vtf £0 sr^
-------
This material has been reviewed in the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and approved for publication as a
training course. It is not an official policy and
standards document. The opinions, findings, and
conclusions are those of the authors and not neces-
sarily those of EPA.
-------
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND AND CONTENT. This series of course modules, covering the topics
listed belows has been prepared by Anne Rampacek and Linda Chaput of the
Instructional Development Section in the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Air Pollution Training Institute. The course is designed to
supplement information contained in the "Air Pollution Control Orientation
Course" (SI 422). In a concise manner, this series of lessons provides
information about air pollution control efforts since passage of the
Clean Air Act and places in perspective various issues that have arisen
since passage of the Act -- significant deterioration, maintenance of
standards, indirect source review, transportation controls, etc, Court
decisions affecting these issues are cited and discussed.
!
The units of the course are as follows and may be taken in any sequence.
1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards and State Implementation Plans
1 2. Federal Standards for Stationary and Mobile Sources
3. Maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards
4. Transportation Control Strategies
I 5. Significant Deterioration of Air Quality
I
FORMAT. Each unit of this series consists of an audio cassette tape and
supplementary printed materials which should be followed while listening to the
recorded presentation. The format is designed to be self-instructional but also
lends itself to group use, provided printed material is duplicated so that each
pe,rson in the group can follow it. Because of the self-instructional nature of
the course, the student may progress at his or her own rate, stopping the tape
when necessary to study the printed material or to listen to a portion of the
ma'terial a second or third time,
i
Due to the changing nature of the material presented in this course,
revisions will be necessary from time to time. The revisions and additions
will be printed on colored paper and placed at the end of the applicable unit.
It is advisable for the student to check the end of each unit for such revisions
arid review them before beginning the unit in order to be aware of the most
recent information on the subject.
Questions are included at the end of each section of each unit to test the
student's comprehension of the material. These questions are for the student's
use in determining whether the material was understood and whether it is necessary
to review portions of it before proceeding to the next section.
I
TEST AND CERTIFICATION. When all five units of the course have been completed,
the student may request a test from the Manpower and Training representative of
the appropriate EPA Regional Office. To obtain a certificate, the student should
send the completed test to the Instructional Development Section, Air Pollution
Training Institute, Enviornmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
27711. The test will be graded and the student notified of the result. A
certificate will be awarded if the test score is satisfactory.
-------
THE FEDERAL REGISTER AND CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Throughout this course, there are frequent references to regulations
promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency in carrying out the require-
ments of the Clean Air Act. To be consistent and to avoid lengthy and repetitive
references to the source of various regulations, the most commonly used method
of ,citation is used in this course. The two documents cited are the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) and the Federal Register (FR).
When EPA develops regulations governing any aspect of protection of
the environment as authorized under the Clean Air Act, such regulations are
published in the Federal Register. A typical reference to the Federal Register
might be "38 FR 15197, June 8, 1973." This means that the information cited
is located in Volume 38 of the Federal Register, June 8, 1973, page 15197.
Each year has a different volume number. For example, the year 1972 was
Volume No. 37, 1973 was Volume No. 38, and 1974 is Volume No. 39.
I Once a year, all regulations that have been published in the Federal Register
during that year are included in the Code of Federal Regulations. The Code is
divided into 50 titles which represent broad areas subject to Federal regulation.
Each title is divided into Chapters which usually bear the name of the issuing
agency. Each Chapter is further subdivided into Parts covering specific regulatory
areas. The regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency are included in
Title 40 - Protection of the Environment, Chapter I - Environmental Protection
Agency. Breaking the classification down further, Subchapter C covers regulations
concerning Air Programs which is further broken down into more specific Parts.
Each time a new or amended regulation is promulgated in the Federal Register,
a preliminary statement indicates under what Title and Part of the Code of
Federal Regulations the promulgation will be included. A typical reference
might be 40 CFR 51" which refers to the EPA regulations for the preparation,
adaption, and submittal of State Implementation Plans. This citation indicates
that the regulations are located in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40,
Part 51. (Part 51 is included in Subchapter C - Air Programs.)
-------
National Ambient
Air Quality Standards and
State Implementation Plans
f A % Office of Air and Waste Management
I * Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
\ J Control Programs Development Division
\f. J? Air Pollution Training Institute
"V PRCC4"
-------
This unit, "National Ambient Air Quality Standards and State
Implementation Plans," is part of the course Topics in Air
Pollution Control (SI 428) developed by the Instructional
Development Section of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Air Pollution Training Institute at Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina.
This unit, like the others consists of an audio cassette
tape and this booklet. BOTH THE TAPE AND THIS BOOKLET MUST
BE USED SIMULTANEOUSLY -- students are referred to appropriate
i
sections of the booklet by the narrator of the recorded
presentation.
i
-------
NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
OBJECTIVES
Upon completion of this unit, the student should be able to:
1. Name the pollutants for which national ambient air quality standards
have been promulgated.
2. Cite 5 conditions for approval of state implementation plans specified
in the Clean Air Act and 3 common deficiencies in state plans submitted
in 1972.
3. State that a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in a suit brought
by a citizens group accelerated the timetable for developing and
implementing transportation control plans and precipitated the
disapproval of all state plans with respect to provisions for
maintenance of standards.
4. State that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling having
the effect of requiring states to include in implementation plans
strategies for preventing significant deterioration of existing air
quality.
5. State that, as a result of decisions rendered in several circuit
courts of appeals, EPA must provide an opportunity for public conment
prior to approval or disapproval of state implementation plan revisions.
6. State that the EPA has revised the secondary standards for sulfur
dioxide.
7. State that the standard reference method for measurement of nitrogen
dioxide has been determined to be unreliable and that three alternative
methods have been proposed for study.
8. Describe supplementary control systems.
9. State that EPA has proposed a redefinition of reasonable time for the
attainment of secondary standards for sulfur dioxide and particulate matter.
10. Cite 2 conditions that must be met by a source in order to qualify for
use of supplementary control systems as a measure for attainment of
national standards.
1
-------
NATIONAL 'VoIEilT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 109
PROPOSED: January 30, 1971 (36 FR 1502) PROMULGATED: April 30, 1971 (36 FK 8186)
March 26, 1971 (36 FR 5867) 40 CFR 50
POLLUTANT
PRIMARY
STANDARDS
SECONDARY
STANDARDS
REFERENCE
METHOD
SULFUR OXIDES
(SULFUR
DIOXIDE)
(a) 80 yg/m3 (0.03 p.p.m.)
annual arithmetic mean
(b) 365 yg/m3 (0.14 p.p.m.)
maximum 24-hour concentra-
tion not to be exceeded
more than once per year
(a) 60 yg/m3 (0.02 p.p.m.) ;
annual arithmetic mean j
(b) 260 yg/m3 (0.1 p.p.m.)
maximum 24-hour concentra-
tion not to be exceeded
more than once per year*
(c) 1,300 yg/m3 (0.5 p.p.m.)
maximum 3-hour concentra-
tion not to be exceeded
more than once per year
PARAROSANILINE
METHOD
PARTICULATE
MATTER
(a) 75 yg/m annual geometric
mean
(b) 260 yg/m maximum 24-hour
concentration not to be
exceeded more than once
per year
(a) 60 yg/m3 **
(b) 150 yg/m3 maximum 24-hour
concentration not to be
exceeded more than once
per year
HIGH VOLUME
METHOD
CARBON
MONOXIDE
(a) 10 mg/m3 (9 p.p.m.) maximum 8-hour concentration
not to be exceeded more than once per year
(b) 40 mg/m3 (35 p.p.m.) maximum 1-hour concentration
not to be exceeded more than once per year
NON-DISPERSIVE
INFRARED
SPECTROMETRY
PHOTOCHEMICAL
OXIDANTS
160 yg/m3 (0.08 p.p.m.) maximum 1-hour concentration
not to be exceeded more than once per year
CHEMILUMINESCEN
METHOD
NONhETHANE
HYDR0CAR8GNS+
160 yg/m3 (0.24 p.p.m.) maximum 3-hour concentration
(6 to 9 a.m.) not to be exceeded more than once per year
GAS CHROMATO-
GRAPHIC METHOD
NKTROGEN
DIOXIDE
100 yg/m (0.05 p.p.m.) annual arithmetic mean
[JACOBS- 1
H0CHHEISER
METHOD
NOTE: Standards and reference methods in brackets have been revised or are under study. See
pages 13 and 14.
* as a guide to be used in assessing implementation plans to achieve the annual standard
* as a guide to be used in assessing implementation plans to achieve the 24-hour standard
+ for use as a guide in devising implementation plans to achieve oxidant standards
2
-------
CLEAN AIR ACT (SEC. 110) CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL OF
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Sec. 110 (a)(2)
Sec. 110 (a)(2)(A)(i)
Sec. 110 (a)(2)(A)(ii)
Sec. 110 (a)(2)(B)
Sec. 110 (a)(2)(C)
Sec. 110 (a)(2)(D)
Reasonable notice and public hearings
Primary standards to be attained within 3 years of
plan approval (with provisions for an extension of
up to 2 years)
Secondary standards to be attained within a reasonable
time ("reasonable time" defined by EPA as 3 years if
standards could be met by application of reasonably
available control technology)
Emission limitations, schedules, and timetables for
compliance "and such other measures as may be necessary
to insure attainment and maintenance of such primary
or secondary standards, including, but not limited to,
land-use and transportation controls"
Establishment and operation of appropriate devices,
methods, systems, and procedures for monitoring,
compiling, and analyzing ambient air quality data;
making such data available to EPA upon request.
New or modified source review procedure. Sec. 110 (a)(4):
Such procedure must include authority to prevent construc-
tion or modification of stationary sources for which
national performance standards have been established
if emissions from the source would cause a violation
of national standards. Source owners are required
to submit necessary information to the State prior
to construction. NOTE: EPA regulations (40 CFR
51.11(a)(4) and 51.18) broadened this requirement to
include all stationary sources.
3
-------
Sec. 110 (a)(2)(E)
Sec. 110 (a)(2)(F)
Sec. no (a)(2)(G)
Sec. 110 (a)(2)(H)
Intergovernmental cooperation
Adequate personnel, funding, and authority; requirements
for source owners or operators to install monitoring
equipment; requirements for periodic reports on the
nature and amount of stationary source emissions;
requirements that such reports be correlated by the
State with existing emission limitations or standards
and made available for public inspection; authority
and contingency plans for abating emissions during
emergency episodes.
Periodic inspection and testing of motor vehicles
(if necessary and practicable)
Plan revisions, after public hearings, when new or
revised national standards are promulgated; when new
abatement methods are available; when EPA determines
that the plan is inadequate to achieve national
standards.
4
-------
KEY FEDERAL REGISTER PUBLICATIONS RELATING TO
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
August 14, 1971
(36 FR 15486)
May 31, 1972
(37 FR 10842)
June 14, 1972
(37 FR 11826)
July 27, 1972
(37 FR 15094)
September 22, 1972
(37 FR 19829)
Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal
of Implementation Plans (42 CFR 420 - republished and
renumbered as 40 CFR 51 on November 25, 1971)
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans
(40 CFR 52)
Proposed regulations for States with deficient
plans
Promulgation of plans and actions on plan
revisions have been published in numerous
issues of the Federal Register (see 38 FR 30626,
November 6, 1973). All actions with respect to
implementation plans are contained in 40 CFR Part
52.
5
-------
COMMON IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DEFICIENCIES
(MAY 31, 1972)
LEGAL AUTHORITY - to make emission data available to the public
- to require source recordkeeping
- to require installation, maintenance, and use of
emission monitoring devices
NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROCEDURES
I
EMERGENCY EPISODE PROCEDURES
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES
CONTROL STRATEGIES - For SO in a few States (with large pwer plants,
smelters, etc.) and for particulate n itter and
hydrocarbons in a few air quality control regions.
6
-------
COURT ACTIONS - GENERAL
INDUSTRY Challenged EPA disapproval actions, particularly
with respect to control strategies
Argued that EPA should have filed environmental
impact statements for implementation plans
CITIZENS Challenged EPA approval of many State implementation
plans because they felt the plans were deficient in
one way or another.
7
-------
MAJOR COURT DECISIONS
I
"NATIONAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., ET AL. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY" (Civil Action No. 72-1522) and seven related cases (72-1598, 72-1810,
72-1941, 72-1982, 72-1985, 72-2028, 72-2159). U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia decision January 31, 1973.
EPA Administrator ordered to:
1. Formally rescind the extension to February 15, 1973, granted to several
States for submittal of the transportation control portions of their
implementation plans.
2. Formally rescind extension granted to several States to stretch out
implementation of their plans or portions thereof until May 31, 1977
(refers to extension for achievement of standards).
3. Inform States that have not submitted an implementation plan fully
complying with Clean Air Act requirements that they are required to
submit such a plan by April 15, 1973, providing for attainment of the
primary standards by May 31, 1975, and including "emission limitations,
schedules, and timetables as may be necessary to insure attainment and
maintenance of such primary and secondary standard, including, but not
limited to, land-use and transportation controls." The Court added
that if States felt it would be impossible to achieve the primary
standards by May 31, 1975, due to lack of technology, they could
request an extension until 1977. If the request was granted, the
States would revise their plans accordingly.
4. Approve or disapprove such plans by June 15, 1973.
5. Prepare, publish, and promulgate regulations for States that fail
to submit a plan or that submit deficient plans by August 15, 1973.
(This allows two months rather than the four months specified in
Sec. 110(c) of the Clean Air Act.)
6. Not grant extensions for attainment of a primary standard except in
accordance with procedures set out in Sec. 110(e) of the Clean Air Act
7. Permit the public to comment on State plans and on requests for extension
of attainment dates.
8. In approving or disapproving plans, or in approving an extension for
attainment of primary standards beyond May 31, 1975, state reasons.
9. Review maintenance provisions of all State implementation plans within
30 days; disapprove plans that do not contain necessary measures to
insure maintenance of national standards or that do not properly analyze
the problem of maintenance of standards and require those states to
prepare a new implementation plan for maintenance of standards by
April 15, 1973, with EPA action following the timetable and procedures
ordered in paragraphs 4 and 5.
8
-------
MAJOR COURT DECISIONS
II
"SIERRA CLUB ET AL.v. WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS"
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 1031-72,
decision: May 30, 1972
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia,
Case No. 72-1528, decision: November 1, 1972
U.S. Supreme Court, Tie vote (4-4) June 11, 1973
ISSUE: Significant deterioration of existing air quality
ARGUMENT: 1) Court should invalidate Part 51.12(b) of 40 CFR:
"In any region where measured or estimated ambient
levels of a pollutant are below the levels specified
by an applicable secondary standard, the plan shall
set forth a control strategy which shall be adequate
to prevent such ambient pollution levels from exceeding
such secondary standard."
2) Court should order EPA Administrator to disapprove
implementation plans that do not ensure that air quality
will not be significantly deteriorated in presently
clean areas.
DECISION: District Court ordered the EPA Administrator, within 4 months
(i.e., by September 30, 1972), to review and approve or
disapprove portions of any plans dealing with significant
deterioration and, within 2 additional months (i.e., by
November 30, 1972), promulgate such portions of the plans
where state plans are inadequate. Upheld, under appeal by
EPA, by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S.
Supreme Court.
EPA ACTIONS: November 9, 1972 (37 FR 23836): EPA disapproved all State
implementation plans insofar as they failed to provide for
prevention of significant deterioration.
July 16, 1973 (38 FY 18986): EPA proposed 4 alternative
regulations for prevention of significant deterioration.
(When promulgated, these regulations will be 40 CFR 52.21.)
9
-------
6th Circuit Court
of Appeals
4th Circuit Court
of Appeals
MAJOR COURT DECISIONS
III
Buckeye Power, et al. v. EPA (Case No. 72-1628)
East Kentucky Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation,
et al. v. EPA (Case No. 72-1629)
Big Rivers Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation,
et al. v. EPA (Case No. 72-1632)
Appalachian Power Co. et al. v. EPA (Case No.
72-1733}
3rd Circuit Court
of Appeals
Duquesne Light Co. et al. v. EPA (Case No. 72-1542)
Decision:
1. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
environmental impact statements are
not required for implementation plans.
2. EPA must provide an opportunity for public
comnent, according to the Administrative
Procedures Act, prior to approving implementation
plans.*
3. EPA must consider the economic and technological
impact of implementation plans.
* The immediate result of these decisions was that the implementation plans
for Kentucky and Ohio were invalidated and had to be resubmitted for EPA
approval.
10
-------
PROPOSED CLEAN AIR AMENDMENTS
1. Extension of attainment date for national primary standards where transportation
control measures are required. (Sec. 110) One 5-year extension (May 31, 1982)
with provision for an adidtional 5-year extension if necessary (May 31, 1987).
2. New source and hazardous pollutant standards (Sec. Ill, 112). Use of design
or equipment standards as an alternative to emission standards established
for major new sources or for sources of hazardous pollutant emissions.
3. Waiver for technology innovations (Sec. 111). EPA Administrator could grant
a waiver of compliance with applicable new source performance standards to
a source wishing to apply a promising and apparently effective emission reduction
system even though it has not been determined by the Administrator to be
adequately demonstrated, provided primary standards are met. Designed to
encourage development of control technology that is more efficient, in terms
of both percent reduction and cost, than systems in use.
4. Assessment of civil penalties ^Sec. 113). Civil penalties in lieu of or
in addition to criminal penalties, in the form of a permanent or temporary
injunction and/or a fine of not more than $25,000 per day 'of violation.
5. Enforcement orders (Sec. 113). Provides for enforcement orders specifying a
compliance date beyond the attainment date for a national standard. In
such a case, EPA could require the source to apply any interim control
measures considered reasonably available.
6. Temporary suspensions of stationary source emission and fuel limitations
(Sec. 119 added). EPA could temporarily suspend stationary source fuel
or emission limitations, conditioned upon compliance with interim requirements
established by EPA --
a. until November 1, 1974 (without public notice or comment) if source cannot
comply with a limitation because of unavailability of types or amounts of
fuels.
b. after November 1, 1974 to not later than January 1, 1980 (after public hearing)
i. If source has been ordered by the President to convert from petroleum
products or natural gas to coal
ii. If suspension will not result in or contribute to ambient pollution
levels in excess of a national primary standard
iii. If source operates under compliance schedule providing for use of
control methods which the EPA Administrator determines will assure
continuing compliance with the fuel or emission limitation by
Jan. 1, 1980.
7. Coal conversion and allocation (.Sec. 120 added). After considering on a plant-
by-plant basis environmental effects and energy needs, the President could
prohibit the use of natural gas or petroleum products as a primary energy source
by any major fuel-burning installation capable of burning coal. Sources
ordered to convert to coal would be allowed to burn coal, regardless of
applicable Federal, State, or local air pollution requirements, until Jan.l, 1980.
11
-------
PROPOSED REVISION OF N02 REFERENCE METHOD
June 14, 1972 (37 FR 11826): EPA announced that tiie Jacobs Hochheiser
reference method was suspected of being unreliable and that a
reevaluation was in progress.
June 8, 1973 (38 FR 15174): EPA proposed three alternative methods
(40 CFR 50 Appendix F)
1. Arsenite Method (Christie Method)
2. Continuous Chemiluminescence Method
3. Continuous Saltzman Method
NOTE: EPA expects to formally revoke the current method
and propose a new reference method in 1974.
June 8, 1973 (38 FY 15180): EPA proposed a reclassification of air
quality control regions (40 CFR 52)
14
-------
SUPPLEMENTARY CONTROL SYSTEMS
PROPOSED DEFINITIONS
September 14, 1973 (38 FR 25697)
Original Definition
40 CFR 51.1(n) "Control strategy" means
a combination of measures designated
to achieve the aggregate reduction of
emissions necessary for attainment
and maintenance of a national standard,
including, but not limited to, . . .
40 CFR 51.1(q) None
40 CFR 51.13(b)(1) In any region where the
degree of emission reduction necessary
for attainment and maintenance of a
secondary standard for sulfur oxides or
particulate matter can be achieved
through the application of reasonably
available control technology,
"reasonable time" for attainment of
such secondary standard . . . shall
be not more than 3 years unless the
state shows that good cause exists
for postponing application of such
control technology.
15
Proposed Redefinition
"Control strategy" means a combina-
tion of emission reductions and such
other measures as may be necessary
for the attainment and maintenance
of a national standard, including,
but not limited to, . . .
"Supplementary control systems" are
systems which limit the rate of
pollutant emissions during periods
when meteorological conditions
conducive to ground-level concen-
trations in excess of national
standards exist or are anticipated.
"Reasonable time" for attainment
of a secondary standard . . . shall
be the time required to design,
fabricate and install necessary
control systems or to apply other
control measures, unless the State
shows that good cause exists for
postponing their application. Good
cause for postponing the application
of such systems or other measures
may include the unavailability of
necessary control systems or measures,
or the likelihood that their
installation or application would
cause severe adverse social and
economic impacts.
(b)(2) Where the time for attain-
ment of a secondary standard
established by the State extends
beyond Jan. 1, 1978, the State shall
submit, after notice and public
hearing, a reanalysis of the plan
at intervals of no more than five
years from the date of plan approval
by the Administrator. States shall
consider application of reasonable
interim emission reduction measures
to minimize adverse welfare effects
which occur at air quality levels in
excess of the secondary standards.
-------
SUPPLEMENTARY CONTROL SYSTEMS
To qualify for SCS as a part of a control strategy, the following conditions,
specified in the proposed regulations, must be met [to be 40 CFR 51.13(e)(b)].
1. A source must be sufficiently isolated from others that
the owner or operator is willing and able to accept full
legal responsibility for maintaining the national standards
throughout the area in which emissions from that source
significantly influence ambient air quality.
2. A source must demonstrate that adequate constant emission
reduction techniques are not available to attain and maintain
the national standards, and that those techniques which are
available would be applied to permanently reduce emissions
to the maximum extent practicable prior to application of
supplementary control systems.
3. A source must be willing to support and participate in an
appropriate research, development, engineering, and demon-
stration program to insure that the supplementary control
system can be replaced by constant emission limitation
techniques as soon as possible.
16
-------
QUESTIONS
1. Name the pollutants for which national ambient air quality standards
have been promulgated.
2. The Clean Air Act specifies numerous conditions which must be met by
the States before the EPA Administrator may approve implementation plans.
List five of these conditions for approval.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
3. Only a few of the 55 implementation plans submitted to Z°A in 1???
were totally approved initially. Describe three areas of defic cy
which were common in the disapproved plans.
c.
All State? will soon be required to include in their implements"-'^ o'ans
strategies for preventing significant deterioration of ex s.-'ng'eir
aua^ty. EPA is under court order to promulgate regulations covering
such strategies. Briefly explain how this has come about.
17
-------
5. All States must now develop specific strategies for maintenance of
ambient air quality standards beyond the attainment date. In addition,
some States are required to implement transportation controls in order
to attain the standards. Which of the following statements is true?
a. These requirements resulted from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling
in favor of citizens' groups protesting EPA's failure to
include such requirements.
b. EPA included these requirements in its original regulations
pertaining to development of implementation plans and disapproved
plans that did not adopt appropriate strategies. No citizens'
suits were filed to compel these actions.
c. A U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that EPA had erred in granting
extensions of the attainment date for automobile-related
pollutant standards and that State plans must include
strategies to maintain the standards. This ruling forms
the basis for subsequent EPA regulations governing trans-
portation controls and provisions for maintenance of standards.
6. Several courts have ruled that EPA is not required to provide an
opportunity for public corrment prior to approving State implementation
plan revisions. True False
7. The primary ambient air quality standard for sulfur dioxide has been
revised downward as a result of a court suit and reevaluation of the
health effects of the pollutant. True False
8. The annual and 24-hour secondary ambient air quality standards for
sulfur dioxide have been revoked. The original 3-hour secondary
standard 1s still in effect. True False
9. Which of the following statements concerning the reference method for
nitrogen dioxide is (are) true?
a. The Jacobs-Hochheiser reference method has been proven reliable.
b. The Jacobs-Hochheiser reference method is considered suspect.
c. EPA has withdrawn the Jacobs-Hochheiser reference method and
promulgated three new reference methods for nitrogen dioxide.
jd. EPA has published three new methods for measurement of nitrogen
dioxide for study and public comment and expects to designate a
new reference method in 1974.
18
-------
10. Which of the following statements concerning supplementary control
systems is (are) true?
a. Supplementary control systems are controls applied to a
source which cannot attain or maintain sulfur dioxide
standards with existing emission reduction technology
alone.
b. Supplementary control systems may be applied only if the
source owner or operator is willing and able to accept full
legal responsibility for maintaining the standards throughout
the area influenced by emissions from that source.
c. Application of supplementary control systems may be approved
upon condition that the source owner or operator, among other
things, supports or participates in a research and development
program to develop permanent emission controls which can replace
the supplementary controls as soon as possible.
d. All of the above.
11. EFA has proposed a redefinition of "reasonable time" to allow States
until 1978 or later to meet the secondary national standards.
True False
19
-------
ANSWERS
1. The pollutants are: sulfur oxides, particulates, oxides of nitrogen,
carbon monoxide, photochemical oxidants, and hydrocarbons. Please note,
however, that the standard for hydrocarbons was set for use as a guide
for devising implementation plans to achieve the standard for photochemical
oxidants.
2. Any five of the ten conditions for implementation plan approval listed
on page 2 of the booklet, for example: adopted after reasonable notice
and public hearings; attainment dates (3 years for primary standards, a
reasonable time for secondary standards); emission limitations and other
measures necessary for attainment and maintenance of standards; adequate
monitoring systems and authority to make this data available to EPA;
new stationary source review procedures; intergovernmental cooperation;
adequate personnel, funding, and authority (including authority to make
emissions data available to the public; etc.).
3. Common deficiencies in State plans include: inadequate legal authority,
inadequate source review procedures, inadequate control strategies
(especially for SO , particulates, and NCL), inadequate emergency
episode procedures, and inadequate compliance schedule requirements.
4. A suit filed by the Sierra Club and several other citizens' groups in
a U.S. District Court resulted in a decision rendered by that court
and upheld by an appellate court and ultimately by the U.S. Supreme
Court requiring EPA to ensure that State implementation plans included
adequate provisions to prevent significant deterioration of existing
air quality.
5. c. These matters were not ruled upon by the Supreme Court, so a. is
false. EPA did not include the specific requirements relating to
transportation controls and maintenance of standards now imposed on
the SDates 1n the original regulations, so b^ is false.
6 False. As a result of rulings handed down in several courts, EPA 1s
required to provide an opportunity for public comment prior to acting
on any State implementation plan revisions.
7. False. The primary ambient air quality standard for sulfur dioxide has
not been revised.
8: True.
9. b, d.
10: d.
11. True.
20
-------
LTT1^
W
IF
M
"DVf
J w
~
r^\
M
Federal Standards
for Stationary
and Mobile Sources
/» rj Office of Airand Waste Management
I 5 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
% ^\i^7 " Control Programs Development Division
Air PollutionTraining Institute 1974
i PR
-------
This unit, "Federal Standards for Stationary and Mobile
Sources," is part of the course Topics in Air Pollution
Control (SI 428) developed by the Instructional Development
Section of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Air Pollution Training Institute at Research Triangle
Park., North Carolina.
This unit, like the others consists of an audio cassette
tape and this booklet. BOTH THE TAPE AND THIS BOOKLET MUST
BE USED SIMULTANEOUSLY -- students are referred to appropriate
sections of the booklet by the narrator of the recorded
presentation.
i
-------
FEDERAL STANDARDS FOR STATIONARY AND MOBILE SOURCES
OBJECTIVES
After completing this unit, you should be able to:
1. List the sources for which new source performance standards have been
promulgated (as of March 1, 1974).
2. State that any source covered by new source performance standards must obtain
State approval to construct and that the approval can be granted only if emissions
from the source will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of national
air quality standards in the vicinity of the proposed site.
3. State that EPA may delegate authority for enforcing new source performance
standards to the states.
4. State that EPA consults with several advisory committees prior to proposing new
source performance standards and that the members of these committees include
representatives of industry, air pollution control agencies, equipment vendors,
conservation groups, and Federal agencies.
5. Describe the new source performance standard regulations governing emissions
during startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
6. List the three hazardous pollutants for which emission standards have been
promulgated and name one major source of each pollutant.
7. State that the three types of motor vehicle emissions are crankcase emissions,
fuel evaporative emissions, and exhaust emissions.
8. State that motor vehicle standards have been proposed or promulgated for light
duty vehicles and heavy duty vehicles, both diesel and gasoline fueleds and
that standards for motorcycles are now under consideration.
9. Name the three pollutants for which automotive emission standards have been
promulgated; give the attainment date for which these standards were to be met
according to the Clean Air Act; discuss the status of the standards (exclusive
of consideration of changes resulting from emergency energy legislation).
10. Briefly discuss the potential problem with sulfate emissions from automobiles •
equipped with catalytic emission control systems and state two alternatives
available to EPA for coping with the problem.
11. Cite the two major reasons, specified in the Clean Air Act, for which EPA may
regulate fuels and fuel additives.
12. Describe the two types of regulations promulgated to control leaded gasoline.
13. Briefly describe the health effects of lead which formed the basis for
controlling the lead content in gasoline.
14. Describe the division of responsibility for aircraft emission control between
EPA and the Department of Transportation.
15. State that EPA has established fuel venting and exhaust emission standards for
certain new and in-use aircraft and that the Federal Aviation Administrator
has since set regulations designed to ensure compliance with these standards.
-------
GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPING NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1. Test data on existing well-controlled sources.
2. Interpretation of test results from a single best-controlled source --
interpretation must consider:
a. representativeness of the source tested
b. age and maintenance schedules for the control equipment tested and
probable degradation of similar new equipment
c. design uncertainties for the type of control equipment considered
3. Consideration of test data from pilot and prototype installations;
existing design contracts; foreign technology; published literature.
4. Cost of new sources and the economic impact of control on the industry.
5. Where possible, the standards should permit flexibility for achievement
through the use of more than one control technique or licensed process.
6. Where possible, standards should permit (and ideally encourage) use of
process modification or new processes as a substitute for pollution
control systems.
7. Where possible, standards should allow the use of multi-purpose control
systems rather than pollutant-specific systems (e.g., scrubbers v.
electrostatic precipitators)
8. Where appropriate, opacity (visibility) standards should be established which
are compatible with mass emission standards.
2
-------
ASSISTANCE IN ESTABLISHING NSPS IS PROVIDED BY
1. INDUSTRY - Trade associations, equipment vendors, companies, and
private groups
2. NATIONAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNIQUES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Members represent industry, control equipment manufacturers,
air pollution control agencies, conservation groups, and
consultants.
3. FEDERAL AGENCY LIAISON COMMITTEE - Members represent Federal
agencies and departments.
4. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET COORDINATION
3
-------
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, GROUP I
Promulgated December 23, 1971 (36 FR 24876)
40 CFR 60
FOSSIL-FUEL FIRED STEAM GENERATORS (of more than 250 million B.t.u. per
hour heat input)
1. Particulates
a. 0.10 lb. per million B.t.u. heat input (0.18 g. per million cal.),
maximum 2-hr. average.
b. 20 percent opacity (40 percent opacity permissible for not more
than 2 minutes in any hour). Not applicable when presence of
uncombined water is the only reason for exceeding 20 percent
opacity.
2. Sulfur Dioxide
a. 0.80 lb. per million B.t.u. heat input (1.5 g. per million cal.),
maximum 2-hr. average, when liquid fossil fuel Is burned.
b. 1.2 lbs. per million B.t.u. heat Input (2.2 g. per million cal.),
maximum 2-hr. average, when solid fossil fuel 1s burned.
c. When different fossil fuels are burned simultaneously In any
combination, the standard 1s determined by proportion.
3. Nitrogen Oxides
a. 0.20 lb. per million B.t.u. heat Input (0.36 g. per million cal.),
maximum 2-hr. average, expressed as N09 when gaseous fossil fuel
1s burned. '
b. 0.30 lb. per million B.t.u. heat Input (0.54 a. per million cal.),
maximum 2-hr. average, expressed as N02 when liquid fuel 1s burned.
c. 0.70 lb. per million B.t.u. heat input (1.26 g. per million cal.),
maximum 2-hr average, expressed as NO when solid fuel (except
lignite) 1s burned. 2
d. When different fossil fuels are burned simultaneously 1n any
combination, the standard 1s determined by proportion.
INCINERATORS (of more than 50 tons per day charging rate)
Partlculates: 0.08 gr./s.c.f. (0.18 g./NM3) corrected to 12 percent
COgi maximum 2-hr. average.
4
-------
GROUP I NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (CONT'D)
PORTLAND CEMENT PLANTS (kiln, clinker cooler, raw mill system, finish mill
system, raw mill dryer, raw material storage, clinker storage, finished
product storage, conveyor transfer points, bagging and bulk loading and
unloading systems)
Particulates
a. kiln:
b. clinker cooler:
c. all other affected
facilities:
0.30 lb. per ton of feed to the kiln
(0.15 Kg. per metric ton), maximum
2-hr. average.
10 percent opacity, except when
presence of uncombined water is the
only reason for exceeding 10 percent
opacity.
0.10 lb. per ton of feed to the kiln
(0.050 Kg. per metric ton), maximum
2-hr. average.
10 percent opacity.
10 percent opacity.
NITRIC ACID PLANTS (each nitric acid production unit)
Nitrogen Oxides:
(all oxides ofnitrogen
except nitrous oxide)
1. 3 lbs. per ton of acid produced (1.5
kg. per metric ton), maximum 2-hr.
average, expressed as N02-
2. 10 percent opacity.
SULFURIC ACID PLANTS (each sulfuric acid production unit)
Sulfur Dioxide:
Acid Mist:
4 lbs. per ton of acid produced (2 kg.
per metric ton), maximum 2-hr. average,
1. 0.15 lb. per ton of acid produced
(0.075 kg. per metric ton), maximum
2-hr. average, expressed as H2S04.
2. 10 percent opacity.
5
-------
EXAMPLE OF HQW NSPS ARE ESTABLISHED
FOSSIL-FUEL FIRED STEAM GENERATOR STANDARDS FOR S02
0.80 lb. per million B.t.u. heat input (1.4 g. per million cal.),
maximum 2-hr. average when liquid fossil fuel is burned.
1.2 lbs. per million B.t.u. heat input (2.2 g. per million cal.),
maximum 2-hr. average when solid fossil fuel is burned.
When different fossil fuels are burned simultaneously in any
combination, the standard is determined by proportion
BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR PROPOSED NEW-SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: STEAM
GENERATORS, INCINERATORS, PORTLAND CEMENT PLANTS, NITRIC ACID PLANTS, SULFURIC
ACID PLANTS. EPA, 1971, Pages 10-13*
The standards for sulfur dioxide are based on limited demonstrations
of stack-gas desulfurization processes and on the availability of low-
sulfur fuels. At this time only the lime-slurry scrubbing system is
considered adequately demonstrated on large steam generators. Three
other processes have been shown capable of continuous operation at
smaller installations.
A lime-slurry scrubbing system, demonstrated for 6 months on two
coal-fired units of 125 and 140 Mw capacity, approached the S0?
emission limit of 1.2 pounds per million b.t.u. This operation
represents 73 percent removal of SO2 from flue gases in instances
where the bituminous coal contains 3.0 percent sulfur by weight. One
of the units was selected for the EPA test program, resulting in a
verification of the SO, removal performance reported by the control
system manufacturer ana facility operator. These lime-slurry systems
have been operated at greater SO2 removal efficiency, but only for
limited periods, so that sustained operation at this level is not
considered to have been adequately demonstrated. A prototype unit,
however, employing a dual-bed design, has achieved emission levels
as low as 1.0 pound per million B.t.u heat input for an extended
period of time. This system is also applicable to steam generators
burning fuel oil. The demonstrated removal efficiency (76 percent),
applied to a typical fuel oil of 2.5 percent sulfur content, results
in an emission level of 0.7 pound per million B.t.u. heat input,
which is below the standard of performance. Lime-scrubbing systems
are essentially throwaway processes that produce significant
quantities of solid waste. For a 3.0-percent-sulfur coal, the
additional wastes are roughly equal to the ash generated from the
burning coal.
~References to source information which are included in this document
have been deleted from the excerpt.
CONTINUED
6
-------
Some other processes have been utilized on pilot or prototype
installations to the point that there is reasonable assurance of
successful operation, but they are not deemed adequately demonstrated
for the purposes of these standards. In Sweden, another lime-slurry
system, utilizing a different scrubber design, has been demonstrated
on a 70,000-B.t.u.-per-hour oil-fired unit at emission values of 0.25
pound per million B.t.u. heat input (95 percent SOo removal) without
interruption of steam generator operation over the past 3 years.
An integrated catalytic-oxidation system has been operated at an
emission level of 0.5 pound per million B.t.u. heat input during a
program that accumulated some 7,000 hours of operation on coal-generated
flue gases with a volumetric flow rate equivalent to a 120,000-B.t.u.-
per-hour steam-electric unit. Sodium sulfite/bisulfite scrubbing
has been continuously operated at sulfur dioxide removal efficiencies
in excess of 90 percent on a sulfuric acid plant with a tail-gas
volume flow rate equivalent to a 220,000-B.t.u.-per-hour steam-
electric unit. This system has been installed at a 1,000,000-
B.t.u. -per-hour oil-fired power plant in Japan, which is scheduled
for operation in late 1971. To date, magnesium oxide-slurry
scrubbing has been demonstrated only on pilot-scale tests. A
full-scale magnesium oxide scrubbing system is being installed
to serve a 1,500,000-B.t.u.-per-hour steam-electric generator and
is scheduled for operation in October 1971.
Coal and fuel oil of low sulfur content and natural gas can be
used to satisfy the standards at many new steam generators. It is
not expected, however, that there will be enough low-sulfur fuel to
supply all new steam generators as well as existing sources requiring
S02 control under state implementation plans. In addition, transporta-
tion costs in many areas may make these fuels more expensive than
stack-gas desulfurization.
Principal sources of low-sulfur crude oil are Africa Indonesia,
Canada, and Alaska. Because South American crudes are generally
high in sulfur, several desulfurization plants have recently been
put into operation in Central America to satisfy fuel specifications
of the eastern United States. To ensure reasonable supplies of 0.8-
percent-sulfur oil to meet the new-source performance standard, some
increases in desulfurization capacity will be required, as well as
growth of low-sulfur imports and extensive use of blending.
Most of the naturally occurring United States coal of 0.7 percent
sulfur or less is located in the Rocky Mountain area. Shipping costs
have thus far precluded widespread use in the midwest and on the east
coast. In the eastern United States, some coals could be upgraded to
meet the standard. In other areas that are remote from low-sulfur-coal
production sites, however, stack-gas cleaning probably will be the least
expensive method for many operators to meet the standard.
7
-------
CHALLENGES TO GROUP I NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
SULFURIC ACID PLANT STANDARDS
Essex Chemical Corp. et al. v.
Ruckelshaus (Case no. 72-1072,
filed Jan. 21, 1972)
PORTLAND CEMENT PLANT STANDARDS
Portland Cement Association v.
Ruckelshaus (Case no. 72-1073,
filed Jan. 21, 1972)
FOSSIL-FUEL FIRED STEAM GENERATOR
STANDARDS
Appalachian Power Co., et al. v.
Ruckelshaus (Case no. 72-1079,
filed Jan. 21, 1972)
(Decision: June 29, 1973)
(Applied to all 3 cases which were consolidated
in the U.S. Court of Appeals)
Emission limitations are proper and adequately supported
by technical data.
EPA not required to prepare environmental impact statement
for NSPS.
EPA not required to justify different standards for different
industries.
EPA need only show that a standard can be achieved.
Standards remanded to EPA for further information concerning
opacity and stack gas desulfurization sludge disposal problems.
8
-------
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, GROUP II
Promulgated March 8, 1974 (39 FR 9308)
40 CFR 60
ASPHALT CONCRETE PLANTS
Particulates
a. 90 mg/dscm (0.04 gr/dscf)
b. 20 percent opacity. Not applicable when the presence of uncombined
water is the only reason for exceeding 20 percent opacity.
PETROLEUM REFINERIES: Fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerators,
fluid catalytic cracking unit incinerator-waste heat boilers, and fuel gas
combustion devices.
1. Particulates
a. 1.0 kg/1000 kg (1.0 lb/1000 lb) of coke burn-off in the catalyst
regenerator.
b. 30 percent opacity, except for 3 minutes in any 1 hour. Not
applicable when the presence of uncombined water is the only
reason for exceeding 30 percent opacity. When auxiliary liquid
or solid fossil fuels are burned in the fluid catalytic cracking
unit incinerator-waste heat boiler opacity greater than 30 percent
is permitted except that the incremental rate of particulate
emissions shall not exceed 0.18 g/mi11 ion cal (0.10 lb/million BTU)
of heat input attributable to such liquid or solid fuel.
2. Carbon Monoxide (From the fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst
regenerator): 0.050 percent by volume
3. Sulfur Lioxide: Fuel gas burned in any fuel gas combustion device
limited to 230 mg/dscm (0.10 gr/dscf) hydrogen sulfide content. Not
applicable to the combustion of process upset gas in a flare or the
combustion in a flare of process gas or fuel gas released to the
flare as a result of relief valve leakage.*
*The regulations allow the owner or operator to elect to treat gases
resulting from the combustion of fuel gas in a manner that limits
release of S0o to the atmosphere if it is shown to the EPA
Administrator that this will be as effective as these stated
requirements.
9
-------
GROUP II NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (CONT'D)
STORAGE VESSELS FOR PETROLEUM LIQUIDS: With a storage capacity greater
than 151,412 liters (40,000 gallons)*
Hydrocarbons
a. If true vapor pressure of the petroleum liquid as stored is
ii78mm Hg (1.5 psia) but 4570 mm Hg (11.1 psia), the storage
vessel must be equipped with a floating roof, a vapor recovery
system, or their equivalents.
b. If true vapor pressure of the petroleum liquid as stored is >570 nm
Hg (11.1 psia), the storage vessel must be equipped with a vapor
recovery system or its equivalent.
SECONDARY LEAD SHELTERS: Pot furnaces of more than 250 kg (550 lb) chargi
capacity, blast (cupola) furnaces, and reverberatory furnaces.
Particulates
a. Blast (cupola) and reverberatory furnaces
i. 50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf)
ii. 20 percent opacity. Not applicable when presence of uncombined
water is the only reason for exceeding 20 percent opacity.
b. Pot furnace: 10 percent opacity. Not applicable when presence of
uncombined water is the only reason for exceeding 10 percent opacity
SECONDARY BRASS AND BRONZE INGOT PRODUCTION PLANTS: Reverberatory and
electric furnaces of 1,000 kg (2,205 lb) or greater production capacity
and blast (cupola) furnaces of 250 kg/hr (550 lb/hr) or greater production
capacity.
Particulates
a. Reverberatory furnaces
i. 50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf)
ii. 20 percent opacity. Not applicable when presence of uncombined
water is the only reason for exceeding 20 percent opacity.
b. Blast (cupola) and electric furnaces: 10 percent opacity. Not
applicable when presence of uncombined water is the only reason
for exceeding 10 percent opacity.
*Does not apply to storage vessels for crude petroleum or condensate
stored, processed, and/or treated at a drilling and production facility
prior to custody transfer.
10
-------
GROUP II NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (CONT'D)
IRON AND STEEL PLANTS: Basic oxygen furnaces
Particulates: 50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf)
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS: Incinerators which burn sludge produced by
municipal sewage treatment facilities
Particulates
a. 0.65 g/kg dry sludge input (1.30 lb/ton dry sludge input)
b. 20 percent opacity. Not applicable when presence of uncombined
water is the only reason for exceeding 20 percent opactiy.
11
-------
SOURCES FOR WHICH NSPS ARE BEING CONSIDERED
Primary copper, lead, and zinc smelters
Coal preparation plants
Kraft pulp mills
Phosphate fertilizer plants
Ferroalloy plants
Stationary gas turbines
Electric arc furnaces
By-product coke ovens
Feed and grain elevators
Sulfur recovery from fuel gas (refineries)
Crushed stone plants
Detergent manufacturers
Fiberglass plants
Electric furnaces us#d in grey iron foundries
Lime plant
12
-------
REGULATIONS CONCERNING EMISSIONS DURING
STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, AND MALFUNCTION
(40 CFR 60.2, 60.7, 60.8, 60.11)
PROPOSAL 1:
PROPOSAL 2:
PROMULGATION:
August 25, 1972 (37 FR 17214)
May 2, 1973 (38 FR 10820)
October 15, 1973 (38 FR 28564)
Malfunction:
Reports:
"any sudden and unavoidable failure of air pollution
control equipment or process equipment or of a process
to operate in a normal or usual manner."
To be submitted by the source owner to EPA by the
30th day following the end of any calendar quarter
in which there have been excess emissions. Reports
must include:
Magnitude of excess emissions (measured by
required monitoring equipment)
Date and time of beginning and end of each
period of excess emissions
Nature and cause of any malfunction
Corrective action taken or preventive measures adopted
Operating and
Maintenance
Requirements:
Periods of Excess
Emissions to be
Reported:
"At all times, including periods of startup, shutdown,
and malfunction, owners and operators shall, to the
extent practicable, maintain and operate any affected
facility including associated air pollution control
equipment in a manner consistent with good air pollution
control practice for minimizing emissions."
Varies according to source category and pollutant.
13
-------
NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
(40 CFR 61)
March 31, 1971 Initial list of hazardous air pollutants:
(36 FR 5931) asbestos, beryllium, and mercury.
December 7, 1971 Proposed emission standards for asbestos,
(36 FR 23239) beryllium, and mercury.
April 6, 1973 Promulgated emission standards for asbestos,
(38 FR 8820) beryllium, and mercury.
14
-------
NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR ASBESTOS — RATIONALE
HEALTH EFFECTS
CONSTRAINTS
APPROACHES TO CONTROL
Asbestos causes asbestos is; is related to
higher-than-expected incidences of bronchial
cancer; is a causal factor in development
of mesotheliomas (cancers of chest and
abdomen membranes).
Numerical limits for ambient concentrations
or emissions of asbestos are not practical
because of the following:
1. Means of measuring ambient concentrations
of asbestos have only recently been
developed (historical data are lacking--
makes dose-response relationship impossible
to quantify at present).
2. Satisfactory methods of measuring asbestos
emissions are not available at present
(emission limitations are, therefore,
not enforceable).
1. Ban on emissions of asbestos to the
atmosphere.
a. Ban on production, processing, and use
of asbestos: considered impractical
because of the importance of many of
these activities and unnecessary to
protect the public health.
b. Ban on all emissions of asbestos into
the atmosphere: impractical because of
the impossibility of enforcement and
unnecessary to protect the public health.
Control of emissions from major man-made
sources of asbestos
a. Visible emissions limitations
b. Use of specified control equipment,
implementation of certain procedures,
and prohibitions on the use of certain
materials or operations.
15
-------
NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR ASBESTOS
ASBESTOS MILLS
ROADWAYS
No visible emissions (or installation and
use of specified air cleaning equipment).
Surfacing of roadways with asbestos tailings
is prohibited except for temporary roadways
on an area of asbestos ore deposits. "Sur-
facing" includes deposition of asbestos
tailings on roadways covered with snow or
ice.
MANUFACTURING OF
cloth, cord, wicks, tubing, tape,
twine, rope, thread, yarn, roving,
lap, or other textile materials;
cement products;' fireproofing and
insulating materials; friction
products; paper, millboard, felt;
floor tile; paints, coatings, caulks,
adhesives, sealants; plastics,
rubber materials; chlorine.
No visible emissions (or installation and
use of specified air cleaning equipment).
DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES INSULATED Notice of intent to demolish to be provided
OR FIREPROOFED WITH FRIABLE to EPA at least 20 days prior to demolition;
ASBESTOS MATERIAL' (excluding 1- to friable asbestos materials must be wetted
3-family units)" and removed before wrecking; all pipes and
structural members covered with friable
asbestos insulating or fireproofing materials
and friable asbestos debris must be carefully
lowered to ground level rather than dropped
or thrown. Debris from buildings of 50 or
more feet in height must be transported
to the ground in dust-tight chutes or
containers.*
SPRAYING No visible emissions from spray-on application
of materials containing more than 1 percent
asbestos (dry weight basis) used to insulate
or fireproof equipment and machinery (or
installation and use of air cleaning
equipment); spray-on materials used to
insulate or fireproof buildings, structures,
pipes, and conduits are limited to 1 percent
asbestos content (dry weight basis); report
of intention to spray asbestos materials
must be provided to EPA at least 20 days
prior to commencement of the spraying
operation.
*Some exceptions are made for structures declared by State or local authority
to be in danger of imminent collapse.
16
-------
NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR BERYLLIUM
HEALTH EFFECTS 1. Beryllium has proven acute and chronic lethal inhalation
effects and skin and conjunctival (mucous membranes
around the eye) effects.
2. The body has no mechanism for complete elimination of
beryllium. The possibility of long residence time in
the body may, thus, enhance the opportunity for cancer
induction.
3. The Beryllium Case Registry, maintained by the Massachusetts
General Hospital, Boston, Mass., contains over 820 proven
cases of beryllium-related disease. Chronic beryllium
disease is associated with exposure during machine
operations on beryllium materials (64 Registry cases) as
well as with activities involving extraction processes.
There are at least 45 cases of non-occupationally-incurred
diseases, half of which have been fatal. (None of these
worked in beryllium plants; they had either worked or
resided near a beryllium plant or had come in close contact
with dust from the clothes of beryllium plant employees.)
Studies of these cases indicated the lowest concentration
which produced disease was> 0.01 yg/m and probably
<0.10 yg/nr.
4. In 1949 the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) adopted
0.01 yg/m3 as the limit for beryllium concentrations in
community air, averaged over a 30-day period. The National
Acadenjy of Sciences concluded that this limit was a safe
level of exposure.
STANDARDS 1. EPA adopted a standard of 10 grams per day for most affected
sources as the emission limit necessary to ensure that ~
ambient concentrations of beryllium do not exceed 0.01 yg/m ,
averaged over a 30-day period. Sources may, however, request
EPA approval to meet the 0.01 ug/oi3 ambient concentration limit
averaged over a 30-day period.
2. Separate standards were established for beryllium rocket
motor firing. Time-weighted concentrations from rocket-
motor test sites are limited to 75 pg minutes/m3 within the
limits of 10-60 minutes, accumulated during any 2 consecutive
weeks, in areas in which public health could be endangered.
Emissions from a closed tank in which combustion products
from firing of beryllium propellant are collected must not
exceed 2 grams/hour and a maxium of 10 grams/day.
AFFECTED SOURCE? Extraction plants, ceramic plants, foundries, incinerators, and
propellant plants which process beryllium ore, beryllium,
beryllium oxide, beryllium alloys, or beryllium-containing
waste; machine shops which process beryllium, beryllium oxides,
or any alloy containing more than 5 percent beryllium by weight.
17
-------
NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR MERCURY
HEALTH EFFECTS
Mercury is a known toxin, affecting the
central nervous system and the kidneys.
Knowledge of the effects of mercury vapors
comes from experiments with animals and
studies of industrial exposure. Data
indicate that prolonged exposure to
airborne mercury is a hazard.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
AIRBORNE MERCURY AND
MERCURY IN FOOD AND
WATER
STANDARD
SOURCES
It was determined that the airborne burden
must be considered together with water-
and food-borne burdens and that, lacking
direct knowledge of the effects of mercury
vapors, exposures to vapors and to methyl -
mercury from diet (about which there is
knowledge) should be considered to be
equivalent and additive. A study of mercury
poisoning episodes in Japan indicated that
30 yg/day of methylmercury is an acceptable
exposure for an average adult and at the same
time protects against effects on sensitive
individuals. Mercury intakes of 10 pg/day
from diet can be expected. Therefore,
intake from air must be limited to 20 pg/day.
Since the average person inhales 20 cubic
meters of air each day, daily ambient
concentration of mercury must be limited
to 1 pg/m .
To prevent ambient concentrations of mercury
from exceeding 1 pg/m in a 24-hour period,
the emission standard is 2,300 grams of
mercury per day.
Stationary sources that process mercury ore to
recover mercury; stationary sources that use
mercury chlor-alkali cells to produce chlorine
gas and alkali metal hydroxide.
18
-------
QUESTIONS
1. New source performance standards have been promulgated for which of the
following stationary source categories:
a. Storage vessels for petroleum liquids
b. Kraft pulp mills
c. Fossil-fuel fired steam generators
d. Phosphate fertilizer plants
e. Portland cement plants
f. Nitric acid plants
g. Primary aluminum reduction plants
h. Asphalt concrete plants
i. Grey iron foundries
Secondary brass and bronze production plants
k. Incinerators
1. Sewage sludge incinerators
m. Fiberglass plants
n. Sulfuric acid plants
o. Petroleum refineries
p. Zinc smelters
q. Secondary lead smelters
r. Iron and steel plants: basic oxygen furnaces
s. Ferroalloy plants
t. Lime plants
2. EPA must give final approval for sources covered by new source performance
standards to construct. True False .
3. EPA has authority under the Clean Air Act to delegate responsibility for
enforcement of new source performance standards to the States under
certain conditions. True False
19
-------
New source performance standards are reviewed by several committees
before they are formally proposed. Describe the makeup of these
committees.
Which of the following cases describes a "malfunction" during which the
plant owner or operator would not be held responsible for violations of
an applicable new source performance standard?
a* Fabric filters (bag houses) can be used in Portland cememt plants
to control emissions of particulates from the kiln to the level
required by the national standards of performance. The average
life of a fabric filter as used in Portland cement plant applications
is one year. A Portland cement plant installed new fabric filters
in June 1973, and in the following October several filters began to
leak, causing particulate emissions to exceed the standards.
b. Sulfur dioxide and acid mist emissions from sulfuric acid plants are
limited by national performance standards. Sulfuric acid mist
can be controlled by passing the stack gas through a glass wool
filter treated with methyl clorosilane. However, i<. is necessary
to flush the wool filter to prevent violation of the acid mist
opacity standard. A plant employee reports that the opacity
standard is being violated. The plant immediately begins flushing
the filter, but the flushing procedure takes two hours.
c. New source performance standards for large fossil-fuel fired steam
generators limit emissions of particulates, sulfur dioxide, and
nitrogen oxides. A supplemental boiler was fired up at a plant to
reduce NO^ emissions. However, not enough air was supplied for
complete combustion of the fuel and, as a result, enough non-combustible
particulates escaped to cause the particulate standa.d to be violated.
20
-------
Name the three hazardous pollutants for which national emission
standards have been promulgated and list one major source of each
pollutant.
Source
Pollutant
Hazardous pollutant emission standards apply to both new and existing
sources. True False .
21
-------
ANSWERS
1. Standards were promulgated for sources c, e, f, k, and n in December
1971. Standards were promulgated for sources a, h, j. 1, o, q,
and r in March 1974.
2. False. EPA determines if a source complies with applicable new source
performance standards once the facility has been constructed but the
State must determine if the source may locate in the proposed site.
This determination is based on whether or not emissions from the source
will interfere with attainment or maintenance of national air quality
standards in the vicinity of the proposed site. If the State determines
that the source would interfere with attainment or maintenance of the
national standards, even though it meets the new source performance
standards, the State must refuse to authorize construction.
3. True.
4. The National Air Pollution Control Techniques Advisory Committee has 16
members representing industry, control equipment manufacturers, air
pollution control agencies, conservationists, and consultants. The
Federal Agency Liaison Committee's membership represents 19 Federal
agencies and departments who review proposed standards in light of
the agencies' missions and interests. In addition the Office of
Management and Budget coordinates an evaluation which analyzes the
impact of the proposed standards on the program and responsibilities
of the Federal agencies.
,5. a The fabric filter leaks would be considered premature and beyond the
control of the plant officials since they occurred before the filters
could reasonably be expected to deteriorate. In the case of the sulfuric
acid plant, since proper operating procedures (flushing of the glass wool
filters) were not followed, the plant owner or operator would probably
be held responsible. The same would be true of the example of the
steam generator since the equipment operators should have known how much
air was needed for proper combustion.
6. Asbestos - asbestos mills
Beryllium - extraction plants, rocket motor firing
Mercury - processing of mercury ore; mercury chlor-alkali plants
NOTE: Other sources are acceptable; see pages 16-18 of the booklet.
7. TRUE.
22
-------
MOTOR VEHICLE EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS
AUTHORITY
Title II ("Motor Vehicle Air Pollution
} Control Act") empowers HEW to establish
emission standards for pollutants from
new motor vehicles. Emissions regulated
by HEW were crankcase emissions (HC),
fuel evaporative emissions (HC), and
exhaust emissions (CO and HC).
CLEAN AIR ACT OF 1970 Specifies 90 percent reduction in
exhaust emissions of CO and HC from
allowable 1970 levels by the 1975
model year and 90 percent reduction
in N0X exhaust emissions from average
measured 1971 levels by the 1976 model
year. Provision is made for one one-year
suspension of both the 1975 and the 1976
standards under certain conditions.
23
-------
STANDARDS FOR LIGHT DUTY MOTOR VEHICLES* (40 CFR 85)
MODEL
YEAR
TEST
PROCEDUPE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
(Grams per vehicle mile)
FUEL EVAPORATIVE
EMISSIONS (HC)
(Grams/Test)
CRANKCASE
EMISSIONS
(Grams/M1le)
HC
CO
N0X
Pre 1968
(11)
(80)
(4)
(60)
(3)
1968-1969
3.2
33.0
NS
NS
0
1970
FTP
2.2
23.0
NS
NS
0
1971
2.2
23.0
NS
6.0
0
Pre 1968
(9.5)
(98)
(3.4)
(60)
(3)
1972
CVS-72
3.4
39
NS
2.0
0
1973-1974
3.4
39
3.0
2.0
0
Pre 1968
(8.6)
(87.5)
(3.5)
(60)
(3)
1973-1974
CVS-75
(3.0)
(28)
(3.1)
(2.0)
0
1975
0.413
3.4a
3.1
2.0
0
1976
0.41
3.4
0.4a
2.0
0
*Excent for trucks, motorcycles, and motor vehicles with an engine displacement of 50 cu. in.
() Numbers in Darenthesis are estimates
NS No Standard
a These are the standards required by the Clean Air Act. Interim standards have since been
established in response to requests for one-year suspensions of these standards. Suspension
of standards will be discussed later
FTP -- 1968 Federal Test Procedure
• Cold start followed by 137-second cycle repeated 7 times for a total of 6 miles
• Emission Concentrations measured continuously and data from specific portions
of the test weighted and converted to grams per mile
CVS-72 -- 1972 Mass Emissions Procedures
• Cold start followed by 7.5 mile simulated urban trip
• Proportional mass sample of exhaust collected in a bag throughout test and
emissions measured at end
• Result expressed as grams per mile
CVS-75 -- 1975 Mass Emissions Procedure
• Cold start followed by 7.5 mile simulated urban trip, consisting of 3.6 mile
warm-up trip (Bag A) and 3.9 mile hot trips (Bag B)
• Car stopped and allowed to stand for 10 minutes
• Car restarted and 3.6 mile warm-up trip repeated (Bag C)
• Proportional mass samples of exhaust collected in three bags and emissions
measured at end
• Weighted emissions = 432S Bag A + 1003! Bag B + 573! Bag C
• Result expressed as grams per mile
24
-------
CLEAN AIR ACT (1970) CONDITIONS FOR GRANTING
ONE-YEAR SUSPENSION OF STANDARDS
Section 202(b)(5)(D)
. . . The Administrator shall grant such suspensions only if he
determines that
(i) such suspension is essential to the public interest or the
public health and welfare of the United States,
(ii) all good faith efforts have been made to meet the standards . .
(iii) the applicant has established that effective control technology,
processes, operating methods, or other alternatives are not available or
have not been available for a sufficient period of time to achieve
compliance prior to the effective date of such standards, and
(iv) the study and investigation of the National Academy of Sciences . . .
and other information available to him has not indicated that technology,
processes, or other alternatives are available to meet such standards.
25
-------
SUSPENSION OF 1975 CO AND HC STANDARDS
March 13, 1972
May 12, 1972
June 8-12, 1972
February 10, 1973
April 11, 1973
May 15 - June 21, 1973
July 16, 1973
First application for suspension filed
by Volvo, followed by Chrysler, Ford,
General Motors, and International
Harvester.
All applications denied
International Harvester, Chrysler,
Ford, and general Motors appealed to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia (Case Nos.
72-1517, 72-1525, 72-1529, 72-1537)
Court remanded the four applications
to EPA for reconsideration
Suspension granted to the four
manufacturers and American Motors;
interim standards set (see 38 FR 10317,
April 26, 1973; 38 FR 17441, July 2, 1973;
40 CFR 85.075-1)
Applications for one-year suspension
filed fjy 27 foreign automobile manufacturers,
Applications granted; interim standards
set (see 38 FR 20365)
Original 1975
Standards
Interim 1975 Standards
Nationwide
Interim Standards
California
HYDROCARBONS
CARBON MONOXIDE
0.41 gpm
3.4 gpm
1.5 gpm
15.0 gpm
0.9 gpm
9.0 gpm
26
-------
SUSPENSION OF 1976 NOx STANDARDS
July 30, 1973
(See 38 FR 22474,
August 21, 1973;
40 CFR 85.076-1)
EPA granted Ford, General Motors,
and Chrysler a one-year suspension
of 1976 NO standard (0.4 gram/mile)
and set 2.0 grams/mile as the interim
standard for 1976 model year vehicles
(several foreign automobile manufacturers
have filed applications for suspension
since then). EPA did not set a different
interim standard for California.
California already has an N0X standard
of 2.0 g.p.m. in effect for model years
1974 and 1975. Unless California adopts
a more stringent standard for 1976 model
vehicles and is granted a waiver of
Federal preemption, the 1976 interim
N0X standard of 2.0 g.p.m. will apply
to California as well as to the rest
of the nation.
27
-------
SULFATE EMISSIONS FROM CATALYST VEHICLES
Recent evidence suggests that sulfate emissions from the average
catalyst car will be greater than from non-catalyst cars. The amount
may be as much as 0.05 gram/mile if gasoline with 0.03% sulfur content
(national average) is used. This would be 3 to 5 times more than
emissions from non-catalyst cars.
Modeling studies indicate that after some small number of model
years of catalyst cars are put into use, the amount of total sulfate
emissions from automobiles may be sufficient to cause adverse health
effects.
Studies to date have been very limited. Studies are hampered by
the fact that there is no generally accepted measurement procedure for
quantifying sulfate emissions from motor vehicles. Emission rates
vary according to 1) sulfur content in fuel; 2) type and age of
catalyst; 3) fuel economy of vehicles; 4) other factors. Metnods
for predicting atmospheric levels are not precise.
Two alternatives available if existence of sulfate problem is proven:
1. Delay or ban the use of catalysts
2. Regulate sulfur content in fuel
28
-------
CLASSES OF MOTOR VEHICLES
LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE
(Gasoline Fueled)
LIGHT DUTY TRUCK
LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE
(Diesel Fueled)
HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE
A passenger car or passenger car
derivative capable of seating 12
passengers or less. 38 FR 21362,
August 7, 1973; 40 CFR 85.002(a)(5)
Any motor vehicle, rated at 6,000
pounds GVW (gross vehicle weight)
or less, which is designed primarily
for purposes of transportation of
property, or is a derivative of such
a vehicle, or is available with
special features enabling off-street
or off-highway operation and use.
38 FR 21364, August 7, 1973:
40 CFR 85.202(a)(5)
Any motor vehicle either designed
primarily for transportation of
property and rated at 6,000 pounds
GVW or less or designed primarily
for transportation of persons and
having a capacity of 12 persons or
less. 38 FR 21348, August 7, 1973:
40 CFR 85.102(a)(5)
Any motor vehicle either designed
primarily for transportation of
property and rated at more than 6,000
pounds GVW or designed primarily for
transportation of persons and having
a capacity of more than 12 persons.
40 CFR 85.702(a)(6), 85.802(a)(5)
29
-------
HOrOfi VEHICLE EMISSION STANDARDS
(OTHER THAN LIGHT DUTY GASQL K.l-FUELED VEHICLES)
VEHICLE TVPE
CFIi OR DATE
PROPOSED
KOLrEL
YEAR
E
HC
(HAL'ST Ef'ISSK
CO
)NS
N0X
FUEL EVAPORATIVE
EMISSIONS (HC)
CRAKKCASE
EMISSIONS
GASOLINE-FUELED
LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS
10 CFR
8b.275
85 276
1975
and
1976
2 0 c p m
20 g p m
3 1 c p m
2 graire/test
0
GASOLINE-FUELED
HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES
45 CFR
85 21
1970
(After
Jan 1)
275 p p m
1 51 by
volume
HS
NS
40 CFR
85 773
1973
275 p.p m
1 51 by
volume
IIS
NS
0
40 CFR
85 774
1974
16 gra's/
brake
ho-sepower
r>our (HC +
N0X)
40 oranis/
brake
horsepower
hour
See HC
KS
DIESEL-FUELED
LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES
40 CFR
85 175
40 CFR
85.176
1975
1976
0 41 c p n
0 41%g p m
3 4 g p m
3 4 g p
3 1 g p m
0 4 j p hi
NS
NS
NS
DIESEL-FLELED
LIGHT DUTY TPUCKS
ProposeL
1/25/74
{39 FR
3276)
1976
209pm
20 g p u
3 1 0 p 15
NS
0
JlESEL-FUELEL'
CLAW DUTY VEHICLES
iXnAuST EliISSION
riGULATICNS
40 CFR
85 974
1974
10 grairs/
bra He
.lorse^i.ti
hour (HC +
I'0X)
40 grams/
brake
i.crsapower
hour
See HL
NS
NS
SKCKE EMISSTOH
REGULATIONS
45 CFR
85 41
1970
(After
Jan 1)
ACCELERATION MODE
40t opacity
LUGGING MODE PEAKS IN EITHER MODE
201 opacity
40 CFR
fab 773
1973
403! opacity
201 opacity
40 CFR
85 774
1974
201 opacity
151 opacity 50* opacity
hS = iio Standard
30
-------
NATIONWIDE ESTIMATES OF MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS OF HC, CO, AND NOx
1960
1968
1969
1970
1971
HC
Emissions
(10° tons/yr.)
16.2
17.6
17.1
12.0
11.5
Percent of
total
51.3
50.0
48.6
44.0
43.2
CO
Emissions
(10° tons/yr.)
74.3
99.4
97.8
63.7
63.1
Percent of
total
58.0
66.3
63.5
63.3
63.0
NOx
Emissions
(106 tons/yr)
7.2
8.6
00
*-4
7.9
8.2
Percent of
total
51.4
40.4
38.7
35.7
37.3
31
-------
NEW MOTORCYCLE EMISSION STANDARDS UNDER CONSIDERATION
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking January 17, 1974
(39 FR 2108)
Model
EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS
CRANKCASE EMISSIONS
Year
HC
CO
NOy
1976-1978
8.0 gpm
28 gpm
2 gpm
0 emissions
32
-------
QUESTIONS
Name the three types of motor vehicle emissions,
a.
b.
c.
List the categories of motor vehicles for which emission standards
have been proposed or promulgated by EPA.
The Clean Air Act requires a 90% reduction in emissions of the three
pollutants for which automotive emission standards have been set. Name
the three pollutants and indicate the model year in which the 90% reduction
was originally to have been attained. Then indicate the attainment date in
effect since EPA granted extensions.
Original
Pollutant Attainment
Date
Current
Attainment
Date
Briefly discuss the potential problem with sulfate emissions from
automobiles equipped with catalytic emission control systems.
33
-------
5. Should the sulfate emissions from catalyst vehicles result in
ambient concentrations harmful to the public health or welfare,
what two alternatives are now available to EPA under the Clean
Air Act to solve the problem?
a.
b.
6. EPA is considering promulgating emission standards for motorcycles.
True False
34
-------
ANSWERS
1. Exhaust, fuel evaporative, and crankcase emissions.
2. Gasoline fueled: light duty vehicle (passenaer car), light duty
truck, heavy duty vehicles (trucks and buses]; diesel fueled:
light duty vehicles, light duty trucks, heavy duty vehicles (trucks
and buses).
3. Pollutant Original Attainment Current Attainment
Date Date
Hydrocarbons 1975 1976
Carbon monoxide 1975 1976
Nitrogen Oxides 1976 1977
4. Some preliminary research has Indicated that automobiles equipped
with catalytic control systems to reduce emissions of hydrocarbons,
carbon monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen may emit more sulfate than
vehicles without these control devices. It 1s feared that by the time
the population of catalyst equipped vehicles reaches a certain level
(after several model years) the level of sulfate emissions may be
sufficient to cause adverse health effects. The evidence 1s limited
and Inconclusive to date, and further study Is now underway.
5. One alternative would be to delay or ban the use of catalytic control
systems. This option, however, would delay achievement of the »
reduction of emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen
oxides. The other alternative would be to promulgate regulations
limiting the sulfur content 1n gasoline. Efforts are now underway
to draft such regulations should they be necessary.
6. True.
35
-------
REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES
CLEAN AIR ACT (1970) SECTION 211
1. Empowers EPA to require manufacturers of certain fuels or fuel
additives to:
a. register fuels and/or fuel additives with EPA;
b. conduct tests to determine health effects of these fuels or
additives;
c. furnish information about the fuel and additives: analytical
techniques, recommended range of concentration of additives,
recorrmended purpose-in-use of additives, and other reasonable
information.
2. EPA may prescribe regulations to prohibit or control manufacture
or sale of fuels or fuel additives which cause emissions that
a. may endanger the public health or welfare;
b. significantly interfere with the performance of motor vehicle
emission control devices or systems;
3. No fuel or fuel additive may be controlled or prohibited
a. for reasons of the public health and welfare except after
consideration of available medical and scientific evidence,
including consideration of other technologically or
economically feasible means of achieving motor vehicle
emission standards;
b. for protection of motor vehicle emission control systems
except after consideration of available scientific and
economic data, including cost benefit analysis comparing
emission control systems which require such fuel control
with systems which do not require such fuel control;
c. unless EPA finds (and publishes findings) that prohibition
will not cause use of any other fuel or fuel additive which
will produce emissions that will endanger the public health
or welfare to the same or greater degree than the fuel or
additive to be prohibited.
36
-------
REGULATIONS PROVIDING FOR GENERAL AVAILABILITY
OF LEAD-FREE GASOLINE
40 CFR 80.20, 80.25
PROPOSED: February 23, 1972 (37 FR 3882)
PROMULGATED: January 10, 1973 (38 FR 1254)
1. Unleaded gasoline produced after July 1, 1974, must contain no more
than 0.05 gram lead and 0.005 gram phosphorus per gallon.
2. Retail outlets selling 200,000 or more gallons in any calendar year
after 1971 required after July 1, 1974, to market at least one grade
of unleaded gasoline of not less than 91 octane (except that in high
altitude areas lower octane levels are permitted).
3. Major brand refiners are responsible for ensuring that unleaded
gasoline sold at retail outlets meets the lead and phosphorus standards.
4. After July 1, 1974, retail outlets must clearly label gasoline pumps
"Unleaded gasoline" or "Contains lead antiknock compounds."
5. After July 1, 1974, retail outlets must prominently display the
following notice:
Federal law prohibits the introduction
of any gasoline containing lead or
phosphorus into any motor vehicle labeled
"UNLEADED GASOLINE ONLY"
6. Automobile manufacturers required to place permanent "Unleaded Gasoline
Only" labels on all motor vehicles equipped with lead sensitive emission
control devices (on the instrument panel'and near the gasoline tank inlet).
7. Leaded gasoline pump nozzles must have outside diameters no smaller than
0.93"; unleaded nozzles must be no greater than 0.85".
8. Automobile manufacturers must equip catalyst vehicles with nozzle
restrictors no greater than 0.91" in inside diameter that will
activate the automatic shut-off of the larger leaded gasoline
nozzles to prevent leaded gasoline from being pumped into the tank.
37
-------
LEADED GASOLINE REGULATIONS
(40 CFR 80)
PROPOSED:
REPROPOSED:
PROMULGATED:
February 23, 1972 (37 FR 3882)
January 10, 1973 (38 FR 1258)
December 6, 1973 (38 FR 33734)*
At any refinery average lead content per gallon for each 3-month
period (Jan.-March, April-June, July-September, October-December)
shall not exceed:
After Jan. 1, 1975
After Jan. 1, 1976
After Jan. 1, 1977
After Jan. 1, 1978
After Jan. 1, 1979
1.7 grams of lead per gallon**
1.4 grams of lead per gallon**
1.0 grams of lead per gallon
0.8 grams of lead per gallon
0.5 grams of lead per gallon
For each 3-month period the average lead content per gallon shall be
computed by each refinery as follows:
total grams of lead used in the manufacture of gasoline
total gallons of gasoline manufactured
Within 15 days of the close of each 3-month period, each refiner shall
submit a report to EPA containing the following information
a. total grams of lead in lead additive inventory on the first day
of the period
b. total grams of lead received during the period
c. total grams of lead in lead additive inventory on the last day
of the period
d. total gallons of gasoline produced during the period
e. average lead content in each gallon of gasoline produced during
the period
*The preamble to the promulgated regulations includes a lengthy discussion of
the effects of lead, the lead exposure problem among children and the
qeneral population, and the relationship of leaded qasoline to the overexDosure
problem.
**These provisions do not apply to certain small refiners in recognition of
special lead-time problems faced by this group.
38
-------
CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRED BY THE CLEAN AIR ACT
WITH RESPECT TO LEADED GASOLINE REGULATIONS
I. OTHER TECHNOLOGICALLY OR ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE MEANS OF CONTROLLING
AUTOMOTIVE EMISSIONS THAT ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR WALFARE
EPA believes that the only alternative to regulating lead content in
gasoline is to impose a lead emission standard that would require the
use of lead traps on autos.
Lead traps would not be efficient enough to protect lead sensitive
emission control systems. Unleaded gasoline would still be
required for model year 1975 and later vehicles. Thus the lead traps
would be effective only on in-use pre-1975 models. EPA does not have
statutory authority to prescribe emission standards for in-use
vehicles.
II. IMPACT OF FUEL REGULATIONS
A. Will control of one fuel or fuel additive result in use of another
fuel or fuel additive that would also endanger public health?
It is expected that leaded gasoline regulations will result in greater
use of blending stocks with high aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations
or antiknock additives to increase octane levels of unleaded gasoline.
1. Anticipated increase In aromatic hydrocarbon content in gasoline
is not expected to have a significant impact on automobile emis-
sions photochemical reactivity because of increasingly stringent
hydrocarbon emission control systems. Polynuclear aromatic hydro-
carbons have been decreasing since introduction of hydrocarbon
emission control systems. NOTE: EPA has the authority to regulate
the aromatic hydrocarbon content of gasoline should this become
necessary.
2. The only other cost effective fuel additive to increase octane
levels is manganese. Studies indicate that manganese additives
may plug catalysts. EPA has authority to regulate the use of
manganese additives If they are used and if studies show that
manganese will interfere with catalyst systems and/or cause
adverse health effects.
3. Lead additives account for a large portion of the exhaust particulates.
Therefore, particulate emissions are expected to decrease as a result
of leaded gasoline regulations.
B. What is the impact of leaded gasoline regulations on cost and energy?
1. Expected cost to the refinery industry ranges from $82 million to
$113 million. The $113 million Increase would increase the cost
of producing gasoline by less than .ltf per gallon.
2. Less than .4% increase in crude oil usage by 1980 is expected in the
worst instance. A possible 3.5% fuel penalty may occur as a result
of newer low-compression engines requiring lower octane fuel.
Total fuel penalty, at worst, would be less than 4%.
39
-------
QUESTIONS
1. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA has authority to prescribe regulations which
prohibit or control the manufacture or sale of fuel or fuel additives
under which of the following conditions:
I. If it is determined that the fuel or fuel additive interferes with
the performance of automobile emission control systems designed
to reduce emissions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen
oxides.
II. If it 1s determined that the fuel or fuel additive causes
automobile emissions that endanger the public health or welfare.
III. If it is determined that the fuel or fuel additive results in
poor fuel economy.
a. I only d. I and II
b. II only e. I and III
c. Ill only f. I, II, and III
2. Which of the following statements about EPA's regulations concerning
the general availability of unleaded gasoline are true?
a. Issued because lead-free gasoline 1s needed to ensure effective-
ness of catalytic devices to be Installed in automobiles to
control emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons.
b. Permit only trace lead levels of up to 0.05 gram per gallon
in certain fuels.
c. Also limit the phosphorus content of gasoline.
d. Retail outlets of a certain size are required to market at
least one grade of unleaded gasoline after July 1, 1974.
e. Leaded and unleaded gasoline pump nozzle sizes are
specifl ed.
f. All of the above.
3. Which of the following statements about EPA's regulations limiting the
lead content 1n all grades of leaded gasoline are true?
a. Issued primarily to protect the public health from adverse
effects of ambient lead concentrations.
b. Promulgated before the regulations concerning general availability
of unleaded gasoline and are expected to be rescinded one or two
years after automobiles with catalytic emission control systems
requiring unleaded gasoline are manufactured.
Question continued on next page.
40
-------
Provide for a reduction in the average lead content 1n
leaded gasoline produced by an individual refinery during
each quarter.
The prescribed reduction schedule is intended to reduce
lead usage and lead emissions by 60 - 655& by 1979 (over the
base year 1971).
41
-------
ANSWERS
1. d.
2. f.
3. a, c, and d.
42
-------
AIRCRAFT EMISSION STANDARDS
Clean Air Act Section 231
1. EPA must make a study of the impact of
aircraft emissions on air quality and
determine the feasibility of controlling
these emissions.
Clean Air Act Section 232
December 12, 1972
July 17, 1973
(38 FR 19088)
July 17, 1973
(38 FR 19050)
December 21. 1973
(38 FR 35000)
November 2, 1973
[38 FR 30277)
December 28, 1973
(38 FR 35437)
2. EPA must publish results of the study
and propose and after public hearings
promulgate emission standards for
aircraft. Standards must be prescribed
after consultation with the Secretary
of Transportation.
1. Secretary of Transportation, after
consultation with the EPA Administrator,
must promulgate regulations to ensure
compliance with EPA standards.
2. Department of Transportation is
responsible for enforcement.
NOTE: Both of these functions were
delegated to the Administrator, Federal
Aviation Administration on May 12, 1971
(36 FR 8733)
1. "Aircraft Emissions: Impact on Air
Quality and Feasibility of Control"
published by EPA.
2. Aircraft emission standards proposed by
EPA (37 FR 239)
EPA emission standards promulgated for aircraft
manufactured in 1979 or later and for gas turbine
and piston engines (effective dates range from
1974 to 1981). Standards limit fuel venting
emissions and exhaust emissions and apply to new
and in-use aircraft and engines. (40 CFR Part 87)
EPA proposed emission standards for in-use
aircraft after January 1, 1983. These standards
would require retrofit of control systems designed
for new aircraft on in-use gas turbine engines
of a class not covered in the promulgated standards.
EPA extended the effective date of fuel venting
and smoke regulations from Jan. 1, 1974, to
Feb. 1, 1974, and provided for granting of
temporary exemptions on or after Feb. 1, 1974, by EPA.
FAA published Notice 73-29 proposing regulations to
ensure compliance with EPA standards on fuel venting
and exhaust emissions.
FAA promulgated a Special Federal Aviation Regula-
tion covering fuel venting and smoke emissions
from aircraft included in EPA standards
(14 CFR 11 , 21 , 91)
43
-------
QUESTIONS
The following statements describe responsibilities and/or accomplishments
in the area of aircraft emission standards and regulations. For each
statement indicate who has the responsibility by writing
a for EPA Administrator
b^ for Secretary of Transportation (delegated to Administrator,
Federal Aviation Administration)
1. Published a report of a study of the impact of aircraft emissions
on air quality and of the feasibility of controlling emissions.
2. Promulgated emission standards applicable to fuel venting and
exhaust emissions from certain types of aircraft beginning in
1974.
3. Promulgated regulations designed to ensure compliance with the
aircraft emission standards.
4. Responsible for granting exemptions from applicable aircraft
emission standards and authorizing revised or alternate methods
for testing compliance with standards.
5. Responsible for enforcing emission regulations applicable to
aircraft or aircraft engines.
44
-------
ANSWERS
1. a.
2. a.
3. b.
4. a.
5. b.
45
-------
Maintenance of
National Ambient
Air Quality Standards
« Office of Air and Waste Management
I % Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
\ y\i/Z 5? Control Programs Development Division
%, '* A-D-n"+—I
'v A
PRO"*4-
Air PollutionTraining Institute 1974
-------
This unit, "Maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality
Standards," is part of the course Topics in Air
Pollution Control (SI 428) developed by the Instructional
Development Section of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Air Pollution Training Institute at Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina.
This unit, like the others consists of an audio cassette
tape and this booklet. BOTH THE TAPE AND THIS BOOKLET MUST
BE USED SIMULTANEOUSLY -- students are referred to appropriate
sections of the booklet by the narrator of the recorded
presentation.
i
-------
OBJECTIVES
Upon completion of this self-instructional unit, you should be able
to meet the following learning objectives:
1. State that the January 31, 1973, decision by the U.S. District Court
of Appeals was in large part the reason for EPA's requirement for
specific maintenance provisions in all state implementation plans.
2. Identify the two main requirements of the regulations promulgated by
EPA on June 18, 1973, for (1) localized and (2) area-wide maintenance
of standards--(l) procedures for individual source review and (2) 10-year
maintenance plans where necessary for designated air quality maintenance
areas.
3. Define "indirect source" and give examples.
4. Identify six of the elements required for an acceptable SIP revision for
review of indirect sources.
5. Identify major areas of controversy concerning the indirect source review
regulations.
6. State that different sizes of indirect sources are subject to review within
an SMSA than those outside of an SMSA.
7. Identify items of information which must be included in an application to
construct or modify an indirect source.
8. State that an indirect source may not be constructed or modified if the
reviewing agency finds that it will interfere with attainment or maintenance
of a national standard or violate a state's control strategy.
9. Identify the conditions which may be imposed on an approval to construct
or modify an indirect source.
10. Name the automotive-related pollutant for which an analysis must be
conducted in reviewing all indirect sources; name the two other
pollutants which must be analyzed in reviewing airoorts and large highways.
11. Identify the criteria on which the reviewing agency's determinations
must be based.
12. State that the regulations Drovide for adequate opportunity for public
comment on review of applications to construct or modify indirect sources.
13. Define and identify the terms for the following abbreviations: AQCR,
AOMA, AQKP, SMSA, NAAQS.
List the sequence of tasks to be accomplished in development of
10-vear maintenance plans.
1
-------
15. State that tne first task in designation of AQMA's is to differentiate
between obvious problem and non-problem areas and identify the criteria
for doing so.
16. Cite three of the reasons for always considering SMSA's for possible
designation as AQMA's.
17. State that AQMA designations should be pollutant-specific and that
the analysis need be done for onlv those pollutants specified.
18. Identify the factors that should be considered in deciding upon the
particular boundaries of the AQMA.
19. Name the five pollutants for which standards have been set that must
be considered in designation of AQMA's.
¦20. State that AQMA's may have the boundaries changed or may be "de-designated"
if detailed analysis indicates that national standards are not in jeopardy
during the next ten years.
2
-------
MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS
This term has attracted a great deal of attention since
the early part of 1973. "Maintenance of air quality standards"
involves measures to prevent a national ambient air quality
standard from being exceeded once such a standard is attained
in 1975 or at some other time. Regulations were promulgated by
EPA on June 18, 1973, requiring states to include specific
maintenance measures in their implementation plans.
0
-------
COURT DECISION
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al_
v.
Environmental Protection Agency
(and seven other related cases)
Filed January 31, 1973
In view of the competing contentions with respect to whether
or not each state plan approved by the Administrator provided for
maintenance of the primary and secondary standards beyond the
May 31, 1975, attainment date, and in view of the absence of any
definite indication in the present record as to whether or not
such a state-by-state determination was made, the Administrator
shall, within 30 days from the date of this order, review the
maintenance provisions of all state implementation plans presently
approved. Those plans which do not provide for measures necessary
to insure the maintenance of the primary standard after May 31, 1975,
and those plans which do not analyze the problem of maintenance of
standards in a manner consistent with applicable regulations . . .
shall be disapproved. In such a case, the state should be directed
to prepare a new implementation plan for maintenance of standards
by April 15, 1973.*
*This date was later appealed and changed to August 15, 1973, to give the
states to prepare plan revisions.
4
-------
EVOLVEMENT OF THE MAINTENANCE REGULATIONS
January 31, 1973
U.S. District Court of Appeals ordered the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency to review all state implementa-
tion plans (SIP's) and to require revisions of those not containing
specific provisions to ensure maintenance of air quality standards.
March 8, 1973
After review of all SIP's, the Administrator found that none
contained adequate maintenance provisions and. therefore, disapproved
them all. (38 FR 6280) Although there already existed such measures as
new source review procedures, new source performance standards, emission
standards for new motor vehicles, and the authority of the Administrator to
call for revision of SIPs when necessary to maintain standards, 1t was
determined that such measures alone were not adequate.
EPA Issued' an advance notice of proposed rulemaking that
would require revisions to SIP's to Include provisions for indirect
source review. (38 FR 6279)
April 18. 1973
EPA proposed regulations that would require SIP revisions to
provide for Indirect source review. (38 FR 9600)
June 18. 1973
EPA promulgated final regulations requiring SIP's to provide
for Indirect source review arvd long-term maintenance plans. (38 FR 15835)
5
-------
MAINTENANCE REGULATIONS
PROMULGATED JUNE 18, 1973
(38 FR 15835)
Legal Authority
State "must have authority to prevent construction, modification,
or operation of a facility, building, structure, or installation,
which directly or indirectly results or may result in emissions of
any air pollutant at any location which will prevent the attainment
or maintenance of a national standard. (40 CFR 51.11)
Procedural Matters in Developing Indirect Source Review Measures
Discussed in detail later in the unit and described on pages 11 and 12.
(40 CFR 51.18)
General Growth Analysis
Discussed in detail later in the unit and described on page
30. (40 CFR 51.12)
6
-------
REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIFIC GROWTH ANALYSIS IN IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Anril 18, 1973
"Though not required by the proposed amendments to 40 CFR 51.18,
greater state and local attention to the regional air quality impact
of growth clearly would be desirable in the long run. State and local
aaencies are encouraged to initiate efforts to make a careful analysis
of Drojected growth, of population, industrial activity, and use of
motor vehicles and estimate how such growth is likely to affect air
quality." (38 FR 9600)
June 18, 1973
"In the preamble to the proposed amendments, the Administrator
called attention to the importance of analyzing the general growth
of population, industrial activity, and mobile sources in relation
to regional air cuality. The Administrator did not propose to require
such analysis, but urged that states consider the use of such procedures.
A number of comments were received urging that such analysis be required
on the ground that the preconstruction review of individual sources could
not adequately deal with generalized growth and its impact on regional
air quality. It is the Administrator's judgment that such procedures,
in addition to review of new or modified sources, are necessary to
insure maintenance of the national standards, particularly because
source-by-source analysis is not an adequate means of evaluating, on
a regional scale, the air quality impact of qrowth and development."
(38 FR 15834)
7
-------
QUESTIONS
1. Regulations promulgated on June 18, 1973, by EPA requiring that all
state implementation plans include provisions for maintenance of
standards resulted in part from the January 31, 1973, decision
by the U.S. District Court of Appeals in the case of NRDC vs. EPA
(and seven other related cases).
True False
2. The two main requirements of the June 18, 1973, regulations on
maintenance are stated below. Identify which of the two is
localized and which is area-wide in nature.
Procedures for individual source review
(a) localized
(b) area-wide
10-year maintenance plans where necessary for designated
Air Quality Maintenance Areas.
(a) localized
(b) area-wide
3. Why did EPA consider it necessary to reauire states to develop
10-year maintenance plans in addition to requirements for review
of individual sources?
8
-------
ANSWERS
1. True
2. Procedures for indirect source review involve measures to
assure maintenance of standards on a localized basis,
within the vicinity of the source.
The 10-year maintenance plans involve methods for assuring
maintenance of standards on an area-wide or regional basis
by controlling the impact of growth on air quality.
3. tPA required states to develop 10-year maintenance plans as
well as individual source review procedures "ucCouSe source-
Dy-source analysis is not an adequate means of evaluating, on
a regional scale, the air quality impact of growth and development."
(38 FR 15834)
9
-------
INDIRECT SOURCES
An "indirect source" is a facility, buildina, structure, or
installation which causes or may cause rrobi 1 e source activity
that results in emissions of
national standard. Indirect
to, the followina:
a pollutant ^or which there is a
sources include, but are not limited
Highways and roads
Parking facilities
Retail, commercial and industrial facilities
Recreation, amusement, SDorts, and entertainment facilities
Airports
Office and government buildings
Apartment and condominium buildings
Education facilities
INDIRECT SOURCE REVIEW TIMETABLE
January 31, 1973
March 8, 1973
April 18, 1973
June 18, 1973
August 15, 1973
October 15, 1973
October 30, "973
February 25, 1974
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia orders EPA to review all
SIP's with respect to maintenance.
EPA disapproves all SIP's due to their
lack of indirect source review
provisions. (38 FR 6279)
EPA proposes indirect source review
regulations. (38 FR 9599)
EPA promulgates regulations requiring
revisions of SIP's to include provisions
for area-wide maintenance of standards and
review of indirect sources. (38 FR 15834)
Deadline for states' submittal of SIP
revisions to include indirect source
review procedures.
Deadline for EPA review and approval or
disapproval of SIP revisions.
EPA proposes indirect source review
procedures for all states not submitting
approvable SIP revisions. (38 FR 29893)
EPA promulgates indirect source review
procedures for all states except Florida
and Guam. (39 FR 7270)
10
-------
ELEMENTS OF AN ACCEPTABLE SIP REVISION FOR INDIRECT SOURCE REVIEW
(38 FR 15836; 40 CFR 51.18)
1. The plan must contain legally enforceable procedures by which a
state or local agency can determine if construction or modification of a
facility will either directly or indirectly interfere with attainment or
maintenance of a national standard or violate a control strategy.
2. If the agency determines that a standard will be exceeded or a
control strategy violated, it must have the authority to prevent construction
or modification of the facility.
3. In order for the agency to make its determination, the owner or
operator of the facility may be required to furnish information on the
nature and amounts of emissions from the source and/or from associated
mobile sources. The owner may also be required to provide information on
the location, design, construction, and operation of the facility.
4. The plan must make it clear that approval of any construction or
modification shall not relieve responsibility of the owner or operator to
comply with applicable portions of the control strategy. For example, if
after approval for construction of a regional shopping center, it becomes
obvious that the traffic generated will interfere with the existing
transportation control plan, the owner or operator of the shopping center
must work out some arrangement to comply with that plan, perhaps by providing
mass transportation for customers and employees.
5. The plan must identify the state or local agency responsible for
meeting the indirect source review requirements. EPA does not require that
it be the air pollution control agency. However, if another agency is
designated, it must consult with the appropriate state or local air
pollution control agency in carrying out the review provisions. In such
a case, the air pollution control agency should have considerable input
prior to a final decision by the designated agency on whether or not to
allow construction or modification of an indirect source. The state plan
should include a description of how this would be done and exactly how much
influence the air pollution control agency would have in the final decision.
6. The plan must identify the types and sizes of sources that will be
classified as indirect sources subject to review and discuss the basis for
their selection. This identification will vary considerably, depending on local
considerations and on whether or not the source is located in a designated air
quality maintenance area. Generally, review procedures should cover any facility
which can reasonably be expected to cause sufficient mobile source activity so
that the resulting emissions minht be expected to interfere with the attainment
or maintenance of a national standard. The sources listed on page 10 would
normally fit this category, regardless of location or local conditions.
7. The plan must include administrative procedures to be followed in
determining whether or not there is potential for violation of a national
standard.
11
-------
8. The plan must require the state or local agency to provide opportunity
for oublic comment on 1) the information submitted by the owner or operator,
and 2) on the Agency's analysis of the effect of the source's construction on
ambient air quality, including the agency's proposed approval or disapproval.
Tnis information must be available for public inspection in at least one
location in the region affected with notice by prominent advertisement of
the location. The notice of availability must also be sent to the EPA
Administrator through the appropriate regional office, to all other state
and local air pollution control agencies having jurisdiction in the affected
region, and to any other agency in the region having responsibility for
implementing indirect source review procedures. A 30-day period for
submittal of public coirment must be allowed unless it would conflict
with the state's existing requirements for acting on requests for
permission to construct or modify. In such a case, the state may submit
for approval a comment period consistent with existing requirements.
12
-------
QUESTIONS
1. An indirect source is:
a. A facility, building, structure, or installation which
may cause interference with attainment or maintenance of
a "national standard because of its oollutant emissions.
b. A facility, building, structure, or installation which
causes or may cause mobile source activity that results
in emissions of a pollutant for which there is a national
standard.
c. Any mobile source of pollutant emissions, such as automobiles,
trucks, buses, airplanes, etc.
d. None of the above.
2. Which of the following are examples of indirect sources?
a. Highways and roads
h. Parking facilities
c. Automobiles
d. Sports stadiums
e. All of the above
f. a, b, and d
3. State whether the following statements are true or false in reference
to an acceptable plan revision for indirect source review.
a. Plan must provide that the aqency have authority to prevent
construction or modification of an indirect source if necessary.
True False
b. Plan must provide that the source owner or operator is not
required to submit information on nature and amounts of emissions
or on location, design, construction, and operation of source.
True False
c. Plan must provide that approval to construct or modify exempts
source owner or operator from compliance with control strategy.
True False
d. Plan must identify state or local agency responsible for
meeting the indirect source review requirements.
True False
e. Plan must identify the types and sizes of sources subject to review
True False
f. Plan need not provide for public comment.
True False
13
-------
ANSWERS
1. An indirect source is
(b) a facility, building, structure, or installation which
causes or may cause mobile source activity that results
in emissions of a nollutant for which there is a national
standard.
2. Examples of indirect sources include the following:
(a) Highways and roads
(b) Parking facilities
(d) Sports stadiums
The
answer is (f)
3. a.
True
b.
False
c.
False
d.
True
e.
True
f.
False
14
-------
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON INDIRECT SOURCE REVIEW REGULATIONS
COMMENT:
EPA REPLY:
COMMENT:
EPA REPLY:
COMMENT:
EPA REPLY:
COMMENT:
EPA REPLY:
EPA does not have the legal authority to require indirect
source review.
"Several comments were received which questioned whether
EPA has legal authority to promulgate requirements for review
of the indirect impact of new or modified sources, i.e., the
impact arising from associated mobile source activity.
Essentially, the argument was made that EPA's authority
in this regard is limited to requiring an assessment of the air
quality impact of pollutants emitted directly from stationary
sources. EPA believes that this argument is inconsistent with
the provisions of section 110(a)(2)(B), which requires that
implementation plans include "... such other measures as
may be necessary to insure attainment and maintenance of such
primary and secondary standard, including, but not limited to,
land-use and transportation controls." In the Administrator's
judgment, review of the indirect impact of new or modified
sources is just as necessary to insure maintenance of the
national standards as is review of the direct impact."
(38 FR 1 5835)
States do not have the legal authority to implement the
regulations promulgated by EPA.
"It is recognized that many states do not yet have adequate
legal authority to approve or disapprove construction or modification
of indirect sources. EPA regulations in 40 CFR 52.02(d), published
May 31, 1972, (37 FR 10842) provide that any regulatory provisions
of a state implementation plan approved or promulgated by EPA are
enforceable by EPA and the state and by local agencies in accordance
with their assigned responsibilities under the state plan. Thus,
these proposed regulations would be enforceable by state and local
agencies designated by a Governor to be responsible for indirect
source review." (38 FR 29894)
Indirect source review will severely limit growth and development.
The purpose of the regulations is not to preclude development
except in those rare cases in which no accommodation with air
quality maintenance can be reached. Applications for most sources
subject to review will probably be approved.
EPA is infringing on rights of states and localities and trying
to dictate how their land should be used.
The regulations do not dictate ways in which land may be used, but
they do require such use to be compatible with the maintenance of
national ambient air quality standards. Furthermore, EPA has
repeatedly urged states to develop their own review procedures,
taking into consideration local situations which cannot adequately
be accounted for in EPA's promulgation.
15
-------
COMMENT: The regulations ignore social and economic considerations and
require approval decisions to be based solely on air quality
considerations.
EPA REPLY: While it is true that one criterion for approval or disannroval
of a source's application to construct is the source's potential
effect on air quality, it is also true that this determination
is only one necessary step among many other measures already
established in review of building applications. EPA believes
that these regulations will not cause serious social or economic
disruption. Such considerations were taken into account during
the rule-making process.
COMMENT: Urban renewal and redevelopment projects should be exempted from
review once the project has begun.
EPA REPLY: "... it would not be consistent with the purpose of the
Act or these regulations to allow any major indirect source
subject to these regulations and which commences construction
on or after January 1, 1975, to be exempt from review." (39 FR 7273)
"... the Administrator feels that any disruptive effect on
urban renewal projects caused by these regulations should be
minimal. Indirect sources for which on-site grading or construction
work is begun before January 1, 1975, will not be subject to review.
For those sources that will be reviewed, it should again be stressed
that the primary emphasis of these regulations is to ensure that
facilities will be designed properly in accordance with air quality
considerations. It should be necessary to deny an approval only in
unusual situations where it is impossible to construct a facility
with design or other traffic-related conditions imposed so as to
meet the tests for review." (39 FR 7273)
COMMENT: The effective date of the regulations and the stage of construction
at which a source would be subject to review are unjustified.
EPA REPLY: It was the intent of Congress that parking facilities not be subject
to review until January 1, 1975. The stage of construction at which
a source would be subject to review was based on (1) consideration
of economic disruption for developers, and (2) the desirability of
prohibiting otherwise eligible sources from escaping review (those
which may have entered into a general construction contract by the
effective date but had not made plans to actually begin construction
for several months or years to come).
16
-------
TYPES OF INDIRECT SOURCES SUBJECT TC REVIEW
(39 FR 7276; 40 CFR 52.22(b)(1))
Ai rports
Parking facilities
Hignways and roads
Education facilities
Office and government buildings
Apartment and condominium buildings
Retail, commercial, and industrial facilities
Recreation, amusement, sports, and entertainment facilities
SIZES OF INDIRECT SOURCES SUBJECT TO REVIEW
(39 FR 7277; 40 CFR 52.22(b)(2))
Parking Facilities
I. Those located in an SMSA*
A. Any new parking facility, or other new indirect source with an
associated parking area, with a parking capacity of 1,000 cars
or more.
B. Any modified parking facility, or any modification of an
•associated parking area, which increases parking capacity by
500 cars or more.
II. Those located outside an SMSA
A. Any new parking facility or other new indirect source with an
associated parking area, with a parking capacity of 2,000 cars
or more.
B. Any inodifita parking facility, or any modification of an
associated parking area, which increases parking capacity by
1,0J0 cars or more.
Highway Sections
I. Those located in an SMSA
A. Any new highway section with an anticipated average annual daily
traffic volume of 20,000 or more vehicles per day within ten years
of construction.
B. Any modified highway section which will increase average annual
daily traffic volume by 10,000 vehicles per day within ten years
after modification.
*SMSA is an abbreviation for Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area as designated
by the U.S. Bureau of the Budget. An SMSA may be defined as a county or group of
contiguous counties which contains at least one central city of 50,000 inhabitant,
or more or "twin cities" with a combined population of at least 50,000.
17
-------
II. Those located outside an SMSA
With respect to highways, air quality problems would rarely be
caused outside of urbanized areas. Highways generally connect
one or more urbanized areas somewhere along their length and the
regulation is written so as to focus the review on the most
critical points along the highway, where the traffic volume and
"background" concentrations are the greatest.
Airports
Any airport, the construction or general modification of which is expected
to result in the following activity within ten years of construction or
modification:
I. New airport
A. 50,000 or more operations* per year by regularly scheduled
air carriers; or
B. Use by 1,600,000 or more passengers per year
II. Modified airport
A. Increase of 50,000 or more operations per year by regularly
scheduled air carriers over the existing volume of operations; or
B. Increase of 1,600,000 or more passengers per year
CONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION OF A SOURCE IN SMALL INCREMENTS
(39 FR 7277; 40 CFR 52.22(b)(2))
"Where an indirect source is constructed or modified in increments which
individually are not subject to review under this paragraph, all such increments
occurring since the effective date of this regulation, or since the latest
approval hereunder, whichever date is most recent, shall be added together
for determining the applicability of this paragraph."
*The term "aircraft operation" means an aircraft take-off or landing.
18
-------
INFORMATION REQUIRED OF SOURCE OW.'JER OR OPERATOR
( 39 FR 7277; 40 CFR 52.22(b)(3))
For all indirect sources other than highways
1. The name, txnd addfieAi, of the applicant.
2. A map showing the location of the site and the topography of the area.
3. A deAWiptcon o^ the piopoied o6£ the. 6-Ue, including the normal hours
of operation of the facility, and the general types of activities to be
operated therein.
4. A 6ite plan showing the location of associated parking areas, points of
motor vehicle ingress and egress to and from the site and its associated
parking areas, and the location and height of buildings on the site.
5. An ide.ntA.6tccuti.on o£ the pJUMCJ-pal tioacU, highway*, and j.nteJM>ectA.on&
that will be used by motor vehicles moving to or from the indirect
source.
6. An estimate, as of the date of the application, of the average daily
tna^ic volumes, peaking chaJiacteAiAticA, and levels 0|$ t>en.vicje at
controlled inteuection* to be used by motor vehicles moving to or
from the source located within one-fourth mile of all boundaries of
the site.
7. An estimate of the avenage doAJty vehicle tjiipt>, and the peaking
characteristics of such trips, required to move people to and from
the source during the first year after the date all aspects of the
indirect source are completed and open for business or fully operational.
8. An estimate of the maximum nurrben. ofS ve.hA.cXe. fUpi that would occur
within one-hour and eight-hour periods during the first year after
completion.
9. An estimate of the average dcuJLy tragic volume,4, peaking chaAacteJuAticb,
and level* oh AeAv-tce that would occur at the intersections used by motor
vehicles moving to or from the source during the first year after
completion.
10. Availability existing and pfio/ected maAA tram it to service the
site.
11. Any additional incarnation on documentation that the Administrator
deems nece66aAy to determine the air quality impact of the indirect
source, including the submission of measured air quality data at the
proposed site prior to construction or modification. This monitoring
shall be limited to carbon monoxide and shall be conducted for a
oeriod of not more than 14 davs.
19
-------
Fcr airports
1. kll uilotim&LLon fizqiuAtd faoA otheA uidoiect -souAceA.
2. An estimate of the avztiagz numbeA and maumm nutnbeA ofa aAACAa&t
optn.outA.OYii> peA day by type of aircraft durinq the first, fifth, and
tenth years after the date of expected completion.
3. A dtecAA.pt-con ob the conrne.SLC-i.af, mdu.6tAA.al, AeA-cdcntcal, and oth.nA
development* that the applicant expects will occur within three miles
of the perimeter of the airport within the first five and the first
ten years after the date of expected completion.
4. Expected pai-iengeA ZoacUng-i at the airport.
For highway sections
1. A deAcAA.ptA.on of, the avenagz and maxA/num tAa^-cc volume,a for one,
eight, and 24-hour time periods expected within ten years of expected
date of completion.
2. An estimate of ve.hA.cie. 4peedi for average and maximum traffic volume
conditions.
3. A map showing the location of the highway section, including the location
of buildings along the right-of-way.
4. A d(L6cAA.ption Of$ the gene.n.al iexUuAU of the hiqhway section and
associated right-of-way, including the approximate height of buildings
adjacent to .the highway.
5. Any additional
-------
DETERMINATIONS WHICH MUST BE MADE BY REVIEWING AGENCY
(39 FR 7277; 40 CFR 52.22(b)(4-6))
For all indirect sources other than airports and highway sections,
approval to construct or modify the source may not be granted if it is found
that the source will:
1. cause a violation of the control strateqy of the state implementation plan;
2. delay the attainment of the national standards for carbon monoxide beyond
the target attainment date; or
3. cause a violation of the carbon monoxide standards after the attainment
date has oassed.
For airports subject to review, approval to construct or modify may not
be nranted if it is found that the source will:
1. cause a violation of the control strategy of the state implementation plan;
2. delay the attainment of the national standards for carbon monoxide,
photochemical oxidants, and nitrogen dioxide beyond the target attainment
date; or
3. cause violations of the national standards for these three pollutants after
the attainment date has passed.
For a new highway section with an anticipated average annual daily traffic
volume of 20,000 or more vehicles per day within ten years of construction or a
highway section which will increase the volume by 10,000 vehicles per dav within ten
years of modification, approval to construct or modify may not be granted if it is
found that the source will:
1. cause a violation of the control strategy of the state implementation plan
2. delay the attainment date for the national standards for carbon monoxide
beyond the target attainment date; or
3. cause a violation of the carbon monoxide standards after the attainment
date has passed.
For a new hiqhway section with an anticipated average annual traffic volume
of 50,000 or more vehicles per day within ten years of construction, or any
modification to a highway section which will increase average annual daily traffic
volume by 25,000 vehicles or more per day within ten years after modification,
approval to construct or modify may not be granted if it is found that the source
will:
1. cause a violation of the control strategy of the state implementation plan;
2. delay the attainment of the national standards for carbon monoxide,
photochemical oxidants, or nitrogen dioxide beyond the target attainment
date; or
3. cause a violation of the standards for carbon monoxide, photochemical
oxidants, or nitrogen dioxide after the attainment date nas passed.
21
-------
CRITERIA TO BE USED BY REVIEWING AGENCY IN
DETERMINING EFFECT OF INDIRECT SOURCES ON AIR QUALITY
(39 FR 7277; 40 CFR 52.22(b)(4-6))
Indirect Sources other than highways and airports
For all indirect sources other than highway sections and airports, the
determination may be based on whether the proposed source will be constructed
or modified in accordance with sound design practices to produce traffic flow
characteristics which would not result in violations of the carbon monoxide
standards in the vicinitv of the source. These traffic flow characteristics
may Incude, but not be limited to, the followinq:
1. Minimizing vehicle running time within parking lots through the use
of sound parking lot design.
I
2. Ensuring adequate gate capacity by providing for the proper number
and location of entrances and exits and optimum signalization for such.
3. Limiting traffic volume so as not to exceed the carrying capacity
on roadwiys significantly affected by the indirect source.
4. I imitina the level of service at controlled intersections significantly
affected by the indirect source.
1 In cases where the use of the traffic,flow characteristics would not be
compatible with the tests for review under the regulation, the agency must
consider a diffusion model in making the final determination. In cases where
the developer does not believe that the traffic flow characteristics are
necessary in order to ensure attainment and maintenance of the national
standards for carbon monoxide, the developer may submit with his application
the results of a diffusion model to support his contention.
Airports
To determine whether the construction or modification of an airport will
interfere with attainment or maintenance of national standards for carbon monoxide,
photochemical oxidants, or nitrogen dioxide, two analyses must be performed.
1. All emissions from stationary and mobile sources at the airport, along
with emissions from the development of other new indirect sources expected to occur
within three miles of the airport, must be added together in order to determine
the aggregate impact on air quality for the ten-year period following the expected
date of completion.
2. An area-wide air quality analysis, or other modeling technique approved
by the Administrator, must be used to determine the expected ambient concentrations
of carbon monoxide, photochemical oxidants, and nitrogen dioxide following
construction or modification.
22
-------
Roadways and parking facilities associated with airports should also
be reviewed for their localized impact on carbon monoxide concentrations
in addition to the area-wide review for carbon monoxide, photochemical
oxidants, and nitrogen dioxide.
Highway Sections
The determination for all highway sections subject to review under the
regulations must be made using an appropriate atmospheric diffusion model.
The air quality impact of expected carbon monoxide emissions resulting
from the maximum traffic volume should be evaluated for the ten-year
period following the expected date of completion. The air quality impact
should be determined at reasonable receptor or exposure sites which means
locations where people might reasonably be exposed for time periods consistent
with the national ambient air quality standards.
The expected concentrations of carbon monoxide, photochemical oxidants,
and nitrogen dioxide must be estimated for the ten-year period following
completion of construction or modification for:
1. Any new highway section with an anticipated average annual daily
traffic volume of 50,000 or more vehicles per day within ten years of
construction; or
2. Any modification to a highway section which will increase average
annual daily traffic volume by 25,000 or more vehicles per day within ten
years after modification.
To estimate these future concentrations, an area-wide air quality analysis
or other modeling technique approved by the Administrator must be used.
23
-------
CONDITIONS WHICH MAY BE IMPOSED BY REVIEWING AGENCY
ON PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT OR MODIFY INDIRECT SOURCE
(39 FR 7279; 40 CFR 52.22(b)(9-10))
Binding coiranitments to roadway improvements or additional mass transit
facilities to serve the indirect 'source. These commitments should be
secured by the owner or operator from the appropriate governmental agencies
having jurisdiction.
Binding commitments by the owner or operator to specific programs for mass
transit incentives for employees and patrons of the source.
Binding commitments by the owner or operator to construct, modify, or
operate the indirect source in such a manner as may be necessary to
achieve the traffic flow characteristics published by EPA.
Extent to which the indirect source may be further modified without
resubmission for approval.
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING RESPONSIBILITIES OF APPLICANT
(39 FR 7279; 40 CFR 52.22(b)(11-13))
An owner or operator of an indirect source who fails to construct and
operate an indirect source in accordance with the application as approved
and conditioned by the Administrator shall be subject to the penalties
specified under section 113 of the Clean Air Act and shall be considered
in violation of an emission standard or limitation. The same holds true
for an owner or operator who commences construction or modification
without applying for and receiving approval.
Approval to construct or modify shall become invalid if construction
or modification is not commenced within 18 months after receipt of
approval. This provision is included to ensure that additional growth
in the vicinity of the proposed facility would not invalidate the air
quality impact calculations on which the original approval was based.
The granting of approval to construct or modify an indirect source does
not relieve the owner or operator of responsibility to comply with the
control strategy and all local, State, and Federal regulations which are
part of the applicable plan. If, after construction of a source, it is
found that the predictions were inaccurate and that a control strategy
is being violated, some arrangement would need to be worked out to
bring the source back into compliance again.
24
-------
PROCEDURES INVOLVED IN REVIEWING AN APPLICATION
TO CONSTRUCT OR MODIFY AIM INDIRECT SOURCE
(39 FR 7278; 40 CFR 52.22(b)(8))
Union receipt of an application, the Administrator must advise the owner
or operator, within 20 days, of any deficiency in the information submitted
in support of the application. In the event of such a deficiency, the date
of receint of the application shall be the date on which the reouired
information is received by the Administrator.
30 days*
>'
1. The Administrator must make a preliminary determination whether to
approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the indirect source.
2. The Administrator must make available in at least one location in
each affected region: (a) a copy of all materials submitted by the owner or
operator of the source; (b) a copy of the Administrator's preliminary determination;
and (c) a copy or summary of other materials used in making the determination.
3. The public must be notified, by prominent advertisement in the newspaper,
of the opportunity for written public coment. A copy of this notice must be sent
to officials and agencies having cognizance over the location where the indirect
source will be located (state and local air pollution control agencies, the chief
executive of the city and county, any comprehensive regional land use planning
agency, and any local board or committee responsible for activities in the conduct
of the urban transportation planning process).
30 days*
Public comments must be submitted and made available for public inspection.
30 days*
The Administrator must take final action on the application. The applicant
must be notified in writing of approval, conditional approval, or denial, with
reasons for conditional approval or denial. This notification must also be made
available for public inspection.
~Each of the time periods involved in the review process may be extended by the
Administrator by no more than 30 days, or such other period as agreed to by the
applicant and- the Administrator, to allow for more time to make often complex
and difficult technical decisions.
25
-------
QUESTIONS
1. There has been much discussion and disagreement on the subject of EPA's
legal authority to require indirect source review. This authority is
based on:
a. A Supreme Court decision in a suit brought against EPA by a
citizen's group.
b. Section 110 of the Clean Air Act of 1970.
c. An executive order of the President.
2. There has been criticism of EPA's indirect source review regulations. The
critics contend that growth and development will be severely limited and
that EPA is infringing on rights of states and localities in dictating how
their land can be used. In response to this criticism, EPA replies that:
a. The critics are absolutely right, but EPA has no choice.
b. The critics are right, but EPA feels that Federal control is necessary
since states and localities won't do anything on their own.
c. The critics misunderstand the purpose of the regulations, which is
not to limit growth, but to insure that growth and development is
consistent with air quality considerations. EPA encourages states
to develop and implement their own regulations as soon as possible,
so that local situations may be more fully taken into consideration.
3. The sizes of indirect sources subject to review vary depending on whether
they are located within or outside of an SMSA.
True False
4. Which of the following items must be included in the information which the
applicant must submit to the reviewing agency?
a. A map showing the location of the site and the topography of the area.
b. An analysis of the air quality impact of the source.
c. An identification of principal roads, highways, and intersections
to be used by motor vehicles moving to or from the source.
d. An estimate of the maximum number of vehicle trips that would occur
within one-hour and eight-hour periods during the first year after
completion.
e. All of the above.
f. a, c, and d.
26
-------
5. If it is determined that construction or modification of an indirect source
would interfere with attainment or maintenance of a national standard,
approval of the application must be denied. However, certain conditions
relating to air quality aspects may be imposed in order to grant approval
of the application. Which of the following is not a condition allowed by
the regulations?
a. Binding commitments by the owner or operator to specific programs for
mass transit incentives for employees and patrons of the source.
b. Binding commitments by the owner or operator to construct, modify,
or operate the indirect source in such a manner as may be necessary
to achieve the traffic flow characteristics published by EPA.
c. Binding commitments by the owner or operator to conduct post-
construction air quality monitoring.
6. Name the three major automotive-related pollutants discussed in this section.
Which of the three must be analyzed in reviewing all indirect sources?
Which of the three must be analyzed in reviewing airports and large
highways?
7. Select from the following the criteria which must be used by the review
agency in determining the effect of indirect sources on air quality.
a. Will the indirect source be constructed or modified in accordance
with sound design practices to produce traffic flow characteristics
considered necessary by EPA?
b. What will the aggregate impact on air quality be of all emissions
from stationary and mobile sources at an airport and from other
new indirect sources within three mi-les of an airport over the
ten-vear neriod following the comDletion of the airport?
c. As determined by use of an atmospheric diffusion model, what will
be the air quality impact of expected carbon monoxide emissions
resulting from the maximum traffic volume for the ten-year period
following completion of a highway section?
8. The regulations do not provide for adequate opportunity for public comment
on review of applications to construct or modify indirect sources.
True False
27
-------
ANSWERS
1. The answer is (b). Section 110(a)(2)(B) of the Clean Air Act requires
that implementation plans include "... such other measures as may be
necessary to insure attainment and maintenance of such primary and
secondary standard, including, but not limited to, land-use and transportation
controls."
2. The answer is (c).
3. True
4. The answer is (f). The applicant is not required to conduct an analysis of
the air quality impact of the source. Such an analysis should be performed
by the reviewing agency.
5. The answer is (c). The owner or operator cannot be reauired to conduct
post-construction air quality monitoring. If the reviewing agency
considers such monitoring necessary, it should conduct the monitoring.
6. The three pollutants are carbon monoxide, photochemical oxidants, and
nitrogen dioxide.
The pollutant which must be analyzed in alj_ indirect source reviews
is carbon monoxide.
Photochemical oxidants and nitrogen dioxide must be analyzed (in addition
to carbon monoxide) in any review of airports or large highways.
7. All three answers, a, b, and c, are correct.
8. False.
28
-------
COMMON TERMS
AND ABBREVIATIONS
AQCR (Air Quality Control Region)
A qeographic area designated by EPA, or by the State and approved
by EPA, for the purpose of planning a control strateay to
ensure the attainment and maintenance of national ambient air
Quality standards.
AQMA (Air Quality Maintenance Area)
An area designated by an apnropriate state agency and approved by EPA or
desiqnated by EPA as one which has the potential of exceeding a national
ambient air quality standard within the next ten years.
SMSA (Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area)
Defined by the Bureau of the Budget as a county or group of
contiguous counties which contains at least one central city
of 50,000 inhabitants or more or "twin cities" with a combined
population of at least 50,000.
NAAQS {National Ambient Air Quality Standards)
Standards that have been set by EPA for certain pollutants
considered dangerous to the public health or welfare.
AnMP (Air Oualitv Maintenance Plan)
A nlan developed for each desiqnated AQMA to prevent any national standards
from being exceeded over the subsequent ten-year period.
29
-------
REGULATIONS REQUIRING 10-YEAR MAINTENANCE PLANS
Promulgated June 18, 1973
(33 Fix 1jG3G)
(e) The plan shall Identify those areas
(counties, urbanized areas, standard
metropolitan statistical areas, et cetera)
which, due to current air quality and/or
projected giowth late, may have the po-
tential for exceeding any national stand-
ard within the subsequent 10-year period.
(1) For each such area identified, the
plan shall' geneially desenbe the in-
tended method and timing for producing
the analysis and plan required by para-
Si aph (g) of this section
(2) The aiea identification and de-
scription of method and timing required
by this paragiaph shall be submitted no
later than 9 months following the effec-
tive date of this paiagraph.
(3) At 5-year nrteivals, the area iden-
tification shall be reassessed to deter-
mine if additional areas should be sub-
ject to the requirements of paiagraph
(g) of this section
(f) Based on the infoimation sub-
mitted by the States pursuant to para-
graph (e) of this section, the adminis-
trator will publish, within 12 months of
the effective date of this p&iagiaph, a
list of the areas which shall be subject
to the leciunements of paiagraph (g)
of this section.
(g) Foi each area identified by the
administrator pursuant to paragraph
(f) of this section, the State shall submit,
no later than 24 months following the
effective date of this paragraph, the
following:
(1) An analysis of the impact on air
quality of projected growth and develop-
ment over the 10-year period from the
date of submittal.
(2) A plan to prevent any national
standards from being exceeded over the
10-year period from the date of plan
submittal. Such plan shall Include, as
necessary, control strategy revisions
and/or other measures to, insure that
projected growth and development will
be compatible with maintenance of the
national standards throughout such 10-
year period Such plan shall be subject
to the provisions of S 51.6 of this part.
(h) Plans submitted pursuant to par-
agraph (g) of this section shall be re-
analyzed and revised where necessary at
5-year Intervals
3U
-------
TIMETABLE FOR PLAN DEVELOPMENT
May 10, 1974 States' submittal to EPA of identifica-
tion of Air Quality Maintenance Areas
(AQMA's)
Auciust 16, 1974 EPA publication of list of AQMA's
June 18, 1975 States' submittal to EPA of:
(1) Analysis of impact on air quality
of projected growth in AQMA's.
(2) Plan to prevent any national
ambient air quality standard
from being exceeded over the
ensuing 10-year period.
1980, 1985, 1990, etc. Plans to be re-analyzed and revised
where necessary at 5-year intervals.
New AQMA's may be designated.
31
-------
QUESTIONS
1. Match the terms in the first list with the definitions in the
second list below.
a. AQCR
(Air Quality Control Region)
b. AQMA
(Air Quality Maintenance Area)
c. SMSA
(Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area)
d. NAAQS
(National Ambient Air Quality Standards)
e. AQMP
(Air Quality Maintenance Plan)
(1) An area designated by an appropriate state agency and approved
by EPA or designated by EPA as one which has the potential
of exceeding a national ambient air quality standard within the
next ten years.
(2) Standards that have been set by EPA for certain pollutants
considered dangerous to the public health or welfare.
(3) A geographic area designated by EPA, or by the State and
approved by EPA, for the purpose of planning a control
strategy to ensure the attainment and maintenance of
national ambient air quality standards.
(4) A county or group of contiguous counties which contain at
least one central city of 50,000 inhabitants or more or
"twin cities" with a combined population of at least
50,000.
(5) A olan developed for each designated AQMA to prevent any
national standards from being exceeded over the subsequent
ten-year period.
2. Choose the correct sequence in which the following tasks are required
in develoning 10-year maintenance plans.
a. 3, 2, 1, 4
b. 3, 1, 2, 4
c. 1, 2, 3 4
1. States submit to EPA an analysis of AQMAs and 10-year plan.
2. EPA publishes list of designated AQMAs.
3. States submit to EPA their list of AQMAs.
4. Plans are re-analyzed and revised where necessary.
32
-------
ANSWERS
1. a. (3)
b. (1)
c. (4)
d. (2)
e. (5)
2. The answer is (a).
33
-------
DESIGNATION
OF
AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE AREAS
Each state must designate areas in which there is potential for
exceeding a national standard within the next 10 years. All state
and local agencies concerned should be consulted before final designa-
tions are made.
-------
INITIAL DESIGNATION CRITERIA
Elimination of Obvious Non-Problem Areas
SMSA's which meet the following criteria may be automatically excluded
from consideration as an AQMA for the particular pollutant; supporting
information must substantiate this exclusion.
1. Particulate Matter
SMSA's which are located in AQCR's where data for the past two years
indicates the AQCR is below all NAAQS.
2. Sulfur Dioxide
SMSA's which are located in AQCR's where data for the past two
years indicates that the AQCR is below all NAAQS and the product of (a)
the air quality concentration in the base year and (b) the relative growth
in SMSA total earnings between the base year and 1985 is less than the NAAQS.
3. Carbon Monoxide
SMSA's whose CO concentration varies from 10 to 35 ppm (8-hour
concentration) depending upon the mix of light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles
in use in the area. To determine which SMSA's would be excluded from consid-
eration as an AQMA:
, . . Sa) Estimate the percent contribution of CO emissions from light-
duty vehicles (LDV) to total mobile source CO emissions on heavily used,
central city streets; choose the LDV contribution which is representative
of the local area in the vicinity of the air quality monitoring site.
(b) Locate the point on the graph on page 36 corresponding to the
highest measured 8-hour CO concentration in the central city in 1970 and the LDV
contribution to local mobile source emissions estimated under (a) above.
(c) If the intersection determined in (b)} above, lies on or below
the curve, the area may be automatically eliminated from consideration as an
AQMA; if the point lies above the curve, a more in-depth analysis would be required.
4. Photochemical Oxidants
SMSA's
(a) which have no transportation control strategy for photochemical
oxidants and
(b) which are located in AQCR's with a maximum 1-hour oxidant concen-
tration of less than 320 yg/m during the past two years.
5. Nitrogen Dioxide
SMSA's not designated by the inclusion criteria in #5 on page 37.
35
-------
o
4->
fO
E
s-
C /—N
+->
o. c
c
o
(V
m • f—
o
c
"O fO
o
¦f- s-
o
X +->
o c
c
£ <1)
o
O O
*r~
s: c
to
o
Z3
c o
1—
o
o
-Q i-
X
S- 3
LU
rt3 O
o -c
i
U
C_>
EXCLUSION CRITERION FOR CARBON MONOXIDE AS A
FUNCTION OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF EMISSIONS BETWEEN
LIGHT- AND HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES ON LOCAL STREETS
CLOSE TO THE AIR SAMPLING SITE BEING EVALUATED
Percent of local mobile source emissions contributed
by light-duty vehicles
-------
INITIAL DESIGNATION CRITEPIA (CONT'D)
Inclusion of Obvious Problem Areas
Areas which meet any one of the following criteria should be
designated, in whole or at least in part, as an AQMA for the
particular pollutant.
1. Particulate Matter
Areas within AQCR's which are not projected to attain the NAAQS
for particulate matter by 1985.
2. Sulfur Dioxide
Areas within AOCR's which are not projected to attain the NAAQS
for sulfur dioxide by 1985.
3. Carbon Monoxide
No automatic inclusion criteria.
4. Photochemical Oxidants
Any areas for which a transportation control strategy for
photochemical oxidants is required.
5. Nitrogen Dioxide
The appropriate parts of those SMSA's whose central cities are
Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Denver, and Salt Lake City.
37
-------
GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS TO CONSIDER
SMSA's (Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas) should generally be
analyzed for the following reasons:
1. SMSA's have higher growth rates of population than other areas.
2. SMSA's have the highest concentrations of population and
industry.
3. Projections of population and economic indicators are
available for SMSA's.
4. SMSA's change with time as population density increases.
5. SMSA's include about 70 percent of the nation's population
but only about 10 percent of total land areas.
AREAS WHICH MIGHT BE USED FOR DESIGNATION
Air Quality Control Regions
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas
Urbanized Areas
Counties
Groupings of:
Planning regions used for transportation,
land-use, or other planning
Sub-state planning districts
-------
AQMA BOUNDARIES
Emissions
Particulate
Matter
AQMA
11V II
CO
Emissions
YES
AQMA "X" has been designated
as having a potential pollution
problem from emissions of
sulfur dioxide, particulates,
and carbon monoxide.
Emissions/
AQMA
"C"
Particulate!
Matter
CO
Emissions
NO
AQMA "A" has been designated as
having a potential pollution
problem from emissions of sulfur
dioxide.
AQMA "B" has been designated as
having a potential pollution
problem from emissions of
particulates.
AQMA "C" has been designated as
having a potential pollution
problem from emissions of carbon
monoxide.
39
-------
NAAQS TO BE CONSIDERED IN AQMA DESIGNATION*
Pollutant
Primary Secondary
Particulate matter
(a) 75 yg/m3, annual 150 yg/m3, second highest
geometric mean 24-hr average per year
(b) 260 vig/m3, second high-
est 24-hr average per
year
Sulfur dioxide
(a) 80 yg/m3, annual arith- 1300 yg/m3, second highest
metic mean 3-hour average per year
(b) 365 yg/m3, second high-
est 24-hr average per
year
Carbon monoxide
10 mg/m3, second highest 0-hour average per year
Photochemical
oxidants
160 yg/m3, second highest 1-hour average per year
Nitrogen dioxide
100 ug/m3, annual arithmetic average
*A1though States may designate on the basis of air quality standards
more stringent than the national ambient air quality standards, EPA
itself will, should the occasion ever arise, only act to the extent
necessary to insure attainment of the national standards.
40
-------
FACTORS THAT AFFECT THE DECISION
FOR AQMA BOUNDARIES
1. AQMA should include all of the territory which shares a common
air envelope.
2. Areas previously designated by various agencies may be used.
3. Inclusion of large rural areas in an AQMA may not be desirable.
4. Common boundary lines for AQMA's and one or some combination of
jurisdictional areas of implementing agencies may have merit
from an operational point of view.
5. Long-range transport of pollutants is a matter of concern.
6. The influence of topography and geography on dispersion of
pollutants and on overall community growth patterns should
be considered.
7. Although the AQMA designation should be based on presently
available land use, transportation, and other plans because
of time constraints, it should be compatible with any future
community planning activity.
41
-------
AOMA DESIGNATIONS
ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE
The May 1974 designation of boundaries of an AOMA will
not preclude changes in such boundaries at the time that more
detailed air quality analyses and abatement/maintenance plans
are submitted in 1975.
Areas designated in May or Auaust of 1974 may be
"de-designated" if subsequent, more detailed analyses indicate
that the standards will not be jeopardized in the ensuing
10-year period.
ASSUMPTIONS CONCERNING FUEL AVAILABILITY AND EMISSION AND
AIR QUALITY BASELINES MUST BE MADE IN AQMA DESIGNATION.
42
-------
SUMMARY OF AQMA DESIGNATIONS FOR STATE OF
Area*
•3
Reason Not
Designated**
Reason
Designated**
Designation for
TSP
so2
CO
Ox
no2
, .
*Must include at least all SMSA's within the state
~~Reasons would be either "Initial Criteria" or "Actual Projection"
43
-------
QUESTIONS
1. Identify the followina statements as true or false.
a. The first task in designation of AQMA's is to determine
which areas are obvious problem areas and which are
obvious non-problem areas.
True False
b. SMSA's located in AQCR's where data for the past two
years indicates the AQCR is below all NAAQS for particulates
are obvious problem areas.
True False
c. There are no automatic inclusion data to identify obvious
problem areas for carbon monoxide.
True False
d. Any areas for which a transportation control strategy is
required for photochemical oxidants are obvious problem areas.
True False
2. Which of the following statements are reasons for always considering
SMSA's for designation as AQMA's?
a. SMSA's have higher growth rates of population than other
areas.
b. Projections of population and economic indicators are
available for SMSA's.
c. SMSA's include about 70 percent of the nation's population
but only about 10 percent of total land areas.
d. All of the above.
e. a and c above
3. AQMA designations should be pollutant-specific and analysis should be
done for only those pollutants specified.
True Falsp
il. Which of the factors listed below is (are) not important in the
designation of AQMA's?
a. NAAQS for five pollutants
b. Interstate cooneration
c. Fuel availabilitv and use
d. Emission and air oualitv baselines
e. None of the above
44
-------
5. The five pollutants for which standards have been set that must
be considered in the designation of AQMA's are:
a. particulates, carbon monoxide, ohotochemical oxidants,
sulfur dioxide, and nitrooen dioxide
b. particulates, carbon monoxide, photochemical oxidants,
sulfur dioxide, and hydrocarbons
c. particulates, carbon monoxide, photochemical oxidants,
nitrogen dioxide, and hydrocarbons.
6. When an Air Quality Maintenance Area is designated by the names of
existing areas (political or non-political),
a. is a detailed analysis of the entire AQMA required?
YES NO
b. must the 10-year plan apply to the entire AQMA?
YES NO
45
-------
ANSWERS
1.
?. True
b. False
c. True
d. True
2.
The answer
is
(d).
3.
True
4.
The answer
is
(e).
5.
The answer
is
(a).
6.
(a) NO
(b) NO
46
-------
(=
A
Ik?
frPi
~
D
(B
w
L
w
W
M
Significant Deterioration
of Air Quality
^t0SX
/» r Office of Airand Waste Management
I | Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
| ^\i^7 § Control Programs Development Division
Air PollutionTraining Institute 1974
^ PRO^°
-------
This unit, "Significant Deterioration of Air Quality," is
part of the course Topics in Air Pollution Control (SI 428)
developed by the Instructional Development Section of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Air Pollution
Training Institute at Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
This unit, like the others consists of an audio cassette
tape and this booklet. BOTH THE TAPE AND THIS BOOKLET MUST
BE USED SIMULTANEOUSLY -- students are referred to appropriate
sections of the booklet by the narrator of the recorded
presentation.
i
-------
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION OF AIR QUALITY
OBJECTIVES
After completing this unit you should be able to:
1. State that in its "Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal
of Implementation Plans" EPA stipulated that plans for regions with air
quality better than the secondary standards must ensure that the air
quality does not exceed those secondary standards.
2. State that the Sierra Club and other petitioners asked the U.S. District
Court to invalidate the portion of EPA's regulations cited above and to
prevent the EPA Administrator from approving implementation plans that
did not contain adequate provisions for preventing significant deterioration
of air quality.
3. State that the U.S. District Court issued the requested injunction and
that the Court's decision was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals and
the U.S. Supreme Court.
4. Briefly describe two of the arguments raised by EPA in support of its
position that the Clean Air Act does not require States to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality.
5. State that the significant deterioration issue was a question of
interpretation of the intent of Congress as expressed in the Clean
Air Act rather than a question to be resolved on the basis of factual
issues. EPA and others believe that the matter of interpretation has
not been completely resolved. Explain why.
6. Describe each of the four regulations proposed by EPA to prevent
significant deterioration and discuss the advantages and disadvantages
associated with each.
1
-------
CHRONOLOGY OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION LITIGATION
AND EPA ACTIONS
May 24, 1972
May 30, 1972
November 1, 1972
November 9, 1972
(37 FR 23836)
December 4, 1972
June 11, 1973
July 16, 1973
(38 FR 18986)
"Sierra Club, et al. v. William D. Ruckelshaus"
filed in U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia (Case No. 1031-72)
DECISION: Preliminary injunction requiring the
EPA Administrator to review all State implementation
plans, to disapprove all plans that fail to prevent
the significant deterioration of air quality, and to
promulgate regulations for the disapproved portions
of State plans.
U.S. District Court decision upheld upon appeal by
EPA by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia (Case No. 72-1528)
EPA disapproved all State implementation plans with
respect to significant deterioration
EPA petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of
certiorari (call for the record of the lower court
proceedings for the purpose of review). This was
granted the following month, and EPA, the Sierra
Club, and others presented arguments to the Supreme
Court.
U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the lower court decision
by a tie vote. Because of the tie vote, the Court
did not issue an opinion. Thus, no specific guidance
as to the precise meaning of "significant" deterioration
was provided by the Court.
EPA proposed four alternative regulations for the
prevention of significant deterioration.
2
-------
PURPOSE OF THE 1967 AIR QUALITY ACT
AND THE 1970 CLEAN AIR ACT
Section 110(b)
THE PURPOSES OF THIS TITLE ARE (1) TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE
THE QUALITY OF THE NATION'S AIR RESOURCES SO AS TO PROMOTE
THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE AND THE PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY
OF ITS POPULATION
3
-------
EXAMPLES OF STATEMENTS CITED BY THE SIERRA CLUB
IN SUPPORT OF ITS INTERPRETATION OF THE
CLEAN AIR ACT
Senate Report No. 403, 90th Congress (1967)
The prime purpose of the proposed legislation [1967 Air Quality Act] is to
strengthen the Clean Air Act [of 1963], to expedite a national program of air
quality improvement, and to enhance the quality of the atmosphere against long-
term hazards and immediate danger . . .
The Air Quality Act of 1967, therefore, serves notice that no one has the
right to use the atmosphere as a garbage dump, and that there will be no haven
for polluters anywhere in the country.
National Air Pollution Control Administration (NAPCA)
Guidelines for the Development of Air Quality Standards (1969)
An explicit purpose of the [1967 Air Quality] Act is "to protect and enhance
the quality of the Nation's air resources." Air quality standards which, even if
fully implemented, would result in significant deterioration of air quality in any
substantial portions of an air quality region clearly would conflict with this
expressed purpose of the law.
Statement of HEW Secretary Robert Finch to
Subcommittees of the House of Representatives and the Senate (1970)
Concerning the Proposed 1970 Clean Air Act
One of the express purposes of the Clean Air Act is "to protect and enhance
the quality of the Nation's air resources." Accordingly, it has been and will
continue to be our view that implementation plans that would permit significant
deterioration of air quality in any area would be in conflict with this provision
of the Act. We shall continue to expect States to maintain air of good quality
where it now exists.
Testimony of HEW Under Secretary John G. Veneman
Before the Senate Subcomnittee on Air and Water Pollution (1970)
We do not intend to condone "backsliding". If an area has air quality which
is better than the national standards, they would be required to stay there and not
pollute the air even further, even though they may be below the national standards.
Senate Report No. 1196, 91st Congress (1970)
Concerning Proposed 1970 Clean Air Act
In areas where current air pollution levels are already equal to, or better
than, the air quality goals, the Secretary should not approve any implementation plan
which does not provide, to the maximum extent practicable, for the continued
maintenance of such ambient air quality. Once such national goals are established,
deterioration of air quality should not be permitted except under circumstances
where 1here is no available alternative. Given the various alternative means of
preventing and controlling air pollution—including the use of the best available
control technology, industrial processes, and operating practices—and c^re in the
selection of sites for new sources, land use planning and traffic controls-
deterioration need not occur.
4
-------
EPA REGULATIONS INTERPRETED BY THE SIERRA CLUB TO BE
POLICY STATEMENTS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
Promulgation of National Ambient Air Quality Standards
April 30, 1971 (36 FR 8186)
40 CFR 50.2(c)
THE PROMULGATION OF NATIONAL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY AMBIENT
AIR QUALITY STANDARDS SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED IN ANY MANNER
TO ALLOW SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION OF EXISTING AIR QUALITY
IN ANY PORTION OF ANY STATE.
(The Sierra Club says this prohibits
significant deterioration in any part
of the country.)
Promulgation of Requirements for Preparation, Adoption,
and Submittal of Implementation Plans
August 14, 1971 (36 FR 15486)
40 CFR 51.12(b)
IN ANY REGION WHERE MEASURED OR ESTIMATED AMBIENT LEVELS
OF A POLLUTANT ARE BELOW THE LEVELS SPECIFIED BY AN
APPLICABLE SECONDARY STANDARD, THE PLAN SHALL SET FORTH
A CONTROL STRATEGY WHICH SHALL BE ADEQUATE TO PREVENT
SUCH AMBIENT POLLUTION LEVELS FROM EXCEEDING SUCH SECONDARY
STANDARD.
(The Sierra Club says (1) this allows
significant deterioration in all areas
of the country with clean air; (2) this
contradicts earlier statements by EPA;
(3) this violates the stated purpose
of the Clean Air Act. Sierra Club asked
the U.S. District Court to invalidate
this portion of the regulation.)
5
-------
EPA'S ARGUMENTS APPLEALING THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT'S DECISION
TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
EPA POSITION
THE CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1970 REQUIRE THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY TO APPROVE STATE PLANS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NATIONAL AIR
QUALITY STANDARDS WHICH ENFORCE THOSE STANDARDS WITHIN THE STATE, WHETHER OR NOT
THEY PERMIT DETERIORATION OF EXISTING AIR QUALITY WHICH IS CLEANER THAN REQUIRED
BY THE NATIONAL STANDARDS.
ISSUE
"The issue before this court is whether the Administrator must also require the
State implementation plans to protect not only the public welfare as broadly defined
in the Act, but also against unanticipated effects, or effects adverse not to the
public welfare, but to some other interests."
ARGUMENTS
A. THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE ACT REQUIRES THE ADMINISTRATOR TO APPROVE STATE
PLANS WHICH MEET THE NATIONAL STANDARDS
Sections 109 (establishment of national primary and secondary ambient air
quality standards), 110 (requirements for State implementation plans), and
111 (establishment of national standards of performance for certain major
sources of air pollution) provide the means by which Congress intended to
protect and enhance the Nation's air resources. Section 116 specifically
reserves to the State the right to apply more stringent controls if they
wish to achieve or maintain air quality better than the national standards
require.
B. THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT CORROBORATES ITS PLAIN MEANING
The Act is concerned with air pollution which endangers the health and welfare.
Implementation plans are required only for those air quality regions which
must achieve standards established to protect the health (primary standards)
and welfare (secondary standards). "Nothing in the Act or its history,
therefore, indicates that Congress, by the 1970 Amendments, intended to
require that state-wide plans should prevent the significant deterioration
of existing air quality in any part of the State."
C. THE DECISION [OF THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT] IS CONTRARY TO THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
REGULATIONS
There is no inconsistency between 40 CFR 50.2(c) (statement in EPA's regulations
promulgating national primary and secondary standards) and 40 CFR 51.12(b)
(statement in EPA*s "Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal
of Implementation Plans"). The first statement, interpreted by the Sierra
Club as prohibiting significant deterioration, merely stipulated that promul-
gation of standards was not intended to preempt the State's right to establish
more strinqent standards. The second statement 1s the Administrator's Inter-
pretation of his authority and responsibility under the Clean Air Act.
D. THE INTERPRETATION ADOPTED BY THE IU.S. DISTRICT COURT] WOULD IMPAIR, RATHER
THAN PROMOTE, ACHIEVEMENT OF THE ACT'S POLICY OBJECTIVES.
6
-------
CLEAN AIR ACT EXCERPTS
CITED BY EPA AS "OPERATIVE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT PRESCRIBING THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
RESPONSIBILITY WITH RESPECT TO STATE PLANS IMPLEMENTING THE NATIONAL PRIMARY
AND SECONDARY STANDARDS"
Air Quality Standards
Sec. 109(b)(1) National primary ambient air quality standards . . . shall be
ambient air quality standards the attainment and maintenance of which in the
judgment of the Administrator, . . . allowing an adequate margin of safety,
are requisite to protect the public health ... (2) Any national secondary
ambient air quality standard . . . shall specify a level of air quality the
attainment and maintenance of which in the judgment of the Administrator . . .
is requisite to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated
adverse effects associated with the presence of such air pollutant In the
ambient air . . .
Sec. 302(h) All language referring to effects on welfare includes, but is not
limited to, effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made materials,
animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate, damage to and deterioration
of property, and hazards to transportation, as well as effects on economic
values and on personal comfort and well-being.
Implementation Plans
Sec. 110(a)(1) Each State shall . . . adopt and submit to the Administrator . . .
a plan which provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of
such primary standard in each air quality control region (or portion thereof)
within such State. In addition, such State shall adopt and submit to the
Administrator ... a plan which provides for implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement of such secondary standard in each air quality control region
(or portion thereof) within such State . . .
Sec. 110(a)(2) . . . The Administrator shall approve such plan, or any portion
thereof, if he determines that it was adopted after reasonable notice and
hearing and that—
(A)(i) in the case of a plan implementing a national primary ambient
air quality standard, it provides for the attainment of such primary
standard as expeditiously as practicable but . . . in no case later
than three years from the date of approval of such plan . . . and (ii)
in the case of a plan implementing a national secondary ambient air
quality standard, it specifies a reasonable time at which such secondary
standard will be attained;
(B) it includes emission limitations, schedules, and timetables for
compliance with such limitations, and such other measures as may be
necessary to insure attainment and maintenance of such primary or
secondary standard, including, but not limited to, land-use and trans-
portation controls;
[Other conditions for implementation plan approval are specified in
Sec. 110(a)(2)(C) - 110(a)(2)(H)]
7
-------
CLEAN AIR ACT EXCERPTS (CONT'D.)
New Source Performance Standards
Sec. 111(a)(1) The term 'standard of performance' means a standard for
emission of air pollutants which reflects the degree of emission limitation
achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction
which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction) the Administrator
determines has been adequately demonstrated.
Sec. 111(b)(1)(A) The Administrator shall . . . publish ... a list of
categories of stationary sources. He shall include a category of sources
in such list if he determines it may contribute to the endangerment of public
health or welfare. (B) . . . the Administrator shall propose regulations,
establishing Federal standards of performance for new sources within such
category. The Administrator shall afford interested persons an opportunity
for written cormient on such proposed regulations. After considering such
comments, he shall promulgate . . . such standards . . .
State Authority
Sec, 116 Except as otherwise provided in sections 209, 211(c)(4), and 233
(preempting certain State regulation of moving sources) nothing in this Act
shall preclude or deny the right of any State or political subdivision thereof
to adopt or enforce (1) any standard or limitation respecting emission of air
pollutants or (2) any requirement respecting control or abatement of air
pollution; except that if an emissions standard or limitation is in effect
under an applicable implementation plan or under section 111 or 112 [hazardous
pollutant emission standards], such State or political subdivision may not
adopt or enforce any emission standard or limitation which is less stringent
than the standard of limitation under such plan or section.
8
-------
PROPOSED REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
Proposed July 16, 1973
(38 FR 18986)
GENERAL APPROACH Economic growth need not be unduly limited.
Courts required a policy to prevent
significant deterioration; they did not
require a policy of non-deterioration.
CONSIDERATIONS 1.
Definition of "significant" - a quantitative
definition would fall between zero deterior-
ation and deterioration up to the secondary
standards.
2. Pol 1utants - Each proposal requires best
available control technology for control
of S0o> particulates, CO, HC, and NO .
Review of sources to determine the' impact
on air quality or pmissions is based on
S02 and particulates only.
3. Balance between economic growth and
prevention of significant deterioration -
Philosophy for preventing significant
deterioration should be enforced uniformly
throughout the country (e.g., through
application of best available control
technology) even though the definition
of significant deterioration could include
regional variations.
4. Relationship of best available control
technology to new source performance
standards and significant deterioration -
Usually compliance with NSPS = BACT. But
a case-by-case analysis is required for
fossil-fuel fired steam electric plants
to determine if additional controls are
needed for plants using low-sulfur fuel.
5. Baseline - 1972 selected.
9
-------
SOURCES SUBJECT TO NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROCEDURES
• Fossil-fuel fired steam electric
plants of more than 1,000 million
B.t.u. per hour heat input
• Coal cleaning plants (thermal dryers)
• Kraft pulp mill recovery furnaces
• Portland cement plants
• Primary zinc smelters
• Iron and steel mill metallurgical furnaces
• Primary aluminum ore reduction plants
• Primary copper smelters
• Municipal incinerators capable of charging
more than 250 tons of refuse per day
• Sulfuric acid plants
• Petroleum refineries
• Lime plants
• Phosphate rock processing plants
• By-product coke oven batteries
• Sulfur recovery plants
• Carbon black plants (furnace process)
¦ Any other source having a total annual
potential emission rate on any premises
equal to or greater than 4,000 tons for
S02> particulates, N0X, CO, HC.
10
-------
BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CONSIDERATIONS
o Reasonably available control technology
as defined in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix B
• The process, fuels, and raw materials employed
« The engineering aspects of the applications
of various types of control techniques
© Process and fuel changes
• Cost of the application of the control techniques,
process changes, alternative fuels, etc.
11
-------
I
AIR QUALITY INCREMENT PLAN
PHILOSOPHY "Significant" deterioration can be defined as an incremental
increase in pollution levels; such an increment is applicable
to all sections of the country, provided that it does not
result in violation of the secondary ambient air quality
standards.
ALLOWABLE INCREMENTS
PARTICULATE MATTER SULFUR DIOXIDE
3 3
10 pg/m , annual geometric mean 15 pg/m , annual arithmetic mean
3 ?
30 pg/m , 24-hour maximum 100 pg/m , 24-hour maximum
3
300 pg/m , 3-hour maximum
NEW SOURCE REVIEW: Source must meet emission limitations representing BACT
and must not cause air pollution levels to increase more
than the allowable increments. State determination to
allow a source to construct is subject to approval 'by EPA.
ADVANTAGES: Would not totally prevent economic development in
clean areas of the country
Would force large sources to apply increasingly
effective control techniques and thereby encourage
sources to engage in research and development in
the area of control technology
Would prevent construction of sources in areas with
poor dispersion characteristics
Would prevent the clustering of large sources
DISADVANTAGES: Application of a single definition of significant
deterioration nationwide results in arbitrary treatment
of all clean areas regardless of their use
Implementation of this plan could result in the clean
areas remaining clean at the expense of already highly
developed areas
12
-------
II
EMISSION LIMITATION PLAN
PHILOSOPHY By limiting emissions at the source and emission density,
air quality can be controlled and significant deterioration
prevented.
ESTABLISHMENT OF
CEILING: 1. Baseline annual emissions of S02 and particulates to
be calculated, averaged over an Air Quality Control
Region (AQCR). NOTE: States may combine small
AQCRs or subdivide large ones.
2. Ceiling = 20% over the baseline emissions or a level
based on emission density, whichever is larger.
Emission density factors are:
SO2 10 tons/year/sq. mi.
Particulates 3 tons/year/sq. mi.
NEW SOURCE REVIEW: Source must meet emission limitations representing BACT
and must not cause increased emissions in an area beyond
allowable amounts. State determination to allow a source
to construct is subject to approval by EPA.
ADVANTAGES: Each Air Quality Control Region would be given considerable
flexibility in the selection and location of new sources
State would have the authority to determine how emission
density should be distributed
L
13
-------
Ill
LOCAL DEFINITION PLAN
Since the definition of significant deterioration is
subjective and dependent upon many factors which vary
from region to region, the definition should be made
by the State with public participation
1. Application of best available control technology
to major sources
2. Proposed new sources must submit detailed information
to the State describing projected emissions and the
estimated impact of emissions on air quality
3. 30-day public coimient period, full disclosure of
source and State generated information about expected
emissions and the impact on air quality
4. The State determines, after the public comment period,
if the source would cause significant deterioration
of air quality. After making this determination,
detailed information must be submitted to EPA.
NEW SOURCE REVIEW: The State's determination of what constitutes significant
deterioration is final. EPA may not overrule the State's
decision to permit construction of a source but reserves
the right to disapprove the State's determination of what
constitutes best available control technology and to
disapprove procedures by which the determination of
significant deterioration was made.
ADVANTAGES The local government and citizens most affected by decisions
concerning prevention of significant deterioration would
make the decisions, ensuring that local requirements and
preferences are considered.
Economic growth is not arbitrarily restricted because
of decisions made at the national level.
DISADVANTAGES State and local agencies and citizens could be subject to
industry pressures.
Current air quality is essentially the baseline against
which significant deterioration is measured - because
sources are reviewed and significant deterioration defined
on a case-by-case basis.
Since the long-range impact of deterioration is not
necessarily confined to a local area, emissions from a
growth-oriented area could interfere with air quality in
neighboring areas.
PHILOSOPHY
REQUIREMENTS
14
-------
IV
AREA CLASSIFICATION PLAN
PHILOSOPHY
Attempts to combine the feature of a national definition of
significant deterioration (as in the Air Quality Increment
Plan) with flexibility for State determination of priorities
and preferences as to economic growth and land use (as in
the Local Definition Plan)
ALLOWABLE AIR
QUALITY INCREMENTS
PARTICULATES
Annual geometric mean
24-hour maximum
SULFUR DIOXIDE
Annual arithmetic mean
24-hour maximum
3-hour maximum
ZONE I
5 yg/m^
10 ug/m
2 ng/m3
5 ug/n-i
25 pg/m
ZONE II
10 yg/nu
30 ug/nr
15 ug/nu
100 ug/m-,
300 yg/m
REQUIREMENTS
NEW SOURCE REVIEW:
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
1. All areas of the country would be designated Zone II as of
the effective date of the regulations. Within 6 months
the State would hold public hearings and determine which
areas should be designated Zone I. The determinations
would be submitted to EPA. EPA would not be able to over-
rule zoning classifications made by the State but could
disapprove procedures followed in making these determinations.
2. Exceptions to the allowable increments could be made under
certain circumstances. Decisions would have to be made on
a case-by-case basis with public hearings held in the affected
areas. Specific EPA approval for such exceptions would be
required.
3. New source review procedures would be the same as for the
Air Quality Increment Plan as would the requirements for
sources to submit information to the State, to install
monitoring equipment, and to report measurement data to the
State on a semiannual basis.
Source must meet emission limitations representative of BACT.
State determination to allow a new source to construct is subject
to EPA approval.
Emphasis is placed on long-range planning
Provides the State with flexibility to meet long-range growth goals
The plan would force the States to make difficult long-range
planning decisions in a very short time frame (6 months)
There could be boundary problems between Zone I and Zone II ar.
15
-------
PROBLEMS COMMON TO ALL FOUR PROPOSED REGULATIONS
JURISDICTIONAL AMBIGUITIES
DE FACTO LAND USE DECISIONS
IMPACT OF URBAN SPRAWL
IMPACT OF FUEL SWITCHING
RIGHT OF REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY
A source permitted to locate in one
State could deteriorate the air quality
in a neighboring State.
Without State legislation describing
the amount and type of developmental
growth that should be allowed, the
allowable deterioration increment or
ceiling could be used up quickly on
a first come, first served basis.
If the pattern of urban sprawl into
relatively clean surrounding areas
continues, the associated residential
heating and many small emission sources
will gradually deteriorate air quality
in these areas and use up a substantial
portion of the allowable deterioration
increment.
The supply of low-sulfur fuel is
generally sufficient for the attainment
and maintenance of air quality standards
but is not sufficient to satisfy the
needs of all potential users. Thus,
sources in clean areas are likely to
be required to use higher-sulfur fuel,
at least on a temporary basis, to make the
fuel supply available to sources in areas
where air quality could have an adverse
effect on health.
Power plants increasingly are locating
in suburban or other non-urban areas
and providing power to large urban areas.
Significant deterioration regulations
could restrict location of power plants
in many areas to the extent that these
areas could not supply their own energy
needs.
16
-------
COMMENTS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO PROPOSED REGULATIONS
GENERAL
Congress should be asked to clarify the language of the Clean Air Act
before EPA takes any action. Particularly, Congress should confine the
Federal role to attainment and maintenance of national ambient air quality
standards.
BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
The power plant industry objected to the provision that power plants might
be required to apply more controls than the new source performance standards
require.
Economic considerations should be more of a factor in determination of
best available control technology.
Best available control technology is sufficient to prevent significant
deterioration.
The definition of best available control technology is not stringent enough.
REGULATIONS
The regulations would not enhance the "productive capacity" of the nation.
Growth would be restricted to metropolitan areas. Clean areas would be at
an economic disadvantage.
The petroleum industry argued that restrictions on growth in non-park
clean areas could worsen the fuel supply problem because the majority
of fuel supplies and other resources are located in these areas.
Industry argued that compliance with secondary air quality standards
would be sufficient to prevent significant deterioration, especially
since States are free to set more stringent requirements if they wish.
Environmentalists expressed concern that significant adverse effects
could occur at levels below the secondary standards.
The regulations as proposed would put EPA in the land use planning
business, which is not within its jurisdiction. $
Air quality should not be the only determinant of land use.
EPA should provide better guidelines on land use planning.
17
-------
COMMENTS (CONTD.)
SOURCES AND POLLUTANTS COVERED BY THE REGULATIONS
Mobile sources and indirect sources should be considered for review
as well as the specified stationary sources. Thus carbon monoxide,
hydrocarbons, and oxides of nitrogen ceilings should be established.
The 4,000 tons/year emissions classification for sources subject to
review prior to construction does not account for different degrees
of individual pollutant effects and is therefore arbitrary.
BASELINE
I
The 1972 baseline is inappropriate because of the problems with data
availability and with modeling techniques. Environmentalists favored
an earlier baseline.
The 6 months lead time for setting zones under" the Area Classification
Plan is too short.
SUMMARY OF RESPONDENTS' ENDORSEMENTS OF PLANS
PONS
I
II
III
IV
No
Endorsement
Industry
Government Agencies
Private Citizens
Environmental Groups
Miscellaneous
8
5
8
2
10
45*
27
3
1
2
3
10
3
9
78
3
44
42
16
TOTAL
23
18
78
25
183
~Although 45 respondents indicated preference for this plan, only 5 actually
endorsed it.
18
-------
STATUS OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION REGULATIONS
Four regulations were proposed on July 16, 1973.
EPA has studied the comments received and is now in the process of
developinq final regulations in light of the comments. These regulations
are expected to be promulgated (or proposed, if solicitation of public
comment is considered appropriate), in the near future.
Congress may review the issue of significant deterioration.
The Clean Air Act may be amended to specifically allow deteriora-
tion to the level of secondary standards; it may be amended to more
specifically define significant deterioration.
When regulations are promulgated, they will take the form of revisions
to 40 CFR 52 ("Aoproval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans").
Subsequently guidelines will be published as 40 CFR 51 ("Requirements
for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans") to
assist the States in revising their implementation plans to include
orovisions to prevent significant deterioration.
19
-------
QUESTIONS
1. Which of the following portions of EPA's regulations did the Sierra
Club petition the Court to invalidate?
a. 40 CFR 50.2(c): "The promulgation of national primary and
secondary ambient air quality standards shall not be considered
in any manner to allow significant deterioration of existing air
quality in any portion of any State."
b. 40 CFR 51.12(b): "In any region where measured or estimated
ambient levels of a pollutant are below the levels specified
by an applicable secondary standard, the plan shall set forth
a control strategy which shall be adequate to prevent such
ambient pollution levels from exceeding such secondary
standard."
Explain why.
2. Select the statement or statements which accurately describe the ruling
of the U.S. District Court in "Sierra Club et al. v. William D. Ruckelshaus."
a. Ordered EPA to require States to develop strategies for preventing
any deterioration of 1972 air quality levels.
b. Ordered EPA to review State Implementation Plans and to disapprove
any portion of a State plan'that does not effectively prevent
significant deterioration of existing air quality in any portion
of the State.
c. Ordered EPA to propose and promulgate regulations to prevent
significant deterioration for any State whose plan permits
deterioration.
d. Ordered EPA to disapprove all State Implementation Plans.
e. All of the above.
3. EPA appealed the U.S. District Court's significant deterioration decision
to the U.S. Court of Appeals and to the U.S. Supreme Court. Both higher
courts upheld the District Court's ruling. TRUE FALSE _____
20
-------
4. EPA1s case against the Sierra Club's position on significant deterioration
included which of the following arguments:
a. The Clean Air Act requires EPA to approve and promulgate State
implementation plans designed to achieve and maintain primary
and secondary air quality standards. It does not authorize
EPA to require States to maintain air quality that is better
than the secondary standards.
b. New source performance standards will prevent major industries
from locating in clean areas and significantly deteriorating air
quality in those areas.
c. A prohibition against significant deterioration in clean areas
of the country will delay achievement of primary and secondary
standards in heavily polluted urban areas.
d. All of the above.
5. The court decided the issue of significant deterioration on the basis of
facts, such as that deterioration up to the level of the secondary standards
would allow an increase of pollutants in clean areas that could be harmful
to health or vegetation, or that deterioration would impose an economic
burden on clean areas. TRUE FALSE
6. Each of the four proposed regulations pertaining to significant
deterioration includes which of the following requirements:
a. Imposition of one ceiling on allowable deterioration, defined
as a percentage increase in ambient pollution levels over the
1972 levels.
b. Application of the best available control technology to major new
stationary sources of pollution.
c. State review of major new stationary sources prior to construction
to prevent construction if emissions from the source would cause
significant deterioration of air quality in the area in which it
would be located.
d. Review of large new parking lots, shopping centers, airports, sports
stadiums, etc., prior to construction to determine if the automobile
traffic attracted by these sources would cause levels of carbon
monoxide, hydrocarbons, and oxides of nitrogen to increase enough
to exceed significant deterioration ceilings established for these
pollutants.
e. Opportunity for public comment prior to decisions to allow major
new sources to construct.
f. EPA approval of the State decisions to allow major new stationary
sources to locate within the State.
g. None of the above.
Zl
-------
For each of the following features of the four proposed regulations, indicate
the proposed plan it is associated with by writing
a_ for Air Quality Increment Plan
b for Emission Limitation Plan
c for Local Definition Plan
cT for Area Classification Plan
7. Significant deterioration is defined for all areas of the country as more
than 120% of the 1972 emissions of sulfur dioxide and particulates,
averaged over an Air Quality Control Region (or combination or subdivision
thereof).
8. The baseline year against which significant deterioration is measured
is not defined by EPA.
9. Significant deterioration is defined for all areas of the country as an
increase in ambient concentrations of sulfur dioxide and particulates over
1972 levels in excess of the following limits:
3
Sulfur dioxide 15 yg/rru (annual average)
100 pg/m- (24-hour average)
300 ug/m (3-hour average)
3
Particulates 10 yg/m~ (annual average)
30 ug/m (24-hour average)
10.. Emphasizes long-range land use planning on the part of the States.
11. The State analyzes the projected emissions from proposed new sources and
determines, after soliciting public comments, whether or not the source
would cause significant deterioration of air quality. A significant
deterioration ceiling is not imposed, but the deterioration of air
quality may not exceed the levels specified by the national secondary
standards.
12. Allows maximum flexibility for the State to balance economic growth needs
and significant deterioration restrictions.
13. Would prevent clustering of large sources of pollution.
11
-------
14. EPA Establishes air quality deterioration limits for two types of
zones as follows:
ZONE I
ZONE II
Sulfur dioxide
Annual average
24-hour average
3-hour average
Particulates
Annual average
24-hour average
All areas of the country are designated Zone II by EPA, but States
have the option of deciding which areas are to be designated Zone I
after holding public hearings in those areas.
15. Would result in arbitrary equal treatment of all clean areas.
16. Would prevent some types of deterioration not limited by ambient air
quality standards alone.
23
-------
ANSWERS
1. b. The Sierra Club argued that this represented a policy of allowing
significant deterioration of air quality better than the secondary standards.
2. b, c. Answer a is incorrect because the Court did not require non-
deterioration but rather a policy of no significant deterioration.
Also, the Court did not specify a baseline year. Answer d is incorrect
because the Court ordered EPA to review implementation plans and disapprove
those not adequately providing for no significant deterioration. The
Court did not review the plans and order EPA to disapprove them.
3. True
4. d.
5. False. At issue was the interpretation of the intent of Congress, as
expressed in the Act, with respect to significant deterioration, not
whether or not significant deterioration was good or bad.
6. b, c, e.
7. b.
8. c.
9. a.
10. d.
11. c.
12. c.
13. a.
14. d.
15. a.
16. b.
24
------- |