Clean Air Act
Compliance
Enforcement
Policy
Compendium
1988 ed.
Volume 1

-------
August 17, 1993
l’ 1ORANDUM
TO: Pat Strougal
ORC Law Library
EPA- Region IV
FROM: Angela Berry
Law Clerk for Tiff
RE: Updates for the Claen Air Act
Compliance/Enforcement Policy Compendium
Here are the documents you requested in addition to the latest
updates since May 21, 1991. If you need anything else, please do
not hesitate to call me at (202) 260-3840 or Tiffany Schauer at
(202) 260-6781.

-------
              UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460


                            MAY 2 2 1991
                                                    OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:  Updating the Clean Air Act  Policy  Compendium
FROM:     Michael S. Alushin
          Associate Enforcement Counsel
            for Air

TO :       Addressees
     .The. purpose of this memo  is  to  ask  for  your inpulpon
revisions to the Clean Air Act Policy  Compendium.   It"nas been
nearly two years since the entire compendium has been updated.
As you know, in the interim the Clean  Air  Act was amended.  As a
result of the Amendments, various policies will need to be
revised.  Several policies may need  to be  added or deleted.   We
would like you to suggest policies which you think should be
added to or deleted from the compendium  and  which need to be
changed .

     To ensure that we are all reviewing the same compendium
(i.e., we all have the same documents  in all the proper places),
I have attached an updated version of  the  Table of Contents.  I
have also made a list  (below)  of  several policies that the Air
Enforcement Division has issued since  the  last partial update in
December 1989:

1.   Clarification of EPA NESHAP  Policy  -  Nonfriable Asbestos
     (February 23, 1990)
          — file at Part D, document  #11

2.   Inclusion of CERCLA Section  103 (a)  Counts in Asbestos Cases
     (June 5, 1990)
          — file at Part D, document
     Penalty Policy  for  Production or Importation in Violation of
     40 C.F.R. Part -83 of  Substances  that Deplete the
     Stratospheric Ozone (November 2,  1990)
          — file at Appendix  VIII to Part E,  document #30

     Revised Guidance on Enforcement  During Pending State
     Implementation  Plan Revisions (March 1,  1991)
          — file at Part  E, document #32
                                                            Proud on Ktcycled Paper

-------
     We would like to have a contact person in each region for
the purpose of coordinating updates of the compendium.  ,W_e_can
discuss who the contacts will be at the next air branch chiefs
riteeting, which will be in Ann Arbor on June 4, 1991.
    /?• -~  -  -*-.'-''-"  '  —j
    /Please direct your comments and questions about this memo
      ,e compendium to Rosemarie Kelley of my staff at n
Attachment
Addressees

Regional Counsels
Regions I-X

Air Branch Chiefs/Team Leaders
Office of Regional Counsel
Regions I-X

Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II

Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, and IX

Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V

Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division Directors
Regions IV and VI

Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII, and X

Air Compliance Branch Chiefs
Regions I-X

John B. Rasnic, Acting Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division

Alan Eckert
Air and Radiation Division
Office of General Counsel
cc:  Air Enforcement Division

-------
J _ .e P
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
L ,qQltC
HAY 4 9
OFFICE OF E’4FORCEME ,r
A40 COMPLIANCE
MONITORING
SUBJECT: The Revised Clean Air Coapliance/Enf cement Policy
I ‘ROM: -
Associate Enforcement Counsel
Air Enforcement Division
TO: Addressees
On August 16, 1988, my office notified you of our intention
to update the Clean Air Act Compliance/Enforcement Policy
Compendium (the “compendium”). We have good news and bad news:
we did update the compendium, making significant revisions to
the table of contents (be sure to read the attached explanation).
The bad news is that we ran into a printing problem and cannot
supply you with all the copies you requested.
Please remember that the following documents contain
privileged information which should not be made available to the
public:
Part D. document #3
Enforcement of National Emissions Attachment 1
Standard for Vinyl Chloride (06/28/83)
Part D. document #5
Vinyl Chloride Enforcement Strategy Table 5
(07/11/84)
Part D. document #10
Interim Asbestos NESHAP Enforcement Memorandum only
Guidance — “Friable asbestos” 1% by Area
or Volume vs. 1% by Weight (04/18/89)

-------
—2—
We hop. to continue to update the compendium in the future
and will keep you informed. If you have any questions, please
contact Juetina Pugh, attorney, at FTS 382-2864.
Attachments
Addressees:
Susan Studlien
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. EPA - Region I
2003 JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
David Stone
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. EPA - Region II
Room 437
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Marcia Mulkey
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. EPA - Region III
841 Chestnut Street Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Cheryn Jones
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. EPA - Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30365
Kimberly Hammond (5CA-TUB-3)
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. EPA — Region V
111 W. Jackson, Third Floor
Chicago, IL 60604
Barbara Greenfield
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. EPA - Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
Becky Ingrum Dolph
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. EPA — Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
Bob O’Meara (APC-2311)
State Air Programs Branch
U.S. EPA — Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02114
Ken Eng
Air Compliance Branch
U.S. EPA - Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Sally Ann Brooks (3AM20)
Air Enforcement Branch
U.S. EPA — Region III
841 Chestnut Street Buildi
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Roger Pfaff, Chief
Air Compliance Branch
U.S. EPA - Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
George Hurt (5AC26)
Air Compliance Branch U.S.
U.S. EPA - Region V
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
David Sullivan (6T-EA)
Air Enforcement Branch
U.S. EPA - Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
Charles W. Whitmore
Air Branch
U.S. EPA - Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101

-------
—3—
mow A. Speicher
Regional unael
U.S. EPA — Region V i i i
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80202
Nina Spiegelman, Chief
Air Branch
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. EPA - Region IX
215 Freaont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Dave Dabroski
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. EPA - Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
John Lattimer
U.S. EPA - NEIC
Building 53, P.O. Box 25227
Denver Federal Center
Denver, CO 80225
Marius Gedgaudas (8AT-AP)
U.S. EPA - Region VIII
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80202
David L. Calkins
Air Progra Branch
U.S. EPA - Region IX
215 Fre ont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Sharon Wilson (AT—082)
Air Operations Section
Air Prograss Branch
U.S. EPA - Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Dorothy Biggs
U.S. EPA - NEIC Library
Building 53, Box 25227 DFC
Denver, CO 80225

-------
—4—
Eugene Duraan (PM 221) Jackie Cross (LE 132A)
OPPE - Air Economics Branch OGC - Air and Radiation
Howard Wright Ron Schaefer
SSCD SSCD

-------
Date:
MAY 4
UNDERSTANDING THE UPDATED CLEAN AIR ACT
COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT POLICY COMPENDIUM
This compendium collects policies and guidance documents
relating to the Clean Air Act and is intended to be used in
conjunction with the General Enforcement Policy Compendium.
As you can: see from the Table of Contents, we have organized
the compendium:with a general part followed by parts relating to
various sections of the Clean Air Act. In addition, we have
included a reference to “related documents” for each part.
We have also included a table entitled “Additions/Deletions
to the CAA Policy Compendium” to explain which documents have
been deleted or superseded and which ones have been added.
Please note: since we sent the compendium to the printer, EPA
issued several guidance documents which should be inserted. You
should have already received these documents in the original
cistribution.
1. Guidance on Inclusion of Environmental Auditing Provisions
in Clean ir Act Settlements (January 27, 1989)
insert at Part E, document 133
2. Revised Guidance Concerning Compliance By Use of Low
Solvent Technology in VOC Enforcement Cases (February 8,
1989)
supersedes document entitled “Early Compliance and
Stipulated Penalties in VOC Enforcement Cases”
(11/21/86); delete that document at Part E, document
128 and replace with this one
3. *Interim Asbestos NESHAP Enforcement Guidance —- “Friable
asbestos” 1% by Area or Volume vs. 1% by Weight (April 18,
1989)
insert at Part D, document 110
* the memorandum portion of this document is privileged and
should not be made available to the public.

-------
TABLE OF
CONTENTS

-------
CLEAN AIR ACT (CAA)
COMPLIANCE!
ENF ORC EMENT
POLICY COMPENDIUM
1988ed
Sorted by
TITLE
,/i1/ 14

-------
Clean Air Act (CAA) ComplianceIEnforcement Policy Compendium
1988 ed by TITLE
1985 -Apr-24 Achieving VOC Compliance from Department of Defense KF38 12
Contractor Facilities (Section 113 Federal Enforcement) A55C 1
nEl7
1994-Jan-24 Acid Ram Compliance / Enforcement Guidance KF3812
A55C1
nE34
1988-Nov-29 AHERA Compliance Monitoring Strategy (Asbestos KF38 12
Hazard Emergency Response Act) .A55C1
nD 13
1987-Mar-25 Air Civil Penalty Worksheet (revised 25-Mar-1987) KF3812
A55C1
nE3Oapp5
l981-Apr-l5 Ajudicatory Proceedings under Section 120 of the Clean KF3812
Air Act .A55C1
nGO5
1980-Jan-lO Alternate Procedure for Section 110(1) Relief in KF38 12
Localized, Short Term Energy Emergencies (Section 110: A55C 1
State Implementation Plans) nB O3
1988-Mar-17 Appendix H Vinyl Chloride Civil Penalty Policy KF3812
.A55C I
nE3O(2)
1988-Mar-18 Appendix IV Clean Air Act Penalty Policy as Applied to KF3812
Stationary Sources of Volatile Organic Compounds where A55C1
Reformulation to Low Solvent Technology is the nE3O(4)
Applicable Method of Compliance
1988-Mar-18 Appendix IX Clean Air Act Civil Penalty Policy KF3812
Applicable to Persons who Perform Service for .A55C 1
Consideration on a Motor Vehicle Air Conditioner nE3 O(9)
Involving the Refrigerant or Who Sell Small Containers of
Refrigerant in Violation of 40 CFR Part 82, Protection of
the Stratospheric Ozone, Subpart B Servicing of Motor
Vehicle Air Conditioners
1988- Mar-18 Appendix V Air Civil Penalty Worksheet KF38I 2
A55C I
nE3O(5)
1988-Mar-18 Appendix VI (new appendix added 3/2/88) Volatile KF3812
Hazardous Air Pollutant Civil Penalty Policy A55C 1
nE3O(6)
1989-Sep 14 Appendix VII Final Penalty Policy for New Residential KF3812
Wood Heaters, 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart AAA A55C1
nE3O(7)
1986-Dec-5 Application of August 7. 1986 Policy on LST Schedules in KF38 12
Consent Decrees .A55C1
01/10/2000 1

-------
Clean Air Act (CAA) Compliance/Enforcement Policy Compendium
1988 ed by TITLE
nE29
1 986-Dec-23 Availability of LST Schedules in Clean Air Act Section KF38 12
120 Enforcement Actions .A55C I
nG 15
1984-Jun-I Benzene NESHAPs Guidance (Section 112. National KF38 12
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants .A55C1
(NESHAPs)) nDO4
1993 Civil Penalty Policy Applicable to Persons Who Perform KF3812
Service for Consideration on a Motor Vehicle Air A55C1
Conditioner Involving ... nE3Oapp9
1994-Jun-i Civil Penalty Policy for Violations of 40 CFR part 82, KF38 12
subpart F Maintenance, Service, Repair, and Disposal of A55C1
Appliances Containing Refrigerant nE3 O
App(1O)
1990-Feb-23 Clarification of EPA NESHAP Policy - Nonfnable KF38 12
Asbestos (Section 112 National Emission Standards for A55C1
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs)) nD 11
1980-May-9 Clarification of Requirements for Inclusion of CEM KF38 12
Provisions in SIPs (Section 110. State Implementation .A55C 1
Plans) nBO4
1993-Dec-6 Clean Air Act CAA Compliance/Enforcement Policy KF3812
Compendium .A55C1
Opinion of the General Counsel on the Discretionazy riB 11
Sanctions under section 110(m) of CAA
199 1-Oct-25 Clean Air Act Stationary Source Civil Penalty Policy KF3812
I 992-Jan-7 (including “Clarification of the Penalty Policy”, added A55C I
(1992-Jan-i) nE3 O
1988-Mar-3 1 Compliance Monitoring Strategy for FY89 KF3XI 2
A55C 1
nFO8
1983-Nov-14 Compliance Strategy for Stationary Sources of Air KF3812
Pollution .A55C1
nA O3
1977-Nov-i Control Commitments in DCOs and Preservation of KF38 12
Source Rights to Challenge SIP Regulations (Seclion 113: .A55C1
Federal Enforcement) nEO2
1984-Mar-27 Decision in “United States v Kaiser Steel Corp “, No KF3812
CV-82-2623-IH (CD. Cal 8-Feb-1984) (Section 113. .A55C1
Federal Enforcement) nE l6
I 982-Jun-2 1 Definition of “Continuous Compliance” and Enforcement KF38 12
of O&M Violations .A55C1
nAO2
01110/2000 2

-------
Clean Air Act (CAA) Compliance/Enforcement Policy Compendium
1988 ed by TITLE
1980-Dec-il Delayed Compliance Orders Issued under Section KF38 12
1 13(d)(5) of the Clean Air Act (Section 113: Federal A55C1
Enforcement) nEO7
1980-May 27 Delayed Compliance Orders Requiring SIP Compliance KF3812
Through Temporary Control Measures (amended A55C1
guidance) (Section 113 Federal Enforcement) nEO5
1 976-Jun-25 Documentation of Violation Extending 30 Days Beyond KF38 12
Notice of Violation under Section 113 of the Clean Air A55C1
Act (Section 113 Federal Enforcement) nEOl
1982-Apr-30 Duration of Section 113(a) Orders (Section 113 Federal KF3812
Enforcement) A55C1
nE 12
1979-Mar-6 Energy Emergency Task Force Implementation of Section KF38 12
110(f) of the Clean Air Act A55CI
nBO 1
1983-Jun-28 Enforcement of National Emissions Standard for Vinyl KF38 12
Chloride (Section 112. National Emission Standards for .A5 SC1
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs)) nDO3
1 976-Apr-26 Enforcement of NSPS Requirements (Section Ill KF38 12
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources A55C 1
(NSPS)) nCOl
1976-May3 Enforcement of NSPS Requirements (Section lll KF3812
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources .A55C1
(NSPS)) nCO2
1985-Nov-27 Enforcement Policy Respecting Sources Complying with KF38 12
Clean Air Act Requirements by Shutdown A55C1
nAO6
1994-Aug-12 Enforcement Response Policy for Treatment of KF3812
Information Obtained through CAA section 507 Small .A55C1
Business Assistance Programs nLO l
198 1-Dec-29 EPA Accountability System -- OANR Policy Guidance KF38 12
A55C1
nAO 1
1983-Aug-22 EPA’s Authority to Issue Delayed Compliance Orders KF3812
AlterDecemther3l, 1982 (Section 113: Federal A55C1
Enforcement) nE 15
1983-Dec-iS Execution of Confidentiality Agreements under Section KF3812
114 of the Clean Air Act A55C1
nFO4
1982-Apr-28 Federal Enforceability under PSD KF3812
.A55C1
nE 1 la
0 1/10/2000 3

-------
Clean Air Act (CAA) Compliance/Enforcement Policy Compendium
1988 ed by TITLE
1982-Apr-28 Federal Enforceability under PSD (Section 1 13 Federal KF3812
Enforcement) .A55C1
nEil
1979-Sep-i Federal Register Publication of Significant Final Actions KF38 12
under Title I of the Clean Air Act .A55C1
nKO 1
198 1-Apr-24 Final Compliance Date for Unclassified Areas (Section KF38 12
113 Federal Enforcement) .A55C1
nEO9
1984-Sep-6 Final Guidance on Use of Unannounced Inspections KF38 12
.A55C1
nF O6
1992-May-li Final Revisions to the Asbestos Demolition and KF3812
Renovation Civil Penalty Policy Dated August 22, 1989 A55C1
nE3O(3)
1 980-Dec-24 Format for Notices of NoncompLiance KF38 12
A55C1
nGO2
1986-Apr-22 Guidance Enforcement Applications of Continuous KF3812
Emissions Monitoring System Data .A55C1
nE25a
1986-Apr-22 Guidance Enforcement Applications of Continuous KF3812
Emissions Monitoring System Data (Section 113. Federal .A55C1
Enforcement) nE25
1989-Jun-05 Guidance for Coordination of Asbestos NESHAP-AHERA KF3812
Compliance Inspections A55C1
nD 15
i977-Dec-2 Guidance for Section 114(d) of the Clean Air Act KF3812
.A55C 1
nFOi
1990-Mar-16 Guidance on Addressing Capture Effeciency in Enforcing KF38 12
VOC SIP Regulations .A55C1
nB 10
1990-Mar-16 Guidance on Addressing Capture Efficiency in Enforcing KF3812
VOC SIP Regulations (Section 110 State Implementation A55C1
Plans) nBO9
1985-Jun-28 Guidance on Complying with the Notification KF3812
Requirements in Section 1 13(a)(1) and 1 13(a)(4) of the .A55C1
Clean Air Act (Section 113. Federal Enforcement) nEi9
1 982-Jun-8 Guidance on Determination of Asbestos Content of KF38 12
Friable Materials (Section 112: National Emission A55C1
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs)) nDO2
01/10/2000 4

-------
Clean Air Act (CAA) ComplianceIEnforcement Policy Compendium
1988 ed by TITLE
I 983-Dec- 14 Guidance on Enforcement of Prevention of Significant KF38 12
Detenomtion Requirements under the Clean Air Act .A55C1
nHO 1
1986-Apr-Il Guidance on Federally-Reportable Violations for KF3812
Stationary Sources A55C1
nAO7
1986-Nov-26 Guidance on Implementing the Discretionary Contractor KF38 12
Listing Program A55C1 nJO2
1989-Jan-27 Guidance on Inclusion of Environmental Auditing KF3812
Provisions in Clean Air Act Settlements .A55C1
nE33
1989-Jun-13 Guidance on Limiting Potential to Emit in New Source KF3S 12
Pennitting .A55C1
nHO3
1982-Feb-25 Guidance on NESHAP Asbestos Standards (Section 1 12 KF3812
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants A55C1
(NESHAPs)) nDO l
1982-May-4 Guidance on Policy for Enforcement of Visible Emissions KF38 12
Violations Against Sources Which are Meeting an A55C1
Applicable Mass Emission Standard (Section 113: Federal nE 13
Enforcement)
1 983 -Sqi- 15 Guidance on Use of Section 303 of the Clean Air Act KF38 12
.A55C1 niOl
1 986-Oct-l Guidance S-26 Enforcement of the Arsenic NESHAP for KF38 12
Glass Manufacturing Plants (Section 112: National .A55C1
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants nDO7
(NESHAPs))
1988-Aug-05 Identifying and Expediting SIP Revisions that Impact the KF3812
Enforcement Process A55C1
nB 10
1 985-Jul-2 Impact of Intermittent Source Operations on Clean Air KF38 12
Act Penalty Calculations A55C1
nO 14
1985-Jul-2 Impact of Intermittent Source Operations on Clean Air KF3812
Act Penalty Calculations (Section 1 13 Federal .A55C1
Enforcement) nE2 1
1984-Aug-8 Implementation of Mandatory Contractor Listing KF38 12
.A55C1 nJOl
198 1-Feb-12 Implementation of Noncompliance Penalty Program under KF38 12
Section 120 of the Clean Air Act .A55C1
nGO3
01/10/2000 5

-------
Clean Air Act (CAA) CompliancefEnforcement Policy Compendium
1988 edbyTITLE
1980-Jan- 14 Inappropriate Issuance of Section 1 13(d)(4) Orders to KF38 12
Sources Subject to NSPS (Section 113: Federal A5SCI
Enforcement) nEO3
1 990-Jun-5 Inclusion of CERCLA Section 103(a) Counts in Asbestos KF38 12
NESHAP Cases (Section 112: National Emission .A55C1
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs)) iii) 12
1985-Jul-lO Injunctive Relief in Asbestos Demolition and Renovation KF38 12
Cases (Section 112: National Emission Standards for A55C1
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs)) nD O6
1 989-Apr-iS Interim Asbestos NESHAP Enforcement Guidance — KF38 12
“Friable Asbestos” 1% by Area or Volume vs. 1% by A55C1
Weight (Section 112: National Emission Standards for nD 10
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs))
1989-Jan-3 1 Interim Final: Enforcement Response Policy for the KF38 12
Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (Al-JERA) .A55C1
nD 14
1980-Mar-Il Interim Particulate Controls (Section 113 Federal KF3812
Enforcement) .A55C1
nEO4
1992-Feb-7 Issuance Guidance on “Timely and Appropriate” KF3812
Enforcement Response to Significant Air Violators” .A55C1
nAO4
1 980-Aug-26 Issuance of Administrative Compliance Orders in Light of KF38 12
“Harrison v PPG Industries, Inc.”, 446 US 578 (1980) A55C1
(Section 113 Federal Enforcement) nEO6
1981 -Apr-31 Issuance of Notices of Noncompliance under Section 120 KF3S 12
of the Clean Air Act to Seasonal Sources .A55C1
nGO6
198 1-Feb-23 Issuance of Section 113 (a) Orders to NSPS Sources for KF38 12
Failure to Conduct Performance Tests A55C1
nEO8
I 986-Jan-17 Issues #3(e) & #5 of the VOC Issue Resolution Process- KF38 12
Establishing Proof of VOC Emissions Violations and .A55C1
Bubbles in Consent Decrees Resolving Civil Actions nE22
under section 113(b) of the Clean Air Act
198 1-Jul-17 Liability Agreement Between EPA Contractors and KF3812
Stationary Air Pollution Sources A55C1
nFO3
1988-Mar-il Listing Asbestos Demolition and Renovation Companies KF38 12
Pursuant to Section 306 of the Clean Air Act .A55CI nJO3
I 984-Jul-12 More Effective Use of Clean Air Act Section 120 as an KF38i2
Enforcement Tool A55Ci
01/10/2000 6

-------
Clean Air Act (CAA) Compliance/Enforcement Policy Compendium
1988 ed by TITLE
nG 11
1990-Nov 2 New Amended Penalty Policy for Production or KF3812
Importation in Violation of 40 CFR Part 82 of Substances .A55C 1
that Deplete the Stratospheric Ozone nE3 O(8)
1989-Jan-3 1 New SIP Processing Procedures (Region 4) KF38 12
.A55C1
uB 14
1985-Jun-28 Particulate Matter Interim Enforcement Policy (Section KF3812
113: Federal Enforcement) .A55CI
nE2 O
1986-Sept-26 Penalties under “Timely and Appropriate” Guidance KF3812
(Section 113 Federal Enforcement) A55C I
nE27
1985-Jun-25 Penalty Computations under Section 113 Civil Penalty KF3812
Settlement Policy and Section 120 of the Clean Air Act .A55C1
nEt8a
1985-Jun-25 Penalty Computations under Section 113 Civil Penalty KF3812
Settlement Policy and Section 120 of the Clean Air Act A55C I
(Section 113: Federal Enforcement) nE l8
1989-Scp-14 Penalty Policy for New Residential Wood Heaters (added KF3812
14-Sep.1989) A55C1
nE3O app7
I 990-Nov-2 Penalty Policy for Production or Importation in Violation KF38 12
of 40 CFR Part 82 of Substances that Deplete the A55CI
Stratospheric Ozone (revised 2-Nov- 1990) nE3O app8
I 987-Mar-25 Penalty Policy for Violations of Permit Requirements KF38 12
(revised 25-Mar-1987) A55C1
nE3oappl
1985-Mar-19 Permissible Grounds for Settlement of Noncompliance KF3812
Penalties under Section 120 of the Clean Air Act A55C1
nG 12
1982-Apr-27 Policy for Addressing Violations Subject to KF3812
Non-Promulgated Regulations (Section 113: Federal .A55C1
Enforcement) nElO
1983-Feb-15 Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, KF3812
Maintenance and Malfunctions (Section 110 State A55C1
Implementation Plans) [ clarifies memorandum of same nB O5
title dated 28-Sep-1982]
l986-Aug-7 Policy on SIP Revisions Requesting Compliance Date KF3812
Extensions for VOC Sources (Section 110 State A55C1
Implementation Plans) nBO7
0 1/10/2000 7

-------
Clean Air Act (CAA) Compliance/Enforcement Policy Compendium
1988 ed by TITLE
1986-Aug-7 Policy on the Availability of Low Solvent Technology KF3812
Schedules in Clean Air Act Enforcement Actions (Section A55C1
113: Federal Enforcement) nE26
1982-Apr-22 Postponement of Enforcement Action During NSPS KF3812
Review (Section 111 Standards of Performance for New A55C I
Stationary Sources (NSPS)) nCO3
1980-Sep-12 Priorities for Issuing Notices of Noncompliance KF3812
A55C1
nGO 1
1991 -Apr-25 Procedure for Raising the Question of a Possible Criminal KF38 12
Violation in the Context of a Civil Referral from a .A55C1
Regional Office nAO9
1988-Jul-15 Procedures for EPA to Address Deficient New Source KF3812
Permits under the Clean Air Act A55C1
nHO2
I 989-Jan-30 Procedures for Letter Notice Approval of Minor SIP KF38 12
Actions .A55C1
nB 15
Procedures for Pre-Referral Settlement of Asbestos KF3812
Demolition and Renovation Cases (Section 112 National A55C1
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants nDO8
(NESHAPs))
1983-Apr-26 Procedures for Review and Federal Register Publication of KF3812
Delayed Compliance Orders under Section 113(d) of the .A55C1
Clean Air Act (Section 113 Federal Enforcement) nEl4
1991 -Mar-22 Processing of Pending Revisions to Federally-Approved KF38 12
State Implementation Plans (SIP’s) A55C 1
nB 13
I 988-Nov-28 Proposed Revisions to the Asbestos Demolition and KF38 12
Renovation Civil Penalty Policy A55C1
nE3O
app3(a)
1988 Nov-28 Proposed Revisions to the Asbestos Demolition and KF38 12
Renovation Civil Penalty Policy A5SC1
nE3O(3)(a)
198 1-May-13 Regional Office Criteria for Neutral Inspections of KF38 12
Stationary Sources .A55C1
nFO2
1983-Feb-23 Requirement to Publish All Significant Final Actions KF3812
under Title I of the Clean Air Act .A55C1
nKO2
01/10/2000 8

-------
Clean Air Act (CAA) Compliance/Enforcement Policy Compendium
1988 ed by TITLE
1 986-Feb-28 Responses to Four VOC Issues Raised by the Regional KF38 12
Offices and DOJ (Section 113 Federal Enforcement) .A55C1
nE24
1986-Jan-3 1 Responses to Two VOC Questions Raised by the Regional KF3812
Offices (Section 113: Federal Enforcement) .A55C1
nE23
1 982-May-7 Restatement of Guidance on Emissions Associated with KF3S 12
Soot Blowing (Section 111: Standards of Performance for .A55C 1
New Stationary Sources (NSPS)) nCO4
1984-Sep-24 Review of Application of Test Methods in Clean Air Act KF38 12
Enforcement Cases .A55C1
nAO5
1987-S ep-23 Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions for KF38 12
Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency (Section 110 State A55C1
Implementation Plans) nBO8
1988-Mar-3 1 Revised Asbestos NESHAP Strategy (Section 112: KF38 12
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants A55C 1
(NESHAPs)) nDO9
1989-Feb-S Revised Guidance Concerning Compliance by Use of Low KF38 12
Solvent Technology in VOC Enforcement Cases .A55C1
nE28
1991-Mar-i Revised Guidance on Enforcement During Pending State KF3S 12
Implementation Plan Revisions A55C1
nE32
I 989-Aug-29 Revised Guidance on Enforcement of SIP Violation KF38 12
Involving Proposed SIP Revisions A55C1
nB 12
1989-Aug-29 Revised Guidance on Enforcement of State KF3S 12
Implementation Plan Violations Involving Proposed SIP .A55C 1
Revisions nB I6
i985-May-i5 Rules Governing Conclusion of Clean Air Act Section 120 KF3812
Actions .A55C1
nG 13
1984-Apr-13 Section 120 Consultation Policy KF3812
.A55C 1
nGIO
1981 -Apr-2 Settlement of Noncompliance Penalty Assessment under KF38 12
Section 120 of the Clean Air Act A55C1
nGO4
1982-Feb-3 Settlement of Section 120 Actions KF38 12
A55C1
nGO7
01/10/2000 9

-------
Clean Air Act (CAA) Compliance/Enforcement Policy Compendium
1988 ed by TITLE
1987-Nov-23 Settlmg Enforcement Action in Clean Air Act KF38 12
Non-attainment Areas Against Stationary Air Sources A55C1
Which Will Not Be In Compliance by the Applicable nE3 I
Attainment Date
1983-Jul-29 Source Specific SIP Revisions (Section 110. State KF3812
Implementation Plans) A55C1
nBO6
1979-Jun-I 9 Supplemental Guidance Regarding Implementation of KF38 12
Section 110(f) of the Clean Air Act (Section 110: State .A55C1
Implementation Plans) nBO2
1988-Mar-17 Supplementation to Page 11 of the Clean Air Act KF38 12
Stationary Source Civil Penalty Policy .A55C1
nE3O(I)
1986-Apr-Il Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Guidance KF38 12
.A55C1
nAO8
1 985-Jul-9 Timely and Appropriate Guidance and Asphalt Plants KF38 12
(Section (11: Standards of Performance for New .A55C1
Stationary Sources (NSPS)) nCO5
I 988-Mar-3 1 Transmittal of Reissued OAQPS CMSs Policy KF38 12
A55C1
nFO7
l997-Jun-7 Transmitting Final Penalty Policy for Violations of 40 KF3812
CFR Part 82, Subpart F. Maintenance, Service, Repair, .A55C 1
and Disposal of Appliances Containing Refrigerant nE3 O(1O)
1997-Jun-7 Transmitting Final Penalty Policy for Violations of 40 KF3S 12
CFR Part 82, Subpart F: Maintenance, Service, Repair, .A55C 1
and Disposal of Appliances Containing Refrigerant nE3O(I0)a
I 984-Feb-22 Use of Contractors to Conduct Clean Air Act Inspections KF3S 12
After the Supreme Courts Decision in “United States v .A55C1
Stauffer Chemical Co.”, 464 US 165 (1984) nF O5
1982-Apr-30 Use of Section 120 Noncompliance Penalties to Promote KF3812
Compliance of Stationary Sources A55C 1
nGO8
1984-Jul-il Vinyl Chloride Enforcement Strategy (Section 112: KF38 12
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants A55C 1
(NESHAPs)) nDO5
I 988-Mar-2 Volatile Hazardous Air Pollutant Penalty Policy (added KF38 12
2-Mar-l988) .A55C1
nE3Oapp6
1 987-Mar-25 Volatile Organix Compounds Penalty Policy (revised KF38 12
25-Mar-1987) A55C1
01/10/2000 10

-------
Clean Air Act (CAA) Compliance/Enforcement Policy Compendium
1988 ed by TITLE
nE3O app4
1983 -Apr-21 Waiver of Consultation Requirements for Initiation of KF38 12
Adminstrative Enforcement under the Clean Air Act and .A55C1
Adjustments to Section 120 Penalties nGO9
01/10/2000 11

-------
A

-------
The Clean Air Act Compliance/Enforcement Policy Compendium
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. General
1. EPA Accountability System -— OANR Policy 12/29/81
Guidance
-— definition of “significant
violator” superseded by Part A, Document
#4
2. Definition of “Continuous Compliance” and 06/21/82
Enforcement of 0 & M Violations
3. Compliance Strategy for Stationary 11/14/83
Sources of Air Pollution
4. Guidance on the Timely and Appropriate 02/07/92
Enforcement Response to Significant Air
Pollution Violators
5. Review of Application of Test Methods in 09/24/84
Clean Air Act Enforcement Cases
6. Enforcement Policy Respecting Sources 11/27/85
Complying with Clean Air Act Requirements
by Shutdown
-- harmonize with Part E, document #31
7. SUPERSEDED BY PART A, DOCUMENT #4
8. SUPERSEDED BY PART A, DOCUMENT #4
c7, “- 9/ i 4 i
- -€‘, —
a-

-------
I

-------

-------
EPA Accountability System -- OANR Policy Guidance
(12/29/81)
File at Part A, Document ti

-------
.r4p ,
j Th UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. 0 C. 20460
4j
OFFICE CF
AIR. OiS . A iO RACIATION
DEC 291981
SUBJECT: EPA Accountability System —— OANR Policy Gu:
FROM s Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant Admin:
for Air, Noise and Radiat:
MEMO TO: Regional Administrator
Region I — X
The recently established Accountability System requires
my office to issue policy guidance covering delegations of
N$PS, NESRAPS and PSD programs, and regional audits of state
programs. In addition, it requires an identification of the
impediments to processing of SIP revisions and to speedy
source compliance. In these two cases it asks that we,
by January 15, 1982, develop milestones for issuing appropriate
policy or guidance where impediments have been identified.
The attachments to this memo contain the required policy
guidance for delegated programs and state audits. In addition,
there is included a discussion of impediments to SIP processing
and enforcement action resolution. We are furnishing to you
now our proposed chedule for resolution of such impediments
as have been identified.
I would like to call your attention particularly to the
discussion of state program delegations which emphasizes the
creative use of EPA grant support appropriated under section 105
of the Clean Air Act. Air Program grants are intended to
support specific state program activities and I encourage you,
in your negotiations with the states, to make full use of our
authorities in this area.
Attachments
cc: AIRM Division Directors
OANR Office Directors

-------
OFFICE OF AIR, NOISE, AND RADIATION POLICY GUIDANCE
Delegation to States — New Source Performance Standards and
Nationa1 Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Po1lu tants
The Administrator’s Accountability System, Objective A, subobjective 1,
Mr , Noise, and Radiation, addresses delegation of New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) to the State and, In some cases, local air pollution agencies. These
programs are not new and delegation has been a priority item for the Regions
for about ten years. Despite this, only 32% of the States have full delegation
of NSPS and only 27% of the States have full delegation of NESHAPSJJ The
information presented below provides a general orientation to these programs
and discusses Agency policy In some areas relevant to successful delegation of
these programs.
NSPS are_ e e y Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, which requires EPA
joiitiñ i Ion limits for selected new sources
“which reflect the degree of emission reduction achievable through
the application of the best system of continuous emission reduction
which (taking into consideration the cost) . . . has been adequately
dei nstrated . .
• To date EPA has promulgated NSPS for 37 major sourcecategories (see Table 1)
and anticipates adding 14 additional source categories In F? 1982 and 18 in
FT 19!3 (Table 2). Pollutants regulated vary for each source category and
• include particulate, SO,, CO. NO VOC (volatile organic compounds), acid mist,
total reduced sulfur, afid fluor1 es.
11ESIiAIS ar covered..by iect1on 112 of the Clean Air Act. These emission
jimits are.appljcable.to pew_and existing sources and are set by the Adminis-
trator
at the level which In his jud nent provides an ample margin of
safety to protect the public health from such hazardous air pollutant.”
NESHAPS have proven difficult to develop end have been promulgated for a total
of only 20 source categories involving four pollutants; benzene may be added
for three source categories In FY 1982 (Table 3).
1’ Delegation of EPA Programs, NESHAPS” and Noelegation of EPA Programs, NSP.
Reports prepared by Regional Analytic Centers, September 1981.

-------
2
Delegation — Delegation of both lISPS and NESHAPS to the States is provided
for in the Clean Air Act. Similar provisions In Sections Ill and 112 state:
“Each- State may develop and submit to the Administrator a procedure
for lmpleri nting and enforcing standards of performance for [ new sources]
[ emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for stationary sources]
located In such State. If the Administrator finds the State procedure
Is adequate, he (she] shall delegate to such State any authority he
(she] has under this Act to Implement and enforce such standards.
EPA has no regulations defining when a State procedure should be considered
adequate; general guidance was provided by the Office of Enforcement in 1973. /
and precedent has been set by many delegations over the past ten years.
Generally these Involve conformance to test methods, definitions, compliance
data requirements and maintenance and operation procedures that are articulated
in the lISPS for each source category.
The current status of delegation of lISPS and NESHAPS by Region and by
State are presented in Figures 1 and 2.1/ This summary shows wide variations
in Regional delegation of these programs. It is not clear to what extent dif-
ferent Regional definitions of ‘adequate procedures,’ varying priorities, policy
on use of air program grants, general Regional/State relations, or fundamental
difference between States In different sections of the country have affected
these delegations. Although the proposed measure In the Accountability System
focuses on the change In percent delegation over the year, It also requires
justification of nondelegation. This should increase your sensitivity to the
significance 0 f obstacles to delegation.
Action Items and Measures — Although the State normally will be the unit
receiving delegation, there are situations where delegations are made directly
to local agencies, e.g., Philadelphia, Memphis, California Districts. These
should be counted as State when determining total delegations and progress.
Although full delegation is the goal, there are situations where States
will assume only part of the workload and responsibility. The ticst common is
for a State to refuse responsibility for selected source categories, e.g.,
petroleum refineries In Maine. This Is the major reason for the 22 States
shown as partial for lISPS in Figure 1. Allowing only a single classification
for a State oversimplifies and Is corrected in the new Accountability System by
basing the evaluation on individual NSPS or NESHAPS rather than forcing a State
Into a single category of full ’ or partial. There are other ways In which a
State could fall short of full delegation. These include not accepting all of
EPA’s procedural requirements (e.g., reporting), enforcemeflt (e.g., stack test
observations), or by Including only a portion of a source category (e.g., having
a larger source size cutoff than EPA for applicability determinations). EPA
V ‘Delegation of Authority to the States — NSPS and NESHAPS’ Guideline 5.13;
EPA Office of Enforcement (July 1973).

-------
3
should accept State reporting requirements is a substitute for those specified
in the NSPS. In the other issues where EPA retains some direct responsibility
the delegation should be counted as full in the totals but identified as less
than complete and discussed in the accountability reports.
Regional Actions — There are several factors that are at least partially
under the control of the Regional A inistrator that may enhance successful
delegation of NSPS and NESKAPS prograas. These Include definition of adequate
procedures,’ use of Section 105 air program grants, and policy on program audits.
The Agency should be as flexible as possible in the determination of when
a State program Is adequate and delegation can be made. The appropriate atti-
tude toward State and local agencies is to pres zne both capability and proper
Intention, if at all possible. Many States have had comprehensive and successful
new source review programs for years and they should not be expected to change
them to accommodate exactly EPA ’s requirements for NSPS and NESHAPS. Emphasis
must be on the compatibility of the objectives of the State new source program
In relation to EPA’s goals. You should evaluate carefully the real Importance
0 f each of the procedural requirements and minimize our insistence that they be
part of the State program. It is necessary to separate on a case-by—case basis
the real legal requirements for delegation from stated needs based on tradition
or desire. The possibility of promoting uautomatic delegations should be con-
sidered. Automatic delegation refers to a process where States, through enabling
legislation, assume responsibility for enforcement of NSPS and NESHAPS once the
standard is published In the Federal Register . 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.
A survey of operating permits done for EPA by GCA CorporationY reviews
and discusses the operating permit system used by all States and by 14 large
local agencies. All had systems for permitting new construction. Coverage was
extensive; between 100 and 5000 operatIng or new source permits are processed
per agency annually. These general permit systems used about 20% of the
resources of these agencies. It is not apparent that EPA has been sufficiently
flexible or imaginative in utilizing fully these existing State permit systems
in their delegations. Cpnsiderationis being given_to changing the entire SIP
jrocess to depend much more on these State permit systems and less on conformance
to EPA procedurairequirements. The NSPS and NESHAPS programs should follow
this principle. In any situation where a State has authority to permit new
sources and will Incorporate the NSPS in Its permit, Including appropriate com-
pliance test procedures, delegation should follow.
Air program. grants and SEA’s (State/EPA Agreements) coild be used better
In many Regions to facilitate delegation. These grants are meant to be performanc
oriented and it Is appropriate to ‘condition’ a portion 0 f the funds on State
assumptionof the NSPS and NESHAPS. In FY 1981 eight Regions earmarked air grant
funds for this purpose, InvolvIng 33 States and over $1 million. An unts for
‘Survey of Experience with State and Local Operating Permit Programs.’
GCA Corporation, SE, EPA (January 1980).

-------
4
Individual States ranged from $1K to 5110K. Since resource oriented problems 1
were noted-frequently by the States as a reason for not accepting delegation,J
(over 1/3 of the time for NSPS and nearly half of the time for NESHAPS) progress
in delegation should be possible by Increasing its priority and recognizing these
activities specifically in the program planning and grants processes.
The move toward less rigidity in delegation should be reflected in EPA’s
approach to program evaluation. Guidelines are being developed by OANR to
assist in auditing State and local new source review programs, including NSPS
and NESHAPS. These will be based on a comprehensive report prepared by the
Office of Planning and Evaluation for OM4R.. ,/ EPA policy Is to emphasize State
capability and provide general oversight of the effectiveness of the system used
by the State rather than focus on permit—by-permit reviews and second guessing
of State decisions in specific situations.
In s nmary, given general Stateiiodai authority for the control of air
pollution, Including new source permitting, NSPS/NESHAPS delegations should not
be impeded by legal authority Issues. Your strategy on delegation of NSPS and
NESHAPS should emphasize: 1) flexibIlity and imagination In the use of existing
permit systems and encouraging the use of automatic delegations where feasible;
2) better use of SEA’s and program grants; and 3) audits of State programs that
are designed to evaluate the general effectiveness of the program and to Improve
It.
EPA Oversight of Air New Source Reviews (Draft), Report by the Program
Evaluation Division, Office of Planning and Resource Management (July 27,
98l).

-------
Table 1
x x
X
x x
X
x
I I
1 X
x
x
x
x
x
I
I X
x x
Fluorides
Fluori des
Fluorides
F luortdes
Fluorides
Fluorides
502
502
so 2
so 2
N0
502, NO
so 2 , N0
Other
- S0 , NO
N0
S0 2 Acid Mist
502
CO
x
x
x
I
x
x
x x
EXISTING NEW SOURCE PERFORKANCE STAN ARD5S’ November 1981
Part. Ooacity VOC
a enera:ors (‘250 MBtu/hr)
. :i al Incinerators (‘50 tons/day)
Pcr:land Cement Plants
? itrlc Acid Plants
Sulfuric Acid Plants
Asphalt Concrete Plants
Petroleum Refineries, Process as.Combustion
Petroleum Refineries, Catalytic Regenerators
Petroleum Storage
Secondary Lead Smelters & Refineries
Secondary Brass and Bronze Refining Facilities
i on and Steel Mills: Basic Oxygen Furnaces (TSP)
!euge Treatment Plants
a:e Ferti izer,.Wct Process Phosphoric
P cs:ha:e Fertilizer, Superphosphoric Acid
:i; :e Fertilizer, Dia .onium Phosphate
s; ate Fertilizer, Triple Superphosphate Prod.
FhcspP ate Fertilizer, Triple Superphos hate Stor.
Iron nd Steel Kills, Electric Arc Furnaces
Pri:ary Aluminum Rethi tlon Plants
Prir.ary Copper Smelters
Pri ary Zinc Smelters
Primary Lead Smelters
Coal Cleaning Plants
Ferroal by Production
Kraft Pulp Mills
Sulfur Recovery in Petroleum Refineries
Liçnite Fired Stearn Generators
L1e Plants
Grain Elevators
Iron and Steel Mills: BOF (Opacity)
‘.evised Stea.’n Generator
s Turbines
4ydrocarbon Storage Tank Revision
Auto and Light Truck Surface Coating
Glass Manufacture
?‘ n!u Sulfate Manufacturing
x
I
x
x
I
CO
Reduced Suif
x x
x x
x
x x
I
x x
x
I

-------
Table 2
New Source Perforii ance Standardsicheduled for Promulgation
In the Period FY 82 Through FY 83
F? 82 (14 )
Stationary Internal Combustion Engines
Phosphate Rock Preparation
Lead Battery Manufact sring
Perch%oroethylene Dry Cleaning
Pressure Sensitive Tapes & Labels Manufacturing
Organic Chemical Manufacturing, Fugitive Emissions
Gasoline Bulk Teniilnals
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
Organic Solvent Degreasing
Graphic Arts (Rotogravure Printing)
Industrial Surface Coating, Can Manufacturing
Industrial Surface Coating, Metal Furniture Manufacturing
Industrial Surface Coating, Large Appliance Manufacturing
Industrial Siarface Coating, Metal Coil Manufacturing
FT 83 (18 )
Coke Ovens, Quenching
Volatile Organic Liquid Storage
Rubber Tire Manufacturing
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing, Air Oxidation Processes
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturi ng, Distill ation
Petroleum Solvent Dry Cleaning
Synthetic Fiber Manufacturing
Vinyl Film Manufacturing
Petroleum Refineries, Fugitive Emissions
Industrial Boilers, Revision
Gypsum Manufacturing
tletallic Minerals Processing
Basic Oxygen Furnaces, Steel Plants, Revision
Petroleum Refineries, Fluid Catalyst Regenerators, Revision
Non.Fossll Fuel Boilers
Crude Oil I Natural Gas Production
Institutional and Comerc lal Boll ers
Degreasing

-------
Table 3
Operations Covered
Asbestos • Manufacturing
• Demolition and renovation
• Spraying
O Fabricating
• Insulating
• Waste disposal from the above operations
• Waste disposal from asbestos mills
Beryllium • Extraction plants*
• Ceramic plants*
• Foundries’
• Incineratorse
• Propellant plants’
• Machine shops”
• Rocket motor test sites
r ercury • Mercury ore processing
• Sewage sludge Incineration
• Chlor-alkall production by the mercury
cell process
Vinyl Chloride—Plants which produce :
• Ethylene dichioride by the reaction of
oxygen and hydrogen chloride with ethylene
O Vinyl chloride by any process
• Polymers containing fractions of
polymerized vinyl chloride
Benzene . P1a etc anhydride manufacturing (FY 1982)
• Ethylbenzene styrene manufacturing (ri 1982)
• Fugitive emission sources CrY 1982)
• Storage tanks ( F l 1982)
* ...whlch process beryllium ore, beryllium, beryllium oxide,
beryllium alloys, or beryllium containing wastes.
“ ...whlch process beryllium, beryllium oxides, or any alloy
when such alloy contains more than 5% bery1li n by weight.

-------
.
FIg. 1. DelegatIon Slalus Of Now Source Pdrlormance Slandards
As O1JuIy 1, 1901
S
.1
FL
S
• • fulL
PARTIAl. 27
7 16
• MS T I —
58
I. 22 — —
VT WV tic IL WY III..
Nil DC KY WI 1W UT CU
-1-’ __ __ __ __ __
4
ME ,VI VA GA Oil OK KS ND AS ID
3- k 11 J ç •• — -- m —
R i rn. frA AL MU IA 11E CO -NV AK
2 _ _
MA NY MI) TN j,II Art IA 5D CA
1’ r 4 LOgond
JIoII(
CT NJ DEl SC MO MT AZ I rAnhIAL
,ø#—. . çt !i vi;, 1(J. ; ‘7 • S • __
I H III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
UlCIONS
a

-------
S
-I
S
FIg. 2: Dotagcillon Status Of National Emission Standards
For I Jazc.rtIou ; Air I 3 oIJuIanls
S AsOfJiityl.l9tJl
.1
nJtL
CART PAL
‘3
20
21
50
TOTAl.
I
II
II ,
IV
V
.VI
VIP
VP”
Lociond
t I PloltE
PABIIAL
‘i ruu.
Ix
x
Il [ r.PUN!;

-------
OFFICE OF AIR, NOISE, N D RADIATION POLICY GUIDANCE
Delegation o States — Prevention of Significant Deterioration
The Administrator’s Accountability System, Objective A, subobjective 2,
Air, Noise, and Radiation, addresses delegation of the program for Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) to State and, in some cases, to local air
pollution agencies. State assumption of responsibility for PSD has been an EPA
priority for several years. Despite this, only 6 States have approved SIPs for
PSD, 11 States have full delegation, and 8 have partial delegation (Figure 1).
These SIPs and delegations account for about 60% of P50 permits issued.
PSO Program — The PSD program was Initiated in the early 1970’s in response
to litigation. The basic program was confirmed with specific substantive and
procedural details In the 1977 CM Amenth ents (Sections 160—169). EssentIally.
P50 Is a new source construction permit program for most major types of air
pollution sources. Approval criteria Involve the installation of best available
control technology (BAd) for all pollutants and an acceptable air quality
impact for SO, and particulate matter. Acceptable impact Is defined for three
land use categories as an allowable increase (or increment) in pollutant concen-
tration over a baseline that existed In the area in the mid—1970’s. In Class I,
national parks and wilderness areas,.only very small increases are allowed.
The remainder of the country Is defined as Class II with moderate Increases
allowed. States may request reclassification to Class III where more liberal
increments would b allowed. Such a reclassification was Intended to accomo-
date State land use decisions to dedicate specific areas to concentrated
industrial development. To date no such reclassificattons have been requested.
Conceptually, the PSD program can be segregated into five parts:
1) applicability determinations (Is a proposed new source covered by the pro-
gram?); 2) revIew of planned control technology (does control equipment represent
BACT for all pollutants?); 3) analysis of air quality Impact for SO, and particu-
late matter (use of meteorological dispersion models); 4) Issuance Of permit;
and 5) recordkeeping to track status of cwnulative conswnption of the allowable
Increment. Although these seem straightforward, In practice the P50 program has
become overly complex as a result of the drafting of the statute, wideranging
litigation, level of detail In EPA regulations, and the frequent need for
case—by-case judgment that is often required because of controversial siting
requests.
Action Items and Measures — The State normally will be the permit issuance
authority. However, in some situations (Pittsburgh, Nashville, California
Districts, etc.), local or Regional agencies will have primary responsibility
for P50 or will be undertaking much of the technical analysis (e.g., BACT
determinations or modeling). These local agencies should be counted as a State
when determining total delegations and accomplishments If they have responsi-
blilty for P50.

-------
2
Three categories are possible when determining whether “de1egat1on has
been made to a State or local agency. Formal SIP approval is the most appro-
priate way for a State to assume responsibility for P50. This recognizes the
State’s essential autonomy and reduces EPA’s formal overview role. Although the
Accountability System count does not distinguish between SIP approval and full
delegation, the Regional strategy should be directed toward the former with full
delegation seen as a milestone toward this end. Full delegation means that the
State is acting as EPA’s agent for the entire program, including negotiation
with sources, making all technical determinations, and issuing the permit.
Partial delegations should be credited If the State is doing one or more of the
major tasks associated with PSD, e.g., BACT determinations and/or dispersion
modeling. The formal measure used In the Accountability System does not dis-
tinguish the extent of the partial delegation nor does It Include any Indication
of the amount of new source activity anticipated in a State that accepts delega-
tion. These are important in determining the real progress being made in transfer
of the P50 program to the States and they should be discussed briefly in the
initial status report, the strategy (e.g., estimates of the percent of PSD sources
or workload accounted for through delegation), and changes identified in the
quarterly progress reports.
Policy Guidance
Although there are many reasons why States do not undertake the P50 program.
four issues seem to be most Important. These are: 1) limited resources;
2) aóninistratlve and technical complexIty; 3) constantly changing nature of the
program; and 4) EPA reluctance to really relinquish the program.
Resources — The resource question Is a matter of priority, use of air
program grant funds, and the extent to which we allow States to maximize use of
their existing permit systems. P50 delegation has been a high air program
priority for the past several years. The workload model used for recommending
allocation of a large dart of Regional air resources has assumed steady gains in
delegation and, therefore, It has reduced each year the allocation for direct
permit review by EPA. In FT 1983 the allocation model will assume that the
States will have almost all of the P50 workload.
Air grantsar .y1ta1 to.d legat1on.of PSD.jnd...jl1 _ Regions. ese ve grant
fundi for In FT 1981 this totaled about $3—l/4 million and
1nvoTved 50 States. The funds earmarked for Individual States ranged from $4K
to $400K. Although tabulations are incomplete, it appears that over $5 million
In grants will be given for new source review In FT 1982. ThIs represents
appropriate emphasis on P50. The problem, however, is that accountability on the
use of these grant funds is not emphasized, and over 25 Statei continue to get
grant funds for new source review yet have accepted no part of the PSD program.
In FT 1981 only $180K was withheld or recovered In a formal way in four States
because of inadequate progress In PSD. Some Regions are conditioning FT 1982
grant awards upon States asstsning the program during F? 1982. _ PSD clearly is
meant to be a State program and It is recommended that grant funds be ‘ Wd1’tioned”

-------
3
for it in all States. If_thLjtate falls to take the .program, these funds
Utd bfwi’thhe1d nd used by the Region to do the required permit reviews
through contractor_asslstanc.a. The importance of PSD and Agency policy on grants
should be made clear to the State pollcymakers through the State/EPA Agreement
negotiation process and at the start of grant negotiations.
Com lexity — The PSD program Is complex and difficult to understand and it
has outrun the ability of some small States to handle it. Partially this is due
to the nature of the program that requires BACT and air quality Impact analysis
on a case—by-case basis. 1 bst States should be able to the required analysis
of control technology for most sources. Assistance for some source categories
will be required from the Region and from the BACT Clearinghouse In OAQPS. In
addition, some small States may never have a dispersion modeling capability,
and contractor assistance should be made available for them using grant funds
and the Level of Effort mechanism.
Some of the complexity In P50 Is caused by the detail in EPA regulations
and the rigidity gf Interpretation by EPA Regions when delegation Is being
considered. All States and 14 major local agencies have new source review
programs and these utilize a significant portion of the air resources available
to the State.! 1 ltst of these require BACT on new sources; many involve air
quality modeling. EPA needs to understand better the existing State new source
permit systems and to determine whether they satisfy at least some portion of
the basic objectives of the P50 program. Consideration Is being given to
changing the entire SIP program to utilize more fully the State permit system
and to emphasize less the detailed procedural requirements. The P50 program
s culd follow this principle.
Program Changes — The PSD program is dynamic and current litigation and
any change to the Clean Air Act probably will require modification of the
existing requirements., However, this should not be accepted easily as a reason
for delaying delegation or State SIP action. It is not anticipated that liti-
gation nor legislation will do away with PSD or that it will change the funda-
mental nature of the program. If such changes come, they will not be Identified
for many months and will require EPA regulations for implementation. This is
not a rapid process and past experience suggests that If modifications to the
current system are required It will be some time before they are able to be
impi emen ted.
EPA Reluctance Permitting new sources involves a large core air pollution
effort (technology determinations and modeling) and provides significant leverage
over industry and States. Also, Initially EPA had the entire PSD program and
many Regions staffed up and developed formal organizations to do new source
‘Survey of Experience with State and Local Operating Permit Programs,’
GCA Corporation; LSSE, EPA (January 1980).

-------
4
review. The presence of this Infrastructure in the Regional Offices may be
slowing delegation. The nature of the State program evaluations planned by the
Regions can be Influenced by the harshness of Regional policy toward audits.
EPA policy Is to focus audits on the general capability of the State and on the
effectiveneas of their overall program In relation to the basic goals of the
PSD effort. The evaluation should be constructive and lead to improved State
programs. Audits should not emphasize after—the—fact review of specific State
actions nor include extensive second guessing of State decisions. Audit policy
for new source review is discussed In detail in a recent report prepared for
OANR by the Office of Policy and Resource Management.. ./ Detailed audit guide-
lines for PSD are being prepared from this report by a workgroup chaired by OANR.
In sunmiary, It Is recommended that your strategy on PSD delegation do the
following: 1) emphasize SIPs and full delegation but accept all possible
incremental progress through partial delegation; 2) make clear your intention to
withhold or recover grant funds condltioned” for PSD If progress Is not adequate;
3) be as flexible and as imaginative as possible in allowing States to use
existing new source permit systems; 4) emphasize that changes to the PSD program
that result from current litigation or pending legislation will not be funda-
mental nor will they be Implemented quickly; 5) evaluate the Regional organiza-
tion and staffing plan for potential barriers to the full and rapid transfer of
PSD to the States; and 6) ensure that the plans for auditing State P50 programs
are positive and not punitive.
EPA Oversight of Air New Source Reviews (Draft), Report by the Program
Evaluation Division. Office of Planning and Resource Management (July 27, 1981)

-------
OFFICE OF AIR, NOISE, AND RADIATION POLICY GUI NCE
Audit of State Performance for Consistency
The Ad inistrator’s Accountability System, Objective A, subobjective 3,
addresses the problem of evaluating the consistency of State performance for
selected air activities. This evaluation is required by the 1977 Clean Air Act,
Section 301. The requirements are discu sed and amplified by regulations
promulgated by EPA on December 24, 1980JJ These charge both Headquarters and
Regions with improving the fair and consistent implementation of the Act and
specifically require that the midyear grant evaluation (Part 35) be expanded to
include a quality audit “of each State’s performance in Implementing and
enforcing the Act” with emphasis on consistency.
Scope of the Audit — This audit of States for consistency will be performed
for the first time in F? 1982. For this reason it will be limited in scope to
a single activity, new source review (NSR). NSR has been selected because ft is
a fundamental activity in any air pollution program and is one in which Federal
regulations require changes to old, established State procedures for granting
preconstruction permits. Also, new source permitting is of great interest to
industry and State and local governments. They have claimed that inequities in
implementation of NSR programs have led to ‘permit shopping” and lost opportuni-
ties for economic growth.
EPA has Initiated many new activities tn attempts to Improve consistency
since the passage of the Act in 1977. These include: quality assurance on all
environmental measurement programs; the BACT/LAER Clearinghouse; and the modeling
guidelines. Some States believe that these activities have solved much of the
problem that caused Congress to require a consistency.program. These States
do not believe that the consistency audit being required is necessary and they
may resist It. In our opinion, a response to the Congressional concern is
needed and supporting evidence will be required. The planned audit will both
test the hypothesis that consistency in new source review Is no longer a
significant problem and provide supporting data for whatever follow-up is
necessary.
Pbst program evaluations are concerned with effectiveness; the principal
focus of this audit Is consistency. This will require an in-depth national
analysis of the Information that is collected. •In order to allow comparison of
results, Regions will have less flexibility In determining the nature of this
audit than for other program evaluations. A general protocol for the audit and
a detailed checklist of questions to be asked are attached. The Information pro-
vided to Headquarters (OANR) must respond to this checklist; general narrative
evaluations of State NSR programs are discouraged. This protocol will be reviewed
by the Regions for practicality and made final prior to the conduct of any audits.
‘Regional Consistency,’ FR Part 56, Vol. 45, No. 249, page 85405 (December
24, 1980).

-------
2
The Consistency regulations require the Regional Administrator to prepare
an evaluation report and to publish notice of its availability in the Federal
Register . However, to be useful, an evaluation of consistency requires a
national analysis and cannot be made directly from individual State or Regional
reports. Therefore, In lieu of individual reports for each State, OANR will
assemble and analyze the information that you collect, prepare a national
report and, after your review, publish a summary tn the Federal Register and
announce the availability of the national report. This should reduce Regional
workload and result In ncre useful conclusions.
Action Items and Measures — In the Consistency regulations the State audit
is a part of the required midyear grant review. However, since guidance Is not
yet available that will coordinate the gran: review with more comprehensive air
program evaluations, ft will not be required to combine them this year. However.,
the schedule for the consistency audit In F? 1982 is compatible with most grant
reviews. State visits and data collection should be cor pleted early tn the third
quarter and the information sent to OANR by June 1. A national analysis will be
available 30 days later In time for use in the F? 1983 planning cycle and grant
negotiations.
The Accountability System requires Regions to negotiate with OANR by
February 15, 1982, the number and schedule of audits to be undertaken. This
negotiation will center around the number of applicable political entities to
audit and on the scope of the audit. Some large local agencies (e.g., Nashville.
Pittsburgh) have primary responsibility for NSR and they should be audited in
addition to the States. Also, some discussion may be necessary to define the
types of NSR programs (e.g., NSPS, NESHAPS, PISO, Part 51.18) applIcable to a
State or local agency and, therefore, determine the extent of the audit.
Finally, some States or locals may have just received delegation for parts of
the NSR program and only a limited audit will be possible.
Attaclinent

-------
)(tC CL-I
PROTOCOL AND DIECKLIST FOR A CONSISTENCY AUDIT
OF STATE NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROGRA I’S
General ProCedure
Claims have been made that serious inequities exist between State programs
for new source review and that these lead to permit shopping by sources an loss
of economic benefit to States that have re rigorous programs. This audit is
designed to evaluate the consistency of State programs for new source review.
Indirectly this is an evaluation of the effectiveness of EPA guidance on new
source review and our success in transferring the programs to the States in a
reasonably uniform manner.
The auait generally will require a visit to the State agency by at least
one Regional representative, presumably by the Nfl coordinator for air programs.
A series of questions are provided for the interview. These are designed to
examine the State’s current policies and procedures in areas of NSR most likely
to foster serious inconsistencies. It is recortnended that the questions be
made available to the State prior to the interview. If necessary, remote States
or States with little NSR activity can be aud i ted by mail and telephone. The
evaluation focuses on procedures and policies and it should not be necessary to
pull and review specific permits in order to complete the audit.
Since a national analysts will be made of the information collected, results
should be reported to Headquarters in a brief, quantitative, and consistent man-
ner. The large nunber of detailed questions being suggested are necessary
because of the breadth of the NSR program and in an attempt to facilitate short
specific answers. Narrative evaluations will be accepted if necessary, but they
are discouraged since they are difficult to include in a national analysis.
Unless desired by the Region for its own purpose, there Is no requirement for a
State-specific analysis and report. However, detailed notes should be retained
for Regiort/Headquarter* discussion during the analysis period.
Scope and Scheduj4
Essentially all States have their own air program to review and permit new
sources. Not all of these overlap with some of EPA ’s required Nfl programs,
i.e., those that involve NSPS. NES IIAPS, and PSD. Our interest is principally
on the consistency of those new source permitting programs that States are
required to do under the Clean Air Act. However, it is suggested that the Region
obtain information on State NSR programs, even if they are not formally being
done In response to the CAA, in order to improve our undersxanding and to facili-
tate decisions on delegation.
Although the audit is directed at States, it should be expanded to include
any local agency or district that has full responsibility for any of the
appropriate NSR programs. For example, it is our understanding that four coun-
ties In Tennessee, two in Pen nsylva n ia, and the Districts in California all

-------
2
operate NSR programs, negotiate with sources, and issue permits Independent of
the States. If so, these should be audited fully.
The current target dates are to complete the audits by ,June 1, 1982, and
to have the national analysis available by July 1, 1982. The Administrator’s
Accountability System provides for Regional/Headquarters negotiation to be
completed by February 15, 1982, to determine the number of agencies to be audited
by each Region and the detailed schedules. The draft audit protocols and check-
list will be reviewed by the Regions for practicality and will be made final
prior to the initiation of any State audits.

-------
12/17/81
DETATLED CHECKLIST FOR AUDIT OF STATE NSR PROGRAM FOR CONSISTENCY
1. General Information
a) Name of State or local agency.
b Name and phone number of person in EPA responsible for evaluation.
c Name and title of responsible State person.
d) Status of State acceptance of P50, NSPS, NESHAPS (detail exceptions).
e) Approximate number of new source permits annually.
f) Approximate size of State NSR program (work years). Total, not only for
PSD, NSPS, and NESHAPS. Significant changes in past year?
g) Miscellaneous arty special situations?
2. Source Discovery and Coverage
States should have evolved a comprehensive system for learning of a source’s
intention to build and a mechanism for auditing the system. The ultimate incon-
sistency would result from sources not applying for a permit.
a) What Is the principal mechanism used for source discovery? (Dodge Reports,
building permits, other State agencies).
b) What evaluation Is routinely made of the adequacy of the discovery system?
(procedure, frequency, by whom).
c) When s last comprehensive check done? Result?
d) What procedures are used for sources located after construction (penalties,
special review or handling).
e) What sources are excluded from the State permit process? How are exemp-
tions stated? (type, size, emissions for new and modifications).
3. Validation of Information on Permit
Most new source decisions will be made based on the information contained
in the permit. Some validation seems necessary.
a) What validation is done routinely on information In the permit? (specific
or general make sense, emissions, capability of control devices,
modeling, classes of sources).
b) Are written guidelines available for validation?
C) Is written documentation of validation made?
d) Permits validated? Information found In error and changed? (number in
past year, fraction of majors, most common errors).
4. ApplIcability Determinations
The determination of the type of review a new source should receive Is a
critical decision and cart become very complicated.
a) Does the State have an Initial classification system (major, minor) that
determines the Intensity of the review?

-------
2
b) What are the cutpolnts? (size, type source, emissions, location,
pollutant).
c) Any significant changes made In cutpolnts In past several years? What
Is general nature of changes?
d) Any validation or appeal process for Initial classification decision?
e) Aooroximately what S of applications are classified as minor?
f) What review do minor sources receive? (against SIP limit, control
‘ logy, procedural).
Approximate work days per minor pennft?
h) Does State identify formally and document the nature of the review a major
source will receive (NSPS, PSD)?
1) Is there provision for enough classifications to define major types of
reviews? (PSD, lISPS. NESHAPS, offsets, moratorium, nonattainment areas).
j) What is basis for classification? (pollutant, location, size, cutpoints).
Are the bases compatible with current regulations?
•-I the classification system In accord with Regional Office understanding
of the situation? (areas and pollutants needing offset, delegation,
areas with construction moratorium).
m) What is State mechanism for keeping staff informed of required changes
to classification system? (new nonattainment areas, changes In PSD
regulations).
n) Are sources notified of the basis for their review (classification)?
o) How are fugitive emissions handled in applicability determinations?
5. Coordination
For many States EPA still does a portion of the reviews for PSD, NSPS, and
NESHAPS and coordination between EPA and the States Is essential to ensure
efficiency and a full review. Coordination between neighboring States also is
becoming Increasingly Important.
a) Does the State routinely route appropriate applications to EPA If the
State does not have responsibility for P50, NESHAPS, or NSPS?
• T not, does the State require the source to notify EPA?
Is there ‘ny check on State response to request to notify EPA?
d) If dual r vIew occurs, what Is the mechanism for State and EPA to coordi-
nate evaluation of control technology and modeling?
a) Does the State notify routinely neighboring States of permits being
reviewed?
fl What Is mechanism? At what level Is notification made? Is EPA notified
routinely?
g) What are decision criteria for notifying neighboring States?
What information is provided to neighboring States? Examples?
1, What Is the process for reviewing conrents from neighboring States?
E .d pl es?
3) Is the State satisfied that they are notified adequately by neighboring
States? Satisfied that their coninents are reviewed seriously?

-------
3
k) During the past year has the State asked for EPA examination or inter-
vention in a permit being reviewed by a neighboring State?
1) What was the nature of the problem? How was It resolved?
in) Is public notice required by the State? For what type of sources?
n) What are the systems used? What Is minimum information provided?
) Is there written guidance on public participation?
p) Are c nments frequently received as a result of public notice? Approxi-
nata %? Are changes made In permit? Examples?
q) Who classifies comments relative to validity and decides on response?
6. Enilssfon Limits
The emission limit and the basis for It is probably the most Important
item of a new source permit.
:) Are there situations where a State issues a permit that does not contain
a specific emission limit or Its equivalent, such as equipment sped—
fications? What are they?
b) What is the basis for the emission limit specified? SIP limit? NSPS,
If source covered? P1 HAPS, if applicable? BACT? LAER?
c) If source Is covered by an NSPS or NESHAPS, does the State ever specify
a less restrictive limit on the permit? Under what situations?
d) What areas of the State require LAER? Is this consistent with the
Regional Office understanding?
e) What is the basis that BACT is needed? For which pollutants?
f) Is NSPS generally assumed to be BACT if source is covered by NSPS?
g) How frequently is a specific BACT determination made?
h) Is BACT often significantly more restrictive than NSPS? Examples?
I) What Is the State process for determining BACT? What is used as the
presuiiptlve norm? Are written guidelines available?
j) Is any formal use made of BACT decisions on similar sources In neighboring
States? Is any file kept on BACT decisions in neighboring States?
k) Is there any formal extramural peer review of BACT determinations?
) Is negotiation with the source a part of most BACT determinations?
m) Art N!PS, BAd, and LAER usually the same? Is LAER frequently more
restrictive? Examples?
ii) What is the State process for determining LAER? What is used as the
presumptive norm? Are written guidelines available?
o) Is any formal use made of LAER decisions in neighboring States? Is any
file kept on LAER decisions around the country?
p) Is negotiation with the source usually a part of LAER determinations?
7. Offsets
Inc use of offsets to allow new sources to locate in nonattainment areas
Is one of the more complicated facets of the GR program and, therefore, has the
potential for much abuse through misunderstanding.
a) Is the offset requirenent a recognized part of the State NSR program?
How often has It been part of a permit during the past year?

-------
4
b) Does the State have written guidelines for obtaining offsets?
c) Does the State have a formal system of recordkeeplng and documentation?
Does it prevent double accounting and ensure that amount claimed is
surplus beyond that needed for attainment?
d) Does the State track minor source growth?
e) Does the State or the source arrange offsets for minor source growth?
f I th State’s use of offset consistent with Reasonable Further Progress?
g) Does State routinely validate the amount and enforceability of the offset
claimed by the source?
h) How does the State handle quantification of fugitive emissions claimed
as offsets?
1) What Is State criteria for geographic proximity test?
j) Is baseline expressed as actual or allowable emissions?
8. Ambient Review of Air Quality Impact
An evaluation of the A.Q. Impact of large sources Is a relatively new part
of State programs and one that often was added as a federal requirement. It
usually Is complex both technically and procedurally and has significant poten-
tial for inconsistency due to the amount of case-by-case judgment required.
a) What is the basis for determining that an air quality review Is required?
For NAAQS? For PSD?
b) What are the criteria for determining that a Class I area review is
required?
c) What is included in a Class I area review?
d) What are the State’s public hearing requtr nents for a Class I area
review?
e) Who Is the Federal Land Manager for the State’s Class I areas?
f) What is the scitedule for notifying the FIN and EPA if a Class I area Is
involved in a permit review?
g) What are formal procedures for consideration of FIN and EPA corni ents?
Examples?
hj Who g.’ rally models the impact of new source permits that require an
A.Q. inalysis?
1) Does State validate routinely the modeling calculations submitted with
the permit? If not, do they ever validate In this detail? Under what
circumstances?
J) What Is State procedure for review of general modeling approach used by
the source (model selected, input data)? Is review documented?
Examples?
k) What Is the base used by the State for model selection or for approval of
the model selected by the source?
1) WP .t are the State’s procedures for selecting or accepting a model that
Is not in EPA guideline?
m) Does the State routinely accept modeling based on one year of off—site
meteorological data?

-------
5
n) What are State criteria for deleting meteorological data prior to
modeling?
o) How does the State determine the air quality Impact of fugitive
• emissions?
n) flnec modeling extend to areas in neighboring States? What information
Is provided to adjacent States? Are they involved in negotiations
with the source on modeling? How are their comments reviewed?
Examples?
q) What emission Is modeled? Maximum? Average?
r) What operating conditions for the source are used in model? Worst case?
Maximum? Average?
s) Are results for any receptor sites ever discarded after modeling? Under
what conditions?
‘dhat is State policy If screening model shows violations? Examples?
u; What is the approval/disapproval criteria (highest concentration, high
second high).
v) Is downwash ever modeled? In what situations?
w) Is the emission limit (Including averaging time) on the permit and the
emission limit used for modeling ever different? Under what conditions?
x) In what situations must a source provide air monitoring data? Any
exemptions?
y) Is ft routine for sources that must monitor to use existing air quality
data? Approximate percentages?
z) Is EPA guideline used to determine adequacy 0 f existing data? If not,
what are criteria? Are written guidelines available?
aa) If ambient monitoring is required, what are requirements relative to
number of samplers, QA, location, length of time, etc.? Are written
guidel Ines vailablet
9. Permit Conditions
EPA would 4ke to expand Its acceptance of State permits in lieu of specific
i,’ or NSR emis.. on regulations. A key feature Is the form and completeness of
the permit.
a) Does the permit specify all needed cond1tion t ls It freestanding?)
Examples?
b) Does the State have a standard list of conditions? What are key items
Included?
c) Is In—stack monitoring ever required? When?
4) What Is the form of the typical emission limit? (for SO,, TSP, VOC).
Is a;. pplicable averaging time specified in the emlssloh limit?
10. Miscellaneous
a) Does the State have a formal system for tracking increment consumed
either for P50 or air quality standards?
b) If so, what are the major elements of the system? Emissions Included;
areas Involved?

-------
6
C) Are written criteria available?
d) How are fugitive emissions and area sources handled?
e) How does the system handle fuel switching?
f) What is the chain of decision-making for new source permits?
g) Whet percentage of decisions are reviewed outside of the air agency?
Do these reviews consider other than the technical analysis?
h) What fraction of these reviews result in a reversal of the agencies’
recommendations? Is a reanalysis of BAd, LAER, or air quality impact
ira del
1) Is there a forcal State appeal syst In addition to the courts? What
is i they have a broader basis for approval/disapproval than
does the normal review?
j) Are there schedules and timetables on State action on new source permit
review? Are these binding or advisory?
k) Do the deadlines cause problems with adequate programs for public
coment and required reviews by adjacent States, the FIMI or EPA?
1) Is a sunvnary sheet made on each permit quoted? On major source permits?
- If so, what does it contain?
r the State have any concern about Inconsistency in the NSR program
il other States? Specific examples? Recoiimendations?

-------
OFFICE OF AIR, NOISE. AND RADIATION STATUS REPORT
Streamlined SIP Processes to Reduce SIP Inventory and Accelerate Review
Th Administrator’s Accountability System, Objective B, subobjective
1, Mr, Noise, and Radiation, addresses the streamlined SIP process to
reduce SIP Inventory and accelerate review. Because of the nature of
the ongoing SIP process (detailed below), many of the specific goals for
this objective have either been completely met already or new programs
are now operating to meet this objective. The Impediments to a more
‘t cient ii review process have been Identified and specific programs
are now in place to eliminate or mitigate most of these Impediments.
Through the cooperation of the Regional Offices, a program has begun to
speed up SIP processing to a degree well within the March 1, 1982 require-
ment. The Regional Offices are well ahead of schedule after the first
two months of operation. The following text details the Identified
Impedir2nts and the steps taken to correct these problems.
‘ lments— The State Implementation Plan (SIP) rulemaking process
he. s . al significant characteristics that differ markedly from other
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) actions. Most Importantly, the
preparation of SIP Federal Register notices is decentralized. The
overwhelming majority are prepared in EPA’s Regional Offices. In
addition, the SIP Federal Register notices cover a wide range of actions,
from virtually routine to very sophisticated and/or controversial
actions. These unique qualities have caused the. evolution of a very
specific concurrence process for SIP actions which, In many actions,
became very time consuming.
State regulatory actions must be formally incorporated into the
Federal SIP through a formal rulemaking process. There Is a significant
Federal workload Involved in preparing, documenting, reviewing, resolving
issues, and otherwise processing these rulemaking actions. The Regional
Air Branch offices within the Air and Hazardous Materials Division are
principally responsible for the preparation and processing of the Federal
gi #c rartjons. However, Regional Enforcement also reviews and
COtTI 1t.!:t these actions. The SIP review process had evolved to the
. f w ere ther were an Increasing number of review steps and con-
sequently an Increasing amount of time needed for review. In many cases
this was an across the board Increase, with little regard for the
Importance or Impact of the SIP revision. In many cases minor actions
were receiving virtually the same review as major policy-related revisions.
The personnel in the Regional Offices who deal with the SIPs and the
Control Programs Development Division of OAQPS, through their routine SIP
work and regular discussions, have together identified marty of the Impedi—
merts to speed up SIP processing. Staff persons In the Regional Offices
and In CPDD work together regularly on Individual SIP revisions and specific

-------
2
Issues as a matter of routine. Beyond that) CPDD organizes an Air Branch
Chiefs meeting approximately every two •nionths where SIP issues are the
major focus. Air and Hazardous Materials Division Directors meetings are
also held regularly so that they may have the opportunity to discuss SIP
matters with Headquarters personnel. Regular SIP-related status reports
are assembled by CPDD with assistance from the Regional Offices and many
one-time reports on various SIP issues are developed in this manner also.
A SIP Task Force was begun within OAQPS to regularly study means of
imorovina the orocess. In addition, a monthly OANR SIP status report
Is -n . sued which makes it possible to determine the status of SIP
revisions In Headquarters review. The upshot of this virtually con-
tinuous wcrking together is that both the Regional Offices and CPDD have
a very thorough knowledge of the SIP problems and have already developed
a precise list of the impediments to speed up SIP processing.
Co’imn 1 In Table 1 shows the steps Involved in processing noncon-
trovers1 ’1 special actions using existing procedures.
A t.j ical review and processing of a SIP revision took approximately
220 work days and involved 24 steps. Of these 220 days, 76 are spent in
the EPA Regional Offices, 33 In EPA Headquarters offices, and ill in
other (such as con ent periods, 0MB review, etc.). Delays can, and do,
occur during the review process. These delays may occur at the Regional
Office level, at any one of seven Headquarters offices where SIPs are
reviewed, or In 0MB. Delays may last anywhere from one day to more than
one year, depending upon the complexity and controversial nature of the
revision. Steps where delays are possible are marked with an asterisk
in Table 1, Column 1.
One difficulty has been the number of participating offices in the
SIP processing and review process-—the Air Branch, Enforcement, and
Regional Counsel In the Regional Offices and up to seven different
offices in Headquarters. In Headquarters, In particular, it has been a
case of review by virtually equal partners with no single office having
.e rer- nsi’llity for the entire process. Many of the delays have been
caused kj this diff sed responsibility. Many small issues have been
esc ..gtcd for deci.’cn-making beyond the level they have warranted
because of this.
All special actions, regardless of in ortance and air quality
Impact, received virtually the same review In the standard review
process. All would take approximately the 220 work days and 24 steps
Identified above while going through the standard proposal, coninent,
final rulemaking track.
).n diticr:l burden on the SIP process is that an estimated 30-50
percent of all SIP revisions are single source permits. In most cases,
these are routine actions but they go through the SIP process as
Individual SIP revisions.

-------
3
Schedule of Improvements and Status of Activities
Finding ways of improving the SIP process has been a continuing
process but attempts to mitigate the problem have accelerated in recent
years.
Possibly the most significant recent improvement has been the
development and national implementation of three experimental SIP
s ’ t.chniques. These began as pilot projects In three Regional
Offlce In the Spring of 1981.
The first technique was the elimination of duplicative review
(Table 1, Column 2). It Involves 22 steps and takes approximately 203
work days. Of these 203 days, 76 are spent in the EPA Regional Office,
19 in EPA Headquarters offices, and 108 in other. This processing
techni’ t.e saves time and reduces the potential for friction between the
State a EPA by eliminating a final Headquarters review on actions that
do no :eive con ents or change significantly during the proposed
ru1etnakin .
The second technique is the Inredlate final rulemaking procedure
(Table 1, Column 3). It Involves 13 steps and takes approximately 90
days. Of the 90 days, 48 days are spent in the EPA Regional Office, 19
In EPA Headquarters offices, and 23 in other. This technique avoids
duplicative EPA reviews by going directly to final rulemaking with non-
controversial SIP revisions. A noncontroversial SIP revision Is one
that is determined to be of limited Impact and no adverse or critical
public con nents are anticipated because of It. Examples of noncontroversial
SIP revisions include State monitoring network plans, administrative
changes to regulation such as public participation procedures, and
certifications of no sources for 111(d) plans. The Federal Register
notice promulgating the action does not become effective for 60 days to
provide opportunity for conrents In the unlikely event there should be
any.
third tehnique Is parallel processing (Table 1, Column 4). It
lnqoives 13 Lteps nd takes approximately 90 days. Of the 90 days, 48
are spent In the EPA Regional Office, 19 In EPA Headquarters offices,
and 23 in other. Using this technique, EPA will work more closely with
the State as It develops a major regulation and proceeds through the
State rulemaking process. EPA rulemakIng will be carried on slmul—
taneously with the State’s process. Ideally, the State and EPA will
propose the regulation at the same time, announce cvncurrent coment
periods, and jointly review the coments. The EPA Regional Office will
consult with EPA Headquaters offices early on in an effort to ensure
thut 1 sues ar resolved before the State adopts Its regulation. All
substantive issues should be raised by EPA Headquarters offices before
the regulation Is proposed for approval. When the State has adopted the
regulation, It will then be processed by EPA as a final action. This

-------
4
procedure involves the same number of.steps under previous review
procedures; however, the first 13 steps are being done simultaneously
with the State’s rulemaking process. In other words, by the time EPA
receives the State’s official submittal, It has already completed Its
major review a’ d EPA has given the State the technical or policy guidance
necessary for Federal approval. Thus, the time between State submittal
and final Federal promulgation is decreased considerably.
Experic ce with the three experimental SIP review techniques showed
that resource and time savings were possible. Without an experimental
technique, there were ten review steps where delays were possible. The
“Eliminating Duplicative Review” technique eliminates one of these
steps, the “In nediate Final” procedure eliminates four of these steps,
and the “Parallel Processing” technique eliminates all but one of the
reviews prirtr to State adoption of the SIP revision.
A meet was held to evaluate the use of the three experimental
techniques tn Washington on June 29, 1981. The meeting was attended by
representatives of OAQPS, OGC, DSSE, OPM, OTLUP, OMSAPC, and FOSD. The
application of the three techniques was then expanded to include all EPA
Regional Offices on July 22, 1981 in a memorandum from Edward Tuerk to
the Air and Hazardous Materials Division Directors In the Regional
Offices. This decision was announced to the public in the Federal
Reoister on September 4, 1981 (Page 44477). Walt Barber reiterated the
Importance of using the three experimental techniques in a memorandum to
the Air and Hazardous Materials Division Directors on September 18,
1981. A follow-up meeting was held In Washington on September 21, 1981.
Three status reports on the use of the three techniques have been
prepared--August 17, 1981; September 18, 1981; and early December 1981.
As of November 30, 1981, 101 SIP revisions have been processed
using one or more of these approaches. Since July 22, 1981, when the
program went into effect nationally, approximately 38 percent of the SIP
c’ ions i - e processed using an experimental approach.
4sLuJ v Is underway to evaluate the impact of the experimental SIP
proc 4 sing program on the SIP process. The results of this study will
be available by January 1982. A management system Is being developed to
track the progress of the three techniques. Headquarters and the
Regional Offices will be able to determine the precise location of a SIP
revision in the review process. This sytem should be fully operational
in the Spring of 1982.
SIP Inventory
Besides the experimental SIP processing techniques, there Is some
additional work that directly affects the existing SIP Inventory problem.
On August 6, Walt Barber sent a memorandum to the Air and Hazardous
Materials Division Directors on tracking the SIP revisions that were in
the Regional Offices but had not yet had a final rulemaking.

-------
The information provided by the Regional Offices to OAOPS as a
result of this memorandum was included. in a report issued In September
198I——”Status of Revisions to State Implementation Plans.N This report
Indicated that there were 605 actIons awaiting final action as of
July 31, 1981 in the Regional Offices (later corrected to 659) and that
new actions were coming in at the rate of 360 per year.
The Regional Offices projected final action on 50 percent of the
Inventory by January 1, 1982; on an additional 35 percent by July 1, 1982;
on an additional 10 percent by December 31, 1982; with incomplete State
‘ 1 +als eeount1ng for the remaining 5 percent.
A status report developed in November 1981 indicated that during
August and September, the Regional Offices had reduced the number of SIP
revisions in the July 31 inventory by 19 percent. Even with the addition
of the SIP revisions received during this period, there was still a net
decrease of 65 revisions for an overall reduction of 10 percent in the
total Inventory, which Includes the July 31 Inventory and the August—
September submlttals. The Regional Offices have developed schedules for
process 4 ng ‘ ns and reducing the number of actions outstanding. The
Control Programs Operations Branch is developing a computerized tracking
system for monitoring this activity. The Regional Offices are now 70
actions ahead of schedule——38 finals and 32 proposals.
To continue to make gains in reducing the SIP backlog, the Regions
need to be able to keep up with the actions that are coming in at the
rate of 360 per year. The three experimental SIP processing techniques
are Intended to make this possible.
One of the early refinements In the SIP review process was the
categorization of special and normal SIP revisions done five years ago.
This allowed the Agency to focus its review effort on the more complex
and far—reaching issues-—the uspecialif revisions——while allowing the
less Important “normal” revisions to go through the system with a less
cumbersome review.
ih is .tem has been further streamlined in a memorandum from the
ssis t L ainstrator to the Regional Administrators (November 9, 1981).
This r pia es-the.spec.1 ’l/normal system with three new categories:
mijor,.moderate, and minor. The three categories will be used to determine
tl,elevel of review for each revision. A major SiP revision will undergo
the full 14—day review previously given speciaT actions. A moderate SIP
revision will be reviewed primarily by the appropriate offices within
the Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation. A minor SIP revision will be
reviewed primarily by the Regional Office. Thiicategorizatf on system
should improve the flow of SIP revisions during Headquarters review and
ensure that each revision receives the appropriate degree of review.

-------
6
The recent organization changes In the Regional Offices should be
helpful in resolving some of the Intra-Agency difficulties in the review
of SIP revisions. The inclusion of the enforcement elements Into the
Air and Hazardous Materials Divisions should consolidate the SIP
processing and eliminate at least some of the difficulties that occurred
in the past because of the lack of centralized responsibility.
The use of operating permits Is also a promising possibility. It
has been estimated that future SIP Inventories could be reduced 30-50
percent If State operating permits could be made Federally enforceable
s r Itted as SIP revisions. A concept paper has been
developed by OAQPS on this topic but additional work Is required before
this could be implemented. In particular, there are some difficult
legal problems that must be resolved. New Clean Air Act Amendments
would also have an Impact on this type of a program. Any action In the
use of operating permits is contingent upon activity in these two
difficult areas.

-------
Definition of Significant Violator
One of the objectives of the Administrator’s
Accountability System for FY 1982 is that resources be used to
,. ress 1 nIf!sant air violators and return them to
compliance. This is designed to ensure that resources are
used in the most environmentally beneficial manner. The
purpose of this guidance is to assist Regional Offices and
States in determLning what the Agency considers to be a
significant vio ator.
In determining whether a violation is significant, the
nature of the pollutant should be considered, as well as the
magnitude and duration of the violation and the population
exposed. While no rigid formula need be followed, the
following considerations should be kept in mind.
L) 7. vio’ ion of a hazardous air pollutant standard
:ct’;u ing n n asicns above the standard should normally be
considered significant unless the magnitude and duration of
the violation are minimal and the violation nonrecurring.
2. A source in violation of a State implementation plan
should be considered significant if the source is of suffi-
cient size and is located so as to impact a nonattainment
area. Sources above 250 tons per year emission potential

-------
as defined in the Alabama Power case) should be considered
significant violators unless the magnitude and duration of the
violation are minir al and the violation generally
nonrecurring. (To the extent that available data do not
permit easy identification of sources in excess of 250
tons/year potential, sources with more than 100 tons/year
actual emissions can be used as a reasonable surrogate.)
Othe sources in nonattainment areas should also be included
Li the amount o .. ess emissions is considered jointly by the
Regional Office and State as having an important impact on the
continued nonattainment of the area.
3. Sources in attainment areas and not impacting
nonattainment areas would not normally be considered
significant because of the lack of direct health impact.
While States, appropriately, should take action to resolve
such violations, EPA will not give them high priority
orsi A:.
4. Sources in violation of new source requirements,
including NSPS and PSD/NSR permitting requirements, should
also be considered to be significant violators unless the
agnituds a’ d iu’i’tion f the violation are minimal.
As provided for in the Agency’s new accountability
system, Regional Offices should meet with each of their
States to jointly prepare an inventory of known significant

-------
violators. States should be encouraged to take the lead with
respect to as much of the universe as possible. Wherever
possible, EPA should use its resources to supplement those of
the State rather than to take the lead on cases itself. This
technical assistance can be either in the form of direct case
assistance (if requested) or through sponsoring of technical
workshops and othur program building/supporting activities.
EPA should assurn . lead only where a State cannot or will
not take the lead, despite whatever assistance EPA can
provide.

-------
Guidance Necessary To Pemove Impediments to Enforcement
- Violators .
1. Co”%prehensive policy on why Final 3/1/82
113(a) crders issued to SIP,
N5PS, and NESHAP sources require
compliance within 30 days of
issuance.
2. .larification on existing Final 1/15/82
NCP guidance (4/2/81) that
states that prior to conducting
a settlement of NCP, a source
must execute a consent decree
order. (With limitec! adrninistra—
tive remedies, this i
intei .atcd by PegS t as
meaning all NCP sources
simultaneously have 113(b)
action.)
3. iteria that should be used Final 6/1/82
in determining the appropriateness (Draft to regions by
of enforcement action against a 3/1/82)
source for violations of a mass
std.
4. Policy on enforcement action to be Final 5/1/82
taken against sources which are (Draft to.regions by
in compliance with an applicable 3/1/82)
mass std. but in violation of YE
std.
5. Guidance c EPA policy for addressing Final 3/31/82
r ej •t ite i: ‘ r !ation but (Draft to regions by
are ‘ a non—i cogni &3le 1/31/82)
state order.

-------
Guidance Necessary To Remove Impediments to Enforcement
Against Stationary Source Violators.
6. Given emphasis Ofl EPA’S overview Final 3/31/82
role, -guidance on its main direc— (Draft to regions by
tion a 4 d incentives and the degree 1/31/82)
to which EPA ii1l defer to State
enfor ement related matters.
7. C; danca c.i ; t bl .1r g G1icy FInal 4/1/82
imp1 mentation.
8. Clarification of EPA’S excess Final 4/1/82
emissions policy and its
relationship to the SIP process.
9. Policy on NS?S enforce e when Final 4/1/82
NSPS std. c,r test methoc. ó
qu’ ‘ 4 r d.
10. Guidance on whether CEM data can Final 5/1/82
be used in an enforcement action (Draft to regions by
as documentation of a violation. 3/1/82)
21. Guidance on enforcement action Final 5/1/B?
on O&M violations where no (Draft te regions by.
violations of emission limits 3/1/82)
have been documented.
12. Definition of continuous compliance Final 6/1/82
considering what degree of tolerance (Draft to regions by
should be a1lowe in evaluating 3/1/82)
a source’s compliance with its
emission limits.
13. Guidancs on of CD Final 5/1/82
reporting b the stat .

-------
cui4 nce Necessary To Pemove Impediments to Enforcement
Against Stationary Source Violators.
14. Guidance on NESHAP asbestos Final 8/1/82
standard analytic methods. (Draft to regions by
4/1/82)
15. Guidance on the definition of Final 2/1/82
equlpnient and machinery’ as
sper .ified in 40 CFR 61.22(e)
and what constitutes a
k’ cuminuous or ve inou binder
en”psulation for asbestos which
is not friable.
16. Guidance with regard to Final 2/1/82
expiration of the temporary
stay of the regulatory require-
ment that physical ot operational
limitation n emission ip city must
be federally enforc b.. n order
a en into account in terms
of otfsets or PSD applicability.
17. Guidance on method 9 revisions to Proposed rulemaking
include methods for reading by 9/30/82
opacity for intermittent emission
sources.
18. Guidance on federal enforcement Final 3/31/82
of non—federally approved (Draft to region by
SIP violations. 1/31/82
19. Guidance on federal enforcement Final 3/31/82
of SIP violations when the SIP (Draft to regions by
requirement has been superceded 1/31/82)
by a State reg that has not yet
bee’! a rov-” v PA.

-------
2

-------
b MPO RJAWT NO 7!!
—-rn -
r

-------
Definition of “Continuous Compliance” and
Enforcement of 0 & M Violations
(06/21/82)
File at Part A, Document *2

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JUN21 82
FFICE OP
AIR, NOISE AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Definition of “Continuous Compliance”
and Enforcement of O&M Violations
F4 OM: Kathleen M. Bennett
Assistant Administrator . .rr Air, Noise and Radiation
TO: Directors, : and Waste agement Divisions
Regions I—IV, VI-VIIL and X
Directors, Air Management Divisions
Regions V and IX
The purpose of this memo is to provide you with some general
programmatic guidance as to the meaning of the term “continuous
compliance” and the role of operation and maintenance (O&M)
requirements in assuring that continuous compliance is maintained.
Of course, source specific guidance on O&M measures which can
assure continuous compliance is an essential part of this program
and this memorandum is not intended to substitute for such
guidance. As you know, DSSE has undertaken a nuMber of
initia.ives related to the continuous compliance effort and we
hope to discuss the progress of those efforts with you at the
upcoming workshop at Sout ;r ine DSSE will be forwarding to
you an updated BLmzr y ti ..: “.‘t vi ..ies p i’r to the workshop.
However, given the c nuthg a being given to
“continuous compliance,” I think it would be helpful to have a
coimnon understanding of what that concept entails.
In the strict legal sense, sources are required to meet,
without interruption, all applicable emission limitations and
other control requirements, unless such limitations specifically
provide otherwise. However, of primary concern to the Agency are
those violations that could have been prevented, through the
installation of proper contr ’ eq ip nt the operation and
maintenance of that equipment in accordance with proper
procedures. We believe the concept of continuous compliance is
essentially the avoidance of preventable excess emissions over
time as a result of the proper design, operation and maintenance
of an air pollution source. This includes avoidance of
preventabLe instances of excess emissions, minimization of

-------
ATTACHME’ 4T 1.
t0
- e%. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PRC
F7i WASHINGTON. D.C. 2O46 .
1 _ 0 %C
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMEr..T
MAY I I I9
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: The Major Source Enforcement Effort
FROM: Richard D. Wilso
Acting Assista d For Enforcement
TO: Regional Administrators
Regional Enforcement Division Directors
Introduction
As you know, the Major Source Enforcement Effort (MSEE) was
launched in the fall of 1977 and for three years has been an
Office of Enforcement top priority. The goal of the effort has
been to identify and take enforcement action agathst major sources
that have never achieved initial compliance with applicable
regulations under the Clean Air and Clean Water .Acts. Within this
group of non—complying sources are some of the largest
contributors to the nation’s air and water pollution problems.
These sources have in many instances been in violation for several
years.
As outlined in some detail in this memorandum, we believe the
effort has achieved much of its initial aim. While we must
continue to direct efforts towards resolving those cases not yet
resolved and tracking consent decrees resulting from previous
efforts to assure compliance, we must also give greater
recognition to the other challenges facing the air and water
programs. As such, we are concluding the MSEE as a separate
effort and remaining activities with respect to MSEE sources will
be considered, as appropriate, in the context of the other air and
water enforcement priorities facing the Regions.and the States.
However, given the degree of commitment by EPA and the States to
this effort in the last few years, I think it appropriate to
summarize for you the history of the effort and its results to
date.

-------
—2—
Background of the MSEE
The fundamental elements of the MSEE were first outlined for
the Enforcenlent Division Directors in October 1977. For the
effort to prove a success, it was recognized from the outset that
the support and cooperation of the States, local agencies, and the
Department of Justice (D3J) would be essential. During October
and November of 1977, Headquarters and Regional personnel met with
State and local officials and DOJ personnel in each Region to
secure their support and to brief them on the MSEE program. The
Regional Offices later met with each of the States individually to
compile lists of major violators and to make some preliminary
decisions as to what kind of action was appropriate for each
(judicial or administrative) and which Agency would be primarily
responsible for the action, the State or EPA.
By April 1978, the MSEE list had been put into final for n.
It was composed of 2,134 major sources; 1,410 of which were air
sources and 724 were water sources, excluding Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTWs). (Since a few sources were listed as both
air and water violators, the 2,134 figure includes some
double—counting.)
Some significant features behind the numbers are;
Of the 2,134 air and water sources, 704 were planned civil
actions; 10 were planned criminal actions; 924 were
planned State or Federal administrative actions; and the
rest were projected to come into compliance without
further enforcement action.
The 704 planned civil actions were the core of the MSEE
and of these, EPA was to take civil action against 597,
the States against 107. All ten criminal actions were to
be Federal.
617 of the 704 facilities requiring judicial actions were
industrial sources (as opposed to State, municipal, or
Federal), and half of the 617 were clustered in certain
key industries — power plants, iron and steel, pulp and
paper, chemicals, petroleum refineries, and smelters. T)e
other half were widely diverse.
Though the core of the MSEE centered arQund taking judicial
action against these 704 sources (597 being EPA responsibility),
much effort was also spent by EPA and the States in assuring that
all 2,134 sources were brought expeditiously into compliance, or
at least had action initiated that would result in compliance. In
addition, as a result of constant efforts to refine the initial
list, additional sources that met the MSEE criteria of never
achieving initial compliance were subsequently added to the list
thus causing the universe of 2,134 sources to grow by 260
sources.

-------
—3—
Achievements to Date
Today, progress in getting all the MSEE sources into
compliance has been significant. A summary of MSEE civil,
criminal, and administrative activity by EPA and the States
follows:
EPA civil actions against 677 facilities have been
initiated, 395 air and 282 water. The status of these
cases as of March 1981 is:
cases against 384 (57%) facilities have been concluded
cases against 190 (28%) facilities have been filed but
not concluded
cases against 103 (15%) facilities have been initiated
and are pending further action
EPA criminal actions have been initiated against 4
facilities, 2 air and 2 water. The status of these cases
as of March 1981 sh3ws 2 filed and 2 concluded.
State civil actions against 78 facilities have been
initiated, 28 air and 50 water. The status of these cases
as of March 1981 is:
cases against 59 (76%) facilities have been concluded
oases against 2 (2%) facilities have been filed but not
concluded
cases against 17 (22%) facilities have been initiated
and are pending further action
The remaining 1,635 MSEE sources were either targets for
EPA or State administrative action or came into
compliance without any such action. The current status
of these sources, as of March 1981, shows 1,170 sources in
final compliance and 465 sources proceeding on a timetable
to come into compliance or otherwise expected to come into
compliance in the near future.
This effort is even more impressive when it is recognized
that many sources outside the MSEE universe were subject to State
or EPA civil litigation during this same period. For example, EPA
initiated actions against 382 such sources, of which 225 (59%)
have now been concluded, 54 (14%) have been filed but not
concluded, and 103 (27%) have been initiated and are pending
further action. Thus, looking at the Federal litigation
picture over the past three years shows civil actions initiated
against 1,059 facilities, 81% of which are filed or concluded.
(See Attachment A for a discussion of settlements reached with a
few of the most significant MSEE sources.)

-------
—4—
Future Efforts
The MSEE effort began with several thousand sources not
equipped with adequate pollution controls. Now, most of these
sources have installed or are installing the necessary equipment
to control their pollution. With this accomplishment, the
Agency’s enforcement program is intensifying its efforts in
working with States to ensure continuing compliance, to address
new source violators, and to assure municipal source compliance.
In order to assure the full benefit of the gains of the MSEE,
these new efforts will be balanced against the need to follow
through with MSEE cases already initiated and to continue tracking
court decrees to assure final compliance.
Future activities of the water enforcement program will, focus
primarily on non—complying municipal perinittees. Several
components of this new thrust are: 1) a new national
enforcement Municipal Management System (MMS), 2) a revised
Municipal Enforcement Policy for bringing civil actions where
warranted, and 3) a Continuous Compliance Program to insure that,
once constructed, facilities built with public funds continue to
operate within design and permit limitations.
The aim of MMS is to give the States and the Regions an
operational frain work within which to coordinate permits and grant
condition’ and activities sp that constructicn proceeds according
to schedule and each plant can meet its final limits when
completed. It hopes to achieve the greatest ainQunt of improveiner t
in municipal construction and compliance by directing its
resources on those facilities located in the most capital
intensive urban areas. Under the Continuous Compliance Program, a
plant experiencing serious effluent violations will be ordered to
hire a private engineering firm to analyze the plant’s operating
procedures. The firm will then develop a Composite Correction
Plan (CCP) which is designed to follow the plan at their own
expense unless they need to solve design problems. The Municipal
Enforcement Policy aims to secure maximum pollution abatement by
accelerating construction, and making noncompliance less
attractive than compliance. In this respect, judicial actions
will seek penalties for past violations, a court—imposed
compliance schedule, interim effluent limitations, and separate
penalties for any future violations.
A major focus of future activities of the stationary air
enforcement program will be directed around efforts to ensure
continuing compliance. Recent National Commission on Air Quality
(NCAQ) studies show that the failure of sources which have
achieved initial compliance to meet emission limits on a
continuing basis is an air quality problem of growing concern.
One particular NCAQ study of air pollution sources showed that 128
of 180 sources reported as complying with air standards had
documented incidents of excess emissions resulting in a cumulative

-------
—5—
annual excess of 25 percent over the allowed emissions level. To
address this serious problem, DSSE will, be launching a continuous
compliance study to investigate new means of surveillance,
improved inspection techniques, more use of continuous emission
monitoring, better permitting requirements, targeting problem
sources, expanded uses on penalty authorities and other techniques
to improve the ability of EPA and the State to deal with the
challenge of ensuring continuing compliance. Additional areas of
emphasis in the air enforcement program will be an intensification
of efforts to enforce against significant sources in violation of
NESHAPs, NSPS and other new source requirements, and new Part D
SIP requirements.
All of this new activity under both the air and water
programs should result in better self monitoring of sources,
provide more consistent application of laws nationwide, and assure
that full benefit is obtained from existing controls. This in
turn will lessen the burden on all regulated sources to install
additional controls while still resulting in a cleaner, healthier
environment.
Attachment

-------
ATTACHMENT A
Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation
In January 1981, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
signed a consent agreement with Jones and Laughlin Steel
Corporation which will bring air and water pollution sources at
six steel plants in three states into compliance with applicable
air pollution control regulations by December 31, 1982, and with
applicable water pollution control regulations by April 30, 1983.
The six steel plants covered by the pollution abatement agreement
are the Pittsburgh and Aliquippa works in Pittsburgh and
Aliquippa, Pennsylvania: the East Chicago works in East Chicago,
Indiana; the Cleveland Works in Cleveland, Ohio; and the Brier
Hill and Campbell works, in Youngstown, Ohio.
The compliance agreement calls for installation of air and
water pollution controls at the companies’ coke batteries, blast
furnaces, basic oxygen furnace shops, electric arc furnaces and
ancillary steel making facilities. In addition, the agreement
calls for modernization of coke producing capacity at the East
Chicago, Indiana works, which will result in more efficient steel
production. Also under the agreement, Jones and Laughlin has
agreed, in lieu of being assessed a $10 million civil penalty,
to install pollution controls that afford greater environmental
benefit to the public than currently required under law.
The agreement will result in signifidantly cleaner air for
citizens in those areas surrounding the plants in Pennsylvania,
Indiana, and Ohio, and water quality in those areas will also
greatly improve. The total capital cost of the pollution
abatement agreement may reach $350 million, depending upon the
companies’ success in demonstrating the effectiveness of less
costly pollution control measures.
National Steel Corporation
In October 1980, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
signed an agreement with National Steel Corporation to bring
company plants in three States into compliance with all air and
water pollution control requirements by the end of 1982. The
agreement affects one plant in Weirton, West Virginia, one plant
just outside Detroit, and one facility in Granite City, Illinois,
just north of St. Louis.
The settlement incorporates National’s plans for
modernization and replacement of several basic steelmaking
processes. It will maintain the economic stability of the
affected facilities, while protecting the health of citizens in
surrounding communities by reducing particulate emissions nearly

-------
—2—
79 percent at the Detroit plant and 80 percent at the Granite City
facility. Significant reductions in particulates will also occur
at the WeirtOn plant. The agreement also requires that the
Detroit planf expand its maintenance and monitoring programs to
improve performance of its water pollution treatment system.
(In 1979, EPA and National agreed upon a program for water
pollution control at the Weirton plant).
Company estimates put the total cost of the agreement at the
three plants at $180 million. Potential liability for past
violations at the three plants will be offset through the
application of more pollution controls than would otherwise be
required.
U.S. Steel Monongahela River Valley
In one of the biggest environmental control agreements in
steel industry history, U.S. Steel, the nation’s largest producer,
agreed in May of 1979 to bring nine of the company’s western
Pennsylvania plants into compliance with air and water pollution
regulations by the end of 1982. The agreement was reached between
U.S. Steel and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S.
Department of Justice, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and
Allegheny County, Pa. The Pittsburgh—area and western
Pennsylvania facilities covered by the agreement are the Clairton
Works, both plants of the National—Duquesne Works, both plants of
the Edgar Thomson—Irvin Works, Homestead Works (including Carrie
Furnaces), the Vandergrift plant, the Saxónburg sinter plant and
Johnstown Works.
The agreement covers approximately $400 million of air and
water pollution control projects, including a number of control
projects already under construction. The $400 million of
expenditures are in addition to more than $200 million which U.s.
Steel has already spent or committed to air and water quality
projects in the Pittsburgh area. The planned result of the
agreement is nearly a 50 percent reduction in remaining
particulate emissions in the Pittsburgh area. Overall, the
agreement will result in a reduction of particulate emissions from
the plants covered by approximately 22,000 tons per year. In
improving water quality, the decree will result in a 90 percent
reduction in the discharge of remaining water pollutants from the
plants covered, including suspended solids, phenols, cyanide,
ammonia, oil and grease, and acidic alkaline solutions.
Ohio Edison Company
On January 19, 1981, the government lodged two separate
consent decrees with the appropriate U.S. District Court involving
he Ohio Edison Company. One decree settled an action filed
3gainst this source in August 1978, for particulate mass and
isib1e emissions at its Sarnmis plant, one of the largest
particulate polluting facilities in the entire country. Under thc

-------
—3—
terms of the agreement, Ohio Edison will, install controls to bring
all seven units at the plant into compliance with the applicable
regulations and will pay a civil penalty of $1.35 million.
Additionally-, the company agreed to reduce emissions at the three
largest units to a level 25% below the level required for
compliance for a period of ten years. Once compliance is
achieved, the agreement will result in a reduction of at least
60,000 tons of particulate emissions annually from the estimated
levels which existed when EPA initiated enforcement action in
1976.
The second decree covers ten other facilities owned and
operated by Ohio Edison. The company committed to bringing all of
these facilities into compliance with particulate mass and visible
emissions limitations, and agreed to pay a civil penalty of
$150,000.
Tennessee Valley Authority
In December 1978, the Environmental Protection Agency, ten
citizen health and environmental organizations and the States of
Alabama and Kentucky announced a final settlement agreement to
clean up air pollution at ten of TVA’s electric power plants in
the Southeast. A consent decree covering TVA’s electric
generating plants located in the States of Tennessee and Kentucky
was entered on December 27, 1980. Entry of the decree had been
delayed due, in part, to the intervention of several distributors
of TVA power. A consent decree covering TVA’s electric generating
plants in the State of Alabama was entered on October 15, 1979.
Under the agreement, all TVA facilities are required to meet air
pollution standards by the end of 1982, with a number of interim
steps required to control air pollution.
The settlement requires WA to install scrubbers at some
plants and burn less polluting coal at other plants. The scrubber
requirements will allow TVA to burn Eastern coal, which often has
a higher sulfur content. Particulate pollution controls are also
required where needed. The settlement will mean a reduction of
more than 970,000 tons of sulfur dioxide and 85,000 tons of
particulate emissions a year.
Michigan: City of Detroit, Detroit Water &
Sewerage Department
On May 6, 1977, EPA, Region V, through the U.S. Attorney for
the Eastern District of Michigan, filed a complaint against the
City of Detroit for violation of its NPDES permit. These
violations included failure to comply with:
1. The effluent limitations for biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD) (5—day, 20°C), suspended solids, phenol, oil,
coliform bacteria, total phosphorous;

-------
—4—
2. Monitoring requirements;
3; Facilities operation and maintenance requirements;
and
4. Preparation and submission of a UFacjljtjes Plan”
detailing the future needs for pollution abatement facilities in
the Detroit service area.
After months of negotiations the parties reached an agreement
and a Consent Judgment was entered by Judge John Feikens on
September 14, 1977. Among other things this Judgment provided
for: the development of a user charge, Industrial Cost Recovery
and Local Capital Cost Funding System; an approved Industrial
Waste Control Plan on or before March 1, 1978; approved Facilities
Plan by May 15, 1978; the increase of the effective capacity for
secondary treatment on or before September 1, 1980, as well as a
schedule of increasingly more stringent effluent limitations; the
design and construction of a phosphorous removal system at the
treatment plant. In addition to this Consent Judgment Judge
Feikens also appointed a Special Master to have all grievances
with regard to increased sewerage service rates charged to any
community by Detroit and under decisions on such matters by
March 31, 1978. Upon the entry of this Consent Judgment, the
Court also ordered that some $399 million in FY 76 Federal
construction grant monies be reserved for construction projects in
the Detroit area.
The terms of the Consent Judgment went into effect in
December 1977. Investigation by EPA revealed that Detroit was
violating the second set of effluent limitations. Region V filed
a motion for a show cause hearing concerning Detroit’s reasons for
noncompliance. A hearing was held in early November 1978. The
judge ordered a court—appointed monitor to review the p1ar t; its
noncompliance and Detroit’s ability to comply. After a 30—day
review the monitor issued a report citing many inadequacies in the
plant’s staffing, procurement policies and its operations an
maintenance. Subsequently a five—day hearing was held on this
report and the court rendered a decision on March 22, 1979. At
that time the court ordered Detroit’s Mayor Coleman Young to
appoint an Executive Administrator to run the City’s municipal
sewerage program and implement the provisions of the Consent
Judgment. After a lengthy search Mayor Young appointed Joe Moore,
formerly of the Federal Water Quality Administration. The City is
currently trying various methods to get their treatment system to
full capacity.
United States Steel, Lorain, Ohio
This was an action filed for civil penalties and injunctive
relief against the United States Steel Corporation pursuant to
Section 309 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1319, for allegedly

-------
—5—
unlawful discharges of pollutants into the Black River. In
particular, U.S. Steel was alleged to have failed to install a
blast furnace recycle system at its Lorain facility by 3uly 1,
1977. u.S. Steel was also alleged to have unlawfully by—passed
certain eleMents of its coke plant recycle systems on various
occasions, resulting in violations of its NPDES permit.
The case was settled by consent decree entered on 3une 27,
1980. The decree required U.S. Steel Corporation to install a
blast furnace recycle system and to upgrade treatment at its coke
plant and at its pipe mill lagoon to meet the effluent limitations
prescribed by its NPDES permit in accordance with the compliance
schedule contained in the decree.
The decree provides that U.S. Steel will spend $4 million
over four years on a dust suppression program to avoid the payment
of civil penalties. Such expenditures are intended by the parties
to be net expenditures after calculation of any tax benefit. The
decree also provides for stipulated penalties of $7,500 per day
for failure to comply with the terms of the consent decree.

-------
ATTACHMENT 12
itO
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
occ ICE oc
PR 2 83 AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
TI MORA? UN
SUBJECT: FY ‘83 Regional Air Compliance Program Evaluation
FROM: Director
Ztatio axy Srurce i iianc. Aivisic
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Regions II—IV, VI—VIXI and X
Director, Air Manacement Division
Regions I, V and I
As you are aware, the Stationary Source Compliance
Division (SSCD) is planning t restmte its formal evaluation
of Regional air compliance programs. In a February 22, 1983,
memcrand m to you, I explained how we were restructuring the
evaluation to include a self—evaluation component in the form
of a questionnaire and asked for your comments on this
questionnaire and the proposed evaluation process.
We have now received comments from all Regions and are
pleased to announce that the pioposed approach and questionnaire
was well—received. Your input was extremely helpful. and is
reflected in several modifications to the questionnaire which
is attached in final. Although we attempted to address all
comments some deserve clarification. A couple of Regions
commented on our need to ask for information on each inspector’s
position classification, academic background and training. We
have restructured this question to provide only copies of
inspection reports as an example of their ability to perform
quality work (See Objective B, $4). However, we may ask these
questions should the need arise on a Region specific basis in
our follow—up. Several Regions wanted to know how this exercise
related, or could relate, to the National Air Audit System
(NAAS) being developed by OAQPS. This evaluation is distinct
from the NAAS because it evaluates the Regional air compliance
program not the State’s. We have taken efforts to design this
evaluation so it does not duplicate the NAAS. Because of this,
we have dropped the questions on delegated programs. Two Regions
asked us to provide copies of all CDS guidance. An update to
. . -r N vembar 1980 co—pen’1i f C S ! P? r rAnda .iJ.Lbe. .
provided under separate cover. Lastly, we received two

-------
—2—
interesting comments. One said the questionnaire was too long
and the other gave examples of additional questions we should
ask. Consideration of length and coverage was given in this
exercise and we feel all questions, as finalized in this
memorandum, should be answered to provide both our offices a
good, and hopefully healthful, snapshot of the Regional air
compliance programs. Should any Region desire to provide
additional information 4 including what Headquarters could do
to improve the compliance program, please do so in your
transmittal memorandum to the questionnaire.
As noted in my February 15 memorandum, we intend to begin the
evaluation process by sending the questionnaire to two pilot
Regions for the purposes of working out any unforeseen problems
and to gain some experience. This will be followed up by an
announced visit with a set agenda and a final report. The
Regions selected are Regions II and VIII. We will initiate
the evaluation process in the other Regions via a separate
memorandum in the coming months. We hope to get to all Regions
by the end of this fiscal year as originally planned but we may
have to settle for the end of the calendar year 1983.
I would like to thank you for your cooperation and
constructive comments on this program. If this evaluation proves
as productive as previous years, it should result in improvements
to both Headquarters and Regional air compliance activities and
enhance national consistency.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me
or Steve Hitte of my staff at FTS 382—2829.
Edward E. Reich
Attachment
cc: Regional Administrators, Regions I—X
Air Program Branch Chiefs, Regions I—X
Air Compliance Branch Chiefs
Regions II, V, VII, IX
Bern Steigerwald, OAOPS

-------
ATTACHMENT
STATIONARY SOURCE COMPLIANCE DIVISION
FY 83 REGIONAL AIR COMPLIANCE PROGRAM EVALUATION
QUESTIONNAIRE
I ntroduct ion
An important function of the Stationary Source Compliance
Division (SSCD) is to evaluate Regional air compliance programs
to assure that EPA, through its Regional Offices, is meeting
its compliance responsibilities under the Clean Air Act
(hereafter Act). This questionnaire provides each Regional
Office with an opportunity to examine its compliance program
while also providing SSCD with sufficient informatioi to
perform an independent evaluation.
A description of a Regional compliance program objective
precedes each set of questions in this questionnaire. SSCD
will use each objective as the basis to measure the adequacy of
that component of a Region’s compliance program. SSCD asks
each Regional Office to support its responses to the questions
by attaching copies of Regional memoranda or guidance it has
provided to State or local agencies whenever such information
exists. Decision flow charts which are accompanied by adequate
narrative explanations are an acceptable method of responding.
to some questions. SSCD intends this questionnaire to address
all of the air programs including SIP, PSD, NSPS, NSR and NESHAP.
When a Region’s response to a question will vary under different
air programs, the Region shall provide all of the possible
answers.
A Region should direct any questions it has concerning
this questionnaire to Steve Hitte of SSCD at FTS 382—2829.
Objective A : Comprehensive Inspection Coverage
EPA guidance requires all NSPS, NESHAP and Class A—i SIP
sources to be inspected annually. All Class A—2 SIP sources
must be inspected biennially.
1. What percentage of the sources in the Region received the
required inspection(s) in the past two fiscal or calendar
years (denote time frame used)?
2. If your answer to the preceding question is one—hundred
percent, please describe the information your response is
based upon.
Only those Regions with responses to question number one of less
than one—hundred percent are required to answer the following
five questions.
3. Why were sources not inspected by EPA or the State as
required by EPA’S guidance?

-------
—2—
4. How does the Region plan the inspection responsibility each
year among State and local agencies and itself?
5. How does the Region track State and local agency
inspection progress to assure that those agencies are
performing their allocated inspections?
6. How frequently does the egion assess State and local
agency inspection progress?
7. What corrective action will the Region take when a State
or local agency fails to achieve adequate progress in
performing its allocated inspections?
Objective B : Competent Source Inspections
Regional Offices are resç,nsible for assuring that their
inspectors and those at State nd local agencies are performing
inspections which are sufficie it to accurately assess a source’s
compliance status. In additic to observing visible emissions
and collecting data from a so Ce’s records, inspectors should
be able to assess a source’s 1 elihood of continuing to comply
with emission requirements e.ç source program designed to
maintain continuing compliance see K. Bennett memorandum of
June 21, 1982). Inspectors sh id recognize substandard operation
and maintenance practices, or jsical symptoms of inadequate
operation and maintenance, whi warrant source testing or a
more in—depth compliance assess tnt.
1. How does the Region assess .he adequacy of inspections
performed by Regional and ate and local inspectors?
Please attach a copy of an guidance the Region has
distributed internally or •ovided to State and local
agencies regarding this ma er.
2. How frequently does the Region assess the adequacy of
Regional and State and local inspections?
3. What actions has the Region taken, or plan to take, to
improve the quality of source inspections?
4. How many Regional EPA employees perform inspections for
the air program?
5. For each Regional EPA employee that performs inspections
for the air program, please provide an inspection report
written by the inspector which you believe best illustrates
his or her technical competency in performing source
inspections (the number provided should match the number to
previous question).

-------
—3—
6. Of the Regional EPA employees that perform inspections for
the air program (does not include contractor inspections),
please . state the number of employees that are capable of
competently performing each of the following three levels
of inspection (these inspection levels are not necessarily
related to any national guidance on inspections nor are
they meant to imply that any one level is not acceptable):
Number of
tmp lDyees
Level I
Inspections consisting principally of a review
of the Region’s or State’s file on the source and an
on—site visible emission (Method 9) observation
or a collection of simple plant operating parameters
and a brief tour of the plant to observe its process
and control equipment (known as a walk—thru inspection).
Level II
Inspections consisting principally of a review of
the Regions’s or State’s files for the source and an
on—site inspection of the sources process and control
equipment to determine:
1. proper operation and maintenance using a
standard checklist. This checklist should
include reviewing calibration and operation
records, CEM maintenance records, etc.; and
2. emission levels based on a materials balance,
engineering calculations, grap samples, or
observing compliance tests.
Level III
Detailed inspections that are performed as a
follow up to a previous action where litigation is
likely. These inspections would consist principally
of gathering detailed, engineering data necessary to
confirm a violation. The inspector should be able to
identify control problems . and potential solutions, be
an expert witness should the need arise and contribute
significantly to drafting the technical portion of a
litigation report (relatively few inspectors would
qualify for this level).

-------
—4—
7. of all air inspections performed by EPA personnel over the
last 12 months, approximately what percent were Level I,
Level II, or Level III (a file search of every EPA inspection
is not required)?
Level I- ______________
Level II ______________
Level III ______________
Objective C : Regional Procedures for Reviewing State
and Local Agency Compliance Activities
A Regional Office is responsible for managing a compliance
program that is effective in expeditiously bringing all of the
sources in the Region into sustained compliance. States are
primarily responsible for enforcing air pollution requirements
and EPA’s policy is to defer federal enforcement whenever a
State has demonstrated a desire to remedy a violation. This
policy promotes strong State compliance programs which are
essential to meet the objectives of the Act. When a State is
ineffective in expeditiously bringing a violating source into
compliance, however, EPA must meet its obligations under the
Act and initiate federal enforcement against the violating
source.
To effectively manage source compliance, a Regional Office
must operate a comprehensive overview program for tracking
States’ progress in resolving violations which initially do not
directly involve an EPA enforcement action. Through effective
overview, a Regional Office is able to discover violating
sources which require federal enforcement because the State has
not expeditiously brought the sources into compliance. An
effective Regional overview program often provides an incentive
for State and local agencies and violating sources to work
together to achieve compliance in an effort to avoid a federal
lawsuit.
1. How, and at what frequency, does the Region learn of
violations that State and local agencies discover during
their source inspections and tests?
2. How, and at what frequency, does the Region learn of
violations that are indicated in malfunction reports,
continuous emission monitoring data, and other information
sources report to State and local agencies?
3. What criteria has the Region and the State and local
agencies agreed upon to decide which agency will remedy a
violation? Please attach copies of any written
agreements.
4. How, and at what frequency, does the Region assess whether
State and local agencies are achieving adequate progress
in quickly bringing violating sources into compliance or
placing those sources on expeditious compliance schedules?

-------
—5—
5. How, and at what frequency, does the Region assess whether
violating sources are complying with the increments of
progress of a State compliance schedule?
6. What criteria does the Region use to decide that a State
or local agency’s efforts to bring a violating source into
compliance are inadequate and that a separate federal
action is needed to place a source on a compliance
schedule, remedy a source’s failure to meet an increment
of progress in a State compliance schedule, or otherwise
bring the violating source into compliance?
7. How does the Region assure that significant Violators are
achieving adequate progress to come into compliance?
8. The NSPS, NESHAP and PSD programs provide to some degree
for continuing compliance of certain requirements and
direct reporting of violations of emission requirements.
A. What action is taken in response to receiving a
source report indicating violations of applicable
emission requirements?
B. Does this response vary from program to program?
C. If yes, how?
D. How are violations of NESHAP requiremen’.s treated?
E. What is the procedure for dealing with violations of
the NSPS program?
F. What is the procedure for handling violations of PSD,
if different from the existing source program under the
SIP?
Objective D : Expeditious Regional Case Development
The possibility of federal enforcement often provides State
and local agencies with the leverage they need to negotiate a
compliance agreement with a violating source. It must be clear
to a source that its failure to negotiate an acceptable settlement
with a State or local agency will subject it to certain, swift
federal enforcement action. Further, an expeditious Regional
compliance program often prompts timid State and local agencies
to effectively address violating sources. State and local
agencies often prefer to address violating sources once they are
faced with a decision to initiate an enforcement action or
compromise their authority by subjecting a source to a rigorous
federal enforcement action.
A Region’s case development procedure must be a deliberate,
systematic process that efficiently gathers the required evidence
and fosters expeditious decisions. An ad hoc, unstructured
Regional case development procedure fosters a lax attitude
regarding compliance among sources and State and local agencies.

-------
—6—
To adequately deter violating sources, a Region’s reaction to a
violation must be effective and predictable.
1. What procedure does the Region use to decide the appropriate
enforcement response for a violation? For each of the
following enforcement responses, please identify the offices
within the Region that are involved in the decision and the
office that makes the final decision:
A. 114 inquiry;
B. NOV;
C. 1 Ot4
D. 113(a) and Cd) administrative orders;
E. 167 order;
F. 113(b) civil action;
G. 113Cc) criminal action;
H. Settlement of penalties; and
I. Settlement of compliance.
2. When a Region initiates an enforcement action, it often has
an opportunity to exercise its discretion in deciding which
type of enforcement action is appropriate. Two of the
several possible enforcement alternatives are a criminal
action under Section 113(c) of the Act, or a penalty under
Section 120 of the Act. In general, the Regional Offices
use these two alternatives less frequently than other
enforcement responses. Please describe the characteristics
of the violators and violations which the Region believes
are appropriately addressed by each of these two enforcement
alternatives. Your response need not include the statutory
criteria associated with the enforcement alternatives.
Rather, we are interested in learning the criteria the
Region uses when it exercises its discretion and selects an
appropriate enforcement response for a violation.
3. What procedure does the Region follow to develop and send an
NOV to a violating source? How does the Region implement
the February 10, 1982, and September 15, 1982, guidance
regarding pre—NOVs?
4. How does the Region obtain the information required to
document a violation that extends beyond the thirtieth
day after it issued the NOV?
5. How many NOVs did the Region issue in F? 82 and F? 83 to date?
6. What percentage of the total number of Regional NOVs issued

-------
—7—
in FY 82 and FY 83 to date were subject to one of the
following actions within 90 calendar days after issuance
of the NOV:
A. An action adequate to assess whether the alleged
violation(s) extends thirty days after the Region
issued the NOV;
B. An NOV withdrawal; or
C. Regional deferral to a State or local agency’s
enforcement action concerning the violata.on .s) the
NOV addressed.
7. For each NOV the Region issued in Fl 82 and Fl 83 to date,
please list the number of calendar days that elapsed between
the date of the violation cited in the NOV, and the day the
Region issued the NOV.
8. What procedure does the Region follow to continue to involve
compliance personnel in a case after the Region refers a
litigation report to EPA Headquarters? Attach any written
agreements which define the relationship between compliance
personnel and the Regional Counsel during litigation of a
case.
9. How, and at what frequency, does the Region assess whether
violating sources are complying with the increments of
progress of Federal court orders or. compl.iance schedules?
Objective E : Effective Use Of SSCD Level—of—Effort Contract Funds
SSCD provides level—of—effort (LOE) contract funds to the
Regional Offices to assist them in meeting their compliance
responsibilities. The LOE contract mechanism is easy for the
Regions to manage and provides timely access to several talented
firms that have substantial experience in stationary source
compliance work. A Regional Office is responsible for effectively
using its contract funds to achieve source compliance within the
Region. To effectively use contract funds, a Region must plan its
expenditures at the beginning of a fiscal year by determining
Regional needs in conjunction with State and local agencies and
establishing funding priorities. A Region’s inordinate
expenditure of contract funds at the end of the fiscal year is
often symptomatic of poor Regional contract management because the
expenditures are frequently prompted by the Region’s desire to
quickly spend remaining funds rather than to address unanticipated
projects.
1. Please describe the process the Region uses to plan its
expenditure of LOE contract funds. Identify the Regional
personnel involved in the planning process and indicate who
is responsible for final planning decisions. Explain how
State and local agencies are involved in the planning

-------
—8—
process, if at a].],, and attach any written information the
Region provides to those agencies regarding contract funds
planning.
2. What process does the Region use to prepare Work Assignments
under the LOE contract mechanism? Identify the personnel
that must concur with a Work Assignment and indicate who has
final responsibility in the Region for approving Work
Assignments. Is there one staff person that coordinates all
Work Assignments? Attach any written procedures the Region has
pzepazed to assist Regional personnel in preparing Work
Assignments.
3. Please describe the process the Region uses during the year
to reevaluate its plans for contract expenditures because of
changes in Regional priorities.
Objective F : Accurate Maintenance of CDS
CDS has a variety of essential uses including supplying the
data the Agency uses for evaluating compliance program progress,
planning, resource allocations, and reporting to Congress and the
public. A Regional Office is responsible for implementing SSCD
guidance on CDS which Includes, among other things, assuring
that the inventory of sources in CDS Is continually updated,
that all source—specific data are accurate and complete, and
pollutant—specific information is maintained for violating NSPS,
NESHAP, and A—i SIP sources.
1. What procedures does the Region employ to assure that the
inventory of sources in CDS is up—to—date? Specifically
address the accuracy of the VOC source inventory.
2. Does the Region exclude from CDS any sources that
Headquarters’ guidance requires to be included in CDS?
3. How, and at what frequency, does the Region assess whether
the source—specific data in CDS are up—to—date and accurate?
Explain what specific data the Region keeps up—to—date and,
if less than SSCD guidance requires, why certain data are not
accurate.
4. What information does the Region and the States require
before assigning a source an in violation compliance status
description (SCMS) code of either one or six?
5. What basis or criteria does the Region use to assign a source
an Nunknownn compliance status description (SCMS) code of
zero or seven?
6. Please attach any guidance regarding CDS reporting which the
Region has developed and provided to State and local
agencies.

-------
—9—
Objective G : Effective Use of Program Grants
Air program grants under Section 105 of the Act are available
to assist States in meeting their compliance responsibilities, A
Regional Office is responsible for identifying areas of State and
local agencies’ compliance programs which could benefit by a
grant, issuing grants for the areas that are consistent with the
priorities of the air grant management system, and evaluating an
agency’s progress in achieving the compliance provisions of the
grant.
I. Co ,lience activitie. receive a high priority in the a.. r
grant management system. How does the Region identify and
establish priorities f,r areas of State and local agency
compliance programs tI’at could benefit by EPA funding under
an air program grant? You need not explain how the Region
establishes funding priorities for programs other than State
and local agency co’ ?liance programs. Please identify the
office(s) within tF Region that are involved in the-process
and the office tha has final responsibility for establishing
compliance priorit
2. What process does th Region use during mid—year and final
reviews to evaluate a State or local agency’s progress in
achieving the complia ;e provisions of an air grant? Please
Identify .the office(s within the Region that are involved in
the process and the ot ice that has final responsiblity for
the compliance evaluaLon.
3. Please attach copies of the FY 83 compliance grant
conditions for each State in the Region. You need not submit
the entire grant doctm ent.
Objective H : Full Use of Air Compliance Resources
Each Region is responsible for using all of the workyears
allocated to it in the staticiary source compliance decision unit
(A306) to achieve EPA’S air compliance objectives.
1. Please list the position classification (engineer, scientist,
clerk—typist), location within the Regional organization,
type of employment (PFTE, OPFTE), and workyears (to tenths
of a workyear) for each employee represented by the FY 83
A306 decision unit. Please identify the employees that
perform inspections for the air program.

-------
3

-------
______— - -== - fl ) 2IJ/ / 1 [ / j
-r - - :..- ,

-------
Compliance Strategy for Stationary Sources of Air Pollution
(11/14/83)
File at Part A, Document t3

-------
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
November 14, 1983
OfFICE or
AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
SUBJECT: Compliance Strategy for Stationary Sources of
Air Pollution
FROM: L seh A. Canno ting Assistant Administrator
“ for Air and Radiation
TO: Alvin Aim, Deputy Administrator
Attached for your consideration is the final compliance
strategy for stationary sources of air pollution. This
document was developed by OAR’s Stationary Source Compliance
Division, working closely with the Office of Enforcement
Counsel and with review and input by other Headquarters
offices, Regional Offices, and selected State officials.
- The strategy brings together in one document all of the
major thrusts of the stationary source compliance program,
with continued emphasis on resolution of those violating
sources meeting the definition of a “significant violator”.
I believe there is a general consensus that the present
program is sound and should continue to serve us well in the
future. However, the strategy suggests three major changes
for the immediate future: more flexibility for States in
carrying out their inspection programs, increased use of
continuous emission monitoring and similar techniques in
the Agency’s regulatory and enforcement programs, and
increased focus on sources violating volatile organic com-
pound (VOC) provisions in SIPs to reduce both ozone levels
and air toxicants.
The major point of disagreement arising during the
preparation of the strategy was the proposed revision to the
inspection guidance to States. Present guidance requires
annual inspection of major (Class Al) sources and biennial
inspection of certain smaller sources (Class A2 sources).
The draft strategy suggested allowing States to develop
alternative inspection priority schemes whereby the resources
otherwise required to inspect Class A2 sources could be
redirected to inspection of any combination of Class Al,
Class A2, and other regulated sources, as air quality needs
warranted. Regional Offices were substantially divided

-------
-2-
on the extent to which present guidance should be revised.
After.a careful consideration of a].]. the comments, we believe
that the revision contained in the strategy strikes a reasonable
balance-between EPA’s need for a nationally-consistent data
base to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the program
and the needs of State and local agencies to make optima]. use
of limited resources to address their most serious air quality
problems.
The strategy identifies our plans to provide supplementary
detailed guidance for selected subjects to enhance the long-
term effectiveness of the strategy. Attached is an identification
of guidance doc ents to be produced and anticipated completion
dates.
As agreed in our October 12 briefing for you, the major
subject area needing further exploration is the problem of
assuring continuous compliance by air sources. The strategy
already identifies certain approaches worth pursuing (e.A.,
greater use of continuous emission monitoring and better
targeting of inspections) but we intend to do a separate,
more extensive continuous compliance strategy as a follow-up
to the general strategy. Because of the complexity of this
issue, the continuous compliance strategy cannot hope to
present “the answer” to the problem but will, provide a compre-
hensive program for developing answers. We are targeting
to complete the continuous compliance strategy by February 27,
1984, and we are proceeding to add a commitment along these
lines to the Action Tracking System.
I thank you for your support in the development of this
strategy and look forward to your support in its implementation.
Attachments

-------
IDENTIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE TO BE PREPARED
(1) enforcement of VOC standards - guidance on improving the
VOC inventory projected for completion by January 30,
1984. Additional guidance as needed.
(2) use of unannounced inspections by EPA - projected for
completion by September 30, 1984.
(3) use of continuous emissions monitoring excess emissions
data in the compliance program - projected for completion
by July 31, 1984.
(4) enforcement of asbestos demolition standards - projected
for completion by July 31, 1984.
(5) enforcement of PSD requirements - projected for completion
by November 30, 1983.
(6) enforcement of benzene, arsenic, and radionuclides
NESHAPS - as necessary prior to promulgation.

-------
Compliance Strategy for Stationary Sources
Lists of Attachments
Attachment 1 The Major Source Enforcement Effort --
May 11, 1981
Attachment 2 Definition of Significant Violator --
See I, E, Attachment
Attachment 3 Guidance Concerning EPA’s Use of
Continuous Emission Monitoring Data --
See VI, D
Attachment 4 Significant Violators -- See I, E
Attachment 5 Enforcement Action Against Stationary
Air Sources Which Will Not be In
Compliance By December 31 , 1982 --
See V. R
Attachment 6 Guidance on Implementation of 1982 Deadline
Enforcement Policy Issued September 20,
1982 -- See V, S
Attachment 7 Guidance on Use of Section 303 of the
Clean Air Act -- See LX, A
Attachment 8 Duration of Section 113(a) Orders --
See V, 0
Attachment 9 Procedures for Review of Federal Register
Publication of Delayed Compliance Orders
Under Section 113(d) of the Clean Air Act --
See V T
Attachment 10 Use of Section 120 Noncompliance Penalties
to Promote Compliance by Stationary Sources --
See VII, I
Attachment 11 Enforcement of National Emissions
Standard for Vinyl Chloride -- See IV, D
Attachment 12 FY ‘83 Regional Air Compliance Program
Evaluation

-------
COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
FOR
STATIONARY SOURCES
OF
AIR POLLUTION
NOVEMBER 1983

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 1
I. INTRODUCTION 4
II. FRAMEWORK OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT 4
III. SUMMARY OF REGULATIONS UNDER THE 6
CLEAN AIR ACT
A. National Ambient Air Quality Standards
B. New Source Performance Standards
C. National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants
IV. SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS AND PRESENT STRATEGIES 8
V. SUMMARY OF PRESENT STATE OF COMPLIANCE OF 10
THE REGULATED COMMUNITY
A. Definitions
B. Current Compliance Status
C. Historical Compliance Data
D. ission Levels
E. Areas of Uncertainty
VI. UPCOMING PRIORITIES AND GOALS 15
A. Priorities
B. Coals
VII. COMPLIANCE MONITORING 17
A. Objectives, Overview, and EPA/State Roles
B. EPA Audit Program
C. Inspection Frequency -- Revised Guidance

-------
-2-
PAGE
D. Inspection Frequency -- Present Experience
E. Inspection Quality and Complexity
F. Use of Continuous Emission Monitoring Data
VIII. RESPONDING TO NON-COMPLIANCE PROBLEMS 38
A. Objectives
B. Priority Target Areas
C. Informal Responses
D. Formal Responses
E. Considerations in Selection of an Appropriate
Response
F. Ensuring Compliance with Responses’s
Requirements
IX. SPECIAL ISSUES 57
A. Enforcement of NESHAPs Standards
B. Enforcement of VOC Standards
C. Continuous Compliance
D. erging Issues Associated with the
Application of Bubble Rules
X. COMPLIANCE PROMOTION ACTIVITIES 69
XI. MAJOR CROSS-PROGRAM ELEMENTS
73
A. Section 303
B. NESHAPs
XII. EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE 74
COMPLIANCE PROGRAM
XIII. PLANS FOR FUTURE GUIDANCE 79
XIV. SUMMARY IDENTIFICATION OF MAJOR CHANGES 80
FROM EXISTING STRATEGIES
ATTACHMENTS

-------
—1—
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document outlines a strategy for •obtaining and
maintaining compliance by stationary sources with require-
ments of the Clean Air Act and implementing regulations.
The Clean Air Act is the Federal law designed to protect
the nation’s health and welfare from the adverse effects
of air pollution.
The stationary source compliance program is struc-
tured around effective, cooperative, and coordinated
efforts among Federal, State, and local agencies. The
strategy recognizes both the primary role of the States
in prevention and control of air pollution and that of
the Federal government in ultimately assuring the protec-
tion of the health and welfare of the American public.
The major focus of the stationary source compliance
program is on the enforcement of State Implementation
Plan (SIP) requirements adopted to meet national ambient
air quality standards (Section 110), standards of
performance for new sources (Section 111), and hazardous
air pollutant standards (Section 112). SIP requirements
are State-adopted and EPA-approved. New source performance
standards and hazardous air pollutant standards are
Federally-promulgated but can be (and usually are)
delegated to States.
A major element of the compliance program is the
periodic determination of a source’s compliance status.
In general, State and local agencies have the lead in
making such determinations with the data reported to EPA
for incorporation into the Agency’s Compliance Data
System. EPA is working with representatives of State and
local agencies in developing an EPA program for auditing
State compliance and enforcement activities.
The basic method of compliance determination is an
onsite inspection. Stack testing is usually required
only for a source’s initial demonstration of compliance
and is not usually required as part of a routine inspection.
Due to technical and cost considerations, continuous
emission monitoring has historically played only a
limited role in the air program. This creates problems
in obtaining data truly reflective of the day-to-day
operations of a source. This strategy suggests a broader

-------
-2-
use of continuous emission monitoring, recognizing that
many of the earlier problems have been resolved and that
such data can b an invaluable source of information.
EPA provides guidance to States on inspection fre-
quencies for different classes of sources. This guidance
is utilized in establishing EPA/State agreements on
State compliance assurance activities. As part of this
strategy, EPA is revising very substantially its previous
inspection frequency guidance to allow the States more
flexibility to use their inspection resources to address
their most significant air problems. The revised guidance
also recognizes the increasing potential for use of
continuous emission monitoring data to obviate the need
for physical inspections.
Once a violation is detected, it is EPA’s policy to
allow the State to take the lead in resolving the viola-
tion, if it will do so in a timely and effective manner.
Otherwise, EPA will take action, consistent with its
other priorities. EPA can resolve the matter informally,
utilize one of a limited number of administrative
mechanisms, or initiate a judicial (civil or criminal)
action. If the resolution includes the establishment of
a compliance schedule, EPA must monitor the source’s
compliance efforts to assure that the schedule is adhered
to. In recent years, the program has changed from a
strongly Federal program to one reflecting a substantially
increased State role with Federal technical support.
Efforts have been initiated relatively recently to
promote compliance by industry through technical assis-
tance and information exchange. While these efforts do
not substitute for an effective enforcement program, or
reduce the primary responsibility of sources to assure
that they are in compliance, such efforts hold the poten-
tial for significant air quality benefits.
Priorities of the stationary source compliance
program have evolved to reflect the new areas of regula-
tory activity and the previous successes of the program.
Initial compliance has largely been obtained for sources
of particulate matter and sulfur oxides, which have been
comprehensively regulated since the mid-1970’s. The
program is now shifting to assuring continuous compliance

-------
—3—
with these requirements and to addressing the problem of
initial compliance by sources of emissions of volatile
organic compounds, which are generally the subject of
more recent regulation. In addition, vigilant prosecution
of ongoing litigation and enforcement of existing Federal
consent decrees continues to be a major program focus.
Other important priorities include enforcement of the
hazardous air pollutant standards, especially for vinyl
chloride and asbestos demolition sources 1 and broader
consideration of the use of Section 303, the Act’s emer-
gency episode authority.
Important policies and programs establishing the
Agency’s priorities are the “significant violator” program
and the Post-1982 Enforcement Policy. The significant
violator program identifies the Agency’s highest non-
emergency violating sources both for purposes of priori-
tization of Agency efforts and for reporting in the
Agency’s Management Accountability System. The Post-1982
Enforcement Policy applies to violating sources in
nonattainment areas (other than extension areas) and
establishes procedural and substantive requirements for
EPA in resolving such violations, and in evaluating the
adequacy of State efforts to resolve such violations.
An important element of any strategy is a means for
evaluating the effectiveness of the program. A sound
structure for such an evaluation already exists in
the Agency’s Management Accountability System and can be
refined, if necessary, to accommodate any additional
needs which may occur. Given the very important role of
the States in the air program, an essential component of
the evaluation system is the reporting of appropriate
State data.

-------
-4-
COMPLIANCE- STRATEGY FOR STATIONARY SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION
I. Introduction
This document is one of a series of media-specific
strategies for obtaining and maintaining compliance
by regulated sources with environmental requirements.
This strategy deals with stationary sources subject to
the requirements of the Clean Air Act and implementing
Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. It is
intended to provide an overview of the essential elements
of the stationary source compliance program, a summary of
past and present efforts, a definition of the short-term
and long-term objectives of the program, recommended
strategies for achieving those objectives, and a discussion
of the relative roles of the Federal and State governments
in implementing the various elements of the strategy. It
is not intended to supersede the extensive body of detailed
implementing guidance already in effect except to the
extent specifically noted.
II. Framework of the Clean Air Act
The Clean Air Act is the nation’s Federal law designed
to protect the population from the detrimental health and
welfare effects of airborne pollutants. Air pollution
often crosses State boundary lines anc 4 pollutants
originating in one State may adversely impact persons and
property in other States. Congress recognized the
interstate nature of air pollution and charged EPA with
establishing uniform national ambient air quality standards
and with the ultimate responsibility for assuring that
citizens in every State are protected from the adverse
effects of air pollution. However, Congress also recognized
that each State contains a unique inventory of sources
and, consequently, each State should have the primary
responsibility for designing and operating a control
program to achieve the pollutant reductions necessary to
meet the national ambient standards. To address the
national goal of healthful air for every citizen and the
States’ need to tailor control regulations to their
individual needs, the Clean Air Act provides for States
to develop control plans and regulations which adequately
limit air pollution from new and existing sources. These

-------
—5—
plans, including the implementing regulations, are known
as State Implementation Plans (SIPs). If a State fails
to adopt the necessary regulations, EPA is required to
adopt regulations sufficient to protect ambient standards.
EPA is authorized to enforce these regulations, whether
EPA-adopted or State-adopted.
Controlling emissions from existing sources is some-
times difficult and expensive because control equipment
must be retrofitted to sources that were initially
designed without regard to emission control. Congress
recognized that effective emission controls could be
more easily integrated into the design of future new
sources and, consequently, it empowered EPA to establish
uniform, technology-based national emission standards
for categories of new sources under Section 111 of the
Act. These requirements are known as New Source Perfor-
mance Standards (NSPS). These standards were intended
not only to maximize the air quality benefit of the
replacement of older facilities but also to reduce the
likelihood that relaxed emission limits could be offered
as an inducement to a new plant to locate in a particular
State.
In addition, Congress was concerned with the serious
health effects of hazardous air pollutants and provided
for EPA promulgation of national standards for those
emissions under Section 112 of the Act. These require-
ments are known as the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs).
In summary, there are three basic programs regulating
emissions from stationary sources:
1 • SIP requirements for new and existing sources as
necessary to attain and maintain the national
ambient air quality standards, including new
source permitting requirements;
2. Technology-based NSPS requirements for new sources;
and
3. NESHAPs requirements for new and existing sources
of hazardous air pollutants.

-------
-6-
In addition to their lead role in the development
and implementation of SIPs, Congress clearly intended
that the States be primarily responsible for enforcing
air pollution requirethents. However, when a State or
local agency is ineffective in expeditiously bringing a
violating source into compliance, EPA must fulfill its
obligations under the Act through initiation of a Federal.
enforcement action against the violating source.
III. Summary of Regulations Under the Clean Air Act
A. National Ambient Air Quality Standards
As of November 1, 1983, EPA had promulgated
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for
seven pollutants, as follows:
Pollutant Year of Promulgation
Particulate Matter 1971
Sulfur Oxides 1971 (primary), 1973 (secondary)
Nitrogen Oxides 1971
Carbon Monoxide 1971 (revision proposed 8/80)
Uydrocarbone 1971 (revoked 1/83)
Ozone 1971 (revised 2/79)
Lead 1978
The stationary source compliance program has tradi-
tionally addressed itself primarily to sources of
particulate matter and sulfur oxides and, more recertly,
to volatile organic compounds which contribute to
violations of the ozone NAAQS. Greater attention to
lead can be anticipated in light of the recently
heightened efforts to develop State Implementation
Plans to attain and maintain the lead NAAQS. Focus
on the stationary source aspects of the nitrogen
oxides problem has been limited due to the relatively
limited and localized scope of nonattainment with
the nitrogen oxides NA.AQS. In addition, control of
new motor vehicles could be expected to reduce signi-
ficantly nitrogen oxides levels. Carbon monoxide is
almost totally a motor vehicle-related problem.
This strategy will be oriented towards enforcement
of standards implementing the particulate matter,
sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides (where relevant), and
ozone SIP’s. Due to the relatively early stage of

-------
—7—
SIP development implementing the lead NAAQS, it will
not address lead specifically. It can be expected
that much of the experience with other pollutants
will also be relevant for lead. While it is possible
that implementing the lead NAAQS will raise some new
or unique compliance issues, it would be premature to
attempt to define a strategy specific to lead until
these issues are more highly defined.
8. New Source Performance Standards
As of November 1, 1983, EPA had promulgated new
source performance standards for 44 source categories
and proposed standards for 14 additional categories.
Standards include not only emission limits but also
test methods, recordkeeping , and reporting requirements.
Source categories regulated (and year of promulgation)
are as follow
Source Catego y Year of Promulgation
Fossil-Fuel-Fired Steam Generators 1971
Incinerators 1971
Portland Cement Plants 1971
Nitric Acid Plants 1971
Sulfuric Acid Plants 1971
Asphalt Concrete Plants 1974
Petroleum Refineries 1974
Petroleum Storage Vessels 1974
Secondary Lead Smelters 1974
Secondary Brass and Bronze Ingot 1974
Production Plants
Iron and Steel Plants (BOPF) 1974
Sewage Treatment Plants 1974
Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants 1975
Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Plants 1975
Superphosphoric Acid Plants 1975
Diammonium Phosphate Plants 1975
Triple Superphosphate Plants 1975
Granular Triple Superphosphate 1975
Storage Facilities
Electric Arc Furnaces 1975
Primary Copper Smelters 1976
Primary Zinc Smelters 1976
Primary Lead Smelters 1976
Coal Preparation Plants 1976

-------
-8—
Ferroalloy Production Facilities 1976
Kraft Pulp Mills 1978
Grain Elevators 1978
Lime Manufacturing Plants 1978
Utility Steam Generators 1979
(After 9/18/78)
Stationary Gas Turbines 1979
Petroleum Storage Vessels 1980
(After 5/18/78)
Glass Manufacturing Plants 1980
Auto and Light-Duty Truck Surface 1980
Coating
Ammonium Sulfate Manufacturing 1980
Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing 1982
Phosphate Rock Plants 1982
1etal Furniture Surface Coating 1982
Graphic Arts: Rotogravure Printing 1982
Surface Coating of Large Appliances 1982
Metal Coil Surface Coating 1982
Asphalt Roofing Manufacture 1982
Beverage Can Surface Coating 1983
Bulk Gasoline Terminals 1983
Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic 1983
Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry
Pressure Sensitive Tapes and Labels 1983
C. National Emission S.tandards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
As of November 1. 1983, EPA had promulgated NESHAPs
standards for certain source categories of asbestos,
beryllium, mercury, and vinyl chloride. In addition,
EPA had proposed standards for certain source categories
of benzene, arsenic, and radionuc].ides.
IV. Summary of Previous and Present Strategies
Given the relative maturity of the air compliance
progr , many different strategies have evolved to address
different elements of the program. Rather than attempt
to summarize all of these policies at this point, they
will be addressed (to the extent worthwhile) in other
sections (e.&., past inspections strategies will be
discussed In the Compliance Monitoring section, Section
VII). However, as background to an understanding of the
present status of our compliance efforts, it would be
worthwhile to discuss briefly the Agency’s Major Source
Enforcement Effort and to contrast it with the subsequent
program to address significant violators.

-------
—9-
The Major Source Enforcement Effort (MSEE) was
initiated in the fall of 1977 and extended until the spring
of 1981 (See Attachment 1). During that 3 1/2 year
period, it was the driving force of both the air and
water enforcement programs. The goal of the effort was
to identify and take enforcement action against major
sources that had never achieved initial compliance with
applicable requirements of the Clean Air and Clean Water
Acts. Within this group of sources were many of the
largest contributors to the nation’s air and water
pollution problems.
The MSEE addressed approximately 1 ,670 air sources.
As part of this program, EPA’s Regional Offices initiated
judicial referrals for approximately 400 air cases (not
all of which were filed). Many other sources came into
compliance as a result of EPA administrative action,
State judicial or administrative action, or without any
such action. Major characteristics of the MSEE were the
predominant Federal role and the heavy reliance on litiga-
tion. At the conclusion of this effort, it was considered
that the “initial compliance” problem for TSP and SO 2
sources was generally under control.
After the conclusion of the MSEE, the focus of the
program broadened to include a re-emphasis on other
elements of the program which were relatively ignored
during the MSEE period (for example, new source permitting
requirements). In addition, compliance dates for sources
of volatile organic compounds, often first regulated in
SIPs in 1977, began to pass creating an additional group
of violators which needed to be addressed. To help
prioritize Federal actions against violating sources, the
concept of a “significant violator” was developed as part
of the Agency’s Management Accountability System in the
fall of 1981.
A significant violator was defined in December 1981
(See Attachment 2) as a source meeting any of the following
criteria:
(1) a violator of a NESHAPs standard unless the
magnitude and duration of the violation are minimal
and the violation nonrecurring;
(2) a violator of new source permitting requirements,
and NSPS requirements, unless the magnitude
and duration of the violation are minimal;

-------
-10-
(3) a violator of a State Implementation Plan if the
source is of sufficient size (presumptively 250
tons/year potential emissions or 100 tons/year
actual emissions of any pollutant) and is so
located as to impact a nonattainment area for a
pollutant for which the source is in violation.
A combined Federal-State effort to address signifi-
cant violators was initiated in early 1982. This has
been different from the MSEE in two important ways.
First, as previously noted, while the MSEE was also a
joint Federal-State effort, it was heavily dominated by
EPA. In contrast, in implementing the significant violator
program, EPA has placed considerably greater reliance on
the States for enforcement against sources within their
jurisdictions. To make assumption by States of this
increased responsibility more feasible, EPA has greatly
expanded its support to the States through direct technical
assistance and State program capacity building initiatives
(e.g., workshops and technical manuals). The second
f n amental change was to reduce confrontation between
EPA and industry through pursuing negotiation and informal
or administrative resolutions, with litigation perceived
only as a last resort. (The combination of these factors,
combined with others such as Agency reorganizations and
resource cuts, significantly reduced the Agency’s enforce-
ment profile, thus compounding charges that the Agency
was not enforcing the law.)
In the first 18 months of the significant violator
program, considerable progress has been made. An initial
list of 482 sources was established and, since then, an
additional 271 sources have been identified. In this
same period, 411 sources (representing the vast majority
of the original list) have been brought into compliance
or placed on an acceptable compliance schedule. More
detail on the significant violator program is contained
in Section VIII of this strategy.
V. St=ary of Present State of Compliance of the Regulated Community
A. Definitions
This section presents statistics which will show
the compliance status of stationary sources subject to
air pollution regulations. Before presenting these
statistics, however, it is necessary to define the
universe of regulated sources and some of the terms
used in the statistical summary.

-------
—11—
The regulated community includes sources subject
to SIP, NSPS, and NESHAP requirements under Sections
110, 111, and 112 of the Clean Air Act. SIP require-
ments include PSD and new source review provisions
for new sources. SIP sources are subdivided into
Class Al , Class A2, and Class B sources. Class Al
SIP sources are sources with actual or potential
controlled emissions, while operating at design
capacity, equal to or greater than 100 tons per year
of any regulated air pollutant. Class A2 SIP sources
are sources not meeting the definition of a Class Al
source but with potential uncontrolled emissions,
while operating at design capacity, equal to or
greater than 100 cons per year of any regulated air
pollutant. Class Al and A2 sources are collectively
referred to as Class A sources. Class B sources are
all remaining SIP sources. (Compliance statistics
are not maintained by EPA for Class B sources.)
A source is considered to be “in violation” for
purposes of these statistics if it has been found to
be operating in violation of an air pollution control
requirement or if, after hQvthg been found to be in
violation of an air pollution control requirement and
ordered to meet a compliance schedule, it fails to
meet that schedul . The term “in violation” as used
here does not iriclide sources which have been found
to be in violation but which are meeting the require-
ments of an enforceable schedule to come into coinpli-
ance. Such sources are categorized as “meeting a
schedule”. A source is considered “in compliance”
if it is meeting all applicable air pollution control
requirements.
B. Current Compliance Status
The following table summarizes the current
compliance status of sources subject to SIP, NSPS,
and NESHAPs standards as of the end of F? 1983:
Category Total In Compliance (%) Mtg. Sch. (%) In Viol.(%) Unknown
Class A SIP 26,582 24,385 (91.7%) 502(1.9%) 796 (3.0%) 899 (3.
Class Al SIP 14,405 12,807 (88.9%) 400 (2.8%) 609 (4.2%) 589 (4.
NSPS 2,069 1,929 (93.2%) 17 (0.8%) 79 (3.8%) 44 (2.
AP 1,265 1,186 (93.8%) 10 (0.8%) 17 (1.3%) 52 (4.

-------
—12—
C. Historical Compliance Data
For perspective, the earliest records show that in
1974, only 59% of a universe of 17,732 SI-P sources
were in compliance or meeting schedules. Progress,
as reflected in decreased violations rates, was most
dramatic in the early years of the program and less
marked thereafter. Recent data are summarized below:
Class Al SIP sources:
Total Sources Violating Sources
14,405 609 4.2%
14,371 549 3.8%
13,834 655 4.7%
13,316 653 4.9%
(Due to a change in the method of classification
during FY 1979, data from FY 1979 and earlier
years are not directly comparable.)
These data, taken together, tend to suggest that
significant improvement in percentage violation levels
should not be expected. At any given time, some
percentage of sources will undoubtedly be in viola-
tion. Thus, we cannot expect continuous improvement
in compliance levels. In fact, with the increase in
newly-subject VOC sources and better data on contin-
uous compliance, we can expect and have begun to see
violation rates begin to increase.
FY
1983
1982
1981
1980
1979
FY
FY
FY
F?
F?
NSPS Sources:
FY
Total Sources
F l
1983
2,069
Fl
1982
1,718
FY
1981
1
,577
F?
1980
1,314
FY
1979
1,053
NESHAP Sources:
Violating
Sources
79
50
58
59
47
Violating
Sources
F?
Total Sources
3.8%
2.9%
3.7%
4.5%
4.5%
1 .3%
2.2%
2.3%
2.3%
1 .7%
F?
1983
1,265
17
Fl
1982
1,277
28
FT
1981
1,169
27
FT
1980
1,089
25
FT
1979
1,088
19

-------
—13—
D. Emission Levels
Because improvements in compliance levels do not
necessarily correlate directly with improvements in
air quality, a study was conducted in 1979 to determine
if significant emission reductions were being achieved.
The study showed the following:
Year Pollutant Emissions (l0 3 tons )
1970 TSP 28,492
1979 TSP 13,549
1970 SO 2 33,569
1979 SO 2 32,345
1970 VOC 17,160
1979 VOC 19,145
1970 NOx 13,090
1979 NOx 14,825
The study showed a dramatic decrease in TSP
emissions (52%), despite a 34% growth in potential
uncontrolled emissions during the period between
1970 and 1979. For the other pollutants, absolute
emission levels declined only slightly (4% for SO 2 )
or increased slightly (13% for NO and 12% for
VOC). This was due to the significant source growth
between 1970 and 1979 (22% in uncontrolled SO 2
emissions and 33% for VOC and Nox) which tended to
offset the effect of regulatory activity during the
same period. Of course, had it not been for this
regulatory activity (especially for $02), emission
levels would have increased much more substantially.
In addition, efforts to regulate stationary sources
of NOx have been limited and much of the regulatory
activity for VOC sources has been subsequent to 1979.
E. Areas of Uncertainty
It is generally recognized that compliance
statistics such as those previously cited likely over-
state the degree of compliance with applicable
requirements. Major areas of uncertainty which should
be recognized in evaluating the data are as follows:

-------
-14-
(1) Data are generally based on periodic inspec-
tions (annual or biennial) which usually do
not involve stack testing. These inspections
tend to be infrequent and are often announced
well in advance. As such, they are valuable
primarily in determining whether a source has
the capability of complying when its control
equipment is optimized. It provides relative-
ly little feedback on the day-to-day operation
of the facility. In addition, inspections often
focus heavily on visible emissions because
compliance for gaseous pollutants such as SO 2
and NO is harder to evaluate in the absence
of a stack test. Continuous emission monitor-
ing technology, which could provide an indica-
tion of day-to-day operation, has historically
been limited in its application by techno-
logical and cost considerations, even though
many of those considerations are no longer
valid. For these reasons, it is likely that
many plants e perience periodic excesses due
to malfunctiors or inattention to proper
operation and maintenance procedures which
never get noted as violations. (Greater
reliance upon continuous emission monitoring
is an integral element of the strategy to
improve the ability of both sources and control
agencies to address the continuous compliance
problem.)
(2) EPA has established recommended frequencies
of inspection for different classes of sources,
as discussed in detail in Section VII, Compli-
ance Monitoring. To the extent that sources
are not inspected at this frequency, the
problemnoced in paragraph (1) is compounded.
Data derived as part of the Agency’s Management
Accountability System indicates that approxi-
mately 25 of major SIP sources are not being
inspected at the recommended frequency.
(3) Since the compliance data used by EPA are
based primarily on State inspections, they are
obviously dependent on the breadth and quality
of the State inspections. While much effort
has been devoted to reviewing and improving
the quality of State inspections, sporadic
problems may still exist. (The issue of EPA
oversight of State compliance and enforcement
programs is being addressed as part of a

-------
—15—
joint effort with STAPPA (State and Territorial
Air Pollution Program Administrators) and ALAPCO
(Association of Local Air Pollution Control
Officials) , as discussed at some length in the
section on Compliance Monitoring.)
(4) There have been occasional problems with
getting State data into CDS in a timely manner.
This involves both nonreporting by States and
failure to input the data by EPA. Efforts are
also presently underway to eliminate these
problems.
(5) While inventories of subject sources are
generally believed to be relatively complete,
a recent concern has been identified relative
to VOC sources. It now appears that there are
significantly more subject VOC sources than
CDS presently reflects, many of which may be
in violation. A more detailed discussion of
this issue is contained in Section IX B.
VI. Upcoming Priorities and Goals
A. Priorities for the stationary source compliance
program for the period through approximately the end
of F? 1985 are as follows:
(1) resolution of violating sources in nonattainment
areas in accordance with the Agency’s Post-1982
Enforcement Policy (as discussed in Section VIII);
(2) refinement of the universe of VOC sources subject
to SIP requirements and enforcement against at
least Class A violating VOC sources, irrespective
of location. Because many of the constituents
of VOC are toxic in nature, vigorous enforcement
of VOC requirements can yield substantial air
quality benefits even in unclassified and attain-
ment areas;
(3) enforcement of lead SIP’s, once approved or
promulgated by EPA;
(4) enforcement of NSPS and NESHAPs standards, with
particular attention to NESHAPs standards for
vinyl chloride and for asbestos relating to
demolition activities. In addition, attention

-------
—16—
should be directed to sources subject to presently
proposed NESHAPs standards if these standards
are promulgated (i.e., benzene, arsenic, and radio-
nuclides); — —
(5) enforcement of new source review and PSD
requirements; and
(6) broader use of Section 303 (emergency episode
authority) in situations presenting an imminent
and substantial threat to human health.
B. The 8hOrt-term goals of the stationary source
compliance program cannot be articulated in such
simple terms as “increased compliance rates”. The
reasons for this are discussed at length in Section
X I I, which deals with evaluating the effectiveness of
the program. Unfortunately, this complicates defining
the goals in ways that lead to easy measurement of
their accomplishment.
Specific short-term goals of the program are:
(1) to complete successfully the initial
implementation of the Post-1982 Enforcement
Policy by bringing sources on the original
list into compliance with emission limita-
tions or acceptable schedules;
(2) to assure that at least 95% of the signi-
ficant violators in violation at the
beginning of FY 1984 are in compliance,
on an acceptable schedule, or subject to
a Federal or State enforcement action by
the end of the fiscal year;
(3) to develop a complete inventory of Class A
VOC sources and integrate the data into
the Compliance Data System;
(4) to achieve inspection rates for Class Al
NSPS, and NESHAPs sources which exceed
90% of that required under the Agency’s
inspection frequency guidance;
(5) to complete development of the compliance
assurance portion of the National Air
Audit System and begin its implementation;

-------
—17.
(6) to develop and implement a strategy to
assure compliance with the asbestos
demolition standards, at least upon full
repromulgation; and
(7) to promote wider acceptance of the use of
continuous emission monitoring technology
within the industrial community and
greater use of CEM data by regulatory
agencies in their compliance programs.
Long-term goals of the stationary source compliance
program are:
(1) maintenance of high compliance rates for
all aspects of the air program;
(2) effective new source permitting programs;
(3) improved systems for ascertaining the
compliance status of sources on a day-to-
day baEis and dealing with excess emissions
from poor operation and maintenance;
(4) promotion of strategies to prevent
violations of air pollution regulations,
including expanded compliance promotion
activities;
(5) improved technical capabilities of both
governmental and industrial personnel
involved in the air pollution program; and
(6) more effective and better defined roles
and relationships between Federal, State,
and local agencies.
VII. Compliance Monitoring
This section discusses the basic objectives of the
compliance monitoring program, an overview of the compli-
ance monitoring process, relative Federal and State roles
and EPA’s proposed program for auditing State compliance
monitoring programs, guidance to States on frequency of
inspections, inspection quality and complexity, and use
of continuous emission monitoring technology in the air
program.

-------
-18-
A. Objectives, Overview, and EPA/State Roles
The function of the compliance monitoring program
is to provide a data base for purposes of determining
compliance by sources, identifying sources which may be
in violation, and collecting evidence to support enforce-
ment actions against violating sources. In addition,
the presence of a visibly effective compliance monitor-
ing program should serve as a powerful stimulus to
assuring compliance by the regulated industries.
Compliance monitoring for purposes of routine
determinations of compliance is largely a function of
State and local agencies. EPA looks to the States to
perform this function for SIP sources arid for sources
subject to delegated NSPS and NESHAPs standards. EPA
retains the primary responsibility for these routine
compliance determination inspections only for EPA-
promulgated SIPs and for non-delegated NSPS and
NESHAPs standards. This s a very small portion of
the overall universe of sources. The Federal role is
primarily to provide technical assistance, grant
support, and oversight of the overall effectiveness
of State efforts in addressing SIP and delegated NSPS
and NESHAPS sources.
Data on compliance status as determined by the
State are reported to EPA in accordance with agreed-
upon procedures. Such reporting must be n.t less
often than quarterly although, by agreement of the
parties, it may be more frequent. It includes data
on compliance status of sources inspected and on
actions being taken to return violating sources to
compliance. These data are then entered by the
Regional Office into the Agency’s automated Compliance
Data System (CDS). Some States may directly enter
the data into CDS, with EPA performing a quality
assurance function on the data entry. Since CDS
data form the basis for virtually all Agency reporting
on compliance status, an effective CDS system and
current data base are absolutely essential to the
ability of the Agency to understand and articulate
the status of the program and make planning and
budgetary decisions accordingly.
If data show a source to be in violation, the
Regional Office will ascertain what actions the State
is taking to resolve the violation. If the State
takes the lead on the case, the Regional Office will

-------
—19—
track the progress of the State action. If the State
is not or will not take prompt, effective action, EPA
(consistent with its priorities) will assume respon—
sibility. Once EPA assumes responsibility, it begins
to document the violation for further enforcement
purposes and proceeds as outlined in the section on
Responding to Non-Compliance Problems, Section VIII.
Discussion of monitoring activities once sources are
found in violation and made subject to an EPA action
will be reserved for that section.
This section will focus on the basic compliance
monitoring program. As previously noted, this is
largely a State responsibility. State programs are
typically structureG to address both sources of
concern to EPA and those of purely local concern
(e.g., odor problems not regulated under the Clean
Air Act). EPA, in recognition of the fundamental
role of the State, supports State compliance monitor-
ing activities as part of its air grants to States
under Section 105 of the Clean Air Act and through
its training, workshops, and technical assistance
activities.
The sources of primary concern to EPA have tradi-
tionally been Class A SIP sources, NSPS sources, and
NESHAPs sources. This totals approximately 30,000
sources nationwide. One issue presently under consi-
deration is whether EPA should focus on VOC sources
even siraller than those meeting the Class A defini-
tion because of the significant contribution to
ozone nonattairunent made by large numbers of small
VOC sources. Once an improved data base is esta-
blished (see Section IX B), a different cut point
might be chosen for VOC sources and a strategy might
be evolved for some selective monitoring of sources
even below that level.
The basic compliance monitoring technique used
by the State is an inspection, an onsite visit to the
source. Inspections can be of varying thoroughness.
A typical inspection does not involve an actual stack
test. Stack teats, when required, are generally
conducted by the source with a government observer
present. Typically, stack tests are required for an
initial demonstration of compliance after installation
of controls by an existing source or start-up of a
new source. Thereafter, except for certain large
sources such as utilities where routine stack testing

-------
-20-
may be required, stack tests are typically required
only If a violation of mass emission limits is suspect-
ed and a source is likely to contest the deterToinacion
of violation.
A properly conducted inspection can involve a
thorough analysis of source and control device operat-
ing characteristics and relevant operating parameters.
Fuel samples for SO 2 evaluations and VOC samples
for volatiles analysis may be taken. However, inspec-
tions too often focus primarily on visible emissions
since gaseous pollutants such as SO 2 and NOx can
be more difficult to evaluate without stack testing.
A significant problem in the air program has
been the limited availability of continuous emission
monitoring technology. While technology for monitoring
opacity has long been available and generally accepted,
technology for continuous monitoring of gaseous
emissions has lagged behind. However, major improve-
ments in the reliability and accuracy of continuous
emission monitoring equipment has occurred in recent
years, and the Agency should make wider use of it in
the future, both in establishing monitoring, reporting,
and recordkeeping requirements in NSPS standards and
in assuring continuous compliance by major SIP sources.
At the moment, however, its use in the air program is
limited. (See the discussion on continuous emission
monitoring in Part F of this section.)
To assist the States in planning their inspection
programs, EPA has issued guidance on the recommended
frequency with which various classes of sources should
be inspected. This recommended inspection frequency
guidance is to form the basis of the EPA/State agree-
ment on State compliance assurance activities negoti-
ated as part of the grants award process. A substan-
tial revision to the present inspection frequency
guidance, intended to provide the States greater flexi-
bility in addressing their most significant problems,
is contained in Part C of this section.
Where States have not inspected a source within
the defined period, Regional Offices have the respon-
sibility of either getting the State to perform the
inspection or performing the inspection itself.
Regional Offices also have the responsibility of
inspecting sources for which EPA has primacy (primarily
-non-delegated NSPS and NESHAPs sources).

-------
-21 —
It should be noted that the ability of the
Agency to use a contractor as an Agency representa-
tive for purposes of conducting an inspection under
Section 114 of the Clean Air Act has been the subject
of considerable litigation. Courts of Appeal have
split on the issue, with the Sixth and Tenth Circuits
holding that the Agency cannot demand entry by con-
tractors under Section 114 and the Ninth Circuit
holding that it can. The issue is presently before
the Supreme Court, which has granted certiorari.
Due to a combination of factors including the
uncertain legal climate, antipathy to contractors by
some States, and declining contract funds, EPA has
been reducing the overall role of contractors in its
program. They are likely to remain a necessary
component for some time, however, and it is impor-
tant that the right to use contractors be preserved.
One further point should be noted relative to
inspections. They are often announced well in advance.
The logic of this for a stack test is clear; stack
tests can require significant site preparation. The
logic for routine inspections, however, is far less
clear. Reasons often cited are that it reduces the
confrontational atmosphere and minimizes the likeli-
hood that inspectors will travel at great time and
expense to a facility which turns out not to be
operating that day. However, by announcing the
inspection in advance, sources are given the opportu-
nity of optimizing their control equipment. While
this admittedly has some air quality benefit, it may
be more than outweighed by the emissions from sources
not paying particularly close attention to their
operation and maintenance because they know they are
not in jeopardy of an inspection because they haven’t
been notified that one is to be conducted. As part
of the exploration of options for dealing with the
continuous compliance problem (see Section IX C),
a re-examination of the issue of announced versus
unannounced inspections has been initiated.
Before turning to EPA’s program on auditing
State compliance assurance programs, it might be
beneficial to conclude this overview section by
reiterating the respective roles of EPA’s Headquarters
and Regional Offices. Headquarters is responsible
for:

-------
-22-
o Developing policies, priorities, and budget for
the compliance and enforcement program.
o Providing technical assistance, either directly or
through workshops and manuals.
o Managing the operation of CDS.
o Tracking and evaluating progress in meeting
national goals and priorities.
° Reporting to upper management on progress in
meeting program goals and providing recommendations
for improvement.
Regional Offices are responsible for:
o Establishing and maintaining effective coordinated
working relationships with State and local agencies.
0 Communicating national policy, priorities, and
goals to State and local agencies.
0 Utilizing the grants award process to assure
that State and local programs and Federal
expenditures are directed toward meeting national
goals and priorities as well as local goals.
o Establishing programs of review and analysis to
assure that State and local agencies re meeting
commitments, goals, and priorities.
0 Assuring the receipt and timely entry into CDS of
compliance and enforcement action data.
0 Operating a program to assure quality information
and oversight.
0 Operating a program for direct compliance efforts
where EPA has primacy or the States are unwilling
or unable to assume lead responsibility.
B. EPA Audit Program
EPA’s overview of State compliance monitoring
programs traditionally evolved in the form of an
inspection program where State-reported compliance
information was independently verified by EPA (or
its contractor). In the past, the Agency would
inspect from five to ten percent of the sources
reported by the States as being in compliance to
verify their compliance status. While this program
generally accomplished its objectives, it was very

-------
-23—
resource-intensive, occasionally caused disagreements
with the States over use of contractor personnel in
this program, and often provided insufficient feedback
to the States on their performance. For these reasons,
EPA decided in mid-1982 to move away from this approach.
Since mid-1982, EPA has been working with STAPPA
and ALAPCO, the associations representing State and
local air pollution control officials, in developing
a National Air Audit System. One element of this audit
system is the compliance assurance activities of a State
program. The objectives of this element are:
o To provide a basis for EPA to formulate a judgment
as to the overall quality and effectiveness of
the State and local agencies’ compliance and enforce-
ment procedures and activities.
o To provide a basis for EPA to make timely
decisions as to the necessity and appropriateness
of direct Federal enforcement against individual
sources.
o To provide a basis for EPA to know immediately
or to be able to ascertain quickly the following:
(a) general compliance level for all sources
or classes of sources, in the State as a
whole or in designated areas;
(b) the compliance status of any specific source;
and
(c) the compliance activity directed towards
resolving instances of noncompliance.
• To promote effective working relationships
between EPA, the State, and local agencies to
assure consistent application of regulations and
policies.
o To provide a basis for determining whether additional
support to the State program, such as through
workshops or other technical assistance activities,
would be beneficial.
A document detailing the nature of the National
Air Audit System should be agreed upon by early in
the fall of 1983. Elements of the compliance assurance
portion of the audit program are expected to include
the following:

-------
-24-
o EPA will ask State and local agencies to review
annually the data summaries that EPA has in CDS to
confirm that the data agree with their information
about the sources.
o EPA will spot check State source files annually
to confirm that the data in State files agree
with the data that EPA has on the source.
o EPA will determine the adequacy of the docurnen-
tation found in State files to support the
reported compliance status of the source.
o EPA will determine through examining State files
the adherence of the State to proper procedures
for determining the compliance of sources.
In addition, EPA will select through a neutral
inspection scheme from 2-5% of the sources of the
State inventory of concern to EPA. Each Regional
Office will determine the appropriate level for
each of its States after consultations with the State.
EPA will notify the State at least 30 days before it
inspects a source so that back-to-back ‘EPA and State
inspections can be avoided and so that States may
participate in the inspection. In this manner, the
oversight inspection can be used to improve EPA’s
knowledge of the sources it tracks, improve the
general abilities and understanding of the State
inspector, and present a stronger Federal presence
to the regulated community.
Note that the foregoing discussion reflects
deliberations to date by the EPA/STAPPA/ALAPCO
workgroup on the compliance assurance aspects of the
National Air Audit System. That is the appropriate
vehicle for defining this program and this strategy
is not intended in any way to detract from or supersede
that effort.
C. Inspection Frequency -- Revised Guidance
A fundamental element of the Stationary Source
Air Compliance Program is the periodic visit by
governmental air compliance personnel to significant
regulated sources of air pollution. Historically,
technical and cost considerations have limited the
use of continuous emission monitoring technology in

-------
—25—
air pollution regulation, making actual site
inspections the primary means by which the ability
of sources to comply with applicable requirements
is determined. The primary responsibility for
conducting these inspections is at the State and
local level, with EPA grant and technical support.
Initially, EPA air inspection guidance to the
States provided for, at a minimum, an annual inspec-
tion of any source having an uncontrolled emission
rate equal to or exceeding 100 tons per year of
any regulated pollutant. However, in light of the
Alabama Power decision (636 F.2d 323, D.C. Cir.,
December 14, 1979) which altered the definition
of a “major source” under the Clean Air Act, revised
inspection frequency guidance was issued in March
1980. That guidance specified at least annual inspec-
tions of NSPS, NESHAPs, and Class Al SIP sources and
at least biennial inspections of Class A2 SIP sources.
However, given the limited availability of
resources at the Federal and State level and the
increasing complexity. of the air pollutionprograin,
it appears that the current guidance may not be
sufficiently flexible to permit States to address
properly their most significant problems. Therefore,
the Agency is establishing revised inspection frequency
guidance as outlined below. Please note that the
revised guidance does not address EPA oversight
activities, which are being addressed separately.
In addition, this guidance establishes only the
minimtnn acceptable program. States are strongly
encouraged to go beyond these minimums to the extent
resources allow.
REVISED GUIDANCE
The inspection is the primary compliance assur-
ance method presently available in the air program
for validating source performance. Therefore, EPA
believes it is imperative that an inspection program
be implemented in all States. The following guidance
on the expected frequency of inspections is intended
to balance the need for a nationally-uniform data
base to enable an evaluation of the effectiveness of
the program with the needs of State and local agencies
to make optimal use of their limited resources to
address the varied and unique air quality problems
faced by each State and locality.

-------
-26-
The frequency of such an inspection shall be
determined by which requirements are applicable
(SIP, NSPSI NES1IAPs) and, for SIP sources, by whether
the source is a Class Al or Class A2 source. It is
imperative that all sources be classified by SIP
class (if applicable) and applicable air program
(SIP, NSPS, NESHAPs) and that these data be duly
recorded into EPA’s Compliance Data System (CDS).
DEFINITION OF AN INSPECTION AND USE OF CONTINUOUS
EMISSION MONITORING (CEll) DATA AS AN ALTERNATIVE
For the purpose of this guidance, a State inspec-
tion shall mean an onsite visit to an operating
source to assess compliance with applicable State
and Federal air pollution control requirements.
An alternative for satisfying inspection fre-
quency guidance by the State for any SIP or NSPS
source is the use of continuous emission monitoring
Excess Emission Reporting (EER) on a quarterly basis
in lieu of periodic inspection requirements. An
EER is a suitable alternative for a source utilizing
continuous emission monitoring under the following
conditions:
o The data reported in the EER to assess compliance
are at least comparable to the data which would
have been obtained during an onsite inspection
to assess compliance.
o As part of the State’s CEll quality assurance/
quality control program, the monitor must be
quantitatively audited at least every three
years.
• EERs must be input into the CEll subset of CDS.
o The intended use of the EER alternative to
onsite inspections must be agreed upon between
the State and the EPA Regional Office.
o The Stationary Source Compliance Division must
receive the names and CDS numbers of all Class
Al SIP and NSPS sources covered by the EER
alternative to adjust properly the data base
for subsequent analysis and reporting.

-------
-27-
° The State must conduct an onsite inspection of
all sources being tracked under the EER alterna-
tive at least once every three years. (This
could be conducted in conjunction with the
quantitative audit previously described.)
It is EPA’s belief that continuous emission
monitoring should eventually be fully integrated with
inspections arid other compliance determination methods
into a total compliance monitoring system. The use
of CEM data under the circumstances described in
this section is a step in that direction. As more
experience is obtained, it is envisioned that this
guidance will be revised accordingly.
For sources for which compliance is based solely
on the characteristics of the fuel burned (typically
percentage of sulfur in the fuel), an inspection of
the fuel supplier’s records and a sampling of the
supplier’s product can be substituted for an onsite
inspection of the source.
CLASS Al SIP SOURCES
All operating Class Al SIP sources regulated
under the Clean Air Act shall be inspected annually.
Annually is construed to mean at least one onsite
visit is made to each such source between October
and September 1 corresponding to the Federal fiscal
year.
An exception to the annual inspection require-
ment is permitted if the EPA Regional Office and
State agree that a source is constrained by an operat-
ing permit or is seasonal in nature such that it
would be inappropriate to apply an annual inspection
requirement to this source. All such excepted
sources shall be inspected at least once every five
years. Categories such as grain elevators and
alfalfa dehydrators are examples of possible excep-
tions. Exceptions should be communicated by the
Regional Office to EPA’s Stationary Source Compliance
Division (SSCD) at the start of the inspection year
so that the data base can be properly adjusted for
subsequent analysis and reporting. Regional Offices
are encouraged to discuss with SSCD any novel issues
which may arise in their discussions with their
States.

-------
-28-
CLASS A2 SIP SOURCES
Except as noted below, operating Class A2 SIP
sources regulated under the Clean Air Act shall be
inspected biennially. However, a State may propose
a modified inspection scheme to its EPA Regional
Office which represents at least the same level of
resource commitment but which the State believes is
more responsive to the needs of its air quality
program. This can consist of any combination of
additional Class Al SIP inspections, Class A2 SIP
inspections, and inspections of other sources regu-
lated under the Clean Air Act. This could include
Class B SIP sources in those areas where they are
particularly significant. EPA Regional Offices and
their States are free to establish whatever approach
is best suited to their situation as long as the
following conditions are met:
o SSCD must receive informational copies of such
agreements at the start of each fiscal year.
° A method of monitoring the agreement must be in
place and data reporting requirements clearly
established.
o The State must demonstrate that the modified
approach is based on at least the same resource
expenditure as would be required to inspect all
Class A2 SIP sources on a biennial basis.
o All operating Class A2 SIP sources must be in-
spected at least once every five years.
NSPS SOURCES
Any operating NSPS-subject source which is also
a Class Al SIP source shall be inspected at least
once every Federal fiscal year. All other NSPS
sources shall be treated as a Class Al SIP source.
NESHAPS SOURCES
All operating nontransitory NESHAPs-subject
sources shall be inspected at least once every Federal
fiscal year.

-------
-29-
D. Inspection Frequency -- Present Experience
To identify whether sources were being inspected
by States in accordance with EPA’s recommended
inspection frequency guidance, a new commitment was
added to the Agency’s Management Accountability
System for FY 1983. This commitment evaluated the
degree of compliance with the inspection frequency
guidance for SIP sources by the States, aggregated
as national and Regional percentages.
The first quarter’s data (i.e., that reported on
December 31, 1982) showed disappointingly low figures,
ranging between a high of 90% and a low of 13% for
Class Al sources, with a national average of 48%.
Investigation of the reasons for these numbers lead
to the conclusion that it was partly a data entry
problem and partly a problem with inspections not
being performed as required. By working to resolve
the data problems, the national average had increased
by the end of FY 1983 to 76%, with the range being
from 44% to 100%. Regional Offices have been directed
to work with those States where problems may still
exist to ensure compliance with the guidance using,
if necessary, the grant mechanism as a vehicle for
accomplishing this. Initial feedback on the response
to this issue from Regional Offices and States has
been encouraging and tracking of this element will
continue (in slightly modified form) in the Fl 1984
Management Accountability System.
E. Inspection Quality and Complexity
Previous discussion has focused primarily on the
frequency of inspection of various sources. There
are two other elements which must be considered in
conjunction with frequency, the quality of the
inspection and the degree of complexity of the
inspection.
The need for quality in conducting inspections
is self-evident. EPA has been focusing on the quality
issue largely through its efforts to upgrade the
technical capacity of State and Regional inspector
staffs. A greatly expanded workshop program and
issuance of technical manuals are the two primary
ways in which this is accomplished. The joint
inspections conducted as part of the audit program
proposed in Part B of this section should serve as

-------
-30-
another effective vehicle for training. The audit
itself will be useful in identi±ying areas of weakness
which need to be remedied and thus provide for more
focused EPA technical assistance efforts.
A second element is the tailoring of the inspec-
tion to reflect the degree of complexity of the
source, its control equipment, and its compliance
history. This is an important element of targeting
inspection resources.
It is recognized that many State and local
agencies already consider these factors both in
setting inspection frequencies and in determining the
nature of the inspection to be conducted. However, to
assess the benefits of this approach in a more struc-
tured way, EPA conducted a pilot study in cooperation
with the Commonwealth of Virginia in one region of
the State.
An important objective of the Virginia study
was to evaluate and field test inspection procedures
that would utilize more effectively their current
manpower to ensure continuing compliance of sources
having the greatest impact on air quality. Sources
(Class A only) were identified for future inspections
based on a targeting plan using the following source
information, which was obtained by file and permit
reviews and past field inspection experience:
1. Control equipment type
2. Type of source and emissions characteristics
3. Source size
4. Geographic location
5. Frequency of malfunction
Based on these source-specific data, the frequency
and level of inspection to be conducted at each
source was determined. As a result, there were 5
recommended levels of inspection.
Level 0
o Conducted at uncontrolled sources basically for
data collection and baselining operational
performance

-------
—31-
o Used for petroleum storage facilities, paint
spray booths, drying ovens, uncontrolled degreasing
facilities
Level 1
o Limited to the evaluation of visible emissions
from process vents, fuel combustion sources,
incinerators, and fugitive emission sources
o Used periodically in conjunction with more complex
inspection levels to ensure continuing compliance
with visible emissions requirements
o Used for gas-fired and oil-fired boilers, tencer
frames, incinerators, and fugitive emission sources
such as conveyor transfer points and truck
loadouc facilities
Level 2
o Monitored source-maintained records on control
device and process operating conditions in
addition to visible emission observations
* Reviewed such process items as feed rates,
temperatures, raw material compositions, and
process rates, and such control equipment perfor-
mance parameters as water flow rates, water
pressure, static pressure drop, and ESP power
levels
o Used records to determine any significant change
since the last inspection (where compliance was
demonstrated) or any process operations outside
normal or permitted conditions
Level 3
• Designed to provide a detailed engineering analysis
of source compliance by actually measuring specific
operating parameters
o Reduced and used control equipment operating
parameters such as pressure drop, flue gas
conditions, oxygen level, water flow rates, and
gas stream temperature to calculate flue gas
volume, superficial velocity, specific collection
area, inlet velocity, etc.

-------
-32-
0 Used results of engineering analysis to determine
- if the source S:
a. operating within accepted design conditions
for the specific control, device
b. experiencing O&M problems that result in
less than continuing compliance
Level 4
o Conducted along with a compliance stack test
(by approved reference methods)
0 Monitored all process and control device operating
parameters during a stack test for use during
future Level 3 inspections
0 PermItted the establishment of baseline conditions
at controlled sources
The purpose of the increasing level of inspec-
tion is to concentrate the resources on those sources
that have the greatest potential to exceed the emission
limits. Ihitial results of the Level 3 inspection
may indicate that specific sources are not experienc-
ing deficiencies in performance and therefore do not
warrant a higher level of inspection. In these
cases, the frequency or level of inspection may be
adjusted downward consistent with the results of the
Level 3 inspection.
Prior to this study, the Virginia inspectors
were generally conducting only Level 1-type inspec-
tions using visible emissions as the sole indicator
of compliance. As a result, it was difficult to
detect potential violations of the mass emission
limitations or to detect potential O&M problems that
could affect the overall performance of the control
equipment.
The targeting plan in the Virginia study initially
called for a Level 3 inspection to be conducted at any
source with uncontrolled emissions greater than 25
tons/year and a Level 2 inspection at any source with
uncontrolled emissions greater than 5 tons/year at
normal operation, unless the source emitted lead or
hazardous air pollutants. As it evolved, it became
evident that the number of inspections had to be

-------
—33-
adjusted downward due to resource constraints and
various special circumstances associated with indivi-
dual inspectors. Nevertheless, during the application
of the inspection levels approach, a number of here-
tofore undetected violations were discovered, as
discussed in Section IX C of this strategy. By
using a number of parameters extending beyond visible
emissions (Level 1) and performing more detailed
inspections of control devices, a better assessment
of noncompliance could bemade, with the cause of
noncompliance often specifically identified by the
inspector.
A final report of the initial phase of this
pilot effort will soon be available. The concept is
being further evaluated to assess its longer-term
effectiveness. If it continues to prove effective,
it will be tested statewide in Virginia. If it
proves effective on a statewide basis, consideration
will be given to providing support to other States
which would like EPA assistance in initiating a
comparable program.
F. Use of Continuous Emission Monitoring Data
This section addresses EPA ’s use of Continuous
Emission Honitoring (CEM) data in enforcement of NSPS
and SIP emission and operating and maintenance (C&M)
provisions and in other general EPA activities.
Instances in which instrumental CEMs (conforming
with 40 CFR 60 Appendix B) or manual measurements
(Reference Method 6B) have been promulgated or approved
by the Agency as official methods to determine source
compliance with the applicable emission limitations
are presently quite limited. CEMs have been specifi-
cally prescribed as the method to establish emission
violations for one or more pollutants in the following
instances:
• 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 60 Subpart GC;
o various sources regulated by permits, orders,
or consent decrees in which CEM has been
specifically designated as the compliance
test method;

-------
—34—
various types of sources which are regulated
by SIPs (e.A., Nevada SIP, 40 CFR §52.1475(d))
where the State has specified CEM as the com-
pliance test method.
Legal factors currently affecting the ability
of the Agency to use CEM data for direct enforcement
are discussed at some length in the memorandum of
August 12, 1982 from Kathleen Bennett to the Air
Division Directors (Attachment 3).
However, CEMs can provide the Agency with
useful data for circumstances other than those deli-
neated above. Sources subject to CEM requirements
are generally required to submit periodic reports.
NSPS regulations, for example, require quarterly
submission of Excess Emission Reports (EER’s).
These reports document, for the benefit of both the
control agency and the source, the source’s performance
with respect to proper operation and maintenance and
sustained emissions reduction. The EER contains
information on excursions above the relevant standard
(excess emissions), causal factors, and corrective/
preventive actions.
Acquisition, evaluation and use of CEM data is
an important component of a feedback system which can
be of substantial benefit to both sources and agencies.
Specifically, EER data can be used:
For Sources
- to help ensure upper management attention
through the formal requirement for source sub-
mittal of a summary of excursions. This increases
the likelihood of timely attention and reduces
the risk of sanctions; and
- as a tool in preventive maintenance/risk manage-
ment/cost control programs, to flag deteriorating
process or control equipment performance. In
cases such as fuel burning, CEM data can be
used to optimize continually the combustion
process and control system performance, thus
saving money and preventing pollution at the
same time.

-------
-35—
For the Control Agency
- as a screening tool, to identify sources experi-
encing frequent or continual excursions. Such
sources can be subjected to additional attention
in the form of phone calls, inspections, etc.,
rather than allocating scarce inspection resources
largely at random;
- in addition to identifying problem sources, to
help pinpoint specific source components for
special attention during an inspection;
- to document the severity (e.&., duration, magni-
tude, and frequency) of a source’s excess emis-
sions. For example, EER data can provide support-
ing evidence of the long-term nature of violations,
negating source claims of isolated problems;
- to document that a compliance test was performed
during “non-representative” operating conditions;
- as support for issuing an NOV;
- to establish a data base in the developwent of
Agency policies and strategies (e.g., acid rain
strategies);
- as the basis for assessing “good air pollution
control practices” (e..&., FGD performance);
- as an alternative to agency inspections of
sources as delineated in the Agency’s
Inspection Frequency Guidance in Part C of
this section; and
- to monitor the emissions and performance of a
source subject to specific permit, consent
decree, or administrative order requirements.
For Both Control Agencies and Sources
- to provide a quantitative basis for agency/industry
dialogue in identifying and resolving emission
reduction problems; and
- to provide baseline data for development of profiles
and norms of long-term source performance.

-------
-36-
- Many of the concerns which led to industry’s
initial reluctance to use CEMs (or reluctance by
EPA to require use of CEMs), or. which may have
resulted from bad experiences with CEMs , are no
longer valid. Industry and agency familiarity with
the operation of continuous emission monitoring
equipment and standardization of quality assurance/
quality control and system audits have improved the
acceptance of the technology substantially in recent
years. Accompanying this acceptance of CEM technology
has been the development of simpler and less expensive
technologies, such as Method 6B bubblers. The tradi-
tional limiting factors of reliability and cost
considerations have been to some extent replaced
with different limiting factors, misinformation and
inertia. The Agency needs to recognize and overcome
these limitations and expand greatly the role of
CEM data in the air program.
EPA has been working with State and local
agencies and the ut-ility industry to improve perfor-
mance of CEMs and the data base of operational infor-
mation. Some of these efforts are outlined in Section
X concerning Compliance Promotion. This will be of
particular importance as sources subject to Subpart
Da, which utilizes CEM as a compliance method, come
on line. In time, with the support of the regulatory
agencies and industry, the misinformation and inertia
problems may start to be resolved.
A very important effort presently under way
is a pilot project which EPA is sponsoring in conjunc-
tion with the States of Iowa and Missouri. The
pilot focuses on demonstrating the potential effective-
ness of a well-run program to utilize CEM data and
fully integrate it into the compliance determination
process. While the work is still in its early stages,
the reaction of both the States and sources involved
has been very encouraging. Hopefully this study,
when completed in approximately another year, will
be useful in demonstrating to other States and
industry that similar efforts can be rewarded with a
better understanding of and ability to control
emissions from the day-to-day operation of its
sources.
In any event, EPA can hardly expect others to
take a fresh look at the use of CEMs unless it is
willing to do so itself. The Agency should increase
its reliance upon CEM data in its compliance and
surveillance programs and consider, wherever possible,
some form of continuous monitoring requirement in

-------
—37-
its NSPS and NESHAP5 standards as they are promul-
gated or revised. It would be most effective if CEM
were specified as the compliance method or as an
alternate compliance method.
This would require a careful consideration
of what data are really required, how frequently
they are needed, what they will be utilized for,
and the realistic capability and willingness of
the receiving agency to utilize the data. (There
is no point requiring more data which will sit
unread in a corner.) This leads to the further
need to identify what additional information is
needed to allow effective use of these data, such
as improved information on what reasonably can be
expected of control equipment in terms of
performance and reliability.
In summary, receipt and use of CEM data can
assist agencies and industry to discharge more effec-
tively their compliance monitoring responsibilities.
In particular, it allows agencies to become more
sophisticated in allocating agency resources and
attention. Visible and timely use of such data also
sends a signal to sources that the agency is serious
about continuous compliance.
Many of the uses of CEM data previously identified
can be effectuated without rulemaking through the
Agency’s authority in Section 114. It is recommended
that Regional Offices increase their use of available
CEM data to support the compliance monitoring and
enforcement programs in the ways previously discussed.
In addition, Regional Offices should begin to identify
those sources presently without CEMs but for which
the use of CEM8 could be fruitful. This could include
such sources as long-term violators, and large SO 2
emitters, particularly in nonattainment areas. For
these sources, the Agency should begin requiring CEM
installation, quality assurance testing, recordkeeping,
and periodic reporting of relevant CEM data to EPA.
In addition, the Agency should broaden its use of
CEMs in its permits, consent decrees, and administra-
tive orders.
Some Regions and States are further along than
others in terms of willingness and ability to use CEM
data. Specific efforts will be initiated as part of
this strategy to work with the lead Regions to forma-
lize and enhance their procedures on EER review and
use for subsequent inclusion in Agency-wide guidance.

-------
-38-
VIII. Responding to Noncompliance Problems
A. Objectives
The objectives of responding to noncompliance
problems are to ensure that the problem is corrected
quickly, to deter similar problems from arising, to
see that the law is applied equitably, and to punish
misconduct by source owners and operators.
B. Priority Target Areas
The current system of priorities for responding
to noncompliance problems is primarily delineated
by two memoranda. The first is the December 29,
1981 memorandum from Kathleen Bennett to the Regional
Administrators, entitled “EPA Accountability System-
OANR Policy Guidance”. In an appendix to that memo-
randum (a copy of which is included in Attachment
2). the term “signficant violator” is defined, and
the statement is made that these significant viola-
tors should be addressed. (This policy was elaborated
upon in a memorandum of June 24, 1982, to the Regional
Offices entitled tt Significant Violators” (Attachment
4).) Roughly speaking, the sources to be given a
high priority as “significant violators” are those
violating hazardous air pollutant standards (NESHAPS),
major source State Implementation Plan (SIP) violators
affecting nonattainmerit areas, and violators of new
source requirements (NSPS and requirements of Parts
C and D of the Act.)
The purpose of establishing the significant
violator program was to define the Agency’s highest
priority sources for enforcement action, other than
emergency actions. In light of the special impor-
tance attached to these sources, Regional Offices
are required to report on a quarterly basis on the
status of efforts made by themselves and their States
on resolution of these violators.
The list of significant violators is obviously
dynamic, with sources being added and deleted as
violations are discovered and resolved. The initial
list established in March 1982 contained 482 sources.

-------
-39-
By the December 31 • 1982 report, the number of signi-
fi ant violators had been reduced to 303. Starting
with the March 31, 1983 report, the number began to
increase again. This reflected the fact that many
VOC sources were subject to December 31 1982 compli-
ance dates. As that date passed and as violations
are confirmed, those violators meeting the significant
violator criteria are added. As EPA continues to
improve its information on the identity and compliance
status of VOC sources, it is likely that the list
will continue to grow before enforcement efforts
begin to turn this around.
It is generally accepted within the Agency that
the significant violator program forms a sound base
for the program. It is expected that this concept
will continue essentially as it is for at least the
next two years.
The second major priority-setting memorandum is
the Agency’s Post-1982 Enforcement Policy, dated
September 20, 1982 (Attachment 5). This policy
provides more detail for addressing SIP violators in
primary nonattainment areas after December 31, 1982.
(The policy does not apply when the attainment dead-
line is after 1982, such as in areas with Section
172(a)(2) extensions.)
In particular, the policy states that EPA or
States should seek shutdown of sources subject to
the policy unless:
(1) The public interest in continued operation of
the source outweighs the environmental cost
of the additional. period of noncompliance
and;
(2) The source has sufficient funds to comply
expeditiously.
If the Agency decides not to seek shutdown, it may
enter stipulations and not oppose a request to the
court to exercise its equitable power to enter an
order establishing a compliance schedule. Such an
order should contain:

-------
-40-
(1) an expeditious schedule with increments of
progress to comply with the SIP, or RACT if
no Part D plan is in force where one is
required;
(2) interim emission limitations and controls to
the extent practicable;
(3) monitoring and reporting requirements;
(4) stipulated penalties, at least for viola-
tions of the compliance schedule and interim
controls;
(5) provisions preventing increases of emissions;
(6) payment of a significant cash penalty, with
total civil penalties reflecting the criteria
of the Civil Penalty Policy;
(7) an express reservation of the right to seek
injunctive relief, including shutdown, if the
source does not comply with the order; and
(8) consistency with the Agency’s Limited Life
Facilities Policy with respect to sources
being shut down rather than controlled.
Further guidance on the policy was issued on
January 12, 1983, in a memorandt from Kathleen
Bennett and Robert Perry to the Regional Administra-
tors and Regional Counsels (Attachment 6). This
guidance clarified the policy in a number of ways,
most importantly in providing further detail on
criteria to be applied in review of State actions
for possible overfiling. This supplemental guidance
also directed the Regional Offices to issue Notices
of Violation to all sources to which the policy
applies, including State-lead cases, so that EPA
will be in a position to act quickly if State action
ultimately proves inadequate.
Since the policy was established, EPA has been
working closely with States to assure its successful
implementation. A high proportion of the sources
which were determined to be subject to the policy
have either come into compliance, been put on a

-------
—41—
compliance schedule, or have an enforcement action
pending against them. Of course, as with the signi-
ficant violator program, new violators are continually
being identified so that the overall number of identi-
fied violators is not necessarily decreasing. In
fact, it is likely to be increasing as VOC compliance
inventories and data become more complete.
Since January 1983, EPA Headquarters has been
tracking on a source-specific basis initial implemen-
tation of the Post-1982 Enforcement Policy. To do
this in a feasible manner, it is using the list of
violators identified as of the time the policy first
took effect, i.e., January 1, 1983. It has not
attempted to eep a running list (adding each new
violator as it is discovered). It is important to
emphasize, however, that such data must be available
at the State level and reported to EPA’s Regional
Offices in accordance with established reporting
requirements. Sources subject to the policy must be
addressed, whether by EPA or the State, consistent
with the policy irrespective of whether the source
happens to be on the list Headquarters is tracking.
Headquarters tracking of Post-1982 sources as a
separate exercise is considered worthwhile only for
about the first year of the implementation of the
policy. Its purpose is to assure that the policy is
understood and integrated into consideration of
appropriate enforcement responses. For the long-
term, it is preferable to eliminate separate Head-
quarters tracking and to rely on the significant
violator program for priority-setting and tracking
since, while it includes the most significant Post-
1982 policy sources, it includes other important
categories of sources (e.g., NSPS and NESHAPs) as
well.
Because of the importance of the significant
violator and Post-1982 Enforcement Policy concepts
in the enforcement program and because they are
different yet partially overlapping, it would be
worthwhile to summarize the main points of each for
comparison purposes.
Significant Violator List
0 A priority setting mechanism to assist the
Regions and States in targeting their resources
to achieve the greatest environmental benefit;

-------
-42-
o A defined universe used for tracking Regional
program performance in the Management Accounta-
bility System;
o Sources are not subject to any particular sub-
stantive Agency policies purely based on their
status as significant violators. Sources on
the list may be subject to any of a number of
substantive Agency policies;
o Includes NSPS, NESHAPs and certain PSD violators;
o Includes SIP sources in secondary nonattainment
areas as well as primary nonattainment areas;
and
o Generally includes only Class Al SIP violators
(in nonattainment areas).
Post-1982 Enforcement Policy List
o The sources on the Post-1982 Enforcement Policy
list are those sources fitting the defined
criteria established in the September 20, 1982
memo from Anne Gorsuch to the Regional Admini-
strators and subject to the pa ticular substan-
tive and procedural elements of that policy.
o Affects only SIP sources in primary nonattainment
areas (other than extension ar as).
o Includes Class A2 sources as well as Class Al
sources.
Thus, some degree of overlap does exist between
sources on the significant violator list used for
MAS tracking and the list of sources subject to the
requirements of the Agency’s Post-1982 Enforcement
Policy. However, they are distinct universes that
have been established to serve different purposes.
Priority will also be assigned to resolution
of at least certain classes of VOC violations, irre-
spective of whether they meet the present significant
violator definition. This includes sources smaller
than the Class Al definition in nonattainment areas
to the extent that resources permit.

-------
—43—
Certain VOC sources are of concern not only
because of their contribution to ozone levels, but
al-so because the constituents of their VOC emissions
are toxic in nature. Previous efforts have focused
on VOC emissions only to the extent that they impact
attainment of ozone ambient standards. In FY 1985,
efforts will be substantially increased to enforce
VOC control requirements even in areas which are
projected to be attainment or unclassified relative
to the ozone NAAQS, where the enforcement of VOC
control requirements can yield significant benefits
through reduction in air toxics. The special pro-
blems associated with VOC sources will be discussed
at greater length in Section IX 3.
In addition to the priorities set by the docu-
ments cited above, several other aspects are impor-
tant to note. The highest priority should be given
to any emergency episode which may arise as defined
in Section 303 of the Act. Expanded guidance for
response under Section 303 was sent to Regional
Offices on September 15, 1983 and is included as
Attachment 7. The essential point to note about
this guidance is thacit urges a broader considera-
tion of the use of Section 303 authority. In the
1970’s, emergency episodes (and thus use of Section
303) were viewed almost entirely in the context of
high levels of criteria pollutants under adverse
meteorlogical conditions. This occurs only infre-
quently these days, at least for pollutants associated
primarily with stationary sources. However, the
serious threats presented to public health by various
air toxic substances have become much more visible.
The purpose of the guidance is to foster a broader
awareness of the possible use of Section 303 as a
mechanism to address, in proper circi.unstances, the
dangers presented by such emissions.
Similarly, while alrady covered as “significant
violators”, special note should be made of enforcement
against violations of hazardous air pollutant standards.
This will consist primarily of continued enforcement
of vinyl chloride standards, enforcement of asbestos
demolition standards, and initial implementation
(enforcement or waiver issuance) of newly-promulgated
NESHAPS standards. Enforcement of NESHAPs standards
is discussed at some length in Section IX A.

-------
Stationary ce
State _____
Inspection
Compliance PL ocess
113(a)
Order
Is sued
Public Comment
Via F. R.
Publication
Possible enaIty
Adjudicatory Assessed
Hearings __________
Court Order
EPA Lead
No State Lead -
EPA Monitors
State Action
30 Day
Continuing
Violation
I NSPS or NESHAP Violation 1
Final
DCO
Issued
iew

-------
-44-
Finally, priority should be given to address-
Ing violations of Section 114, which sets out the
Agency’s information-gathering authority, because
that authority is so basic to EPA’s ability to set
and enforce the substantive requirements called for
by the Act. Similar high priority should be assigned
by EPA Regional Offices to violators of EPA orders
or Federal judicial decrees.
Note that these priorities reflect considera-
tions at the national level. Obviously, conditions
at the State and local level vary widely. The list-
ing of these national priorities should in no way be
interpreted as condoning a failure to address other
important air quality problems, such as violating
sources in attainment areas, to the extent consistent
with other priorities and available resources.
C. Informal Responses
When EPA or a State first learns of a noncompli-
ance problem, it may be possible to remedy the problem
by informal discussions with the source which lead
to a quick (generally within 30 days), complete reso-
lution. If this is not possible, however, a more
formal response should be considered. In addition,
if the violation appears to be part of a continual
pattern of intermittent violation, it may be prefer-
able to document the violation with a Notice of
Violation even if quickly remedied. This may be
taken more seriously by the source, help focus atten-
tion on the source in inspection targeting, and lay
the foundation for a more aggressive response to any
subsequent violations.
D. Formal Responses
Diagram #1 provides a simplified flow diagram
of the formal enforcement process. Normally, the
State or local agency will take the lead in address-
ing problems of noncompliance. If a State takes the
lead, EPA should understand what action the State is
contemplating and the timetable for that action so
it can make a reasoned judgment on deferral to the
State. This understanding should be documented in
the form of a State action plan. This could be

-------
-45-
prepared either by the State or by EPA with a State
reyiew for accuracy. The Regional Office should
then get periodic reports on the progress of that
action so that, if progress is not timely, a decision
can be made to reconsider the deferral.
In some instances, it may be advisable for the
Regional Office to begin case development activities
even while the State maintains the lead on a case.
In fact, this is specifically required for sources
subject to the Post-1982 Enforcement Policy. The
purpose of this is to allow EPA to act much more
quickly if it ever had to take the lead on the case.
These activites would, of course, have to be coordi-
nated with the State in a way that makes it clear to
both the source and the State that EPA regards the
State as maintaining the primary responsibility and
is continuing to look to the State to resolve the
matter.
When the EPA Regional Office finds that the
State or local agency has not effectively addressed
a violating source and will not be proceeding in a
timely and effective manner, it should initiate a
Federal enforcement action against the noncomplying
source. In evaluating a State action, several factors
should be considered:
(1) If the source is in compliance with a schedule
contained in a State decree order, EPA would
examine the expeditiousness of the compliance
schedule (including the incremental dates in
the schedule). EPA would also examine the
past compliance history of the source and the
record of State enforcement to determine
whether the final compliance date in the
schedule is likely to be met or if it is
simply a “moving target”, and likely to be
revised.
(2) If the source is in violation and no schedule
has been established or, though a schedule
exists, the source is not meeting it, EPA
would examine both the schedule (if one exists)
and what the State is doing to remedy the situa-
tion. Any violation extending more than six

-------
-46-
months without effective action would be of
particular concern. EPA would look at the
past compliance history of the source and the
record of State enforcement actions as an
indication of whether the State is likely to
resolve the problem effectively.
(3) In cases where circumstances indicate that
the State will not be able to effect compli-
ance, EPA would consider the significance of
the source relative to other priorities and
determine whether EPA action was warranted.
(4) For sources subject to the Post-1982 Enforce-
ment Policy, there is an additional set of items
which an adequate court or administrative order
should include, as previously discussed. The
most notable of these is that there should be
a significant cash penalty. Thus, for these
sources, EPA may need to conduct a penalties-
only action under either Section 113 or Section
120 if the State action is adequate in every
way except that no penalty was obtained.
Once a Regional Office has decided to initiate
a Federal action, it must first decide whether to
pursue the matter as a criminal, administrative, or
civil enforcement action. Section 113(c) of the Act
provides criminal sanctions for violations of certain
ruquirements of the Act. EPA must identify the cases
it intends to address with a criminal enforcement
action early in the case development process to assure
that the Agency protects the potential defendant’s
rights and to assure the integrity of the criminal
enforcement process. When a Regional Office receives
information indicating the likelihood of criminal
activity, it should refer that information to the
Criminal Enforcement Division at EPA Headquarters
for further investigation and prosecution in accord-
ance with the “General Operating Procedures for the
Criminal Enforcement Program” issued on October 29,
1982.
When a Regional Office decides to initiate an
administrative or civil action against a violating
source, the Region frequently must initially obtain
information from the source that will support the
enforcement action. EPA may use its information-
gathering authority under Section 114 of the Act to

-------
—47—
require the source to provide the Agency with infor-
mation concerning its compliance status. S€ction
114 of the Act authorizes EPA to require sources to
establish and maintain records, install and use
monitoring equipment, perform emission tests, admit
inspectors, and, in general, provide the information
EPA requires to determine whether the source is in
compliance. Once the response to the Section 114
letter is analyzed, an inspection of the source to
document the violation more thoroughly is often
required.
To begin an administrative or civil enforcement
action relating to a SIP violation, EPA must issue a
Notice of Violation (NOV) under Section 113(a) of
the Act. Once EPA has issued an NOV 1 the violator
has thirty days to remedy the violation. No prosecu-
tion can occur if the violating source comes into
compliance within the thirty days following the
issuance of an NOV. This NOV step is not required
for NSPS or NESHAP violations. For those viola-
tions, EPA may proceed immediately with an admini-
strative order or a civil o.r criminal action. EPA
may use its information-gathering authority under
Section 114 of the Act to determine whether a viola-
tion continues to exist thirty days after the issuance
of an NOV. A follow-up inspection can be performed
to document the continuing violation where required.
In addition, if the Section 113 conference with
the source to discuss the NOV is held more than 30
days after the issuance of the NOV. an admission
from the source might be sought at the conference.
If a violation persists beyond thirty days, or if
the violation concerns NSPS or NESHAPs where no NOV
is required, EPA may issue an administrative order
under either Section 113(a) or Section 113(d) or
initiate a civil judicial action under Section 113(b).
In addition, for certain new source violations as
discussed below, an administrative order may be
issued or judicial action initiated under Section
167.
A Section 113(a) order is an administrative
enforcement mechanism which is often effective in
bringing a source into compliance quickly. It is
most effective where operation and maintenance
problems exist. Reading Section 113(a) in conjunc-
tion with Sections 110(i) and Section 113(d), it
appears that there are strict limits on the extent
to which Section 113(a) orders can be used for SIP
violators. Thus, EPA has concluded that such orders

-------
-48-
must require immediate compliance, defined as within
30 days of the effective date of the order. This
limit does not apply to NSPS and NESHAP violators.
For these sources, a longer period of time may be
granted in a Section 113(a) order, but only when the
need for additional time arises from circumstances
beyond the control of the source, i.e., force majeure
situations. These concepts are discussed in more
detail in an April 30, 1982 memorandum from Kathleen
Bennett to the Regional Administrators, entitled
“Duration of Section 113(a) Orders” (See Attachment
8).
Another type of administrative enforcement
mechanism is that used to halt illegal construction
of a new or modified source in violation of Part C
or D of the Act. For violations of the Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements in
Part C, the appropriate order to be issued is one
under Section 167. Such an order can be issued
against:
(1) A major emitting facility if it should have
obtained a PSD permit but has not;
(2) A source being constructed or operated pursuant
to a State-issued PSD permit that conflicts
with the requirements of the Clean Air Act,
implementing regulations, or approved SIP
requirements; and
(3) A State if EPA has delegated the PSD program
to the State and the State is about to issue
a PSD permit which EPA believes is inconsistent
with Part C or its implementing regulations.
Proposed detailed guidance regarding the use of
Section 167 was sent to the Regional Offices for
comment on July 7, 1983. Final guidance, reflecting
a consideration of comments received, will be issued
in the near future.
For violations of the new source review require-
ments of Part D , an available administrative enforce-
ment mechanism is a Section 113(a)(5) order. This
section requires that the Administrator make a finding
that a State is not acting in compliance with the
regulations referred to in Section 129(a)(1) of the

-------
-49-
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 (the offset
ruling) or any plan provisions required by Section
lrO(a)(2)(I) and Part D. Once this finding is made,
EPA may issue an order under Section 113(a)(5) to a
major source requiring it to refrain from or cease
construction unless a valid permit is obtained from
the State.
Authority to issue Section 113(a) and Section 167
orders has been delegated to Regional Administrators.
Issuance of a Section 113(a)(5) or Section 167 order
requires consultation with the Director, Stationary
Source Compliance Division and the Associate Enforce-
ment Counsel for Air at Headquarters. Issuance of a
Section 113(a) order other than under Section 113(a)(5)
requires no consultation with Headquarters.
If a source does not obey a Section 113(a) or
Section 167 order or if EPA decides that a civil
action is needed, the Agency may proceed in the
courts under either Section 167 or Section 113(b).
EPA may ask for any necessary injunctive relief
under either section and, under Section 113(b), may
seek civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day of
violation. A Section 167 action, unlike one under
Section 113(b), does not require a Notice of Viola-
tion and documentation of a 30-day continuing viola-
tion.
Section 113(d) of the Act provides EPA and
States with another administrative remedy, known as
a Delayed Compliance Order (DCO). Under a DCO, EPA
or a State may establish a schedule which requires
compliance no later than three years after the
source’s SIP compliance date. (State-issued DCO’s
to major sources require EPA approval to be effective
as a DCO.) A source which has been granted a DCO and
which is in compliance with the terms of that order
La not subject to further enforcement action under
Section 113 for violations during the period of the
DCO. However, major stationary sources can be re-
quired to pay a noncompliance penalty under Section
120 (see below), notwithstanding the DCO.
Due to the three-year limit for a DCO previously
noted, there are relatively few sources eligible for
DCO’s for particulate matter or sulfur dioxide emission
limit violations. Most of those limits were accompanied
by SIP compliance deadlines more than three years past.

-------
-50-
DCO’s are much more widely available for sources
violating volatile organic compound emission limits,
many of which had final compliance dates of mid to
late 1982.
There are two other types of DCO’s which will
riot be discussed at length in this document, those
issued under Sections 113(d)(4) and (5). While they
serve important purposes, fostering use of innovative
technology (Section 113(d)(4)) and conversions to
coal by fuel-burning sources (Section 113(d)(5)),
their application is highly limited. For similar
reasons, this strategy will not discuss use of non-
ferrous smelter orders under Section 119 of the
Clean Air Act.
Before EPA issues a DCO, the source must meet
the eligibility requirements in Section 113(d) of
the Act. States may also issue DCO’s but, as previ-
ously noted, any DCO issued to a major source requires
EPA approval before it is effective.
Guidance regarding DCO’s appears in various
Agency memoranda, the most significant of which were
compiled in an April 26, 1983 memorandum from Kathleen
Bennett and Courtney Price to the Regional Administra-
tors and Regional Counsels (Attachment 9). Procedures
for processing delayed compliance orders are contained
in Part 65 of 40 CFR. Further guidance is contained
in the April 26, 1983 memorandum.
It should be clear from the description of the
Agency’s administrative order authority that such
orders are limited and cannot be used to address
many of the violations which EPA faces. Therefore,
many of the EPA enforcement actions will come in
the form of Section 120 proceedings (described next)
or civil actions filed in Federal district courts.
In cases where a source is not in compliance
with emission requirements, EPA may also seek non-
compliance penalties under Section 120 of the Act.
EPA may seek these penalties in addition to any
relief under Section 113 of the Act. Section 120 is
designed to recapture, in an administrative proceeding,
the economic savings realized by sources in violation
of applicable emission limits. While Section 120
is, by its terms, a penalty provision only, the
prospect of a Section 120 penalty can often serve as
a useful stimulant to prompt a source to come into
compliance.

-------
—51—
EPA initiates an action under Section 120 by
issuing to the source a Notice of Noncompliance.
Although adjudicatory hearings may occur before a
source must pay a penalty, the penalty starts to
accrue from the date EPA issued the Notice of Noncom-
pliance. Consequently, it is often in the source’s
best interest to achieve compliance expeditiously
and not frivolously use the administrative hearing
process as a mechanism for delaying achieving
compliance.
Of the formal responses previously outlined.
Section 120 has been the most underused (approxi-
mately twenty cases so far). Efforts have been made
and will continue to be made to increase its use by
Regional Offices. Region II has been particularly
effective at using Section 120 to encourage quick
compliance. (See the memorandum discussing the use
of Section 120 included as Attachment 10.)
If a Regional Office finds it appropriate to
pursue litigation as its course of action for a
violating source, it prepares a litigation report
containing the factual and legal basis for its action
and refers the report through appropriate procedures
to the Department of Justice which, as the Federal
government’s attorney, litigates the matter on EPA’s
behalf.
One other possible sanction is the listing
program under Section 306. It enables EPA to prevent
a violating source from receiving any Federal contracts,
grants, or loans once it is placed on the List of
Violating Facilities. This program is coordinated
by the Office of Enforcement Counsel (OEC) at Head-
quarters. It should be used much more extensively
than it has been because it is a very powerful
enforcement tool. Further guidance on the appro-
priate uses and procedures for Section 306 is being
developed by OEC. In any event, it is important to
note that listing under Section 306 is mandatory for
facilities which are the subject of criminal convic-
tions where the underlying violations have not been
corrected. These listings should not await the
development of further guidance.
Finally, it should be noted that it is expected
that Federal facilities will fully comply with all
applicable air pollution control requirements. EPA
should respond promptly and vigorously to any viola-

-------
-52-
tions under the same priorities established for other
sources, making full use of the mechanisms of Execu-
t ive Order 12088 and implementing procedures esta-
blished by the Agency’s Office of Federal Activities.
State and local agencies are also encouraged to
participate in the program to the maximum extent
possible.
E. Considerations in Selection of an Appropriate Response
This section discussed considerations in selecting
the appropriate vehicle for a Federal enforcement
response once the decision has been made that a
Federal response is appropriate. It is not intended
to be perscriptive in nature, given that selection
of a response must be based on a reasoned evaluation
of all the circumstances of the case.
As previously noted, the first judgment to be made
is whether to pursue a criminal action. While simul-
taneous civil and criminal actions are not prohibited,
they should generally be avoided.
Priorities for criminal enforcement should
include the following:• knowing violations of State
Implementation Plans that result in, or threaten,
significant environmental contamination or human
health hazard; knowing violations of NESHAPs require-
Inents; and falsification of records or tampering with
with aonicoring devices which has, or could be expected
to have, a significant impact on EPA’s regulatory
process or decision-making. These priorities were
set forth in an October 12, 1982 memorandum from
Robert Perry to Regional Counsels, entitled “Criminal
Enforcement Priorities for the Environmental Protection
Agency.”
Two other areas also deserve serious considera-
tion for criminal investigation: criminal contempt
for willful violations of civil conBent decrees
(punishable under 18 U.S.C. §401(3)) and violations
of reporting requirements imposed by Section 114
letters.
For the large majority of cases, a criminal
action would not be an appropriate response. There-
fore, the other options detailed in the preceding
section should be considered.
In deciding between administrative orders
and civil actions, judgments should reflect a
consideration of the likely effectiveness of each

-------
—53—
option rather than artificial notions of “toughness”.
In the proper circumstances, an administrative
response can be as effective as a judicial one.
In considering the use of a Section 113(a)
order, the major factor is whether compliance can
reasonably be required within 30 days. (Note that
in the case of an NSPS or NESHAPS violation, this
limitation does not apply if the violation arises
from a force majeure event.)
In cases where compliance can be required within
that period, a Section 113(a) order is often the
best response since it can be issued simply and
quickly. A Section 113(a) order should normally be
used only where it is expected that the order may be
complied with, however.
If it is felt that the source will not comply
with the order, it probably would be better to select
another option. This is especially true if the
Regional Office believes that the source may attempt
to challenge the order in a Court of Appeals under
Section 307(b)(1) as a final Agency action. Since
an EPA enforcement action must be brought at the
District Court level, actions which invite collateral
lawsuits at the Court of Appeals level should be
avoided wherever possible.
Where a Section 113(a) order is not appropriate,
the election generally will, be between a DCO, a Section
120 action, and a civil action. (This, of course,
presumes that a DCO is available.)
If a DCO is available, its use by EPA is most
appropriate in cases where a source requires addi-
tional time to comply due to an unforeseen inability
to comply and is acting in good faith to meet its
emission requirements. This is because EPA has not
routinely sought penalties for a source being issued
a DCO for the period before the DCO is issued,
although this is legally permissible. As noted in
the July 28, 1978 guidance on use of Section 113
orders (included as part of Attachment 9):
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

-------
—54—
factors, EPA determines that the source is one
with an egregious history of noncompliance,
recalcitrance, or environmental harm and/or
that court supervision is likely to be required
in order to assure expeditious compliance, the
source will be considered an appropriate candi-
date for civil or criminal action and no federal
delayed cotopliance order will be issued. Conse-
quently, there will be no category of cases
involving a federally issued delayed compliance
order and a federal court action relating to
the predelayed compliance order period. EPA
will continue to urge the States to adopt a
similar approach in exercising their discre..
tion. However, EPA approval or disapproval of
a State delayed compliance order will be based
on the statutory criteria of Section 113(d).
(p.5)
Another major factor in deciding whether to use
a DCO is the policy that EPA will not issue a DCO
unless the source formally consents to its issuance.
The previously-referenced July 28, 1978 guidance
states:
A delayed compliance order will not be issued
unless the source indicates in writing (by
signature of appropriate persons authorized to
agree for the source) that it will agree to
vomply with the delayed compliance order.
Source consent will be required for all Federal
delayed compliance orders and is recommended
for State delayed compliance orders as well.
However, a source’s agreement to comply is not
precondition to EPA approval of a State delayed
compliance order. (p.7)
The purpose of this consent provision is to give
greater assurance that the source will comply and to
minimize the possibility of a successful collateral
challenge under Section 307(b)(1).
As an alternative to or in conjunction with a
DCO, a Section 120 action should be considered.
Because the amount of the Section 120 penalty is
directly related to the length of the period of
noncompliance following the issuance of a Notice of
Noncompliance, it can serve as a powerful tool for
prompting source compliance. However, this requires
a judgment on the part of the Regional Office of how

-------
—55—
the source is likely to respond. Where the source
s not likely to respond positively, and injunctive
relief will still be required, it is preferable to
avoid the use of Section 120 and go directly to a
Section 113(b) civil action for both injunctive
relief and civil penalties. In addition, because
issuance of a Notice of Noncompliance can lead very
quickly to an adjudicatory hearing, a Notice should
not be issued unless the Regional Office is prepared
to proceed with such a hearing.
One circumstance in which a Section 120 order
can be particularly useful is where the State has
put the source on an acceptable schedule but has not
collected penalties where penalties would be appro-
priate. EPA could defer to the State schedule in
obtaining compliance and use the administrative
mechanism of Section 120 to address the penalty
issue in lieu of bringing a court action. In decid-
thg between a Section 120 action and a court action,
practical considerations such as how crowded the
court docket is, the receptivity of the District
Court judges to environmental litigation, and. the
readiness of the Regional Office to handle an almost
immediate adjudicatory hearing should be carefully
weighed.
Civil actions under Section 113(b) are most
advantageous in the following situations:
(a) a compliance schedule or other injunctive
relief is necessary and an administrative
order is unavailable or inappropriate;
(b) the compliance history of the source suggests
that the schedule should be subject to court
supervision and contempt remedies;
(c) substantial civil penalties for past violations
are appropriate. (Note that in most cases,
maximum penalties under Section 113(b) will
be substantially greater than that under
Section 120 because of the large per day
amount and because Section 120 penalties run
only from the date of the Notice of Noncompli-
ance while Section 113(b) penalties are calcu-
lated back to the earliest date of provable
violation.)

-------
-56—
F. Ensuring Compliance with Response’s Requirements
After Federal enforcement actions are
resolved, EPA Regional Offices have the respons-
ibility of monitoring the source’s activities to
ensure compliance with the terms of any admini-
strative or court order. The Agency’s Compliance
Data System has the capability of serving as a
tickler file for keeping track of Interim and
final compliance dates in schedules. It has
been generally underused by Regional Offices for
this purpose. In addition, a computerized system
has recently been developed by the Agency’s
National Enforcement Investigations Center
(NEIC) for tracking court ordered-schedules.
Regional Offices must conduct monitoring
activities for their schedules sufficient to
detect any failure to keep to the terms of the
order. No detailed guidance is being provided
here for this given that Regional Offices have
extensive experience with schedule-tracking and
because the monitoring effort reflects a case-by-
case evaluation of the schedule itself and all
the associated circumstances. When serious
failures are detected, taking remedial action
should be a very high priority, second only to
emergency actions under Section 303. This is
because such flouting of environmental require-
merts tends to undermine the entire regulatory
framework, particularly if the violator is
repeatedly unresponsive.
In order to enhance the enforceability of
EPA’s consent decrees, the Agency has developed
model consent decree provisions. Some of the
most important features to be included are:
(1) Various increments in compliance schedules,
so that source progress can be monitored.
This avoids the situation of sudden disco-
very that the source is far behind its
schedule. These milestones should be
incorporated into CDS for easier tracking;
(2) Reporting requirements, again to monitor
source progress; and
(3) Stipulated penalties, to provide an economic
incentive for sources to meet incremental
dates, as well as the final compliance
date in the decree.

-------
—57—
Naturally, it is critical for Regional Offices to
monitor the progress of sources on State schedules,
as well as those on Federal schedules. While the
Regional Office need not be as intimately involved
as the State, it needs sufficient information to
assure that the schedule is being adhered to or that
the State is responding vigorously to any slippage.
Ultimately, EPA is responsible for assuring compliance
with the Clean Air Act and the health and welfare of
the American public.
IX. Special Issues
A. Enforcement of NESHAPs Standards
At the present time, there are final standards
in place for certain source categories of four hazar-
dous air pollutants: asbestos, beryllium, mercury,
and vinyl chloride. Standards have been proposed
for sources of radionuclides, arsenic and benzene.
Enforcement to date has focused on asbestos
and vinyl chloride. Of the four pollutants already
regulated, these two have posed the most significant
incidence of noncompliance. The program e ould
continue to focus on these two pollutants, but
priorities may need to be altered as more standards
become effective.
Adverse or conflicting court decisions currently
affect the short term goals of the program with
regard to asbestos and vinyl chloride. The Supreme
Court, in Adaino Wrecking Company v. United States ,
434 U.S. 275 (1978), held that certain requirements in
the asbestos standard applicable to demolition opera-
tions were invalid because they were “work practice”
requirements rather than numerical emission limita-
tions. The court ruled that the Clean Air Act,
prior to the 1977 amendments, did not authorize EPA
to promulgate work practice standards. Until the
asbestos standards are fully repromulgated, EPA
should accelerate efforts to assure compliance with
the portions of the standard which are not work
practice standards, and portions which were repromul-
gated in 1978. Once the standards are fully repromul-
gated, the objective should be to assure compliance
with the entire standard. (On July 13, 1983, EPA
published a reproposa]. of the asbestos standard.)

-------
-58-
EPA’s experience with the asbestos demolition
standard has suggested that an intensive, coordinated,
highly visible effort to enforce these standards
should be made as soon as they are fully repromul-
gated to establish the credibility of the enforcement
effort and emphasize the importance EPA attaches to
compliance with these standards. Discussions to
plan such an effort have just begun and such a strategy
will be developed prior to finalization of the July 13
proposal.
Compliance monitoring of asbestos sources, in
the interim prior to full repromulgation of the standard,
should focus on the enforceable portions of the
standard. This means that monitoring should concen-
trate on source categories subject to a “no visible
emissions” standard, including manufacturing sources,
waste disposal activities, and demolition activities.
Once the standard is fully repromulgated, a greater
emphasis should be placed on demolition operations,
which may present the most significant danger of
exposure to the public of any regulated source category.
Due to the transient nature of demolition operations,
compliance monitoring requires quick response when
notice of demolition or renovation is received.
EPA’s ability to assure compliance, at least as to
demolitions and renovations, rests largely on self-
reporting. Noncompliance by sources other than
demolition and renovation operations can be detected
primarily by sending observers to a source to look
for visible emissions.
With regard to vinyl chloride, two recent court
opinions have differed on the issue of whether the
relief valve discharge provision in the vinyl chloride
NESHAP is a work practice standard and is therefore
invalid under Adamo . In United States v. Ethyl
Corporation (No. 83-0120-A), the U.S. District Court
or the Middle District of Louisiana ruled on July
1. 1983 that this provision was a work practice
standard and thus invalid. However, in United States
v. Borden (No. 83-1892-MA), decided on September 30,
1983, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts reached the opposite conclusion. The
government agrees with the interpretation in the
Borden case and intends to appeal the Ethyl decision
to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The
goal of the program should continue to be to promote
compliance with the entire vinyl chloride standard,
including the relief valve discharge standard. In
this respect, EPA should become more active in moni-

-------
—59—
toring compliance and enforcing other portions of
the standard, which have previously not been given
much attention, and will assure, through rulemaking
if necessary, the enforceability of the entire standard.
Detecting noncompliance by vinyl chloride sources
is done primarily through self-reporting. Sources
are required to report each relief valve discharge
within 10 days of occurrence and to report exceedances
of other portions of the standard on a semi-annual
basis. Compliance monitoring should, for the most
part, consist of review of these submissions, but
periodic inspections of company records is needed to
determine whether violations are going unreported.
There are only about 55 sources in the entire country
subject to the standard, with a heavy concentration
(about half) in Region VI.
The roles of EPA and the States in the NESHAPs
program are determined primarily by delegations of
authority. Under Section 112, EPA may delegate a
State the authority to implement and enforce the
standards. Such authority is concurrent, so EPA may
still enfor.ce the standards in a delegated State.
The statutory requirements for formal Agency
response to a NESHAPs violation differ from those
applicable to a violation of a State Implementation
Plan. EPA is not reguired to issue a Notice of
Violation or to confer with a source prior to issuing
an administrative order under Section 113(a) or
bringing a judicial enforcement action under Section
113(b). The types of response available are more
limited because EPA cannot issue a Delayed Compliance
Order under Section 113(d).
EPA Headquarters has issued guidance on the
types of enforcement response which should be consi-
dered and the circumstances in which each should be
used. Further guidance will be issued in anticipation
of the repromulgation of the asbestos standard. The
memorandum issued on June 28, 1983 by Michael Alushin,
Acting Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air, and Ed
Reich, Director of the Stationary Source Compliance
Division, entitled “Enforcement of the National
Emissions Standard for Vinyl Chloride” (Attachment
11), is the most current and significant guidance on
responses to violations of the vinyl chloride standard.
B. Enforcement of VOC Standards
An area of increasing focus of the stationary
source compliance program is the regulation of sources
emitting volatile organic compounds (VOC). Such

-------
-60-
sources are major contributors to the ozone nonattain-
ment problem and some emit compounds which are highly
-toxic in nature which may be reduced through an
aggressive program to enforce VOC standards.
Generally speaking, widescale regulation of VOC
was initiated by the 1979 Part D SIPs. As part of
those SIPs, many States adopted regulations requiring
compliance on or before December 31, 1982. It is the
relatively recent passage of these compliance dates
which has created the need (and opportunity) to
increase the attention devoted to complianc.e efforts
for VOC sources.
A wide variety of sources emit VOC. These
primarily include sources in the petroleum industry
and gasoline marketing chain and makers and users of
various paints and solvents. Addressing the VOC
compliance problem presents some differing circum-
stances from earlier compliance efforts. Most impor-
tantly:
(1) The regulated community includes a greater
proportion of smaller sources and the relative
impact of the emissions of those sources is
probably also greater than for particulate
matter or sulfur oxides;
(2) The applicable regulations are often more
cmplex, including the “bubbling” of multiple
VOC sources;
(3) Averaging times for compliance with VOC
standards are often longer than those associ-
ated with other pollutants; and
(4) Compliance determinations are more heavily
dependent on reviewing records and calcula-
tions than on traditional observation and
testing approaches.
Efforts to address the problem of VOC compliance
must recognize and account for these differences.
To assist in the coordination of efforts to
improve the Agency’s VOC compliance program, a VOC
Compliance Workgroup has been established. This
workgroup will serve both as a vehicle for Regional
input into the development of Headquarters guidance
on VOC and as a means for technical interchange of
information among the affected Headquarters and
Regional Offices.

-------
-61-
At its first meeting, the workgroup discussed
the status of various Regional VOC programs and what
efforts will be required to assure a fully effective,
consistent national program. A number of important
conclusions about the status of the VOC program which
became apparent from this meeting were:
(1) Most Regional Offices have initiated signifi-
cant efforts to address the VOC problem.
(2) Most Regional Offices believe their inventories
are roughly 8O complete for Class A sources.
Data are particularly weak for non-extension
areas. Additional work to refine these inven-
tories would be beneficial. Contractors
could be used for this purpose.
(3) The contribution (and importance) of Class B
sources is still unclear. Further analysis of
SIP inventories will be necessary tp define
the degree to which EPA should focus on any
portion of the Class B universe. (New York
City was identified as one area where Class B
sources are clearly very important.)
(4) Much of the data on VOC sources are not reflect-
ed in CDS. Here again, contractor support
could be productive.
(5) Data being received from States on sources’
compliance status is often spotty and of
questionable accuracy. While efforts to
work with States need to be continued, broader
direct Federal effort, utilizing Section 114,
will likely be required. This may need 0MB
approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
(6) Effective workshop and training programs
should be continued to meet both Regional
and State needs.
(7) There is a r eed for a source of technical
expertise on the VOC industry which the
Regional Offices can utilize in their compli-
ance programs. Various options, including
use of contractors, need to be explored.
A workplan to pursue these immediate needs is
under development. Efforts to provide contractor
support to meet the needs of the Regional Offices
to improve their inventories and reflect the data
in CDS have already been initiated.

-------
-62-
C. Continuous Compliance
An area which merits further discussion is the
subject generally termed “continuous compliance”.
Before discussing it in detail, it is worth articu-
lating once again the nature of the problem.
As previously noted, the major compliance moni-
toring technique used in the air program is the
inspection. Because of the limited resources available
to Federal and State agencies, inspections of a source
are infrequently more often than’ quarterly for even
the most significant sources. More typically, inspect-
ions are performed only on an annual (or less frequent)
basis. Further, even when inspections are performed,
they do not normally involve stack testing. Generally,
stack testing is routinely performed only for the
initial demonstration of compliance and thereafter
if there is reason to doubt the source’s continued
compliance. Continuous emission monitoring techno-
logy has not been widely used and data from a monitor
is not usually usable as the sole basis for an
enforcement action.
Given these limitations, it is fair to assume
that compliance data being reported by States do not
indicate what is happening at a facility on a day-to-
day basis, but rather whether the source has been
determined to be in compliance at an announced inspec-
tion afte. it has had the opportunity to optimize
the performance of its control equipment. Thus, it
indicates whether the source is capable of being in
compliance rather than whether it is in compliance in
its day-to-day operations.
It is generally recognized that many (if not most)
sources have emissions which exceed allowable levels
at some time during the year. These emissions are
due to such factors as unavoidable process or control
equipment malfunctions, inattention to proper operation
and maintenance considerations and, in a few instances,
deliberate attempts to avoid the costs of maintaining
compliance. These emissions may or may not be excused
under various malfunction provisions in effect in
various States.
A study conducted in 1978 for EPA attempted to
define with greater precision the magnitude of the
problem. The study consisted of about 180 controlled

-------
-63-
and supposedly well-maintained air pollution sources
of various types and sizes. Due to a lack of source
records, the study was forced to draw upon a host of
sources of information, including operator anecdotes
and post-hoc engineering judgment by the contractors
conducting the data-gathering, to quantify source
emission levels. The study found that sources were
experiencing emissions which were significantly in
excess of established limits. Major causes of the
exceedances included improper design and inadequate
opertion and maintenance of process and control
equipment.
These conclusions were generally confirmed when
EPA recently concluded a contractor effort to develop
a pilot inspection scheme with a Virginia regional
office. The purpose of the study was to determine
whether by improving the skills of State inspectors,
they could do a more effective job in identifying
operation and maintenance (O&M) related problems.
The program involved, among other things, utilizing
differing levels of thoroughness of inspection for
differing situations. (See Section VII E for greater
detail.) Quoting from the report of this study:
The 68 level 3 inspections of individual processes
or emission units identified 25 sources (37%) as
being out of compliance with either visible or
particulate emission standards. Of the total
number of processes or emission units inspected
46 (67%) were identified as having O&M related
problems.
It should be pointed out that of the 25 sources
for which compliance problems were identified,
only 12 would have been identified as a result
of a Level 1 inspection (i.e. type of inspection
routinely conducted prior to the study).
In addition of the 46 sources for which O&M
related problems were identified, none of the
problems would have been identified through the
use of a Level 1 inspection. (emphasis added)
The latter observation illustrates the difficulty
of characterizing the status of continuous compliance.
Current inspection methods and capabilities coupled
with very limited self-monitoring requirements make
detection unlikely. It also highlights the point that
many States may assume that there is not a problem
because they can’t tell.

-------
-64-
A separate part of the 1978 study previously
referred to evaluated the ability of nine exemplary
State and local agencies to operate in a continuous
compliance mode. Not surprisingly, the study found
that while the programs were basically sound, they
lacked many of the tools needed to deal effectively
with continuous compliance problems. Inasmuch as
the study looked at cooperative, reportedly well-
maintained sources and exemplary agencies, it is
reasonable to expect that the results understate the
actual situation.
As a result of the related findings that the
problems were widespread and significant and that
front-line agencies faced serious difficulties, a
continuous compliance initiative was developed. The
principal thrust of this initiative was a 5-year
program of State capacity building. More specifi-
cally, EPA was to lead the development of a range of
useful tools which States could implement on a volun-
tary basis, as necessary, to address specific opera-
tional problems. Whenever possible, State interest
would be identified in advance and State participa-
tion obtained through pilot programs.
Severe resource cuts and conflicting priorities.
almost immediately precluded implementation of the
initiative as originally conceived. Notwithstanding
this, some of the elements of the initiative have
been incorporated into EPA’S present program. The
V rginia study previously referred to is an example
of this. Other examples are discussed in Section X
of this strategy dealing with Compliance Promotion.
While it is clear that continuous compliance
presents a significant compliance problem, the envi-
ronmental impact is less clear. Ambient monitoring
data have established that large portions of the
country are already attaining the national ambient
air quality standards. That ambient monitoring data
should already reflect the effects of excess emissions
which may be occurring but which are not otherwise
detected. If those emissions are not sufficient to
interfere with attainment of the ambient standards,
if the ambient data are reliable, and if the ambient
standards are truly protective of public health and
welfare, the environmental effects of present levels
of excess emissions due to the continuous compliance
problem may be less significant than once assumed.

-------
-65-
Clearly, though, the problem of emissions arising
from poor operation and maintenance has the potential
to become seriously aggravated if the enforcing
agencies show an indifference to attempting to ensure
that continuous compliance is maintained. It is
equally clear that once a substantial investment of
effort and money has been made by industry and govern-
ment to assure that controls are installed, efforts
should be made to assure that the full benefits of
the investment are realized. Therefore, serious
efforts to improve industry’s ability to comply on a
more continuous basis and to improve the ability of
governmental agencies to determine compliance on a
continuous basis must be maintained. This is espe-
cially true in relation to development of improved
continuous monitoring technology, either for emissions
monitoring or parameter monitoring.
Elements which could be directed at improving
the ability of enforcement agencies to address contin-
uous compliance in the near and mid-term include:
(1) following up on the Virginia inspection study
to provide information to States on upgrading
their inspection function;
(2) more flexible inspection programs;
(3) greater use of unannounced inspections;
(4) promoting expanded use of CE}1 technology;
(5) greater information exchange on CEM usage;
(6) developing improved methods for coal-sampling
and analysis for sulfur content;
(7) developing improved information on failure
modes/compliance problems and disseminating
that information;
(8) compliance promotion activities of the type
discussed in Section X; and
(9) encouraging voluntary design standards and
increased attention to design review in per-
mitt thg.
While this strategy has touched on many of these
elements, there is no present systematic approach to
coordinate efforts on an Agency-wide basis. To faci-

-------
-66-
litate development of a coordinated and effective
program to address this issue, a supplemental contin-
uous compliance strategy document is being developed.
A question may arise as to the priority of the
continuous compliance problem (especially in attain-
ment areas) relative to the potentially very signifi-
cant initial compliance problem for VOC sources. At
the State and local level, this requires a judgment
as to the relative environmental significance of the
two problems, a judgment which could lead to differing
conclusions in different areas. At the Federal
level, current resource levels will limit the ability
of the Agency (especially at the Headquarters level)
to address both problems to the extent it would
otherwise like. To the extent there is a conflicting
demand for resources, the VOC problem must take
precedence. This is because so much of the country
exceeds ambient standards for ozone, thus exposing
the public to unhealthful air, and also because of
the toxic nature of many of the constituents of the
VOC compounds.
Incidentally, it is questionable if the contin-
uous.compliance problem will be of comparable relative
magnitude for VOC sources. It well may be that the
problem will be significantly less important. This
can be hypothesized for the following reasons:
(1) VOC aources are more often controlled by
product reformulation, which would be less
prone to intermittent excess emissions;
(2) to the extent that VOC emissions arise from
leaks (e. ., in petroleum storage facilities),
the eco omics of recovering product have led
to substantial efforts to minimize such leaks;
and
(3) to the extent that VOC emissions are reduced
through control equipment, such equipment
(usually an afterburner) is much less subject
to malfunction than, for example, controls
typically used for particulate matter.
In summary, a modest effort at developing tools
to address the continuous compliance problem is
worthwhile and is recommended although these efforts
must fit within priority needs to address the initial
control of VOC sources.

-------
-67-
D. Emerging Issues Associated with the Application
of Bubble Rules
1. Complexity Involved in Determining
Compliance with Bubbles
An issue of relatively recent origin
in the air program is the increasing comple-
xity of applicable emission limits as sources
and States take advantage of the provisions
allowing use of “bubbles” in EPA’S Emissions
Trading Policy Statement. (The existing
Policy Statement was published at 47 FR
15076 (April 7, 1982) and is effective as
interim guidance pending issuance of a final
policy. The Agency’s original bubble policy
was published in December 1979.) Under the
bubb..e concept, a source with multiple emission
poin s, each of which is subject to specific
SIP -mission limitations, may propose to
meet he SIP’s total emission control require-
ments for a given criteria pollutant with a
mix of controls different from that required
by the generally applicable regulations.
The intent is to allow sources the opportunity
to install controls with the same air quality
impact but at less expense by placing relatively
more control on emission points with a low
marginal cost of control and less on emission
points with a high cost.
Much of the Agency’s experience with
emission trades has occurred in the regula-
tion of VOC sources. As discussed earlier
in this strategy (see Part B of this section),
determining the compliance status of VOC
sources is often more difficult and resource-
intensive than it is for other pollutants.
When VOC sources operate under approved
bubbles, the complexity of making a compli-
ance determination is compounded. With a
bubble, a large number of emission points
becomes subject to an interdependent set of
standards. If the bubble is one for multiple
facilities, the calculations necessary to
evaluate VOC compliance status can be quite
lengthy; making the compliance determination
requires an evaluation of the emissions of
all the interdependent sources for the same
time period.

-------
-68-
Further complicating compliance deter-
minations for some sources is the fact that
the Agency has approved a few VOC bubbles
with longer than daily averaging periods for
the application of emission standards. The
existing Policy Statement generally requires
that the averaging time given by a State be
on no longer than a 24-hour basis. However,
the concept of a daily weighted average
emission rate can pose problems for
the States. Industry has argued that VOC
emissions cannot be quantified on a daily
basis. Surface coaters, for example, often
do not use each VOC-emittthg machine each
production day. Consequently, States are
under pressure to approve emissions trades
with longer than daily averaging times.
EPA is sensitive to this issue and has
allowed some trades that incorporate longer-
term averages for VOC sources where a daily
weighted average is impractical or applica-
tion of RACT is not feasible on a daily
basis. However, since many more sources can
be expected to want to utilize VOC bubbles
in coming into compliance, the issue of
averaging times for VOC trades is one which
will take on increasing importance. For
emission trades with longer than twenty-four
hour averaging times, an additional exercise
involved in evaluating the source’s compliance
status is determining compliance with the
daily emissions cap, which must also be part
of the bubble.
The concern is that there reaches a point
where this complicated regulatory structure,
while being theoretically enforceable, becomes
unenforceable in the real world. Sources
subject to VOC bubbles must keep voluminous
records for all their different product lines.
To determine compliance at such sources, EPA
or the State must devote very considerable
efforts to making detailed calculations.
While this situation need not preclude the
Agency from pursuing the innovations created
by the policy, the Agency should carefully
monitor implementation of the policy to iden-
tify whether additional attention needs to
be given to ways of ensuring compliance with
emission trades.

-------
—69-
2. State Application of Generic Bubble Rules
As originally promulgated in 1979, the
bubble policy statement required the States
to submit each approved alternative emission
reduction plan to EPA for approval as an addi-
tion to the SIP. Beginning in April 1981
with the Agency’s approval of New Jersey’s
generic rule for VOC emissions trading, how-
ever, EPA has approved several State generic
bubble rules. In the context of the Agency’s
auditing of the information supplied by the
State for each such emissions trade, the
issue of ensuring the State’s adherence to
the specific provisions of the generic rule
in the SIP and to the Agency’s Emissions
Trading Policy Statement, more generally,
arises.
Experience to date reveals that under
generic bubbles for VOC, States may be approv-
ing emissions trades which do not always meet
the applicable requirements. Should EPA
find that a State has approved an emissions
trade that is substantially inconsistent
with a generic rule in a SIP, the Agency
will be in the position of having to so
notify the State and specify necessary reme-
dial measures. If the State fails to elimi-
nate the inconsistency, EPA may have to
enforce the original SIP limits. To avoid
the necessity for such Federal action, it is
therefore critical that now, when the States
are just beginning to utilize their EPA-
approved generic rules, the Agency make
serious efforts to work with the States and
ensure that emissions trades are consistent
with generic rules. Otherwise the Agency
will face a host of new problems to address
in its air enforcement program.
X. Compliance Promotion Activities
Within the constraints imposed by present resource
levels, efforts will be directed at continuing compli-
ance promotion efforts presently underway. Compliance
promotion, while in no way substituting for a strong
enforcement program, recognizes that many sources
would like to comply with applicable standards but

-------
-70-
may not know that standards are applicable or understand
what they need to do to comply. Compliance promotion
includes both technical assistance and information
exchange activities.
In the past, Agency efforts generally were reflected
in traditional forms of training and technical assistance.
In addition to the extensive training made available to
both industry and government officials through EPA’s Air
Pollution Training Institute, EPA has expanded considera-
bly its technical support for State and local enforcement
agencies in recent years. This has taken the form of
both an expanded workshop program and case specific
assistance. As the skills of State personnel improve,
they may be able to transfer some of that knowledge to
the sources with whom they deal. In addition, EPA is
committed to working more cooperatively with the Air
Pollution Control Association (APCA), especially in
encouraging and supporting efforts by APCA to play a
larger role in educational and information exchange
programs.
As a part of its technical support for State and
local enforcement agencies, EPA prepares inspection guides
for specific industries. These guides enable the regula-
tory agencies and industry to evaluate the operation
and maintenance of a source’s air pollution control
equipment and to confirm that it is performing properly.
The guides provide specific evaluation techniques for
assessing operati”g problems, including cookbook-type
procedures for inspections, worksheets for process and
emission calculations, checklists for pre-visit, visit
and post-visit information and observations, techni-
cally specific do’s and don’ts based on many prior similar
visits, and guidance as to why each step in the inspection
process is necessary and important. The guides are of
equal benefit to the source and the inspector and are
often requested by the affected industrial concerns.
In a similar effort to promote information exchange,
EPA has been working with industry and a trade association
to develop a design review handbook for selected materials
handling operations (physical processing and transport).
The guide is intended to aid agencies and industry in
identifying and addressing air pollution control equipment
design factors to mitigate potential operation and mainte-
nance problems. Permit-issuing authorities and the
affected industries will benefit from this work by assuring
that proper conditions are incorporated in permits and
that these conditions are understood and followed by
industry.

-------
—71—
Over the past four years, EPA has worked in close
cooperation with the electric power industry, the related
trade associations, manufacturers of monitoring equipment,
and State and local air pollution control agencies to
facilitate continuing compliance at power generating
facilities. EPA cooperative activities included a survey
in 1979 with the Edison Electric Institute (EEl) to
determine the degree of use by their members of continuous
emission monitors and the associated technical and admini-
strative problems. As a follow-up to the survey, EPA
sponsored a 1980 national conference with EEl, CEM manu-
facturers, and air pollution control agencies attending.
The CEM technical deficiencies documented in the
1979 survey were discussed with the CEM manufacturers
and subsequent significant improvement in CEM performance
was noted. These first two important meetings established
EPA as the clearinghouse for CEll information a source
that industry and State and local agencies would continue
to use extensively. In addition to other activities,
nine technical guides were developed over the last few
years in the CEM area. Industry participated in the
development of these guides and is utilizing the infor-
mation in their daily operations. In addition, prompted
by the success of cooperative efforts in the CEM area,
the Agency has been worjdng with other interested parties
in a similar effort involving coal sampling and analysis
procedures.
EPA has recently begun efforts to work with industry
trade groups for sources regulated by VOC standards tc
develop ways to facilitate compliance by sources repre-
sented by those organizations. These efforts are parti-
cularly important for VOC sources due both to the rela-
tively recent adoption of the standards and the large
number of smaller sources which may be covered by those
standards. Presumably, any efforts EPA makes to enhance
the ability of these sources to understand their obliga-
tions and comply can be rewarded with some very signifi-
cant air quality benefits.
As an example, EPA worked with the Can Manufacturers
Institute (CMI) in producing a compliance handbook for
the can coating industry which was furnished to State
and local officials, EPA Regional Offices, and can coaters.
The handbook takes a step-by-step approach in discussing
the regulation, the rationale for the RACT values,
important terms and definitions, and various compliance
options. With this aid, can coaters and regulatory
officials can better understand the process of can coating,

-------
-72-
the various approaches for compliance, what those approaches
mean o day-to-day operations, and compliance scheduling
techniques. The handbook also includes a work sheet for
determining allowable and actual emissions for compliance
determinations.
As another example, in discussions with representa-
tives from the National Paint and Coating Association,
it was decided that it would be very beneficial for
users of coatings and regulatory officials to have a
uniform data base to work from when making deterinina-
tions of compliance. It was agreed that if coatings
were identified by the manufacturer as to their contents
with a standard data sheet which would include all the
major elements for making a compliance determination,
this would generally eliminate the need for individual
analysis by the user or regulatory official of each
coating to determine its contents.
Therefore, manufacturers of coatings have agreed
that if EPA can develop this data sheet with their con-
currence, they will affix this sheet to all coatings
that they supply. A proposed data sheet has been submitted
to the manufacturers. If accepted, EPA will routinely
accept this information about the coating as the basis
for determining compliance without requiring further
individual analysis although, if doubt exists, testing
may still be required using the approved test method.
This should eliminate much individual testing, which
‘.ith inexperienced personnel would likely produce more
questionable results. Through the cooperative efforts
of EPA and industry, the burden on all parties is reduced
and the likelihood of compliance enhanced.
As a final example, EPA is involved in a cooperative
project with industry to assess the reliability of a
variety of bulk gasoline terminal vapor control systems
in various geographic areas. Approximately sixteen to
twenty systems, involving three types of control systems,
are being evaluated during monthly inspections over
approximately a two-year period. An inspection manual
with a specific checklist of what is to be observed will
be a major output of the study. The manual, together
with the data acc ulated on the reliability of the
control systems, should provide useful information to
industry to assist in assuring better performance and
provide useful design considerations for future construc-
tion.

-------
-73-
EPA will continue to look for opportunities to
work cooperatively with industry groups, especially
in the VOC area, which present similar benefits.
However, due to resource constraints, no formal
institutionalization of this program is envisioned.
X I. Major Cross-Program Elements
While there are various points of intersection
between the stationary source air compliance program and
other Agency compliance programs, the two which have the
greatest environmental significance are the use of Section
303 (emergency episode authority) and the NESHAPs program.
A. Section 303
In the course of implementing its authority
under Section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), the Agency has begun to identify
situations where the emissions to the air arising
from a target site are presenting a substantial
health problem. If an imminent and substantial
endangerment to the health of persons can be docu-
mented, an action under Section 303 of the Clean Air
Act as well as Section 7003 of RCRA is appropriate.
A few such joint actions have already been filed.
Appropriate communications links between the various
Agency groups involved in the Clean Air Act and RCRA
are just being formed and solidified. Such links
are most critical at the Regional level.
B. NESHAPs
The NESHAPs program overlaps significantly with
other media programs, particularly the toxic substances
and hazardous waste programs. For example, a regula-
tion adopted by the Office of Toxic Substances requires
school districts to notify affected persons of the
presence of asbestos in schools. Although removal of
asbestos is not specifically required, many schools
are proceeding with removal, an activity which may be
subject to the NESHAPs regulations, depending on the
amount of asbestos present. Each Regional Office
should develop a means of coordinating the implemen-
tation of the asbestos in schools program with moni-
toring compliance with demolition and renovation
requirements in the NESHAP.

-------
-74-
The asbestos NESHAP also regulates disposal of
asbestos waste. Improper disposal could be subject
to an action under Section 7003 or Section 3008 of
RCRA and under Section 106 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (Superfund). So far, coordination of enforcement
responses which may involve two or more of these
statutes has been handled informally at Headquarters
on an ad hoc basis. Regional Offices should assure
that all relevant program and legal counsel components
are involved in an early stage in developing the Agency
response to violations of more than one statute.
Failure to report a vinyl chloride relief valve
discharge would subject a source to liability under
NESHAPs regulations and also under proposed regulations
implementing notification requirements under Superfund.
Should the Region detect a failure to comply with
such a reporting requirement, an action under both
the Clean Air Act and Superfund should be considered.
XI I. Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Compliance Program
Unfortunately, the complexity of the air program
and the inter-relationships between Federal and State
activities militate against simplistic formulations for
evaluating the effectiveness of the stationary source
compliance program. In addition, as the program has
matured, indicators which at one point may have been
vhluable become substantially less so and new measures
must be found.
Use of compliance rates is illustrative of this
problem. In the early stages of the program, signifi-
cant improvements in the compliance rates were expected
and were viewed as a measure of the effectiveness of the
program. In recent years, the compliance levels have
stabilized. Given that there will always be some level
of noncompliance at any point in time, it is unrealistic
to aseume that compliance rates will continue to improve.
If stable compliance rates are accompanied by vigorous
activity to identify new violators and resolve existing
ones, the program can be viewed as working successfully.
If the stable compliance rates are reflective of the
same violators over an extended period with little move-
ment on and off the list of violating sources, the program
is stagnant and ineffective.

-------
—75—
Further complicating the picture is the fact that
decreasing compliance rates can be more indicative of a
healthy program than stable or increasing rates. For
selected elements of the air program, this is probably
the situation right now. Large numbers of VOC sources
have fairly recently become subject to State and Federal
regulation. A significant percentage of these sources
are not yet incorporated into the CDS data base. It is
reasonable to assume that violation rates are probably
higher for these sources than for the rest of the regu-
lated universe which has been complying (or attempting
to comply) since the mid-1970’s. The better the effort
to identify these potential violators and reflect them
in the data base, the more likely the compliance rates
will decline. This effect has already been noted; for
the first time in recent years the percentage of SIP
violators increased during F? 1983. This effect is
likely to continue for some time before efforts to
resolve these violators causes compliance rates to begin
to improve again.
Efforts to assure continuing compliance present a
similar problem. As noted in Section V. present compli-
ance rates tend to be overstated because they do not
truly reflect intermittent violations associated with
malfunctions, inattention to proper operation and mainte-
nance procedures, and other factors which will not usually
surface during an annual inspection but will inevitably
occur to some degree in a plant’s day- o -day operation.
As techniques for determining continuing compliance
improve, and compliance data become more truly indicative
of day-to-day operations, compliance rates should decline.
Such a decline, however, should be viewed as a positive
indicator, not a negative one.
All this is anot to suggest that compliance statis-
tics are irrelevant or may not be useful indicators of
the health of the program. It is intended rather as an
indication that compliance rates are not by themselves
adequate indicators, and that changes (up or down) cannot
be ueed to evaluate the program without a full understand-
ing of why the changes are occurring. The assumption
that an increase in the compliance rate is a sign of a
strong program and a decrease the sign of a weak program
is invalid. In addition, compliance trends need to be
evaluated for significant movements over an extended
period of time rather than reacting to short-term marginal
changes.

-------
-76-
Another potential measure of the effectiveness of
the program is the number of particular actions taken by
EPA and the States, such as the number of orders issued
or cases referred for litigation. While again this kind
of data is useful in the context of an overall evaluation,
it has too often been viewed as meaningful in and of
itself. Most professionals in the program do not subscribe
to this view. There are numerous ways of achieving the
same objective, reflective of the different State statutory
authorities, enforcement philosophies, problems, experiences,
relationships with sources, and 80 forth. Focusing on
the means to the end rather than the end itself (i.e.,
expeditious resolution of the violation) may reduce the
available options for dealing with a problem. In addition,
it may lead to taking simple cases rather than complex
ones (if all cases are counted the same) and often leads
to accusations that cases are being brought just to get
the numbers up. In addition, especially in evaluating
State data, definitional differences often complicate a
meaningful analysis.
As with compliance statistics, numbers of enforcement
actions may be valuable if properly used as an indicator
of possible problems to be investigated. While “more” is
not necessarily “better”, the total absence of enforcement
actions may be a cause for concern. Given the potential
for misuse, however, enforcement statistics are not
recommended as a primary tracking tool.
Another possible area, worthy of longer term evalua-
tion, is the direct measurement of the environmental
impact of the compliance program. This approach is
being considered by the Agency but it is not yet readily
usable in the compliance area. For this reason, it is
not being considered, at least in the short term.
Based on experience to date, the following components
are suggested as useful indicators at the national level
of the various elements of the program’s effectiveness.
(1) evaluation of whether inspections are being
performed in accordance with the Agency’s
inspection frequency guidance;
(2) an indication of the degree to which new
violators are being found;
(3) a qualitative review of the effectiveness of
the State’s compliance assurance procedures;

-------
-77-
(4) a review of whether the compliance data are
being sent to EPA and entered into CDS in a
timely way;
(5) a statistical summary of the numbers of violators
brought into compliance or put on an acceptable
schedule during the period; and
(6) a close tracking of a defined category of
violators to determine the success of State
and EPA efforts to resolve the violations
expeditiously.
Obviously, data needs at the Regional level will be more
extensive.
The Agency’s Management Accountability System has
been established as the primary vehicle for tracking and
measuring the effectiveness of the program at the national
level. The accountability system requirements for F l
1984 involve quarterly reporting by each Region of the
following:
a. compliance status of major sources (Class A SIP,
Class Al SIP, NSPS, NESHAPs)
b. number of newly-identified violators (Class A
SIP, Class Al SIP, NSPS, NESHAPs)
c. number of violators placed on an acceptable
compliance schedule (Class A SIP, Class Al SIP,
NSPS, NESHAPs)
d. number of violators achieving final emission
limitations (Class A SIP, Class Al SIP, NSPS,
NESHAPs)
e. percentage of sources which should have been
inspected within the most recent four quarters
(Class Al sources, NSPS sources, and NESHAPs
sources) which actually were inspected either
by EPA or the States
f. For significant violators for each Region:
1. number of significant violators at the
beginning of the quarter not on an acceptable
compliance schedule

-------
-78-
2. number of newly-identified significant
violators during the quarter, based on
report from Regions
3. number of significant violators resolved
during quarter:
- number of violators placed on acceptable
compliance schedules
- number of violators achieving final
emission limitations
4. number of significant violators still out
of compliance and not on an acceptable
compliance schedule
This system provides a useful quantitative data
base for the type of analysis described earlier. To
improve further the quality of this analysis, each
Regional Office will be required to submit, at the con-
clusion of FY 1984, a summary report on the resolution
of significant violators in its Region during the year.
(For purposes of this analysis, significant violators
newly identified during the fiscal year will not be
included.) This teport will contain the number of signi-
ficant violators at the beginning of. the fiscal year
and, of these, the number which by the end of the
fiscal year are in each of the following categories:
(a) in compliance with final emission limitations
(b) in compliance with a Federal schedule
(c) in compliance with an acceptable State schedule
(d) subject to a pending Federal enforcement action
(1) judicial
(2) administrative
(3) informal
(e) subject to a pending State enforcement action
(1) judicial
(2) administrative
(3) informal
(f) other

-------
-79-
A brief narrative description of the status of all sources
in (d)(3), (e)(3), or (f) will also be required. In addi-
tion, specific targets for accomplishing this activity will
be defined.
For a more complete picture, such data need to be
combined with an annual audit of State performance
(especially qualitative elements) by the Regional Office
and a periodic review by Headquarters of Regional Office
performance under a mechanism similar to that established
in the attached memorandum of April 27, 1983 on the FY
1983 Regional Air Compliance Program Evaluation (See
Attachment 12).
One element which has proven particularly difficult
to evaluate and incorporate into a formal reporting system
is the expeditiousness of actions taken to resolve non-
compliance. For this reason, there is a strong tempta-
tion to define precise time periods for certain actions
to occur so as to have a basis for evaluating whether
these target time periods are met. Countervailing
concerns are that any such time periods may fail to
recognize legitimate differences between cases and might
serve to establish a lowest common denominator for
action. While it is a close question, this strategy
suggests not establishing such timeframes. However, in
lieu of this, in any instance where a Regional Office is
deferring to the State on an enforcement action, there
must be a clearly documented record of the basis for
deferral, the expected State action and timetables for
that action, periodic reporting by the State to the
Regional Office on the progress being made and, if progress
is not timely, a re-evaluation of the appropriateness of
continued deferral. While this information would not need
to be routinely communicated to Headquarters, Regional
Offices should be able to articulate this information
upon request.
XIII. Plans for Future Guidance
The following is a list of subjects for which
supplementary, detailed guidance is contemplated:
(a) assuring continuous compliance by regulated air
sources;
(b) use of unannounced inspections by EPA;
(c) use of continuous emissions monitoring excess
emissions data in the compliance program;

-------
-80-
(d) enforcement of VOC standards;
(e) enforcement of asbestos demolition
standards;
(f) enforcement of benzene NESHAPs (if promulgated and
as necessary);
(g) enforcement of arsenic NESHAPs (if promulgated and
as necessary);
(h) enforcement of radionuclides NESHAPs (if promulgated
and as necessary); and
Ci) enforcement of PSD requirements.
X IV. Summary Identification of Major Changes
from Existing Strategies
While the stationary source compliance program is
considered to be a “mature” program, it is continually
evolving as new challenges are presented. Because of
this continual evolution, accompanied by guidance on
specific issues as they arise, it was not anticipated
that a need for major changes of direction would be
identified in the course of evolving this strategy
document.
This, in fact, proved to be the case. The three
changes which are important enough to identify in this
summary section are the major revision to the Agency’s
guidance on inspections frequency to provide more flexibi-
lity to States (discussed in Section VII C), the recommen-
dation of a substantially increased use of continuous
emission monitoring data in the Agency’s standard setting
and compliance programs (discussed in Section VII F),
and the increased priority and attention given to sources
of VOC emissions (discussed in Section IX B).

-------
4

-------
ll7r CO)ü -- :: :

-------
Guidance on “Timely and Appropriate”
EPA/State Enforcement Response for Significant Air Violators
(06/28 7 L&43
File at Part A, Document #4

-------
C-
M ORANDUM
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON D C 20460
FEB - 7 t992
SUBJECT:
FROM:
Issuance of Guidance on the “Timely and
Enforcement Response to Significant Air
Violators”
John S. Seitz, Director r
Of ice of Air Quality Planning & standards
ro A-(/c&4,. /LI 4 L..
Robert Van Heuvelen
Acting Director of Civil Enforcement
Appropriate
Pollucion
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division
Directors
Regions I and tv
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Radiation and Toxics Division Director
Region III
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division Director
Region VI
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII, IX and X
Regional Counsels
Regions I - X
In June of 1989, the Agency recognized the need for making a
substantial revision to the Agency’s Siqnificant Violator and
Timely and Appropriate Guidances. A workgroup was formed
consisting of Branch Chiefs from Regions II, III, V. VII, and IX
and representatives from SSCD and AED to develop a revised
guidance document (Attachment I). The Penalties Section, which
establishes a new standard for Federal overfiling, was developed
by the State/Federal Penalties Workgroup chaired by the Air
Enforcement Division (AED) with representatives from STAPPA/ALAPCO
and EPA Regions and Headquarters. This document has been
TO:

-------
2
thoroughly reviewed and commented upon by representatives of other
Regional Offices, STAPPA and ALAPCO. A summary of these comments
and responses is presented in Attachment II.
The subject guidance p. sedes and consolidates previous
Clean Air Act guidance related to Sigi TfIcant 7 IiEors (SV T
Timely and App nate A,and Federally Reportable Violations
(FRV) . Specifically, this documer t supersedes all previous
guidances on the three subjects .
This guidance applies to all “major” (as defined by the CAAA)
stationary sources of air pollution which are in violation of a
Federally-enforceable regulation. Note that a revision of the
definition of SV was necessitated by the new emphasis placed by
the CAAA upon continuous compliance by fl major sources. Thus
the new SV universe includes all of the present significant
violators and other environmentally significant violators of
concern to the EPA or State agencies. j we recognize that this
may represent a substantial increase in the number of SVs over the
number that would have resulted from the previous definition of
Significant Violator, but this revision was necessary to address
significant air quality concerns of the new Act.
This guidance is being revised largely to encourage a greater
degree of team-building and cooperative resolution of Significant
Violators by all responsible agencies, to encourage agencies to
give priority attention to those violators which they believe are
most environmentally important, arid to permit an increased degree
of agency flexibility in identifying and resolving SVS.
This guidance is designed to foster the development of a more
complete and accurate compliance picture, reaardless of the short-
term resource imolications . It is EPA’S position that by
portraying a more complete and accurate compliance picture,
agencies will be more likely to address the most environmentally
important violators first, and will have a better opportunity to
receive appropriate resources to complete the task.
Further, this guidance has been revised to more accurately
reflect the time and resources necessary to bring major sources
into a state of continuous compliance. To that end, the timeline
for addressing a SV has been lengthened by 30 days (to 150 days),
and an optional prioritization procedure has been added to help
agencies focus their resources upon the most environmentally
1 “State” as. used throughout this paper also refers to local
agencies where they have enforcement authority.

-------
3
significant SVs. A prioritization procedure must be used in all
instances where an agency is unable to address JJ ,, of its SVS in a
“timely nd appropriate” manner, and at any other times when it so
chooses. The Agency recognizes that some of the highest priority
SVs may require substantially more time and resources to resolve
than a routine SV. Situations where this guidance will not be met
should be noted qualitatively in the routine quarterly reports to
EPA Headquarters.
This guidance, by agreement of the parties, will be
implemented starting at the beginning of the third auarter of
FY 1992. During the remainder of the first and second quarters,
each agency should compare all of the currently ou tstanding SVS
(n including any SVs for which the agency has already initiated
action) with this revised guidance. On the basis of this review,
each agency should report a “revised SV list” to SSCD, and revise
its AFS database accordingly.
Please feel free to contact John Rasnic of the Stationary
Source Compliance Division or Michael Alushin of the Air
Enforcement Division if you have any questions or comments on this
document. John may be reached at (703) 308-8600 commercial or
FTS 678-8600. Mike may be reached at FTS 260-2820.
Attachments
cc: S. William Becker, Executive Director
STAPPA/ALAPCO
John Calcagni, Director
Air Quality Management Division
Bruce Jordan, Director
Emission Standards Division
Bill Laxton, Director
Technical Support Division
John Rasnic, Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Michael Alushiri, Enforcement Counsel Air
Office of Enforcement
Air Compliance Branch Chiefs
Regional Counsel Air Branch Chiefs

-------
ATTACHMENT I
GUIDANCE ON THE TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE (T&A) ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE
TO SIGNIFICANT AIR POLLUTION VIOLATORS (SVs)
I. SCOPE AND SUMMkRY OF GUIDANCE
A. Applicability
This guidance supersedes and consolidates previous guidance
documents related to Significant Violators (SV), Timely and
Appropriate (T&A), and Federally Reportable Violations (FRV)
Specifically, this document supersedes the following guidance
documents: (1) Definition of SV Contained in “EPA Accountability
System —— OANR Policy Guidance”, dated December 29, 1981;
(2) “Significant Violators”, dated June 24, 1982; (3) “Definition
of Significant Violator for PM1O”, dated September 23, 1988;
(4) “Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Response Guidance”, dated
April 11, 1986; and (5) “Guidance on Federally-Reportable
Violations for Stationary Air Sources”, dated April 11, 1986.
B. Summary of Guidance
This guidance applies to all “major” (as defined by the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA)) stationary sources of air
pollution which are in violation of a Federally-enforceable
regulation. Note that the guidance also applies to emergency
episodes or sources which construct without a valid permit.
However, the timeliries for resolution of such violations are
substantially shorter than specified in this document. Similarly,
this guidance applies to violators of asbestos demolition and
renovation (D&R) regulations. However, the specific definition of
SV, prioritization criteria and timelines for resolution of such
violations will be found in a future Attachment to be incorporated
into this document.
Once a violator is detected, the agencies shall take the
following five actions:
1. The “finding” agency shall determine whether or not
the source is a Significant Violator.
2. A NOV/FOV shall be issued (preferably by the State)
to each SV within 45 days of such determination. .1..
3. The EPA and State shall jointly determine which has
the initial lead in addressing the SV.
. 2. “State” as used throughout this paper also refers to local
agencies where they have enforcement authority.

-------
2
4. The lead agency shall routinely address each SV as it
is identified. However, if the agency is unable or
unwilling to do so in a manner consistent with the
- imelines section of this guidance, the lead agency
shall use the following optional approach. It shall
first prioritize all of the SVs as outlined in Appendix
A prior to initiating action against the highest
priority SV. (However, to the extent the available
timeframe for using Administrative Penalty authority is
running out for a particular SV, the EPA may move
against that SV in order to avail itself of the
advantages of an administrative action.)
5. EPA shall add the newly designated SV to the SV list.
This guidance recognizes the importance of addressing the
significance of penalties when resolving SV cases. Consistent
with the recommendations from the ‘State/Federal Penalties
Workgroup”, EPA expects that agencies will obtain an “appropriate”
penalty (including one to offset the source’s economic gain)
whenever it resolves a SV.
C. General Information about the Guidance
1. While EPA expects that States will address
violations of air pollution regulations within their
jurisdictions, except for non-delegated Federal
standards, by focusing on a limited group of violators
(e.g., those targeted by this guidance), this guidance
is not intended to detract from the importance of
addressing other violators and the right and
responsibilities of the States and EPA for doing so.
2. This guidance articulates the mutual expectations of
the respective parties of the Federal - State
partnership in the enforcement of air pollution control
requirements for stationary sources. It is fully
expected that this guidance will be modified and
expanded in future years to reflect experiences in its
implementation and the evolution of the air program
itself.
3. In accordance with the Deputy Administrator’s
memorandum of April 9, 1984 on Forging an Effective
State/Federal Enforcement Relationship, this national
guidance will serve as the framework for State specific
agreements reflecting the parties’ mutual expectations.
As that memorandum states, “the Regions will have to
accommodate differences among States, for example, where
their administrative procedures require different
timelines for enforcement action.”

-------
3
II. PHILOSOPHY OF GUIDANCE - DEFINITION OF SV
Agency Significant Violator activities shall be designed to
identify and to expeditiously return to compliance those violating
sources which the agency believes are environmentally most
important, namely the SVs. Although this guidance requires
agencies to address all Significant Violators, EPA recognizes that
agencies may be unable to address all of them immediately. Each
agency shall return J., SVS to compliance in accordance with the
Timely and Appropriate section of this guidance. Ootionallv the
agency may utilize a quantitative targeting and prioritization
procedure (similar to the one shown in Appendix A) whenever there
are more SVs than there are resources available to address them
consistent with the T&A section of this guidance.
A. Definition of a Significant Violator (SV )
Agencies shall deem a source to be a Significant Violator if
it iS:
1. A ‘ Maior’ source (as defined by the CAAA, except for
asbestos D&R NESHAP), and it violates any one or more of
the following:
a. SIP emission, monitoring or substantial
procedural requirements, regardless of pollutant
designation status.
b. NSPS emission, monitoring or substantial
procedural requirements.
C. NESHAP emission, monitoring or substantial
procedural requirements for existing NESHAP
standards and promulgated MACT requirements.
d. SIP, NSPS or NESHAP emission, procedural or
monitoring requirements violated reoeatedlv or
chronically (e.g., exceeds emission limit or gets
no continuous monitoring, data for 5% or more of the
time in a calendar quarter).
e. Any provision of a Federal Consent Decree or
Federal Administrative Order.
f. Any substantive provision of a State Judicial
Order or a State Administrative Order which was
issued for an underlying SIP violation.
g. Any requirement of Part C or Part D of Title I
of the CAAA (e.g., new construction of a major
source, major modification of a major source).

-------
4
2. Any synthetic minor source, and it is in violation of
any one or more of the following:
a. Avoiding PSD while violating an emission limit
or permit condition which affects the PSD status.
b. Exceeding its permitted emission standard
above the amount that would classify the source as
a nonattainment area major source.
With respect to emergency episodes or sources which construct
without a valid PSD or Part D permit (where one is required), the
timelines delineated below do not pertain. In the case of
emergency episodes, the seriousness of the violation would
normally require expedited action. In the case of a source
constructed without a required PSD or Part D permit, options for
obtaining relief may be foreclosed by allowing the source to
continue to construct and, therefore, expedited action may be
essential.
III. PROCESSING OF SIGNIFICANT VIOLATORS
A. Aaencv Communications Concerning SVs
As soon as possible (at least within one month) after an
agency initially detects a violation at a potential significant
violator, that agency shall communicate the compliance status of
that source to all other agencies which are responsible for
bringing and maintaining that source into continuous compliance
(e.g., State to EPA, or EPA to State). Such communications shall
be performed to:
1. Develop and maintain a common, agreed upon list
of SVs;
2. Determine, on a case by case basis, which agency is
best suited to take the initial lead in addressing
this SV; 2.
2. Determining which agency will “take the initial lead” should
be through mutual agreement between the agencies, on a case-
by-case basis. Examples of the criteria which may be used in
making the determination include, but are not limited to:
agency authority and policies, particularly with respect to
penalties; agency expertise with the specific process,
controls, or monitors; whether or not the violator’s
characteristics meet those highlighted by a national/State
hhinitiativeN; and availability of resources. Normally the
State agency will be given the initial lead.

-------
5
3. Ensure that the SVs are returned to compliance,
çonsistent with the T&A section of this guidance; and
4. Foster a cooperative “team-building’ spiri.t among all
of the involved agencies.
B. Processing of Significant Violators
Once a violation is detected, the agencies shall take the
following five actions:
1. The “finding” agency shall compare the Source’s
characteristics with the definition of SV contained in
this guidance. To the extent that the violator fits one
or more of the elements of the definition, it shall
be designated as a “Significant violator” arid is subject
to the Timely and Appropriate section of this guidance.
2. Within forty five (45) days after designation of the
violator as a SV, a NOV or FOV shall be issued (by the
State preferably) to each SV, regardless of which agency
has the lead.
3. The State agency and the EPA Regional Office shall
iointlv decide which agency will take the lead in
resolving the SV.
4. As resources become available, the lead agency shall
routinely address each SV as it is identified. However,
if it is unable or unwilling to do so in a manner
consistent with the T&A section of this guidance, the
lead agency shall use the following optional approach.
It shall first prioritize all of the SVs prior to
initiating action against the highest priority SV. The
agency shall use a prioritization procedure similar to
the “Table of Criteria and Environmental Weighting
Factors” (Appendix A) to determine its priority relative
to other outstanding SV5. As resources become
available, the highest priority (at that time) SV shall
be addressed. Once the agency initiates any type of
enforcement activity related to a SV, it shall not
interrupt this activity, even it a higher ranked SV is
subsequently identified. Note that the prioritization
step is related to EPA assumption of responsibility
for a State’s SV; it is simply a means of ensuring that
the most environmentally imoortant SVs are addressed in
a timely and appropriate manner.
5. EPA shall add the source to its SV list for agency
tracking arid reporting.

-------
6
C. EPA Maintains Enforcement Authority
The Clean Air Act vests responsiblity for enforcement of the
law in EPA. Therefore, EPA may move independently with respect to
designation of a violator as a “Significant Violator”, and EPA
shall assume the lead in cases when it becomes apparent that the
State is unable or unwilling to act in accordance with this
guidance to resolve a violation in a timely and appropriate
manner.
IV. T&A TIMELINES FOR ENFORCEMENT ACTION
All SVs, except emergency episodes and sources which
construct without a valid PSD or Part D permit (where one is
required), are subject to the following timelines and penalty
requirements (see section V below). The timeline for enforcement
actions is generally the same for significant violators discovered
by EPA as for those discovered by a State, regardless of which
agency takes the initial lead. The only exception is for the
unusual situation in which EPA assumes the lead from a State. If
EPA does take over the lead, it receives up to an additional 100
days to address the SV. .
A separate (new) timeline will be established for any
additional violations discovered at an existing SV before it has
been fully resolved.
A. Day Zero
The clock starts (i.e., day zero) 30 days after the
discovering agency first receives information concerning a
Federally enforceable violation (e.g., date of inspection, stack
test or continuous emission monitoring system report). If, during
this 30-day period, the enforcement agency decides that additional
monitoring or analysis is required to determine or confirm the
violation, the clock does not start until the earlier of the date
of recei t of such additional data or on the 90th day after the
This guidance provides EPA Regional Offices up to 100
additional days to address a SV after it assumes the lead
from a State. It should not need 150 days like it would in a
normal situation. This is based upon the assumptions that
EPA has closely tracked the State enforcement activity and
data gathering, and will be able to rely upon the fact that
the State’s NOV started the penalty clock. (As stipulated in
the CAAA of 1990, taking formal action, e.g., issuing an
NOV/FOV, shifts the burden of proof of continuous compliance
to the source, and “starts the penalty clock”.)

-------
7
violation was initially discovered. This additional period (up to
60 days) provides sufficient time for agency evaluation of the
data to determine if a Federally enforceable violation occurred.
B. Day 45 - Routine Issuance of NOV/FOV and EPA Tracking
Unless the State agency requests that EPA issue the notice,
by Day 45 the State acencv shall routinely issue a NOV (if
required for SIP sources), or a FOV (for non SIP sources) to the
source. .
If the State has not taken such action, EPA shall immediately
issue an appropriate notice. .
Any EPA-issued NOV or FOV, in a case where the State has the
lead, will indicate that EPA is still looking to the State to
resolve the matter, and further EPA action will be required only
in the absence of an acceptable, prompt resolution by the State.
The issuing office will transmit a copy of any NOVs or FOVs
it issues to other agencies in whose jurisdiction the source is
located. If the violation clearly impacts upon the air quality of
an adjacent state, EPA will also transmit a copy of the wov or FOV
to that State as well.
Also, EPA should add this source to its list of SVs for
Agency tracking and reporting purposes.
C. Day 90 - Possible EPA Case Action
If the State has the initial lead, and none of the actions
specified in E (below) have occurred by Day 90, EPA will discuss
with the State the status of the State’s actions and its
expectations. If discussions with the State suggest that the
State is close to addressing or resolving the violation or that
further deferral is otherwise appropriate, EPA will continue to
defer to enable the State to complete its action. If EPA
determines that further deferral is not justified, it will proceed
with its own action at this point.
“Routine issuance of a NOV/FOV is required here because this
starts the penalty clock against the violator, and shifts the
burden of proof, to demonstrate continuous compliance to the
source, (42 U.S.C.Section 7413(e) (2)).
“Routine EPA issuance of a NOV/FOV” is specified here, not as
an indication, in any way, that State agencies are incapable
of getting the job done. This requirement is placed upon EPA
Regional Offices because it has been noted that many sources
do not seriously work to resolve their violations until after
EPA puts them on formal notice anc starts the penalty clock.

-------
8
D. EPA Responsibilities After It Assumes the Lead
After EPA assumes the lead in a case, it will have up to an
additional- 100 days to get the source into compliance, onto a
schedule, issue a Section 113(a) administrative order (including
administrative remedies), a Section 113(d) administrative
enforcement action, or subject the source to a Section 120 action
or judicial referral. EPA will encourage continued State
participation even in situations where EPA takes over the lead.
The possibility of a joint action should be considered as an
alternative to a unilateral EPA action where feasible.
E. Day 150 (no lead chance), or Day 190 (l ad chance )
By Day 150 (or 190 with lead change), the source shall either
be in compliance (RESOLVED), or ADDRESSED i.e., on a
legally-enforceable and expeditious administrative or judicial
order, or be subject to a referral to the (State) attorney general
or (Federal) Department of Justice f or an adjudicatory enforcement
hearing or judicial action.
F. Resolved versus Addressed
As indicated above, the term RESOLVED shall mean that the
source is returned to COMPLIANCE. Thus after the case has been
addressed as per Part E (above), EPA and the State will continue
to track the source. Note that the source remains on the SV list
(but not carried in STARS) until it is returned to compliance
(RESOLVED) . Follow-up may be required in one of the following
outcomes once the case has been addressed: if a schedule is
established, the State will monitor compliance with that schedule
and report on progress in accordance with established reporting
requirements; if a referral is made, EPA will continue to monitor
the progress of the case to and after filing; and if a case
becomes unduly delayed, EPA will discuss this with the State and
may choose to initiate a parallel Federal action. No formal
timelines are being established for this stage of the enforcement
process, however.
V. PENALTIES
EPA’S national goal is to have all federal, State and
local enforcement actions for Clean Air Act violations assess a
penalty sufficient to achieve effective deterrence for the source
subject to enforcement and for the regulated community as a whole.
EPA assesses penalties in federal Clean Air Act actions pursuant
to the Clean Air Act Stationary Source Civil Penalty Policy .
Under the EPA penalty policy, both the economic benefit of
noncompliance and a gravity component reflecting the seriousness
of the violation are calculated. This calculated penalty may then
be adjusted where appropriate for several factors including the

-------
9
risks involved in litigating the enforcement action and the
violator’s ability to pay a penalty.
All State and local agency enforcement actions should
also assess civil penalties of sufficient magnitude to maintain a
credible deterrent effect. To accomplish this goal, State and
local enforcement agencies should calculate (where possible) and
assess the economic benefit of noncompliance. In some cases, the
risks involved in litigating the case or the violator’s inability
to pay a penalty may justify not assessing a penalty which
recaptures the full economic benefit. Legitimate litigation risks
include adverse legal precedent and evidentiary problems. The
inability of a violator to pay a penalty must be demonstrated by
the violator through financial information analyzed by State or
local environmental enforcement personnel.
An additional amount reflecting the seriousness of the
violation should also be assessed. This is especially important
for violations which may not have a readily calculated economic
benefit but which are critical to program integrity, such as
monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping and testing violations. In
some cases, this additional amount may be adjusted to reflect the
violator’s history of compliance with air pollution laws and
regulations, and the source’s good faith efforts to comply. All
penalty calculations in State and local enforcement actions must
be documented in the appropriate case file.
EPA will consider overfiling when State or local penalties
fail to meet these criteria, taking into account available federal
resources and enforcement priorities.
State and local enforcement agencies are strongly encouraged
to increase the statutory maximum civil penalty authorized by
State or local law to at least $10,000 per day per violation as
required by Title V of the Clean Air Act, as amended, for an
approved operating permits program. States and municipalities
with penalty authority of less than $10,000 per day per violation
will be subject to more intensive EPA oversight and potential
overfiling.
State and local enforcement agencies are also strongly
encouraged to develop a penalty policy implementing these general
penalty criteria. EPA will then review and evaluate, but not
formally approve, these penalty policies for consistency with the
general penalty criteria. A State or local enforcement agency
which adopts a sound penalty policy implementing these penalty
criteria and demonstrates a pattern of adherence to it will
receive less case-specific EPA oversight. A State or local
enforcement agency which chooses riot to develop a penalty policy
or which has a penalty policy that is not consistent with these
penalty criteria will continue to be subject to significantly more

-------
10
intensive case-specific EPA review of State and local penalties
arid to potential overfiling.
State and local enforcement agencies are also encouraged to
use the BEN computer model developed by EPA to calculate the
economic benefit of noncompliance. State and local enforcement
agencies which use the BEN computer model or a similar model to
calculate economic benefit will receive less intensive EPA case-
specific oversight.
VI. CONSULTATION AND DATA TRANSFER
A. Informal Consultation
EPA and States should conduct frequent (at least monthly)
informal consultations to discuss compliance efforts. During
these discussions, information exchange relative to obtaining
compliance and penalties should occur. This exchange should
include at least the following items:
1. The State and EPA would each identify any newly-found
violators subject to this guidance.
2. The State and EPA would each identify sources
notified of noncompliance during the month.
3. The State and EPA would each identify violators where
action had been taken.
4. The State would discuss the status of other
enforcement actions pending or in progress, if requested
by EPA.
5. EPA would identify sources for which it had completed
action and provide the status for other sources where
action is pending or in progress.
6. EPA would identify any sources it had found in
violation and confer with the State as required above.
B. Tlodatina EPA’S Comoliance Databases
The AIRS Facility (and/or NARS, as appropriate) databases
will be updated by EPA and/or the State on a monthly basis to
reflect:
1. Compliance status changes for newly-identified
violators which are in violation on the last day of the
month prior to the consultation, and which were (or are
expected to be) in that status for 7 days or more.

-------
11
2. Sources notified of noncompliance.
3. Sources with completed enforcement actions, including
any schedules and incremental dates for returning to
compliance.
4. Sources found to be in compliance with final limits.
C. Provlde Inspection Results
Inspection results other than those affected by the above
will be provided in accordance with current practices and EPA
accountability system requirements.
P. Sharina of Data
EPA and the State will share inspection results and other
monitoring reports (e.g., stack tests, CEMS) for use in
enforcement proceedings to the extent practicable. State
personnel should be encouraged to provide evidence, including
testimony, for Federal proceedings. Federal personnel should
similarly support State enforcement proceedings.

-------
APPENDIX A
TABLE OF CRITERIA AND ENVIRONMENTAL WEIGHTING FACTORS *
Criteria Environmental Weight
Factor/Vip.
1) At 1.e st one unit at a source is (or has been) in 10
violation of a SIP, NSPS, or NESHAPS emission, per
monitoring, or procedural requirement, except for unit
asbestos D&R NESHAP
2) Violation of permitting requirements (PSD, 10
Part D, or synthetic minor)
3) Violation of a Federal Consent Decree or Adminis- 10
trative Order, or of State Order w/emission viol.
4) Emission violation (1 time based on reference method; 10
or >5% of quarter based on indicator’ CEMS; or
>5% no data; except for opacity, use weight of 5) 5
Add : a) Amount of excess emission (known):
o over 250 TPY 10
o 100 -250TPY 6
o 25-100TPY 4
o 10-25TPY 2
b) If excess emissions are known, use
size of emission point:
o over 250 TPY 10
o 100 -250 TPY 6
o 25 -100TPY 4
o 10-25TPY 2
C) Source is in a non-attainment area 5
d) Source is a repeat violator:
o sante emission unit or cause 7
o unrelated repeat violator 3
e) Hazardous emissions under Title III 10
f) Multi-media violator 10
g) Source is part of national initiative 5
5) Source is in violation of minor procedural requirrnt. (-)5
6) ** Problem source (as determined by State/EPA) 1 to l0
7) Emiss. violts which occur on a 1-time or infrequent (-)50%
basis, AND <10 lbs/day or <2% of allowable emiss’s of total

-------
2
APPENDIX A (continued)
* Regardless of a SV’s relative priority, if the agency desires
to use a preferred remedy (e.g., Federal Administrative
Penalty authority with its one year “look-back” provision),
and the time to do so is running out, the agency may move it
up to the ‘head of the line”.
** A “problem source” may include such actions as a source which
fails to test, report, or install a monitoring system at all ,
or one which is totally uncooperative.
Exam les based on Table (key Parameters are underlined) :
1) A major SIP source, which has 300 TPY excess emissions ,
is a reoeat emission SO, and monitoring violator, has been in
violation for 5 months , and is violating a Federal Consent
Decree . Its total environmental weighting factor is
calculated as follows:
((#l=10)+H 3=l0]+(#4=lO+l0]÷(#4a=l0]=50 total
2) A NSPS source, 100 TPY in potential emissions , fails to
test within the timeline ( 1 month late ) established by NSPS,
and it is a first time violator. Its total environmental
weighting factor is calculated as follows:
(#l=l0J—H 5=5]=5 total
3) An asbestos manufacturing source reoeatedlv fails to
notify an agency about its plans to conduct compliance tests,
its latest test reoort is totally unacceotable , and the
agency considers the source to be uncooperative . Its total
environmental weighting factor is calculated as follows:
(#l=l0J+(#4=lO]÷(#4d=7J+ [ *6=7]=34 total
Clearly, the first and third violators are the worst SVs, and
the first one should be ranked the highest SV, and the second one
should be ranked lowest. Thus, assuming that these were the only
three SVs for which no follow-up action had been started, the SIP
source (in the first example) should be the next SV which the
agency should initiate action against.

-------
ATTACHMENT II
SUMMARY AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
COMPLEXITY & BURDEN ISSUES :
o Coit/benef it of the ranking procedure is not favorable; e.g.,
too complex, subject to duplication arid subject to confusion
among the different agencies using it (STAPPA/ALAPCO).
Response :
- It is important to have “joint,’ decisions throughout the
process (e.g., promotion of dialogue and team-building,
and case-by-case determination of which agency takes the
lead makes the most effective use of agency resources,
expertise and national priorities).
- Prioritization and ranking activity was simplified
(e.g., agencies which are able to address all SVs
consistent with the T&A requirements, can opt Out of
using any priorit].zatlon procedure).
o Virtually ,fl violations will be rated as “major” and thus
subject to the guidance (STAPPA/ALIAPCO).
Resoonse :
- The question suggests a little confusion about the
language contained in the document. Whether a source is
“major” or not is established by the CAAA of 1990.
Therefore, by definition, SVS must first be a
“major” source. Subjecting all “major” sources with
violations to this guidance is consistent with the
mandate expressed in the CAAA of 1990. All other
violators will be addressed, as they have in the past,
in the most expeditious manner possible.
- SSCD, with assistance from the Regional Offices and
STAPPA/ALAPCO, has taken the impact of this revision
upon agencies into account as we revised it. It was our
goal to establish criteria in a manner which fosters
agency reporting of the complete and accurate picture of
the compliance status of major stationary sources, and
which forms a quantitative basis for agency resource
consideration.
o Development of mutually agreeable definitions of SVs obviates
the need for the weighting scheme; retain the present T&A
Guidance with minor adjustments (STAPPA/ALSAPCO).

-------
2
Response :
The use of a “fixed”, nationally consistent definition
tor SVs although expanded to include a larger number of
sources and additional emphasis on continuous compliance
(both consistent with the CAAA of 1990), has been
retained to a large degree in this revision.
TABLE EXAMPLES & SV THRESHOLD VALUE ISSUES :
o Clarify that agencies may use either the attached “Table” (or
a “comparable” one) to prioritize and rank their SVs
(Regional Offices).
Response :
- SSCD, after much consideration, agreed to permit this
level of flexibility. However, it is incumbent upon all
agencies to take steps to ensure that JJ.
environmentally significant SVs are addressed in a
timely and appropriate manner.
o Making miscellaneous “adjustments” (e.g.. additional
categories, different weights, changing actual excess
emissions to estimated emission rates, possibly providing
factors for violators in non-attainment areas) to the Table
of Criteria and the SV designation threshold are necessary
(Regional Offices).
Response :
- The revised text addresses the flexibility of using a
comparable table.
o Clarify and expand the “Examples” in the Attachment (Regional
Offices)
Response :
- SSCD revised the text.
ENFORCEMENT ISSUES :
o Specify what a “Violation” is, e.g., similar to that on pages
3 and 4 of the earlier “Federally Reportable” document
(Regional Offices).
Resoonse :
- SSCD considered this possibility and decided the text
was sufficiently clear.

-------
3
o Insufficient emphasis was placed upon penalties required by
agencies to try to offset economic gain resulting from
del y.ed compliance (Air Enforcement Division of EPA).
Response :
- This revision incorporated the specific recommendations
made by the “State/Federal Penalties Workgroup”.
o Insufficient emphasis was placed upon the advisability and
desirability of issuing a NOV/FOV at the earliest possible
date (Regional Offices).
Response :
- SSCD revised the text to reflect the relevant provisions
contained in the CAAA of 1990, specifically the shifting
of the burden of proof from an agency to the violating
source.
o Emphasize the importance of properly protecting case-related
and other confidential information (Regional Offices).
Response :
- This is an important point. However, it is not germane
to the subject of this document.
o Clarify how one should address sources which drift into and
out of violation during the month. (Regional Offices).
Response :
- In addition to the line item in the Table ( 5 - “chronic
violator”), the text was revised to use language similar
to that contained in the old “Federally Reportable
Guidance.”
o Clarify that once an agency initiates any action on a SV, it
should comolete it regardless if a higher ranked Sv is
subsequently identified before the first one is resolved
(Regional Offices).
Response :
- SSCD revised the text accordingly.
o Emphasis upon “consultation” implies that EPA does not retain
the ultimate responsibility and authority to make decisions
relevant to federal enforcement (Regional Offices).

-------
4
ResDonse :
- SSCD revised the text to reflect the fact that EPA
retains the ultimate responsibility to insure compliance
with federally enforceable requirements (e.g.,
determining that a violator is a SV).
o Clarify the difference between “addressed ’ and resolved ’ as
it pertains to sources which come into compliance before they
are addressed (Regional Offices).
Response :
- SSCD revised the text.
o Clarify which violations require a penalty as part of its
resolution, e.g., PSVs versus SVs only (Regional Offices).
Resoonse :
- SSCD revised the text. (Note, the PSV concept
(potentially significant violators) was dropped.)
COMPATIBILITY 1ITH OTHER GUIDANCES ISSUES
o The uranking factors’ listed in this document should be
totally comoarable with those delineated in the CMS (Regional
Offices).
Resoonse :
- Conceptually perhaps they should be, and over time the
two sets of factors will likely converge. The final
“example’ table contains the concensus of all
comxnenters.
o Clarify the relationship between this guidance and field
citations (Regional Offices)
Resoonse :
- Other than being one form of administrative penalties,
there is no direct relationship. However, as such it
could be one of the ways SVs are resolved in the future.
GENERAL CLARIFICATION ISSUES :
o Clarify how many days EPA has to address an SV after it takes
it over from a State (Regional Offices)

-------
5
Response :
- SSCD revised the text as necessary.
o Delineate which source categories are designated ‘major” in
this guidance. How this relates to: (1) “affected
facilities’ in Title IV; and (2) Title III area sources?
(Regional Offices)
Resoonse :
- All sources affected by Title IV and major” sources
under Title III are considered “major” for purposes of
this guidance. “Area sources ” under Title III are not
major sources by definition in the CAAA.
o Adequately support this guidances implementation, including:
(1) scheduling Regional workshops performed by SSCD; (2)
designation of Regional and HQ “SV/T&A Coordinators’; and
(3) scheduling periodic teleconferences (Regional Offices).
Response :
- SSCD recognizes the importance of providing sufficient
and timely support when we “launch” this revised
guidance. We are contemplating how to most effectively
do this. During the last workgroup discussion, many
good suggestions were made. SSCD intends to implement
many of these.

-------
5

-------
llu [ Tz g r r

-------
Review of pplication of Test Methods in Clean Air Act
Enforcement Cases
(09/24/8 4)
File at Part A, Document #5

-------
INIl F !) ST, I 1S F. VIRO 4M}:N FAI. rROfl.( lION M;EN( V
_______ - • SIIIN(; IO’I, D.C. 20 .HW
4 , —..
SEP 2 4 1984
‘Ii k (I& I \ (,RLI II I
.I(U’IPL ”( I
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Review of Application of Test Methods in Clean
Air Act Enforcement Cases I
FROM: Michael S. Alushin /, ‘I / )/
Associate Enforcemen Counsel
Air Enforcement Division
TO: Regional Counsels
Regions I—X
The Air Enforcement Division requests that each new
Clean Air Act litigation report contain a discussion of the
applicable test method and whether it was correctly applied.
We have revised our direct referral checklist to include a
space to note the presence or absence of such a discussion.
A copy of the new checklist is attached. We will also be
checking for this information in non—direct referrals.
Forty CFR Part 52.12(c) states that, for the purpose of
Federal enforcement, the test procedures which should be used
are those specified in the applicable SIP or, if the SIP does
not contain a test procedure, the appropriate test procedure
as s ,ecified in 40 CFR Part 60. Defendants in several recent
stationary source enforcement actions have raised, as a
defense, the use of an improper test method in the testing
which forms the basis of the evidence against them. In some
cases, this has jeopardized the success of our enforcement
actions.
EPA must make sure that every enforcement action we take
is based on documentation of violations which was obtained
using proper test procedures. Therefore, please make sure
that all EPA tests and inspections use proper procedures. In
addition, EPA needs to make sure that EPA enforcement actions
usiny evidence obtained by State agencies are based on proper
test methods.
Attachment
cc: Assistant Chiefs
Environmental Enforcement Section
Lands & Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice

-------
AIR ENFORCEMENT DIVISION
CHECKLIST FOR REVIEW OF DIRECT REFERRALS
(All items should be addressed. Discuss special features of referral
under “Comments ,“ including strengths, innovations or deficiencies.)
Name and location of source: ______________________________
I. Appropriateness of direct referral
(Direct referral is appropriate if all “No”
lines are checked)
A. NESHAP case? No•________
B. Post-1982 enforcement policy applicable? No _______
C. Steel case? No _______
D. Primary nonferrous smelter case? No ________
II. Format of the cover memo -- check for following sections:
A. Nature of the case
B. Cause of Action
C. Proposed Remedy
D. Issues of national or precedential
significance
E. Description of consultation for
case development
F. Identification of Regional contacts
III. Substantive adequacy of referral
A. Cause of action
B. Evidence sufficient to prove cause of
action
C. Discussion of test method and whether
it was correctly applied
D. Description of attempts to settle,
includes date of last contact with source
E. Discussion of State involvement
F. Evaluation of potential defenses
G. Regional Office positions with regard
to significant issues are consistent with
law and national policy (piscuss under
Section IV - “Comments”)
H. Environmental harm to be remedied or
other reasons justify pursuing the
case
I. Description of the remedy to be sought
or the specific discovery required to
establish a remedy in the case

-------
-2-
J. Discussion of the penalties to be sought
if the case proceeds to trial
K. Discussion of the penalties to be sought
as an initial settlement position
L. Evaluation of potential defendants and
why the named defendants were selected
IV. Comments on Referral (attach additional sheets
as necessary)
Reviewed by: ______________________ Date:

-------
6

-------
llfi 1 N ff
/

-------
Enforcement Policy Respecting Sources Complying
with Clean Air Act Requirements by Shutdown
(11/27/85)
File at Part A, Document #6

-------
-
UNITED STATES EN% )NMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
. R ’
NOV21 jg 5
OFFICE OF E FOR(t¼tI \
‘.D(OMP
MO’ ITOR I ’t.
MEMORAN DUM
SUBJECT: Enforcement Policy Respecting Sources Complying
With Clean Air Act equirements 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, and IX
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management
Division Di ectors
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 r oncomplying 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 POLICr RESPECTING SOURCES C . 1 PLYING
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 schedule
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. An 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 c uncontrolled operation
would merely afford the owner 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 NESHAP5 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 efforts which the source
owner has made to achieve compliance,
4. The impact on workers and the company of any disruption
in production which might 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 dismantling the source. How-
ever, in cases where the source owner does not wish to
destroy or dismantle the source, a responsible official
of the source owner must submit an affiuavit 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 judicially 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 reserving 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 a 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-
ment 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 DOJ, subsequent to
December 15, 1985.

-------
7

-------
IIO 2 T OT

-------
Guidance on Federally-Reportable Violations
for Stationary Sources
(04/11/86)
File at Part A, Document *7 ( 3 )
‘
JsI

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
APR I I 1986
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance on F’ederally-Reportable Violations for
Stationary ir Sources
FROM: J. Craig Potter
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation (ANR—443
TO: Regional Administrators
Regions I — X
Attached is guidance on what constitutes a Federal—reportable
violation for stationary air sources. This guidance is the
culmination of an extended effort initiated in FY 1985 within
the Agency and with representatives of State and 1.ocal air
agencies. This guidance should be implemented in FY 1987
through your State enforcement agreements or similar appropriate
vehicle. Once implemented, it should improve immeasureably
our understanding o , and ability to deal with, the problem
of assuring continuous compliance by stationary air sources.
Traditionally, compliance status information is reported
to EPA by States on a “snapshot” basis. This means the State
reports the compliance status of the source (based on the most
recent assessment) as of the end of the reporting period,
generally quarterly. Thus EPA would know the source’s com-
pliance status only as of the end of each reporting period.
It would not know of any changes in compliance status which
took place during the ‘eriod not reflected by the status as
of the end of the period.
This was not a .‘rLous problem when the focus of the
compliance progra on obtaining initial compliance and
compliance status ch intj d only infrequently. However, as the
focus has broadene to include maintaining continuous
compliance, the curr-nt nethod of reporting is inadequate.
For instance, a sourc coull go in and out of compliance
multiple times• withtn a reporting cycle due to poor operation
and maintenance pracr.tc. s. Yet, if it were in compliance at
the period’s end, uni r the snapshot approach the source
would be reported n CDS as being in compliance with no record
of the continuous comp1ianc problems having occurred.
OFFTCE OF
AIR AND RADIATIOI4

-------
—2-
This results Irt an understating of the true noncompljanc
rate and makes It more difficult to assess and improve the
effectiveness of the program. It also tends to mask compUance
problems of intermittent violators, sometimes delaying assuring
that those sources are brought into Continuous compliance.
The attached guidance addresses this oroblem by requiring
that information be provided on many violations which occur
and are resolved wholly within the rePorting neriod. This
will significantly improve our understanding of the true
compliance picture for those sources and what actions are
being taken to resolve the violations.
This gui-lance was accepted by STAPPA at its March 18
Board of Directors meeting. It was not acceoted by the ALAPCO
Board of Directors. 1owever, given the fundamental importance
o€ improving the current system and the willingness of STAPPA
to accept the quidanc , we believe it is important to implement
the guidance in FY 1987 as planned.
I think it is particularly rnnortant that the guidance be
implemented in the spirit in which it is intended. Concerns
have been ex r ssed about highly obtrusi;e Federal enforcement
actions and undue reporting burdens. To address these concerns,
I would like to provi’le the following guidance.
Where a newly—identified violation has already been
revolved at the time of reporting to F PA, an EPA enforcement
action would rarely he warranted. (Even under the timely and
ar propriate response guidance, such violations would normally
he resolved before EPA issues a Notice of Violation.) If the
violation aopears to be an isolated one, no EPA action is
warranted. If, however, the violation is part of a pattern
of such violations by the source, it is certainly appropriate
to raise the matter with the ctate or local agency and to
assure that action is taken to resolve the pattern of persistent
violations.
Relative to the reporting of information to EPA, this
guidance necessarily requires reporting of additional data to
Pk for inclusion in the Compliance Data Syctem (CDS). Such
data, once received, ‘ ust be entered into CDS in a timely
inner. The guidance also recuires that certain additional
information about the violation be made readily available to
PA upon request. This information should be reauested only
when essential For a clearly—defined purpose and with full
sensitivity to the potential resource burdens information
requests create.

-------
—3—
I believe implementation of this guidance constitutes an
important milestone for our air compliance program. I look
forward to working with you and our State and local agency
colleagues in assuring its successful implementation in F? 1987.
Attachment

-------
April 1q86
GUIDANCE ON FEDERALLY—REPORTABLE VIOLATIONS
FOR STATIONARY AIR SOURCES
I NTRODUCTION
A basic objective of the Federal EPA’s air program is
to ensure national consistency in the interpretation and
implementation of the Clean Air ct. Nowhere is consistency
more critical than in the area of enforcement. The primary
enforcement resoonsihil.ity of the Act clearly lies with the
States. 11 However, EP has a well—defined and important role
as well. —
The Agency is charoed by the Act with assuring that State
programs enforcing State Implementation Plans and, where dele—
gateci, NSPS and ES9APS standards, are adequately and consis-
tently implemented and regulations enforced. This responsibility
has been met through various State program oversight activities
(NAAS), grant negotiations, and by requiring the reporting of
certain State conwliance monitoring and enforcement activities.
The primary existing mechanism by which State actions are reported
to FPA is through the Compliance Data System (CDS). A continuing
problem with this oversight function is that while there is a
mechanism for tracking data on violations, P.k has never clearly
defined in national guidance what it considers to be a reportable
violation.
While a State .iriency’s legal obligation to enforce its
regulations is clear, some discretion exists on what viola-
tions should be renot ted, and when and how such violations are
to be reported. Such discretion generally allows the agency
to direct limited resources to areas of greatest need and to
respond more equitably to different types and magnitudes of
violations. However, it can also lead to excessively variable
practices on what to report as a violation and when to report
it, resulting in unequal treatptent of sources.
1 “State as used throughout this quid .r ce also refers to local
agencies where they have enforcement authority.

-------
—2—
All Regions have developed approaches in working with State
agencies on reportirirl of violations. However, in the absence of
national guidance, inconsistencies exist from Region to Region,
and State to State, regarding what constitutes a reportable vio-
lation, when and how it is entered in CDS, and what information
is necessary to support the reported violation. It is the intent
of this guidance to address the basis of these inconsistencies
and minimize their impact. It is not the intent of this guidance
to require compliance status information for purposes of the
gency routinely overriding basic State enforcement responsibility
and decision making.
The task of developing the above mentioned national guidance
is divided into five basic issues:
o tqhat is a Federally—reportable violation, i.e., which
violations does EP want reported to it by the State?
o What specific information about reportable violations
does EPk require to effectively monitor the universe of
violating sources? How will the minimum information to be
reported on violators be transmitted to EPA?
o At what freauency must inirnum information on violators
be reported to EPA?
o How will the compliance status of reported violators be
tracked?
o How will EPA use the information provided to it by the
State?
These issues are addressed in the following sections. They
deal only with State reporting of fundamental data about viola-
tors of Federally—enforceable air requirements. ror the our oses
of this guidance, violators include significant violators as well
as all other violators that meet the criteria discussed below.
The scope of reporting and reporting procedures and frequency
required by this quidance do not supercede the monthly infori al
consultations and monthly updating of COS required for sources
subject to the “Guidance on ‘Timely and Appropriate’ EPA/State
Enforcement Response for Significant Air Violators”, dated June
1984.
REPORTABLE VIOLATtO J
The task here is not to establish what constitutes a
violation, but rather to assess whether a violation of a
Federally—enforceable requirement should he reported by the State
to EPA. That is, all detected violations are not of immediate
Federal concern. However, certain violations are. Uational
guidance that permits the States to make this distinction is
provided below.

-------
—3-
For a violation to be reportable to EPA, two conditions
must b met. First, the source must either be an NSPS or
NESRAP facility or, if a SIP source (including those subject
to P SR and PSD regulations), be classified Al or A2 (by the EPA
definition of class).
Secondly, to he Federally—renortable, a violation must also
meet at least one of the following criteria 2/:
1. Any emissions or significant procedural violation of a
State consent decree, court order, or administrative
order, which was issued by the State to resolve a
Federally—enforceable violation.
2, For the purpose of this guidance, soecific terms used in
the above criteria are defined in the following manner:
o An emissions violation includes not only a violation of
numerical emissions limitations hut also violations of
other requirements that directly impact the amount of
allowable emissions, such as equipment standards, work
practice standards, and sulfur—in—fuel limitations.
° A significant orocedural violation of a State consent
decree, court order, or administrative order includes
failure by the source to accomplish or maintain interim
emission reductions and failure to achieve interim incre—
merits of progress which jeopardizes the ability of the
source to meet the final compliance dates.
o A g j ficant orocedural NSPS violation includes such
aource activities as failure to install a Continuous
Emission 1onitoring System (CEMS) or other monitoring
equipment, failure to conduct timely performance tests,
and failure to conduct appropriate monitoring and associ-
ated recordkeeping. It does not include a failure to
report on time such activities as start of construction
or operation and late reporting of quarterly compliance
reports.
• & continuing violation (emission or significant nrocedural)
shall inclu1 violations which, while not necessarily
continuouc r seven days (i.e., l 8 or more hours),
reoccur requ1a y or intermittently, and have not been
adequately or resolved by the source. A viola-
tion of this nciture shall become reportable if it cannot
he or is nor. r . solved within seven days after the enforce-
ment agency ftcst becomes aware of the violation. Such a
violation i ier 1ly—reportable even if a source is in
compliance )n ti.. 1 . ist day of the reporting period, i.e.,
at the tine of the traditional static “snapshot.”
o A s4 gnificant orocerlural SIP violation includes such source
acttvities as aflure to install CEMS, failure to obtain
required permits ( ISR and P90), and the like.

-------
—4—
2. Any violation of a NESHAPS requirement, emissions or
procedural.
3. My emissions or significant procedural violation of an
NSPS requirement continuing for, or likely to continue
for, at least seven days.
4. Any emissions or significant procedural violation of a
Federally—approved or Federally—promulgated SIP require-
ment (including an NSR or PSI) regulation) continuing for,
or likely to continue for, at least seven days.
Any violation determined through a Continuous Emission
1onitorinq System (CEMS) or any other continuous monitoring
device or method, here such device or method ts the official
emissio’is compliance test method prescribed by a Federally—
enforceable SIP, NSPS, or ESHAPS requirement, would be covered
by and reportable under one of the criteria specified above.
REPORTABLE VIOLATION PATh
In order for EPA to carry out its national program oversight
responsibility, the State must provide adequate information about
the reported violation and their enforcement position in a timely
fashion to assure EPA that the violation is being properly
addressed. Recause this places a reporting burden on the State,
only essential information needed to satisfy the EPA oversight
mission will he required. A portion of these data, as discussed
later, will he tracked through COS.
At a minimum, the following information, ‘vhere apolicable,
must he provided or made available to EPA for all reportable
violations. The infor!nation for items 1—3 must be reported to
EPA in all instances. Items 4—6 need not be regularly reported
to EPA, however, they must be made readily available upon EPA’s
request.
1. Source and emission point identification data;
2. Nature of violation (i.e., pollutant and emissions
or procedural violation), location of violation
(i.e., point, process or unit), and the Federally—
enforceable regulation that has been violated;
3. Method and date of initial detection, e.g., stack test,
quarterly compliance report, inspection report, malfunc-
tion report;
4. I)uration and magnitude if rnissions violation;
5. Known/possible causes of violation, e.g., lack of
proper O& i, e’ ergency release; and
6. State enforcement position and timeframe of expected
action.

-------
Once a source has been returned to compliance, the method of
compliance verification and the date of compliance achieven ent
must d l i well be reported in all instances to EPA according to
the same frequency as reporting violations.
If the Region receives copies of State inspection reports,
these may serve in lieu of the above—listed minimum information
if the State inspection reports provide sufficiently detailed
information, at the reguired reporting freauency, to permit EPA
to meet its mission as stated in this guidance.
The minimum infornation detailed for items 1—3 above should
be entered into CDS in a timely fashion. The information required
to be reqularly reoorted or nade available to PA from States on
all reportable violations may he transmitted either by personal
communications, manual reports, or through C )S. ciowever, for
items 4 and , it will be sufficient if the information is made
available to EPA during an onsite visit if the State prefers.
FREQUENCY OF REPORTING
The inforn ation required by this guidance to he reported to
EPA must be reported on at least a quarterly basis. For newly
reported violators, the initial quarterly report should consist
of the minimum information discussed under the SiReportable
Violation Data” section, to the extent it is available at that
time. Subsequent quarterly reports should at least consist of
cornoliartce status changes that occurred during the past quarter.
All such information shall be reported to EPA not more than 45
calendar clays after the close of the quarter the information
became known to the State.
METHODS OF COMPLIANCE TRACKING
The compliance status of reported violators will be tracked
in CDS by two procedures. One will he the traditional static
“snapshot” based on the most recently observed compliance assess-
ment of the source, generally meant to be the compliance status
of record as of the end of the quarterly reporting period. This
compliance status is defined to be the most recently confirmed
assessment of source compliance of Federally—regulated orocesses,
emission points, or units for all Federally—regulated air
pollutants.
The second corT 1 ance indicator is intended to track the
performance record of such sources, i.e., a more Continuous
assessment of compliance, insofar as that information is avail-
able to the enforcement agency. For instance, a source could

-------
—6—
go in and out of compliance multiple times within a quarter’s
reporting cycle. Yet, if it was in compliance at quarter’s end,
under the snapshot approach, the source would be reported in COS
as being in compliance with no record of the continuous compliance
problems having occurred. A great deal of valuable information
about a source’s operational characteristics, and difficulties,
is lost using such traditional static compliance reporting
methods. Irt addition, a static assessment of compliance does
not lend itself to an evaluation of truly representative operat-
ing conditions when a physical site visit is made, nor does it
encourage source practices that maintain compliance on a more
continuous hasis.
To accommodate this second assessment orocedure, a
continuous compliance status indicator code will be entered in
CDS. t Jith the addition of such an indicator, not only will we
know a source’s static compliance status, hut we will as well
kflow its compliance picture during the reporting period even
though its static compliance status may not indicate a violation
at quarter’s end. The actual form, r echanics, and schedule of
CDS modifications necessary to monitor the continuous compliance
history of sources will follow in more detailed guidance at a
later date. However, the concept is to enable agencies to more
effectively monit r the continuous compliance practices of
problem sources.
EPA USE OF DATA
EPA has a bonaficie mission of national program oversight.
The type and amount of information EPA is requiring the State to
provide about reportable violations through this guidance is
necessary to achieve that mission. More specifically, EPA will
use these data to:
1. Maintain a nationally consistent and uniform Federal/
State compliance program;
2. Assess the State’s abilitv to implement and enforce
compliance with the Act;
3. Identify the national air compliance program’s strengths
and weaknesses, and improve the program in areas where
the data indicate a need;
4. )etermine what is a “realistic” noncompliance rate; and
5. Provide EPA Regions with more detailed background data
for monthly conferences with their States.

-------
8

-------
;fl % q7r / llO7T S

-------
Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Guidance
(04/11/86)
File at Part A, Document #8
I
I
is
( ‘I
/
‘.1

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHE IGTON, D.C. 2O O )/i j ,
j1 ’Ji
7i
APR 1 I :g AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Timely and Aporopriate Enforcement Response Guidance
FROM: 3. Craig Potter laL
As t Ai or (ANR_443 ,/’4’
TO: Regional Alministrators
Regions I - X
Attached is revised guidance on timely and appropriate
enforcement response for significant air violators. This
guidance should be used in your negotiation of State enforcement
agreements for FY 1987.
The only substantive change to the current guidance made
by the revision is to extend the coverage to include NESHAPs
sources. 1ESHAPc violators were not initially covered because
it was felt that the 120—day timeline for resolution of such
violations was too long. However, by not including NESHAPs
violators, they were not covered by the mandatory penalty
Drovision or the monthly consultation provisions of the national
guidance (although many State enforcement agreements extended
such provisions to NESHAPs violators.) To remedy this,
starting in F? 1987, NESHAPs sources will be subject to the
penalty, data transfer, and consultation requirements of the
guidance but not the timeline. The tirneline will continue
to be inapplicable since, as indicated in the guidance,
action against NESHAPs sources should proceed more quickly
than the timeline would permit.
This change was accepted by STAPPA and ALAPCO at their
mid—winter meetings in Jackson, Wyoming. It should improve
both the consistency and the effectiveness of our compliance
program. If you have any questions about interpretation or
implementation of the guidance, please call Ed Reich, Director,
Stationary Source Cotnoliance Division, at 382—2807.
Attachment

-------
April 1986
GUIDANCE ON TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE STATE/EPA ENFORCEMENT
RESPONSES FOR SIGNIFICANT AIR POLLUTION VIOLATORS
I. Scope of Guidance
A.l. It is assumed that States* will address any violations
of air pollution regulations within their jurisdictions
(except for non—delegated Federal standards). By
focusing on a limited group of violators for purposes
of this au [ dance, it is not intended to detract From
the importance of addressing other violators and the
right and responsibilities of the States and EPA for
doing so.
2. This guidance is an initial step towards clarifying
mutual expectations of the respective parties of the
Federal—State partnership in the enforcement of air
pollution control requirements for stationary sources.
It is full.y expected that it will he modified and
expanded in future years to reflect experiences i t t
its jniti. l imolementation and the evolution of the
air program itself.
3. In accordance uitth the Deputy Administrator’s
‘nemorandum of A,ril 9, 1984 on Forging an Effective
State/Federal Enforcement Relationship, this national
guidance wijl serve as the framework for State—
specific aareemertts reflecting the parties’ mutual
expectations. As that memorandum states, “(t]he
Reqions will have to accommodate differences among
States, for example, where their administrative
procedures recTuire diff:erent timelines for enforce-
ment action.”
B. ].. This guidance applies to the Following classes of
significant violators:
(a) Class A SIP violators in nonattainment areas
itt violation for the pollutant for which the
area is nonattainment, and
* “State” as used thriuchout this paper also refers to local
agencies where they h3ve enforcement authority.

-------
—2—
(b) r4SPS violators (where delegated) and sources
operating in violation of Part C (PSr)) and
Part D (nonattainment areas) permit requirements.
(C) NESHAPS violators (where delegated). However,
the tirneline and NOV provisions in Sections II
and III are inapplicable to NESHAPs violations
since action against such sources must rroceeci
more quickly than the timelines would permit.
2. This guidance does not apply to emergency episodes
or sources constructing without a valid PSD or
Part 0 Permit where required (or in violation of
such a permit). In the case of emergency episodes,
the seriousness of the violation would normally
require expedited action. In the case of a source
cnstructing without a required PSD or Part I)
permit or in violation of a permit, options for
obtaining relief may be foreclosed by allowing the
source to continue to construct and, therefore,
expedited action may be essential.
II. Timelines for Enforcement Action
A.l. The clock starts (i.e., day zero) 30 days after
the date of the inspection or receipt of a source
self—monitoring report which first identifies the
violation. This provides sufficient time for an
evaluation of the inspection or source report data
to determine if a violation exists. If, during
this 30—day period, the State determines that a
stack test or a sample analysis is required to
determine or confirm the violation, the clock does
not start until the date of receipt of the stack
test or sample analysis report.
2. Any serious problems occurring earlier in the
process would be identified and addressed in the
National Air Audit System process rather than
under these timelines.
B. By day 45, the source should be notified of the
violation and its need to remedy it by the State
in writing or in a documented conversation (in any
form the State feels is appropriate).
C. By day 120, the source shall either be in compliance,
on a legally—enforceable expeditious State administra-
tive or judicial order, be subject to a referral to

-------
—3—
the State attorney general or for a State
adjudicatory enforcement hearing, or be subject to
a proposed SIP revision which has at least been
scheduled for a State hearing and which EPA staff—
level review shows is likely to be approved. For
cases where penalties are required (see IV below),
penalties must also be addressed as part of the
State action if it is to he sufficient to obviate
further EPA action.
D. If a schedule is established, the State will
monitor compliance with that schedule and report
on progress in accordance with established report-
ing requirements. If a referral is made, EPA will
continue to monitor the progress of the case to
and after filing. If a SIP revision is initiated,
EPA will rnr)nitor the proqress of the revision
through the State administrative process. If a
case or SIP revision becomes unduly delayed, EPA
will discuss this with the State and may choose to
initiate a parallel Federal action. No formal
timelines are being established for this stage of
the enforcement process, however.
E. If none of the actions specified in C. have occurred
by day 120, EPA will discuss with the State the
status of the State’s actions and its expectations.
If discussions with the State suqqest that the
State is close to resolving the violation or that
further deferral is otherwise aonropriate, EPA
will continue to defer to enable the State to
complete its action. If EPA de€ermines that
further deferral is not justified, it will proceed
with its own action at this point.
F. When EPA takes the lead in a case, it will act to
get the source in compliance, on a schedule, or
subject to a Section 120 action or judicial referral
within 120 days of its assumption of the lead. EPA
will encourage continued State participation even
where EPA takes the lead. The possibility of a
joint action should be considered as an alternative
to a unilateral EPA action where feasible.
III. Issuance of NOVs by EPA
A. t d y g , EPA (after consultation with the State
on the progress of the case to date) may take one
of the following actions as circumstances dictate:
(a) Initiate case development activities through
an inspection or issuance of a Section 114
letter. (This will be less likely to be

-------
—4—
required if the State provides sufficient
documentation to suoport an NOV, as provided
in II.C.)
(b) advise the source that EDA will issue an NOV
in 30 days if the source does not reach an
acceptable resolution with the State he ore
then. (This should be used only where such an
action by EPA is likely to he of significant
value in prompting the source to reach an
acceptable agreement with the State).
Cc) issue the NO’!, if requested by the State or if
it is clear that a resolution will not he
reached by the State by day 120 and that the
environmental significance of the source
warrants EPA action at this point.
B. EPA will routinely issue NOVs, if not already
issued, on (or shortly after) day 120 if the
violations are still unresolved at that point.
This is not intended as a criticism of the State
action hut only as expression of EPA concern to
reinforce State efforts and as a necessary legal
prerequisite to further EPA action. (NSPS sources
will receive letters of violation rather than NOVs).
C. Any NOV issued on day 120 will be issued only after
consultation with the State. If there is some
particul.arLy compelling reason why the NOV should
not be issued to a source at day 120, EPA will
defer its issuance hut this is not expected to be
the case in the vast majority of cases. EPA will
rely wherever possible on information provided by
the State according to mutually—agreed upon
procedures.
0. In addition, EPA may immediately issue an NOV to
any source subject to this guidance where it finds
the violation rather than the State. (This would
not apply to violations discovered in joint inspec-
tions.) However, orior to a decision on issuance
of the WOV, EPA will discuss with the State the
circumstances of the violation and ascertain the
reason why the violation had not been reported by
the State. EPA will also resolve in consultation
with the St3te who will take the lead for the source
and the nature and timing oF follow—up action.

-------
—5—
E. Any NOV issued in a case where the State still has
the lead will indicate that EPA is still looking to
the State to resolve the matter and further EPA
action will be required only in the absence of an
acceptable, promPt resolution by the State.
P. EPA will transmit a copy of all NOVs it issues to
the State in whose jurisdiction the source is
located. If the violation clearly impacts upon the
air quality of an adjacent State, EPA will transmit
of a copy of the NOV to the State as well.
IV. Penalties
A cash penalty of sufficient magnitude ar)propriate to the
violation is required as an element of the resolution of
the following classes of violations. tf the penalty is
not obtained by the State, an EPA action will be brought.
If the State believes it can obtain a compliance schedule
but not the penalty, a joint action could be appropriate.
The classes of violations subject to this guidance for
which an appropriate cash penalty is required are:
(a) Class A SIP violators in nonattainment areas in
violation for the pollutant for which the area
is nonattainrnent unless on an EPA—approved DCO
or subject to an approvable SIP revision;
(b) Sources which violate Part 1), PSfl, and NSPS
requirements after the date the source was
required to demonstrate compliance. (This
would not apply during periods which the regula-
tions or permit specifically provide for “debug-
ging” prior to demonstration of compliance,
such as the 180—day start—up period for ‘JSPS
sources provided for in 40 CFR Section 60.8);
(C) Violators of NESHAPs requirements;
Cd) Sources which violate State or Federal
administrative or judicial schedules, thus
requiring an extension of the final compliance
date;
(e) Vio1 tors which the State or EPA determines are
repeat violators.
This requirement would not be applicable to de minimis
violations or vtolations arising from force majeure
circumstances.

-------
V. Consultation and Data Transfer
A. EPA and States would initiate or continue at least
monthly informal consultations to discuss compliance
efforts. During these discussions, information
exchange relative to obtaining compliance and
penalties would occur. This exchange would include
at least the following items.
(a) The State would identify any newly—found
violators subject to this guidance.
(b) The State would identify sources notified of
noncorn liartce during the month consistent with
Section tI. .
(C) The State would identify violators where action
had been taken, consistent with Section II.C.,
including penalties where required by Section IV.
Cd) The State would discuss the status of other
enforcement actions pending or in progress if
requested by EPA.
Ce) EPk would identify sources for which it had
completed action and provide the status for
other sources where action is pending or in
pro’) ress.
(f) EPk would identify any sources it had found in
violation and confer with the State in accordance
with tlt.O.
. The CD.S would he updated by EPA and/or the State on
a monthly basis to reflect:
(a) Compliance status chancies for newly—identified
violators which are in violation on the last
day of the month prior to the consultation and
which were (or are expected to be) in that status
for 7 (lays or more.
(b) Sources notified of noncompliance.
Cc) Sourc c with completed enforcement actions,
incl’i’hng any schedules and incremental dates
for r turr ir g to compliance.
Cd) Sourc Found to be in compliance with final
1 m i i ‘.

-------
—7—
C. Inspection results other than those affected by the
above will be provided in accordance with current
practices and EPA accountability system requirements.
D. EPA and the State will share inspection results and
monitoring reports for use in enforcement proceedings
to the extent practicable. State personnel should
be encouraqed to provide evidence, includinq testimony,
for Federal proceedings. Federal personnel should
similarly supoort State enforcement oroceedings.

-------
9

-------
llW]iP OPTh7 llT b 7TL

-------

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
AP’ 2 5 99 OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Procedure for Raising the Question of a Possible
Criminal Violation in the Contex : of a Civil Referral
from a Regional Office
From: Michael S. Alushiri I
Associate Enforcement Counsel
For Air
To: Air Enforcement Division Attorneys
This procedure is intended to 9ive AED attorneys uidance h
how to proceed with a civil refertal involving a po ib
criminal violation. The current parallel proceedings policy does
not address this issue. That policy assumes that the regional
office has already made a determination that there is a criminal
violation in a case. Balancing the need to have a strong
criminal enforcement program with the desire to avoi.d prematurely
raising the issue of a possible criminal violation with anyone
outside the Agency, AED attorneys should use informal inquiries
and discussions to resolve these questions quickly.
New Criminal Acts
Since the Clean Air\ Act Amendments greatly expand criminal
enforcement authorities, an AED staff attorney is now more likely
to review civil referrals where the violator’s actions may be
subject to the criminal provisions of the Act. In addition to
the criminal penalties çhich were found in section 113(c) prior
to the Amendments, AED attorneys should be aware that the
pllowj g acts can ‘ië iii t in criminal penalties : Jcnowing
omissions of material ir ormation; icnowing alteration,
concealment, or failure ko file or maintain documents necessary
for compliance; knowing t mpering with or failure to install
necessary monitoring devic es; knowing failure to pay any fee
required under Titles I, I II, IV, V, or VI; and knowing or
negligent releases of haza dous air pollutants which cause
imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to persons.
Printed on Recycied Paper
/

-------
—2—
New Affirmative Defenses
Furthermore, the Act creates new affirmative defenses to
criminal penalties which are only available to certain
defendants. Section 113(h) states that for section ].13(c)(4),
“except in the case of knowing and willful violations...’person’
shall not include an employee who is carrying out his normal
activities and who is not a part of senior management personnel
or a corporate officer.” For sections l13(c)(l), (2), (3), and
(5), “except in the case of knowing and willful
violations...’person’ shall not include an employee who is
carrying out his normal activities and who is acting under orders
from the employer.” Consequently, when dealing with a fact
situation which involves an employee who fits into one of these
exceptions, the attorney must not only look for a knowing
violation, but must also look for facts which would prevent the
employee from making a defense under one of these sections.
Further guidance regarding the meaning of “willful” can be found
in a February 26, 1991 memo from Richard W. Emory, Jr. entitled,
“New Criminal Enforcement Provisions of Clean Air Act
Reauthorization of 1990.”
Spotting a Criminal Issue in a Civil Referral
In the course of reviewing a civil referral from a Regional
Office, an AED attorney may conclude that a criminal violation
may have occurred in the case and that criminal enforcement
action should be considered. Indications of a possible criminal
violation include conflicting data, conflicting stories,
unsubstantiated data, deliberate actions, and claims of ignorance
about legal requirements where there are records displaying
knowledge. She should not send a memo in response to the civil
referral until the question of whether a criminal violation
exists is resolved. If the AED or OE deadline for responding to
the referral is in danger of passing, due to following the
procedures described below, an extension of that deadline should
be sought from the appropriate authority.
Procedure for Exploring a Criminal Issue
The following steps should be taken:
1. The attorney should speak with her branch chief or the AEC
about the possible criminal violation.
2. If the branch chief or the AEC agrees that there may be a
criminal violation, then the AED attorney should make informal
contact with the ORC staff attorney assigned to the case to
discuss the possible criminal violation.

-------
—3—
a. The ORC staff attorney may not have considered the
possibility of a criminal violation. If she did not, the AED
attorney should propose that the ORC staff attorney review the
case and discuss it with the Regional Criminal Enforcement
Counsel (RCEC).
b. If the ORC staff attorney had considered the
possibility of a criminal violation, but had decided not to
pursue criminal enforcement, the AED attorney should discuss with
her the reasoning behind the decision. There may be facts in the
case of which the AED attorney is not aware which indicate a
weakness in the criminal case. If the AED attorney agrees with
the ORC staff attorney’s analysis, then the AED attorney should
write a memo to the file indicating that the matter was discussed
and how it was resolved.
3. If, after discussing the matter with the ORC staff attorney,
the AED attorney concludes that there may be a criminal
violation, the AED attorney should suggest to the ORC staff
attorney that the issue be discussed with the RCEC if the matter
has not been discussed previously.
4. The AED attorney should discuss the matter with the Director
of the Criminal Enforcement Counsel Division (CECD) or a member
of his staff. The AED attorney should ask CECD to limit its
consideration of the matter to a brief period of time (e.g.,
seven days). If after discussions with the ORC staff attorney
and CECD, it is concluded that requesting a criminal
investigation by the Criminal Investigatiofl’ Division (CID) is not
appropriate, the AED attorney should prepare a memo to the file
indicating that the matter was raised with the appropriate
contacts and concluded.
5. If, after discussions with the CECD staff, the AED attorney
concludes that there is a possible criminal violation, she should
inform her branch chief and the AEC. The branch chief and the
AEC will informally contact the Regional Counsel and inform her
that CECD will be considering the possibility of criminal
enforcement in the matter. The CECD will consult with the RCEC
and CID’s Special Agent-in-Charge in reviewing the case. If a
review of the matter results in a decision that criminal
enforcement is not appropriate, then the civil referral should be
resumed. The AEC will notify DOJ informally that EPA has
considered the possibility of criminal enforcement and has
concluded that sufficient grounds for a criminal referral do not
exist.
6. If, after a brief review, CECD decides to explore the
possibility of criminal enforcement in the matter, AED should
issue a memo to the Regional Counsel in response to the civil

-------
—4—
referral indicating that the case will be held pending a
determination by CECD that a criminal violation has occurred.
Parallel Proceedings
If the Office of Criminal Enforcement decides to go forward
with and develop a criminal case, then AED should return the
civil case referral to the Regional Counsel to be held until the
criminal action is resolved. At that time, the Regional Counsel
may wish to prepare a memo requesting that parallel proceedings
be initiated pursuant to a June 15, 1989 memo entitled,
“Procedures for Requesting and Obtaining Approval of Parallel
Proceedings” and a June 21, 1989 memo entitled, “Guidelines on
Investigative Procedures for Parallel Proceedings.” Both memos
were amended by a memo dated July 18, 1990 entitled, “Supplement
to Parallel Proceedings Guidance and Procedures for Requesting
and Obtaining Approval of Parallel Proceedings.”
Administrative Orders
If an administrative order needs to be issued at any time in
this process to stop a continuing environmental injury, then the
order may be issued. The fact that a criminal enforcement action
is possible should not affect the issuance of such an order. The
Agency’s first priority is to stop a continuing environmental
injury regardless of whether a civil or criminal enforcement
action will be pursued.
If you have questions about these procedures, please contact
Rosemarie Kelley, who is our division’s liaison to the criminal
enforcement program, at FTS 475—7090.
cc: Regional Counsels
Regions I-X
Scott C. Fulton
Director of Civil Enforcement
Richard W. Emory, Jr., Acting Director
Office of Criminal Enforcement Counsel
Associate Enforcement Counsels
Office of Enforcement

-------
B

-------
—2—
B. Section 110: State Implementation Plans
1. Energy Emergency Task Force Implementation 03/06/79
of Section 110(f) of the Clean Air Act
2. Supplemental Guidance Regarding 06/19/79
Implementation of Section 110(f) of the
Clean Air Act
3. Alternate Procedure for Section 110(f) 01/10/80
Relief in Localized, Short Term Energy
Emergencies
4. Clarification of Requirements for Inclusion 05/09/80
of CEM Provisions in SIPS
5. Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, 02/15/83
Shutdown, Maintenance and Malfunctions
—— clarifies memorandum of same title
dated 09/28/82
6. Source Specific SIP Revisions 07/29/83
7. Policy on SIP Revisions Requesting 08/07/86
Compliance Date Extensions for VOC Sources
8. Review of State Implementation Plans and 09/23/87
Revisions for Enforceability and Legal
sufficiency ,iII_.., • 14./9 -
4 66

‘ V 0 C.. I CL
/ / c 1 I - ¼ -,
2 L 4az.-

-------
I
Cacd inaI®

-------
Energy Emergency Task Force Implementation
of Section 110(f) of the Clean Air Act
(03/06/79)
File at Part B, Document #1

-------
____ u rrw STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCy
WASH INGTON. D.C. 2046a
March 6, 1979
Energy Emergency Task Force; L lenentation of
Section 110(f) of the Clean Air &ct
—AC IO T : oRAN: M
A iistant inist:at:r for k4.¼w’
Assistant d inistrator for Air, ‘Toise
and Radiation
TO: The Administrator
3u ari:ed below is backgrcun infcr ation and ‘,ro osed
regional guidance on re onding to an energy ecergen y nder
Section 113(f). We are also initiating deve1: ent o an
emergency .tan and 1e ’ tation gui ance• (as a ;ropr ate)
to v ininize adverse envir .: ental ef ectz which could result
from a gasoline shortage. tTe will forward the gasoline
enee;ency 1an to you in the future.
t. DOE/EPA Wcr!c n Relations
The De artmertt of Energy (DOE) has established an
!nerqy Emergency Center to coordinate the federal ;over1 ment’s
res oase to crisis Situations resulting from energy energencies
Although the center was Lnitiated under the .‘ lpetus of the
u:r7 strike, it would be the coordinating agent in any energy
emergency. EPA has also established an ad hoc !necgy
Emergency Task Force to coordinate EPA’s res;cr.se to a
crisis. EPP ’s- Offices of Enforcement, Air, Noise and
adiation, General Counsel,, and Federal Activities are
re resented• on the task force. EPA’S c 3ntact with COS’s
Energy Emergency Center is !1rs. Yvonne Alien, Director of
the Center (202 —252—5155). DOE’S Contact with ZPA’s Energy
Emergency ask Force is Ms. . !artha Pvothro (alternate:
Mr. eldon 3lake)_of the Division of Stationary Source
Enforcement (DSSE PTS 755—2523).

-------
MS. Allen has advised that coal supply infoxnatjo
(quantity, quality, and number of days of fuel supply) wjU
be available from DOE: (1) weekly for utilities on a State’-
wide basis (approximately 10—day—old data) t (1) daily for
specific utilities that DOE has deternined to have a cx’itj—
cally short coal supply; and (3) weekly for indust’iaj, coal.
burners on a State-wide basis. In addition, DOE can advise
EPA of State actIons to conserve and minimize consum tjon of
the fuel in short supply and federal actions to provide for
interconnections to assure that electrical power will be
transferred to areas most in need. Although this inforna-
tion is specific for coal, this guidance is to be used in
any energy emergency. Coal availability information weUd
be useful for sources presently burning oil or gas but which
have coal burning capability in the event of a shortage of
oil, or gas.
DOE has established a foal day-to—day contact in. 7ack
Watson’s office during energy emergencies in order to
ezedite the flow of information. between EPA, CC !, a the
White Eeuse. DO! and EPA have also agreed to maintain daily
contact during such emergencies.
I . Petitions for Ener v Emercencv Declarations under
Section 110(f) oi tnt. Clean _ A Ir Ac
Section 110(f) provides that emergency SIP suspensions
may be granted in accordance with the following:
(1) The owner or operator of fuel burning stationary
source applies to the state for relief.
(2) The Governor gives notice and opportunity for
ubli hearing on the prcposed petition.
(3) The Governor finds that:
(a) an emergency exists in the vicinity of the scu:
involving high levels of unemployment or
loss of necessary energy supplies for resi-
dential. dwellings; and
(b) such unemployment or loss can be totally or
partially alleviated by an emergency suspen-
a ion. of State Implementation Plan requirements
applicable to that source..

-------
-3- ,
(4) The Governor petitions the President to declare
that a national or regional energy energency exists
of such severity that:
(a) a temporary suspension of any dart of the
applicable implementation plan may be neces
sary; and
(b) other means of responding to the energy
emergency may be inadequate.
(5) The President detecnines that a national c i ’ recional.
energy emergency exists. (This authori y may not be
redelegated.)
(6) The Governor may issue an emergency suspension to
the source unich may take effect immediately. Jet
more than one such suspension may be issued to a,
source based on the same set of circ’ stances or on
the basis of the same emergency. Suspensions are
limited in duration by any- time limit the President
places an his deteina.tion, and in any case :ay
not exceed four months.
(7) EPA Administ:ator may review the Governor’s suspen— ’
sian, and disapprove it if he deteriies that it
does not satisfy the criteria setforth in (3)
ahove. If the EPA Administrator issues a disap—
prcva.l order, he will specify therein the date en
which the Governor’s suspension snail no longer be
effective.
(8) This procedure does not apply to a plan revision
pruigated by the Administrator pursuant to
Section 110(c) (suon as for sulfur oxides in Ohio).
The President, however, may grant up to a four
month suspension of a State Implementation Plan
promulgated by the Administrator if he makes the
findings in (3) and (4) above..
Whenever a Governor petitions the President for a
declaration of an energy emergency under Section llO(f) we
suggest that EPA make the following recon inendations:

-------
-‘ .4.-
A. Conservation measures :
It is essenti a1. that emphasis be placed en the need for’
energy conservation through means other than turning off
pollution controls, which could involve violations of
health—protective regulations. DOE has determined that
ther. is no federal authority to mandate conservation
measures and only a few States have such authority. Si c,
Section 110(f) includes a provision for consideration of the
adequacy of ‘other means of responding to the emer5ency
(item *4(b) above), EPA should recommend to the President
that his declaration of an energy emergency for puroses of
Section 110(f) be conditioned on (1) the Governor’s requiring
that sources covered by suspens ions demonstrate they have
implemented or will implement all possible conservation
measures, and (2.) where the Governor can mandate conservation
measures, that he do so in addition to granting relief under
Section 3.10(f). If be cannot mandate conservation measures
he would be required to ask for voluntary conservation
measures in the areas affected,. . Lf conservation measures
would be adequate by themselves, no declaration involving
110(f) would be appropriate.
B.. Specific reference to Section 303 emer eric oouers
A should recpmmend that the President specifically
mention the continued res onsthUity of the !A to take
action tinder Section 303 of the Clean Air Act where air
polLution may result in an imminent and substantial endan—
germent to hunao. health. Although Section 303 would not be
suspended in any event, a specific reference will help to
ensure that States and sources ant en notice of EPA’s
intention to monitor’ the potentially severe health impacts
of anr inCreases in emissions resulting ir SIP suspension.
Rr ’er cer to ossible case by case dis rcval by EPA: .
This La necessary to impress upon S tates the need to
make . case by case findings as required by Section 110 ( f).
If this is not done at the State level, EPA should d±sapprove
wherever it determines that the Governor’ could not have made
the necessary findings for the source. (For example,
suspensions of compliance schedules would generally be
inappropriate since they would be unlikely to alleviate any
unemployment or residential energy loss.)

-------
D. E i. iitations on tire and area covered by e .er encv
dec laraticn :
EPA should recommend that emergency declarations be as
precise as possible, especially as to the area affected,
allow both an adequate respcr.se to true emergencies and an
adequate opportunity to reevaluate the situation as events
develop.
III . EPA Res onse to SIP Sus ensions Issued by Goveri ors
under Sec cn 1IU(f) o ene Clean Ai.r Act
A. Public hearinos :
We strongly urge that. whene rer possible, the aeciona].
Qgfice actively participate in any public bearing hel under
ll0( ). EPA’s participation will be useful for two reasons.
First, it will help to ensure that the public health irnpacts
of alternative mitigative ineasure viii, be considered in the
decision a&ing process. Second, it will give us the
oportunity to establish on the record early in the process
that blanket LIP suspensions throughout a State Lnay not e
acceptabl.e and that the findings required by
Section u 1 0(f)(a)(&). and (B)’cf the Aót zust be made fo
each source to be covered by the suspension. Therefore,
Regional Offices should testify generally that EPA reccgni:es
and will cooperate in attempting to ease the impact of fuel
shortages but that, because the health problems which could
result fr suspending air quality standards are a grave
concern, suspensions shou.ld not be granted lightly. The
spokes erscn should also advise that te nporary energy
emergency suspensions should be issued on a source-’specific
basis and only where the findings required by Section
ll0(f)(2)(A) and (3) have been made.
The purose of the public hearing required in 5ect on
110(f) is, in part, to provide a factual record for the
Governor and EPA to use in determining whether temporuy
suspei,s ion of portions of the implementation plan are
justified. As a minimum, the public hearing should cover
the following:
(1) the nature .and extent of the energy emergency;
(2) current and projected unemployment ipacts assocL
ated with the energy emergency;

-------
(3) current and projected loss of necessary energy
supplies for residential use associated wjt
energy emergency;
(4) alternative strategies for reducing the adverst
impacts of the energy emergency and the cortse-
quences of these strategies on unemploynent
and on residential, energy supply;
(5) amount of energy savings expected to result fr
temporary suspension äf portions of the th;lemen
tation plan;
(6) to the extent possible, pollutant emission levels
both before and after the proposed temporary
suspension of portions of the bplementaticn plan;
and
(7) to the extent possible,. preliminary assessment of
the air quality and health effect impacts of the
proposed temporary suspension of portions of the
implementation plan.
In or atian ptovided art items (5) through (7) sboui.d,
whenever possible, include source by source data for thi se.
sourccs unich, because of their location, the nature and
quantity of their emissions, the density of population in
the area, or other reasons, we might reasonably anticthate
wou.ld have an unacceptably adverse impact on public health
should they be included under a temporary suspension deter-.
minatics.
Because of the emergency nature of this process, it. is
unlikely that the public viii. be given much notice (prob blv
less than one week) prior to a hearing. Accordingly, it
will be useful for these Regions likely to be affected to
begin to prepare a position on StP suspensions on a priority
basis for each State withIn the Region. Efforts should
begin im nediately to evaluate possible adverse air qualit”
impacts within States expected to initiate the Section
110(f) process as soon as necessary. Clearly, any air
auality analyses done as part of this effort will be cursory
and can only be intended to cegin a screening process.
unless recent a ospneric dispersion modeling analyses.for
particular areas or sources has been done for other reasons,
simple rollback (rollforiard) esti nates wUl have to suffice

-------
for projecting air quality trn;act . Areas should be screened
on the basis of recent ambient monitoring data and further
on the basis of alert episode days. Source im act snould
be screened on the basis of size, decree of reliance c
affected fuel, emission density, stack heights, etc.
The general purpose of this analysis is to identify
those specific areas or particular sources where a suspension
of the SIP would be most likely to nave severe air çuality
impacts and resultant severe public health effects. It
would be most desirable to ccordinate this effort to the
maxiiuiu extent possible with the appropriate State aqency
since the State will a.ce the initial decision on the
case—by-case SIP suspensions.
3. eaional Res:onsibili ies Followina SIP Sus er sicn
Decis ion :
The Regional Office should maintain a current listing
of all individual sources that are granted a suspension on a.
day—to-day basis. Each source granted a suspension should
be contacted by the Regional Office to determine the specific
..course of action which the source intends to take in response
to the su e ns ion.. Such iztformation will, facilitate a
better assessment of the potential air çuality ipacts that
can be exected.
The Regional Office shculd ensure that every effort is
made to process at least daily data from all avilable
ambient monitoring networics in and around those areas where
SIP suspensions have been granted... To the extent that
resource constraints limit this effort, highest priority
should be placed on those areas that are most li cely to
reach episode levels based upon. historical ambient air
.;ualJ.ty and the number, concentration, and size of sources
granted. SIP suspensions in the area. The Regional Office.
should notify the Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
( SSE) and. the Office of Air quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS) when air pollution concentrations in areas affected
by SIP suspensions are exceeding dangerous levels (i.e.,
episode alert levels and higher). It £s likely that timely
air quality monitoring data will provide the single most
important basis for supporting a determination by tne
Ad inistator to take an emergency action under Section 303
of the Clean Air Act or to recor ziend that the President
rescind or not extend his emergency declarations for a
specific atea.

-------
.4.-
The EPA Administrator y disapprove a Suspension
issued by a Governor only in those limited situations in
which the suspension does not meet the requirements of
Section llO(f)(2)(A) and (3) of the Clean Air Act (i.e.,
unere hign levels of unemployment and loss of necessary
energy supplies for residential, dwellings do not exist or
the unemployment or loss cannot be totally or partially
alleviated by the SI.? suspension). In order to assure that
suspensions apply only to sources experiencing an emergency,
EPA should act quickly to disapprove suspens ions covering
sources for which the necessary findings cannot be made.
The authority to disapprove suspensions should be delegated
to the Regional Administrators, with EPA headquarters
concurrence, in order to assure expedited action. (A
delegation of Section llO(f)(3) authority is included in the
attached memorandum to the Regional Administrators for your
signature.)
Regional Offices should give high priority to reviewing
any actual susperis ion issued by Governors to assure that
they are consistent with the criteria set forth in Section
llO(f)(2)(A) and (5). Reviews shcu.Ld focus on sources in
those areas (and, where known, major sources) for wcUch DOE
has determined, based on available E lies and os i ble
interconnections, that the emergency is less ‘ritical. OSSE
will seep the Regional Offices informed of DOE’s determina-
tions and will request DOE determinations as necessary to
enable Regional Offices to set proper priorities for reviews
of SIP suspensions.
The memorandum attached for your signature directs each
Regional Administrator to designate a contact for energy
emergency information. DSSE’s Regional Programs Section
will contact Regional Office designees each day to obtain
information for inclusion in a daily status chart. DSSE
will, be primarily responsible for contacting the Regional
Offices to request specific information, for answering any
Regional questions, and for receiving arid disseminating
necessary data to appropriate Regional and headquarters
Offices.
IV. EPA Res cnse to Incuiries from States arid Sources
Generally, inquiries can be expected to fall within the
categories listed below. .Suggested Regional Office responses
are indicated.

-------
A. Source inquiries about possibi.e suspension of State
rouLgated implementation Plan:
Response: Only the Governor can suspend such a p•
Source may petition Governor to petition the President for a
5110(f) emergency declaration. EPA will not concur in
reIa ation of environmental regulations prior to a declara—
tion under 51 10(f)..
B. Source inquiries about possible suspension of federally
prcnaulcated SIP:
Respoa : The President has not delegated his au.thcrity
to suspend such a SIP. Sources ay direct petitions to the
President but should send copies to the Administrator and
Regional Administrator to assure quic.c response. S u:ce
must present thforiation to allow the President to deterrni e
(1) that an energy emergency exists in the vicinity of the
source of such severity that a te porary suspension of any
part of the SIP may be necessary and other means of re-
sponding may be inadequate; (2) that there exists in the
vicinity of such source a temporary energy emergency in-
volving high levels of unemployment or loss of necessary
energy su plLes .fôr residential dwellings; and (3) that such
loss or unemployment can be totally or partially alleviated
by a S suspension. (DSSE should be noti ied i ediately
of any expected petitions for suspens ion of federally
prulgated SIP’s.)
C.. Source or State inquiries about possible suspension of
non-SIP federal air pollution control requirements (e.g.,
ew Source Performance Standards, interim requirements in
federal orders or consent decrees, etc..):
Response: There is no statutory authority for emergency
suspension of non—il? requirements, since 5110(f) relates
only to SIP’S.. I , however, a determination of an emergency
has been made under 5110(f) relative to SIP’S, EPA will
exercise enforcement discretion on a case—by—case bas is in
dealing with non—SIP situations. Where the findLngs neces-
sary for a SIP suspension could not have been made in a
s eci.fic case, EPA will enforce the applicable requirements
and “iLL seek appropriate penalties. Where those findings
could be made for a source subject to non—SIP federal
requirements, EPA will generally refrain fr enfcrcing or
seelcing penalties based on a source’s noncompliance ‘mere

-------
•40-
all other possible steps are being ta cen to comply and where
violation resui.ts from efforts to minimize the impacts o
emergency on high levels of unemployment or loss of necessary
energy supplies to residences. A co mi ent not to enforce
may be made orLLy in writing to a specific source and only
with the concurrence of the Division of Stationary Source
Enforcement. In no event may a source be exempt from possible
action under Section 303 of the Clean Air Act. It is
unlikely’ that any relaxation of incremental compliance
schedules will be appropriate.
B. Source. or State inquiries about possible suspension of
federal requirements for water pollution control:
Response: II, based on the provisions of Section
110(f) of the Clean Air Act, a proclamation is made and
petitions for relief fr N DES requirements. are received,
the Regional Office should immediately contact the Office of
Water Enforcement for guidance.. .The following conditions
for temporary modification of individual discharge permits
will generally apply:
L. C a, case-by—case basis, EPA will ev ’iew written
applications for relief fr individu 3. peit
conditions to determine:
a . the specific permit conditions which the
discharger wishes to have amended temporarily;
b. the specific energy savings fr each suspen—
of water trea ent activityr
c ’. additional steps the permittee is taking to
reduce tota’ plant energy consumption;
d.. the anticipated environmental demage which
will, result from the cessation of all or
portions of the treataent process;
•. other area wide energy conservation measures.
2. Except where a balancing test would dictate a
contrary result, written requests will be disap-
proved if. they petition for relief from the fol-
loving:

-------
a. a requirement which, if suspended, wou
result in short-term suspension of current
trea ent activity and which wcu.ld result in
long - ter environmental damage;
b. a requirement limiting the discharge of toxic
substances (NBDC, etc.);
c. the construction steps which are in their
cpliance schedules;
d. disinfection reçuirements where water is used
for swf.mming or food processing, etc.
In all cases, relief may be granted using prosecutorial
discretion and the Regions will issue legally enforceable
doctents which require full. compliance at the end of the
emergency period. These documents will also require in—
creased levels of monitoring and reporting in order to
sa. eguard the environment.
V Rec endation
We reccend that yo i sign the attached memorand to
the Reqicnai. A m.iaistrators which emph4sizes that EA’s
response to an emergency must be handled as the highest
Agency priority.
Marvin 3. Curning David C. Eawkins
Attachments
cc: DOE, att Ms. !vonne Allen

-------
GM-sIo(c)-7 - - 001
UN1r STATES ENVIR0NM 1TAL. PROTECTION AG 4CY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 2C460
March 6, 1979
NC ACUffi 7pj Thg
U 1
TO: Regional r dninistrators, Regions IX
W3J T: Res anse to Energy E rgency; L le er.tet cn of
section 110(f) of the Clsaxt Air Act, as ended
The egiânai. 3ffices shoul,d i.ace hi; est ‘priority On
r onding toar.y energy emergency which ay arlze end
th lemeneing EPA’s responsibilities under ectiont 11Q(f) of
the Clean Air Act Each Regional ,Ad. i istrato: should take
action to tmçlemen .t the guidance and recoendations set
forth in the attached exnorandu to ne from 1r. urniig and
Mr. !awkins.
The Clean Ait Act provides that ay disa;;ro e any
SI sus en.s ion which t determine does not comply with
Section 110(f) (2) (A) and (3) of the Clean Air Act. To
assure that disa;provals of ina ro riate sus;ensions are
expedited, I hereby delegate to the Regional Adinistrators
my authority under Section 110 (f) (3) to disa;;rove sus en
sions issued by Governors. This authority nay be exercised
by the Regional Administrators only with the prior concur-
rence of the Assistant Administrator far Enforcement and
the Assistant Admini trat0r for Air, noise and Radiation.
Concurrence from the Office of Enforcement and the Office of
Air,. Noise and Radiation should be requested and will be
given by telephone through the designated EPA headquarters
contact. I have designated Ms. Martha Prothro (iTS 75 —2523)
of the Division of Stationary Source Enforcement as the EPA
Eeadquarters contact on all Section 110(f) oatters.
:4s. Prothro’s alternate is •tr. Weldon Blake ( ‘TS 753—2542).
Each Regional Administrator should designate a regiona.1.
contact and alternate and the contact shoui4 call
Is. Prothro as soon as possible.

-------
-2-
In a .idition to this energy emergency elan to i plenent
Section 110(f), we are initiating the deve1o ment of an
emergency plan to mini nize adverse environmental effects
whicki could result from a gasoline shortaçe. I will forward
the gasoline plan with imple’- tation guidance (if a propri.-
ate) in the future.
Couglas 4. Costle
A.ttacbment
cc: epartent of Energy

-------
G,M-1’cXc )-2-Oo .
____ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
T) C AOMINIsTRxro
JUL 21979
ME?IORANDLJM
TO: Regional Administrators, Regions !-X
SUBJECT: Supplement to the Memorandum of March 6, 1979, Regarding
Implementation of Section 110(f) of the Clean Air Act
On March 6, 1979 I sent to the Regional Adnltnistrators guidance on
implementing Section 110(f) of the Clean Air Act. Since that time
headquarter’s staff has clarified the Informational requIremer ts for
adequately addressing Section l1O(.f) Issuesand has also developed a
policy concerning the use of price differentials between low and high
sulfur fuel oils in Section 110(f) proceedings. Each Regional
Administrator should take action to implement the supplemental guidance
and recommendations set forth In the attached memorandum to me from
Mr. Dummy and Mr. Hawkins.
I have designated Mr. Paul Stolpman (phone 426—24.82) as the
headquarters contact on the anal$’sis needed to support all 110(f)
actions. Mr. Stolpman’s alternate Is Mr. George Suglyama
(phone: 426-2482). Action on the 110(f) applications remains as
set forth In previous guidance.
AttacI nent
Douglas L Costle

-------
Gaj dfr I®

-------
Supplemental Guidance Regarding Implementation
of Section 110(f) of the Clean 7dr ct
(06/19/79)
File at Part B, Document #2

-------
____ UNiTED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
L...s WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JUN. 19 1979
THE ACMINt5Tpjy
SUBJECT: Supplemental Guidance Regarding rmplementatlon of Section 110(f)
of the Clean Air Act ACTION MEMORANDUM
FROII : Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise, and Radiatton)) ?%
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
TO : The Administrator
Regional guidance on responding to an energy emergency under Section
110(f) was issued on March 6, 1979. Since that time the President has
declared a regional energy emergency in Florida; Connecticut and New York
have held hearings on low sulfur fuel oil availability; and the President
has instructed EPA to use full authority to take price differentials Into
account in making recon endations on Section UO(f) wafver requests. Based
on cur experience subsequent to the Section 110(f) regional g’uldance we now
propose the following supplemental guidance detailing tnforma.:ton necessary
for determining the existence of an energy emergency and policy guidance on
the extent to which price differentials are to be Incorporated In a waiver
rec amiendati on.
I. Policy on Price Differentials
The President, In his April 5, 1979, energy address, directed the
Administrator to “consider unusually large increases in the price
differential between complying and non-complying fuels as a basis for
recommending approval of state suspension ‘requests” and to “use his
full authority to take into account price differentials and to provide
the President with information on price differential increases when making
recommendations to him on such requests.” This directive does not imply
that states must make a price differential case when petitioning for
Section 110(f) waivers. It does allow the Administrator to consider
price differentials whenever a state makes such a case.
On June 7, 1979, the State of New York held hearings on a request by a
public utility for a Section 110(f) SIP suspension of the low sulfur fuel
oil. requirement. The Issue before New York was not based on an actual
unavailability of complying low sulfur fuel oil but was based on whether
the high price of complying fuel oil relative to non—complying fuel oil
was sufficient justification for a SIP suspension. EPA. was requested
by flew York to provide policy guidance on this Issue.

-------
Price differentials between canplying and non—c np1ying fuel oils may
provide a sufficient justification for a SIP suspension only when such
differentials actually cause (or are anticipated t cause) the effects
of an energy emergency listed in Section llO(f)(2), l.e., high levels of
unemployment or a loss of necessary energy supplies for residential
dwellings and such effects could be totally or partially alleviated by
an emergency suspension.
Whenever It appears that price differentials nay becane part of the
basis or the basis of a Governor’s petition to the President for a
declaration of an energy emergency, Regional Administrators should make
every effort to assure that the state develops an adequate record on the
impact of price differentials. Recomnendations to the President concerning
petitions for an energy emergency shall not be based on price differentials
in the absence of an adequate record establishing the impact of such price
differentials. Further, In exercising the SectIon 110(f) (3) disapproval
authority EPA shall examine the price.differential Impact of a SIP
suspension to determine Its continued validity and act accordingly.
During the period of a suspension, price differentials and the impacts
of price differentials will be monitored by EPA to deternine the continued
- validity of a price differential basis for a SIP suspension.
II. Information flecessary to Document the Existence of hi Ener y Emergency
The foll wing list of Information needs Is an expansion of those general
items listed in paragraph 111(A) on pages 5 and S of the March 6, 1979,
regional guidance. As the record of any EPA decision or recornnendation
regarding a Section 110(f) waiver request will be primarily the state’s
record, a concerted effort should be made to assure that such record
contains the following information as well as any available information
on the Issues listed In paragraph 111(A). Although EPA should provide
assistance in developing the state’s record, the responsibility of providing
this information rests with the state and the source.
1. IdentitIes of affected or potentially affected parties, Including;
(a) parties claiming a shortage together with the basis of
their claims,
(b) affected cust ners (ultimate users), and
(c) suppliers (potential or actual) to parties experiencing
shortages or cutbacks.
2. InformatIon concerning the amount and duration of an expected
shortage Including:
(a) monthly demand for two calendar quarters before and after
a SIP suspension,

-------
—3—
(b) projected shortfall of conforming fuel for the period in
Item (a).
(c) any circumstances affecting a shortage, such as abnormal
weather conditions
Cd) unanticipated changes In supply, demand, or availability of
transportation.
3. A sumary of the current Inventorfes of the various parties
affected, including the following information:.
(a) by type and sulfur content
(b) storage capacity/blending capacity
Cc) historical comparison ofsupplies/lnventory over last
2 years
(d) desulfurization capacity and a historical sumary
of such capability, including any recent (3 year) changes
In desu furization capacity.
4. Information on alternative supplies of available conforming fuel
and documentation of those steps taken to locate such fuels. Art adequate
documentation will include a list of all suppliers contacted (including
date of contact and mode of contact), the response of each supplier
contacted, copies of correspondence with the suppliers (including telephone
logs), and any other memoranda, notes, or reports evidencing the
availability or unavailability of fuel oil.
S. Information on the availability of other fuel supplies which
though not conforming represent a minimal Increase in sulfur levels
(i.e., 1% sulfur content versus 0.3% sulfur content)..
6. A sumary of the contractual arrangements between various parties,
suppliers and users and a description of the available options In the
event of a fuel oil shortage.
7. What actions have been taken or considered to mitigate the
environmental, energy, and employment Impacts of the shortage situation
or to conserve conforming fuel (mandatory or voluntary)? Examples of
such measures may be conservation measures, voltage reductions,
thermostat reductions, wheeling and the substitution of natural gas for
oil. The amount of conforming fuel oil saved by each measure should be
detailed.
8. Which facilities may have to close down as a result of the
shortages? What Is the potential Impact on employment In the area?
9; Which facilities can convert to alternate fuels? What Is the
lead time necessary for these facilities to convert?

-------
-4-
10. How will SIP suspensions alleviate the shortage?
(a) what is the present SIP limitation on fuel use
(b) what would the new requirement be If the SEP is suspended.
(c) how much conforming fuel would be saved.
Cd) can anything within the existing SIP be done to w i y ur
partially alleviate the shortage.
Ce) What steps will the state undertake to mitigate environ-
mental impacts.
(f) can a fuel user blend conforming and non-conforming fuels
to minimize any local environmental impact of using non.—
conforming fuels?
11. Which sources would violate NAAQS if the enissions limitations
are suspended? What is the present attainment status in the affected areas?
With regard to a request for a 110(f) suspension based on price
differentials the following additional Information would be requir :
1. A discussion of fuel prices, Including:
(a) a one year history of prices paid for conforming fuel,
under contract or on the spot market.
(b) the prices of non—conforming fuels by sulfur content.
Cc) the prices of any available alternative fuels the use of
which would not require a suspension.
2. The impact of price differentials of complying fuels relative to
non-complying fuels (at various sulfur levels) on unemployment (e.g., layoffs,
plant closures) and residential energy supplies, including:
(a) a examination of various sulfur content fuels and alternative
fuels.
(b) the mitigating effects of conservation measures and the
substitution of natural gas for oil.
III. Recomuendation
recomend that you sign the attached memorandum to the Regional
n1 s ators.
. r \
David G. Hawkins Marvin B. Durnlng

-------
3
Cardi,Ss

-------
lternate Procedure for Section 110(f) Relief
in Localized, Short Term Energy Emergencies
(01/10/80)
File at Part B, Document *3

-------
oo3
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
January 10, 1980
OFFUC Oc ENFORCEMENT
MEMORANDUM
I’
Subject: Alternate Procedure for Section 110(f) LJ
Relief in Localized, Short Term Energy
Emergencies
From: Acting Assistant Administrator for
En for cement
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 subsequent
suspension of State Implementation Plan requirements
necessitated by short term, localized situations
where no alternative action appears to be ade-
quate (e.g., harbor disruptions, unanticipated
distributor delivery delays). The Section 110(f)
mechanism 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 procedures 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 while complying with the intent of
Section 110(f) for these limited emergency situa-
tions. National or regional energy emergencies which
are ineligible for the expedited approach described

-------
-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.)
Applicability 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-
laratlon granted under these expedited procedures
expire, by its own terms, no later than 30 days from
issuance, and permit suspensions of SIP requirements
only for those sources (including distributors where
applicable) affected by the unavailability of
conforming fuel. These expedited procedures are
generally inappropriate where gubernatorial
suspensions across an entire state or industry
category are necessary.
I. Procedures for Expedited Relief
A. State Notice and Opportunity for Hearing 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

-------
—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
request from the Governor for the declaration, based
on consultation with both State energy and environ-
mental personnel, is required. A prior telephone
communication from State staff to the appropriate EPA
Regional Office, explaining the circumstances of the
emergency and the forthcoming request, will expedite
the procedure. A brief statement of the basis for
the request, 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 unemployment and/or loss of necessary
residential energy supplies, and (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 request.

-------
—4—
II. Subsequent Documentation and Air Quality _
Cons iderat ions
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 veil 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, in order
to have this information quickly available.
III. EPA Involvement
EPA has two roles in the 110(f) process —— the
statutory authority to disapprove gubernatorial
suspensions and the responsibility for recommending
action to the President on petitions for declarations
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
telephone numbers of the involved State
personnel (e.g., energy, evironrnental, and
public utility commission staff) has proven
to be extremely useful, especially where
the immediacy of 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 to 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 recommendation 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 suspensions of
SIP requirements, together with 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/distributor, if
possible or by the State.
6. The State environmental and energy offices
and the EPA 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.
achment /
etjihy . iller -t avid G. Hawkins

-------
SAMPLE
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 energy 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 means of responding to the
energy emergency may be inadequate. This deter-
mination shall expire ( 30 days from issuance) , and is
made upon condition that the necessary hearings be
held with ten days. If hearings are not held, this
determination will expire ( ten days from issuance) .
If, during the emergency, I find that a regional
energy emergency no longer exists in , I will
direct that this determination be rescinded, and that
all suspension orders issued by the Governor be

-------
—2—
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 should 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 emission limiting requirements,
I urge Governor _____________ to exercise caution in
granting these suspensions, in order to protect, to
the fullest extent possible, the public health and
welfare. (This determination shall be published in
the Federal Register. )

-------
Cardinal
4

-------
Clarification of Requirements for Inclusion
of CEM Provisions in SIPS
(05/09/80)
File at Part B, Document *4

-------
MEMORANDUM I4AY 9
SUBJECT: Clarification of Requirenents for Inclusion
of Continuous Enission Monitoring
Provisions in State Implementation 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 (CEM) requlations for existing stationary
sources, the following question arose concerning the aprlicahility
of 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix P. which requires CEM at four
categories of existing sources (power plants, sulfuric acid
plants, nitric acid plants, and fluid bed catalytic cracking unit
catalyst regenerators at petroleum refineries):
Appendix P requires CEM at the four listed
sources if they exceed certain size throshholds
and, in the case of NOx CE 1, power plants and
nitric acid plants if they are located in
areas designated nonattainment for nitrocyen
dioxide. If a state, due to the size threshholtis ,
has no Appendix P sources, or if a state has no
areas designated nonattainment for nitrocten
dioxide, must the state nonethelecs pronulgate
a CEM regulation pursuant to 40 CFP 51.19(e) in
case a source exceeding the threshholci is
subsequently constructed in that state or in
the event an area is later designated nonattainr ent
for nitrogen dioxide?
The question arose because among the reasons some states have
given for not having complete Appendix P regulations are that the
sources in those states do not meet the size thres ’holds or t1 at
there are no areas in the states docignated nonattainment for
nitrogen dioxide.
It is our view that a state need not pror u1gate CVY regu—
lations to apply to Appcndix P sources not yet in existence in the
state. Appendix P by its terms permits states, in their CE!’
regulations, to exempt from its ccwerage sources which would be
subject to any !;SPS requiring CEM. All four of the source

-------
—2—
categories covered by Appendix P would, if new, be subject to sps
continuous monitoring requirements. Should a source meeting the
Appendix P size threshhold be subsequently constructed in a state
it would be governed by the CEM provisions of the applicable NSPS
Coverage under Appendix P would therefore be unnecessary to
assuring the continuous monitoring of that new source.
With regard to the absence within a state of areas designated
nonattainment for nitrogen dioxide, a state need not require NOx
monitoring under Appendix P for power plants or nitric acid plants
where there are currently no nonattainirient areas for nitrogen
dioxide. A reading of Sections 2.1.3 and 2.2 of Appendix P
reveals that the presence of a nonattairiment 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 arid nitric acid plants from Appendix P
coverage for NOx monitoring. There being no covered sources for
NOx monitoring, no regulations need be enacted to require such
monitoring.
In order, however, to encourage states to assess their CEM
regulations and to examine those sources covered by them, we will
suggest to the working group presently involved in further
developing the Agency’s CEM requirements that 40 CFR 51.19(e) and
Appendix P be amended to include a provision requiring a state to
certify, in a manner similar to 40 CFR 60.23(b) for NSPS, that it
has no existing sources of the type covered tiy the CEM require-
ments and therefore need not have complete Appendix P regulations.
A procedure of this sort would enable the Agency to better monitor
both source and state compliance with CEM regulations for existing
sources.
If you have any questions on this matter, please feel free to
contact Mark Silvermintz (FTS 755—2570) in this Division.
Edward E. Reich
cc: Richard Ithoads
Director, CPDD
Joseph Sableski, CPDD
bcc: Lou Paley

-------
5
carc i®

-------
Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown,
Maintenance and Malfunctions
(02/15/83)
File at Part B, Document *5

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASK1N TON, D.C. 20460
FEB 15 1983
OFF ICE OF
AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown,
Main, nance, and
FROM: Kat ”i 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 “Li]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 unforeseeable breakdown in the equipment.”
A question has been posed as to whether there can be
situations in which it is unreasonable to expect that careful
planning can eliminate violations of emission limitations
during startup and shutdown. I believe that there can be such
situations. One such situation, which was already mentioned
in the policy, is a malfunction occurring during these periods.
A malfunction during startup or shutdown is to be handled as
any other malfunction in accordance with the policy as
presently written.
Another situation is one in which careful and prudent planning
and design will not totally eliminate infrequent short periods
of excesses during startup and shutdown. An example of this
situation would be a source that starts up or shuts down once or
twice a year and during that period there are a few hours when
the temperature of the effluent gas is too low to prevent harmful

-------
2
rn ation of chemicals which would cause severe damage to
control equipment if the effluent were allowed to pass through
the control equipment.
Therefore, during this latter situation, if effluent gases
are bypassed which cause an emission limitation to be exceeded,
this excess need not be treated as a violation( 1f the source
can show that the excesses could not have been prevented through
careful and prudent planning and design ana4hat bypassing was
unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe
property damage.
I have clarified the policy concerning this issue. A copy
is attached,
Attachment

-------
4’ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
4 ’4L
S 28
OFFICE OF
AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown,
Maintenance, and Malfunctions
I i ‘) 4 1 1
FROM: Kathleen M. Bennett .
Assistant Admlnistrat’or’ for Air, Noise and Radiation
TO: Regional Administrators, Regions I—X
This memorandum is in response to a request for a
clarification of EPA’S policy relating to excess emissions
during startup, shutdown, maintenance, and malfunctions.
Excess emission provisions for startup, shutdown,
maintenance, and malfunctions were often included as part of
the original SIPS approved in 1971 and 1972. Because the
Agency was inundated with proposed SIPS and had limited
experience in processing them, not enough attention was given
to the adequacy, enforceability, and consistency of these
provisions. Consequently, many SIPs were approved with broad
and loosely—defined provisions to control excess emissions.
. l978, EPA adopted an excess emissions policy after
many, leS i fective attempts to rectify problems that existed
with these provisions. This policy disallowed automatic
exemptions by defining all periods of excess emissions as
violations o the applicable standard. States can , of course,
consider any demonstration by the source that the excess
emissions were due to an unavoidable occurrence in determining
whether any enforcement action is required.
The rationale for establishing these emissions as
violations, as opposed to granting automatic exemptions, is
that SIPS are ambient—based standards and any emissions above
the allowable may cause or contribute to violations of the
national ambient air quality standards. Without clear
definition and limitations, these automatic exemption
provisions could effectively shield excess emissions arising
from poor operation and maintenance or design, thus precluding
attainment. Additionally, by establishing an enforcement
discretion approach and by requiring the source to demonstrate
the existence of an unavoidable malfunction on the source, good
maintenance procedures are indirectly encouraged.

-------
—2—
Attached is a document stating EPA’S present policy-on
excess emissions. This dpcument basically reiterates the
earlier policy, yith some refinement of the policy regarding
excess emissions during periods of scheduled maintenance .
A question has also been raised as to what extent
operating permits can be used to address excess emissions in
cases where the SIP is silent on this issue or where the SIP is
deficient. iThere the SIP is silent on excess emissions, the
operating permit may contain excess emission provisions which
should be consistent with the attached policy . Where the SIP
is deficient, the SIP should be made to conform to the present
policy. Approval of the operating permit as part of the SIP
would accomplish that result.
If you have any questions concerning this policy, please
contact Ed Reich at (382—2807).
At tachinent

-------
At t chment
POLICY ON EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STARTUP, SHUTDOWN,
MAINTENANCE, AND MALFUNCTIONS
Introduction
Several of the existing State implementation plans (SIPs)
provide for an automatic emission limitation exemption during
periods of excess emission due to startup, shutdown, maintenance,
or malfunction. Generally, EPA agrees that the imposition of
a penalty for sudden and unavoidable malfunctions caused by
circumstances entirely beyond the control of the owner and/or
operator is not appropriate. However, any activity which can
be foreseen and avoided, or planned, is not within the definition
of a sudden and unavoidable breakdown. Since the SIPs must
provide for attainment and maintenance of the national ambient
air quality standards, SIP provisions on malfunctions must be
narrowly drawn. SIPs may, of course, omit any provisions on
malfunctions. [ For more specific guidance on malfunction
provisions for RACT SIPS, see the April 1978 workshop manual
for preparing nonattainment plans].
I. EXCESS EMISSION FROM MALFUNCTIONS
A. AUTOMATIC EXEMPTION APPROACH
If a SIP contains a malfunction provision, it cannot be
the type that provides for automatic exemption where a malfunction
is alleged by a source. Automatic exemptions might aggravate
air quality so as not to provide for attainment of the ambient
air quality standards. Additional grounds for disapproving a
SIP that includes the automatic exemption approach are discussed
in more detail at 42 FR 58171 (November 8, 1977) and 42 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.

-------
2
B. ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION APPROACH-—SIP EMISSION
LIMITATION ADEQUATE TO ATTAIN AMBIENT STANDARDS
EPA can approve SIP revisions which incorporate the
Nenforcement discretion approachN. Such art approach can require
the source to demonstrate to the appropriate State agency that
the excess emissions, though constituting a violation, were due
to an unavoidable malfunction. Any malfunction provision must
provide for the commencement of a proceeding to notify the
source of its violation and to determine whether enforcement
action should be undertaken for any period of excess emissions.
In determining whether an enforcement action is appropriate,
satisfaction of the following criteria should be considered.
1. To the maximum extent practicable the air pollution
control equipment, process equipment, or processes were maintained
and operated in a manner consistent with good practice for
minimizing emissions;
2. Repairs were made in an expeditious fashion when the
operator knew or should have known that applicable emission
limitations were being exceeded. Off—shift labor and overtime
must have been utilized, to the extent practicable, to ensure
hat 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
MAX NTENANCE
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.

-------
3
Startup and shutdown of process equipment are part of the
normal operation of a source and should be accounted for in the
planning, design and implementation of operating procedures for
the process and control equipment. Accordingly, it is reasonable
to expect that careful and prudent planning and design will
eliminate violations of emission limitations during such periods.
However, for a few sources there may exist infrequent short
periods of excess emissions during startup and shutdown which
cannot be avoided. Excess emissions during these infrequent
short periods need not be treated as violations providing that
the source adequately shows that the excess could not have been
prevented through careful planning and design and that bypassing
of control equipment was unavoidable to prevent loss of life,
personal injury, or severe property damage.
If excess emissions occur during routine startup and
shutdown due to a malfunction, then those instances will be
treated as other malfunctions which are subject to the malfunction
provisions of this policy. (Reference Part I above).
Similarly, scheduled maintenance is a predictable event
which can be scheduled at the discretion of the operator, and
which can, therefore, be made to coincide with maintenance on
production equipment, or other source shutdowns. Consequently,
excess emissions during periods of scheduled maintenance should
be treated as a violation unless a source can demonstrate that
such emissions could have been avoided through better scheduling
for maintenance or through better operation and maintenance
practices.

-------
Attachment
POLICY ON EXCESS E IS IONS DURING STAP.T-UP, SHUTEO N,
MAINTENANCE, AND tALFUNCTIONS.
Several of the existinç State ir’plem€ntation plans (SIPs)
provide for an autor.atic enission imitation exer:lption during
periods of excess emission due to start—up, shutdown,
maintenance, or rnaifunction.* er.erally, EPA agrees that the
imposition of a penalty for sudden and unavoidable
malfunctions caused by circur stances 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 . bince tne b.Lk s must provide tor
attainment and maintenance of the natior.al aI*ient air quality
standards, SIP provisions on malfunctions must he narrowly
drawn. SIPs may, of course, omit any provision on
malfunctions. [ For more specific guidance on malfunction
provisions for RACT SIPs, see the April 1978 workshop manual
for preparing nonattainment plans.]
I. AUTO iATIC 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 revision that provides
automatic exemptions for malfunctions .
II. ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION APPROACH—-SIP EMISSION LIMITATION
ADECUATE TO ATTAIN AMBIENT STANDARDS
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 tnat tne excess emissions, tnough constituting a
violation, were due to n unavoidable malfunction . Any
malfunction provision must provide for the commencement of a
proceeding to notify the source of its violation and to
determine whether enforcement action should be undertaken for
any period of excess emissions. In determining whether an
enforcement action is appropriate, satisfaction of the
following criteria should be considered :
* 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.

-------
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.
III. EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING START—UP, SHUTDOWN, AND
MAI NTENANCE
Any activity or event which can be foreseen and avoided,
or planned, tails 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 practices is not a malfunction. In such
cases, the control agency must enforce for violations of the
emission limitation. Other such common events are start—up
and shutdown of equipment, and scheduled maintenance.
Start—up 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 ilmitations auring sucn periocs .
If excess emissions occur during routine start—up and
shutdown of such equipment, they will be considered as having
resulted from a malfunction only if the source can demonstrate
that such emissions were actually caused by a sudden and
unforeseeable breakdown in the equipment.
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.
onsequent.Ly, excess emissions auring periocs of scheduled
maintenance should be treated asa vi I Eion unless a soux e
can demonstrate t]ia€ uchèiñTi Töii buld not have been
avoided through better scheduling for maintenance or through
better operation and maintenance practices.

-------
6

-------
Source Specific SIP Revisions
(07/29/8 3)
File at Part B, Document #6

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASH NGrON. D C. 20460
“4 .uIo’t
•1 OFFICE OF
w L AIR, NOISE. ANO RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Source Specific SIP Revisions
FROM: Sheldon Meyers, Director /s.”
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (ANR-443)
T0: Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Regions II—IV, VI—Vill, X
Director, Air Management Division, Regions I, V , IX
We have recently noticed a significant Increase in the number of
source specific SIP revisions being processed. While no single reason can
explain the increase entirely, it appears that the improved ability of
Regions to process such actions as well as the passage of compliance dates
has led to the Increase. It is Imperative that Regions determine whether
SIP revisions are the appropriate administrative mechanism to deal with
these actions and that these submittals be adequately supported. In this
regard I am making the following recommendations:
° Many of these submlttals consist of relaxations for Individual
ources-in nonattainment areas. Presumably, the States want not only EPA
approval of these relaxations, but also maintenance of the overall approval
status of their SIPS. Hence, they are not asking for EPA to approve
the relaxations If that would mean that the construction ban would come
Into or continue in effect. for a State to secure EPA aDproval ‘
relaxation and continue overall approval status, however, the Stat wrniJ
iid to show that the SIP as a whole, despite the relaxation, w ijd
continue to provlde for’ ttAinf?Ient by th ønd of 1982 in the case of
nonextension areas or as exp ditloucly ac practicable,, but no lateflhan
1987 in extension areas. For VOC this generally will require a data base
and modeling demonstration consistent with that applied in extension
a.rea For TSP and S02, this will require a modeling demonstration using
reference modeling techniques and best available data. I recomend that
the g inns return to the States as incomplete any submittal that does
not include the above demonstration .
o Each Region that is currently experiencing an Increase in the number
of source specific SIP revisions for areas In attainment, or where the
attainment date has not passed, should discuss with Its States whether
individual SIP revisions are the most appropriate means to deal with an
action. Where alternative administrative mechanisms exist or can be
developed without adversely impacting the Federal enforceability of the
SIP, these mechanisms should be employed. For example, Regions coul4
negotiate with States to bundle source specific revisions into a more
‘prehensive submittal rather than submit a number of individual actions.

-------
2
Where the State is considering submitting a revision of a temporary
nature, such as a compliance date extension for et limited period of time
(e.g., less than the time it would reasonably take to process the submittal),
Regions should evaluate whether processing the action will serve any
tangible public Interest. Where the Region does not find any such circum-
stances exist, States should be discouraged from using the SIP process
for such actions.
I believe these recommendations should help you in your review of
future SIP revisions and help Regions maintain the excellent record for
SIP processing. If -you have any questions regarding these recommendations,
please contact G. T. Heln at FTS 629—5526 op—J 1 Ii 11 Rdsnlc L-F7C
cc: Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
Darryl Tyler
Ed Reich
Bill Pedersen
Mike Alushin
Chuck Elkins
Jack Hidinger

-------
7

-------
Policy on SIP Revisions Requesting Compliance
Date Extensions for VOC Sources
(08/07/86)
File at Part B, Document #7

-------
,l.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
•I’p
t .moit
OFF CI OF
AIR AND RADIATiON
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Policy on SIP Revisions Requesting Compliance flate
Extensions for VOC Sources
FROM: ;S?t iStratOr
for Air and Radiation ,,q
TO: Regional Administrators V
Regions I—X
A number of States have asked EPA to approve SIP revisions
granting compliance date extensions for individual VOC sources
in ozone nonattainment areas. The attached policy sets forth
EPA’S position on when approval of such SIP revisions is
appropriate and what the States must demonstrate in order for
EPA to approve them. Regional Offices should review the
requests for SIP revisions for conformance to this policy.
SIP revisions now pending at Headquarters will also need to
be reviewed by the Regions in light of this policy.
Attachment
cc: Richard H. Mays, OECM
Gerald A. Emison, OAOPS
Alan Eckert, OGC
Air Division Directors, Regions I—X
Regional Counsels, Regions I—X

-------
Policy on SIP Revisions Requesting Compliance Date
Extensions for VOC Sources
In order to approve a source—specific compliance date
extension, two tests must be mete First, a State must
demonstrate that the extension will not interfere with timely
attainment (attainment by the formally established attainment
date) and maintenance of the ozone standard and, where relevant
reasonable further progress” (RFP) towards timely attainment. 1/
The attainment date will generally be December 31, 1982, or the
date established under Section 110 where the State has adequate-
ly responded to a request for SIP revisions under Sl1O(a)(2)(H),
or December 31, 1987 in ozone extension areas. The demonstra-
tion may be based on a comparison between the margin for
attainment predicted by the demonstration submitted with the
approved ozone SIP 2/ and the increased emissions that would
result under the pronosed compliance date extension. 3/ If
there is an adequate margin to absorb the increased emTssions
(and the extension would not interfere with RFP), then EPA
may conclude that the compliance date extension will not
interfere with the attainment and continued maintenance of
the ozone standard.
1/ The reference to a demonstration of RFP towards timely
attainment is not intended to redefine RFP but only reaffirms
that an RFP analysis is reauired.
./ For areas where revisions to the Part 1) SIP are required
(such as 1987 extension areas or SIP call areas) and those
revisions have not been fully approved, the State would have
to submit a demonstration the eauivalent of that required
for EPA approval of the ozone SIP. Without an approvable
demonstration EPk cannot determine whether the individual
compliance date extension will interfere with timely attain-
ment andvrnajntenance of the standard, or with RFP. A
de minim$s showing would not be acceptable, since in the
aggregate even very small sources would contribute signifi-
cantly to ozone formation.
3/ In making such a comparison it will be necessary to
determine what, if any, portion of the margin has been utilized
by new sources of VOCs that may have located in the area
since the SIP was anproved, as well as by existing VOC sources
that may have already been granted cor4pllance date extensions.

-------
—2—
If the State or EPA believes that there has been a substantial
change in the inventory of VOC sources or total VOC emissions
since the ozone SIP was approved so that the margin of attain—
ment has channed significantly, a revised de, ration in
support of the source—specific SIP revision( hou )be submit-
ted. 4/
Second, time extensions also must he consistent with the
requirement that nonattainment area SIPs provide for imnlemen—
tation of all reasonably available control measures as
expeditiously as practicable” [ S172(b)(2)]. Expeditiousness
should he demonstrated by determining when the source was
first put on notice of the applicable requirement (e.g.,
adoption of the current requlation by the State) and the time
that has elapsed since then. EPA has generally determined
that for most VIC sources t s period is less than three
years. 5/ Any source—spec ic SIP revision for a compliance
date extension within these timeframes may he presumed to be
expeditious. Compliance date extensions for periods longer
than these timefrarnes, however, should be closely scrutinized
to determine whether or not they are truly expeditious. 6/
This should include an examination of the compliance stat s of
other sources nationally in the same VC)C source category
(this examination would be the responsibility of the State),
and the most expeditious means of compliance available (includ-
ing add on control equipment, process change, or raw material
improvement) irrespective of the method proposed in the SIP
4/ Such a demonstration would he necessary, for example, in
areas originally demonstrating attainment by 1q82, hut for
which post—1982 monitoring data are indicating exceedances of
the ozone standard or raising serious questions about the
original prediction of attainment.
f 5/ For three source categories (can coating onerations,
graphic arts printing and automotive assembly plant paint
shoo operations), hased on industry experience EPA has
t through policy statements concluded that expeditiousness may
be longer than three years.
6/ The same holds true for review of individual compliance
date extensions incorporated in any area—wide ozone SIP
revisions -submitted by a State (such as those being subr’ itted
nursuant to an FPA SIP call under Section 1lO(a)(2)(H)). An”
change in the original deadline for an individual VOC source
incorporated in an area—wide ozone SIP revision must be
demonstrated to be expe itL’us (as well as not ir)terfere with
timely attainment and maintenance).

-------
—3—
revision. Unless it can he shown that the original timeframe
approved in the SIP did not allow sufficient time for an
economically and technologically teasible compliance plan to
be implemented, a SIP revision for a compliance date extension
beyond the timeframes set forth above should be denied.
In conclusion, both the demonstration of timely attainment
(including RPP where relevant) and maintenance and the
expeditiousness tests must be met before a State SIP revision
can be approved.
d /Z
J#
J. ,QØig Pott$’r
As (stant Addiinistrator
for Air and Radiation
MJG—T 6

-------
Cardinal
a

-------
Review of State Implementation Plans and
Revisions for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency
(09/23/87)
File at Part B, Document #8

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ç ,;
—%
SEP 2 3 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions
for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency
FROM: J. Craig Potter /1 - 1 /
Assistant Administrator •
for Air and Radiation 4. 7
Thomas L. Adams Jr. L.
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Monitoring
Francis S. Blak
General Counsel
Office of General Counsel
TO: Addressees
One critical function that your offices perform is to
assure that regulations developed for stationary sources
by the States under the Clean Air Act are enforceable and
legally sufficient. Our regulations require that the state
implementation plans (“SIPs”) must “be adopted as rules and
regulations enforceable (emphasis added) by the State agency”
(40 C.F.R. §51.281 (1987)). We are concerned that review of
SIPS for enforceability has not been receiving adequate atten-
tion. The Agency sometimes experiences difficulties in its
efforts to enforce the current rules because they are not
sufficiently clear. The Regional Offices are at the forefront
of the federal SIP approval process. The purpose of this
memorandum is to remind you of the importance of doing the
review necessary to assure that all SIP plans and revisions
are enforceable and in conformance with the Act. Please do not
forward for approval SIPS which fail to satisfy the enforce-
ability criteria in this memorandum.
Background
Recent information indicates that the attention being paid
to SIP approvals is declining, particularly for enforceability.
The Office of General Counsel reviews regulations as to their
adequacy under applicable law and Agency policy, but not for
enforceability. This void is not being filled by other offices.
Often, the problems with enforcing the regulations are not
immediately obvious and only become known where a case or issue
focuses on the particular regulation. At the October 1986

-------
— —
—2-
Annapolis meeting of Air Program Directors and Regional Counsel
Air Branch Chiefs, a number of problems in recent enforcement
cases due to difficulty in interpreting and enforcing regula-
tions were discussed. With the recent work being done to
address the nonattainment problem, it is even more critical
that regulations be clear and enforceable.
It is appropriate that the Regional air compliance staff
and the Regional Counsel’s Office have primary responsibility
for this enforceability review because they have the most direct
experience in compliance and rule interpretation. They also
have resources allocated through their workload models specifi-
cally for SIP review.
Timing of Review
The Regions should try to review developing State SIP
provisions prior to final approval by the State, when the
provisions are at their most malleable stage. In line with
this, each Region should provide its States with a copy of the
implementing guidance associated with this memorandum and a
briefing which outlines t he enforceability requirements for new
SIP submittals. If we provide the States with more explicit
guidance and make earlier contacts to resolve problems, we can
avoid instances where EPA is pressured to settle for a flawed
regulation only because it is better than its predecessor.
Enforceability Criteria
Your review should ensure that the rules in question are
clearly worded and explicit in their applicability to the
regulated sources. Vague, poorly defined rules must become a
thing of the past. SIP regulations that deviate from this
policy are to be disapproved pursuant to Section 110(a) of the
clean Air Act, with appropriate references in the C.F.R. Speci-
fically, we are concerned that the following issues be directly
addressed. The rule should be clear as to who must comply and
by what date. The effect, if any, of changed conditions (e.g.,
redesignation to attainment) should be set forth. The period
over which compliance is determined and the relevant test
method to be used should be explicitly noted. Provisions which
exempt facilities under certain sizes or emission levels must
identify explicitly how such size or level is determined.
Also, provisions which allow for “alternate equivalent techniques”
or “bubbles” or any other sort of variation of the normal mode
of compliance must be completely and explicitly defined and must
make clear whether or not EPA case—by—case approval is required
to make such a method of compliance federally effective.

-------
—3-.
Conclusion
Sr revisions shou dbe wri 2êrT’cleacly, with explicit
language to implement their intent. The plain languaae of all
rules, as well as the related Federal Register notices, should
be complete, clear and consistent with the intended purpose of
the rules. Specific review for enforceability will be a further
step in improving the overall SIP process and structure.
We have attached detailed guidance to assist you in
implementing this memorandum.
Attachment
Addressees:
Regional Administrators
Regions I—X
Regional Counsels
Regions I—X
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III and IX
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII and X
cc: Deputy Regional Administrators
Regions I—X
Regional Counsel
Air Contacts
Regions I—X
Air Compliance Branch Chiefs
Regions II, III, IV, V, VI, IX
Air Program Branch Chiefs
Regions I—X
Darryl Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Gerald Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

-------
—4—
cc: John S. Seitz, Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Alan W. Eckert
Associate General Counsel
Air Division
Michael S. Alushiri
Associate Enforcement Counsel
Air Enforcement Division

-------
S?4p.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SEP 2 3 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions
for Enforceability and Legal Suffici ncy
Michael S. Alushin d i
Associate Enforcement Counsel
for Air Enforcement
Alan W. Eckert
Associate Gener Co nsel
Air and Radiation Division
John S. Seitz, Director
Stationary Source Complia
Office of Air Quality Pla
Addressees
This is to provide implementing guidance on the memorandum
issued by J. Craig Potter, Thomas Adams and Francis Blake
on this date relatina to review of SIP plans and revisions
for enforceability and legal sufficiency. We urge you to
provide copies of these memoranda to your State Agency Directors.
A,p plica bI ity
This guidance applies to all SIP proposals which have
not completed the state or local agency legal and procedural
requirements for SIPS. For proposals that have not yet
been submitted to the Regional office for action, the state
and local agencies have forty—five (45) days from the date
of this guidance to submit such proposals for review in order
for the proposal to be considered under previous procedures.
SIP packages currently in Headquarters will undergo the usual
review but will be returned to the Regions if they contain
deficiencies which raise significant guestions as to whether
the regulation would be enforceable.
Enforceability Criteria
The notion of enforceability encompasses several concepts.
At the most basic level, a regulation must be within the statutory
authority of the promulgating agency. For example, some states
have statutory restrictions or prohibitions on the promulgation
of regulations more restrictive than the federal counterpart.
ng and Standards

-------
—2—
Although we should generally defer to a State’s interpretation of
the scope of its authority, when there is real doubt we
should, at a minimum, consult the responsible State Attorney to
be certain the issue has been considered and resolved. When
appropriate, an opinion letter should be obtained from the
State Attorney General.
Please ensure that the following additional issues are
directly addressed.
pplicability
It should be clear as to whom the regulation applies. The
SIP should include a description of the types of affected
facilities. The rule should also state in which aré the rule
a Ii (entire state, specific counties, nonattainmii t, etc.)
and advise the reader that State administrative changes require
a formal SIP revision. Also, some regulations might require a
certain percentage reduction from sources. The regulation
should be clear as to how the baseline from which such a reduction
is to be accomplished is set. In some cases it may be necessary
for enforcement purposes and independent of Clean Air Act
requirements for the SIP to include an inventory of allowable
and actual emissions from sources in the affected categories in
order to set the above baseline.
o Time
The regulation should specify the reauired date of
compliance. Is it upon promulgation, or approval by EPA, or a
e ate certain? Future effective dates beyond the
approved or proposed attainment date should not be allowed
unless the related emissions reductions are not needed for
attainment. Also, the regulation should specify the important
dates required of any c Q pLliance schedule which is required to
bes itt,e. . by the source to the state.
• Effect of Changed Conditions
If changed circumstances affect an emission limit or other
requirement, the effect of changed conditions should be clearly
specified. However, you should not approve state regulations
which tie the applicability of VOC control requirements to the
nonattainment status of the area and allow for automatic nullifi-
cation of the regulations if the area is redesignated to an
attainment status. Such regulations should continue to apply
if an area is redesignated from nonattainment to attainment
status unless a new maintenance demonstration supporting a change
in the rule’s applicability is submitted and approved by EPA.

-------
—3—
Standard of Conduct
The regulation must be sufficiently specific so that a
ource is fairly on notice as to the standard it must meet.
ror example, “alternative equivalent technique” provisions
should not be approved without clarification concerning the
time period over which equivalency is measured as well as
whether the equivalency applies on a per source or per line
basis or is facility wide.
o Incorporation by Reference
Some federal regulations are inappropriate for adoption
by reference. For example, a state intending to enforce PSD
regulations adopted by reference must adopt 40 C.F.R. §52.21,
not 40 C.F.R. §51.166, as only the former is written in a form
imposing obligations on permit applicants. Even then, changes
may have to be made to take into account the difference between
the State’s situation and EPA’S.
o Transfer Efficiency
Some states have attempted to provide particular VOC
sources with relaxations of compliance limits in return for
improvements in the efficiency with which the sources use the
pollutant producing material. A yrules allowing transfer
efficie çy to be used in rmij ingc p11ane must be expJJ.. .it
ài to bih and under what circumstances a source may use improved
transfer efficiency as a substitute for meeting the SIP limit.
Such provisions must state wiie ther EPA aDproval is required on
a _ c se—by—case basis . Also, such provisions may not sirnplT
reference the NSPS auto coating tables for the transfer
efficiency. The improvement should be demonstrated through
testing and an appropriate test method should be set forth.
Implied improvements noted by the NSPS auto coating TE
table are not to be accepted at face value.
o Compliance Periods
SIP rules should describe explicitly the compliance time
frame associated with each emission limit (e.g. instantaneous,
stackfèst, 3 hour average or daily). The Regions should not
assume that a lack of specificity implies instantaneous compliance.
The time frame or method employed must be sufficient to protect
the standard involved.
o Equivalency Provisions and Discretionary Emission Limits
Certain provisions allow sources to comply via “bubbles”
or “alternate ecuivalent technicues” or through mechanisms
“as approved by the Director.” These provisions must make it

-------
—4—
clear as to whether EPA approvaF of state granted alternative
compliance techniques is requited on a case—by—case basis in
order for the changed i de of compliance to replace the existing
federally enforceable requirement. If EPA case—by—case approval
w l not be required, then pecific. ahj etive and replicable
criteria must be set. forth for determining whether the new
airángement is truly equivalent in terms of emission rates and
ambient impact. Such procedures must be consistent with the
control levels specified in the overall SIP control strategy
and must meet other EPA policy requirements, including the
“Emissions Trading Policy”, 51 Fed. Reg. 43814 (1986), in
relevant instances.
Recordkeeping
The SIP must state explicitly those r. rds which sources
are required to keep to assess compliance for the time frame
specified in the rule. Records must be commensurate with regula-
tory requirements, and mus.X . be available for examinationQn
The SIP must give reporting schedules and reporting
formats. For example, these rules must require daily records
if the SIP requires daily compliance. Additionally, the r ç.ord—
keeping must be rea ired such that failure to do so would bea
separate violation in itself.
o Test Methods
Each compliance provision must list how compliance is
to be determined and the appropriate test method to be used.
The allowable averaging times should be explicit . Both the
test method and averaging times employed must be sufficient
to protect the ambient standard involved.
• Exemptions
If sources under a certain size are e pted from control
requirements, the regulation must identify how the size of a
particular_source_is to be determined.
o Malfunction and Variance Provisions
Any malfunction or variance exemptions must be j r in
their substantive application and in ho i1hey are triggered.
The rule E T iEätexceedances may be excused, how the
standard is to be applied, and who makes the determination.
Conc ljlsjQn
we appreciate your attention to this matter and hope
that the specific review for enforceability will be a further
step in improving the overall SIP process and structure.
To assist you, we have attached an enforceability checklist.
This checklist should be included as part of your technical
support packages in all future SIP packages.

-------
—5—
Please contact the appropriate staff attorney in the Office
of General Counsel or the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring should you have any questions concerning issues of
enforceability in particular instances. Please contact Tom
Helms, OAQPS, FTS—629—5526, for other questions concerning
implementation of this guidance.
Attachment
Addressees:
Regional Administrators
Regions I—X
Regional Counsels
Regions I—X
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III and 1X
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII and X
cc: Deputy Regional Administrators
Regions I—X
Regional Counsel
Air Contacts
Regions I—X
Air Compliance Branch Chiefs
Regions II, III, IV, V, VI, IX
Air Program Branch Chiefs
Regions I—X
Darryl Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Gerald Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards

-------
Attachment
SI OVABILITY CHECKLIST- ENFORCEABILITY
SIP Package No. _______________ Date Rec. Date Due -- --
STATE: -
Subject Matter: -- - -
(Specific Provision and Description)
Enforceability Analysis State Submittal EPA Reauirenient Approvability (Approvable or Not)
( list responses )
1. Applicability
a. What sources are being Clarity
regulated?
b. What are criteria for Clarity
exemption?
c. Is calculation Example calculation or
procedure for exemption clear explanation of
clearly specified? how to determine
exemption (line by line,
etc.)
d. Is emission inventory Inventory including
listed in the allowable and actual
background document emissions in source
of the attainment category should be
demonstration? included, for enforce-
ment purposes and
independent of any Clean
Air Act requirements,
in the attainment demon-
stration if such data is
necessary for determin-
ing baselines in regula—
tion -

-------
Enforceability inalysis
State Submittal EPA Reouireinent
Ap rovability ( Approvable or Not )
e. Is the averaging time(s)
used in the rule differ-
ent from that of the
ambient standard?
f. What are the units of
compliance (lbs VOC per
gallon of solids
applied less water,
grains per standard
cubic foot?)
g. Is butbling or averag-
ing of any type
allowed? If yes,
state criteria.
Could a U.S. EPA
inspector independently
determine if the
criteria were met? Does
EPA have to approve
each case?
The averaqing time in the
rule must be consistent
with protecting the ambient
standard in question.
Normally, it should be equal
to or shorter than the
time associated with the
standard. Longer term
averaging is available
only in limited instances
provided that the ambient
standard is not compromised.
Clearly
rule
stated in the
Explicit description of
how averaging, bubblinq,
or eauivalency is to be
determined. VOC
eauivalency must be on
a “solids applied”
basis. Any method must
be independently re-
producible. Provision
must be explicit as to
whether EPA case-by-
case approval reauired.
If provision intended
to be “generic” then EPA
bubble policy must be
met.

-------
Approvabil ity (Approv
? ability Analysis
h. If there is a redesiqna—
tion, will this change
the emission limita-
tions? If yes, which
ones and how?
2. Compliance Dates
Requirement
Regulation may not
automatically allow for
self nullification upon
redesignatiOn of area
to attainment. New
maintenance demonstra-
tion required in order
to drop regulation.
a. What is
date?
b. What is
date?
compi lance
the attainment
Must not be later than
approved or about to
be approved date of
attainment unless
emission reductions not
necessary for attain-
ment. In some cases,
it will be necessary
for the regulation to
specify dates in compli-
ance schedules that are
required to be submitted
by source to state.
3. Specificity of Conduct
a. What test method is
required?
b. What is the averaging
time in compliance
test method?
c. Is a compliance
calculation or
evaluation required?
(i.e., daily weighted
average for VOC).
d. If yes to “c,” list
the formula, period of
compliance, and/or
P F lii Pion method.
Test method must be
explicitly stated.
Averaging time and
application of limit
must be explicit.
Formula must be
explicit.
State Submittal
or Not )

-------
Entor eaDi 1 i ty Analysis
State Submittal xeauirement
Approvabi 11 ty (Approvableor Not
4. Incorporation by Reference
a. What is state authority
for rulemaking?
b. Are methods/rules
incorporated by
reference in the
right manner.
5. Recordkeeping
a. What records are
required to determine
compliance?
b. In what form or units
(, gr/dscf,
etc.) must the
records be kept? On
what time basis
(instantaneously,
hourly, daily)?
C. Does the rule affirm-.
atively reauire the
records be kept?
Clarity
Records to be kept
must be consistent
with units of
compliance in the per-
formance requirements,
including the appli-
cable time period.
There must be a clear
separately enforceable
provision that requires
records to be kept.

-------
En ability Analysis State Submittal ri Reauirement - Approvability (Approvable or Not )
6. Exemptions
a. List any exemptions Must be clearly defined
allowed, and distinguishable from
what constitutes a
b. Is the criteria for violation.
application clear?
7. Malfunction Provisions Rule must specify what
exceedances may be
excused, how the
standard is to be
applied, and who makes
the determination.

-------
9

-------
AJ447 0fL
c I r McAi Vo
03/ni / d
)

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
M4R I 6 rggo
Se. - L •’

5 —
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT :5 )
FROM:
TO:
SUMMARY
Guidance on Addressing Capture Efficiency In
Enforcing VOC SIP Regulations
John S. Seitz, Director
Stationary Source Complian D visio
Michael S. Alushin,
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring
Air Management Division Directors
Regions III and IX
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division
Directors
Region I, IV, and VI
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII, and X
Regional Counsels, Regions I - X
This memorandum is guidance to the Regions on how to address
capture efficiency when enforcing current state implementation
plan (SIP) regulations limiting volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions. It requires the Regions to use capture efficiency test
protocols being developed by OAQPS. It also suggests States use
these protocols as well when resolving cases against violators.
.v ,
f’ii i?iV
r’s7 I fm
MI C66L gU\ j ; ?
U
. .., ‘....,
Nfl 03
1VNO) ieI,

-------
2
BACKGROUND
Capture Efficiency Requirements in SIPs
Many SIP regulations of VOC emissions allow the regulated
source to comply with the emission limit using add-on control
equipment, such as incinerators. To determine the efficiency of
these controls in reducing VOC emissions, it is necessary to
measure how much of the total VOC emissions from the regulated
source is captured and delivered to the device that destroys the
VOC. The capture efficiency (CE) of VOC control equipment is,
therefore, a critical component of a compliance determination at a
facility which is using control equipment to comply with SIP VOC
emission limits. On August 7, 1986, EPA issued guidance which
substantially restricted a source’s option to try to reformulate
its coatings and comply with VOC limits without control equipment.
As a result, more sources are installing equipment, the CE of
which must be measured.
Capture Efficiency Test Protocols and the Post — 1 A7 Process
Most of the current SIPS do not specify how EPA or the States
should measure CE. To date EPA has not published a Reference Test
Method for CE. On May 25, 1989, OAQPS issued guidance for
correctinq capture efficiency regulations in a memorandum from
Gerald Emison entitled “Correcting Capture Efficiency (CE)
Regulations”. This guidance used as a basis a memorandum dated
July 7, 1980 from James Berry, ESD to Doug Cook, Region IV
regarding the Determination of Capture Efficiency to describe the
generally accepted principles according to which CE tests should
be conducted. Further, OAQPS is developing methods for testing
capture efficiency which provide for a CE test in the following
ways: 1) a gas-gas material balance requiring the source to
temporarily enclose the line to be tested; 2) a liquid—gas
material balance for line—by-line testing; and 3) a gas—gas
material balance which treats the entire facility as an enclosure.
As EPA gains more experience measuring CE, new methods may become
available and these methods may be updated, replaced, or
superseded.
As part of the Post-1987 process to improve EPA’S ability to
enforce the SIP VOC regulations, EPA, through the May 25, 1989
guidance referred to above, has required the states to commit to
adopt enforceable CE testing requirements into their VOC SIP
regulations when EPA has CE protocols available. Until this SIP
revision process is completed, however, EPA must have a consistent
policy about how to measure CE to determine compliance with
existing SIP emission limits. This guidance addresses the
appropriate test method to use in likely enforcement settings.

-------
3
CAPTURE EFFICIENCY COMPLIANCE DETERMINATIONS
SIP Compliance Determinations -
Under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act, EPA clearly has
authority to require sources to perform those tests reasonably
required to determine compliance with a SIP emission limit. With
no test method specified in the SIP to measure CE, it is incumbent
upon EPA to determine compliance based on evidence which experts
would agree supports a determination to a reasonable scientific
certainty. In other words, EPA must decide case—by-case what
evidence it must collect to prove a CE value at a facility in
order to meet its burden of proof.
Where the CE at a facility is in question, the Regional
enforcement program should issue a testing requirement under
Section 114 to collect test data necessary to prove a CE value.
The test should be conducted according to the most recent version
of the CE test methods available from OAQPS 1 . There may be
circumstances where the Region believes the methods are
inappropriate or infeasible for a source, or the Region may have
questions concerning a specific application of the method. In
such cases, the Region should contact the Stationary Source
Compliance Division (SSCD). SSCD will consult with the
appropriate office and provide advice to the Region or arrange for
the appropriate office to advise the Region directly.
Consent Decree Compliance Determinations
When negotiating a compliance schedule in a consent decree
which requires the installation of VOC control equipment, the
parties have an opportunity to agree to a test method and be bound
by its results in determining compliance with the decree. Such
consent decrees should specify the CE test protocol the facility
will use to demonstrate compliance with the SIP regulation. As
with initial SIP compliance determinations, EPA should use the
most recent version of the CE test methods available, and
incorporate the terms of the appropriate method into the decree.
When negotiating the consent decree, the litigation team on the
case should vary from the method only after consultation with
SSCD.
1 The current versions of these methods are attached to
this memorandum in a document entitled “Guidelines for Developing
Capture Efficiency Protocols.”

-------
4
STATE ENFORCEMENT CASES
When resolving cases against VOC sources on the significant
violators list, EPA expects the states to include a demonstration
of compliance in any resolution. Where the source uses control
equipment, the demonstration should include a CE test. For these
cases, EPA urges the states to use the attached test methods, and
to consult with the appropriate EPA Regional office if they have
questions concerning specific applications of the test methods.
Attachments
Addressees
cc: STAPPA/ALAPCO
J. Berry
J. Calcagni
J. Farmer
W. Laxton
G. McAlister
J. Silvasi
T. Williamson
G. Wood
S. Wyatt
Chief, Air Branch, Regions I - X
VOC Enforcement Contacts, Region I — X

-------
DRAFT: 2/16/90
GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPING CAPTURE EFFICIENCY PROTOCOLS
INTRODUCTION
There are two general types of material balance approaches that may be
used to measure capture efficiency (CE), commonly referred to as the gas/gas
and the liquid/gas approaches. Both approaches are based on the principle
that the total amount of volatile organic compounds (VOC) introduced to the
process (L) is equal to the total amount of VOC that leaves the process. This
latter amount would be the total captured VOC emissions (G), i.e., those
emissions delivered to the control device, plus the amount of fugitive VOC
emissions (F).
Capture efficiency procedures with greater details are attached. The
procedures are as follows:
Procedure I - VOC in Liquid Input Stream
Procedure G.1 - Captured VOC Emissions
Procedure G.2 - Captured VOC Emissions (Dilution Technique)
Procedure F.1 - Fugitive VOC Emissions from Temporary Enclosures
Procedure F.2 - Fugitive VOC Emissions from Building Enclosures
The applicable procedures are the basic elements of a protocol. Since
each site presents different and unique process and sampling situations, no
one protocol can be expected to apply to all cases. Therefore, one must
evaluate each site on a case-by-case basis and choose a suitable protocol.
This protocol may not give the most accurate CE determination, but may be
considered the “best compromise” after considering the limitations imposed by
the specific site.
Determination of the parameters 1, 0, and F involves several individual
measurements, each of which produces some uncertainty. An understanding of
the various approaches and the probable errors (PE’s) involved is helpful in
guiding the selection and development of CE protocols. This error analysis
uses the logarithmic differential method. (Note: The discussion considers
multiple points of I, G, and F collectively. Thus, in developing a protocol,
the equations should be adapted to the specific plant and account for the
individual input or emission points by proper summations.)
The two general mass balance approaches have a number of variations. In
this guideline, these variations will be discussed and the CE, maximum error,
and PE equations will be presented. Then, estimates of the PE’s will be given
and summarized. Finally, an order of protocol consideration will be
suggested.
A summary of the nomenclature is given below to assist in the discussion,
along with a generalized coating process (see Figure 1).

-------
F = fugitive VOC
emissions
G Captured VOC
emissions
I4
CURING
OVEN
Th
N-’ ] [ - 1 [ ‘ -11 1 - 1 N- 1
(9)
Figure 1. Generalized coating process.
—
F — fugitive VOC
emissions
1 ---:
VOC content
on product
_______________ NATURAL
DRAFT
OPENING
..I .. %_ %
U
I I —
I I (
I
F fugitive VOC
emissions
NATURAL
OPE NG
CONTROL
DEVICE
S
I
I voc
I
a .
— — — — — S
NATURAL
DRAFT
OPENING
— — % — a. — — —
Ambient backgrour 1
VOC concentration
:V 2190

-------
NOMENCLATURE
C = VOC concentration.
C C of captured VOC emissions.
CE capture efficiency.
CV VOC resulting from cure volatiles.
D — VOC destroyed by combustion.
E • VOC emissions from control device.
F = fugitive VOC emissions.
F 6 F from building enclosure.
= F with TTE.
F = F without TIE.
G gaseous phase captured VOC emissions.
— G with TIE.
C without TTE.
I = liquid phase VOC input.
Mr mass of VOC recovered from adsorption control device.
P VOC remaining in product.
P0 VOC from particulate organics.
PE — probable error.
PIE — permanent total enclosure.
Q • volumetric flow rate.
R — overall reduction efficiency.
TTE — temporary total enclosure.
V — VOC content of VOC containing material.
W — liquid mass Input of VOC containing material.
2

-------
CAPTURE EFFICIENCY, MAXIMUM ERROR, AND PROBABLE ERROR EQUATIONS
1. GAS/GAS PROTOCOLS
The gas/gas approach is called such because only gas phase measurements
are used to calculate both the VOC input and to determine the captured VOC
emissions. The basic assumption is that the sum of the captured VOC emissions
(G) and the fugitive VOC emissions (F) is equal to the VOC input (1), i.e., G
+ F 1.
The major difficulty with the gas/gas approach is the measurement of F
when the emissions are not confined into a measurable configuration. Four
techniques for measuring F have been proposed. The first is to measure F from
a temporary total enclosure (TIE); the second is to measure G with and without
a TIE and to determine F by difference; the third is to measure F from the
existing building enclosure; and the fourth is to construct a permanent total
enclosure (PIE). The protocols based on each of these techniques are
discussed below. In each of these techniques, the background VOC
concentration is assumed to be low in comparison to G.
The following sections will present the CE, maximum error, and probable
error for CE (PECE) equations. Later, engineering estimates will be given and
the PECE’s for each of the protocols will be calculated and summarized.
Protocol la: Tem orar Total Enclosure (TTE) . A TTE Is one that directs
all the VOC emissions to the control device and to a fugitive exhaust duct.
The success of this protocol lies in designing the TTE to contain the fugitive
gas stream so that it can be measured with minimal effect on the normal flow
patterns around the affected facility. One set of criteria for a TIE is given
in Procedure TE.
The general approach for this protocol is as follows: (a) Determine the
captured VOC emissions without the TTE to establish a baseline; (b) install
the TIE and use the baseline from (a) to determine the effect of the TIE on
the process; and (c) determine the captured VOC emissions (G ) and the
fugitive VOC emissions (F ) with the TTE. The CE is calculated as follows:
CE G j(G +F ) Eq. 1
The maximum error equation is (the subscripts have been omitted to
simplify discussion and avoid tedious repetitions):
£CE/CE • IAG/G - AG/(G + F)I + IAF/(G + F)I Eq. 2
Note that the negative sign between the first and second terms on the
right side of the equation is kept because the first term is not independent
of the second term, i.e., the signs of both terms must be the same.
Therefore, the effect of errors in the measurement of G Is somewhat
diminished.
Equation 2 gIves the maximum error that could occur, i.e., It adds all
individual errors; it does not allow the errors to cancel each other.
3

-------
However, the likelihood that the maximum error will occur is low. It is more
reasonable to use the PE, which is calculated as the square root of the sum of
squares of the Individual measurement errors.
To estimate the uncertainty at various CE- levels, Equation 2 can be
rewritten in terms of PE and CE as follows:
PECE ((PEG - PEG G/(G + F)] 2 + (PEF F/(G + F)] 2 )” 2 Eq. 3
Since G/(G + F) • CE and F/(G + F) • (1 - CE) and assuming that PEG PEF,
then Equation 3 simplifies to:
PECE = 1.4 (1 - CE) PEG Eq. 4
Equation 4 shows that the measurement error sensitivity of this protocol
is tempered by the CE level. At the 90 percent CE level, ±10 percent
measurement errors in both G and F will result in ±1.4 percent uncertainty in
CE. However, at the 50 percent CE level, ±10 percent would introduce ±7
percent uncertainty.
Protocol ib: With and Without TIE . This protocol assumes that G measured
with a TTE (without an exhaust fan) is equal to L. The general approach is as
follows: (a) Determine the captured VOC emissions (G ) without the TTE; and
(b) determine the captured VOC emissions (G ) with the TIE. The CE is then
calculated as:
CE GWO/GW Eq. 5
The maximum error equation for this protocol is:
ACE/CE — IAGuo/GvoI + IAG1G I Eq. 6
Because G and G are independent measurements, their errors do not
cancel each ot r. Assuming that the PE for both G and G are equal, the
PECE equation is:
PECE = 1.4 PEG Eq. 7
Equation 7 shows that this protocol is highly sensitive to measurement
errors and should be used only after careful consideration of the errors in
the measurements and the resultant uncertainty In CE. A ±10 percent
measurement errors in G, when it is measured with and without the TIE, will
result In ±14 percent uncertainty in CE.
Protocol- I C: Bulldln as Enclosure . This protocol eliminates any
uncertainties concerning the effect of the TIE on the CE. However, the
presence of other VOC sources within the enclosure complicates matters. In
addition, the number of exhaust points and the ability to measure the
volumetric flows and concentrations at these points must be considered. Two
options when using the building as an enclosure are discussed below:
4

-------
Option A: Operate only affected facility. The first option is to shut
down all other facilities so that only the affected facility is evaluated.
The general approach is as follows: (a) Shut down all other sources of VOC
within the building, but leave all exhaust fans on to maintain building
ventilation balance; and (b) determine the fugitive VOC emissions from all
exhaust points (F 8 ) and the captured VOC emissions (G). The CE equation for
this protocol Is:
CE = G/(G + F 8 ) Eq. 8
This equation Is Identical in form to Protocol la and the same error
analysis applies. However, in this protocol, PEG can not be expected to equal
PEF. Thus, the PECE equation for Option A would then be:
PECE — (1 - CE) (PEG 2 + PEFO 2 ]” 2 Eq. 9
Again, notice that at the 90 percent CE level, ±10 percent measurement
errors in either G or in F introduces ±1 percent uncertainties in CE. The
effect of measurement errors on the uncertainties in CE are also similar for
Option B.
Option B: Operate with and without affected facility. The second option
is to test under two sets of conditions - one while the affected facility is
shut down and all other facilities are operating, and the other while all
facilities, Including the affected facility, are operating. The F from the
affected facility is then determined by difference, i.e., F • F - where
the subscripts “W” and “WO” refer to the conditions of “with” and “without”
the affected facility operating, respectively.
The CE and maximum error equations for this protocol are:
CEG/(G+F -F ) Eq. 10
ACE/CE lAG/C - AG/(G + F - F )l
+ l(AF 1 /(G + F - F )I + FS(G + F - F )I Eq. 11
The term, AG/C - G/(G + F - F 0 ), simplifies to PEG (1 - CE). By
multiplying and dividing the second and third terms by the quantity (F -
F ) and assuming that F — 0.8 F , these terms simplify to 5 PEF and 4
PEF , . Further assuming that PE — PEF , — PEF, the PE equation for CE can be
written as:
PE — (1 - CE) [ PE 6 2 + 41 PEF 2 ]” 2 Eq. 12
Protocol id: Permanent Total Enclosure (PTEI . A PIE is one that directs
all VOC emissions to the control device. A set of specifications for a PTE is
given In Procedure TE.
If a plant installs a PIE, it becomes an Integral part of the affected
facility and the CE can be assumed to be 100 percent, and a CE test is not
needed. However, an overall efficiency (R) determination Is still required.
5

-------
The measurements for R are similar to that of the protocol with a temporary
total enclosure (TTE). The overall efficiency (R), maximum error, and PER
equations are as follows:
R=(G-E)/G Eq. 13
AR/R — IAG/(G - E) - AG/GI + IAE/(G - E)I Eq. 14
PER • (1/R - 1) (PEG 2 + PEE 2 ]” 2 Eq. 15
where E • VOC emissions leaving the control device. The measurement error
sensitivities are similar to Option A of Protocol ic.
NOTE: If all the fugitive VOC emissions from a building are directed to
a control device and the building meets the specifications for a PIE, the
building will be considered a PIE and the CE of all facilities within the
building can be assumed to be 100 percent.
2. LIQUID/GAS PROTOCOLS
The liquid/gas approach Is called such because It Involves liquid phase
measurements for 1 and gas phase measurements for G or F. The major concern
with this approach is the correlation of liquid phase measurements of I with
the gas phase measurements of G or F. The various approaches used for this
correlation will be discussed later.
Since these protocols closely follow the gas/gas approach, the CE,
maximum error, and PECE equations are presented with little discussion.
Protocol 2a: TIE . Rather than measuring G directly, it can be
determined by measuring F using a TTE and determining G by difference, i.e., G
= L - F. The CE is calculated as:
CE (L - F)/L Eq. 16
The maximum error and PECE equations are:
ACE/CE IAL/(1 - F) - AL/LI + IAF/(L - F)I Eq. 17
PE • (1/CE - 1) (PE 1 2 + PEF 2 ]’ ’ 2 Eq. 18
Notice that large measurement errors In I or In F are diminished by high
CE levels. The measurement error sensitivities are similar to that of
Option A of Protocol ic.
Protocol 2b: Direct Measurements . In this protocol, both I and C are
measured directly. The CE Is calculated as follows:
CE • G/L Eq. 19
6

-------
The maximum error and PECE equations for this protocol are:
ACE/CE = IAG/GI + IAL/LI Eq. 20
PECE = (PEG 2 + PELI Eq. 21
This protocol is highly sensitive to measurement errors and should be
used only after careful consideration of the errors in the measurements and
the resultant uncertainty in CE. A ±10 percent measurement error will
introduce ±10 percent uncertainty in the CE result.
Protocol 2c: Building as Enclosure . The two options under Protocol ic
are also applicable here. The measurement error sensitivities are similar to
that of Protocol ic.
Option A: Operate only affected facility within enclosure.
CE • (L - F 8 )/L Eq. 22
ACE/CE — IAL/(L - F 8 ) - AL/LI + AF/(L - F 8 )I Eq. 23
PECE — (1/CE - 1) (PEL 2 + PEFB 2 ] ’ 2 Eq. 24
Option B: Operate with and without affected facility.
CE = (L - F , + F 0 )/L Eq. 25
ACE/CE = IAL/(L - + F 0 ) - AL/LI
+ I AF / ( L - F + F o) I + I AFWO/ (L - F + F 0 ) I Eq. 26
PECE (1/CE - 1)(PEL 2 + 41 PEFB 2 )” 2 Eq. 27
Protocol 2d: Permanent Total Enclosure .
R =(1-E)/L Eq.28
AR/R • IAL/(1 - E) - AL/LI + IAE/(L - E)I Eq. 29
PER — (hR - 1) (PEL 2 + PEE 2 ]” 2 Eq. 30
where E • VOC emissions leaving the control device. As seen from Equation 30,
the measurement error sensitivities are similar to that of Protocol id.
3. LIOUIO/LIOUID PROTOCOL
Protocol 3: Llauld/Liauld . When a plant uses a carbon adsorber to
control VOC emissions and recovers the collected VOC, an explicit measurement
of CE is not required. A liquid/liquid material balance can be used to
determine overall control efficiency by directly comparing the input solvent
7

-------
to the recovered solvent. The general procedure for performing a
liquid/liquid material balance is described in 40 CFR 60.433.
The overall efficiency (R), maximum error, and PER equations for this
protocol are:
R — Mr/I Eq. 31
AR/R — IAMr/MrI + AL/LI Eq. 32
where Mr is the amount of VOC recovered.
PER • (PEN 2 + PEL 2 ]” 2 Eq. 33
Equation 33 shows that this protocol is highly sensitive to measurement
errors in I and in Mr
ENGINEERING ESTIMATES OF PROBABLE ERRORS
In order to compute the magnitude of the PE in the CE determination, the
magnitude of the errors of the components that make up the determination must
be known or estimated. The PE’s vary with individuals and with individual
testing firms and are generally not known. Therefore, engineering estimates
will be used in this guideline. Although the PE’s for the CE are calculated
using estimates that may not represent the actual conditions, the results may
be used to indicate the relative merits of the various protocols. The
engineering estimates of the various measurements are summarized in Table I.
Several of the protocols involve measuring volumetric flow rates (Q) in
confined and unconfined gas streams and measuring the gaseous VOC
concentrations. The PE for measuring Q in confined gas streams is estimated
at ±5.5 percent. This figure applies to the following measurements: QG’ QF’
and Q , where the subscripts “G,” “F,” and “E refer to the captured,
fugitive, and emission (from control device) gas streams, respectively.
For unconfined gas streams, such as from building enclosures, the PE for
measuring Q is expected to be larger than that for measuring Q from a confined
gas stream because of the less than ideal conditions for flow measurements and
the greater number of emission points. The PE In measuring 0 F8 is estimated
to be ±10.0 percent, where the subscript “FB” refers to the fugitive gas
stream from the building enclosure.
The PE for measuring the VOC concentration (C) in confined or unconfined
gas streams with an FIA is estimated to be ±5.0 percent. This estimate
applies to the measurements of C , CF, and CFB. The PE for measuring C after
an incinerator device according to Method 25 Is estimated to be ±20.0 percent.
For the liquid mass VOC measurements, the PE is estimated at ±2.0
percent. This estimate applies to the measurements of the liquid mass of VOC
recovered from the adsorption control device (Mr) and the liquid mass input of
VOC containing material (W).
8

-------
In the liquid/gas protocols, the major concern is the correlation of L
with the gas phase G or F, whichever Is measured. A technique is described in
Procedure L whereby the VOC in the liquid is evaporated into the gas phase and
a flame Ionization analyzer (FIA) is used to determine the VOC response per
unit mass of VOC containing liquid. In this manner, the exact composition of
the VOC in the liquids need not be determined and errors associated with the
response of the VOC on the FIA are somewhat cancelled. The repeatability or
the accuracy of this technique 1 however, has not been evaluated, but is
estimated to be ±12.0 percent.
When the composition of the VOC liquid input is known and the number of
components is few, Method 18 plus appropriate FM responses may also be an
acceptable analytical technique for measurement of gaseous emissions for
either CG, CF, or CFB. The PE of this measurement is also estimated to be
±12.0 percent.
The engineering estimates of the component measurements are summarized in
Table I. Based on these estimates, the PE’s for the various determinations
were calculated using the square root of the sums of squares. These also are
summarized in Table I.
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF PROBABLE ERRORS USED IN THIS GUIDELINE
Calculated PE *
Estimated PE
PEG ±7.4
06
±5.5
CG
±5.0
PEF = ±7.4
QF
—
±5.5
CF
=
±5.0
PEFB ±11.2
0 FB
=
±10.0
CFB
=
±5.0
PEL ±12.2
W
—
±2.0
V
=
±12.0
PEM ±2.0
W
=
±2.0
PEE — ±20.7
QE
=
±5.5
CE
=
±20.0
*NOTE: Calculated based upon the estimated PE’s
CALCULATED PROBABLE ERRORS FOR THE VARIOUS PROTOCOLS
Based on the calculated PE’s from Table I, the PE’s for the various
protocols were calculated. The CE and PE equations and PECE for each of the
protocols are summarized in Table II. The PECE’s are based on a 90 percent CE
level. The PE for Protocols id, 2d, and 3 are based on the overall efficiency
and should not be confused with the PE’s given for CE only.
9

-------
TABLE II
SUMMARY OF PROBABLE ERRORS AT 90 PERCENT CE LEVEL*
Protocol CE Equations PE Equations PECE
GAS/GAS
la - TIE GI(GV + F ) 1.4 (1 - CE) PEG
lb - W/WO TTE GSGW 1.4 PEG ±10.5
ic - Building
Option A G/(G + F 6 ) (1 - CE)(PEG 2 + PEF 2 ]” 2 ±1.3
Option B G/(G + F - F 0 ) (1 - CE)(PEG 2 + 41 PEF 2 ]” 2 ±7.2
ld - PTE R = (G - E)/G (hR - l)(PEG 2 + PEE 2 ) 112 ±2.4*
LIQUID/GAS
2a - TIE (L - F)/1 (1/CE - 1)(PEL 2 + PEF 2 ]” 2 ±1.6
2b - Direct GIL (PEG 2 + PEL 2 ]” 2 ±14.3
2c - Building
Option A (L - F 6 )/L (1/CE - 1)(PE 1 2 + PEFB 2 ]” 2 ±1.8
Option B (L - + F 0 )/L (1/CE - 1)(PE 1 2 + 41 PEF 5 2 )” 2 ±8.1
2d - PTE R — (L - E)/L (hR - h) [ PEL 2 + PE( 2 ] 1 ” 2 ±2.7*
LIQUID/LIQUID
3 R M,./L (PEN 2 + PE 1 2 ]’ 12 ±12.3*
* NOTE: Protocols id, 2d, and 3 are based on overall reduction efficiency.
The PECF’s for the other protocols will be higher than shown if
destrucilon efficiency PE’s are included.
Based solely on the PE for each protocol, a suggested order In which the
protocols should be considered is given in Table III. The limitations and
rationale follow the table.
10

-------
TABLE III
SUGGESTED ORDER OF CONSIDERATION
Order
Protocol
PECE
I
Protocol
id or 2d - PIE
2.7*
II
Option A
of Protocol ic or 2c -
Building as
enclosure
1.8**
III
Protocol
la or 2a - TTE
1.6**
IV
Protocol
3 - Liquid/liquid
12.3*
*

Based on overall
Based on 90% cap
efficiency, not capture
ture efficiency.
efficiency.
NOTE: Other protocols will be considered on a case by case basis.
I. Protocol id or 2d - PIE. The protocols that incorporate a PIE should
be considered as the best solution to the measurement of CE. A PIE is an
integral part of the process and, therefore, the CE of the affected facility
would always be 100 percent. As a result, better overall efficiency tests can
be conducted for a variety of process conditions.
II. Option A of Protocol ic or 2c - Building as Enclosure. Using the
building as an enclosure has the advantage of eliminating any uncertainties
concerning the effect of a TTE on the CE. The biggest disadvantage with these
protocols is the loss of production from all the other facilities. Before
these protocols are used, the following must be determined:
A. Are the exhaust points from the building accessible? Can the flow
rates and VOC concentrations be measured?
B. Are the number of exhaust points such that the fugitive emission rate
be measured within a reasonable length of time?
C. Would the VOC concentration from the exhaust points represent only
the affected facility, and not fugitive VOC from other sources?
0. Is the loss of production from all the other facilities tolerable?
If the answer to any of the above questions is negative, then these
protocols shou’d not be used.
III. Protocols la or 2a - TIE. As mentioned earlier, the success of
these protocols depends on designing the TTE to contain the fugitive gas
stream so that It can be measured with minimal effect on the normal flow
patterns around the affected facility or on the amount of the fugitive
emissions.
I’

-------
If the TIE is incorrectly designed, it may introduce a bias. Each
percent bias In G introduces one percent bias in CE. To minimize the bias,
one approach Is to establish a baseline concentration and flow rate of G
without the TIE and to match this baseline after the TIE is installed. This
approach, however, requires a relatively constant source. If the
concentration Inside the enclosure increases above the background level, the
measured CE will also be biased high. No estimates have been made as to the
magnitude of the bias.
Other factors that should be considered when selecting this protocol are
the cost of the TIE (including the fugitive VOC exhaust fan), effect, if any,
of the TTE on the quality of the product, loss in production due to down time,
and safety and health hazards due to the confined nature of the TTE.
IV. Protocol 3 - Liquid/Liquid. This protocol is limited to processes
that recover the VOC.
PROCESS AND METHOD CONSIDERATIONS
In the following discussion, the effect of process and method
considerations will be discussed only for Protocols la (Gas/Gas with TIE), 2b
(Liquid/Gas Direct Measurements), and 3 (Liquid/LIquid).
1. VOC remaining In product or emitted downstream (e.g., process
wastewater, scrapped process feed) of affected facility.
Treatment of this situation depends on whether the VOC remaining in the
product or emitted downstream (P) are considered to be fugitive emissions. If
P is considered to be fugitive emissions, then the measurement of F would be
biased low, I.e., rather than the total fugitive being equal to (F + P), only
F is measured. If F’ is the true fugitive emissions (where F’ = F + P) , then
the CE equations are as follows:
Protocol Ia: CE = G/(G + F’)
Protocol 2b: CE = C/I
Protocol 3 : R — Mu
Since F is not measured directly in Protocols 2b and 3, P will not affect
the determination of CE or R.
Consider the following two examples: (Example 1) L 100, G 80,
F — 10, and P • 10; and (Example 2) 1 • 100, G • 60, F • 10, P = 30. The
correct CE are as follows:
Example 1: CE • 80/(80 + 10 + 10) or 80/100 • 80.0 percent
Example 2: CE — 60/(60 + 10 + 30) or 60/100 — 60.0 percent
12

-------
The calculated CE for the examples are:
Example 1:
Protocol la:
Protocol 2b:
Example 2:
Protocol la: CE 60/(60 + 10) • 85.7 percent.
Protocol 2b: CE 60/100 = 60.0 percent.
Each percent P introduces a positive bias in
(note this is absolute percent). In Example 1, a
CE from 80.0 to 88.9 (8.9/10 0.89). In Example
the CE from 60 to 85.7 (25.7/30 — 0.86).
If P is not considered to be fugitive emissions, then the amount of I
measured will be biased high by the amount of P, i.e., the true 1’ (1 - P).
The correct CE for Example 1 above Is 80/90 or 88.9 percent. For Example 2,
the correct CE is 60/70 or 85.7 percent. Since L Is not measured in
Protocol la, its calculated CE would be correct as seen In the above
calculations, whereas Protocols 2b and 3 would give negative biases in the CE.
Each percent P introduces a negative bias in CE of about 0.9 percent CE.
2. Facilities using exhaust recirculation or direct fired ovens.
In facilities using exhaust recirculation or direct fired ovens, some of
the VOC in the captured VOC emission stream will be oxidized and the
measurement of G would be biased low by the amount of VOC destroyed (D). The
true G’ would be equal to (G + D), i.e., the correct CE equations are as
follows:
CE = (G’)/(G + F)
CE — (G’)/L
R — (Mr’)/L , where Mr’ — Mr + 0
are most affected by
Consider the following
and D 10; and (Example
is 90.0 percent for both
Example 1:
Protocol la:
Protocol 2b:
Example 2:
Protocol la: CE — 60/(60 + 10) — 85.7 percent.
Protocol 2b: CE • 60/100 - 60.0 percent.
The R determined by Protocol 3 would be biased low because the amount of
recovered will not reflect the amount of VOC destroyed. In Protocols 2b
3, each percent D introduces about 1 percent negative bias In the CE or R.
Protocol la, a 10 percent bias introduces about 1 percent bias In CE at the
percent CE level.
CE = G/(G + F) 80/(80 + 10) = 88.9 percent.
CE = G/l = 80/100 = 80.0 percent.
CE of about 0.9 percent CE
P of 10 percent raised the
2, a P of 30 percent raised
Protocol
Protocol
Protocol
Ia:
2b:
3:
As seen from these equations, Protocols 2b and 3
this occurrence. Protocol la is much less affected.
two examples: (Example 1) 1 — 100, G a 80, F 10,
2) L — 100, C 60, F — 10, 0 = 30. The correct CE
examples. The calculated CE for the examples are:
CE • G/(G + F) a 80/(80 + 10) 88.9 percent.
CE • G/L — 80/100 — 80.0 percent.
VOC
and
In
90
13

-------
3. Presence of particulate organic aerosols.
Particulate matter organics VOC (P0) in the captured VOC emission stream
will cause the measurement of G to be biased high by the amount present.
Their effect would be similar to that discussed in (2) above, except the CE
will have a positive bias. Protocol 3 will not be affected by P0. The CE
equations should be as follows:
Protocol la:
Protocol 2b:
Protocol 3:
CE= (G+P0)/(G+P0+F)
CE (G + P0)/I
R = M,JL
4. Occurrence of cure volatiles.
Cure volatiles (CV) in
as G. Letting G’ or Mr’ be
equations would be as follows:
Protocol
Ia:
CE = (G’ + CV)/(G’ + CV + F)
Protocol
2b:
CE - (G’ + CV)/L
Protocol
3:
R (Mr’
+ CV)/L
The correctness of the CE depends on the measurement of 1. If the method
used for determining the VOC content of the liquid Input measures CV, then the
measurement of C would correctly reflect the quantity (C’ + CV) or (Mr’ + CV)
and all three protocols would provide the correct CE.
However,
C or Mr would
1) 1 100,
CV = 20, and
Example 1:
Example 2:
if the determination of I does not include CV, then the measured
not be correct. Consider the following two examples: (Example
C’ • 90, CV — 10, and F — 10; and (Example 2) 1 — 100, C’ = 90,
F = 10. The correct CE would be as follows:
CE = (90 + 10)/(100 + 10) 90.9 percent
CE — (90 + 20)/(100 + 20) — 91.7 percent
The calculated CE for the examples are:
Example 1:
Protocol Ia: CE • G/(G + F) — (90 + 10)/(90 + 10 + 10) — 90.9
percent.
CE • GIL • (90 + 1O)/100 — 100.0 percent.
CE — (90 + 20)/(90 + 20 + 10) — 91.7 percent.
CE — (90 + 20)/100 • 110.0 percent.
As can be seen, Protocol la gives the correct result, whereas Protocol 2b
gives positively biased CE’s. Each percent CV Increases the CE by one
percent CE. Protocol 3 Is similarly affected as with Protocol 2b, since the
recovered VOC would include CV.
the captured VOC emission stream will be included
the amount of VOC not including CV, the CE
Protocol 2b:
Example 2:
Protocol la:
Protocol 2b:
14

-------
5. CoatIngs that contain so’vents with different volatilitles.
The F stream may contain a higher proportion of the more volatile
solvents. If an FIA is used, the measurement of F may not reflect the actual
amount of VOC In the F or G stream because of-the different response factors.
If this is the case, Method 18, alone or along with appropriate response
factors of an FIA, may need to be used to characterize F or G.
15

-------
DRAFT: 1/30/90
VOC CAPTURE EFFICIENCY
Procedure L - VOC Input
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 ApplicabilIty. This procedure is applicable for determining the input of
volatile organic compounds (VOC). It is intended to be used as a segment in
the development of liquid/gas protocols for determining VOC capture efficiency
(CE) for surface coating and printing operations.
1.2 PrincIple. The amount of VOC introduced to the process (1) is the sum of
the products of the weight (W) of each VOC containing liquid (ink, paint,
solvent, etc.) used and its VOC content (V). A sample of each VOC containing
liquid is analyzed with a flame ionization analyzer (FIA) to determine V.
1.3 Estimated Measurement Uncertainty.. The measurement uncertainties are
estimated for each VOC containing liquid as follows: W = ±2 percent and
V = ±12 percent. Based on these numbers, the probable uncertainty for L is
estimated at about ±12.2 percent for each VOC containing liquid.
1.4 SamplIng Requirements. A capture efficiency test shall consist of at least
three sampling runs. The sampling time for each run should be at least 8 hours,
unless otherwise approved.
1.5 Note. This procedure is often applied in highly explosive areas. Caution
and care should be exercised in choice of equipment and installation. Mention
of trade names or company products does not constitute endorsement. All gas
concentrations (percent, ppm) are by volume, unless otherwise noted.
2. APPARATUS AND REAGENTS
2.1 LiquId Weight.
2.1.1 Balances/DigItal Scales. To weigh drums of VOC containing liquids to
±0.05 percent of the drum weight or ±1.0 percent of the total weight of VOC
containing material used during a sample run, whichever is less.
2.1.2 Volume Neasurement Apparatus (Alternative). Volume meters, flow meters,
density measurement equipment, etc., as needed to achieve same accuracy as direct
weight measurements.
2.2 VOC Content (Flame Ionization Analyzer Technique). The liquid sample
analysis system is shown in Figures 1 and 2. The following equipment is
required:
2.2.1 Sample Collection Can. An appropriately sized metal can to be used to
collect VOC containing materials. The can must be constructed in such a way that
it can be grounded to the coating container.
2.2.2 Needle Valves. To control gas flow.

-------
ATMOSPHERIC
VENT
uPC.
ZERO AIR.
OR EQUIVALENT
PRESSURE
GAGE
LINEARITY
CALIBRATION GASES
HEATING COILS
CR CAL
ORIFICE
VOC
SAMPLE
VESSEL
o . o Hg
U-TUBE MANOMETER
OR VACLRJM GAGE
LEGEND
NEEDLE VALVE
1)11 TOGGLE VALVE
— SAMPLE UNES
SIGNAL UNES
Figure 1. LiquId analysis sample system.

-------
TEFLON SAMPLE LINE
ccGl.ASS VESSEL
CRJT CAL ORIFICE
PUE E STOPPER
WITH TEFLON TAPE
ULTRA PUPE
CARRIER GAS
‘V
Fçure 2. ‘ /CC san Ung vessel

-------
2.2.3 Regulators. For carrier gas and calibration gas cylinders.
2.2.4 TubIng. Teflon or stainless steel tubing with diameters and lengths
determined by connection requirements of equipment. The tubing between the
sample oven outlet and the FIA shall be heated to maintain a temperature of
120 ± 5’C.
2.2.5 AtmospherIc Vent. A tee and 0- to 0.5-liter/mm rotameter placed In the
sampling line between the carrier gas cylinder and the VOC sample vessel to
release the excess carrier gas. A toggle valve placed between the tee and the
rotameter facilitates leak tests of the analysis system.
2.2.6 Thermometer. Capable of measuring the temperature of the hot water bath
to within 1’C.
2.2.7 Sample Oven. Heated enclosure, containing calibration gas coil heaters,
critical orifice, aspirator, and other liquid sample analysis components, capable
of maintaining a temperature of 120 ± 5’C.
2.2.8 Gas Coil Heaters. Sufficient lengths of stainless steel or Teflon tubing
to allow zero and calibrationgases to be heated to the sample oven temperature
before entering the critical orifice or aspirator.
2.2.9 Water Bath. Capable of heating and maintaining a sample vessel
temperature of 100 ± S.C.
2.2.10 AnalytIcal Balance. To measure ±0.001 g.
2.2.11 DIsposable Syringes. 2-cc or 5-cc.
2.2.12 Sample Vessel. Glass, 40-ml septum vial. A separate vessel is needed
for each sample.
2.2.13 Rubber Stopper. Two-hole stopper to accommodate 3.2-mm (1/8-in.) Teflon
tubing, appropriately sized to fit the opening of the sample vessel. The rubber
stopper should be wrapped in Teflon tape to provide a tighter seal and to prevent
any reaction of the sample with the rubber stopper. Alternatively, any leak-free
closure fabricated of non-reactive materials and accommodating the necessary
tubing fittings may be used.
2.2.14 CritIcal Orifices. Calibrated critical orifices capable of providing
constant flow rates from 50 to 250 ml/min at known pressure drops. Sapphire
orifice assemblies (available from O’Keefe Controls Company) and glass capillary
tubing have been found to be adequate for this application.
2.2.15 Vacula Gauge. 0- to 760-mm (0- to 30-In.) Hg U-Tube manometer or vacuum
gauge.
2.2.16 Pressure Gauge. Bourdon gauge capable of measuring the maximum air
pressure at the aspirator inlet (e.g., 100 psig).
2.2.17 Aspirator. A device capable of generating sufficient vacuum at the
sample vessel to create critical flow through the calibrated orifice when
4

-------
sufficient air pressure Is present at the aspirator inlet. The aspirator must
also provide sufficient sample pressure to operate the FIA. The sample is also
mixed with the dilution gas within the aspirator.
2.2.18 Soap Bubble Meter. Of an appropriate size to calibrate the critical
orifices in the system.
2.2.19 OrganIc Concentration Analyzer. An FM with a span value of 1.5 times
the expected concentration as propane; however other span values may be used if
it can be demonstrated that they would provide more accurate measurements. The
system shall be capable of meeting or exceeding the following specifications:
2.2.19.1 Zero Drift. Less than ±3 percent of the span value.
2.2.19.2 CalIbration Drift. Less than ±3 percent of span value.
2.2.19.3 CalIbration Error. Less than ±5 percent of the calibration gas value.
2.2.20 Integrator/Data Acquisition System. An analog or digital device or
computerized data acquisition system used to integrate the FIA response or
compute the average response and record measurement data. The minimum data
sampling frequency for computing average or integrated values is one measurement
value every 5 seconds. The device shall be capable of recording average values
at least once per minute.
2.2.21 Chart Recorder (Optional). A chart recorder or similar device Is
recommended to provide a continuous analog display of the measurement results
during the liquid sample analysis.
2.2.22 CalibratIon and Other Gases. Gases used for calibration, fuel, and
combustion air (if required) are contained In compressed gas cylinders. All
calibration gases shall be traceable to NIST standards and shall be certified
by the manufacturer to ±1 percent of the tag value. Additionally, the
manufacturer of the cylinder should provide a recommended shelf life for each
calibration gas cylinder over which the concentration does not change more than
±2 percent from the certified value. For calibration gas values not generally
available, alternative methods for preparing calibration gas mixtures, such as
dilution systems, may be used with prior approval.
2.2.22.1 Fuel. A 40 percent H 2 /60 percent He or 40 percent H 2 /60 percent N 2 gas
mixture Is reconinended to avoid an oxygen synergism effect that reportedly occurs
when oxygen concentration varies significantly from a mean value.
2.2.22.2 CarrIer Gas. High purity air with less than 1 ppm of organic material
(as propane) or less than 0.1 percent of the span value, whichever Is greater.
2.2.22.3 FIA Linearity Calibration Gases. Low-, mid-, and high-range gas
mixture standards with nominal propane concentrations of 20-30, 45-55, and
70-80 percent of the span value in air, respectively. Other calibration values
and other span values may be used if it can be shown that more accurate
measurements would be achieved.
5

-------
2.2.22.4 System Calibration Gas. Gas mixture standard containing propane in
air, approximating the undiluted VOC concentration expected for the liquid
samples.
3. DETERMINATION OF LIQUID INPUT WEIGHT
3.1 Weight Difference. Determine the amount of material introduced to the
process as the weight difference of the feed material before and after each
sampling run. In determining the total VOC containing liquid usage, account for:
(a) the initial (beginning) VOC containing liquid mixture; (b) any solvent added
during the test run; (c) any coating added during the test run; and (d) any
residual VOC containing liquid mixture remaining at the end of the sample run.
3.1.1 Identify all points where VOC containing liquids are introduced to the
process. To obtain an accurate measurement of VOC containing liquids, start with
an empty fountain (If applicable). After completing the run, drain the liquid
in the fountain back Into the liquid drum (if possible), and weigh the drum
again. Weigh the VOC containing liquids to ±0.5 percent of the total weight
(full) or ±0.1 percent of the total weight of VOC containing liquid used during
the sample run, whichever is less. If the residual liquid cannot be returned
to the drum, drain the fountain into a preweighed empty drum to determine the
final weight of the liquid.
3.1.2 If it is not possible to obtain a measurement of a single representative
mixture, then weigh the various components separately (e.g., If solvent is added
during the sampling run, weigh the solvent before It is added to the mixture).
If a fresh drum of VOC containing liquid Is needed during the run, then weigh
both the empty drum and fresh drum.
3.2 Volume Measurement (Alternative). If direct weight measurements are not
feasible, the tester may use volume meters and flow rate meters (and density
measurements) to determine the weight of liquids used if it can be demonstrated
that the technique produces results equivalent to the direct weight measurements.
If a single representative mixture cannot be measured, measure the components
separately.
4. DETERMINATION OF VOC CONTENT IN INPUT LIQUIDS
4.1 CollectIon of Liquid Samples.
4.1.1 Collect a 100-mi or larger sample of the VOC containing liquid mixture
at each application location at the beginning and end of each test run. A
separate sample should be taken of each VOC containing liquid added to the
application mixture during the test run. If a fresh drum is needed during the
sampling run, then obtain a sample from the fresh drum.
4.1.2 When collecting the sample, ground the sample container to the coating
drum. Fill the sample container as close to the rim as possible to minimize the
amount of headspace.
6

-------
4.1.3 After the sample is collected, seal the container so the sample cannot
leak out or evaporate.
4.1.4 Label the container to identify clearly the contents.
4.2 Liquid Sample VOC Content.
4.2.1 Assemble the liquid VOC content analysis system as shown in Figure 1.
4.2.2 Permanently identify all of the critical orifices that may be used.
Calibrate each critical orifice under the expected operating conditions (i.e.,
sample vacuum and temperature) against a volume meter as described in
Section 5.3.
4.2.3 Label and tare the sample vessels (including the stoppers and caps) and
the syringes.
4.2.4 Install an empty sample vessel and perform a leak test of the system.
Close the carrier gas valve and atmospheric vent and evacuate the sample vessel
to 250 mm (10 in.) Hg absolute or less using the aspirator. Close the toggle
valve at the inlet to the aspirator and observe the vacuum for at least one
minute. If there is any change in the sample pressure, release the vacuum,
adjust or repair the apparatus as necessary and repeat the leak test.
4.2.5 Perform the analyzer calibration and linearity checks according to the
procedure in Section 5.1. Record the responses to each of the calibration gases
and the back-pressure setting of the FM.
4.2.6 Establish the appropriate dilution ratio by adjusting the aspirator air
supply or substituting critical orifices. Operate the aspirator at a vacuum of
at least 25 mm (1 in.) Hg greater than the vacuum necessary to achieve critical
flow. Select the dilution ratio so that the maximum response of the FIA to the
sample does not exceed the high-range calibration gas.
4.2.7 Perform system calibration checks at two levels by introducing compressed
gases at the inlet to the sample vessel while the aspirator and dilution devices
are operating. Perform these checks using the carrier gas (zero concentration)
and the system calibration gas. If the response to the carrier gas exceeds
±0.5 percent of span, clean or repair the apparatus and repeat the check. Adjust
the dilution ratio as necessary to achieve the correct response to the upscale
check, but do not adjust the analyzer calibration. Record the identification
of the orifice, aspirator air supply pressure, FIA back-pressure, and the
responses of the FM to the carrier and system calibration gases.
4.2.8 After completing the above checks, inject the system calibration gas for
approximately 10 minutes. Time the exact duration of the gas injection using
a stopwatch. Determine the area under the FM response curve and calculate the
system response factor based on the sample gas flow rate, gas concentration, and
the duration of the injection as compared to the integrated response using
Equations 2 and 3.
7

-------
4.2.9 Verify that the sample oven and sample line temperatures are 120 ± 5’C
and that the water bath temperature is 100’ ± 5’C.
4.2.10 Fill a tared syringe with approximatel.y 1 g of the VOC containing liquid
and weigh It. Transfer the liquid to a tared sample vessel. Plug the sample
vessel to minimize sample loss. Weigh the sample vessel containing the liquid
to determine the amount of sample actually received. Also, as a quality control
check, weigh the empty syringe to determine the amount of material delivered.
The two coating sample weights should agree within ±0.02 g. If not, repeat the
procedure until an acceptable sample Is obtained.
4.2.11 Connect the vessel to the analysis system. Adjust the aspirator supply
pressure to the correct value. Open the valve on the carrier gas supply to the
sample vessel and adjust it to provide a slight excess flow to the atmospheric
vent. As soon as the initial response of the FIA begins to decrease, immerse
the sample vessel in the water bath. (Applying heat to the sample vessel too
soon may cause the FID response to exceed the calibrated range of the instrument,
and thus invalidate the analysis.)
4.2.12 Continuously measure and record the response of the FIA until all of the
volatile material has been evaporated from the sample and the instrument response
has returned to the baseline (i.e., response less than 0.5 percent of the span
value. Observe the aspirator supply pressure, FIA back-pressure, atmospheric
vent, and other system operating parameters during the run; repeat the analysis
procedure if any of these parameters deviate from the values established during
the system calibration checks in Section 4.2.7. Integrate the area under the
FIA response curve, or determine the average concentration response and the
duration of sample analysis.
4.2.13 After the sample has been completed, repeat the system calibration checks
in Section 4.2.7 before any adjustments to the FIA or measurement system are
made. If the zero or calibration drift exceeds ±3 percent of the span value,
discard the result and repeat the analysis. If the drift check results are
acceptable, calculate the VOC content of the sample using the equations in
Section 7.
5. CALIBRATION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
5.1 FIA Calibration and Linearity Check. Make necessary adjustments to the air
and fuel supplies for the FIA and ignite the burner. Allow the FIA to warm up
for the period recommended by the manufacturer. Inject a calibration gas into
the measurement system and adjust the back-pressure regulator to the value
required to achieve the flow rates specified by the manufacturer. Inject the
zero- and the high-range calibration gases and adjust the analyzer calibration
to provide the proper responses. Inject the low- and mid-range gases and record
the responses of the measurement system. The calibration and linearity of the
system are acceptable if the responses for all four gases are within 5 percent
of the respective gas values. If the performance of the system is not
acceptable, repair or adjust the system and repeat the linearity check. Conduct
a calibration and linearity check after assembling the analysis system and after
a major change is made to the system.
8

-------
5.2 Systems Drift Checks. Select the calibration gas that most closely
approximates the concentration of the captured emissions for conducting the drift
checks. Introduce the zero and calibration gas at the calibration valve assembly
and verify that the appropriate gas flow rate and pressure are present at the
FIA. Record the measurement system responses tb the zero and calibration gases.
The performance of the system is acceptable if the measurement system responses
are within 3 percent of the span value. Conduct the system drift checks at the
beginning and end of each day.
5.3 CritIcal Orifice Calibration.
5.3.1 Each critical orifice must be calibrated at the specific operating
conditions that It will be used. Therefore, assemble all components of the
liquid sample analysis system as shown In Figure 3. A stopwatch is also
required.
5.3.2 Turn on the sample oven, sample line, and water bath heaters and allow
the system to reach the proper operating temperature. Adjust the aspirator to
a vacuum of 380 nvn (15 in.) Hg vacuum. Measure the time required for one soap
bubble to move a known distance and record barometric pressure.
5.3.3 Repeat the calibration procedure at a vacuum of 406 rn (16 in.) Hg and
at 25-rn (1-In.) Hg Intervals until three consecutive determinations provide the
same flow rate within 2 percent. Calculate the critical flow rate for the
orifice In ml/min at standard conditions. Record the vacuum necessary to achieve
critical flow.
6. NOMENCLATURE
A 1 = area under the response curve of the liquid sample, area counts.
As area under the response curve of the calibration gas, area counts.
C = actual concentration of system calibration gas, ppm propane.
K = 1.830 x i0 g/(ml-ppm).
L — total VOC content of liquid input, kg.
— mass of liquid sample delivered to the sample vessel, grams.
n — number of VOC containing liquids.
q = flow rate through critical orifice, ml/min.
RF — liquid analysis system response factor, 9/area count.
— total gas injection time for system calibration gas during integrator
calibration, mm.
9

-------
SAI LE OVEN
ThERMOMETER
CRITICAL
ORIFICE
u,C.
ZERO AIR.
OR EQUIVALENT
—&-
w
LINEARITY
CALIBRATION GASES
VOC
SAMPLE
VESSEL—A
IO-3OHg
J U-TUBE MANOMETER
OR VACUUM GAGE
BURBLE
METER
w
C,
z
a
LEGEND
I ] NEEDLE VALVE
i>I
-------
— final VOC fraction of VOC containing liquid j.
V 1 — initial VOC fraction of VOC containing liquid j.
VAJ VOC fraction of VOC containing liquid j added during the run.
V = VOC fraction of liquid sample.
= weight of VOC containing liquid j remaining at end of the run, kg.
= weight of VOC containing liquid j at beginning of the run, kg.
— weight of VOC containing liquid j added during the run, kg.
7. CALCULATIONS
7.1 Total VOC Content of the Input VOC Containing Liquid.
I = V W - V W + V W Eq. 1
Ii Ij Fj Fj j=1 AJ Aj
7.2 Liquid Sample Analysis System Response Factor for Systems Using Integrators,
Grams/Area Counts.
C q O K
RF= Eq.2
As
7.3 VOC Content of the liquid Sample.
A 1 RF
Eq.3
11

-------
Draft: 2/14/90
1. INTRODUCTION
VOC CAPTURE EFFICIENCY
Procedure G.1 - Captured VOC Emissions
1.1 ApplicabilIty. This procedure is applicable for determining the volatile
organic compounds (VOC) content of captured gas streams. It is intended to be
used as a segment in the development of liquid/gas or gas/gas protocols for
determining VOC capture efficiency (CE) for surface coating and printing
operations. The procedure may not be acceptable In certain site-specific
situations, e.g., when: (1) direct fired heaters or other circumstances affect
the quantity of VOC at the control device Inlet; and (2) particulate organic
aerosols are formed in the process and are present In the captured emissions.
1.2 Principle. The amount of VOC captured (G) is calculated as the sum of
the products of the VOC content (CGJ) the flow rate (QGj)’ and the sample time
(° ) from each captured emissions point.
test shall consist of at
each run should be at least
1.5 Note. This procedure Is often applied where there are highly explosive
gas mixtures. Caution and care should be exercised in choice of equipment and
installation. Mention of trade names or company products does not constitute
endorsement. All gas concentrations (percent, ppm) are by volume, unless
otherwise noted. -
2. APPARATUS AND REAGENTS
2.1 Gas VOC Concentration. A schematic of the measurement system is shown in
Figure 1. The main components are described below:
2.1.1 Sample Probe. Stainless steel, or equivalent.
heated to prevent VOC condensation.
The probe shall be
2.1.2 CalibratIon Valve Assembly. Three-way valve assembly at the outlet of
sample probe to direct the zero and calibration gases to the analyzer. Other
methods, such as quick-connect lines, to route calibration gases to the outlet
of the sample probe are acceptable.
2.1.3
gas to
Sample Line.
the analyzer.
Stainless steel
The sample line
or Teflon
must be
tubing
heated
to
to
transport the sample
prevent condensation.
1.3 Estimated Measurement Uncertainty.
estimated for each captured or fugitive
QG) ± 5.5 percent and ±5 percent.
uncertainty for G is estimated at about ±
1.4 Sampling Requirements. A capture efficiency
least three sampling runs. The sampling time for
8 hours, unless otherwise approved.
The measurement uncertainties are
emissions point as follows:
Based on these numbers, the probable
7.4 percent.

-------
SAMPLE BYPASS
EXCESS
DUCT FID EXHAUST
INTEGRATOW
DATA
ACOUISIT ION
SYSTEM
HEATED
ASSEMBLY HEATED SAMPLE LINE ANAL ER
SINGLE POINT PARTICULATE FLAME
CALIBRATION IONIZATION _________
PF BE AT FILTER VALVE
PADDLE OF DUCT __________
_____________________________________ ____ RECORDER
__________ _____________________________
(OPTIONAL)
SAMPLE MAMFOLD
LEGEND
NEEDLE VALVE
UI
— SAMPLE UNES
SIGNAL LINES
a ________________
FigUre 1. Gas VOC concentration measurement system.
VOC 2/90

-------
2.1.4 Sample Pump. A leak-free pump, to pull the sample gas through the
system at a flow rate sufficient to minimize the response time of the
measurement system. The components of the pump that contact the gas stream
shall be constructed of stainless steel or Teflon. The sample pump must be
heated to prevent condensation.
2.1.5 Sample Flow Rate Control. A sample flow rate control valve and
rotameter, or equivalent, to maintain a constant sampling rate within
10 percent. The flow rate control valve and rotameter must be heated to
prevent condensation. A control valve may also be located on the sample pump
bypass loop to assist in controlling the sample pressure and flow rate.
2.1.6 Sample Gas Manifold. Capable of diverting a portion of the sample gas
stream to the flame ionization analyzer (FIA), and the remainder to the bypass
discharge vent. The manifold components shall be constructed of stainless
steel or Teflon. If captured or fugitive emissions are to be measured at
multiple locations, the measurement system shall be designed to use separate
sampling probes, lines, and pumps for each measurement location and a common
sample gas manifold and FIA. The sample gas manifold and connecting lines to
the FIA must be heated to prevent condensation.
2.1.7 Organic Concentration Analyzer. An FIA with a span value of 1.5 times
the expected concentration as propane; however, other span values may be used
if it can be demonstrated that they would provide more accurate measurements.
The system shall be capable of meeting or exceeding the following
sped ficat ions:
2.1.7.1 Zero Drift. Less than ±3 percent of the span value.
2.1.7.2 Calibration Drift. Less than ±3 percent of the span value.
2.1.7.3 Calibration Error. Less than ±5 percent of the calibration gas
value.
2.1.7.4 Response Time. Less than 30 seconds.
2.1.8 Integrator/Data Acquisition System. An analog or digital device or
computerized data acquisition system used to integrate the FIA response or
compute the average response and record measurement data. The minimum data
sampling frequency for computing average or integrated values is one
measurement value every 5 seconds. The device shall be capable of recording
average values at least once per minute.
2.1.9 Calf bY t1cn and Other Gases. Gases used for calibration, fuel, and
combustion 1W (if required) are contained In compressed gas cylinders. All
calibratlongases shall be traceable to NIST standards and shall be certified
by the manufacturer to ±1 percent of the tag value. Additionally, the
manufacturer of the cylinder should provide a recommended shelf life for each
calibration gas cylinder over which the concentration does not change more
than ±2 percent from the certified value. For calibration gas values not
generally available, alternative methods for preparing calibration gas
mixtures, such as dilution systems, may be used with prior approval.
3

-------
2.1.9.1 Fuel. A 40 percent H 2 /60 percent He or 40 percent H/60 percent N 2
gas mixture Is recommended to avoid an oxygen synergism effec c that reportedly
occurs when oxygen concentration varies significantly from a mean value.
2.1.9.2 CarrIer Gas. High purity air with less than 1 ppm of organic
material (as propane or carbon equivalent) or less than 0.1 percent of the
span value, whichever is greater.
2.1.9.3 PtA Linearity Calibration Gases. Low-, mid-, and high-range gas
mixture standards with nominal propane concentrations of 20-30, 45-55, and
70-80 percent of the span value in air, respectively. Other calibration
values and other span values may be used if it can be shown that more accurate
measurements would be achieved.
2.1.10 Particulate Filter. An in-stack or an out-of-stack glass fiber filter
is recommended if exhaust gas particulate loading Is significant. An
out-of-stack filter must be heated to prevent any condensation unless It can
be demonstrated that no condensation occurs.
2.2 Captured Emissions Volumetric Flow Rate.
2.2.1 Method 2 or 2A Apparatus. For determining volumetric flow rate.
2.2.2 Method 3 Apparatus and Reagents. For determining molecular weight of
the gas stream. An estimate of the molecular weight of the gas stream may be
used if it can be justified.
2.2.3 Method 4 Apparatus and Reagents. For determining moisture content, if
necessary.
3. DETERJIINATION OF VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE OF CAPTURED EMISSIONS
3.1 Locate all points where emissions are captured from the affected facility
or exhausted from the temporary total enclosure (TTE). Using Method 1,
determine the sampling points. Be sure to check each site for cyclonic or
swirling flow.
3.2 Measure the velocity at each sampling site at least once every hour
during each sampling run using Method 2 or 2A.
4. DETERMINATION OF VOC CONTENT OF CAPTURED EMISSIONS
4.1 AnalysIs Duration. Measure the VOC responses at each captured emissions
point during the entire test run or, if applicable, while the process Is
operating. If there are multiple captured emission locations, design a
sampling system to allow a single FIA to be used to determine the VOC
responses at all sampling locations.
4

-------
4.2 Gas VOC Concentration.
4.2.1 Assemble the sample train as shown in Figure 1. CalIbrate the FIA
according to the procedure in Section 5.1.
4.2.2 Conduct a system check according to the procedure in Section 5.3.
4.2.3 Install the sample probe so that the probe is centrally located in the
stack, pipe, or duct, and is sealed tightly at the stack port connection.
4.2.4 Inject zero gas at the calibration valve assembly. Allow the
measurement system response to reach zero. Measure the system response time
as the time required for the system to reach the effluent concentration after
the calibration valve has been returned to the effluent sampling position.
4.2.5 Conduct a system check before and a system drift check after each
sampling run according to the procedures in Sections 5.2 and 5.3. If the
drift check following a run indicates unacceptable performance, the run is not
valid. The tester may elect to perform system drift checks during the run not
to exceed one drift check per hour.
4.2.6 VerIfy that the sample lines, filter, and pump temperatures are
120 ± S.C.
4.2.7 Begin sampling at the start of the test period and continue to sample
during the entire run. Record the starting and ending times and any required
process information as appropriate. If multiple captured emission locations
are sampled using a single FIA, sample at each location for the same amount of
time (e.g., 2 minutes) and continue to switch from one location to another for
the entire test run. Be sure that total sampling time at each location is the
same at the end of the test run. Collect at least 4 separate measurements
from each sample point during each hour of testing. Disregard the
measurements at each sampling location until two times the response time of
the measurement system has elapsed. Continue sampling for at least 1 minute
and record the concentration measurements. If the data acquisition system
does not have any provision for recording readings that are off scale, treat
any off scale reading as if it were equal to the span value.
4.3 Background Concentration.
4.3.1 Locate all NDO’s of the TTE. A sampling point shall be centrally
located outside of the TTE at 4 equivalent diameters from each NDO, if
possible. If there are more than 6 NDO’s, choose 6 samplIng points evenly
spaced among the NDO’s.
4.3.2 Assemble the sample train as shown in Figure 2. CalIbrate the FM and
conduct a system check according to the procedures In Sections 5.1 and 5.3.
NOTE: This sample train shall be a separate sampling train from the one to
measure the captured emissions.
4.3.3 Position the probe at the sampling location.
5

-------
EXHAUST
TEFLON HEAD
SAMPLE PUMP
SAMPLE
BYPASS
FIA
EXHAUST
VALVE
MEASUREMENT POINT I
MEASUREMENT POINT 2
MEASUREMENT POINT 3
MEASUREMENT POINT 4
MEASUREMENT POINT 5
THREE
WAY
VALVES
-J
sr,r’ ,an
Figure 2. Background measurement system.

-------
4.3.4 Determine the response time, conduct the system check and sample
according to the procedures described in Sections 4.2.4 to 4.2.7.
4.4 Alternative Procedure. The direct interface sampling and analysis
procedure described in Section 7.2 of Method 18 may be used to determine the
gas VOC concentration. The system must be designed to collect and analyze at
least one sample every 10 minutes.
5. CALIBRATION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
5.1 FM Calibration and Linearity Check. Make necessary adjustments to the
air and fuel supplies for the FIA and ignite the burner. Allow the FIA to
warm up for the period recommended by the manufacturer. Inject a calibration
gas into the measurement system and adjust the back-pressure regulator to the
value required to achieve the flow rates specified by the manufacturer.
Inject the zero- and the high-range calibration gases and adjust the analyzer
calibration to provide the proper responses. Inject the low- and mid-range
gases and record the responses of the measurement system. The calibration and
linearity of the system are acceptable if the responses for all four gases are
within 5 percent of the respective gas values. If the performance of the
system Is not acceptable, repair or adjust the system and repeat the linearity
check. Conduct a calibration and linearity check after assembling the
analysis system and after a major change is made to the system.
5.2 Systems Drift Checks. Select the calibration gas that most closely
approximates the concentration of the captured emissions for conducting the
drift checks. Introduce the zero and calibration gas at the calibration valve
assembly and verify that the appropriate gas flow rate and pressure are
present at the FIA. Record the measurement system responses to the zero and
calibration gases. The performance of the system Is acceptable If the
difference between the drift check measurement and the value obtained in
Section 5.1 is less than 3 percent of the span value. Conduct the system drift
checks at the end of each run.
5.3 System Check. Inject the high range calibration gas at the inlet of the
sampling probe and record the response. The performance of the system is
acceptable If the measurement system response Is within 5 percent of the value
obtained in Section 5.1 for the high range calibration gas. Conduct a system
check before and after each test run.
5.4 AnalysIs Audit. Imedlately before each test analyze an audit cylinder
as descr1bed th Section 5.2. The analysis audit must agree with the audit
cylinder conC ñtration wIthin 10 percent.
6. NONENCUTURE
C 91 • corrected average VOC concentration of background emissions at
point 1, ppm propane.
C 8 — average background concentration, ppm propane.
6

-------
C 61 • corrected average VOC concentration of captured emissions at point
j, ppm propane.
CON — average measured concentration for, the drift check calibration gas,
ppm propane.
C 00 average system drift check concentration for zero concentration
gas, ppm propane.
CH • actual concentration of the drift check calibration gas, ppm
propane.
C • uncorrected average background VOC concentration measured at point
1, ppm propane.
C — uncorrected average VOC concentration measured at point j, ppm
propane.
G • total VOC content of captured emissions, kg.
K 1 — 1.830 x 10-6 kg/(m 3 -ppm).
n — number of measurement points.
QGJ — average effluent volumetric flow rate corre ted to standard
conditions at captured emissions point j, rn/mm.
— total duration of captured emissions sampling run, mm.
7. CALCULATIONS
7.1 Total VOC Captured Emissions.
G — 1 (C 61 - C 9 ) QGJ 8 K 1 Eq. 1
7.2 VOC Concentration of the Captured Emissions at Point ,j.
C ’-
CH
. .? C — (C 1 - C 00 ) Eq. 2
CON-COO
7

-------
7.3 Background VOC Concentration at Point 1.
CH
C 1 (C - C 00 ) Eq.3
C OH - C 00
7.4 Average Background Concentration.
A
1•1
C 8 . Eq.4
nA
NOTE: If the concentration at all points is within 20% of the average
concentration of all points, the terms “A 1 and AN may be deleted from
Equation 4.
8

-------
Draft: 2/16/90
VOC CAPTURE EFFICIENCY
Procedure G.2 - Captured VOC Emissions (Dilution Technique)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 ApplicabilIty. This procedure is applicable for determining the volatile
organic compounds (VOC) content of captured gas streams. It is intended to
be used as a segment In the development of a gas/gas protocol in which
fugitive emissions are measured for determining VOC capture efficiency (CE)
for surface coating and printing operations. A dilution system Is used to
reduce the VOC concentration of the captured emission to about the same
concentration as the fugitive emissions. The procedure may not be acceptable
in certain site-specific situations, e.g., when: (1) dIrect fired heaters or
other circumstances affect the quantity of VOC at the control device Inlet;
and (2) partIculate organic aerosols are formed in the process and are present
in the captured emissions.
1.2 PrincIple. The amount of VOC captured (G) Is calculated as the sum of
the products of the VOC content (C ) , the flow rate (Q 6 ) and the sampling
time (° ) from each captured emissions point.
1.3 EstImated Measurement Uncertainty. The measurement uncertainties are
estimated for each captured or fugitive emissions point as follows: QGj —
±5.5 percent and ±5 percent. Based on these numbers, the probable
uncertainty for G is estimated at about ± 7.4 percent.
1.4 SamplIng Requirements. A capture efficiency test shall consist of at
least three sampling runs. The sampling time for each run should be at least
8 hours, unless otherwise approved.
1.5 Note. This procedure is often applied where there are highly explosive
gas mixtures. Caution and care should be exercised in choice- of equipment and
installation. Mention of trade names or company products does not constitute
endorsement. All gas concentrations (percent, ppm) are by volume, unless
otherwise noted.
2. APPARATUS *110 REAGENTS
2.1 Gas VOC Cancentratlon. A schematic of the measurement system is shown in
Figure 1. The main components are described below:
2.1.1 DilutIon System. A KIpp in-stack dilution probe and controller or
similar device may be used. The dilution rate may be changed by substituting
different critical orifices or adjustments of the aspirator supply pressure.
The dilution system shall be heated to prevent VOC condensation. Note: An
out-of-stack dilution device may be used.
2.1.2 Calibration Valve Assembly. Three-way valve assembly at the outlet of
sample probe to direct the zero and calibration gases to the analyzer. Other

-------
DRAFT: 2/14/90
VOC CAPTURE EFFICIENCY
Procedure F.1. - Fugitive VOC Emissions-from Temporary Enclosures
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 ApplicabIlity. This procedure is applicable for determining the fugitive
volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions from a temporary total enclosure
(TIE). It is intended to be used as a segment in the development of
liquid/gas or gas/gas protocols for determining VOC capture efficiency (CE)
for surface coating and printing operations.
1.2 Principle. The amount of fugitive VOC emissions (F) from the TTE is
calculated as the sum of the products of the VOC content (C ) the flow rate
(QF )’ and the sampling time ( 9 F) from each fugitive emissions point.
1.3 Estimated Measurement Uncertainty. The measurement uncertainties are
estimated for each fugitive emission point as follows: ±5.5 percent and
CF = ±5 percent. Based on these numbers, the probable uncertainty for F is
estimated at about ±7.4 percent.
1.4 SamplIng Requirements. A capture efficiency test shall consist of at
least three sampling runs. The sampling time for each run should be at least
8 hours
unless otherwise approved.
1.5 Note. This procedure is often applied where there are highly explosive
gas mixtures. Caution and care should be exercised in choice of equipment and
installation. Mention of trade names or company products does not constitute
endorsement. All gas concentrations (percent, ppm) are by volume, unless
otherwise noted.
2. APPARATUS AND REAGENTS
2.1 Gas VOC Concentration. A schematic of the measurement system is shown in
Figure 1. The main components are described below:
2.1.1 Sample Probe. Stainless steel, or equivalent. The probe shall be
heated to prevent VOC condensation.
2.1.2 Callbrati on Valve Assembly. Three-way valve assembly at the outlet of
sample probe to direct the zero and calibration gases to the analyzer. Other
methods, such as quick-connect lines, to route calibration gases to the outlet
of the sample probe are acceptable.
2.1.3 Sample Line. Stainless steel or Teflon tubing to transport the sample
gas to the analyzer. The sample line must be heated to prevent condensation.
2.1.4 Sample Pump. A leak-free pump, to pull the sample gas through the
system at a flow rate sufficient to minimize the response time of the

-------
TEFLON HEAD
SAMPLE PUMP
FUGITIVE EMISSION POINT I
FUGITIVE EMISSION POINT 2
FUGITIVE EMISSION POINT 3
FUGITIVE EMISSION POINT 4
FUGITIVE EMISSION POINT 5
EXHAUST
SAMPLE
BYPASS
FIA
EXHAUST
1
1’
3605 ‘ I89
FIgure 1. FugitIve e- -dons measurement system.

-------
measurement system. The components of the pump that contact the gas stream
shall be constructed of stainless steel or Teflon. The sample pump must be
heated to prevent condensation.
2.1.5 Sample Flow Rate Control. A sample flow rate control valve and
rotameter, or equivalent, to maintain a constant sampling rate within 10
percent. The flow control valve and rotameter must be heated to prevent
condensation. A control valve may also be located on the sample pump bypass
loop to assist in controlling the sample pressure and flow rate.
2.1.6 Sample Gas Manifold. Capable of diverting a portion of the sample gas
stream to the flame ionization analyzer (FIA), and the remainder to the bypass
discharge vent. The manifold components shall be constructed of stainless
steel or Teflon. If emissions are to be measured at multiple locations, the
measurement system shall be designed to use separate sampling probes, lines,
and pumps for each measurement location and a common, sample gas manifold and
FrA. The sample gas manifold and connecting lines to the FIA must be heated
to prevent condensation.
2.1.7 Organic Concentration Analyzer. An FIA with a span value of 1.5 times
the expected concentration as propane; however, other span values may be used
if it can be demonstrated that they would provide more accurate measurements.
The system shall be capable of meeting or exceeding the following
specifications:
2.1.7.1 Zero Drift. Less than ±3 percent of the span value.
2.1.7.2 Calibration Drift. Less than ±3 percent of the span value.
2.1.7.3 Calibration Error. Less than ±5 percent of the calibration gas
value.
2.1.7.4 Response Time. Less than 30 seconds.
2.2.8 Integrator/Data Acquisition System. An analog or digital device or
computerized data acquisition system used to integrate the FIA response or
compute the average response and record measurement data. The minimum data
sampling frequency for computing average or integrated values is one
measurement value every 5 seconds. The device shall be capable of recording
average values at least once per minute.
2.1.9 Calibration and Other Gases. Gases used for calibration, fuel, and
combustion air (If required) are contained In compressed gas cylinders. All
calibration gases shall be traceable to NIST standards and shall be certified
by the manufacturer to ±1 percent of the tag value. Additionally, the
manufacturer of the cylinder should provide a recommended shelf life for each
calibration gas cylinder over which the concentration does not change more
than ±2 percent from the certified value. For calibration gas values not
generally available, alternative methods for preparing calibration gas
mixtures, such as dilution systems, may be used with prior approval.
3

-------
2.1.9.1 Fuel. A 40 percent H 2 /60 percent Heor 40 percent H/60 percent N 2
gas mixture Is recommended to avoid an oxygen synergism effec?t that reportedly
occurs when oxygen concentration varies significantly from a mean value.
2.1.9.2 Carrier Gas. High purity air with less than 1 ppm of organic
material (as propane or carbon equivalent) or less than 0.1 percent of the
span value, whichever is greater.
2.1.9.3 FIA Linearity Calibration Gases. Low-, mid-, and high-range gas
mixture standards with nominal propane concentrations of 20-30, 45-55, and
70-80 percent of the span value in air, respectively. Other calibration
values and other span values may be used if it can be shown that more accurate
measurements would be achieved.
2.1.10 Particulate Filter. An in-stack or an out-of-stack glass fiber filter
is recommended if exhaust gas particulate loading is significant. An
out-of-stack filter must be heated to prevent any condensation unless it can
be demonstrated that no condensation occurs.
2.2 FugitIve Emissions Volumetric Flow Rate.
2.2.1 Method 2 or 2A Apparatus. For determining volumetric flow rate.
2.2.2 Method 3 Apparatus and Reagents. For determining molecular weight of
the gas stream. An estimate of the molecular weight of the gas stream may be
used if it can be justified.
2.2.3 Method 4 Apparatus and Reagents. For determining moisture content, if
necessary.
2.3 Temporary Total Enclosure. The criteria for designing a TIE are
discussed in Procedure TE.
3. DETERMINATION OF VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE OF FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
3.1 locate all points where emissions are exhausted from the ITE. Using
Method 1, determine the sampling points. Be sure to check each site for
cyclonic or swirling flow.
3.2 Measure the velocity at each sampling site at least once every hour
during each sampling run using Method 2 or 2A.
4. DETERMINATION OF VOC CONTENT OF FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
4.1 AnalysIs Duration. Measure the VOC responses at each fugitive emission
point during the entire test run or, If applicable, while the process Is
operating. If there are multiple emission locations, design a sampling system
to allow a single FIA to be used to determine the VOC responses at all
sampling locations.
4

-------
4.2 Gas VOC Concentration.
4.2.1 Assemble the sample train as shown in Figure 1. Calibrate the FIA and
conduct a system check according to the procedures in Sections 5.1 and 5.3,
respectively.
4.2.2 Install the sample probe so that the probe is centrally located in the
stack, pipe, or duct, and is sealed tightly at the stack port connection.
4.2.3 Inject zero gas at the calibration valve assembly. Allow the
measurement system response to reach zero. Measure the system response time
as the time required for the system to reach the effluent concentration after
the calibration valve has been returned to the effluent sampling position.
4.2.4 Conduct a system check before and a system drift check after each
sampling run according to the procedures in Sections 5.2 and 5.3. If the
drift check following a run indicates unacceptable performance, the run is not
valid. The tester may elect to perform system drift checks during the run not
to exceed one drift check per hour.
4.2.5 Verify that the sample lines, filter, and pump temperatures are 120 t
5’C.
4.2.6 Begin sampling at the start of the test period and continue to sample
during the entire run. Record the starting and ending times and any required
process information as appropriate. If multiple emission locations are
sampled using a single FIA, sample at each location for the same amount of
time (e.g., 2 minutes) and continue to switch from one location to another for
the entire test run. Be sure that total sampling time at each location is the
same at the end of the test run. Disregard the response measurements at each
sampling location until two times the response time of the measurement system
has elapsed. Continue sampling for at least 1 minute and record the
concentration measurements. If the data acquisition system does not have any
provision for recording readings that are off scale, treat any off scale
reading as If It were equal to the span value.
4.3 Background Concentration.
4.3.1 Deterulnatlon of VOC Background Concentration.
4.3.1.1 Locate all NDO’s of the TTE. A sampling point shall be centrally
located outside of the TIE at 4 equivalent diameters from each NDO, if
possible. If there are more than 6 NDO’s, choose 6 sampling points evenly
spaced among the NDO’s.
4.3.1.2 Assemble the sample train as shown in Figure 2. Calibrate the FIA
and conduct a system check according to the procedures In Sections 5.1 and
5.3.
4.3.1.3 PositIon the probe at the sampling location.
5

-------
4.0 CRITERIA OF A PERIIAt4ENT TOTAL ENCLOSURE
4.1 Same as Sections 3.1 and 3.3 - 3.5.
4.2 All VOC emissions must be captured and contained for discharge through a
control device.
5. PROCEDURE
5.1 Determine the equivalent diameters of the NOO’s and determine the
distances from each VOC emitting point to all NDO’s. Determine the equivalent
diameter of each exhaust duct or hood and its distance to all NDO’s.
Calculate the distances in terms of equivalent diameters. The number of
equivalent diameters shall be at least 4.
5.2 Measure the total area (As) of the enclosure and the total area (AN) of
all NDO’s of the enclosure. Calculate the NDO to enclosure area ratio (NEAR)
as follows:
NEAR = A AJAt
The NEAR must be O.05.
5.3 Measure the actual volumetric flow rate of each gas stream exiting the
enclosure through an exhaust duct or hood using EPA Method 2. In some cases
(e.g., when the building is the enclosure), it may be necessary to measure the
actual volumetric flow rate of each gas stream entering the enclosure through
a forced makeup air duct using Method 2. Calculate FY using the following
equation:
FV — [ Q 0 - Q 1 ]/ AN
where:
= the sum of the volumetric flow from all gas streams exiting the
enclosure through an exhaust duct or hood.
Q 1 — the sum of the volumetric flow from all gas
enclosure through a forced makeup air duct;
no forced makeup air into the enclosure.
A , 1 • total area of all NDO’s in enclosure.
streams into the
zero, if there is
The FV shall be at least 3,600 rn/hr (200 fpm).
5.4 Verify that
streamers, smoke
have been found
intervals of at
the direction of air flow through all NDO’s is inward. Use
tubes, tracer gases, etc. Strips of plastic wrapping film
to be effective. Monitor the direction of air flow at
least 10 minutes for at least 1 hour.
2

-------
VOC CAPTURE EFFICIENCY
2/12/90
Procedure I - Criteria for and Verification of a Permanent
or Temporary Total Enclosure
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 ApplicabilIty. This procedure Is used to determine whether a permanent
or temporary enclosure meets the criteria of a total enclosure (TE).
1.2 PrincIple. An enclosure is evaluated against a set of criteria. If the
criteria are met and if all the exhaust gases are ducted to a control device,
then the VOC CE is assumed to be 100 percent and CE need not be measured.
However, if part of the exhaust gas stream is not ducted to a control device,
CE must be determined.
2. DEFINITIONS
2.1 Natural Draft Opening (NDO) -- Any permanent opening in the enclosure
that remains open during operation of the facility and Is not connected to a
duct in which a fan is installed.
2.2 Permanent Total Enclosure (PIE) -- A permanently installed enclosure that
completely surrounds a source of emissions such that all VOC emissions are
captured and contained for discharge through a control device.
2.3 Temporary Total Enclosure (TTE) -- A temporarily installed enclosure that
completely surrounds a source of emissions such that all VOC emissions are
captured and contained for discharge through ducts that allow for the accurate
measurement of VOC rates.
3. CRITERIA OF A TEMPORARY TOTAL ENCLOSURE
3.1 Any NDO shall be at least 4 equivalent opening diameters from each VOC
emitting point.
3.2 Any exhaust point from the enclosure shall be at least 4 equivalent duct
or hood diameters from each ND0.
3.3 The total area of all NDO’s shall not exceed 5 percent of the surface
area of the enclosure’s four walls, floor, and ceiling.
3.4 The average facial velocity (FV) of air through all NDO’s shall be at
least 3,600 rn/hr (200 fpm). The direction of air through all NDO’s shall be
into the enclosure.
35 All access doors and windows whose areas are not included in Section 3.3
and are not included in the calculation in Section 3.4 shall be closed during
routine operation of the process.

-------
6. QUALITY ASSURANCE
6.1 The success of this protocol lies in designing the ITE to simulate the
conditions that exist without the TTE, i.e., the effect of the TTE on the
normal flow patterns around the affected facility or the amount of fugitive
VOC emissions should be minimal. The TTE must enclose the application
stations, coating reservoirs, and all areas from the application station to
the oven. The oven does not have to be enclosed if it is under negative
pressure. The NOO’s of the temporary enclosure and a fugitive exhaust fan
must be properly sized and placed.
6.2. Estimate the ventilation rate of the TIE that best simulates the
conditions that exist without the TTE, i.e., the effect of the TIE on the
normal flow patterns around the affected facility or the amount of fugitive
VOC emissions should be minimal. Figure 1 may be used as an aid. Measure the
concentration (C 6 ) and flow rate (Q ) of the captured gas stream, specify a
safe concentration (CF) for the fugitive gas stream, estimate the CE, and
then use the plot in Figure 1 to determine the volumetric flowrate of the
fugitive gas stream (QF)• A fugitive VOC emission exhaust fan that has a
variable flow control is desirable.
6.2.1 Monitor the concentration of VOC into the capture device without the
TIE. To minimize the effect of temporal variation on the captured emissions,
the baseline measurement should be made over as long a time period as
practical. However, the process conditions must be the same for the
measurement in Section 6.2.3 as they are for this baseline measurement. This
may require short measuring times for this quality control check before and
after the construction of the ITE.
6.2.2 After the TIE is constructed, monitor the VOC concentration inside the
TIE. This concentration shall not continue to increase and must not exceed
the safe level according to OSHA requirements for permissible exposure limits.
An increase in VOC concentration indicates poor TIE design or poor capture
efficiency.
6.2.3 Monitor the concentration of VOC into the capture device with the TIE.
To limit the effect of the TTE on the process, the VOC concentration with and
without the TIE must be within ±10 percent. If the measurements do not agree,
adjust the ventilation rate from the TIE until they agree within 10 percent.
3

-------
9 F total duration of capture efficiency sampling run, mm.
7. CALCULATIONS
7.1 Total VOC Fugitive Emissions From the Building.
F 3 =CFJ QF 9 F K 1 Eq. 1
7.2 VOC Concentration of the Fugitive Emissions at Point j.
CH
CFJ = (C - C 00 ) Eq. 2
CDH — C 00
8

-------
TEFLON HEAD
SAMPLE PUMP
ROTAMETERS
THREE
WAY
VALVES
4
+
MEASUREMENT POINT 1
MEASUREMENT POINT 2
MEASUREMENT POINT 3
MEASUREMENT POINT 4
MEASUREMENT POINT 5
Figure 2. Background measurement system
EXHAUST
SAMPLE
BYPASS
FIA
EXHAUST
1
l,r, ,’ )iOfl

-------
4.3.1.4 Determine the response time, conduct the system check and sample
according to the procedures described in Sections 4.2.3 to 4.2.6.
4.4 Alternative Procedure. The direct interface sampling and analysis
procedure described in Section 7.2 of Method 18 may be used to determine the
gas VOC concentration. The system must be designed to collect and analyze at
least one sample every 10 minutes.
5. CALIBRATION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
5.1 FIA Calibration and Linearity Check. Make necessary adjustments to the
air and fuel supplies for the FIA and ignite the burner. Allow the FIA to
warm up for the period recommended by the manufacturer. Inject a calibration
gas into the measurement system and adjust the back-pressure regulator to the
value required to achieve the flow rates specified by the manufacturer.
Inject the zero- and the high-range calibration gases and adjust the analyzer
calibration to provide the proper responses. Inject the low- and mid-range
gases and record the responses of the measurement system. The calibration and
linearity of the system are acceptable if the responses for all four gases are
within 5 percent of the respective gas values. If the performance of the
system is not acceptable, repair or adjust the system and repeat the linearity
check. Conduct a calibration and linearity check after assembling the
ana’ysis system and after a major change is made to the system.
5.2 Systems Drift Checks. Select the calibration gas concentration that most
closely approximates that of the fugitive gas emissions to conduct the drift
checks. Introduce the zero and calibration gas at the calibration valve
assembly and verify that the appropriate gas flow rate and pressure are
present at the FM. Record the measurement system responses to the zero and
calibration gases. The performance of the system is acceptable if the
difference between the drift check measurement and the value-obtained in
Section 5.1 is less than 3 percent of the span value. Conduct a system drift
check at the end of each run.
5.3 System Check. Inject the high range calibration gas at the inlet of the
sampling probe and record the response. The performance of the system is
acceptable if the measurement system response is within 5 percent of the value
obtained In Section 5.1 for the high range calibration gas. Conduct a system
check before each test run.
5.4 AnalysIs Audit. In nediately before each test analyze an audit cylinder
as described In Section 5.2. The analysis audit must agree with the audit
cylinder concentration within 10 percent.
6. NOMENCLATURE
A 1 — area of MOO I, ft 2 .
AN — total area of all NDO’s In the enclosure, ft 2 .
6

-------
C 91 corrected average VOC concentration of background emissions at
point I, ppm propane.
CB average background concentration, ppm propane.
CQH = average measured concentration for the drift check calibration gas,
ppm propane.
C 00 — average system drift check concentration for zero concentration
gas, ppm propane.
CFJ — corrected average VOC concentration of fugitive emissions at point
j, ppm propane.
CH — actual concentration of the drift check calibration gas, ppm
propane.
C 1 — uncorrected average background VOC concentration at point i, ppm
propane.
C • uncorrected average VOC concentration measured at point j, ppm
propane.
F total VOC content of fugitive emissions, kg.
K 1 = 1.830 x 10 kgJ(m 3 -ppm).
n = number of measurement points.
— average effluent volumetric flow rate corrected to standard
conditions at fugitive emissions point j, m 3 /min.
8 F total duration of fugitive emissions sampling run, mm.
7. CALCULATIONS
7.1 Total VOC Fugitive Emissions.
F — - C 3 ) QFj 9 F K 1 Eq. 1
7.2 VOC Concentration of the Fugitive Emissions at Point 3.
CH
C • (C - C 00 ) Eq. 2
COK - C 00
7

-------
7.3 Background VOC Concentration at Point 1.
CH
C 91 (C 1 - CDO) Eq.3
- C 00
7.4 Average Background Concentration.
A
Bi 1
C 9 u Eq.4
n A
NOTE: If the concentration at all points is within 20% of the average
concentration of all points, the terms “A 1 1 ’ and “AN” may be deleted from
Equation 4.
8

-------
DRAFT:02/16/90
VOC CAPTURE EFFICIENCY
Procedure F.2 - Fugitive VOC Emissions from Building Enclosures
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 ApplIcability. This procedure is applicable for determining the fugitive
volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions from a building enclosure (BE). It
is intended to be used as a segment in the development of liquid/gas or
gas/gas protocols for determining VOC capture efficiency (CE) for surface
coating and printing operations.
1.2 PrincIple. The total amount of fugitive VOC emissions (F 8 ) from the BE
is calculated as the sum of the products of the VOC content (CFJ) of each
fugitive emissions point, Its flow rate (QFj)’ and time (OF).
1.3 Measurement Uncertainty. The measurement uncertainties are estimated for
each fugitive emissions point as follows: ±5 percent and CFJ = ±5
percent. Based on these numbers, the probable uncertainty for F 8 is estimated
at about ±11.2 percent.
1.4 SamplIng Requirements. A capture efficiency test shall consist of at
least three sampling runs. The sampling time for each run should be at least
8 hours, unless otherwise approved.
1.5 Note. This procedure is often applied where there are highly explosive
gas mixtures. Caution and care should be exercised in choice of equipment and
installation. Mention of trade names or company products does not constitute
endorsement. All gas concentrations (percent, ppm) are by volume, unless
otherwise noted.
2. APPARATUS AND REAGENTS
2.1 Gas VOC Concentration. A schematic of the measurement system is shown in
Figure 1. The main components are described below:
2.1.1 Sample Probe. Stainless steel, or equivalent. The probe shall be
heated to prevent VOC condensation.
2.1.2 CalIbration Valve Assembly. Three-way valve assembly at the outlet of
sample probe to direct the zero and calibration gases to the analyzer. Other
methods, such as quick-connect lines, to route calibration gases to the outlet
of the sample probe are acceptable.
2.1.3 Sample Line. Stainless steel or Teflon tubing to transport the sample
gas to the analyzer. The sample line must be heated to prevent condensation.
2.1.4 Sample Pump. A leak-free pump, to pull the sample gas through the
system at a flow rate sufficient to minimize the response time of the
measurement system. The components of the pump that contact the gas stream

-------
TEFLON HEAD
SAMPLE PUMP
FUGITIVE EMISSION POINT I
FUGITIVE EMISSION POINT 2
FUGITIVE EMISSION POINT 3
FUGITIVE EMISSION POINT 4
FUGITIVE EMISSION POINT 5
1
EXHAUST
SAMPLE
BYPASS
FIA
EXHAUST
4
4
1
6O5 I89
FIgure 1. FugitIve er sIons measurement system.

-------
shall be constructed of stainless steel or Teflon. The sample pump must be
heated to prevent condensation.
2.1.5 Sample Flow Rate Control. A sample flow rate control valve and
rotameter, or equivalent, to maintain a constant sampling rate within 10
percent. The flow rate control valve and rotameter must be heated to prevent
condensation. A control valve may also be located on the sample pump bypass
loop to assist In controlling the sample pressure and flow rate.
2.1.6 Sample Gas Manifold. Capable of diverting a portion of the sample gas
stream to the flame ionization analyzer (FIA), and the remainder to the bypass
discharge vent. The manifold components shall be constructed of stainless
steel or Teflon. If emissions are to be measured at multiple locations, the
measurement system shall be designed to use separate sampling probes, lines,
and pumps for each measurement location and a convnon sample gas manifold and
FIA. The sample gas manifold must be heated to prevent condensation.
2.1.7 OrganIc Concentration Analyzer. An FIA with a span value of 1.5 times
the expected concentration as propane; however, other span values may be used
if it can be demonstrated that they would provide more accurate measurements.
The system shall be capable of meeting or exceeding the following
specifications:
2.1.7.1 Zero Drift. less than ±3 percent of the span value.
2.1.7.2 CalibratIon Drift. Less than ±3 percent of the span value.
2.1.7.3 Calibration Error. Less than ±5 percent of the calibration gas
value.
2.1.7.4 Response Time. less than 30 seconds.
2.1.8 Integrator/Data Acquisition System. An analog or digital device or
computerized data acquisition system used to integrate the FIA response or
compute the average response and record measurement data. The minimum data
sampling frequency for computing average or Integrated values is one
measurement value every 5 seconds. The device shall be capable of recording
average values at least once per minute.
2.1.9 CalIbration and Other Gases. Gases used for calibration, fuel, and
combustion air (If required) are contained In compressed gas cylinders. All
calibration gases shall be traceable to NIST standards and shall be certified
by the manufacturer to ±1 percent of the tag value. Additionally, the
manufacturer of the cylinder should provide a reconvnended shelf life for each
calibration gas cylinder over which the concentration does not change more
than ±2 percent from the certified value. For calibration gas values not
generally available, alternative methods for preparing calibration gas
mixtures, such as dilution systems, may be used with prior approval.
2.1.9.1 Fuel. A 40 percent H 2 /60 percent He or 40 percent H 2 /60 percent N 2
gas mixture is reconinended to avoid an oxygen synergism effect that reportedly
occurs when oxygen concentration varies significantly from a mean value.
3

-------
2.1.9.2 CarrIer Gas. High purity air with less than 1 ppm of organic
material (propane or carbon equivalent) or less than 0.1 percent of the span
value, whichever is greater.
2.1.9.3 FIA Linearity Calibration Gases. low-, mid-, and high-range gas
mixture standards with nominal propane concentrations of 20-30, 45-55, and
70-80 percent of the span value in air, respectively. Other calibration
values and other span values may be used if it can be shown that more accurate
measurements would be achieved.
2.1.10 PartIculate Filter. An in-stack or an out-of-stack glass fiber filter
is recommended if exhaust gas particulate loading is significant. An
out-of-stack filter must be heated to prevent any condensation unless it can
be demonstrated that no condensation occurs.
2.2 FugItive Emissions Volumetric Flow Rate.
2.2.1 Flow Direction Indicators. Any means of indicating inward or outward
flow, such as light plastic film or paper streamers, smoke tubes, filaments,
and sensory perception.
2.2.2 Method 2 or 2A Apparatus. For determining volumetric flow rate.
Anemometers or similar devices calibrated according to the manufacturer’s
instructions may be used when low velocities are present. Vane anemometers
(Young-maximum response propeller), specialized pitots with electronic
manometers (e.g., Shortridge Instruments Inc., Airdata Multimeter 860) are
commercially available with measurement thresholds of 15 and 8 mpm (50 and 25
fpm), respectively.
2.2.3 Method 3 Apparatus and Reagents. For determining molecular weight of
the gas stream. An estimate of the molecular weight of the gas stream may be
used if it can be ,justified.
2.2.4 Method 4 Apparatus and Reagents. For determining moisture content, if
necessary.
3. DETERMINATION OF VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE OF FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
3.1 PrelimInary Determinations. The purpose of this exercise Is to determine
which exhaust points should be measured for volumetric flow rates and VOC
concentrations.
3.1.1 Forced Draft Openings. Identify all forced draft openings. Determine
the volumetric flow rate according to Method 2.
3.1.2 NDO’s Exhaust Points. The NDO’s in the roof of a facility are
considered to be exhaust points. Determine volumetric flow rate from these
MOO’s. Divide the cross-sectional area according to Method 1 using 12 equal
areas. Use the appropriate velocity measurement devices, e.g., propeller
anemometers.
4

-------
3.1.3 Other NDO’s.
3.1.3.1 ThIs step Is optional. Determine the exhaust flow rate, Including
that of the control device, from the enclosure and the intake air flow rate.
If the exhaust flow rate divided by the intake air flow rate is greater than
1.1, then all other NDO’s are not considered to be significant exhaust points.
3.1.3.2 If the option above is not taken, identify all other NDO’s and other
potential points through which fugitive emissions may escape the enclosure.
Then use the following criteria to determine whether flow rates and VOC
concentrations need to be measured:
3.1.3.2.1 Using the appropriate flow direction indicator, determine the flow
direction. An NDO with zero or Inward flow Is not an exhaust point.
3.1.3.2.2 Measure the outward volumetric flow rate from the remainder of the
NDO’s. If the collective flow rate is 2 percent, or less, of the flow rate
from Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, then these NDO’s, except those within two
equivalent diameters (based on NDO opening) from VOC sources, may be
considered to be non-exhaust points.
3.1.3.2.3 If the percentage calculated in Section 3.1.3.2.2 Is greater than
2 percent, those NDO’s (except those within two equivalent diameters from VOC
sources) whose volumetric flow rate total 2 percent of the flow rate from
Sections. 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 may be considered as non-exhaust points. All
remaining NOO’s shall be measured for volumetric flow rate and VOC
concentrations during the CE test.
3.1.3.2.4 The tester may choose to measure VOC concentrations at the forced
exhaust points and the NDO’s. If the total VOC emissions from the NDO’s are
less than 2 percent of the emissions from the forced draft and roof NDO’s,
then these NDO’s may be eliminated from further consideration.
3.2 DeterminatIon of Flow Rates.
3.2.1 Measure the volumetric flow rate at all locations identified as exhaust
points in Section 3.1. Divide each exhaust opening into 9 equal areas for
rectangular openings and 8 for circular openings.
3.2.2 Measure the velocity at each site at least once every hour during each
sampling run using Method 2 or 2A, if applicable, or using the low velocity
instruments In Section 2.2.2.
4. DETERMINATION OF VOC CONTENT OF FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
4.1 AnalysIs Duration. Measure the VOC responses at each fugitive emission
point during the entire test run or, if applicable, while the process Is
operating. If there are a multiple emissions locations, design a sampling
system to allow a single FIA to be used to determine the VOC responses at all
sampling locations.
5

-------
4.2 Gas YOC Concentration.
4.2.1 Assemble the sample train as shown in Figure 1. Calibrate the FIA and
conduct a system check according to the procedures in Sections 5.1 and 5.3,
respectively. -
4.2.2 Install the sample probe so that the probe is centrally located in the
stack, pipe, or duct, and is sealed tightly at the stack port connection.
4.2.3 Inject zero gas at the calibration valve assembly. Allow the
measurement system response to reach zero. Measure the system response time
as the time required for the system to reach the effluent concentration after
the calibration valve has been returned to the effluent sampling position.
4.2.4 Conduct a system check before and a system drift check after each
sampling run according to the procedures In Sections 5.2 and 5.3. If the
drift check following a run indicates unacceptable performance, the run is not
valid. The tester may elect to perform drift checks during the run not to
exceed one drift check per hour.
4.2.5 Verify that the sample lines, filter, and pump temperatures are 120 ±
5’C.
4.2.6 Begin sampling at the start of the test period and continue to sample
during the entire run. Record the starting and ending times and any required
process information as appropriate. If multiple emission locations are
sampled using a single FIA, sample at each location for the same amount of
time (e.g., 2 minutes) and continue to switch from one location to another for
the entire test run. Be sure that total sampling time at each location is the
same at the end of the test run. Disregard the response measurements at each
sampling location until two times the response time of the measurement system
has elapsed. Continue sampling for at least 1 minute and record the
concentration measurements. If the data acquisition system does not have any
provision for recording readings that are off scale, treat any off scale
reading as if it were equal to the span value.
4.3 AlternatIve Procedure The direct interface sampling and analysis
procedure described in Section 7.2 of Method 18 may be used to determine the
gas VOC concentration. The system must be designed to collect and analyze at
least one sample every 10 minutes.
5. CALIBRATION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
5.1 FIA Calibration and Linearity Check. Make necessary adjustments to the
air and fuel supplies for the FM and ignite the burner. Allow the FIA to
warm up for the period recommended by the manufacturer. Inject a calibration
gas into the measurement system and adjust the back-pressure regulator to the
value required to achieve the flow rates specified by the manufacturer.
Inject the zero- and the high-range calibration gases and adjust the analyzer
calibration to provide the proper responses. Inject the low- and mid-range
gases and record the responses of the measurement system. The calibration and
6

-------
linearity of the system are acceptable if the responses for all four gases are
within 5 percent of the respective gas values. If the performance of the
system is not acceptable, repair or adjust the system and repeat the linearity
check. Conduct a calibration and linearity check after assembling the
analysis system and after a major change is made to the system.
5.2 Systems Drift Checks. Select the calibration gas that most closely
approximates the concentration of the captured emissions for conducting the
drift checks. Introduce the zero and calibration gas at the calibration valve
assembly and verify that the appropriate gas flow rate and pressure are
present at the FIA. Record the measurement system responses to the zero and
calibration gases. The performance of the system Is acceptable If the
difference between the drift check measurement and the value obtained in
Section 5.1 is less than 3 percent of the span value. Conduct a system drift
check at the end of each run.
5.3 System Check. Inject the high range calibration gas at the inlet of the
sampling probe and record the response. The performance of the system is
acceptable if the measurement system response is within 5 percent of the value
obtained in Section 5.1 for the high range calibration gas. Conduct a system
check before each test run.
5.4 Analysis Audit. Immediately before each test analyze an audit cylinder
as described in Section 5.2. The analysis audit must agree with the audit
cylinder concentration within 10 percent.
6. NOMENCLATURE
C 0 average measured concentration for the drift check calibration gas,
ppm propane.
C 00 = average system drift check concentration for zero concentration gas,
ppm propane.
CF = corrected average VOC concentration of fugitive emissions at point j,
ppm propane.
CH actual concentration of the drift check calibration gas, ppm propane.
• uncorrected average YOC concentration measured at point j, ppm
propane.
• total YOC content of fugitive emissions from the building, kg.
K 1 1.830 x i0 4 kg/(m 3 -ppm).
n • number of measurement points.
— average effluent volumetric flow rate corrected to standard
conditions at fugitive emissions point j, m 3 /min.
7

-------
9.Q
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
A Al
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
- -
— — —
—
E H_E__
80%
Capt
—
\
\
‘
re
\_

—- --— __
—- -—— ___
—__
‘i_I P
L IL
U
0
I-
w 0
I_ (_
v
0
x
LU
C I ,
o
— —
Ill I,
—
\
\
29 _’ aptu e
0.02
0.01
—
—
-
‘s
-
;—
-
-
Cap
ure
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Volumetric Flowrate of Fugitive Emissions Exhaust Stream Qf
Volumetric FIowrate of Gas Stream Delivered to the Control Device Q
FIgure 1. The Crumpler Chart

-------
ROTAMETER
ANALYZER
GAS INJECTION
VALVE
SAMPLE
BYPASS
i c c
3605 6/89
Figure 1. Captured emissions measurement system.

-------
methods, such as quick-connect lines, to route calibration gases to the outlet
of the sample probe are acceptable.
2.1.3 Sample Line. Stainless steel or Teflon tubing to transport the sample
gas to the analyzer. The sample line must be heated to prevent condensation.
2.1.4 Sample Pump. A leak-free pump, to pull the sample gas through the
system at a flow rate sufficient to minimize the response time of the
measurement system. The components of the pump that contact the gas stream
shall be constructed of stainless steel or Teflon. The sample pump must be
heated to prevent condensation.
2.1.5 Sample Flow Rate Control. A sample flow rate control valve and
rotameter, or equivalent, to maintain a constant sampling rate within
10 percent. The flow control valve and rotameter must be heated to prevent
condensation. A control valve may also be located on the sample pump bypass
loop to assist in controlling the sample pressure and flow rate.
2.1.6 Sample Gas Manifold. Capable of diverting a portion of the sample gas
stream to the flame ionization analyzer (FIA), and the remainder to the bypass
discharge vent. The manifold components shall be constructed of stainless
steel or Teflon. If captured or fugitive emissions are to be measured at
multiple locations, the measurement system shall be designed to use separate
sampling probes, lines, and pumps for each measurement location and a common
sample gas manifold and FIA. The sample gas manifold and connecting lines to
the FIA must be heated to prevent condensation.
2.1.7 Organic Concentration Analyzer. An FM with a span value of 1.5 times
the expected concentration as propane; however, other span values may be used
if it can be demonstrated that they would provide more accurate measurements.
The system shall be capable of meeting or exceeding the following
specifications:
2.1.7.1 Zero Drift. Less than ±3 percent of the span value.
2.1.7.2 Calibration Drift. Less than ±3 percent of the span value.
2.1.7.3 CalIbration Error. Less than ±5 percent of the calibration gas
value.
2.1.7.4 Response Time. Less than 30 seconds.
2.1.8 Integrator/Data Acquisition System. An analog or digital device or
computerized data acquisition system used to integrate the FIA response or
compute the average response and record measurement data. The minimum data
sampling frequency for computing average or Integrated values is one
measurement value every 5 seconds. The device shall be capable of recording
average values at least once per minute.
2.1.9 Calibration and Other Gases. Gases used for calibration, fuel, and
combustion air (if required) are,contained in compressed gas cylinders. All
calibration gases shall be traceable to NIST standards and shall be certified
3

-------
by the manufacturer to ±1 percent of the tag value. Additionally, the
manufacturer of the cylinder should provide a recommended shelf life for each
calibration gas cylinder over which the concentration does not change more
than ±2 percent from the certified value. For calibration gas values not
generally available, alternative methods for preparing calibration gas
mixtures, such as dilution systems, may be used with prior approval.
2.1.9.1 Fuel. A 40 percent H 2 /60 percent He or 40 percent H 2 /60 percent N 2
gas mixture is recommended to avoid an oxygen synergism effeci that reportedly
occurs when oxygen concentration varies significantly from a mean value.
2.1.9.2 Carrier Gas and Dilution Air Supply. High purity air with less than
1 ppm of organic material (as propane or carbon equivalent) or less than 0.1
percent of the span value, whichever is greater.
2.1.9.3 FIA linearity Calibration Gases. Low-, mid-, and high-range gas
mixture standards with nominal propane concentrations of 20-30, 45-55, and
70-80 percent of the span value in air, respectively. Other calibration
values and other span values may be used if it can be shown that more accurate
measurements would be achieved.
2.1.9.4 Dilution Check Gas. Gas mixture standard containing propane in air,
approximately half the span value after dilution.
2.1.10 Particulate Filter. An in-stack or an out-of-stack glass fiber filter
is recommended If exhaust gas particulate loading is significant. An
out-of-stack filter must be heated to prevent any condensation unless it can
be demonstrated that no condensation occurs.
2.2 Captured Emissions Volumetric Flow Rate.
2.2.1 Method 2 or 2A Apparatus. For determining volumetric flow rate.
2.2.2 Method 3 Apparatus and Reagents. For determining molecular weight of
the gas stream. An estimate of the molecular weight of the gas stream may be
used if it can be justified.
2.2.3 Method 4 Apparatus and Reagents. For determining moisture content, if
necessary.
3. DETERMINATION OF VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE OF CAPTURED EMISSIONS
3.1 Locate all points where emissions are captured from the affected facility
or exhausted from the temporary total enclosure (TTE). Using Method 1,
determine the sampling points. Be sure to check each site for cyclonic or
swirling flow.
3.2 Measure the velocity at each sampling site at least once every hour
during each sampling run using Method 2 or 2A.
4

-------
4. DETERMINATION OF VOC CONTENT OF CAPTURED EMISSIONS
4.1 Analysis Duration. Measure the VOC responses at each captured emissions
point during the entire test run or, if applicable, while the process is
operating. If there are a multiple captured emissions locations, design a
sampling system to allow a single FIA to be used to determine the VOC
responses at all sampling locations.
4.2 Gas VOC Concentration.
4.2.1 Assemble the sample train as shown in Figure 1. Calibrate the FIA
according to the procedure in Section 5.1.
4.2.2 Set the dilution ratio and determine the dilution factor according to
the procedure in Section 5.3.
4.2.3 Conduct a system check according to the procedure in Section 5.4.
4.2.4 Install the sample probe so that the probe is centrally located in the
stack, pipe, or duct, and is sealed tightly at the stack port connection.
4.2.5 Inject zero gas at the calibration valve assembly. Measure the system
response time as the time required for the system to reach the effluent
concentration after the calibration valve has been returned to the effluent
sampling position.
4.2.6 Conduct a system check before and a system drift check after each
sampling run according to the procedures in Sections 5.2 and 5.4. If the
drift check following a run indicates unacceptable performance, the run is not
valid. The tester may elect to perform system drift checks during the run not
to exceed one drift check per hour.
4.2.7 Verify that the sample lines, filter, and pump temperatures are
120 ± 5°C.
4.2.8 Begin sampling at the start of the test period and continue to sample
during the entire run. Record the starting and ending times and any required
process information as appropriate. If multiple captured emission locations
are sampled using a single FIA, sample at each location for the same amount of
time (e.g., 2 minutes) and continue to switch from one location to another for
the entire test run. Be sure that total sampling time at each location is the
same at the end of the test run. Collect at least 4 separate measurements
from each sample point during each hour of testing. Disregard the
measurements at each sampling location until two times the response time of
the measurement system has elapsed. Continue sampling for at least 1 minute
and record the concentration measurements. If the data acquisition system
does not have any provision for recording readings that are off scale, treat
any off scale reading as if It were equal to the span value.
5

-------
4.3 Background Concentration.
4.3.1 Locate all NDO’s of the TTE. A sampling point shall be centrally
located outside of the TIE at 4 equivalent diameters from each NDO, if
possible. If there are more than 6 NDO’s, choose 6 sampling points evenly
spaced among the NDO’s.
4.3.2 Assemble the sample train as shown in Figure 2. Calibrate the FIA and
conduct a system check according to the procedures in Sections 5.1 and 5.4.
4.3.3 Position the probe at the sampling location.
4.3.4 Determine the response time, conduct the system check and sample
according to the procedures described in Sections 4.2.4 to 4.2.7.
4.4 Alternative Procedure. The direct interface sampling and analysis
procedure described in Section 7.2 of Method 18 may be used to determine the
gas VOC concentration. The system must be designed to collect and analyze at
least one sample every 10 minutes.
5. CALIBRATION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
5.1 FIA Calibration and Linearity Check. Make necessary adjustments to the
air and fuel supplies for the FIA and ignite the burner. Allow the FIA to
warm up for the period recommended by the manufacturer. Inject a calibration
gas into the measurement system after the dilution system and adjust the back-
pressure regulator to the value required to achieve the flow rates specified
by the manufacturer. Inject the zero- and the high-range calibration gases
and adjust the analyzer calibration to provide the proper responses. Inject
the low- and mid-range gases and record the responses of the measurement
system. The calibration and linearity of the system are acceptable if the
responses for all four gases are within 5 percent of the respective gas
values. If the performance of the system is not acceptable, repair or adjust
the system and repeat the linearity check. Conduct a calibration and
linearity check after assembling the analysis system and after a major change
Is made to the system.
5.2 Systems Drift Checks. Select the calibration gas that most closely
approximates the concentration of the diluted captured emissions for
conducting the drift checks. Introduce the zero and calibration gas at the
calibration valve assembly and verify that the appropriate gas flow rate and
pressure are present at the FIA. Record the measurement system responses to
the zero and calibration gases. The performance of the system is acceptable
if the difference between the drift check measurement and the value obtained
in Section 5.1 is less than 3 percent of the span value. Conduct the system
drift check at the end of each run.
5.3 Determination of Dilution Factor. Inject the 44-lution check gas into the
measurement system before the dilution system and record the response.
Calculate the dilution factor using Equation 3.
6

-------
TEFLON HEAD
SAMPLE PUMP
ROTAMETERS
THREE
WAY
VALVES
MEASUREMENT POINT 1
MEASUREMENT POINT 2
MEASUREMENT POINT 3
MEASUREMENT POINT 4
I MEASUREMENT POINT 5
1-
EXHAUST
SAMPLE
BYPASS
FIA
EXHAUST
1
VOC 2f9
Figure 2. Backr nd measurement system.

-------
5.4 System Check. Inject the high range calibration gas at the inlet to the
sampling probe while the dilution air is turned off. Record the response.
The performance of the system is acceptable if the measurement system response
is within 5 percent of the value obtained in Section 5.1 for the high range
calibration gas. Conduct a system check before and after each test run.
5.5 Analysis Audit. Immediately before each test analyze an audit cylinder
as described in Section 5.2. The analysis audit must agree with the audit
cylinder concentration within 10 percent.
6. NOMENCLATURE
CA — actual concentration of the dilution check gas, ppm propane.
C 8 , corrected average VOC concentration of background emissions at
point i, ppm propane.
C 8 = average background concentration, ppm propane.
CDH = average measured concentration for the drift check calibration gas,
ppm propane.
CD 0 = average system drift check concentration for zero concentration
gas, ppm propane.
CH = actual concentration of the drift check calibration gas, ppm
propane.
C, = uncorrected average background VOC concentration measured at point
1, ppm propane.
C = uncorrected average VOC concentration measured at point j, ppm
propane.
CM = measured concentration of the dilution check gas, ppm propane.
DF = dilution factor.
G total VOC content of captured emissions, kg.
K 1 = 1.830 x 10 kg/(m 3 -ppm).
n = number of measurement points.
QG = average effluent volumetric flow rate corrected to standard
conditions at captured emissions point j, m 3 /min.
= total duration of capture efficiency sampling run, mm.
7

-------

-------

-------
S7
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASH INGTON, D.C. 20460
Lppa ’ AUG 5 1988
,iO
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Identifying and Expediting SIP Revisions that Impact
the Enforcement Process
FROM: John S. Seitz, Director
Stationary Source Compli nce Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Michael S. Alushin
Associate Enforcement Counsel or
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring
TO: Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, and IX
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division
Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII, and X
Regional Counsels
Regions I—X
We are providing an additional means to help you manage
the process of reviewing proposed revisions to State
Implementation Plans (SIPS) under the Clean Air Act. One area
of difficulty is where delay in reviewing a proposed change
undermines your ability to enforce the current version of a
SIP.

-------
—2-
We have agreed with John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, that you ‘nay use the OECM Case Docket as
a way to alert Headquarters to SIP processing delays which
‘nay impact a referral action. As you know, a case enters the
Docket once the litigation report has been received by
Headquarters. Among the many pieces of information tracked
in the Docket is a field called “Regional Comments”. This
field is updated monthly by Regional Counsel and read by the
Headquarters staff attorney to learn about the most recent
events affecting the case. We suggest that the Regional
comment field be used as the means for you to describe your
understanding on the status, location, and expected future
action of a SIP revision affecting the case. SIP revisions
received by the Region but not yet forwarded to Headquarters
should be noted in the comment field along with how the
revision impacts the case. In the future, OAQPS’s computerized
SIP TRAX system will be expanded to also include information
on SIPs being processed by the Region and whether the revision
impacts an enforcement action.
The OECM—AED attorneys will share the Docket updates with
SSCD’s Regional Programs Section (RPS) on a monthly basis and
they will alert their respective management to issues/needs
noted in these updates. Of course, should a matter that
needs a quicker response arise, a call to RPS (Gerard A. Kraus
FTS 382—2847) or the OECM—Air Enforcement Division (Elliott
Gilberg FTS 475—7089) is welcome.
SIP revisions that impact a significant violator also
need to be expeditiously reviewed. To alert Headquarters to
this, the SIP’s transmittal memo should clearly state that
the revision impacts a significant violator.
Where SSCD learns from Docket reviews or a transmittal
memo that SIP revisions in Headquarters need to be expedited
because they impact a current referral, forthcoming referral
or a significant violator source, SSCD (RPS) ‘will alert Johnnie
Pearson In AQ! 1D (FTS 629-5691) on an ongoing basis. As
mentioned above, the SIP TRAX system will soon note if
revisions impact an enforcement action. He will then notify
the Headquarters reviewing offices of the need to complete
their reviews in a timely fashion. Johnnie will also monitor
those SIPs that have to go through 0MB to minimize delays
there. On a monthly basis (simultaneous to reviewing the
case Docket), RPS will check with Johnrtie on the status of
the revisions previously identified as needing expeditious
review and attempt to get outstanding problems resolved.

-------
—3—
For you to benefit from this process, it is imperative
that Regional Counsel complete their monthly Docket updates
in a timely fashion and the Regional air programs (including
compliance) be involved. It is also necessary that the
memorandum transmitting a SIP revision to Headquarters note
that the revision impacts a referral, will impact a referral,
or impacts a significant violator source. This will give
Headquarters two avenues (the Docket and the SIP’S transmittal
memo) for knowing whether certain SIPs need to be expedited.
Please start identifying SIP revisions which affect
referrals in the August Docket update. Regions should already
be noting the needed information in the SIP’s transmittal
memo (see attached memo). For SIP revisions that are in
Headquarters and impact a significant violator, the Regions
need to alert the 4 r Regional liaison in SSCD as soon as
possible of these revisions so they can be expedited.
Please call Gerard C. Kraus (382—2847) in SSCD or Elliott
Gilberg (475—7089) in the OECM—Air Enforcement Division, if
you have questions.
Attachment
cc: Edward Reich, OECt
Sally Mansbach, OECM
John Calcagni, AQMD
Johnnie Pearson, AQMD
Air Compliance Branch Chiefs
Regions II, III, IV, V, VI and IX
Air Program Branch Chiefs
Regions I — X
Regional Counsel Air Contacts
Regions I—X

-------
ATTACHMENT
1 1 EO Sr 4 .
UMTEI) STATES EN lRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
W tSIIINGTON, D.C. 20460
4
An i ,. OmCE0F
MrR i L& AIR ANDRADIATIOP’
1EM0 RAN DUI4
SUBJECF: Pending SIP Revisions Jhich Affect Active Air
1 nforcement Cases
FROM: John S. Seitz, Director
Stationary Sources Compl nce Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III and IX
Air and Waste 1 Ianayement Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics 1anagement Division
Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air dnd Toxics Division Directors
± egions Vu, VIII and X
I would liKe to thank you and your staff for the cooperation
you gave in rielping OECM—AED prepare the attached memorandum.
I and John Calcagni will do our best to expedite the processing
of these pending SIPs and will keep you informed of our progress.
Since this exercise only addressed SIPs officially in
ashinyton, we need to begin identifying SIPs within the
region but not yet submitted to Washington that have Federal
enforcement action initiated. vhen these SIPs are forwarded to
us, please clearly note that expeditious processing is needed
due to its effect on the enforcement action.

-------
—2—
Thank you again tor your help.
Attachment
CC: Air Compliance Branch Ckiiefs
Regions II, III, IV, V 1 VI and IX
Air Program Branch Chiefs
Regions I, VII, VIII and X
John Calcagni, AQMD

-------
1tO Sd
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
çtt r WASHINGTON. D C 20460
4, “
4( pq t
APR -6 88
OFFICE O
ENFORflUENT AND
COIdPUMirk MOUTORING
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Pending SIP Revisions Which Affect Active
Air Enforcement Cases
J /JJ
FROM: Michael S. Alushin 4!. 4 ’2.c—i---. ...
Associate Enforcement Couns 1
Air Enforcement Division
TO: John Calcagni, Director
Air Quality Management Division
During the past few months the Air Enforcement Division has
worked with Denise Gerth at the Regional Operations Branch, Air
Quality Management Division, to determine which pending SIP
revisions affect active air enforcement cases. We have attached
a list of those revisions. Several of the enforcement cases are
being reviewed by the court because of the pending SIP revisions.
The sources are seeking remedies for lower penalties, a stay of
enforcement and/or dismissal of the case because of a pending
revision. Therefore, an expedited review of the SIP revisions
would benefit the enforcement case. We are not suggesting that
the revisions should be approved or disapproved -- simply that
prompt decisions are needed.
Denise Gerth has been very helpful in identifying pending
SIP revisions at Headquarters and the Office of Management and
Budget. We appreciate the assistance we have received and the
offer to exp.dite these revisions. Please contact Elizabeth
Edmonds at 8 382—4577 about changes in the review status of
these revisions.
Attachment

-------
—2—
cc: Regional Counsels
Regions I, IV, V. VI, and IX
Regionsi Counsel Air Contacts
Regiont I, IV, V , VI and IX
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I and IX
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division Directors
Regions IV and VI
Alan Eckert
Office of General Counsel
Rich Ossias
Office of General Counsel
David Buente, Chief
Environemntal Enforcement Section
Department of Justice
Robert Van Meuvelen, Assistant Chief
Environmental Enforcement Section
U.S. Department of Justice
John Seitz, Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Alex Cristofaro
Office of Policy. Planning and Evaluation

-------
SIP Revisions Pending at Headquarters
and 0MB Which Affect Enforcement Cases
Region I
Massachusetts
3427. Disapproval of Extended Compliance Date for GM
Fr am in gh am
final disapproval to 0MB: 4/5/88
Region IV
Disapproval of VOC Ext. Compliance Schedule for Getty,
All Steel, St. Charle8, National American, & U.S. Can
end of Hdqtrs. concurrence period: 3/28/89.
/3515. Disapproval of an ACS for GE for Ozone (bubble)
end of Hdqtrs. concurrence period: 11/5/87
3530. Disapproval of Redesignation for Kane & Dupage Counties
for Ozone.
end of Hdqtrs. concurrence period: 12/4/87
Ohio
3337. Disapproval of VOC “Bubble” for Champion International
Corp.’s Dairypak Div.
revised SIP revision to Hdqtrs: 3/2/88 (per Region)
end of Hdqtrs. concurrence period: 5/26/87
3431. Disapproval of GM’s Lordstown Facility for VOC
end of Hdqtrs. concurrence period: 3/30/88
3455. Disapproval for VOC relaxation for Navistar
end of Hdqtrs. concurrence period: 3/28/88
Kentucky
3471.
Region V
Ii Ii no is
3432.
Disapproval of Bubble for Alcan Foil Products for
VOC.
end of Hdqtrs. concurrence period: 9/25/87

-------
—2—
Region VI
Louisiana
3580. Disapproval to Exempt Sid Richardson Carbon & Gasoline
from Acetylene Emission Control
end of Hdqtrs. concurrence period: 4/04/ag
Texas
3331. Alternate Emission Reduction of VOC for Continental
Can Co. (VOC Emission Limits)
end of Hdqtrs. concurrence period: 4/22/87
Region IX
California
3103. Disapproval of 3 VOC Architectural Coating Rulings.
end of Hdqtrs. concurrence period: 11/7/86
date received by 0MB: 12/11/86
3488. Approval of Two VOC Rules for San Diego Co.
end of Hdqtrs. concurrence period: 10/21/87
3490. Approval and Disapproval of Can Coating Rules for VOC
end of Hdqtrs. concurrence period: 10/22/87
3590. Disapproval of a Revised SCAQMD Rule Controlling VOC
Emissions from New Auto Coating Operations
end of Hdqtrs. concurrence period: 3/14/88

-------
11

-------
1/

-------
12

-------

-------
§

-------
• L.t .J
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality P’anning and Standards
I Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1
March 22, 1991 ,
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Processing of Pending Revisions to Federally-approved
State Implementation Plans A SIP’sj/
FROM: John Calcagni, Directot’ -’ jL ?-
Air Quality Management ivision (Np ’- ].
TO: Director, Air, Pesticfdes, and a’oxic _.
Management Division, Regions I, IV, VI
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air Management Division,
Regions III and IX
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, X
In a memorandum dated December 5, 1990, I requested that you
temporarily suspend the processing of State—submitted requests
for modification of the federally-approved SIP actions. In that
memorandum, I indicated SIP processing could resume after
January 15, 1991. As I indicated, the purpose of this hiatus was
to provide a short period of time in which the Regional Offices
and Headquarters could define the basic requirements and changes
imposed by the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act (Act). The
purpose of this memorandum is to reinstitute processing of SIP
revisions under certain conditions.
A major impact of the Amendments on the preparation of
Federal Register notices for all SIP revisions submitted by the
State to the Regional Office prior to November 15, 1990 is the
requirement that all notices must address the impact of the 1990
Amendments on the approvability of such State submissions. The
impact of the Amendments will vary from having no impact to
requiring disapproval of actions that previously may have been
approvable. All Federal Register notices taking action on a SIP
revision request submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) prior to November 15, 1990 must contain a statement
indicating that EPA has reviewed the submittal in accordance with
the 1990 Amendments. I have attached general boilerplate
language that should appear in each notice taking action on any
State submission received prior to November 15, 1990 (Attachment
1.).

-------
2
with regard to the potential impact of the 1990 Amendments
on the processing of specific SIP revisions, the Office of
General Counsel and my staff have prepared guidance describing
circumstances where the 1990 Amendments affect the approvability
of SIP revisions (Attachment 2). This guidance is to be used in
reviewing and processing all SIP revisions whether or not the
revision was submitted prior to the enactment of the 1990
Amendments. The attached guidance is not intended to address all
of the issues that surround SIP approvability under the 1990
Amendments and will certainly require further expansion to
address individual circumstances. ir you find that the attached
does not address a particular case, we will, be glad to assist in
determining how the Agency should make a final decision.
It is important to notice that the attached paper addresses
six main types of SIP revision requests. Many of these
situations will result in a determination that the SIP submission
does not meet the requirements of the amended Act. The basic
reason is a “savings clause” that is part of the 1990 Amendments.
The “savings clause” restricts States from relaxing any existing
SIP requirement without achieving equivalent emission reductions.
In addition, the 1990 Amendments require that all areas prior to
being redesignated to attainment have an approved maintenance
plan. As a result, you have been asked to notify the affected
States by the “RA letter” that pending requests for redesignation
to attainment may not be “complete” within context of the 1990
Amendments. Since these requests may not be complete, we do not
believe we are required to process the request. While the
maintenance requirement is not stated in the Agency’s current
criteria, we believe the Amendments make such a requirement
effective upon enactment. We should urge those States with
pending redesignation requests without a maintenance
demonstration to withdraw them from consideration unless there
are extenuating circumstances that are agreed to by Headquarters.
With regard to bubbles, the final Emissions Trading Policy
Statement remains generally in effect. There may, however, be
certain circumstances where current bubble requirements should be
modified or reinterpreted in light of the changed circumstances
brought about by the Amendments. We will be forming a work group
within the next month with Regional Office participation to
address this issue. If you have a pressing need to process an
emission trading action where there are questions regarding
approvability, you must discuss this action with Headquarters
before proceeding.
It is imperative that we examine the impact of the 1990
Amendments closely as we do not wish to inadvertently approve or
disapprove actions and have these issues addressed in judicial
review prior to an opportunity to develop appropriate Agency
policy. Some of our actions likely will result in disapprovals
of SIP revisions that may previously have been approved. It is

-------
3
important that we understand and communicate to the States that
where the Act is clear, it overrides the “grandfatherjrign policy
(54 FR 2219, January 19, 1989) because of the statutory changes
that no longer permit us to approve the original submission. If,
however, where the Act is vague or for other reasons you believe
that a case is to be made for grandfathering a particular action,
this must be fully coordinated with the appropriate Headquarters
office prior to processing the revision.
The Regional Offices have the primary responsibility for
ensuring that each Federal Register notice is reviewed for
conformance with the provisions of the 1990 Amendments and for
inserting the appropriate language with regard to EPA’S review of
the applicability of the 1990 Amendments. This will require that
each Regional Office examine all Table 3 SIP actions, make the
changes as indicated in the attachment, and incorporate the
appropriate language indicating EPA review. I would encourage
you to be cautious on any approval and suggest your staff
coordinate with the specific Headquarters program staff or
attorney prior to a final decision to approve these types of
actions. I would also remind you that where the issues may be
more complicated than described here, you may reclassify a Table
3 action to either Table 2 or Table 1.
It will be the primary responsibility of each Regional
Office to review all unpublished Table 2 actions. For Table 2
actions that were held in Headquarters pending this meaorandum, I
am initiating a new review cycle. Due to the number of actions
involved and in order to provide sufficient time for Headquarters
reviewers to re—examine these actions, I am establishing a
Headquarters review completion date 45 days from the date of this
memorandum for these actions. Headquarters reviewers will, as
appropriate, provide comments to the Regional Office. Please be
aware that all actions submitted prior to November 15, 1990 must
have the appropriate boilerplate language added prior to
signature by the Regional Administrator. This comment will be
appended to the review comments on all Table 2 SIP actions. All
Table 2 actions which have previously completed the 30-day
Headquarters review must be reviewed by the Regional Office for
consistency with the attached guidance and must have the
appropriate boilerplate added prior to signature by the Regional
Administrator. I encourage you, if there is any doubt regarding
the approvability of Table 2 actions that will not again receive
Headquarters review, to contact the Headquarters program and
legal staff prior to publication of any such action.
With regard to Table 1 actions that have not yet been
published, while we will not physically return these notices to
the Regional Office, I am requesting that you review each action
for applicability under the 1990 Amendments. Where the action
taken by the existing notice is still appropriate, my staff will
work with the Regional Office staffs to insert the attached

-------
4
boilerplate language. In some cases Table 1 notices will be
returned to the Regional Office for redrafting on the basis that
the Agency action is no longer appropriate. My staff will work
with you to make the changes and proceed as quickly as possible
to publication of Table 1. notices.
Questions regarding the approvability of a specific action
or additional areas of policy that are not addressed in the
attachment should be directed to the appropriate program branch
within AQMD in coordination with the program attorney in the
Office of General Counsel.
If you have any questions regarding the above process or if W
we can otherwise assist in expediting the process of determining
the approvability of any action based upon the 1990 Amendments,
please contact either Johnnie Pearson, (FTS) 629—5691, Pam
Johnson, (FTS) 629—5270, (AQMD), or Jan Tierney, (FTS) 382—7709
(OGC), for assistance.
Attachments
cc: Regional Air Program Branch Chiefs
Regional Counsel, Regions I - X
Ron Campbell, OAQPS
Denise DeVo., OAQPS
Gene Durman, Office of the Administrator
Alan Eckert, OGC
Greg Foote, OGC
Barry Korb, OPPE
Rich Ossais, OGC
John Rasnic, SSCD
John Seitz, OAQPS
Mike Shapiro, OAR
Lydia Wegman, OAQPS
Larry Weinetock, OAR
AQMD Branch Chiefs

-------
Attachment 1
Approval Boilerplate
The Agency has reviewed this re9uest for revision of the
federally-approved State implementation plan for conformance with
the provisions of the 1990 Amendments enacted on November 15,
1990. The Agency has determined that this action conforms with
those requirements irrespective of the fact that the submittal
preceded the date of enactment.
Disapproval Boilerplate
The Agency has reviewed this re9uest for revision of the
federally-approved State implementation plan for conformance with
the provisions of the 1990 Amendments enacted on November 15,
1990. The Agency has determined that this action does not
conform with the statute as amended and must be disapproved. The
Agency has examined the issue of whether this action should be
reviewed only under the provisions of the law as it existed on
the date of submittal to the Agency (i.e., prior to
November 15, 1990) and has determined that the Agency must apply
the new law to this revision.

-------
Attachment 2
The Effect of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
on Pending SIP Revision Requests

-------
The Effect of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
on Pending SIP Revision Requests
The enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 raises
the question of how these new provisions will affect SIP revision
requests currently pending before EPA. While the Amendments
extend the date for attaining the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS), they place restrictions on relaxing any
existing or planned compliance requirements. The EPA receives
several common types of SIP revision requests: relaxations from
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), alternative RAcT,
extensions of the compliance date, bubbles (relaxations from RACT
that are offset by at least equivalent reductions elsewhere), and
strengthenings of the SIP that do not meet all of the applicable
requirements of the Act.
This paper examines the effect of various provisions in the
Amendments on the types of SIP revision requests listed above, as
well as redesignation requests. In general, the Amendments place
more stringent requirements on nonattainment areas that are
seeking to alter requirements under a SIP. It will be necessary
for these changes to be addressed in any action EPA takes on
these requests. In most instances, EPA may be required only to
address the changes and interpret why they support a conclusion
the Region has already reached. We anticipate that in some
instances, the Amendments may require EPA to disapprove an action
EPA originally considered approving. In either case, however, it
will be necessary for the Region involved to articulate in the
Federal E istex notices the effect of the Amendments as
guidance set forth below.
BACKGROUND
The Amendments provide from 3 to 20 years for nonattainment
areas to meet the NAAQS, depending on the pollutant and the
classification of the area. Although the attainment deadlines
may be extended, this is not meant as a means of relieving
nonattainment areas of the burden of reducing emissions as
expeditiously as practicable. Rather, the attainment deadlines
were extended because some of the deadlines under the 1977 Act
had passed, and many areas still had not attained. Therefore,
the attainment deadline extensions are provided as more realistic
dates for attainment based on future reductions beyond what has
already occurred. Weakening existing SIP’S is inconsistent with
that goal. As discussed below, several provisions of the
Amendments indicate that nonattainment areas still must comply
with certain requirements of the pre-amended Act.
First, the provision specifically addressing SIP revisions
prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision that would
interfere with any requirement concerning attainment, reasonable
further progress (RFP), or any other requirement of the Act
( ll0(l)]. As with the pre—amended Act, attainment of the ozone
NAAQS must be reached as expeditiously as practicable (see

-------
§172(a)(2)(A); §181(a)(1)]. Therefore, any SIP revision that
postpones the attainment date previously approved as part of the
SIP without demonstrating that the attainment date is
impracticable must be rejected.
Beyond that, under the pre—amended Act, all nonattainment
area sip’s were required to provide for the implementation of
RACT as expeditiously as practicable ( l72(b)(3) (incorporating
the definition of RPP in §171 which refers to the requirement in
§172(a) for attainment as expeditiously as practicable)]. The
general nonattainment provisions of the Amendments apply the same
requirement (although in somewhat different form) ( i72(c)(l)
(“implementation of reasonably available control measures (RAcM)
as expeditiously as practicable including . . . reasonably
available control technology • . . “)]. For ozone nonattainment
areas, the Amendments expressly provide that these areas correct
or add RACT that was required under the pre-amended Act
( 182(a)(2)(A)]. This requirement indicates that the Amendments
were not intended to override previous RACT requirements, but
rather to ensure they remain in place. New RACT requirements
under the Amendments are intended to supplement RACT requirements
that should already be in the SIP.
Beyond the RACT requirements, the savings clause ( l93)
specifically states that changes to the SIP that result in fewer
emissions reductions may not be approved unless “equivalent”
emission reductions are met elsewhere:
No control requirement in effect, or required to be
adopted by an order, settlement agreement, or plan in
effect before the date of the enactment of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990 in any area which is a
nortattainment area for any air pollutant may be
modified after such enactment in any manner unless the
modification insures equivalent or greater emission
reductions of such air pollutant.
The savings clause indicates that the Amendments are meant as a
means not of by-passing previous requirements, but rather of
ensuring equivalent or greater reductions in emissions.
We are inclined to construe the term “equivalent reductions”
to mean that the emission reductions must occur during the same
time period in which it would have been reasonable for the source
to comply with th• SIP. In the case where EPA agrees that it was
not reasonable for the source to meet the existing SIP
requirements (including the compliance date), equivalent
reductions are required for the prospective term of the
relaxation (i.e., the remaining time following EPA action on the
revision that the relaxation will be in effect). Where EPA has
determined that it was reasonable for the source to meet the SIP
requirements, the equivalent reductions must occur during the
2

-------
same time period that the source was originally required to meet
the limit.
In either case, the equivalent offsetting emission
reductions must be surplus, enforceable, permanent, and
quantifiable as defined in EPA’S Emissions Trading Policy
Statement (ETPS) (51 FR 43850, December 4, 1986) to be valid. As
mentioned under item 4, EPA is forming a work group to address
how the Amendments affect the ETPSS In the interim, however, the
criteria in the £TPS should be used to evaluate the acceptability
of offsetting emission reductions.
In addition, the reductions must coma from sources in the
same nonattainment area as the source(s) seeking the modification
to the control requirement. Other criteria may apply for other
pollutants (e.g., modeling to ensure continued attainment and
maintenance). We also interpret the savings clause to apply only
to nonattainment areas within a State, not the entire State, and
to apply only to such pollutants for which the area is designated
nonattainment.
Th following discussion attempts to apply these
requirements to specific types of common SIP revisions. The
discussion sets forth several independent factors to be
considered in analyzing these revisions. Much of it, however,
could logically apply to analogous types of SIP revisions for
other pollutants.
1. Relaxation from RACT
A request to relax PACT requirements seeks to relieve a
source from complying with what EPA has determined to be PACT and
which is already contained in the SIP. In this context, we are
referring to a permanent release from existing PACT requirements
already in the SIP by application of something less than PACT and
without equivalent offsetting emission reductions. (MOTE: if
this had included equivalent offsetting reductions, it might be
considered a bubble (discussed in 4 below), which EPA
historically has said may meet the statutory requirement.]
-—Under §110(1), EPA cannot approve revisions that interfere with
meeting the PACT requirements of §172(c)(1) and §182(a)(2)(A).
Since this would be a relaxation to a level that is not as
stringent as PACT, it interferes with the ability of the SIP to
meet the PACT requirements. Specifically for nonattainment areas
subject to the ozone subpart, §182(a)(2)(A) requires these areas
to correct or add PACT requirements so as to comply with
pre-amended §172(b). In light of this specific requirement to
upgrade PACT to, at a minimum, that required under the pra-
amended Act, it would be inconsistent to allow any weakening from
that level of PACT. This would be one ground for disapproval of
a PACT relaxation.
3

-------
This paragraph only applies if the source in question was
required to meet PACT under the Act immediately prior to
enactment of the 1990 Amendments. For instance, areas that did
not receive post—1982 attainment date extensions and that did not
receive a post-1982 SIP call were only required to adopt PACT
rules for major (greater than 100 tons per year) sources in the
Group I and II Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) categories.
Any smaller source in such an area would not have been required
to meet PACT and, therefore, would not be covered by this
paragraph. The savings provision discussed below would still
apply.
--Second, under the savings clause, an equivalent reduction must
be made in order for the SIP revision to be acceptable. The
reductions, in this Case, must occur during the same time period
as required by the SIP. Failure to provide for such reductions
would be an additional independent ground for disapproval.
2. Alternative PACT
Alternative PACT involves a different type of control from
what EPA and the State previously determined to be PACT and which
is already contained in the SIP. A source or State will argue
that the previously-selected PACT is not PACT; rather, they
suggest, and EPA agrees, that a different type of control is the
“true” PACT. Here we are discussing alternative PACT that does
not achieve an amount of reductions equivalent to what would be
achieved by the previously-selected RACT which is already in the
SIP.
--Under the savings clause, any alternative PACT that is less
stringent than the PACT set by EPA must be supported by emission
reductions elsewhere to achieve emission reductions at least
equivalent overall in the nonattainment area. The EPA is
prohibited from approving an alternative PACT that decreases
emission reductions, unless equivalent reductions are made
elsewhere within the same nonattainment area. Thus, the absence
of such equivalent reductions requires disapproval.
As discussed in the “Background,” where EPA. has agreed with the
State’s alternative PACT evaluation, the emission reductions must
be obtained for the duration of the relaxation. For alternative
PACT this will generally require a permanent reduction from the
time of approval of the revision.
3. Compliance Date Extensions
compliance data extensions are similar to relaxations from
PACT. They are distinguishable in that they provide for the
implementation of PACT, but extend the compliance date that EPA
previously approved as being as expeditious as practicable. The
extension may not cause the nonattairunent area to miss its
4

-------
attainment date, but additional net emissions will occur during
some period of time before the attainment date.
-—Under §110(1), SIP revisions cannot interfere with attainment,
reasonable further progress CRY?), or any other requirement of
the Act. Compliance date extensions (to dates other than what
was as expeditiously as practicable) interfere with the
requirement that RACT be implemented “as expeditiously as
practicable” (g172(c)(1)]. This is one ground for disapproving
such extensions.
--Beyond that, for ozone nonattainment areas, if RACT that was
required under EPA’s guidance interpreting §172(b)(3) of the
pre-amended Act is not in place, it must be corrected or added
( 182(a)(2)(A)]. The EPA’s guidance on RACT under pre—amended
§172(b)(3) called for implementation of RACT as expeditiously as
practicable. Where a SIP meets that guidance, this provision
prevents a relaxation from the guidance. Thus, under §110(1),
any compliance date extension to a date later than what was as
expeditious as practicable interferes with the requirement to
correct RACT per EPA’s pre-enactment guidance. This is a
supplemental ground for disapproval (related to the first
ground).
-—In addition, under the savings clause ( 193) equivalent
offsetting emission reductions must be obtained. Where EPA has
determined that the original SIP compliance date was reasonable,
the emission reductions must occur during the same time period as
required by the original SIP coapliance date. Where EPA
determines that the SIP schedule was unreasonable, the reductions
must be achieved for the remainder of the extension period,
starting from the date of EPA’S approval. (Where the new
compliance date has already passed by the time EPA acts on the
revision, no reductions are required for the period before or
after EPA’s action on the extension.) The EPA must disapprove
the revision if it does not provide for the required emission
reductions.
4. Bubbles
A bubble involves an increase in emissions (above
traditional RACT levels) that is compensated by a decrease in
emissions at another point in the nonattainment area, with
equivalent or better ambient air results.
--We have determined tha the final ETPS remains generally intact
and meets the “equivalent reduction” test set out in §193 of the
amended Act and the RACT requirements of the amended Act. We
have not yet prepared boilerplate language articulating the
rationale. There may be, however, certain situations where
current bubble requirements should be modified or reinterpreted
in light of changed circumstances brought about by the 1990
5

-------
Amendments. We will be forming a work group within the next
month with Regional Office participation to address these issues.
Meanwhile, Reqions should consult closely with Headquarters when
processing bubble actions, particularly where these actions
involve (1) approvals in attainment or unclassified areas slated
for redesignation as nonattainment, (2) approvals in
nonattainment areas where the bubble involves more than one CTG
source category (or both CTG and non-CTG sources), (3) approvals
involving nitrogen oxides (NOx) bubbles in areas that are
designated attainment for NOx but nonattainment for ozone, (4)
disapprovals in nonattainment areas lacking an approved
attainment demonstration where those disapprovals stem only from
the failure to meet the special “progress requirements”
applicable to bubbles in those areas, and (5) any case where it
is unclear whether an area is a nOnattainment area needing but
lacking an approved demonstration (unless the requirements of the
ETPS for such an area are met).
5. Strengthenings of the SIP
In many instances, a State’s submission of a SIP or SIP
revision will include a provision that does not comport with one
or more applicable requirements of the Act. Some submittals,
however, will serve to improve air quality by providing progress
toward attainment, UP, and/or RACT 1 . Prior to the adoption of
the 1990 Amendments, EPA followed a policy of approving certain
SIP provisions for their strengthening effect even though the
provisions did not meet all of the requirements of Part 0. We
have termed such an action to be a “limited approval.” A limited
approval, however, is not a complete action on the SIP submittal.
To complete the action, EPA must, at the same time it grants a
limited approval (or at some time thereafter, as discussed
below), issue a limited disapproval whereby the Agency
disapproves the SIP revision request for failing to meet one or
more requirements of the Act.
This procedure has been endorsed, at least implicitly, by
one circuit court ( State of )ttchigan v. Thomas , 805 P.2d 176 (6th
Cir. 1986) (EPA may properly approve a rule for “maintenance of
air quality” while disapproving it under Part 0)]: but see
Abramawitz v. U.S. EPA , 832 F.2d 1071 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding
that where a State has made a required submittal and the due date
for the submittal has now passed, EPA may not approve part of the
submittal for its strengthening effect if it takes no action on
whether the submittal meets other applicable requirements of the
These cases may be distinguished from those under
categories 1, 2, and 3 because they involve a strengthening of
what is already included in the SIP. In the other three
categories, the SIP revision request proposes an alternative that
weakens the existing SIP requirements.
6

-------
Act; but not addressing whether EPA may simultaneously approve
part of a SIP for its strengthening effect and disapprove it for
failure to comply with those requirements). We have determined
that the amended Act neither alters EPA’S prior interpretation of
the law nor overrules the State of Michigan v. Thomas or
Abramowitz V. U.S. EPA decisions. Rather, the Amendments expand
the lan9uage concerning approval of all or part of a SIP without
addressing the issue of whether EPA may approve provisions that
strengthen the SIP but do not meet all of the requirements of
Part D.
Partial Approval : Section 110(k) guides the Agency’s action
on plan submissions. Once EPA determines that a plan submission
is complete, the Agency must approve or disapprove the submission
within 12 months ( 1l0(k)(2)3. Section Ll0(k)(3) expressly
provides for the circumstance where the entire submittal meets
all applicabl, requirements of the Act, or a separable portion of
the submittal meets all applicable requirements. In such
circumstances, EPA must approve those portions that meet all the
applicable requirements of the Act and disapprove those that do
not 3 .
Limited ADoroval : Section l10(k)(3), however, leaves a gap;
a submittal may contain provisions which are not separable, but
that meet the requirements of the Act. Under the general
authority of §301(a) to adopt regulations necessary to implement
the Act, and in furtherance of the goals of the Act “to protect
and enhance” the quality of the air ( lOl(b)(1)], we interpret
§llO(k)(3) also to allow “united approval” of SIP provisions
that have a strengthening effect, but that do not meet all
requirements of the Act 3 .
Time Limit for EPA Action : EPA’S US of limited approval
must correspond with the Act’s new provisions that place time
We do not read this to override the Bethlehem Steal Corp.
v. Gorsuch , 742 F.2d 1028 (7th Cir. 1984), and Indiana & Michigan
Elec. Co. , 733 F.2d 489 (7th Cir. 1984), decisions, which
overturned partial approvals where the approved parts were
integrally related to the remainder (e.g., an emissions limit and
an averaging period, or an emissions limit and a test method).
For situations such as this, however, a limited approval may be
appropriate.
The Regions should consult with Headquarters on a
case—by—case basis as to whether as a oolicy matter , EPA should
grant such a limited approval to a SIP submittal.
7

-------
limit. on EPA’s approval or disapproval of SIP submittals 4 .
Hence, when granting limited approval EPA should act within 12
months of making a completeness determination. The EPA may give a
limited approval to SIP submittal. (for their strengthening
effect) at one point in time and delay a formal finding that the
submittal does not meet all of the applicable requirements. The
Agency’s failure to make that formal finding (and thereby take
final action) prior to expiration of the 12-month period, could
subject EPA to a lawsuit to compel such an action 5 .
Currently, many SIP revision requests that do not meet all
of the requirements of the amended Act are pending before the
Regions. Most of the SIP submittals required under the amended
Act are not yet due. Where the submittal is made before it is
due, EPA may grant a limited approval to the whole submittal. As
an alternative, EPA may approve certain provisions that meet
prospective requirements of the Act and request the State to
voluntarily withdraw the other portions that are insufficient to
meet future requirements. In either case, the State is not
relieved from submitting an entire approvable plan by the
statutorily-required submittal date.
Activating Sanctions : The timing of the submittal will
affect the consequences of limited approval. If a State files the-
submittal after it was due, and EPA approves it for it.
strengthening effect, the additional finding that the submittal
does not meet all applicable requirements would amount to a
disapproval under §179(a)(2). The disapproval, therefore, would
‘ Under §llO(k)(2), once EPA determines that a submittal
is complete, it must complete action on the submittal within 12
months. Until EPA promulgates the completeness criteria required
pursuant to §ll0(k)(l)(A) (by August 15, 1991], the remaining
timing deadlines in §110(k) do not come into effect. Until that
time, EPA action on SIP revision requests is guided by the
“reasonable time” principle of the Administrative Procedures Act.
Beyond that, during this interim period, the Regions should
continue to make completeness determinations under the existing
criteria promulgated February 16, 1990, 55 FR 5824.
‘ In those States within the Ninth Circuit (Alaska,
Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, California,
and Arizona), the failure to take final action on the SIP
revision request within the 12-qnonth review period may have
stronger implication.. Under the Abramowitzv. U.S. EPA ruling, a
court may invalidate EPA’s limited approval, on all aspects of
the submittal, if final action is not taken during the applicable
12-month period. (Arguably, Abramowitzv. U.S. EPA requires that
all action be taken simultaneously so that the limited approval
must be accompanied by a formal finding that the submittal does
not meet all of the Act’s requirements.)
8

-------
trigger the sanctions provisions. Under §110(m), EPA would have
discretion to apply sanctions immediately upon making such a
finding (although EPA would have to have given notice of, and an
opportunity to comment on, its intention to do so). Under §179,
as to provisions required by Part D or in response to a SIP call,
disapproval starts the 18-month countdown to the mandatory
application of sanctions.
If a State makes (and EPA acts on) a submittal prior to the
time that it is due, the sanctions process will not yet apply.
In such a circumstance, EPA would be approving the submittal for
its strengthening effect for at least the time before which the
State must comply with new requirements in the Act. The
sanctions clock would not start running because sanctions for
disapproval only apply if the disapproval involves elements
currently due under the Act (see §179(a)(2)].
Conditional ADDroval : Finally, under any circumstances in
which a Region is considering limited approval, the Region should
also consider whether a conditional approval, as defined by new
§11o(k)(4), would be a practical option. The EPA may
conditionally approve a plan upon a commitment of the State’ to
adopt the necessary specific enforceable measures by a date not
more than 1 year from the data of approval. The EPA’S finding
that the State failed to meet the commitment within that year
would automatically convert the conditional approval into a
disapproval. Obtaining such a commitment and granting a
conditional approval would benefit the Agency by providing a
concrete path toward curing the deficiency. Moreover a
conditional approval would benefit the State by alleviating the
possibility of sanctions for that 1-year period.
6. Redesignation to Attainment
Under § 107(d) (3), every area that is currently designated
nonattainment will need to meet several requirements before it
will be eligible for redesignation to attainment. Among these is
the requirement of §107(d)(3)(E)(iv) that the State submit a plan
demonstrating maintenance of the relevant standard in accordance
with new §175k. (That section requires, among other things, that
maintenance plans include certain contingency measures.) Beyond
that, each area that is subject to requirements of Part D will
need to receive approval of a plan meeting those requirements
‘ The Act does not explicitly require that the commitment
be set forth in the SIP. We are still considering whether States
may pursue another form of written commitment (e.g., a letter or
a supplemental SIP submission) to take advantage of the
conditional approval approach.
9

-------
before it is eligible for redesignation to attainment
(ç107(d)(3)(E)(ii), (v)] 7 .
Most areas of the country that are subject to a pending
redesignation request have not addressed (let alone met) the
maintenance plan prerequisite for redesignation to attainment.
For that reason, we asked that you notify the affected States by
the “RA Letter” that their pending requests are not “complete”
within the meaning of §107(d)(3)(D), and that for that reason EPA
does not believe it is required to process them at this time.
Headquarters will be developing guidance regarding maintenance
plan requirements under the new Act to assist States in making
the necessary changes to plans that are not deemed complete.
once a State submits a complete maintenance plan, its request for
redesignation is renewed.
We understand that some States have submitted redesignation
requests which include maintenance plans or have extenuating
circumstances. The Regional Office should consult with
Headquarters regarding the adequacy of the maintenance plan, or
if there are any extenuating circumstances, in order to determine
whether it meets the criteria of §175A of the Act. In cases
where these criteria are met, as well as the other criteria of
§107(d)(3), processing of the request can continue.
For example, ozone nonattainment areas with a design value
of at least .1.21 ppm will need to meet all of the requirements
for marginal areas before they are eligible for redesignation.
Also, areas that qualify as “transitional” under §1.85A are
relieved only from the requirements of the ozone subpart. They
must still meet whatever requirements of the general subpart 1 of
Part D that EPA decides still apply (e.g., the RACT requirement
of §172(c)(a)] and the maintenance requirements of §].75A.
10

-------

-------
Nui1

-------
L 3
# I0 fl’-.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY L I L
REGION IV 5I -L .
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30365
MEI’1ORANDUM
D?TE: JAN 31 1989
SUBJE 1 : New SIP Processing Procedures f’ g,L4A)
FROM; I uglas Neeley, Chief
Stationary Source Planning Section
‘10: APB Staff Responsible for Processing State Submittals
The new SIP processing procedures were published in the Federal Register on
January 19, 1989. As of that the date, the Regional Administrator has the
authority to sign final rulemaking actions in Tables 2 and 3 of the notice
(copy of the three tables is attached for your use).
Effective immediately, we will inpiement the new procedures as follows:
When seeking concurrence from Regional Counsel and Conpliance, you must
inaice it clear what category you have decided on for the action, that is,
Table 1, Table 2, or Table 3, or letter notice, Thus, their concurrence
will indicate concurrence in your classification of the action.
Actions in Table 1 will continue to be handled as before: both proposal
and final go for HQ review; it is not expected that any actions now
classified as “minor” will be included, so the distinction between “major”
and “minor” is no longer valid.
Actions in Table 2 will be provided to OAQPS for the mandatory 30-day review
period. Instead of an action inenoraridum to the Administrator or Assistant
Administrator, you will prepare a sinple menorandum from the RA to Vickie
Reed, Federal Register Officer, PM—223, stating our position that the
action is a Table 2 notice and has been provided to HQ previously for
their review.
Actions in Table 3 will go directly to Vickie Reed under cover of a meno
from the RA justifying the classification as Table 3.
In view of the approaching retirement of Walter Bishop, all staff should
learn to. prepare packages for mailing and to write the rulemaking language
for final notices. A training session on these points will be scheduled in
the near future.
If any of you do not have the OAQPS notebook of guidance on preparing notices,
please see me.
Attachments

-------
TABLE 1
The following SIP actions must undergo fufl Regional
Office and Headquarters review, with decision and
signoff by the Administrator (proposed and final):
o 03 redesignations and 03 attainment plans (including I&M programs)
o CO attainment plans dealing with area-wide problems
o co reoesignations except those relating to point-source only
prob ems or hot spots
o Group 1 PM 0 plans (attainment demonstrations) including those
resulting from commital SIPs
o New area—wide voc regulations (e.g., per CTG requirements, or Post-87
requi rements)
o voc revisions with long—term averaging (i.e., greater than 24-hour)
o so 2 revisions involving (a) unresolved national issues (e.g., stack
height remand, statistical attainment demonstrations, expected
exceedances methods); (b) more than one Regional Office; (c)
international issues.
o SIP revisions proposing or revising State-developed air quality
dispersion model guidelines, and SIP revisions based on the use of
non—approved models or deviations from EPA’s modeling guidance.
0 SIP revisions where EPA is under a court-ordered schedule (e.g.,
Indiana SO 2 SIP)
o SO 2 Statewide plans (all elements)
o SIPs for new generic State-wide programs (e.g., bubbles, PSD/NSR)
o PSD/ SR SIPs submitted to comply with Post-87 0 3 /C0 policy
o PSD/NSR SIPs for PM 10 group I areas
o PSD/NSR SIPs submitted to comply with Alabama Power decisions
0 Bubbles which trade off growth allowances
o Vi •ibiLity plans that address existing impairment
0 An FIP
o Any action proposing or imposing a sanction
o Any SIP revision, approval/disapproval of which would significantly
deviate from national policy
35

-------
TABLE 2
The following SIP actions are delegated for Regiona1
Administrator decision and signoff (proposed and final)
but require a 30—day opportunity for Headquarters’
review before signoft.
o Particulate matter emissions relaxations
o VOC revisions with extended compliance schedules affecting
nonattainment areas
o Co attainment plans dealiny with hotspots
o Co redesignations relating to point-source only problems
and hot spots
o 502 area—wide and source—specific SIP revisions and redesigna—
tions, where the source(s) or background sources in the aggregate
have allowable emissions of 25,000 TPV or more (except primary
nonferrous smelters or emission trading)
o so 2 revisions with (a) averaying times greater than the short—term
SO 2 NAAQS; (b) revised emission limits due to changes in stack
height credits
0 Visibility SIPs involving regional haze
o Direct final rulemaking in categories identified for Administrator
signoff (See Table 1)
o Any other action not listed elsewhere
36

-------
TABLE 3
The following SIP actions are delegated for Regional
Administrator decision and signoff (proposed and final).
Headquarters review is not required but may be requested
by tne Regional Office.
o MI other bubbles and all other single—source regs.
o VOC extended compliance schedules (except
those affecting nonattainnient areas)
o PM 10 Group II and III SIPs
o TSP redesignations
o Lead attainment plans and revisions
o All other SO 2 SIPs, including redesignations; ambient
monitoring plans; malfunction rules; State AAQS
o State stack height regulations and negative declarations
o All other PSD/NSR SIPs
o All other visibility plans
o 111(d) plans/negative declarations
o All other direct final rulemaking
o All letter notice actions
38

-------
11

-------

-------
L i
DSr 4 ,. A
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY r’
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
JAN 3 0 1989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Procedures for Letter Notice Approval of Minor SIP
FROM: Gerald A. Emison,
Off ice of Air Qualit ann n and Standards (MD-b)
TO: Director, Air Management Division
Regions I, III, IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides & Toxics Division
Regions IV, VI
Director, Air and Radiation Division
Region V
Director, Air and Toxics Division
Region VII, VIII, X
The Agency is currently reforming the entire system for
processing State implementation plans (SIPS) pursuant to
recommendations of the Deputy Administrator’s Task Group on SIP
Processing. One such recommendation creates an entirely new form
of SIP processing referred to as “letter notice.” This memo-
randum describes the new letter notice procedure and provides
examples of letter notice approvals and a model Federal Register
notice.
Under the letter notice procedure, EPA will use letters to
affected States and parties rather than notice—and-comment
rulemaking to approve truly insignificant SIP actions. The
Agency will not publish notices of proposed rulemaking in the
Federal Register prior to sending final letter notice approvals
to the States and affected parties. The letter to the State
will be the Agency’s final action approving such minor SIP
revisions. The Agency will periodically publish a summary list
of all letter notice actions in the Federal Register to keep the
general public informed of SIP matters. The effective date of
letter notice approvals will be the date of the letter to the
State, not the date of the subsequent summary Federal Register

-------
2
notice. Letter notice approvals will, however, remain subject to
potential judicial review until 60 days after the date of the
summary Federal Register notice.’
Regional Offices are encouraged to use the letter notice
procedure for all minor SIP approvals that are sufficiently
insignificant such that no member of the general public would
have an interest in commenting on them. Categories of SIPs
appropriate for processing through letter notice differ from
those previously processed under the “direct—final” procedure in
that direct-final has been used for SIPS Ofl which EPA did not
expect to receive any adverse comment but which may have held
some interest for the general public. Letter notice should be
used only for those SIPS Ofl which the public will have no
interest in commenting. The Agency is justifying dispensing with
notice and comment rulemaking by relying on the exemption in the
Administrative Procedure Act for situations where it is
“unnecessary or contrary to the public interest” to provide
opportunity for public comment. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b). For a full
analysis of the legal issues associated with the letter notice
procedure, see memorandum, Sara Schneeberg to Jim Weigold, “Legal
Analysis of Letter Notice Option for Processing Minor SIP
Actions,” dated May 25, 1988 (attached).
Categories of SIP actions appropriate for letter notice
processing would include recodification involving no substantive
changes, minor technical amendments, typographical corrections,
address changes and similar non—substantive matters. Regional
Offices are encouraged to consult in advance with the Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards if questions arise concerning
the appropriateness of using letter notice processing for any
particular SIP action.
Where insignificant SIP actions are generally applicable,
Regional Offices should send a letter similar to that in
Attachment A from the Regional Administrator to the State
indicating that EPA is approving the SIP action. Where
insignificant SIP actions are source—specific, a letter similar
to that in Attachment B should be sent to the affected source in
addition to the approval letter sent to the State.
‘ Clean Air Act Section 307(b)(l) provides that “ [ a]ny
petition for review under this subsection shall be filed
within sixty days from the date notice of such promulgation,
approval or action appears in the Federal Register . . .
42 U.S.C. 7607(b)1).

-------
3
Periodically as the Regional Office determines appropriate,
but generally not less often than once every six months, Regional
Offices should publish in the Federal Register a summary listing
of all letter notice approvals made by the Regional Administrator
since the last summary publication. A model summary Federal
Register notice is included as Attachment C to this memorandum.
I believe that use of the letter notice procedure will
greatly expedite your processing of minor SIP revisions. Should
you or your staff have any questions on these procedures please
contact Johnnie Pearson of my staff at FTS 629-5691 or Sara
Schneeberg of the Office of General Counsel at FTS 382—7606.
Attachments
cc: Regional Counsel, Reg. I—X
Regional Counsel (Air Contact), Reg. I—X
Air Branch Chiefs, Reg. I—X
John Calcagni
Johnnie Pearson
Sara Schneeberg
Jim Weigold

-------
ATTACHMENT A
MODEL APPROVAL LETTER TO STATE
Governor
State of [ Name of State]
Dear Governor:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has received your
request for approval of a revision to the [ name of State] State
implementation plan (SIP) for [ pollutant] relating to [ subject
matter of SIP revision] submitted to us on [ date of submission).
I have determined that this minor SIP revision complies with
all applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA
policy and regulations concerning such SIP revisions. (Insert
more detailed rationale for approval as appropriate.] I am
therefore approving this submission under section 110(a) of the
CAA as a revision to the [ name of state] SIP for [ pollutant].
This approval is effective as of today’s date.
Due to the minor nature of this SIP revision, EPA has
concluded that conducting notice—and—comment rulemaking prior to
approving this SIP revision would be “unnecessary and contrary to
the public interest,” and hence riot required by the Adininistra-
tive Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b). I am approving this
revision consistent with the procedures outlined in EPA’S Notice
of Procedural Changes on SIP processing published on January 19,
1989 at 54 FR 2214. This is a final action of the Agency subject
to judicial review as appropriate.
[ Insert the following if appropriate]
I have informed [ name of company] of this action.
Sincerely,
Regional Administrator

-------
ATTACHMENT B
MODEL INFORMATION LETTER TO SOURCE
President
[ Name of Company]
Dear (Name of Company President]:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has received a
request from the state of (name of state] for approval of a
revision to the [ name of state] State implementation plan (SIP)
for [ pollutant] relating to [ subject matter of SIP revision]
involving your company. I have determined that this minor SIP
revision complies with all applicable requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) and EPA policy and regulations concerning such SIP
revisions. (Insert more detailed rationale for approval as
appropriate.] I have therefore approved this submission under
section 110(a) of the CAA as a revision to the [ name of state]
SIP for [ pollutant] by letter dated today. The approval is
effective as of this date.
Due to the minor nature of this SIP revision, EPA has
concluded that conducting notice-and-comment rulemaking prior to
approving this SIP revision would be “unnecessary and contrary to
the public interest,” and hence, not required by the Administra-
tive Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553 (b). I have approved the
revision consistent with the procedures outlined in EPA’s Notice
of Procedural Changes on SIP Processing published on January 19,
1989 at 54 FR 2214. This approval is a final Agency action
subject to judicial review as appropriate.
Sincerely,
Regional Administrator

-------
ATTACHMENT C
MODEL SUMMARY FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
ACTION: Notice of Approvals
SUMMARY: Pursuant to procedures described at 54 FR 2214
(January 19, 1989), EPA has recently approved a number of minor
State implementation plan (SIP) revisions. This notice lists the
revisions EPA has approved and incorporates the relevant material
into the Code of Federal Regulations.
DATES: The incorporation by reference will be effective
[ insert date of publication in Federal Register] .
ADDRESSES: Copies of the State SIP revision requests and
EPA’S letter notices of approval are available for public
inspection during normal business hours at the following
locations:
Environmental Protection Agency
Region _____
[ Address of Regional Office]
State of [ Name of State]
[ Address of State Environmental Office]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [ name and address
of Regional contact person]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA Region — has approved the
following minor SIP revision requests under section 110(a) of
the Clean Air Act (CAA):
SUBJECT ‘ ‘ DATE OF DATE OF
STATE f POLLUTANT MATTER SOURCE SUBMISSION APPROVAL
[ Prepare table with headings similar to those shown.]
EPA has determined that each of these SIP revisions complies
with all applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA policy and
regulations concerning such revisions. Due to the minor nature
of these revisions, EPA concluded that conducting notice—and-
comment rulemaking prior to approving the revisions would have
been “unnecessary and contrary to the public interest,” and

-------
2
hence was not required by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5
U.S.C. Section 553(b). Each of these SIP approvals became final
and effective on the date of EPA approval as listed in the chart
above.
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted all SIP
approvals from the requirements of Section 3 of Executive Order
12291.
Under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I certify that these SIP revisions
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities. See 46 FR 8709.
Under Section 307(b)(l) of the CAA, as amended, judicial
review of this action is available only by filing a petition for
review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit within 60 days of today. These actions may not be
challenged later in proceedings to enforce their requirements.
See Section 307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52: [ List relevant
subjects]
Date Regional Administrator

-------
40 CFR Part 52, Subpart _____, is amended as
follows:
Subpart — - [ Name of State]
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues
to read as follows: AUTHORITY: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7642.
2. Section ____ is amended as follows:
[ insert relevant CFR language]

-------

-------

-------
/\.) ci,i I I..

, D s7 4
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY c b
i jS WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 S t4 It
\ PR( ( /YQ ,
PW 29
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Revised Guidance on Enforcement of State mplementation
FROM P1a3ovin roPosed
Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air
Office of Enforcement and mpliance toring
John S. Seitz, Director
Stationary Source Compli c Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: Addressees
Attached is final guidance on the above-referenced topic.
We issued this guidance in draft on April 26, 1989. . The final
policy reflects the comments we received in response tothe draft
as well as relevant judicial developments that have occurred
between the dates of the draft and final document.
This guidance is being issued to help lleviate the
uncertainty which cui rent1y affects decisiónsto initiate
enforceinent actions against sources with pending SIP revisions,
particularly sources of volatile organic comp tindS (VOCè).
Because of the importance of the ozone non—attainment problem
currently confronting EPA, it is crucial for the Agency’ to
maintain an active docket of VOC enforcement actions. This
guidance can help Regions target enforcement actions to
situations where the facts are favorable to the Agency’s position
in litigation.
On June 7, 1989, after the draft guidance was issued, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued its opinion in
Un .ted States v. General Motors Corn . (Framingham, Mass.) No. 88—
1799. This decision, which found that EPA has four months in
which to act on proposed SIP revisions but that failure to act
does not raise an enforcement bar, has been incorporated into the
guidance.

-------
—2—
Some conunenters on the draft guidance suggested that,
instead of waiting to refer a case affected by a particular
proposed SIP revison until after the proposed disapproval of
that SIP revision is published in the Federal Register, it
might be preferable to refer the case, but hold off filing
until the disapproval is published. We have not adapted this
change because it would place a substantial burden on the
Department of Justice (DOJ) to scrutinize cases to make sure
that they are ready to be filed. Every case referred for
enforcement action should be ready to be filed immediately.
Other commenters noted that we had not discussed the
situation where a proposed SIP revision is submitted to EPA
after a case is referred but before it is filed. We have added
a discussion of this situation. We have not discussed the
situation where a proposed SIP revision is submitted to EPA
after a case is filed because it seems apparent that this
should not be cause for dismissing a filed enforcement action.
This guidance supersedes the “Guidance on Evaluating Clean
Air Act Enforcement of State Implementation Plan Violations
Involving Proposed State Revisions,” dated December 31, 1987.
Please insert this document in its place at Part E, Document
#32 of the Clean Air Act Policy Compendium.
Please address any questions on this policy to Judy Katz
(LE—134A) , 382—2843.
Attachment
Addressees:
Regional Counsels
Regions I-X
Regional Counsel Air Contacts
Regions I-X
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, and IX
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division Directors
Regions IV and VI

-------
—3—
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII , and X
Air Compliance Branch Chiefs
Regions I-X
Alan Eckert
Office of General Counsel
David Buente
Environmental Enforcement Section
U.S. Department of Justice
Robert Van Heuvelen, Assistant Chief
Environmental Enforcement Section
U.S. Department of Justice
cc: Edward E. Reich
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement and Compliance Monitorir
William G. Rosenberg
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation

-------
Si 4 ,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
I
4 t no1t.
MiS 29
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Revised Guidance on Enforcement of State niplementation
FROM:
Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air
Office of Enforcement and C mpliance M ntoring
,‘I r)- . /1
John S. Seitz, Director
Stationary Source Conlpli, 9t Division
Office of Air Quality PTh’nning and Standards
TO: Addressees
In light of the Fifth Circuit decision in American Cyanamid
and other recent decisions across the country which have
i’riterpreted Clean Air Act time limits for processing State
Implementation Plan (“SIP”) revisions, we are providing some
guidance to help EPA decide on appropriate enforcement responses
-- where SIP revisions are pending. Where Regions have decided to
pursue a judicial civil action, this guidance also suggests how
to develop an effective SIP enforcement action. Appendix A of
this guidance describes recent cases that have ruled on this
issue.
We have also attached, as Appendix B, a case evaluation form
for assessment of each case. The format is designed to allow EPA
Headquarters to assess national trends in SIP revisions. Please
evaluate the facts of individual cases based on the criteria in
this guidance, then complete and include the form with all
litigation reports in SIP enforcement cases. The evaluation
fo]?ms should be submitted to the Department of Justice as well as
to EPA. They need not be included with pre-referral packages.

-------
—2—
I. Backaround
Section 110 of the Clean Air Act requires each state to
prepare a SIP for the attainment and maintenance of National
Ambient Air Quality Standards, and to submit the SIP to EPA for
approval. The Administrator is required by Section 110(a) (2) to
act on initial submissions within four months. Section 110(a) (3)
provides the procedure for EPA action on SIP revisions, but has
no similar explicit deadline for EPA action. As discussed more
fully below, some federal circuit courts have concluded that the
four-month deadline applicable to initial SIP submissions applies
as well to SIP revisions. Although other courts have suggested
that this time limitation does not apply to SIP revisions, the
trend has been for courts to find that the four month limit
applies.
The Act authorizes the Administrator to initiate enforcement
proceedings against any person in violation of any requirement of
an applicable SIP, i.e. , the implementation plan, or the most
recent revision thereto, which has been approved by EPA. In the
past few years, Federal circuit courts have limited Section 120
and section 113 enforcement when final EPA action on a SIP
revision has been pending for more than four months.
EPA currently reviews approximately 150 to 200 SIP revisions
each calendar year. The review of each of these revisions
routinely requires more than four months to complete. Under
EPA’s current workload model, a final SIP revision decision is
scheduled to be published within 14 months of submission. In
fact, however, less than 50% of these revisions are processed
within fourteen months, and some revisions have taken four to
five years to process: Although delays have often resulted from
the submission by states of incomplete SIP revision packages,
internal delays at EPA also affect the timing. Additionally, 0MB
review of proposals to disapprove submitted revisions may cause
further delays in the process.
Even with the administrative steps EPA has recently taken to
streamline and further standardize the SIP review process, or any
possible new legislation setting a statutory time period for EPA
review which is longer than four months, cases will continue to
be affected by pending SIP revisions. The Agency’s workload can
be expected to increase as a result of SIP calls for ozone
nonattainment areas, new SIPs resulting from NAAQS revisions
( e.g. , PM 10 ), and SIP revisions contemplated by proposed
legislation. In addition, SIP revisions can be expected to
increase as a defensive strategy to side-track enforcement in
light of recent adverse judicial interpretation. Therefore,
addressing proposed SIP revisions and the SIP revision process
will become important considerations in pending and future air
enforcement cases.

-------
—3—
II. Guidance on Referring Cases Affected by SIP Revisions
The following factors should be considered during the
determination of whether to refer a civil action. Some are
clear—cut matters and some involve the weighing of equitable
circumstances:
A. SIP revision a roval is likely .
If a Region after reviewing a formal state submittal or a
submittal provided for parallel processing, is able to determine
that it will probably approve a pending SIP revision which would
authorize the source’s existing operations, there is very little
likelihood that a court would either order compliance with more
stringent existing limits or assess substantial penalties for
emissions unless the defendant exceeds the limits allowed in the
revised SIP. Therefore, it is unlikely that a complaint would be
filed as a result of a referral seeking either injunctive relief
or penalties in this situation. Enforcement resources would be
better directed to other cases. However, if a Region determines
that an important deterrent purpose would be served by pursuing a
penalties-only enforcement action for a source in this category,
the referral may be made.
B. Fifth Circuit cases .
The Court of Appeals decision in American Cyanamid (See
Appendix A) was not appealed. Therefore, enforcement actions
against sources located within the Fifth Circuit’s jurisdiction
should be pursued only in factually different circumstances. The
Region should not seek Section 120 penalties in administrative or
judicial proceedings until EPA has published at least one final
disapproval of a SIP revision in the Federal Register . However,
if Section 120 enforcement is being delayed by successive
proposed revisions, it can proceed after denying the first
revision. The successive submittals would be a new problem not
addressed by the court. A Region might also refer cases based
upon other factors not adversely decided in American Cvanainid ;
and it might refer cases for Section 113 proceedings, which,
unlike Section 120, allow consideration of equitable factors in
the assessment of penalties. We urge you to consult with the Air
Enforcement Division and Department of Justice attorneys as Fifth
Ci cuit cases are considered for referral.
C. No Compliance with proposed SIP Revision .
If the source has not materially complied with the proposed
SIP revision, the case is a reasonable candidate for referral
even before the Region acts on a pending SIP revision. A court
may be persuaded that penalties are appropriate. The appropriate

-------
—4—
injunctive relief should be analyzed in the litigation report
with modifications to be determined at the time of settlement or
judicial decision.
D. No Proposed Revision Submitted to EPA .
Where federal approval of a SIP revision is required and the
state has not submitted a proposed SIP revision, e.g. , a non-
generic bubble, then there is no reason to delay enforcement. 1
Conversely, if the source complies with a generic bubble which
has been approved by the State, and EPA agrees that the state’s
bubble approval authority is generic, no enforcement action
should be undertaken. If EPA has not received a formal SIP
revision submittal because the State is still processing the
proposal and has not requested EPA to review the revision
pursuant to the parallel processing procedure or an incomplete
submittal was returned to the State, the case may be referred for
enforcement. 2 The litigation report should discuss any known
pending state action on a SIP revision if the matter otherwise
merits such action. Likewise, if a Region refers a case and then
subsequently receives a proposed SIP revision before the case has
been filed by DOJ, there is no reason to withold filing the case
unless the Region determines that the SIP is likely to be
approved.
E. SIP Revision Disapproval by Region .
As discussed earlier, courts have differed about the need for
final Aqency action before an enforcement action may be
commenced. Where the Region plans to disapprove a SIP revision,
we recommend that the Region refer a case for enforcement after
the proposed disappro ial has been published in the Federal
Register unless a serious endanqerment to health will result from
a delay. If a serious health risk exists, the case should be
referred after the Regional Administrator acts on the packaqe
proposing disapproval and the Regional SIP staff have discussed
1 EPA ought to inform both the State and the affected source
for source-specific revisions that EPA believes the SIP revision
requires formal Federal approval, where there is a defensible
leg l basis for EPA’s position.
2 where EPA has received only an informational package, the
Region ought to notify immediately the state and the affected
source (in the case of a source specific proposal) that the
package is not a formal submittal, and that enforcement action
may commence against the source unless parallel processing
is requested.

-------
—5—
all issues with the appropriate Headquarters offices. Other
factors outlined in the equitable consideration section of the
December 31, 1987, guidance also should be considered.
F. Eauitable Considerations .
Equitable considerations bear on the decision to refer an
enforcement action when a SIP revision is pending with the
Region. Since no court has held that EPA should be barred from
seeking injunctive relief when a SIP revision is pending, it may,
in appropriate circumstances, be desirable to refer an action for
injunctive relief. For example, if imminent and substantial
endangerment to health exists in any jurisdiction, including the
Fifth Circuit, enforcement should be undertaken regardless of the
status of the SIP revision. Similarly, as discussed above, a
case should be referred after the Regional Administrator acts to
propose disapprovel of a SIP revision but before it is published
in the Federal Register if a serious health risk exists.
Additional equitable factors which bear on the decision to
refer a case include the actual SIP revision review period, the
timing of the SIP revision submittal in relation to any
preliminary enforcement procedures ( i.e. , whether the submittal
appears to be a dilatory tactic employed to impede enforcement
action), the source’s ability to comply with the applicable SIP
without great expense and difficulty, and the cooperation of the
source in providing accurate information and endeavoring to
comply with air requirements. Many of the above factors may
pertain to a case and should be evaluated along with the source’s
willingness to negotiate in assessing the appropriate enforcement
action. We also recommend that you consult with the Air
Enforcement Division ‘and Department of Justice before referring a
case based only on these equitable factors.
IV. Other Considerations
In order to assess a case for referral, the Regional
attorneys will have to consult with the Region’s SIP analysts.
We recommend that this be undertaken with an awareness of the
Seventh Circuit decision in Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. EPA . 638
F.2d 994 (7th Cir. 1980).
The Case Evaluation Sheet with definitions of its data
poi,nts has been provided to assist you in ensuring that the
relevant information has been obtained for your evaluation. This
data will be used for national evaluations of all SIP enforcement
cases. We therefore ask that you complete the evaluation form
for all SIP enforcement actions regardless of whether a revision
is pending at the time of referral.

-------
—6—
V. Summary
In summary, we recommend that enforcement be initiated when
one of the following set of circumstances exist: 1) the source
is not in compliance with the pending SIP revision, 2) no SIP
revision has been submitted to EPA, 3) the ( proposed ) disapproval
of the SIP revision has been published in the Federal Reqister
(except for the Fifth Circuit where final disapproval is needed),
or 4) equitable considerations mandate action. We recommend that
a Region concentrate on these cases rather than cases where a SIP
revision approval is likely, or where the merits of the SIP
revision have not been addressed by the Region.
Our staff will be available to discuss specific cases with
you. We appreciate your assistance in considering these
additional factors in your case evaluation. Please contact us,
or Judy Katz, Air Enforcement Division, FTS 382—2843), if you
have any questions regarding this policy.
Attachment
Addressees:
Regional Counsels
Regions I-X
Regional Counsel Air Contacts
Regions I-X
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, and IX
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII, and X
Air Compliance Branch Chiefs
Regions I—X
Alan Eckert
Office of General Counsel

-------
Appendix A
Judicial Interpretation of the SIP Revision Procedure
Several courts have scrutinized SIP revision procedures and,
in some instances, have also considered whether SIP revision
timing affects enforcement. These judicial determinations should
be considered by a Region during an evaluation of a case prior to
its referral. The following judicial decisions have addressed
the issue of the SIP revision procedure.
In Duauesne Light Co. v. EPA , 698 F.2d 456 (D.C. Cir. 1983),
the D.C. Circuit held that SIP revisions must be acted upon by
the Administrator within four months and that Section 120
administrative penalties may be assessed but collection would be
“held in abeyance” for the period beyond the four month deadline
after a request for a SIP revision is submitted to EPA. If EPA
later disapproves the proposed revision, it may then collect the
penalty from the date of the four-month deadline, with interest.
Council of Commuter Organizations v. Gorsuch , 683 F.2d 648
(2nd Cir. 1982) and Council of Commuter Organizations v. Thomas ,
799 F.2d 879 (2nd Cir. 1986) were cases where the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals used the four-month requirement for review of
initial SIPS as an analogy and stated that EPA was required to
approve or disapprove SIP revisions within four months. The
Second Circuit did not, however, discuss whether the pendency of
a SIP revision for more than four months impinges on EPA’s
authority to enforce a provision of the applicable SIP. Instead,
the court stated that the appropriate remedy for requiring an EPA
decision within four months was a citizen’s suit.
In United States v. National Steel Corp. , 767 F.2d 1176 (6th
Cir. 1985), the Sixth Circuit accepted EPA’s interpretation that
the four month rule in the Act applies only to EPA review of
general state plans and not to revisions.
The Northern District of California, in Dunn—Edwards v.
Thomas , C.A. No. C-87-3157 MHP (N.D. Cal. August 4, 1987), noted
in dictum that there was no express statutory deadline for EPA
action on SIP revisions. The Court did not decide whether EPA
delays impinged on Section 113 enforcement. It distinguished
American Cyanamid (see below) and Duciuesne Light as involving
penalty assessments pursuant to Section 120 rather than Section
113. The court dismissed an action by paint manufacturers to
enjoin EPA from taking initial steps pursuant to Section 113 to
enforce a SIP where a proposed revision had been pending at EPA
- for more than four months. Although the court did not decide

-------
—2—
whether the pendency of the SIP revision for more than four
months would bar issuance of a Section 113(a) administrative
order or initiation of a Section 113(b) judicial enforcement
action, the Court refused to “rescind” the Notices of Violation
which EPA issued to the companies.
The Fifth Circuit refused to adopt the D.C. Circuit Court
Duauesne Light reasoning rule regarding the effect of delay past
four months in a Section 120 proceeding. In American Cyanamid
Co. v. EPA , 810 F.2d 493, 500 (5th Cir. 1987), the Court held
that EPA may not collect Section 120 administrative penalties for
violations of an applicable SIP during the period “between 1)
four months after a state submits and 2) the date EPA rejects the
revision.” The Court also held that EPA may not “commence” a
Section 120 proceeding to collect the economic benefit of
noncompliance with the applicable SIP, other than to issue a
notice of noncompliance, once four months have passed without EPA
action on a pending revision. After EPA ultimately rejects a
proposed revision, it may commence a Section 120 proceeding. The
court stated that it had not prohibited EPA from collecting
noncompliance penalties from the date of a notice of
noncompliance until four months after the state submitted a
proposed SIP revision and then resuming noncompliance penalties
for the period after EPA rejected the State’s proposed revision.
Neither Duauesne Light Co. v. EPA., su ra nor American Cyanamid
Co. v. EPA, supra , pertained to an injunctive action.
The first case to consider whether EPA can bring a Section
113 judicial enforcement action when a SIP revision has been
pending for longer than four months was U.S. v. Alcan Foil
Products , Civil No. C—87—0434—L—B (W.D. Ky. March 15, 1988). The
court held that EPA was required to review a pending SIP revision
Jithin four months of its submittal and that the Agency could not
bring a Section 113 judicial enforcement action for violation of
a federally approved SIP until after EPA acts on any SIP revision
submitted to EPA by the State. The amount of penalties would be
determined in accordance with the equities of each case. The
Alcan court held that EPA could not enforce the standards of the
proposed revision because it had not taken final action on those
standards. The court stated that Kentucky and EPA must resolve
the state-federal factual dispute about whether Alcan complied
with the proposed SIP revision before EPA could commence an
enforcement action against Alcan for any violations of that SIP
revjsion if it were approved. The court did not address the
merits of EPA’s claim of a violation of the Clean Air Act. EPA
has filed an appeal to the Sixth Circuit.

-------
—3—
In U.S. V. Arkwright, Inc. , C.A. No. 87—2000-D (D. N.H.
June 10, 1988) the court held that EPA was required to review a
pending SIP revision within four months, but that the Agency’s
failure to make a final decision on the SIP did not bar this
simultaneous Section 113 enforcement proceeding for the violation
of a SIP. The defendant had to comply with the existing
federally approved SIP until it was formally revised by EPA. The
court also denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss based on its
equitable estoppel defense, holding that dismissal was
unwarranted factually and against public policy. The court
adopted the penalty collection procedure established in Duquesne
Light , requiring EPA to reject the SIP revision before it could
collect the civil penalty. The penalty was to be assessed for
the time period from four months after submission of a SIP
revision. The court denied EPA’s motion for clarification in
which it sought penalties from the day that defendant first
violated the SIP rather than from four months after submission of
a SIP revision. EPA had issued the notice of violation in this
case sooner than four months after EPA received the proposed SIP
revision and has now formally disapproved the proposed SIP
revision.
In U.S. v. General Motors Corp. , (Framingham, Mass.) No. 88-
1799 (1st dr. June 7, 1989), the First Circuit reviewed the
opinion of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts which held
that EPA had four months to act on proposed SIP revisions and
that, if the Agency failed to act within that time, it was
prohibited from bringing or continuing an enforcement proceeding
until it took final action on the pending SIP revision. The
Firs,t Circuit reversed the District Court’s opinion. While
finding that EPA did ltave four months to act on proposed SIP
revisions, the First Circuit held that Agency inaction on the SIP
revision did not bar enforcement action. Rather, the Court held,
EPA delay in acting on proposed SIP revisions and the reasons for
the delay should be considered by courts as equitable factors
contributing to the determination of an appropriate civil penalty
under Section 113. The court’s opinion did not address
availability of injunctive relief.
In arriving at its decision, the First Circuit attempted to
strike a balance between the approaches taken by the American
Cyanamid court on one side and the Duguesne Light court on the
other.
Many courts which have not directly addressed the deadline
-issue have held or stated in dicta that revisions to SIPS are
ineffective without EPA approval. Train v. NRDCI 421 U.S.
60, 92 (1975) (“This litigation, however, is carried out on the
polluter’s time not the public’s, for during (the pendency of a
SIP revision] the original regulations remain in effect, and the
polluter’s failure to comply may subject him to a variety of

-------
—4—
enforcement procedures”); NRDC v. EPA , 507 F.2d 905, 915 (9th
Cir. 1974) (“...until any variance is sanctioned by the EPA, any
source operating in contravention of a state implementation plan
that has been approved by that Agency is subject to forced com-
pliance at the instance of the EPA”); Metropolitan Washington
Coalition for Clean Air v. District of Columbia . 511 F.2d 809,
813 (D.C. dr. 1985) (“A requirement of EPA approval prior to
effectuation of any proposed revision is thus essential to
prevent critical irreparable delays which the Administrator is
not empowered to authorize under the less rigorous revision
provisions or which do not meet the standards for revision”);
Gettv Oil Co. (Eastern Operations v. Ruckeishaus 342 F. Supp.
1006 (D. Del. 1972), rem’d on other grounds 467 F.2d 349 (3d dr.
1972); United States v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel , 818 F.2d 1077
(3d Cir. 1987) (pending bubble application at a state agency is
not effective until approved by the state agency and EPA and
cannot be a basis for extending compliance schedule in consent
decree); United States v. Ford Motor Co. . 814 F.2d 1099, 1103
(6th Cir. 1987) (“the original emission limit remains fully
enforceable until a revision or variance is approved by both the
State and EPA”); Ohio Environmental Council v. U.S. District
Court. , 565 F.2d 393, 398 (6th Cir. 1977) (“If a plan became
unenforceable every time such a revision became a possibility,
the entire enforcement procedure of the Clean Air Act would be
crippled”); United States v. West Penn Power Co. . 460 F.
Supp.1305 (W.D. Pa. 1978).

-------
Appendix B
CASE EVALUATION FORM FOR STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) CASES
1. SOURCE NAME: ________________________________________________
2. SOURCE LOCATION: ________________________________________
3. REGION: ______________________
4. FEDERAL COURT: CIRCUIT ____________ DISTRICT ___________
SIP REVISION
5. HAS A PROPOSED SIP REVISION BEEN SUBMITTED TO EPA? ________
6. IF NOT, A) DOES THE REGION BELIEVE THAT THE STATE HAS GENERIC
AUTHORITY TO APPROVE THE TYPE OF REVISION AT ISSUE?* ________
B) DOES THE STATE BELIEVE THAT IT HAS GENERIC AUTHORITY TO
APPROVE TUE TYPE OF REVISION AT ISSUE?
7. IF A SIP REVISION HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY EPA, IS IT A FORMAL
SUBMITTAL? ____________ ( IS IT BEING PARALLEL PROCESSED ?
_________ OR IS IT INFORMATIONAL? ___________
8. IF IT IS A FORMAL SUBMITTAL, HAS THE DETERMINATION OF
COMPLETENESS BEEN MADE? ________________
9. IF COMPLETE, PROVIDE DATE RECEIVED. _______________________
10. IF INCOMPLETE, WAS IT RETURNED TO THE STATE? ______________
DATE RETURNED: ________________________
11. IS SIP REVISION APPROVAL LIKELY? _____ ____________________

-------
—2—
12. DOES EPA BELIEVE THE SOURCE COMPLIES WITH THE PROPOSED SIP
REVISION? _____
13. DOES THE STATE BELIEVE THE SOURCE COMPLIES WITH THE PROPOSED
SIP REVISION? _____
14. STATUS OF SIP REVISION SUBMITTED TO EPA:
STATUS OUTCOME DATE
(Approval/Disapproval)
PROPOSAL TO HQ ________________
PROPOSAL TO 0MB ________________
PROPOSAL PUBLISHED ________________
FINAL TO REGION ________________
FINAL TO HQ ______________
FINAL TO 0MB _______________
FINAL PUBLISHED ________________
ENFORCEMENT
15. DATES(S) RECEIVED VIOLATION INFORMATION: —
and TYPES OF INFORMATION RECEIVED: ________
16. DATE(S) OF NOTICE(S) OF VIOLATION: _______
DATE(S) OF NOTICE(S) OF NONCOMPLIANCE: ___
UITABLE CONSIDERATIONS
17. WHAT RELIEF DOES EPA SEEK? ________________
PENALTY: INJUNCTIVE RELIEF:

-------
—3—
18. IS THERE AN IMMINENT AND SUBSTANTIAL ENDANGERMENT TO PUBLIC
HEALTH? __________________
DESCRIBE:
19. IS THERE A SERIOUS RISK TO PUBLIC HEALTH ? _________________
DESCRIBE : _________________________
20. POLLUTION INFORMATION:
(a) MAJOR SOURCE: _____________________
(b) VOLUME OF EMISSIONS: (i) ACTUAL EMISSIONS: __________TPY
(ii) ALLOWED EMISSIONS: __________TPY
Cc) TYPE OF POLLUTANT: ____________________________________
(d) EXTENT OF VIOLATION: (i) ACTUAL EMISSIONS: ___________
(ii) EMISSION LIMITATION: ________
Ce) NONATTAINMENT AREA: ____________________
(f) EXTENSION AREA: _______________________
21. ESTIMATE COST OF COMPLIANCE OPTIONS: _____________________
22. COOPERATION BY THE SOURCE
(a) IS SOURCE IN COMPLIANCE WITH EXISTING SIP? ____________
(b) IS SOURCE SEEKING ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF RESOLVING THE
NONCOMPLIANCE? ________________________
23. OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS: _________________

-------
—‘-
DEFINITIONS FOR CASE EVALUATION FORM FOR SIP CASES
1. Name of company/entity violating the Clean Air Act.
2. City, County and State where source is located.
3. EPA Region
4. (See attached list of Circuit Courts)
SIP REVISION
5—13. Self—explanatory
14. Indicate whether the revision has been formally recommended for
approval or disapproval and the date of the decision or
publication.
ENFORCEMENT
15. List dates EPA received information of violation(s) and
indicate whether information was provided by the source or
an air pollution control agency, or as a result of an
inspection by EPA.
16. Self—explanatory.
EQ JITABLE CONSIDERATIONS
l7—l8 Self—explanatory.

-------
—2—
POLLUTION INFORMATION
19(a). A Class A Source; including Class Al: Any stationary source
whose actual or potential emissions while operating at design
capacity equal at least 100 tons per year, and Class A2: Any
stationary source whose uncontrolled emissions while operating
at design capacity are at least 100 tons per year of any
regulated pollutant.
(b)(i). Annual tons per year of a regulated pollutant actually emitted
by the source
(ii). Annual tons per year of a regulated pollutant, permitted by
applicable SIP
(c). Self—explanatory
(d)(i). Actual measurement of emission level of regulated pollutant.
eg. _____ pounds per gallon excluding water, of VOCs
(ii). SIP authorized limit of emission level of regulated pollutant.
(e.). An area which as predicted by air quality modeling or measured
by monitoring data exceeds any national ambient air quality
standard for an air pollutant.
( f l. Is the source located in a nonattainment area which has an
extension until December 31, 1987, to attain the national
primary standard for photochemical oxidants and/or carbon
monoxide?
20—22. Self—explanatory.

-------