UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Final Technical Guidance on the Review and Use of
Excess Emission Reports
FROM: Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: Directors, Air and Waste Management Division
Regions II, IV, VI-VIII, and X
Directors, Air Management Division
Regions I, III, V, and IX
This memorandum presents final technical guidance on the
review and use of Excess Emission Reports (EERs) being submitted
by NSPS Subpart D sources and others where the monitoring data
are not used directly to determine compliance with the emission
limits. This guidance is in direct support of the Agency's
Continuous Compliance Strategy and SPMS items A/ER-8 thru 10.
for FY 1985. The guidance may be helpful .to State/local agencies
as well and may be forwarded at the discretion of each Region.
On August 3, 1984, a draft of this guidance was distributed
to the Regional Offices and interested Headquarters Offices.
Comments were received from six Regional Offices, three Headquarters
offices, and the State of Wisconsin. In general, these comments
were very supportive of the draft, included a number of detailed
suggestions for improvement, and encouraged the expeditious
issuance of final guidance. We recognize .that the FY 1985
continuous emission monitoring system (GEMS) program is a major
initiative for many of the Regions and is based to a large
extent on the availability of this guidance. Therefore, we
have judged it appropriate to issue the guidance now and to
supplement the guidance as appropriate in an EER "Users Handbook"
during FY 1985.
A discussion of the major areas of comment and the responses
received to the questions posed in the August 3rd memorandum is
presented in the following sections.
-------
- 2 -
I. MAJOR COMMENTS
A. Form of Guidance/Regional Office Responsibilities
The subject document is intentionally being issued as
"technical guidance" rather than as "program guidance",
providing a great deal of detailed information, forms, and
example decision criteria adaptable to a wide range of
circumstances. We recognize that since the CEMS program is a
relatively new program for most Regional Offices, program-related
issues will also arise. Such issues are outside the scope of
this guidance and will be addressed separately.
B. Importance of EER Review and Use
Based upon the experience of some Regional Offices,
particularly Region v's, SSCD revised the text of the draft
to emphasize the three primary EER activities of: (1) inventory
development; (2) assessment of source compliance with the
CEMS installation and operation requirements; and (3) review
and use of EERs. This doesn't mean that other elements of
the program to acquire valid, representative data are unimportant.
It's just that such activities (e.g., performance specification
testing) are solely the responsibility of the source, not the
Agency. By the Agency primarily concentrating its CEMS program
resources on EERs review and follow-up, most sources will find
that it is in their own best interest to achieve all of the
CEMS requirements, and to verify the quality of their data
before submitting it to the Agency.
II. RESPONSES TO SSCD's EER QUESTIONS
A. Dual Reporting of EERs to State and Federal Agencies
In general, commenters supported the need for a limited period
of dual reporting. They stressed that EPA should initially obtain
and (at least) spot-check duplicate copies of EERs from sources in
States which have received NSPS delegation in order to conduct
effective oversight audits of the State's enforcement of the CEMS
regulations. Furthermore, they strongly supported the concept of
reducing the quantity of dual reporting and the level of oversight
audits once the State had demonstrated its ability to implement
the program. Subsequent oversight could be achieved by receiving
and reviewing a small, random fraction of a State's EERs or by
receiving summary reports from the State. (Regional offices and
their States are free to establish any mutually-acceptable arrange-
ment consistent with assuring, at a minimum, accomplishment of
the FY 1985 SPMS requirements.)
-------
-3-
B. Source Submission of Summaries of Their Excess Emissions
Commenters strongly supported the concept of requiring the
sources to include summaries of their excess emissions in their
quarterly EERs. They also supported the idea of specifying a
standard format, content, and reason codes for the summaries
as well as the traditional EER data in order to minimize the
burden upon agencies and sources. The coramenters also strongly
supported our recommendations that: (1) all CEMS-affected sources
should initially submit both the summaries and the traditional
EERs; and (2) once a source demonstrated its commitment and
capability to implement a high quality GEMS program, their
reporting burden might be reduced to submission of only the
summary data portion of the EER report.
The comments included a wide range of recommendations on
how the Agency should proceed to obtain source submission of
the summary data from the sources. These included: (1) use of
§114 letters on a case-by-case basis or in a national promulgation;
(2) a regulatory revision; and (3) simply thorough implementation
of this guidance.
SSCD intends to work with ESED and other parts of the Agency
to develop a consensus on which changes should be made to the
reporting requirements and how to proceed most effectively.
Careful consideration of the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act is an essential element of this review.
C. Applicability of Guidance to Subpart Da Sources
Most respondents to our question on this subject indicated
that, based on their limited experience, they thought that the
proposed guidance would assist them in reviewing GEMS compliance
reports from Subpart Da and other sources where the monitor
provides compliance data. A few commenters volunteered their
assistance and recommended that the Agency obtain some additonal
experience before it attempts to develop a guideline on this subject.
One Regional Office with considerable GEMS program experience
stated that, "We do not think the discretionary, probabilistic,
comparative philosophy of this screening strategy is appropriate
for sources subject to clear requirements for self-documenting
their continuous compliance status". We agree with this statement
and with the need to obtain additional experience before guidance
is developed. Accordingly, the draft guidance was not changed
with respect to its inapplicability to Subpart Da or other sources
where the GEMS is the compliance method.
In summary, the comments received on the draft guidance urged
that final guidance be issued as soon as possible, incorporating
relatively few major changes to the draft. SSCD intends to
-------
- 4 -
continue to support the program by issuing supplementary informa-
tion and program guidance. Furthermore, SSCD plans to work with
other elements of the Agency to try to address the remaining
issues such as revision of the EER reporting requirements and
possible applications of CEMS as the compliance method on addi-
tional source categories.
Edward E. Reich
Attachment
cc: J. Farmer, Director, ESED
D. Tyler, Director, CPDD
E. Salo, OGC
M. Alushin, OECM
Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Air Compliance Branch Chiefs, Regions II, III, V, VII, IX
Directors, Environmental Services Division, Regions I-X
------- |