInear feet $69,200
Offset by actual expenditure by XYZ
to remove 25% of asbestos in compli-
ance with NESHAP (25% x $69,200) — 17,300
$51,900
Preliminary deterrence amount $106,900
Adjustment factors — Prompt correction
of environmental problem (—30% of
gravity component) $—l6,500
Minimum penalty settlement amount $ 90,400
Example 2
Consolidated Conglomerates, Inc., hires Bert and Ernie’s
Trucking Company to demolish a building which contains 10,000
linear feet of friable asbestos on pipes. Neither party
gives notice to EPA or to the State prior to commencement of
demolition. An EPA inspector, acting on a tip, visits the
site after the building has been totally demolished. He
finds a large pile of dry asbestos—containing waste material
on site. The inspector learns that the demolition had been
completed at least three weeks before he inspected the site.
Consolidated Conglomerates is a corporation with assets
of over $100-million and annual sales in excess of $10 million.
Bert and Ernie’s Trucking is a limited partnership of two
brothers who own two trucks and have less than $250,000 worth
of business each year. This contract was for $50,000. Bert
and Ernie’s was once previously cited by the State Department
of Environmental Quality for violations of asbestos re u1ations.
-------
- .7—
The penalty is computed as follows:
Gravity Component
No notice (2nd violation) $25,000
Violations of S6l.152(b) and $40,000
S6l.152(a) (2nd violation); no direct
evidence of violation of S6]..147
(app. 38.5 units)
Aggravation of hazard due to duration $10,000
of disposal violation — + 25% of
substantive violations (25% x $40,000) _______
$75,000
Benefit Component
$4/linear foot x 10,000 linear feet $40,000
Preliminary deterrence amount
$115,000
No adjustment factors
Minimum settlement penalty amount $115,000
Apportionment of the Penalty
The penalty in this case has been increased by $35,000
because it involves a second violation by the contractor.
Ordinarily, the Government should try to get Bert and Ernie’s
to pay at least that amount of the penalty. However,
Consolidated Conglomerate’s financial size compared to the
Contractor’s will probably dictate that Consolidated pay most
of t penalty.
-------
Asbestos D iolition/Renovation Penalty Policy
1st_Violation
$ 10—12,000
$0—5, 000
2nd_Violation Subsequent
$15,000 $25,000
$20,000 $30,000
$25,000 $35,000
are involved, oonvert each
2nd Violation
$ 20-25, 000
$10—15, 000
Subsequent
$25,000
$25,000
Gravity Ccr onent
Notification _________ ______________ ___________
No notice
No notice but probable
substantive cartpl iance
Late notice — discretion — if tantaim unt to no notice, use above table
Incauplete notice — discretion — if tantan int to no notice, use above table
Substantive Violations
Total anv unt of asbestos
involved in the cverat ion _____________ _______ __________
< 10 units
________________________ 1st Violation —_______ __________
$5,000
> 10 units but < 50 units $10,000
> 50 units $15,000
unit = 260 linear feet or 160 square feet — if both
arTcunt to units and add together
Apply matrix separately to violation of §61.147, §61.152(b), and S61.152(a)
— add together
thance if duration of offense aggravates hazard — e.g., failure to dispose
of asbestos — oontaining wastes.
Benefit Ccxnponent
For asbestos on pipes:
$3 per linear foot of asbestos for wetting of friable asbestos and
packaging of wastes — §61.147, §61.152(b)
$1 per linear foot of asbestos for transporting and disposal of wastes
— §61.152(b), §61.152(a)
per linear foot for both
For asbestos on other facility canponents:
$3.50 per square foot for wetting of friable asbestos and packaging of wastes
$ • 50 per square foot for transporting and disposal of wastes
$4.00 per square foot for both
-------
PN 112-84-07-11-005
,o
¶4 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
____ WASHINGTON, D.C. O46O
4 L
LLII &
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Vinyl Chloride NESHAP Enforcement Strategy
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Michael S. Alushin ) !‘, %(
Associate Enforcement Counsel
for Air
TO: Air and Waste Management Division Directors
Region II, IV, and VI
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, V 1 and IX
Regional Counsels
Regions i—vi and IX
Attached is our strategy for the enforcement of the vinyl
chloride NESHAP standard. This strategy was developed as a
product of the Regional submittals we received in response to
our memoranda of June 28, 1983 and January 23, 1984.
In putting together this strategy, we have found that
most of the Regional Offices have sources which should receive
priority for enforcement action. We expect these Regions to act
on the basis of this strategy and to prepare cases expeditiously.
Although this strategy focuses primarily on stripping violations
and on reactor opening loss violations, all parts of the standard
should be examined when preparing cases.
In transmitting this information to us, several of :our
offices have indicated that individual companies have asked
that some of the information be treated as confidential. This
material is contained in Table 5, “Summary of RVD Responses”,
which is being sent to you under separate cover. No Agency
-------
2
determination has been made on the confidentiality of these
requests. However, because this material has been separated
from the rest of the strategy, the bulk of the strategy may
now be circulated to State and local enforcement agencies.
We would appreciate your prompt attention to this material.
Please contact Doreen Cantor of SSCD at 382—2874, or Elliott
Gilberg of OECM at 382—2864, with any comments or questions.
Attachment
-------
Vinyl Chloride NESHAP Enforcement Strategy
In our memorandum of June 28, 1983, we addressed our
concern that the Regions be consistent in enforcing all major
provisions of the vinyl chloride standard, including those por-
tions other than the relief valve discharge regulations. In
that memorandum, we requested your help in developing guidelines
for the enforcement of the regulations for stripping and reactor
opening losses. We have compiled the Regional data submitted
to us on the percentage and magnitude of violations of the
stripping and reactor opening loss standards -from the two
most recent semiannual reports for each Source. These data are
summarized in Table 1. The purpose of this strategy is to
discuss the results of this compilation and its implications
for future enforcement activity by the Regional Offices.
Although we have attempted to establish a framework for
setting priorities for enforcement action, we emphasize that
this does not change the standard or the definition of a viola-
tion, and establishes no right or privilege for regulated
sources. Our recommended action levels are to be used as a
basis for prioritization only.
Because of the fairly large number of sources with
substantial violations, our prioritization effort resulted
in over two—thirds of the sources being identified initially
in the highest category of priorities. Based on available
State and Regional resources and on the additional factors for
enforcement that will be discussed, each Region and State
should feel free to take enforcement efforts beyond our
recommended levels, provided action is ongoing against the
more substantial violators. The goal for compliance remains
at 100%.
In most cases, the vinyl chloride standard has been
delegated to a State or local agency. Where this is the case,
the Regional office should look to the State to obtain a satis-
factory resolution. Where a State fails to act in a satisfactory
manner or where the State has not received delegation, the
Region should respond to ensure the fulfillment of this
responsibility.
A satisfactory State enforcement action is one which
requires expeditious installation of equipment or other
remedial measures which, in EPA’s view, are sufficient to
bring the source into compliance. In addition, the State
action must require payment of a civil penalty of sufficient
magnitude appropriate to the violation. A State does not
-------
—2—
necessarily have to assess a penalty which would suffice as a
Settlement figure for a Federal action as discussed below.
If a State action is adequate in terms of remedial relief but
fails to assess an adequate penalty, the Region should consider
a separate Federal action for penalties consistent with the
recently issued Policy Framework for State Enforcement
‘Agreements”.
When EPA action is required, this will generally mean the
commencement of a judicial action. The only administrative
authority EPA has to assess penalties is under Section 120,
which cannot be applied to discrete, intermittent violations.
The only other applicable administrative enforcement mechanism
(other than emergency powers) is an order under Section 113(a),
which does not involve penalties and which should be considered
only in instances in which the penalty assessment would be
negligible. However, where the State is the enforcing authority,
an administrative procedure may be appropriate, provided that
adequate penalties are assessed for all violations, including
those not exceeding the levels of frequency or magnitude con-
tained in Table 2.
Many factors enter into a decision on when to initiate
enforcement activity for a particular source. Factors which
we believe are most important are:.
1) Frequency of violations . We have summarized data on the
percentage of noncompliance for each source. Although this
may serve as a good indication of where priorities should be
focused, it is generally recommended that the Regions go beyond
the two most recent semi—annual reports to strengthen cases or
to uncover additional histories of noncompliance. All violations
which occurred in the five—year period preceding the filing of
the complaint should be addressed, as well as each type of viola-
tion (relief valve discharge, stripping, reactor opening loss,
loppm). Even if a source has shut down, enforcement action for
penalties may be appropriate if it would serve an important
enforcement objective, such as creating an incentive for the
company to improve its operation of other vinyl chloride plants.
Issues which should b addressed include:
a) Is there a repeated pattern of violations?
b) Has there been an increasing (or constant) frequency
of violations?
c) Has a substantial amount of time elapsed since the
must recent violation?
-------
—3—
2) Magnitude of Violations . We have also summarized data on the
range of magnitudes of violations for each source, and have
compared sources based on their most severe violation. Again,
although this may be a good starting point, this should be
further investigated by the Regional Offices to determine if
this type of comparison is truly representative. Other issues
which should be addressed include:
a) Has there been an increasing (or constant) trend in
the magnitude ot violations?
b) Is the total combined magnitude of violations signifi-
cant? This may be a more realistic basis in some cases.
3) Available remedial measures . Issues include:
a) Can specific remedial measures be identified?
b) Has there been a lack of attempts to remedy the
problem?
c) Is there a common cause or common remedy for many
violations?
d) Has the source provided a remedy only after being
informed of the violation?
4) Comparison with other sources . The attached tables and
graphs are designed to give the Regions some idea of the
severity of noncompliance nationwide, so that individual
enforcement needs and efforts may be gauged. Each Region
should set priorities based on the following:
a) How does a source compare with other sources in
the Region?
b) How does a source compare with other sources nation-
wide?
c) What is the trend of the industry in general?
5) Source Reporting . In delegated States, sources are required
to submit reports to both EPA and the State unless the delega-
tion specifies that reporting to EPA is not required. In many
cases, we were not able to determine whether each source is
reporting on time to the State and/or Regional Office, and if
-------
—4—
these reports are complete and accurate. Because our ability
to enforce against RVD, ROL, and stripping violations hinges
on self—reporting, we consider reporting violations to be very
serious. States and/or Regions should be current with each
source’s reporting and should consider prompt action when a
source fails to report. The existence of reporting violations
should weigh heavily in the direction of initiating enforce-
ment action. Where a source refuses to submit required reports
despite notification by the State and/or EPA, the Region should
consider whether criminal enforcement action is warranted.
The attached graphs (Figures 1—8) display the data
summarized in Table 1, in an attempt to identify the most
severe violators and target them for enforcement action.
As shown in each of the graphs and in Table 2 (Enforcement
Priorities), we have chosen recommended levels of violations
to indicate the highest priority violations for which an
enforcement action should be initiated. These levels were
selected on the basis of (1) being the level closest to the
standard that a significant majority of sources were achieving,
or (2) being the level at which an identifiable break could be
located (i.e., a level at which sources could either easily
achieve or be far beyond). It is important to emphasize that
these levels are intended to be fluid. This analysis will be
done again at some point in the future, at which point we
expect these levels will have moved closer to the standard,
thus targeting a new set of sources (assuming sources presently
targeted will have achieved compliance).
Generally, either frequency or magnitude of violations is
sufficient to establish a source as high priority for enforcement
action. Thus, sources with a large number of relatively small
violations, and sources with a relatively low number of signifi-
cant violations, will be high priority sources. However,
sources exhibiting a compliance rate of 99% or greater are not
suggested for high priority status on the sole basis of magnitude
of violation. One exception to this applies to large sources
and should be determined on a Regional level. Large sources
with a significant number of violations should be prioritized
for enforcement action, even if their compliance rate is rela-
tively high due to the size of the source. Sources having
continuing violations, even if these violations are individually
relatively minor, are still being accorded high priority.
-------
—5—
In prioritizing sources based on magnitude of violation,
sources were ranked according to the magnitude of their
largest violation. Other methods of ranking (average n agni—
tude of violation, total magnitude, percent of allowable,
etc.) are possible and may be a more realistic basis in some
cases. However, in attempting to conserve Regional resources
for other activities involved in vinyl chloride enforcement,
we feel that the magnitude of the largest violation is a useful
indicator of the potential severity of a number of violations,
and can be obtained much more easily than can be averages or
totals for large numbers of violations. We prefer that the
bulk of resources be spent in enforcing against individual
sources rather than in prioritizing a large number of sources.
Assistance in determining what sources in each Region are highest
priority sources is available from SSCD.
Table 3 describes how many facilities would be targetted
for enforcement action in the highest priority category using
the present priority levels. This is then broken out by Region.
In some cases, there are large differences between the Regions
in the degree and type of enforcement action targetted by this
memo. Some of this may be due to individual sources; some may
be due to varying degrees of aggressiveness of State and Regional
enforcement efforts. Because this table is based solely on
violations of the stripping and reactor opening loss standards,
some of the targetted sources already have ongoing enforcement
actions against them for relief valve discharges.
When a case has already been filed against a source for
other types of violations and is currently in litigation, the
Government must decide on a case—by—case basis whether the
complaint should be amended to incorporate newly identified
violations into the existing case. Generally speaking, the
new violations should not be added to an ongoing case in which
a trial date has been set or a discovery cutoff date is near.
If little or no activity beyond the filing of a complaint and
answer has taken place, amending the complaint is probably
appropriate. In all instances in which a case is pending
against a source for other violations, the Region should consult
with the EPA Headquarters and Department of Justice attorneys
assigned to the case.
-------
—6—
Table 4 contains factors to be used to determine minimum
settlement penalty figures in preparing civil actions. The
penalty should be based on the following factors: seriousness
of the violation (gravity component), the degrees of will-
fulness or negligence, degree of cooperation or noncooperation,
history of noncompliance, ability to pay, and other unique
factors. The economic benefit of noncompliance should also be
considered in those instances in which a specific piece of
equipment can be identified as a necessary remedial measure.
See the memorandum entitled “Proposed Clean Air Act Stationary
Source Civil Penalty Policy,” which we sent to you on June 5,
1984. The vinyl chloride penalty policy will ultimately be
codified as part of the final stationary source civil penalty
policy.
The chart in Table 4 should be used to assign a number
attributable to the gravity of the violations. Penalties
escalate both by the magnitude of each individual violation,
and by the total number of violations. The penalty numbers
in Table 4 are to be assessed for each violation and are then
to be added to obtain a settlement figure for a case involving
numerous violations. Additional penalties accrue for failure
to submit timely semiannual and discharge reports. As a matter
of policy, the settlement figure is set at a total of up to
$25,000 for each failure to report, even though as a legal
matter the statutory maximum is arguably $25,000 per day for
each day the failure to report is not remedied. Penalty schemes
are included for relief valve discharges, exhaust gas violations,
stripping violations, and reactor opening loss violations.
Finally, Table 5 (being sent under separate cover) contains
a summary of the Regional responses to our request for informa-
tion on relief valve discharges. The complete responses are
available from the Stationary Source Compliance Division. In
many cases however, complete information was not available
from the Regional Offices. This Information may be essential
in preparing enforcement actions and efforts should be made to
obtain this data from each source. Because Table 5 contains
material which has been claimed to be confidential by a number
of sources, it is being sent separately to allow the rest of this
strategy to be distributed to State and other non—EPA enforcement
agencies.
-------
—7—
We interpret the relief valve discharge standard to
establish a presumption that any relief valve discharge is a
violation, with the company having the burden to show that it
was not preventable (see Attachment I, Headquarters Policy
Memoranda on Relief Valve Discharges). Nonetheless, to litigate
a case, the Agency should be prepared to counter evidence that
the discharge was due to an “emergency” by showing that specific
measures are available which could have prevented the discharge,
and that such measures were not taken by the source.
For relief valve discharges, the litigation report
forwarded to Headquarters should include, at a minimum:
1) The date and size of each relief valve discharge,
including those determined to be emergencies.
2) The Region’s determination as to whether each discharge
is preventable, i.e., a violation.
3) An analysis of the cause of each discharge. Attach-
ment 2 is an example of the technical evaluation of a company’s
discharges which was included as an exhibit to a litigation
report referred to HQ.
4) A description of remedial measures designed to prevent
the types of discharges which have occurred at the plant. As
you can see from Attachment 2, this is a logical complement to
the analysis of the cause of each discharge.
5) A proposal for a minimum settlement penalty figure.
Depending on the level of detail contained in the 10—day
report submitted by the company, the Region may have to seek
more information using a Section 114 letter to properly prepare
the litigation report. Examples of records which may be useful
are logs, written maintenance procedures, inspection manuals,
incidents reports, employee records (to show possible disciplinary
action or failure to take such action), strip charts, etc.
This is potentially potent evidence, because it may reveal
ans rs to such questions as:
1) Was the company following its own standard operating
procedures?
-------
—8—
2) Did the company allow a discharge to occur in order
to preserve the integrity of the product and thereby save money?
(e.g., low grade resin is less profitable than high grade resin,
and this may affect operating decisions.)
3) Did the operator fail to recognize upset conditions?
4) Did the company fail to replace defective equipment -
despite a prior history of problems?
5) Did the company fail to analyze a recurring problem?
6) Did the company perform an engineering study (or
retain a consultant to do so) and fail to adhere to the study’s
recommendations?
Attachment 3 is a sample Section 114 letter which was
used to develop the litigation report in one of the cases
referred to Headquarters.
For reactor opening loss and stripping violations, the
litigation report forwarded to Headquarters should include,
at a minimum:
1) The date and amount of each exceedance. If the
number of violations makes such a listing impractical, the
litigation report shall summarize the data and cite to the
semi—annual reports so that the reader can readily identify
the violations.
2) A copy of all semi—annual reports for the period
covered by the referral.
3) A description of remedial measures designed to
prevent future violations.
4) A proposal for a minimum settlement penalty amount.
Attachment 4 is a list of Regional technical and legal
contacts involved in vinyl chloride enforcement. It is hoped
that this will encourage the exchange of general information,
and also more specific information such as the availability and
usefulness of particular remedial measures.
-------
TABLE 1: Sumi arv of
Violations of Stripping and Reactor Opening Loss Standards
1
2
Borden
BFGoodrich
Goodyear
Occidental
Pantasote
Tenneco/Burl.
0
0
0
0.3
0
2.6
1.2
0
3.2 2091
0
0
8.5
4.4
8.8
2.9
1.0
0
0.9
4.3
( Standard )
(400)
(400)
(400)
(2000)
(2000)
(400)
(400)
(400)
(2000)
(400)
(400)
(400)
(2000)
(400)
(2000)
(400)
(2000)
(400)
(2000)
36 3—4 2 2
2318
8957
Region Source
Stripping
Reactor Openinq Loss
Range
2278
428—2408
4 15—4 22
Tenneco/Flem.
Union Carbide
Ethyl
Occidental/Potts.
*0cc identa 1/Perry
a
Formosa
3
4
5
Range ( Standard )
0.01 .045,.07 (.02)
0 (.02)
0 (.02)
O (.02)
3.5 (3SOppm)
1.2 (2l9 Oppm)
1.3 (2670ppm)
0 ( 2 540ppm)
4.7 2629 —2895(2604ppm)
0 (.02)
9.4 .02l6—.1085( .02)
2.0 .0263 (.02)
0 (.02)
0 (.02)
0 (.02)
O (.02)
0 (.02)
0 (.02)
0 (.02)
0 (.02)
0.1 .022—.03 (.02)
0 (.02)
0 (.02)
o (.02)
0 (.02)
0.2 .0273 (.02)
0.3 .0221—.0842(. 02)
0 (.02)
0 (.02)
519
204 6—3330
414.5—1430.1
2035—2514
508
57 1—6 30
209 1—27 10
4 11—967
456.8—716.0
641.9
432—1129
2 30 6—30 32
305 1—78 20
401—1504
Conoco 3.7
Union Carbide 0
AP&C/Kentucky 0
AP C/Pensaco1a 0
BFGoodrich/LoujsvjlleO .6
0.3
BFGoodrich/Henry 0.6
0.9
Borden 0
0
Dow 0
0
BFGoodrich/AvonLake 0
0.6
0
General Tire 7.6
(400)
(400)
(400)
(400)
(400)
(400)
(400)
(2000)
(400)
(2000)
(400)
(2000)
(400)
(2000)
(400)
(400)
-------
—2—
Strirrnina
Reactor Opening Loss
Region Source
Range ( Standard ) %
Range ( Standard )
BFGoodrich
Certa i nTeed
Conoco
* Ethyl
Georgia—Pacific
Occidental
Shintech
0
0
0.3
0
7.1
0
0.6
1.1
1.7
0.2
0.2
5.0
0
(400)
(400)
419 (400)
(2000)
<874.3 (400)
(400)
(400)
(400)
(400)
(400)
(400)
(400)
(400)
(400)
(400)
(400)
7.5
8.7
5.2
0
25.0
1.2
2.1
0
<0 .09
0.39
0 .088
<1.62
<0.277
0.0253
(.02)
(.02)
(.02)
(.02)
(.02)
(.02)
(.02)
(.02)
(.02)
(.02)
(.02)
(.02)
(.02)
(.02)
(.02)
(.02)
6
9
0.01 unknown
unreported—S114 request
0.2 <0.37
2.0 (3.3
0
<1103
<931.6
<989.5
<624.0
<606
<2166
Ten ne Co
BFGoodrich
Del. City Plastics
Union Carbide
BFGoodrich
Keysor—Century
nion Carbide
0
0
0
0
0
0
* No longer conducting PVC processes
-------
NESHAPS Enforcement Guideline S—28 — Benzene Equipment Leaks
(Fugitive Emission Sources)
Benzene standards are being promulgated under the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. Standards under this
section have already been promulgated for asbestos, beryllium,
mercury, and vinyl chloride, and have been proposed for
arsenic and radionuclides in addition to benzene. OAQPS has
prepared this document to aid in enforcement and implementation
of the benzene NESHAP5. This summarizes the benzene equipment
being regulated and the standards to which this equipment is
subject, and provides guidance on several issues of enforce-
ment concern.
Back round
On June 8, 1977 the Administrator declared benzene a
hazardous air pollutant and a carcinogenic risk to human
health. Standards were later proposed for four sources of
benzene emissions. These sources were benzene equipment
leaks (fugitive emission sources), proposed 1/5/81, 46 FR
1165, maleic anhydride plants, ethylbenzene/styrene plants,
and benzene storage vessels. Further analysis has led EPA
to conclude that both the benzene health risks (annual leu-
kemia incidence and maxi ui lifetime risk) to the public
from the latter three source categories and the potential
reduction in health risks achievable with available control
techniques are too small to warrant action under Section 112
for these three categories. As a result, EPA proposed on
March 6, 1984, 49 FR 8386, to withdraw the proposed standards
for these three categories. Because of the magnitude of
benzene fugitive emissions, the projected increase in emis-
sions as a result of new sources, and the estimated decrease
in risks and emissions achievable through controls, EPA
found fugitive benzene emissions posed a significant risk
and should be regulated.
Introduction
Valves, pumps, flanges and other pieces of equipment
are used extensively in the refining and organic chemical
industries to move streams of organic compounds to and from
-------
—2—
S
the way of dealing with regulations promulgated prior to that
time. EPA repromulgated many of the asbestos work practice
standards on June 19, 1978. However, some work practice
standards were not repromulgated, and are not considered
enforceable by EPA. This has led to confusion and has greatly
hindered litigation efforts. In an attempt to end this
confusion and ensure all aspects of the asbestos NESHAP are
enforceable, EPA is repromulgating the entire asbestos
standard.
The strategy document presented here addresses training,
inspection techniques, judicial and administrative enforcement
mechanisms, and other aspects essential for a successful
program of compliance with the repromulgated regulations.
Flexibility is provided so that the enforcing authority, be it
the EPA Regional Office or the delegated State or local agency,
may select other options, provided a high level of compliance
is achieved. The strategy also is designed to ensure coordi-
nation between EPA Regions and their delegated States. Since
35 States presently have asbestos enforcement delegation, it
is essential these States feel a part of the process and have
the capability and desire to successfully enforce the standard.
An EPA Compliance Data System analysis showed that the
number of demolition and renovation sources is greater than that
of all other asbestos source categories combined, and the
compliance status much worse. The strategy is thus limited to
the renovation and demolition category. An additional reason
for this limitation is that since renovations and demolitions
are transitory operations, they are more difficult to inspect
and require specific enforcement guidance. This limitation
does not mean other asbestos sources should be ignored, but
means rather that EPA believes the States have sufficient
knowledge of these other sources to do a satisfactory job
without additional guidance.
Summary of Regulations
Before discussing the components of an effective strategy,
it is necessary to briefly outline the requirements of the demoli-
tion and renovation provisions. These provisions are found at
49 FR 13658 (April 5, 1984). The owner/operator of a demolition
or renovation is exempt, pursuant to S61.145(b) and (d), from
emission reduction requirements if less than 80 linear meters
of friable asbestos materials covering pipes or less than 15 m 2
of friable asbestos material covering other facility components
-------
is involved, an fjcatjon rovisions of S6l.146(a),(b),
and (c)(l)—(5) are emolitions. Section 61.147
concerns the wetting, stripping and removal of friable asbestos.
It provides that friable asbestos materials used on any pipe,
duct, boiler, tank, reactor, turbine, furnace or structural
member shall be adequately wetted during stripping, and then
removed from the building. Rather than comply with a wetting
requirement, a local exhaust ventilation and collection system
may be used to prevent emissions to the outside air. Section
61.147(e) requires that stripped or removed asbestos materials
be wet during all stages of demolition or renovation and
related handling operations, and 61.147(f) allows alternatives
to wetting during freezing temperatures. Section 61.145(c)
exempts demolition operations, pursuant to a State or local
order, on structurally unsound buildings from all requirements
except those enumerated in the subsection.
In addition, §61.152 prohibits any visible emission from
the collection, packaging, transporting, or depositing of
asbestos from any demolition or renovation, and requires that
asbestos waste be deposited at acceptable waste disposal sites.
S61.156 prohibits visible emissions from an approved waste
disposal site.
A more detailed description of the regulations is available
in several EPA guidance documents. Stationary Source Guideline
S—17, Procedures for Source Notification of NESHAPs Require—
ments, and an October 28, 1975 revision to S—17, summarize the
regulations, as does Stationary Source Guideline S—22,
Demolition and Renovation Inspection Procedures, In addition,
EPA’s applicability determinations offer interpretations of the
demolition and renovation provisions. These are available upon
request from the Stationary Source Compliance Division.
Strategy Components
1. Training — It is essential that inspectors know what
to look for when inspecting a demolition or renovation opera-
tion. To address this need, a Regional asbestos inspection
, . prkshop is being developed . (Although inspections would
generally be done by delegated States, Regional expertise is
needed both for auditing purposes and for inspections in
-------
—4—
non—delegated States.) The workshop will include classroom
lectures and on—site inspection of a demolition or renovation
project.
This training must also be provided to State inspectors.
Each Region will be responsible for ensuring this occurs. A
manual containing all information developed at the Regional
workshop will be available for use at State workshops. A
videotape of an on—site inspection will also be available,
if an actual inspection is not practical. It is being left
up to the Regions to decide who will present these State
workshops. A contractor may be used if a Region prefers not
to use its own personnel. It is the Region’s responsibility
to ensure the workshops are of acceptable quality and that
State inspectors are adequately trained. -
EPA has additional written guidance available on proper
procedures to be used by inspectors during asbestos demolition
and renovation inspections. These documents are “Guidance for
Controlling Friable Asbestos Containing Material in Buildings,”
“Demolition and Renovation Inspection Procedures (S—22), ” and
a list of revisions to S—22, dated December 20, 1976. These
documents will be provided upon request.
2. Communication — There are two aspects to adequate
notification. One is EPA’s need to receive notification of
demolition and renovation activities. Receiving this notifi-
cation is useful both as an audit tool and as a means of
ensuring sources are meeting all notification provisions.
Section 61.04 requires that EPA as well as delegated States
receive all information and notification reports, provided the
specific delegation did not waive this requirement. (See
§61.04(b)).
The second aspect is the development of an overall
communications strategy designed to publicize the regula—
tioris. EPA and delegated States must ensure all sources are
aware of the asbestos demolition and renovatir-- orovi io -5
and ‘-‘-re “--‘ — b- i will be enforced.
¼
aL i to _ .ilar
releases. Additionally, EPA Regions will be required to send
certified letters to all demolition and renovation contractors
in non—delegated States advising them of the asbestos provisions.
-------
—5—
The Regions may also wish to notify contractors on an
ongoing basis as they apply for work permits. To do this EPA
could contact local governmental bodies who issue such permits
and have them issue an EPA fact sheet along with the permit.
Regional Offices should also notify school districts and other
potentially—affected sources. Delegated States may wish to
adopt such options as well.
OAQPS personnel will be presenting asbestos status
summaries to national trade and industry organizations within
the next month. Regional and State personnel are encouraged
to make similar presentations, either as speaking engagements
or in journal articles. Materials developed for presentation
by Headquarters will be available for Regional and State use.
The Regions should also identify contacts at the State
level, in order to facilitate the transmittal of necessary
materials to the State. Headquarters will provide copies of
the repromulgated regulation and other pertinent materials to
Regional contacts.
Adopting the methods developed here will help ensure a
successful publicity campaign leading to widespread familia-
rity with the standard and acceptance of its provisions.
3. Inspections — The next component of the strategy is
the actual determination of compliance by means of inspections.
The transitory nature of the renovation and demolition process,
coupled with the minimal advanced notification requirements,
makes it essential that Regions and States have a program
flexible enough to ensure minimal turnaround time between
receipt of a notification and actual inspection of the site.
The Regions have responsibility for inspections in non—delegated
States, and retain concurrent authority in delegated States.
The Regions, thus, have not only the option but the obligation
to perform inspections in delegated States should those States
be doing an inadequate job.
EPA is not committed to a specific number or level of
inspections, but only to a high level of compliance. An
inspection plan may include all sources, all contractors, or
any other program consistent with the Agency goal of 100%
compliance. If one or two inspections indicate a contractor
is complying with the regulations, the enforcing authority
might wish to place greater emphasis on a less conscientious
-------
—6—
contractor, by inspecting a series of projects done by that
contractor. This would alert the less conscientious contractor
to the enforcing authority’s concern, and hopefully ensure
compliance by that contractor In future projects.
In addition to developing a strategy for inspection of
notifiers, each authority should develop a strategy for
locating non—notifiers. This could include checking building
permits or public works files, auditing waste disposal site
records, or talking to national demolition contractors about
consistent underbidders. Those who underbid by a large amount
may be attempting to reduce costs by ignoring the asbestos
regulations. Another option might be that the reporting of
the presence of asbestos be required in any State permit.
Discussion with your respective States in this regard may
prove beneficIal. In summary, the Regions or States retain
flexibility In the selection of potential non—notifiers for
inspection; however, a program for the inspection of such7
sources is an essential and required part of the asbestos /
strategy. —I
4. Grant Agreements — One concern regarding State
inspections is that many grant agreements do not contain
provisions requiring inspection of asbestos demolition and
renovation projects. Since grant agreements currently are
being negotiated, a memorandum has been sent to all Regional
Air Division Directos from the Director, OAOPS specifying that
inspection of such projects be included in these agreements.
5. Bulk Sample Analysis — An essential element in the
compliance determination aspect is the need to analyze bulk
samples to determine If they contain asbestos. EPA is
currently evaluating outside contractors to perform this
function, and both the Regions and States will be able to take
advantage of this. There will be provisions for a rapid turn-
around time if analysis is needed immediately, as in the case
of a §303 action. Use of such a lab will ensure uniform
analysis techniques and quality controls are Implemented. The
type of analysis to be used in this process is Polarized Light
Microscopy or X—Ray Powder Diffraction. These were developed
for the asbestos—in—schools program and are the only currently
acceptable methods EPA uses. The test method is included as
Attachment 2, and additional background material evaluating
these methods is available upon request.
-------
—7—
6. Cross—Program Elements — In addition to being
regulated under the NESHAP program, asbestos is regulated under
OSHA provisions and the EPA Toxic Substances asbestos—in—schools
program. The OSHA provisions require an 8—hour time—weighted
average airborne employee exposure of not greater than 2 fibers
per cubic centimeter of air. Engineering controls, wet methods,
respirators and special clothing are required. The asbestos—in—
schools program currently has identification and notification
requirements. Local education agencies (LEAs) must identify
friable asbestos—containing building materials, notify school
employees of the location of such materials, and notify parents
of the results of inspections and analyses if friable asbestos—
containing materials are found. In addition, records indicating
whether each school was inspected for friable materials and the
results of analyses of all samples must be maintained by LEA’s
and each school. -
Coordination between these programs appears most logical
in the area of referrals. NESHAPS inspection personnel might
be able to obtain notice of asbestos demolition and renovation
operations through the OSHA or asbestos—in—schools coordinators
if notification was not provided pursuant to the NESHAP
provision. Additionally, OSHA inspectors, should they notice
potential NESHAP violations, could notify EPA. Such referral
programs would obviously be reciprocal.
Further coordinator beyond referrals would be more
difficult. Projects such as joint training or inspections
would create logistical problems, as well as require a know-
ledge of two totally different sets of regulations. A Region
is free to set up whatever coordination effort it desires,
provided the NESHAP provisions are enforced effectively.
7. Judicial and Administrative Enforcement Mechanisms —
An effective Inspection program will aid in promoting compli-
ance, but noncompliance problems will arise and the next
component of the strategy must address this problem. The
strategy designed to respond to violations must have as its
prime objective a quick ré’sponse to every problem. Such an
enforcement response must be consistent with other responses
In similar situations. A flow chart has been developed out-
lining the various enforcement options. Following the flow
chart is a detailed discussion of the advantages and disadvan-
tages of each option, as well as suggested factors to consider
in determining any penalty amount to be assessed.
-------
—8—
The Clean Air Act delineates specifically the
administrative and judicial options which EPA has to enforce
against a demolition or renovation source.
There are two administrative mechanisms which are
applicable in this context:
1) Section 113(a) (3) orders. Orders issued under this
subsection can require immediate compliance with the asbestos
demolition and renovation requirements. EPA does not have
authority to assess or collect penalties in this type of order.
Violations of an order, however, subject the source to penalty
liability in a judicial action under Section 113(b).
2) Section 303 orders. Orders issued under this
subsection must be based upon a finding of imminent and
substantial endangerment to the public health, rather than a
violation of applicable requirements. This authority can be
exercised if “it is not practicable to assure prompt protec-
tion of the health of persons solely by commencement of... a
civil action,” These orders can also require immediate
compliance. Although EPA does not have authority to assess
penalties in the order itself, if a source violates such a
§303 order, the government may bring a judicial action to
enforce and then collect up to $5,000 per day in penalties.
A §303 order is effective for no more than twenty—four hours
unless, within that time, the government files a court action
under 5303. In such instance, the order is effective for
forty—eight hours, or longer if so authorized by the court
pending litigation.
Before issuing any order under 5303, EPA must consult
with State and local authorities to confirm the correctness
of the information forming the basis for the action and to
ascertain the action which such authorities are, or will be,
taking. This requirement applies whether or not the State
has been delegated authority to enforce the asbestos NESHAP.
Even a non—delegated State is likely to have general authority
to abate imminent and substantial health hazards, and any
action a State proposes to take under such general authority
is relevant to EPA’S consideration as to whether to proceed
under §303.
-------
Inforuat
Conference
with Source
— 30:
Porual — Judicial - 113(b)
________ ________ - 113(c)
— 113.
Ad.Lnistrattve
_________________- 303
Court
Order
_______________-JOSHAL
Cross Progra. - 17°°3 of’ ICRA )
El euente __________________________
_____________ - fl04106(a). 107 of CERCLA [
- ITOSCA
-------
PN 112-84-06-01-004
I I9 !
SOBJECT: Rens.n. NESRAPs Guidance
FROM: Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Off ic. of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: Air I Wast• Nanagement Division Directors
Regions II, IV, VI—Vil!, and X
Air Itanagement Division Directors
Regtoni I, III, V, and IX
Attached are •nforce nt guidelines for the benzene N SRAPs,
which is scheduled to be promulgated on June 4, 1984 and which
will regulate benzsns equipment leaks from fugitive emission
sources. The guidelines sw marise the regulations and address
potential enforcement problems. All Regions should work with
delegated States in identifying affected sources and ensuring
those sources are in ccuupliance with the benzene regulations.
The Stationary Source Compliance Division and the Emission
Standards and Engineering Division have jointly agreed to present
a one day session discussing the ben2ene NESRAPs, if there is
sufficient interest among Regional personnel. The session is
tentatively scheduled for Washington during the week of June 18.
Please notify Robert Ny.rs at (PTS) 382—2R75 if representatives
from your Region would be interested in attending such a meeting.
Edward E. Reich
Attachment
cc: Jack Farmer
Fred Dimaick
Earl Salo
PIESMAPe contacts
NOTE: Attachments 1 and 2 are not included in the
Policy and Guidance Notebook. These attachments,
along with a copy of this memorandum, will be
found in the Section 112 portion of the Clean Air
Act Compliance/Enforcement Guidance Manual ——
Compendium of Operative Policies.
-------
—2—
Graduated scale for late reporting (if not in response to direct
request from State or EPA) — 10—day discharge reports
Within 2 months (from discharge) 25% of penalty
2—4 months 50% “
4—6 months 75%
over 6 months 100% “
Stripping Violations and Reactor Opening Loss Violations
Stripping
Magnitude of Violation Penalty
Suspension/Latex Dispersion
400—500 ppm 2 0 00—250 0ppm $1000
500—600 2500—3000 2000
600—700 3000—3500 3000
700—800 3500—4000 4000
800—900 4000—4500 5000
900—1200 4500—6000 10000
1200—1400 6000—7000 15000
1400—1600 7000—8000 20000
Over 1600 Over 8000 25000
Reactor Opening Loss
Penalty = $1000/violation (for each reactor)
Failure to Measure
Penalty = Maximum penalty amount for each type of violation
= $25000 (stripping)
= $1000 (reactor opening loss)
Failure to Submit Complete Semiannual Report
Penalty = $25000
Graduated scale for late reporting (if not in response to direct
request from State or EPA)
Within 2 months 25% of penalty
2—4 months 50% “ N
4—6 months 75% N
Over 6 months 100% “
Generally, this penalty scheme should be adhered to (with
relatively minor adjustments) for the majority of cases.
When a source would be subject to an unusually large
penalty (e.g. $500,000 for a single type of violation),
Regional Offices will have greater discretion in setting
penalties provided that the figure is at least $500,000.
-------
TABLE 2: Enforcement Priorities
1. No (or incomplete) reporting of violations
2. Repeated pattern of violations
3. Lack of attempts to remedy problem
4. Ability to remedy problem (identification of
specific remedial measures)
5. Increasing (or constant) frequency & severity of violations
6. Comparison with other sources in Region
7. Industry trends
8. Actual or potential environmental harm/population exposure
* Generally, either factor is sufficient to prioritize a
source for enforcement action. See page 4 of strategy.
Stripping
(suspension
latex)
Reactor
Stripping
(dispersion)
(2000 ppm)
(400 ppm)
Opening
Loss
comp 1 i a nce *
<98%
<98%
<98%
Magnitude of
v iolat ions
10% above
standard
10% above
standard
25% above
standard
Additional factors for enforcement:
-------
TABLE 3: Current % of facilities targetted for enforcement action
Stripping Stripping Reactor Total
( suspension, latex) ( dispersion) Opening Loss
Nationwide % 19% (7) 11% (4) 22% (8)
(36 facilities) Mag. 22% (8) 8% (3) 28% (10)
44%(l6)
Region 1 % 0% — - 0%
(1 facilities) Mag. 0% 0%
0%(0)
Region 2 % 14% (1) 14% (1) 29% (2)
(7 facilities) Mag. 14% (1) 0% 14% (1)
57%(4)
Region 3 % 50% (2) 75% (3) 25% (1)
(4 facilities) Mag. 50% (2) 75% (3) 50% (2)
75%(3)
Region 4 % 20% (1) 0%
(5 facilities) Mag. 20% (1) 0%
20%(1)
R iS % 20% (1) 0% 0%
racilities) Mag. 20% (1) 0% 0%
20%(l)
Region 6 % 18% (2) 0% 45% (5)
(11 facilities)Mag. 27% (3) 0% 64% (7)
64%(7)
Region 9 % 0% 0%
(3 facilities) Mag. 0% 0%
0%(0)
NOTE: Facilities are Only targeted under “magnitude of violation” if they
have less than 99% compliance.
-------
TABLE 4: Penalty Scheme
The following factors should be used to determine a penalty
settlement figure:
— seriousness of violation (gravity component)
— degree of willfulness or negligence
— degree of cooperation or non—cooperation
— history of non—compliance or steady Improvement
— ability to pay
— economic savings of noncompliance (if a specific
piece of equipment can be identified as a necessary
remedial measure)
— other unique factors.
The chart below is to be used to assess the gravity component
of the penalty:
Relief Valve Discharges, Manual Vent Valve Discharges , Violations
of 10 ppm Standards
Violations
Pounds of VC released Penalty
0—1000 $1000
1—2000 2000
2—3000 3000
3—4000 4000
4—5000 5000
5—7500 10,000
7500—10,000 15,000
10—12,500 20,000
over 12,500 25,000
Failure to Report
Start with:
Size of Release not Reported (ibs) Penalty
0—100 2000
100—500 5000
500—1000 10,000
1000—2000 20,000
over 2000 25,000
-------
PN 112-84-06-01-004
I D
SURJCCT: Ren*.ne NESNAPS Guidance
FRONt Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TOt Air S Waste Management Division Directors
Regions II, IV, Vt—Vt!!, and X
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III , V, and IX
Attached are •nforcement guidelines for the benzene NRSRAPS,
which is scheduled to be promulgated on June 4, 1984 and which
will regulate bensen. equipment leaks from fugitive emission
sources. Th. guidelines sutemarise the regulations and address
potential enforcement prOblomse All Regions should work with
delegated States in identifying affected sources and ensuring
those .ourc.s are in compliance with the benzen regulations.
The Stationery Source Compliance Division and the Emission
Standards and Engineering Division have jointly agreed to present
a one day session discussing the benzene NESRAPs, if there is
sufficient interest among Regional personnel. The session is
tentatively scheduled for Washington during the week of June 18.
Please notify Robert Ny.rs at (FTS) 382—2875 if representatives
from your Region would be interested in attending such a meeting.
Edward E. Reich
Attachment
cc i Jack Farmer
Fred Dimaick
Earl Salo.
NESMAPS contacts
NOTE: Attachments 1 and 2 are not included in the
Policy and Guidance Notebook. These attachments,
along with a copy of this memorandum, will be
found in the Section 112 portion of the Clean Air
Act Compliance/Enforcement Guidance Manual ——
Compendium of Operative Policies.
-------
Figure 1
25
Stripping etot 1 )
(percentage of vTdlations)
49% of sources have 100% compliance
73% of sources have compliance >/ 99%
92% of sources have compliance >/ 95%
20
‘-4
0
U )
? 15_
10
C)
0
‘4-4
0
5
4
3_
2 -
I I I
0 0—]. 1—2 2—3 3—4 4—5 5—6 6—7 7—8 8—9 9—10
% of violations ———>
-------
Figure 2
Stripping (total )
(magnitude of violations)
25_
— No clear breaks . . separate by proce
20
-4
-
0
15_
-4
if ,
A
10_
U)
a)
C) —
0
—
U-,
0 —
* 5
4
3_ I
2 -
--___ I
0 0—10 10—20 20—30 30—40 40—50 50—60 60—70 70—80 80—90 90—100 100
% above standard (highest violation) ———>
-------
Figure 3
Stripping (suspension & latex )
(percentage of violations)
•51% of sources have 100% compliance
82% of sources have compliance >/ 98%
20
a
f - I
0
4J —
15_
A —
10
U) —
C)
0
U)
0
5
4
3_
2_
— __ __ II I
0 0—1 1—2 2—3 3—4 4—5 5—6 6—7 7—8 8—9 9—10
% of violations ——>
-------
Figure 4
Stripping (suspension & latex )
(magnitude of violations)
56% of sources within 10% of standard
26% gross violations (over 100%)
20_
15_
a’
m
A
10
C I ,
a)
C) —
0 —
‘4. 5
0 —
4 4_
3
2_
1— I I I I I -
over
0 0—10 10—20 20—30 30—40 40—50 50—60 60—70 70—80 80—90 90—100 100
% above standard (highest violation)———>
-------
Figure 5
Stripping (dispersion )
(percentage of violations)
42% of sources have 100% compliance
67% of sources have compliance >1 98%
(U
0
‘-I
A
5
U)
U
0
U) 4
0
3__
2
—I. I I I I I
0 0—1 1—2 2—3 3—4 4—5 5—6 6—7 7—8 8—9 9—10
% of violations ———>
-------
Figure 6
Stripping (dispersion )
(magnitude of violations)
50% of sources within 10% of standard
‘-I
4. )
0
4.)
c 4
-4
A
5—
(I )
C .)
Ii
0
*3
2
-— I • I I
0 0—10 10—20 20—30 30—40 40—50 50—60 60—70 70—80 80—90 90—100
% above standard (highest violation) ———>
-------
25_ - Figure 7
Reactor Opening Loss
(percentage of violations)
56% of sources have 100% compliance
80% of sources have compliance >1 98%
2% of sources have compliance < 90%
20_ - 2% of sources unreported (1 source)
0
15
A
10_
U,
a)
C -,
0
U,
4-l
0
5
4
3
2
• __ __ I
0 0—1 1—2 2—3 3—4 4—5 5—6 6—7 7—8 8—9 9—10 25
% of violations ———>
-------
Figure 8
25
Reactor Opening Loss
— (magnitude of violations)
62% of sources within 25% of standard
24% gross violations (over 100%)
— 4% of sources unknown/unreported (2 sources)
20 -
‘ -I
—
1 -I
0
i 15_
L10:_
11_ I I I I
OVt ..
0 0—10 10—20 20—30 30—40 40—50 50—60 60—70 70—80 80—90 90—100 100
% above standard (highest violation) ———>
-------
NESHAPS Enforcement Guideline S—28 — Benzene Equipment Leaks
(Fugitive Emission Sources)
Benzene standards are being promulgated under the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. Standards under this
section have already been promulgated for asbestos, beryllium,
mercury, and vinyl chloride, and have been proposed for
arsenic and radionuclides in addition to benzene. OAQPS has
prepared this document to aid in enforcement and implementation
of the benzene NESHAPS. This summarizes the benzene equipment
being regulated and the standards to which this equipment is
subject, and provides guidance on several issues of enforce-
ment concern.
Background
On June 8, 1977 the Administrator declared benzene a
hazardous air pollutant and a carcinogenic risk to human
health. Standards were later proposed for four sources of
benzene emissions. These sources were benzene equipment
leaks (fugitive emission sources), proposed 1/5/81, 46 FR
1165, maleic anhydride plants, ethylbenzene/Styrefle plants,
and benzene storage vessels. Further analysis has led EPA
to conclude that both the benzene health risks (annual leu-
kemia incidence and maxim n lifetime risk) to the public
from the latter three source categories and the potential
reduction in health risks achievable with available control
techniques are too small to warrant action under Section 112
for these three categories. As a result, EPA proposed on
March 6, 1984, 49 FR 8386, to withdraw the proposed standards
for these three categories. Because of the magnitude of
benzene fugitive emissions, the projected increase in emis-
sions as a result of new sources, and the estimated decrease
in risks and emissions achievable through controls, EPA
found fugitive benzene emissions posed a significant risk
and should be regulated.
Introduction
Valves, pumps, flanges and other pieces of equipment
are used extensively in the refining and organic chemical
industries to move streams of organic compounds to and from
-------
2
various process vessels. Since this type of equipment can
develop leaks, each individual piece is a potential source
of organic compound emissions whenever it handles a process
stream containing such compounds. Benzene fugitive emissions
sources are pieces of equipment handling streams that could
potentially contain benzene. These include sources that
develop leaks after some period of operation due to seal
failure as well as other sources that can emit benzene when
used in specific conditions in the production unit. The
sources that develop leaks due to seal failure are those using
a sealing mechanism to limit the escape of organic compounds
to atmosphere. These include pumps, valves, flanges, relief
valves and compressors, Other types of equipment are potential
benzene fugitive emissions sources for reasons other than
leaking seals. These types of equipment might have the poten-
tial for intermittent benzene emissions because they vent
organic materials that contain benzene to atmosphere, and
include sampling connections, open—ended valves, and product
accumulator vessels.
Scope and Applicability
The standard covers new and existing valves, pumps,
compressors, pressure relief devices, sampling connection
systems, open—ended valves or lines, pipeline flanges,
product accumulator vessels, and closed vent systems and
control devices used to comply with the standard. This
equipment is used in the production of benzene and other
chemicals and products, such as maleic anhydride, ethanol,
and pharmaceuticals.
To be covered the equipment must be in benzene service,
i.e., it must contain material with a benzene concentration
of 10 percent or more by weight. See the compliance issues
topic for a discussion of •in benzene service.
Exempted from this standard is equipment located in
process units that produce benzene or benzene mixtures at coke
by—product plants. These will be covered by other regulations.
Additionally, plant sites designed to produce or use bertzene in
quantities of 1000 Mg/yr or less are exempt from the standard.
The source owner or operator has the responsibility of demon-
strating to EPA’s satisfaction that the site is below the 1000
Mg/yr threshold level. Such a demonstration can be accomplished
by engineering analysis as well as by proof of physical limitation
of plant capacity.
-------
3
controls for new and existing sources are the same.
In the case of an existing source or a new source which has
an initial startup date preceding the effective date, the
standard applies within 90 days of the effective date, unless
a waiver is granted pursuant to S61.ll.
EPA estimates the standard viii affect equipment located
in approximately 240 existing process units and an expected
70 new process units by 1985. Attachment 1 lists 131 plant
sites EPA has identified as having the potential to emit
benzene fugitive emissions. This list is not exhaustive and
gions and States should seek to identify other affected
sites and confirm the accuracy of those listed.
Standards
Generic standards for equipment leaks are presented under
Subpart V of 40 CFR 61. Subpart 3, standards for benzene
equipment leaks, requires that affected sources must meet the
requirements of Subpart V. Two basic control techniques are
employed by the standard to reduce benzene fugitive emissions.
These are leak detection and repair programs in which fugitive
source leaks are located and repaired at regular intervals, and
preventive programs in which potential fugitive sources are
eliminated by either retrofitting with specified controls or
replacement with leakiess equipment. A discussion of the
specific standards for each affected piece of equipment follows.
1. Valves . This is one of the most common pieces of
equipment in a refinery or organic chemical production unit.
It ordinarily is activated by a valve stem requiring a seal
to isolate the process fluid from atmosphere. Since the
potential for leaks exists, valves are subject to regulation.
A monthly leak detection and repair program is required
for valves in gas or liquid service. Gas and liquid service
are defined under S61.19l. Quarterly monitoring will be
allowed for valves that have been found not to leak for two
successive months. Leak detection is to be performed with a
portable organic vapor analyzer, according to Reference Method
21 of 40 CFR 60, Appendix A. A leak is described as a reading
of 10,000 ppm or greater of organic material. Whenever a
leak is detected the valve must be tagged until repaired and,
at a minimum, must be monitored monthly until a leak is not
detected for two successive months.
-------
4
Initial repair of the leak must be attempted within 5
days, and the repair must be completed within 15 days.
Initial repair includes, but is not limited to, the following
best practices where practicable:
(1) tightening of bonnet bolts;
(2) replacement of bonnet bolts;
(3) tightening of packing gland nuts; and
(4) injection of lubricant into lubricated packing.
See S61.192—7(e).
An annual leak detection and repair program is required
to be developed and followed if the valves are difficult to
monitor. The description of this program must be kept in a
readily accessible location. Difficult to monitor valves
are those that would require elevating the monitoring personnel
more than two meters above any permanent available support
surface. Valves that cannot be safely monitored by the use
of step ladders could be classified as difficult to monitor.
For valves which are unsafe to monitor, an owner or
operator is required to develop and follow a plan that defines
a leak detection and repair program conforming with the
routine monitoring requirements of the standard as much as
possible, with the.understanding that monitoring should not
occur during unsafe conditions. Unsafe to monitor valves
are defined as those that could, as demonstrated by the
owner or operator, expose monitoring personnel to imminent
hazards from temperature, pressure, or explosive process
conditions. There should be very few valves in benzene
service that are unsafe to monitor.
Two alternative standards are available for valves in
gas/vapor and liquid service. The first alternative speci-
fies a two percent limitation as the maximum percent of
valves leaking within a process unit, determined by an initial
performance test and a minimum of one performance test
annually thereafter. Process unit is defined at S61.191.
This alternative could be met by implementing any type of
program and engineering controls chosen at the discretion of
-------
5
the owner or operator. If the percentage of valves leaking
is higher than two percent, the process unit is in violation.
If owners or operators decide they no longer wish to comply
with this alternative, they must submit written notice to
EPA accepting compliance with the monthly/quarterly leak
detection and repair program.
The second alternative standard specifies two skip—period
leak detection and repair programs. Under this option an
owner or operator upon notifying EPA can skip from monthly/
quarterly monitoring to something less frequent after com-
pleting a specified number of consecutive monitoring intervals
with the percentage of valves leaking equal to or less than
2.0. Under the first program, after two consecutive quarterly
periods with fewer than two percent of valves leaking, an
owner or operator may skip to semiannual monitoring. Under
the second program after 5 consecutive quarterly periods
with fewer than two percent of valves leaking, annual moni-
toring may be adopted. An owner or operator cannot adopt
semiannual monitoring and then proceed directly to annual
monitoring by claiming one period of semiannual monitoring
substitutes for two quarterly periods. If the owner or
operator finds the two percent level is exceeded, he or she
must revert to monthly/quarterly leak detection and repair.
If EPA finds the two percent level is exceeded, an evaluation
of compliance should occur. This alternative differs from the
first alternative because the type of compliance program chosen
must be leak detection and repair, rather than a program at
the discretion of the owner or operator.
An owner or operator electing to comply with the provisions
of either of these options must notify the Administrator 90 days
before implementing the option.
Delay of repair for equipment for which leaks have been
detected is allowed under certain circumstances. See S61.192—
10. There are two general circumstances where repair delays
for pumps, compressors and closed—vent systems, as well as for
valves, are allowable. The first is where repair is technically
or physically infeasible without a process unit shutdown,
defined as a work practice or operational procedure stopping
production. The use of spare equipment and technically
feasible bypassing of equipment without stopping production
are not process unit shutdowns. Repair must occur before
the end of the next process unit shutdown; hence, only one
-------
6
shutdown may be passed before repair is always required.
Repair is required during scheduled shutdowns of any duration
and during unscheduled shutdowns of over 24 hours.
The second general circ .unstance where repair delay is
allowed is if the equipment is isolated from the process and
no longer contains benzene in concentrations greater than
ten percent.
Delay of repair specifically for valves is allowed
beyond a process unit shutdown when unforeseeable circumstances
deplete valves used for repair. The valve assembly supplies
must have been sufficiently stocked before the supplies were
depleted. In this case delay of repair beyond the next
process unit shutdown will not be allowed unless the next
process unit shutdown occurs sooner than six months after
the first shutdown. Delay of repair for valves is also
allowed if the owner or operator can show that leakage of
purged material resulting from immediate repair would be
greater than the fugitive equipment leaks likely to result
from delay of repair, and that when repairs are effected,
the purged material is destroyed or recovered in a control
device.
2. Pumps — A pump normally has a shaft that requires
a seal to isolate the process fluid from atmosphere. Packed
and mechanical shaft seals are most common. If the seal
becomes imperfect due to wear, compounds being pumped leak.
Requirements for pumps are similar to those for valves.
A monthly leak detection and repair program is required, with
detection determined by Reference Method 21. Alternatively,
dual mechanical seals may be used under conditions specified
at S61.192—2(d). Each pump must be visually inspected weekly
for indications of liquid dripping from the pump seal. A
reading of at least 10,000 ppm or indication of liquids
dripping is a leak.
Initial pump leak repair must be attempted within five
days and completed within 15. Delay of repair is allowed
for pumps that cannot be repaired without a process unit
shutdown and a delay of up to six months after leak detection
is allowed when the owner or operator determines that repair
requires use of a dual mechanical seal system with barrier
fluid system. Any pump equipped with a closed—vent system
capable of capturing and transporting any leakage from the
seal to a control device is exempt from the requirements. -
-------
7
3. Compressors — Compressors have a shaft that requires
a seal to isolate the process gas from atmosphere. The
potential for a leak through this seal makes it a potential
source of benzene emissions. The standard requires the use
of seals with barrier fluid systems that prevent leakage.
The barrier fluid system must be equipped with a sensor that
will detect failure of the seal or barrier fluid system.
Sensors must be checked daily or have an alarm. If the
sensor detects a failure, a leak is detected. Leaks must be
repaired within 15 days. A compressor is exempt from the
above if it is equipped with a closed—vent system transporting
leaks to a control device, or it satisfies the no detectable
emissions provision at S61.192—3(i).
4. Pressure relief devices in gas/vapor service .
The standard requires no detectable emissions, which is a
reading of less than 500 ppinv above background based on
Reference Method 21. Annual verification is required. As
an alternative, compliance may be achieved by use of a rup-
ture disk system or closed—vent system capable of capturing
and transporting leakage from the pressure relief device to
a control device, such as a flare. This standard does not
apply to discharges during overpressure relief, but the relief
device must be returned to a no detectable emissions status
within five days of such a discharge. Additionally, relief
valve simmering (wherein the system pressure is close to
valve set pressure) is not allowed.
5. Sampling Connection Systems — Product quality and
process unit operation is checked periodically by analysis
of feedstocks, intermediates, and products. To obtain repre-
sentative samples for these analyses, sampling lines generally
are purged first. If this flushing liquid purge is not
returned to the process, it could be drained onto the ground
or into a process drain, where it would evaporate and release
benzene to atmosphere.
The standard provides for closed—purge sampling to
eliminate emissions due to purging by either returning the
purge material directly to the process or by collecting the
purge in a collection system generally closed to the atmos-
phere and disposing of it in an appropriately designed control
device. Closed—vent vacutmi systems connected to a control
device and in—situ sampling systems are also allowed.
-------
8
6. Open—Ended Valves or Lines — Some valves are installed in
a system so that they function with the downstream line open
to atmosphere. A faulty valve seat or incompletely closed
valve would cause leakage through the valve. The use of caps,
plugs, or any other equipment that will effect enclosure of
the open end is required. If a second valve is used, the
standard requires the upstream valve to be closed first. This
prevents the trapping of process fluid between the two valves.
7. Product Accumulator Vessels, Flanges, Pressure Relief
Devices in Liquid Service — Product accumulator vessels
are utilized with fractionation columns, and may be vented
directly or indirectly to atmosphere. Flanges are gasket—
sealed junctions which may develop seal leaks. Pressure relief
devices are designed to release a product material from distil-
lation columns and other pressurized systems during emergency
or upset conditions.
The standard for product accumulator vessels effectively
requires venting accumulator emissions to a control device,
or use of a closed—vent system. Flanges and pressure relief
devices in liquid service are excluded from routine leak
detection and repair requirements, but if leaks are detected
by visual, audible or olfactory techniques, they are subject
to the same allowable repair interval as applies to valves
and pumps.
8. Closed—Vent Systems and Control Devices — Control devices
will be used to reduce benzene equipment leaks captured and
transported through closed—vent systems. Reference Method 21
will be used to verify that a closed—vent system has been
designed and installed properly. Method 21 requires that
closed vent systems be checked visually to ensure there are no
leaks where they would not be expected (e.g., in pipes) and
also requires the monitoring of connections that are expected
to leak occasionally.
Enclosed combustion devices, such as incinerators,
catalytic incinerators, boilers, or process heaters must be
designed to reduce emissions vented to them with an efficiency
of 95% or greater or provide a minimum residence time of
0.50 seconds at a minimum temperature of 760° C. Vapor
recovery systems such as carbon adsorbers or condensation
units must be designed and operated to recover the organic
vapors vented to them with an efficiency of 95% or greater.
As an alternative the use of smokeless flares designed
-------
9
for and operated with no visible emissions is allowed. Specific
flare conditions established at §61.192—11(d) and S61.195(e)
must be met and destruction efficiency must be over 95%.
Equipnent purges from valves, pump seals, compressor seals,
pressure relief devices, sampling connection systems, and
product accumulator vessels must be vented to a system complying
with the requirements of the control device portion of the
standard.
Closed—vent systems must be designed and operated with no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an instrument reading of
below 500 p xn above background and by visual inspections. See
§61.195(c). They shall be monitored initially, annually, and
at other times requested by the Administrator. Leaks must be
repaired as soon as practicable, but not later than 15 days
after detection, with a first attempt no later than five days
after detection.
Equivalent Means of Emission Limitation
Each owner or operator may apply to the Administrator
for determination of equivalence for any means of emission
limitation that achieves a reduction at least equivalent to
the reduction achieved by the required controls. Guidelines
for the determination of equivalence are provided at §61.194(b)
and (c). Acceptance of such an equivalent method must be
approved by the Administrator and published in the Federal
Register . Such a request applies to pumps, compressors,
sampling connection systems, open—ended valves or lines,
valves, pressure relief devices, product accumulator vessels
and closed—vent systems and control devices. Such requests
should be forwarded to the Emission Standards and Engineering
Division (ESED) for review and approval.
No Detectable Emissions
Pumps pursuant to §61.192—2(e), compressors pursuant to
§61.192—3(i) and valves pursuant to §61.192—7(f) may be desig-
nated for no detectable emissions, indicated by a Method 21
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background.
These pieces of equipment would be exempt from other require-
ments, as specified. Pressure relief devices in gas/vapor
service and closed-vent systems must be designed for and
operated with no visible emissions, with compliance determined
by Method 21. Compliance of flares with the no visible
emissions standard, as provided at §61.192—11(d), shall be
determined by Reference Method 22.
-------
10
Peformance tests shall be conducted a minimum of once per
year, except for pressure relief devices and flares. Pressure
relief devices shall be tested no later than five calendar days
after each pressure release. Flares shall be monitored with an
appropriate heat sensor, such as a thermocouple, to ensure the
presence of a flame. Also, flares must be a smokeless operation,
as evidenced by visible emissions for a maximum of 5 minutes
in any 2—hour period.
Reporting Requirements
Reporting requirements, described under S6l.197, are of
two types. The first is an initial report, and the second a
series of semiannual reports. An initial report must be
submitted within 90 days of the effective date for existing
sources or new sources having an initial startup date preced-
ing the effective date. For new sources with a startup date
after the effective date, the initial report must be submitted
with the application for approval of construction, as described
in S61.07.
Receipt of the initial report is essential for ensuring
compliance with this standard. The report must specify equipment
identification number and process unit identification, type of
equipment, percent by weight benzene in the equipment fluid,
process fluid state (gas/vapor or liquid), and method of
compliance with the standard (monthly leak detection, no
detectable emissions, etc.).
Semiannual reports of leak detection and repair efforts
within a process unit are required. The reports must include
the number of leaks occurring within the process unit during
the reporting period, the number of leaks that could not be
repaired within 15 days, and the general reasons for unsuccess-
ful or delayed repair past 15 days. Reports may be photocopies
of reports under other regulations, provided the informational
requirements of S61.197 are satisfied.
Recordkeeping Requirements
These are specified at S6l.196. Each leak shall be
identified and tagged, and this must be retained until the
leak is repaired. When each leak is detected, records should
be kept of the equipment and operator identification numbers,
-------
11
dates for detection and repair, method of repair, and any reason
for delay of repair. These must be kept for two years.
Recordkeeping pertaining to the design requirements for closed—
vent systems and control devices must be recorded in a log and
kept in a readily accessible location. This recordkeeping
includes detailed schematics, design specifications, a descrip-
tion of the parameters monitored to ensure proper control device
operation and maintenance, periods when the closed—vent sytems
and control devices were not operated as designed, periods when
a flame pilot light did not have a flame, and dates of startups
and shutdowns of the systems. Additionally, records must be
kept explaining why valves have been classified as unsafe or
difficult to monitor and providing plans for monitoring such
valves. Records must be kept showing analyses demonstrating
that equipment is not in benzene service.
Compliance Issues
Compliance is determined by review of records required by
S61 .196, review of performance test results, and inspections
(EPA/State leak detections) using the methods and procedures
specified in S61.195. There are, however, several potential
compliance issues for which guidance is provided here.
1. For purposes of determining the percent benzene content,
S61.195(d) provides that ASTM Method D—2267 shall be used or an
owner or operator may use engineering judgment to demonstrate
that the percent benzene content does not exceed 10 percent by
weight. In case of a dispute the ASTM method takes precedence.
It should be noted that each piece of equipment within a process
unit that can conceivably contain equipment in benzene service
is presumed to be in benzene service unless an owner or operator
demonstrates otherwise. For a piece of equipment to be considered
not in service, it must be determined that the percent benzene
content can be reasonably expected never to exceed ten percent
by weight. The burden is on the owner or operator to show
equipment is not in benzene service.
2. Several benzene equipment standards require that the owner
or operator develop, based on design considerations and
operating experience, a criterion indicating system failure.
See s61.192—2(d)(5) for pumps and 561.192—3(e)(2) for compressors.
The valve standard requires at 561.192—7(g) that the owner or
operator have written plans for monitoring unsafe—to—monitor
valves during safe periods and at S61.192—7(h) that the owner
-------
12
or operator have written plans for monitoring difficult—to—
monitor valves at least once per year. Although none of these
plans requires EPA approval, all must be accessible to inspection
personnel. Should the plan appear inadequate, inspectors may
request development of a new plan or a performance test when
applicable to ensure compliance is being achieved. If the
plan is obviously inadequate (intentionally inadequate), a
violation should be pursued.
3. The standard for closed—vent systems and control devices
at S6l.192—ll(e) requires that owners and operators of control
devices used to comply with the standard monitor their control
devices to ensure they are operated and maintained in confor-
mance with their designs. No monitoring parameters are
suggested; however, the owner or operator must achieve 95%
control and the parameter selected must indicate this.
The Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry
Promulgation Background Document (EPA 450/3—30—033b, June 1982,
Appendix B) provides acceptable monitoring parameters and
equipment. These include operating temperature or flowrate
of fugitive emission vent streams for incinerators, flow
recorders to verify steam flow for boilers, thermocouples or
ultraviolet beam sensors for flares, temperature and specific
gravity of the absorbing liquid for absorbers, offgas exit
temperature for condensers, and carbon bed temperature and
steam flow recorders for carbon adsorbers. See Attachment II.
Whatever parameter is chosen, the owner or operator should
be aware that EPA can require an engineering evaluation at
any time to ensure the parameter is appropriate and monitors
the operation of the control device in accordance with the
standard.
4. The general provisions at 561.10 and 61.11 allow EPA to
grant a waiver from a benzene standard for a period of up to
two years, if the owner or operator of an existing source
subject to that standard is unable to operate in compliance
with the standard. Most benzene requirements are in the form
of work practice standards, and waivers from these standards
would not be appropriate. However, certain provisions may
require retrofitting of controls. These include standards
for compressors (mechanical seals with barrier fluid systems)
pressure relief devices (rupture disk systems or closed—vent
systems to flares), and product accumulator vessels (must vent
-------
13
emissions to a control device or use a closed—vent system).
In cases where retrofit controls are necessary, requests for
waivers should be examined on a case—by—case basis. Although
ESED believes installation of controls should typically take
no more than one year, individual situations may require addi-
tional time.
-------
PN 112-78-03—30-001
bcc:Ron Naveen, C CC
3202:3—29—78
N IAR 3 0 3 T8
? E IORAUDUM
Subject: State Cnforcement of Asbestos Dei o1ition
Reçulations in Light of Adamo reckinc
Co cany V. United States , 11 EHC 1081
(January 10, 19Th)
From: Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
To: Abraharn Ferdes (3EN11)
Air Enforceiuent branch, Region III
Your February 24, 1978, menorandurn recuested clan—
ficatton of State authority to enforce work practice stan-
dards to control er ±ssion from demolition and renovation
;roJects. You particularly souaht our ccIr ent on an opin:on
5u c.utted to the Pennsylvania DER by Pennovivania Assistznt
Attorney Ger eral :ichael tdughin regard nj Pennsyivania
utnority to independently enforce hazardous air po11ut nt
standards.
it is our opinion that r. Aluch n’s tar: inaticn that
the Stdte may independently en arce ts hazardous air
o1lutant standards Is correct. States wnicn adopted work
practic± standards under independent authority of a State
law (as opposed to being delegated t e rcspons bi1ity
to enforce Federal standards as E?A’s Nat.ent Iithout
ado .tion of stanoards pursuant to State enabling 1e 1slatior )
are not affucted by the Supreme Court t s daro oninion. eCh
o Stote may continue to enforce its o.:n worx practice
tancarcs.
States and citizens also have the authority to enforce
the Federal work practice standards ( 40 CFR G1.22) , under
Section 304 o the Clean Air ct, as ai’ended, 42 U.S.C.
§7t., )’ . (Sc the de jnjtjon cf n:ss cn stanc rd in 3ect on
304 ( fl) (3) w ic scec.fioally Irc1ude ;: r ractice : ul —
t ons.) do ver, ction 3C4 czicri do have sore dr i chs,
artlcul L-ly ‘it1i re ard to enforcint: i se standsrcs
:r jt ns .’jn c cr t:or. ucL a .:u .Lc i d€ : oh: cs.
i—i
-------
For example, sixty—day ante litem notices rust be filed with
the cimintstrator, State and source prior to the filing ot a
civil action. In addition, only in)unctive relief is
available in a Section 334 action; penaltiez i ay not be
collected. because of these drawbacks, citizen suits under
this Sc ction of the Act are not an optimal enforcement
mechanism to assure cor liance with the work practice
regulations.
If we can be of any further ascistance to you in this
matter, please contact Doug Farnsworth of y staff CFTS
7 —257O)
Edward E. Reicti
cc: Steve t assersug, Director
En orce: ent Division, Recicn III
I
r /
112
1—2
-------
tT
J 4 PN 112—82—03—24—002
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON D.C. 20460
‘4t . ,icø ’
OFFICE OF
AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Delegation of Authority to States: NESHAPS
FROM: Kathleen M. Bennett
Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise and Radiation
TO: Regional Administrators, Regions I — X
Several Regional offices have requested guidance on issuing
an “automatic” delegation to States of the authority to implement
the NESHAP program. There has also been a request for guida nce
on delegation of the authority to grant waivers of compliance with
NESHAPS.
As discussed in my guidance document of December 29, 1981,
for the Administrator’s Accountability System,
the Agency should be as flexible as possible
in the determination of when a State program
is adequate and delegation should be made.
The appropriate attitude toward State and local
agencies is to presume both capability and
proper intention, if at all possible.
In order to promote the delegation of the NESHAP program (as well
as the NSPS program), an “automatic 0 delegation to the States
should be pursued. Automatic delegation would not only provide
States with the implementing authority for current standards under
the NESHAP program, but would also provide the authority for
future standards as they are published in the Federal Register .
Again citing the guidance document,
regional offices should foster this approach
by consulting with appropriate State officials
and attempt to resolve any legal issues which
may inhibit this approach in some States.
With regard to de1eg ting the authority to grant waivers of
compliance with NESHAPS, the Agency has now concluded that this
authority could be incorporated into the “automatic” delegation of
the NESHAP program. Originally the Agency had retained the
E.uthority to grant ‘aivers to Insure consistent app1ic tion of the
standards while the States were familiarizing themselves with this
program. Because there was never any legal restriction preventing
112
2-1
-------
the delegation of this authority, the Agency has now determined
that the States have advanced in their general understanding of
the program and that they can assume this additional
responsibility. -Therefore, the current policy with respect to
delegation of ajthority to grant waivers of compliance is to
include this function in the “automatic” delegation of the NESHAP
program. -
As a clarification, it should be noted that no sources are
currently eligible for waivers of compliance and would not be
caught in the interim during any transfer of authority to States
to grant waivers. The waiver period of two years from the
effective date of any present NESHAP standard has already expired.
Therefore, the need to issue waivers to existing sources will not
arise until new standards are promulgated under the NESHAP
program.
If you have any questions concerning the delegation of
authority to States for the NESHAP or NSPS programs, you should
contact Bern Steigerwald at the Office of Air Quality, Planning,
and Standards (OAQPS). OAQPS is assuming the programmatic role
for delegation of authority. Mr. Steigerwald may be contacted at
FTS 629—5555.
112
2-2
-------
—9—
A third type of administrative proceeding, a Notice of
Noncompliance issued under §120, is not practical in the
context of demolitions and renovations. A penalty under §120
begins to accrue from the receipt of a Notice by the source.
However, the computer model for computing the economic benefit
of noncompliance discounts the first calendar month after
receipt. Since compliance in these cases does not require
installation of capital equipment but simply the following of
certain procedures, the source is likely to be able to comply
within a short time frame and the resultant penalty will be
very small and possibly zero. While expeditious compliance is
the primary goal of an enforcement action, in instances in
which no penalties are likely to be derived, S120 is probably
not the most direct way to induce compliance.
There are three judicial dvenues open to EPA for
enforcement of the asbestos regulations:
1) Section 113(b) civil action. EPA may bring an action
under this section for injunctive relief requiring compliance
with the regulations. EPA may also seek civil penalties of up
to $25,000 per day of violation. Although civil actions under
S113(b) do not ordinarily seek immediate injunctive relief, the
broad grant of authority to commence a civil action for a
permanent or temporary injunctionu encompasses temporary
restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. In other words,
the Government could proceed under §113(b) to seek immediate
compliance with the asbestos standards, as well as civil
penalties, provided it can satisfy the legal standard for
immediate Injunctive relief.
2) Section 113(c) criminal action. If EPA has evidence
that a person knowingly violated the asbestos demolition and
renovation requirements, the Agency can initiate a criminal
enforcement proceeding. A conviction under the criminal
provision of the Clean Air Act can result in imprisonment of up
to one year and/or a penalty of up to $25,000 per day of
violation, and greater sanctions are faced for a subsequent
conviction.
3) Section 303 civil action. EPA may bring a civil action
for immediate relief upon a finding that an asbestos source is
presenting an imminent and substantial endangerment to public
health, and that State or local authorities have not acted to
abate such source. As with administrative orders issued under
§303, EPA must consult with State and local authorities before
-------
—10—
a
initiating a civil action under this section. EPA does not
have authority to collect penalties in a §303 action unless it
first issued an order which the source has violated. In such
instance, the Agency can seek penalties of up to $5,000 per
day of violation. Ad administrative order is not, however, a
prerequisite to bringing an action for immediate relief under
§30 3.
For additional information concerning enforcement under
S303, consult the guidance on use of Section 303, distributed
by memorandum dated September 15, 1983 from Ed Reich and
Michael Alushin.
In addition to formal enforcement, it may be appropriate
in some instances to proceed against a violator informally.
The Agency has had some success in the past in inducing
immediate compliance by issuing a Finding of Violation to
the source. Alternatively, or in conjunction with such a
finding, EPA can Invite the source to a show causeN
conference to determine whether immediate compliance can be
achieved without formal enforcement proceedings. Please
remember, however, that there is no statutory requirement for
notice or finding of violation nor a conference prior to formal
administrative or judicial enforcement of the NESHAP standard.
Factors to Consider in Choosing the Enforcement Option
The transient nature of demolitions and renovations is
important in establishing a framework for enforcement. EPA
will be in one of two positions in cases where it has the
responsibility for taking the enforcement action: We will be
acting while the demolition or renovation is proceeding, or we
will be acting after the project has been, or is nearly,
completed.
In instances in which the demolition or renovation is
ongoing, the primary objective for enforcement is to act
quickly to remedy the violation, and a secondary concern is
deterring future violations. Therefore, the most appropriate
e forcement opt ions will be an administrative order under
Section 113(a), an order under Section 303, or a civil action
for immediate relief under Section 113(b) or Section 303.
Whether EPA proceeds administratively may depend on whether the
Agency has confidence that the source will comply with such an
order. If, for example, an on—site inspection yields an
indication from the source that it will henceforth comply with
-------
—11—
the regulations, an order may be a sufficient step to assure
that compliance is achieved. If the source is not cooperative
during an inspection, or has a previous history of noncompliance,
EPA may want to proceed immediately to a judicial action under
Section 113(b) or 303.
Circumstances in a given case involving an ongoing project
may make informal enforcement action appropriate. If a source
has properly notified EPA of the demolition or renovation and
is making a good faith effort to comply but Is failing to comply
in some respects, a finding of violation or conference may be
sufficient to induce immediate compliance. In such instances,
the Agency should monitor the situation to determine whether
formal enforcement action becomes necessary. As a general
rule, informal enforcement should not be considered if the
source failed to notify EPA in a timely manner, or violations
of a substantial nature are occurring at the site of the
demolition or renovation.
Of the enforcement options available for immediate
response, only judicial enforcement authorizes EPA to assess
or collect penalties. In each case, the Region will need to
balance the paramount interest of achieving immediate compliance
with the incremental procedural burden associated with filing
a civil action (see below) to determine whether the matter
warrants pursuing penalties. In making this determination,
the Region should be mindful that penalties are designed to be
an effective deterrent of future violatjon .
Where immediate judicial relief is sought, §113(b) will
generally be preferable to §303. The Government is not required
to consult with State and local authorities prior to initiating
a §113(b) action, but must Simply give notice of the filing of
an action to the State air pollution control agency. Consul-
tation would be expected in delegated States. Also, the
Government need only establish a violation of the standard, as
opposed to an imminent and substantial endangerment, to sustain
an action under §113(b). Finally, we have greater authority
to assess and collect penalties under §113(b) than under §303.
Nonetheless, there may be instances in which a §303 civil
action is appropriate. This provision of the Act grants blanket
authority to abate hazards whether or not a standard has been
violated. In instances in which the applicability or validity
of the regulation is questionable, §303 provides broad authority
to seek relief sufficient to protect the public health. We
-------
—12—
I
recommend generally that the exercise of §303 civil authority
be preceded by the issuance of a §303 administrative order so
that liability for penalties will be established if the order
is not followed. This is the best way to assure that §303
enforcement takes effect as quickly as possible accompanied
by the threat of $5,000 per day in penalties if the source
fails to remedy the situation.
In instances in which the demolition or renovation is
over or nearly complete by the time EPA is ready to take
enforcement action, the primary objective will be to assure
that the source complies with the regulations in the future.
An administrative order under §113(a) can be considered as a
means of notifying the source of the violation and formally
requiring compliance, but it does not penalize the source for
past violations. In most instances in which a failure to
notify or other substantial violation has occurred, a civil
action for penalties under §113(b) or a criminal action under
§113(c) will be the most appropriate enforcement response.
Procedures for Immediate Enforcement Response
The currently effective delegations of authority, which
were issued by the Acting Administrator on March 17, 1983,
govern the required procedures for issuing adminstrative
orders or initiating judicial actions. Concurrence, notifica-
tion and consultation requirements have been designed to
minimize any procedural obstacles to quick enforcement response.
Regional Administrators are now delegated authority to
issue administrative orders under 5113(a) without notification
to or consultation with Headquarters. Further redelegation of
this authority to the Division Director is authorized. (Dele-
gation 7—6.) Under the terms of the applicable delegation
from the Administrator, the Regional Administrator was origi-
nally required to consult with the Associate Administrator for
Legal and Enforcement Counsel (now the Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring) and the Assistant
Administrator for Air, Noise and Radiation (now AA for Air and
Radiation) prior to exercising this authority. However, the
AA for OLEC subsequently designated the Associate Enforcement
Counsel for Air as the person to be consulted for that office,
and both he and the AA for Air and Radiation have waived the
consultation requirements. Thus the Region can now act
unilaterally to Issue an administrative order under Section
113(a).
-------
—13—
Authority to issue administrative orders under Section 303
is delegated Concurrently to the Regional Administrators and
the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. (Delegation
7—49,) Further redelegatjon to the Division Director level is
authorized. The consultation requirements set out in the
delegation have been designated by the AA for Enforcement and
Compliance Monitoring to the Associate Enforcement Counsel for
Air hut remain with the AA for Air and Radiation. These consul-
tation requirements have not been waived. Prior to issuing an
order under Section 303, the Region must therefore consult
with both OECM and the AA for Air and Radiation through SSCD.
Procedures to initiate judicial actions for Immediate
relief are governed by both the delegations of authority and
the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of
Justice and EPA. (42 F.R. 48942, September 26, 1977) Authority
to refer requests for emergency temporary restraining orders to
the Department of Justice and to the appropriate United States
Attorney has been delegated concurrently to the Regional
Administrators and the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Monitoring. (Delegation 7—22-D.,) The Region
must nptify the AA for OECM when exercising this authority.
This can best be accomplished by contacting the Air Enforcement
Division in OECM, which will take responsibility for conveying
notice to the Assistant Administrator. In all cases, the EPA
Headquarters role will be fulfilled within twenty—four hours
of notification to the Air Enforcement Division, and in most
instances significantly quicker that that. See Attachment 3
for a list of the appropriate EPA Headquarters contacts.
Ordinarily, requests for litigation must be made by EPA to
the Assistant Attorney General for Land and Natural Resources,
who must then refer a matter to the appropriate United States
Attorney for filing a civil action. However, the Memorandum of
Understanding states as follows:
...except matters requiring an immediate temporary
restraining order may be subr itted by Regional
Administrators of the Agency simultaneously to a
United States Attorney and the appropriate Assistant
Attorney General.
As soon as possible after a decision has been made to seek an
immediate injunction, the Region should contact both the United
States Attorney in the District where the case is to be filed,
-------
—14—
and the Assistant Chief of the Environmental Enforcement Section
who has responsibility for that Region. See Attachment 4 for
a list of the appropriate DOJ HQ contacts. Approval of
the Assistant Attorney General is required prior to filing.
The Assistant Section Chief with responsiblity for the Region
involved will seek verbal approval of the Assistant Attorney
General and communicate it to the Assistant United States
Attorney. Obviously it is impractical in such circumstances
to prepare a litigation report to accompany the request for
litigation. The Region should therefore be prepared to provide
essential information by telephone to both EPA and DOJ Head-
quarters. DOJ is also committed to minimizing the turnaround
time for authorization of litigation in the context of requests
for immediate relief.
The September 15, 1983 guidance on Section 303 includes
sample forms for otion for temporary restraining order,
complaint, and administrative order. OECM will work with DOJ
to supplement these materials as needed in the content of this
strategy.
Factors for Assessing Civil Penalties
The existing civil penalty policy for Clean Air Act
violations, issued July 8, 1980, does not, by its terms, address
demolition and renovation cases because it does not cover
“intermittent or transient” violations, Additionally, the
Policy on Civil Penalties issued by the Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring on February 16, 1984,
does not supersede any statute—specific penalty policies, but
instead establishes a general framework for statute—specific
approaches to penalty assessments. The February 16, 1984
policy is useful in establishing guidelines for civil penalty
settlement amounts in demolition and renovation cases.
If the Region is referring a civil action under Section
113(b) against a demolition or renovation source, it should
recommend a civil penalty settlement amount. Consistent with
the comprehensive penalty policy, the Region should determine
a “preliminary deterrence amount” by assessing an economic
benefit component and a gravity component. This amount may
then be adjusted upward or downward by consideration of other
factors, such as degree of willfulness and/or negligence,
history of noncompliance, and ability to pay. Since there is a
wide variation in the size of demolition contractors, ability
to pay may be an important adjustment factor in some instances.
-------
—15—
The “gravity” component should account for factors such
as the environmental harm resulting from the violation, the
importance of the requirement to the regulatory scheme, and
the size of the violator. Since asbestos is a hazardous air
pollutant, the gravity factor associated with substantive
violations (i.e., failure to adhere to work practices or to
prevent visible emissions from waste disposal) should be high.
Also, since notification is essential to Agency enforcement, a
notification violation should also warrant a high gravity
component.
Whenever a source fails to give notice prior to commencing
demolition or renovation, the Agency should seek a $25,000
penalty unless clear mitigating factors make a reduction appro-
priate. As a legal matter, the Agency can arguably seek up to
$25,000 per day for each day that the source fails to remedy
the notification violation. As a matter of policy, however,
an initial notification violation will be considered a single
day of violation, but the full $25,000 should be sought except
in compelling circumstances which favor the source’s equitable
position. In case of recurring violations or ones involving
very large projects, the Region should consider seeking greater
penalties. Where notification is made late, the Region should
seek a lesser penalty, reflecting to a large extent the degree
to which the Region’s ability to evaluate substantive compliance
has been hampered. For example, if notification is late but
still precedes commencement of the project, a small penalty is
warranted. If notification is given such that the Region cannot
inspect the project until it is half complete, a $12,500 penalty
may be appropriate. We consider notification violations,
particularly failure to notify, sufficiently serious by itself
to justify a civil referral if the Region chooses to proceed
with that option.
For substantive violations, the Region should attempt to
estimate the economic benefit derived by the source in failing
to comply with the regulations. One way to estimate the benefit
is to compare the dollar amount of the demolition or renovation
contract to an estimate of the cost to do the job in compliance
with the regulations. Headquarters will investigate whether a
consultant or in—house expert can provide general guidance
concerning the determination of economic savings. The gravity
component for substantive violations should be related to the
amount of asbestos to be removed in the project, since that is
a rough measure of the potential environmental harm associated
with the activity. At a minimum, for a source which barely
meets the threshold for applicability of substantive requirements
(the amount of friable asbestos materials is at least 80 linear
-------
—16—
I
meters on pipers or at least 15 square meters on other facility
components), the penalty should be $5,000. The penalty should
be an additional $5,000 for each additional 80 linear meters
or 15 square meters of friable asbestos material, up to a statu-
tory maximum of $25,000 for each day of documented violation
of work practice or no visible emissions requirements.
To illustrate application of these principles, assume that
a source is removing approximately 45 square meters of friable
asbestos material. The source failed to notify EPA prior to
commencing the demolition. An EPA inspector went to the site on
one day and observed that the source was failing to wet the
friable asbestos during stripping. EPA estimates that the
incremental cost of properly removing and stripping the asbestos
would be about $20 per square meter. The upreliminary deterrence
amount associated with this hypothetical situation would be
$25,000 for failure to notify, $15,000 for the gravity component
assigned to the substantive violation, and $900 for the economic
benefit component, or a total of $40,900. This figure could
then be adjusted upward or downward if appropriate to account
for recalcitrance, history of noncompliance, inability to pay
the penalty, or similar factors.
Potenti al Defendants
The asbestos regulations apply to veach owner or operator”
of a demolition or renovation operation. EPA has construed
this language to include both the owner of the site and the
party performing the demolition or renovation, usually a
contractor. This position is reiterated in the preamble to the
repromulgation of the standard.
While legally the Agency may proceed against both the site
owner and the demolition contractor, this does not mean that we
should take action against both in all cases. The determination
of whom to take action against must be made on a case—by—case
basis. The contractor is an appropriate party for enforcement
actions in all cases involving substantive violations, since
the contractor actually performs the work and thus is in the
best position to effectuate compliance. As a general rule, the
Region should also proceed against the site owner. However,
the Region may exercise discretion where an owner can show that
the contract or bid specifications required that the demolition
contractor comply with the asbestos regulations. In addition,
Regions should consider the deterrence effect of enforcement.
If it is known that the site owner has other sites which may be
demolished or renovated, it is as important to deter future
violations by the owner as it is by the contractor.
-------
—17—
Both parties should ordinarily he held responsible if
there has been a violation of notification requirements. The
Agency does not, however, require duplicative notification:
if either party provides the requisite notification, EPA will
consider the requirements to have been satisfied.
If the Region determines to sue both parties, the parties
should ordinarily be joined in a single judicial action. In
developing a settlement penalty amount, the Region could choose
to either allocate the penalty among the defendants based on
the nature of the violations or seek a single figure to be
allocated among the defendants by themselves.
Evaluating State Action
In any State in which authority to enforce the asbestos
standard has been delegated, EPA should look initially to the
State to determine if the State is taking adequate action to
address the problem. In delegations the Agency retains the
concurrent ability to enforce against violating sources to the
same extent as if there had been no delegation. In all
instances in which EPA is considering deferral to enforcement
action by a delegated State, it should evaluate the action to
determine if it is adequate in light of these guidelines. In
other words, if the demolition or renovation is ongoing, EPA
should defer only if the State action is designed to bring the
source into compliance essentially immediately. If the demoli-
tion or renovation is complete or nearly complete at the time
EPA is evaluating the situation, the Agency should defer only
if the State is taking action to recover penalties which are
reasonable when measured against the penalty principles
established in this document.
We do not think it is practical to set rigid criteria for
State resolution of an asbestos demolition or renovation
violation. However, each Region should establish clear terms
of deferral in every case, and those terms should account for
the primary objectives of enforcement, immediate compliance if
an ongoing violation and deterrence of future violations if it
is too late to abate the violation which is the subject of the
enforcement action. If the terms of deferral are not met, EPA
should promptly initiate Federal enforcement action.
-------
—18—
Cross—Program Elements
Regions should be alert to the possibility that a demolition
or renovation activity may be subject to other statutes. The
most likely overlap is that failure to properly dispose of
wastes may subject the source to action under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and/or the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).
The Agency has already filed an action citing Section 303 of
the Clean Air Act in addition to Section 7003 of RCRA and 106
of CERCLA. In evaluating appropriate enforcement responses,
the Regional air personnel should coordinate with the hazardous
waste enforcement elements if it appears that RCRA or CERCLA
may be applicable.
8. Tracking and Auditing — The next aspect of the asbestos
strategy is an effective tracking and auditing system to ensure
the compliance program is operating successfully. The specific
auditing procedures adopted will be left to the discretion of
each Region, but there are several elements which an effective
audit program should have. The first is a requirement for
joint EPA—State inspections, so that the Regional office can
be sure the State inspections are being conducted correctly.
For ex rnp1e, one Region has required each of its delegated
States to provide a list of project sites, from which the
Region selects specific sites where they will accompany the
State inspector.
Attachment 5 contains a sample questionnaire developed by
one of the Regions. The questionnaire seeks information from
delegated States on the overall asbestos demolition program,
and the effectiveness of the inspection procedure.
An auditing program should contain provisions for mid—year
and annual reviews of inspection reports to provide an indication
of the effectiveness of the State program. The Regions, if they
receive notification of asbestos projects along with the States,
could use this as an additional audit device, determining the
percentage of notifying sources which were inspected, and the
effectiveness of the State’s notification program. It is
anticipated that the National Air Audit System for 1985 will
place greater emphasis on enforcement of asbestos regulations
in delegated States.
-------
—19—
It is essential to develop a tracking mechanism for asbestos
demolition and renovation projects. This will provide
information on the number of notifications received, number of
projects Inspected, number of violations, and the manner of
resolution of the violations. Notification violations should
be distinguished from substantive ones. The most obvious
tracking mechanism available is CDS. Guidelines for using CDS
to input and acquire the necessary information are provided in
Attachment 6. Regions or States are not required to use CDS
if they prefer some alternative system, but the system selected
must provide the specified information and must enable the
information to be readily available to Headquarters.
An effective tracking system, in addition to providing an
overall picture of compliance status, Should also enable a
State or Regional office to determine if a contractor moving
into its jurisdictjo was guilty of a violation in some other
jurisdjctjo • SSCD is currently developing a national register
of demolition contractors which will provide this information.
Such a system cannot be completely based on CDS, Since use of CDS
for tracking is an option which States or Regions may elect not
to use. However, it will require the cooperation and support
of all implementating Agencies. SSCD should be alerted to all
demolition contractors who have been cited for a violation of
the asbestos provisions.
9. Accountabjli — The FY 1985 Strategic Planning
Management System will contain an element evaluating Regional
and State performance in carrying out the asbestos strategy.
The specific indicators to be used are as follows: total number
of notifications, total number of inspections, total number of
violations, and status of those violations. Such information
shall be reported quarterly.
Redelegation Concerns
Although many States have continued to effectively implement
the renovation and demolition provisions of the asbestos Standard
during the period of this standard’s instability, concerns were
raised as to whether the repromulgation of the asbestos standard
will require a Regional redelegation of State authority to enforce
the asbestos NESHAP. It is impossible to give a specific response
to this general question, since the issue depends on the kind of
delegation a State received and the authority the State relied
upon when receiving the delegation. This issue must be handled
on a State—by—State basis. A general summary of the delegation
procedure will, however, be helpful in putting this issue in
perspective,
-------
-20—
There are several types of delegations. Automatic delegation
refers to a process where agencies assume responsibility for the
implementation and enforcement of current and future NESHAPs. A
separate request for delegation is not needed every time a
standard is promulgated. In general, States with automatic dele-
gation would not need to take any additional actions and they
would be able to fully enforce the repromulgated regulations.
A second form of delegation is State adoption of its own
regulations using its own authority. This form of delegation
should not require any further action, provided the State
regulations remain consistent with the repromulgated asbestos
standard. Since no substantive provisions of the standard have
been changed, there would be no reason why the State regulations
would be inconsistent.
A third form of delegation is adoption by reference. Under
this procedure newly delegated NESHAPs would be adopted directly
into the State code by reference to the Federal law. Minor
adaptations would be necessary in the case of the repromulgated
standard, since the repromulgation makes numbering changes.
See Attach ent 7 for a comparison of the numbering system for
the original and repromulgated standard. A full redelegation
would not normally be necessary.
A fourth system of delegation is when a State asks for and
uses EPA authority to enforce the asbestos provisions. In
other words, the State acts as EPA’S agent without adoption of
standards pursuant to State enabling legislation. Since EPA’S
authority was at issue in the Adamo decision, it is likely that
States using that authority will have to receive an actual
redelegation of all provisions of the asbestos standard.
The NGood Practices Manual for Delegation of NSPS and
NESHAPs, at page 46, mentions that it is EPA’S responsibility
to notify States of changes to any delegated regulations, to
work with States, provide any necessary assistance, and ensure
that the legal authority to implement and enforce the revised
rules is maintained. It should be re—emphasized that the
Regions should work with delegated States to resolve any
redelegation issues because cases might differ from the general
situations explained above. Earl Salo of the Office of General
Counsel (FTS 382—7632) has agreed to assist in evaluating any
redelegation problems, on a State—by—State basis.
-------
—21—
Conclusion
Enforcement of the asbestos provisions is a high priority
of the EPA. Considerable time and resources have been devoted
to the asbestos issue, and it is expected that Regional actions
will reflect this high priority. Quoting from a January 24,
1983 memorandum from Michael Alushin to all Regional Counsels,
uEmissions of hazardous air pollutants are a particularly
important source of environmental harm requiring special
attention. I urge you to make an increased effort to assure
that sources violating asbestos standards are identified and
that enforcement of the standard proceed. This strategy
document is intended to aid in this endeavor.
-------
Section 113: Federal Enforcement
-------
Page No. 2.
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 113
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 113
* PN113—75—11—05—001
NON-DISCRETIONARY ENFORCEMENT DUTIES - ISSUANCE OF NOTICES OF VIOLATION
* PN113—76—06—25—002
DOCUMENTATION OF VIOLATION EXTENDING 30 DAYS BEYOND NOTICE OF VIOLATION
UNDER SECTION 113 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
* PN113—76—08—12—003
ENFORCEMENT OF SIPS UNDERGOING REVISION
* PN113—76—08—13—004
“REVIEWABILITY” OF EPA DETERMINATIONS IN SIP ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
* PN113—78—07—27—005
ENFORCEMENT UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS - ORDERS UNDER SECTION
113(A) AND 113(D)
* PN113—80—03—11—006
INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
* PN113—80—05—27—007
DELAYED COMPLIANCE ORDERS REQUIRING SIP COMPLIANCE THROUGH TEMPORARY
CONTROL MEASURES - AMENDED GUIDANCE
* PN113—82—05—04—013
GUIDANCE ON POLICY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF yE VIOLATIONS AGAINST SOURCES
WHICH ARE MEETING AN APPLICABLE MASS EMISSION STANDARD
* PN113—82—08—12—014
GUIDANCE CONCERNING EPA’S USE OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING DATA
* PN113—83—02—15—017
POLICY ON EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, MAINTENANCE, AND
MALFUNCTIONS
* PN113—83—01—12—018
GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1982 DEADLINE ENFORCEMENT POLICY
ISSUED SEPTEMBER 20, 1982
* PN113—83—04—12—019
LETTER TO ROBERT R. WAMLER FROM KATHLEEN BENNETT RE ENFORCEMENT POLICY
ON INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
* PN113—83—04—26—020
PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW AND FEDERAL REGISTER PUBLICATION OF DELAYED
COMPLIANCE ORDERS UNDER SECTION 113(D) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
-------
Page No. 2
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 113
(VOLUME 1)
* PN113—84—1O—05—021
FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON THE REVIEW AND USE OF EXCESS EMISSION
REPORTS
* PN113—84—12—20—022
POLICY ON NO-ACTION ASSU1 ANCES
* PN113—85—04—24—023 /
ACHIEVING VOC COMPLIANCE FROM DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACTOR
FACILITIES
* PN113—85—06—28—024 /
PARTICULATE MATTER INTERIM ENFORCEMENT POLICY
* PN113—85—10—30—025 /
FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON THE REVIEW AND USE OF COAL SAMPLING AND
ANALYSIS DATA
* PN113—85—11—27—026 J
REVISED ENFORCEMENT POLICY RESPECTING SOURCES COMPLYING WITH CLEAN Ai
ACT REQUIREMENTS BY SHUTDOWN
-------
PN 113-85-11-27-026
. O S T dp
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
/ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
. 1 IIO 1 tc
KW2lS
OFFICE OF ENFOICEMENT
AND COMPLIANCE
MEMORANDUM MONITORING
SUBJECT: Revised Enforcement Policy Respecting Sources
Complying With Clean Air Act Requirements By
Shutdown
FROM: Courtney M. Price
Assistant Administrator fo Enforcement
and Compliance Monitoring
TO: Air and Waste Management Division Directors
Regions II, VI, VII, and VIII
Air Management Division Directors
Region I, III, V, and IX
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management
Division Directors
Regions IV and X
Regional Counsels
Regions I—X
Attached are two memoranda. The first is the final
version of the revised/updated Clean Air Act enforcement
policy respecting sources complying by shutdown. The second
memorandum modifies the Agency’s September 20, 1982 and
January 12, 1983 enforcement policies for sources in non—
attainment areas to be consistent with the terms of the
new policy. Please note that the new policy becomes effec-
tive for cases referred after December 15, 1985.
Two drafts of the new policy were circulated for
review during the last several months. I would like to
express my appreciation for the extensive participation by
Regional Offices in this policy development effort. Many
valuable comments were received and the final version
reflects them.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding the
interpretation or application of the new policy, please contact
Mr. William Repsher (FTS 382—2854) of my staff.
Attachments
-------
tO
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
* WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
4
NOV 2 .t 85
OFFiCE OF ENFO*CEME’ .T
AND COMPUA%CE
MONITo IP,G
MEMORAN DUM
SUBJECT: Enforcement Policy Respecting Sources Complying
With Clean Air Act equiranl ntS By hutdown
FROM: Courtney M. Price
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Monitoring
TO: Air and Waste Management Division Directors
Regions II, VI, VII, and VIII
Air Management Division Directors
Region I, III, V 1 and IX
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management
Division Directors
Regions IV and X
Regional Counsels
Regions I—X
Attached is a memorandum providing guidance for your use
in addressing sources that intend to comply with Clean Air Act
requirements by shutting down. The relationship of this policy
statement to previous policy statements on the same subject is
as follows.
On June 18, 1979, the Administrator established an enforce-
ment policy under the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts respecting
sources intending to come into compliance by shutting down.
(See Administrator’s Memorandum of June 18, 1979, ‘Limited Life
Facilities——Policy Statement.’) On September 20, 1982 and
January 12, 1983, EPA affirmed that the ‘Limited Life Facili-
ties’ policy would apply beyond the end of 1982 under the Clean
Air Act for noncomplying sources in primary nonattainment areas
where attainment was to have been achieved by the end of 1982.
(See the Administrator’s Memorandum of September 20, 1982,
-------
—2—
‘Enforcement Action Against Stationary Air Sources Which Will
Not Be In Compliance by December 31, 1982,’ and the January 12,
1983 Memorandum, ‘Guidance on Implementation of the 1982 Dead-
line Enforcement Policy Issued September 20, 1982,’ issued
jointly by the Associate Administrator and General Counsel
and the Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise and Radiation.)
For Clean Air Act sources, the present policy, ‘Clean
Air Act Enforcement Policy Respecting Sources Complying By
Shutdown,’ supersedes the enforcement policy issued by the
Administrator on June 18, 1979 entitled ‘Limited Life Facili-
ties—Policy Statement.’ A memorandum amending relevant por-
tions of the September 20, 1982 and January 12, 1983 memo-
randa to make them consistent with today’s policy statement
is being issued along with this memorandum.
Attachment
-------
ENFORCEMENT POLICY RESPECTING SOURCES COMPLYING
WITH CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIREMENTS BY SHUTDOWN
NOTE: THE POLICIES ESTABLISHED IN THIS DOCUMENT ARE INTENDED
SOLELY FOR THE GUIDANCE OF GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL AND ARE NOT IN-
TENDED TO CREATE ANY RIGHTS, SUBSTANTIVE OR PROCEDURAL, ENFORCE-
ABLE BY A PARTY IN LITIGATION WITH THE UNITED STATES. THE
AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ACT AT VARIANCE WITH THESE POLICIES
AND TO CHANGE THEM AT ANY TIME WITHOUT PUBLIC NOTICE.
I. Applicability
This policy applies to all sources which are in violation
of Clean Air Act SIP, NSPS, or NESHAP’s requirements, where
the owner intends to achieve compliance by shutting down the
source rather than by installing controls. 1 The policy applies
to sources in all air quality regions, regardless of attainment
status.
II. Enforcement Policy For Sources Complying by Shutdown
Section 113 of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to seek
injunctions against sources in violation of Clean Air Act re-
quirements. When applying to the court for a compliance schedul
or when negotiating one with a defendant, EPA has consistently
interpreted the Act as requiring compliance as expeditiously as
practicable.
In cases where the owner intends to achieve compliance by
shutting down the source, the question arises as to what con-
stitutes an expeditious compliance schedule. EPA believes that
there are two fundamental types of shutdown situations, with
a different treatment being appropriate for each.
A. NESHAP Sources, NSPS Sources, and SIP Sources Not Being Replaced
Where a source is violating NESHAP or NSPS requirements,
or is violating SIP requirements and is not to be expeditiously
replaced (as discussed below), EPA believes that the Clean
1 As used herein, the phrase install controls includes:
(1) the replacement, or upgrading, of inadequate previously—
installed controls; and (2) process changes involving signif-
icant developmental costs. Art example of the latter class of
cases would be product reformulation in the case of VOC
sources. Where developmental costs can be recouped at other
sources owned by the source owner, Section II.B will not be
applicable, however.
-------
—2—
Air Act requires an expeditious shutdown of the violating source.
Allowing sources violating NESHAP, NSPS, PSD or NSR require-
ments to operate more than a minimal amount of time without
controls would subvert the environmental purposes behind the
Act’s requirements pertaining to such sources. Moreover,
allowing such sources or any other SIP sources which will not be
controlled more than a minimal period of uncontrolled operation
would merely afford the ner an opportunity to maximize profits
at the expense of the environment.
How expeditiously sources falling into the above categories
must shut down is to be determined on a case—by—case basis. The
most important factors to be considered are legal restraints on
closing, such as union agreements and bankruptcy court orders.
As necesary in appropriate cases, EPA should apply to the
relevant legal authorities for removal of any such constraints.
In NESHAPs cases or in any other cases involving a significant
public health risk, violating sources must be shut down as quick-
ly as possible.
For sources subject to this Subsection (II.A), the period
within which expeditious shutdown must occur runs from the time
at which it is determined that the owner intends to comply by
shutdown. EPA should apply to the appropriate court for injunc-
tive relief if an acceptable expeditious shutdown schedule cannot
be speedily negotiated. Any negotiated schedule should be memo-
rialized in a judicially enforceable consent agreement and lodged
with the appropriate court.
B. Possible Extensions for Noncomplying SIP Sources Which Will
Be Replaced
If the owner intends to replace a source violating a SIP
requirement by transferring the production to some other facility
in the same geographical area 2 , and the replacement source is not
yet constructed and/or operable, EPA may exercise its enforcement
discretion to delay shutdown of the violating source until the
replacement facility is constructed and operable. The factors
that EPA will take into account in determining whether to exercise
such discretion will include:
1. The attainment status of the air quality region in which
the source is located, including whether the region’s
deadline for achieving the NAAQS has passed,
2 1f the replacement source were not located in the same area
as the violating source, the benefits of the extended shutdown
schedule would be reaped by some community other than the one
carrying the environmental burden of the extended period of
noncomplying operation.
-------
—3—
2. The impact of the violating source’s excess emissions on
the air quality of the region,
3. The time elapsed since the source was required to have
achieved compliance, and the e Eorts which tho source
owner has made to achieve compliance,
4. The impact on workers and the company of any disruption
in production which night be occasioned by a shutdown
prior to the replacement source’s being operable, and
5. The owner’s record of compliance with all environmental
regulations at the affected facility, and at other
facilities owned by the same owner.
6. Shutdown of the violating source need not consist of
physically destroying or dis antllng the source. How-
ever, in cases where the source owner does not wish to
destroy or dismantle the source, a responsible fficial
of the source owner must submit an affidavit specifying
that the owner does not, at the time the affidavit is
given, intend to resume operating the source within at
least three years following shutdown.
The replacement facility need not be a one—for—one replica-
tion of the violating facility but it must involve some substan-
tial construction necessary to permit the transfer of production
to the replacement facility. The replacement facility need not
emit the same pollutant as the violating source. The replacement
facility may include a pre—existing source, provided some sub-
stantial construction is necessary to make the transfer of pro-
duction feasible. Finally, for the purposes of this paragraph,
the installation or upgrading of controls at the replacement
facility may constitute construction provided the installation or
upgrading is necessary for the replacement facility tO achieve or
maintain compliance after the production Is transferred.
In cases where EPA decides to exercise its enforcement
discretion to delay shutdown until the replacement of the viola-
ting source, the owner must enter into a judically enforceable
consent decree providing as follows:
1. The consent decree must require shutdown of the viola-
ting source by a date certain. This date must be no
later than the earliest date by which the replacement
facility can be constructed and rendered operable on an
-------
—4—
expeditious schedule, as measured from the time when
it is determined that the owner of the source intends
to achieve compliance by shutdown.
2. The decree must require the posting of a surety bond
or equivalent mechanism providing for an automatic
forfeiture in the event shutdown does not occur by
the agreed—upon date. The bond should be in an amount
representing the cost of installing adequate controls
on the violating source.
3. Notwithstanding the provision of a bond, the decree
must contain a clause res6rving the government’s right
to seek other relief in the event the source fails to be
timely shut down.
4. The decree must contain a stipulated penalty provision
setting a daily penalty for any operation of the viola-
ting source beyond the shutdown date. The amount of
this penalty should be sufficient to, at a minimum,
recapture any economic benefit attributable to the
noncomplying operation, above and beyond the capital
cost of controls forfeitable pursuant to the bond re-
quired by Subparagraph 2 above.
5. The consent decree must provide that the violating
source will be either demolished or dismantled, or
that, upon any reactivation for a business reason aris-
ing after the shutdown, the source would constitute a
new source under applicable federal regulations including,
where applicable, new source review regulations.
6. All agreements regarding shutdown must be made binding
on all successors—in—interest to the owner.
7. The consent decree must require a schedule of Construc-
tion for the replacement facility with appropriate inter-
im dates and stipulated penalties for any violations of
the construction schedule.
8. The decree must require the owner to demonstrate and
maintain compliance with all emission standards applic-
able to all, emission points at the replacement facility
which are associated with the transferred production.
The compliance demonstration should, if feasible, occur
prior to the transfer of production. An exception can
be made in cases where brief shakedown period is
required, or where conditions prior to the transfer of
production would not constitute representative operating
conditions. The decree should provide that compliance
shall be maintained at the replacement facility until
-------
—5—
the termination of the decree, if that date occurs later
than the date of the required compliance demonstration.
9. The decree should provide that the company shall comply
with the terms and conditions of any state, local, or
federal permits applicable to the sources associated
with the transferred production at the replacement
facility.
10. The decree must require implementation of appropriate
interim measures at the violating facility to minimize
the impact of continued noncomplying operation on the
environment. If the violating source is uncontrolled,
the decree must require implementation of whatever
operation and maintenance practices are appropriate.
If the source already has controls, the decree must at
a minimum require the best practicable operation and
maintenance of those controls until the time of shutdown. 3
In cases where an appropriate limit can be set, the
decree must require compliance with interim emissions
limits, as a tool for ensuring compliance with interim
operation and maintenance procedures, and must provide
for stipulated penalties for violations of such interim
emission limits.
11. The decree must contain reporting requirements regarding
such matters as increments of progress in compliance
schedules, implementation of interim control measures,
and compliance with interim emissions levels.
12. The decree must provide, in accordance with the applic-
able civil penalty policy, for the payment of a civil
penalty respecting the violations at the violating
source, and respecting any violations at the replacement
source. The penalty must cover the period beginning at
the date of the earliest provable violation to the date
that compliance will be achieved. The end of this
period for the violating source being closed down will
be the date of shutdown. The end date with respect to
any noncomplying replacement source is the date that a
successful compliance demonstration is conducted.
13. The termination clause of the decree must provide
that the jurisdiction of the court will continue until
the later of the shutdown of the violating facility
or the compliance demonstration at the replacement
facility.
3 mere have been occasions when control equipment was avail
able on a rental basis. In any such cases, use of the rental
equipment should be required.
-------
—6—
C. Avoiding Abuse of This Policy
Experience has shown that some source owners may seek to
obtain shutdown schedules longer than otherwise allowed under
this policy by delaying to acknowledge that shutdown is contem-
plated for a source which has become the subject of an enforce—
inertt action. In order to avoid such abuse of the shutdown
policy, the following procedures should be employed:
1. At the time of EPA’s initial contact with the source
owner subsequent to issuance of an N.O.V., EPA should
routinely advise the source owner of the policy re-
specting sources complying by shutdown.
2. If the owner acknowledges in a timely fashion that
shutdown is a possibility for the source, but indi-
cates that the shutdown decision has not been finalized,
EPA may, in appropriate cases, exercise its discretion
to afford the owner a brief period to complete any
decision—making regarding whether the source will
be shut down and, if so, whether it will be replaced
within the meaning of Section II.B. The amount of time
afforded should be the absolute minimum procedurally
necessary for authorized officials of the source’s
owner to make the relevant decisions.
III. Effective Date
This policy applies to all cases referred to Headquarters
or, in the case of direct referrals, to DO3, subsequent to
December 15, 1985.
-------
S? 4
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
L .mO’
NOV 27 1985
OfF1CI OF E 4FO CEME T
M D COMPLIANCE
MONlTO NG
MEMORANDUi t -
SUBJECT: Conforming Amendments To Previous Policy Statements
Regarding Clean Air Act Sources Wh re Compliance
Will Be Achieved Shutdown
FROM: Courtney H. Price
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Monitoring
TO: Air and Waste Management Division Directors
Regions II, VI, VII, and VIII
Air Management Division Directors
Region I, III, V 1 and IX
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management
Division Directors
Regions IV and X
Regional Counsels
Regions I—X
In a companion memorandum issued today, the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring has updated and revised
EPA’S Clean Air Act enforcement policy respecting sources where
compliance will be achieved by by shutdown, rather than by in-
stalling controls. EPA’S policy respecting such sources had
originally been issued in July, 1979 and had most recently
been treated in two memoranda:
—— AdminIstrator’s Memorandum of September 20, 1982,
‘Enforcement Action Against Stationary Air Sources
Which Will Not Be In Compliance by December 31, 1982’
—— January 12, 1983 Memorandum, ‘Guidance on
Implementation of the 1982 Deadline Enforcement
Policy Issued September 20, 1982,’ (issued jointly
by the Associate Administrator and General Counsel
and the Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise
and Radiation).
-------
—2—
This memorandum amends the foregoing two documents to be
consistent with the updated and revised policy issued today.
The revisions to the respective memoranda are as follows:
1. Revisions to Item 10 on page 4 of the
September 20, 1982 Administrator’s ‘Enforcement
Memorandum Action Against Stationary
Air Sources Which Will Not Be
in Compliance by December 31, 1982,’ is modified to read
as follows:
10) Compliance schedules for sources where compliance
will be achieved by shutdown are governed by the
policy respecting such sources issued in the
November 27, 1985 memorandum, ‘Enforcement Policy
Respecting Sources Complying With Clean Air Act Re-
quirements by Shutdown.’ -
2. Revisions to Pages 1 and 2 of the January 12,
January 12, 1983 1983 Memorandum, ‘Guidance on
Memorandum Implementation of the 1982 Dead-
line Enforcement Policy Issued
September 20, l982, is modified to read as follows:
Requirements for Sources Intending to Comply by Shutdown
The requirements for sources intending to comply by
shutdown are governed by the policy respecting such
sources issued in the November 27, 1985 Memorandum,
‘Enforcement Policy Respecting Sources Complying With
Clean Air Act Requirements by Shutdown.’
-------
PN 113_85_1o_30_025
—
):\\ 1111\\IENI’\L Pll()TE(.T1(\ (1\(
ii ;i )\, O4O4)

i
OtFlC OF
All A D a DIAtlo .
OCT 3O
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Final Technical Guidance on the Review and Use of
Coal Sampling and Analysis Data
FROM: Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, V, and IX
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region 11
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII, and X
I. INTRODUCTION
This memorandum transmits two documents: (A) final
technical guidance on the acquisition, review and use of
coal sampling and analysis (CSA) data from large coal—fired
boilers where the monitoring data are used for targeting
agency follow—up actions; and (B) an example of the
calculations performed in accordance with item A. The
guidance is not applicable when the CSA method is specified
as the emission compliance, alternative emission compliance,
or sulfur—in—tuel compliance test method. Furthermore, this
guidance may be helpful to State and local agencies as well
as EPA’s Regional Offices.
NOTE: Attachments 1 and 2 are not included in the
Policy and Guidance Notebook.
-------
—2—
On April 5, 1985, and again on August 16, 1985, a
draft of this guidance was distributed to the Regional
Offices arid interested Headquarters offices. Comments were
received fran six Regional oftices and two Headquarters
offices. In general, the comments were very supportive of
the drafts, and included a number of constructive suggestions
for improving the document.
II. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
the guidance presented in Attachment I supplements the
October 5, 1984 source targeting document entitled “Technical
Guidance on the Review and Use of Excess Emission Reports”
(hereafter called the 1984 EER Guidance) by addressing those
large coal—fired boilers which burn McomplianceR coal but
which are not currently required to operate SO 2 CEMS, nor
to report SO 2 CCMS data. Taken together, the CSA and EER
guidance packages equip agencies to review and use effectively
quarterly SO 2 emission data, whether derived from SO 2 CEMS
or CSA methodologies.
This guidance recommends that agencies periodically
request source submittal of limited quantities of SA
information. Such information will generally be available
to the sources as a result of their routine business practices.
In the event such information is not currently available
at a source, the source’s cost of acquiring it should not
be substantial.
Furthermore, the guidance strongly recommends that
agencies use and follow—up the CSA information in a manner
comparable to how it presently uses CEMS—derived excess
emission reports (EERs).
The guidance contained in Attachment I provides forms,
equations and exam,?les of how to convert CSA data into SO 2
EERs. Attachment II presents actual calculations, discussion
and action recommendations, based upon empirical CSA data,
and is consistent with Attachment I.
III. MAJOR COMMENTS
A. Timing of Issuing the Subject Technical Guidance
Most of the commeriters recommended that SSCD issue the
subject guidance as soon as possible. One Regional commenter
questioned the decision to issue it now, given that the
Agency is contemplating possible revision of the current
-------
—3—
SPS Subpart D rules. A different Regional Office, one
which is presently using a sophisticated enhancement of
the CSA procedure described herein, recommended that we
issue CSA guidance in two phases, the subject guidance now
and a more sophisticated version later.
SSCD concluded that it is appropriate to issue the
subject CSA guidance now, even though a possible CSA
alternative compliance method (Reference Method 19—A) is
contained in the current draft ot the NSPS Subpart D revision.
Issuir.g this technical guidance now is appropriate because:
1) the subject document is relevant to many non—NSPS,
large coal—fired, non—FGD controlled boilers which
do not monitor and report SO 2 CEMS data;
2) the possible Subpart D revision is not expected
to become effective for at least one year;* and
3) implementation of this guidance is not expected
to create a measurable additional burden upon the
applicable sources.
Therefore, agencies will benefit from haviri a CSA review
method immediately available to them.
Furthermore, SSCD agrees that it may be appropriate
to develop and disseminate more sophisticated guidance on
CSA. Therefore, after the sub)ect guidance is issued, and
experience with it has been gained, SSCD will evaluate the
technical feasibility and advisability of issuing new, more
sophisticated, CSA guidance or procedures. If a decision
is made to develop additional CSA guidance, your input
and assistance will, be requested.
B. Quality of CSA Data
One commenter expressed concern about the logic of
expending agency resources to acquire and use what they
construed were uncertain data TM to target enforcement
activities when sources are, or will in the near future
(the Region presumed), be required to submit quality—assured
SO 2 CEMS data.
*Note: If EPA promulgates a revision of Subpart D which
specifies various types of continuous monitoring
(including CSA) as compliance methods, this guidance
would cease to be applicable to the SO 2 emissions
from Subpart D sources.
-------
—4—
This guidance addresses sources which are not required
to obtain CEI4S data, but currently do have CSA data of
sufficient quality to warrant their use in targeting enforce-
ment activities. Since this guidance does not address CEMS
data, SSCD deemed it appropriate to issue this guidance at
this time. It should also be recalled that while striving to
obtain readily available, high quality data, the quality
assurance requirements for data used in targeting do not have
to be quite as stringent as when the data are used directly
to enforce an emission regulation. Furthermore, experience
shows that agencies which take the following steps generally
receive CSA data which are fully suitable to target boilers:
0 make the purpose of the agency’s CSA data
acquisition program known to the source;
0 request a corporate official’s signature on
each CSA data submittal;
° conduct agency inspections and/or reviews of the
source’s CSA equipment; and
0 demonstrate to the source that the agency is
using its CSA data to target enforcement follow—up
act ions.
C. Relationship of the Subject Guidance to CEMS/EER Guidance
In 1984, SSCD issued the document entitled Technical
Guidance on the Review and Use of Excess Emission Reports.”
That document addressed EERs derived from 502 CEt4S. However,
it recognized the need to develop arid issue supplemental
guidance to address those large coal—fired boilers which
currently are not required to use SO 2 CEMS. The guidance
contained in Attachment I is specifically intended to supple-
ment the 1984 EER Guidance. Taken together, the 1984 EER
Guidance arid this document provide agencies with the procedures
to target all large coal—fired boilers based upon S0 2 —related
criteria.
The guidance provides specific forms and calculation
methods to convert the source’s coal sampling and analysis
data into SO 2 EERS. Once such EERs are derived, it states
that one should target arid follow—up such data in a manner
generally consistent with the procedures included in the 1984
EER Guidance.
-------
—5—
D. Length and Complexity of the Guidance
Some of the commenters recommended that the final
guidance should be simplified and streamlined in size.
It became clear that this could be accomplished through
the following two changes to the draft:
1) simplifying the calculation and technical details
in accordance with the comments received; and
2) reorganizing and repackaging the guidance into
two separate attachments.
IV. RESPONSES TO SSCD’S SPECIFIC CSA QUESTIONS
A. Agencies Should Obtain CSA Data from All
“ Compliance Coal” Subpart D Boilers
The commenterS generally supported the idea that
agencies should periodically obtain CSA data from every
non—FGD—contrOlled (compliance coal) Subpart D boiler and
other large boilers which are not presently using SO 2 CEMS,
nor submitting SO 2 EERs.
Some Regional commenters stated that the preferred
mechanism for obtaining quarterly CSA data is to request it
by letter (e.g., §114), though other methods may be chosen
by an agency.
With respect to which CSA data to obtain each quarter,
the consensus was that, in general, it is important to obtain
the summarized results of “as—fired” or “as—bunkered” CSA
data derived from sampling the coal which is (or will be)
combusted during each twenty—four hour period. Twenty—four
hour CSA data are currently available from most modern
boilers, and this period is consistent with those contained
in the Agency’s Proposed CSA Reference Method 19—A.
B. Agencies Should Take Into Account Data Uncertainties
Comments on this issue generally fell into four widely
different viewpoints. These included: (1) do not use data
which has an uncertain quality; (2) assume that the data
values are high; (3) assume that data values are low; and
(4) assume that the data are generally representative of the
real level. SSCD recognizes that in a normal situation, there
are likely to be as many causes for the CSh data to be high
as there are eor them to be low. Therefore, solely for the
-------
—6—
purpose of targeting, if the source takes reasonable care in
its CSA program, twenty-four hour CSA data are assumed to
represent adequately the actual average (three to twenty—four
hour) S02 emission potential of the coal combusted.
C. Preparation of CSA—derived EERs
The sentiment among the commenters was in favor of
requesting the sources to submit CSA—derived EER5 to the
agencies on a quarterly basis, rather than having the agencies
prepare the EERs in—house from wrawu source—submitted, daily
data. The experience to date is that sources generally
respond in the affirmative when requested to convert their
CSA data into SO 2 excess emission reports. Furthermore,
if the agency chooses to prepare EERs, it would require
two submittals (or more) per quarter of data from the source.
First it woulU receive raw CSA data.” Second, for every
excess emission identified by the agency, the agency would
require source submittal of concomitant process data.
Therefore, the guidance strongly recommends that agencies
request source submittal of its EERs.
D. Negative Reaction to Using As—Received” CSA Data
The consensus opinion on the subject of agency use of
as—received CSA data was opposed to generally accepting and
using such data. The primary reasons for this position are:
(1) there are usually no practical and simple ways
to predict which day’s SO 2 emissions a specific
coal sample and its concomitant results represent;
(2) allowing a source to rely upon its own as—fired
or as—bunkered CSA data (in lieu of SO 2 CEMS) was
seen by some comznenters as providing a sufficient
selection of alternatives to the source; and
(3) many sources’ as—received CSA hardware and test
procedures do not meet the minimum acceptable
criteria specified in the guidance and by ASTM.
Therefore, the consensus was that it would be inappropriate
to “generally” accept as—received CSA data.
However, the commenters recognized that there might
be some instances where reliance on as—received data would
be appropriate. Therefore, the guidance accomn dates, on a
case—by—case basis (e.g., the sampling is consistent with
-------
—7—
a twenty—four burn’s “lot size,w the emission rate is
calculated to be far below the allowable rate, the coal
is received from a single mine), agency evaluation of
as—received data. Further, the guidance specifies that
before accepting such data, the agency should be as confident
about the resulting SO 2 EER as it would have been if it had
relied upon either as—fired or as—bunkered data.
E. Targeting Criteria
The consensus of the cotnmenters on this subject was
that agencies should use target .ng criteria for CSA—derived
EERS which are comparable, if not slightly tighter, than
those it uses for CEMS—derived EER results. The fact that
a source uses a different SO 2 monitoring method should not
measurably affect the agency’s criteria. Therefore, with
only the few modifications noted in Attachment I, the
criteria included in the 1984 EER Guidance are appropriate
when CSA data are used.
In summary, the comments received on the draft
guidance urged that final CSA guidance be issued as soon
as possible, incorporating relatively few major changes
to the draft. SSCD intends to continue to support the
program by issuing supplementary information and program
guidance as necessary.
Since this guidance supplements and is conceptually
and programmatically quite similar to the previous EER
guidance, the following are true of the CSA guidance:
o it is issued as “technical guidance” rather
than as “program guidance” in that it supports,
but does not mandate, a review program;
o it is equally as important as CEMS targeting
activities and, therefore, both should be
implemented concurrently;
o there is a need for a limited period of source
submittal of CSA—derived EERs to both State and
Federal agencies, as in the case of the CEMS—derived
EER data; and
• it is not applicable to any situation where CSA
data are specified as the compliance method.
-------
—8—
If your staff desires to distribute the attached
guidance to Regional, State or industry personnel, additional
copies may be requested from Louis Paley of this office.
Requests should be sent to him at US EPA, SSCD (EN—341),
401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, or by telephone
at (202) 382—2835.
Edward E. Reich
Attachments I and II
cc: Jerry Emison, Director, OAQPS
Jack Farmer, Director, ESED
Darryl Tyler, Director, CPDD
Earl Salo, OGC
Michael Alushin, OECF4
James Xilgroe, IERL
Daryl von Lehxnden, EMSLI/RTP
Kenneth Knapp, ESRL
Tom Gallagher, NEIC
Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I—X
Air Compliance Branch Chiefs, Region II , III, IV, V, VI, IX
Directors, Environmental Services Division, Regions I—X
-------
‘1
4 %C
OFF1 OF
AI* Ail O £AOIAT OW -
MEMORANDUM
-- SUBJECT:
PROM:
TO:
Particulate Matter Interim Enforcement Policy
Charles L. Elking
Acting Assistant Administra.
for Air and Radiation
Air and Waste Managemer t Division Directors
Regions II and VI
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, V, and IX
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division Director
Region IV
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII, and X
I recently had the opportunity to review with OAQPS staff
the status of the PM 10 rulemaking action. In that context, we
discussed the interim enforcement policy as articulated in the
April 2, 1985 Federal Register at page 13139, a copy of which
is attached. That policy is clear and straightforward. It
states that as a matter of both law and equity, existing TSP—
based emissions limitations remain fully enforceable and should
be vigorously enforced. I understand that the program is
proceeding on this basis and I want to assure you of my full
support for this policy.
Attachment
NOTE: The Federal Register notice referred to
above is not included in the Policy and
Guidance Notebook.
PN 113-10-30-024
UNITED STI ITLS ENVIkONMENT, I. I’ItcjTE :TjuN \ i:\: i
WASIIIMTON, 1) C. 20460
JUN 8 I9
-------
PN 113—85—04-24—023
\rii:i —
“ ‘
2 4 IU5
AIR A D RADIAM f
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Achieving VOC Compliance from Department of Defense
Contractor Facilities
FROM: Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: Air and Waste Management Division Directors
Regions II and VI
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, V, and IX
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division Director
Region IV
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII, and X
This memorandum is to inform you of the results of a recent
meeting between my staff, OECM’s Air Enforcement Division,
EPA ’s Office of Federal Activities and the Environmental Policy
Directorate, Department of Defense. The meeting was held in
response to questions from several Regions about enforcing
VOC emission limitations at stationary sources producing
goods or services under contract with the Department of
Defense (DOD). The questions centered on the issue of responsi-
bility, and DOD’s position concerning the accountability of
its contractors for compliance with VOC regulations in a SIP.
We also wanted to elucidate DOD’s role and responsibility as
a Federal agency for compliance with applicable environmental
requirements.
A number of interesting clarifications were disclosed at
this meeting. These warrant discussion because they play a
vital role in the position we will recommend in dealing with
air violations at facilities which have contracts with DOD.
First, in order to better understand DOD and contractor
relationships, certain terminology needs to be defined.
-------
—2—
There are at least three different types of DOD facilities
subject to environmental requirements:
o Government Owned Government Operated (GOGO) facilities.
o Government Owned Contractor Operated (GOCO) facilities.
o Contractor Owned Contractor Operated (COCO) facilities.
The GOGO facility is the traditional Federal facility such
as an air force base where the government owns and operates
all the regulated activity. The GOCO facility is one that
is owned by DOD but all or portions of it are operated by
private contractor(s). The COCO facility is a non—government
owned, privately operated facility that provides goods or
services to DOD under contract. Many thousands of sources
fall into the COCO category since DOD estimates they do
“business” with a majority of the manufacturing facilities
in the country.
Given these terms, I believe it has been the contractors
operating government owned facilities (GOCO) that have raised
with States and Regions pleas of alleged immunity based on con-
tracts with DOD. It is these facilities that are the focus of
this memorandum. Attachment I is a nonexciusive list of Air
Force and Navy GOCO facilities of potential concern. It was
supplied by the Office of Federal Activities. A similar list
of Army GOCO facilities will be forwarded under separate cover.
The main findings of our meeting are:
O The standard contract DOD has with contractors includes a
clause requiring compliance with “all environmental laws”
or language to that effect. This negates the so—called
immunity these sources claim they have. Regions and
States should seek out this contract language should the
need warrant.
O Responsibility for compliance with environmental require-
ments lies with the contractor and the regulatory agencies.
DOD does not actively seek to find violations of the
“environmental law” language in their contracts, even
though all GOCO facilities have a DOD representative
on site. This individual would become involved and
activel-y seek to resolve any environmental problem once
brought to his or her attention.
O DOD closely monitors activity to resolve environmental
problems once a formal Federal or State action (such as a
NOV) is initiated. This involvement by DOD has been mostly
focused on violations at GOGO facilities. In the future,
DOD will monitor formal actions initiated by EPA or the
State at GOCO facilities.
-------
—3—
° DOD and OFA, through their Headquarters staff or Regional
Federal Facility Coordinators (See Attachment II), are
available to assist EPA in any problems it faces in re-
solving environmental problems at DOD facilities, includ-
ing those operated by contractors. A good rule of thumb
is that DOD will support the regulatory agency when a
violation is clearly documented and a formal action is
initiated.
As a result of this meeting, SSCD recommends a Region or
State, upon a finding of violation at a DOD contractor facility
(GOCO), issue a Notice of Violation (or equivalent) to the opera-
tor of the facility as would be done with any other stationary
source, with copies to the DOD representative at the facility,
and the Regional Federal Facility Coordinator. Receipt of these
copies should trigger interest and involvement by OFA and DOD to
assist in resolving the violation in a timely manner. Simulta-
neous with any DOD and OFA involvement, the issuing regulatory
agency should follow up with the operator to whom the NOV was
issued in the usual manner to resolve the noncompliance problem.
This memorandum has been concurred in by the Office of
Federal Activities and OECM’s Air Enforcement Division. If
you have any questions about the meeting or the recommended
approach, please call me or John Rasnic (FTS—382—2826).
Edward E. Reich
cc: Air Program Branch Chiefs
Regions I—X
Air Compliance Branch Chiefs
Regions II, III, V and IX
VOC Compliance Workgroup Members
Michael Alushin,
Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air
Gerald Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Allan Hirsch, Director
Office of Federal Activities
Federal Facility Coordinators
Regions I—X
-------
Air Force Plant __________
1. AFP PJKS
Waterton, CO
2. AFP #3
Tulsa, OK
3. AFP #4
Ft. Worth, TX
4. AFP #6
Marietta, GA
5. AFP #19
San Diego, CA
*6 AFP #36
Evendale, OH
*7 AFP #38
Porter, NY
8. AFP #42
Palmdale, CA
9. AFP #44
Tucson, AZ
10. AFP #59
Johnson City, NY
*11. AFP #70
Sacramento, CA
12. AFP #78
Larnpo Junction, UT
13, AFP #85
Columbus, OH
*Sale is pending.
Pamela Duncan, HO USAF/RDCM, 697—1715, 27 Mar 85
Attath ent I-i
AIR FORCE INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
Contractor Major Workload
Martin Marietta Titan components, electronic
systems, space hardware
McDonnell Douglas & F—15 components, F—4 DIM
Rockwell
General Dynamics F—16 aircraft production,
F—ill spares
Lockheed C—l30, C—l41 and C-5 spares,
C-l41 stretch, C—5 wing mod,
Jet Star
General Dynamics F—ill spares, space systems
components, Navy electronics
General Electric J—79, and TF—39 engines and
spares
Bell Aerospace Laser R&D and production,
hydrazine systems, Minuteman
components
Rockwell, Lockheed, Space shuttle, B—i, F-5 a 1 d
Northrop, McDonnell A—4 assembly, mod & operations,
Douglas flight test operations
Hughes Aircraft Maverick, Phoenix, Tow and
Roland missile production,
other missile R&D
General Electric Flight controls & other
avionics
Aerojet Titan, Minuteman III,
Peacekeeper
Thiokol Minuteman, (Trident), Genie,
SRAM Rocket Motor Production
Peacekeeper
Rockwell International B—lB
-------
Attac1 nt 1-2
List of Industrial Plants
by DOD Number
Plant and Location DOD* _____ Statu
Naval Shipyard, Long Beach, CA 31 GOGO Activ
Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point, San Francisco, CA 48 GOCO Lease
Naval Shipyard, Mare Island, Vallejo, CA 52 GOGO Activ
Naval Weapons Station, Concord, CA 53 GOGO Activ
Naval Weapons Support Center, Crane, IN 105 GOGO Activ
Naval Avionics Center, Indianapolis, IN 112 GOGO Activ
Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville, XY 133 GOGO Activ
Naval Ordnance Station, Indian Head, MD 155 GOGO Activ
Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant, Pittsfield, MA 167 COCO Activ
Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant, Minneapolis, MN 194 JOCO Activ
Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant, Saint Paul, MI’i 196— GOCO Activ
Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, NH 218 GOGO Activ
Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant, Rochester, NY 265 GOCO Activ
Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant, Magna, UT 316 GOCO Activ
Naval Shipyard, Philadelphia, PA 371 GOGO Activ
Naval Shipyard, tharleston, SC 378 GOGO Activ
‘ aval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Dallas, TX 387 GOCO Activ
val Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, McGregor, TX 399 GOCO Acti
va X Shipyard, Norfolk, Portsmouth, VA 409 GOGO Activ
-isaval Weapons Station, Yorktown, VA 412 GOGO Activ
Naval Shipyard, Puget Sound, Bremerton, WA 413 GOGO Activ
Naval Undersea Warfare gineering Station, Xeyport, WA 415 GOGO Acti
Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant, P tona, CA 451 GOCO Acti
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bloomfield, CT 463 GOCO Acti
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bethpage, NY 464 GOCO Acti’.
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Calverton, NY 466 GOCO Acti.
Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant, Sacramento, CA 467 JOCO Acti.
-------
Attadu ent 1-3
List of Industrial Plants
by DoD Number (Cont.)
Plant and Locatiofl _ DOD* Statt
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford, MA 468 GOCO Acti’
Naval WeaponS Industrial Reserve Plant, Bristol, TN 469 GOCO Acti’
Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant, Sunnyvale, CA 484 JOCO Acti’
Naval Weapons Station, Farle, NJ 486 GOGO Acti’
Drydock and Repair Facility, San Juan, PR 493 GOCO Leas.
Naval Air Rework Facility, Alameda, CA 494 GOGO Acti
Naval Air Rework Facility, Jacksonville, FL •495 GOGO Acti’
Naval Air Rework Facility, Norfolk, VA - 496 GOGO Acti’
Naval Air Rework Facility, Pensacola. FL 497 GOGO Acti
Naval Shipyard, Pearl Harbor, HI 498 GOGO Acti
Naval Air Rework Facility, therry Point, NC 499 GOGO Acti
Naval AIR Rework Facility, North Island, San Diego, CA 501 GOGO Acti
Naval Ship Repair Facility, San Diego, CA ‘503 GOCO teas
Naval Weapons Station, Ø%arleston, SC 505 GOGO Acti
Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, CA 507 GOGO Acti
Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant, Cumberland, MD 526 GOCO Acti
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, South Briatol, ME 529 GOCO mac
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Toledo, OH AF27 GOCO Acti
-------
Attathrent II
EXHIBIT IV—2
REGIONAL FEDERAL FACILITIES COORDINATORS
REGION I REGION VI
George Mollineau Jim Highland
FTS 223—5498 FTS 729—6659
REGION II REGION VII
Drew Lahman Glen ‘ieager
PTS 264—8678 FTS 757—2823
REGION III REGION VIII
Fran Muihern Elmer Chenault
FTS 597—1168 FTS 564—3853
REGION IV REGION IX
Art Linton Mike Monroe
FTS 257—3776 FTS 454—7539
REGION V REGION X
Bill Franz Clark Smith
FTS 353—2038 FTS 399—1266
IV-4
-------
I\III.I) ‘1\ILSE\\IR \\1I”lI \I, ‘HOTEC’IIt\ t(,I \(
H1\ ; I \. I)(: 20460
I
DEC20::
OFFICE O
AIR AP.D RADIATIO%
SUBJECT: Policy on No—Action Assurances
FROM: John B. Rasnic, Chief - -
Compliance Monitoring B nch
Stationary Source Compliance Division
TO: Air Program Branch Chiefs
Regions I—X
Air Compliance Branch Chiefs
Regions II, III, V, VII, IX
On August 28, 1984, I forwarded a memorandum to you that
transmitted the proposed policy on No—Action Assurances and
included correspondence between SSCD and OLEC on SSCD’s
concern with the policy.
Attached is the final policy on this subject. I am
forwarding it for your information and implementation. You
are still encouraged to use the NOV language written by OLEC
and included in my August 28 memorandum.
If you have any questions on the policy, please call me
(8—382—2826).
-------
_ s. •.,

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
0 it
C1 I6 4
OFFICE OF
ENFOPCEMENT AND
COMPUANCE MONflO ING
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: - Policy Against No ction Assura ces
FROM: Courtney M. Price
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Monitoring
TO: Assistant Administrators
Regional Administrators
General Counsel
Inspector General
This memorandum reaffirms EPA policy against giving
definitive assurances (written or oral) outside the context of
a formal enforcement proceeding that EPA will not proceed with
an enforcement response for a specific individual violation of
an environmental protection statute, regul-ation, or other
legal requirement.
“No action” promises may erode the credibility of EPA’s
enforcement program by creating real or perceived inequities
in the Agency’s treatment of the regulated community. This
credibility is vital as a continuing incentive for regulated
parties to comply with environmental protection requirements.
In addition, any commitment not to enforce a legal
requirement against a particular regulated party may severely
hamper later enforcement efforts against that party, who may
claim good—faith reliance on that assurance, or against other
parties who claim to be similarly situated.
This policy against definitive no action promises to
parties outside the Agency applies in all contexts, including
assurances requested:
o both prior to and after a violation as been committed;
° on the basis that a State or local government is
responding to the violation;
-------
2
‘ on the basis that revisions to the underlying legal
requirement are being considered;
‘ on the basis that the Agency has determined that the
party is not liable or has a valid defense;
o on the basis that the violation already has been
corrected (or that a party has promised that it will
correct the violation); or
° on the basis that the violation is not of sufficient
priority to merit Agency action.
The Agency particularly must avoid no action promises
relating either to violations of judicial orders, for which a
court has independent enforcement authority, or to potential
criminal violations, for which prosecutorjal discretion rests
with the United States Attorney General.
As a general rule, exceptions to this policy are warranted
only
• where expressly provided by applicable statute or
regulation (e.g., certain upset or bypass situations)
° in extremely unusual cases in which a no action
assurance is clearly neccessary to serve the public
interest (e.g., to allow action to avoid extreme risks
to public health or safety, or to obtain important
information for research purposes) and which no other
mechanism can address adequately.
Of course, any exceptions which EPA grants must be in an area
in which EPA has discretion not to act under applicable law.
This policy in no way is intended to constrain the way in
which EPA discusses and coordinates enforcement plans with
state or local enforcement authorities consistent with normal
working relationships. To the extent that a statement of EPA’s
enforcement intent is necessary to help support or conclude an
effective state enfor’ ement effort, EPA can employ language
such as the following:
‘EPA encourages State action to resolve violations of
the _____________ Act and supports the actions which ( State )
is taking to address the violations at issue. To the extent
that the State action does not satisfactorily resolve the
violations, EPA may pursue its own enforcement action.
-------
3
I am requesting that any definitive written or oral no
action commitment receive the advance concurrence of my office.
This was a difficult decision to reach in light of the valid
concerns raised in comments on this policy statement; neverthe-
less, we concluded that Headquarters concurrence is important
because the precedential implications of providing no action
commitments can extend beyond a single Region. We will attempt
to consult with the relevant program office and respond to any
formal request for concurrence within 10 working days from the
date we receive the request. Naturally, emergency situations
can be handled orally on an expedited basis.
All instances in which an EPA official gives a no action
promise must be documented in the appropriate case file. The
documentation must include an explanation of the reasons
justifying the no action assurance.
Finally, this policy against no action assurances does not
preclude EPA from fully discussing internally the prosecutorial
merit of individual cases or from exercising the discretion it
has under applicable law to decide when and how to respond or
not respond to a given violation, based on the Agency’s norr a1
enforcement priorities.
cc: Associate Enforcement Counsels
OECM Office Directors
Program Compliance Office Directors
Regional Enforcement Contacts
-------
PN 113-84—10—05—021
iIO SP 4 ,
UNITED STATES E IRON\1ENTAL PROTECTIO) A(,E\C’
L H GTON, D.C. 20460
•+, c ’
4 0 t
OCT 5 84
OFPICI OP
All *1W IADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Final Technical Guidance on the Review and Use of
Excess Emission Reports
FROM: Director -
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: Directors, Air and Waste Management Division
Regions II, IV, VI-Vill, and X
Directors, Air Management Division
Regions I, III, V and IX
This memorandum presents final technical guidance on the
review and use of Excess Emission Reports (EERs) being submitted
by NSPS Subpart D sources and others where the monitoring data
are not used directly to determine compliance with the emission
limits. This guidance is in direct support of the Agency’s
Continuous Compliance Strategy and SPMS items A/ER-8 thru 10
for FY 1985. The guidance may be helpful to State/local agencies
as well and may be forwarded at the discretion of each Region.
On August 3, 1984, a draft of this guidance was distributed
to the Regional Office8 and interested Headquarters Offices.
Comments were received from six Regional Offices, three Headquarters
offices, and the State of Wisconsin. In general, these comments
were very supportive of the draft, included a number of detailed
suggestions for improvement, and encouraged the expeditious
issuance of final guidance. We recognize that the FY 1985
continuous emission monitoring system (CEllS) program is a major
initiative for many of the Regions and is based to a large
extent on the availability of this guidance. Therefore, we
have judged it appropriate to issue the guidance now and to
supplement the guidance as appropriate in an EER “Users Handbook”
d iring FY 1985.
A discussion of the major areas of comment and the responses
received to the questions posed in the August 3rd memorandum is
presented in the following sections.
-------
—2—
I. MAJOR COMMENTS
A. Form of Guidance/Regional Office Responsibilities
The subject document is intentionally being issued as
“technical guidance” rather than as “program guidance”,
providing a great deal of detailed information, forms, and
example decision criteria adaptable to a wide range of
circumstances. We recognize that since the CEMS program is a
relatively new program for most Regional Offices, program—related
issues will also arise. Such issues are outside the scope of
this guidance and will be addressed separately.
B. Importance of EER Review and Use
Based upon the experience of some Regional Offices,
particularly Region V’s, SSCD revised the text of the draft
to emphasize the three primary EER activities of: (1) inventory
development; (2) assessment of source compliance with the
CEMS installation and operation requirements; and (3) review
and use of EERS. This doesn’t mean that other elements of
the program to acquire valid, representative data are unimportant.
it’s just that such activities (e.g., performance specification
testing) are solely the responsibility of the source, not the
Agency. By the Agency primarily concentrating its CEMS program
resources on EERs review and follow—up, most sources will find
that It is in their own best interest to achieve all of the
CEMS requirements, and to verify the quality of their data
before submitting it to the Agency.
II. RESPONSES TO SSCD’s EER QUESTIONS
A. Dual Reporting of EERs to State and Federal Agencies
In general, commenters supported the need for a limited period
of dual reporting. They stressed that EPA should Initially obtain
and (at least) spot—check duplicate copies of EERs from sources in
States which have received NSPS delegation in order to conduct
effective oversight audits of the State’s enforcement of the CEMS
regulations. Furthermore, they strongly supported the concept of
reducing the quantity of dual reporting and the level of oversight
audits once the State had demonstrated its ability to implement
the program. subsequent oversight could be achieved by receiving
and reviewing a small, random fraction of a State’s EERs or by
receiving summary reports from the State. (Regional Offices and
their States are free to establish any mutually—acceptable arrange-
ment consistent with assuring, at a minimum, accomplishment of
the FY 1985 SPMS requirements.)
-------
—3-
B. Source Submission of Summaries of Their Excess Emissions
Comment’ rs strongly supported the concept of requiring the
sources to include summaries of their excess emissions in their
quarterly EERs. They also supported the idea of specifying a
standard format, content, and reason codes for the summaries
as well as the traditional EER data in order to minimize the
burden upon agencies and sources. The commenters also strongly
supported our recommendations that: (1) all CEMS-affected sources
should initially submit both the summaries and the traditional
EERs; and (2) once a source demonstrated its commitment and
capability to implement a high quality CEMS program, their
reporting burden might be reduced to submission of-only the
summary data portion of the EER report.
The comments included a wide range of recommendations on
how the Agency should proceed to obtain source submission of
the summary data from the sources. These included: (1) use of
§114 letters on a case-by-case basis or in a national promulgation;
(2) a regulatory revision; and (3) simply thorough implementation
of this guidance.
SSCD intends to work with ESED and other parts of the Agency
to develop a consensus on which changes should be made to the
reporting requirements and how to proceed most effectively.
Careful consideration of the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act is an essential element of this review.
C. Applicability of Guidance to Subpart Da Sources
Most respondents to our question on this subject indicated
that, based on their limited experience, they thought that the
proposed guidance would assist them in reviewing CEMS compliance
reports from Subpart Da and other sources where the monitor
provides compliance data. A few cotameriters volunteered their
assistance and recommended that the Agency obtain some additonal
experience before it attempts to develop a guideline on this subject.
One Regional Office with considerable CEMS program experience
stated that, “We do not think the discretionary, probabilistic,
comparative philosophy of this screening strategy is appropriate
for sources subject to clear requirements for self-documenting
their continuous compliance 8tatus”. We agree with this statement
and with the need to obtain additional experience before guidance
is developed. Accordingly, the draft guidance was not changed
with respect to its inapplicability to Cubpart Da or other sources
where the CEllS is the compliance method.
In summary, the comments received on the draft guidance urged
that final guidance be issued as soon as possible, incorporating
relatively few major changes to the draft. SSCD intends to
-------
—4—
continue t.o support the program by issuing supplementary inforina—
tion and p ogram guidance. Furthermore, SSCD plans to work with
other elements of the Agency to try to address the’rernaining
issues such as revision of the EER reporting requirements and
possible applications of CEllS as the compliance method on addi-
tional source categories.
Edward E. Reich
Attachment
cc: 3. Farmer, Director, ESED
D. Tyler, Director, CPDD
E. Salo, 0CC
M. Alushin, OECM
Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I—X
Air Compliance Branch Chiefs, Regions II, III, V, VII, I x
Directors, Environmental Services Division, Regions I—X
-------
PN 113-75-11-05-001
, tO $r 1
____ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASH;NGTON.DC. 20460
5 NOV 975
SUBJECT: Non-Discretionary Enforce nt Duties--
Issuance of Notices of Violation
FR vf: Director, Division of Stationa y Source Enforcement
TO: forcement Division Directors, Regions I-X
On July 16, 1975, I forwarded to you a memoraiidtmi soliciting your
thoughts on a recent Federal District Court decision ( Wisconsin’ s
Envirouniental Decade, Inc . v. Wisconsin Power end Light , et a!. , 395
F S p. 31 (W.D. Wisc. 1975)) in which the question of e
prosecutc’ria.L discretion of the A ini .strator in issuing notices of
violation t id.er Section 113 of the Clean Air Act was raised. As you
will remember, District Court Judge Doyle held that the act of issuing
a notice of violation was “not discretionary with the .Ab inistrator”
in a case where he had foi.nid a violation and that “when presented with
evidence indicating that a violation may exist, the Adiirhiistrator ntsz
make a finding that a violation does or does not exist.”
We wish to aivise you that the Agency, has decided against an
appeal of the Wisconsin’s Enviromnental Decade Case . One of the prire
reasons for 1±3 s action was that additional decisions have now been
rendered which seem to support the origins], decision (e.g., West Penn
Power Co. v. Train , 7 ERI 2178 (3rd Cir., July 16, 1975); Oljato
Cnapter v. Train , 515 F.Zd 654 (D.C. Ci i ’., July 7, 1975); but see,
Sierra Club v. Train , _F. Suz,p. (N.D. Ala., September 19, 1975)).
In addition, a sig ificant majority of the regional offices indicated
to us that they could i 1ement the interpretation of the case
outlined in our July 16th memorandi.nn without i ndue diffia.ilty and did
not see a good reason to appeal the case. Finally, the need to appeal
the case on the specific facts has been obviated by the Oiiczgo
Regional Office having made a formal finding that the subject power
generating station was not a new source within the definition of the
Wisconsin statutes.
It should be noted that in Sierra Club v. Train , cited above, a
Federal District Court has recently heIE at issuance of an order
pursuant to Secz on 309(a) (3) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (FWPCA) was a discretionary fi ction of the A inistrator even
though mandatory language (i.e. “sha.ll”) is used. In this regard’, the
legislative history of F PCA, which was the basis for the court’s
decision, indicates that the Congress intended that issuance of orders
113
1 —1
-------
2
ii der FWPCA is a discretionary ftmction of the Administator. In
contrast, the legislative histoiy of Section 113(a) (1) of the Clean
Air Act i lies that Congress intended that the issuance of notices of
violation be a non-discretionary fimction of the A iinistrator.
In 1i it of the Agency’s position in this i rter, we believe that
when a regional office is presented, for the purpose of seclr±ng A
action,with in.foi tion that establishes a substantial likelihood that
a violation e d.sts, the regic nal office should e editiously dertake
an investigation to deter th e if in fact a violation does or does not
e d.st. Where data are submitted to the regional office for s
pi.npose other than to force the regional office to issue a notice of
violation (e.g., mder regular State or local agency reporting
requirements), we are of the opinion that the applicable law does not
require the regional office to cence an investigation. If a
regional office, after an investigation of a citizen’s allegation or
p .u-suwit to its own info tion collecting powers, amasses data that
establish a source ‘a violation, we believe the regional office should
expeditiously issue a notice of violation to the subject source. In
those instances where a State has initiated and is actively pursuing
en.forcement proceedings against a source, however, we believe that the
plicable case law does not require the regional office to issue a
notice of violation to said source. (This anplies only to true
enforcement as ccnte 1ated in the p osed Part 6.5 regulations rather
than State actions in the nature of variances.) Of course, this
situation does not preclude the regional office fron issuing a notice
of violation, thereby c” cing a conc.nrent enforcement action, if
it so desires. Excent for this excettion, we believe the regional
office ist issue a notice of violation to any scurce where a
violation of the anplica.ble State i lementation plan has been
established to the satisfaction of the regional office.
Many of you have expressed to your concern that this revised
policy might £ui ce the regional offices to initiate ext sive
investigation and/or enforcement proceedings against non-priority
sotnces and, as a result, create a .sai.location of regional manpower
resources. Although this possibility exists to se degree, we
believe that the Agency has an overriding duty to at least investigate
a source where a citizen presents data, regular on its face, that
establish a substantial likei.Thood that a violation exists. Note that
an allegation of violation, t supported by any evidence, does not
establish this substantial likelihood and thereby does not coxr el an
113
1 -2
-------
3
EPA investigation. Persons submitting allegations of violation that
are either i. si. ported or inadequately si. ported by evidence should be
advised by the regional office that the Agency has nude a finding that
inadequate evidence exists, at this ti , to justify further Agency
action. Of course, the regional office should invite the submittal of
kIjtjonaj information.
Although the regional offices only have limited enforcement
discretion where issuance of notices of violation is concerned, this
limitation does not apply to follow- enforcement proceedings. v1e
believe that the Clean Air Act and its legislative history inçly that
issuance of administrative orders, or cc nencement of civil and/or
criminal proceedings, are a discretionary f iction of the
.Administrator. We anticipate such enforcement discretion will provide
the regional office with the necessary leeway to establish regional
priorities for those cases where follow- enforcement proceedings are
necessary.
113
1 -3
-------
c Sr 4
PN 113-76-06-25-002
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JLN
OFF1C! OF ZNFORC!MEI4T
SUP CT: Dcc renzatiori of Violation Exter .ing 30 Days
Eeyond Notice of Violation under Section 113
of the Clean Air Act
TO: Regional ? inistrators, Regions I-X
Recent discissicris arr ig re resen .tives of the Office of
General Counsel, the Division of Stationaiy Source forc rent (rsSE),
and the Pollution Control Section at Deoartrent of Justice
headc rters have led to scre clarification of A’ s res cnsi.bility
for dcc’..m nting a violation extending 30 days bevor , the date of a
not.ice of violation (Nay) issued under Section 113(a) (1) of the
Clean Air Act. As you Jmcw, Section 113(a) (1) provides that if
the violaticn extends beyond the 30th day after the date of the NOV,
A rray issue an aätini.szrative order or initiate a civil action.
Section 113(c) (1) (A) (ii) ma as similar crovision for initiation of a
inal acr.icn.
It is and has been WA’s ocsition that the issue of fact of
whether a violation has extended beyond the thirtieth day is
subject to cia nc judicia]. evir w. (A crandun d ) 4 -.c witn the
sccpe of Ju c±al ravi i is being drafted and will be sent to : c
sriortly.) The eDar rent of Justice ccncurs in this sitc i and
has, in addition, e ressed sane concern that the dcc en aticn of
conthtiing violation on which the A ragicr.al offices rely .ray not
in scan cases be sufficient to succcrt a orimir 1 action.
We urge ycu, therefore, to dcc rrant the contimiing violation
with independent evidence fore isst± g any Section 113 inistrative
order which is not on consent, rather than relying on the
reporting r uire Eents of a Section 114 letter. This is oriticaJ. in any
case which nay ultirrately re xe criminal action and is desirable
in all cases. The practice of relying on the absence of evidence of
ai 1iance after issuance of the NOV through ia sing a re irerrent
on the scurce to report changes in infonnaticn supplied in respor.se
to a Section 114 lett.: is no longer acceptable. At a minirrt in, ne i
opacity re dincs, Diarit visits, or §114 incuiries as apurc r±ate
shonid be relied uron.
113
2-1
-------
—2—
If y i bave iy qussticns .. this u attt , 1e se
tact Ed Reici , c iaf, ± ‘c ient P ce&±-. s Brsi ch, DSSE, at
(202) —753—2523.
St n1 y Legx o
cc: crt Divisi Dir c z, Regic z I-X
Air ai Ea2ard is Materials Divjsii Directc rs, i s I-X
S3.Uance ria1ysis Di.Visi DireC s r 1X
113
2 -2
-------
PM 113-76-08-12-003
COPY
August 12, 1976
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Enforcement of SIP’s Undergoing Revision
TO: Enforcement Division Oirectors,
Regions I-X
Attached is a copy of a July 21, 1976, letter from the Administrator
to Senator Muskie regarding the Agency’s policy on enforcement while pro-
posed relaxations of State implementation plan (SIP) provisions are pending.
This letter responded to several questions raised by Senator Muskie on.
consistency among the Regions of EPA review and enforcement policies
concerning State relaxation of sulfur—in—fuel limitations. The letter did
not reflect any change in EPA policy, but I believe that it may be useful
to reiterate our position on the enforcement issues.
Pursuant to Federal law and under the policy communicated to Senator
Muskie, planned or submitted SIP revisions do not preclude federal enforce-
ment of the existing regulations, and would not normally justify non-enforce-
ment of those previsions. Air pollution sources are required to comply with
existing SIP regulations, which are part of federal law, until a revision
has received formal approval from the Administrator.
The submission for EPA approval of different SIP emission limitation
adopted by a State may have an effect upon Regional prioritizing of enforce-
ment activities. If a submitted revision relaxing current SIP limitations
is preliminarily determined by the Region to meet the criteria specified by
Section 1lO(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act, enforcement of the existing provision
it is designed to change may have a lesser priority in an overall enforce-
ment program. Factors involved in exercising this discretion will vary
from source to source and region to region. Among these are the air quality
levels of the locale affected by a source, the degree of impact of the
regulated facility upon air quality, the number and kinds of facilities in
the area emitting air pollutants, and the degree to which steps toward com-
pliance with existing limitations require a substantial cornitment beyond what
would be required for the less stringent regulation. It should be emphasized
that while, in appropriate cases, sources may not be required to install
control equipment which would be unnecessary upon formal EPA approval of the
113
3—1
-------
2
SIP revision, the pendency of a SIP revision relaxing emission limitations
normally would not provide a justification for a source to increase its
current emissions. EPA would take appropriate enforcement action under
the existing SIP provision to maintain the level of current emissions
until federal approval is forthcoming.
Thus, within the bounds of priorities set by limited resources, EPA
will continue to enforce existing SIP provisions pending formal EPA approval
of State revisions. The importance of consistency among the Regional Offices
with respect to this policy has been stressed by both Senator Muskie and
Mr. Train.
is’
Stanley W. Legro
113
3—2
-------
PM 113-76-08—13-004
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
AUG13 I6
OFFICE OF NFORCEME?4T
S r: “ eviewability ’ of A De r- ticns in S
fc Ent Acti c
LO: f ct Divisi i Direct s, Regia s I-X
As yo .i 1 1, A n23cas in factial det inati s in tbe t se of
taid.ng enf c r nt action i er SW of the Cl an Air Act, s h as l±&
f ing of violation at the tis a r ti of violation is issu ai the
finding that the violation has e ctand beya d the thirtieth day aftar s i
as a ba f the iss rice of an order or ths rn r.c t nt of a
t acticn. We have rec tly discussed with the of General Cc’ sel
a the Departrent of Justk wbi i, if any, of these A d r ations are
“revie iabJ.&’ in a civil or ±zIinal suit to enforce S provisions or in
pr nforc nt jt. i i 1 review involvix S provisia s (to the extent that
eencrit j ic 1 revie y .y be dete .z I to be procer). is n enc-
r th ezses 1r derstand.ing.
At the utzet, jt e1 revie.. of ay action (inclt i any deter-
tinations ci which the action is ba.s ) should be distziguis ed frt iu a ial
de ncvo on the mder1ying facts. Jnt1i rsvi of agency action ordinarily
takes place on a pre—e d.sting a ±ninis ative reonrd azx3. is ordinarily H!njt
to whether the agency’s action s s s p rt by that re d as j g by the
a liceble standard of revia , ( j., the “ arh or ce ricicus” test)
In a ial de ncvo , l ver, there is i pre- dsth re rd, az every
fact not stipulata or jvd lly x tic = st be prov t ough the
su1 .ssiai of evidence. In such cases, the agency’s vie .z of the facts .y be
r5uasive, but the t t (or j r) ist fir . the facts indeper .dantJ..y on the
evidence before it. Althoi4i dcct nts and other evidence by the
agency Itay be proper evidence for that pi.zpose, new or different evidence
of fer by either party r ay also be o er . In short, ial de rcvo involves
ide erx ent fact-finding on the basis of any evidence prc rly before the
c urt (or ji . y) rather than “review ’ of the agency’ s date aticns on the
c of an a nini ative rec .
113
4-1
-------
—2—
To the extsit they are disputed, believe rrcst fact zj elerents of
a se involving an alleged iolati of a S prcvisici (or of an order
based such a violation) st be proved da r vo . In particular, this
nc1usicn inc1’ c (1) the cues n whether an alleged S ‘ lation is
s ll oouuing a e th 30 days after iss nr of a r d.ce of vio1ati’
and (2) if v±oLati of an order based on such, a violation is alleged, the
tit n whe r a v lat± i of the order has ccu . Qi these questh s,
ore rouess r u=es that an alleged v.ola be afforded an cpportr.ity at
tcint to ntest any disputed factual rratters, a orr ± ce ur r
§113 (a) (4) is r ot iutez ed to (aed g eraliy does r t) serve this pcse. —
ccording1y, a ia1 de r vo is both te A nstitttiaia.Uy reguired
for these issues to the extent they are disputed. In such a ia1, EPA’s
findings on the issues would he neither dis itive nor jn t 4 fly revi d.
In a sense, they would s 1y bec. n a11e atic s to be proved through the
suheission of evidence.
The extent to which the ini l firA of vio1ati that precedes
iss nce of a r tie of violatic er §113(a) (1) y be “reviewabW is
less - 1 West Penn se - acteriz s the issi i of a i tice
of vioa t as a sort of igg ing acd.on and holds that it (and pre-
srnr h1y ite factual b ) is t revi able. AJthc h wa agrse with that
it y nct prevail in a.].]. circuits. In any event, ‘ e believe any
revi ( ia].) C r-ing the initial jr ir of vio1 tion should he
1 Iited to whe r the f i± wes based av i1 le to the
? .nis a (or his delegatse) at - and should not extend to ± ether
such a violation actually cred. in this ra d , if the regi al office
has s info ticn (iegulax on its iace ) on which. its isi1 ; ‘ fj 4 i
was based ke re .d gs, 114 r 1 ‘ — 1ation , z-teck test), that should
end the tter as to the initial firi ir .
This interpetatici is on sis t with 4 is i.r ’s De - ,
Inc. v. Wis sin Pc r Liçtit et a].. , -( in which issuance of a notiee
of violatlc!1 was held to be z i-disoreti ary if the A .nistuator has s
fririn-d t which to base an 1 ff{r i-rx of violation- It should
be ncted that jnfr-r + 4 obtained in a ur d §113 (a) (4) wcu.14
be ir elev t on this issue because it was rrt before the .nis a at
ti ne he ii e his jni 1 firrli ng of Violal! 4 t .
3./ For these reas s, 5113 ferences should nct be cheracterized, in
c ing stat rents or otherwise, as inte ed. to satisfy dee process
: n ts._ _
2/ ta that infu tion obtsined in a f ence under §113 (a) (4) (e.g.,
— an ade issiai of a vio1aH- ’) night he relevant evidence in s e ses.
Its rc 4H 11 ty ‘would of irse de erd on the a pLicab1e i’i!i of
evidence.
3/ West P P r Cc. v. ‘ ain, 522 F2d. 302 (3rd CLr. 1975)
/ 395 F. Stp. 31.3 (W.D. Wisc. 1975)
113
4—2
-------
-3-
This r r arr 4 n does rct address the extent to whidi the A is ator’s
dete njnatj of a reasc able tr1i for xm liance as specifi in S113 (a) (4)
is revie abje (if at aLl) or the proper standard of review in that instance.
This issue, which is s hat rr lex, will he t ’-ess 1 in a separate
n az to he issu in the I ar futhre.
If u have any sd s ccnceiing this izattar, p1c ase ccrrtact Erd
Reich ( CSSE ) at 755—2523 or Gerald G1eas ( ) at 755—0744.
co: Regional Cc’ .sel
Regions I-X
1 e.s- - Perr r ec c
S -, S ( _______ ___
u ‘ 3
3) ,7Y7 \ 3C) c ’d C 1 +wm — ,-
- 4-- ( _i_ j r)/1YI1 ’ ‘I
— \_ 0
=
c -
for
(i\j I ’i
i1
4 -j
-------
PN 113—78-07—27-005
10
____ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\ , / WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
27 JUUS7B
OFFICE OF ENFORCZMENr
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Enforcement Under Clean Air Act Amendments -—
Orders Under Section 113(a) and 113(d)
From: Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
To: Regional Administrators
Regional Enforcement Directors
I. Introduction
My April 11, 1978 memorandum entitled, “Enforcement
Against Major Source Violators of the Air and Water Acts,”
summarized our enforcement policy against major source
vio1ator . of the Clean Air Act (and Clean water Act).
It stated esse tia11y that major air sources which have
not taken the steps necessary to bring themselves into
compliance must have enforcement action ta. cen against them
and that, essentially, such enforcement action would have to
be either an administrative, delayed compliance order under
Section 113(d) or civil and/or criminal action. My
memorandum of APr3.l,11, 1978, entitled “Civil Penalty
Policy,” stated our penalty policy for use in civil enforc2—
ment court actions under Section 113.
This memorandum supplements the above memoranda of
April 11, 1978, and summarizes our policy on use of admini-
strative orders as enforcement actions, including both
administrative orders under Section 113(a) and the newly
authorized administrative order (referred to herein as a
“delayed compliance order”) under Section 113(d).
II. Previous Guidance Superseded or Incorporated
For several months, EPA circulated for comment a
“Second Draft: Strategy Governing Enforcement of State
Implementation Plans Against Stationary Sources under the
Clean Air Act, as Amended in 1977.” On January 16, 1978,
113
5 -1
-------
—2—
I sent to the Regional Administrators a memorandum, entitled:
“Federal Issuance and Approval of Delayed Compliance Orders
tinder Section 113(d) of the Clean A .r Act, as Amended in
1977.” This memorandum provided guidance on delayed compli
ance orders under Section 113(d). This was fc,ilowed by a
memorandum from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
General Enforcement dated 4arch 10, 1978, entitled: “Proce-
dures for Federal Regis.te Publication of Proposed and Final
Agency Action on Administrative Orders under Section 113(d)
of the Clean Air Act.” This memorandum pro”ided guidance on
the mechanics Of issuing delayed compliance orders. Subse-
quently, on May 9, 1978, the Director of the Division of
Stationary Source Enforcement issued a memorandum entitled:
‘Federal Register Notices Proposing Approval, Disapproval,
or Issuance of Administrative Orders under Section 113(d) of
the Clean Air Act”. This memorandum supplemented earlier
guidance on the procedures to be followed by EPA in acting-
on delayed compliance orders.
This memorandum supersedes the earlier drafts entitled
“Strategy Governing Enforcement of State Implementation
PLanE against Stationary Sources under the Clean Air Act, as
Amended in 1977” and incorporates the other memoranda
referenced in the immediately preceding paragraph.
III. Issuance of Administrati’,e Enforcement Orders under
Section 113(a) of the Clean Air Act arid Similar
State Authorities
Section 113(a)(l) and (4) provide for EPA issuance
of administrative orders to violators of a number of Clean
Air Act requirements, including State Implementation Plan
(SIP) recuirements. Prior to the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1977, Setion 113(a) orders were issued by EPA to require
compliance within a reasonable time with SIP provisions
for which the dates for compliance and, in some cases, the
date for attainment of national standards had passed. A
number of State and local enforcement officials had similar
authority to issue administrative orders requiring SIP
compliance.
Although the 1977 Amendments did not change the
relevant Section 113(a) language, two new provisions
were added to the Act which narrowly limit the situations in
which Section 113(a) may be used to obtain compliance by
iio1ators of SIP requirements. First, new Sect .on 110(i) of
the Act prohibits any action, including issuance of an order
by the Administrator or the State, which modifies any
stationary source reauiremerit of an arpilcable SIP,
113
5—2
-------
—3—
except in accordance with specific Clean Air Act authorities
and these authorities do not include Section 113(a)
Second, new SectiOn 113(d) of the Act sets forth s ecifjc
new procedures and standards for issuance of administrative
orders which extend the time for SIP compliance. Section
110(i) permits modification of SIP provisions in accordance
with Section 113(d)
These new provisions preclude EPA’S use of Section
113(a) to establish schedules which extend the time for SIP
compliance. Section 113(a) will now be used by EPA to
require SIP compliance by stationary sources only where the
compliance can reasonably be required essentially immediately.
Since a reasonable time for compliance must be specified
under Section 113(a) , EPA orders issued under that subsection
may provide for compliance within up to 30 days. Such an
order does no .t have the effect of modifying the SIP require-
ment, however, and a source subject to su.h an order i nOt
insulated from other enforcement or from the imposition of
sanctions (including penalties).
State authorities which, like Section 113(a) , permit
issuance of administrative orders in accordance with roce—
dures and standards which are not consistent with Section
113(d) are similarly precluded by the 1977 Amendments, at
least insofar as such orders purport to modify an apolicable
stationary source SIP requirement. Section 110(i) would
permit modification of the SIP by a State order only if that
order can satisfy the requirements of Section 119 for a
prunary nonferrous smelter order, of Section 110(f) for an
emergency suspension, of Section 118 for exemptions for
certain federal facilities, of Section 110 for SIP promulga-
tion or revision, or of Section 113(d) for delayed compliance
orders. Unless a violator is issued a State order which
either requires compliance immediately (i.e., within 30
days) or satisfies the requirements of the provisions listed
in Section 110(i), EPA will consider the violator to be
in need of further enforcement action to establish an
appropriate enforceable schedule for compliance and, in
appropriate cases, to impose sanctions.
IV. Issuance and Apcroval of Delayed Compliance Orders
under Section 113(d) of the Act
A. Definition:
Although the ter “delayed comoliance order” does
not aopear in Section 113 of the Act, it is used here to
distinguish State and federal Section 113(d) orders
11-
5-3
-------
—4—
from other compliance orders issued under Section 113 or
similar State authorities. Section 302(o) of the Act
defines a “delayed Compliance order” as “an order £ssued by
the State or by the Administrator to an existing stationary
source, postponing the date required under an applicable
implementation plan for compliance by such source with any
requirement of such plan”. The fact that Section 113(d)
permits such a delay in the SIP compliance date distinguishes
it from Section lUa) and similar State authorities which
would permit issuance of an order only for essentially
immediate compliance with the plan*s requirement. The
criteria which must be met for lawful issuance and approval
of delayed c npliance orders are set forth in Section 113(d)
of the Act and are discussed in detail in Appendix A.
Briefly, they include the following:
(1) The source must be currently unable to comply;
(2) Notice and opportunity for a public bearing must
be provided;
(3) The order must include a schedule for compliance;
(4) The order must include reasonable arid practicable
interim controls;
(5) The order must include reasonable requirements for
monitoring and reporting;
(6) The order must require final compliance as expedi-
tiously as practicable but no later than July 1, 1979,
or three years after the date for final compliance
specified in the SIP, whichever is later; arid
(7) tf the order is to a major source, it must notify
the source of its possible liability for noncompliance
penalties under Section 120 of the Act.
B. Choosing Appropriate Cases for Delayed Compliance
Orders:
Where a source does not have an egregious history of
nonccmQilance or recalcitrance, the administrative delayed -
113
5-4
-------
—5—
compliance order process will normally be used by EPA, and
may be used by the States, to establish a compliance schedule,
provided, of course, that the source can otherwise qualify
for a delayed compliance order. Reliance on delayéd compli-
ance orders in such Cases will permit use of the potentially
less time—consuming administrative, rather than judicial,
process to impose schedules and interim requirements. (To
keep the administrative burden at a minimum, public notice,
hearings, and federal rulemaking may be accomplished
for several delayed compliance orders at one time.)
This will allow more resources to be devoted to problem
sources for which litigation is appropriate. However,
issuance of a delayed compliance order must be recognized to
be a benefit to the source which will be granted only in
appropriate situations.
Since the final compliance date in a delayed compliance
order based on an existing si is generally limited to
July 1, 1979, delayed compliance orders will progresstvely
become less and less available as an option. Therefore, a
top priority in the national enforcement strategy is
to develop schedules and issue delayed compliance orders to
sources which are appropriate candidates for such orders.
The issuance of delayed compliance orders by either the
States or EPA is discretionary. In exercising its discretion,
EPA will consider any past compliance efforts and any prior
State or federal enforcement actions involving the source.
If, based on these and other relevant factors, EPA determ nes
that the source is one with an egregious history of noncom-
pliance, recalcitrance, or environmental harm arid/or that
court supervision is likely to be required in order to
assure expeditious compliance, the source will be considered
an appropriate candidate for civil or criminal action
and no federal delayed compliance order will be issued.
Consequently, there will be no category of cases involving a
federally issued delayed compliance order and a federal
court action relating to the pre—delayed compliance order
period. EPA will continue to urge the States to adopt a
similar approach in exercising their discretion. Eiowever,
EPA approval or disapproval of a State delayed compliance
order will be based on the statutory criteria of Section
113(d). (See IV.D., “EPA Approval of State Delayed Compli-
ance Orders”, below.)
C. The Appropriate Method for Initiation of the Delayed
Compliance Order Process:
If PA and/cr the State determine that a source is
an aporopriate cand daze for a delayed coi pliance order
(i.e., that the source is Drobablv eligible for a delayec
113
D —
-------
—6—
compliance order under the Act and that the case is not
ap ropriate for civil penalties), the source should be
notified immediately.
In most cases where EP4,is enforcing, issuance of
a Notice of Violation (NOV)- ” is the first step in the
enforcement process. Where the source appears to be an
appropriate candidate for a delayed compliance order, the
NOV or State notice should inform the source that it may
submit a schedule (which must reflect compliance as expedi—
tiously as practicable, include appropriate interim measures,
and otherwise satisfy Section 113(d)). Whether or not State
notice is required, or may be provided in some manner other
than a written notice, is a question of State law.
The notice should provide that if, after review of
the source’s proposed schedule, the State or EPA determines
that the source is eligible and an appropriate candidate
for a DCC and that the proposed schedule is acceptable,
public notice and opportunity for a public hearing will
be provided. The notice to the source should establish a
specific deadline for the source to submit an appropriate
schedule and should indicate that if no acceptable schedule
is submitted by that deadline, EPA or the State will commence
an action for injunctive relief and civil penalties based on
the underlying SIP violation. Reference should also be made
to the statutory authority for criminal sanctions in
cases of knowing violation.
The NOV or State notice should point Out that issuance
of a delayed compliance order is discretionary and would
provide substantial benefits by insulating a source from
Although providing an opportunity to confer is not
statutorily required prior to EPA’S issuance of a delayed
compliance order, a conference will probably be useful in
the majority of cases. Under l13(a)(l), an NOV (i.e., 30
days notice) is required prior to issuance of an order by
EPA under either 5113(a) or (di where that order is based
on a SIP violation. The State and the source may waive
their rights to receive an NOV. In accordance with Wisconsin’s
Environmental Decade, Inc., v. Wisconsin Power and Light
Cornoanv, at al , 7 ERC 2022 (U.S. Dist. Ct., Western Dist. of
Wisconsin, June 6, 1975) and EPA’S interpretative guidance.
following that case, issuance of an NOV would be required in
any case where EPA finds that a person is in violation of a
SI?. This s also a rerequisite to EPA’s initiation of
judicial action based on such a violation.
113
5 -6
-------
—7—
judicial action and civil or criminal penalties based
on violations of the underlying requirement which are
ongoing while the delayed compliance order is bein met. The
notice should conclude that, for these reasons, a delayed
compliance order will not be issued unless the source
indicates in writing (by signature of appropria-te persons
authorized to agree for the source) that it will agree to
comply with the’.delayed compliance order. Source consent
will be required for all federal delayed compliance orders
and i ,recommended for State delayed compliance orders as
well.—’ However, a source’s agreement to comply is not a
precondition to EPA approval of a State delayed compliance
order. (See Section IV.D., “EPA Approval of State Delayed
Compliance Orders”, below.) In effect, only sources which
have not already established a history of egregious recalci-
trance should be given the opportunity to seek a delayed
compliance order 0 Further, if a source does not cooperate
early in the delayed compliance order process, enforcement
discretion should be exercised so as to refuse to issue a
delayed compliance order. In due course, court action will
be undertaken against uncooperative sources seeking compliance
and civil penalties under State and/or federal law for
each day of violation after August 7, 1977, the date of
enacthent of the Clean Air Act Amendments.
D. EPA Approvai. of State Delayed Compliance Orders:
While State procedures for initiation of the delayed
conpliance order process may vary, Section 113(d) requ Ires
notice and opportunity for a public hearing in all cases.
States should provide EPA with a copy of any proposed State
delayed compliance order prior to any public hearing on the
order. As soon as possible, EPA should notify the State in
writing of any questions it might have on the appropriateness
of issuing a delayed compliance order or on the adequacy of the
proposed delayed compliance order’s terms. Where the proposed
21 EPA will issue federal delayed compliance orders only
to sources which consent to their terms. The form of the
consent may be si ni1ar to consent provisions embodied in
Section 113(a) administrative consent orders issued by EPA
prior to the 1977 amendments to the Act. There need not be
a specific wa’.ver of the rlgnt to challenge the delayed
cornoliance o uer.
13
5-7
-------
—8—
State delayed compliance order presents issues which could
lead to disapproval by EPA, EPA representatives should
submit written Comments to that effect and, within. the
limits of available resources, appear at the State hearing
on the proposed delayed compliance order and comment for the
record on its adequacy.
Once the State issues a delayed compliance order, it
should notify EPA by sending a copy of the final order
to the aP yOPri.ate Regional Office Enforcement Division
Director.— EPA will act as quickly as possible, but,
in any case, EPA must approve or disapprove a State delayed
compliance order to a major source within 90 days of receipt
of the order and notice of its issuance. Upon EPA approval,
the State delayed compliance order becomes effective and
enforceable by EPA and citizens as well as the State. A
State delayed compliance order to a minor source is effective
under Section 113(d) upon issuance. Eowever, it ceases to,.
be effective under Section 113(d) if EPA disapproves upon a
determination that it was not issued in accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act.
In accordance with Section 113(d) (9) of the Act, EPA
will vigorously pursue appropriate actions, including
seeking penalties, in any case where a federal delayed
compliance order has been violated. Where the delayed
compliance order involved is an EPA approved State order,
Delayed compliance orders under 3113(d) of the Act
submitted by a local agency for EPA approval must be submitted
either (1) through the appropriate State agency or (2) in
accordance with procedures established by the State which
allow direct submittal to EPA by the local agency. Section
121 of the Clean Air Act requires the States to provide “a
satisfactory process of consultation with general purpose
local governments, designated organizations of elected
officials of local governments and any Federal land manager
having authority over Federal land to which the State plan
applies”. This consultation process will apply to all
3113(d) orders issued after August 7, 1978, and must be
provided in accordance with regulations to be promulgated by
EPA. Until August 7, 1978, both EPA and the States should
consult with appropriate local air pollution control agencies
wherever possible prior to issuance of any 3113(d) order -
and sriould attempt to provide actual notice of any proposec
3113(d) orders to appropriate local officials.
113
5 -8
-------
—9—
EPA will consult first with the State to determine whether
the State or EPA, or both together, will take action but EPA
must assure itself that prompt, vigorous and appropriate
action is taken.
If a State issues a delayed compliance order which
satisfies, the criteria set forth in Section 113(d), EPA
will not disapprove the State order based on those policy
considerations (see Section IV.B., above) which govern EPA’S
exercise of enforcement discretion in determining whether
judicial action, rather than a delayed compliance order,
should be pursued. aowever, under Section i13(d)(lO) of the
Act, a delayed compliance order does not insulate a source
from initiation of an action to collect civil or criminal
penalties for violations which occurred during periods in
which the order was not in effect (i.e., the period of
violation prior to the delayed compliance order period) :-
Under the Act, it is clear that EPA may pursue judicial
action to obtain penalties for such an earlier period of
violation even where a State delayed ccrn?liance order has
been approved. EPA will generally pursue an action for
penalties covering the pre—delayed comp1 .ance order period
where the State has exercised its discretion differently
than EPA would have by issuing a delayed compliance order to
a source which EPA (utilizing the criteria set forth in
Section IV.B., above) has determined to be an apPropriate
candidate for judicial action.
EPA will evaluate State delayed compliance orders or
approval or disapproval in accordance wi the criteria
set forth in Section 113(d) of the Act. — Those criteria
are discussed more fully in Appendix A and are outlined on
p. 4 above.
Delayed compliance orders issued by EPA must, of
course, meet the same statutory requirements. Delayed
compliance orders issued under Section 113(d) (3) to sources
intending to comply by replacement, complete change in
process, or shutdown are not covered herein but will be
addressed in separate guidance. Delayed compliance oroers
may be issued by the Administrator, but not by the States,
under ll3(d)(4) (re!a i-ig to inncva ive techno1o y) no
113(d)(5) (relating to coal conversions) . These will
also be treated in separate guidance.
n3
5 -g
-------
— 10-•
E. Effect of Procedural Delays on Delayed Compliance
Order Increments of Progress and Interim Require-
ments:
Appendix B summarizes the procedures for EPA issuance
and approval of delayed compliance orders. Since rulemaking
is required, some delay can be expected. However, the effect
of this delay can be minimized. Under State law, a State
may require the source to begin immediately to meet increments
of progress and interim requirements prior to EPA approval
of the delayed compliance order In fact, this may be
necessary in any case where final compliance cannot be
achieved well before the applicable final compliance deadline
for an approvable delayed compliance order. In order
to avoid more stringent enforcement action and possible
liability for judicial penalties, a source which is procaeding
in good faith should be willing to begin its compliance
efforts immediately and the State may enforce the delayed
compliance order immediately under its independent State
enforcement authority. A State delayed compliance order to
a major source will not, however, become effective under
Section 113(d) of the Clean Air Act until EPA approves the
State order by final promulgation in 40 CFR Part 65. This
means that the State delayed compliance order will not
insulate a major source from other enforcement (3113(d) (10)),
nor will it become part of the SIP for the purposes of
Sections 110, 304, and 307 of the Act (3 113(d) (11))
until EPA approves it.
Similarly, A will require sources for which federal
delayed compliance orders are to be issued, to meet appro-
priate increments and interim requirements while informal
rulemaking procedures are being followed. Again, many
sources may not be eligible for delayed compliance orders
unless they agree to begin steps toward compliance early
enough to avoid continued violation after the deadline set
in accordance with Section 113(d) (1) CD).
F. EPA Disapproval of a State Delayed Compliance Order:
Ordinarily, deficiencies in State delayed compliance
orders will be attributable to the newness of the delayed
compliance order program and unfamiliarity with the delayed
compliance order requirements. This should not be a long
term problem; EPA will work with the States to allow adequate
opportunity to correct oversights and minor problems without
113
5-10
-------
— 1 .1—
disapproval becoming necessary. Many existing State orders
can be supplemented readily to meet the requiremelits of
Section 113(d). EPA is aware that many States are already
making commendable efforts to do this.
However, there may be some cases where EPA disapproval
is necessary. Where EPA disapproves a State delayed compliance
order for a major source, EPA will issue a federal delayed
compliance order (if the source is eligible and an appropriate
candidate for a delayed compliance order) or initiate
judicial action, in accordance with Agency enforcement
priorities. If EPA should disapprove a State delayed
compliance order to a minor source, EPA must simultaneously
issue its own delayed compliance order, assuming the source
can meet the statutory eligibility requirements of Section
11.3(d).
In rare cases, EPA may receive for approval a State
delayed compliance order based on violations for wnich EPA
has already filed or begun to process a judicial action.
EPA ’s filing of a judicial action will constitute rejection
of the State delayed compliance order. Where this occurs,
the State will be notified of the reasons the State delayed
compliance order cannot be approved and will be fcrrna.Lly
notified, immediately after EPA ’s receipt of the Droposed
delayed compliance order, that EPA is taking or plans to
take judicial action. Notice of the disapproval of t e
State delayed compliance order will also be published in the
Federal Register , but the disapproval will be effect .ve upon
notice to the State.
V. Relation of Section 113(a) or (d) Orders to Noncompliance
Penalties under Section 120 of the Clean A r Act
A. Applicability of Non—Compliance Penalties under Section
120 of the Act:
The Division of Stationary Source Enforcement is
working with other EPA headquarters offices and regional
representatives on development of regulations irn 1ementing
Section 120 of the Act. Early drafts will be circulated
widely for comment as soon as they are available.
Generally, there is no exemption from Section 120
noncompliance ena1ties for sources subJect to delayec
113
5—11
-------
—12-
compliance schedules by consent decrees, or other adininistra—
tively or judicially imposed compliance plans incl iding even
certa .n delayed Compliance orders with schedules extending
beyond July 1, 1979. When the Section 120 noncom J4ance
penalty provision becomes effective (in mid—1979), . 2 ! EPA
or the delegated State must assess a noncompliance penalty
against any major source which is riot in compliance with a
SIP recu .rement or any other requirement for which perialt .es
must be assessed under Section 120(a)(2)(A). The penalty
amount will be based on the economic advantage derived from
noncompliance after mid—1979.
With respect to violations of existing emission
limitations, the Clean Air Act Amendments did riot clearly
indic ate wriether the effect .ve date for noncompliance
penalty liability under Section 120 of the Act is July 1,
1979 or August 7, 1979. Both dates are referred to in the
definition of 1 period of covered noncompliance 1 in Section
120(d)(3)(C). For purposes of determining an appropriate
civil penalty, EPA will assume that the administrative
penalty will be assessed beginning August 7, 1979. Until
the regulations implementing Section 120 have been sub ect
to public comment and promulgated by the Administrator, no
final determination can be made, however, with res ecz to
the applicable date for purposes of Section 120.
With respect to any emission limitation or other
requirement approved or promulgated by the Administrator
after August 7, 1977, which is either more stringent than
those in effect at that time or which establishes a recuire—
merit where none existed before, Section 120(g) of the Act
provides that the effective date for nonccmpliance penalties
will be the date that full compliance is required with such
limitation or requirement (though not later than three years
from such approva) prcmulgation, nor earlier than the
effective date that noncompliance penalties begin with
respect to violations of existing limitations).
113
5—12
-------
—13—
Section 120(a)(2)(B) and (C) provide for ex ptjons
from the noncompliance penalty in certain cases. -’
E!owever, unless one of these limited exemptions isgranted,
the noncompliance penalty will apply even where a compliance
schedule has been imposed in a State or federal enforcement
action, if the source’s Violation of the derlying SIP
provision continues past August 7, 1979. —
The exemptions provided in Section 120(a)(2)(3) and
(C) are:
a) a source converting to coal under a compliance
date extension or Sll3(d)(5) order;
b) a source using innovative technology under a
S1l3(d)(4) order;
C) a source issued a delayed compliance order based
on an inability to comply which results from
reasons entirely beyond the source’s control see
discussion of “inability to comply” in Appendix A);
d) conditions which would authorize a temporary
emergency suspension under section 110(f) or
(g); and
e) at the Administrator’s discretion, a source
whose instance of noncompliance is de miriimis in
nature and duration.
71 Section 120(g) provides that a violating source
newly subject to an emission limit and a violating source
subject to an emission limit more stringent than that in
effect prior to August 7, 1977, must pay noncompliance
penalties beginning either on July 1, 1979, or the date they
are required to be in compliance with the new emission
limit, whichever is later, but not later than three years
after approval or promulgation of the new 1 mit. The
application of this “three years” language to sources
covered by SIP revisions under S172 will be discussed
in separate guidance.
113
5-1 3
rn ing
-------
APPENDIX A
Criteria for AporOval of State Delayed Orders and Issuance of
Federal Delayed ComPliance Orders under Section 113(d) of the
Clean Air Act
(1) Inability tO CCIflP : The delayed compliance order
(DCO) must include a finding that the source is unable to
comply with the SIP requirement involved.
Discussion: under the Act, a source is not eligible for
a State or federal DCC “if the delay is sought simply
for convenience or for economic advantages which would
accrue from delayed compliance” (1977 Senate Report at
p. 46). If the source truly needs additional time to
install necessary controls, make appropriate process changes,
etc., the time needed to comply may be provided in a DCC in
accordance with the limitations described in item (6) below.
For purposes of this criterion of eligibility for a DCC, a
source is eligible if it is not able to comply immediately
at the time the DCC is being considered, regardless of its
past history. The source’s present inability to comply need
not be for reasons entirely beyond the source’s control to
qualify :t for DCO eligibility. (Past compliance efforts are
relevant to the exercise of discretion to issue a DCC, even
though not relevant in determining technical eligiblity.)
Care should be taken in making the determination of Lnability
to comply. Although the standard is as stated above
for purposes of determining eligibility for a DCC under
113(d) , a much more stringent standard must be met for a
major source to obtain an exemption from mandatory administra-
tive noncompliance penalties under 120(a)(2)(3)(iv). To
obtain such an exemption, a source must be subject to an
administratjv order based on its inability to comply and
that inability must result from “ reasons entirely evond
the control of the owner or operator of such source or of
any enti.tv cor.trolli .nQ, controlled by, or under common
control ?Iich the owner or operator of such source” . The
legislative history of this provision suggests that it
should be read very narrowly. At the time of applying for a
DCC, sources may press to obtain findings that their inability
to comply is for reasons entirely beyond their control,
because of the orotection from Section 120 penalties - -
such findings may afford them. iowever, since the stanoaro
for eligibility for a DCO appears on its face to be less
restrictive than that for exemption from §120 penalties, i
would be wise at this stage to avoid making any formal
determination on the cuest on of the reasons for the source’ s
113
5-14
-------
—2-
inability to comply and to make it clear that those reasons
were not relevant, nor were they considered, in determining
eligibility for a DCO. (Detailed explanation of the exemp-
tions from administrative noncompliance penalties will be
included in the preamble and regulations implementing
Section 120 of the Act.)
(2) Notice and ooportunitv for public hearing : The order
must have been issued after notice to the public of the
content of the proposed order and opportunity for public
hearing.
Discussion: Generally, thirty days is considered adequate
notice under both State and federal law. The form of notice
(newspaper, State Register , etc.) is generally prescribed by
State law. EPA will, at a minimum, give public notice of
i s propos ’ d DCOs in the Federal Register . (Actual notice
to the State of proposed DCOs will also be given.) In
evaluating the approvability of State DCOs, EPA will as a
minimum require that the notice be adequate under State law
and that persons living in the vicinity of the source have
had adequate opportunity to comment on the proposed State
order. Thirty days notice will be considered adequate and
w .ll be- required for EPA ap roval of a State DCO unless the
State has obtained prior EPA aporoval of some other procedure
consistent wi:h 40 CFR 351.4(e).
(3) Com l ance schedule : The order must contain a schedule
and tunetaole for compliance, including increments of
progress.
Discussion: Section 302(p) of the Act defines “schedule and
timetable of compliance” as “a schedule of required measures
including an enforceable sequence of actions or operations
leading to compliance with an emission limitation, other
limitation, prohibition or standard”. Each increment of
progress must be required to be met as expeditiously as
practicable. As a minimum, the increments of orogress
described in 40 CFR 551.1(q) must be included or must have
already been achieved. If an increment has already been
achieved, the order or supportlng materials supolied to EP
must attest to this fact.
(4) Interim controls : The order must contai i requlrements
or use of the best practicable system or systems of emission
113
5—15
-------
—3—
reduction (taking into account the requirement with which
the source must ultimately comply) for the period the order
is in effect and for compliance with reasonable and practi-
cable interim requirements including (a) those necessary to
avoid an inirninent and substantial endangerment to t uman
health, and (b) a requirement to meet the SIP, insofar as
the source is able.
Discussion: As a minimum, the order must include a finding
that (a) the best practicable system of interim emission
reduction has been required or, in rare cases, that no
system of interim emission reduction is practicable in the
case at hand, and (b) that the source remains subject to
enforcement of emergency provisions designed to prevent
imminent and substantial endangerment tc human health (under
3O3 of the Clean Air Act and any similar State authority)
Generally, a source should be required to meet an interim
emission limitation based, at a minimum, on its present
emission rate. Improved operation and maintenance procedures,
temporary switches to less polluting fuels, and similar
specific requirements 5hould also be considered. It may be
appropriate to require that the source conduct ambient air
quality monitoring and periodically reduce em ssicns,
or even periodically shut dcwn, when a r quality is expected
to contravene health related standarde. A case by case
determination will be necessary to support a finding on the
reasonableness and practicability of interim control require
ments. Ambient air quaJ..itv and density of population n the
area should be considered n determining what controls are
reasonable. Cost and the length of delay in compliance
allowed by the DCO are relevant both to tne reasonableness
and practicability of the interim control requirements.
(5) Monitoring and reporting : The order must include a
requirement for reasonable emission monitoring and reporting.
Discussion: If the DCO will remain in effect for any
substantial period of time, it will generally be reasonable
to require continuous emission monitoring wherever technology
exists for meeting such a requirement. The continuous
monitoring of other process parameters may be appropriate in
addition to or instead of continuous emission monitoring
where technology is less advanced. Monitoring should
normally be recuired for the period the DCO will be in
effect. aowever, if EPA or the State determines that a
monitoring requirement is not reasonable in a particular
case, a finding to this effect must be made and included
either in the OCO itself or in supporting documentation.
113
5—16
-------
—4—
Where the SIP already requires continuous monitoring, the
DCO need not address continuous monitoring after the final
compliance date in the DCO. Where EPA intends to require
continuous monitoring after the DCO’s final compliance date
and no independent SIP requirement exists, this may be
included in the DCO but the authority of Section 114 and
Section 113(a) of the Clean Air Act must be relied upon for
this requirement. Whether States must also rely on their
own separate reporting requirement authorities is a matter
of State law. Reports must be required at times and in
sufficient detail to enable the authority issuing the DCO to
determine whether interim requirements, increments of
progress, and final compliance have been achieved in a
timely way.
(6) Final compliance : The order must provide for final
compliance as expediti.ously as practicable but rio later than
July 1, 1979, or three years after the date for final
compliance specified in the SIP, whichever is later.
Discussion: Generally, the July 1, 1979, date will be
controlling since it will be more than three years after the
SIP compliance date. However, where the “attainment date”
is later than July 1, 1976, as in areas which were subject
to two year e>:tensions under llO(e) of the Act, the SIP
compliance date may be as late as mid—1977 and a DCO could
extend to mld_1980.* Where an attainment date is later in
* In the case of particulate matter requirements for
the State of Ohio, the immediately effective final compliance
date of April 15, 1974 has been extended to the attainment
date of April 15, 1977 for some sources, even though an
extension for these sources was not formally approved by the
State or EPA. The special exception for these sources is
oased on the unique circumstances concerning the particulate
matter standards in Ohio. The EPA—promulgated particulate
matter plan for Ohio was challenged in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. As part of tnat
case, EPA represented to the Court that the April 15, 1977
attainment date in the plan was based on a determination
that many Ohio utilities would need a full three years from
the 1974 promulgation date to comply with plan requirements.
In some cases, sources relied on these re resentat oris and
timely aDplied for State variances deferring compliance
until Apr11 15, 1977, but did not receive variances bec use
of State inaction. For these sources, the final com 1 ance
date ‘ T scec f:ed in ( ne) lan’ as tnat pnrase is usec in
Section 113(d) (1) (D) , can be considered to ce A ril 15, 1977
for particulate matter requirements.
113
5 -17
-------
—5—
time than a SIP compliance date, the three year time frame
permitted for final Compliance in a DCO runs from the
compliance date. (Note also that §113(d) (3), 513(d) (4),
and S113(d)(5) specify different deadlines for compliance
in DCOs issued under their terms. E owever, all §113(d)
orders must provide for compliance as expeditiously as
practicable and Corig-ress clearly intended that violators
should riot be given a “free ride” up to the a so1ute deadlines
provided by §113(d)).)
(7) Notice of possible liability for ncncom liance penalties :
If the order is to a major source, it must notify the
source that, unless exempted under Section 120(a)(2)(B) or
(C) of the Act, it will receive a notice of noncompliance
and noncompliance penalties will be assessed and collected
under Section 120 in the event the source fails to comply by
July 1, 1979, or such later date as is provided in accordance
with Section 120(b) (3).
Discussion: “A notice of noncompliance ” is a term of art
under Section 120 of the Act. Once such a notice is issued,
the source would have 45 days to submit certain financial
data for purposes o assessment of an adinini trative non—
ccmo1 ance penalty. Until the noncompliance penalty program
is implemented under regulations promulgated by EPA, no
“notice of noncompliance” need be included in a DCO.
iowever, the DCO must notify the source that it will receive
such a notice and will be liable for noncoin 1iance penalties
if it does not comply by mid—1979 and is not entitled to an
exemption cr delay in the applicability of Section ..20 of
the Act (or a State program thereunder)
113
5-18
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary of Procedures for Issuance and Approval of DCOs
In issuing its own DCOs, EPA will follow informal rulemaking
procedures. Ur der informal rulemaking procedures, EPA must
publish, in the Federal eg1ster , notice of its proposed DCO,
soliciting puolic comment arid offering opportunity for a
public hearing. This notice may be after or simultaneous
with the actual notice to the State required by Section
113(d) (1) of the Act. A thirty day comment period is
generally considered reasonable and is required if notice to
the State is simultaneous to Federal Register notice. After
this comment period (and any public hearing), the final
order must be published in the Federal Register and may, for
good cause, be made immediately effective.
Informal rulemaking will also be employed for EPA’s •action
on State DCOs to major sources and for EPA disapproval of
State DCOs to minor sources. Note, however, that EPA is
not required to provide an o Pportunity for public hearing on
a State DCO. If the State does not provide oPportunity for
public hearing prior to issuing its order, EPA will not
approve the State DCO. Final EPA action on a State OCO is
required within 90 days of receipt of the order and notice
of its issuance by the regional Enforcement Division Director
EPA will strive to act within this time frame in all cases.
The Division of Stationary Source Enforcement (DSSE) will
establish a new Part 65 of T tle 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. EPA—issued 17 COs (except ll3(d)(5) DCOs to
coal conversion sources)— and EPA approvals and disapprovals
of State DCOs will be promulgated in this Part. EPA
regional offices will prepare the Federal Register documents
for proposal and promulgation in accordance with guidance
issued by DSSE. These documents (and necessary copies)
will be forwarded, along with copies of a State DCO on which
EPA is taking action, to DSSE for processing. Once DSSE has
Section 113(d) (5) DCOs may be issued only by EPA.
They will be promulgated in existing 40 CFR Part 55, “Energy
elated Author ity”.
113
5-19
-------
—2—
reviewed the doc aents for national consistency, they will
be handcarried to EPA’s Federal Register Officer for
for-warding to the Federal Register (if a proposal or to the
Administrator (if a final action) . (A.fter a regional office
gains experience in the DCO process, the requirer ent for
DSSE review will be waived and DCOs will be handled in a
manner analogous to “special action /normal action’ SIP
revisions. In the case of “special actions”, however, only
Office of Enforcement concurrence will be required and the
rev jaw period will be shortened to five working days fr
the date of receipt.)
EPA will provide whatever assistance it can to States in
developing approvable State OCOs. In the early stages of
the DCO program and upon request by the regional office,
DSSE will also review and provide assistance on preliminary
drafts of State and federal DCOs to the extent resources
and other priorities permit.
113
5 -20
-------
PN 113-80-03-11-006
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
4(
MAR 11 1980
OFT1CE OF ENFORCEMCNT
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Interim Particulate Controls
From: Deputy Assistant Administrator
for General Enforcement
To: Enforcement Division Directors, Regions I—X
The Office of Enforcement has developed a poli y on the
use of flue gas conditioning as a means of interim particulate
control for power plants and industrial boilers. A statement
of the policy is attached. As more experience is acquired with
flue gas conditioning and other means of inter. m control,
appropriate changes will be made to the policy.
We also attach sample language that reflects the policy
statement; it is suitable for use in court orders and, wit
proper word changes in paragraph 6, in administrative orders.
This language should be modified as may be appropriate to fit
the circumstances of individual cases.
The policy statement and the sample language incorporate
a reference test method for measuring sulfuric acid emissions.
A statement of the test method will be forwarded when ready.
A draft of the policy statement was circulated for comment
on October 10, 1978. The comments received from the Regions
and others were considered in preparing this final statement.
The policy statement indicates that under proper circum-
stances, flue gas conditioning is an appropriate and effective
interim particulate control. It is not, of course, the only
possible means of interim particulate control and all alterna-
tives should be considered and weighed in each particular case.
113
6—1
-------
—2—
For example, it might be appropriate in a given case to require a
moderate reduction in operations as a way of reducing patticulates
on an interim basis. Of course, where a source demonstrated the
effectiveness of flue gas Conditioning in accordance with the
policy statement, this could obviate, in whole or in part, the
need for such derating.
If you have any questions, please contact Edward Reich
of the Division of Stationary Source Enforcement, at FIS
755—2550 or arnes Herlihy at FTS 423—3250.
Attachments
1 1
-------
March 1980
Office of Enforcement
ENFORCEMENT POLICY ON INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
It sometimes happens that a coal—fired power plant or
industrial boiler is out of compliance with particulate
emission regulations because an existing precipitator is
inadequate. This can occur for numerous reasons. The
precipitator may be underdesigned, the boiler may be operated
above design rates, or the plant may switch from a high to a
low suli ur fuel. In all such cases, the plant may be ordered
to install a replacement or supplementary precipitator over
a two or three year time period. During this period, interim
particulate controls should be required when practical.
Flue gas conditioning to supplement precipitator
performance may be appropriate as an interim means of
control in certain situations. In many cases, the necessary
equipment can be installed and made operational in a few
months and at reasonable cost. On the other hand,
conditioning agents may be toxic and their effectiveness is
not always certain. For these reasons, flue gas conditioning
should not be required in every case. However, where it is
reasonable to expect that particulate emission reductions
brought about by conditioning agents will more than offset
increased toxic emissions, conditioning may be sopropriate.
The Office of Research and Development CORD) has been
consulted to determine the circumstances under which flue
gas conditioning may be appropriate for interim control.
The guidelines in this memo are consistent with 3RD
recommendations.
When a coal—fired power plant or industrial boiler is
ordered to comply with particulate emissions because an
existing precipitator is inadequate, it is suggested that
flue gas conditioning be considered as a means of interim
particulate control. Alternative approaches may also be
considered. For flue gas conditioning to be appropriate,
the following conditions should normally be met:
1. Conditioning is likely to be effective . As a
guideline, it should be likely that conditioning will
reduce net particulate emissions about 50 percent.
In some cases, there may be performance data
from trial runs or pilot plant studies that will help
indicate whether this condition is met. Usually,—
however, such data will be unavailable, so the effect
of conditioning must be determined some other way.
Methods have bc n d vcoped to calculate the
fl3
6-3
-------
-.2—
effectiveness of some conditioning agents. These
calculations should be made and the results used to
determine whether a net particulate reduction of about
50 percent is l. kely. (A contractor will be made
available to assist with the calculations.)
The calculations require an elemental analysi’s
of fly ash, so samples of fly ash or coal will be
needed. If the source has not purchased its new low
sulfur coal, samples may not become available until
after the compliance order issues. If an order is
to be issued in such a situation, the order should
provide that conditioning will be required after coal
or fly ash samples are tested, if EPA determines that
conditioning is likely to be effective.
2. Acid sulfate emissions will not increase significantly .
As a guideline, the .ncrease in acid sulfate emissions,
based on averages measured by the controlled condensation
test method, should not exceed about five parts per
million.
3. An approved ccnditionin agent is used . To lessen
the possibility that conditioning will increase toxic
emissions, the conditioning agents should be restricted
to the following, either singly or in combination:
inorganic sulfate, phosphate, or carbonate salts of
sodium, ammonium, magnesium, aluminum, or iron; the
gases sulfur triox.ide, ammonia, steam (or water), air,
or oxygen; the oxides of iron, or sulfamic acid. To
ensure that this condition is met, the approximate
composition of the conditioning agents should be
disclosed to EPA.
4. The interim period has a reasonable duration . The
interim period should be of such duration that the
conditioning system will be in operation for a
reasonable length of time before final compliance is
achieved. Reasonableness must be determined on a case
by case basis considering all relevant factu s such as
emission rates, expected emission reductions, air
quality, installation times, etc.
5. The costs are reasonable . The installation and
operating costs should be reasonable. The
reasonableness of cost must be determined case by case
based on all relevant factors, as indicated in the
preceding paragraph.
6. The precipitator is in good repair . The predicted
effects of cond. tioning are based on the assumptions
that the precipitator Is in good mechanical condition
and that the precipitator is operated properly. If an
113
6 -4
-------
—3—
order is issued to a source with a poorly maintained or
operated precipitator, the order should include
requirements for proper maintenance and operation.
If flue gas conditioning appears to be a reasonably
practical means of interim control based on the above
conditions, the Region should consider including requirements
for conditioning in the compliance order. In making a final
decision, site—specific factors should be considered. For
example, if the area in which the source will be located is
nonattainment for particulates, there will be greater
incentive to require conditioning than if the ambient
standard were being met. On the other hand, if other
sources in the area are already emitting acid sulfates,
it will be less desirable to require conditioning with
agents that cause the emission of additional acid sulfates.
The Region should make determinations on a case by case
basis, and the Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
(DSSE) will provide assistance on request.
It may also happen that flue gas conditioning is
appropriate even if the above conditions are not met;
but in such cases, the Region should consult with DSSE
before issuing orders.
If conditioning is ordered, emission tests should be
conducted with and without conditioning, to confirm expected
particulate reductions and to measure any increase in
acid sulfates. Net particulates should be reduced about 5G
percent. The increase in acid sulfate emissions should not
be more than about five parts per million. EPA Method 5
should be used for the particulate measurements, and the
controlled condensation test method should be the reference
method for acid sulfates. If conditioning agents other than
sulfur trioxide, ammonium sulfate, or sodium carbonate are
used, OSSE should be consulted for possible modifications to
the test method for acid sulfates.
Unfortunately, the normal variability in measurements
of acid sulfates (due to limitations in the test method and
to changes in coal sulfur content) is about the same magnitude
as the increases that need to be determined. To obtain
sufficient accuracy, it is recommended that the average of
at least eight runs be used to determine baseline emission
levels without conditioning agents. The average or at le2st
eight more runs should be used to measure emission levels
with conditioning agents. The increase (if any) should be -
determined by subtracting the first average from the second.
Asa check on the v i iLy of tht acid su1fat .i easurem ,,t
it is recommended that simultaneous sulfur dioxide
measurements be made. this will indicate the variability
-------
—4—
of the sulfur in the coal and help explain any observed
variations in the acid sulfate results.
During the emission tests, the conditioning system
should be operated in a manner previously approved by EPA.
(This will normally be according to the speci.fications of
the supplier of the conditioning agents.) After the test,
the source should not be allowed to deviate from the test
mode of operation without the approval of EPA, which may be
conditioned on additional testing to determine whether other
requirements of the order are met.
Visible emissions should be recorded during the emission
tests and monitored continuously after the conditioning
system becomes operational. The order should provide that
reports be made to EPA when visible emissions increase
significantly during the interim period. EPA can then
inspect the plant to determine whether the source is violating
the order by deviating from the test mode of operation.
EPA should reserve in the order an ability to require
that a different conditioning system be installed or at
least an ability to seek a further court order for such a
change if the emission tests show that net particulate
emissions are not reduced about 50 percent or that acid
sulfate emissions increase more than about 5 parts per
million. The first option is more conservative, and should
normally be insisted upon when the source intends to select
a conditioning system that is considered less likely to be
successful than alternative systems and/or the need for
interim particulate controls is great. Interim controls are
more important, for example, when the source is located in
an area that does not meet the ambient air standards for
particulates.
Flue gas conditioning is potentially applicable to many
source types, but so far additives have been demonstrated
only on coal—fired power plants. Compliance orders that
require conditioning should not be Issued to sources other
than coal—fired power plants or industrial boilers without
first consulting DSSE.
Flue gas conditioning should not be recommer.ded as a
means for achieving final compliance, because of the possible
toxic effects of conditioning agents. The major reasons for
this ares 1) there is greater risk when possibly toxic agents
are used on a permanent basis, because the duration of
exposure will be longer, and 2) alternative technology—such
asprecipitators can achieve compliance without the increased
emission of possibly toxic agents. However, if it is shown
to EPA’s satisfaction that the conditioning agents are
nontoxic their use as a means of achieving final compliance
may be considered on a case by case basis.
113
6-6
-------
5—
Proper maintenance of the existing precipitator is also
important for interim control. If the precipitator is not
adequately mai ntained, the benefits of conditioning may be
cancelled out, 80 consideration should be given to requirements
for restoring the precipitator to good mechanical condition.
The following items are important: a) gas distribution to
the precipitator should meet the requirements of the Industrial
Gas Cleaning Institute; b) collector plates should be
properly aligned; c) all discharge electrodes should be in
place; d) all power supplies and controllers should be
operational; e) proper ash handling procedures should be
followed.
•1.1 3
6-7
-------
March 1980
INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROL REQUIREMENTS:
(Sample Language For Court Orders)
(Source) shall comply with the following interim requiiements.
1. On (Date), (Source) shall provide EPA with repre-
sentative samples of the coal it plans to purchase.
EPA will then make a determination whether flue gas
conditioning is likely to be effective in reducing
particulate emissions when such coal is burned at
(Affected Facility) and otherwise appropriate. If
EPA determines that flue gas conditioning is likely
to be effective and otherwise appropriate, (Source)
shall comply with the provisions of paragraphs
2 through 8 inclusive. If EPA’s determination
is to the contrary, paragraphs 2 through 8 shall be
void. In either case, paragraph 9 shall be
effective.
(Note: this paragraph should be used only when it
ia necessary to delay a decision on requiring flue
gas conditioning, until samples of a new coal
supply become available for testing.)
2. A system for conditioning the flue gas from
(Affected Facility) by the addition of chemical
agents shall be installed according to the
following schedule:
a) (Date): Final interim control plan submitted
to EPA.
b) (Date): Cont act for flue gas conditioning
system awarded.
c) (Date): On—site construction of flue gas con-
ditioning system begun.
d) (Date): On—site construction of flue gas con-
ditioning system finished.
a) (Date): Flue gas conditioning system fully
operational.
113
6 -8
-------
—2—
3. Before the date specified in paragraph 2 for the
flue gas conditioning system to be fully operational,
(Source) shall perform two sets of emission
tests on the stack gases from (Affected Facility).
One set of tests shall be run without flue gas
conditioning and one set of tests shall be run
with flue gas conditioning. The same type of:coal
shall be burned during both sets of tests. The
boiler load, sootbiowing operations, and the amount
of excess air shall be the same for both sets of
tests. The following pollutants shall be measured
simultaneousl y:
a) Particulates; for each set of tests, at least
three measurements shall be made using EPA
Method 5 (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A) and the
results averaged.
b) Visible emissions; for each set of tests, at
least three measurements shall be made usinb
EPA Method 9 (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A) and
the results averaged.
c) Acid sulfates; for each set of tests, ot
least eight measurements shall be made using
the test method specified in Tab A, and
the results averaged.
d) Sulfur dioxide; for each set of tests, at
least eight measurements shall be made using
EPA Method 6 (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A), or
an equivalent test method, done simultaneously
with the tests for acid sulfates.
All measurements shall be made with (Affected
Facility), and theelectrostatic precipitator at
normal operating conditions.
For the set of tests with flue gas conditioning,
the flue gas conditioning system shall be operated
in the manner recommended by the supplier of the
conditioning agents.
To allow the precipitator to stabilize, the
measurements with conditioning agents shall be
preceded by at least ten days of operation with
conditioning agents. Similarly, the tests without
conditioning agents shall be preceded by at least
ten days of precipitator operation without
conditioning aqents.
-------
—3-.
(Note: if conditioning agents other than sulfur
trioxide, ammonium sulfate, or sodium carbonate are
used, DSSE should be Consulted for possible
modifications to the test method for acid sulfates.)
4. Any emission tests required by paragraphs 3,
5, 6, or 7 shall be subject to the following
additional requirements:
a) EPA shall receive two weeks written notice
before the emission tests are run, and shall
have the opportunity to observe all tests.
b) A private contractor (not the supplier of the
conditioning system and not the supplier of
the conditioning agents) shall conduct the
tests and certify the results to EPA.
c) (Source) shall certify to EPA that (Affected
Facility) and the associated electrostatic
precipitator were operating normally, and that
the flue gas conditioning system was operating
according to the supplier’s specifications
during the tests.
5. (Source) shall use (Specify) as the conditioning
agent.
If the approximate composition of the
conditioning agent changes at any time before final
compliance with particulate emission regulations
is achieved, (Source) shall disclose the new
approximate composition to EPA in writing, within
two weeks after the change occurs. The new
conditioning agents, however, shall be subject to
approval by EPA. Moreover, if the approximate
composition of the conditioning agents is changed
after the performance tests required by paragraph 3
have been conducted, EPA may, at its discretion,
require additional performance tests that meet the
requirements of paragraphs 3 and 4. If EPA decides
to require such additional tests, EPA shall so
notify (Source) in writing 1 (Source) shall cause
such tests to be completed within one month from
the date the notice is received.
113
6 1O
-------
—4-
(Note 1: the conditioning agents should be
restricted to the following, e.i.ther singly or in
combination: inorganic sulfate, phosphate, or
carbonate salts of sodium, arnmonium, magnesium,
aluminum, or iron: the gases sulfur trioxide,
ammonia, steam (or water), air, or oxygen the
oxides of iron, or sulfamic acid.)
(Note 2: the Region should not specify or agree to
specification of an agent, even if listed above, if
the Region believes it will not be effective at the
subject facility.)
(Note 3: if the conditioning agents are identified
by a trade name, the approximate composition
should be disclosed to EPA.)
(Note 4: if conditioning agents other than sulfur
trioxide, ammonium sulfate, or sodium carbonate
are selected, DSSE should be consulted for
possible modifications to the test method for acid
sulfates.)
6. If the emission tests required by paragraph 3 (or
paragraph 5, if applicable) show that:
A) The average particulate emissions with flue
gas conditioning ara mare than 50 weight
percent of the average particulate emissions
without flua gas conditioning; or
B) The average emission of acid sulfates with
flue gas conditioning exceed the average
emission of acid sulfates without flue gas
conditioning by more than five parts per
million parts of the total gas stream by
volume,
ALTERNATIVE I
Then EPA may, at its discretion, select some other
commercially available conditioning agent(s), and
such agent(s) shall be used instead of (Specify the
agent named in paragraph 3).
If EPA imposes such a requirement, CPA shall
notify (Source) in writing. (Source) shall have
six months from the date such notice is mailed-, to
install a conditioning system using the agents.
selected by CPA, to make said system fully
operational, and to complete a new series of
performance tests that satisfy all the requirements
of paragraphs 3 and 4.
11
I I J
6-11
-------
—5—
ALTERNATIVE II
Then EPA and (Source) shall meet to discuss what
further action would be appropriate, including the
possible installation, testing, and operation of a
flue gas conditioning System that uses some other
conditioning agent(s). If the parties agfee on
further actions to be taken, the agreement shall be
submitted to the Court as a proposed modification
of this order. If the parties do not agree, EPA
may petition the Court for such further relief as
it deems appropriate.
(Note 1: only one of the above alternatives should
be selected.)
(Note 2: Alternative I should be selected if the
agent specified in paragraph 5 is considered less
likely to be successful than alternative agents
and/or the need for interim particulate controls is
great.)
7. After the date the flue gas conditioning system is
required to be fully operational, (Source) shall
operate the flue gas conditioning system until
final compliance with particulate emission
regulations is achieved, or until EPA notifies
(Source) in writing, that conditioning is no longer
required. During this period, the flue gas
conditioning system shall be operated in the same
manner in which it was operated during the emission
tests, unless CPA gives written approval for
changes. EPA may require additional performance
tests that meet the requirements of paragraphs 3
and 4 before giving such approval.
8. After the date the flue gas conditioning system is
required to be fully operational, and until the
final particulate standards are achieved, (Source)
shall continuously monitor the opacity of the flue
gas from (Affected Facility). Each month, (Source)
shall report to EPA all periods exceeding eight
hours throughout which (Affected Facility) operated
and one of the following happened:
a) The monitor did not operate properly.
b) The opacity exceeded, by more than ten percent,
the average opacity measured during the emission
tests required by paragraph 3. (For example, if
the average opacity during the tests was twenty
percent, an opacity qreater than thirty percent
should be reported.)
113
6-12
-------
—6—
c) Any combination of a) and b) occurred. (For
example, if excess opacity occurred for three
hours, and the monitor was not operating but
the plant Continued to run for the next six
hours, this incident should be reported.)
9. (Source) shall repair the precipitator presently
installed on (Affected Facility) as follows:
a) All missing discharge electrodes shall be
installed.
b) All sections of the precipitator shall be made
operational.
c) All power supply units shall be made
operational.
These repairs shall be completed by (Date).
(Note: This paragraph is exemplary only. Items
should be added or deleted as appropriate.)
Tab A
Test Method For Acid Sulfates
6 -13
-------
PN 113-80-05-27-007
,tO
UNITED STATES ENViRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. 0 C 20460
MM 27 1980
MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF EP4FORCE .4ENT
SUBJECT: Delayed Compliance Orders Requiring SIP
Compliance Through Temporary Control
Measures——Amended Guidance
FROM: Deputy Assistant Administrator
for General Enforcement
TO: Enforcement Division Directors,
Regions I—X
As indicated by my memorandum of March 7, 1980, the memo—
randa dated September 15, 1978, and December 8, 1978 ( the 1978
memoranda), concerning delayed compliance orders ( DCO’s”),
have been withdrawn. This memorandum supersedes the 1978
memoranda.
The 1978 memoranda interpreted the provisions of Section
113(d) of the Clean Air Act as authorizing the approval of a
DCO under certain conditions notwithstanding that the order did
not require achievement of final compliance on the applicable
deadline (in most cases, July 1, 1979) through the eventual
means of control contemplated by the order. A source would
therefore have been allowed to meet the fiflal compliance
deadline either by ceasing its operations or by other temporary
means of compliance pending the subsecuent installation of
pollution controls or completion of process changes.
The Office of General Counsel has advised that an order
under Section 113(d) may be issued or approved only if the
order requires a demonstration of compliance by the applicable
DCO deadline through the use of the ultimate means of control.
Section 113(d)(l)(D) requires that an order provide for final
compliance by the applicable deadline. Thus, a DCO must
require a source to achieve and demonstrate compliance by the
deadline in Section l13(d)(l)(D) through the use of the control
measures set forth in the order’s timetable and schedule for
compliance. While Section 113(d) does not by its terms require
that compliance be achieved by the ultimate means of control,
only such a content given to the requirements of Section
1l3(d)(l)(D) gives meaning to the requirement of Nfinal
compliance. The word Mfinalu modifies the word NcomplianceJ
and limits the kinds cf compliance that satisfy the
requirements Of Section 113(d)(1).
The structure of Section 113(d) supports this inter—
pretation of final comp1iance in Section 113(d)(1)(D). Under
Section 113(d), the Agency and the States are authorized to
issue an order postponing source compliance with the applicable
-------
—2—
State Implementation Plan (SIP) only if the order meets the
conditions set forth in that Section. The conditions relate
generally to the achievement in fact of final compliance and
the reduction of emissions in the interim to the maximum extent
reasonable and practicable. Source compliance with the SIP may
be deferred only if, among other things, the order establishes
an enforceable schedule of actions leading to final compliance
(Sections 113(d)(1)(B), ].l3(d)(6), and 302(p)) as expeditiously
as practicable, but not beyond the applicable deadline (Section
113(d)(l)(D)). In addition, the order must require the source
to reduce emissions by the best practicable system in the
interim (Sections 113(d)(l)(C) and 113(d)(7)) and must require
the source to comply with SIP limitations, in so far as it is
able to do so, during the duration of the order (Section
113(d)(7)). Controlled deferral of achievement of air quality
goals by a date certain would be compromised by the issuance or
approval of an order which contemplates final compliance after
such date. This view of ufinal complianceu is also supported
by the absence within Section 113(d) of any mechanisms for
enforcing, within the four corners of the order, source
compliance with any increments of progress which might extend
beyond the applicable DCO deadline.
If you have any questions on this matter, contact Mark
Silvermintz in the Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
(FTS 755—2570).
cc: Michael James
Associate General Counsel
for Air, Noise, and Radiation
113
7 -2
-------
0
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 PN 113—82—05—04—013
t
MAY 41982
OFFICE OF
AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
SUBJECT: Guidance on Policy for Enforcement of VE Violations
Against Sources Which are Meeting an
Emission Standard
FROM: Kathleen M. Bennett
Assistant Administrat \ 5 4’Or Air, Noise and Radiation
TO: Regional Administrators, Regions I—X
The following guidance presents EPA policy for enforcement of
VE violations against sources which are meeting applicable mass
emission standards.
A Headquarters guidance memorandum issued on June 2, 1981
states that where a power plant is in violation of a visible
emission limit, but concurrently achieved the mass emission
requirements, a revision of the visible emission limit for that
source may be an appropriate regulatory response and this might
justify giving lower priority to enforcing the VE limit in the
interim while the limit is being revised. The June 2nd guidance
was initially written to address oil—fired power plants, but has
been expanded to include other stationary sources which are
subject to both mass emission and visible emission standards.
Regional response to that memo requested clarification concerning
what criteria should be used in determining when this guidance is
applicable. The policy presented below supersedes the previous
guidance issued on this subject.
Please note that this guidance is not intended to address
whether or not VE requirements are an independent, enforceable
part of a SIP. We believe they should be and, absent something in
the SIP to the contrary, we believe they are. In addition, we are
not suggesting enforcement action against VE violations be taken
only when accompanied by a fully documented mass violation.
Rather, there are circumstances as identified below where VE is
basically a surrogate for mass emissions and consequently it would
be a waste of scarce resources to proceed with a VE enforcement
action when we believe mass standards are being met.
113
13-1
-------
Most visible emission standards were developed as a practical
and economic means for determining whether emission control
equipment, necessary for a source to meet a mass emission limit,
is continuously maintained and properly operated. In instances
where no mass emission limit is applicable, such as fugitive
process emission sources, or where accurate emission testing is
nqt possible, visible emission standards are the vehicle for
directly regulating particulate emissions and are not subject to
the guidance provided in this memo.
It is our policy not to pursue visible emission violations
where we believe it is probable that the source is in compliance
with the mass standard. If a source has documented its compliance
with the mass standard, we should evaluate the case to determine
if there is reason to believe that there have been any changes in
operating conditions or in the performance of the control system
to suggest that the prior determination is not an accurate
representation of its current compliance status with respect to
the mass standard. If there have been no such changes, the policy
stated in this memorandum would be effective. If there have been
any significant changes, further action might be appropriate.
Only after these areas have been investigated should
consideration be given to revising the visible emission standard.
Of course, it will be necessary to consider the effect of any
relaxation of visible emission limits on attainment and
maintenance of the ambient standards where VE was relied upon in
the State’s control strategy evaluation. Where appropriate, this
option should be discussed with the State agency as an acceptable
means of resolving the violation. However, the State may have
reasons for not wanting to change the standard and it is
appropriately the State’s decision to make. In any case, under
this condition, pursuit of an enforcement action by EPA would not
normally be a justified use of resources.
If you have any questions or comments about this issue or
application of this policy, please feel free to call Richard
Wilson at 755—2977 or Edward Reich at 382—2807.
113
13-2
-------
,tV O 4
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON• D.C. 20460 PN 113-82-08-12-014
AUG t 2 9 AIR. NOISE RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance Concerning EPA’s Use of Continuous
Emission Monitoring Data
FROM: Kathleen M. Bennett _L 9
Assistant Adrninistr or for Air, Noise and Radiation
TO: Directors, Air and Waste Management Divisions,
Regions II—IV, VI—Vill, and X
Directors, Air Management Divisions, -
Regions I, V and IX
This memorandum addresses EPA’s use of Continuous Emission
Monitoring (CEM) data in enforcement of NSPS and SIP emission and
operating and maintenance (O&M) provisions and in other general EPA
activities. It provides guidance as to when, as a legal matter,
continuous emission monitoring constitutes the test method associated
with an emission limitation. It is not intended to preclude the
exercise of reasoned discretion by an enforcing agency based on a
review of the representativeness of the data and the circumstances
giving rise to the excess emissions.
Use of CEMs that are Specified as the Source Compliance Test Method
In each instance where CEMs have been promulgated or approved by
the Agency as an official method to determine source compliance with
the applicable emission limitations, the Agency can rely upon CEM data
when making compliance determinations. CEMs have been specifically
prescribed as the method to establish emission violations for one or
more poiJutants in the following instances:
o NSPS electric utility steam generating units,
regulated by 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Da;
o NSPS primary nonferrous smelters, regulated by
40 CFR Part 60 Subparts P, Q and R;
o NSPS stationary gas turbines, regulated by 40
CFR Part GO Subpart C-G;
° various sources regulated by permits, orders, or consent
decrees in which CEM has been specifically designated as
the test method;
113
ifl 1
-------
—2—
various tykes of sources which are regulated by SIPs
(e.g., Nevada SIP, 40 CFR §52.1475(d)) where the State
has specifi-ed CEM as the test method.
some sources object to EPA’s reliance upon CEM data to enforce SIP
emission provisions for source categories for which EPA has not
specified the use of CEMs in comparable NSPS regulations. Such an
objection is not legally supportable, since States have the right to
specify their own methods in their SIPS, even if they are different
from those imposed by EPA for NS?S sources. Section 1.0 of Appendix P
to 40 CFR Part 51 delineates that SIPS may specify that CEM data be
used “directly or indirectly for compliance deterniinations or any other
purpose deemed appropriate by the State.” The Agency can rely upon CEZI
data for compliance determinations whenever such methods are specified
in the EPA—approved SIP.
use of CEMs in SIPs where an Emission Compliance Test Method is Not
specified
There are some instances when SIPs do not specify a compliance
test method. When that Occurs, the applicable regulation, 40 CFR
S52.12(c)(1), states that for the purpose of Federal enforcement:
“sources subject to plan provisions which do not
specify a test procedure... will be tested by means
of the appropriate procedures and methods prescribed
in Part 60 of this chapter; unless otherwise specified
in this part.”
Generally, Part 60 does not specify CEM as the compliance test method
and therefore EPA cannot use CEM data to determine source compliance
with a SIP emission limitation. However, in accordance with
S52.12(c)(1), CEM data would be the applicable test method for the two
categories of sources for which it is the NSPS performance test method,
nonferrous smelters (as in Subparts P , Q and R); and stationary gas
turbines (as in Subpart GG).
The Agency shall rely upon CEM data to determine a source’s
compliance status with a SIP emission limit for smelters (for so 2 )
and for stationary gas turbines (for NOR). Since CEM is the only
compliance test method specified in Part 60 for these source
categories, CEM is clearly the “appropriate” method under Part 60 for
purposes of S52.12(c)(l).
In addition, there is some ambiguity regarding the appropriate
procedures for fossil—fuel—fired steam generators prescribed in Part 60
because Part 60 contains two significantly different types of SO 2 and
NOx performance test methods. Specifically, Subpart D specifies
113
14-2
-------
—3—
Reference (stack test) Methods 6 and 7 as the performance test methods
for SO and NO emissions, respectively. However, Subpart Da
specifies use of CEM data to determine compliance with the SO 2 and
NOx emission standards.
The Agency shall rely upon the performance test methods specified
in Subpart D (Reference Methods 6 and 7) to determine a source’s com-
pliance status with SIP SO 2 and NO emission limits for fossil—
fuel—fired steam generators. For this category of sources, it is more
consistent with the development of the SIPs to use these methods since
they are the traditional compliance test methods for this source
category. (For new sources actually subject to Subpart Da, we would
not expect this issue to arise since new source permits should specify
the applicable test method.)
Use of CEM’s where State Regulations Contain Discretionary Authority as
to Compliance Test Methods
A problem in interpreting the SIP continually arises because most
SIPs specify test methods (often adopting EPA methods by reference) but
also allow for discretionary acceptance of an “equivalent” or an
appropriate “alternative” by the State. Relying on such language, many
States have accepted CEM data as an adequate demonstration of com-
pliance and have used such data to determine the existence of a
violation.
Since EPA’s enforcement authority is guided by State regulations
specifically approved in the SIP, questions have been raised as to
whether EPA will independently apply State discretionary authority and
interpret what is reasonable as an “equivalent” or “alternative”
compliance test method, or, if not, whether EPA may follow the State’s
lead, if the State chooses to allow CEM as the test method.
The answer is that EPA will not independently exercise such
authority. Only when the State has exercised such authority to adopt
CEM as a test method and when the exercise of that authority has been
reflected in the SIP, will EPA use CEM as the test method.
Use of CEM Data for Determining Potential Operations and Maintenance
( O&M) Violations
NSPS regulations (40 CFR 60.11(d)) specify that “at all times,
including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, owpers and
operators shall, to the extent practicable, maintain and operate any
affected facility Thcluding assoclLted air pollution control equip’ flt
in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practice for
minimizing emissions. Determination of whether acceptable operating
and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information
113
14-3
-------
—4-.
available to the Administrator which may include, but is ot limited
to, monitoring results, opacity observations, review of operating and
maintenance procedures, and inspection of the source. Many SIP’S have
similar provisions requiring proper operation and maintenance. Use of
CEM data, while not necessarily conclusive, is a valid indicator of
compliance with requirements such as §60.11(d) and can be used as such.
Use of CEMs as a General Compliance Monitoring Tool
CEMs can provide the Agency with useful data for circumstances
other than those delineated above. For instance, CEM data can be used
to: C] .) screen a source’s compliance status (with both emission
limitations and O&M requirements); (2) select which sources should be
inspected or compliance (stack) tested; (3) document the severity
(e.g., duration, magnitude and frequency) of a source’s excess
emissions; and (4) document that a compliance test was performed during
“non—representative” operating conditions.
113
14-4
-------
PN 113—83—02—15017
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON, 0 C 20460
p o 1 t.c,
FEB 15 1983
OFFICE OF
AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown,
Maintenance, and Malfunctions
FROM: Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise and Radiation
TO: Regional Administrators, Regions I—X
I have been asked to clarify my memorandum of
September 28, 1982, concerning policy on excess emissions during
startup and shutdown.
Specifically, I stated that “startup and shutdown of
process equipment are part of the normal operation of a source
and should be accounted for in the design and implementation of
the operating procedure for the process and control equipment.
Accordingly, it is reasonable to expect that careful planning
will eliminate violations of emission limitations during such
periods.” I further stated that “ [ i]f excess emissions occur
during routine startup and shutdown of such equipment, they
will be considered as having resulted from a malfunction only
if the source can demonstrate that such emissions were actually
caused by a sudden and uritoreseeable breakdown in the equipment.”
A question has been posed as to whether there can be
situations in which it is unreasonable to expect that careful
planning can eliminate violations of emission limitations
during startup and shutdown. I believe that there can be such
s1 uations. One such situation, which was already mentioned
in the policy, is a malfunction occurring during these periods.
A malfunction during startup or shutdown is to be handled as
any other malfunction in accordance with the policy as
presently written.
Another situation is one in which careful and prudentplanning
and design will not totally eliminate infrequent short periods
of e> cesse during startup and shutdown. An example of this
situation would be a source that starts up or shuts down once or
twice a year and during that period there are a few hours when
the temperature of the effluent gas is too low to prevent harmful
fl3
7-1
-------
2
formation of chemicals which would cause severe damage to
control equipment -if the effluent were allowed to pass through
the control equiç nent.
Therefore, during this latter situation, if effluent gases
are bypassed which cause an emission limitation to he exceeded,
this excess need not be treated as a violation if the source
can show that the excesses could not have been prevented through
careful and prudent planning and design and that bypassing was
unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal. injury, or severe
property damage.
I have clarified the policy concerning this issue. A copy
is attached.
At tachment
113
17-2
-------
At tachment
POLIC ON EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STARTUP, SHUTDOWN,
MAINTENANCE, AND MALFUNCTIONS
Introduction
Several of the existing State implementation plans (SIPs)
provide for an automatic emission limitation exemption during
periods of excess emission due to startup, shutdown, maintenance,
or malfunction.* Generally, EPA agrees that the imposition of
a penalty for sudden and unavoidable malfunctions caused by
circumstances entirely beyond the control of the owner and/or
operator is not appropriate. However, any activity which can
be foreseen and avoided, or planned is not within the definition
of a sudden and unavoidable breakdown. Since the SIPs must
provide for attainment and maintenance of the national amb ient
air quality standards, SIP provisions on malfunctions must be
narrowly drawn. SIPs may, of course, omit any provisions on
malfunctions. [ For more specific guidance on malfunction
provisions for RACT SIPs, see the April 1978 workshop manual
for preparing nonattainment plans].
I. EXCESS EMISSION FROM MALFUNCTIONS
A. AUTOMATIC EXEMPTION APPROACH
If a SIP contains a malfunction provision, it cannot be
the type that provides for automatic exemption where a malfunction
is alleged by a source. Automatic exemptions might aggravate
air quality so as not to provide for attainment of the ambient
air quality standards. Additional grounds for disapproving a
SIP that includes the automatic exemption approach are discussed
in more detail at 42 FR 58171 (November 8, 1977) and 42 FR
21372 (April 27, 1977). As a result, EPA cannot approve any
SIP revisions that provides automatic exemptions for malfunctions.
The term “excess emission” means an air emission rate which
exceeds any applicable emission limitation, and “malfunction”
means a sudden and unavoidable breakdown of process or
control equipment.
113
17-3
-------
2
B. ENFORGEIENT DISCRETION APPROACH——SIP EMISSION
LIMITATION ADEQUATE TO ATTAIN AMBIENT STANDARDS
I .
EPA can approve SIP revisions which incorporate the
“enforcement discretion approach”. Such an approach can require
the source to demonstrate to the appropriate State agency that
the excess emissions, though constituting a violation, were due
to an unavoidable malfunction. Any malfunction provision must
provide for the comntencement of a proceeding to notify the
source of its violation and to determine whether enforcement
action should be undertaken for any period of excess emissions.
In determining whether an enforcement action is appropriate,
satisfaction of the following criteria should be considered.
1. To the maximum extent practicable the air pollution
control equipment, process equipment, or processes were maintained
and operated in a manner consistent with good practice for
minimizing emissions;
2. Repairs were made in an expeditious fashion when the
operator knew or should have known that applicable emission
limitations were being exceeded. Off—shift labor and overtime
must have been utilized, to the extent practicable, to ensure
that such repairs were made as expeditiously as practicable;
3. The amount and duration of the excess emissions
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent
practicable during periods of such emissions;
4. All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact
of the excess emissions on ambient air quality; and
5. The excess emissions are not part of a recurring
pattern indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance.
II. EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, AND
MAINTENANCE
Any activity or event which can be foreseen and avoided,
or planned, falls outside of the definition of sudden and
unavoidable breakdown of equipment. For example, a sudden
breakdown which could have been avoided by better operation and
maintenance practice is not a malfunction. In such cases, the
control agency must enforce for violations of the emission
limitation. Other such common events are startup and shutdown
of equipment, and scheduled maintenance.
113
17-4
-------
3
Startup nd shutdown of process equipment are part of the
normal operation of a source and should be accounted for in the
planning, des .gn and implementation of operating procedures for
the process and control equipment. Accordingly, it is reasonable
to expect that careful and prudent planning and design will
eliminate violations of emission limitations during such periods.
However, for a few sources there may exist infrequent short
periods of excess emissions during startup and shutdown which
cannot be avoided. Excess emissions during these infrequent
short periods need not be treated as violations providing that
the source adequately shows that the excess could not have been
prevented through careful planning and design and that bypassing
of control equipment was unavoidable to prevent loss of life,
personal injury, or severe property damage.
If excess emissions occur during routine startup and
shutdown due to a malfunction, then those instances will be
treated as other malfunctions which are subject to the malfunction
provisions of this policy. (Reference Part I above).
Similarly, scheduled maintenance is a predictable event
which can be scheduled at the discretion of the operator, and
which can, therefore, be made to coincide with maintenance on
production equipment, or other source shutdowns. Consequently,
excess emissions during periods of scheduled maintenance should
be treated as a violation unless a source can demonstrate that
such emissions could have been avoided through better scheduling
for maintenance or through better operation and maintenance
practices.
113
17-5
-------
PN 113-83-01-12-018
f UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
____ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
‘L
1 C) I — ‘
i ii-J i 8j
ME MORAN DlJpl
SUBJECT: Guidance on Implementation of the 1982 Deadline
Enforcement Policy Issued September 20, 1982
FROM: Robert M. Perry .
Associate Administrator of
and General Counsel
‘iLL I cTh,, /‘
Kathleen M. Bennett J\ 1 —/1i é.4Q11
Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise and Radiation
TO: Regional Admini¼strators
Regions I—X
Regional Counsels
Regions I—X
This memorandum provides supplemental guidance on the
interpretation and application of the enforcement policy sent by
the Administrator to the Regional Administrators on September 20,
1982. That policy established criteria for determining the type
of relief the Agency should seek in taking enforcement action
against sources in primary non—attainment areas which will not be
in compliance by December 31, 1982. RegIonal staff have asked us
to clarify certain elements of the policy to assure consistency in
its implementation.
Requirements for Limited Life Facilities
The policy indicates on page 4 that if a company intends to
comply by shutdown, then the source must be closed by December 31,
1982, as required by the Limited Life Facilities Policy. This
statement applies only if the company is not building a replacement
facility. If the company is replacing the existing unit and commits
to commencing and completing construction of the new facility as
expeditiously as practicable, then the company may continue to
operate the old unit until the scheduled date for starting operation
of the new unit, provided the other criteria in the September 20
policy are satisfied. In implementing this approach the Region
will need to consider the effect of any sanctions which may be in
place In the area. The schedule for shutting down the existing
unit generally should not exceed an expeditious schedule for con-
trolling that same unit. Additionally, the company must commit to
113
18—1
-------
—2—
appropriate interim operation and maintenance provisions designed
to minimize emissions from the existing unit. The schedule for
construction oLthe replacement facility should include increments
o progress and kipulated penalties sufficient to provide a clear
incentive to meet those increments. A surety bond would also be
required, to be f_orfeited if the old facility does not permanently
cease operation by the specified date.
For purposes of the Limited Life Facilities Policy, a
“replacement facility” can include an existing unit which is
currently shut down if the company is proceeding with an expedi-
tious schedule to install controls and bring it back on line in
compliance. In such an instance, units currently in use may remain
in operation until the scheduled date for resuming operation of
the units currently shut down, subject to the same conditions
enumerated above.
The Limited Life Facilities Policy is currently under review
by the Office of Legal and Enforcement Policy, and further guidance
may be forthcoming.
Compliance with R.ACT if Part D Plan is Not in Force
The policy states on page 3 that if no Part D plan is in force,
the source must commit to comply with requirements of Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT). The judgment order should
indicate that R.ACT limitations acceptable to EPA remain in effect
and that the court retains jurisdiction to enforce this provision
until such time as a Part D plan satisfying the requirements of
Section 172 is approved by EPA and becomes effective.
Significant Cash Penalty
Page 4 of the policy indicates that a court order allowing a
source to operate out of compliance beyond December 31, 1982 must
require payment of a significant civil penalty, including a
“substantial 0 cash component. While credits are still considered
an option, they must be clearly justified under the terms of the
Civil Penalty Policy. In all cases at least one third of the
penalty settlement amount should be in cash.
A new civil penalty policy is currently being developed by the
Office of Legal and Enforcement Policy. The existing Civil Penalty
Policy remains in effect until a new policy Is issued.
Filing a Federal Action Where State Action Is Inadequat
The September 20, 1982 memorandum recognizes that states heve
primary responsibility for enforcement of the Clean Air Act but
clearly indicates that Federal enforcement will be inititated where
states are not adequately addressing a violation. The principles
113
18—2
-------
—3—
set forth in that memorandum are to be used to evaluate the adequacy
of the state action. While we do not expect states to track the
policy in every detail, the state’s action should be consistent
with the th shold criteria set forth in the September 20 policy
for determiring whether a source should be allowed to remain in
operation be jond December 31, 1982. For sources for which an
extended compliance deadline is justified, a state judicial order
or administrative order other than a delayed compliance order
must, at a minimum, include the following key elements to justify
EPA deferral:
1) The source commits to an expeditious schedule to come into
compliance with the applicable State Implementation Plan (or PACT,
if no Part D plan is in force).
2) The compliance schedule contains enforceable increments of
progress.
3) The order includes reporting requirements, including
reporting to the state and, if a judicial order, to the court, of
completion of each increment.
4) The order treats limited life facilities consistent with
this guidance.
5) The order requires payment of a significant cash penalty.
A state does not necessarily have to assess a penalty which would
suffice as a settlement figure for a Federal action under the
Civil Penalty Policy. However, some penalty must be included, and
it must be reasonable in light of the statutory criteria set forth
in Section 113(b) of the Clean Air Act. If a state order is adequate
in all respects except the amount of penalties, the Region should
consider a Federal penalties action under Section 113(b) or 120.
We do not think it is practical to set rigid deadlines for
state resolution of a violation under this policy. However, each
Region should document the terms of deferral in every instance,
confirm them with the States, and promptly initiate Federal enforce-
ment action if those terms are not met. The terms of deferral
should require that the state expeditiously resolve each violation.
For any source which has been continuously in violation for a long
time and where the state has already failed to take timely enforce-
ment action, EPA should prepare to file an action quickly. We
expect to see a significant portion of the sources subject to the
policy in every Region either in compliance, on an acceptable
compliance schedule or subject to enforcement action within the
first six months of 1983.
113
18—3
-------
—4—
Issuance of Notices of Violation by EPA
In light of-the need to bring sources subject to the policy
into compliance ds expeditiously as practicable, each Pegion should
begin issuing Not .ces of Violation to these sources as quickly as
possible. This practice should be followed even if the state is
proceeding with an enforcement action against the source , so that
EPA will be in a position to initiate its own enforcement action
in the event the Agency determines that the state action is
inadequate. (Attached is a sample paragraph which may be used in
an NOV when a state action is proceeding.) Issuance of NOV’S
should be postponed only if a SIP revision has been submitted to
EPA which would place the source In compliance and which, based on
preliminary review, appears to be approvah].e. If the state completes
enforcement action which conforms to the terms of the policy and
this guidance, EPA should notify the source and the state that it
views the state action as a satisfactory resolution of the violation.
A Federal NOV should be formally withdrawn only if EPA subsequently
determines that there Is no factual basis for it.
Implementation guidance issued by the Office of Air, Noise
and Radiation on September 20, 1982 advised the Regions to consult
with states to identify the lead enforcement agency for each source
subject tO the policy. This effort should continue in addition to
the Federal issuance of NOV’S to all such sources.
Facilities Subject to the Policy
The policy applies to all sources located in areas which are
designated primary non—attainment for one or more pollutants for
which the emission limitations are being violated (unless subject
to an attainment date later than December 31, 1982). If Federal
judicial action is taken against any such source, it must be
consistent with the policy.
The policy does not apply to any source which is issued a
delayed compliance order under Section 113(d) of the Act by EPA,
or by a State provided that the order meets the statutory criteria
and is submitted to and approved by EPA.
Updating Lists of Sources Subject tO the Policy
We request that each Region update its list of sources subject
to the policy and submit the updated list to Ed Reich, Director,
Stationary Source Compliance Division, by January 31, 1983. This
list should be comparable in format to the previous submissions,
and it should include all Class A sources (including A—2 sources)
which are in noncompliance as of December 31, 1982 and subject tO
the policy. We will use this list to monitor the initial implemen-
tation of the policy. While we recognize that the universe of
113
18—4
-------
—5—
sources subject to the policy will continue to change, we do not
plan to ask for further updating of this list. After the initial
phase of implementation, we will monitor the effectiveness of the
program €t rough the reporting on “significant violators” currently
required by the Management Accountability System.
Add itional Guidance
Requests for additional guidance should be directed to Elliott
Gilberg (382—2864) or Michael Alushin (382—2820) of the Office of
Enforcement Counsel, Air Division, or Ed Reich of the Stationary
Source Compliance Division (382—2807).
Attachment
cc: Carol E. Dinkins
Assistant Attorney General
Land and Natural Resources Division
Department of Justice
Stephen D. Ramsey, Chief
Environmental Enforcement Section
Department of Justice
Directors, Air & Waste Management Divisions
Regions II—IV, VI—Vill, and X
Directors, Air Management Divisions
Regions I, V, and IX
113
18—5
-------
Sample Language for Notices of Violation
Since the ______________ facility is located in a primary non—
attainment area for (pollutant) and will not be in compliance by
the statutory attainment deadline of December 31, 1982, EPA will
closely monitor the state’s efforts to bring the source into compli-
ance in accordance with the enforcement policy issued by the EPA
Administrator on September 20, 1982 (attached). Under that policy.
if a state or local air pollution control agency proceeds with
satisfactory enforcement action, EPA will defer Federal enforcement
action so long as the source meets the terms of the state order and
achieves compliance with the applicable regulation. This notice
is issued under Section 113(a)(l) of the Act so that if Federal
enforcement action becomes necessary, EPA may promptly issue an
order requiring compliance with the applicable provisions listed
above or commence a civil action pursuant to Section 113(b) of the
Act.
113
18—6
-------
PN 113-83—04-12-019
COPY
Apri 1 12, 1983
Mr. Robert R. Wahier, President
WAHLCO, Inc.
3600 West Segerstrom Avenue
Santa Ana, California 92704
Dear Mr. Wahler:
Your letter of February 22, 1983 to the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency has been referred to me for a response. In your letter
you requested that EPA review its policy of March 1980, entitled “Enforcèinent
Policy on Interim Particulate Controls.” This policy discusses the use of
flue gas conditioning (FGC) as one means for short term reduction of particulate
emissions from non-complying coal burning power plants and industrial boilers.
You have requested that the last paragraph at the bottom of page 4 of the
policy statement be deleted becuase it is confusing and has been interpreted
by many potential users of FGC as a prohibition against voluntary use of FGC
for compliance with emission regulations.
I was surprised to learn that there remains any confusion concerning
the intent of this policy. As you know, the agency did receive a number
of inquiries concerning voluntary use of flue gas conditioning from EGG
vendors (including WAHLCO representatives) and industry n the first year
after the policy was distributed. We outlined our position that the policy
in no way precluded use of FCC as a permanent control method but that we could
not endorse, as a policy matter, use of FCC except where the conditioning
agents have been shown to be nontoxic. We have not been contacted about
this matter in recent years.
Let me emphasize the policy has application under very limited
circumstances. It applies where a source is out of compliance and there is
the potential for use of FCC to provide sign ficant particulate reductions
during the period prior to that source installing permanent controls. The
policy was intended to encourage greater consideration of FCC as a required
interim control in administrative or court orders. However, even in this
context, a careful analysis of the possibility of increased acid sulfate
emissions and of possible toxic emiss ons was recommended. As the guidance
indicates, when a coal fired power plant or industrial boi ler s ordered to
comply with particulate emissions, FCC should be considered as a means of
interim control provided a number of conditions are met:
1. conditioning is likely to be effective
2. acid sulfate emissions will not increase significantly
113
19—].
-------
2
3. an approved conditioning agent is used
4. the inte irn period has a reasonable duration
5. the costs: are reasonable
6. the precipitator is in good repair.
These conditions form the basis for assuring a net environmental benefit will
result from the use of EGG on an interim basis.
The policy does not constrain sources from voluntarily using FGC as a
permanent control but merely makes clear that EPA does not endorse FGC use
without a case by case analysis of the particular conditioning agent to be
used. We continue to believe this is the prudent course of action.
Should any parties that you are in contact with have difficulty
understanding the FGC guidance, please feel free to refer them to my staff
for further explanation. Please contact Mark S. Siegler at 202-382—2835
if further explanation or assistance is needed.
Sincerely yours,
Kathleen M. Bennett
Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise and Radiation
bcc: Ed Reich
John Busik
Mark Siegler
Mark Antell
Mike Alushin, OLEC
George Rey, ORD
113
19—2
-------
PN 113-83-04-26-020
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
- , /
28 APR 1983
OFFICE OF
AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Procedures for Review and Federal Register
Publication of Delayed Compliance Orders Under
Section 113(d) of the Clean Air Act
FROM: Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant Administra
for Air, Noise and Radiation
Courtney M. Price
Acting Associate Administrator
and General Counsel
TO: Regional Administrators, Regions I—X
Regional Counsels, Regions I—X
Uncertainty exists with respect to who in the Regional
Offices and at Headquarters must review and concur in delayed
compliance orders (DCOs), both those issued by EPA and those
issued by the States. Questions have also arisen on what must
be contained in a DCO rulemaking package, the appropriate
number of copies, and to whom they should be mailed at
Headquarters. To resolve these uncertainties, this memorandum
establishes procedures to be followed by all Regional Offices
when reviewing DCOs and submitting them to Headquarters for
Federal Register publication.
Proposed DCOs
DCOs proposed to be issued by EPA under Section 113(d)(l)
of the Clean Air Act do not require Headquarters concurrence
(Attachment 1). The proposed DCO rulemaking package should
be sent directly from the EPA Regional Office to the Federal
Register Officer at Headquarters (PM—223) for printing in
the Federal Register . The March 10, 1978 memorandum
(Attachment 2) describes the requirements for proposal regarding
the number of copies, certifications, and content. The only
additional requir rnen: s to i cl e a ccrpleted int ng
request form #2340—15 with the package. (Also included as
Attachment 3 is a July 27, 1978 memorandum on substantive
requirements of DCO’s that remains generally applicable).
ji
113
20—I
-------
—2—
Similarly, a ,1 DCOs issued by States to major stationary
sources under Section 113(d) (1) should be reviewed, as required
by Section 113(d) €2), by Regional Air Program Divisions and
Regional Counsel’s-Offices to assure that these orders meet
the statutory requirements under the Clean Air Act. If a Regional
Office wishes to approve a State—issued Section 113(d)(l) DCO,
Headquarters concurrence in the proposal is not required. If the
Region is recommending disapproval, the advice of the Associate
General Counsel for Air, Noise and Radiation should be sought.
As with EPA—issued DCOs, the DCO rulemaking package should be
sent directly from the EPA Regional Office to the Federal
Register Officer at Headquarters for printing.
As discussed in Kathleen Bennett’s memorandum of
July 20, 1982 to all Regional Air Directors, all proposed
innovative technology DCOs under Section l13(d)(4) and coal
conversion orders under Section 1l3(d)(5) remain subject to
Stationary Source Compliance Division (SSCD) review for
national consistency prior to publication. These orders
should be sent to the Director, SSCD (EN—341). SSCD will transmit
the approved DCO packages to the Federal Register Officer for
publication.
Final DCOs
The review of final DCOs will follow the same pattern as
that followed for proposed DCOs. Since they require the
Administrator’s signature, the Federal Register Officer will
be responsible for forwarding the package to the Administrator’s
Office. Once signed, the Administrator’s Office will transmit
the package back to the Federal Register Officer to assure
publication. For those DCOs that require Headquarters office
concurrence, the reviewing office will be responsible for
working with the Federal Register Officer to obtain the
Administrator’s signature.
Questions of National Significance
This memorandum describes the general mechanism for
processing DCOs. It does not alter the responsibility of
Regional Offices to identify significant policy or legal issues
posed by any DCO and to seek the advice of SSCD or the Associate
General Counsel for Air, Noise and Radiation with respect to such
issues. In cases of doubt as to whether a DCO poses such an
issue, the views of these offices should be sought.
113
20—2
-------
—3—
Should you have any questions on this memorandum, please
call Ed Re Ch at 382—2807.
Attachments.
cc: Air and Waste Management Division Directors
Regions tI—Iv, VI—Vill and X
Air Management Division Directors
Regional I, V, and IX
NOTE: (Attachment 1) memo dated August 7, 1978 from Ed Reich to R giona1
Enforcement Directors and (Attachment 2) memo dated March 10, 1978
from Richard Wilson to Regional Enforcement Directors not included
since they are basically procedural. (Attachment 3) not included
since it is already in Notebook (PN113-78-07-2 -005)..
7
113
20—3
-------
Section 114: Inspections, Monitoring,
and Entry
-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 114
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 114
* PN114—77—12—02—OO1A
GUIDANCE FOR SECTION 114(D) OF THE CAA
* PN114—81—05—13—002
REGIONAL OFFICE CRITERIA FOR NEUTRAL INSPECTIONS OF STATIONARY SOURCES
- AMENDED GUIDANCE
* PN114—83—12—15—003
EXECUTION OF CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS UNDER SECTION 114 OF THE CLEAN
AIR ACT
* PN114—84—09—06—004
FINAL GUIDANCE ON USE OF UNANNOUNCED INSPECTIONS /
-------
?‘ flL! 3l O 3.c4,...cot.f
-
t: \I —rI:I) s• ir i:\\ IUO\\IL\ r i. i’t: i L(:i U \ \(.I.\(.
_ .u( : -II \;Iu\, Ii L. . uI6ii
4,

SEP —6 l98
o,,Ic OF
AJI A’SD P.&OI t,O%
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Final Guidance on Use o Unannounced Inspections
FROM: Director
Stationary Source Compliance Dlvislon
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: Air and Waste Management Division Directors
Regions II, IV , VI—Vill and X
Air Management Division . ‘rectors
Regions I, III, V, and IX
This memorandum presents final guidance on the use of
unannounced inspections by EPA as a component of Regional
inspection programs. Comments In response to the draft guid-
ance issued on uly 17, 1984 were received from six Regions
and one State agency. Because all respondants generally
supported the proposed guidance, changes to it were minimal.
Those changes and comments are discussed below.
One Region felt that the tone ot the guidance was too
strong in encouraging the use of unannounced inspections,
that under the policy EPA is somehow required not to announce
most of its inspections,’ and that the policy might ‘create
unnecessary concern over what fraction of each Region’s
inspections is unannounced.’ Our strong support for use of
unannounced inspections as a component of an overall inspec-
tion program, which comes through in this guidance, is based
on the belief that they are more representative of normal
operating conditions. While we recognize the concerns asso-
ciated with use of such inspections, several Regions perform
a high percentage of unannounced inspections without adverse
impact on resources or EPA/State relations. However, although
this guidance does encourage the use of unannounced inspections,
no fractional or percentage requirements were established or
implied7 this judgment should be made by the Region in light
of the nature of the inspections to be performed and the
sources in the Region. We would expect to see some program
in ‘all Regions, however.
-------
2
Another Region expressed a concern for program imple-
mentation: We would like to emphasize the need for maxiinwn
flexibility and control to be retained by the Regional Office
staff in setting up and conducting unannounced or announced
inspections.’ We believe this guidance offers a great deal of
Regional discretion in implementation of a nationally—consistent
inspection program using unannounced and announced inspections.
While the guidance offers direction and options, it also defers
to Regional experience: As the guidance specifically notes
‘Regional Offices are free to vary the procedures used if they
believe an alternative approach would be preterable.
One Region expressed concern that an inspection policy
utilizing unannounced inspections could ‘damage the working
relationships of inspectors and the company officials, and
that some companies will shut down or refuse entry in light
of what they perceive is a change in agency attitude.’
While these concerns are real, Regional experience has
shown that they can be minimized such that they are not an
impediment to performing unannour.: . . inspections. Most sources
accept unannounced inspections and consider them little more
than an inconvenience once they re . ize that EPA has the legal
right to perform them, and will do so when appropriate.
Experience indicates that companies which refuse entry to EPA
inspectors are few, and that entry is usually just delayed
until the company discusses the matter with Regional Counsel.
Finally, one Region requested clarification on whether the
definition of an announced inspection included such activities
as stack tests, CEM audits, and PSTs. We believe the definition
of an announced inspection would include these types of site
visits, however, Regions are free t assess these activities
for announcement purposes on a case—by—case basis if that has
been their previous practice.
ç
Edward E. Reich
Attachment
cc: Air Program Branch Chiefs, Region I—X
Air Compliance Branch Chiefs, Regions II, II!, V 1 VII, IX
-------
Gu danceOnEPA Use of Unannounced Inspections For
Stationary Sources of Air Pollution
The inspection is the primary compliance assurance method
presently available in the air program for validating source
performance. As such, the issue has been raised concerning
whether or not inspections should be announced to the source
in advance of the actual visit. -To assist in responding to
this issue, the Stationary Source Compliance Division (SSCD)
surveyed (through correspondence dated 3anuary 18, 1984) EPA
Regional Office practices and experience in performing both
announced and unannounced inspections. Based on the information
compiled through this survey, SSCD recommends that all Regional
inspection programs incorporate unannounced inspections as part
of their overall inspection approach. The use of this inspec-
tion type has value in obtaining data which are more represen-
tative of normal source operating conditions and can encourage
continuous source compliance. Possible obstacles to the u e of
this type of inspection identifiedby some Regions have t. ’
successfully addressed by the Regional Offices which effectively
carry out an unannounced inspection program and are therefore
no overall bar to its use.
The SSCD survey conducted earlier this year received nine
Regional responses. From these responses several observations
were made. Usage of unannounced inspections is highly variable
among Regions: several Regions perform them in the majority of
situations while others only perform them under very limited
circumstances or not at all. The most commonly cited positive
aspect of performing unannounced inspection is the opportunity
to observe the source under normal operating conditions, since
the source does not have time to prepare for the inspection.
Other positive aspects-mentioned are:
• Detection of surreptitious violations;
• Detection of visible emissions and 0&M type
problems and violation;
• Creation of an increased level of attention by
a-source to its compliance status, and
• Projection of more serious attitude toward
surveillance by the Agency.
One Region found the ‘in violation’ rate in one State in 1982
to be three times higher at sources where inspections were
unannounced versus announced.
-------
2
Some of the potential negative aspects of performing
unannounced inspections were reiterated by several Regions:
• The source may not be operating, or key plant
personnel are not available; and
• There may be an adverse impact on Regional
resources or EPA/State relations.
However, as previously noted, these concerns have been addressed
and were successfully resolved by Regions which make fuller use
of unannounced inspections. Therefore, it was felt the cited
drawbacks were more anticipated than real and could be overcome.
The conclusion drawn from this survey is that all Regions
can and should perform unannounced LnspectLor. when appropriate
as a component of their inspection programs, The following
guidance addresses the issue of when announced or unannounc- d
inspections are more appropriate, and provides procedures ed
on Regional experience which facilitate the incorporation of
unannounced inspections into Regional inspection programs.
Regional Offices are, however, free to vary the procedures used
if they believe an alternative approach would be preferable.
Definition Of An Announced And An Unannounced Inspection
For the purpose of this guidance, an announced inspection
shall mean an onsite visit where the source to be inspected is
given advanced notification by the control agency of the specific
date of the inspection such that enough time would elapse to
permit significant source operating modifications prior to the
site visit.
An unannounced inspection shall mean an onsite visit where
the control agency provides no prior notification of the actual
date of the inspection to the source, or where notice is given
shortly before the inspection such that the representativeness of
the source operation is not likely to be affected.
Advanced notification of both announced and unannounced
inspection dates shall be provided to the State or local control
agency. In this regard, please note the requirements of
Section 114(d) of the Clean Air Act relative to notice to States.
-------
3
Announced. Inspections
EPA is not required by federal regulation to announce the
date of an impending inspection to the source. Therefore,
announced inspections should be performed by EPA and its’
representatives when some specific purpose is served by
providing such notice. Situations where announced inspections
would be appropriate are:
• When specific information is being sought which must
be prepared by the source, or where the source must
make significant accommodations for the inspector to
gather the information;
• When the assistance of specific plant personnel is
necessary for the Successful performance of the
inspection, i.e., the information they provide can not
be obtained from other on—duty plant personnel or by a
follow—up information request;
• When inspecting government facilities or sources
operating under government contract where entry is
restricted due to classified operations; and
• When inspecting un—manned or extremely remote
sources.
Questionable operating status of a source or process
generally does not preclude utilizing an unannounced inspection.
When daily operating status is questionable, the inspector may
confirm it with the source just prior to leaving for the inspec-
tion. The inspector may also wish to consult with the State or
local agency to obtain any current information they may have
about the source’s operational status.
Unannounced Inspections
Unannounced inspections will provide the most representative
picture of normal source operation and practices. They should
be performed whenever there is no reason for announcing the
inspection to the source as described previously.
As an alternative to arriving at the source totally
unannounced, if in the inspector’s judgment the representative
ness of the source operation would not be altered and the
success of the inspection would be improved by contacting the
-------
4
source shortly before the scheduled inspection time, this may
also be considered unannounced. If this latter method is
used, the amount of advanced notice given the source should be
noted in the inspection report.
Inspection Announcement Responsibility
When EPA accompanies a State or local agency in conducting
an inspection, or where EPA is requested by a State to assist
in compliance monitoring and enforcement at a source, the
decision regarding inspection announcement should defer to the
preference of the State or local agency. When the State or
local agency accompanies EPA on an EPA—initiated inspection,
inspection announcement shall be the responsibility of EPA and
the State or local agency should be so informed.
Inspection Announcement Protocol
The decision on inspection announcement to the source
and the name of the responsible individual should be noted in
the inspection report. The State or local agency should be
given a minimum of five working days notice in advance of an
inspection, whether it is announced to the source or not. An
exception to this minimum time period would be when the inspec-
tion is scheduled in response to an emergency situation which
does not allow such advanced notice. In cases where EPA has a
reasonable basis for believing the State or local agency will
notify the source of the inspection, no notification is required.
If the source is to be given advance notice of an inspection
date, it should be afforded a minimum of five working days notice,
but no greater than that given the State or local agency. This
latter point will assure that the State or local agency is always
notified before notice is given to the source.
When announcing an inspection to the source, advanced notice
may be given by telephone or in writing. Instances where
written notification (instead of oral) is appropriate are:
• When requested by the State/local agency or by
the source;
• When extensive or specific records are being sought,
• When the inspection is to be performed solely by an
EPA contractor;
• When inspecting government facilities with classified
operations or otherwise restricted entry; and
• Special—purpose inspections, e.g., to establish
conditions for a source—specific SIP revision.
-------
5
If notice is given orally, the date of the telephone
call and the person contacted should be noted in the inspection
report. A copy of any written notification should be attached
to the inspection report.
Unannounced Inspection Implementation
State and local agencies should be notified by EPA that
unannounced inspections are a component of EPA source inspection
programs, and that they will be performed.
A pre—inspect ion review of all pertinent sources of infor-
mation on the source should be made (or intensified) to avoid
any preventable inconvenience to the source as a result of the
inspection. This should include contact with the State or local
agency to obtain any additional information which they may have.
S urces may be contacted as necessary, and notified that
an unari.; unced inspection will be performed during a specified
time period (e.g. , quarter or fiscal year) and that they should
notify EPA if key plant personnel or processes will be unavailable
for known extended periods. Portable sources, such as asphalt
concrete plants, may be required, pursuant to Section 114 to
report their scheduled location(s) on a monthly or quarterly
basis, if questionable source location is an impediment to
performing unannounced inspections.
-------
PN 114-77-12-02-OO1A
IrA
____ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
/ WASHINGTON. 0 C 20460
I( p 0 Ø t
OF ’2 -
OFFiCE OF ENFORCEMENT
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance for Section 114(d) of the C.kA
FROM: Director, Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Enforcement Division Directors, Regions I—X
Surveillance and Analysis Division Directors,
Regions I—X
Air and Hazardous Materials Division Directors,
Regions I, III—X
Facilities Technology Division Director, Region II
Attached is the final guidance package on Section 114(d)
of the CAA. This guidance incorporates comments solicited
by DSSE in my September 9 memorandum. It should be remembered
that this guideline only covers the provision for notifying
the States pursuant to the requirement. Even though most
regions are currently practicing some form of this guideline,
it should be implemented immediately.
Guidance on suspension of such notification should EPA
believe that the State agency is informing the subject
facilities is forthcoming. Any occurrences of this nature
should be brought to the attention of the DSSE technical
advisor for your region.
Attached under separate cover are the regional continents
on the interim guidance and DSSE’s response. I would like
to thank all those participating for their comments.
Edward E. Reich
cc: Richard Wilson
Walt Barber
Richard Rhoads
Donald Goodwin
114
1 A-i
-------
Guidance on the Use of Section 114(d):
Notice to the State in Case of Certain Inspections.
Introduction
The purpose of this guideline is to provide general
policy on implementing the requirements of Sec. 114(d) for
enforcement purposes. This guideline only covers the pro-
visions of notification to the State agency of an EPA entry,
inspection or monitoring. Future guidance will be provided
for suspension of this notice should EPA believe that the
State agency is informing subject facilities.
This guideline should be used in conjunction with S.12
Genera]. Policy on the Use of Section 114 Authority for
Enforcement Purposes u
Requirements of S114(d )
New subsection 114(d) adds an additional requirement t o
the process of carrying out Section 114(a)(2) of the CAA.
Section 114(a)(2) establishes right of entry for certain
purposes arid the right of the Administrator to sample emissions. —
Section 114(d) prOvides that the Administrator (or his
representatives*) shall provide the State air pollution
control agency with reasonable prior notice” before carrying
out Section ll4(a)(2). It also requires EPA to indicate
the purpose of the activity.
Implementation
The Regional office should first establish contact with
the directors of State agencies to formulate a mutually
agreed upon procedure for implementation of this new
requirement. This procedure should include:
Name of person(s) to be notified
Means of notification (telephone or written)
Lead time prior to any EPA field investigation
(reasonable prior notice)
Policy of notifying the state of unscheduled inspections
Extent of the stated purpose of the visit
*The term representativesa includes specific regional office
and headquarters personnel and contractors with credentials
under EPA contract.
114
1 A-2
-------
In establishing these procedures with the State agencies
it is suggested that the following guidance be implemented.
Reasonable prior notice is interpreted as an official
notification to the State agency that EPA is planning to
conduct a surveillance action at a source and the purpose of
that activity. It is recommended that all notifications be
made within the 30 day period prior to the field activity;
with 48 hours being the minimum notifkcation period under
normal circumstances. This is to provide sufficient travel
time for EPA personnel and State personnel should the state
choose to attend. An exception to the 48 hour notice would
be a Section 303 situation where an emergency requires
immediate attention. In such cases, the State agency should
immediately be informed by phone that an action is needed.
In cases where the region practices the policy of notifying
states of inspections 2—3 months in advance with a request that
they be contacted if state personnel wish to accompany them, a
confirmation of only those state accompanied inspections should
be made. A phone call a few days before the inspection is
sufficient. An effort should also be made to minimize
changes in this advanced notification schedule.
The means of notifying the States can be in the form of
written or oral communication. A record of all written or
oral notifications should be kept. This should include a
record of unscheduled inspections and Section 303 actions.
The record of the written or oral notification should consist
of:
(1) name and location of subject facility
(2) date and approximate time of the activity
(3) Regional office contact (phone number, etc.)
(4) reason for the visit
(5) name of State person contacted
(6) date and time of notification
Each office should have a central file containing records
of all notifications should a request for a list of all
notifications be made. It is not necessary for the State
to approve the inspection before EPA proceeds.
As stated in the amendments, all sources covered by art
approved SIP or those under a State 113(d) order are subject
to these requirements. Surveillance of those sources that
are subject to EPA promulgated regulations do not require
advance notice by EPA. In reality, few sources will fall
into this latter category. If the region adheres to EPA
policy, all emission points at a source should be inspected
In doing so it is likely that certain points will be subject
to SIP reaulations; tnerefore, subject o the notification
requirements. It is recommended that States be notified of
all EPA field actions, including those concerning non—state
I r 3
-------
regulations unless good cause exists not to do so. Written
inquiries to sources under Section 114(a)(l) do not require
advance notice to the Stat&. -
Enforcement Procedures
It is the intent of this additional section to increase
State/EPA cooperation and, as such, it must be fully complied
with. However, as stated in Sec. 114(d) (2), faii..ure by EPA
to notify the State of any entry, inspection or monitoring
will not prejudice any case involving infor nation obtained
during such an activity and will not constitute grounds for
objection by the source.
114
1 A-4
-------
PN 114-81-05-13—002

UNITED STATES ENViRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON D C zo4eD
4 t
y 1 3 ig
OFFICE OF tNFORCZ’ E .T
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regional Office Criteria for Neutral Inspections of
Stationary Sources———Ainended Guidance
FROM: Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Enforcement Division Directors
Regions I—X
Surveillance & Analysis Division Directors
Regions I—X
Air & Hazardous Materials Division Director
Region II
We have reviewed the neutral Inspection schemes volur.tarilv
submitted to us by several Recional Offices in response to the
general guidance we issued on October 29, 1980. While the Regiona
criteria we have examined so far seem to track that general
guidance, there are some problems remaining in these Regional
schemes. This memorandum is intended to isolate and clarify these
problems, as well as to make some amendments to the general
guidance as suggested by some of the Regional drafts.
The purpose of having a neutral inspection scheme on file in
each Regional Office is to enable the Agency to justify to a court
a request for a warrant to conduct a compliance inspection in the
absence of evidence that a particular source is violating the Clean
Air Act. This type of inspection is usually conducted as part of
each Region’s annual Overview Inspection Program, but might also be
applicable to routine inspections of NESHAPS sources, NSPS sources,
and any other sources for which the Agency has primary enforcement
responsibility (e.g., PSD sources or sources subject to New Source
Review, where such programs have not been delegated to the States)
and which must he inspected annually.
One of the questions raised by our general guidance was th
characterization of the criteria for selection of sources to be
Inspected. Several factors were listed as Optional Criter-ia. By
this descriptionr we did not mean to infer that these factors coulc
be Ignored in the selection process. Rather, we intended that a
source to be inspected must meet not only the criteria lahe1e
Mandatory, but also at least one of those termed Optional. To ta e
the selection process through cnly the Mandatory Criteria would
leave too much latitude tn source selection in violation o
principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the 197$ arlo”
Decision . Je are thcce oce amendi g the general guidance to
114 2 -1
-------
—2—
relabel the selection Criteria as Primary and Secondary, with both
sets of criteria to be applied to each source chosen for
inspection. Every source insoected must meet the Primacy Criteria
and at least one of the Secondary Criteria. Authorization for
inspection of NESHAPS sources, which had been set forth separately,
is now subsL.m ed in this characterization. At the suggestion of
Regional staff, we have also expanded the list of Secondary
Criteria. Additionally, in order to account for the presence of
fugitive emissions, we have amended Secondary Criteria *7 to
include sources with process equipment recuiring particularly good
operation and maintenance procedures in order to maintain
compliance.
It should be remembered that the purpose of a written neutral
inspection scheme is to provide authorization for roetin
compliance inspections. Any source not covered in the sche—c-
cannot be inspected, absent suspicion of a violation of tr e Clean
Air Act. Therefore, an additional problem in some of the Regional
drafts is the utilization of source categories to select sources
for inspection. The drawback in this system is that a Region might
wish to inspect a source long overdue for a routine inspection but
be unable to do so because the source is in a category not covered
by the neutral inspection scheme. There is also the possibility
that categorization will exclude various significant lead, NSP$, cr
NESHAPS sources.
Please review your neutral inspection schemes once again to
see if they fit within the attached amended general guidance. Peel
free to call Mark Silvermintz of my staff at FTS 755—2570 if yo
have any questions.
‘J r, ”
Edward E. Reich
Attachment
cc: Richard D. Wilson
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement
David E. Menotti
Associate General Counsel
for Air, Noise, and Radiation
114
2 -2
-------
CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF STATIONARY SOURCES
FOR ROUTINE COMPLIANCE INSPECTIONS
I. Sources subject to State Implementation Plans (including
provisions approved or promulgated under 40 CFR S51.18 and
Pacts C and D of Title I of the Clean Air Act), or §111 of
the Act (NSPS) or 5112 of the Act (NESPAPS).
A. Primacy Criteria
1. In selecting a stationary source for a compliance
inspection, the source should be one which:
a. Emits an air pollutant subject to the Clean Air Act
and the regulations promulgated thereunder, and
for which:
1. The actual emissions or potential emissions
while operating at design capacity with
pollution controls are equal to or exceed
100 tons per year of the regulated air
pollutant (Class Al sources), or
2. The uncontrolled emissions while operating
at design capacity are equal to or exceed
100 tons per year of the regulated air
pollutant (Class A2 sources); or
b. Emits less than 100 tons per year of a
regulated air pollutant in the absence
of pollution controls (Class B sources)
and which may contribute to nonattainrrent
of an ambient air quality standard for thac
pollutant; or
c. Emits lead; or
d. Is subject to a NSPS or NESFIAPS.
2. The source should also be one which:
a. Was reported within the precedinq
year by a State or local agency
as being in compliance with
applicable emission limits; or
b. Was either not inspected by a State
or local agency or by EPA during the
preceding year, or was subject to an
inconclusive inspection during the
preceding year.
lid
2 -3
-------
—2—
B. Secondary Criteria
The following Criteria (at least one)
should be used in selecting facilities
for inspection from among those which meet
the Primary Cciteria (and may be used by
each Regional Office in any order it chooses
and in a manner best suited to its resources,
workload, r anpower, and area of geographic
responsibility)
1. Source emits a criteria pollutant and is located in
a nonattainment area for that pollutant, or in an
area unclassified for such pollutant;
2. Source has a significant impact upon local ambient
air quality or emits a hazardous air pollutant;
3. Source is located in an urban area where there is
greatest exposure of population;
4. Source has a history of violations and now is
reported as in compliance;
5. Source has had frequent changes in
compliance Status;
6. Source has undergone process changes subsecuent to
its most recent inspection or has commenced
initial operation;
7. Source recuires particularly good operation an’s
maintenance of pollution control or process
equipment in order to maintain compliance;
8. Source is located near other sources which have
been scheduled for inspection at approximately
the same time in accordance with this Criteria
for Selection of Stationary Sources for Routine
Compliance Inspections or under probable cause
to believe the source is in violation of the
Clean Air Act;
9. Source was subject to a prior compliance test,
inspection or information request which produced
inconclusive data concerning Its compliance
status.
114
2 -4
-------
O$T4 PN 114-83-12-15-003
. T UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
DEC15 1983
OFFICE OF
AIR. NOISE. AND RADIATION
SIJ8JECT Execution of Confidentiality Agreements under
Section 114 of th Clean Air Act
FROM: ‘ ph A. Cannon ,As tntAdmi ni strator
for Air and Radiation (AWR—443)
TO: Office Directors
Regional Admini strators
The purpose of this memorandum is to review aspects of existing-
regulations and procedures with respect to agreements relating to confidential
trea nent of information claimed to be trade secret.
Obtaining the information needed for rulemaking and other activities
of this office is essential to carrying out the responsibilities which
have been assigned to it. Section 114 provides EPA with authority to
obtain the needed information. In the past, we have generally sought to
obtain the necessary information by requesting it in a ‘ Section 114u
letter or by entering appropriate facilities. We have sought, wherever
possible, to obtain responses to such letters and to arrange such entry on
a consensual basis, i.e., to avoid the necessity to use the enforcement
mechanisms provided by Congress.
For that reason we have generally sought, and will continue to try,
to respond favorably to reasonable company requests for clarification or
explanation of information requests, for additional time, or for use of
some more convenient and equally useful form or manner of response. We
have also established, by regulation and by contract provision, reason-
able safeguards, deterrents and sanctions against the improper disclosure
of information claimed to be trade secret, including the debarment of
contractors (whether or not such contractors have been designated EPA
representatives) and the constituting of sources as third party beneficiaries
of the terms of EPA contract provisions relating to handling of such
information, 40 CFR Part 2, 41 CFR 15-1.350-1, 15-1.350-2. These protections
and remedies are additional to the protections and remedies afforded by
other provisions of law, e.g., common law and State criminal law.
114
3—1
-------
2
The EPA and duly designated EPA representatives have found that many
companies are willing to assist us in carrying out our responsibilities, in
part because they recognize that they have a stake in ensuring that EPA
has timely, adequate, and accurate information. In recent years, however,
EPA and Its representatives have also experienced increased difficulties
in obtaining companies’ early and voluntary cooperation; ‘I -
- A ccimnon--and increasingly frequent-—source of delay and difficulty
in obtaining needed Information has been company requests that EPA or an
authorized contractor representative sign agreements relating to confidential
treaUnent of claimed trade secret information. -
This office has not always been informed of such requests nor of the
nature of contractor-representatives’ response to them. Requests which
have been reviewed by this office and, in recent years, by the Office of
General Counsel, have often been found to be inconsistent with applicable
statute and regulations. Common features of such agreements have been
some prejudgment as to what information constitutes nondisciosable trade
secret information; reservation of some right for the company to determine.
what information 111111 be provided or what part of a facility EPA or its
representative may enter; reservation of some right for the company to
review and edit the work of EPA officers or representatives; and provision
which purported expressly or implicitly to authorize enforcing the terms
of a nondisclosure agreement itself against individuals or the U.S.
Goverm ent. These and other features unacceptable to EPA have all too
often resulted In lengthy and fruitless discussions with company representatF
Although companies may not set conditions on their compliance with
Section 114 requests, we are willing as a matter of policy to execute a
standard—form memorandum where a company indicates its desire for one.
Boiler—plate memoranda of this type have been used for several years.
We are willing to execute such a document in part because the document is
standardized and in part because its provisions are considered as protective
of the company as possible under applicable statute and regulation, see
40 CFR 2.215. Execution of such a document, therefore, does not consume
time and resources and, on balance, can expedite our work.
In light of this experience, this memorandum will confirm that
neither EPA nor its authorized representatives may sign any confidentiality
agreements or other document except the attached memoranda which (together
with any nonsubstantive variations needed to adapt them to different
contexts) this office believes adequate for all reasonable purposes.
2 Attachments
NOTE: Attachments are not included but can be made available upon request.
114
3—2
-------
Section 115: International Air Pollution
-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 115
fr’ (VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 115
* PN115—78—O1—31—001
ACCOUNTING FOR POLLUTION ACROSS INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES
* PN115—78—03—20—002
INTERNATIONAL POLLUTION (EL PASO/JUAREZ)
-------
MAR 20 97
SUBJECT: Interi,ational Pollution (EL Paso/Juarez)
FROM: David G. Hawkins, Assistant AdministratorT
for Air, Noise, and Radiation
PN— 115—78-03—20-002
MEMO TO: Adlene Harrison
Regional Administrator, Region ‘/1
The purpose of this memorandum is to communicate the policy applicable
to the El Pasc/Juarez situation referenced in your recent memos on this
subject. The policy does not shelter the El Paso area from imposition
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) sanctions, but at the same time increases the
probability of the El Paso area being able in 1979 to demonstrate the
potential for attainment of the ambient standards.
A portion of El Paso County has been designed, pursuant to Section
107 of the CM, nonattainrnent for particulate matter. Such a designation
automatically invokes the requirement of Section 172 to submit a State
implementation olan (SIP) revision which, among other things, demonstrates
attainment of the ambient standards by 1982. Consequently, the area
cannot avoid the imoosition of sanctions unless an acceptable SIP revision
is submitted.
Neither the CM amendments nor current Agency policy provides
relief from the impact of emissions from exist ng stat cnary sources
located in foreign nations. Such a oroblem IS best solved, nowe’ier, by
an interim policy which allows control agencies developing strateg es
for attaining ambient standards in nonattainment areas to asswre that
foreign sources w l1 be controlled sufficiently to attain standarcs at
the border by 1982. Since such a policy must have a foundation, it will
be necessary to initiate bilateral diplomatic actions to realize the
assumption that ambient standards will be attained at the border (i.e.,
that actual eriission reductions will take place).
It must be noted, however, if the reductions agreed upon through
negotiations do not materialize, those sources located in the United
States will have to be controlled to a greater degree in order to realize
attainment. Futhermore, for the above approach to be truly effective,
the State of Texas must make a good faith effort to further reduce
pollution originating in this country and impacting air quality levels
in Mexico. Specifically, progress must be made on controlling air
pollution from the El Paso smelter . In this context, I believe that the
agreed judgement and order of injunction issued by the 4 ist District
Court in El Paso in the case of the City of El Paso and the State of
Texas vs. ASARCO. incorporated will provide substantial controls at the
melting facility in the near future. It is imperative, however, that
compliance by ASARCO with this court order be closely rnon torea and if
the court ordered controls are iflSuff C Eq to nsur t .e att inment of
the standards, adoitional controls will be requirad.
cc: ri. Ourning
J. •Berstein
A. Pookin
R. Wilson
Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Divisions, Regions I, :ii—X
-------
j T O STAT $ EMVIRONME T,\L PROTECTION Ac,EMCY
OATE 3 j
EC Account ng for ? i1ut o i Across
rternaticnai 3ounoar es
PN-I* -78-O1-31-OO1
RQu• •,cLt2r oer, LJ’ctorc -. 7
Office o A r id1itj ? anririg ano Scandaros
10 David G. 4 .awk rs, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Waste anagenient
ii response o your memo of December 23, 1977, concerninci tne
impact of 9Oliution originating in foreign nations, i offer the following
conmen ts.
The ssue of e ’iiut nc fucii tive dust ond st tlOn ,lrv “IrLL Ini S lUllS
ori iriaz;ig acrc s Internat anai ooundar’es is partial 1/ aaui’cssea by
the Agency’s current policy on fugitive oust. Sucn policy c’ctates chat
contrOl programs in rural areas affectao by fugitive oust Snoulu at this
t me cancer on the control of large existing nian-made fuc :ive oust
SourcCs . .ir.Icn ‘ c: emse1ves are presently causinc violations or t;
nac rai an 1ent a’r Cuality standards lAAQS) or are sourtas or a known
cox c or nazardojs macer a1. This tolicy has universal appllcation in
that it oces not oiscinguisn between rugitive dust or’cinatino n tne
Un tad States ano :a originating in areas outsice of tfli S country.
if :ne El ?aso( uarez area meets tne cr :eri set fcr:h in
the F gi c ye c s cy, the ronattainmerit anal/s is fnr trot arei tan
sc :unt :i a: ;or:icn o e’uissions frcm Mex:co, as wc . 1 as r:i the
Lr.i:ad 3z : s, •,n.cn are a::ributaole to natural fuaiziie oust sources.
e tie’- tne Clean • i r Act n1encmencs nor c rr nt ‘ JCtlL/ : Oi IC’,’,
ic eier, trO/id s re r rrc:n t ie impact or amiss’onS ::ui existing
sca:ionari tOurc tocateo in rcre gn nations. Ccn r ss 1 a recognize
:naz re af iay ce re u 1 reo n ar s a i ong in terna i i or.i I b tinuari OS n th
resoect to re souces ana the Prevention cf signi Fi nt deter orat on.
S ecificaliy, zne uencments permit a Governor to set osicic tne increase
ln concencra: ons attrlDutable to new Sources outsioc c ie J:iite’j States
over th conc trations attrioutabie to ex sting sources “ihich are
Induced in the baseline concentration.
C celteve cne best 1nter m OiiCj to resolve tnis proiile n s one
Wnich will dllC v control agencies developing strateçies for attaining
ambient staadaras n nonattainment areas to assume that foreign sources
wi 11 be con crol ad sufficiently to attai ii s tan arus at the border by
1982.
2
-------
2
a di: .cn, .he United States should initiate bilateral diplomatic
actions to oota.in reductions necessary to attain standards at the border.
In the long term, if reductions are not actually obtained, a policy
change or Clean Air Act amendment iou.ld be required.
cc: Marvin Durning
Mike James
Jack Thompson
-------
tiiTaO STATaS ENV RONUEM1.%L PR01ECT 0M AGEMCY
OATE 3 1 j, .
‘‘a” : Ln:1ng f;r ? il, . ti :; cross
.erna..icn 1 3w1O •es
Ou . .1a:er . 3ar;er, ract rc
Cffica oF A:r a ity ?lanr.ing anc St ndar s
TO: Cavid . awkins, Assistant administrator
for Air and Waste anagement
: r soonse to your nie o of ecemoer 23, 1977, concer’nna tne
inipact of oilution originating in foreign nations, offer ie following
conThen .
ss e f e ’nutii g fu i tive dust ud st ti n rv “jrç ni siun
cr1 1 a 1 ig acr:: s :itdrna Ondi 3 uncar es s part a ‘lj aour s S G
: e gencys c rren: poiicy on fugic ve oust. Sucn chcy ‘ :a:es :iae
ccn rol rogra is in rural areas affectea y fugitive oust s:ioulc a: t.iis
t e cancer n the control of large existing man—made fugiz ve cust
sources ilr. icn ‘i c: ernse1ves are presently causinc violat,or.s of the
not na o oiant a r ue1 ty standards IAAQS) or are sour:es of a known
toxic r na:aroous •iiazarial. This ooflcy has universal a;piic tjon in
that 1 oces not istinguish bet.veen fugitive dust or’glnating n z. e
:;nl ted 3:a:es o:ld : at originating in areas outsice of onis country.
if :ne i Pasc/Juar,z area meets the criteria set fcrth in
the gi c i ye OLS t iO Cy, t;ie nOflatt3 r.nlent dfl4 ivst5 ror c 1at ar u can
:iscturit : a: or:ion or ‘uissions rrcm • e:c1c , as wc1 as rct t e
Ln :ac :a:as 1 .,n cn are a::ri u;aole to natural rugitive oust s.urcas.
e 1ther tne Ciean , ir Act nen nents nor current i\cjcni j ; o iCy,
however, ;rovi s rali f frtin the impact of ui 3i ns frcm existing
sta:iondry tources iocated in foreign nations. Con r’ s3 :iiø recognize
:na: relief ay e requir in areas along interni I bniindarios wIth
restect to new SOu;0es ana the prevention of significant e:CrIoration.
ec ficai y, the uend:iients per iit a overncr to set i idc t ie increase
in concancra:j.:r.5 a:tri utable to new sources outsite t e Jni ted States
over the nce!’tratiOns attrioutabia to existing sources Which are
inciucac in :ne baseline concentration.
:efeve the est inter rn o1icy to resolve this proul n is one
wnich will alcw contr 1 agencies e”elcping straceçiao ror attaining
ambient sta d r s in ilonactainment areas to assume that oreign sources
will e c ncr l ed suFficiently to attain standards at the or er y
1982.
f i qj. ‘..
-------
Section 120: Noncompliance Penalty
-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 120
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 120
* PN12O-80—09—12—001
PRIORITIES FOR ISSUING NOTICES OF NONCOMPLIANCE
* PN12O—81—02—12—003
IMPLEMENTATION OF NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTY PROGRAM UNDER SECTION 120 OF
THE CLEAN AIR ACT
* PN12O—81—04—02—004
SETTLEMENT OF NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 120 OF
ThE CLEAN AIR ACT, AS AMENDED
* PN12O—81—04—30—005
ISSUANCES OF NOTICES OF NONCOMPLIANCE UNDER SECTION 120 OF THE CLEAN
AIR ACT TO SEASONAL SOURCES
* PN12O—85—03—19—006
/ PERMISSIBLE GROUNDS FOR SETTLEMENT OF NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTIES UNDER
SECTION 120 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
* PN12O—85—03—19—007
GUIDANCE CONCERNING IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 120 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
Y IN FISCAL YEAR 1985
-------
- — — J I
8Z%
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
+?; L
I4R I9 85
MEMORANDUM -
SUBJECT: Guidance Concerning Implementation of Section 120
of the Clean Air A t in Fiscal Ye 1985
FROM: Courtney M. Price
Assistant Administrator fo Enforcement
and Compliance Monitoring
Charles Elkins, Acting Assjs Admin strato
for Air and
TO: Regional Administrators, Regions I—X
Regional Counsels, Regions I—X
We encourage you to continue your efforts to invigorate
the §120 program. This memorandum provides guidance with
respect to issues which have arisen during implementation of
the S120 program in the 1984 fiscal year, and encourages
continued use of this valuable administrative remedy.
I. Progress Made in FY 84; Further Activity Needed in FY 85
Our efforts met with encouraging results last fiscal
year. EPA Regions brought a slightly greater number of §120
actions in those twelve months than they had in the nearly
three years from the institution of the program in January
1981, through September 1983. Moreover, approximately 65%
of the FY 84 actions were brought in the last two quarters
of the fiscal year.
We appreciate your help In giving increased attention to
the § 120 program. Although it is not practical from a
resources standpoint to issue §120 Notices of Noncompliance
(uNONs ) to every noncomplying air source, it is essential
that we continue to broaden S120’s coverage. Congress passed
this provision in 1977 specifically to create a tough admini-
strative mechanism to deprive as many noncompliers as possible
of the economic benefit of their violations. In addition, EPA’s
-------
—2—
June, 1984 guIdance on ‘Timely and Appropriate’ enforcement
actions for significant air violators requires the Imposition
of sufficient cash penalties for significant violators. A
5120 action could be particularly appropriate in those cases
where a state has achieved sufficient injunctive relief but
failed to impose adequate penalties. We urge each Region to
continue to work to fulfill Congress’ intent and to make
effective use of the S120 program in Fl 85.
II. Section 120 Actions Equivalent in Stature to 5113 Civil
Referrals
There still seems to be some confusion over what level
of recognition 5120 actions receive in Headquarters. For Fl
85, the Strategic Planning and Management System (‘SPMS”)
will formally track those enforcement actions that were
tracked in the special enforcement reports system instituted
by then—Deputy Administrator Aim during Fl 84. Each quarter,
OAR will report to OECM the number of 5120, S113(a), 5113(d),
and S167 orders issued by the Regions. (EPA civil referral
data will be taken from OECM’s Docket system.) OAR & OECM
will track 5120 NONs separately from all other administrative
actions in order to maintain in FY 85 the high level of
attention given to Sl20 during the past fiscal year.
III. Authority for Settlement of 5120 Actions
A respondent in a §120 action must make an election,
within 45 days of receipt of an NON: he may 1) calculate and
agree to pay a noncompliance penalty, or 2) submit a Petition
for Reconsideration, which typically will trigger an admini-
strative hearing.
Limited authority does exist for EPA to settle 5120
actions prior to and in lieu of a formal adjudicatory hearing.
The sole factor which may be considered in reducing the
calculated penalty figure for purposes of settlement is the
Agency’s projected probability of success in prevailing in a
hearing. The smaller the probability of EPA success, the
greater reduction available to EPA to settle the action.
We have attached for your reference a revised version of
EPA’S S120 settlement guidelines governing permissible grounds
for settlement, which were first issued in October 1980.
IV. Credits Not Available tinder S120
In memoranda of October, 1980, and April, 1981, the then—
Office of Enforcement issued guidance which stated that
Regions had the authority to accept, as part of a §120
settlement, the use of ‘credits.’ Such credits represented
-------
—3—
set—offs from the calculated §120 penalty for costs borne by
the respondent for environmentally beneficial projects beyond
those required to comply with the law. Criteria for acceptable
credit projects were borrowed from the former general Civil
Penalty Policy of July, 1980.
We have decided to eliminate this rarely—used authority
for credits under the §120 program. Reevaluation of the
language and objectives of Sl20 convinces us that credit
projects do not comport with Congress’ intent in enacting the
noncompliance penalty program.
We have also included a discussion of the bases for this
change in the attachment.
V. Parallel §113 and §120 Actions
We reemphasize here the Importance of thoughtful case
selection in your §120 program. ( See guidelines for same in
memorandum of July 12, 1984 on Sl20.) We recognize that there
may exist rare situations where reasonable litigation strategy
would call for prosecuting both a §120 action and a S113
action against the same source for the same violation. A
court action seeking injunctive relief may, for example, be
necessary if a §120 Notice of Noncompliance fails to spur
efforts to Install controls. As a rule, however, parallel
filings pose a substantial risk of wasting enforcement
resources at EPA, the Department of Justice, or both, parti-
cularly where the case ultimately is fully resolved pursuant
to only one of the provisions. In the vast majority of
cases, diligent, aggressive prosecution under only one
section should result in a timely and appropriate resolution
of the action. We therefore discourage parallel filings
except in the exceptional case.
Note that, while this policy is intended to discourage
parallel filings , it Is not our intention to discourage
parallel issuances of §113 NOVs and §120 NONs in those cases
where considered litigation strategy calls for it. Parallel
issuances may be appropriate, for example, where the Region
fully intends to conclude a SIP case by a §120 action alone
but considers it prudent to preserve the option of utilizing
a §113 action; the latter, of course, requires EPA to prove
that the violation has continued for more than 30 days
following the issuance of a §113 NOV.
-------
—4—
VI. Consultations Required
Regions are reminded that they must consult with
Headquarters (OECM and SSCD) prior to issuing an NON*/ (Del.
745), and prior to extending a settlement offer (Del. 7—41—A).
So as to maintain Headquarters’ close monitoring of §120
actions, please also notify the Headquarters liaison attorney
as to the final date of disposition of the case, and the
penalty amount assessed.
VII. Enforcement Docket System Reports
In a continuing effort to track §120 cases more closely,
we propose soon to initiate a computer system to follow all
S120 actions. The computer reports will be updated monthly
by appropriate Regional and Headquarters attorneys, and will
be similar in look and scope to those reports already utilized
for S113 civil air actions. We expect to send out final
guidance on this system within the next 2—3 months.
Attachment
*/Headquarters has waived this requirement for Region II,
b cause of its effective use of the §120 program.
cc: Air and Waste Management Division Directors
Regions II and VI
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, V 1 and IX
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division Director, Region IV
Air and Toxics Management Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII and X
Regional Counsel Air Enforcement
Contacts
-------
- — .,-— -‘
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
f4P R I I ::*: 3
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Permissible Grounds for Settlement of Noncompliance
Penalties Under Section 120 of th lean Air Act
FROM: Courtney M. Price C.sAA 4 A_..)6’h ,&...i...&
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Monitoring
Charles Elkins, Acting Assi ta Admin str to
for Air and Radiation —
TO: Regional Administrators, Regions I—X
Regional Counsels, Regions I—X
Attached for your information and use is the revised
§120 policy governing permissible grounds for settlement.
This document supersedes the October 30, 1980 memorandum
which previously regulated this subject. You will note that
the sole d’etermining factor in calculating the proper minimum
settlement amount is the probability of success of the Agency
in prevailing in an administrative hearing under Section 120
were one to be held. This includes a consideration of the
likelihood of proving a violation and, in a limited number of
cases, the probability of refuting a claim for an exemption
where the Agency does not believe one is warranted.
We have attempted to make the policy as easy to administer
as possible. While there is a requirement for Headquarters
concurrence to ensure national consistency, it should not
prove onerous. Regions need only obtain the concurrence of
the Director of the Stationary Source Compliance Division and
the Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air, or their designees.
Moreover, concurrence is required only with respect to the
general range of penalty reduction sought; the Regional
Administrator is free to select any precise reduction percent-
age within the reduction range which he or she determines is
appropriate without the need for further concurrence. As
with the civil penalty policy, this process establishes a
minimum settlement figure only; it does not compel the Agency
to settle at that figure.
-------
—2—
The attached policy would be applicable to any State to
which EPA delegates Section 120 authority. The precise nature
of any State—EPA coordination would be addressed in the
particular State delegation notice.
Credit Authority Withdrawn
This revised settlement policy also deletes authority
for EPA to accept ‘credits” as part of a S120 settlement.
Credits represented set—offs from the calculated 5120 penalty
for costs borne by the respondent for environmentally bene-
ficial projects beyond those required to comply with the
law. Authority for credits had been provided both in the
October 30, 1980 memorandum and in one of April -2, -1981.
(The April 2, 1981 memorandum also provides guidance on
several aspects of 5120 settlements other than credit projects;
the settlement policy issued today has no effect on the
April 2, 1981 memorandum other than to delete its authority
to use credits.)
Based on a reevaluation of the language and objectives
of S120, we are convinced that credit projects do not comport
with Congress’ intent in enacting the noncompliance penalty
program. Congress’ purpose was to craft a simple administrative
tool with which EPA could speedily recapture in toto the
economic benefits derived from respondent’s noncompliance.
In stark contrast to 5113 civil actions, Congress prescribed
in §120 an unadorned arithmetic calculation as the sole
determinant of the penalty amount and directed that “all
penalties (so] assessed . . . be paid to the, United States
Treasury.”
As a matter of policy, credit projects are inconsistent
with the objectives of S120. Section 120 contemplates speedy
penalty assessments and payments. The noncomplier is expected
to pay in full, and quickly. Credit programs, on the other
hand, often consist of drawn—out projects and expenditures;
the result may be that respondent can draw out his credit
expenditures many months or even years beyond the date he
would have had to pay that same amount if instead it had been
styled a penalty.
Section 120 is in its essence a mechanism to recoup the
economic benefits of noncompliance. We encourage negotiation
of acceptable compliance schedules to accompany the penalty
payment, but it is the penalty payment itself which serves as
the primary thrust of the program.
-------
—3—
Elimination of this credit authority should have little
impact on Regions in an operational sense. Our discussions
with Regions have revealed that the Regions have exercised it
only infrequently, and have found that negotiating credits
can absorb substantial resources which are better expended
elsewhere in the Regional enforcement program.
Thank you for your continuing support in this most
important S120 program. If you have any questions about the
settlement policy or this memorandum, you may wish to contact
Laurence Groner, an attorney in the Air Enforcement Division
of OECM, at FTS 382—2820.
Attachment -
cc: Air and Waste Management Division Directors
Regions II and VI
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, V, and IX
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management
Division Director, Region IV
Air and Toxics Management Division Director
Regions VII, VIII, and X
Regional Counsel Air Enforcement
Contacts
-------
SECTION 120 SETTLEMENT POLICY
I. Determining Probability of Success in the Administrative
Hearing
EPA’s probability of success in prevailing in an
administrative hearing vii]. determine the minimum amount
acceptable for settling a S120 case. Where that probability
is low, the penalty can be greatly reduced. Where that
probability is high, there is less reason to reduce the
penalty. Legal issues which will be determinative in a
noncompliance penalty case are generally the same ones which
affect the outcome of any enforcement case where EPA has to
demonstrate that the source is not in compliance with its
emission limits and the source defends against the allegation.
In most cases the range of probability that EPA will win
a case can be estimated as between 30 to 90 percent. If the
probability is below 30 percent, it is unlikely that EPA would
pursue the case. Conversely, even when all the legal issues
are favorable to EPA, it is unlikely that EPA’S probability
of success would be much greater than 90 percent. This
produces a 60% range within which noncompliance penalties can
be decreased during the settlement process.
To foster national consistency, the reduction range will
be divided into four categories. The Regional Administrator
will determine a baseline penalty figure for settlement neqo—
tiations. Concurrence from the Director of the Stationary
Source Compliance Division and the Associate Enforcement
Counsel for Air Enforcement, or their designees, will be
required on the category from which the settlement figure is
to be drawn and the concomitant reduction ranqe. Once a
range is agreed to, the Regional Administrator is free to
select the precise reduction percentage within that range
which he or she feels is appropriate without further
concurrence.
Category Probability of Success Reduction Range
A 90% to 75% 10% to 25%
B 74% to 60% 26% to 40%
C 59% to 45% 41% to 55%
D 44% to 30% 56% to 70%
-------
—2—
While the determination of the category into which a case
would fall is by its nature somewhat subjective, the followina
analysis will serve as guidance. A Section 120 case will
usually have more than one major legal Issue. Whether the
probability of success is judged to be high or low will depend
•on the number of issues and on their cumulative impact on EPA’s
case. Often, however, the major issue least favorable to EPA
would govern the category into which the case falls. If all of
the legal issues are favorable to EPA it could be determined
that EPA had a high probability of success, falling within the
90 to 75 percent range, or category A. A case placed within
the 60 to 74 percent range, in general, would have at least one
major issue with strong arguments on both sides, but the outcome
of that issue (and the case) would be weighted to EPAtS advantage.
Generally, for a case to be placed In category C, at least one
major issue would have strong arguments on both sides but the
possible outcome would be weighted slightly in favor of the
source. Finally, it there were a clear likelihood that at
least one major legal issue would be decided against EPA, the
case would fall into category D and the probability of success
would be within the 30 to 44 percent range. The requirements
for concurrence by OAR and OECM will assure that these admittedly
subjective determinations are made with a reasonable level of
consistency.
Although a source’s claim to an exemption under Section
120(a)(2 (B) should be analyzed in the same way as any other
legal issue, the range within which an exemption could affect
probability of success is much narrower. If the source is
clearly entitled to an exemption, it is unlikely that the notice
of noncompliance would have been issued. If the source clearly
did not have such entitlement, exemption should not become a
factor which reduces the penalty. Therefore, the exemption
issue should influence the category selected in only a limited
number of cases.
II. Credits
The use of credits, i.e. , set—offs from the calculated
S120 penalty for costs borne by respondent for environmentally
beneficial projects beyond those required to comply with law,
is not permitted in 5120 settlements.
-------
PN 1 20-80-09-1 2-001
tU514
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMc.NTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. 0 C. 20460
4)• 4
SEP 1 OFFICE OF ENFORCZMENT
MEMORANUDfI
Subject: Priorities for Issuing Notices of Noncompliance
From: Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
To: Enforcement Division Directors
Regions I - X
As you know, the preamble to the regulations im lementing
Section 120 of the Clean Air Act states that on January 1, 1980,
EPA will be issuing the first notices of noncomrliance to major
sources that have never achieved compliance with the Act and are
not subject to federal or EPA—approved State consent decrees and
administrative orders. Now thaC you have updated the 4SEE docket
pursuant to Jeff Miller’s January 9 and May 12 memoranda, we are
able to predict the approximate number of those highest pricrit’i
sources. Because some regions will have relatively few such
sources we must determine how to identify and when to reach the
second level of priority.
After informa’. discussions with many of your staffs, it
seems to us that trie most efficient way to proceed is to create a
second category which would inc1ur e all other sources in viola-
tion of any requirement under a State Implementation Plan (SIP),
New Source Performance Standard (NSPS), or National Emission
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) . Within this
second category the region would determine the order in which to
issue notices of noncompliance using such evaluative factors as
size of the economic benefit enjoyed, nature and amount of the
source’s emissions, whether the emissions are causing or contri-
buting to a rtonattairtment situation, and the cause of the
violation. We would normally expect particular attention to be
given to NESHAP sources because of the serious nature of those
violations.
It would be appropriate to reach into the second category o
sources whenever the first category s exhausted. I assume thaC
would want cases from the first category to be yell into the
first administrative hearings before cnocsing to issde nCZLCES -c
sources in the second group, because every petitioned case must
be decided by an administrative law judge within the statutory
framework of ninety days.
120
1—1
-------
—2—
Sources in compliance with schedules contained in approved
orders and consent decrees are the Agency’s lowest priority. It
seems doubtful that such sources will be reached in the focsee—
able future, but if there is a time when you feel circumstances
justify reaching into that category, please call and discuss it.
It seems to me that this system of priorities imposes the
fewest restrictions on regional operations. Please consider
these ideas and let me have your views, or call Judith Larsen of
my staff at 755—2580. If we can reach a consensus on this
approach we will add it to the implementing guidance which will
go out to you in October.
Edward E. Reich
1 20
1-2
-------
S ) . 4
PN 120-81-02-12-003
UNiTED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
WASHINGTON 0 C 20460

FEB12 1981
T)I AQMIN TRATOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Regional Administrators
Regions I—X
SUBJECT: Implementation of Noncompliance Penalty Program
Under Section 120 of the Clean Air Act
As you know, implementation of the noncompliance penalty
program under Section 120 of the Clean Air Act began on
January 1, 1981. In preparation for implementation, the
Administrator signed eight delegations of authority to the
Regional Administrators, one of which addressed the authority
to issue Notices of Noncompliance. Although that delegation
allows Regional Administrators to redelegate tne authority to
issue Notices to the Division Director level, it seems
advisable, for the time being, for the Regional Administrators
to sign all Notices of Noncomp1 ance. Therefore, until
further notice please ensure that you sign all Notices issued
withLi your region.
As a reminder, prior to issuance of a Notice of
Noncrnpljance, Regional Offices are required to consult with
the Office of Enforcement at Headcuarters. The Director of
the Division of Staticnary Source Enforcement is the focal
polnt in the Office of Enforcement for coordination with
Regional Offices on proposed Notices.
Finally, as a courtesy to the State in which the
noncomplying source is located, Regional Offices should consult
with the appropriate state official prior to issuance of any
Notice of Noncompliance.
If you have any Questions regarding the foregoing, please
feel free to call Richard Wilson at 755—2977, or Ed Reich at
755—2550.
Walter C. arber, Jr.
Act nc drn nast:ator
120
3-1
-------
PN 120-81-04—02-004
V .STATE5 E P EWTAL PROTECTiON AGEP4CY
MEMORANDUM A 2
Subject: Settlement of Noncom 1iance na1ty Assessments
Dnder Section 120 of the Clean Air Act, as Amended
- (the Act)
From: dD.n f % e t
RICHARD D. WILSON
To: Regional Administrators
- Enforcement Division Directors
Regions I—X
As you kncw, the Agency has established a settlement policy
for noncompliance penalty assessments under Section 120 of the
Act, the particulars of which were communicated to you in a
memorandum dated October 30, 1980.
oper administrative procedures for niarnorializing the terms
of noncompliance pe a1ty settlements are essential to ensure
jud.icial enforceability of settlement agreements between the
Agency and -noncomply-ing sources. With this oojective in mind, we
have decided upon the following procedures for both conducting
settlement discussions with no c:omp1vjng sources and -concluding
settlement agreements within tha context of Section 22.18 of the
Consolidated Rules of Practice set forth in 40 CFR Part 22.1
The terms and conditions of noncompliance penalty settlements
which have been concurred upon by the Division of Stationary
Source Enforcement shall be incorporated in a written consent
agreement and proposed settlement order both of which should be
forwarded to the Regional Administrator. following review of the
s ttleinent terms, the Regional Administrator shall issue a consent
order representing final Agency action of the noncompliance
145 Fed. flec . 24360 (A ril 9, 1980). Section £6.91 of the
nonccmp!iance penalty regulations, 45 Fed. Reg. 50117 (July 29,
1980) , provides, in pertinent part, that the Conso1idated Ru1es o
:n conjunction wits Part 66 Subpart J of the noncompli—
anceoena!t regulations na1l govern all adjudicationsc penal
asses er.ts. Section 22.12 of the Consolidated Rules or act c
a prbcedure for settlement of penalty assessment
1 20
4-1
-------
penalty proceeding. Incorporation of the terms and conditions of
the penalty settlement in the form of a consent order signed by
the Regional Administrator will enable the Agency to ultimately
enforce the cc promise in Federal District Court. 2
iscussioras with a flOncowplying source rec ardthq settlement
of noncompliance penalty assessments would normally occur, at the
earliest,, following issuance of a Totice of Noncompliance to the
source. 3 - otwithstandinq settlement discussions, a noncomplying
source must submit a petition for reconsideration to the Acency
vithth 45 days of receipt of the notice- if it wishes to preserve
its r qht to adjudication should a negotiated settlement prove
elusive. 4 Likewise, the Agency must respond to a petition for
recons.ideratior within 30 days from receipt.
Subsequent to the arantihg of a hearinq, should there be
mutual interest in either co encing: or continuino settlement
negotiations, the o.arties must agree, in writing, to toll the
ninety day time period provided by the Act for.an initial dectsion
by the Presiding Officer... 5 ‘be written agreement between the
konsent orders requiring a monetary payment in settler ent of
sources’ noncomplianco penalty- liabilities are enforceable under
Section 113(b) of the Act. ‘Consent orders em odyinq a credit
program in-lieu of a monetary payment are enforceable under 28 tSC
Sections 1337 and 1345.
in some instances-, settlement discussions with a noncci! p1ytnq
source prior to receipt of a. petition for reconsideration may be
prer tature. A source may choose to forego the opuortunity for
adjudication and submit its penalty calculation to the Agency
within 45 days of receipt of the notice of noncompliance.
Further, following receipt and consideration of a petition for
reconsideration, it is likely that a more informed judgment can be
reached-by the Agency regarding the merits of settling a particu-
lar noncomuliance penalty action.
4 T0 avoid potential estoppel arguments, Regional Offices should
make clear to noncomplying sources during settlement discussions
that the 45 day submittal recuirement for petitions for
reconsideration remains binding.
5 5.ction 120 of the-Act and Section 66.42 of the implementing
regulations require-the PresidingOfficer to issue an initial
decision within ninety days after the Administrator grants an
adjudicatory hearing, unless otherwise agreed upon by the
parti £ s,
1 20
4 -2
-------
parties should expressly provi5e a limited interim period to
conclude a settlement of the oneompliance penalty action, after
which time the case will proceed to adjudica$ton absent an
agreement between the parties.b
Should settlement be reached between the Agency and the source
during this interim period, the .terms aod. conditions of the
settlement shall be incorporated in a written consent acreecnent and
proposed settlement order, both of which should be forwarded to the
Regional Administrator. ?ollowthq review of the settlement terms,
the Regional Administrator shall issue a consent order representinc
final Agency action of the noncompliance penalty proceeding. 7
In the event settlement of the noncompliance penalty action
is reached after a Presiding Officer is assigned to the case for
adjudication, the parties shall so inforrn the Presiding Officer and
request leave to file with the Regional Administrator a written
consent agreement and proposed settlement order. Upon execution of
the consent order by the Regional AdmInistrator, the parties to the
adjudicatory proceeding shall move for withdrawal of the action.
without prejudice.
Where a noncomplying sc arce is not subject to an cutstanding
Federal or Federally approved consent decree or order, the Aaency
will not enter into settlement of nonconpliance penalty assessments
except in unusual. circ atancee without concluding a consent decree
or order with the source which requires compliance with all apvll—
cable legal requirements. Thus, nrior to the Acencv conc udLnc a
settlement of ncncompliance penalties, a noncomplying source must
execute a consent decree or order, the terms of which are
acceptable to the Agency. The Federal decree Elust orovic?e for
satisfaction of any civil penalty lIability under SectIo: 113(b) of
the Act. Normally, execution by the Regional AdmInIstrator of the
nc om liance penalty settlement should not occur prior to lodeing
of a Section 113(b) consent decree. “he Regional Offices should
consult with the Division of Stationary Source Enforcement in those
unusual circim st.ances where prior execution of the penalty
commromise by the Recional Administrator appears necessary to avoid
unreasonable delay in consummatinq the noncompliance oenaltv
settlesient or im eding effective enforcement of settlement terms.
6 A copy of the written agreement tolling the ninety day time
period should be forwarded to the CMef Administrative Law Judge
nd Director, DivIsion of 3tatlonary Source !nforcerient.
copy of the consent order issued by the Regional
Administrator should be forwarded to the Chief Adr’inistrative Law
Judge nd Director, DivIsion o Stat .onary Source EnCcrcenent.
-------
The term.s of, a noncor pliance penalty settlement may p rovide
monetary payment t the United St.ates Treasury in an amount which
represents the penalty assessment as calculated by the Technical
Support Doct.ent and the Instruction anual set forth in
Appendices A& to tbe noncomoliance penalty regulations with any
adjustment as appropriate in accordance with the memorandum, dated
October 30, 1980, entitled Settlement of oncorwo1iance Penalties
Under Section 120 orthe Clean Air Act, ’ Subject to Agency
discretion, in lieu of a monetary payment, in whole or in part, a
noncomplying source may commit to an.enforceable credit program
which will yield an environmental benefit beyond that is recuired
under federal and state law. 9 The after tax value of the credit
program must be equivalent in dollar amount to that portion of the
penalty settlement figure not remitted to -the United States
Treasury. Where.a penalty settlement provides for a credit
program in lieu of a monetary payment, the agreement shall provide
that failure by the source to comply with the program shall
subject .the source to either monetary liability 10 or an
enforcement action for injunctive relief requirinc compliance with
the credit pr gram, or both, at the election of the Agency..
?Tnece there is particular reason to believe that the penalty
assessment figure as calculated by the .Technical Support Doct. ent
and Instruction Manual which initially forms the basis of settle-
ment negotiations ay not accurately reflect economic benefits
derived by a noncomolying source once final compliance with
a p1icable1ega1 reautrements is ultimately achieved, the penalty
aettlement agreement requiring monetary payment to the United
States Treasury should speciiica.Lly provide for a final
accounting. ThUS, the agreement should require writter. notifica-
tion of compliance from the source (Including supporting factual
8 Usually, payment of a monetary penalty shall be due in one
lump s’.mt six months subsequent to execution of the consent order
by the Regional Administrator.
9 e ttlentagreement must dearly delineate enforceable
increments of progress and final compliance milestones. Recional
Offices should consult Chapter VIII of the Civil Penalty Policy,
dated July 8, 1980, regarding the criteria for -acceptable credit
program.s.
l0 magnitude of monetary liability would be dependent upon
the exterLt of compliance by the source with the credit program.
The order should provide that-where a source abandons the credit
program, the monetary liability would be eguivalent to the full
penalty settlement figure Initially agreed upon by the Agency and
the source. The order should further provide that where a source
misses milestone dates of the credit project which causes
substantIal delay in ultimate completion of the project, the
source would be subject to monetary liability ecruivalent to the
economic savings enjoyed by tne source as a result of its failure
to timely comply with credit project milestones. 120 44
-------
and analytical data) once final comoliance with applicable legal
recuirements has been achieved on a continuous basis. Addition-
ally 1 a post compliance settlement calculation as provided in the
Technical Supoort Document and Instruction Manual (set forth in
ppendices A, Section V and B, Section I V) together with data
necessary for independent verification must accompany a source’s
written notification of final compliance. Within 30 days from
receipt of a notification of compliance, the A encv shall inform
the source, in writing, whether or not the source has achieved
final cor pliance’ with epplicable leqal reauirements. In the event
the Agency finds the source in compliance, the written
notification shall also specify any deficiency payment or
reirnbursectent 11 plus interest owed. The settlement agreement
shall require payment by a source of a deficiency or reimbursernent
by the government within 30 days of written notification fron the
Agency specifying the amount of deficiency or reimbursement.
Lastly, all rtoncomvliance penalty settlements4 shall expressly
state that failure by the Source to seek judicial review under
Section 307(b) of the Act of the Peqiortal administrator ’s order as
final Agency action 12 shall preclude review in judicial
erforcernent of the settlement of the terms, the underlv r.’ lecal
basis of settle tent, and the Regional Administrators’ autnortev to
Issue the consent order.
Forms will be pret ared and for .iarded to you shortly for use
by the Regional Offices in all settlements of noncornDllance
cenalties. Shcuid you have any questions regarding the fc egoLng,
please call Ed Reich at 755—2550 or Stu Silve an at 755—2570.
iLbe dollar amount of a deficiency payment or penalty
reimbursement shall be the difference between 1) the percentace
representing the chance of success on the nerits used for initial
settlement of the penalty mu1t plied by th post compliance
revised penalty calculation and ii) the thiti&l noncompliance
penalty compromis e figure. aqerd.less oi the nature of payment by
the source in satisfaction of the initialnoncompliance penalty
settlement figure (whether d monetary paymer.t t the united States
Trea urv or an aporov :d -credit p cj t) , a penalty deficiency o e’
by a source is to be satisfied by a monetary payment to the ‘ nitec
$tates Treasury .
‘ 2 A11 consent orders shall be published in the ederal
Req ster as f na1 Agency actions, rev ewable in the appropriate
Cnited States Court of Anneals. 120
4-5
-------
PM 1 20-81 -04-30-005
,4oriJ
SL 1 EJECT: Issuance of !Totices of Noncompliance Under
Section 120 of the Clean Air Act to Seasonal Sources
Director
Divisj.on of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Sandra S. Gardebrinq
Director, inforcement Division
Peg on V
This respoflds to your memorandu.r of April 7, 19 1, to tb
Acting Assistant Administrator for Enforcei ent, in whIch vcu
asked for clarification of the Agency’s position on issuance F
1ot!ces of Noncompitance under Section 120 to seasonal sources
during off—season ceasation of operations.
As you know, we discouraoed issuance of Notices to these
seas na1 sources not In operation on Januar-i 1, 19P1. “his
was not because we felt we were lecally precluded fror’ issuance
of otices to those sources. Rather, we felt the fact of
cor 1iance by sources by off—season ceasation of operatIons
continually on and after January 1, 1981, constituted an
unnecessary complication in dealina with the initial
i ler’entation of the program. We were particularly ccncerned
that the January 1, 1981, date could be c isrepresented
successfully as being the date on (or after) which a violaticn
must occur. We continue to believe that we should avoid,
absent coi pe1lina circui stances, issuing Notices to sources
which have not operated on or after January 1, 1981. However,
once such a source commences operation, a Notice could be
approoriate and could be based on data gathered during
operations prior to January 1, 19P1, if that data could he
shown to be an accurate representation of current operations as
well. I assume that r ost seasonal sources have, or wIll
sh rtlv, recommenced operation.
120
5-1
-------
As to seasonal sources which have oDerated after January
1, 1081, but for which we wou he considering issuance of a
Notice durinc the next (or any subsecuent) cff—season, t ’is is
a sor’ewhat easier situation to dee! with. As your i emorandur
recoanizes, however, the fact that the source is in temporary
(a lthouqh not final) compliance would still add additional
complexity. Obviously, it would be preferable to issue the
notice while the source is still in operation. However, we
agree that no abaolute bar should exist and believe that these
cases should be evaluated on a case—by—case basis in
consultation with this Djvj ion. Where a sufficient tactical
advantaqe would accrue from the issuance of a Notice prior to
recomnencement of oPerations, issuance of a Notice could be
appropriate.
If you have any cuestions concernIng this policy, please
do not hesitate to call me at 755—2550 or Stu Silverran of nv
staff at 755—2580.
Edward E. Reich
cc: Enfoccer’.ent Division Directors
Reclons I—IV, VI—X
1 20
5 —2
-------
Section 123: Stack Heights
-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 123
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 123
* PN123—80—12—19—001
- LETTER TO HONORABLE JENNINGS RANDOLPH FROM DOUGLAS M. COSTLE REGARDING
DEFINITION OF AMBIENT AIR
* PN123—85—09—19—006
GUIDANCE ON FLUID MODEL DEMONSTRATIONS FOR DETERMINING GEP STACK HEIGHT
IN COMPLEX TERRAIN
* PN123—85—10—10—007
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON IMPLEMENTING ThE REVISED STACK HEIGHT
REGULATION
.* PN123—85—10—28—008
IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS - EXCEPTIONS FROM
RESTRICTIONS ON CREDIT FOR MERGED STACKS
* PN].23—85—10—28—009
IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS - PRESUMPTIVE NSPS EMISSION
LIMIT FOR FLUID MODELING STACKS ABOVE FORMULA GEP HEIGHT
* PN123—85—10—28—010
DETERMINING STACK HEIGHTS “IN EXISTENCE” BEFORE DECEMBER 31, 1970
-------
PN 123-85-10—28-010
tO Sl ,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
I Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
4(
OCT 281985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Determining Stack Heights “ Exist , e Before December 31, 1970
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Dj.v tsion (MD—15)
TO: Director, Air Management Division
Regions I—X
The following guidance Is provided to describe how the definition of
“in existence” should be implemented and to assist States and emission
source owners and operators in providing appropriate evidence of commitments
to undertake stack construction on or before December 31, 1970. Please
r ote that this Is guidance; States may submit alternative demonstrations
in support of grandfathering claims, if they feel the circumstances
warrant.
We intend to rely on the general provisions of this guidance to
determine eligibility for grandfathering exemptions from certain other
provisions of the revised stack height regulations: restrictions on the
use of GEP formulae for cooling towers, use of the refined GEP formula,
fluid modeling to justify GEP formula stack height, credit for merged
stacks, credit for new sources tied into grandfathered stacks, and credit
for stacks raised to GEP formula height.
Background
Section 123 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, contains a grandfather
clause intended to exempt stack heights and techniques for pollutant
dis?ersion that were in existence on or before December 31, 1970, from
general provisions of Section 123 restricting the degree to 1 hich emission
limitations may be affected by dispersion. When EPA promulgated stack
height re;uletioris pursuant to Section 123 in 1982, it adopted a definition
of “stack heights in existence before December 31, 1970.” This definition
allowed the grandfathering of stacks on which construction had not yei.
commenced, but for which binding contracts had been signed that could not
be modified or cancelled without substantial loss to the owner or operator.
The EPA’s definition was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit in Sierra Club v. EPA , 719 F.2d 436, and has not been modified in
any way by the rule revisions promulgated on July 3, 19 5, except to
restrict its applicability to facilities that have not undertaken major
modifications or reconstruction, and have not ducted the effluent gas
streans from post—1970 units into pre—1971 stacks.
-------
2
Subsequent to the recent revisions, questions have been raised about
how the definition should be implemented, i.e., what EPA should consider
to be a binding contract, and what should constitute a “substantial loss”
for determining whether a stack should be grandfathered.
General Provisions
The burden of proof for showing that a stack Is eligible for
grandfathering exemption lies with either the State or the source owner or
operator, as appropriate, and documentation in support of exemptions must
be made available for public review during the rulemaking process. In the
event that no case for exemption under this provision is made, or that
satisfactory support for such a request is not provided, the stack is
presumed not to be grandfathered, and therefore subject to the requirements
of Section 123 and the stack neight regulations promulgated by EPA.
Grandfathering exemptions may be supported in one of three ways: by
showing that the stack was completed or was physically in existence prior
to December 31, 1970; by showing that actual on-site continuous stack
construction activities began on or before December 31, 1970; or by showing
that a binding contract for stack construction was executed on or before
that date.
Documenting Stack Construction
In cases where a stack was completed prior to December 31, 1970, the
State may make a s nmary determination that the stack is grandfathered,
but must provide an explanation of the reasons for its determination.
One way in which it can be documented that the stack was physically in
place before December 31, 1970, is to provide a copy of the 1970 Federal
Power Commission report Form 67, which includes stack height, among other
information. Evidence that may be submitted to support the date of
commencement of stack construction can include virtually any conte nporaneous
documentation that clearly indicates that construction activities were under
way as of December 31, 1970. This could consist of building inspection
records, construction materials delivery receipts, correspondence,
inter—3ffice memoranda, photographic records, or news clippings. In the
event that documentation is lacking or weak, EPA will consider affidavits
which include detailed descri7tions of efforts that dare undertaken to
obtain contemporaneous supporting documentation.
Documenting Contractual Obligations
The date of signature on a contract for stack construction will be
acceptable for applying grandfathering exemptions if the contract itself
meets certain minimum qualifications. A “binding contract,” under the
previously-discussed provisions is considered to be one that commits the
source owner or operator financially to undertake stack construction and
that did not have in effect on December 31, 1970, an “escape” provision
that allows cancellation by the owner or operator without penalty.
-------
3
In the event that a contract contains provisions for assessing
penalties for md’dification or cancellation by the owner or operator, and
those provisions were in effect on December 31, 1970, then the provisions
must be reviewed to determine whether the penalties and other costs of
cancellation would have imposed a substantial loss on the owner or
operator. For new facilities, EPA will presimle that a substantial loss
would have resulted where the penalties exceed ten percent of the project
cost. Where the project involves only stack construction or replacement,
EPA will review claims on a case—by—case basis.- -
If a contract does not contain provisions which impose financial
obligations on the owner or operator for contract modification or
cancellation, then any determinations of whether liability to the owner
or operator resulting from such modification would constitute substantial
losses must be made on a case—by—case basis. In general, EPA’s rule of
th b relying on ten percent of the project cost will be used.
If you have any questions regarding application of this guidance in
specific instances, please contact Eric Ginsburg at (FTS) 629—5540 or
Sharon Reinders and (FTS) 629—5526.
-------
4p
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
OCT28 1985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Implementation of Stack Height fiegul ations — Presumptive NSPS
Emission Limit for Fluid Mo ing Sta k’Above Formula GEP Height
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Divfslon (MD—15)
TO: Director, Air Management Division
Regions I—X
The following guidance is provided to explain the general emission
control requirements for sources conducting fluid modeling to justify stack
height in excess of that provided by the GEP formulae. While some of the
discussion and examples contained herein focus on utility sources, the
procedures outlined in this memorandum are generally applicable to all
stationary source categories. Please note that this is guidance. States
may present any other demonstrations that they may feel are warranted in
individual circumstances.
Background
The revised stack height regulations published on July 8, 1985, define
thret methods for determining good engineering practice (GEP) stack
height. These methods include:
1— a 65 meter de minimis GEP height;
2— the height determined by using an applicable formula based on the
dimensions of nearby buildings; and
3— the height necessary to avoid excessive concentrations due to
downwash as shown using a field study or fluid modeling
demonstration.
As the preamble to the regulations points out, the revised definition
of “excessive concentrations,” a 40—percent increase in concentrations
due to downwash resulting in a NAAQS or PSD increment exceedance,
necessitates that an emission rate be specified for purposes of evaluating
fluid modeling. The regulations require that a presumptive emission rate
equivalent to the new source performance star ards (NSPS) be established
for the source in question before modeling may be conducted to determine
-------
2
stack height needed to avoid excessive concentrations due to downwash.*
This emission rite is described as “presLmlptive TM because it is EPA’s
presumption that all sources seeking to justify stack heights exceeding
those provided by the GEP formulae are capable of controlling their
emissions to NSPS levels. However, .the regulations also allow source
owners or operators to rebut this presiznption, establishing an alternative
emission rate that represents the most stringent level of control that
can feasibly be met by that source in excess of the NSPS level. In the
preamble to the regulations, EPA indicated that it will rely on the
“Guidelines for Determination of Best Available Retrofit Technology for
Coal—Fired Power Plants and other Existing Stationary Facilities,
EPA—450/3—80—009b” (SARI Guidelines) when reviewing these rebuttals.
If it is infeasible for a source to control its emissions to NSPS
levels, then an alternative limit representing the lowest feasible emission
limit must be met before obtaining credit for stack height In excess of
GEP formula height. Sources may consider such factors as remaining plant
life and the cost of modifying existing equipment when determining NSPS
feasibility.
Procedures
The general pro:edure that is described in the BART Guidelines for
analyzing control alternatives should be followed to identify and evaluate
alternatives for sources seeking credit for stack heights In excess of
those produced by the applicable GEP formulae. Because the guidelines
were originally written to address visibility impairment, however, not all
of the analytical steps or applicability criteria——such as analysis of
visibility impairment or examptions for power plants below 750 megawatts-—
will be appropriate, and need not be addressed.
General steps in the analysis described in Section 2.0 of the
guidelines can be sLs marized as follows.
1. Identify a range of control alternatives, including both pre— and
post—combustion controls. In this regard, several fuel substitution and
alternative fuel bleids should be considered, as well as technological
alternatives, such as coal c eaning and flue gas desulfurization.
2. Calculate tie cost, emissions, and other enviromiental and energy
impacts of the alternatives inc1uding those meeting NSPS objectives).
3. Select the alternative that represents the most stringent level
of emissions control feasible.
*Where the HSPS has been subject to revision, and the source in
question is not subject to the revised NSPS, the earliest standard will be
applied; e.g., for power plants a rate of 1.2 lb/mm3tu would be used.
-------
3
In perform- ng these analyses, it is important to keep in mind that
EPA’s presumption is that the NSPS emission limit is feasible unless
demonstrated otherwise. When carrying out evaluations, source owners or
operators riiay consider such factors as remaining useful plant life, the
remaining life of any equipment affected by revised emission rates
(including any control equipment), the cost of modifying boilers, control
equipment, and fuel handling facilities, and the cost of modifying or
cancelling existing fuel supply contracts (remaining useful plant life,
If a significant factor in determining NSPS feasibility, may necessitate
restrictions on the period of applicability of less stringent emission
I irnits). Finally, it is important to analyze, not only a range of alter-
native controls, but several combinations of alternatives, since such
combinations may yield a greater and more cust-effective degree of
emissions control.
Since determinations of the adequacy of any rebuttals of the NSPS
emission limit and the reasonableness of control alternatives considered
must be made on a case-by-case basis, and will be subject to public review
and comment during the rulemaking process, all technical and economic
analyses, as well as any claims of infeasibility, must be fully documented
and supported by any information that may be available.
If you have any questions regarding the application of this guidance
in a particular set of circumstances, please contact Eric Ginsburg at
(FTS) 629—5540 or Sharon Reinders at (FTS) 629-5526.
-------
?Ni s-1o-’22-oo
. S ED SZq
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
‘ Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
t
OCT 2 8 isa
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Implementation of Stack Heig Regulati9ps — Exceptions From
Restrictions on Credit for r ed
FROM: Darryl 0. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Developm t Di y f ion (MD —15)
TO: Director, Air Management Division
Regions I—X
This guidance has been prepared to address two issues pertaining to
credit for merged stacks prior to July 8, 1985. It establishes a procedure
that should be used to prepare and to review justifications for merging gas
streams for economic or engineering reasons, and to address the presumption
that merging was significantly motivated by an intent to gain credit for
increased dispersion. Please note that this is guidance; States may submit
alternative demonstrations in support of merged stack exemptions If they
feel the individual circumstances warrant.
Background
Recent revisions to EPA’s stack height regulations place certain
restrictions on the degree to which stationary sources may rely on the
effects of dispersion techniques when calculating allowable emissions.
One such restriction is provided for the merging of gas streams, or
combining of stacks. Several exemptions have been provided in the regula-
tion, however. More specifically, 40 CFR Part 51.1(hh)(2)(ii) allows
credit under circumstances where:
A. The source owner or operator demonstrates that the facility was
originally designed and constructed with such merged gas streams;
B. After July 8, 1985, such merging is part of a change in operation
at the facility that Includes the Installation of pollution controls and is
accompanied by a net reduction in the allowable emissions of a pollutant.
This exclusion from the definition of disperslon techniques TM shall apply
only to the emission limitation for the pollutant affected by such change
In operation; or
C. Before July 8, 1985, such merging was part of a change in operation
at the facility that Included the installation of emissions control equip—
ment or was carried out for sound economic or engineering reasons. Where
there was an increase in the federally—approved emission limitation for any
-------
2
pollutant or, in the event that no emission limitation was in existence
prior to the merging, an increase In the quantity of any pollutants actually
emitted from existing units prior to the merging, the reviewing agency
shall presume that merging was significantly motivated by an Intent to gain
emissions credit for greater dispersion. Absent a demonstration by the
source owner or operator that merging was not significantly motivated by
such an intent, the reviewing agency shall deny credit for the effects of
such merging in calculating the allowable emissions for the source.
General Requirements
Figure 1 illustrates a framework for evaluating claims for merged
stack credit. Because merged gas streams are generally regarded as prohibited
dispersion techniques under the regulations, it Is incumbent on the State
or the source owner or operator to demonstrate that such merging was conducted
for sound economic or engineering reasons, and was not significantly motivated
by an intent to avoid emission controls. Consequently, the first step
should entail a review of State and EPA files to determine the existence of
any evidence of intent on the part of the source owner or operator.
Information showing that merging was conducted specifically to increase
final exhaust gas plume rise serves as a demonstration of dispersion intent
that justifies a denial of credit for merged gas streams. Demonstrations that
merging was carried out for sound economic or engineering reasons are
expected to show that either the benefits of merging due to reduced
construction and maintenance costs outweigh the benefits relating to lower
emission control costs or that relevant engineering considerations showed
the merging to be clearly superior to other configurations.
Demonstration Requirements
Several exemptions from prohibitions on gas stream merging are provided
for existing sources In the stack height regulations:
1- where sources constructed their stacks before December 31, 1970,
2- where the total facility-wide emissions from the source do not
exceed 5,000 tons per year,
3- where the facility was originally designed and constructed
with merged gas streams, and -
4— where the merging was part of a change In facility operation that
included the installation of pollution control equipment and resulted in
no Increase in the allowable emissions of any pollutant.* Where there
was an increase In emissions In conjunction with the merging and installation
of control equipment, the regulations require that source owners also make
an affirmative demonstration that the merging was not motivated by dispersive
intent.
*Where there was no federally-approved emission limit prior to merging
gas streams, there must be no Increase in the actual emissions of any
pollutant. Moreover, It is incumbent on the State to demonstrate that there
was a logical relationship between the merging of existing gas streams and
the installation of controls.
-------
3
Sources that are not covered under these criteria may still qualify for
exemption if they can show that merging was conducted for sound economic
or engineering reasons. Such demonstrations should Include justifications
for having replaced existing stacks. This may be done, for Instance, by
documenting through maintenance records, correspondence, or other
contemporaneous evidence, that the existing stacks had reached the end of
their useful life, were prematurely corroded, had sustained other damage
making them unservicable, were of a height less than that regarded as
good engineering practice, thereby causing downwash problems, or that the
addition of new units at the facility necessitated additional stacks and
insufficient land was available. The absence of any evidence supporting
the need for stack replacement creates a strong presumption that merging
was carried out specifically to avoid the installation of pollution
controls, i.e., was Msignlficantly motivated by an Intent to-gain emissions
credit for increased dispersion.N
No Increase in Allowable Emissions
Once this initial criterion is satisfied, demonstrations may show
that merging was based either on sound economic or sound engineering
reasons. Claims based on strict engineering justifications may be more
difficult to show, since the existence of more than one reasonable
engineering solution generally leads to a decision based on economics.
However, if it can be documented that the merged stack configuration was
clearly superior to other stack configurations for purely engineering
reasons, without consideration of cost, then credit for merging may be
granted.
In order to most reliably implement the provisions of the regulations
regarding the merging of gas streams for sound economic reasons, it would
be necessary to ascertain the actual Intent of the source owner or operator
at the time the decision was made to merge gas streams. Recognizing that
the difficulty of doing so was the basis for EPA’s rejection of an TM intent
testN in the rule, the following approach provides a surrogate demonstration
of Intent. This approach is summarized in Figure 2.
Because the potential savings attributable to the avoidance of
pollution controls can significantly influence decisions to merge stacks,
one way to show the absence of dispersion intent Is to conduct an analysis
of the annualized capital and maintenance costs for merged stacks and for
Individual stacks, and compare the results to the compliance costs (fuel
and operation and maintenance of any control equipment) calculated based on
the emission limitations derived with and without merged stack credit. If,
when the difference in capital and maintenance costs is compared with the
difference in compliance costs over the period of capital nort1zat1on, the
capital and maintenance cost saving is greater than the compliance cost
saving, then merging can be accepted as having a sound economic basis.
In establishing this rule of thumb, we are aware that a benefit of as
little as 10-20 percent could be considered NslgniflcantN In the context of
the court’s holding on this matter——i.e., such a benefit could have been
considered to be a relevant factor In decisions to construct merged stacks.
-------
4
However, recognizing that documentation of cost analyses after an extended
period of time——up to 15 years——is likely to be limited, we believe that
the 50 percent test articulated above would constitute a more reasonable
basis for Initial determinations (that is, a level at which we believe that
there was likely a significant incentive to merge stacks to avoid control
requirements).
Affirmative Demonstrations of Nondfsperslofl Intent
In some Instances, a State or emission source owner may not be able to
make a demonstration as described above, or believe that sound economic
reasons existed for merging stacks, regardless of the relationship between
financial savings attributable to reduced emission control requirements
versus lower stack construction cost. In such-cases, an opportunity should
be provided to affirmatively demonstrate that merged stacks were not
Nsignlficantly motivated by an Intent to obtain emissions credit for
Increased dispersion.N The burden of proof rests solely with source owners
or operators attempting to make this showing.
Demonstrations may rely on any relevant evidence, Including but not
limited to the following:
— construction permits, or permits to operate from pollution control
agencies
— correspondence between the source owner or operator and goverrinent
agencies
— engineering reports relating to the facility
— facility records
— affidavits
— any other relevant materials
For Instance, such a demonstration could be made by submitting
documentary or other evidence (e.g., internal company memoranda presenting
the alternative construction opportunities available to the company) that
indicates the intent of the source owner or operator and shows that
consideration of dispersion advantages was conspicuously absent.
Alternatively, It might be shown that either action by the State In
approving a revised emission limit followed actual merging sufficiently
later In time to suggest that dispersion credit was not considered by the
source at the time of merging or the State approved limit was unrelated to
the merging. -
In attempting to make demonstrations, source owners or operators
should present as much evidence as can be located, with the understanding
that demonstrations based on any single category of evidence (such as
affidavits) presented in Isolation are less likely to constitute acceptable
showings than demonstrations based on cumulative bodies of evidence.
As discussed below, affirmative showings will be required of sources
whose merged stacks were associated with an Increase In allowable emissions
as well as some sources whose mergers were not associated with such
-------
5
increases. However, EPA expects sources whose emission limits increased
subsequent to the merging to present stronger showings than those with no
increase, since the regulatory definition of “dispersion technique” views
such increases as an explicit indication that the merged stacks were
significantly motivated by an intent to gain credit for increased disper-
sion. Sources who do not Increase their emissions, but who have difficulty
making other demonstrations, such as the installation of pollution controls,
or merging for sound economic or engineering reasons convey a more Implicit
Indication of dispersion Intent that must be rebutted; for such sources,
however, the presumption of Intent is not as compelling.
Increases In Allowable Emissions
As stated above, In cases where the allowable emissions of any
pollutant increased In conjunction with the merging of gas streams, such
an Increase provides even stronger circumstantial evidence that merging
was riot carried out for sound economic or engineering reasons, but was
“significantly motivated by an intent to gain emissions credit for greater
dispersion. This presumption may be rebutted by making one of the
following demonstrations.
1— by showing that the cost savings associated with reduced compliance
costs for merged stacks are less than 50 percent of the total savings due to
merged stacks (I.e., annual compliance savings plus annualized capital
and maintenance savings), and by making an affirmative showing, as described
above, that there was no significant motivation to gain credit for the
increased dispersion provided by merged stacks; or
2— by showing that alternatives to stack merging were reasonably
precluded strictly for engineering reasons, and by affirmatively demon-
strating the absence of significant dispersion intent, as noted above.
In the absence of such a showing, It should be presumed that avoidance
of emissions control was a significant factor in the decision to merge gas
streams, and credit should be denied.
If u or your staff have any questions regarding the application of
this guidance in specific Instances, please contact Eric Ginsburg at
(FTS) 629-5540 or Sharon Reinders at (FTS) 629—5526.
Attac P uents
-------
FIGURE 1
I Yes I
_____ Increased
I No I Emissions
Credit I Yes I
Granted
n
Credit
Granted
Affirmative
S howl nq
Pre— 7/8/85
Retrofit Merged Stacks
Record of Intent
for Dispersion
Purposes
I No
Installed
Pollution Controls
______ No
I Yes I Credit
No
to
No
Stacks I No I Credit
•1
I No _____
No’ jYes
Credit
Economic
Reasons for
Merql ng
INol No
Credit
-------
Figure 2
Economic Justification
for Merged Stacks
Savings due to Avoidance
of More Stringent
Emission-Limit
No Increase
In Emissions
Increase
In Emissions
Less than 50% of Total
Savings due to Merged
Stack Construction
Credit
Granted
Affirmative
Showing
Exceed 50% of Total
Savings due to Merged
Stack Construction
Affirmative
Showing
No
Credit
-------
Page No. 1
03/03/88
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 301
UPDATE NUMBER 8
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 301
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN3O1-81—01—20—001
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REGIONAL CONSISTENCY REGULATIONS
-------
PM 1Z3-85—fl-10007
itD
.“g ‘ . UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCV
! .-1 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
4);. IsCl
1985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Questions and Answers on Implei enting the
Revised Stack Height Regulation
FROM: G. T. Helms, Chief L
Control Progr ns Operations Branch (MD—15)
TO: Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
A nunber of questions have arisen in several areas of the revised
stack beight regulation since its promulgation on July 8. The following
answers have been developed In response. The questions and answers are
arranged under the general topic headings of Interpretation of the regula-
tion, State implenentation plan (SIP) requir nents, and modeling analyses.
Please continue to call Sharon Relnders at 629—5526 If you have further
comnents or additional questions.
Interpretation of the Regulation
1. Q: What criteria should be used to determine when a stack was ‘in
existence’ with respect to the various grandfathering dates in the
regulation?
A: The recent promulgation of revisions to the stack height regulation
did not change the definition of ‘in existence.’ The definition Is provided
in 40 CFR 51.1(gg) and includes either the conrencenent of continuous
construction on the stack or entering Into a binding contract for stack
construction, the cancellation of which would result in ‘substantial
loss’ to the source owner or operator. The definition of what constitutes
a ‘substantial loss will be the subject of future guidance.
2. Q: What ‘sources definition should be used in determining whether tie—
ins to grandfathered stacks should be permitted or prohibited?
A: The term ‘source’ In this instance means a single eiiitting unit.
Thus, credit for tying a single post-1970 unit(s) into a grandfathered
stack serving a nunber of old units is prohibited under the regulation.
-------
3. Q: What is meant in the regulation by Dfacilltyu?
A: For purposes of this regulation, the definition contained in
40 CFR 51.301(d) should be used. That definition essentially defines the
term as the entire complex of enitting activities on one property or
contiguous properties controlled by a single owner or designee.
4. Q: Must good engineering practice (GEP) stack height be established
separately for each pollutant? If not, how should it be determined?
A: It is not necessary to calculate a separate GEP stack height for
each pollutant. Since GEPa is defined by SectIon 123 of the Clean Air
Act as the height necessary to ensure against excessive concentrations of
any air pollutant, it follows that GEP should be established for each
source based on the pollutant requiring the greatest height to avoid
excessive concentrations.
5. Q: How should UrelianceN on the 2.5K formul a be determined?
A: First, “re1iance on the 2.5H formula applies only to stacks In
existence before January 12, 1979. Credit for Nrellanceu on the 2.5K
formula, can be granted under the following cases: (a) Where the stack
was actually built to a height less than or equal to 2.5K; (b) Where the
stack was built taller than 2.5H and the enission limitation reflects the
use of 2.5H in the SIP modeling analysis; or (c) Where evidence is provided
to show Nrelfanceu as discussed in the following paragraph. If no modeling
was used to set the emission limitation for the source, then It cannot be
argued that there was TM rellance M on the formula, since EPA s guidance was
specifically aimed at using stack height credit in establishing emission
limitations. Once It is determined that the emission limitation was in
fact based on estimates of dispersion from the stack, then the source can
be said to have properly “relied TM on the 2.5H formula. In the event that
it cannot be determined that the emission limit Is based on TMrelianceu on
the 2.5K formula, then the refined H + 1.5L formula must be used.
Where a clear relationship between a 2.5K stack height and the
emission limitation cannot be shown, where the emission limitation was
not calculated based precisely on the 2.5K height, or where the stack
height used In modeling cannot be verified, then additional evidence will
be needed. Preferred uld be written doc .mentation, such as copies of
the original engineering calculations or correspondence between the State
or the emission source owner and EPA indicating that the 2.5K formula
should be used to derive the emission limitation. However, recognizing
that such evidence Is often not retained for more than a few years,
TMreconstructedN docunentation may be considered, but should only be used
as a last resort. This evidence should Include explanations by those
individuals who were Involved In designing the facility, calculating
emission rates, and who represented the facility In dealings with the
-------
—3—
State and EPA on how the emission limit was derived, including a discussion
of how the formula was originally used in deriving the source emission
limitation, a discussion of the analytical method applied, and a listing
of any contacts or discussions with EPA during that period. ThIs listing
will aid EPA in searching its o i files to find any records of communication
or correspondence that may bear on the issue.
In no case should i source be allowed after January 12, 1979, to
obtain a relaxation in the emission limitation by arguing that It Ireliedu
on past EPA guidance endorsing the 2.SH formula. In cases where a relaxation
based on GEP formula height Is sought in the future, the refined H + 1.51.
formula must be used.
6. Q: The pre nble specifically discusses cooling towers as structures to
which the formula should not be applied. Will the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards be specifying other structures that are not well
represented by the formula?
A: The discussion In the preemble and GEP guideline Is not Intended to
be all .lnclusive; judgment should be used In determining when fluid
modeling should be used to estimate the effects of structures with rounded,
domed, or tapered shapes. Water towers and storage tanks are additional
exai ples of such structures. As additional Information becomes available
on the aerodynanic effects of specific building shapes and configurations,
we will evaluate the need to revise the GEP guidance. However, at present,
there are no plans to Issue a laundry llstN of structures to which the
formulas do not apply.
SIP Requirements
7. Q: Should a compliance averaging time be explicitly stated In a
SIP revision for sulfur dioxide (502) emission limits that are revised to
meet the stack height regulation?
A: A compliance averaging time need not be specified as an enforceable
SIP provision as long as a stack test compliance method is in place in the
underlying federally approved SIP. EPA’s current national policy requires
that SIP’s and permits contain enforceable ushort_term emission limits
set to limit maxlminn emissions to a level which ensures protection of the
short—term national anbient air quality standards (NAAQS) and prevention
of significant deterioration (PSD) Increments. EPA relies upon a short-term
stack test provision In the SIP as the method of determining compliance
with the emission limits. In lieu of a stack test, EPA has accepted fuel
s nplirig and analysis and Continuous emission ln.stack monitors (CEll’s).
When compliance is to be determined from Information obtained by fuel
sanpling and analysis and CEll’s, short—term averaging times should be
specified.
-------
8. Q: Are all States required to have “stack height regulations”?
A: Limitations on creditable stack height and dispersion techniques
impact the SIP prograii In t areas——SIP enission limits for existing
sources and SIP provisions covering new source review (NSR)JPSD permitting
procedures. For existing sources, State regulations limiting credit for
stack height and other dispersion techniques (stack height regulations)
are not necessary as long as the SIP enission limits are not affected in
any manner by. so much of the stack height as exceeds GEP, or any other
dispersion technique. Where a State has stack height regulations, those
regulations must be consistent with EPA ’s regulation, Where a SIP contains
regulations that are inconsistent with EPA’s regulation, the State must
either adopt a stack height regulation that is consistent with EPA’s or
incorporate the EPA regulation by reference.
For the NSR/PSD progr s, It Is essential that the plan contain
limitations on the auount of creditable stack height and other dispersion
techniques. The following cases have been developed to illustrate what
action(s) may be required of the State since promulgation of the stack
height regulation.
CASE AU): A fully or partially delegated PSD progr t that references but
does not define GEP where the delegation agreenent does not contain
a date to define which version of the PSO rule Is being Tegated,
ACTION: Notify the State that all permits issued henceforth must be
consistent with EPA’s stack height regulation. All permits
previously issued must be reviewed and revised as necessary
within 9 months.
CASE A(2): A fully or partially delegated PSD progr n that references
but does not define GEP where the delegation agreenent
does contain a date to define which version of the PSD rule
ITbefng delegated.
ACTION: Update the delegation agreenent to reflect agreenent with EPA ’s
stack height regulation as of July 8, 1985. Notify the State
that all permits issued henceforth must be consistent with
EPA’s stack height regulation. All permits previously issued
must be reviewed and revised as necessary within 9 months.
CASE B: The current federally approved SIP for NSR/PSD does not
contain a reference to GEP or dispersion techniques, i.e.,
provisions assuring that enission limitations will not be
affected by stack height in excess of GEP or any prohibited
dispersion techniques do not exist in the current SIP.
-------
-5—
ACTION: Notify the State that such provisions must be adopted and
submitted as a SIP revision within 9 months. This can be
acccomplished by adopting stack height regulations at the
State level or by adopting the appropriate reference and
convnith ent to comply with EPA’s stack height regulation as
promulgated on July 8, 1985. InterIm permitting should be
consistent with EPA’S stack height regulatlon.**
CASE C: The current federally approved SIP for NSR/PSD contains
references to, but does not define, GEP or dispersion techniques.
ACTION: Notify the State that a coimnith ent to comply with EPA’S stack
height regulation as promulgated on July 8, 1985, is required.
If a State Is unable to make such a conmitment, State regulations
must be revised to be consistent and submitted to EPA as a SIP
revision within 9 months and interim permitting should be
consistent with EPA’s stack height regulation. No “grace
period” will be allowed for sources receiving permits between
July 1985 and April 1986.*
CASE D The current federally approved SIP for NSR/PSD contains stack
height regulations that are Inconsistent with EPA’s regulation.
ACTION: Notify the State that such regulations must be revised to be
consistent and submitted as a SIP revision within 9 months
and that interim permitting should be consistent with EPA’s
stack height regulatlon.**
CASE E(1): A SIP for NSR/PSD has been submitted to EPA, or Will be
submitted to EPA before the due date for stack height revisions.
The submittal contains provisions that conflict with EPA’s
stack height regulation.
ACTION: Notify the State that EPA cannot approve the submittal until
It Is revised pursuant to EPA’s July 8, 1985, regulation.
•*In the event that a State does not have ega1 authority to comply with
EPA’s regulation In the interim (e.g., because it must enforce State
rules that are Inconsistent with EPA’s regulation) and is compelled to
issue a. permit that does not meet the requireiients of the EPA revised
stack height regulation, then EPA should notify the State that such
permits do not constitute authority under the Clean Air Mt to comnence
construction.
-------
-6.
CASE E(2): As in Case E(1), a SIP for NSR/PSD has been submitted to EPA
or will be submitted to EPA before the due date for stack
height revisions, The submittal is not inconsistent with
EPA’s stack height regulation, but portions of the existing
approved SIP that relate to the submittal are inconsistent.
ACTION: Approve the SIP submittal based on a commi ent by the State
to correct the inconsistencies in its existing SIP to comport
with EPA’s July 8 regulatIon and submit the corrections as a
SIP revision within 9 months. Interim permitting should be
consistent with EPA’s stack height regulation.** If the exist—
- ing IP Is ambiguous, I.e., the SIP references but does not
define terms relating to GEP or dispersion techniques, the
action steps outlined In Case C above should be followed,
CASE F: In nonattairmient areas, enission limits or permits do not always
Include modeling, but rather are based on lowest achievable
enisslon rate (LAER) and offsets.
ACTION: If no modeling Is used in the issuance of a permit, the enission
requirenents for the source are not TM affected M by stack heights
or dispersion techniques, and no action is needed. However, if
modeling was used In the process of preparing and issuing a
permit, such as cases where offsets were obtained offslte, that
modeling must be reviewed for consistency with the stack height
regul atlon.
9. Q: What must all States do now that EPA’s stack height regulation Is
promulgated?
A: States must review and revise their SIP’s as necessary to Include or
revise provisions to limit stack height credits and dispersion techniques
to comport with the revised regulations, and, in addition, review and
revise all aitission limitations that are affected by stack height credit
above GEP or any other dispersion techniques. In accordance with Section
406(d) (2) of the Clean Air Act, States have 9 months from promulgation to
submit the revised SIP’s and revised SIP enission limitations to EPA.
In an August 7, 1985, meno titled ‘Implenentatlon of the Revised
Stack Height Regulation——Request for Inventory and Action Plan to Revise
SIP’s, TM Regional Offices were requested to begin r 1ng with each of
their States to develop States’ Action Plans. Each Action Plan should
include the following: Cl) Pi inventory of (a) all stacks greater than
65 meters (m), (b) stacks at sources which exceed 5,000 tons per year
total allowable 502 enissions; and (2) A reasonable schedule of dates for
significant State actions to conform both State stack height rules and
enission limitations to EPA’s stack height regulation. Schedules should
include Increnents of progress. Regional Offices should be satisfied
that each of their States provide schedules for completion 0 f the tasks
-------
—7.
as outlined In the August meno and report the status of schedule commitments
to theit on a monthly basis. Regional Offices have been asked to forward
monthly status reports to the Control Programs Developnent Division on
the States’ progress to meet schedul ed convnitments and al so report the
results of followup with the States on schedules that are not met. In
order to facilitate tracking the States monthly progress, guidance on a
standardized format will be issued shortly.
Modeling Analyses
10. Q: Is there any restriction or prohibition against, or demonstration
required for, raising an existing (or replacing) stack up to 65 rn?
A: No, as long as prohibited dispersion techniques are not employed.
11. Q: Are flares considered to be stacks?
A: No, flares are excluded from the regul ation.
12. Q: What load should be used for a fluid modeling demonstration?
A:- One hundred percent load should generally be used unless there
is a compelling argunent otherwise..
13. Q: Can new or modified sources who have agreed to a case-by-case
best available control technology (BACT) emission rate be required to use
this rate for fluid modeling rather than a less stringent new source
performance standard (NSPS) emission rate?
A: As set forth in 40 CFR 51.1 (kk), the allowable emission rate to
be used in making demonstrations under this part shall be prescribed by
the NSPS that is applicable to the source category unless the owner or
operator demonstrates that this emission rate is Infeasible,
14. Q: Must the exceeddnce of NAAQS or PSD Increment due to downwash, wakes,
or eddies occur at a location meeting the definition of ambient air?
A: No, the exceedance may occur at any location, including that to
which the general public does not have access.
15. Q: Is a source that meets NSPS or BACT emission limits subject to
restrictions on piune merging?
A: Yes. However, In a majority of such cases, there will be no practical
effect since BACT or NSPS limits will be sufficient to assure attairrent
without credit for plume rise enhancement.
-------
.8—
Q: What stack parameters are to be used in modeling when the actual
stack height is greater than GEP height?
A: Where it is necessary to reduce stack height credit below what is
existence, for modeling purposes, use existing stack gas exit parameters——
tenperature and flow rate—-and existing stack top diameter and model at
GE? height.
17. Q: How should a stack that Is less than GEP height be modeled when
dispersion techniques are amployed?
A: In order to establish an appropriate amisslon limitation where a
source desires to construct less than a GEP stack but use dispersion
techniques to make up the difference in plune rise, two cases should be
tested. First, conduct a modeling analysis inputting the GEP stack
height without enhanced dispersion parameters, then conduct a second
analysis inputting the less than GEP stack height with the increased
plu ie rise. The more stringent amission limitation resulting from each
of the two runs should be the one specified as the enforceable limitation.
18. Q: How are the effects of prohibited dispersion techniques to be excluded
for modeling purposes?
A: Where prohibited dispersion techniques have been used, modeling to
exclude their effects on the eiilsslon limitation will be accomplished by
using the t nperature and flow rates as the gas stream enters the stack, and
recalculating stack parameters to exclude the prohibited techniques
(e.g., calculate stack diameter without restrictions in place, determine
exit gas tamperatures before the use of prohibited reheaters, etc.).
19. Q: How are single flued merged stacks and multiflued stacks to be
treated in a modeling analysis?
A: This Is a multistep process. First, sources with allowable
emissions below 5,300 tons/year may be modeled accounting for any plune
merging that has been enployed. For larger sources, multiflued stacks
are considered as prohibited dispersion techniques in the same way as
single flued merged gas streams unless one of the three allowable conditions
has been met; i.e., (1) the source owner or operator deuonstrates that
the facility was originally designed and constructed with such merged gas
streams; (2) after date of promulgation, denonstrate that such merging Is
associated with a change in operation at the facility that Includes the
Installation of pollution controls and results in a net reduction in the
allowable enissions of the pollutant for which credit Is sought; or (3)
before date of promulgation, denonstrate that such merging did not result
tn any increase in the allowable snissions (or, In the event that no
amisslon limit existed, actual enission level) and was associated with a
change in operation at the facility that Included the installation of
-------
-9..
ei issions control equipnent or was carried out for Sound economic or
engineering reasons, as d nonstrated to EPA. Guidelines on what constitutes
Sound economic or engineering justification will be issued shortly.
If plimie merging from multiflued stacks is not allowable, then each
flue/liner must be modeled as a separate source and the combined impact
determined. For single flued merged stacks where credit is not allowed,
each unit should be modeled as a separate stack located at the same
point. The exit parameters, I.e. velocity and t nperature, would be the
same as for the existing merged stack conditions and the volume flow rate
based on an apportiorinent of the flow from the individual units.
20. Q: What stack height for point sources should be input to air quality
dispersion modeling for the purpose of dønonstrating protection of the
NAAQS and PSD lncreiients?
A: A discussion of the maximum stack height credit to be used in modeling
analyses Is provided in the Guidellne for Deteniiination of Good Engineering
Practice Stack Height TM and provides that the GEP stack height should be
used as input to the model asses nerit. If a source is operating with a
less than GEP stack height, then the actual stack height should be input
to thelnodel.
21. Q: What stack height should be used for background sources in
modeling analyses?
A: The GEPitack height for each background source should
be input to the model asses nent. If a background source is operating
with a less than GEP stack height, then the actual stack height should be
input to the model.
22. Q: Can credit for plume merging due to installation of control
equipnent for total suspended particulate (TSP) matter be allowed when
setting the SO 2 limit?
A: To state the question another way, the concern Is what impact
the merging and installation of control equipnent have on the enisslo,,
limit for another pollutant, and whether the merging occurred before or
after July 8, 1985. After July 8, 1985, any exclusion from the definition
of M djspersjort techniqueSu applies only to the enission limitation for
the pollutant affected by such change in operation and is accompanied by
a net reduction in allowable enissions of the ollutant. For example, a
source tears dowr two old stacks and builds one new GEP stack with an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP). This results in a net reduction in TSP
enissions. This source could model using stack gas characteristics
resulting from merging the two gas streams in setting the TSP enission
limit, but may not so model and receive the credit for stack merging when
evaluating the SO 2 enission limit.
-------
Before July 8, 1985, installation of TSP pollution control equipment
generally justifies the merging of the stacks for TSP. However, if a
sourceas enission limitation for $02 Increased after the merging, then
credit uld generally not be allowed since it is pres mied that the
merging was to Increase dispersion.
A source with no previous $02 emission limit that merges stacks and
installs an ESP for TSP control may consider the effects of merging on
compliance with the TSP NAAQS but may not use merging to justify setting
an $02 emission limit less stringent than its actual emission rate before
the merging.
23. Q: If, after determining GEP stack height by fluid modeling,
dispersion modeling under other than ‘downwash meteorological conditions
shows that a l er emission limit than that from the fluid model GEP
analysis is necessary to meet nbient air uaiity constraints, should a
new stack height be defined for the source?
A: No. GEP stack height Is set. Mthient air quality problens
predicted by dispersion modeling at the fluid modeled height means that a
more stringent emission limit Is necessary.
24. Q: Does EPA intend to issue additional guidance on fluid modeling
demonstrations?
A: See the attached memo from Joseph A. Tikvart, Chief, Source
Receptor Analysis Branch, to David Stonefield, Chief, Policy Development
Section, on guidance for a discussion of existing and additional guidance
on fluid model danonstratiOns.
At tacirent
cc: Stack Height Contacts
Gerald Emison
Ron Campbell
B. J. Steigerwald
‘NOTE: See PN 123—85—0919006
-------
- . i -öt-U9- —UUb
dO 5?.p
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
‘4* .mo’
September 19, 1985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance on Fluid Model Demonstrations for Determining GEP
Stack Height in Complex Terrain
FR (: ,, Joseph A. Tikvart, Q ief
Source Receptor Analysis Branch, MDAD
TO: David Stonefield, Qiief
Policy Development Section, CPDD
The recently promulgated stack height regulation requires that a source
that wishes to receive credit for the effects of wakes, eddies and downwash
produced by nearby terrain for the purpose of calculating CEP stack height
must conduct a fluid model demonstration or a field study. Recent guidance
for fluid modeling these terrain effects is contained in Section 3.6 of the
“Guideline for Determination of CEP Stack Height (Revised),” EPA 450/4—80—023R,
June 1985, available from NTIS as PB 85—225—241. In addition, the report
“Fluid Modeling Determination of Good Engineering Practice Stack Height in
Complex Terrain,” EPA 600/3—85—022, available from NTIS PB 85—203—107,
provides an actual case of bow EPA conducted a GEP determination, short of
performing the “excessive concentration” criteria test. Requests to conduct
field studies in lieu of fluid modeling demonstrations will be evaluated on
a case—by—case basis; refer to pp. 46—47 of the GEP Guideline.
Previously, EPA published three documents which form the basis for
conducting fluid model demonstrations, particularly in flat terrain
situations: (1) “Guideline for Fluid Modeling of Atmospheric Diffusion,”
EPA 600/8—81—009, April 1981, available from NTIS as PB 81—201—410; (2)
“Guideline for Use of Fluid Modeling to Determine Good Engineering Practice
Stack Height,” EPA 450/4—81—003, July 1981, available from NTIS as PB 82—145—
327; and (3) “Determination of Good—Engineering—Practice Stack Height: A
Fluid Model Demonstration Study for a Power Plant,” EPA 600/3—83—024, April
1983, available from NTIS as PB 83—207407.
Lastly, EPA conducted a 4—day iioztshop on fluid modeling and GEP
determination at the Fluid Modeling Facility at RTP in February 1981,
attended by staff from each Regional Office. Although some attendees are
no longer with the Agency, we believe at least one person in each Region
who attended is still “on board,” except for Regions II and VIII, and could
serve as a resource person. At the Regional Workshop on the Stack Height
Regulation next month, we will poll the attendees concerning the need for
-------
another fluid modeling workshop for Regional Office and State technical
staff. If a need is expressed and specific attendees can be identified, we
will request the Meteorology and Assessment Division, ASRL, to present such
a workshop at RTP within the next few months.
The above documents together with staff that have some knowledge of
fluid modeling should enable most Regions to provide initial technical
assistance to the States and enable the States to increase their own level
of expertise. Note that document (2) contains a report checklist in Section
5, outlining what a fluid model report Should contain. Additional itsms
explicitly related to complex terrain studies may be required on a case—by—
case basis, especially after reviewing EPA’s example study carefully. More
detailed procedures for implementing the excessive concentration criteria
calailations, using data from a fluid model dernonstration, are being developed
and will be provided at the upcoming Regional Workshop.
Should technical questions arise regarding GEP determinations or fluid
model demonstrations, please contact Jim Dicke or Dean Wilson of my staff,
FTS 629—5681. We assume the Regional Office staffs will attempt a first—cut
resolution of technical issues before requesting our assistance.
cc: S. Reinders
E. Rhoads
F. Schiermeier
D. Wilson
-------
P -1 23-80-12-1 9-001
OE.C 1 9 L 8O
-lonorable Jenninas Randoloh
Cha1r nan , Can ittee on Environment
and Public t4ork
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
3 ar Mr. Chain an:
Thank you for “our letter of October 2 . 1931) exoressinn your continued
interest n the At ency’s definitlcn of ‘an icnt air. ’ .flurinq the tine
since O ’iid a :kins, ny Assistant Aa inistrator for air. 4ois , and
f adiation, net witn you last Febr jar’i, the definition ha been extensively
reviewed and deoated.
fter rev e lna the issues and alternatives, I have detcrrnr.ed that
no change frc the existino po1ic’ is necessary. !e arc rctaininci :. e
oiicy that the exemption frc ambient air is available cn v for t e
a ospher over land o ne or controlled by the source and to which
oublic ac:as is precluded by a fence or other nhysical barriers. E?7.
will continue to review individual situations on a case—b”-case basis
to ensure that the public is ade ua:e1v protected and that there is no
att pt by Sources to circunvent th re uire rent of Section 123 of the
Joan Ai Act.
I hoce that this has been responsive to your needs.
Sincerely yours,
/s! Dou 1 M. Cost1
9ouglas F . Costie
-------
Section 124: Assurance of Adequacy
of State Plans
-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 124
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 124
* PN124—78—07—31—001
IMPLEMENTING SECTION 124 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONI4ENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
‘IJL 3 1 1975
W
tmp enting Section i2 of the iean pN—124-73-0 7 -31-O01
FROM: Waiter C. Barber, Director(
Office of Air Quality P1an gTa’ nd Standarcs
Director, Air & Hazardous 1aterials Division, Regions I, III-X
Jirector, Environmental Programs division, Region II
On January 23, 1978, Richaro Rhoads sent to the Regional Offices
for comment a draft copy of an OAQPS guideline memorancum on imple—
meriting Section 124, Assurance of Adequacy of State Plans, of the
Clean Air Act. This section requires the States to determine the
effect of potential fuel snortages on the adequacy of their SIPs and
to revise their StPs if necessary to counteract any adverse effect
of shor: ces. The draft guicance material was also discussed at the
Feoruary and 1arcn workshops on requirements for nonattainment area
p tans.
The analysis required by Section 124 is, although lrnportant, of
lesSer priority than many other asoects of the a r program. Furtner,
the cepth cf analysis required is nighly deperioent upon tne conuitions
iitnin the ind ’iidua1 States. Although same States may neec to fallow
the ana1yt cal procecures outlined in our January craft Guidance,
most States c u1d cornoiy with Section l2 oy using muci more simplified
zechnicues, and in many States a simole quai :azi’ e assessment wou’d ce
adecuate.
t therefore do not intend to fo aiize un fo nat cnal guicance
on mo1ementat on of Section 124 a: tnis late date. oeiieve you ano
your States should continue to imolement Section 12 in a manner
consistent with the specific concitians within the indivicual States,
keeping in mind the many conflicting resource demands on o:h the
States and E?A.
cc: R. Rhoads
J. ?aogett
Director, Enforcement Division, Regions t-X
Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I X
—
r
4 CRM 32 - ‘.
-------
Section 126: Interstate Pollution Abatement
-------
Page No. 2.
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 126
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 126
* PN126—78—03—16—001
OUT OF STATE SOURCES EFFECT ON IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISION
-------
MAR 3 1978
Out-of-State Sources Effect PN-126-78-03- 16-001
Implementation Plan Revision
Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I, III—X
Director, Environmental Programs Division, Region II
A question has been raised concerning what constitutes an adequate
control strategy determination and how this impacts on regional consistency
in evalusting State implementation plan (SIP) revisions. It will be
assumed for the purpose of SIP development and evaluation that sources
in neighboring States are in compliance with appropriate emission limita-
tions and ambient standards will be achieved as required. Accordingly,
States should develop their plans and EPA should evaluate these plans
based on presumed compliance of sources in neighboring States. Should
it be determined that sources are not in compliance, then appropriate
enforcement action should be initiated against noncomplying sources.
We believe that a “presumed compliance policy” is a fair assumption
and will encourage regional consistency in the SIP process. If you have
an objection to this approach or wish to propose an alternative approach,
please advise me.
-------
4
On June 6, 1984, revisions were proposed to the General Provisions
of Part 61 (49 FR 23498). The proposed revisions included some section
number ch iges, and some sections were expanded. If you have questions
or need auditional guidance, please contact John Crenshaw (629—5571 FTS).
cc: Director, Air and Waste Management Division, Regions 1-Vill, X
R. Biondi, SSCD (EN—341)
R. Campbell, OAQPS (MD-1O)
G. Emison, GAQPS (MD—iD)
E. Reich, SSCD (EN—341)
F. Renner, OAQPS (MD—la)
E. Salo, OGC (LE-132A)
R. Shigehara, OAQPS/ESED (MD-19)
B. Steigerwald, OAQPS (MO-lO)
D. Tyler, OAQPS/CPDD (MD—iS)
G. Walsh, OAQPS/ESED (MD-13)
-------
Section 1 29: Nonattainment Areas
-------
Page No. 1
03/03/88
AIR PROGRANS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 129
UPDATE NUMBER 8
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 129
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN129—77—10—26—001
LETTER TO BILL STEWART FROM DAVID G. HAWKINS
-------
Section 165: Preconstruction Requirements
C)
(31
CD’
Eo
CDV,
_) -‘
CD
—
(I,
-------
Page No. 1
03/07/90
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 165
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 165
* PN165—78—12—22—OOj.
BACT INFORMATION FOR COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS
* PN165—81—04—03—006
LETTER TO NATIONAL PARK SERVICE FROM EDWARD F. TUERK REGARDING PSD
PERM ITS
* PN165—80—12—16—007
INTERPRETATION OF “SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION”
* PN165—84—01—09—012
INTERPRETATION OF THE POLICY ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF PART
D
* PN165—84—01—20—013
PSD INCREMENT CONSUMPTION CALCULATIONS
* PN165—84—06—11—014
APPLICABILITY OF PSD INCREMENTS TO BUILDING ROOFTOPS
* PN165—85—05—09—015
IMPROVED NEW SOURCE REVIEW/PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(NSR/PSD) PROGRAM TRANSFER
* PN165—85—06—28—023
MEMO TO WILLIAM S. BAKER ON SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
-------
PN 165—85-05—09-015
Sr 1 .
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

1 Y 9 7995
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Improved New Source Review/Prey ntion of Significant Deterioration
(NSR/PSD) Program Transfer
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Di ion (MD—15)
TO: Director, Air Division, Regions I—X
One of EPA’s highest air program priorities is the timely transfer
of high quality NSR/PSD programs to the States. While EPA has had consider-
able success in transferring and updating NSR/PSD programs, there are
still some State and local review authorities which have not received one
or both of these programs. Furthermore, several of the transfers have
been incomplete (conditional approvals or partial delegations), have
taken too long, or are outdated due to subsequent court cases (e.g.,
Alabama Power) .
I recognize that a large part of the problem may be unavoidable for
several reasons. First, transfer is difficult due to the unique level of
detail with which the Clean Air Act (Act) outlines mandatory NSR/PSD
program requirements. Next, many States are reluctant to take, update,
or even retain NSR/PSD programs since these programs are believed to be
resource intensive to implement and continually evolving as a result of
litigation and potential Act changes. Finally, the transferred or updated
program must be one of highest quality so the permits issued under these
programs will be consistent with the explicit requirements of the Act and
will be able to withstand legal challenge. Nevertheless, I believe that
our perfomance in this area can and should be improved.
This memo is intended to help facilitate additional program transfers
or upgrades by summarizing most of the considerable but fragmented policy
now governing such changes. Outlined below is a compilation of advice
which has proven useful in expediting the development and processing of
high quality NSR/PSD State implementation plans (SIP) revisions. Each
guidance element is described in terms of the specific problems it addresses
and incorporates comments made on an earlier version of this package.
Check Lists/Critical Elements
Review of SIP’s has often led to lengthy negotiations among Headquarters,
Regional Offices, and State officials. These discussions usually come
after the Regions have already assured the State in some manner that
-------
2
their SIP is approvable. Part of this problem is caused by a lack of
firm guidance up front as to which particular NSR/PSD requirements States
must strictly adhere to and which requirements States have more flexibility
in meeting. Accordingly, CPDD has developed two types of check lists to
help standardize and focus the review process for NSR/PSD SIP’s.
First, comprehensive check lists detailing all elements required in a
PSO or NSR SIP submittal have been prepared (see Attachment A). Several
Regions are already using these or similar check lists for evaluating
State submittals to determine their adequacy relative to the 40 CFR Part 51
requirements and have found them useful.
In order to optimize use of EPA resources and to expedite SIP review,
a second form of check list is being formulated (see Attachment B). This
check list, which is an evolving product, attempts to outline those elements
of NSR/PSD SIPSs which are the explicit requirements of the Act, the subject
of current litigation, or are otherwise critical to the program ( i.e. , produce
a large impact in terms of emissions capture). The checklist thus serves
to indicate where Headquarters will focus its review effort. Attachment C
contains several types of State proposals which Commonly fail to meet these
critical requirements. In an effort to facilitate a timely Headquarters
review, I recommend that the technical support documents (ISO) developed by
the Regions are arranged such that they, as a minimum, indicate how and
where each of the critical elements are met. Similarly, the Federal Register
notices themselves need only mention any difficulties with critical elements
and defer detailed discussions of these and any other problems to the ISO.
To ensure that overall quality of NSR/PSD SIP’s does not suffer. Regions
will be responsible for working with the State/local agencies to develop
rules which you determine to meet all the applicable requirements of 40 CFR
Part 51 ( i.e. , the comprehensive check lists). I will recommend that
approvals of Regional packages which meet the critical program elements
not be questioned by OAR.
While we will devote the vast majority of our efforts during 14-day
review to how the critical NSR elements are addressed in completed rules,
we will also be available for some support regarding the development of
regulatory language. That is, upon request, Mike Trutna and his staff
will assist you in working out appropriate language with a State/local
authority ‘in order that their rule will meet the applicable requirements.
In doing so, please attach your review of the proposed rule along with
the regulation itself. I also stress that when you request this assistance
from Mike, you do so early enough in order that adjustments can be made
before the time of formal SIP submittal.
The success of this concept of shared review responsibility depends
greatly on the content of Attachment B. I invite your continued comments
particularly on ways to improve this and the other check lists.
-------
3
Program Delegation Guidance
About 25 States have taken over responsibility for the PSD program
through delegations. State and local agencies have shown an interest in
this procedure because it usually results in an expedited program transfer.
Full or partial delegation of PSO programs is generally possible in all
cases where the reviewing authority requests the program and has the
necessary resources. To ensure that we are working from a consistent
base with regard to issuing new delegations and updating existing delegation
agreements, I would like to restate two major points within the delegation
policy for PSD programs:
1. States proposing to implement the program generally will be assumed
to have dedicated appropriate resources for the purpose and should be given
the opportunity to proceed without detailed predelegation approvals of
staffing plans.
2. The EPA’s role should be to provide technical assistance as
requested and to review State performance for overall adequacy and consistency.
Comments on individual permits should be limited to identification of explicit
legal or technical deficiencies. The EPA is to avoid routine second guessing
on State-issued permits.
SIP Classification and Processing
There appears to be some confusion on how to apply previous memos on
SIP classification and processing to PSD and NSR rules. To ensure nationa1
consistency, the proposal stage for almost all PSD and NSR SIP’s (or parts
thereof) must be classified as major actions. Some special cases, as well
as some final actions, may be classified as minor. This does not include,
however, finals of proposals which have been changed due to significant
comment unless all commenters have had a chance prior to the final package
to review the changed version.
A matrix that shows how this guidance app1ies to PSD and NSR SIP’s is
included in this package as Attachment C. We are also encouraging parallel
processing of these SIP’s as we realize it is much easier to make changes
in rules at early stages of the State’s regulatory development process.
Incorporation by Reference
A complaint often voiced by Regions on behalf of States is that the
NSR/PSD SIP development and approval process takes too long or the rules take
too long to write because of the comprehensive Federal requirements which
must be met. One solution to such problems is to use model incorporation—
by—reference language. As you can see in Attachment D (guidance and sample
regulation), the State rules using incorporation by reference can be quite
abbreviated. Attachment C indicates that if a State uses the model
language, the package can he classified as direct final which H shorten
the review processing time.
-------
4
Planned Changes in Rules
As we all know, changes are continually occurring in the Part C and D
SIP requirements. These changes generally happen in response to court
decisions or out-of-court settlements. I wish to repeat how we should
process SIP actions which are affected by certain litigation and pending
rulemaking actions for which there is already established EPA policy.
Policies are still under development due to litigation on topics such as
tall stacks and vessel emissions. Such guidance, of course, will be
released as appropriate.
An important event affecting Part C and 0 SIP requirements is the
Chemical Manufacturers Assn. vs. EPA (CMA) settlement. This settlement
states that EPA has agreed to propose Ftain changes to the SIP requirements.
These changes include the deletion of the requirements that all emission
reductions used for netting or offsets be Federally enforceable and that
emissions reductions caused by shutdowns or curtailments which are to be
used for offsets may only be allowed if the reduction occurs after August 7,
1977, and the new facility is a replacement for the old facility. Although
the proposed rulemaking on most of these issues was published in the Federal
Register on August 25, 1983, when approving SIP’s, we may not presume that
the CMA settlement provisions have already occurred. In fact, on October 22,
1984 TPA promulgated a final rulemaking on certain CMA proposals which
affirmed the original regulations. Therefore, if a State SIP has a provision
that would be approvable if the CMA negotiated changes are promulgated, but
the SIP is not approvable under thI current 40 CFR Part 51 provisions, the
SIP may not be fully approved. Typically, these SIP’s are conditionally
approved. This condition should contain the requirement that the relevant
provision(s) will be changed within a year to meet whatever Federal requirements
are in effect at that time. The State must also make an enforceable commitment
(e.g., a letter from the State Attorney General) to implement their regulations
to meet the current 40 CFR Part 51 requirements in the interim period
(i.e., without the CMA settlement changes).
This system will limit the legal vulnerability of these SIP approvals.
If such a conditional approval is not acceptable to the State, the Office of
General Counsel (OGC) continues to support a Regional strategy to defer
action on the relevant provisions if the State currently has an approved
Part 0 SIP. If the Region chooses to defer action, then the Federal Register
notice should inform (1) the public of the timetable for reviewing the
provision again, and (2) prospective permitees of their responsibility to
meet the Federally approved SIP requirements in the interim. The Region
may also selectively disapprove the variant provisions if the provisions
relax a previously Federally approved SIP.
In the November 2, 1983, Federal Register package containing EPA’s
policy on compliance with the statutory provisions of Part 0 of the Act,
footnote 4 provides guidance on State responsibility for updating SIP’s to
comply with the current requirements (stated in the August 7, 1980, Federal
Register) . States which currently have conditions on PSD or NSR SIP’s must
meet all the conditions that are unrelated to the CMA settlement. For the
conditions that could be affected by the CMA settlement, EPA will extend
-------
5
the conditions until the CMA proposal is completed. For these CMA affected
conditions, the State musF gree to an enforceable interim implementation
agreement to ensure that the current requirements contained in 40 CFR Part 51
will be met until the CMA final notice.
Common Errors in NSR/PSD SIP’s
During the review of SIP revisions, my staff has observed several
problems which occur frequently, impact critical elements, and must be
avoided in order to fully approve a NSR/PSD rule. These are listed in the
right—hand column of Attachment E. To avoid further difficulty with some
of the more common errors, I wish to clarify EPA’S policy in these areas.
1. EPA-Approved Models. To comply with the Act, all SIP’s must state
that if a party wishes to use a nonguideline air quality model during a PSD
air quality analysis, then they must receive permission from EPA.
2. Class I Area Protection. All SIP’s for State and local agencies
whose jurisdiction comes within 100 kilometers (km) of a Class I area
must contain all the Class I protection provisions. These include identi-
fication of Class I areas, notification to the Federal land manager (FLM)
or EPA of any PSD source located within 100 km of a Class I area on or
before its application is considered complete, protection of Class I
increment (including protection from various exemptions such as portable
sources and sources with proposed innovative control technology waivers)
and sending copies of an materials to FLM’s as they become available. If
no Class I area is located within 100 km, then an enforceable commitment
should be made that if a new Class I area is created within 100 km, the
State will add these provisions to its SIP.
3. Offsets and Reasonable Further Progress (REP). All SIP’s must
state explicitly that each offset transaction must be consistent with
the RFP demonstration. Also, if a SIP allows exemptions from offsets,
the SIP must require that any emissions resulting from these exemptions
will also be consistent with RFP.
4. General Exemptions. Many SIP’s contain general exemptions from
all PSD and NSR requirements. We can only allow these exemptions if the
SIP explicitly states that these general exemptions cannot be used to
exempt any major source or major modification, as defined in 40 CFR Part 51,
from any requirements in Part 51.
5. Baseline Date. A SIP may not contain a baseline date from the
past unless the date was set by a complete PSO application or if the
relevant reviewing authority demonstrates that the approach taken is at
least as stringent as the one identified under the Federal definitions.
6. Jurisdiction on Indian Lands. Several issues have recently
emerged regarding the extent that States have SIP jurisdiction over Indian
lands contained wi thi ii their State. The Of 11 ce of Federal Activities has
-------
6
advised the Office of Air and Radiation that States presumptively do not
have this authority. Thus, unless a State can show that it has authority on
Indian lands, EPA must state in the CFR that EPA retains authority for issuing
PSD permits in Indian lands. If the State wishes to accept jurisdiction
over Indian lands, the demonstration proving this authority must be approved
by EPA prior to proposing approval of the PSD SIP.
7. Jurisdiction of Existing PSO Permits. When EPA approves a PSD SIP,
it is necessary to determine jurisdiction over any existing PSU permits
previously issued by EPA. If the State wishes to have responsibility for
these permits and will commit to reissue these permits under the State
program, EPA should announce the transfer of authority in the Federal
Register . If the State wishes to have responsibility for these permits and
either will not or cannot commit to reissue these permits, EPA can still
transfer control by retaining 40 CFR 52.21 in the SIP and delegating autjiority
to the State (i.e., using a memorandum of understanding as in a program
delegation). In this case, the supplementary information in the final
rulemaking Federal Register notice should announce the delegation of
authority for the existing permits. If a State declines the opportunity
to take responsibility for EPA—issued permits, EPA will again retain
40 CFR 52.21 authority for these permits. In either of these last two
cases, the CFR language contained in the final Federal Register promulgation
package should contain provisions which retain EPA’S authority and exclude
the State’s authority for these existing permits.
Equivalent State/Local Rules
Our current system for measuring the approvability of candidate State!
local rules is based on line-by—line equivalence with the 40 CFR Part 51
regulations for NSR ( 51.18(j)) and PSD ( 51.24). Both sets of require-
ments contain the program requirements mandated by the Act as well as
additional requirements not specifically contained in the Act but needed
to make the permitting process operative. Yet, to date we have allowed
language deviations only where they could be shown that the proposed
variant provisions would cause no difference in terms of real world impact.
Specifically, approval of a State/local rule which contained a combination
of weaker and stronger provisions (as compared to 40 CFR Part 51 requirements)
was not allowed, even if this rule were more stringent overall. Considerable
analysis considering alternative approaches pertaining to this subject has
been done. However, the Regional Offices, OGC, and CPDD question the need
for completing this project. To date, the most promising use of an overall
rule equivalence policy is to rationalize conditional approvals of qualifying
rules during which time EPA and the State pursue the need to make regulatory
amendments. Accordingly, until a more definite need is determined, we are
not recommending further action on the equivalency issue. -
I hope that this guidance will be helpful. Any comments on these
actions, including other ideas or concerns you may have on improving NSR/PSD
-------
7
programs transfer, should be forwarded to Mike Trutna at 629-5591. I look
forward to seeing continued improvements in NSR/PSD program development and
transfer.
Attachments
cc: G. Eniison
B. Pedersen
E. Reich
P. Wyckoff
-------
\ liii’ I \ I ‘ - 1\ \ IU’ )\\II I. \ I 11:u I ! II \ \( .1 ‘‘
‘t IIi\(. I ) I .iUI(,II
J1HH98
I II
Ik ‘I’ I .1
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Applicability of PSD Increments to Building
Rooftops
FROM:
As istant Administrator
for Air and Radiation
TO: Charles R. Jeter
Regional Administrator, Region IV
The following is in response to your letter of November 10,
1983, concerning issues which you felt required review for national
consistency relating to a new source review for an Alabama Power
facility in downtown Birmingham, Alabama.
On September 29, 1983, your office informed the State of
Alabama that a new source’s compliance with the PSD increments
must be measured on the tops of buildings, as well as at ground
level. Since then we have discussed the question extensively
among ourselves and with representatives of the State of Alabama
and the company. For the reasons that follow, I do not believe
we are in a position to definitively assert that PSD increments
apply to rooftops without further information as to the conse-
quences for the PSD system as a whole. Accordingly, I recommend
that we inform Alabama that we do not now require that compliance
with PSD increments be measured at the tops of buildings. A
State may, of course, adopt such an approach if it so desires.
Between 1970 and 1983, it appears to have been general EPA
practice to determine compliance with both NAAQS and PSD increments
at ground level, not at roof level. On March 18, 1983, however,
Kathleen Bennett, in a letter to the State of New York, determined
that the unatjonal ambient air quality standards are designed to
protect the public health and welfare and apply to all ambient
air which does include the rooftops and balconies of buildings
accessible by the public.
I believe this conclusion was correct. Apartment balconies,
rooftop restaurants, and the like present a potential for human
exposure that the primary ambient air quality standards should be
interpreted to address.
-------
cc: A. Aim
P. Angeil
T. Devine
G. Emisort
W. Pedersen
P. Wyckoff
S. Meiburg
-------
PN 165—84—01-09—012
4 p
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCy
WASHINGTON, 0 C 20460
DOC
j’ 9 } /‘
o c o
‘ic I
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Interpretation of the Policy on Compliance
with the tatutory Provisions of Part D
FROM:
A istant Administrator for
Air and Radiation
TO: David Howekamp
Air Division Director
EPA Region IX
I have received and reviewed your memorandum of January
6th. Your memorandum accurately reflects my understanding of
the November 2, 1983 policy on compliance with Part D require-
ments. In particular, I agree with your interpretation of
those requirements pertaining to new source review rules and
discussed in greater length in Secticn IV.B. and Footnote 4 of
the policy. I also understand that the Office of General Counsel
concurs in this opinion.
Attachment
cc: Air Division Directors, Regions I, III, V
Air and Hazardous Materials Division Directors, Regions II,
IV, VI, VII, VIII, X
John O’Connor
,“ Darryl Tyler
William Peders, n
165
12 — I.
-------
S74p
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON DC 20460
January 6, 1984
SUBJECT: Clarification of Sanctions Policy
FROM: David P. Howekamp, Director
Air Management Division, Region 9
TO: Joseph A. Cannon, Assistant Administrator
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation (ANR—443)
Considerable controversy has recently arisen in
California regarding the interpretation of Footnote 4 of
the recent Sanctions Policy (“Compliance with the Statutory
Provisions of Part D of the Clean Air Act,” November 2,
1983), which discusses rulemaking conditions for new source
review rules. Specifically, the first sentence of Footnote 4
has suggested to many readers that EPA will not impose
sanctions for any NSR deficiencies arising out of the
August 7, 1980 regulations. However, the third paragraph
read in concert with Section tV.B seems to imply that SIPs
with NSR conditions requiring conformity with the August 7,
1980 regulations must be revised according to the schedule
in the existing condition or the area would be subject to
the construction ban.
Most 1979 SIPs in California have NSR conditions due
on various dates in 1981, requiring submittal of NSP rules
consistent with the August 7, 1980 federal regulations.
Our interpretation of Footnote 4 with respect to the situation
in California is as follows:
o Imposition of the construction ban for failure to
fulfill a condition must be preceded by an EPA
finding that the unmet condition is germane
reflects a serious plan deficiency, and is long
overdue. When EPA makes this positive finding,
the Sanctions Policy requires that the SIP for
these areas be disapproved and that the Section
ll0(a)(2)(I) construction ban be imposed if the
SR rule is not immediately revised to meet
fully the August 7, 1980 regulations. In the
case of CMA Exhibit A requirements, however, the
area may submit in lieu of rule revisions, an
enforceable commitment for full implementation
of the August 7, 1980 regulations.
o We believe that Footnote 4 further states that, for
example, a California NSR—conditioned area submitting
165
12—2
-------
—2—
an NSR rule meeting all August 7, 1980 requirements
except for the mandatory shutdown restrictions
(40 CFR S1.1 8 (j)(3)(ii)(c), would be subject to
the construction ban unless a commitment for the
interim implementation of the restriction was
submi tted.
With respect to source definition, we understand
that EPA has suspended processing of new NSR
rules that would be inconsistent with the decision
in NRDC v. Gorsuch. Nevertheless, an NSR—conditioned
area may avoid the construction moratorium either
by adopting a dual definition, which EPA is
willing to approve during this period before the
Supreme Court decides the source definition
case, or by retaining the conditionally approved
source definition that meets either the January
16, 1979 or the October 14, 1981 federal source
definitions. In the second case, EPA would formally
extend that portion of the existing NSR condition
requiring the area to correct its source definition
until such time as the Supreme Court decides the
case.
In order to insure national consistency, I would appreciate
your confirmation that our interpretation is correct. A response
is urgently needed to provide unequivocal guidance to the State
and to local boards of supervisors currently updating their NSR
rules and facing potentially imminent sanctions arising
out of unsatisfied NSP conditions.
cc: W. Pedersen, A—133
D. Tyler, MD—is
R. Bauman, MD—iS
M. Trutna, MD—15
E. Ginsburg, MD—iS
165
12—3
-------
PM 165-84-Ol-2Ô-013
. tO 3T 4
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
‘4 jt
JAN 2 Q n
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: PSD Increment Consumption Calculations
FROM: John R. O’Connor, Acting Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-la)
TO: Thomas W. Devine, Director
Air and Waste Management Division, Region IV
Your November 13, 1983, memorandum proposes that spatial and temporal
calculation of PSD increment consumption is the appropriate methodology
to be used in the ambient analysis for the Alumax PSD permit. This
methodology is used by Region IV as well as all States within Region IV
We also understand (memorandum from A. Smith to S. Meyers, dated May 3,
1983) that Region X is now implementing this method for all of their
PSO permit processing. - -
We agree that the spatial and temporal calculation of PSD increments
is appropriate not on1y for Alumax but for all cases where PSD increment
consumption calculations need to be made. This methodology is consistent
with the manner in which the total concentration is calculated for
comparison with ambient standards and is consistent with the method used
to calculate incremental concentrations for Level II emission trades
(memorandum from Sheldon Meyers to the Director, AWMD/AMD, Regions I-X,
dated February 17, 1983). This methodology is also consistent with our
interpretation of the Clean Air Act and definition of increment and
baseline concentrations In the PSD regulation.
If you have any questions concerning the use of this method for
tracking the use of PSD increments or you are aware of any situations
where it results in a significant impact on a past decision, please
contact me or Dean Wilson of my staff.
Attachment
cc: Director, Air & Waste Management Division, Regions II, III, VI—VIlI, X
Director, Air Management Division, Regions I, V, IX
Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I-X
Richard Rhoads
Sara Schrieeberg
frike Trutna
Darryl Tyler
bcc: Regional Modeling Contact, Regions I-X
B. Hogarth
165
13—1
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV - ATLANTA, GEORGIA
! ‘ 1 —
DATE: I’ d. ) ‘ —
SUBJECT: Spatial and Temporal Calculation of Air Quality
Concentrations
FROM: Director, Air and Waste Management Division
TO: Dr. Bernie Steigerwald, Director (MD—b)
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
SUMMARY
The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control has asked Region IV to provide additional guidance on
the calculation of PSD increment consumption. Alumax Corporation,
a large industrial source located near Charleston, South Carolina,
is concerned that the state is using a procedure for calculating
PSD increment that is not consistent with the procedure used by
other states.
The procedure used by Region IV, as well as all states within
Region IV, has been to calculate the increment on a spatially
and temporally consistent basis. This approval is supported by
guidance from Sheldon Meyers in a February 17, 1983, memorandum
to all regions regarding calculation of increment consumption in
the “Emissions Trading Policy.” It is also supported by EPA’s
conditional approval of Florida’s PSD rules now undergoing
final review by Headquarters.
Alumax believes that the increment need only be calculated on a
spatial basis and has pointed to a 1981 PSD permit for Alcoa
(now ARGO metals) granted by Region K. However, since the
issuance of that permit, Region X has followed the spatial and
temporal concept of increment consumption. Region X also has
written to OAQPS confirming that Region X will implement the
spatial arid temporal procedure for PSD sources (May 3, 1983,
letter from Alexandra Smith to Sheldon Meyers).
165
13—2
-------
—2—
ACTION
Region IV will continue to insist that all increment consumption
be done on the basis of a spatially and temporally consistent
basis. Since South Carolina has asked that EPA provide written
guidance in this area, we believe it is now necessary for OAQPS
to provide the regional offices with a confirmation that the
spatial and temporal calculation of air quality impact applies
not only to the Emissions Trading Policy,N but also to PSD
as well as any other air quality related modeling permitting.
BAC KGROtJN D
Telephone call from the South Carolina Bureau of Air Quality
Control, October 11, 1983.
! -
frmomas !4tDevine -
Enclosures (3)
cc: Dean Wilson (MD—14)
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Rob Wilson
Region X, Air Programs
165
13—3
-------
Attachment
RETYPE OF ORIGJt AL SIGNED MEMORANDUM
.?\ tO Sr 4 ,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quafity Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
V,

Date: December 16, 1980 12.12
Subject: Interpretation of “Si gni ficant Contri bution” PN-165-80-12-16-007
From: Richard G- Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division (MD—15)
To: Alexandra Smith, Director
Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Region X
We have received your memo of October 27, 1980 regarding the
applicability of PSD and the Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling -
when the proposed sources (such as Northern Tier) would be locating
in a PSD area and would cause or contribute to a new or existing
violation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). You
asked for clarification of existing policy in two areas. This memo
is intended to finalize the draft transmittals we have exchanged
since receiving your request.
Your first question asked whether EPA is using the concept of
siginificant contribution within the P50 regulations when assessing
whether a proposed sources locating in a PSO area, would “contribute
to air pollution in violation of the NAAQS.” As discussed in the
PSD workshops and the PSD workshop manual, EPA continues to apply the
significant impact concept using the values defined in the 1978
preamble, 43 FR 26398, and in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix S. If the
proposed source or modification has no significant contribution to
the nonattaininent problem, then the proposed project does not
contribute to this violation. Provided that it would not cause any
new NAAQS violations, such a source is not subject to the require-
ments of 40 CFR 51.18(k) or 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix S; the proposed
project must, however, still demonstrate that it will not cause or
contribute to air pollution in violation of the PSD increments. See
40 CFR 52.21(k)(2). —
Your second question asked about the need for a significant
impact by the proposed source to occur simultaneously with the actual
violation at a particular nonattainment site. In general, a PSD
source with significant new emissions of the applicable pollutant
which constructs in an area adjacent to a nonattainment area should
be presumed to contribute to the violation if it would have a
significant impact at any point in the nonattainment area. However,
if the proposed PSD sour can demonsti- te that its new emissions
would not have a significant impact at the point of the violation
when that violation is actually occurring, then the proposed source
would meet the requirements of 40 CFR 52.21(k)(1) provided that it
-------
—2-
would not cause any new violations of the NAAQS. This answer would
apply whether the nonattainment area was newly discovered or was
formally designated nonattainnient under §107. I should like to add
that, while such a demonstration is allowed, it will be extremely
difficult to prove an insignificant contribution, especially in the
short term.
Several examples will clarify this response. For instance, a
proposed new major stationary source may locate near a designated
nonattainment area for 502. Suppose that the source owner has shown
in his PSO application that his SO 2 impacts are significant only on
the edge of the §107 area which is demonstrated to actually be in
attainment of standards. The source owner also demonstrated that his
impacts are not significant in the area of actual violation of the
SO 2 standards. A second scenario is the case where the owner demon-
strates that on the days when the 24-hour SO 2 standard violation is
actually occurring, the proposed source’s 24—hour averaged impacts are
not significant. The owner has also shown that on other days w ien
the air quality meets the 24-hour SO 2 standard, his impacts are
significant but do not cause the air quality to exceed the 24-hour
standard. The third example is where the area was only nonattaininent
for the SO 2 annual standard. The source owner shows his impacts on
the nonattaininent area are significant for the 24-hour averaging time
and insignificant on an annual basis. For all three scenarios, the
source owner has demonstrated that he will not contribute to air
pollution in violation of the NAAQS and has met the PSD review
requirements of 40 CFR 52.21(k)(1) for SO 2 , providing that he will
not cause any new violations. This source would also not be subject
to nonattainrnent NSR requirements under 40 CFR 51.18(k).
If you have further questions, please contact Mike Trutna
(FTS 629-5291) for more information.
cc: 0. Hawkins
W. Barber
Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I - X
Director, Enforcement Division, Regions I - X
NSR, PSD Regional Contact, Regions I - X
-------
COPY
UNITED STATES ENV: RONMENTAL °ROTECTIOri GE1CY
A R 3 is i RN 165-31-04-03-006
Mr. Russell E. Dickenson, Director
National Par¼ Service
U.S. Depar ent of Interior
Washington, D.C. O240
Dear Mr. Dickenson:
Thank you for your letter of February 26, 1981 outlining your concerns
over the limited time that the National Park Service (NPS) has to review
prevention of significant oeterioration (PSD) permit applications for
facilities which may impact Class I areas. Therein you suggested that
EPA reconfirm our policy to notify the NPS as early in the permitting
process as oossible as outlined in the memo from Dave Hawkins to the
Regional Admir.istrators aated March 19, 1979. You also suggested tnat
EPA amend 40 CFR Part 51 regulations for an approvable State P50 Drogram
and 40 C P. Part 52 PSO reaulations to require EPA and States to prov de the
appropriate Federal Land Manager (FLM) with copies of relevant oenint
aoolicat ions on or shortly after the date of receipt of the permit
aopl ication.
I would first like to reaffirm the existing policy for timely E?4
transmittal of PSC oermits affect’nc Class I areas as identif ed :n :he
Hawkins’ memo of March 19, 1979. By this letter, I em advising the R aions
that these permit applications should be sent to the appropriate FLM
NPS Regiona’ Office, NPS A’r Quality Division Permit Review Unit, and
all other aopropriate personnel as described ifl your letter (see enclosure)
as soon as possible. N’ornially the E?A Region should transmit the permit
aoplication within 10 days of receipt of sucn aoplications.
In response to your second suggestion, I do not believe that additional
rulemaking is necessary to ensure that your staff has notice of each P 50
source with potential Class I area impacts well before the preliminary
determinations. As noted above, EPA’s polcy is to provide cooies of
the permit application to the applicable ELM c ntacts soon after its
receipt. This po1 cy clear y covers those situations where EPA now
implements the ‘SQ review.
Similarly, further rulemaking is not necessary to guarantee that
State PSD programs provide this same type of nctificat on. 10 CFR
5l. 24 (p)(l) now requires that each PSD State Impiementation Plan (SIP)
is to rovide that “tne rev.e’ ina authority shall transmit to the
Aaministratcr a copy of each permit aop1icet or. &at1ng to a major
stat onary source or major if cation and provide notice to the Aamin—
‘strator of every action rslated tc the considerat;on of such [ apolicationt-’
-------
—2—
EDA , o’jic reac tie quoted language to mean that the reviewing author ty
is to transmit a copy of each PSD permit apolication before it takes any
s gnificanz action on the application. Also, EPA would regard any
determination of the completeness of an application as a significant
action. As a result, EPA would interpret 40 CFR 5l.24(p)(l) as requiring
each P50 SIP to require in turn that the reviewing authority must submit
each PSD application to EPA before it makes a completeness determination.
Of course, once EPA receives an application for a project that might
significantly affect a Class I area, it would provide you with notice of
it in accordance with this letter and the March 19, 1979 policy.
I hope that this response has been helpful. If I can be of any
further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely yours,
Edward F. Tuerk
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise and Radiation
Enclosure
cc: egional Administrator, Pegions I - X
bcc: . Smith (ANR-443)
I. Artico (A—l07)
3. Ste’gerwald (MD-b)
R. Campbell (MD—la)
3. Hogarth (MD—lS)
N. Mayer (MD—l5)
P. Wyckoff (A-133)
CPDD:MTrutna:js:x559l:500NCMDurham:(MD-15) :3—30—81
Control No. AX 116 Due Date: 3-19—81
-------
UNITED STATES ENViRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PN—165-7S- 12-22-001
QZC 22 1978
SUBJ CT BACT Information for Coal-fired Power P nts
FROMI Walter C. Barber 1 Director (
Office of Air Quality Plann * a d Sta ards (MD—b)
TOz Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I—X
Currently, there seems to be some confusion regarding how much
information is required in order to make BACT determinations for power
plants. Such confusion has created situations where one Region may have
conditionally approved a power plant’s construction plans while another
would not. This memo is intended to provide an example of the type and
amount of information required from power plant applicants in order to
determine whetner the source is applying BACT.
Under the new P 50 regulations, BACT is necessarily decidea on a
case-by—case basis after weiching relevant socic—economic costs and
environmental impacts. Consequently, information must now be submitted
by a P50 source describing its plans for control equipment in sufficient
detail so as to def ne the olant-specific BACT limit. As inaicazed in
separate guidance for making case—by—case BACT detarminat ons , the
t tili:y is also required to demonstrate that the proposed controls are
not less stringent than the applicable NSPS and that more stringent
control alternatives are not appropriate.
While the new PSO regulations require a reasonable degree of
assurance that the source can and will install BACT, they also permit
the Pgency to estabhsh a system for initial BACT review followed by a
more deta led control equipment analysis. While such a system does not
relieve the source from its resoonsibility to demonstrate to the Agency
that it is applying BACT, it does act to streamline the review process
and minimize the delays incurred by power plants which cannot supoly
ultimate equipment designs and blueprints at the time that a permit to
construct is secured. This system will also provide the utility with
sufficient flexibility to take advantage of expected improvements in
control technology.
The key question then becomes how much information Is necessary to
estabiish the BACT limit during the initial preconstruction review. In
general the information should include the preliminary engineering and
plant design cr zeria which w fl const tute the basis for soliciting anc
reviewi’ig vendor rcposals for cor trol equipment. In addition, an
examole should be included which specifies how the preliminary design
criteria gould be applied to the carticuiar plant in question or to C
si riar faciit’i wnere he ces cn as been comoleted and the exact
cetaile specificat ons are avai able. Where a utilty has not settled
on a sincie control s/stem, it may Cuomit alternatives for review.
-------
2
Attachment A is provided as an example of the type of information
which can be used both to define a specific BACT emission limit and to
assess whether the plant can be reasonably expected to meet this limit.
Power plants can be pernnt ed when this initial information confirms
that BAd will be emoloyed and that the applicable ambient constraints
will be met. This approach must be conditioned on the company’s later
submission oi final detailed engineering design specifications prior to
commencement of construction of the control equipment. While the final
engineering design and vendor specifications will vary from the preliminary
information, the utility must show it to be equivalent in performance
and reliability established as BAd in the initial determination. These
variations may include basic changes in equipment design such as a shift
from an ESP to a baghouse, a change from a lime/limestone scrubber to a
regenerable scrubbing system or a change in the design approach to
insuring reliability.
All of the information outlined in Attachment A may not be available
and is not required in all instances. The reviewing authority should
seek only those data elements which are necessary to support air engineering
judgment that the proposed system will perform reliably at the soecified
emission rates.
Since the submission of the final engineering design specifications
is a condition of the permit, this wcuid not constitute a reopening of
the permit process, and I do not see the need for an opportunity for
public comment on this material. However, I do recommend that the
approval notice contain the location and approximate time period in
which this final design information would be available.
The above guidance represents some c iange for several Regions.
Therefore, I am requesting that during 1979 you submit to OAQPS your
BACT determinations for SO from coal—fired power plants (together with
the apolicable BACT information identified in Attachment A) for review
prior to your preliminary determination. If some of your States are
makina these BACT determinations, I ask that you send us the approoriate
BACT information before they make their final determination. The above
information should be sent to Mike Trutha (629—5497) who will coordinate
OAQPS’s activities regarding these determinations in the near future.
Suggestions on additions or modifications to this guidance also should
be addressed to Mr. Trutna.
Attachments
cc: Director, Enforcement Divisions, Region I-X
D. Hawkins
R. Rhoads
M. James
E. Re ch
E. Tuer
-------
PRELIMINARY BACT INFORMATION*
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
l.a. Name of Power Plant and Parent Company
b. Name, address, phone no. of company contact
2. Location of Source
a. City _____________________ b. State —
B. STEAM GENERATOR DATA
1. Type of boiler (manufacturer, 5 jf known)
2. Size of boiler (heat input 10 Btu/hr)
C. FUEL DATA
Provide long term averaces and rances for specified short term and
long term averaging periods f F the followinc (1-6):
1. Primary fuel (coal or oil)
2. Start up fuel
3. Alternate fuels
& Brief description of what fuels will be fired including
estimated percentage heat incut
5. Solid fuel data (a’.i solid fuels to be fired)
a. U 1 timate analysis (as burned) % by weight sulfur
also include chlorine, ash, moisture and gross heating
value (Bt /ib)
b. Estimated resistivity of particulate as a function of gas
temoerature (if known)
c. Estimated ash analysis (% by weight — dry)
6. Particle size analysis for ash
7. Liquid fuel data (all liquid fuels)
a. Type and grade
b. Density (lb/gallon)
c. Gross heating value (Btu/gallcn)
d. Ash content (percent by weight)
e. Sulfur content (percent by weight)
f. 1itrogen content (percent by weight)
g. Moisture (percent by weight)
h. Will additives by usea’ If so, furiish data on chemical
corrpos:tion and approxinata auantititez (percentace of
total fuel to be us&.
8. is a contract signed for the coal? If no contract is signed
we would need the en ormaticn for questions 1—6 for all coa 1 s
that are beir c contonp 1 ated f r usage and percentage usage where
coals are to be blended.
*Note that not all inforriation may be available in all cases. tnformaticn
reqnrements should be ad,;usted as aoorooria:e to f t the circumstances
of the aeclicant at tme of pernit aoohcation.
-------
0. PRECIPITATOR DATA
Part I - Preliminary design or design criteria
1. Design emission rate (lbs/rnBTU) for particulate matter (before
and after proposed controls)
2. Total as flow from steam generator at full load and at ESP
operating temperature (ACFII)
3. ESP operating temperature ( F) range
4. Number of separate ESP modules under consideration
5. Approximate specific collection area (SPA)
6. Number of separate electrical sections for each module under
consideration.
7. Type of power control and instrumentation
8. Estimated linear velocity of gas through each module at full
load (actual feet/sec) or range of acceptable velocities
9. Briefly describe techniques used to ensure uniform linear
velocity within ESP.
10. Nature and terms of performance guarantee
11. Briefly describe system used to remove and convey collected
ash to final disposal.
Part II - Reference plant example
1. General flow diagram for the precipitator
2. Provide design criteria or preliminary engineering data for the
major elements ofthe ESP for the particular plant under
consideration or a similar plant where the major elements have
been designed and detailed specification are available.
-------
E. BAGHOUSE DATA
Part I - Preliminary design or design criteria
1. Design emission rate (lb/n Btu) for particulate matter (before
and after proposed controls)
2. Estimated total gas flow from steam generator at full load and
at baghouse qperation temperature (ACFM)
3. Baghouse operation temperature (tF) range
4. Number of separate baghouses
5. Number of isolated compartments per baghouse
6. Design criteria for air to cloth ratio or range of acceptable
ratios (Cloth area divided by total ACFM)
7. Cloth description
8. Type of bag cleaning under consideration and subsequent cleaning
controls
9. Strategy for detecting and replacing faulty bags
10. Description of ash handling ano disposal systari
11. Nature and terms of performance guarantee
-------
Part II — Reference plant example
1. General flow diagram for the baghouse
2. Provide design criteria or preliminary engineering data for the
major elements of the baghouse for the particular plant under
consideration or a similar plant where the above elements have
been designed and detailed specifications are available.
F. SULFUR DIOXIDE SCRUBBER DATA
Part I - Preliminary design or design criteria
1. Design emission rate (lb/mn Btu) of SO 2 (before and after
proposed controls)
2. Design data or criteria for the scrubber modules to include:
- scrubber type (TCS, spray tower, etc.)
- absorbent type
- possible scrubber liquor additives (e.g., rug)
- prescrubber design criteria, or acceptable ranges for 11g.
inlet and outlet chloride, etc.
- design criteria for acceptable ranges for inlet and oulet
gas flow and temperature and volume percent H 2 0, 0,, and SO ,
- specific aesign criteria or acceptable ranges for tiquid/ga
ratio
- estimated scrubber gas velocity
- des gn criteria or acceptable range for scrubber inlet and
outlet ph
- design criteria or acceotable range of pressure drop across
trie scrubber (inches of H 2 0)
3. For turbulent contact absorber (TCA) also supply:
- aesign criteria or acceptable ranges for diameter of spheres
- desian criteria or acceptable ranges for ti’e height of
sphere in TCA
- design criteria or acceotable ranges for number of grids or
screens in ICA
4. Indicate total number of scrubber modules and nw ber of spare
mcdules during maximum boiler loading.
5. What special precautions will be taken with module internals
and other components (pumps, mist eliminators, fans, etc.) to
ensure that corrosion, scaling, and plugging does not cause failure
of the systemu
6. What special precautions will be taken with the control
systems, e.g., spare orobes, probe site location, probe sheaths,
backup lnstr-jrnentation to ensure that failure will not lead to
excess emissions or fouling of components via scaling?
-------
- . C.vw’. i c: er ev var les, sucn as :rocess stoch ometry,
ratios (“a), etc., be ionitored to ensure
good operations?
8. Indicate which key components of the scrubber will be spared,
e.g., pumps, fans, nozzles, etc.
9. Location and mechanism of reheat, auxiliary fuel requirements,
and percentage of exhaust gas reheated. If reheat will not be
performed, indicate what measures are being taken to eliminate
stack corrosion or provide data to verify that stack corrosion
will not be a problem area.
10. Outline routine maintenance and inspection procedures for the
scrubber system hardware to ensure continuous and reliable
scrubber performance.
11. Describe the general design standard for the material to be used
and type of mist eliminator system and describe the techniques
under ccnsideration to guarantee uniform gas distribution across
the mist eliminator and to the scruober modules.
12. Nature and terms of performance guarantees
Part II - Reference plant examole
1. General flow diagram of the scrubber system including mix tanks
prequench secticn, scrubber modules, mist eliminator ano reneat.
General design standards for materials to oe used to construct
above elements.
2. Provide design criteria for the major scrubber and system
comDonents (e.g., pumos, tanks, alkaH handling systems, etc.)
for the particular plant under consideration or a similar
plant where the above items have been aireacy designed and
detailed specifications are available.
G. Other Sulfur control nlethods*
I. Description of control method
II. Amount of sulfur removal credit
*TheSe “other sulfur control methods” are those esignea to augment SO,
scrubbers in order to achieve a giver, rate of SO 2 removal. An example
of such a method would be coal cleanina.
-------
Section 1 67: PSD Enforcement
-I
0 )
m
0
-‘
0
CD
3
CD
-4
-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 167
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 167
* PN167—83—12—14—001
GUIDANCE ON ENFORCEMENT OF PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT
-------
PN 167—83-12-14-tJ01
,IO S
f UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASH INGTON D.C. 20460
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance On Enforcement of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Requirements Under the Clean Air Act
FROM: Michael S. Alushin t ’ —
Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air
Edward E. Reich, Director c
Stationary Source Compliance Division
TO: Regional Counsels
Regions I-X
Directors, Air Management Divisions
Regions I, V and IX
Directors, Air and Waste Management Divisions
Regions II-IV, VI-Vill, and X
This guidance discusses enforcement of Part C of Title I of
the Clean Air Act, dealing with the prevention of significant
deterioration (PsD) of the ambient air quality. The guidance
explains the use of Section 167 of the Clean Air Act as an
enforcement tool and provides assistance in choosing between
§167 and the alternatives available for enforcing against PSD
violations. Violations of Part C include construction or
operation of a PSD source (as defined under the Act and the PSD
regulations) without a permit, construction or operation with an
invalid permit, and construction or operation in a manner not
consistent with a validly issued permit.
We believe that §167 of the Act provides EPA with a
significant enforcement mechanism in addition to §113, the
Agency’s main enforcement tool, but it does not preclude resort
to any remedies available under § l13 or 120. Section 167 should
be used in situations where a source is constructing or operating
without a valid permit or in violation of a valid permit and
EPAtS main interest is a quick imposition of injunctive relief to
stop the violation. Where time is not of the essence and/or, the
Agency wishes to collect penalties in addition to exacting injunc-
tive relief, § l13 or 120 provide more appropriate rec edies.
-------
-2-
Thus, depending upon the circumstances of a particular case, EPA
may commence one or more of the following actions against a
source that is in violation of PSD requirements:
(a) Issue an order or seek injunctive relief under
§ 167 to prevent the source from constructing or
operating in violation of the PSD requirements;
(b) Issue an order to comply under §113(a);
(c) Seek civil remedies under §113(b);
(d) Seek criminal penalties under §113(c);
(e) Assess and collect noncompliance penalties under
§120.
I. Analysis of Section 167
Section 167 of the Clean Air Act provides:
The Administrator shall, and a State may, take such
measures, including issuance of an order, or seeking
injunctive relief, as necessary to prevent the
construction of a major emitting facility which does
not conform to the requirements of this part, or which
is proposed to be constructed in any area included in
the list promulgated pursuant to paragraph (1)(D) or
(E) of subsection (d) of Section 107 of this Act and
which is not subject to an implementation plan which
meets the requirements of this part.
42 U.S.C. §7477(1978)
Depending upon whether or not EPA has approved a State’s
Part C (PSD) State Implementation Plan (SIP) provisions under
Section llO(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act or delegated the PSD
program to the State, Section 167 creates two separate and
distinct enforcement obligations for EPA. This is consistent
with EPA’s policy of allowing the States primacy where they have
the main responsibility for a program. In those States that
have not been delegated the PSD program or do not have approved
SIP PSD provisions as required by §161 (PSD requirements for
SIPs), EPA has the authority to regulate the construction of
all major emitting sources that are subject to PSD review under
the Act. Any person wishing to construct such a source in one
of those States will be required by §165 (preconstruction require-
ments) to obtain a PSD permit from EPA. If the proposed source
would violate the provisions of the PSD regulations, EPA must
deny the permit. If EPA issues a permit, the Agency will be
-------
-3-
responsible for initiating appropriate proceedings should the
source subsequently violate any permit provisions. Likewise, the
Agency is responsible for taking enforcement action against a
source which commences construction without first obtaining a PSD
permit.
Once its PSD SIP provisions have been approved or delegated,
pursuant to §110(a)(2) and 40 CFR 51.24, the State, rather than
- EPA, assumes primary responsibility for administering the PSD
program. The Agency does not completely relinquish its obli-
gations, however. Rather, it assumes an oversight function.
PSD permits issued by the State remain federally enforceable.
40 CFR § 52.O2(d), 5 2 .21(r), and 52.23. If the State takes
appropriate enforcement action, it is unnecessary for EPA to
initiate enforcement proceedings. If the State fails to take
appropriate action, however, Section 167 provides that EPA must
take measures adequate to prevent the construction of the noncom-
plying source. EPA can take such action at any time the Agency.
deems it necessary. The Agency is not forestalled by any action
initiated by the State from simultaneously or subsequently taking
action against a source that already had commenced construction
or operation. Thus, EPA retains PSD enforcement authority and,
where appropriate, is expected to initiate PSD enforcement pro-
ceedings bgth before and after the PSD SIP revisions have been
approved. 1
Additionally, §167 requires EPA to take action directly
against a source found being constructed or operating pursuant
to a PSD permit that conflicts with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act, implementing regulations, or approved SIP require-
ments. This provision gives the Administrator authority similar
to that possessed under §113(a) (5) and (b)(5) to prevent illegal
construction or operation of new sources in nonattainment areas.
Senator Mu8kie noted this continuing Federal enforcement
obligation. He stated: “ [ o]nce the State adopts a permit
process in compliance with this provision, the Environmental
Protection Agency role is to seek injunctive or other judicial
relief to assure compliance with the law.” 123 Cong. Rec. S
9169 (daily ed. June 8, 1977) (remarks of Senator Muskie).
Senator Muskie’s reference to “injunctive or other judicial
relief” should not be construed as precluding resort to an
administrative order mechanism. Such an interpretation would
conflict with the clear wording of 167. Rather, we believe
that Senator Muskie’s reference to “other judicial relief”
provides clear support for the proposition that EPA may resort
to the civil nd crLr ina1 p —’ -:lti s provisions o §113(b) and
(c).
-------
-4-
Under Delegation Number 7-38, the Administrator has
delegated authority to issue §167 administrative orders to the
Regional Administrators and to the Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Regional Administrators will, in most
instances, be the parties to issue §167 orders and, pursuant to
Delegation No 7-38, must consult with the Associate Enforcement
Counsel for Air and the Director of the Stationary Source
Compliance Division before issuing such orders. The Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation may issue §167 orders in
multi-Regional cases or cases of national significance. In
addition, the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation must
consult with the Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air and must
notify any affected Regional Administrators or their designees
before issuing such orders.
II. Enforcement Actions Under §167 and §113(b)
A. Construction Without a PSD Permit
Construction Not Consistent with a Validly Issued Permit
1. Pre-Operation Remedies
Section 167 will provide a particularly effective enforcement
tool against an owner or operator that has commenced construction
without having obtained a PSD permit or is constructing in a
manner not consistent with a validly issued permit. In this
situation, EPA should take action to halt construction of the
source immediately. This may be accomplished most quickly under
§167 by means of an adminstrative order or by obtaining judicially-
imposed injuctive relief.
When using §167, EPA should normally first issue an
administrative order. The Agency should then file a civil
action if a violating source does not immediately comply with
the order. In cases where EPA has good reason to believe that
the order would not be obeyed, however, we should file a civil
action for injunctive relief immediately, without first issuing
an order.
In appropriate instances, EPA may issue an order or file a
complaint under §167 while proceeding concurrently, through § 1l3
or 120 actions, to collect civil and/or noncompliance penalties.
Section 167 gives the Administrator the authority to take
immediate action without being constricted by the procedural
limitations set forth in §113. In all cases where possible,
however, EPA should issue the source a notice of violation..(NOV),
with a copy being sent to the appropriate State agency. The NOV
does not have to be issued concurrently with a §167 order, but
-------
-5-
the §167 order should be followed up as soon as practical with
the NOV. This notice should explain the full range of possible
EPA enforcement actions. Even if circumstances require a §167
court filing before meeting NOV procedural requirements, prompt
issuance of the NOV will allow EPA to take action under §113 at
a later date if the Agency decides to do so.
In many instances, EPA learns that a source is constructing
without a PSD permit or in violation of a validly is8ued permit
early enough in the source’s Construction schedule to allow the
agency time to act solely under §113. In these cases, the Agency
may choose to commence a civil action under §113 for injunctive
relief and/or monetary penalties instead of acting under §167-
where remedies are limited to injunctive relief.
Civil penalties are available against a source for violations
even prior to the time it has commenced operation. One type of
case occurs when a source is being constructed in violation, of.
the terms of its PSD permit. For example, if the owner delays
in meeting a schedule to install control equipment or seeks to
install equipment that will not meet the emission limits in the
PSD permit, the Agency should take action to require the necessary
injunctive relief and to recover monetary penalties. Penalties
are appropriate even if no pollutants actually have been emitted
because the PSD permit is issued pursuant to the SIP, and thus a
requirement of the SIP has been violated. EPA should seek
penalties for each day that the source is in violation of PSD
permit requirements, commencing on the date on which the source
began to install the non-conforming equipment, or August 7,
1977, whichever is later, and continuing until the source satisfies
the com iance schedule specified in a judgment or in a consent
decree. LI
Another type of case arises when a source is being constructed
without a permit. Here, also, injunctive relief and penalties
are appropriate. The penalty period begins with the date that
construction began. ttConstruction t for the purpose of this
2/ Even if the source has derived no economic benefit by
installing the nonconforming equipment, EPA still should
seek penalties under §113(b). The Penalty Policy provides
for other factors which guide the choice of penalty figures.
In addition, EPA has promulgated a specific guideline for
permit violation penalty settlements. That guideline is
contained in Appendix I to this guidance. The guideline was
issued on February 1, 1981, by Jeffrey Miller, then Assi%tant
Administrator for Enforcement. Appendix I updates the 1981
guideline to reflect organizational changes, and to elaborate
upon some of the examples.
-------
-6-
determination is defined as activity beyond that permitted under
the policy enunciated in the December 18, 1978 memorandum from
Ed Reich to the Regional Offices entitled, “Interpretation of
‘Constructed’ as it Applies to Activities Undertaken Prior to
Issuance of a PSD Permit.” (Copy attached as Appendix II.) The
penalty period ends when the permit is granted or is scheduled
by EPA to be granted. Even if the source is put on a compliance
schedule in a consent decree before then it should not be allowed
to enjoy the economic advantage of its violation of PSD requirements.
It is important to note that even if construction is halted,
the violation continues. Naturally, though, priority should be
given to cases where injunctive action is required. Equally
important, the Agency should not delay issuance of PSD permits
for sources of which illegal construction has begun. In such a
case, the penalty period is dependent on the speed of EPA’s own
action. For this reason, the Permit Penalty Policy states that
the Agency may consider mitigation of the calculated civil penalty
if a source ceases construction within a rea8onable time after
being notified of the violation and does not resume construction
until a valid permit is issued.
2. Post-Operation Remedies
Civil actions under §113(b) will constitute the primary
enforcement mechanism against sources that have already commenced
operation without obtaining a PSD permit or in violation of a PSD
permit. However, in cases where expeditious action is necessary,
orders issued pursuant to §167 are available to achieve immediate
cessation of operation. They should only be used for operating
sources which have failed to get a permit or are committing a
violation so egregious that they must be shut down immediately
(e.g., failure to install the control equipment or start-up
prior to installation, of control equipment or where operation
causes an increment to be exceeded). Even in these instances,
the action under §167 should be accompanied by a §113 action to
collect penalties.
When using §167, EPA should normally first issue an
administrative order. The Agency should then file a civil action
if a violating source does not immediately comply with the order.
In cases where EPA has good reason to believe that the order would
not be obeyed, however, we should file a civil action for injunctive
relief immediately, without first issuing an order.
We believe that a PSD source which is not known to be in
violation can be granted up to 180 days after start-up in which
to demonstrate compliance with all applicable emission limitations.
This provides an opportunity for the owner or operator to make
necessary modifications or correct minor equipment defects that
are not apparent prior to start-up. The expectation is that the
-------
—7—
source will be in compliance as soon as possible, and the decision
as to how much time is necessary for fine tuning is to be made on
a case by case basis. (The period of 180 days is analogous to
the time allowed a source to demonstrate compliance after start-
up under the New Source Performance Standard regulations, 40
C.F.R. §60.8.) During the 180-day period, a source should be
required, to the extent practicable, to maintain and operate the
source including the associated air pollution control equipment
in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practice.
B. Construction ‘ ith an Invalid Permit
EPA will also be able to utilize the provisions of §l67 to
prevent a source from constructing with a State-issued permit
that EPA feels is invalid. There are basically two types of
situations involving construction with an invalid permit. In the
most common situation, the source can be expected to obtain a
valid permit quickly. In other circumstances, however, it ‘cannot
be expected that a valid permit can issue soon. Before deciding
on a course of action to be taken with a source constructing
pursuant to an invalid permit, an EPA Regional Office needs to
make a probability assessment as to the likelihood that a source
will be able to obtain a valid permit quickly. For the purposes
of allowing construction pursuant to an invalid permit, the
period of thirty (30) days (the period analogous to that allowed
under a Section 113(a) order) should be considered to be ‘quickly.”
in’ the situation where EPA believes a valid permit will
issue quickly, the procedures to be followed should be similar
to those used under §113(a)(5) to prevent the construction of
new sources in nonattainment areas. Sour ’ces should be issued
an order, specifying precisely the nature of the defect in the
permit, and given 30 days in which to obtain a valid permit
while they proceed with construction. Issuance of an immediate
cease construction order, while available, usually would be an
unnecessary sanction. A source that has obtained a PSD permit,
even though invalid, has presumably undergone some preconstruction
review. Moreover, since it is the State, rather than the source
itself, that i8 primarily at fault, immediate sanctions might be
inappropriate.
In some situations, however, such as those where EPA
believes that a source cannot be operated without violating an
increment or where construction will foreclo8e EPA ’s options in
terms of what BACT requirements will apply to a source, an
immediate cease construction order under l67 should be issued
and construction should not be allowed to commence or continue
until a valid permit is issued.
-------
-8-
In cases against sources Constructing pursuant to an invalid
permit, the error is presumed to have been the State’s. Therefore,
even though construction may be halted, no penalty is appropriate
unless the source is somehow at fault or the source does not
cooperate after the discovery of the violation. For no-penalty
actions, §167 is an effective enforcement tool.
C. Consent Decrees
In civil actions filed under both §167 and §113, against pre-
operational as well as post-operational sources, a likely outcome
of the actions will be consent decrees. Allowing a violating
source to continue construction or commence operation under the
provisions of a consent decree lies within the discretion of the
court, though the court’s decision can be affected, of course,
by the recommendation of EPA and the Department of Justice. The
terms EPA should seek in actions under both §167 and §113 will.
vary according to the nature of the violation and the time that
will be required to correct it.
There are two types of situations in which consent decrees
would be appropriate. The first occurs when the source’s viola-
tion causes or contributes to levels of pollution that exceed
those allowed under §163 of the Act (which establishes the PSD
increments). The other situation arises when the source’s vio-
lation does not cause or contribute to increased levels of
pollution beyond those allowed by §163.
When the pollution increments established by §163 would be
or are being exceeded, EPA should immediately seek injunctive
relief to prevent the source from starting up or continuing in
violation of its emission limitations. EPA should determine
the nature of the violation and the amount of time that will be
needed to correct it. A source should not be permitted to
commence or continue operation until it is in compliance through
enforceable emission limitations. To allow commencement or
continuation of operation out of compliance would defeat the
intent of the Act by sanctioning levels of pollution in the PSD
area greater than those established by Congress as the maximum
allowable limits.
If the source is exceeding or viii exceed its own emission
limitation but the increment set forth in §163 is not being or
will not be exceeded, EPA has more flexibility in devising a
consent decree. While it need not adhere to a strict rule of no
start-up until a source is in compliance, the Agency still must
take all necessary action to ensure that corrections are made as
quickly as possible and must not allow a source to commence
operation unless start-up is pursuant to a consent decree.
-------
-9-
The actual terms of a consent decree will vary from case to
case. The only provisions that must be contained in every decree
are a schedule that requires compliance 88 expeditiously as
practicable monitoring and reporting procedures, and a stipulated
contempt fine provision. These fines should be e8tablished at a
level sufficiently high to ensure compliance with the terms of
the decree. (More detailed guidance on provisions to be included
in consent decrees is contained in the October 19, 1983 memorandum
from Courtney Price, GM-16.)
III. Additional Enforcement Remedies
A. Criminal Penalties Under ll3(c )
Section 113(c) is available, where appropriate, against all
types of PSD violations, both pre- and post-operation.
Section 113(c) authorizes the Administrator to commence a
criminal action to seek monetary penalties and/or imprisonme.nt
for knowing violations of applicable regulations and EPA orders.
The key requirement is that the Administrator must be able to
demonstrate that the violation was “knowing.”
A distinction should be drawn between a source that refuses
to comply with applicable requirements and one that merely has
failed to comply. Refusal to meet any increments of progress of
the final compliance date of an administrative order or to meet
consent decree or permit requirements should be considered for
criminal.referral to DOJ. If the source merely is late in com-
plying, however, criminal penalties would not generally be
appropriate. Additionally, it is our belief that resort to
criminal penalties does not preclude the initiation of concurrent
or subsequent civil proceedings for monetary penalties and/or
injunctive relief. Questions concerning the possibility of
criminal action should be referred to Peter Beeson, Associate
Enforcement Counsel for Criminal Enforcement (FTS 382-4543).
B. Noncompliance Penalties Under §120
By the terms of §120, noncompliance penalties can be
assessed whenever a source is in violation of an emission limi-
tation, emission standard, or compliance schedule under an
applicable SIP. These penaltieB are based upon the economic
benefit the source has derived from noncompliance. Section 120
penalties can be assessed regardle8s of whether civil and/or
criminal sanctions available under §113 are also sought. !lore
discussion of the use of noncompliance penalties appears in
regulations published July 28, 1980 (45 FR 50086).
If you have a question about this guidance, please call Judy
K tz of the Air Enforcement Diviston (382-2843) if it is a legal
question or Rich Biondi of the Stationary Source Compliance
Division (382-2831) if it is a technical question.
-------
APPENDIX I
Penalty Policy for Violations of Certain Clean Air Act
Permit Requirements for the Construction and/or
Modification of Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution
I. Introduction
EPA’e existthg Civil Penalty Policy, dated July 8, 1980,
applies inter alia , to stationary sources of air pollution which
violate requirements enforceable under Section 113 of the Clean
Air Act when such violations are the result of a failure to make
capital expenditures and/or failure to employ operation and
maintenance procedures which are necssary to achieve initial
compliance. The Civil Penalty Policy does not, however, ‘speci-
fically address violations of permit requirements related to the
construction or modification of major stationary sources under
the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program. nd
the nonattainment area new source review program (including the
Offset Interpretative Ruling and Section 173).
This document outlines a penalty policy which applies to
certain permit-related violations of the Clean Air Act and is
intended to establish a method of calculating a minimum settle-
ment amount for such violations. The “Permit Penalty Policy”
does not replace or limit the present Civil Penalty Policy in
any way, but has been developed to deal with a subject area not
covered by the existing policy. As illustrated by the following
examples, the failure of a source to satisfy a new source requir-
ement may result in one violation subject to this Permit Penalty
Policy, and a second violation subject to the Civil Penalty
Policy.
It is important to note that this Permit Penalty Policy is
intended to provide guidance on determining a minumum civil
penalty settlement figure, as opposed to penalty requests in
complaints. As a general rule, civil complaints alleging Clean
Air Act violations, including permit-related violations, should
always request the statutory maximum penalty of $25,000 per day
of violation. In addition, the policy is not intended to suggest
that civil penalties are the only, or even the primary, remedy
where a source is in violation of Clean Air Act requirements. In
such cases, a claim for civil penalties is an adjunct to seeking
appropriate injunctive relief. A claim for costs should also be
considered.
It is also important to note that the policy outlined in
this document, like the Civil Penalty Policy, is used to set- a
minimum settlement figure. Therefore, the penalty actually
negotiated for can always be higher than the figure derived
through use of this Permit Penalty Policy.
-------
-2-
II. The Permit Penalty Policy
The Permit Penalty Policy covers cases involving Sources
which begin construction or operation without first obtaining
the required PSD permit, as well as those which construct or
operate in violation of such valid permits. Construction pro-
ceeding in compliance with an invalid permit is considered to
be, in the context of this penalty policy, construction without
a permit. A primary motivation behind the Permit Penalty Policy
has been the recognition that economic savings can be difficult
to quantify when the violation involves permit requirements.
The Permit Penalty Policy has been designed to provide a method
for determining a penalty amount which will be sufficient to ’
deter illegal construction or other permit violations, and yet
not be so high as to be unreasonable or unrealistic.
The policy is built around use of a matrix for calculation
of the minimum settlement amount. Construction in the absence of
a permit or in violation of a permit has been assigned a scale of
dollar values. The matrix also provides for the assessment of an
additional penalty for certain specified violations of substantive
permit pre-condjtjong or requirements. The appropriate dollar
value for a violation is dependent on an estimate of the total
cost of air pollution control at tl)ose facilities of the source
for which the permit is required. 1 ! This value is then multiplied
by the number of months of violatton.LI When there are multiple
permit-related violations, a penalty Tigure is calculated for
each violation and the individual penalty figures are added
together to produce one minimum settlement figure. In those cases
where a source subject to a valid permit violates only the require-
ments of Section 173(1) and/or Section 173(3) (requirements for
11 .”Total cost of air pollution control” should include, where
relevant, pollution control equipment costs, design costs,
operation and maintenance costs, differential cost of complying
fuel v. noncomplying fuel, and other costs pertaining to adequate
control of the new source. Total cost is to be determined by
examination of what would have been required as BACT (for a PSD
violation) or LAER (in the case of an Offset Policy or Part D
violation). When construction is done in phases, the operative
amount is the total cost of air pollution controls for the entire
project.
2/ Pi th-by-rnonth accrual of penaities was selected for purposes
of convenience and for consistency with the Civil Penalty Policy.
Any fraction of a month in violation is counted as a full month
of violation unless circumstances present a case for mitigation
of this rule.
-------
-3-
construction permits in nonattainment areas) or the corresponding
requirements under the Offset Policy, the appropriate penalty
amount is determined by reference only to the matrix column(s)
citing the violation(s).
The sum produced through use of the matrix represents the
minimum amount for which a case normally can be settled. However,
it is recognized that equitable considerations, includ g but not
limited to recalcitrance, degree of environmental harm / and
likelihood of success should the case be filed, may ma1 e an
increase or decrease in the matrix figure appropriate. Similarly,
a source owner who agrees to make approved expenditures for
pollution control above and beyond expenditures made to comply
with all existing legal requirements may reduce the amount of
the penalty owed. Any such additional expenditures designed as
credits to satisfy or offset civil penalties will be evaluated
in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Penalty Polrcy.
Regional Offices wishing to modify the figure indicated by the
matrix in consideration of the total equities presented by a
case or to reduce the penalty because of a credit should do so
in accordance with the procedures discussed in Section III of
this Policy.
It is recognized that there may also be cases where the
economic value of a violation covered by this policy is reasonably
quantifiable. Where the quantifiable economic savings figure
exceeds the penalty amount established by the attached matrix,
the Regional Office should negotiate for the higher calculated
econcomic savings figure rather than the matrix figure.
The period of civil penalty liability will, of course, depend
upon the nature and circumstances of the violation. For example,
if a source has begun actual construction without a required
permit or under an invalid permit, the penalty period begins on
the date the source began construction and continues either until
the source obtains a valid permit or notifies the State or EPA
that it has perg qnently ceased construction and the project has
been abandoned. 4 / A temporary cessation in construction does not
31 E.g., significant consumption of a PSD increment by a source
hat has not received a permit, violation of a Class I increment
or serious aggravation of a nonattainment problem.
4/ The period of liability is not to be confused with the peiiod
of continuing violation for Section 113 notice of violation (NOV)
purposes. A source which constructs without a valid permit is in
continuing violation of the Clean Air Act for NOV purposes until
it receives a valid permit or it dismantles the new construction.
-------
-4-
toll the running of the penalty period. The Agency may, however,
consider mitigation of the calculated civil penalty if a source
ceases construction within a reasonable time after being notified
of the violation and does not resume construction until a valid
permit is issued. If a source violates a permit condition, the
period of penalty liability for purposes of calculating a settle-
ment figure begins on the first date the violation can be docu-
mented and will cease when the violation is corrected.
Ill. Procedure
Authority to approve minimum settlement figures calculated
for cases covered by this Permit Penalty Policy rests with the
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring.
(Delegation 7-22-c) The Assistant Administrator has, in practice,
called upon the Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air to review
settlement figures. Therefore, an indication of the minimum
settlement figure, including an explanation of the derivation
of the figure obtained from the matrix and any modification of
that figure based upon subjective factors, should either be
included in the litigation report covering the facility or should
be forwarded by memorandum to the Associate Enforcement Counsel
for Air.
If a case involves violations that are within the existing
Civil Penalty Policy’s coverage, as well as a permit-related
violation, the Permit Penalty Policy should be used to find the
minimum ettlement figure for the permit violation(s) and the
Civil Penalty Policy should be used to establish a penalty amount
for the other violation(s). These two figures should be added
together to produce art appropriate overall settlement amount.
-------
PERMIT PENALTY POLICY MATRIX
MINIMUM SETTLEMENT PENALTIES
( per month of violation)
PSD SOURCES
TOTAL COST OF AIR
POLLUTION CONTROL
FOR NEW OR MODIFIED
SOURCE ($ ThOUSANDS)
less than 50
50-150
150-500
500-1 ,500
1,500-5,000
5,000-15,000
15,000-50 ,000
over 50,000
CONSTRUCTION OR
OPERATION WITHOUT
A PERMIT OR IN
VIOLATION OF A
VALID PERMIT
$ 2,000
4,000
7,000
11,000
16,000
22,000
29,000
37,000
INCREMENT
EXCEEDED
$ 7,000
11,000
16,000
22,000
29,000
37,000
46,000 . .
56,000
PART D OR OFFSET INTERPRETATIVE RULING SOURCES
TOTAL COST OF AIR
POLLUTION CONTROL
FOR NEW OR MODIFIED
SOURCE ($ THOUSANDS)
less than 50
50-150
150- 500
500-1 ,500
1 ,500-5000
5000-15,000
15,000-50,000
over 50,000
CONSTRUCTION
OR OPERATION
WITHOUT A
PERMIT OR
IN VIOLATION
OF A VALID
PERM IT
$ 2,000
5,000
9,000
14,000
20,000
27,000
35,000
44,000
FAILURE TO
SATISFY
§173(1) OR
OBTAIN
OFFSETS
$ 9,000
14,000
20,000
27,000
35,000
44,000
54,000
65,000
VIOLATION OF
SECTION 173(3)
OR CONDITION 2
$ 5,000
9,000
14,000
20,000
27,000
35,000
44,000
54,000
( Add numbers when multiple categories apply )
-------
EXAMPLE CASES
The following hypothetical cases illustrate how the matrix is
used to continue to calculate a minimum settlement figue.
PSD Source
On July 1, 1980, an existing major source began actual
construction of a modification to its plywood manufacturing plant.
The modification will result in a significant net emission
increase of particulate mater. The source had not obtained or
filed for a PSD permit as of the date actual construction began.
On July 2, 1980, EPA investigators discovered the construction
during a routine inspection of the plywood plant. The EPA Regional
Office determined that the modification was subject to PSD review
and issued a Notice of Violation on August 1, 1980. The NOV
cited the PSD regulations and outlined possible enforcement
alternatives.
The source received the NOV on August 5, 1980, and contacted
the Regional Office on August 10, 1980. On August 30, 1980, the
Region and the source held a conference at which the source stated
that it had not been aware of the need for PSD review and permitting
prior to construction. The source also stated that it would file
an application for review but that it would not cease construction
during the review process.
On October 1, 1980, the source filed a PSD application.
During the review process the Region discovered that the source
had no plans to install pollution control devices. The Region
also determined that without BACT, the modification’s particulate
emissions would result in an exceedance of the particulate matter
increment in the source’s area of impact. The source, when
informed of the BACT problem, indicated it would install the
necessary controls.
However, throughout the review process the source continued
construction of the modification. On December 1, 1980, the source
began operation of the modified source without the required permit
and without controls.
On January 15, 1981, the source was issued a PSD permit. On
February 28, 1981, the source ceased operation of the plywood
plant to install the pollution control equipment called for in
the PSD permit. The source resumed operation on March 15, 1981,
in a manner consistent with the PSD permit conditions.
-------
-2-
The penalty calculation for this example begins with an
assessment of the total cost of air pollution control equipment at
the modification. For purposes of this example, assume BACT
costs $140,000.
Next, the type and number of matrix categories must be
determined. In this example the source (1) began actual con-
struction without a permit, (2) operated the plant without a PSD
permit and (3) exceeded the growth increment for particulate
matter. Therefore, this source is subject to both of the columns
of dollar values under the heading “PSD Sources.”
In addition to the permit violations described above,
commencement of operation prior to the installation of BACT
constitutes a separate violation subject to the Civil Penalty
Policy. (The Civil Penalty Policy should be used to determine an
additional appropriate minimum settlement amount for the period
of time the source operated without BACT.)
Once the type, number and dollar values of the penalty are
determined, these figures are multiplied by the nu.mber of months
in violation. The sums are then added together to produce the
matrix penalty amount.
In this example, the source’s period of construction without
a permit runs from July 1, 1980, until the valid permit was issued
in January of 1981 (7 months). The period of operation at variance
with theBACT permit condition runs from the time the permit was
issued in January 1981, to the date the source ceased operation
on February 28, 1981 (2 months). The source also exceeded the
area growth increment for particulate matter during the period of
operation from December 1, 1980, to February 28, 1981 (3 months). 1
1/ It is important to note that some of the considerations
etai1ed in the matrix do not necessarily track the statutory
provisions regarding violations. For example, there is no Clean
Air Act provision which makes increment exceedance, in and of
itself, a violation by an individual source. (The SIP must
protect the increment. The method used is PSD review with permit
conditions such as BACT, fuel use limitations, etc.) However, as
a consideration of environmental harm, and in considering the
seriousness of the violation if a source operates and thereby
violates a State’s increment due to failure to go through PSD
review as or when required, an added penalty is appropriate.-
-------
-3-
The matrix penalty figure for this source’s PSD related
violations, based on a $140,000 total cost of control estimate, is:
- for the 7 month period of construction without a permit,
7 x $4,000 — $28,000
- for the 2 month period of operation without a permit,
2 x $4,000 — $8,000
- for the 3 month period of operation during which the
increment was exceeded,
3 x $11,000 — $33,000
- matrix penalty figure
$28,000 + $8,000 + $33,000 — $69,000
As noted in this policy, this figure represents a minimum
settlement figure. EPA may, at any time, negotiate for a higher
settlement figure. A lower minimum settlement figure may also be
available depending on the circumstances of the particular case.
See the policy for procedures regarding possible reductions.
In addition to the permit violations described above,
commencement of operation prior to the installation of BACT
constitutes a separate violation subject to the Civil Penalty
Policy. (The Civil Penalty Policy should be used to determine an
additional appropriate minimum settlement amount for the period
of time the source operated without BACT).
Section 173 or Offset Policy Sources
On December 1, 1980, a plywood manufacturing company began
operation of a modification at its plant which is located in a
nonattainment area for particulate matter. The modification is
subject to Section 173 review permitting and, in fact, the source
has obtained a valid Section 173 permit from the State. The
permit specifies 1) that the applicant has demonstrated that all
other major stationary sources owned or operated by the applicant
in the State are in compliance with the Act, 2) what constitutes
required LAER, and 3) what offsets (internal) would be required
to be obtained prior to start-up or commencement of operation.
-------
-4-
In March of 1981, the Regional Office learned that the source
did not install controls on a certain jiece of process equipment
and therefore did not actually “obtain’ the offsets as specified
in the State permit. On April 1, 1981, the Region issued an NOV
for failure to comply with the terms of the permit by not
obtaining offsets prior to start-up. At an April 15, 1981,
conference between EPA and the source, the source agreed to meet
the terms of its permit and to certify compliance. On May 15,
1981, the offsets were finally obtained.
In this example, the violation covered by the matrix is the
source’s failure to obtain the required offsets (because the
source had obtained the requisite permit and its only violation
of the permit consisted of a failure to obtain the offsets by
start-up). The failure to obtain offsets, however, is covered by
both the Permit Penalty Policy (for the failure of the new..source
to obtain offsets prior to start-up) and the Civil Penalty Policy
(for the failure of the existing source to comply with the offset
requirement).
The calculation of the minimum settlement figure in this
case under the Permit Penalty Policy begins with an assessment of
the total cost of air pollution control equipment at the modificat
For purposes of this example, assume LAER costs $110,000. Since
the source operated from start-up on December 1, 1980, until
May 15, 1981, without the necessary offsets, the period of
violation was six months. Under these circumstances the matrix
yields a penalty figure of $84,000. (6 x $14,000 84,000).
As in the PSD example above, this matrix figure is a minimum
settlement number. EPA is free to negotiate for a higher amount.
There is also the opportunity for a reduction of this figure
based upon the surrounding circumstances in accordance with the
procedures outlined in the policy.
The calculation of a minimum settlement figure under the
Civil Penalty Policy is dependent upon the economic benefit to
the source of delaying the capital costs necessary to satisfy the
offset requirement for a period of six months, and upon the other
factors set out in the policy. Because the offsets were obtained
from a facility owned by the new source, a total minimum civil
penalty settlement figure is calculated by adding the amounts
obtained under the Permit Penalty Policy and the Civil Penalty
Policy. (If the offsets were obtained from a facility not owned
by the new source, once the offset is established and made part
of the SIP, the existing source is subject to the amount calcu-
lated under the Civil Penalty Policy added to the amount calcu-
lated under the Permit Penalty Policy).
-------
;• ‘. -‘ ‘
UNiTED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\? / WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
- ,! o”
DEC 1 8 $918
ocric or t ’.FORcCMtNT
N EMORANOUM
SUBJECT: Interpretation of øConstructedw as it Applies to
Activities Undertaken Prior to Issuance of a PSD
Permit
PRO!!: Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Enforcement Division Directors
Regions I—X
Air and aazardous Materials Division Directors
Regions I—X
The issue addressed in this memorandum is where on the
continuu’n from planning to operation of a major emitting
facility does a coit pany or other entity violate the PSD
regulations if it has not yet received a PSD permit. (It is
assuined here that such a permit is required by the PSD
regulations.) This question has arisen several times in
particular cases and general guidance now appears necessary.
The statute and regulations do not answer this
question. The Clean Air Act states si nply that, ‘ [ nb najo
emitting facility... may be constructed... unless—cl)
a permit has been issued... (and various other conditions
have been satisfied).’ Section 165(a). Similarly, the PSD
regulations state that, ‘(n]o major stationary source or
major modification shall be constructed unless the [ various
PSD require.nents are met].’ 40 CFR 52.21(j) (1), 43 FR
26406. ‘Construction’ is defined in the regulations as
‘fabrication, erection, installation, or modification of a
source.’ 40 CFR 52.21(b) (7), 43 FR 26404. This accords
with Section 169(2) (C) of the Act, but it does not explicitly
answer the question posed ab3ve. To our knowledge, the
legislarjve history of the Act does not treat this issue.
Thus the ter n ‘constructed’ seems to be open to further
interpretation by EPA.
-------
—2-
Com encement of construction is quit.e specifically
defined in both Section 169(2) (A) of the Clean Air Act and
40 CFR 52.21(b) (8), 43 FR 26404. However, that definition
the purpose of deciding the threshold question of the
applicability of the PSD regulations. Therefore, we are not
bound by it in deciding what activities may be conducted
prior to receiving a necessary PSD permit. -
DSSE’s response to date has been that the per nitting
authority should make the determination on a case—by—case
basis, after considering all the facts of the individual
situation. For example, we said that site clearing might be
inappropriate for a source proposed to be constructed in a
heavily forested Class I area, but permissible for a source
proposed to be constructed on a junk—strewn lot in a heavily
industrialized Class III area.
After consulting with the Office of General Counsel, we
are now arnending this policy in order to minimize the
administrative burden on the permitting authority and to
adopt what we believe now to be the better legal interpreta-
tion. The new policy is that certain limited activities will
be allowed in all cases. These allowable activities are
planning, ordering of equipment and materials, site—clearing,
grading, and on—site storage of equipment and materials.
Any activities undertaken prior to issuance of a PSD permit
would, of course, be solely at the owner’s or operator’s
risk. That is, even if considerable expense were incurred
in site—clearing and purchasing equipment, for example,
there would be no guarantee that a PSD permit would ‘be
forthcoming.
All on—site activities of a permanent nature ai ned at
completing a PSD source for which a permit has yet to be
obtained are prohibited under all circumstances. These
prohibited activities include installation of building
supports and foundations, paving, laying of underground pipe
work, construction of permanent storage structures, and
activities of a similar nature.
The new policy has several advantages. First, t will
be easy to administer, since case—by—case determinations
will not be required. ?Ioreover, it assures national consis-
tency and permits no abuse of discretion. Finally, it
appears to be the most legally correct position. The policy
has the un eniab1e disadvantage of allowing a good deal of
-------
—3—
activity at cites which t lay be highly susceptible to envi-
ronmental impact. ! e feel that on balance, however, the
advantages of the policy outweigh the disadvantage.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact
David Rochlin of my gtaff, at 755—2542.
Edward E. Reich
cc: Peter Wyckoff, 0CC
Richard Rhoad.s, OA PS
Linda Murphy, Region I
Ken Eng, Region II
Jin Sydnor, Region III
Winston Smith, Region IV
Steve Rothblatt, Region V
Don Harvey, Region VI
Bob Chanslor, Region VII
Dave Joseph, Region VIII
Bill Wick, Region IX
1ike Johnston, Region X
-------
Section 169A: Visibility
-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 169A
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 169A
* PN169A—85—03—25—001
VISIBILITY MONITORING STRATEGY REQUIREMENTS
-------
PN 169A-85-03-25-OO1

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
‘ L P o1
MAR 5
ME MO R AND U M
SUBJECT: Visibility Monitoring Strat yRequirements
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Director 4
Control Programs Developm ’rrt Div$ on (MD-15)
TO: Director, Air Division
Regions I—X
It has come to my attention that some States have requested additional
guidance in developing a visibility monitoring strategy for the May 6,
1985, submittal deadline. This memorandum explains the monitoring
requirements and is meant to assist the States and Regions in determining
the adequacy of a visibility monitoring strategy.
The 1980 visibility rules (Section 51.300—307) require 36 States to
amend their State implementation plans (SIP’s) to include visibility
protection plans. The plan must contain Ha strategy for evaluating visi-
bility . . . by visual observation or other appropriate techniques . . .
The plan must also provide for consideration of available data and must
provide a mechanism for its use in decisions in other portions of the
protection program. The monitoring strategy was not meant to be implemented
independent from the rest of the rules. Therefore, the requirements for
monitoring come directly from the sections of the rules to be implemented
In the second part of the settlement agreement,
Consultation with the Federal land managers (FLM’s) is required by
Section 51.302. All affected FLM’s must be given the opportunity to consult
with the State, in person, at least 60 days prior to any public hearing on
the rule. At this meeting, the FLM may make recommendations to the State
on items in the protection plan Including but not limited to identifying
impairment, and recommending items to be included In the monitoring strategy.
The State should contact the on—site FLM personnel as well as the divi.sional
offices handling SIP coordination. The addresses for the divisional office
personnel are attached.
The States’ visibility monitoring strategy must address the following
requi rements:
1) Provide data for new source Impact analyses (required by Sections 51.307
and 51.24),
-------
The Fores. ervice
United States Department of Agriculture
----.:
L
—
p
I .
)
— —
0
N•ona4 oi•s$s
Ptit.o ,al Gr.s.I ng1,
9,O( àl &)Ufl’ dI
R.g onaI liidguart.ri
Fo esI hnd Rang. E p. sn,n
Salon HSa0Q IflII$
Fo4.$l Pvod CII tabotsiory
Sal. and P,,nals Fo..Sry
A ,.. He Ig s tI$
... ___-.s
— - C)
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
FEDERAL LAND MANAGER DIVISIONAL OFFICES
Mr. Brian Mitchell
Air Quality Division
National Park Service
Post Office Box 25287
Denver, CO 80225
Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. Ty Berry
Division of Refuge Management
F&WS, Room 2342
Department of Interior
18th & C Streets, N.W.
Washington, DC 20124c
Forest Service Headquarters
Mr. Jim Byrne
USDA-Forest Service
WS AM
Post Office Box 2417
Washington, D.C. 20013
Forest Service Regional Directors (See Map)
Fastern Region
310 W. Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53203
Northern Region
Federal Building
Post Office Box 7669
Missoula, MT 59807
Intermountain Region
Federal Building
324 25th Street
Bgden, UT 84401
Southwestern Region
Federal Building
517 Gold Avenue, S.W.
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Southern Region
1720 Peachtree Road,
Atlanta, GA 30367
Rocky Mountain Region
11177 W. 8th Avenue
Post Office Box 25127
Lakewood, CO 80225
Pacific Southwest Region
630 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Pacific Northwest Region
319 S.W. Pine Street
Post Office Box 3623
Portland, OR 97208
National Park Service
N .W.
3/c
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
VISIBILITY MONITORING STRATEGY CHECKLIST
1. Does impairment exist? What documentation does the State provide?
Example: a) FLM statement
b) no sources near the protection areas
2. Does the SIP mention coordination/consultation with the ELM’s?
3. Does the SIP list the objectives of the monitoring program?
Example: a) Provide data for new source Impact analysis.
b) Provide data to determine sources subject to BART.
c) Provide data for assessment of control strategies.
d) Provide data for trend analysis.
If impairment does not exist, only a and d are needed.
4. Does the SIP list the data collection methods or equipment to be used?
Example: a) Require preapplicatjon monitoring.
b) Installation of automatic cameras or other monitoring
device.
c) Periodic reporting from ELM’s (with FLM agreement).
5. Are the equipment or procedures appropriate to meet the stated
objectives? —
Example: a) Preapplication monitoring will not provide data for BART
determinations.
b) A report from the ELM win not provide appropriate data
for new source impact analysis.
6. If the SIP calls for a separate document or appendix to describe the
details of the monitoring program, is it available to the public? EPA?
7. A separate document or appendix is recommended to describe the details
of:
a) Monitoring sites,
b) Equipment or data collection techniques,
c) Quality assurance procedures,
d) MonItoring frequency, and
e) Implementation schedule.
-------
Page No. 2
03/03/88
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 172
UPDATE NUMBER 8
(VOLUME 1)
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172—79—08—22—020
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS/REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMITTING RACT
REGULATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS(VOC)
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172—79—].O—04—021
CLARIFICATION FOR FINAL SIP ACTIONS ON ASPHALT REGULATIONS
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172—79—12—12—023
EXEMPTIONS FOR DEGR.EASERS
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172—80—06—16—027
GASOLINE TANK TRUCK REGULATIONS
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172—80—07—02—029
EXEMPTION FOR COLD CLEANER DEGREASERS
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172—80—08—11—043
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS: CONSTRUCTION GRANTS LIMITATION
PROVIDED BY SECTION 316 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT: POLICY AND PROCEDURES
CITATION)
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172—80—09—03—030
MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS CTG - EMISSION LIMITS FOR
COATING OF SHIPPING PAILS AND DRUMS
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172—80—11—20—032
COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR CAN COATING OPERATIONS
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172—80—12—01—033
REVISED SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172—80-12-02-034
COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR RACT APPLICATION TO LEAKS FROM PETROLEUM
REFINERY EQUIPMENT
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172—80—12—02—035
PACT FOR SPECIALTY PRINTING OPERATIONS
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172—81—01—22—039
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE
PLAN REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (FR
CITATION)
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172—81—02 D6—036
STORAGE TANK VAPOR BALANCE REQUIREMENTS AT SYNTHESIZED PHARMACEUTICAL
PRODUCTS MANUFACTURE FACILITIES
-------
Section 172: Nonattainment Plan Provisions
(Primarily related to CO and 03)
N)
C)
0
0
0)
-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 172
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 172
* PN172—78—03—10—002
EXAMPLE DEMONSTRATION OF ATTAINMENT FOR PHOTOCHENICAL OXIDANTS
* PN172—78—06—30—003
VAPOR RECOVERY REGULATIONS REQUIRED TO MEET RACT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
1979 SIP
* PN172—78—08—04—004
REQUIREMENT FOR VOC RACT REGULATIONS IN ALL OXIDANT NONATTAINNENT AREAS
* PN].72—78—08—24—006
CLARIFICATION OF EPA POLICY ON EMISSIONS FOR METHYL CHLOROFORM
* PN172—78—10—06—008
COMMENTS ON AUTO INDUSTRY PROPOSALS
* PN172—78—10—26—009
OZONE TRANSPORT VALUES FOR SIP REVISIONS
* PN172—79—01—16—012
CONTINUITY OF SIP REGULATIONS - REVISED ENCLOSURE
* PN172—79—03—06—014
CUTBACK ASPHALT VOC REGULATIONS
* PN172—79—05—25—016
SUBMISSION OF STATE AIR PERMITS AS SIP REVISIONS
* PN172—79—05—25—017
CLARIFICATION OF AGENCY POLICY CONCERNING OZONE SIP REVISIONS AND
SOLVENT REACTIVITIES
* PN172—79—06—20—018
MODIFICATIONS TO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOLVENT METAL CLEANING
* PN172—79—08—21—019
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS: GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON
APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINNENT AREAS - SUPPLEMENT (ON
REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMISSION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICAL RACT
REGULATIONS)
* PN172—79—08—22—020
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS/REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMITTING RACT
REGULATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS(VOC)
-------
Page No. 2
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 172
(VOLUME 1)
* PN172—79—10—04—021
CLARIFICATION FOR FINAL SIP ACTIONS ON ASPHALT REGULATIONS
* PN172—79—12—12—023
EXEMPTIONS FOR DEGREASERS
* PN172—78—06—14—026
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGARDING THE INTEGRATION OF
TRANSPORTATION AND AIR QUALITY PLANNING
* PN172—80—06—16—027
GASOLINE TANK TRUCK REGULATIONS
* PN172—80—07—02—029
EXEMPTION FOR COLD CLEANER DEGREASERS
* PN172—80—09—03—030
MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS CTG - EMISSION LIMITS FOR
COATING OF SHIPPING PAILS AND DRUMS
* PN172—80—11—20—032
COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR CAN COATING OPERATIONS
* PN172—80—12-01—033
REVISED SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
* PN172—80—12—02—034
COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR RACT APPLICATION TO LEAKS FROM PETROLEUM
REFINERY EQUIPMENT
* PN172—80—12—02—035
RACT FOR SPECIALTY PRINTING OPERATIONS
* PN172—81—02—06—036
STORAGE TANK VAPOR BALANCE REQUIREMENTS AT SYNTHESIZED PHARMACEUTICAL
PRODUCTS MANUFACTURE FACILITIES
* PN172—81—05—21—038
1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE SIP GUIDANCE INDEX
* PN172—81—01—22-039
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIE
PLAN REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (FR
CITATION)
-------
Page No. 3
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 172
(VOLUME 1)
* PN172—82—10—29—041 -
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
* PN172—80—08—11—043
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS: CONSTRUCTION GRANTS LIMITATION
PROVIDED BY SECTION 316 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT: POLICY AND PROCEDURES (FR
CITATION)
* PN172—83—11—02—044
COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART D OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
(FR CITATION)
* PN172—84—01—20—045
AVERAGING TIMES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITS - SIP REVISION
POLICY
* PN172—84—06—25—046
APPLICABILITY OF GROUP III CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES (CTG’S)
* PN172—84—06—25—047
CONFIRMATION OF DEFINITION OF “100 TON-PER-YEAR (100 TPY) SOURCE”
* PN172—84—09—14—048
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) TEST METHODS OR PROCEDURES FOR SOURCE
CATEGORIES IN GROUPS I, II, AND III CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES
( TGS)
* PN172—84—12—21—049
CONNECTICUT VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) ISSUES
* PN172—85—04—25—050
CONSIDERATION OF ORGANISOLS IN VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC)
COMPLIANCE CALCULATIONS
* PN172—85—07—02—051
RESIDUAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) CONTAINED IN COATING LINE
PRODUCTS
-------
SUI\1M2 ..s’t u r ?Q
-— -— - -. - j - r r
— OL ’I .. c: ,\ $ 3 - C - -
1 C C ”” ‘.
1
.crCS . j ” C IOW”C’ ”
7_ - ; -1 . ’
—- —“. . :—C ..
- -“ .. - 1’1
— —. —,,.
I ,,, —
•• 1 -• —
—•‘ .
“fl. ’ ,“r’lI ‘c ) IC ‘L_C
•I . (•N•. ..‘‘
- ( T.NC C:: SI
N 1)7’
L II ,
-Wg r : -
:‘
sC: ..C -
‘ ‘i I : r CL ’.’
2qcc - jc
— . - . 5 -

— \.. ). ‘j QC - .NC
1•’ •‘
1I, “•C ‘ CC ‘ (
..••“ O
. ‘u3E Qul. I
-- : .so •‘. — MuN.IL3
— — , ,— :
• : -‘— - —
—_______
I

.
c j.’u INC I I
,
4C JS I L ? CCZ3S
- •
2 1 .. .NC _: •: 11 ’
•‘ - —— IL Q”..
. ., c!çj C-’I_ i—.U—C’_
—
c ‘ c,.3 : . CLJ
,
- •-: : ‘.—: —_
- II ‘C_ ‘ ‘.I .L ’ _ C J . ’
•
cQ’ .’
. ,: : .1C —
\3’l • JI
j’$VC3i . 3
.
I•: u_ . • u
?s,. 1
2_ • I
• - ._
•3CQ
- ‘ CQC 4OZ .iC .3
I —. _ ‘ 3CL3 •3
-
—
‘ : , .$4OL ’ .u.
: ‘i
-
—— —
—.
• .:
QT),E SOL’1 ’4T LJS
- s
I
,
—
•_
I
I
c
.
I
—
•C 1 •
-
—
--_ -
CL 4
3TC E .
3CUPCZ

,
:‘ C.%,j•
- • • - — -
- •- IQ
- !
ICC 5 : -
. cIaIL: 3 . . ..L
-------
UffiTED STATES ENV RO MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AT 1. R
SUB EC7 Ea o’e e. crIstrat cn of , 3 tzainrnenz
for P to rncai Oxicants _____ PN-172- -O3-1O-OO2
OM .icnaro . P hoacs,
Cortroi ?rograms eve ocmenz Divis on
10 Director, Air anc azar ous Matenais Division, Reg cns I, tiI-X
Director, Env ronmencai Programs Divisici, Region ::
This ffice has received nuinercus inquiri s concerning tie content
of tie 197c State implementat on plan (StP) omissions relating to tie
demonstr_.ion of attainment for oxioants. S ec fical1y, tie inquiries
rocusec ci : e c est,ons Cr • ncn rnoceis are ac:a :aDe ror a r cual tj
oreciction :ur oses SnU wilCi zacnniques are accaotao e or rasanti ig
tie em ssions inventory.
One of tie statutory criteria for aoorcval of tie 979 o1an s
that it r s: cecerinne tne level af control neecec to de!nonscrste ::airi —
rier.: ( nc cing nwtn). or oxicants, such a dete inaz on sr.a ce
naoe ty aoo.jir any r.ocei rc tecimicue rererencec in tie coc irerz 1 Lse,
Li ii :azion anc 7e:nnical 3as’s of Procecures f r uanzifjing ? e a:icn-
sni:s 3e:,. er ? :ociernlcai 3x oarits anc Precursors,” °A .5J/2-77-O2 1 a,
‘ v cii e ’, ‘ ‘‘. Cors cara:icr. D :ac,
-------
t— e . ra: :a’- :ac2 of z i ss n rL : s
:o va.’ u : ns cr: t on corizr 1 asur s. :o: i sr nar es
sncu 2repareo fcr acn ares fcr .qnlcii a s araz strategy is :eir 1 g
oeve I opec.
cpefu1iy, : ese c:r ienzs acequately r s:onc :o your cuestions n
: e suo ec: areas. o ever, you ieee ur:ier assistance, please eei
f ee to contact e or iiy staff.
Enclosure
cc: R. N lican
. - ia tiger
-------
UN!TED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
l
U -
- ?\- I .. - 3- Jã- 30—003
3JEC . Vapor Recove-v • ecuIations Requ rad to —
Meet RACT Requirements for the 1979 SIP
FROM! Richard G. Rhoads, Director/c— -__/ z:__.-_-_
Control Programs Development Division
TO Allyn Davis, Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region IX
In response to your r emo dated June 2, 1978, regarding the subject
matter, I offer the following cc ents for your consiceration.
As you kncw, the 1979-oxidant plan submissions for major ur5an
areas must include, as a minimum, legally enforceable reculacions to-
reflect the aoplication of reasonably available control technolocy
(RACT) to thcse stationary sources for which a Control Techniques Guide-
line (CIG) has been published by January, 1978. While it is recognized
that RACT will oe determined on a case-by-case basis, the criteria for
SIP approval will rely heavily upon the information contained in the
CTGs. Hcwever, deviations frcm the CTGs are acceotable, provided one of
two possible conditions are met.
First, a re# ulatjon which devi t s from the CT nay be aporovad
by triis Agency if economics or other circ stances justify reçuiatory
requirements less stringent than tnose contained within the CTG. In
this situation, the 1979 SIP submittal must provide adecuate justifica-
tion for sucn deviations. Please note that the above discussion applies
in those instances where the deviation frcm the CTG results in a less
strincent control requirement and that in cases where regulations are
more stringent than the CTGs, no justification for the deviat cn is
necesary.
Alternatively, this Acency may approve State regulations that are
only marginally oifferent from the CTGs without the detailed justification
noted above if the impact on emission differs imperceptibly (less than
five percent in cases where it is possible to quantify the difference)
from that of the CTG and there is no significant threat of undermining
Agency activities elsewhere, in the nation. This concept, however, is
only applicable on a source category basis. In other words, it would be
unacceptable to approve a source category specific regulation requiring
significantly less control than the corresponding CTG on the basis that
other source are recul.ated to a degree s gnificantly more
stringent than the comparable CTGs.
Aithouch your analysis of the Stet and Federal recu1at ons and
the CTGs ao:aars correct and we a - e .i:n your lnterpretacicr OT t e
CTG recardir.c accounts wnich may be exemDted. a further analysis is
requrec to assess tne acceptaD l y of the CaIiforn a recuiat ons.
EP& FOP I32 - ç R V. 3-761
-------
Sucri an ana 1 ’si ‘ cui ; a e to emonsz.-aze : at the Ca ifornia
recu a:’.ons re u:a e emiss cns to within rue percer or the CLG or
justify deviations greater than five percent on the oasis of economics
or other circumstances.
Furthermore, approvability of ‘IOC regulatuons is not deoeident
on the ability of a State to demonstrate attainment by 1982 versus
1987. , s inaicated by Mr. Hawkins at the recent Mr and Hazardous
Materials Division Directors’ meeting in Houston, RACT must 5e aoolied
to all categories in all areas designated nonattainment for photo—
chemical oxidants. TE T office is currently preparing a policy
memorandum on this matter or Mr. Hawkins’ signature.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call.
cc: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Divisicn, Regions I,
III—VtIt, & X, w/inccming letter
Director, Environmental Programs Division, Region Ii, w/inccming
letter
E. Reicn, OSSE, w/inccming letter
M. James, OGC, w/incoming letter
H. Seal, SRED, w/incoming letter
-------
. *tto
UNITED STATES ENVIRONM NIAL PROTECTICiN AGENCY
WASHINGTO\l D C 20460
PN-172-76-O8-04- 0 04
‘70 O lCE O
(Q AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
SUBJECT: Requirement for VOC PACT egu1ations in all
Ox ’ idant r1onattainment Areas
David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
far Air, loise and aciation (AW-443) ,,.‘
TO: Ra”ionai Aciministrators
Ra ons i—X
This is a fOilc .,—U3 to r. Castle’s February 2 , 1973, memorandw
e’t itlec Cr1 : r ia for Aoprovai of 1979 Si? evisions’, ano to iy recent
scussions wizn he Reciorat Air and Hazarcous 1ateria s Division
Dir ct rs n custa.i. it is r zended toc1or fv the 1979 51? recuire—
e’its ror iootiie organic co,;.:ouna (VOL) regu a:ions cr a
oxicart nonattair ent areas.
The issues or tonc range oxicant rarisport and oackground make it
ff’cult to uaveloo oxidant control strateQies .ith che ecree of
Orec’ ion err :al j associated r tn ricre stable air oilutants. Further,
certain 31 tre ava1 abIe analytical echnlques will tena to under-
us ti: a te the d s- ruc of con trol requi red for a LL j mont. The usc’ ci
less rigorous mia1yt cal tec iniques s cn as rollback supoort 19/s Si?
revi ic s 15 acce t sb1e in aress :: ,ere reasoiabij available control
measures ar soneciulad for ir ple entatiori. Hc.iever, for the reasons
s:a ed acove this Lechrllque is ,iot ccc-ptable as a emGnstrat on that
RACT re ulations on VGC sources are rot needed to attain and maintain
the cxi ant stOlicard. Accordingly, for every cxidant plan which
r lies an C:ici rollback echniq .ie fcr ts contrul stratc’jy dcmcnstratjon,
tue plan ust, as a riilmimu;I, include egally enforceable provisions
for the control of large VOC sources (more than 100 cons/year potantial
emissions) for which EPA has issued a Control Technology Guideline (CTG).
Plans :Iiicn rely on the rollback tecunique and a not contain these
provisions will not be approvable. The only exception to this oolicy
is che Sltjdt iOn ifl ‘ nich the control acenc’i certifies that there are no
affected ourcas for a arz 1c 4 lar Source cotecory in the ionat:air ent
-------
States ‘ nich :ish to attempt emonstraze that the oxicant 3tCncar
can e attained nd i aintair.eo :ithout adopting cne or ore r such RACI
reaulations or larce VOC sources ay o o ut mutt rno1cy more
ricorous analytical techniques than the rollback iethod; i.e., pnotc—
chemicti uispers lon modeling.
a k cnat you roceed u iieoiate1y to advise ycur Staces nc to
integrate z us policy clarification nzo ,he ongoing SI? development
process.
cc: 1. urnir ic
-. 9erris: in
L1 ectar, , ir a c :- azarcous : a:eri s
— ‘ .- ‘ 3 ., T -.
.ji1 Qn, R ..g flS , —
raczcr, Env 1ron iie! i:a1 ?rcgrarns iv sion,
Regior. 11
-------
UNITED.STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AU 1 /8
io cC Clarification of EPA Policy on Emissions f ‘iethyl Chloroform
/ /‘ % _ PN-172-7808 240 06
FROM Waiter C. Barber, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD—b)
TO Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
The purpose of this meino is to clariry EPA’s position with regard
to State and Federal regulation of emissions of methyl chloroform
(1,131, trichboroethane). On July 8, 1977, EPA published the present
“Recommended Policy on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds”
(42 FR 3531 ). This policy exempts methyl chloroform from inventory
requirements and regulations to meet the national ambient air quality
standard for photochenical oxidants. However, the policy indicated
that methyl chloroform had been implicated as having deleterious effects
on stratospheric ozofle and therefore may be subject to future cont o1s.
Nevertheless, the oiicy seems to be encouraging a shift to the
uncontrolled use of methyl chloroform in place of trichboroethylene and
other regulated solvents in metal degreasing o eratior.s.
We have been dvi d by the Office of Toxic Substances that methyl
chloro orm shoulo be c: s cered potentially narmrul to the ozone layer
anc that they are per crm ng the necessa -y evaluations and assessments
prior to pursuing furt:ier regulatory initiatives. Hence, its use in an
uncontrolled fashion shcula not be encouraced. Accordin ly, CAOPS has
begun tne necessary ac 1oris to propose removal of methyl chlorororm rrcm
the list of exempt volatile organic ccmoounds (VOC). Xowever, t e ao ct
expect this action to be co pieted before the State Implementation Plans
for ohctcchemjcal cxi ants are to e submitted. In addition, I have
directed that the ne source performance starca ,-ds to be proposed for
solvent metal cleaning operations, as well as any other solvent uses,
require positive control of all VOC emissions including methyl chloroform.
I recognize that many States are well along in the preparation of
their regulatory packages and inventories. In order not to change the
existing cuidance at this late date, I am requesting that you advise
your State directors tnat, although we will not disapprove a State
oxidant SIP submittal which exempts methyl chloroform from control, we
are very concerned with the environmental risks associated with wide
scale s bstituticn to rnethyl chloroform; and that the uncontrolled use
of methyi chloroform as an approved means for compliance should be avoided
whereve possible.
cc: D rectcr, Air ! a:ardous Mazer als Division, Re icns I, III—X
D1 ’-eczcr, Erviror —er 1 zal Procrans Division, Recions II
Chief, Air ranc , eaions i-X
Steven 0. Jellinek, Office of Toxic Substances
Warren Muir, Off ce of Toxic Substances
- PA •
-------
UNJITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ffice of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OCT 5 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
PN-172--g-1O-oo-008
UBJECT Comments on Auto Industry Proposals
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads,
Control Programs Development Division
° Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I, III—X
Director, Environmental Programs Division, Region II
A number of States and Regional Offices have requested OAQPS comments
on auto industry proposals which differ from limits in the Control Technology
Guidelines (CIG). Rather than review each proposal individually, we have
aggregated the key issues raised in each and addressed it in the enclosed
memorandum. This memorandum should be considered a supplement to the-CTG
and a clarification of EPA policy for the review of State SIP submitcals.
My questions or comments on this memorandum should be directed to
Jonn Calcagni at ETS 629—5365.
Enclosure
£D 3 -4 R . 3 7 ,
-------
AUTOMOTIVE AND LIGHT TRUC ( ASSEMBLY COATING OPERATIONS
A numoer of States have received suggestions and proposed standards
for the control of auto and light truck assembly oper3tions. The principle
issues raised by these comments related to:
RACT for prime application
RACT for topcoat application
Averaging times for the emission limits
Case—by-case review
Compliance schedules
Our findings and guidance on these issues are as follows:
PRIME APPLICATION OPERATIONS
The prime coat serves the dual funcion of protecting the surface
from corrosion and providing for good adhesion of the topcoat. A combi—
nation of manual and automatic spray methods, with or without the use of
electrcstatic techniques, is usually used to apply organic solvent-borne
primer.
Primers may also be applied by dipping techniques. The Chrysler
Corporation, for example, used water—borne dip primers for underbodies
at some of its plants. Because the dip—coated primer is not smooth, the
coating must be sanded or else be used only on areas where appearance
Is not important.
Of most interest from a pollution control standpoint is a relatively
new priming process, electrophoretic (electrodeposited) water-borne dip.
The object to be :oated is immersed in a hater-borne coating and an
-------
electric potential is induced between the vehicle and the coating bath.
By correctly setting the electrical potential and the time of the bath,
the coating thickness can be controlled as desired. Corrosion protection
is excellent because coverage is more complete than can ever be obtained
by spray priininc alone. The electrophoretic dip pr cess is used at over
O percent of U.S. assembly plants and is very widely used in Europe.
Because of the uniformity of the electrodeposited coating, it does
not “mask” imperfections in the substrate and additional primer must be
sprayed on those areas for subsequent sanding. This additional primer,
called “surfacer” or “guidecoat,” is available as either a water—borne or
organic solvent-borne coating.
The EPA recommendation of 1.9 lb/gal (less water) was based on a
weighted average of the two essential components in this system: .8 lb/gal
coating used in the anodic electrodeposition (EDP) process then in use ano
a 2.8 ib/ al (less water) coating for the surfacing operation.
The industry comments on the prime application operations have
questioned the availability of cathodic EDP coatings at the same solvent
content as anodic EDP. Cathodic EDP is a new development in LOP coating
and is considered to be a superior technology because it markedly improves
the corrosion resistance. Our investigation on this matter concluded:
Anodic EDP coatings are available at .8 lb/gal (less water).
Presently used anodic EDP coatings are 1.2 lb/gal (less water).
Presently used cathodic EDP coatinas are between 1 .8 ano
2.1 ib/aal (less wat2r).
-------
S
a: c r2Cra’S • a’ : r:: z ::c::
coatings at .2 lb/gal ‘:lass 4ater
In terms of emissions/year, a typical EDP line (coating 40
mediate size vehicles per hour) using a .8 lb/gal (less water) coa
consumes 15 tons/year while a 1.2 lb/gal (less water) coating cons
26 tons/year and a 2.1 lb/gal (less water) coating consumes 54 ton:
Test results have shown approximately two—thirds of this solvent cc
tion from an EDP process is removed from the system by the waste w
stream reducing the emissions from the oven and dip tank to a thirc
these values. Accordingly, State regulations should require EDP bu
less stringent limits than 0.8 lb/gal. Based on the available data
believe a regulation which calls for EDP at 1.2 lb/gal (less water)
orime application would allow the use of either cathodic or anodic
even thougn cathod c ECP coatings at less than 1.8 lb/gal (less watt
are riot cor mercially available today.
For surfacing operations, the EPA recomended limit of 2.8 lb/c
equivalent to a 62 percent solids coating, is based on a convention
applia water-borne coe ting which was in use in two plants in this c
We anticipate that conversion to a water—borne surface will be the p
ccmp1 ance technique for approximately SO percent of the industry.
In evaluating equivalence to the CTG, it is important to consid
transfer efficiency. Electrostatically sprayed coatings offer a mar
advantage over conventional spray coatings in that the overspray (or
naterial) s reduced from about 50 percent to 30 percent. Unfortuna’
water-borne coatings are not presently apolied electrostatically mt
automotive industry because of some safety problems. Considering the
higher transfer efficiency, a 55 percent solids organic-borne surface
-------
4
applied electrostatically can be considered equivalent to the EPA-
recommended limit of 2.8 lb/gal. Although a 55 percent solids prime
coat is not presently available, if it can be developed, it would be 1
preferred option for a significant fraction of the industry. It shou
also be noted that a shortfall from the 55 percent solids coating proj
can be made up through the addition of add-on C ntrols such as Incine
of the prime oven emission, or carbon adsorption on the spray booth a
flash off areas.
TOPCOAT APPLICATION OPERATIONS
The area receiving the most comment has been the appropriate cot
levels for topcoat application. The EPA-recommended limit of 2.8 lb
was based on a conventionally sprayed water-borne enamel coating pre
being applied at two automotive assembly plants in California. Cons
there can be no argument as to the technical feasibility of achievin
2.8 lb/sal.
At many of its plants, General Motors uses lacquers for the toç
Lacquers have an extremely high solvent content ( 88 volume percent
American, and Chrysler use topcoat enamels with 55 to 78 percent so
by volume. Volkswa9en expects to use topcoats with only 30 volume
solvent equivalent by 1981.
A number 0 f major process modifications are necessary, however
retrofit water-borne coating technology to an existing plant. This
the langthening or addition of new ovens and flash tunnels, humidit
temperature controls in the spray booths, increasad sludge nandlinc
bilities, provisions for additional power, and use of more ccrrosi
resistant materials in the pipinc and spray booth construction. T
-------
of this retrofitting will vary and ne major variable will be the age of
the existing coating equipment. If near retirement, it may be better to
build entirely new spray booths and ovens. This was done at one of two
automobile plants which converted to water-borTle coatings. If the coatin
equipment Is still relatively modern, however, retrofitting will entail
lengthening of ovens and modification of spray booths and conveyors.
This was the approach taken at the other automobile plant using water—
borne topcoats. While costs wfll vary from plant—to—plant, capital costs
for a retrofit to water-borne topcoats for the “model plant” were estimate
by EPA to be about $20 million (1975 dol1ar ). For a plant :here the
entire coating line is replaced, capital costs can be about twice this.
Incre mental operating costs include increased electrical r qui ement
and maintenance labor. Coating material costs are approximately the same.
figher oven ternoerature causes an increase in natural gas usage.
Actual conversion to water-borne coatings may not be the only way to
achieve the emission levels represented by 2.8 lb/gal. or example, emis-
sions froni electrostatic application of ar , organic.-ucrne topcoat of
55 percent solids (with a transfer efficiency of 70 percent) is equivalent
to conventionally sprayed water-borne coating with 2.8 lb/gal (less water)
of solvent. Electrostatic application of a 50 percent solids coating
(with a 70 percent transfer efficiency) would require an additional
16 percent reduction 0 f the organic solvent through add-on controls in
order for it to emit no more than the water-borne. These reductions nay o
achieved through incinerat on of oven emissions and/or carbon adsor tion
of a portion of :he spray booth emissions.
-------
6
It should be noted that while carbon adsorption of the spray booth
emissions is technically feasible, no full—scale installations are presently
in operation in automobile plants although the two major manufacturers
both have large scale pilot studies underway. If a coating with a
reasonably ‘gh solids content (50—55 percent) becomes commercially
practicable for the automobile topcoat, the costs for acid—on controls to
provide incremental reductions would be sigilificantly less than the cost
of converting to an all water-borne operation. Naturally, if future
organic-borne enamel coatings fa p”—- cf 50 percent solids, a gri ater
reliance on add-on contro1 would be necessary. For example, a 45 percent
solids coating with a 70 percent transfer efficiency would require a
31 percent reduction from add—on controls.
AVERAGING TIMES
The 2.8 lb/gal (less water) limit chosen represents a typical color
being used. Some of the light metallic colors require greater solvent
content (a high as 3.1 lb/gal). If the 2.8 lb/gal (less water) value is
interpreted as a maximum not to be exceeded, this would likely constrain
the availability of certain colors. Suggestions have been made by the
automotive industry that this should be an average. If a State regula-
tion expresses this limit as a daily weighted average or arithmetic
average of the colors in use (so long as the limit is unambicuously exoressed
and legally enforceable), OAQPS would not regard that as being perceptibly
different tnan t e reco ended limit.
-------
7
C SE-BY-CAS REvrE’
Arbitrary variation from the recommended limits is not appropriate.
However, the recommended limits are presumptive norms for the category ii
question, not absolutes for each individual plant. If facility specific
problems unique to a given plant are identified, these should be conside
on a case—by—case basis. In any circumstance where the State requjremen
vary from the recommended limit, the SIP must provide adequate technical
information to support the modification. Individual source specific -
regulations or variances are appropriate if:
1. The recommended limit is inappropriate for an individual
source because of specific circumstances unique to the particular
facility;
2. The croposed level of control is the maximum reasonably attain-
able by the operation in question. Specific consideration should be giv
to the feasibility of development of tecnnology to comply with a value
at or near the recommended value; and
3. The reasonab.e further progress demonstration is not violated.
It should be noted that any change made after the initial submittal
will have to be a SIP revision and that the revision must provide a
means to account for the increased emissions in the SIP. This Could be
through such measures as offsets by the sources, plans for additional
reductions to be obtained by the State beyona what the SIP called for,
a reduction in the growth increment. In crief, the plan must continue
to demonstrate a Drogram for attainment.
-------
2
COMPUANCE SCHEDULES
Where source specific schedules cannot be proposed, OAQPS recommends
that the SIP contain categorical compliance dates for each source category.
A categorical schedule for any CTG categories rrust have increments of
progress which are as expeditious as practicable. This schedule should
reflect the minimum reasonable time necessary for a typical Individual
source to install controls. However, that is not to say that all urces
must comply by that date. Individual extensions beyond this date, but
not later than the attainment nate, may be acceptable on a case—by—case
basis if:
The State demonstrates that it is physically impossible for the
operation in question to comply with the date.
2. That, by allowing additional time, innovative technolacy will
be applied and the reductions to be achieved will oe significantly
greater than that from the CTG RACT value (this ultimata limitation
must be legally enforr.eable).
3. Additional time is necessary to allow for the development of
low solvent systems rather than apply add—on controls.
4. The operation in question is part of a Statewide or multi-state
program to prioritize the sequence of installing controls at a number of
similar operations and that the overall comoliance program has been
approved as being expeditious as practicable.
-------
‘3
Note that any nodification of the compliance schedule beyond
December 31, 1982, will need to be a SIP revision and will impact the
evaluation of reasonable further progress (RFP). In no case should
compliance with REP be waived. Hence, an alternate schedule beyond
1982 can be approved only if the REP program Is modified to reflect
the delays.
-------
c j• 918
P ’4-172_7s_lo_ 26 _ 009
O:one Transport Values for SIP ions
Walter C. Barber, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions 1, III-X
Director, Environmental Programs Division, Region II
Techniques for selecting transport values have been discussed in
past guidance. This Tne!norandufn is to further reinforce Agency policy
concerning the use of background and present/futu transport values
in the development of o:one control strategies employing the linear
rollback or E 1A method.
When developing an ozone control strategy, consistent assumptions
must be employed. A control strategy cannot assume that a significant
portion of the present ozone problem is due to ozone transported into
the control regzon and at the sane time assume that future transport
4111 be at the commonly accepted natural background level of 0.04 ppm.
For example, a control strategy for an urbanized area with a ozone
design value of 0.19 ppm should riot assune ozone presently transported
in at a level of 0.l ppm, while at the same time assum ng that future
ozone tranzpor measurements will drop to the 0.04 ppm oackgroumd
level. High present transport is indicative of the influence of
slgnLfzcant upwind sources which one can assume will be controlled to
attain the standard. However, ti the influence of these upwind emis-
sions is as significant now as in the examole, they will conttnue to
be an im ort influence in the future Accordingly, a future
transport number at the natural background levels is not acceptable.
Regional Offices should pay careful attention to the present and
future transport values in all linear rollback and EIQ1A evaluations
made for ozone control strategies. Strategies which assume that
transported ozone is a significant portion of the present problem and
accor jng1y employ high present transport values, but then assume
future transport to be at natural background, are not approvable.
‘August 16, 1978, memo from Richard G. Rhoads to Regional Air and
Hazardous Materials Division Directors, “Clarification of Attainment!
‘ onattalnnent Evaluation Guidance.”
-------
_stI° ?4
‘ UNiTED STATES ENVIRCN MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
‘.VASHI GTON DC 20460
PM-I7Z—79—o -16- OLz
I A .i .i i -. OFFICE OF
J M I £ Q 13/3 AIR AND WASTE
SUBJECT: Continuity of ST —.aegulat ions-—Revised Enclosure
FROM: Administrator
fa ir, Noise and Radiation
TO: Regional Administrators
Regions 1—X
In a memo dated September 11, 1978, you were informed of the
Agency policy regarding the continuity of SIP regulations during
this period of extensive SIP revisions. The attachment to that memo
contained suggested wording of EPA’s Federal Register notices
proposing to approve and final approval of SIP revisions. Since that
time, subs antial cornnient has been rece ved in regard to the suggested
wording and a revision has been made. Attached is the revised
suggested wording for EPA’s Federal ReSister notices regarding approval
of State imolementation Plan revisions.
Attachment
cc: i. Durning
J. Bernstein
-------
REDRAFT OF LANGUAGE FOR 1979 SIP PREAMBLES
The measures proposed/promulgated today would/will be additional
to, and not in lieu of, existing SIP reoulations. The present emission
control regulations for any source would/will remain applicable and
enforceable to prevent a source from operating without controls, or under
less stringent conti -ols, while it is moving toward compliance with the
new regulations (or, if it chooses, challenging the new regulations).
Failure of a source to nieet applicable pre- xisting regulations would/will
result in appropriate enforcement action, including assessment of noncom-
pliance penalties. Furthermore, if there is any instance of delay or
lapse in the apolicability or enforceability of the new regulations, because
of a court order or for any other reason, the pre-existirig regulations
would/will be applicable and enforceable.
The only exc9ot lon to this rule is in cases where there is a conflict
between the requirements of the new regulations and the requirements of tne
existing regulations such that it would be impossible for a source to
comply with the new regulations. tn these situations, the State may
exempt a source from compliance with the pre—existing regulations.
Any exemption granted would/will be reviewed and acted on by EPA
either as part of these proposed/promulgated regulations or as future
SIP revisions.
-------
PN 172-79-03-06-014
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAR 5 1919
suaJ cT Cutback Asphalt VOC Regulations
FROM Richard G. Rhoads,
Control Programs Development Division, OAQPS (MD 15)
TO Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
On December 19, 1978 a memorandum containing an example regulation
for controlling cutback asphalt was sent to eac of you. That memo-
randum was prompted by misunderstandings of the complicated issue of
cutback asphalt; specifically, what exemptions are allcwed and what is
an appropriate transition period from cutback to emulsified asphalt.
The memorandum contained information based on contacts with emulsified
asphalt manufacturers and users and with representatives of the Asphalt
Insti tute.
attached is a summary of the draft regulations whicn were submitted
to CPDD prior to the December 19 memorandum. Even though the summarized
regulations were only drafts and have likely been revised, I feel it
worthwhile to point out the significant problems found during the review
of the regulations. An explanation of these problems is also attached.
The Decemoer 19 memorandum indicated that liquid emulsified as halt
can be stored only up to four weeks in heated or insulated containers.
Information received since the memorandum was sent indicates that this
is an error; liquid emulsified aspnait apparently can be stored for much
longer periods of time. This error, however, is only minor since it is
still true that an emulsified asphalt patch mix (mixture of aggregate
and liquid asphalt) cannot be stockpiled. Manufacturers, however, are
working on this problem and are trying to develop such an emulsion. If
solvent is added to the emulsion, long life stockpiling can be achieved,
but our definition of emulsified asphalt does not include emulsions
containing solvents.
The December 19 memorandum also indicated that more detailed
information for calculating emission rates from cutback asphalt will be
sent to the Regional Offices. At the present time an EPA contracted study
of emission rates from cutback asphalt is being reviewed by the Asphalt
Institute. The results of that review will be considered when the review
is completed in late March or early April. At that time a decision will be
made on the need for further study of cutback asphalt emission rates. For
the present, however, in develcpirg control strategies for ozone and Dre-
paring emission inventories for the 1979 SIP revisions, States should use
the evacoration rates :ontained in the control techniques auideline. _These
rates are 30% for rapid cure, 70% f r meolum cure, and 25 for slow cure
a...’ 1320.6 (R. 3 . 6)
-------
(excCOt as discussed below). These r es snould be used in conjunction
with solvent content values for the rious cutbacks used in the State.
Solvent content values can be obtained from the cutback manufacturers.
If new emission rates are establisned at a later date, they will be
available for the next round of SIP revisions.
The fourth exemption in the examole regulation sent December 19
allowed the use of any cutback for which the user can demonstrate that
no emissions will occur under conditions of normal use. Until further
studies are done on cutback emission factors, that demonstration should
be done as f. llows:
1. Obtain distillation data for the cutback from the manufacturer
or run a distillation test. (ASTM Method 0—402, Distillation of Cutback
Asphalt Products.)
2. If less than 5% of the total solvent has evaporated uo to apd
including 500°F, the cutback will be considered one that has no VOC
emissions under field conditions.
We realize that distillation tests cannot oe directly related to
fielo conditions, however, we feel that any emissions from a cutback
passing the above test will be very minor. Also, for purposes of calcu-
lating emissions for control strate ies or emissions offsets, cutbacks
passing the test should oe considered as naving no ‘/OC em ssicns.
The December 19 memorandum indicated that there miant be other
unique nroblems for which exemptions c u1d be aporopriate under a case—
by-case RACT deteninnation. I would like to stress that if a State
requests an exemption to use cutback or an emulsified asphalt containing
solvent for any ã p1jCCtiOn other than those acceoted in the example
regulation, it is up to the State to cemonstrate that an emulsified
asphalt (containing no solvent) cannot be used. The demonstration must
contain evidence that the State has contacted emulsifiea asphalt manufac-
turers and emulsifying chemical manufacturers, and that the manufacturers
cannot develop an acceptable emulsion or cannot recommend an acceptable
alternative paving or repair procedure. As stated in tne December 19
memorandum, please advise me of any additional requests for exemptions.
Attachments
-------
C H%AMAQV r r Acr “f’C REGS. ‘OR CUTBAC:< ASPHALT
_i Let ii S I ‘J I d I * fl £ i S I
E. E:’iPT iONS
STATE
COMPLIANCE
DATE
-h
0
‘I .,
w
w
0
U
(
.<
O
X
UJ
=0=
U
—
-
)-L Q
w
SIZE
CUTOFF
CO NENTS
I
—.?—
I
—
—
—
—
Mass.
NH
7/1/80
X
L
.

PE > 100
TPY
L
x
1. 10/30-5/1 for oatchino.
Total prohibition for paving of
roads, highways, or driveways.
N.H. has no urbarn:ed
-.
r’
N.Y.
—
X
n —
1
— —
—
X
2
— I
1. 10/16-5/1
2. Emulsified asphalt contairii
less than i5 by ieicht ‘bc.
I
i i i I
IA 1

X
I
x
x
I
77 IPY 1. 60 days after board dootioi,
or 9 months after oromuiatio
of rie i Oj standard.
I 2. At a ninrmun, the
attainment areas; iay be
adooteo Stat wi e.
WVA
X
X
X
? All cutback aspba t users and
manufacturers must register :ic
tne Commission within 30 days
from the effective date of the
regulation. After the effectiv.
date of the regulation, per ii,ts
are required for anyone conimer.c
operations subject to this
regulation.
M D
1/1/79.
X
X
X
1
1. Aoplies to the aalt more
Metropolitan Area. There
are two other nonurban non—
attainment areas in MD.
DEL
12/31/80
10 lbs/day x
br 3 lbs/hr



1. Onl’i for emergency re a ir i
DOthOles end/or lillino cr c’
in hianwav pavement. As
tachnolocv becDiIlQs avaiiab
all uses f cutDack asohalt
will oe • iScDnt nu o.
PA
nut given
x
x
;
1

1. Dust oalThative tack coat, pi
coating of aGgreGate and or
tactive coatinG for concre
-------
EXEMPT IONS
STATE
COMPL I AtICE
DATE
©
U,
L J
I-
0
I -.
L.J
I-
U,
SIZE
CUTOFF
COMM ENTS
Pt
K’(
(Loui -
‘ifl le)
eff. date
of reg.
i_
—
2
—
—
—
1
I_
3
1. Exemots asohalt with less
than or equal to 10% by
weight ‘/OC.
2. Jan.-Apr. for repair of
potholes or other damage to
roadways.
3. Louisville, Kentucky.
N.C.
‘
10/1/80
X
X
X
7 15 lbs/day
Or’3 lbs/hr
7100 TPY for’
att. areas
X
S.C.
5/1/81
,
—
1 X 1. Pi uroan areas, stationary
I sourcas witn potent a1
emissions greater than 10 TF
I non—u -oan areas greater than
j 1CM TPY.
1 ? Total Drohibitlon in urba
counties. Lrse ailoweo in a
rural co. with tne approval
of the director.
Th
2/1/81 I
I
V
12/31/80
IF4D 1/82
x i
Ll
—
LI
‘
1. 10/1-4/30.
OH
MICH
not given
x

X]i
x
x
x
xJ
1
lbs/day
Cr3 lbs/hr
,

1. Other than road paving, i.e.
roofing or water prooPng.
1. 10/1-4/30
WISC
7/1/79
X 1
X
2
1. non-ozone season 11/1-4/30
2. must be stored for 2 years
or l:jiger.
-------
EXEMPT IONS
STATE
COMPLIANCE
‘ —I—
LJP I
U,
uJ
(I ,
u - i
L
u - i
U,
C’
L J
L
c x:
U,
SIZE
CUTOFF
TX
COt•1M EN IS
‘Jr
ARK
7/21/79
X
X
X
.
OK
24 mo.
after eff.
date ee
.
1
X
1. Consent of the Commissioner
12/31/80
1
1. 7 nonattainment areas. Use
of cutback asphalt for
paving is restricted to no
more than 7 of the total
annual volume of aspnait use
or specified for use by any
State. municipal, or county
agency. All nonattainment
areas are not covet-ed.
irIr
CO
I
not given I
X
2
X
:
1. Also allows exemotions when
precipitation is anticipated
within 3 hrs. from time of
aoDlication.
2. Other conditions as aporoved
by the Division. Div. may
require invoices or other
records to ‘ieri fy use of c t
back_and_ernulsif ed_asohait.
x
WASH
(Puget
Sound)
6/1/80
.
1
2
3
4
1. Use of MC only.
2. Oct.-May.
3. Use of MC only.
4. SC
Reg. applies to Puget Sound
nonattainment area.
WASH
STATE
ORE
6/1/80
I
/i/79
1 3

I
1,
4
1
¶
1

211. Allowed provided diluent has
a total vapor pressure of le
than 25 rrmi Hq at 20°C.
2. Nonattaininent areas.
3. Oct. —May. —
I . Forecast for 2d hr per od
TOl CY’.flG aC3llCaticn iS lest
than 50°F.
Report equired on use of cutba
asonait curinc June-Seot.
2 1. MC only.
2. Nonattainiiert areas.
-------
:SC EPA :ctEs 3ET’..’EE ? OP’ ED ASPHALT REGULATIONS
EXP’ ’PL E5UL. TC: i DECEflBER 19, 1978
I. Twelve regulations conta n n xer ption allowing the use of cutback
asphalt when the temperature is below 50°F. it is preferable for
enforcement purooses to establisn a season during whicn cutback asphalt
may be usea. The season wculd represent that portion of the year during
dhich temperatures do not linger above 50 0 F for periods of time adequate
for e uisified asphalt application aria setting.
2. Several States specify a 100 TPY cutoff size. flo criteria is
provided for defining a 100 TPY source tnth respect to cutback asohalt.
Our quidance aefines cutback asphalt as an area source and any “100 Ton”
calculations should consider all State, local, and private uses of aspnalt
in tne area for whicn the control stratecy defnonstraticn is deve 1 oped.
3. t one of the 24 draft regulations orohibit the use of e nuisified
asahalt containing solvent. Our uef nition of emulsified asonait
includes only solvent-free emulsions.
4. Eight States exemot cutback asphalt from regulation for situations
other than the three orescribe in cur cuidance. These e
-------
‘
UNITED STATES ENVIRONr 1ENTAL PROTECTLON AGENCY
wAsH NGr3 DC 2J )
PN-172- 79-05-25-016
25 AY 1E
OFFiCE CF ZNFO CEM Nr
RAN
Subject: Submission oC State ALr ecmits
a .r r Vi . iOflS
Fro :n: R. .chard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development .)ivision
:dward Z. ReLc , D : ctor
DLvLs on of Stationary Source orcne .t
TO: Director, ir and Sazardous Materials DLvis on..
Regions I—X
ç ies:1On n s oeen r .Lsec cor.cern g t ’e need for
S: :es to uo ut construction and o eratir g air errn ts as
rev:sions to State 3 emenratLoc’ olans (Si?). Of oe:t:cular
concern :s the Federal erforceabilitv of S:a e— ssued air
ern .: tn . rave rot .eerl corr orated r dLv1.dualiv wit.lin
a Si? ov rnecns of an £PA aporoval tnrougn :un aky.
Federal erforce’ient of construct on eruLts ssuad
und : p:oce:ures coiioL n .na with tne recu enents of
40 C7 5.1B (new source review) is orov ced n
40 Ct’R 32.02(d) which reads, in oart, as follows:
.all perni: conditions or peri it aenials
iusued pursuant to approved or prcmuigat d
reculations for the review of r e. - .- or modi-
fied stationary or inthrect sources, are
enforceable cy the T uinistrat3r...in
accordance witn . .assigned respons —
bilit es under tne plan.
Thus, State construction permits which nave been issued
in accordance with SIP procedures approved by E? . as
sat s:ving 40 CIR 51.18, and wnicn atisfv tne interpretati’ie
ruling DE tne requirements of 0 C’ ’R Di.1U (the er ss on
offset oolicv) , 4 :•‘cc. L’. 327 ( :r ’ c’ 16,
re t nLo ce. ui’ ft :‘ . ( : c’. vcr, i
reductions to neet Cundition 3 o tn .fl].5S .Or. OCLS t . )Oitcv
J. Sab e ) :
Environuiental ?rotCc on cenc,
1’ QPS, C D0 (‘ O iS)
esearci TnangIe Par<, •c 27711
-------
—2—
are Coz3Lr ea from ex:s c so r- 5 other tnan tnc con—
croUed by t:ne o ,ner of : e ::L csed ne scurce, Seczon
‘1.3. cf tne Oiicy rovides tn : tnese exzernal” offsets
must ce effectuated tnrougn a SI? rev Ls:cri. ) The prov
of 40 CFR 52.02(d) also Qrovide for EPA enforcement of
reventLcn off signiftcant deterioration COr.S :rJC:LOn ermit
whicn nave been ISsued by States under procedures com lying
itn 40 CFR 52.21.
The CondLtions upon constr ct on contained n these
permits wnich are needed to meet federal requirements
(e.g., the source must achieve the lowest achievable emission
rate, or operate best available control tecnnolocv) have
Ccnt nuing a pl ica:Lon to a soulce bUIlt ndcr :ie
.r.v State limtta:icns u on :-e ef:ect ’,e d ra :ion of a State
ccnstruc c oermi: .s deemed to effect on.’ tre au:nor1za on
to construct under the permit. Once a source is actual .L,
it must contLnue to meet the condl:Lons L:n osed ucon
Its, construction unless tney are modified by a Eacerally
aporoved SI? revision.
O erat ng permits present some soec:al proolems.
Since State procedures for tne Issuance of cperat .rtc permits
Z0 new sources are not recu red under .0 CF 5l.l or
40 FR 52 . _, State new source CrDCCS:Lnc ? r Lts are flot
fecerallv enforceacle under 40 CF 52.O2 d). Of course, to
:ne extent :ne behavior rac i red In new source ooeracing
perm::s is consistent witn the he av or :eau re’-j n the SI?
(Lnclud c any previously :s ued cons:ruct on per tit enforce—
cv reason of 40 CF 52.O2 d)), ?A can enforce tce
ehav:ora1 cecu irement on the oasis of noncc rci:ai-c with
:ne SI?. In add ti n, .\ cart enforce, on :ne bc s of
w .tn tnc St , c avioral recj ..irements con:a ned
in Opera:inq permits ror ex stir. sources to tne ‘<:ent that
the oermit ecuire! ent5 are me sa. e as the SI? re u1rements.
if mne rov s o cf an 000ratinq uer nit ciffer
f:cm the SI?, the cerm t must, at me present tinr, be
aporoved as a SIP re’iisior 1 before it is enfcrceabjc (or
recocn zec) by EPA. If an operating perm : condition more
stringent :ian the SI? :s necessary to assure attainment or
maintenance of a r.ational ambient air qua1 ty standard,
faiiure to revise the SIP accordincly results in the S P
be r.g inadeouate. Therefore, we are adv si .-.u e c” e :ona
Cf.f:ce to notify :ne States of :: :s cmen::ai eea to revise
:he r s:?s. :a:es . nich do, :n fact, nec’j orc”i j a Znelr
S : •) :c L CCCOLa t. .—. ; : .uaL o’’ ’raz . . ..n ..e: ur
nccessa;y :0 an ure JL men a-.u ia n:enc of a
arnoient air quality stancaro nouid cc so as soon as possiole.
-------
—3—
Some State—issued operi g permits may not indefinitely
require individual EPA appro’ 1 through rulemak nq n order
to be considered part of tne SIP. Section llO(a)(2)(d) of
the Clean Air Act requires SIPs to include “a proaram to
provide for the enforcement of emission limitations and
regu1at on of the modification construction, nc) ooerat o
of any stationary source, including a permit proaram as
recuired in parts C and D and a permit or eQuivalent procrani
for any major emitting [ acuity. . .“ In additLon, Section
.172(Q)(6) of tne Act provides that SIPs must “require
permits for the construction and oPeration of new or modified
major stacionarv sources. . .“ Although no regulations
implementing these sections yet exist, a working group is
developing a regulatory proposal requiring SiPs tc contain
an ooerat ng permit program (or its ecuivalent) and estab—
lisning tne standards for EPA approval of such a procram.
The issue of the federal enforceability of State—ussued
oPerating pernits will be addressed by these regulations.
In he interim, States ar encouraged Co submit permits as
S1 revIsions as approPriate.
cc: D rec:or, Enforcement Division
Regions :—x
•I1cnael James, OGC
-------
PN—1 72-79_o5_25_017
Iv + i..
2NCf:, r
- -
,êRL1238- ... - . -. -
• — -— - •- ‘-• _._;._.
A1r Quail on ol Aqe icy T
Policy Concerning Ozone-SIP
Revts one and Solvent Reac 1t
Ac 0 , This. notica is -pubflan
- the.authontyof secioe.iOl(b) and. -
aecton. i .oi:the Clean
— no toe ciarifie As. ”Recommendeâ .
-PoIlcy
Compa d s 5 uIy’8 ..1W7) .
1277 lie ’
Statementnotad thaton1y ”rii ve:
volatile organi ompounds partcipate
in the chemical reac ons that form
photocheciical o da.nta. Cuxrently. . -
available inform.aton su eats that
negli bly photochemically reactive
vola Die organic compounds as defined.
i n that Statement. includina v, ’i i wi
thlorofoi- and ethylene chloride, do
ot appreciably affect abient canne
le eLs. Hence. . A will not disapprove
any state pie entauon plan or pian
revision for ts failure to contain
reguia ons res c . g essions cf these
‘nocur ids.
lthou n these subs .ances fleed not
:on oded under state - -
- Lerneniaton pian.s for the purpose of
achieving arnbient ozone standard.s.
aoth.ino in this e oranth i. is intended
to othfy nast °A expression.s of
concern about the uncnn oL1ed use of
ethyl c.nlorofor and e nylene
ch.loride. As noted in the a nave
referencec oUcy and the ciar, .ñca on
presented in e oranda of Augu.st 24.
1278 and March 6. 1979. there is
suggestive evicence that both-
comootinds are potennally car nogenic
and ethyl chloroior is s pec ed of
contibutng to depieuon of
statospoeric ozone. See, for example.
the following studles
Srmmon. V. F.. Kauhanee. K. and
ardiff. R. C.. “Mutagenic Acnv-tty of
Chemicals Identified in Drinlong Water”
in Progress in Genetic Thxicology. ed. L
C. Scott. B. A. ridges. and F. I-i. Sobels.
at 49—2.58 ( ‘Eisevier. 1977):
Price. P C.. Hasseit. C. M.. and
Manslield. 0. L. T:ansioring
Activities JTrichloroethyiene and
?r000sec Inousn ai Alternatives” L’i
V:rro 14.3. at O—ZS (1978):
The,ss. J C.. Stoner. C C.. Sb.imicn M .
3.. e: c i ‘T’es: for C r.ao2en1city of
Cr ari c Cant , .inaniz of United States
- n cn’ Watire nv Pu.ionarv T.unor
;ncnse In S arn A Mice.’ C.jicer
secrc.. :7 8 P’_ :;. 7 7—ZU. Augiist
The A Carcinogen Assessment
Group’s Prelirninary Risk Assessment on
Methyl Chloroform. Type I—Air
Program. (January 17, 1979):
The A Carcinogen Assessment
Group’s Preiii 1 try Risk Assessment on
Methylene Chloride. Type I—Air
Program. (January 17. 1979);
Conference on Methyl Chloroform and
other Haiocerbon Pollutants, sponsored
by Environmental Sciences Research
Laboratory. U.S. EPA. February ‘-Z8.
1979, Washington. D.C. oceedlogs in
press).
Because both methyl chloroform and
ethylene chloride are potentially
harmful. A recoi m d, that these
chemicais not be substituted for other
Bolvents in efforts to reduce ozone
concent -atons, ‘A further
recommends that the states con ol
these compound., under the author,ty
rese yed to-them in sec an 1,16 of the
Clean Air Act. Moreover, there is a
S on,g possibility for future regula on of
these compounds under the Clean A
Act. -
FOR FURfl.IER INFORMA ’riOw CONTACT
Joseph Padgett. Director, Stratecies and
Air Sta.ndarns Division. 0 ce of Air
Quality Plarin.u’ig and Standards. MD—12
Research Thangle Peric North Carolina
Z77•1l (919) 541—5204. - -
Datedi May . :979. -
David C. Hawking. -
Ass,: go,n A nis -norfop.4 Noise c ,d
D i ii Fil.a o -i - & g
-------
UNITEQ STATES ENVIR,ONME TAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of A r Qvaiity Pianning ana Standard
DATE 2 tJ , Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 77l
SUBJECT Modifications to Recommendatiop.s— for Solvent 4etal Clea ng
, ou Richard G. Rhoads, P\-17279 06 , 0013
Control Programs Develo ment’ ’ivis)% (MD—l5 ,“i.7
To. Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
In the Control Technique Guideline for Solvent Metal Cleaning, the
operating requirements for open top vapor degreasers include the
following specification for changes in the vapor level:
“The vapor level should not drop more than 10 cm (4 in) when the
workload enters the vapor zone. 1 ’
Recently the effectiveness and practicality of this specification
has been questioned. The Emission Standards and Engineering Division of
OAQPS .has reviewed this issue and has concluded that this specificatiori’
may not necessarily reduce emissions and will cause compliance problems
for a significant number of sources. A summary of the analysis is
attached.
Accordingly, State plans which do not include this provision for
open top vapor ce’ reasers should be reconimended for approval . States
with final adopted regulations that include this restriction should be
advised of potential imolementation problems with the provision. Where
practical , States snould e encouraged to amend their plans to delete
this provision. In the incerim, Regional Offices should take no steps
to implement this provision.
Attachment
cc: Mr. Ed Reich, DSSE
Mr. Don Goodwin, ESED
OR 4 I32O- R V. 3.7
-------
ENVIRONMEH1AL PROTECTiON
AGZNC’(
[ 40 CF Part 5 ]
St L nentaicn ?L ns; neral
c r —ro oseij
:t v1:t:n: r
Nonattainment Areas—SuQoIemenl
(on evlsed Scne u1e3 tot Subrntsatoci
of Votathe Orçantc Compound Ract
Regulations) —
AGENCv Envtroo entaI Protect3oa.
Agency.
ACraOs General Prewciole for proposed
rulemaKin —Supplement .
5U%WAR P vision of the Clean Air
Act enacted in 1977 reowru States to
revise thetr State l iplenientatioo P a i
for all areas that liave not attaz.aed
National Ambient Ar Quality
Standards. S at23 are to have submitted
inc neceseai-v pbn revisicn to E A by
january ‘ . 979. The Agency is now
Pu blisrung proposals inviting pubLIc
carT ment on whet r each of the
subrruttais iliouid be approved. In the
April 4. .979 issue of the Fecieral
Register. EPA oiished a Cencral
Pr2arriole idenufvtng and sn1 iarizing
the rna or considerations that will guide
.Pi s evait.aucn of the submittais t 4
fl 2C372J. Todavs bupole ent provides
icrrnaucr on e revised schecuie for
adootion a! resrulatian, for source
catewrie, emitting volatile crg tnic
compounds IVOC) covered by the
secoric se of Control Technique
Cuiceliries (CTCs).
FOR FUR fl45 I 4FOnMAT1ON COHi C
The approcriate EPA Rcgton l Office
l. sted on the flrst page of the General
? eamble (44 FR 20372) or the followrng
i- eaqquurters ofi ce: C. T. Helms. Chief.
Control P-ogams Operations Branch.
Controt Programs Development Division.
EPA Offlce of Air Quality Ptartrung and
Standards ( f&— 3). Research Triangle
Fai k, North Carolina 27711. (919) 541—
5365 or 541—5228.
SUPPtZMEI.rrAay t tFOPMA!1 The
baCkground is set out ot length in the
April 4 General Preamble. This
Supplement addres, an issue that needs
exciar iaticn.
Thc A inistr tors memorandum of
Fobruary 24. 973.. published in the
Fedora! Re bier at 43 FR 21 73 (May 19.
staiec iiat ne 1979 tqn
ir ant - LiZ— 79 -& . . 21—019
as a
e : ejip
.
rc scnabl’, cur?7D ! chnoio ’
(RACT) ta those source, for wnici EPA
ha published a Control Technique
Guideline (C rC ) by january 1975. and
provide (or the adoption and submittal
of adthtionat legally enforceable RACT
regulations on an annual baits
bcQtnmng in January t98 for those
CrGs that have been published by
J anuarv of the precedir.g yeer.
It is now apparent that the regulatory
adoption process may be more lengthy
than first anticipated. Additional tune
may oe necessary to accommodate
public. ad uni ,tretive. and legislative
review. in order to realisucally andress
this probiem yet to continue meeting
our responsibilities to attair. the ambient
standardi as expeditiously as
practicable. EPA is revising by six
months the deadline, Tar submittal of
the RACT regulations for the second set
it CTCa. The SIPs snould now provide
or the adoption and submittal of
additiooal legally erJorceable
recuiatjcnm ‘cy July 1. :9 for the
ioitowin; 3Ourze categorics
Fac:orv Surfaca Casting o( latwood
arieurig
Psuoleurn Reiine.-y Fugiuve £ siioa (LiakJI
Pharmace jticsl ManuIactue
Ruboer Tire anuiac ure
Surface Coating of MisceLlaneous Metal Parts
and Procucts
Caprnc Arim (Pnrning)
Dry Cteantng. ?erthloroe1hyt
Ca cli.,e Tank Trucks. Leak Prevention
Petroieu Liquid Stora e. Fioau Root
Tink.,
If this revision to the adoption
sr.hedule o(RACT regulations requires
alteration of any comnientg on a plan for
which the comment pcrmod has already
ended. the commenter should contact
the nppropn tc EPA Rcgional Office
immcdiatcly so that the issue can be
appropriately dealt with.
4 ote ..—Z er Eascutive Order 1C44 EPA
Ii reqwre 10 udge wnether a re ulattnn is
ic .anr arid. uteralore. iub 1ect to the
rccedurst rçu r-uient, of ihe omen or
woether it rna follow ct.fler specialized
developiTlenI ocs ures. EPA Isoeja these
:esuia lions oec su .zed. I save
reviewed thu regulation and oetemniined that
liii S IPCQIIICCC re uiitioui flCI auoievt to i
procecusat requ ireneru, of !.xecu::ve Qr e:
.O4.4. Secs. IIOla (. :7:... Clean Air Act. ii
ameruaed (42 U-S.C. 74 C,(sl. 7 50.2 11.
Daico: Au ust 2t.. V .
Zdwir F Tu.rx..
A c:,n .4s::s:.m Ac inJ: e€ôrfor .4 .j .-. Nozae.
,.td / cc,c::o,2.
ra o . Ffla h-. ?% 1.44
LL..JNG COOC II44-li- 4
-------
ST4
4 . UNITED STATZS ENV1RQNT . .r r-AL CT LN AGENCS”

____ WASHINGTON. 0 C. 20460
PN—172- 9-O3-22-o2o
“ OFFICE OF
AIR, MCIS . O RAOIA1IOP4
SUBJECT: State Implementation Plans/Revised
Schedules for Submitting Reasonably Available
Control Technology Regulations for Stationary
Sour s of VoJ. e Organic Compound (VOC)
FROM: / Dav ’ Administrator
61k’ for Air, Noise, and Radiation
M iO TO: Regional Administrator, Regions I—X
The Mministrator’s memorandum of February 24, 19Th, oublished in
the Federal Register at 43 FR 21573 (May 19, 1978), stated that the 1S79
plan submission for ozone nonattainment areas, “. . . rnust include, as a
minimum, legally enforceable regulations to reflect the apolication of
reasonably available control technology (R. CT) to those sources for
which EPA has published a Control Technique Guideline (CTG) by January
1978, and provide for the adoption and suoniittal of ad itional legally
enforceable PACT regulations on an annual basis beginninç in January
1980 for those CTGs that have been published by January of the precedinc
year.”
It is now apparent that the regulatory adoption process may be more
lengthy than first anticipated. Additional time may be necessary to
acccrnnodate public, administrative, and legislative re ’riew. In order to
realistically address this problem, yet to continue meeting our respon-
sibilities to attain the ambient standards as expeditiously as practi-
cable, EPA is revising by six months the deadlines for submittal of the
PACT regulations for the second set of CTGs. The SIPs should ‘iow provide
for the adoption and submittal of additional legally enforceable regulations
by July 1, 1980 for the following source categories:
Factory Surface Coating of Flatwood Paneling
Petroleum Refinery Fugitive Emissions (Leaks)
P ,arinaceutjca1 Manufacture
Rubber Tire Manufacture
Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products
Graphic Arts (Printing)
Dry Cleaning, ?erch1cr ethylene
Gasoline Tank Trucks. Leak Prevention
Petroleum Liquid Storage, Floating Roof Tanks
-------
2
ir : e ir neaiata fuc r9, I wiii publish a 2ar l e 5t9r notice
announcing this policy change. I ask that ycu notify your States in
order to allow them to schedule their associated regulatory activities
in the most efficient manner possible.
cc: Marvin Durning
Joan Bernstein
Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, egions I—X
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
3ArE OCT 4 1979
SUBJECT Clarification for Final SIP Actions on Asphalt Regulations PN472..7g..io_ 04 _ 021
° M Richard G. Rhoads,
Control Programs Development Division, OAQPS (M 15)
To Director Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
On December 19, 1978, and March 6, 1979, guidance memoranda were
sent to the Regional Offices concerning criteria for determining acceptable
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) RACT regulations for cutback asphalt.
The examp,_ regulation in the first memorandum prohibited use of cutback
asphalt or emulsified aspnalt containing solvent but provided certain
exceptions. The exceptions are: cold weather use; prime coat; stockpiling;
and demonstration of no VOC emissions from cutback. Both memoranda
pointed out that there might also be other unique problems for which
additional exemptions could be aDproprlate with adequate justification
such as aDplications of emulsified asphalt requiring the addition of
solvents or oils to improve the properties of the emulsion. I requested
that you advise our office of additional exemotions which the States
r ques ted.
Ncw that most VOC SIP regulations have been submitted to EPA,
several remaining issues with cutback asphalt need clar fication. The
following guidance is intended for your use as you finalize SIP aoproval/
disacproval actions and conditional approvals.
The approach econmiended in the two previous memoranda was to
define ar asphalt emulsion as a suspension of asphalt in water by means
of an emulsifying agent with no allowance for the addition of solvents
to the emulsion. The additional exemptions to the regulation were to be
tne mechanism for allowing use of those eniulsions containing solvent’
where necessary. While most of the SIP subrnittals applying RACT to
asphalt ooerations have not addressed the acceotability of solvent in
emulsions, several States which have allowed solvent have not used the
mechanism we provided, but instead have allowed a maximum solvent content
in emulsions, sometimes up to 12 to 15 percent. Information we have
received on the subject of solvent content in emulsified asphalt does
not supoort the allowance of a blanket solvent content for emulsified
asphalt. Accoroingly, these blanket-type regulations should not be
unconditionally approved. If a State chooses to allow the use of solvents
in certain emulsions, the regulations should only permit the Inclusion
of solvent in emulsified asphalt by stipulating maximum solvent contents
‘The solvent content is determined v ASTM dist llation test D—2 .
i t .j .6)
-------
2
f:- :: ci s or for specific grades of emulsified asphalt.
‘ - •‘t — :‘ it contents for specific emulsified asphalt
: . cat,,ns ar baseo n MSHTO, and State soecifications and on
1nrorr ation recently reca ved from the isphalt Institute.
Use tlax. Solvent Content
Seal coats in early spring or late
fail
Chip seals when dusty or dirty
aggregate is used
Mixing w/open graded aggregate that
is not well washed . 8%
Mixing w/dense graded aggregate 12%
I wish to emphasize that tnese are maximum solvent contents anc if
States are using emulsified asphalt with less solvent for these applications,
they should continue to co so. These are cnly the maximum solvent
contents that we feel current technology supports. iany emulsified
asphalt manufacturers are successfully using less solvent and achieving
the same acceptable results. The chemistrj of emulsified asphalt and
the non-uniformity of the technology across tne country prevents us from
sp cifying anything more than upoer limits on solvent content. Lower
limits are certainly achievable in many States but must be determined on
a case—by—case basis.
Finally, in our contact with the emulsified asphalt industry we
find that many people are extremely acprenensive aocuo defining an
emulsified asphalt as naving no solvent. Should the exceptions wnicn
allow e iulsions containing solvent ever be removed from the regulation,
the inoustry might be unable to produce acceotable orocucts for a number
of appl cations. n acceptable regulatory approach, therefore, will be
to allow cefining emulsified asphalt as optionally containing solvent or
oils. The allowed solvent would be limited to the amounts soecified
above (or lower if this can be negotiated) based on applicaticn. The
cefinition should oe worded in sucn a way to clearly indicate that these
are the maximum solvent contents allowed and that they are allowed only
for the specific applications or grades of emulsified asohalt. All
other aspnalt emulsions should not contain solvent. if States re .Ject
this approach, as an alternative, we will accept blanket—type regulations
which allow maximum solvent contents in the range of 5 to 7 percent.
For those States who have submitted regulations with an unacceptable
blanket solvent content allowance, a conditional approval should be
granted with time allowed to modify the regulations to follow the solvent
content guidance 7ro’Ilded above or to lower the blanket solvent allowagce
to S to 7 percent.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMEN1 AL PROTECTION AGEMCY
O fice of . ir u3 ty Piari ng and Standards
T ’ ar cle ‘v .r r r i1na 277 l
- - L Ozj
— Exemptions for Decreasers
FROM Richard G. Rhoads, Oirect6’ ....
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
TO Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
It has cciie to my attention that some States are including a weight
rate exemption in degreasing VOC regulations applicable to urban nonattain—
ment areas (>200,000 population) that cannot demonstrate attainment by
1982. For examole, some States have included a 15 lbs/day and/or
3 lbs/hour weight exemotion that effectively exempts from control cold
cleaners (batch operated, nonboiling solvent degreasers typically found
in automotive repair facilities).
A telephone survey of Regional Offices has indicated that, in some
instances, where weight exemptions for degreasers have been included in
draft regulations, the States have revised the regulation to delete the
exemption. States, such as Colorado, Delaware, and Wisconsin are included
in this category. In other States, the weight exemption for degreasers
has been cited as a deficiency in the State imolementation Plan (SIP) oy
the Regional Offices. Conditional approval of the SIP has been given to
the States pending exclusion of the weight exemption from the degreas-ing
regulation. States, such as Connecticut, ‘/irginia, and Tennessee are in
this category. In the majority of cases, States have not included a
weight exemption in degreasing regulations.
The degreaser regulation policy guidance cited in my mencranduni of
September 7, 1973, to the Air and Hazardous Materials Division Directors,
states that for urban nonattainment areas across the board exemptions
for small sources (e.g., 3 lbs/day) should not be approved. However,
conditional approval may be appropriate where the State agrees to
remove the exemption. This policy guidance is reaffiriried.
Please contact Bill Polglase at (FTS 629—5251) should you have any
questions on this memorandum.
Foo., 1320-6 (R. 3-6)
-------
PN 172-78-06-14-025
E ORANDUH CF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
THE OEPA ThENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGARDING
THE INTEGRATION OF TRANSPORTATION AND AIR QUALITY PLANNING
I. Introduction
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 were signed into law by the President..
on August 7, 1977. These Amendments require state and local governments
to develop for all areas where national ambient air quality standards have
not been attained, revisions to state implementation plans (SIPs). The
revised SIPs must be submitted by the state to the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) by January 1, 1979. These revised plans must provide for
attainment of the national ambient air quality standards by 1982 or, in
the case of areas with severe photochemical oxidant or carbon monoxide
problems, not later than 1987. The revised plans must also provioe for
incremental reductions in emissions (“reasonaole further progress’) etNeen
the time the plans are Submitted and the attainment deadline.
In many major urbanized areas of the country the revised SIPs will recuire
transportation controls, i.e. strategies designed to reduce emissions ror
transportation_related sources by means of structural and operational changes
in the transportation system. A mechanism is required that will enable
state and local governments to: (1) develop a wide range of alternative
transportation control strategies, (2) analyze the air quality and other
impacts of the strategies, and (3) select among the alternatives in a
timely and informed manner.
Federal transportation planning requirements in urbanized areas are imple-
mented by the Department of Transportation (DOT) through a joint delegation
of authority to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Urban
Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA). The FHWA and UMTA provide funds
to states and local governments to plan, develop, and improve transportation
systems and services. In urbanized areas improvements are implemented
according to a continuing, comprehensive, and cooperative transportation
planning process carried out pursuant to FHWA/UMTA joint regulations. It
-------
in : is :ontext that DOT is jt iiiCd n :h’s 3c .rnent :r cr:er to
effectively acileve the objectives of the lg77 C’ean ir Ac: encreits
:ne :OT and nvironmental Protection Acency (E°A) acree that t e :rais-
Jortat on—reiated air uaIitj olanning recuir nents of P, ii oe intecratac
4izh the transoortation planning orocess administered y the DOT Closer
integration of tne olanning requirements of DOT and EPA wii ensure the
timely consideration of air quality concerns and will reduce potentially
ouolicative, overlapping, and inconsistent activities at the state ana
local level 001 administers other planning programs tnrougti otiier
aaministrations (e.g. FAA and FRA) which nave lesser impact on air
quality but may be subject to future discussion.
II. Puroose
This lemorandum of Understanding, developed pursuant to tne ?resicent t s
request, is designed (1) to estaolish certain principles wnich DOT and EPA
agree to follow in the preparation of more detailed regulations and
administrative procedures required to achieve the objective of integrating
the air quality and transportation planning processes; (2) to identify
specific areas of agreement with regard to the joint administration of the
air quality aspects of the planning process.
III Principles that Will Guide the rnteqration of the Air Quality
ana fransoortation Planning Processes
A rhe reduction of air pollut;on is an important national goal and
must be among the highest priorities of the transoortation plann ng
orocess in areas not meeting primary Air Quality Standards. lowever,
the transportation planniric process must also consider other rational
and local objectives Such as mobility, safety, energy conservation,
uroan economic development, full enpioyuient and oraerly metropolitan
growtn.
B. t is the affirmative resoonsibility of federal, state and local
agencies involved in funding or conducting transportation planning
and irnol nentation to ensure that evaluation oi an adequate range
of alternative transportation control strategies is conducted in
order to furnish local, state and federal offIcials with an adequate
bas s on which to reach informed decisions.
C. Any transportation planning activites conducted pursuant to this
agreement must continue to provide for an adequate process of
consultations with and 1nvolv nent of the general purpose local
government, respor.sible state agencies and the public as called for
in the joint UMTA/FHWA Urban Transportation Planning regulations.
-------
3
0. It is the objective of the activities undertaken pursuant to tnis
agreement to contribute to the maximum extent feasible, in com-
bination, with other emission reduction measures, to a reduction of
emissions necessary to meet the prescribed air quality standards.
IV. Joint Administration of the Air Quality Aspects of the
Urban Transportation Planning Process
The Department of Transportation and Environmental Protection
Agency agree to modify existing procedures concerning the administration
of the urban transportation and air quality planning processes in
nonattainment areas as follows:
1. DOT and EPA regional/division offices will have the Opportunity
for joint review of and concurrence in the Unified Work Program (UWP)
required pursuant to paragraph 450.114 of the Joint Planning Regulations
(23 CFR 450), to ensure that adequate air quality planning tasks are
included in the planning programs. Any disagreements at the regional
level shall be referred to the DOT Secretary for resolution. Before
making his final decision on the UWP, the Secretary will consult with
the EPA Administrator and will notify EPA of the disposition of its
comments, with appropriate supporting materials, Zn addition, where an
MPO has failed, without adequate reason to carry out the analysis or
other activities committed in its Unified Work Program, DOT will rescrthe
conditions which will require scecified remedial actions to be taken in
order to correct the identified failure in the Unified Work Program.
DOT and E?A will develop in the near future a document identifying
appropriate categories of remedial actions.
2. DOT and EPA regional/division offices will have the opportunity
for joint review of transportation plans (including ISM elements ) in
nonattainment areas required pursuant to paragraph 450.116 of the
Joint Plannning Regulations, to ensure that air quality considerations
are adequately acdressed. DOT and EPA will consult with the Planning
agency on how air quality related planning deficiencies will be
corrected. DOT will also explicitly consider EPA comments in taking
subsequent actions on program approvals and will notify EPA of the
disposition of its comments, with appropriate supporting materials.
3. DOT arid EPA regional/division offices will have the opportunity
for joint review in connection with the annual planning certification
required pursuant to paragraph 450.122 of the Joint Planning Reguli Tons,
on the adequacy of the planning process to address air quality considerations.
DOT and EPA will COnSult with the planning agency on how air quality
related planning defjc encies will be corrected. DOT will also explicitly
consider EPA comments in making any certification decisions and will
notify EPA of the disposition of its comments, with appropriate
supporting material
-------
- ‘;‘ : -:
f : :...
rnt a tarnent r3qu1r d Dursuant to par çr :n — . : Jcint
?lanning Regulations for conSistency with the air quality elements of
the transportation olan and/or the SP. OT will explicitly consider
EPA ’s comments in orogram approvals, and will not fy EPA of its dls osition
of the conrents. If EPA disagrees with the disposition of its comments,
the orocedures for resolution set forth in Addendum 1 to this memorandum
will be followed.
5. DOT and EPA regional/division offices will have the opportunity
for joint review of the revised SIPs , for compliance with the objectives
of statutes administered by 001 (e.g., Title 23 USC and the Urban Mass
Transportation Act) to provide for mobility and for safe and efficient
transportation. EPA will explicitly consider DOT comments in aporoving
or disapproving SIP revisions, and will notify DOT of its disposition of
the corrinents, with aporopriate supporting materials. If DOT disagrees
with the disposition of its comments, the procedures for resolution set
forth in Addendum 2 to this memorandum will be followed.
6. DOT and EPA agree to work toward greater coordination in the
administration of their respective grants for local planning activities
by including these grants in the UWP, to ensure that such grants support
effectively the related objectives of both agencies while avoiding
duplication and overlapping planning activities.
DOT and EPA will take appropriate steps to alter their existing internal
procedures and to issue a Joint appendix to the existing transportation
planning regulations to implement the above understandings.
DOT and EPA agree to consult one another in the develooment of
criteria and procedures required by Section 176 of the Clean Air Act,
including insuring that all major capital Improvement projects are
consistent with the SIP.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 14th day of June , 1978.
Dep e t of Transportation
1
\\ \ /
8 \ \jt /e ‘
-------
ADDENDUM 2
f the DOT Regional/Division Administrator disagrees with the
discosition of his comments by EPA, he dill so notify tne EPA
Regional Administrator 4 lthin seven days. In sucn a case, the
EPA Regional Administrator will not approve the SIP until so
adnsad by headquarters.
Within 30 days after the DOT Regional/Division Administrator
notifies EPA of his disagreement, the Secretary of Transportation
will notify the EPA Administrator If the Secretary of Transportation
disagrees with the EPA field staff disposition of 001 comments, and
the reason for the Secretary’s disagreement.
If such notification is received within 30 days, the EPA Administrator
will carefully consider the Secretary of Transportation’s views and
in the event of disagreement will notify the Secretary of the
disposition of his coments, with appropriate supporting materials
before making his decision.
-------
ADDENDUM 1
if the EPA Regional Administrator disagrees with the disposition
of his comments by DOT, he will so notify the DOT Regional/Division
Administrator within seven days. In such a case, the DOT Regional!
Division Administratdr will not approve the element or elements of
the TIP in disagreement until so advised by headquarters.
Within 30 days after the EPA Regional Administrator notifies DOT
of his disagreement, the EPA Administrator will notify the Secretary
of Transportation if the EPA Administrator disagrees with the OCT
field staff disposition of EPA comments, and the reason for the EPA
Administrator’s disagreement.
If such notification is received within 30 days, the Secretary of
Transportation will carefully consider the EPA Administrator’s views
and in the event of disagreement will notify the EPA Administrator
of the disposition of his comments; witn appropriate supporting
materials before m king his• decision.
-------
PU l72-8O O6_J6_O27
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, tlarth Carolina 27711
DATE. JUN 1 6 1980
SLJAJECT: Gasoline Tank Truck Regulations
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads, Direct 2 ’
Control Programs Development Division (MD—15)
TO: Jack Divita, Chief
Air Programs Branch, Region VI
This is to confirm previous telephone conversations with my staff
concerning the necessity to develop regulations for gasoline tank trucks
in areas demonstrating attainment by 1982. Prior EPA guidance has
provided that:
“Urban and rural nonattainment areas not needing an
extension until 1987 may have a cutoff source size
of 100 tons per year if they can demonstrate
attainment by l982.
As irdicated above, the tank truck regulations are necessary wnere
nonatta nment area extensions until 1987 are recuired.
Nonattainment areas that demonstrate attainment cy 1982 may have
a cutoff source size of 100 tons per year. In line with tnis colicy,
regulations for Stage I service Stations, bulk plants, and smaller
oegreasers were not required for the Group I CTG cate jories.
Tank trucks are less than 100 tons per year sources and, as such,
under present policy would be exempt from a CTG recomendea ar.nuai
certification regulation. However, tank trucks are an integral part of
bulk terminal operations (wnich are generally 100 tons per year sources).
Essentially leakiess tank trucks compatible with bulk terminal vaoor
control were required to comply with bulk terminal regulations creviously
adopted during the Group I CTG regulation development.
In sumary, in areas attaining by 1982, separate regulations
covering tank trucks are strongly encouraged. In any event, in
order for the terminal regulation (mass emission standard 0 f
80 mg/i) or an efficiency standard of (90 percent by weight) to
be effective, the tank trucks loading gasoline at regulated
terminals must be essentially leakless and equipped for vaoor collection
so that vapors generated in the tank trucks during loading ooerations
E’A F.... 12;o.o
-------
2
are vented to tne bul¼ te inai vaoor control 5vs: rr . The State
re u ac ons will iave t include a test met cc: : c rasses :re
leak z c t tank truck c nai:icns. cr acc : cnal 1n r a:i3r, ;ease
c cli Bill Poiglase (629—5251) or Tom Williams (629-5225).
cc: Chief, Air Branca, Reaions I-V, VL1—X
Pete Hagerty, Region I
Paul Truchan, Region II
Neil Swanson, Region III
Doug Cook, Region I V
Dick Dalton, Region V
Dorma Ascenzi, Region VI
David Doyle, Region VII
9th Bernardo, Region V III
Tort Rarick, Regton IX
Ken Le ic, Regfo X
-------
PN 172-80-07-02_029
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE, JUL 2 980
SUBJECT Exemption for Cold Cleaner Degreasers
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads,
Control Programs Development Division (MD—15)
TO: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
During the past several months, a number of States have suomitted
VOC regulations for solvent metal cleaners that include an exemotion
based on weight, i.e., 3 lbs/hr, 15 lbs/day, for cold cleaners (batch
operated, nonbo’fling solvent degreasers typically found in automotive
repair facilities). A major concern of the States was relatedto the
manpower requirements associated with enforcing regulations for these
sources.
Agency policy guidance in these instances has been to conditionally
approve regulations containing weight type exemptions applicable to
urban nonattainment areas that cannot demonstrate attainment by 1982
pending State deletion of the exemption or demonstration of compliance
with the five percent significance test. (See memoranda from
Richard G. Rhoads, Director, CPDD to Director, Air and Hazaroous
Materials Division, Regions I—X, dated Septemoer 7, 1978 and
December 12, 1979.)
The purpose of this memorandum ‘is to provide additional guiaance by
specifying instances where certain designs of cold cleaner degreasers
could justifiably be determined to be in compliance with the CTG.
In the development of NSPS for solvent metal cleaning, it was
determined as the result of investigation that cold cleaners with remote
solvent reservoirs expose solvent only while parts are being cleaned.
The solvent is pumped through a nozzle Suspended over a sink-like work
area which drains back into the reservoir. Because the reservoir is
remote from the work area, this type of cold cleaner is not subject to
the evaporation losses suffered by conventional cold cleaners.
Consequently, it was concluded that cold cleaners with remote
solvent reservoirs can be exempted from the operating requirements to
cover the degrea er during non—use periods. In addition, the units can
be exempted from equipment specifications which reouire eacn cold
cleaner to have a closable cover and because the s nk collects solvent
drainage, a separate drain rack is unnecessary.
‘ ‘ : _
-------
2
o : a :o’ e. Stat r u1a: cr s ec fy Ifl
: . : - :c ’ ç C:’ r’a
;i: ac-:
The cold cleaner must have a r ota solvent reservoir.
2. The solvent used n the cold cleaner must not have a vaoor
pressure that exceeds &.3 kPa (33n n Hg or 0.6 PST) measured at
38° C (100° F) or be heated above 50° C (120° F).
3. The sink—Tqe work area must. have an open rain area le .s
than 100 c i
4. Evidence is provided that waste solvent will be stored or
properly disposed of with minimal loss due to evacoration.
Should yot have my questions re ar 1ing this memorandum, please
contact Bill Polgiase at (FT 629—5251).
-------
PM 172-80-09-03-030
UNITED STATES ENVIRONM_NTAL PROTECTION . GENC’
Offic of ,i r eua1 r :l vi’r ” ‘ c S a ”.c r:s
esearcn irian4ie Par• , . orth .src na
DATE Septemoer 3, 1980
SUBJECT Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products CTG——
Emission Limits for Coating of Shipping Pails and Drums
FROM: Tom Helms, Chief (MD—is)
Control Programs Operations branch, CPDD
TO: Air Branch Chief, Regions I — X
The sample regulation for tne Group It CTG categories indicated that
the coating of pails and drums was to be included in the Miscellaneous
Metal Parts CTG. Representatives from the shipping container industry
have since requested clar.ification as to what emission limits re
applicable to their coatings.
We reconmiend that a presumptive norm of 4.3 pounds of VOC per
gaflon of coating less water is reasonably available control technclogy
for coatings used in pail and drum interior protective linings even
though the coatings may not be a true “clear coat.’ This determination
was .rade on the basis of the unavailability of lower VOC coatings that can
withstand the harsh, toxic, ano corrosive nature of many cnem cals that
are shipped in these containers.
The exterior coatings for pails and drums must nieet an emission
limit of 3.5 oaunds of VOC per gallon of coating less water, This is
the limit described in the CTG for outdoor exposure coatings.
The following information is provided for the States to use in
defining metal pails and drums:
Pails —— any nominal cylindrical metal shipping container of
I- to 12-gallon capacity and constructed of 29 gauge and heavier
material.
Drums -- any cylindrical metal shipping container of
13— to 110-gallon capacity.
For additional information, please call Tom Williams at
FTS 629—5226.
cc: ‘ ICC Contact, Regions I -
Jim Berry, ESED
PA c .,, ]?O
-------
P -172-BO-11-2Q-a32
Z UNITED STATES EN’SIRCNMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
, j _ ‘ 2C 5’
LIP $ N RAClAT 3N
MJV 20 t O
SUBJECT: Compliance with VOC Emission Limitations
for Can Coating Operations
FROM: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation (ANR-443)
MEMO TO: Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
The Agency has been requested by the Can Manufacturers Institute to
consider the utilization of the compliance program described below for
determining compliance with appropriate emission limitations in State
Implementation Plans. The Agency has previously considered such
an aoproach and in a memorandum dated November 21, 1978, from
Richard G. Rhoacs, Director, Control Programs Develocment Division to
Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X ent tied
“RACT Options for Can CoatinQ Operations,’ the Agency statec that a SIP
submittal with such provisions would be approvable. This memoranaum
expands Mr. Rheads’ memorandum to cover options which can be utilized by
States in determining compliance with can coating VOC emission limitations.
Mr. Rhoads’ memorandum stated that a State’s regulation which
provides for a daily weighted average in conjunction witn a plantwide
emission limitation would be approvable as part of a SIP. This is
because of the severe practical problems faced by can manufacturing
plants where a number of lines apply as many as 50 different coatings,
depending on the eno uses of the cans. In this industry, line specific
emission limitations may cause can coaters to be fri violation when a
high solvent coating is applied.
Regulatory language in State Implementation Plans defining the
allowable emission limits for can coating operations differs in detail
from State to State and among areas in in ivldua1 States. The Agency
believes that for the•most part, the States and relevant local agencies
may utilize a daily weighted average to determine whether a can rnanu-
facturing operation is in cornoliance with the State’s emission limita-
tions. EPA is Issuing this interpretative statement to notify State and
-------
2
oca agencies tnat in :PA’s View, in cenerel, :r ’e 1 r reiuiatioris ay
- :er:r : as a: c i c ai .Meicnzad averaces for a;orovinc errn:s
::—:i ce :1 rs v’: ’c.i: t ’ er e ’a::’—’ :— r:es c
revis on. enccuraces ucn c i
Comoliance can be aetermined for any 24—nour period asea on zc:ai
actual emissions calculated from daily units of rcduction records
(e.g.., number of each tyoe of can, sheet, or enc), apDlic tion rates of
each coating (e.g., al1ons/units of production), solvent and solids
content of eacn coating, and control efficiency. This would then be
compared to the total allowable emissions for that production mix
assuming each coating complied with applicable emission limitations.
The attached suggested format allows use of a standardized equation to
express the weight of VOC per gallon of coatings, less water, in terms
of weight of VOC per gallon of solids to determine compliance. The
pounds of solvent per gallon of coating should be based on a certified
analysis of the VOC content of each coating given to the user by the
supplier. This analysis shoui oe verifiable oy laboratory analysis.
For purposes of emission limitation compliance, VOC content of coatings
is tne responsibility of the user. The percent capture and control
efficiency must be established by using aporoved test methods on the
worst case solvent or for all cases of use and held constant until
such time as a new test is conducted to demonstrate a different
efficiency.
It Is essential that companies keep detailed records in a format
that will allow simple and accurate verification and that the information
be available as necessary for compliance certification and possible
enforcement action. Further, standard test methods to verify the
solvent content of each coating should be in accordance with those
prescribed in the State’s regulations.
States are urged to utilize enforcement tecriniques which encourace
the development and use of low solvent coatings technology in the can
manufacturing industry. In the long i rn, use of such technology is
preferaole to incineration from the point of view of reliability and
maintenance of controls, as well a.s for purposes of energy conservation.
Attachment
cc: Director, Air and Hazaroous Materials Division, Regions I—X
Director, Enforcement Division, Regions I-X
Jeff Miller, Office of enforcement
Mlthele Beigel Corash, Office of General Counsel
t lhls compliance method may be applicable to mnuitiplant situations
where tne plants are under coninon ownership or control and are
located in the same geograpnic area. EPA will consiaer aporoval
of such multiplant apolications of this method.
-------
S000ESIEd IOIU4AI Ion Ij J [ i(HilIItIG C9H LlAU1L
FOR (AU bArING IWIRAIIOUS
Actual fmiasions
Application Gal Gal
lb VOC/ rate coating solids lb of
al coating I I 1 lb VOC, (ga1/untt Units applied applied Control 2 VOC
1e s water Solids Solvent Water gal soihIs produced) produced (f a 9) (Ii a h • 100) efficIency (e a Ix(l-j)]
— ( a) (b) (c) (4) (t) ___1’j)__ .___._t !1______(I) ( )
I. Sheet costing 5.42 26.4 73.6 -— 20.52 22 5 110 29.0 .81 113.1
2. Sheet coating 1.09 50.0 a.; 41.3 1.28 10 24 240 120.0 -- 153.6
3. Sheet coating 5.06 31.2 66.8 16.23 10 24 240 74.9 Bl 231 0
4. Side seam 6.34 11.9 86.1 -- 45.59 1.5 lB 27 3.8 -- 173.2
S. Inside spray 3.91 !6.0 18.1 6 .9 2.33 8 24 192 30.7 -— 255.7
6. End cooçoiind 4.20 42.9 57.1 -— 9.80 1.5 24 36 15.4 -- 150 9
ACTUAL 10181 EMISSIONS 1017 5
Allowable (silattons Using Con l,iny Coating 3
1. Sheet coaLing 2.0 4.52 29.0 131.1
2 Sheet coating 2.8 4.52 120.0 542.4
3. Sheet coating 2.8 4.52 74.9 338 5
4. SIde seam 5.5 21.76 3.8 82 7
5. InsIde spray 4. 9.78 30.7 300 2
6. End C0fl OUnd 3.7 1.44 15.4 114 6
ALLOWABLE lOlAL EHISSIOUS 1509 5
HOR. Oeta In colii ws * b. c. d, 1, g. and j (under actual enilss$ons) obtained from plant records Including thinning solvent.
U - Density of solvent for complying co Sting (SvcrAge density Ii 1.36 lbs/gallofl).
e ) C. C - 1001 or a —
(bi [ B - Ta l l
‘loiicupt based on the following principal for comparing 4ctual and allowable emhsions: Hounds VOC emitted a pounds VOC per gallon of
solids a gallons of solidi ippl4ed per unit. (SeIne g&llons oV solids applied for actual and allowable.)
2 ConLro l efficiency varies 1 1th emIssion devkes u e I. lIne percent captute Sod control efficiency must be established by using approved test methods
on the worst case solvent ot foP ti cases of use ahd held coitatant until such time as a new test Is conducted to denxrnstrate a different efficiency.
3 Con 1 .lies with State VOC emiSsion limitations.
-------
PN-A7Z-eO-12-l -033
UNLTED STATES ENVI ONMENT, L. P CTECT CN AGENCY
01 ir Qual t’j 3nn 1a Star. ar s
Research Tr ang1e 3 ark, orth Carolina 27711
DATE OE 0 1990
SUBJECT. Revised Seasonal Afterburner
PROM: Walter c. Barber, Directorf I 117 k
Office of Air Quality Plan /d ’a’iid Standards (MO-b)
TO: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division
Regions I-X
On July 28, 1976, the Agency issued its policy on the ‘Seasonal
Operation of Natural Gas—Fired Afterburners.” This policy authorized
the approval of SIP revisions without a detailed, time-consuming analysis
of air quality impact if the seasonal shutdown period was consistent
with that delineated in a staff study (“Oxidant Air Quality arid
Meteorolocy,” February 6, 1976) and if existing air quality snowed no
past violations in the months during which the afterburners were shut
down. Because of the nation’s continuing need to conserve eneray
resources and because of the revision to the national ambient air
quality standard for ozone, we have reconsidered a port on of this
policy.
An analysis of available ambient air quality data concluded :hat
exceedances of the revised national ambient air quality standard or
ozone do not occur in the Nove’Tlber through March oeriod, except for
areas of southern California and the Gulf Coast. As a result of tnis
analysis, it is appropriate at this time to modify the ‘seasonal after-
burner policy” to state that any plan revisions wnich orov’.de for after-
burner shutdown in the period of November through March outz de of
southern California and the Gulf Coast should be proposed for approval.
All other portions of the original policy remain unchanged, namely:
(1) The policy applies to gas—fired afterburners installed to
control emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for
the purpose of reducing ambient ozone concentrations. It
does not apply to flares (which do not use natural gas as an
auxiliary fuel), VOCs vented to boilers, afterburners ooerated
principally for odor control, or afterburners operated to
control toxic or hazardous substances; and
!°A ‘ 2O 6 3- 6)
-------
2
(2) policy to seasonally control afterburners can only e
implemented through the SP orocess. The attachea staff
report, Supoorted Oy air quality data, snould be adeauate
technical supoor for aporoving a SiP revision alicwing for
seasonal hutdown of afterburners in a given location.
.-
It is recori nended that you notify the State agencies in your
Region that EPA suppo z a policy which pernits sources to shut off
afterburners during the months of November through iarch except for
areas of southern California and the Gulf Coast. Should you have any
questions in this regard, please contact Mr. Richard G. Rhoads, Director,
Control Programs Oevelopnient Division, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards at FTS 629—5251.
?\ tta chment
cc: Chief, Mr Programs Branch, Regions t-X
-------
PN- 17 140 -J2 -Z-O34
UNITED S T S EN” ON 1ENT L ? CT3CT;CN GENC’(
i” .. i1tj ‘ “‘ ; : c r:-:s
253 rc •r ar.c a ?at-<, ce:h mrc: na 277
DATE: OEC 2 1980
SUBJECT Cost Effectiveness for RACT Application to Leaks from
Petroleum Refinery Equipment
PROM : 13. 1. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch (MD—l5)
T0 Chief, Air Branch, Regions I—X
At the time the CTG for “Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks
from Petroleum Refinery Equipment 1 ’ (EPA t5O/2_78_O36) was issued,
emission factors were in the process of being revised. Therefore, the
emission reductions, recovered product savings, and cost effectiveness
of controlled YOC could not be determined for this CTG category. The
emission factors have now been quantified and the cost effectiveness of
applying RACT to leaks from a model refinery has been calculatec. The
9G indicates that a rr.edium—size model refinery has a capacity of 15,900
m /day (100,000 bbl/day). Please note that the emission reduction
and cost are a function of the number of components and not simply a
fw’ction of tne throughout.
The uncontrolled and controlled emissions are listed in Attachment 1.
The calculation of the quantity of recovered product is presented in
Attachment 2. The calculation of cost effectiveness is presented in
Attachment 3.
Attachments 2 and 3 show that RACT, as applied to a medium-sized
rr cel refinery-ift this VOC source category, is estimated to prevent the
release of aporoxirnately 2200 Mg of VOC per year, with an estimated
value of $330,000. Deducting the annualized costs of capital, moni-
toring and maintenance labor, and overhead result in a first year
savings of $205,000 and suosequent year savings of $275,000 per year.
This equates to a cost effectiveness credit of about $93 and $125 per Ma
of recovered product.
This information may be helpful to the States in developing
regulations for controlling leaks from petroleum refineries. If there
are additional questions, please call Tom Williams at 629—5226.
Attachments
cc: VOC Contact, ecions I-X
A Fon’, 32O- (R. . 3-76
-------
Attachment 1
Esnission Factors
Uncontro lled 1 a Controlled 1 ’ 2 -
Emission Factor Emission Factora 1umber of sources
Source kg/day kg/day at model refinery
Pumps
Light llquidb 2.7 0.86 125
*Heayy liquidC 0.50 0.50 125
Compressorsd 15 3.2 14
Val yes
Gase 0.64 0.091 6,000
Light 1iquidb 0.26 0.091 9,750
Heavy liquidC 0.005 0.005 giso
Drains 0.77 0.50 1,400
Pressure relief
devices (gas) 3.9 130
*Flanges 0.007 0.007 5 .t,300
a Average emissions from each source
b Defined as lighter than kerosene
c Defined as kerosene and heavier
d Hydrocarbon service
e Ga at operating conditions
1 Assessment of Atmospheric Emissions from Petroleum Refining, Volume 3,
Appendix B. EPA 600/2-80-075c, April 1980.
2 Proceedings: Symposium on Atmospheric Emissions from Petroleum
Refineries (November 1979, Austin, TX). EPA 600/9-80-013, March 1980,
pp. 421—440.
3 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Petroleum Refinery
Equipment. EPA 450/2-78-036, June 1978.
Cost of monitoring is not nc1uoed in the cost figures because it is
assumed these components i11 be exe ipt from the monitoring orovision .
-------
tZ3c irnen 2
e o er r c: or
1 odel Refinery (15,500 miaayl (100,000 boi’dav
Operating Factor 365 days/year
Emissions
( Emission Factor, ka/day) (days/yr) (no. of sources ) = emissions, 1g/year
lO kg/Mg
Uncontrolled Controlled Recovered
Emissions Emissions Product
Source Ma/yr Ma/yr Ma/yr
Pumps
Light Liquid 123 39 84
Heavy Liquid 23 23 0
Compressors 77 16 51
Val yes
Gas 1,402 199 1,203
Light Liquid 925 324 601
Heavy Liquid 18 18 0
Drains 393 256 137
Pressure Relief 185 66 119
Devices (Gas)
Flanges 164 164 0
TOTALS 3,310 1,105 2,205
NOTE: Conversion - Mg/yr x 1 . 1 = tans/yr
-------
Attachment 3
Cost Effectiveness Calculations
Annual product recovery credits annual emission reduction x recovered
product value
2205 Mg/yr x $150/Mg 1
$330, 000/yr
Thtal annualized cost - annual product recovery credit = savings
irst year cost $125,000/yr 2 — S330,000 = ($205,000)
On-going annual cost $55,000/yr 2 - $330,000 = ($275,000)
:ost effectiveness total annualized cost
annual emission reduction
First year = ( $205,000 ) = ($92.97/Mg) ($8 .3d/T)
On-going year = ( So ) = (S12a72/u (Sl3.1 ./T)
1 ndicates savings
Fr m CTG - basis 1977 fourth quarter. (The recovered ro uct valve nas
increased suostantially from 1977 and the cost of the nionicorlng and
-eoair program has also increased.
eveloped using the CTG and the preliminary Oraft of Background
:nfo ation for Proposed Standards for VOC Fugitive Emissions in
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry, page 7-3, EPA, RTP,
orch Carolina, March 1980.
-------
PN-l 72-30-12-2-035
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, iorth Carolina 27711
DATE: DEC 2
SUBJECT: RACT for Specialty Printing Operations
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads, Director,/Z -. - .._/
Control Programs Development Division (MO—15)
TO: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division
Regions I - X
A memorandum from Tom Helms dated August t, 1980, “Applicability of
Paper Coating, Fabric Coating, and Graphic Arts CTGs,” indicated that
soecialty printing should be covered under the Paper Coating and Fabric
Coating CTGs. That memo was issued to try to remove the confusion
regarding which processes are subject to the Paper Coating and Fabric
Coating CTGs (Volume II), and which are subject to the Graphic Arts
CTG (Volume VII:). ners of specialty printing ope azions reportedly
have historically considered themselves part of the graphic arts industry.
Some States have also considered them to be graphic arts processes.
The Aucust nemo recognized that the control technology embodiec
in the Paper and Fabric Coating CTGs can be applied to specialty
printing operations. However, case—by—case deterninazions woulo be
necessary to provide relief for those specific coerations tnat are so
similar to conventional printing, that the emission limitations in the
Paper and Fabric Coating CTGs might not be aopropriate. Unfortunately,
the numoers and variety of specialty printer; have made sucn oete iinations
exceedingly complex for both industry and many States. Recent discuss ons
with industry and State agencies confirm the continuing existence of
these misunderstandings.
We are revising our August memo to allow States, if they deem it
aopropriate, to control specialty printing under the Graphic Arts CTG
using the emission limits specified in that document. Howeve”, a State
may also decide that a particular type of specialty printing is so
similar to a paper or fabric coating operation that such installations
should be controlled under the provisions of the Paper or Fabric Coating
CTG. Those States still in the process of negotiating compliance
schedules with specialty printers based on the Paper and Fabric Coating
CTGs should continue such negotiations.
Soecialty printing operations niay be consioered to be all cravure
and flexocraphic operations which print a design or image, exciud ng
publication gravure and packaging printing. Specialty printing opera-
tions incluae, among other thincs, printing on paoer cuPs ano 7lafas,
Dat erned cift rap, walThao r, nd Floor coverincs.
‘2O- (R. •76)
-------
2
All coating operat ons, including cravure operations, wnere zne
c atinc 1 ne aoplies only a urifo layer of iateria across : e e t re
width of the weo, will continue to oe subject to :he cefinit ons anc
controls in j’e aoer anc aoric Coating C7Gs (iolume II).
For additional inforii ation, contact Tom Williams (629— 226).
cc: Chiei, Air Programs Branch, Regions t-X
VOC Contacts, Regions I-X
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE FEB 6 1981 PN 172-31.02 -05_036
9j CT Storage Tank Vapor Balance Requirements at Synthesized
Pharmaceutical Products Manufactur cilitie, ’
OM Darryl D. Tyler, Acting Director
Control Programs Development Dlvi on U—l5)
° Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I—X
It has been brought to my attention that, in some instances,
States are excluding the requirement for storage tank vapor balance
from tne Grouo II Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products Manufacture
regulation. The primary reasons cited are that vapor recovery regu-
lations are not required for the tank trucks nor for facilities
loading pharmaceutical VOC into tank trucks; hence, enforcement of
the vapor balance requirement would perhaos be difficult.
The Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products Manufacture CTG includes a
recon iiended guideline (P. 1-6) that storage tanks greater than 2000
gallons and storing VOC with a vapor pressure greater than 28 kPa (4.1
PSI) at 200 C be equipped with a vaoor balance system or equivalent
system that is at least 90 percent effective in reducing emissions
except where tanks are equippea with floating roofs, vaoor recovery, or
ecuivalent. This guideline does not apoly to transfer of VOC from one
in—plant location to another.
The Emission Standards and Engineerinc Division ncluaed the
nharmaceu:icai storage tank vapor balance reau rernent in the CTG because,
tneoret cally (assuming saturated vaoors), a 50 oercent recuction of VOC
emissions to the atrnos here would result f the storace tanks were vaocr
balancea since venting would only occur at the facil ty wnere the l qu d
‘/OC is lcaded into the tank truck. Witnout vapor balance, VOC vaoor
would be vented from (1) the storage tank at the pharmaceut cal plant
during tne tank truck unloadina operation and (2) the tank truck during
loading of liquid VOC at the loading facility (assuminc that ambient air
drawn into the tank truck during unloaaing operations oeconies saturated
with vOC).
It is our opinion that inclusion of tne pharmaceutical storage
tank vapor balance requirement in the State regulations is desirable.
Hcwever, if a State determines that it is unreasonable for certain
plants to incorporate a vapor balance system because of the technical
reasons listed above and subsequently exempts such systems in the
regulations, EPA should not disapprove the SIP for the exemption. Care
must be taker to ensure that no emission reduction credit is allowed if
this provision is not included in the pharmaceutical regulations.
Should you have further questions on this, please call me at
629—5251 or 3rock icholson or Bill Poigiase of my staff at 629—5516.
cc: Chief, Ar Programs Branch, Regions t-X
EPA Fafl ,. 132O.. (R.. 3.76)
-------
VI
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
I Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
JAN 2 01994
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Averaging Times for Compliance With
VOC Emission Limits — SIP Revisiot
FROM: John R. O’Connor, Acting Director
Office of Air Quality Planning a Standards
TO: Director, Mr and Waste Manageme Ivislon
Regions Il—IY, Yl—VIlI, X
Director, Air Management Division, Regions I, V, IX
The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify the Agency’s policy
regarding emission time averaging for existing sources of volatile organic
compounds (VOC’s). Numerous State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions, both
broad regulations and source—specific changes, have been submitted which
provide for com llance determinations by “time averaging” emissions of VOC
for periods exceeding 24 hours. These requests and the following policy
on this subject were discussed extensively at a recent meeting attended
by those Regional Offices which have the most pending actions (Regions I,
III, IV, Y); the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; and the
Office of General Counsel. This policy represents the consensus of the
meeting attendees.
The objective of EPA’s national VOC emissions control program is the
timely attainment and maintenance of the national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS) for ozone. SIP revisions and other regulatory actions
relating to VOC control must maintain the integrity of this basic objective.
There should be assurances that VOC emission control Is reasonably con-
sistent with protecting this short—term ozone standard. Further, since
SIP’s and associated VOC control programs contemplate the actual applica-
tion of reasonably available control technology (PACT), regulatory actions
that Incorporate longer term averages to circumvent the Installation of
overall PACT level controls cannot be allowed.
NOTE: The Federal Register notice mentioned In this
memorandum is not included in the Policy
and Guidance Notebook.
-------
—2—
Current Agency guidance specifies the use of a daily weighted average
for YOC regulations as the preferred alternative where continuous compliance
is not feasible. An example might be where a facility operates in a
batch manner with multiple lines and various products. Reference is made
to the December 8, 1980, Federal Register (copy attached) where can
coating operators are allowed to wbubblehl several production lines and
average emissions over a 24-hour time period.
The preferred daily weighted average alternative may not be feasible
in all cases. Where the source operations are such that daily VOC emissions
cannot be determined or where the application of R.ACT for each emission
point (line, machine, etc.) is not economically or technically feasible
on a daily basis, longer averaging times can be permitted under certain
conditions. In determining feasibility, consideration might be given,
for example, to the extent to which modifications can be made to testing,
inventory, or recordkeeplng practices in order to quantify daily emissions.
Also, variability or lack of predictability in a source’s daily operation
might be considered as well as availability of control technology or the
physical impediment or restriction to control equipment installation. In
order to allow longer than daily averaging In SIP regulations, the following
conditions or principles must be honored:
1. Real reductions In actual emissions must be achieved, consistent
with the RACT control levels specified in SIP’s or the control
technique guidelines (CTG’s). These limits are typically expressed
in terms of VOC per unit of production (a qualitative term such
as lbs VOC/gal coating). vthere it Is not feasible to specify
emission limits in such terms, emission limits per unit of time
can be approved provided that:
a. The emission limits reflect typical (rather than potential
or allowable) production rate and operating hours. These
emission limits must truly reflect emissions reductions
consistent with RACT and are not simply an artificial constraint
on pbtentlal emissions. This must be supported in the SIP
revision by historical production and operation data.
b. Nonproduction or equipment downtime credits are not allowed In
the emission limit calculation unless a Federally enforceable
- document specifically restricts operation during these times.
Such credit must be based on real, historical emissions.
2. Averaging periods must be as short as practicable and in no
case longer than 30 days.
3. A demonstration must be made that the use of long—term averaging
(greater than 24-hour averaging) will not jeopardize either
ambient standards attainment or the reasonable further progress
(RFP) plan for the area. This must be accomplished by showing
-------
-3-
that the maximum daily increase in emissions associated with
long-term averaging is consistent with the approved ozone SIP
for the area.
4. Sources in areas lacking approved SIP’s, or in areas with approved
SIP’s but showing measured violations, cannot be considered for
longer term averages until the SIP has been revised demonstrating
ambient standards attainment and maintenance of RFP (reflecting
the maximum daily emissions from the source with long—term
averaging).
Meaningful short-term (i.e., daily) emission caps are desirable
especially for sources subject to large fluctuations In emissions. The
use of a daily cap (equal to or less than current average emissions on a
daily basis) that limits short—term emissions to RACT equivalent levels
would meet the above objective of ensuring VOC control that is consistent
with attaining the NAAQS for ozone.
States have the primary responsibility to show adherence to the above
principles and, to do so, must include the following information (in detail)
in all SIP revision requests that seek VOC averaging times greater than
24 hours:
1. The VOC limits specified in an enforceable form with appropriate
compliance dates.
2. A description of the affected processes and associated historical
production and operating rates.
3. A description of the control techniques to be applied to the
affected processes such as low solvent and waterborne coating
technology and/or add—on controls.
4. The nature of the emission control program whether a bubble, a
regulation change, a compliance schedule, or some other form of
alternative control program.
5. The method of recordkeeplng and reporting to be employed to•
demonstrate compliance with the new emission limit requirement
and to support the showing that the emission limit is consistent
with RFP and the demonstration of attairment.
Each EPA Regional Office shall have the primary responsibility for
determining the approvability of application requests. However, in order
to assure Regional consistency, coordination with the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards staff is encouraged during the initial
development of any single “time average” SiP revision or regulation.
Also, all SIP revisions involving long-term averaging must be proposed In
the Federal Register with an explanation of how the principles listed
above have been satisfied.
-------
-4-
Should there be any questions on this policy, please call Tom Helms
(FTS 629—5526) or Brock Nicholson (FTS 629—5516).
Attachment
cc: Barbara Bankoff
Ron Campbell
Jack Farmer
Mike Levin
Ed Reich
B. J. Stelgerwald
Darryl Tyler
Peter Wyckoff
Chief, Air Branch, Regions I—X
Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE MAY 2 i 1981 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 PN 172—81-05-21-038
SUBJECT 1982 Ozone and Carbon Monoxide SIP Guidance Index
FROM G. 1. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch (MD—15)
TO Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I-X
To assist you in your 1982 ozone and carbon monoxide SIP efforts, we
have compiled an index of 1982 SIP guidance. It is divided into eight
sections: General 1982 Ozone and Carbon Monoxide SIP Information, Emission
Inventories, Inspection/Maintenance, Transportation, Modeling, Monitoring,
Stationary Source Control , and Carbon Monoxide. The intent of the index
is to identify all relevant documents pertaining to the preparation and
review of 1982 ozone and carbon monoxide SIP revisions.
We intend to update the index periodically and will keep you informed
of any additions or revisions we make to it. If there is guidance of Aatior l
significance that you feel should be included in the index, please let me know.
I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any questions or
coments regarding it, please call me or Jane Kelly of my staff at FTS 629-5665.
Attachment
EPA Fo 1320-6 (Rev 3-76)
-------
PN 172—81-01—22-039
In order to conserve space, the Federal Register notice entitled:
State Implementation Plans: Approval of 1982 Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide Plan Revisions for Areas Needing an
Attainment Date Extension (46 FR 7182, January 22, 1981)
is not included in the Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook.
Please refer to this notice for EPA policy/guidance related to this
subject.
-------
PN 172—82—10—29—041
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
QATE OCT 2 S 1982 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
SU8JECT Questions and Answers on 19 —O one and O SIP’s
OM Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Deve1o rent Divis4ori (MD-15)
TO Director, Air and Waste Manageirent Division, Region I— tV, VI—Vill, X
Director, Air Managen nt Division, Regions I, V, IX
The following questions and answers are in response to issues
raised by Regions regarding the processing of 1982 ozone and CX) SIP’S.
Two previous irenoranduns dated August 6, 1982, and August 11, 1982,
have been distributed. This is the third of that series. The
following questions and answers have been reviewed and agreed upon by
all affected Headquarters staff offices.
1. Can nonattairgrent areas which previously were approved as
denonstrating attairnent for carlx)n nonoxide or ozone by December 31,.
1982, now apply for an extension?
No. Section 129(c) of Public Law 95—95 (which was not codified as
part of the Clean Air Act) required sutrnittal of these extension
requests by January 1, 1979. Accordingly, any State that did riot
request and receive an extension of the attairirent date for ozone and
carbon rronoxide at that tine cannot get one now.
2. Can areas which have received extensions beyond December 31,
1982, for a date prior to December 31, 1987, now nodify their attaimnt
dates?
Yes. If the revised estimates in the July 1982 su mitta1 denonstrate
that the attairnent date needs to be rx)dified, it is possible to revise
the date. Hc ver, the control strategy rreasures must be implenented
expeditiously and result in attairnent no later than December 31, 1987.
It is not appropriate to extend the attairnent date simpiy to allow a
State to delay the iniplerrentation of a ireasure which otherwise could be
reasonably implerrented sooner.
3. Can areas which have received extensions beyond December 31,
1982, now rescind the requests if they can now derronstrate attairnent
by December 31, 1982?
Yes. However, given the proximity of the 1982 attairvent date,
care should be taken to consider all available air quality data.
172
41-1
EPA Fo ’ 1320.6 (Rev 3 76)
-------
2
4. How should attairnent den nstrations based on rari es of
reduction rather than a specific reduction target be reviewed?
The EPA review should be based on a specific emission target. If
the State identifies a “nost probable” value within the range, this
should be the value chosen. Where the State does not distinguish this
value within the range, efforts should be made to ask the State to clarify
the “nost probable” emission target. Where the State will not provide
any additional clarification and the entire range represents values which
the State indicates are possible, then the review should be based on the
high end of the range. (See Attachnent 1—i n randum fran OGC.) In such
cases, the Federal Register proposal notice should clearly describe the
emission target that the review is based upon.
5. How long a period should we allow for public caments?
The minimum required cciirient period is 30 days. Since the Act
requires expeditious processing, we would recamend extending the ca vient
period beyond 30 days only for unusual circumstances. To assure adequate
public notice, I also strongly recaturend a notice of availability for the
SIP subnittal. Attachnent 2 is an example notice.
6. Could Headquarters provide recczwrended Federal Register
boilerplate language for proposing disapproval of SIP’s?
Attachrrent 3 to this nenorandum is language prepared by (XC. For
additional inforniation or clarification please contact Tina Kar.een at
755—9301.
3 Attachirents*
cc: Chief, Air Branch, Regions I—X
Charles Carter
Charles Elkins
Jack Hidinger
Sheldon Meyers
Ed Reich
Richard Wilson
* The three attachments are not included in the Policy and Guidance otebook.
1 72 U S GOVERN Nt PRINTIUG OFFICE 1984—139—147/540
41-2
-------
PN 172—80-08—11-043
In order to conserve space, the Federal Register notice entitled:
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works; Construction Grants
Limitations Provided by Section 316 of the Clean Air Act;
Policy and Procedures (45 FR 53382, August 11, 1980) -
is not included in the Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook. Please
refer to this notice for EPA policy/guidance related to this subject.
-------
PN 172-83-11-02-044
In order to conserve space, the Federal Register notice entitled:
Compliance with the Statutory Provisions of Part D of the
Clean Air Act (48 FR 50686, November 7, 1983)
is not included in the Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook. Please
refer to this notice for EPA policy/guidance related to this subject.
-------
May 1981
1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE SIP GUIDANCE
A. General 1982 Ozone and Carbon Monoxide SIP Information
1. Memo entitled “Use of 1980 Census Information in Developing the
1982 State Implementation Plan Revisions,” from Edward Tuerk,
Acting Assistant Administrator to Directors, Air and Hazardous
Materials Division, dated April 20, 1981.
2. Final Policy for Approval of 1982 Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Plan Revisions for Areas Needing an Attainment Date Extension
(46 FR 7182, January 22, 1981).
3. Memo entitled “Data Collection for 1982 Ozone SIPs,”
from Robert Neligan to Directors, Air and Hazardous Materials
Division, Regions I-X, dated November 13, 1980.
4. Proposed Policy for Approval of 1982 Ozone and Carbon Monoxide ’
Plan Revisions for Areas Needing an Attainment Date Extension
(45 FR 64856, September 30, 1980).
5. Memo entitled “Policy and Procedures to Implement Section
316 of the Clean Air Act, as Amended,” from Douglas M. Costle
to Regional Administrators, Regions I-X, dated July 28, 1980
(45 FR 53382).
6. Data Collection for 1982 Ozone Implementation Plan Submittals,
(44 FR 65667, November 14, 1979).
7. Intergovernmental Consultation, 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart N,
June 18, 1979 (44 FR 35176).
8. General Preamble for Proposed Rulemaking on Approval of State
Implementation Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas (44 FR
20372, April 4, 1979). Supplements to General Preamble for
Proposed Rulemaking: (44 FR 25243, April 30, 1979), (44 FR
38583, July 2, 1979), (44 FR 50371, August 28, 1979), (44 FR
53161, September 17, 1979), (44 FR 67182, November 23, 1979).
9. Memo entitled “Criteria for Approval of 1979 SIP Revisions,”
from Douglas M. Costle to Regional Administrators, Regions I-X,
dated February 24, 1978 (43 FR 21673).
10. Memo entitled “Determination of Emission Reduction
Responsibilities,” from David Hawkins to Regional Administrators,
dated April 1, 1978.
B. Emission Inventories
AP - 42, Part A (Third Edition) Compilation of Air Pollution
Emission Factors.
2. AP - 42, Part B (Third Edition) Compilation of Air Pollution
Emission Factors.
-------
-2-
3. AP - 42, Supplement 11 (Third Edition), October 1980, Compilation
of Air Pollution Emission Factors.
4. AP - 42. Supplement 10, February 1980 (Third Edition) Compilation
of Air Pollution Emission Factors.
5. AP - 42, Supplement 9, July 1979, (Third Edition) Compilation
of Air Pollution Emission Factors.
6. AP - 42, Supplement 8, May 1978, (Third Edition) Compilation
of Air Pollution Emission Factors.
7. Example Emission Inventory Documentation for 1982 Ozone State
Implementation Plans (SIPs), EPA-450/4-80-033, March 1981.
8. Guidelines for Review of Highway Emission Inventories for
1982 Ozone SIPs, EPA-440/l2_80_O02, February 1981.
9. Directory of Volatile Organic Compound Sources Covered by
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Requirements,
Volumes I-Ill, Groups 1-111 RACT Categories, EPA-450/4-80-007a, b, c,
February 1981.
10. Memo entitled “Mobile 2 Errata” from Charles Gray to Directors,
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X, dated April 22,
1981.
11. Memo entitled “Use of Mobile 2 for 1982 SIP Submittals,’
from Charles Gray to Directors, Air and Hazardous Materials
Division, Regions I-.X, dated December 12, 1980.
12. Final Emission Inventory Requirements for 1982 Ozone State
Implementation Plans, EPA-45O/4 -80-016, December 1980.
13. Procedures for the Preparation of Emission Inventories for
VOCs, Volume I, Second Edition, EPA-450/2-77 -O28, September 1980.
14. Development of Questionnaires for Various Emission Inventory
Uses, EPA-45O/3-78-l22, June 1979.
15. Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Species Data Manual,
(Second Edition), EPA-450/4-80-O]5, July 1980.
16. Point and Area Source Checklist for Evaluating 1982 Ozone SIP
Emission Inventories, Air Monitoring Technology Branch, Monitoring
and Data Analysis Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, dated March 1981.
17 \ OC RACT Sources ‘is inq f om N [ DS, [ PA-a5O/4 81 Ol , dated Februajy
98l
18. Workbook for VOC/NO [ mission Inventory Requirements for 1982 Ozone
SIPs, Monitoring aria Data Analysis Division, Control Programs
Development Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
dated October 1980.
-------
-3-
C. Inspection/Maintenance
1. Training for Inspection and Maintenance Programs, Mobile Source
Division, Ann Arbor, Michigan (EPA-AA-IMS-81-14) , dated April 1981.
2. Memo entitled “I/M Program 1982 SIP Processing,” from Charles Gray
to Directors, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X,
dated March 12, 1981.
3. Memo entitled “Questions on Inspection/Maintenance,” from
Michael Walsh to Directors, Air and Hazardous Materials Division,
Regions I-X, dated January 19, 1981.
4. Memo entitled “EPA Public Awareness Guidelines for I/M,” from
David G. Hawkins to Regional Administrators, January 19, 1981.
5. Recommendations Regarding the Selection of Idle Emission Inspectiofl
Cutpoints for Inspection/Maintenance Programs, Mobile Source
Division, Ann Arbor, Michigan (EPA—AA-IMS/8l-l) , dated January 1981.
6. Letter regarding Waiver Systems, from Tom Cackette to Kenneth A.
Hagg (Massachusetts), November 10, 1980.
7. Merro regarding Implementation Issues Regarding EPA Recommended
I/M Emission Analyzer Specifications from David Hawkins to
Regional Administrators, dated September 24, 1980.
8. Recommended Specifications for Emission Inspection Analyzers,
Mobile Source Division, Ann Arbor, Michigan, dated September 1980.
9. Memo regarding Pennsylvania’s Proposed I/M Surveillance System,
from Donald White to Robert Blanco (Region III), dated September 23,
1980.
10. Memo clarifying Section F of the I/M Policy, from Tom Cackette to
Stan Coerr (Region IV), dated September 19, 1980.
11. Emission Control System Performance Warranty Regulations (45 FR 34802,
May 22, 1980).
12. Letter regarding Mechanics Training Credits, from Donald White
to Tom Snyder (Maryland), dated February 19, 1980.
13. Memo regarding Inspection/Maintenance Policy, from David 6. Hawkins
to Regional Administrators, dated February 21, 1979.
14. Memo entitled “Inspection/Maintenance Policy,” from David G. Hawkins
to Regional Administrators, Regions i-X, dated July 17, 1978.
15. Memo regarding Parameter Inspection as a Suitable I/M Alternative
for the State of Texas, from David G. Hawkins to Adlene Harrison
(Region VI), dated August 1, 1978.
-------
-4-
D. Transportation
1. Proposed Policy - EPA-DOT Basic Transportation Needs,
September 18, 1980 (45 FR 62170).
2. EPA—DOT Procedures for Conformance of Transportation Plans,
Programs and Projects with Clean Air Act State Implementation
Plans, June 12, 1980.
3. EPA—DOT Expanded Public Participation Guidelines, May 1, 1980
(45 FR 42032).
4. Checklist for Review of Transportation Portions of 1979 SIP
Submissions, October 1978.
5. Memorandum of Understanding Between DOT and EPA Regarding the
Integration of Transportation and Air Quality Planning,
June 1978.
6. EPA-DOT Tra •sportation-Air Quality Planning Guidelines,
June 1978.
E. Modeling
1. Addendum to User’s Manual to Kinetics Model and Ozone Isopleth Plotting
Package, G. L. Gipson, Air Monitoring Technology Branch, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, May 1981.
2. User’s Manual for Mixing Height Computer Programs by R. F. Kelly, Air
Monitoring Technology Branch, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, May 1981.
3. Letter to Mr. L. Bruckman, Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection, from Edwin Meyer, Chief, Technical
Development Section, Air Management Technology Branch, EPA,
regarding questions about modeling procedures in Connecticut,
dated April 9, 1981.
4. Guidelines for Use of City-Specific EKMA in Preparing Ozone
SIPs, EPA-45O/4-80-02?, March 1981.
5. Proposed Rulemaking Deleting Rollback as an Acceptable Ozone
Modeling Methodology (46 FR 7193, January 22, 1981).
6. Memo entitled “OAQPS Position on Organic Species and Continuous
NMOC Data Collection for the 1982 Ozone SIPs,” from
Richard G. Rhoads to Director, Air and Hazardous Materials
Pivision, Regions :—x. nuar” 2 1983
7. User’s t anua1 for - Kinetics Model and Ozone Isopleth Plotting
Package, July 1978.
-------
—5-
6. Procedures for Quantifying Relationships Between Photochemical
Oxidants and Precursors. Supporting Documentation, EPA-450/2-
77-02 lb, February 1978.
7. Uses, Limitations, and Technical Basis of Procedures for
Quantifying Relationships Between Photochernical Oxidants
and Precursors, EPA-450/2-77-021a, November 1977.
8. AP - 101, Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds and Potential for Urban
Air Pollution Throughout the Contiguous United States, 1972.
9. Memo entitled “Ozone Modeling for the 1982 SIP Submittal
for Denver,” from Richard G. Rhoads to Robert L. Duprey,
Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region VIII,
dated June 4, 1980.
10. Guideline on Air Quality Models, EPA-450/2-78—027, April 1978.
F. Monitoring
1. Technical Assurance Document for the Calibration and Operation
of Automated Ambient Nonmethane Organic Compound Analysis,
EPA-600/4-81-0l5, dated March 1981.
2. Determination of Nonmethane Organic Carbon (NMOC) by Cryogenic
PreconcentratiOn and Flame Ionization Detection, by R. K. M. Jayanty
and A. Blackard, EPA Contract Officer, Frank McElroy, Methods
Standardization Branch, Quality Assurance Division, Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory, dated March 1981.
3. Memo entitled “Policy on Inclusion of Summary 1981 Monitoring
as Part of the 1982 SIP,” from R. 6. Rhoads to Harley Laing,
Chief, Air Branch, Air and Hazardous Materials Division,
Region I, dated March 9, 1981.
4. Guidance on Monitoring Upwind of Urban Areas for Determining
Transport of Ozone and Its Precursors (DRAFT), June 1980.
5. Guidance for Collection of Ambient Nonmethane Organic Compound
(NMOC) Data for Use in 1982 Ozone SIP Development, and Network
Design and Siting Criteria for the NMOC and N0 Monitors,
EPA-450/4-80-Oll, June 1980.
6. Guidance for the Collection and Use of Ambient Hydrocarbon
Species Data in Development of Ozone Control Strategies,
EPA-45O/4-80-008, April 1980.
7. Ozone and Precursor Transport Into an Urban Area Evaluation
of Measurement Approaches, EPA-450/4-79-O3 9 , December 1979.
-------
-6-
8. Assessment of Vertical Distributions of Photochemical Pollutants
and Meteorological Variables in the Vicinity of Urban Areas,
EPA-450/4-79-017, August 1979.
9. Site Selection for the Monitoring of Photochemical Air Pollutants,
EPA-450/3-78-013, April 1978.
C. Stationary Source Control
H. Carbon Monoxide
-------
SU ARY OF I ITtC PATED
?E CENT EMtSSICN EUC1IO S FRCM
r Lj
:nspecz’. on/ma nz nanc
irnproveo cuohc ;rar s :
xc1us ve ana carpooi lanes
Area. n:e car cc rcçrams
r ;a:a car ras:rict cn$
Lcrg-rançe ra s z imorcvemencs
On-s:r e: :ar< c contro s
? r. nc -‘:a rc fr r a ;a ’< ng iota
?ec str r —a s
:— ‘e- :c e icot race car ar.c ian
co r.c, a s :rar it, icjci.nc arc nc
3 cyce ares ar.c s::raçe fac :’.es
acc rac rc’Jrs
oa ;r rc : scourace s ngi cc: ioar.cy
at.to zri:s
C zrc cr exzer ce ‘/ ricie d ir
raff c flc.q :rc’ie nents
i:erra iie f 1S or nalt es arc otner
fie t ‘iehic e corzrois
•Otrer :. - an l c z duty ven c1e retrofit
:rae : c s:a : amaa’cn acuc: on
:re’ ;:e.
-------
PN 172-84-06-25-046
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ONce of Air Oue::iv Piarming aria Staricaras
Researth TriarioI. Park Nortr Carolina 277 1
JL 2 19&4
MFJiORANDUM
I JECT: Applicability of Group III Control
Techniques Guidelines (CTG’s)
Darryl 0. Tyler, Director 1k.I
Control Programs Development Division (MD—15)
Director, Air Management Division
Regions 1, III, V, IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Region II, IV, VI—VIlI, X
In my May 21, 1984, memorandum to the Reoio.ial Air Directors, I
‘ciicIted your thoughts on taking action in areas not meeting the volatile
organic corrDound (VOC) Group III CTG regulation submittal dates. A
numoer of Regions have voiced concern over the applicability of the memo
u r ,ral nonattainment areas and to urban areas that appear to have
attained the ozone standard but do not have sufficient information available
i this time to document attainment.
Although my memorandum stated the current EPA policy as cited in
P?rt 2 of the Code of F.eoeral Regul tons (e.g., 52.53 “A proval
— as cited on page 287 of “ or snop on Requirements for Nonattain-
ment.A ,rea Plans,” and as cited in tne Aoril 4, 1979, general preamble),
;i. y Regions were surprised by this requirement and indicated that it
would aitner e resisted by many States or lead to a number of premature
redesianation requests.
In view.o.f the Regional concern related to the applicability of
Group III CTG’s to rural nonattainment areas and urban areas witfl 1982
attainment dates not subject to a call for revision under Section
11 a)(2)(K), I intend to review this policy for these areas. The Regions
ar advised to refrain from pressinc States for action regarding the
su mit:al of Sroup III regulatiois in these nonattainment areas pending a
rrview of the regulation submittal requirements. No requests were received
to reconsider the requirements in extension areas and urban areas which
have received Section 11O(a)(2)(H) cafls. Hence, I would not expect a
change in policy in these areas. You should aovlse your States accordingly.
-------
PN 172-84—06-25—047
UNiTED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Orfire of Air Ou In Pian ,r and tanoard5
Research Triana Park North Carolina 2771 1
5 JUN 1984
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Confirmation of Definition of “100-Ton—Per—Year (100 TPY) Source”
FROM: G, T. Helms, Chief/( rv i - -
Control Programs Operations Branch (MD-15)
TO: James Wilburn, Chief
Air Monitoring Branch, Region IV
As a fQllOw-up to our r ecent telephone conference call with the State
of Alabama, attached are copies of guidance memos and a letter related to
the definition of a lOU TPY source. These guidance documents all contain
the principle of combining all similar or connected operations at a plant
to determine 100 TPY.
i. Memorandum dated September 7, 1978, from Richard G. Rhoads, Director,
Control Programs Development Division, to Director, Air and Hazardous
Materials Division, Regions I, III-X, and Director, Environmental Programs
Division, Regions II, entitled “Clarification of Degreasing Regulations.”
However, States should not exempt all open top vapor
degreasers or conveyorized degreasers which individually
emit less than 100 tons/year in rural nonattainment
areas because large scale users may have over 100
separate degreasing operations at one plant location.
If a State chooses to exempt open top or conveyorized
degreasing operations in rural nonattainment areas,
the limitation should be 100 tons or less on a facility—
wide basis based on annual solvent purchase records.
2. Memorandum dated August 8, 1980, from G. T. Helms, Chief, Control
Programs Operations Branch, to John L. Hanisch, Mobile Source Emissions
section, Region I, entitled “Request for Confirmation of the Definition
of a 100—Ton Source as Applied to Control in the Gasoline Storage and
Marketing Chain.”
As stated in previous determinations of 100 tons/year
sources, . . . potential emissions from all similar
or connected CTG category sources on a facility—wide
basis should be added together to determine if CTG
control is required. In the case of bulk gasoline
terminals, this would be based on potential emissions
from tank trucks (using the appropriate emission
factor for splash or submerged fill and the loading
rack throughput) as well as potential emissions from
storage tanks if they are located on contiguous or
-------
2
adjacent properties which are owned or operated by
the same person (or by persons under common control).
3. Memorandum dated August 22, 1980, from Richard G. Rhoads, Director,
Control Programs Development Division, to Thomas W. Devine, Director, Air
and Hazardous Materials Division, Region IV, entitled “The Use of Permit
Conditions to Define Potential to Emit.”
However, it is pointed out that in determining if a
bulk gasoline terminal is a 100 TPY source, the
gasoline throughput of the terminal as well as the
emissions from gasoline storage tanks at the facility
must be added together.
4. Letter dated May 10, 1983, from William L. Polylase, Technical Guidance
Section, to Victoria Martinez, Florida Department of Environmental Regula—
ton, confirming that the 1CC TPY potential emission exemption for graphic
art systems applies to plantwide emissions, not to each printing line.
this will confirm that the 100—ton per year
exemption tor existing graphic arts facilities affected
by the graphic arts control technique guidelines,
relates to plantwide emissions, not to each printing
line.
5. Memor ndurn dated October 11, 1978, from G. 1. Helms, Chief, Control
Programs Operations Branch, to Chief, Air Branch, Regions 1—X, entitled
“Questions and Answers on 1979 SIP Revisions (Cutback Asphalt Category).”
Q. What is considered a “100 tons/year source” for
the cutback asphalt category? (10/11)
A. Emissions from this CTG category result from
several points and operations including the mixing
plant, paving operations, and from the curing.of the
road surface itself. Because of the possthle combinations
of emissions points, the cutback asphalt category
should be viewed as an area source and any “100 ton”
calculations should consider all State, local, and
private uses of asphalt in the nonattainment area.
Accordingly, States should be encourayed to adopt
limitations of the manufacture, sale, and use of
cut ack asphalt on a Statewide basis. However, such
a limitation could be avoided in rural areas if it
can be demonstrated that the total emissions from the
use of cutback asphalt in the entire area for which a
strategy is being developed does not exceed 100
tons/year.
-------
3
It is hoped that these citations i1 be helpful in the resolution of
the definition of a 100 TPY source with the State of Alabama.
cc: Chief, Air Branch, Regions i—X
VOC Contacts, Regions I—X
Attachments
-------
Table 3. Test Methods or Procedures for Group III CTG’s
Docuiii en t
Recommended Method(s) and May Re
CTG Applicable Document(s) Citing Ordered
Industry Document Number control Options Test Method From
Large Petroleum
Dry Cleaners EPA—450/3—82-009 Operation and CTG, Appendix E NTIS?
Maintenance
Add-on 40 CFR Part 60,
Method 25 GPO 7
Natural Gas/Gasoline
Processing Plants EPA—450/3—83-007 Inspection 40 CFR Part 60, GPO 7
Monitoring Method 21
Ma intenance
SOCMI-Fug ltive EPA—450/3—83-006 Inspection 40 CFR Part 60, GPO 7
Monitoring Method 21
Ma intenance
Manufacture of
High Density Poly-
ethylene Polypropy-
lene and Polystyrene EPA-450/3-83-OO8 Add-on 40 CFR Part 60
Method 18, 25, or GPO 7
2 5A
As appropriate
VOL Storage CIG not issued as of 9/1/84
SOCMI Air Oxidation CTG not issued as of 9/1/81
-------
T b1e 4: r Sps Reference Test Methods for Volatile Organic Compounds
t od 1
Metnod 1A
Method 2
Method 2A
Method 2B
Method 2C
Method 2D
Metnod 3
tnod 4
Method 18
Method 21
Method 23
Method 24
Method 24A
Method 25
Method 25A
thod 25B
Method 27
Sample and Velocity Traverses for Stationary Sources, 40 CFR 60,
Appendix A.
Sample and Velocity Traverses for Stationary Sources with Small Stacks
or Ducts, (proposed 48 FR 48955, October 21, 1983)
Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rate (Type S
Pitot Tube) 40 CFR 60, Appendix A.
Direct Measurement of Gas Volume Through Pipes and Small Ducts,
48 FR 37592, August 18, 1983.
Determination of Exhaust Gas Volume Flow Rate from Gasoline Vapor
Incinerators, 48 FR 37594, August 18, 1983.
Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flo w Rate from Small
Stacks or Ducts (Standard Pitot Tube), (proposed 48 FR 48956, October 21,
1983).
Measurement of Gas Volume Flow Rates in Small Pipes and Ducts, (proposed
48 FR 43957, October 21, 1983).
Gas Analysis for Carbon Dioxide, Oxygen, Excess Air, and Dry Molecular
Weight, 40 CFR 60, Appendix A.
Determination of Moisture Content in Stack Gases, 40 CFR 60,
Appendix A.
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography,
8 FR 48344, October 18, 1983.
Determination of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks, 48 FR 37600, August 18,
1983.
Determination of Halogenated Organics from Stationary Sources, (proposed
45 FR 39766, June 11, 1980).
Determination of Volatile Matter Content, Water Content, Density, Volume
Solids, and Weight Solids of Surface Coatings, 40 CFR 60, Appendix A.
Determination of Vo4tile Matter Content and Density of Printing Inks
and Related Coatings, 40 CFR 60, Appendix A.
Determination of Total Gaseous Nonmethane Organic Emissions as Carbon,
40 CFR 60, Appendix A.
Determination of Total Gaseous Organic Concentrations Using a Flame
Ionization Analyzer, 48 FR 37595, August 18, 1983.
Determination of Total Gaseous Organic Concentration Using a Nondisper—
sive Infrared Analyzer, 48 FR 37597, August 18, 1983.
Determination of Vapor Tightness of Gasoline Delivery Tank Using
Pressure-Vacuum Test, 48 FR 37597, August 18, 1983.
-------
Table 5: VOC Contacts
Emission Measurement Branch
ESED/OAQPS
Mail Drop 13
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Telephone: (919) 541—(extension) -
FTS: 6 29—(extensjor )
Mail Telephone
Specialty ____ ____ Contact ___________ Drop Extension
Method 18 23 and Hazardous
PaHutant Test Methods Kenneth W. (Bill) Grimley 19 2237
as chromatograph method
Method 21 and Fugitive
VOC Test Methods Winton Kelly 5543
Methods 24, 24A, and 25 Gary McAiister 19 2237
Method 25 - Clyde E. (Gene) Riley 13 5543
Methods 25A, 25B, 27,
Surface Coating, and
Gasoline Marketing Test
Methods Nancy D. McLaughlin 13 5543
Flow Measurement Methods Any of above
(1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2B. 2C, 2D.
3, 4)
-------
PN 172-84-O9-14_048
,f F•p
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planr ing and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
SEP 14 1384
MEMORA l’ oUM
SUBJECT: Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) lest Methods or Procedures for
Source Categories in Groups I,._,II, and I II Control Techniques
Guidelines (Clii’s)
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development
TO: See Addressees
The purpose of this memorandum is to update the list of recommended
scurce test methods or procedures applicable to the CIG’s issued by the
‘ ffice of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emission Standards and
Er oineerir,g Division, Emission Measurement Branch (EMB) and to provide
• irection on how to apply tnese methods. This memorandum updates the
rr noraridum from Edward F. Tuerk, Acting Assistant Administrator, Air,
Noise and Radiation to Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division,
Regions I—X, dated April 6, 1981.
SuDsequent to tne April 6, 1981 memorandum, numerous new source
performance standards (NSPS) and associated recommended test methods have
oeen promulgated for source categories covered by the CTG’s. These
promulgated standards and reference test methods will be codified in the
July 1, 1984, issue of the Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR Part 60.
The reference test methods are included in Appendix A of Part 60. In
addition, a number cf the Group III CTG’s have Deen issued. In those
cases where reference methods have not been promulgated, methods that
have been formally proposed are recommended and the Federal Register (FR)
publication is cited. In the absence of proposed methods a draft method
is available from EMB.
The test methods or procedures for the Groups I and II CTG’s are
summarized in Tables 1 and 2. The major change from the April 6, 1981,
version of the tables is the substitution of promulgated NSPS methods
where applicable. The reference methods are essentially identical in
principle to the CIG methods cited previously, but generally include
simpiifications, clarifications, or improvements to increase the practi-
cality, accuracy or precision of the methods originally recommended in
the CTG’s.
-------
—3—
The recommended test methods for Group III CTG’s are presented in
Table 3.
A list of trie VOC and related measurement methods is summarized in
Table 4 ar-d a FR publication date is given if the method has been promulgated
or proposed since July 1, 1983. A list of knowledgeable EMB personnel
for each method is given in Table 5.
One final note on which test method is Federally recognized, should
ambiguity on this exist. Where a SIP has an approved test method, EPA
will a5ide by such method. Changes to these methods can only be made by
a SIP revision. Where the SIP does not explicitly define a test method,
then under 40 CFR 52.12(c) the NSPS methods as discussed above are appli-
cable. Where the approved test method is no longer the same as that
identified above, States are urged to modify their regulations to be
consistent with the NSPS test methods.
Should you have any questions. please contact John Calcagni at
919/541-5665 or Bill Polgiase at 919/541-5516.
Attachments
Addressees:
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Re;ions II, IV. V1—VII , X
Director, Air Management Division
Regions I, III, V, IX
Director, Environmental Services
Regions I-X
cc: Regional Administrator, Regions I—X
VOC Regulatory Contacts, Regions I—X
VOC Compliance Contacts, Regions I—X
Chief, Air Branch, Regions I—X
Chief, Compliance Branch, Regions II, III, V, VII, rx
George Walsh
Winton Kelly
Nancy McLaughlin
John Rasnic
Ed McCarley
-------
Table I
TESt METHODS OR PIWCEDURES FOR GROUP I CTGS
Recommended Method(s) and E)ocui,ient
CTG Applicable Document(s) Citing May Be
Industry Docunient Number Control__Options Test Method Ordered From
Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabric, and EPA—450/2-77—008 Low solvent Method 24, 40 CFR Part 60
Automobiles and Light-Duty coatings GPO 7
Trucks
Add-on’ Method 25, 40 CFR Part 60 or GPO 7
methods in “Measurement of
Volatile Organic Compounds.”
EPA 4b0/2-78—041 NTIS 2
Metal Furniture EPA—450/2-17—032 low solvent (CTG pp.5—i to 5-5) NTIS 2
coatings Method 24, 40 CFR Part 60 GPO 7
Add-on’ Method 25, 40 CFR Part 60 or GPO 7
methods in “Measurement of
Volatile Organic Compounds,”
EPA 450/2-18-041 NTIS 2
Magnetic Wire Coating EPA-450/2.77- 033 Add-on’ Method 25, 40 CFR Part 60 or GPO 7
methods in “Measurement of
Volatile Organic Compounds,”
EPA 450/2-78-041 NTIS 2
Large Appliance EPA—450/2-77—U34 Low solvent (CTG pp. 5-1 to 5-4) NTIS 2
coatings Method 24, 40 CFR Part 60 GPO 1
Add-on 1 Method 25, 40 CFR Pirt 60 or GPO 7
methods in “Measurpinpnt of
Volatile Organic Compounds,’
EPA 450/2-78-041 NTIS 2
-------
pg. 1-2
Tabli 1 (continued)
TEST METHODS OR PROCEDURES FOR GROUP I CIGS
Industry
Bulk Terminals
CTG
Document Number
EPA—450/2—77-026
Applicable
Control Options
Add on’
Recommended Method(s) and
Document(s) Citing
Test Method
40 CFR 60.503 “Test Methods
and Procedures”, Methods 2A,
25B, 2A, 2B
Do c urn en t
May Be
Ordered From
GPO 7
Leak Tests——Monitoring During
Transfer (see tank truck CTG)
Design Criteria
Document (DCD)
Vapor Balance
System 4 Equip-
ment Specifica-
tions and Opera-
ting Procedures
Equipment Speci-
fications and
Operating Pro-
cedures Vapor
Balance System 4
Equipment Speci-
fications and
Maintenance
RequIrement S
Internal
Floating Roof 5
Equipment Inspection,
CTG pp. 6-3
Leak Tests--Monitoring During
Transfer (see tank truck CTG)
EPA—450/2—77-035
Bulk Plants
Service Stations-—Stage I
Fixed—Roof Tanks
EPA—450/2—77-036
NT IS 2
ESED 3
NTIS 2
Equipment Inspection,
DCD pp. 3-6
Leak Tests—-Monitoring During
Transfer (see tank truck CTG)
CTG pp.6-2
Add -o
Method 25, 40 CER Part 60 GPO 7
-------
pg 1—3 Table 1 (continued)
TEST METHODS OR PROCEDURES FOR GROUP I CTGS
Recommended Methdd(s) and Document
CTG Applicable Document(s) Citing May Be
Industry Document_Number Control_Options _lest_Method Ordered Era
Petroleum Refineries
Vacuum Producing Systems, Waste- EPA-450/2—77-025 Various Equipment CTG pp. 6-2
water Separators and Process Specifications and
Unit Turnaround Operating Procedures
*Cutback Asphalt EPA-450/2—71-037 Water Emulsion Direct Observation by
Inspector
Emulsion Solvent ASTM Distillation ASTM
Content Test D-244
* Degreasjng EPA-450/2—77-022 Equipment Speci— CTG pp. 3-31, 3—33, 3-35, NTIS 2
fications and and 7—1 to 7—7
Operating Pro-
cedures
Add-on Carbon Draft Test Method OAQPS 6
Adsorber
-------
iahle 2
TEST METHODS OR PROCEDURES FOR GROUP II CTGS
EPA-450/2-78- 03 0
EPA-450/2- 78-033
Applicable
Control_Options
Inspection Monitor-
ing Maintenance
Low Solvent
(;oat ings
Ad ci —on!
Low Solvent
Coatings
Add-on’
Maintenance and
Operation
Add-on’
l\dd-oril
Low Solvent Inks,
High Sal his Inks
Add-on’
In Spect ion Ma inte—
nance Monitoring
Operation and
Ma intenance
Add-on Carbon
Adsorpt ion
Recommended Method(s) and
Document(s) Citing
Test Method
Method 21, 40 CFR Part 60
(cTG pp. 6-1)
or Method 24, 40
Method 25, 40 CFR
(CTG pp. 5—1)
or Method 24, 40
Method 25, 40 CFR
(CTG pp. 7-2)
Method 25, 40 CFR Part 60
Method 25, 40 CFR Part 60
Method 24A, 1 CFR Part 60
Method 25, 40 CFR Pert 60
CIG pp. 5—1 to 5-4
CTG pp. 6-1 to 6-4
Draft Test Method 23
Industry
Document_Number
EPA-450/2 .-78-1J36
—
Petroleum Refinery Fugitive
Emissions (Leaks)
Surface Coating Miscellaneous
EPA-450/2-78- 015
Metal Parts and Products
Factory Surface Coating of
EPA-450/2—78-O32
Flatwood Paneling
Phannaceutical Manufacture
EPA-450/2-78-029
Rubber Tire Manufacture
Graphic Arts Rotogravure and
Flexography
External Floating Roof Tanks
EPA—450/2—78-047
*Dryc leaning Perchloroethylene
EPA-450/2—78- 05 0
CFR Part 60
Part 60
CFR Part 61)
Part 60
Document
May Be
Ordered Fra
GPO 7
NTIS 2
GPO 7
GPO 1
NTIS 2
GPO 7
GPO 7
i 152
GPO 7
GPO 7
GPO 1
N ri 2
-------
pg. 11—2 Table 2 (continued)
TEST METHODS OR PROCEDURCS FOR GROUP II CTGS
Recommended Method(s) and Document
CTG ApplicaHe Document(s) Citing May Be
Industry Document Number Control Options Test Method Ordered From
Gasohne Tank Trucks EPA-450/2-78 -051 Pressure-Vacuum Method 27, 40 CFR 60, or
Test CTG, Appendix B GPO 7
Inspection, Moni- CTG—Appendlx B—Leak Tests
toring, Maintenance for Monitoring During
Loading NTIS 2
-------
Footnotes
1. Add—on: Incineration, carbon adsorbers, refrigeration, refrigeration/compression/absorption, etc.
2. Order by document number from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, VA 22161 (nominal fee required).
3. Order from U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning dnd Standards, Emission Standards and Engineering Division,
Chemical and Petroleum Branch, Mail Drop 13, Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27711. Document Title: “Design Criteria for
Stage I Vapor Control Systems Gasoline Service Stations”, November 1975.
4. Visual inspection except for leaks.
5. Visual inspection only.
6. Order trom: U.S. EPA, Qffice of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emission Measurement Branch, Mail Drop 19,
Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27711. Method Title: “Method 23--Determination of Halogenated Organics from Stationary
Sources,” proposed 45 FR 39766, June 11, 1980.
7. Order tram: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, Document title:
“Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR Protection of Environment, Parts 60 to 80.”
* Test method currently not Included in 40 CFR Part 60.
-------
PN 172—84-12—21-049
D Sr 4 ,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

December 21, 1984
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Connecticut Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Issues
FROM: G. T. Helms, Chief Is! - —
Contro Programs Operations Branch, CPDD (MD—15)
TO: Linda Murphy, Chief
State Air Programs Branch, Region I
This is in response to your memorandum of November 7, 1984, concerning
Connecticut VOC issues. It is our opinion that the determination of 100
tons per year (IPY) sources must be based on the principal source categories
at the plant. For example, if the control techniques guideline (CTG) VOC
source categories emissions at a plant were in compliance, the smaller
ancillary VOC source categories (less than 100 TPY) not covered by CIG’s,
would not be additive nor considered in determining a 100 TPY source.
In your example of the toy manufacturer, the principal source category
covered by a CIG appears to be the metal parts coating (80 TPY) which is
assumed to be in compliance (e.g., approximately 400 tons prior to control).
The plastic parts painting (50 TPY) and offset printing of children’s
books (50 TPY) are not covered by CTG’s and are less than 100 IPY each.
Hence, the facility would be considered to be a 100 TPY source only for
miscellaneous metal coating. However, care should be taken to assure
that the principle operation is not artifically disaggregated for the
purpose of avoiding control. For example, if the metal and plastic
coating operations were not distinguishable (e.g., same type of booths,
coatings, and ovens) and the miscellaneous metal source emits 80 tons per
year uncontrolled, it is conceivable, on a case—by—case basis, that this
operation could be considered in aggregate asa 130-ton source.
In response to the side issue listed in your memorandum, It is our
opinion that sources which were specifically exempted by EPA from the
miscellaneous metal parts CTG (e.g., marine vessels, aircraft) are intended
to be considered as non-CTG sources.
2. With regard to the solvent metal cleaner Issue, it is our opinion
that: (a) the use of forced air blowers Inside the degreaser hoods is
unacceptable and would represent circumvention of the regulation unless
emissions were suitably controlled, (b) similarly, the use of atomized
sprays would [ be unacceptable, (unless emissions are suitably controlled),
and (c) the air drying of parts in lieu of draining parts for 15 seconds
would not be c&nsidered RACT.
-------
-2-
It is important to note that the recommendation of a reference test
method in Appendix A of Part 60 does not necessarily provide a complete
procedure for the determination of compliance. The format of the applicable
regulation must be considered to specify how long a test run by the
method should last (averaging time), how many runs are requir.ed (replicates),
and whether or not any additional methods are necessary to convert the
VOC concentration to another basis (volumetric flowrate for mass rates, -
or oxygen/carbon dioxide for an excess air correction). Specifically,
Methods 1, lÀ, 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 3, and 4 are used, as appropriate, for
flowrate and excess air determinations. These methods are listed in
Table 4. The procedural specifications for NSPS are included in the
subpart for the affected source category in the “Test Methods and Procedures”
section. If the GIG format is the same as the NSPS, then the NSPS procedures
may be used as a guide. If the formats are different, then the NSPS
method should be used in conjunction with the procedures specified in the
GIG, or the applicable regulation.
Another consideration must be that for some of the NSPS reference
metnods, it is necessary to refer to the source category regulation to
provide a complete procedure.
Two examples are the leak definition [ compound(s) and concentration]
for Method 21, and the pressure change limits for Method 27. These are
not included in the NSPS reference methods and must be provided by the
State or local regulation.
The procedure recommended in “Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Leaks from Petroleum Refinery Equipment” (EPA—450/2—28—036, June 1978) and
for the other source categories where fugitive emissions are covered has
been replaced by Method 21. Method 2115 the same as the previous
recommendation except that the instrument specifications have been
simplified. The rigorous analyzer specifications were found to be
unnecessary to provide reliable leak/no leak decisions. The revised
specifications require significantly less effort and recordkeeping. The
specification of the calibration compound(s) has been c ianged to hexane
or methane in air at a concentration of about 10,000 ppi’iv. This provides
an alternative, and tests have shown that the leak/no leak decision is
essentially not affected by the analyzer calibration compound when hexane
and methane are compared. If comercial standards are not available, a
standard preparation procedure is provided in Method 18, “Measurement of
Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography,” promulgated
48 FR 48344, October 18, 1983.
The recommended test methods for low solvent coatings and printing
inks are changed to Methods 24 or 24A as appropriate. The CTG references
cite outdate American Society for Testing and Materials (ASIM) procedures
and calculation procedures. However, if the NSPS methods are used, it
may be necessary to change from the NSPS units of weight of VOC per volume
solids to the CTG units of weight of VOC per volume coating adjusted for
water.
-------
PM 172—85-04—25-050
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENt?
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
_____ Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
p aØ&
2 3 APR 1985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Consideration of Organi.sols in volatile Organic Compound ( VOC)
Compliance Calculations
FROM: / Gerald A. Emison, Directoi
/U’t.Dffice of Air Quality Planning anc
TO: W. Ray Cunningham, Director
Air Management Division (3AMOO)
This is in response to your memorandum of March 29, 1985, requesting
guidance with regard to the inclusion of organisols in VOC compliance
caicul ations.
As defined in the “Glossary for Air Pollution Control of Industrial
Coating Operations,” EPA-450/3-83-013R, an organisol is “a thick coating
consisting of resin arrd plasticizers and some organic solvent which is
often used to coat flexible substances such as paper or fabrics. It is
similar to a plastisol except that an organisol contains more organic
solvent.”
It is our opinion that organisols should not be included in VOC
compliance calculations if the organisol was used in production prior to
the ozone State implementation plan control strategy baseline data. The
reason for this is that averaging such coatings in compliance calcula-
tions does not truly result in a reduction of VOC emissions that were
contemplated in the approved ozone control plan. The basic concept of an
ozone control strategy is that actual, not apparent, VOC reductions result
from its application and thereby lead to attainment of the national
amcient air quality standard.
For compliance purposes, if an organisol is employed to replace an
existing solvent coating that is used to produce the sane product, then
organisols can be included in compliance calculations. However compliance
credit can only be allowed to the extent that emission reductions exceed
the emission reductions achievable by the application of reasonably
available control technology to the solvent coating.
-------
2
.
It is hoped that this will meet your present need. If you have any
questions, please contact John Calcagni (629—5665) or Bill Polgiase (629—5516).
cc: Chief, Air Branch, Regions I—X
VOC Regulatory Contact, Regions I-X
VOC Enforcement Contact, Regions I—X
John Hanisch, Region I
John Rasnic, SSCD
Steve Hitte,SSCD
Jim Berry, OAQPS
-------
PN 172-85-07-02-051

“ ‘ ‘ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
..,
2 JUL S85
t ’ E MORANDUM
SUBJECT: Residual Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
Contained in Coating Line Products
FROM: A
TO: David Kee, Director
Air anagernent Division, Region V
This ma r ndurn is in response to your rie morandum of June 6. 1g85,
r9q Jesting guidance conc rriing retained VOC in products procuced on
reo’jlated coatinc lines.
Your n moraridum ess nti ally states that Region V is Dres ntlv revi e’.ii ng
tile Co Uaric. status c’f a vi .yl coatiflg ac’litv. They are spEc ica11
i ge , rirtin a 7coating of viny] hol stery mat ria] . The
ap iicaole State i pl ientation plan (SIP) regulation requires either a
naxi i o 4. pounds o V3C p r gallon of coating applied or an add—on
pcllution control systeri ‘• hich demonstrates 75 percent capture and 90
percent c3ntrol aevice efficiencies.
The source has done soiie preliminary testing on its vinyl coating
operations and through serendipity has discovered that their coated vinyl
product retains a significant portion of the VOC content from the applied
coating mixture (perhaps 20 percent by weight). The source contends that
the residual VOC is released from the substrate during inspection, storage,
and packaging for shipping. it is not collectible by the existing capture
equi ient associated with the coating line’s add-on control system and
should be excluded from the 75 percent capture efficiency re uire ent.
The source proposes to establish the amount of residual voc carried away
from the line in the coated product and deduct it from the VOC content of
the coating as applied. Compliance with the SIP requirements of 75
percent capture and 90 percent destruction would then be based upon this
modified (reduced) VOC content of the coating.
You are correct in your opinion that the control technique guidelines
(CTG’s) did not intend for such a credit to be allowed. When the GIG’s
ere being written, and as recently •as 1982 wnen tie new source performance
-------
2
It is hoped that this wifl meet your present need. Should you have
any questions, please contact Tom Helms or Bill Poiglase of my staff at
ETS 629-5516.
cc: Director, Air Division, Regions I, II , iV-X
Chief, Air Branch, Regions !-X
VOC Contacts, Regions I—X
S. Wyatt, ESED
3. Rasnic, SSCD
-------
Section 175: Grants
-------
Section 175: Grants
-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 175
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 175
* PN17S—79—02—12—004
REGIONAL OFFICE ASSISTANCE IN EXPEDITING HEADQUARTERS REVIEW OF SECTION
175 GRANT APPLICATIONS
* PN175—8O—04—23—006
IMPLEMENTATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 12185, CONSERVATION OF PETROLEUM AND
NATURAL GAS
* PN175—80—06—12—008
PROCEDURES FOR CONFORMANCE OF TRANSPORTATION PLANS, PROGRAMS AND
PROJECTS WITH CLEAN AIR ACT STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
* P11175—80—06—23—009
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN - TRANSPORTATION
REVISION PROCESS: EXPANDED GUIDELINES (FR CITATION)
-------
U.S. C’ • ii _ t tf ft-.; . .r .. n
and
U.S. Envfronrnental Protection Agency
PROCL DUR S FOR CONFORMANCE OF
TRANSPORTATION PLANS, PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS WITH
CLEAN AiR ACT STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
These procedures are to be applied to activities in nonattainment areas or portions
thereof, as designated under Section 107(d), Clean Air Act (CAA), where State
and local officials have determined under Section 174, CAA, that transportation
control measures ore needed to attain and maintain the national ambient air
quality standards for transportation-related pollutants. Section C of these procedures
provides for an exception to the appitcation of these procedures where revision
to a state implen entation plan (SIP) is found to be necessary.
Conformance - Section 176(c )
Conformance between transportation plans, programs and projects, and the SIP
is required by this section of the CAA. DOT has an affirmative responsibility
to assure the conformity of any activity ft supports, funds, or approves. Further,
Section 176(c) prohibits on MPO from giving its approval to any project, program
or plan that does not conform to the SIP. The conformity requirement applies
in all nonattainment and maintenance areas requiring transportation control
plans for transportation-related p01 lutants.
In such areas, transportation plans and programs will be judged in conformance
with the SIP If they do not adversely affect the transportation control measures
in the SIP and they contribute to reasonable progress in implementing the transportation
control measures contained in the SIP. .
A. Conformance of Transportation Plans”and Programs
Conformance of plans and programs will be determined and documented
by DOT (the UMTA and FHWA Regional and Division Administrators) as a
part of the certification arid transportation improvement program reviews.
These determinations will be based upon the following actions:
I. The MPO’s determination that the transportation plan and program
(TIP) adopted by the policy board are in conformance with the SIP;
2. The FI-iWA and UMTA finding that the urbart transportation planning
process effectively incorporates air quality objectives and procedures
required by adopted DOT/EPA guidelines iii the development of the
plan and program;
3. The FHWA and UMTA finding that coordination exists between air
quality arid transportation agencies, including a finding that the MPO
has met locally established procedures (developed pursuant to Sections
174 and 121, CAA) to integrate transportation and air luality ptcnning
prior to approval of the plan or program by the W 1 P0 policy board;
4. The advancement of cir quality planning tcsks included in the UPWP
in accordance with work programs contained in the SIP;
5. Tmely programming of trcnsportction measures contained in the
SIP by including these measures in the State 105 program approved
and funded by FH’. /A and the TIP/AE cpproved and funded by UMTA; cnd
-------
. -r: impi..i 1 nt iicn of irr 1 crftifk n measures e’i ned
in 5iP, cons; L t .vit i prior it>’ ri quired for thcse mcLsures
by Section 176(d) of the Clean Air Act and subject to the cvailability
of Federal funds.
The ,June l4, 1978, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between EPA and DOT
provides EPA an opportunity to jointly review and comment on conformity of
transportation plans and programs. When it is determined through the evaluation
of these actions that reasonable progress is not being made on transportation
planning or implementation commitments in the SIP, representatives of DOT
and EPA will meet with the affected State and local jurisdictions and agencies,
and regional planning organizations to discuss problem resolution before DOT
makes a final conformance determination. These discussions should focus upon,
as appropriate, accelerating implementation of transportation control projects
in the SIP and developing and implementing acceptable substitutes for delayed
projects.
Once the evaluation has been completed (including the joint DOT/EPA meeting
with State and local representatives, where necessary) and DOT determines that
an area’s plan or program does not conform to the SIP, transportation program
approvals will be limited in the area to preliminary engineering and environmental
impact studies, advanced ROW purchases involving hardship cases, and those
actions that are exempt from sanctions under Section 176(a), CAA as defined
in the policy and procedures on Federal assistance limitations ( Federal
Register/Vol. 45, No. 71/Thursday, April 10, 1980) until the deficiences are corrected
and a conformance ffnding is mode.
B. Conformance of Transportation Projects
A project conforms to on SIP if:
I. it is a transportation control h,easure from the SIP (should the project
be specifically included in the SIP, no separate conformance finding
need be made); or
2. it comes from a conforming transportation improvement program;
or
3. it is a project, exempt from transportation mprovement program
requirements, which does not adversely affect the transportation
control measures in the approved SIP. Exempt projects ore those
Primary and Interstate safety projects included in the Statewide safety
improvement program instead of the TIP and emergency relief, control
of junkyards and outdoor advertising, and pavement marking demonstr t ton
proj ec ts
However, after adoption of a final EIS or after a formal finding or determination
that a project will involve no significant environmental impact, a project
will not be subject to further conformity review unless:
I. a Supplemental EIS significantly related to air qticlity considerations
is undertaken; or
2. a SIP revision is requested in which case the procedures in C (below)
would be followed; or
3. major steps toward implementation of the project (such as the start
of construction or substantial acquisition and relocation activities)
have not commenced within three years from the date of cpproval
of the final EIS.
S
-------
C. i.iity During ‘ h qu nt SIP evisicns
I. EPA Activities
There may be situations that would cause EPA to require the SIP
to be revised. The revisions may add transportation control measures
to on SIP which previously had none or increase the emission reduction
responsibility of the transportation sector. The EPA will determine
the need for SIP revisions based upon its review of the reasonable
further progress (RFP) schedule in the SIP and the degree to which
the schedule is being met. Some of the situations which could affect
the meeting of the RFP schedule are
a. incorrect assumptions on growth rates and travel demand;
b. overly optimistic expectations of stationary source controls,
vehicle inspection and maintenance programs, or transportation
control measures; and
c. inability to implement some portion(s) of the SIP.
By publication in the Federal Register , EPA will notify FHWA, UMTA,
and the public when on SIP revision has been requested.
The EPA intends to require all of the current SiP’s (where carbon
monoxide and ozone are major concerns) to contain a contingency
provision which would apply when monitoring of progress reporting
indicates that reasonable further progress toward attainment of air
quality standards is not being.maintained and EPA determines the
SIP must be revised. For cre s over 200,000 population the contingency
provision in the SIP should ii iclude a locally developed list of projects
which implementing agencies have greed can be delayed during on
interim period while an SIP is being revised.
2. DOT Activities
After notification by EPA that an SIP revision has been requested,
and for a twelve-month period thereafter or until the SIP is formally
revised, whichever is shorter, the DOT will not authorize construction
of any project contained in the SIP contingency provision list unless
it is a project exempt from sanctions under Section 176(o), CAA.
D. ft Iationship to Consistency Requirement
The DOT, in consultation with EPA, has determined that the conformance
finding between transportation plans, programs and projects and an approved
or promulgated SIP also meets the consistency requirement of 23 U.S.C.
lC (j) and 23 CFR 770. This finding will henceforth apply only in nonattairr t
ard mointenonce areas requiring trcnsportation control measures for tron p .rtr]tc.-.-
related poliuta ’its. Conformity procedures will be incorporated expeditiot.s y
into the joint urban planning regulations (23 ‘FR 450 and 49 CFR 613) and
e wironmental directives.
3
-------
r’ric.rity— l7 (d )
Section 176(d), CAA, requires Federal agencies with authority to support or fund
transportation-related activities to give priority to implementing the transportation
control mcasures in the SIP. In accordance with the Conformance Section of
this memorondum, a conformity determination of the transportation program
cannot be made unless the program contributes to reasonable progress in implementi
the transportation control measures in the SIP. In this respect, the conformance
and priority requirements are clearly related, and priority for air quality-related
projects should be assured through the conformance procedures.
The FHWA will meet this requirement through implementation of the Federal-
Aid Program Approval and Project Authorization regulations, 23 CFR 630,
Subpart A, which provide for FHWA review and approval of programs and projects.
A review of progress will be mode by FHWA at the time of TIP/AE review and
annual program of projects approval.
The UMTA will meet this requirement through the TIP/AE review and approval
process under 49 FR 613. Air quality projects are to be given significant emphasis
by MPO’s in developing the TIP/AE and by UMTA in its approval of the TIPIAE.
A review of implementation progress will be made by UMIA at the time of TIP/AE.
review and approval, and will be addressed specifically in UMTA’s TIP review
memorandum. The DOT and EPA Regional/Division representatives will negotiate
procedures for insuring that EPA receives copies of these progress reviews and
approval documents.
The June 1978 EPA-DOT MOU provides the EPA Regional Administrator with
on opport .inity to review the TIPIAE at the time it is forwarded by a State or
local agency for Federal agency action. If the EPA Regional Administrator determii
that the TIP/AE does not contribute to reasonable progress in implementing transpor
measures in the SIP, he will submit recgmn endations to the DOT Regional/Division
representatives for remedial or alternative action. The DOT will explicitly consider
EPA ’s comments and notify EPA of, the disposition of its comments before acting
on the TIP/AE.
Similarly, under the June 1978 MOU, DOT Regional/Division representatives
will be provided an opportunity to review the SIP at the time it is forwarded
to EPA 4cr approval. In light of the priority requirement in Section 176(d) DOT
review of the SIP should consider the projected availability of Federal resources
to meet transportation commitments in the SIP and also meet other priorities
or obligations.
Where other priorities are a consideration, non-SIP transportation measures can
be funded or implemented to meet these obligations. However, SiP-related transportation
measures must retain a high priority and funding decisions must promote timely
implementation of SIP measures to the extent that funds are available.
Date: June 12. 8O’
. a
I
I . - • _ — ‘ ,-• -.-..-‘--
Donald F. az.ziotti David G. Hcwkins
Deputy Assistant $ecrè tary for Assistcnt Administrator for Air, oise
Policy and International Affairs and Radiation
Department of Transportation Environmental Protection Açeicy
11
-------
PM 175-7g-O2-1’ _nn
i O
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
____ W, SH NGTQN CC ao4 o

FEB 12, 1979
OFFICE OF
AIR, NOISE. AMO RADIATiON
COPY
SUBJECT: Regional Office Assistance in Expediting Headquarters
Review of Section 175 Grant Applications
FROM: Gary C. Hawthorn, Chief [ original signed by]
Transportation Policy Branch
THRU: John 0. Hidinger, Director
Office of Transcortatjon and Land
Use Policy
MEMO TO: Air & Hazardous Materials Division
Directors, Regions [ -X
Air & Hazardous Materials Branch
Chiefs, Regions r—x
Transportation Contacts, Regions t-X.
1. Background : The DOT-ERA Interacency Agreement of
November 3, 1973 (see Appendix B of December 26, 1978 Pederal
Reaister (FR) notice on Urban Air Quality Plannina Grerts) de ines
the respective roles of EPA and UMTA in administering section 175
funds. This memorandum does not modify the roles of EP4 and .MTA
Regional Offices as provided for n the Interagency Agreement.
Rather, this memorandum orovides additional, clarifying information
on the specific roles of EPA and JMTA headquarters in the section 175
grants management process.
2. UMTA’s planning grant procedures require that all section
175 planning grants and work programs for large cities (with over cne
million population) be reviewed by UMTA headquarters and signed by
the UMIA Administrator. This required review by UMTA headquarters
can add approximately two to three weeks to the total time for grant
processing and aoproval. In carrying out OTLUP 1 s program responsi-
bilities, the Transportation Policy Branch will particioate in -— and
work to expedite -— this headquarters review. My staff will review
the proposed scope of work and budget to insure conformity with the
current UPWP, the EPA-DOT Transportation—Air Quality Planning
Guidelines, and the EPA—DOT Federal Register on Urban Air Quality
Planning.
3. EPA and UNTA Regional Off cas can help expedite
headquartersl review by insuring that secition 175 grant aoolications
provide the information required in the December 26, 1978 FR notice.
-------
Lead ageicies should be stronaly encouraged to oreoare t ’e crant
aoolication witn the R notice in nand. The most expeditious
headquarters’ review can be conducted when:
(1) The aDolication explicitly orovides information for
each item required in section H, “Apolication
Procedures.’
(2) The eligible priority activities in section F are
explicitly discussed and described in the UPIIP (upon
which the grant aoplication is based) — Generally, the
init ial grant falls into one of two categories:
(a) where the initial grant application is for a
multiple year work orogram of activities
leading to an approvable SIP, section F
activities to be conducted during the first
year should be described and costed in some
detail. The remaining section F activities
to be undertaken in subsequent years should
be generally described and roughly costed.
Activities listed in section F that are
omitted in the application and those
included in the apolication but not con-
contained in sect on F sheuld be discussed
in more detail.
(b) where the initial grant is primarily for
development of a multiple year work program,
each section F activity need not be
discussed and described. However, in this
situation the second grant for a multiple
year work prooram of activities should
contain a discussion and description of each
section F measure as described in (a)
above.
Headquarters’ review will be lengthened considerably when this
required information is either missing or difficult to find.
4. When necessary, headquarters may also review work programs
and grant applications for smaller cities (with population less than
1,000,000) to insure conformity with the UPWP, the EPA/DOT
Transportation/Air Quality Planning Guidelines, and the EPA/DOT
Federal Register on Urban Air Quality Planning.
5. Questions on this memorandum should be directed to either
Gary Hawthorn or Len Fieckensteiri (755—0603).
cc: David Hawkins
Ed Tuerk
Walt Barber
Steve Kuhrtz
J m Getzewich
-------
COPY PN 175-80-04-23-006
APR 23, 1980
SUB iECT: Implementation of Executive Order 12185, Conservation
of Petroleum and Natural Gas
FROM: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation (ANR—443) Original signed byj
TO: Air and Hazardous Materials Division Directors, Regions
I—x
BAC (GROUN0
On December 17, 1979 President Carter signed Executive Order
12185, a copy of which is attached, encouraging the additional
conservation of petroleum and natural gas y recipients of
federal financial assistance. An interagency effort coordinated
by White House staff was initiated to implement the order.
On February 7, 1980 the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and other federal agencies oublished in the Federal
Register (45 FR 853 ) a list of federal assistance programs that
may offer opportunities for enercy conservation. Since that time
the White House coordinators have requested the identification of
changes in regulations and other actions to assure that the
assistance orograrns do contribute to energy conservation. These
changes in regulations nd other actions will be announced in the
Federal Register in May 1980.
ENERGY C0 4SERVATION FROM EPA ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
The EPA response to the White House indicated that
administrative actions can be used to assure that energy
conservation Is adequately considered by recipients of section
175 and 105 grants and that rio changes in regulations are
necessary. The actions that were identified for the two grant
programs are described below.
I urge each of you to consider these and other actions that
will result In energy conservation when you negotiate grants with
state and local governments. I know that several regional
offices nave already identified energy conservation initiatives
-------
-2—
in response to the March 13, 1980 memorandum from the
Administrator and Deputy Administrator. If you have any
questions about the actions listed below, please call Jerry
Kurtzweg at 755-0570.
SECTION 105 CONTROL AGENCY CRAFTS
The annual EPA operating guidance already identifies a
number of energy related activities including:
- vehicle inspection and maintenance programs
- fuel conversions
- permitting of energy facilities
EPA headquarters staff will evaluate the portion of the agency
guidance setting priorities for section 105 grants to determine
whether any revised or supplementary guidance is necessary to
implement Executive Order 12185. Any additional guidance
result from the evaluation will be sent to regional offices by
mid-May 1980.
Energy conservation considerations will be incorporated in
the requirements for future state implementation plan revisions.
Additional emphasis will be placed on the requirement of section
172(b)(9) of the Clean Air Act for identification and analysis of
energy and other effects of plan revisions.
SECTION 175 URBAN AIR QUALITY PLANNING GRANTS
Identification of the energy implications of air quality
plan elements was explicitly identified in the March 6, 1980
Federal Register notice of funds availability as an activity
eligible for funding. Regioiial offices should assure that the
work programs prepared by grant applicants adequately provide for
energy assessments. Energy assessments should receive high
priority in allocating any discretionary funds that regional
offices may have.
Attachment
cc: Ed Tuerk
Walt Barber
Steve Kuhrtz
Chris Palmer
Bob Fuhrman
Air Branch Chiefs
-------
PN 175-80-06-23-009
In order to conserve space, the Federal Register notice entitled:
Public Participation in the State Implementation Plan —
Transportation Revision Process: Expanded Guidelines
(45 FR 42023, June 23, 1980)
is not included in the Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebooks Please
refer to this notice for EPA policy/guidance related to this subject.
-------
Section 176: Limitations on Certain Federal
Assistance
-------
Section 176: Limitations on Certain Federal
Assistance
-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAHS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 176
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 176
* PN176—79—06—08-O01
IMPACT OF CLEAN AIR ACT NONATTAINNENT SANCTIONS
-------
S?4 ,
d . •JNITED ST ES NV RCNMENTI L FRO ECT1CN GENC”
N 3r INGTCN 0 C 2O O
PN-176- 79-06-OS-oOi
0F lC! 3
JUN 8 1979 - A , NOISE.
SUBJECT: Impact of Clean Air Act Monattainment Sanctions
FROM: Oavid 0. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator ) \
for Air, Noise and Radiation (ANR443) ‘
MEMO TO: Regional Administrator, Regions I—X
There is substantial concern and confusion over what will happen to
new construction on July 1, 1979, if States have not by then satisfied
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) requirements of Part 0 of Title I of
the Clean Air Act. Regional Administrators should take action to inform
the States and the concerned public that, although very few State plans
will have been approved y July 1, construction of major air pollution
sources will not stop as of that date. Zn addition, there will be no
immeolats c rtaiiment of State program grants or other Federal funds.
In fact. I do not expect major disruptions of inaustrial or State
activities where States are making reasonable and expecitious efforts
toward sucmittin an approvable State Implementation Plan revision.
This memorandum sets forth Agency policy and prccedures —egarding
the uiy 1, l97 sanctions. Three main tocics are addressed:
Construction Prohibiticns (permit processing, sources affected and geo-
grapnic a plicaoiiizy); SI? Aoorovals (area specific acoroval , condit cnal
aporoval, and area redesignatlan); and Federal Fund ng Sanct ons (dii—
cret onary aspects).
Summary
The imcosition of the Clean Air Act sanctions depends on whether by
July 1, 1979, a State has an approved State Imolernentation Plan that
meets the requirements of Part D of the Act. The first steo in this SIP
approval process involves State development and submission of a State
plan. The EPA Regional Office then evaluates the submitted plan and
publishes in the Federal P.ecister a proposal for final action on the
State plan. This starts a 30-to—60-day period for cublic comment.
After reviewing the comments. the EPA Administrator will take final
ac:icn. Final action Will COflSiSt of one or a comoination of the fcil:wi
ac: ons: acoroval of the nonattainment Dian as a whole, aoroval of the
olan for goecif c areas, conditional aoproval o the plan, isapproval_
3f the ian as a whci , or disaooroval or a:acific areas. ost States
iil not nave final a Drovais on Jul’i 1. cwever, tiouch areas
uoject to sanct ons are oefined based an their sta:us an July I, tre
imoect of the sanct cns in those areas is nct immediate.
-------
2
The Act establishes two kinos of sanctions——new major source
construction sanctions and funding sanctions for Feder3l orcgronis and
facilities. The construction prohibition sanction oecomes acoiicable on
July 1, and remains in effect until a final Federal Pecister notice is
issued approving or conditionally approving the SIP for the area in
question. The construction prohibition applies’only to permits applied
for after June 30, 1979. Because a typical permit requires approximately
three months for processing, it is unlikely that this sanction would
have any impact until Septemoer or October 1979. Also, although the
administrative process for Federal funding sanctions must begin on
July 1 for the Section 176 transportation and air pollution control
related funds, actual withholding will not occur for at least
two to four months after July 1. Any discretionary withholding of
sewage treatment construction funds under Section 316 will not cccur for
at least the same length of time.
Construction Prohibitions
The Clean Air Act’s prohibition against construction aoplies to a
major new or modified source for which a complete permit apolication is
submitted to the aermit review agency after June 30, 1979. Therefore,
any complete permit application postmarked or received on or before
June 30, 1979 will not be subject to any construction prchibition.* The
permit review agency may process all such permit applications received
on or before June 30, l 79. No source which receives sucn a oermit and
whicn commences on a program of continuous construction will be subject
to the conszructicn sanction.
After June 30, 1979, sources may continue to submit New Source
Review oermit apolications to the permit review agency. The submission
of a permit application will enable the review agency to process the
permit so that administrative time is not lost while a State nonattainment
plan is being reviewed. Because the administrative time for reviewing a
major source can take three months or longer, in many cases, we expect
to have SiPs approved by the time the major source permit would itself
be ready for approval. if any State intends to issue a permit to a
source to which the construction prohibition applies, the permit must
contain a condition which prohibits construction until SIP approval is
obtained. For a source to be able to construct as soon as a SI? is
approved, the permit conditions would have to be consistent with the
requirements that are eventually approved in the sip.
The EPA Regional Offices will continue to crocess and issue PSO
permits (under 40 CFR 52.21, Regulations for the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of Air Quality) even while awaiting receipt or aporoval of
n’jnattainment SIP revisions. A PSD permit is required whenever a major
* When an aeplicant can show a reasonaole and cood faith effort to
submit all information rtecessary ftr permit issuance, the ermitting
authority may consider a substantially comoleta permit application
as adequate to avoid the prohibition against construction.
-------
s: rca, ( eflned for °SJ purposes at O CFR 2.2l(b)), impacts an ;rea
with air quality better than N AQS. This affects sources both inside
and outside designated nonattainrnent areas. When a ?SD source wifl be
subject to the Part 0 prohibition against construction the EPA-issued
PSO permit will be conditional. A permit condition will be included
which will make the following statement:
This source will significantly irnoact a norattainment proble.’n
in an area currently designated as violat 4 ig the National
Ambi ’” Mr Quality Standard for _________, and for which
the Clean Air Act currently prohibits construction of this
source until a State submits and receives approval of a
State trnplementation Plan which meets the requirements of
Part 0 of the Act. This permit is issued conditional on
your receipt of an appropriate State permit issued pursuant
to regulations approved by the Administrator as meeting
the requirements of Part 0 cf the Clean Air Act. Source
construction is prohibited until the State tniplementation
Plan is approved by the Adriinistrator as meeting such
requirements for the nonattainment area that this Source
will impact. You will be notified by mail when the necessar,
State regulations have been aporoved.
The construction rchibition aoolies only to major sources as
cefined in Section 302 of the Act. Smaller sources are rot affectec.
Furthermore, the construc:ion prohibition apolias oniy to a SourCe at
would be a majcr source or major modificat on for tme specific pollutant
or which the area as designatec as a ncnattainment area arid ror wnic’
the plan remains inadequate. For instance, a new olant which is a ma;or
source of particulate matter only and which oroposes to construct in a
designated sulfur dioxide nonattainment area is not affected by the
construction prohibition.
The construction prohibition affects any major new or modified
source that would cause or contribute to a National Amoient Air Quality
Standard violation in the designated nonattainment area within the State
in which the source proposes to locate. EPA believes that this prohibition
applies, as a matter of law, to sources whose permits are applied for
after June 30, 1979. The Administrator is expected to publish a ruling
to this effect in the Federal Recister in the near future. A major
source that would cause a new NAAQS violation outside of a designated
nonattainment area or that would significantly contribute to a NAAOS
v oiation only in anot er State is suo ec: to : e Offset nter:r2ta: ve
ulina of January 15, 197? ( FR 327 ) but is not suoject to a construc:ion
rohb’ t on.
-------
4
The Agency intends to propose, in the Federal Register , that
the Part D prohibition on construction should apoly equally for sources
outside designated nonattainrnent areas as it applies to a major source
locating inside a designated nonattainment area. EPA will also propose
that only sources with a significant impact on a violation be subject
to the construction prohibition. A source will generally be considered
to contribute significantly to a IAAQS violation if its modeled impacts
exceed the significance levels found in the Offset Interpretative Ruling
of January 16, 1979 (44 FR 3274, at 3283). However, any major source of
a designated nonattainment pollutant that proposes to locate at a site
already violating AAQS within the designated nonattainment area is
presumed to contribute significantly to the violation without regard to
modeled impacts. The rule would be proposed to apoly to a new or riodified
source if the permit application for the source is submitted after
June 30, 1979. The construction prohibition would apply to an major
source outside a designated nonattainment area if the source would
significantly contribute to a NAAQS violation within a designated non—
attainment area.
State Imolementation Plan Aoprcvals
Source soecific and area specific impacts of the Part 0 sanctions
are discussed above. This next section addresses Federal eciszer
actions that alleviate sanction imposition: area specific SI?
a provals, conditional SIP approvals, and nonattainment area redesig—
nations. First, however, a summary of relevant Federal eoistar actions
is appropriate.
A list of nonatzainment areas was published March 3, 1973 in the
Federal e ister (43 FR 962). A number of modifications nave been
‘ia e or proposed for changes to the initial listing. SIP aporovaoility
guidance was published in the Federal Re istar on May 19, 1978 (43 FR
21673) and February 9, 1979 (44 FR 8311). The General Preamble for
p oposed rulemaking on the approval of plan revisions for nonattainment
areas was published April 4, 1979 ( FR 20372).
Once a State plan for a designated nonattainment area is approved
as meeting Part D requirements, the construction or funding sanctions
that would or may have taken effect after June 30, 1979 no longer apply.
The Agency will approve SIP revisions for any portion of the State or
nonattainment area where the revisions meet the recuirements of
Part 0 of the Act. Thus, a State plan sucmiss on for several desig-
nated nonattainmeit areas may be approved while plan ceveiopment or
-------
S
approval may still be underway for other areas. This would in effect be
an area specific approval of the SIP, as revisions for other areas would
remain necessary. Sanctions would only affect those areas for which the
plan remains inadequate. Thus, if there are three designated SO,
nonattajnrnent areas and SIP revisions are agproved for two, the Part D
sanctions apply only with regard to the remaining nonattainment area.
Where appropriate, the Agency intends to grant conditional approvals
of SIP revisions. A SIP containing minor deficl icies will be approved
on the condi ...on that the State submit corrections by a specified date.
A conditional approval would not result in sanctions unless the State
failed to submit corrCctions by the sDecified date, or unless the corrections
were ultimately determined to be inadequate. However, prooosinc in the
Federal egister to conditionally approve a SIP does not act to alie ’ iate
Part D sanctions. The recuired imposition of Part 0 sanctions ends only
with final SIP aooroval or conditional aporoval. Conditional approval
,qill not 5e grantee without strong assurance by• the appropriate State
officials that the deficiences will be corrected. The form of this
assurance may vary from State to State, but it must nevertheless re resent
a commitment cn the part of the State. A conditional aporoval will
require specific schedules for correctinc deficiencas.
Another mechanism that would act to alleviate the Part C sanctions
is that of revising a previous designation of ncna:tainment. ifl developinc
a S P revision r3r a designated nonattainment area, the State may
cetermine tna: the existing designation is inaporopriate. f this
occurs, the State may submit to EPA a revised desicnat on with supporting
material. Until ?A finds the revised designation acceotable and
romulgates it, the July 1 deadline ccr aooroval of a SIP revision
satisfying ? rt C, and the attendant sanctions, will continue to apoly.
However, the SI? submittal may simply demonstrate that the standard is
attained and that no additional emission reouctiöns or preconstruction
review requirements need to be included n the SI?. Also, a source is
exempt if in fact it would not cause or contribute to a violation,
recardless of the applicable designation.
Federal Fundinc Sanctions
Air pollution control program crants, Federal highway funds, and
wastewater treatment fecil ty grants do not immediately stop as of
July 1, 1979, wnere caattainment 5? revisions have not Deen aoorovec.
equired and authorized restrictions on grants and funds where Si? are
inadequate are found in Sections l76( ) and 516 of the Act.
-------
:a - i f rc n ita:i:i eL ec ‘ ‘I ‘ •‘‘ T1 t?
aopl ied if the EPA finds after July 1, 197 , that t.he cvericr has not
submitted, or is not making reasonable efforts to submit, a SIP which
considers each of the elements required by Section 172 of the Act. The
EPA is authorized to make the same finding with respect to the 1982 SIP
revisions required in areas that cannot attain 4ationa1 Ambient Air
Quality Standards by 1982. In cases where a finding is made by EPA,
project approvals and grants authorized by Title 23 (Highways), United
States Code, and the Clean Air Act must be withheld from air quality
control reglon where transportation control measures are needed to
attain NAAQS. An exception to this Federal assistance limitation is
that safety, mass transit, and transportation improvement projects
related to air quality attainment or maintenance may be approved and
funded.
EPA and the Deoartment of Transportation (DOT) are preparing a
Federal Register notice proposing policy and procedures for applying
Federal assistance limitations in Section 175(a). Public comment will
be invited and considered in finalizing the policy. EPA will propose to
make case—by—case determinations of good faith efforts based on the
State 1 s efforts to submit a SIP satisfying pertinent guidance issued by
E?A. hegotiations with affected State and local agencies will orecede
any decision to aoply fundinc limitations. EPA intends to prooose
initial Section 176(a) findings between Septemoer 1 and October 31, 1979
in the Federal Reoister and invite public comment prior to promulgating
a final list of affected areas. However, the funding limitations would
be effective on the date of publication of the oroposed list. Removal
of funding limitations will also be done through Federal egister
publication and an ooportunity for public comment will be proviced prior
to final action.
Section 316 of the Act provides that the Administrator may condition,
restrict or withhold EPA grants for the construction of sewage treatment
works in any area where a SIP has not been approved or where the SIP
does not account for the direct or indirect emissions from the treatment
works. Unlike the new source construction prohibition, the implementation
of any action pursuant to Section 315 is not mandatory on July 1, but is
at the discretion of the Administrator. EPA is preparing a Federal
Register notice inviting public conunent on the development of an administrative
mechanism to implement the provisions of Section 316. The interim
policy for the implementation of Section 316, while revisions to existing
construction grant regulations are being completed, will be proposed in
July. Further guidance on this matter will be forthcoming in the next
several weeks.
Any decision to stop grant funding under any provision of the Act
will be made only after coordination among the egional Office, Heedouarters,
and affected State and local acenc es.
-------
7
Federal Reaister Notice
In order to assure thorough dissemination of Agency policy and
procedures regarding the requirements and impacts of Part 0 of the Acts
I an having this memorandum published in the Federal Register .
cc: The Administrator
M. Durning
J. Bernstein
W. Barber
Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions tX
-------
c9 c /
-------
Section 301: Administration
-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 301
(VOLUME 1)
* * CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 301
* P 14301 —81—01 —20—001
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REGIONAL CONSISTENCY REGULATIONS
-------
L: TED •E ‘lP E TJ- L R0TECTI0 i ’ PN30181120001
cç Researcr Tr dng e Pàr, Norfh Carolina 2771h1
I:. e’i:ation of the Regional Consistency Regulations
arber, Director /
Office of Air Quality Planfling and Standards (MD 10)
TO Addressees
This is to relate our interpretation of actions EPA must perform to
implement the Regional Consistency Regulations required by the Clean Air
Act. The Administrator promulgated these regulations on December 24, 1980;
they will become effective on February 23, 1981. Attached is a copy of
the regulations. They formalize EPA’s commitment to Regional Consistency,
and specify procedures for Regional and Headquarters cooperation to
achieve a more consistent national implementation of the Clean Air Act.
The major provisions of the regulations that require action by EPA
elements are discussed below:
1. Mechanisms for fairness and uniformity--Responsibilities
of Headquarters employees (S56.4) . This section requires that any rule
or regulation proposed or promulgated under Parts 51 and 58 must provide
mechanisms for fairness and uniformity. If a mechanism is not included,
it must be explained in the preamble or relevant docket. Since the
regulation is effective February 23, 1981, EPA has time to begin incorporating
appropriate mechanisms into regulations under development. Mechanisms
may include administrative procedures (including workshops), guidelines,
manuals or written statements. Thus, this portion of the regulations
requires Headquarters Offices (OANR, OGC, and OPM) to develop appropriate
mechanisms for use by the Regional Offices.
2. Mechanisms for fairness and uniformity--Responsibilities
of Regional Office employees (S56.5) . In Section S56.5, EPA promises to
carry out the C’ ea Ai.r Act fairly and consistently. This section
requires Regional Offices to seek concurrence from appropriate EPA
Headquarters Offices on interpretations of the Act, rules, regulations,
or program directives when such interpretations may result in inconsistent
applications. In addition, this section states, “Where regulatory
actions may involve inconsistent application of the requirements of the
Act, the Regional Offices shall classify such actions as special
action. ” We are currently revising the SIP processing guideline entitled
“Revisions to State Implementation Plans-—Procedures for Approval/Disapproval
Actions,” OAQPS No. l.2-OO5A, to incorporate this requirement. The
Regional Offices will determine when to seek concurrences or use the
special action classification for these situations. At present, we do
not envision formal procedures to record how the Regional Offices implement
these requirements. Dr. Bern Steigerwald, Director of my Regional
Programs staff, will monitor this requirement.
EPA Form 1320.6 (Rev 3-76)
-------
.7
L
3. Dissemination of policy and guidance (S56.6) . This section
requires the Assistant Administrators of the Offices of Air, Noise, and
Radiation; Enforcement; ard the General Counsel to develop by February 23, 1982,
syste ’s for disseminating po icy and guidance. OANR has prepared an
Air Programs Policy and Gu cance Notebook” to meet its portion of this
requirement. OANR sends the Notebook, along with periodic updates to
EPA Heaaquarters, Regional Offices, and State and local agencies. For
additional information on this notebook, please contact Bruce Hogarth at
(FTS) 629-5437. Enforcement and OGC may wish to consider a similar
system to meet their responsibilities under the regulations.
4. State agency performance audits (S56.7) . This section requires
Regional Administrators to make evaluation reports required by S35.538
of the Program Grants regulations available to the public. They must be
made available within 60 days after comment is due from each State.
Section 35.538-2 states that “no later than 150 days prior to the beginning
of a new budget period.. .“, the evaluation report must be prepared, and
forwarded to the grantee, who has 15 days to reply. Thus, if the
evaluation report reaches the grantee on May 1 (150 days before October 1)
the notice of availability of the evaluation report must appear in the
Federal Register by July 15. It is apparent that provisions for such a
system should be integrated with the State-EPA agreements and grant
negotiation and cannot reasonably be initiated mid-way through the year.
Therefore, this portion of the consistency regulations will begin with
the current planning cycle, and the first evaluation reports will be
made available to the public on July 15, 1982.
Of these four provisions, the evaluation report will require the
most additional effort by the Regions and changes to existing procedures.
The consistency regulations have been designed to build on what is
currently being done in an attempt to minimize new efforts. The workload
models for FY 1982 are being modified to recognize the additional resources
needed to implement the consistency regulations.
We are aware that all the Regional Offices conduct evaluations of
State programs. However, there is little uniformity in coverage or in
how these evaluations are documented and generally no notice of availability
to the general public. In addition to the current reports, it probably
will be necessary to undertake an in-depth consistency review in one or
two program areas. It is my intention to select areas that already
require strong EPA overview and, therefore, should have information
systems in place and Regional resources already devoted to it. For FY
1982, consideration is being given to detailed evaluation reports on new
source review and major source enforcement to augment the regular program
evaluation made under the grant regulations.
I would appreciate your ideas for implementing these regulations.
We will be contacting Headquarters groups within the next few weeks to
-------
3
discuss . tn you the provisions for information dissemination and mechanisms
for fairness and uniformity. Later we will contact the Regions in order
to deteri—ine a final course of action on the performance audits of State
aoencies anc the guidance necessary to implement it in FY 1982. If you
have ar questions, please contact Joseph Sableski of my staff at (FTS) 629-5437.
Attachment
Addressees:
Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
The General Counsel
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
CC: Ed Tuerk, OANR
John 1-lidinger, OTLUP
Henry Beal, OPM
Tom Helms, CPDD
Brenda Greene, ORL
Don Goodwin, ESED
Joseph Padgett, SASD
Richard Rhoads, MDAD
Darryl Tyler, CPDD
Deborah Taylor, OPM
Joseph Sableski, CPDD
-------