AIR, TOXICS & RADIATION
MANAGEMENT DIVISION
REGION III
OFFICE OF AIR & RADIATION
REGIONAL OFFICE REVIEW
JANUARY 24, 1990
-------
TP
£0
I *1$ REGION III & OFFICE OF AIR & RADIATION
REGIONAL OFFICE REVIEW
JANUARY 24, 1990
9:30-10:00 a.m.
Introductions, Regional
Organization and Agenda Overview
10:00-10:30 a.m.
.n
Ck. 10:30- 11:10 a.m.
ry
11:10-11:20 a.m.
11:20-12:05 p.m.
Getting Ready for the New
Clean Air Act (ESD participation)
Radiation/Radon Issues
Break
Enforcement Issues
12:05-1:05 p.m.
BBL with senior staff
(Section Chiefs, etc. )
1:05-1:50 p.m.
1:50-2:35 p.m.
2:35-3:05 p.m.
3:05-3:15 p.m.
3:15-4:00 p.m.
4:00-4:30 p.m.
4:30-5:00 p.m.
All Hands Meeting
Ozone/CO
West Virginia Issues
Break
Hew Source Review
Review Wrap-up/Team Discussion
Exit Discussion w. RA/DRA
U.S. EPA Region 111
Regional Center for Environmental
Information
T65Q Arch Street'<3PM52)
Philadelphia, PA 191G3
-------
REGION III
"SNAPSHOT" INFORMATION
Five States, One District in the Region
- Population: 34 Million (est.)
- Air Pollution Control Agencies: 5 States, 1 District,
17 Locals
Pollutant of greatest concern: Ozone, Carbon Monoxide
- 1988: 9 areas received Ozone SIP calls;
1 District, 2 CMSA's, 6 MSA's
5 areas received CO SIP calls;
- 1989: 12 areas received Ozone SIP calls;
10 MSA's, 2 Counties - (est. pop. 17.3 mil.)
4 areas received CO SIP calls;
1 District, 1 CMSA, 2 MSA's - (est pop. 8 mil.)
PM10: 1 Group I area
9 Group II areas
6 Group III areas (Each State plus the one District)
Section 105 grant money available to Region:
- FY '89--$11.1 M (Preliminary Allocation/Appropriation does not
include increase to FY '90 Appropriation -- Region
received $431 K (11%) of the $4.0 M additional
allocation.)
- FY '90--$11.5 M (From proposed 5/4/89 Allocation)
- High National priorties:
Ozone/CO : $589K
PM10 : $25IK
Asbestos : $194K
313 data : $ 45K
- Regional Breakdown for FY '90
Delaware 0.7 M
D.C. 0.6 M
Maryland 1.8 M
Pennsylvania 3.3 M
Allegheny County 0.9 M
Philadelphia 1.0 M
Virginia 2.0 M
Met. Washington Council of Gov'ts 0.3 M
West Virginia 0.9 M
TOTAL: 11.5 M
-------
o Resource allocation from FY '90 workload models:
Ranking - 4th by total resources
- A1r Quality Management - 30.2 FTE's (10% of national total)
- Compliance/Enforcement - 28.9 FTE's (10%)
- Monitoring - 9.0 FTE's (16%)
68.1 10%
o Key Air Division Personnel:
Air Toxics and Radiation Management Division Dir Thomas Maslany
(Acting) Deputy Division Dir Janet Viniski
Air Programs Branch Chief Marsha Spink
Program Planning Section David Arnold
Projects Management Section Joseph Kunz
Special Programs Section Lewis Felleisen
Air Enforcement Branch Chief Bernard Turlinski
Enforcement Policy & State Coordination...Sue Insetta
Enforcement Case Activities Patricia Tan
Toxics and Pesticides Branch Chief Lawrence Miller
TASCA Enforcement Section John Ruggero
Pesticides and Grants Section Pauline Levin
-------
REGION III
MR, TOXICS MP RADIATION DIVISION
Maslany, Div. Director
(9390)
Todd, Secretary
(9390)
Hanson, Bnv. Sci.
(6554)
Viniski, Dep. Director
(9862)
Shields, SEEP
(9342)
n.i Programs Branch (3AM10)
Air Enforcement Branch (3AM20)
Toxics and Pesticides Branch
(3AM30;
Spinks, Br. Chief (9075)
Turlinski, Br. Chief
(3989)
Larry Miller, Br. Chief (8598)
Brooks, Sec. (9075)
Moeley, Sec.
(3989)
Patricia Qaughan, Sec. (8598)
Foat, SEEP
(9139)
Vanessa Perry, Clk-Typ. (3789)
Enforcement Policy t State
Pro-jerts Manaqarent Section (3AM11)
Coordination Section
(3AM21)
TSCA Enforconent Section (3AM31)
Kunz, Chief
(8486)
Insetta, Chief
(3024)
John Ruggero, Chief
(9937)
Parlm, Sec. Typ.
(9190)
Bazley, Sec. Typ.
(9169)
Sonia De Llanos, Sec.
(3157)
Golp^in, Clk-Typ.
(9190)
D'Alessandro, Clk-Typ
. (9169)
Louvinia Madison, Clk-Typ.
(3157)
AoraT.s, Env. Eng.
(9134)
Chalmers, EPA
(9844)
Jonathan Allen, Chan. &ig.
(3659)
Carreaell, Env. Eng.
(9109)
Harris, EPA
(8324)
Edward Cohen, &w. Sci.
(7668)
Dougherty, Env. Sri.
(6322)
Ellerbe, ETA
(6556)
Kurt Eisner, Cham. Eng.
(1260)
Frankford, EPS
(1325)
Kubli, Env. &ig.
(9839)
David Kregenow, friv. EJng.
(2852)
Lob-nan, Env. Sri.
(8375)
Pine, Env. Ehg.
(6552)
Lisa Nichols, Chan. &>g.
(4651)
•"!ilner, Env. Eng.
(9593)
Ridenour, Env. Eng.
(8324)
Kikal Shabazz, Chem. Eng.
(6666)
Spe'. Is, Env. Sri.
(2746)
TTiornpson, Env. Sci.
(3023)
Ruck-King Ha, Env. B*g.
(7683)
Yost, Env. Sri.
(2746)
Wild, ESiv. Eng.
(9318)
George Bayer, AARP
(7820)
Martin, SEEP
(6E52)
Harold Perski, AARP
(3175)
Hagedom, Env. Dig.
(8554)
Malcolm Reynolds, AARP
(9863)
Donovan, SEEP
(9393)
Ralph 9mith, AARP
(3209)
Jerry Vallery, AARP
(3175)
t-rogran Planning Section
(3ATJ3)
EJiforceient Case Activities
Section (3AM22)
Arnold, Chief
(4556)
PESTICIDES I GRANTS SECTION
(3AM32,
Paul, SEEP
(6365)
Tan, Chief
(9162)
Bjdney, Br.'. Sri
(0545)
Diggs, Sec. Typ.
(9139)
Pauline Levin, Chief
(8683)
Banker, Env. Sri.
(4554)
Studevan, Clk-Typ.
(9139)
Lillian Andrelczyk, Sec.
(3789)
Cobos, EPS
(8239)
Ackeman, Env. Ehg.
(1269)
Karen Angulo, Biologist
(8067)
Forde, Env. Eng.
(8239)
Febbo, EPS
(9325)
Sally Block, EPA
(9939)
Jacobs, Env. Eng.
(6565)
Glen, EPS
(8379)
Carole Dougherty, E3>A
(3160)
Leu:s, En-. Eng.
(6B63)
McGuigan, Env. ESng.
(9858)
Don Lott, &iv. Sci.
(9873;
Stan;, En". Sri.
(9337)
Topsale, Hjn.
(6553)
Re nee Lucas, Data Tech.
(0445)
—a J jai , £.11 . 5-J .
(9199!
Vu] ^aiu, liv . ^1*4.
Wilkie, Env. &g.
(6550)
Elizabeth Traina, EPS
(666")
Brown, Env. Eng.
(1269)
Herbert Harris, AARP
(2851)
Spenal Prcora*ns Section
(3AM.l 2)
Bulman, Part-Time
(9393)
Edward Maurer, AARP
(2426)
Ceasar, SEEP
(9393)
Rose Richetti, AARP
(3789)
Felleisen, Chief
(8326;
McCaTTion, SEEP
(9393)
Robert Waggle, AARP
(9859)
Barhler, Sec.
(1256)
Bud Hoover, AARP
(2450)
D'Otta.-i, Clk-Typ.
(1256)
Vacant, E.S.
(3208)
Bel anger, Hea1/Pnys.
(4034)
Vacant, AARP
Cimoreili, lead Met.
(6563)
Vacant, AARP
Varant, Met.
(4553)
Vacant, Studen Aide
Knapp, EPS
(2906)
Nible, Env. Eng.
(9303)
Dickens, Env. Sri.
(9303)
Constantine, SEEP
(9309)
Erfer, SEEP
(9339)
-------
AIR PROGRAM PLANNING SECTION
10/30/89
——IB II iil^M
DAVID ABBOLD - Section Chief (215-597-6565)
BOTH PAUL - Secretary (215-597-6565)
- Clerk/Typist (215-597-6565)
L&BBX BUDUY (215-597-0545)
Air Quality Monitoring Data (03/C0/NM0C)
Ozone/CO Modeling
Transportation Control Plan6
ROMNET Project (Regional Coord, and Modeling Committee)
03/CO Area Designations
EIS Reviews and Coordination
CO SIP Policy/Strategies
KELLY BOTER (215-597-4554)
Mobile Sources
HOBILE4 Modeling
I/M t Tampering Programs
Alternate Fuels
Waste Hater Treatment Plants
Ozone/CO Health Effects
EDNARD COBBS (215-597-6329)
AIRS System
Mobile Sources/Imports/Warranties/Recalls
Admin. Support
(215-597-8329)
CTG Technical Guidance
Mobile Sources/Imports/warranties
Lead in Fuel/Fuel Volatility
EIXKI JACOBS (215-597-9781)
External Affairs Liaison
Outreach/Public Information
JACQOELOT LEVIS (215-597-6863)
CTG Technical Guidance
03/CO RPTS (Regulation Tracking)
VOC Ract Policies
BERETTA TAOBABT (215-597-9189)
Ozone SIP Policy
Emission Inventories (VOC, CO, NOx)
Hazardous Waste Facilities (TSDF,Landfills)
Global Climate
Stratospheric Ozone (CFCs)
VOC/Toxics Control
ROMNET Project (Emission Inventory Committee)
CZBTHIA 8XAHL (215-597-9337)
Ozone SIP Policy/Strategies
VOC RACT Policies
New Source Performance Standards
Regulation Effectiveness Studies
Emissions Trading Policy
ROMNET Project (Strategies Committee)
-------
AIR PROJECTS MANAGEMENT SECTION
10/30/89
JOSPEPH KUNZ SECTION CHIEF
CARLETIA PARLIN SECRECTARY
LINDA GOLPHIN CLERK/TYPIST
DONNA ABRAMS ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
Superfund Coordination
Site Air Review Coordinator
Pre-Remedial Activities
Intra- and Inter-Regional Workgroups
Technical Assistance Coordination
DAVID CAMPBELL ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
Grant Processing and Oversight for:
Nest Virginia
District of Columbia
SIP Processing for Assigned States
PAWVOH MERIT Oversight
HSPS/NBSHAPS State Delegation
FRAN DOUGHERTY ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST
Indoor Air Program
Ashland Air Toxics Multi-Region Study
Indoor Air Regional Contact
Hood Burning Stoves and FireplaceB
HAL FRANKFORD ENV. PROTECTION SPECIALIST
Grant Processing and Oversight fori
Maryland
Pennsylvania
SIP Processing for Assigned States
SIP Processing Policies and Procedures
HAAQS Classification Tracking
DENIS LOHMAN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST
Program Responsibilities, Including all
Policies and Procedures Related toi
SOj
Stack Height Requirements (GEP)
Lead SIP's (e.g. Anzon, Franklin Smelting)
Modeling fori
Program Responsibilities
Superfund Sites
105 Grant Commitment Formulation for
Program Responsibilities
ISRAEL MILNER ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
Air ToxicB Program, Including all
Policies and Procedures
Multi-year Development Plan Oversight
for all State/Local Agencies
CHARLENB SPELLS ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
Grant Processing and Oversight fori
Virginia
Philadelphia Co.
SIP Processing for Assigned States
Workplan Coordination
SPMS/RMAS Tracking
Workload Analysis
PM10 Program Coordinator
RICHARD C. UNGER ENVIRONMENTAL ENG./SCI.
Air Monagment Division IAN Administrator
Responsible for Maintaining:
AMD LAN Procedures Manual
AMD Space Planning
Coordination with IRMB (as needed)
Assistance with Computer Problems
-------
KELLEY YOST
Grant Processing and Oversight for:
Delaware
Allegheny Co.
SIP Processing for Assigned States
Grant Funds Allocation and Tracking
105 Grant Policies and Procedures
Operating Guidance Comment Coordination
SPMS/RMAS Commitment Preparation
ENVIROUIlEN'i'AL SCIENTIST
-------
SPECIAL PROGRAM SECTION
11/30/89
JJBM FXLLBISXB - Section Chief 597-8326
JQU B&CHLKR - Secretary 597-1256
T/»MTm D'ORIVI - Clerk Typist 597-6565
WILLIAM BBLUK3R 597-4084
Regional Radiation Representative
Radon
Nuclear Power Plant Emergency plans
Radiation Emergencies
Radiation at Superfund Sites
Radionuclide NBSHAP
TQM CASEY - intermittent employee 597-4553
Air Modeling Support
Support to Superfund for Airborne Releases
Technology Transfer to States
UU CTMPRM.T.I 597-6563
Lead Meteorologist
SIP Modeling
New Source Modeling Review
Complex Terrain Modeling
Air Emergencies
Support to Superfund for Airborne Releases
Technology Transfer to States
US COiSTASTIXE - SEEP 597-9009
Response to Public Inquiries on Radon
AQOAHETXA DICKKMS 597-9303
State Radon Grants
Radon Program Support
HAROLD KBFKR - SEEP 597-9009
Response to Public Inquiries on Radon
597-2906
Air Modeling Support
jam kblb
Radon Data Manipulation
Radionuclide NESHAP
597-9303
-------
ENFORCEMENT POLICY & STATE
COORDINATION SECTION
11/.30/89
SUSAN INSBTTA Section Chief 597-3024
CAYNA BAZLEY Secretary 597-9169
MI CHE LB D'ALLBSSANDRO Clerk Typist 597-9169
RATMCWD CHALNBRS 597-9884
Enforcement State Coordinator - West Virginia, Delaware
JAMBS HAGEDORN 597-8554
Senior State Coordinator - Maryland
HSPS Coordinator
Assists junior staff on projects
Special projects
JBAHHINE KUBLI 597-9839
Enforcement State Coordinator - Pennsylvania
CSM back-up
Inspector Training Coordinator
JACXIB PINE 597-6552
CDS Coordinator
Enforcement State Coordinator - District of Columbia
Coordinator for Toxic Release Data
RAXANNE RIDKHOUR 597-8324
Enforcement State Coordinator - Philadelphia, Allegheny
County
CFC Inspector
LISA WILD 597-9318
Enforcement State Coordinator - Virginia
Grants Coordinator for enforcement
VOC back-up for surface coating
VOC Coordinator - Vacancy
LILLIB BLLERBB 597-6556
SPMS/RMAS reporting
Citizen suit tracking
CDS input
FOIA responses
Assists state coordinators in CDS
BETTY HARRIS 597-8324
CDS input
FOIA responses
Assists state coordinators in CDS
ANNE MARTIN SEEP 597-6552
CDS reconciliation and input
FOIA responses
JOSEPH DONOVAN SEEP 597-9393
VOC support to state coordinators
-------
Air Management Division Task Force
Representatives
Name COMMITTEE TYPE
Enforcement Management Council NAT
Division Office Intermedia Integration Committee STATE
Tom Maslany Strategic Planning Workgroup REG
Air Toxic and Asbestos Lead Region NAT
Air Strategic Planning Workgroup NAT
New Source Review Task Force NAT
Human Relations Working Group REG
ROMNET Committee (Managers Workgroup) NAT
Enabling Workgroup NAT
Ozone/CO Director's Workgroup NAT
Janet Vininski Pollution Prevention Task Force REG
Enforcement Communications Task Force NAT
Dottie Todd SAC/BEPAC Rep for SAC REG
Glenn Hanson Pollution Prevention Task Force REG
Graphics Information System Work Group REG
Environmental Workgroup Committee REG
Air Programs Branch
Marcia Spink Title VI Workgroup NAT
SIP Processing (Alternate) NAT
SIP Oversight Work Group NAT
SARA Work Group REG
105 Audit Work Group REG
Romnet Committee NAT
PM10 SIP Task Force NAT
Strategic Planning REG
Projects Management Section
Joe Kunz PM10 SIP Task Force NAT
Oversight Task Group NAT
SIP Oversight Workgroup NAT
CEL Advisory Board REG
RPTS REG
Acid Rain Task Force
PAWVOH Technical and Policy Workgroup
Donna Abrams Superfund/Air Coordinator NAT
Wise REG
Iz Milner Formaldehyde Workgroup NAT
Control Technology Center Coordinator NAT
Region III Hispanic Employment Council REG
-------
Advisory Committee
Denis Lohman PM10 Emissions Balancing Workgroup NAT
Kelly Yost 105 IG's Task Force REG
NAME COMMITTEE TYPE
Source Emissions and Evaluation Section
Hal Frankford SIP Processing Workgroup NAT
Fran Dougherty Indoor Air Workgroup NAT
Lew Felleisen Black Employment program Advisory REG
Council Region III Risk Assessment REG
Task Group
A1 Cimorelli Technology Transfer Workgroup NAT
Workgroup to Revise the Modeling NAT
Valley Stagnation Workgroup NAT
Air Support to Superfund Steering REG
Committee
Bill Belanger Radon Workgroup NAT
John Noble Black Employment Program Advisory REG
Council
Aquanetta Dickens Environmental Management Committee REG
Black Employment Program Advisory REG
Council
WISE REG
Program Planning Section ¦
Dave Arnold REG
Regulation Effectiveness Task
Force
Regional Ozone Task Force NAT
ROMNET Advisory Council REG
Washcog RAMS-Reg. NAT
CO Task Force NAT
5-City UAM Workgroup NAT
Ozone/VOC Policy Workgroup NAT
MARAMA REG
Kelly Beatty Alternate Fuels Workgroup NAT
316 Policy NAT
Cynthia Stahl ROMNET Strategy Committee VOC NAT
Compliance Workgroup NAT
Regional Ozone Task Force REG
Regulation Effectiveness NAT
-------
Task Force
Ozone/VOC Policy Workgroup NAT
Rebecca Taggart Romnet EI Committee NAT
Delegation Programs Workgroup REG
WISE REG
EI Workgroup NAT
Larry Budney Romnet (NE Corridor 03) NAT
03 Modeling NAT
Raymond Forde CO Task Force NAT
Black Employment Program REG
Advisory Council
Jackie Lewis Black Employment Program REG
Advisory Council
WISE REG
ED Cobbs RPTS Workgroup NAT
AIRS Workgroup NAT
AUTO Import Workshops NAT
NAME COMMITTEE Type
AIR ENFORCEMENT BRANCH
Bernie Turlinski CAA Enforcement Task Force NAT
(Title VI)
New Source Review Task Force NAT
Compliance Monitoring Strategy NAT
Workgroup
Criminal/Civil Enforcement Committee REG
Enforcement Streamlining Committee REG
Safety Committee REG
Enforcement Policy & State Coordination Section
Susan Insetta WISE REG
Grants Oversight Workgroup NAT
Cross Media Enforcement Workgroup NAT
Federal Woman's Program REG
Strategic Planning-Goals Workgroup REG
Jackie Pine Fed Woman's Program REG
WISE REG
NAT
Betty Harris Black Employment Advisory Council REG
WISE/EPA EPS Sub-Committee REG
Safety Committee REG
Lillie Ellerbe
Federal Womens Program
REG
-------
Jeannine Kubli Inspector Training Plan Workgroup NAT
Lisa Wild Voc Workgroup NAT
Enforcement Case Activities Section
Pat Tan Enforcement Guidance Workgroup NAT
Jim Topsale Sludge Management Task Force REG
Technical Transfer Workgroup REG
Municipal Waste Combusters NSPS NAT
Hosptial Incinerator NSPS NAT
Carol Febbo National Asbestos Workgroup NAT
Eileen Glen PSD Training Workgroup NAT
NSR/PSD Task Force NAT
BACT Workgroup NAT
Walter Wilke Vinly Chloride Workgroup NAT
National Asbestos Workgroup NAT
Enforcement Seminar REG
Asbestos Inspection Guidelines NAT
Workgroup
Black Employment Program Advisory REG
Council
-------
AIR, TOXICS AND RADIATION MANAGEMENT DIVISION
FY *90 Pollution Prevention Strategy
Introduction
This document identifies those activities in pollution preven-
tion currently implemented or proposed by the Air, Toxics and
Radiation Management Division (AT&RMD) as a component part of a
regional strategy. Project leaders are being encouraged to
coordinate initiatives with similar audiences, activities and
objectives. These projects are an integral part of regulatory or
other division programs. AT&RM experience in FY '90
in carrying out this strategy will have a significant bearing on
future short and long-term pollution prevention projects.
Objectives
A vital part of EPA's mission to protect public health is the
need to ensure a reasonable understanding and fair perception of
complex programs by all parties affected. The External Affairs
Plan for FY '90 prepared by AT&RM identifies those outreach
activities to achieve that goal. The specific objectives of the
Pollution Prevention Strategy are to:
1. implement projects to reduce air pollutant emissions;
2. assist in creating cultural changes among the public, industry,
and regulatory communities;
3. provide information and assistance to consumers, industry, and
governmental agencies; and
4. emphasize pollution prevention concepts in every outreach
activity during FY '90.
-------
PROJECTS
1. Project: Commuter Pass Program
Project Leader: Christy Johnson
Pollution Problem to be addressed: Criteria pollutants-
CO, NOX, 03
Indicators: Vehicle Miles Traveled/emissions
Schedule:
Transportation Survey 1/90
Proposal to Employee Association Board 1/90
Meet with Finance on payroll deductions 1/90
If necessary, form EPA Commuter Society 2/90
Survey analysis 2/90
SEPTA Agreement 2/90
Program start 2/90
Evaluation 7/90
2. Proj ect: VOC Forum
Project Leader: Lisa Wild
Pollution Problem to be addressed: VOC compliance/air toxics
Indicators: VOC reduction/increased compliance
Schedule: Fourth quarter
3 . Pro j ect: O3/VOC
Project
Leader: Cynthia Stahl
Problem: Environmentally compatible packaging.
Indicators: Identification of packaging using low solvent or
H2O borne inks and with minimum amount of packaging.
Schedule: Q3 meeting with packaging trade industry,
marketers, public groups.
-------
4. Project: Development of Enforcement Targets for Inspections
under Section 313 of EPCRA.
Project leader: Kurt Eisner
Problem: Toxics
Indicators: Number/percent of non-reporters discovered
through inspection of enforcement targets.
Schedule:
Hire contractor 9/15/89
Contact states in Region III and EPA HQ to obtain state
manufacturing directories, industrial registries, and
unemployment insurance lists.
Using the NEIC automate method, 11/01/89
identify nonreporters under Section 313
for the 1988 reporting year.
Crosscheck the lists of targets 11/24/89
developed in milestong (3) with the
state manufacturing directories,
industrial registries, and unemployment
insurance lists obtained in milestone (2)
to develop potential inspection targets.
Make random phone calls from this list 12/15/89
of potential inspection targets
developed in milestone (4) as a quality
control check.
Develop the final inspection target 12/22/89
list for FY 90.
Status: Finished.
-------
Project: Third Party Oversight of Technical Proposals for
Case Settlements Involving Credits for Pollution
Prevention Projects.
Project John Ruggero/Kurt Eisner
Leader:
Problem: N/A
Indicators: Pounds of toxic emission eliminated.
Schedule: Obtain Funding for Contract 3/1/90
Issue Contract 6/1/90
Identify Pollution Prevention 7/1/90
Projects which require oversight.
Contractor Reviews Plans 1/1/91
Contractor Monitor Construction 1/1/92
Operation.
End of Contract 1/1/92
Status: Awaiting Decision on BKK Funds Availability.
Project: Asbestos Renovation and Demolition Outreach
Project Carol Febbo
Leader:
Problem: Mismanagement of Asbestos
Indicators: News media, hotline, number of violations found.
-------
Project: Fluorescent Bulb Initiative - Interfaced with
Tom Voltaggio's project with Penelec.
Project Rebecca Taggart
Leader:
Problem: Global warming; air pollution emissions (S02, N0X,
particulates) .
Indicators: Report.
Schedule: Meet with Tom Voltaggio 2/9/90
Define scope of project 2/9/90
Complete data collection 8/4/90
Compile and analyze date 10/6/90
Complete final report 12/22/90
Project: Transportation Conference
Project
Leader:
Larry Budney
Problem: Automobile emissions comprise the greatest single
component of ozone precursor emissions. Vehicle miles
travelled (VMT) must be reduced, or at least constrained, to
allow the ozone NAAQS to be attained.
Indicators: Success will be indicated by the amount of
conference follow-up that occurs; i.e., the degree to which
political, regulatory and business leaders seriously consider
new measures to reduce VMT.
Schedule: May or early June is the most likely conference
date.
-------
9. Project: Workshop on Alternate Fuels for Region III States.
Project
Leader: Kelley Bunker
Problem: Ozone, update States on alternative fuels so as to
encourage initiation of pilot alternative fuels programs in
States.
Indicators: Start up of pilot programs in alternative fuels.
Schedule: April - Contact agency offices and outside
industries for participation in workshop.
Status: July - Conduct a workshop.
10. Project: Regional Office Pilot Program for Vanpooling and/or
Car pooling.
Project
Leader: Kelley Bunker
Problem: VMT
Indicators: Reduction in VMT.
Schedule: March - Distribute survey to determine interest.
June - Distribute listing of interested parties and home
locations.
Status: Ongoing - continue to update listing and monitor
participation.
11. Project: Develop video tape on various mobile source issues
for public presentations (fuels, RVP, VMT, tampering)
Proj ect
Leader: Kelley Bunker
Problem: To increase public knowledge of mobile source
related pollution and how public can help reduce it.
Indicators: Popularity of tape and comments from public after
viewing tape.
Schedule: April - Complete draft of tape (i.e., what will be
included as topics, graphs, pictures and narration language.
September - Complete taping.
-------
Meeting Notes
-------
Meeting Notes
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
11
This section includes specific recommendations.
Recommendation 1:
Changethe monitoring regulations to do away—with the
distinctionbetween NAMS and SLAMS reporting requirements and
require submission of raw data from both NAMS and SLAMS.
Comment: It is difficult to defend that hard copy data submittal
is consistent with the technology of data transfer as we
enter the 1990's. It is also questionable whether hard
copy data submittal for the non-NAMS SLAMS sites actually
results in any saving of resources.
ppcoiTiTTiendation 2:
If the "Clean Air Act is revised to include .deadlines based
upon design values, or attainment decisions, made within 6^months
after the calendar year, then revise. Part 58 to specify 90-day
reporting requirements.
Comment: This is consistent with the needs for the data and seems
to be possible to meet, if necessary.
Recommendation 3:
Encourage areas that do not have ozone exceedances in October
to consider shortening their ozone seasorT^to end in September.
Comment: Ending the ozone season in September, means that complete
data for the year would be received by EPA in January so
that the workload in preparing ozone
-------
12
attainment/nonattainment lists could be accelerated for
these areas. This would put at least some ozone areas
out of phase with carbon monoxide design value
development, which would continue to have to wait for
the fourth quarter data. Also, if ozone exceedances are
not likely to occur in October, the estimate of expected
exceedances would be improved by concentrating on the
shortened ozone season. However, as noted earlier, there
are several factors for an area to evaluate before
implementing this option.
Recommendation 4:
Use-SAMWG^as^a vehicle to request advice from State and local
agencies on whether there are any variations on the monitoring
regulations that would help if the data reporting requirements were
modified to incorporate a 90-day data submission deadline and to
require reporting of all SLAMS raw data.
Recommendation 5:
If the monitoring regulations are being revised, then some
attention should be given to the reporting-requirements that are
applicable to Special Purpose Monitors so that it is clearer how
available these data are.
Recommendation 6:
Develop a plan for the rapidreporting of ozonedatathat is
adequate to respond to the type of questions that arose during the
summer of 1988. This event was recent enough that there is a
general awareness of what information would have been useful on a
national level.
-------
SC/fAiJ /C-CPo^
T-
T® /tc/ .
£>(£ u/) \
S SZeZZu^ (pX ZIa-)
3/2.2. A»c_ /ht&u & .
OA&PJ C^y^_ ^ 9//<5T
yj; aeJZ PC p/LJL^
td.
CJL^
JJ
-------
fly — *? o <=^- c~~~Sl. ^ c^
$ ~ (g y^. / ^ >~*{S^C^12 ^
^1a) • "fcr /v-^-J cLj^. t>-*L "C> ^ \
(0~C^HJ A-MASI//H. j
/ f /2e^iy^ej2 y^JZ^Z. \ I X-O q/
4£> | ~{^P Z <^-^3. (~Jl~WL <2-P- C-£^ cQjlcr-^ . c^
£syT^-^- Ci-'C-w-'* C^yy^t-X^f (Sr-^x-cJ\ . '
^ pDaAjis^ /*rb^v--^ ^v. ,-T (2 -^r (±^*1- J 0 -^^2- .
-y^c^L C^y-c ^W
^Ooi yt
-------
Meeting Notify
0,c,
(^f\0 '• Sczlp ^j / Co C/H c^(/>o^'
/£ 3 5.A
{{Jo o^C. (A«^> ¦ ^ S A
fOo JL^& ^ ( <^ $ ¦<*-
-------
Co&^C<£rru£ ' ^.y T^7//
2-'**7
£y cu . &nJ2 y
i_ /o
<^U /?
Jyts-u-^
6\J 6^**$
C^z-
-------
^ > >3-3 CSSoJ/h- ^ -S<^>v
^ /*&W G>ufC.tccy pc c^j C O
— 5/^2^5 /i^v^- /2o /^js/^-g-*: 7~d
j&Z/U S
— /?<£s/Z/aJ6~ st/e.*r7~ /-2o £?/T/3 ^r^/? /Y5^--5 7T=>
/nj> jT<& : /VoaJ
C c. ^ f
PoCL <^<30^ J>/ 2-*^ s ^/~ /tsO AJ ^'/?77~y?7si-^s^7 S^T- /^Z €/9-s
" f/MSC. (^-y^J-po/J O/O G- — S-fO<~J cj eW
f * /ts <2-ZDZs? ^ /ZcStO 7-7/X s<^ c>£>-e._J J
o y (^c.o^e*.9^?/9^.£> \ £>0 ?*.?_ aj
CA>7-7~e^s
C^OiCZe-^ />c/7~~ c?*J oJ/r/ jP/)Trt ys °*£r c-ort^'A* e<^
CJOUt-/? S??^ jt^h ^0 . <- &S
oCJHe^ CA4 Pfc?s<2S — ^/^7^ ^-/
/l€ /fcj/f7e y CjOA&ZSf^Pj { fie ^//~ /jr /^ zs^t~
tfu 7° J?D /7~
Qc?u>iJ /2-OfyO /V *>aJ . /Ue-a>s 7-0 77/7^^ ^/fdtSr-
67^6- S&fl* j2 .
(^OfZ^ AJ/5 S^boc £>
-------
GETTING READY FOR
THE NEW CLEAN AIR ACT
-------
TITLE I
* Providing technical assistance to states that received ozone and carbon
monoxide SIP calls:
- VOC regulatory corrections
- Emission inventories preparation (VOC, N0X, CO) including assistance with
MOBILE 4
* Participating in ROMNET (all coimiittees)
* Participating in 1-95 Intermodal meetings with PENNDOT (highway for the 21st
century)
* Participating in meeting with the southeast Pennsylvania Public Transportation
Authority (SEPTA) and PENNDOT on possible transportation control measures
strategies
* Meeting with the five State/local agencies coordinated strategies for the
Philadelphia CMSA (inventory and modeling meeting held 1/17/90)
* Providing technical assistance to states with PM10 Group I and Group II areas
for SIP preparation (inventories and control strategy development)
* Providing information on the provisions of Title I as part of routine outreach
activities on an ongoing basis
TITLE II
* Providing information on clean alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles
and other provisions of Title II as part of routine outreach activities
* Moving forward to approve RVP regulations with earlier effective dates for
meeting 9 psi
TITLE III
* Providing information on Title III provisions as part of routine outreach
activities
TITLE IV
* Participating on Title IV workgroup for regulation/program development:
- Chairing subcommittee for program interface
- Represented Regional Offices at December "Town Meeting" with
STAPPA/ALAPCO. NAMS (industry).. NRDC on Title IV)
* Providing information on Title IV provisions as part of routine outreach
activities
-------
TITLE V
* Providing information on Title V's provisions as part of routine outreach
activities
TITLE VI
* Coimtented on draft proposal; comments were incorporated in subsequent Title
* Gave speeches on Amendments with alphasis on enforcement to local chapter of
APCA and local interest groups
* Participate on Title VI national workgroup to:
- Develop general guidance describing new authorities
- Develop regulations for field citation program, contractor listing and
monetary award provisions
- Formulate regulations for administrative penalty procedures and rules
of practice
- Develop general compliance certification guidelines, citizen suit
guidelines
* Consider inpacts of amendments in Regional strategic planning
TITLE VII
* Consider inpacts of amendments in Regional strategic planning
* Providing information on Title VII provisions as part of routine outreach
activities
-------
REGIONAL ALLOCATION OF FY 1990 SECTION 105
GRANT FUNDS
DOLLARS IN MILLIONS
25
20
15
10
5
0
-------
NUMBER OF SECTION 105 GRANTEES BY REGION
(FY 1990)
NUMBER OF GRANTEES
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-------
January 1990
FY 1990 SECTION 105 GRANTEES IN REGION III
(THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
STATE
ALLOCATION
Delaware 663.5
Maryland 1809.8
Pennsylvania 5273.1
Philadelphia (1023.1)
Allegheny County (966.1)
Virginia 2041.2
Washington, D. C. 629.7
Washington Council of (29.6)
Governments*
West Virginia 914.2
TOTAL 11331.5**
~Section 106 grantee
~~Original allocation was 11484.0. The difference reflects funds
allocated to OAQPS level of effort contracts. Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings sequestration and other reductions are not reflected.
-------
January 1990
REGION HI - SECTION 105 GRANTEES
(THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
6000
-------
SECTION 105 GRANT PROGRAM
AGENCY
FY'90 GRANT
STRONG/WEAK POINTS
DE
DC
AC
HD
PA
VA
PH
WV
COG
(663,503 S Excellent technical capabilities and is supportive of EPA
policies. Cooperative towards resolving issues.
W State funding level is low, enforcement and planning offices
not at same locals causing coordination problems.
$600,067 S Enforcement program has shown significant results despite
the lack of staffing.
U High vacancy rate only allows major problems to be
addressed.
1966,051 S Takes the grant process seriously, and is dedicated.
Realistic in comnitmerits and has exeirplary technical
capabilities.
U Loss of key personnel will cause slippage in S02 and PM10
repl arming efforts.
SI,809,766 S Active participant in STAPPA/ALAPCO and has special
expertise in modeling and monitoring programs (E.G., Region
III NMOC monitoring program).
U Uses source specific SIP revisions to resolve non compliance
issues. State assembly, at times, limits regulatory ability
for ozone.
$3,283,975 S Knowledgeable about current EPA policy and is well informed
on air quality modeling procedures and techniques.
U Limited by State Legislature in ability to regulate ozone.
$2,041,202 S Has a strong and effective program. Posses technical and
adninistrative staff to effectively carry out the objectives
of the program. Generally agrees and supports EPA National
policies.
U Progress reports are late. Conflict between State regional
and central offices in program direction.
$1,023,081 S Committed to protecting the air program. Have a sound basis
for a strong enforcement program and are supportive of EPA
policies.
W Undergoing financial reductions. Existing staffing can not
meet all of the EPA priorities.
$914,233 S Responsive and conscientious, whose failures are more a
result of lack of resources, rather than lack of personal
comnitment on the part of the current staff.
W Current staffing and salary level seriously conprised
ability to address EPA priorities and retain personnel.
$29,104 S Passthrough agency, who seaports ozone planning efforts in
Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
U Lacks strong commitment to meeting time frames.
TOTAL
$11,330,987
Note:
By using FY'89 turnback funds, Region III will not pass through to State/local agencies
the GrarovRudnan 2.9% reduction.
-------
FY 90 Regional Rankings by Total Resources
FTE's
Region Air Quality Enforcement Monitoring Total Ranking
Management
5
49.0
68.0
13.8
130.8
1
4
36.5
31.8
11.9
80.2
2
9
39.6
24.4
8.5
72.5
3
3
30.2
28.9
9.0
68.1
4
6
27.7
27.0
8.5
63.2
5
2
22.5
32.4
7.0
61.9
6
1
24.7
18.9
7.3
50.9
7
8
21.4
12.1
7.4
40.9
8
7
18.0
14.7
6.2
38.9
9
10
18.6
12.0
6.6
37.2
10
ll
288.2
270.2
86.2
644.6
-------
TOTAL OAR REGIONAL FTE - FY 1990
AIR AND RADIATION OFFICES
FTE
140
120 -
100 -
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
123456789 10
REGION
AIR
RADIATION
-------
OAR REGIONAL FTE AND ALLOCATION USE BY PE*
FTE
S&E
FTE
REGION I FTE AND S&E USE
BY PE
FY 1989
FY 1989
FY 1990
AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT
20A2D
23.9
$1,118.5
24.7
MONITORING
23A2F
5.6
$217.8
7.3
ENFORCEMENT
FHA3A
16.9
$705.1
18.9
RADIATION
SYF2D
0.4
$30.8
0.6
RADIATION-RADON
TKF2D
1.8
$97.3
1.7
SUPERFUND
PXY9F
0.5
$22.6
1.0
TOTAL
49.1
2,192.1
54.2
FTE
S&E
FTE
REGION 2 FTE AND S&E USE BY
PE
FY 1989
FY 1989
FY 1990
AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT
20A2D
22.6
$1,011.6
22.5
MONITORING
23A2F
7.3
$338.3
7.0
ENFORCEMENT
FHA3A
32.1
$1,346.9
32.4
RADIATION
SYF2D
1.6
$95.7
1.2
RADIATION-RADON
TKF2D
2.4
$95.2
2.4
SUPERFUND
PXY9F
3.0
$112.9
2.6
TOTAL
69.0
3,000.6
68.1
FTE
S&E
FTE
REGION 3 FTE AND S&E USE
BY PE
FY 1989
FY 1989
FY 1990
AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT
20A2D
27.9
$1,250.6
30.2
MONITORING
23A2F
9.2
$446.4
9.0
ENFORCEMENT
FHA3A
29.8
$1,194.0
28.9
RADIATION
SYF2D
1.9
$96.7
1.0
RADIATION-RADON
TKF2D
1.4
$70.8
2.2
SUPERFUND
PXY9F
2.1
$104.1
1.8
TOTAL
72.3
3,162.6
73.1
FTE
S&E
FTE
REGION 4 FTE AND S&E USE
BY PE
FY 1989
FY 1989
FY 1990
AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT
20A2D
35.1
$1,580.3
36.5
MONITORING
23A2F
11.7
$530.7
11.9
ENFORCEMENT
FHA3A
27.6
$1,086.1
31.8
RADIATION
SYF2D
0.9
$43.7
0.8
RADIATION-RADON
TKF2D
2.0
$98.4
2.0
SUPERFUND
PXY9F
0.6
$30.8
1.4
TOTAL
77.9
3,370.0
84.4
-------
OAR REGIONAL FTE AND ALLOCATION USE BY PE*
FTE
S&E
FTE
REGION 5 FTE AND S&E USE
BY
PE
FY
1989
FY 1989
FY
1990
AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT
20A2D
46.2
$1,969.0
49.2
MONITORING
23A2F
14.2
$633.5
13.8
ENFORCEMENT
FHA3A
61.9
$2,515.0
68.0
RADIATION
SYF2D
0.5
$35.8
0.7
RADIATION-RADON
TKF2D
1.8
$58.5
1.6
SUPERFUND
PXY9F
3.3
$142.5
2.5
TOTAL
127.9
5,354.3
135.8
FTE
S&E
FTE
REGION 6 FTE AND S&E USE
BY
PE
FY
1989
FY 1989
FY
1990
AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT
20A2D
27.2
$1,222.9
27.8
MONITORING
23A2F
9.1
$449.1
8.5
ENFORCEMENT
FHA3A
24.6
$1,073.5
27.0
RADIATION
SYF2D
1.0
$60.3
0.5
RADIATION-RADON
TKF2D
1.1
$44.2
1.3
SUPERFUND
PXY9F
0.7
$30.5
0.9
TOTAL
63.7
2,880.5
66.0
FTE
S&E
FTE
REGION 7 FTE AND S&E USE
BY
PE
FY
1989
FY 1989
FY
1990
AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT
20A2D
17.8
$806.3
18.0
MONITORING
23A2F
5.8
$261.8
6.2
ENFORCEMENT
FHA3A
13.7
$591.6
14 .7
RADIATION
SYF2D
0.5
RADIATION-RADON
TKF2D
1.0
$71.9
1.3
SUPERFUND
PXY9F
1.0
$50.6
0.7
TOTAL
39.3
1,782.2
41.4
FTE
S&E
FTE
REGION 8 FTE AND S&E USE
BY
PE
FY
1989
FY 1989
FY
1990
AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT
20A2D
18.6
$960.4
21.4
MONITORING
23A2F
6.4
$344.2
7.4
ENFORCEMENT
FHA3A
12.1
$548.9
12.1
RADIATION
SYF2D
1.7
$45.1
0.7
RADIATION-RADON
TKF2D
1.9
$142.3
1.6
SUPERFUND
PXY9F
0.7
$56.6
0.8
TOTAL
41.4
2,097.5
44.0
-------
OAR REGIONAL FTE AND
ALLOCATION
USE BY PE*
REGION 9 FTE AND S&E USE BY PE
FY
FTE
1989
S&E
FY 1989
FY
FTE
1990
AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT 20A2D
MONITORING 23A2F
ENFORCEMENT FHA3A
RADIATION SYF2D
RADIATION-RADON TKF2D
SUPERFUND PXY9F
36.7
8.0
24.2
0.5
1.4
0.7
$1,761.5
$311.2
$1,042.8
$11.1
$72.2
$39.2
39.8
8.5
24.4
0.5
1.3
0.8
TOTAL
71.5
3, 238.0
75.3
REGION 10 FTE AND S&E USE BY PE
FY
FTE
1989
S&E
FY 1989
FY
FTE
1990
AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT 20A2D
MONITORING 23A2F
ENFORCEMENT FHA3A
RADIATION SYF2D
RADIATION-RADON TKF2D
SUPERFUND PXY9F
17.3
5.7
10.8
0.5
1.4
0.6
$875.0
$236.5
$483.6
$25.9
$45.0
$31.7
18. 6
6.6
12.0
0.5
1.3
0.5
TOTAL
36.3
1,697.7
39.5
* BASED ON FY 1989 SEPTEMBER OBLIGATIONS FROM BUDGET OFFICE
(Dated 12-05-89)
AND FY 1990 DEPUTY REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS CONSENSUS
DISTRIBUTION (April 1989)
SUPERFUND INCLUDES BOTH ORP AND OAQPS
-------
Meeting Notes
-------
Meeting Notes
-------
Meeting Notes
-------
Meeting Notes
-------
-------
-------
REGION III RADIATION/RADON PROGRAM
RADON HIGHLIGHTS
o Regions II and III conducted first radon training for States
in March, 1985. It was attended by 13 States.
o Regions II and III developed national radon mitigation
training course for Headquarters.
o Region III is the only ragion that has independently taught
the 3-day radon mitigation course. Our staff has trained
over 300 people in radon mitigation techniques.
o Region III collected and mapped the results of over 190,000
private radon tests in Region III.
o Region III worked with OPPE on Maryland Risk communication
Proj ect.
o Region III held risk communication workshop in June, 1987.
o Region III collected and tabulated results on more than 2000
radon mitigation jobs in Pennsylvania.
o Region III cooperated with ORD in development of radon
mitigation techniques. Participated in development of
homeowner's guide and other mitigation manuals.
o Region III participated in development of model building
codes for radon-resistant new construction.
o Region III participated in development of contractor
proficiency exam.
o Region III worked closely with HUD Region III on radon-
resistant new construction.
o Region III currently participates in the Radon Clearinghouse
and Real Estate task forces.
RADIATION HIGHLIGHTS
o Region III participated in development of Protective Action
Guides for the ingestion pathway.
o Region III teaches the EPA portion of the Federal
Radiological Response Plan course given by Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) National Training Center in
Emmitsburg, MD.
o Region III provides Health Physics support to the FEMA
Region III office. Position papers written by EPA Region
III have been used in setting FEMA National policy.
-------
Region III participates in emergency response exercises at
nine nuclear power plants bi-annually.
The Region III radiation staff works closely with the
Superfund staff on sites containing radioactive materials.
The Lansdowne House site (first radiation site off the NPL)
was identified as a problem by the radiation staff.
Region III enjoys close working relationships with the state
radiation offices. We have conducted joint site inspections
with our states, and were invited to join in a critique of
the Maryland radiation program.
Prepared by: William Belanger
January 8, 1990
-------
REGION III RADON PROGRAM
FOR FY90
FY90RAPR.LKF
Prepared by: Lewis Felleisen
W i 1 1 i aT, "^1 ->nnpr
A q u a • v 11 a Dickens
12-14-89
-------
Region III Radon Work Plan FY90
Introduction
Radon is a colorless, odorless radioactive gas that causes
lung cancer. It is the single most serious environmental health
hazard confronting the Agency today.
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK COMPARISONS
PROBLEM ANNUAL CANCER DEATHS
Pesticides 100
Hazardous 1,100
Toxic Outdoor Air Pollution 2,000
Pesticide Residue on Food 6,000
Radon 20,000
Background
The Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601) was
amended in 1988 to add; Title III - INDOOR RADON ABATEMENT ACT.
The Region III radon program has progressed through several
phases during the last four years. Very early it was recognized
that state assistance, public outreach and technical support of
the Office of Radiation Programs (ORP) were of paramount
importance. In order to accomplish these objectives with a small
highly skilled staff, we had to carefully select the activities
that optimized the advancement of the radon program. It was
primary that we participate in ORP radon activities so that they
would benefit from Bill Belanger's technical expertise, knowledge
of regional/state activities and the management skills and Agency
knowledge of our middle and upper Regional management. Both OR?
and R111 learned from and assisted Pennsylvania DER. While
assisting Delaware and the District of Columbia, our major
efforts were sequentially directed at Maryland, Virginia and West
Virginia. FY89 was a staff rebuilding year resulting from Fran
Dougherty, Patricia Flores and Frank Coyle leaving the program.
John Noble and Aquanetta Dickens came into the program, as well
as Les Constantine and Harold Erfer who are part of the Senior
Environmental Employment Program (SEEP). While we are very
pleased with our Regional/State progress, we have major
challenges ahead of us.
-------
2
This radon plan is based on the following resources:
Bill Belanger
Aquanetta Dickens
John Noble
Joan Bachler
(secretarial services)
2 SEEPS
Lew Felleisen
Lorraine D'Ottavi
WY
.60
1.00
.80
.70
1.20
.60
.10
TOTAL
5.00
In order to movp the radon program forward in Region III,
the Air Management Division will work towards five major
objectives in FY90.
1. Implement the radon grant program in Region III States
and the District of Columbia.
2. Conduct an effective public and real estate outreach
prog ram.
3. Provide radon data and technical support to the States.
4. Support EPA's Office of Radiation Programs (ORP) and
Office of Research and Development (ORD) in their
respective activities.
5. Conduct a schools outreach and information program.
6. Support radon activities in other Federal agencies.
Region III has been proactive in working with
Headquarters in developing grant policy and
guidance. All of our States and the District of
Columbia have stated their intent to participate
in the grant program. West Virginia has submitted
a grant application for our review. Aquanetta
Dickens is the staff focal point for grants.
(215/597-9303).
Plan
1. Grant Program
-------
3
ACTIVITIES
RIII Grant Workshop 10/11
Rate & rank innovative grants 10/16
Provide support in developing ongoing
grant applications
Receive grant applications 12/15
Review applications
Meet with Regional Management 12/22
Notify OCIL/PA 1/10
Award grants 1/30
Meetings in each State - mid-year/end of year reviews
Pennsylvania 6/15 12/12
Maryland 6/22 12/19
West Virginia 6/29 12/19
Virginia 7/6 1/91
District of Columbia 7/13 1/91
Delaware 7/20 1/91
Conduct an effective public and real estate outreach
program.
The dedicated regional hotline, with answering
machine, and attendant mailings will continue to
be handled by our SEEPS.
With the FY89 heating season data by State, County
and zip code, create graphics.
Obtain data from
Teledyne 7/89
Air Check 8/89
Radon Project
(U. of Pittsburgh 10/15
projected)
Key Technology 10/89
T?rradex (uncommitted)
-------
4
Formatting data - four weeks after receipt
Region III States
National (all States that we received data
for)
Create GIS generated color and black and
white graphics - IRMB 11/15/89
Contact VA, PA, MD, to determine
interest in joint State/EPA press
conferences
- Completed
Response from:
follow-up by 10/15
VA
PA
MD
Positive State responses
Radon staff meeting
of press conference
State/EPA
Mechan i cs
Set date
Weekly newspaper mailings
Assist States that want State press
conferences e.g. WV
Conduct joint press conferences in State
Capitol week of November 26 or January 7
(usua.lly slow news weeks)
Negative State responses
Prepare press release, with
graphics, for weekly newspapers
Set date for press release (PA & AMD)
Region i;11 press release of data/
graphics for State weekly newspapers.
Concurrent with State press conferences
Week of November 26
or
Week of January 7, 1990
-------
5
Radon presentations
50 copies of the 18 minute video tape
and 20 sets of slide/audio tape are
available for loan to States and
special interest groups for group
presentations.
Requests for presentations will be
accepted with preference given to real
estate and school presentations and
building organizations.
Media requests will have a high
priority.
Present papers/attend technical
conferences
Geology Society Conference 10/6
Atlanta Radon Conference 2-19/23
Public service videos will be developed for
selected areas which are based on the
availability of respected role models and
financial resources.
Commercial marketing studies indicate that three to
four exposures are not uncommon before a person buys.
This is a marketing effort and we need to think in
terms of utilizing a number of different approaches.
The objective will be to optimize the return on
resources investment.
3. Planned State Activities
State Radon Directors' Meeting 11/15
Provide radon data and technical support to the States
and the District of Columbia.
Delaware
After the State radon report is released to us,
determine if we can provide assistance in increasing
the testing in the specific zip codes that have the
most readings above 4 pCi/1.
-------
6
Virginia
Encourage and assist the State in participating in the
EPA/State Survey Program June '90.
If acceptable to Virginia, conduct a joint VA/RIII
presentation to selected groups of county officials.
If acceptable to Virginia, conduct a joint VA/RIII
presentation to the VA Board of Realgars.
Maryland
Assist the State in developing interest in the
Board of Realtors having a radon presentation.
Meet with Roland Fletcher concerning outreach and how
we can assist.
Assist Maryland in outreach to mortgage bankers, HUD,
Veterans Administration (if the State is agreeable).
i
Assist Maryland in a bill insert program -- tax bills,
utilities, health and home insurers (if the State is
agreeable) .
Each of the 17 counties have a set of the 51-slide
audio presentation for outreach.
West Virginia
Continue to provide graphics support. ¦
Assist the state when requested.
District of Columbia
Work with DC to include radon insert with the real
estate. Encourage DC to use bill stuffer in tax bill.
Pennsylvan i a
Explore county anJ/or township joint DER presentations
to Chester County and other high radon counties.
4. Support Headquarters ORP and ORD
Review draft documents comprehensively.
Anticipate ORP technical needs, make suggestions and
provide the nocefsary information.
-------
7
Participate in ORP planning/strategy meetings and
conference calls.
Provide Region III perspective on concepts and issues.
Provide field support within Region III.
Share Region III activities with ORP and other regions.
5. Support radon activities in other Federal agencies.
Support HUD radon activities by presentations,
providing radon information, technical assistance in
review of construction plans, and participation in
project meetings.
Assist National Park Service in performing radon
measurements and remediation.
Review Department of Defense radon measurement plans
for various geographical locations.
-------
8
With Additional Funding
Support school districts in testing 0.5 FTE and $10,000
Quality assurance of carbon canister testing laboratories
in Region III (0.4 FTE & $6,000)
Increase effort in supporting States/counties/townships to
incorporate radon prevention methods into building codes. (.5
FTE & $4,000)
Determine the impact of radon on real estate transactions by
interviewing realtors and recent home buyers participating in
State and regional realtor meetings. Develop solutions and
prepare report (0.6 FTE & $4,000).
Southern Eastern Pennsylvania/Northern Delaware Outreach - Clean
Air Council $10,000.
-------
PERCENTAGE OF RADON READINGS
IN PENNSYLVANIA
Total Number of Readings
ABOVE 4 pC i I 1
- 6 8,419
PERCENTAGE OF RADON READINGS
AB
OVE 4
pCi/l
a
Over
6 0%
4 0%
to 60%
s
2 0%
to 4 0%
~
0%
to 20%
~ Insufficient Data
Less Than 15 Readings
Bale: I aitmi Jill /rim VSCS
I:l,Hl.Oll lit. Htdon it (i
frcm Ity tllUiliM, ftlirfynt,
iirfkfl Inr • Tn» *•<»«
P r 9 j 111 .
Pre) (t I tin. UTH tin II
Flat l*d; lictnler II, I III
Prtiuttil t) : I Pi Hi ft in III - Pk t I < 4 > I y k i ¦
/ »/• rma I i o * l-.o.rnt
S r »i> t k
Prttfvccrf ft i ITJ XrfiBii III - P h i I a d i I p * i •
iir Prtfrimi Jrtnck
f.
-------
PERCENTAGE
Total
0 F RADON READINGS
MARYLAND
Number of Readings
ABOVE 4 pC i / 1
6 8,771
PERCENTAGE OF RADON READINGS
ABOVE 4 pCi/1
S3 Over 60%
m 4 0% to 6 0%
m 20% to 40%
~ 0% to 20%
~ Insufficient Data
Less Than 15 Readings
Data:
Projection:
/Molted:
Produced fly:
Produced For:
Batemap data from USCS
1:2.000.000 DLC. Aadon data
/totn Key Technology. Teledyne,
AirChek Inc. and The Radon
Project.
VTU Zone IS
December It. 1969
EPA Region III - PhiIadeIphia
Information Jteioureti Vanagrmenl
Branch
SPA Region III - Philadelphia
Air Program! Branch
-------
PERCENTAGE OF RADON READINGS ABOVE 4 pCi/1
VIRGINIA
Total Number of Readings ¦ 39,869
PERCENTAGE OF RADON READINGS
ABOVE 4 pCi/1
31 Over 60%
m 40% to 60%
m 20% to 40%
0% to 2 0%
~ Insufficient Data
Less Than 15 Readings
Data:
Projection:
Plotted:
Produced fly:
Produce J For:
Banmap data from VSCS
1:2,000,000 DLC. Radon data
from Key Technology, Ttltdynt,
AxrChtk Inc. and The Radon
Proj tt t.
VTM Zonr i8
December 18, 1989
EPA Reg ion III - Philadelphia
Information Resource! Management
Branch
IPA Region III - Philadelphia
Air Program» Braneh
-------
PERCENTAGE OF
Total Number
RADON READINGS ABOVE
WEST VIRGINIA
of Readings •
4 pC i I 1
3,502
PERCENTAGE OF RADON READINGS
ABOVE 4 pCi/1
IS Over 60%
m 4 0% to 60%
m 2 0% to 40%
~ 0% to 20%
~ Insufficient Data
Less Than 15 Readings
Data; lanmap data from. VSCS
1:2,000,000 DLC. Radon da(a
from Key Ttehnolojy, Teltdyne,
AirCkek Inc. and Tht Radon
Pro)ect.
VTU Ione II
December It, 198 9
EPA Region III - Philadelphia
Information Retourcn Jfanajimtnl
Branch
Produced For: tPA Region III - Philadelphia
Air Proframt Branch
Projection:
Plotted:
Produced By:
-------
i'
£
K.
PERCENTAGE OF RADON READINGS ABOVE 4 pCi/1
IN THE STATE OF DE LAWAR E
Total Number of Readings - 3,320
PERCENTAGE OP RADON READINGS
ABOVE 4 pCi/1
~
2 OX to SOX
10* lo 2 OX
OX lo I OX
~
Insufficient Dtti
Less than IS readings
per Zip Code
tt if
!•••••> Itim Ull
¦ 111 lllli •/
rttitn/i * l.itl
• ( .
Mil II*
filet iraiir • / —
fr • I tt H. Iff !•¦• II
/#. flit
Pt<4in4 ly |?i Itfltft Iff - M
-------
I v<
N
P ERCENTAGE
OF RADON READINGS ABOVE 4 pC i I 1
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BY ZIP CODE
PERCENTAGE OP RADON READINGS
ABOVE 4 pCi/l
B 20Z to 3 DX
0 I0X to 2 0 X
~ OX lo 10X
~ Insufficient Data
Less than 15 readings
per Zip Code
Total Radon Readings:
4 123
#ali: Iiiimii frtm ffft f.l.flf.tff IK,
li
-------
EPA REGION III
MITIGATION DATA SUMMARY
Data Supplied By
PENNSYLVANIA CERTIFIED MITIGATORS
Prepared by:
Harold Erfer
John Noble
Bill Belanger
1/8/90
-------
in
CD
"~
Li_ C
O O
vi
a:
UJ o
It
D
z
1.4
1.3 -
1.2 -
1.1 -
1
0.9
0.8 -
0.7 -
0.6
0.5
0.4 H
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
,1367
RADON AFTER MITIGATION
PENNSYLVANIA
291
186
107
95
~ „ /y 20
^1.4^
7
1
~r~
<8
NR <1 <,2 <3 <4 <5 <6 <7
RADON CONCENTRATION
9
=T
<9 <10 <11 <12 <13 >13
-------
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
PERCENT REDUCTION
PENNSYLVANIA
I" I I TV? I T I I TT
nFI 1-1 n^r-rinnPlPlnnPIPlRnRpI
/
~
/
/
7
~
/
/
/
/
~
~
/
x
/
/
~
pi
/
~
/
~
/
/
/
/
/
/
~
/
~
/
/
/
/
/
~
/
~
/
/
/
y
/
/
y
V
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
r
10
20
i rn i in
30 40
50
60
70
80
90
PERCENT
-------
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
DEDUCTION AS A FUNCT OF STARTING RADON
PENNSYLVANIA
# . ¦=Hf +
200
400
600
8C
RADON BEFORE MITIGATION
-------
(/)
m
O
—3
li_
o
K
LJ
m
5
D
COST OF MITIGATION
PENNSYLVANIA
800
-77-4-
700 -
600 -
500 -
400 -
300 -
200 -
100 -
535
248
56
300
118
V.
39
V
15
r^-7~
8
0
T
T
T
T
NR
<500 <1000 <1500 <2000 <2500 <3000 <3500 <4000 < 4500 <5000 <5500 <6000
COST
-------
REGION III RADIATION PROGRAM
(NOT INCLUDING RADON)
Prepared by: W. E. Belanger
January 5, 1990
-------
REGION III RADIATION PROGRAM
(NOT INCLUDING RADON)
Overview
Under the federal reorganization of 197 0, EPA was given the
responsibility to set standards to protect public health from
radiation. In most but not all cases the enforcement of the EPA
radiation standards rests with other Federal agencies rather than
with EPA. A notable exception to this is the Radionuclide NESHAP
under the Clean Air Act which gives EPA regulatory authority over
NRC licensees, DOE facilities, elemental phosphorus plants and
uranium mines.
EPA also has substantial responsibilities in the event of a
radiological emergency. Independent of EPA1s chemical emergency
response teams (which may also respond to Email radiological
incidents) EPA has substantial responsibilities under the Federal
Radiological Emergency Response Plan. EPA's role is supportive
of the DOE radiological monitoring responsibilities, with EPA
becoming the primary agency after the emergency is declared to be
under control. EPA is also responsible for assessing public
health impacts in the areas outside the "emergency zone" as was
done in the Chernobyl accident, and also EPA sets the acceptable
levels of contamination above which protective actions must be
taken.
Because the EPA role in radiation protection is primarily
one of standard setting, the great bulk of the effort is
conducted by the Office of Radiation Programs (ORP) in
V.'a shingt on. Each Regional Office is assigned a Regional
Radiation Representative to provide radiation consultation to the
Regional Office. This consultation is generally provided under
the general heading of "support to the Regional Administrator",
and may include topics as diverse as EIS review, consultation
with Superfund on sites with radioactive materials or response to
public inquiries on radio frequency radiation.
The Radiation Representative also serves as a voting member
of the "Radiological Assistance Committee" which is chaired by
the FEMA Region for the purpose of supporting State efforts to
develop and to periodically exercise emergency plans around
nuclear power plants. Other Agencies represented on this
comirittee include HHS, FDA, DOT, NRC, Agriculture and Interior.
Another major aspect of the radiation responsibilities is to
provide technical support to the States so they may better carry
out their own radiation protection responsibilities. Until radon
became a high-visibility effort one WY was assigned to each
region to cover all radiation topics. With the recently
increased Regional role in radiation and an increased staff size,
the Regions have found it necessary to designate Fadietion
Program I-'anagers in each Region. In several regions the program
-------
manager is the Radiation Representative. In Region III it is the
section chief who supervises the program.
Objectives
The primary objective of the radiation program can be simply
stated as a reduction in public exposure to ionizing radiation.
Other ancillary objectives include response to public and
Congressional concerns and generally to act as a liaison with ORP
Headquarters and to keep things running as smoothly as possible
when radiation issues arise in the Region. Functional objectives
include timely review of State Radiological Emergency Response
Plans and participation in radiological exercises as a Federal
observer, consultation with Air Enforcement on the implementation
of the Radionuclide NESHAP, consultation with HWMD on sites
contaminated with radioactive materials, review of environmental
impact statements where radiation is involved, identification of
sites containing radioactive materials, and response to incidents
where there is or may be a release of radioactive ndterials.
Another major objective is to enhance State radiation protection
effectiveness through technical support and by providing training
to State personnel. This allows the States to accomplish the
radiation protection mission substantially without EPA regulatory
involvement and is the reason that the EPA Regional Radiation
Staffs can be as small as they are.
Accomplishment of the above objectives requires the Regional
Radiation Representative to attend several national functions
each year. These include the Conference of Radiation Control
Program Directors technical meeting (the Conference consists of
the radiation program directors of the 50 States), the annual
Radiation Representatives meeting. In addition it involves
occasional travel to Emmit.sburg, Maryland to teach at the
Emergency Management Institute. These activities in support of
the primary mission are important enough to also be classified as
obj ectives.
The Plan
Task 1 - Review State Emergency Plans and Evaluate Exercises
Revisions to the State Radiological Emergency Plans are
occasionally transmitted to the Regioh by the FEMA region. The
planning process was substantially completed in the early 1980's,
so plan changes only occasionally come in for review. These do
not arrive on any particular schedule and are generally without
prior notice, so we provide comments as quickly as we can
schedule the work. Since the major development effort on the
p3ans is now complete, there are not usually any major policy or
technical items to be dealt with, so plan review is not a great
workload.
At each of the nine nuclear power plants in or bordering Region
III, the State plans must be exercised in a full-scale exercise
-------
every two years. Thi6 means four or five exercises each year
need to be evaluated. Since the primary expertise in
radiological dose assessment is in the EPA office, we are the
primary observer for the State dose assessment function in every
exercise. This function is critical to the protection of health
in the event of an emergency, so the EPA role is essential to the
overall process. Each exercise consists of three days, a
pre-exercise meeting the day before, the exercise itself and a
post-exercise critique the following day.
Future exercises are scheduled as follows:
Artificial Island (DE)
April 24, 1990
May, 1992
Mar. 1994
Surry (VA)
Completed November 15, 1989
June, 1991
Dec. 1993
Three Mile Island (PA)
Completed Oct. 18, 1989
September, 1991
September, 1993
Calvert Cliffs (MD)
Completed Sept. 14, 1989
November, 1991
February, 1993
Limerick (PA)
February 7, 19 9 0
March, 1992
November, 1994
North Anna (VA)
Aug. 6, 1990
January, 1992
June, 1994
Peach Bottom (PA)
Vveek of Oct. 15 1990
October, 1992
January, 1994
Eesver Valley (PA)
May 22 to 24 1990
July, 1992
August, 1994
Susquehanna (FA)
Completed Feb, 22, 1989
February, 1991
May, 1993
Task 2 - State Assistance
Until 1987, the primary forum for delivery of assistance to
ih": states was through development of formal training sessions
conducted by Region II and III EPA and FDA. The last scheduled
-------
training meeting was for three days the week of October 1986, in
Long Island N.Y. Due to cutbacks in funding to the states, this
regularly scheduled training forum has been largely discontinued.
Training to the states is now provided largely through the
Federal Emergency Management Agency and through individual
seminars organized as the need becomes apparent. In addition to
this formal training EPA Region III frequently provides technical
assistance to States. For example, Bill Belanger was one of a
team called in by the Conference of Radiation Control Program
Directors to do a complete evaluation of the Maryland radiation
Program and to recommend the future direction the program should
take. In another case in Maryland, he acted as an expert
spokesman before a group of hostile citizens protesting the
installation of a new microwave tower. Virtually the entire
radon program consisted of technical assistance to the States
until it became an independent program, and Region III set up the
first radon training course for the States in March, 1985.
Assistance to the states is provided on a request basis
except for the scheduled training. Many requests can be handled
by sending out a copy of a document or by a telephone discussion,
but some requests are more complex and require laboratory
assistance or travel to a site. In this context, we have made
joint radiation inspections with Pennsylvania. In this effort it
is desirable to visit each State Radiation Office at least once
each year.
Task 3 - Radionuclide NESHAP
EPA has promulgated a NESHAP for Radionuclides for NRC
Licensees, DOE Facilities, Elemental Phosphorus Plants,
Phosphogypsum Stacks , Uranium Mill Tailings Piles and
Underground Uranium Mines. Of these, Region III has only NRC
licensees and one DOE facilities. At present the implementation
guidance for the NESHAP has been completed, so the Regions are
beginning to implement the reporting requirements of the NESKAP.
The NRC Licensee requirements will become effective March 15,
1990. Headquarters has developed a list of NRC Licensees.
Region III has developed a model letter to be sent to the NRC
licensees by the Regions. We will be sending inquiry letters to
each Licensee. These letters are primarily to determine whether
the Licensee handles only sealed sources and so is exempt from
reporting. Regions will be responsible for maintaining the data
base that describes the regulated NRC Licensees, and for
providing any assistance that is needed in running the COMPLY
conputer program which is used to determine compliance with the
NESHAP. There is only one major DOE facility (Bettis) in Region
III. Since this facility handles classified materials, it may be
necessary for a Region III person to obtain a security clearance
in order to implement this regulation.
Another provision of NESHAPS in general is the requirement
that new sources obtain approval to construct. This provision
caused Region III to deal with the Babcock and Wilcox facility
-------
near Pittsburgh. DOE has submitted an application for a
high-energy accelerator. The Army has also submitted an
application for a depleted uranium containment facility at
Aberdeen Proving Ground. Modeling of the Babcock and Wilcox
facility was done by Headquarters. This source applied under the
old NESHAP which has now been replaced. The other two facilities
were evaluated by the Region III staff and found to be
acceptable. The exact internal procedure to be used for
implementation of the Radionuclide NESHAP has not yet been
finalized in Region III. Until the time of this writing, the
staff work has been performed in the Air Enforcement Branch, with
the Radiation program supplying technical support.
For most NESHAPs the goal is to delegate the regulation to
the States. In the case of radionuclides this is not easy and
may be impossible since many states have placed Radiation and Air
in different departments. There are considerable problems with
Section 105 grant funding and auditing if the State Radiation
Programs were to implement the NESHAP. Compounding the problem
is the fact that the State Air Agencies may not be able to and
may not want to assume the enforcement of the regulation. For
this reason, automatic delegation was suspended for this
regulation, but EPA will delegate if a State wants it and has the
capability.
Task 4 - Assistance to HWMD
A number of Superfund sites have been identified in Region
III which are contaminated with radioactive materials. These
include the Lansdowne House and associated sites, Metcoa in
Sharon, PA. and the Alderfer Landfill. In the case of the
Lansdowne House, the sites were brought to HWMD's attention by
the Radiation Representative. Metcoa was identified by NRC and
brought to HWMD's attention. The Alderfer site was identified by
Superfund and the Radiation Representative's assistance was
requested. NRC requested EPA's assistance for the Safety Lite
Corporation through the Radiation Representative.
A draft memo of agreement has been prepared which delineates
the support that will be provided by the Radiation Program. This
consists of identification of new sites, consultation and hazard
assessments at sites, review of remediation plans, and site
radiological safety consultation. The Radiation Program will
also provide periodic training to assure that HWMD personnel are
adequately trained to recognize radiological hazards and to
obtain the necessary expert advice.
Task 5 - Review of Environmental Impact Statements
Several times per year Region III receives Environmental
Impact Statements dealing with radiological matters. Recent
-------
examples are the Navy's Empress II facility and the disposal of
the TMI accident water.
Environmental impact statements usually arrive without prior
notice and tend to be quite voluminous. A proper review can
consume a week or more of the Radiation Representative's time.
There is usually a deadline of three weeks to a month on the
review, and with the other workload a detailed review can be
difficult to schedule. This situation should improve now that
the Radon staff has been increased. The strategy is simply to
respond as well as possible in the time allowed and to request
extensions for important or sensitive issues where time is a
problem.
Task 6 - Emergency Response
For radiological emergencies there is a Federal Radiological
Emergency Response Plan which gives EPA the responsibility to
assess health impacts and to perform much of the radiological
monitoring. EPA has a response plan which is supportive of the
Federal plan. In a large-scale emergency the role of the
Regional Radiation Representative is primarily as a communicator
and facilitator to assure that information and equipment gets to
where it is needed. The Regional Response Center would also
provide support for the Federal response as they are able, with
support from ATRMD. There is some movement at the time of this
writing to include Regional personnel on the national
Radiological Assistance Teams.
For smaller incidents, it may not be necessary to invoke the
Federal plan. Several times per year there are small incidents
involving radioactive materials. These sometimes involve the
loss or theft of small amounts of radioactive materials or simply
the discovery by a citizen of a box labeled "radioactive" in a
trash can. In cases like these the Regional Response Center
notifies the Radiation Representative or his alternate. The
response will usually involve arranging for someone to go to the
site with the appropriate instrumentation and to make a survey.
Where labeling indicates that there is clearly not a major-
threat, this may mean traveling a short distance with Region III
equipment or contacting the State or NRC or some other competent
person close to the site. Where there may be a serious problem,
the appropriate Federal contacts are made by the Radiation
Representative. The exact contacts to be made are specific to the
material and quantity involved and require expert judgement on
the probable level of the threat and the appropriate agency to
handle the situation.
Task 7 - Other Duties
In addition to the specific duties above, there are general
actions needed to make the program operate. These include Lead
-------
Region responsibilities, Congressional and Public inquiries, and
teaching and attendance at key national meetings. The number of
national meetings is the same each year and they are held on
roughly the same dates, though the location of the meeting will
change. For example the Conference of Radiation Control Program
Directors meets each year in a different state. The 1989 meeting
was in Baton Rouge, LA. The national EPA Radiation
Representatives meeting is usually near Washington, but is
occasionally held elsewhere if needed to allow for some training
to be included. The meeting has twice been held at EPA's
Montgomery Radiation Laboratory. Attendance at these meetings is
essential to keep up with the field and with Federal policy.
Where other programs have many people going to meetings to cover
new developments for the Region, there is only one radiation
representative who must cover all the national non-radon
radiation meetings.
There is also a significant effort in simply keeping up with
the new developments in the field. VTith the volume of new
developments and new Government positions on radiation, keeping
up requires 10 to 20 percent of the Radiation Representative's
time, though this much time is rarely available.
Since radiation emergencies can and do occur, and as is true
for any one-person program, it is necessary to designate a backup
in the event that the Radiation Representative is not available.
At the time of this writing, the Special Programs Section Chief
acts as backup to the Radiation Representative. There is no
senior technical staff backup available in Region III at present.
Resources
The Headquarters allocation for non-radon radiation
activities is 1.0 WY for FY '90. During the last year Bill
Belanger devoted approximately 70% of his time to these
activities. The remaining 0.3 WY is supervisory and secretarial
support. As the radionuclide NESHAP becomes active, John Noble
will begin to devote some of his time to that program. No
specific resources have yet been assigned to the radionuclide
KESKAP but this is expected. These resources will have to be
allocated among the organizations implementing the program.
In addition to WY, the Radiation Program needs other
resources. In the past, equipment has been assigned to the
region by ORP and we have purchased other equipment from Division
funds. Equipment now on hand is sufficient for our immediate
needs, but some provision should be made for regular funding of
maintenance and for annual calibration. Our survey meters have
been calibrated one time at Superfund expense, once by the State
of New Jersey as a courtesy, etc. There is no regular program or
funding in place to assure this is accomplished periodically.
-------
Certain safety equipment is needed if radiation people are
to visit Superfund sites. At minimum, radiation badges and
fitted respirators are needed. We should also have disposable
gloves and booties and protective suits. For this purpose,
disposable coveralls should be sufficient. A contract was
recently been let for badge service for two employees, but there
are no respirators or other protective equipment available.
These should be purchased as soon as practical, but this can only
be done after a fit test has been performed. It may be possible
to arrange the fit test through OSHA since they have the
necessary equipment.
Travel funding is a perennial problem for all ten Regional
Radiation Representatives, Region III included. There are known
trips to be taken each year but travel funds are not allocated in
advance to cover these trips. In addition a one-person program
requires that most of the travel for the program be conducted by
one person, which leads to a very high cost on a per person basis
even though the program travel costs are small. The travel
allocation has yet to be sufficient to cover the cost of the
necessary travel.
-------
Meeting Notes
-------
Meeting Notes
-------
o
fa
r,
w
&
-------
ENFORCEMENT ISSUES
FEW VOC CASES
Due to :
1.
2.
3 .
4 .
5.
6.
7.
8.
ASBESTOS
* Program has seen tremendous growth in activity
* 6200 notifications in FY'89; anticipate 7200 in FY'90
* HQ resource levels remained constant; Region III using SEEP
program to augment resources.
INSPECTOR TRAINING ORDER
* Mandates 13 courses be taken over a 1 1/2 year period
* HQ training modules have not been developed
* Regions left to fund courses independent of HQ; LOE funds not
adequate to fund contractor sponsored courses.
COMPLIANCE MONITORING STRATEGY
* Region III endorses the concept
* Finding that the application is extremely resource intensive
for the states and EPA.
* States willingly committed to Strategy and are very slow in
submitting proposed inspections.
Many SIP cases are "dogs"
a.) SIP deficiency (GM Arlington)
b.) Complexity of VOC compliance
c.) Capture efficiency/Transfer efficiency
Many NSPS/NESHAP not delegated
Lower percentage of procedural violations
States reluctant to defer enforcement of SIP vs.
NSPS/NESHAP
Many PSD/NSR/NSPS are also VOC
Passage of time - sources coming into compliance
American Cyanamid decision
States resolve straight forward VOC cases and EPA
takes the lead on complex cases.
-------
ATTACHMENT
Workgroup Name
CMS Workgroup
SSCD Lead
CMB
Regional Lead
Regions III & V
General Charge
Review OPPE evaluation of CMS, and review existing
guidance supporting CMS. Provide recommendations
for revisions to the existing guidance as
apprqpriate.
Enforcement
Guidance Workgroup
TSB
Region III, V,
S. IX
Evaluate existing enforcement guidance (T&A) and
provide recannendations as appropriate. Develop
guidance for preparing Enforcement Response Plans
(EI^s), and for ascertaining EPA/State lead.
Continuous
Compliance Workgroup
CMB
Region IV &
Regi on VII
Develop a self-ironitoring program. This workgroup
has already been formed and is being led ty Ron Shafer.
Compliance Planning
Workgroup
TSB
Region IV
Develop a protocol for planning carpliance activities
and setting national priorities for EPA and the States/
Locals. This workgroup has already been formed and is
being led fcy Tan Lyttle.
Compliance Inspection
Workgroup
TSB
Region V &
Regi on VII
Develcp improved recorckeeping inspection protocols,
and cfevelcp minimum inspection report requirements.
-------
ATTACHMENT (Cont)
Workgroup Name
SSCD Lead
Regional Lead
General Charqe
Program Policy and
Communication
Workgroup
CMB
Regions I & VI,
VII, X
Develqp governing policy for measuring success of
progran. Develqp national tenplate that identifies
major progran elements, program expectations,
audiences and neasures of success. Develcp a
cannunications strategy for reporting compliance
story.
Oversight Protocol
Workgroup
TSB
Regions II,
III, V and VI
Develcp oversight protocol to include what
compliance oversight should enconpass and a
process for the review of the grantee's
performance, including appropriate response
measures. This workgroup has already been
formed and is being led fcy Susan Insetta.
-------
FY 1989 BOY + ADDS
(BY POLLUTANT)
7YYYYN
'll, ' ^ ''i i'®!i j'rV ' ]'!'
•' ft 4 it'ft
It®
iii^lt:!'Jv|,|!!i,l':Sii I,;
*
/V /V /\ y\ A
'»»»))/,
1'¦' 1 * 1,1
88888888
„ '!i Vi.' .Tiifisl
i'lI'V'-vi" ,:,1
f I,"' 1 V- I,
¦. 'if, i.Xi'I'H i
' , 11 iViii 'n '1, ' , l< 1 *J
—I r 1 1 l
VOC TSP S02 NESHAP REMAINING
CZJ BOY
POLLUTANT
[xxkJ qi EZl 02 ESS 03 CO Q4
-------
FY 1989 RESOLUTIONS
BOYs & NEWs
—i 1 i i i
VOC TSP S02 NESHAP REMAINING
POLLUNTANT
I I BOYs E&3 NEWs
-------
FY 1989 RESOLVED SOURCES
TOTAL SOURCES RESOLVED = 85
STATE (91.8%)
-------
FY 1989 STATE RESOLUTIONS
TOTAL = 78
NESHAP (7.7%)
NSPS (24.4%)
PM10 (9.0%)
TSP/SIP (3.8%)
NSR (11.5%)
S02 (1.3%)
VOC (42.3%)
-------
FY 1989 EPA RESOLUTIONS
TOTAL = 7
-------
FY 89 REFERRAL
TOTAL = 12
-------
FY 1989 SVIL RESOLUTIONS
(BOY) TOTAL = 44
NSPS (6.8%) I
TSP/SIP (11.4%)
NSR (11.4%)
NESHAP (11.4%)
S02 (2.3%)
PM10 (6.8%)
-------
QT4 89 (43.1%)
FY 1989 VOC RESOLUTIONS
(BOY = 37)
QT1 89 (11.8%)
QT2 89 (21.6%)
QT3 89 (23.5%)
-------
FY 1990 SPMS TARGETS
QUARTER IV (CUMULATIVE)
NESHAP (2.3%)
S02 (9.3%)
TSP (11.6%)
-------
Asbestos NESHAP
Regional Strategy Utilizing
Senior Environmental Employment (SEE) Program
to Achieve Goals
Goals:
1. increase number of enforcement cases
2. increase number of inspections
3. increase public outreach programs
Resources needed to achieve goals:
1. 2 full-time enforcement developers
utilizing attorneys employed under SEE Program
(2 X 24,000) $48,000.
2. 4 full-time inspectors responding to
hotline calls and performing compliance
monitoring based on renovation/demolition
notifications received in regional office
(4 X 22,000) $88,000.
3. 3 full-time administrative assistants
preparing outreach packages, answering telephone
inquiries, inputing data into ACTS/NARS
(3 x 11,000) $33.000
Total $169,000.
-------
EPA Region III
Asbestos/N E S H AP
Program Data
-------
11986 PROJECTED TO 19901
\ !
14373
3367
4587
7656
/ / / /
]/ / / /
/ / ¦
////
////
///>
// / /
/ / /
/ / / /
/ ' 1
/ / / /
////i
/ /
/ /
'Ml
10647
^777
////
/ / / /
'///
' j
/ / /
////
////i
/ / / /
¦¦ / / /
//?/
f ft:
¦' ' '
/ / / /
" / / /
/ /' / /
/ / / /
' / / / ,i
/ / '''
" / / / i
/ / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
7/ / ¦
/ / /
/ / / /
/ / /
' / / /
////
' / / / ..
////
////
y//i
/ / / /
! f
1 J / /
////
// / /
/ / /
/ / / /
' / /
/ /X '
77/
// //
/ /1,
/ / /'
"/ / //
///.
7//
1986
1987
1990
-------
Asbestos NESHAP Program Yearly Summary
Program 1986 1987 1988
1988
Allegheny Not. 425
County Insp. 828
NOD 5
AO i
Ref. o
DC Not. 277
Insp 205
NOD 2
AO o
Ref. Q
DE Not. 146
Insp. 145
NOD 55
AO 0
Ref. 0
MD Not. 516
Insp. 534
NOD 0
AO 45
Ref. 0
PA Not. 1 o 9 2
Insp. 587
NOD 2
AO 4
Ref. o
Phila Not. 375
Insp. 661
NOD 40
AO 9
Ref. 0
VA Not. 560
Insp. 362
NOD 4
AO 0
Ref. 0
WV Not. 195
Insp. 45
NOD 0
AO 10
Ref. 0
422 438 315
1001 1218 1241
8 13 0
0 0 28
0 0 0
359 474 800
326 347 235
8 0 53
0 0 11
0 2 1
223 322 453
197 247 419
3 0 1
0 15
0 10
769 2132 3716
727 747 461
0 13 4
61 1 15
0 0 0
869 1795 1780
881 1011 839
16 1 0
0 3 22
0 0 0
407 736 731
842 1638 2691
17 11 68
0 19 82
0 0 26
985 1292 2519
141 94 148
113
0 0 8
0 0 0
297 467 333
99 24 41
13 6 17
0 0 0
0 0 0
1990
proj.*
425
1080
611
5017
2403
987
3401
449
-------
* Inspections are likely to remain at FY 1989 levels due to resource
limitations. In addition, inspection numbers are expected to continue
to rise based on traditional NESHAP population. Potential public
building inspection under AHERA will additionally impact inspection
numbering. Projected figures for FY 1990 are conservative
speculations based on increases from FY 1986 to FY 1989.
-------
Meeting Notes
-------
Meeting Notes
-------
Meeting Notes
-------
The President's Bill:
• An Aggressive & Innovative Approach
to Achieve Clean Air
• Acid rain
- Achieves a permanent ten million ton SO^ reduction
• Nonattainment
- Brings 120 of 124 cities in attainment by the year 2000
• Air toxics
- Reduces public health risk from emissions of airborne
toxic chemicals
• Enforcement
- Tough new penalties for violators
-------
^09T4%
The President's Bill
An Aggressive Response
% ^
• Environmentally sound
• Lowest cost
• Fair to those who have cleaned up in past
• Allows unconstrained Economic Growth
-------
The President's Bill:
An Aggressive and Innovative Approach
To Achieve Clean Air
Talking Points
This bill comprehensively addresses three major air pollution
problems: acid rain, failure to attain our national ambient
air quality standards particularly for Ozone, CO and
Particulate Matter, and emissions of toxic air pollutants.
Several themes link all elements of these proposals. First,
they are aggressive. The goals sought are ambitious (10
million tons of S02 reduction, bringing 124 nonattairunent
cities into attainment within 20 years). The measures
required will affect virtually all sectors of society.
The proposals are innovative. We have attempted to combine
traditional regulatory approaches with new market based
approaches when these seemed likely to yield better programs.
We have reviewed our expanding scientific knowledge of
problems like ozone and have incorporated new insights into
our proposals. We have acknowledged the contributions of
previously ignored sources of pollution such as consumer
products. We have proposed a new solution to the pollution
caused by the motor vehicle in this country.
These proposals are designed to work. A great deal of
attention has been focused on making the bill streamlined and
impleroentable. We establish a permit system which covers the
major problem we address and establish tough new enforcement
measures to ensure that the goals we seek will not be
frustrated in implementation.
Finally, These proposals are balanced and comprehensive. Both
the Federal and state and local governments have significant
responsibilities in meeting the goals set forth in this bill.
For each problem, we propose a comprehensive set of proposals
which deal with all aspects of the problem. We are also aware
of the significant price we are asking the American public to
pay, and have sought, consistent with the goals we seek, to
fashion the most cost-effective combination of controls in
each case.
-------
yto9r4*+
(&)
PPCf*-
Acid Rain:
A Serious Problem
• Thousands of lakes and streams in the U.S.
and Canada damaged or threatened
• More than 50% of Eastern visibility
impairment due to S02
• Damage to buildings and monuments
• Forests threatened
• Human health at risk
-------
Acid Rain: A Serious Problem
Talking Points
o But first, I would like to remind the Subcommittee about the
seriousness of the environmental problem that the nation is
facing because of the emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides.
o Based on years of scientific research, ve know that thousands
of lakes and streams across the North American continent are
either currently being damaged or are threatened by acid rain.
o Moreover, the affects of regional sulfur oxides amissions are
not limited to lakes and streams. Over 50t of the haziness
that hangs over the eastern U.S. during tbe summertime and
impairs visibility is due to amissions of sulfur dioxide.
Visibility in some of the most heavily used national parks-
including the Grand Canyon— has been seriously degraded by
sulfates.
o Elevated levels of sulfur oxides contribute to materials
damage such as corrosion of metals, soiling, and the
deterioration of paint.
o These emissions may also be responsible for damage to certain
tree species that make up our forests.
o In addition, the scientific community has for years been
concerned over studies linking acid aerosols to a number of
health effects, including bronchitis in children and excess
mortality.
o In short, emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides pose a
serious environmental problem which calls out for the kind of
aggressive response contained in the President's bill.
-------
The President's Bill: An Aggressive Response
Talking Points
Zt bat been 12 years since the Clean Air Act has been revised
and Z an pleased to be before you to present the President's
plan for controlling acid rain, a propossl that Z believe to
be the strongest and Bost workable yet devised for dealing
with the acid rain problem.
As President Bush has eloquently stated, mow is the time for
action and ve are proposing tough legislation that Z can
assure you is anvironnentally sound, reducing amissions of
sulfur dioxide by 10 Billion tons froa 1980 levels and
nitrogen oxides by 2 Billion tons froa the levels ve
anticipate in the year 2000. These are the reductions X
believe ve need to achieve and Baintain la order to preserve
the health of our lakes and streams and mitigate against the
other serious impacts of sulfur and nitrogen oxides.
Zt would be folly to undertake an acid rain control program
only to have the resulting environmental inprovenents erode
over tine. Our approach ensures that the billions spent on
eliminating environnental changes vill not be vested because
of future anissions growth undercutting the program's
benefits.
The bill acconplishes this objective at the lowest possible
cost — relying on aarket incentives to do so. Our approach
is to have govemnent establish the environmental goals of the
progran, but to rely on the ingenuity of plant nanagers in the
marketplace to select the best means of sttaining those goals.
Me astinate that this results in a cost savings of 20%.
We also recognize that a solution to the acid rain problem
Bust not only be anvironaentally and economically sound, but
fair as veil. There is no such thing as a free lunch and
aoaeone is going to have to pay to cleaa up our lakes and
streams. We have designed an approach that does not penalise
those vho have taken cleanup actions in the past, but puts the
•eononic burden for cleanup on those most responsible for the
anvironnental problea.
And finally, any solution to the acid rain problea Bust not
threaten the nation's aconoaic vitality and potential for
growth. Our approach preserves air quality, but not at the
•xpense of aeonoaic developaent. We accomplish this through
a system of aaission trading and offsets, about vhich Z vill
have aore to aay later.
-------
The Bill Adds Less Than 3%
to the National Cost of Electricity
200
160
(0
-------
The Bill Adds Less Than 3% to the Bational Cost of Electricity
Talking Points
e On the cost »ld« of the equation even when fully iaplement
the bill vill add only $3.4 to $4.1 billion to the $160
billion currently expended by Aaerican consumers on
•leetrieity. This amounts to less than 3% of national
electricity expenditures. national electricity rates
theaselves vould be expected to 90 up by the saae amount.
e Z recognise that substantial variation around this number vill
occur froa utility to utility, but overall, significant
increases in electricity rates — by which Z Bean increases
greater than 10% — vill be the rare exception rather than the
rule.
o The vay ve are able to keep the effect on electricity rates
so lov is by relying on a system of aarket incentives to
reduce Missions. By approaching the problea in this vay, ve
believe ve cut 20% froa the costs of the prograa.
o How it vorks is as follovs: First ve allocate eaiesion
allowances to boilers using a foraula based on their recent
(1985-1987) fuel use and the emission rates necessary to
achieve the desired eaission targets.- There are no tiae
consuming case-by-ease negotiations in establishing these
allowances.
o Next, utility aanagers — not the government — decide the
aeans by which they intend to achieve the needed reductions.
They are free to choose any aeans they desire: switching to
cleaner fuels such as gas or lov sulfur coal, installing
existing scrubber technologies, repowering their facilities
using new, advanced technologies, or through energy conser-
vation programs.
o What keeps the systea honest is our ability to accurately
aeasure performance. All sources vill have to install a
system of computerized emission monitors in their saokestacks.
This vill enable EPA to know exactly vhat quantity of
emissions is coming out of the stacks.
o The aost Innovative part of our prograa, however, is that
allowances vould be transferable.' A source that can reduce
the level of its emissions below its allocation of allowances
can sell the excess allowances to another source. The parties
to a transfer siaply notify EPA that they have negotiated a
transfer; no lengthy State or Federal ruleaaking is required.
The recordation should take only a few days. This trading
systea is an essential feature of our prograa, cutting 201
froa the cost of the bill and ensuring that the environaental
goals of the prograa are achieved at the least possible cost.
o To ensure overall compliance, a source's emissions, measured
using the coaputericed aonitors I mentioned earlier, vill be
compared vith its stock of emission allowances recorded with
the EPA.
o Zf there is a discrepancy, enforcement under our program is
severe. A source Bust pay $2000 for every ton by vhich its
eaissions exceed its allowances. Moreover, to ensure that the
quality of the snvironaent does not suffer because of
noncoapliance, any noncoaplying eaissions vould have to be
"aade-up" in the next year. Zn other vords, a source vould
be required to rspay its debt to the snvironaent.
-------
.tfto »*,
*1
A Clean Environment Does Not Mean
Less Economic Growth
200
20 --
1970
ElectrlcltySales
(up 76%)
x GNP (up 59%)
Coal Use
(up 50%)
SO
Emissions
(Down 28%)
1987
1970 = 100
-------
A Clean Environment Does Not Mean Less Economic Cirow-ui
Talking Points
80 far Z've talked about the environmental necessity of talcing
fcction, Z've outlined tha features of the bill that sake it
the least expansive way of achieving vhat ve need to achieve
for the environment, end I've talked about bow the President's
proposal would result in a fair deal for all the regions
Involved. Let me now turn to the issue of economic growth.
Many have argued that we can't have econonic growth and keep
emissions from rising. This is aimply not so. Since 1970
electricity sales have risen 7«%, GNP has risen 59% end total
eoal use is up 50%. Yet, at the sane tine, emissions of SO,
have actually decreased 28%. Thus, Z do not accept the theory
that economic and energy growth must come at the expensa of
the environment. Furthermore, this country consumes 72% more
energy per capita than Germany and over twice as much as
Japan. We could substantially reduce our energy consumption
through efficiency improvements and conservation end still
remain economically competitive.
-------
Nonattainment
A Serious Problem in Our Urban Areas
• 101 ozone nonattainment areas
• 44 CO nonattainment areas
• 135 Million people affected
• PM10 - an emerging problem
• Worst effects on children, elderly, and
those with lung and heart diseases
-------
Nonattainment: A Serious Problem in our Urban Areas
Talking Points
While we have enjoyed great success in attaining several of
our national air quality goals (particularly for anbient lead
concentrations) we have not been successful in attaining
several others, particularly ozone, CO, and Particulate
Matter.
The health of 135 million Americans can be affected by our
widespread nonattainment problem. Our children, the elderly,
and those with lung and heart disease are most at risk.
These problems have defied solution in part because they are
closely linked to the pace of our economic activity and to
our motor vehicle based, suburbanized style of life.
In certain cases, particularly with regard to ozone, our
knowledge is still not complete. Such phenomenon as running
losses from motor vehicles demonstrate the scientific and
technical complexity of the problems we face.
-------
(jSB)
Nonattainment Proposals are
Innovative, Aggressive, & Workable
• innovative
- Alternative fuels
- Market incentives
• Aggressive
- All but four areas attain by 2000
- Strong enforcement, tough sanctions
• Balanced/Comprehensive
- National measures
- Federal mandates
- State/local discretion
• Workable
- Revamped SIP process with permits
- Dates, controls tailored to severity
-------
NA Proposals are Innovative, Aggressive, and Workable:
Talking Points
Proposals are aggressive:
all but the 4 worst ozone nonattainment areas must attain
by 2000.
stresses strong, active enforcement by granting Agency
authority comparable to that in Clean Water Act.
Allows EPA to use tougher sanctions on areas that do not
make good faith efforts to attain.
Proposals are innovative:
actively promotes alternative fuels as a long term
strategy to reach and maintain air quality standards,
allows petroleum and auto industries to suggest
comparable alternatives.
outlines forward-looking approach to attainment of PM
standards in addition to Ozone and CO.
Proposals are workable;
recognizes that areas have problems of differing
severity; proposes attainment dates and controls that
differ by the seriousness of the problem,
establishes a permit system as part of a revamped and
streamlined SIP process.
revises the inventory, modelling and aonitoring process
to assure more effective planning based on new scientific
knowledge.
Proposals are balanced and comprehensive:
Outlines new controls on all major segments of problem
e.g. mobile sources, large point sources, and small or
area sources.
Strikes a balance between Federal and state/local role;
provides extensive national controls, stipulates
additional federal mandates to be locally implemented,
and requires local discretionary measures through an
annual three percent reduction requirement.
-------
Nonattainment Proposals are Effective
Urban Air Quality Benefits
Number of cities
not meeting clean air goals
1988 1995 2000 2010
-------
NA Proposals are Effective
Talking Points
The fundamental goal of this proposal is expeditious
attainment of the NAAQS; Of 124 Ozone and CO nonattainment
areas, all but four ozone nonattainment areas achieve this
goal within ten years or by 2000. All areas will attain by
2010.
Even in the few areas not attaining by 2000, dramatic progress
will have been made. Emissions in New York, Chicago, and
Houston will be down by an average of 60 percent. Emissions
in Los Angeles will also be down by 60 percent in 2000.
-------
The Proposal Has a Major Impact
on VOC Emissions
8
co
c
.2
o
o
o
o 6
co
c
o
0)
tn
E
ill
o
o
>
O
E
£
(0
C
(0
c
o
Current
2005 without Bill
2005 with Bill
6147
• ¦¦¦
t 'l - . ( :i.
i . .< »-j. •
v».' ;
J / '
- < f'.-1
• -> i" '7
. / ; i ; , "H
'• !< /¦ W
•: yh-\-
*; • i *
1 S S 1 ?¦
•• ^ v.ij
Mobile Sources
Stationary Sources
-------
The Proposal has a Major Impact on Emissions
Talking points
In reaching these attainment goals, the proposals achieve a
major reduction in the national inventory of emissions. For
example, VOC from stationary sources should drop by 27 percent
from 1987 levels.
These reductions are achieved in face of significant projected
emissions increases resulting from growth in the population
and the economy. Without these proposals ve predict that
stationary sources emissions (from large and small sources)
will grow by 11 percent. Our proposals thus achieve a
reduction of 37 percent from emissions levels that will result
if no action is taken.
Reduction in mobile sources are particularly impressive.
Emissions from mobile sources in 2005 should decrease by 77%
from 1987 levels. Mobile sources which represented 49% of
nonattainment area emissions in the late 1980's will be only
23 percent of the inventory in 2005.
These reductions are achieved through shared responsibility
between Federal and State officials with an active Federal
role.. In 2005, for example of the total anticipated
reductions of 7.8 million tons of VOC, 74 percent are
associated national mandates, 9 percent are associated with
Federal requirements implemented by state officials, and the
remaining 17 percent i6 determined by state discretion.
The nationally mandated reductions provide significant relief
from the burden imposed on nonattainment areas from pollutants
transported in from upwind attainment areas.
-------
,CO 9TA.
C®')
The President's Proposal
Greatly Reduces Per Car Emissions
to —
=?E
C B)
•o S
© m
01
CO c
1.5--
o
"O" V)
< «
§ QJ
go
© >
3.0--
2.5
2.0--
Current
Gasoline Car
Total: 2.76
President's 1993
Gasoline Car
Total: 0.95
I j Evaporation
Exhaust
Senate's
Post 2000
Gasoline Car
Total.-0.60
President's
Post 2000
Clean Fuel Car
Total: 0.19
-------
Mobile Sources: A comprehensive Response
Talking Points
The major reductions in mobile sources emissions just noted
are achieved through a comprehensive, phased program which
targets not only the vehicle (characteristic of previous
changes to the Clean Air Act) but also fuels.
As the chart shows, the various measures in the Administration
bill will have a major impact on per-car emissions in the mid
90's. Emissions of VOCs will be down over 65 percent from
current cars.
Reductions in the long term are even more dramatic. After the
year 2000, these proposals could lead to a 93 percent
reduction in per car emissions. This is roughly one third the
per car emissions that could be expected from the Senate
proposal.
-------
The Clean Fuels Program:
^ Addresses the Long Term Problem
• Introduces new vehicles that operate on clean
burning fuels
- Natural gas
- Ethanol
- Methanol
- Reformulated gasoline
• Required in nine urban areas with worst smog
problems
• New clean-fueled buses will replace 75% of urban
transit fleets beginning in 1991
-------
The Clean Fuels Program addresses the Long Tern
Talking Points
Because of the uniqueness of Clean fuels program, I would like
to highlight it. The key elements are summarized on the
chart.
First, our proposal is fuel neutral. Market forces can
determine what fuel will ultimately be accepted.
Second, Several of these fuels are widely used in nations
outside the U.S. The question is not whether these fuels are
practical, but which is most acceptable in U.S..
Thus, the program is designed to be large enough to develop
significant market with supporting infrastructure and fuel
delivery system.
Our bill offers a major challenge and opportunity to the oil
and auto industries. If they can put forward a proposal for
clean fuels and cars that achieves environmental benefits
equal to our alternative fuels program the bill allows us to
consider it.
As a major first step, our program requires new urban buses
to use alternative fuels beginning in 1991. We can look
forward to the time when the bus we are all sometimes stuck
behind in traffic does not belch clouds of black smoke at
every light.
I urge the Senate to consider the President's alternative fuel
program thoughtfully. I recognize the requirement to use
alternative fuel vehicles is not in the Senate bill. I
believe that as you consider this, however, you will find
these provisions to be an essential and cost-effective element
in our strategy to attain and maintain clean air.
-------
($SZ£ * A'r Toxics Proposals are
V, .¦/ Qtroamlinorl and Annraeen
Streamlined and Aggressive
• Streamlined
- Shifts focus to sources
- Combines technology and health based approaches
• Aggressive
- Reviews 191 pollutants
- Stringent definition of MACT
- 50% mandates reduction of most of risk
• Workable
- Recognizes linkage among titles
- Has real and realistic deadlines
-------
Air Toxics Proposals are Streamlined and Aggressive
Talking Points
A major goal of the air toxics proposal is to reduce the time
required to responsibly regulate air pollutants. Our
proposals accomplish this in several ways. First, it includes
with the bill itself a list of the 191 pollutants of concern.
Second, it focuses on sources rather than seeking regulation
on a time consuming pollutant-by-pollutant basis. Finally,
it combines a technology approach which can be implemented
rather quickly in the first phase with a health based approach
in the second which can eliminate any significant public risks
that remain.
Our requirement of Maximum Achievable Control Technology
imposes stringent controls on both new and existing sources.
This first technology based step achieves a major reduction
in the risk associated with these pollutants.
The actual language of the bill is instructive here. For new
sources the bill indicates that MACT "shall not be less
stringent than the emission control that is achieved in
practice by the best controlled source." This is as stringent
as language in the current act and is equivalent to any in any
other proposal we have seen.
The bill represents a substantial tightening of standards
applied to existing sources under the existing act: for these
sources MACT "shall be at least as stringent as the emission
controls achieved in practice by the best controlled similar
sources."
Our proposals are workable. We have worked to integrate the
various titles to ensure they work together. We recognize,
for example, the significant air toxics benefits associated
with the reductions in VOC associated with Titles I and II of
the bill and have avoided duplicative requirements in Title
III.
-------
The President's Bill
A Comprehensive Approach
Point sources (factories, chemical plants)
- MACT
- Residual risk
Area sources (dry cleaners, gas stations)
- MACT
- TSDFs
- Nonattainment provisions
Mobile sources
- Clean fuels
-------
The President's Bill: A Comprehensive Approach
Talking Points
The bill offers a comprehensive approach to the air toxics
problem. New controls will be imposed on point, area, and
Mobile sources.
Point sources will be subject to both the Technology based
standards associated with MACT, and the health based second
phase.
Area sources will be subject to technology based regulation.
Significant reductions will also occur as a result of VOC
reductions under Title I. Major sources of area source risk
such as TSDFs (treatment, Storage and Disposal Pacilities)
will be regulated as part of the Administration's overall
approach to the toxics problem.
Mobile sources of toxics can be regulated under Title III.
In addition, Major reductions will result from regulations
imposed under Title II, particularly from the clean fuels
program.
-------
{w
*1
y
Mandated Technology Standards
Drastically Reduce Risk and
Emissions from Stationary Sources
o
o>
3
c
8
o
a.
JX
w
o
>
3
E
3
o
100%—,
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0 -
Baseline
Risk
v»v •••7 ¦
v • • •.*: ¦ \r
i ;¦ i : <*'
; i*
' •. . <¦: t . .
- <• i •¦ ¦ >
• #• •
After MACT
for 50%
of Source
Categories
-------
President's Proposal Reduces Risk From All Source Types
Talking Points
o The proposals achieve reductions in all major sources of air
toxics risk. Mobile and area source risk is cut in half or
more. Total risk is cut by 60 percent.
o The most significant reductions are in risk associated vith
major point sources. Here risk is reduced by 80 percent.
o Note that this 80 percent results only from the requirement
in the bill to regulate the first 50 percent of the sources
under the technology-based phase I of the program.
Significant further reductions will result from review of the
remaining 50 percent of the sources, and from the second
health-based phase of the program.
o This highlights a point that has sometimes been obscured in
discussion of our proposal: 50 percent of the sources
represents a disproportionate share of the total human health
risk posed by these pollutants.
o I should also note here that the Agency will review all the
sources categories listed as part of this bill's requirements.
While this was always the intent of the legislation, this has
been clarified in Congressman Lent's substitute for HR 3030,
which he has recently introduced in the House.
-------
Permitting/Implementation
Making the System Work
• Permits integrate requirements under
different titles
• Streamlined process
• Provides adequate resources
• Enforceable by state and federal
-------
Permitting/Implementation: Making the system work
Talking Points
I would like to conclude by noting two major features of this
bill that, while perhaps lacking the glamor of our alternative
fuels proposals, are essential if our efforts to achieve real
change are to be successful. The permit program and our
enhanced enforcement efforts.
The proposed permit program is integrated across the several
titles of the bill. It is designed to simplify and streamline
the overall SIP process.
The program provides the information essential to develop
better inventories necessary for regulatory and market-
incentive approaches.
The program provides the resources necessary for states to
implement and enforce the proposals.
The program establishes an adequate legal base for both
Federal and state enforcement.
-------
lw)
Strong Enforcement
• Enhanced criminal enforcement
- Longer prison terms
- Higher fines
• Easier commencement of civil actions
• Administrative penalties
• On the spot fines
• Enhanced authority to prevent criminal
violators from receiving federal contracts,
grants or loans
• Operating permit program established
-------
Strong Enforcement
Talking Points
In general, these new enforcement provisions summarized in
the figure are designed to provide the EPA and the states with
authority comparable to that in the Clean Water Act.
The provisions are designed to bring air pollution under
greater public scrutiny, and to make it easier to pursue civil
and administrative remedies where these are appropriate.
The provisions help ensure that violators will experience more
timely and, as warranted, more severe penalties.
This authority is necessary if the bill is to achieve in
practice its laudable and ambitious goals.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Date: January 17, 1990
Subject: Clean Air Act Amendments Update.
From: Glenn Hans^^^y^
To: Regional Clean Air Act Contacts.
Last week's Senate Subcommittee hearing on alternative fuels
went quite well for the Agency. Bill Rosenberg and Dick Wilson
testified on behalf of EPA. The major issues which were raised by
Senator Baucus, Chaffee, etc., during the hearing included public
acceptance and buy in into the program from the standpoint of
actually purchasing clean cars/fuels once they are available.
This includes what sort of authorities (e.g., SIP or otherwise)
and incentives (e.g., cars and fuels comparably priced with non-
clean cars and fuels) are needed to meet these goals. Another
major issue is the perception that the clean fuels program is
principally a methanol program and does not encourage other types
of clean fuels.
Bill Rosenberg assured the Subcommittee that the
Administration's proposal was "fuel neutral" and that as long as
the reductions were achieved that any combination(s) of clean
fuels/cars would be acceptable.
The Chaffee proposed alternative fuels amendment does include
the Tier II tailpipe standards and, from what I could discern, it
appears that this provision will remain in the amendment when it
is introduced on the floor of the Senate for consideration.
As you may be aware, during yesterday's RA Clean Air Act
conference call, it was agreed that Bill Rosenberg and Judith
Gleason would co-sign a memorandum which would more explicitly
establish the goals, objectives and timing of these calls,
additionally, it is intended that an agenda would be sent to the
Regions the morning before each call. I'll make sure you get a
copy of the memorandum and any other details that you may need to
prepare for the calls.
Today's pouch should include the following:
1. Newsclips of interest.
2. Copies of recent "Inside EPA".
3. A copy of Bill Rosenberg's testimony on alternative fuels
given at last Thursday's hearing. I would have included a copy of
our Congressional Hearing Report on the hearing but it's still
not ready. I'll include it in the next pouch.
-------
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE: January 8,1990
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Happy New Year to all of you. Here it is the first day in Washington on my
rotational assignment and its already getting quite busy. I would like to thank
George Abel for leaving me with excellent notes to help me get started.
In preparation for Congress' reconvening on the 23rd of this month, some
events on the Hill are already scheduled for this week and next. First, on
January 11 the Senate Subcommittee on Environmental Protection has
scheduled a hearing on alternative fuels. Second, on January 16 and 17, Clean
Air Act Amendments briefings for non-Committee Senators and staff will be
held in anticipation of the commencement of full Senate deliberations on the
Amendments around the 23rd- Bill Rosenberg, Rob Brenner and other key
Agency representatives will be involved in these briefings. Finally, on January
18 there will be an EPA all hands briefing on the Amendments for those who
are interested. OAR hopes to tape this presentation and send it to, among
others, the Regions. If the briefing is taped, Til send it to you as soon as I
have it.
As you are aware, Katherine Moore is working with a contractor to put
together a report on CAAA Q's & A's. This information will be cataloged by
Title. Title V will be the straw for how the report is to be designed for all
CAAA information. As this information becomes available, it will be sent to
you.
OPAR (Kate Fay) is also putting together a side-by-side analysis of all
CAAA proposals. This should be completed by the time Congress reconvenes
on the 23rd. Again, I'll get it to you as soon as I have it.
Clean Air Act Amendments Update.
Glennaami^
Regional Cle^n Air Act Contacts
-------
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE: December 1, 1989
SUBJECT: CAA news and other items
FROM: George Abel
TO: Regional Clean Air Act Contacts
Even though Congress has recessed, the activity level in HQ remains
high. The staff of the various committees are still working hard
to fashion the compromises that will be needed to allow eventual
agreement and passage of some form of bill by both houses. Some
of the major issues still remaining are the cost sharing provisions
being promoted by the midwest states to help defray the costs of
achieving their share of the S02 reductions in the acid rain bill,
whether a "cap" on emissions will be maintained, whether credits
will be given for early reductions or for reductions achieved by
technology, whether there will be an exemption for the "clean"
western states, what the impacts of the bill will be on global
warming, what the impact on rates for individual utilities might
be, whether there will be an alternative fuels provision for mobile
sources, whether there will be a second stage of tailpipe emission
controls, etc.,etc.
Another hot issue is the recent release of the proposed NSPS/111d
regulations. OAR is very committed to getting a good package out.
The mode OAR wants to be in until time to finalize the package is
one of listening to all sides and assuring them we will give them
all a fair hearing. I've included some news clips on the release
of the proposal. OAQPS mailed a more detailed package to your
division directors.
Today's pouch should include the following:
1 News clips on MWC release.
2 Two recent "Inside EPA's".
3 Summary of the status of Congress actions when it recessed.
4 A set of additional news clips of interest.
Next week, December 7, will be my last week here as your
representative in OPAR. I can say to any who are considering
taking on this assignment that it is definitely a worthwhile
experience. It gives a regional person a real perspective on how
decisions are made, who some of the key players are, and the amount
-------
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE: November 22, 1989
TO: Regional Clean Air Act Contacts
FROM: George Abel
This morning the Congress adjourned for the Christmas-New Year
holidays. They expect to return on January 23. I'm sending along
a copy of the Hearing Report for the final session of the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee so you can see some of the
changes made to the bill and get an idea of the many compromises
that still need to be worked out.
Today's pouch should include the following:
1 Report on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
mark-up of all titles of the CAA
2 News clips on a number of items of interest.
If I can be of assistance, please give a call. (FTS 475-8952).
-------
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
0-'
DATE: November ,1989
'I
TO: Regional Clean Air Act Contacts
FROM: George Abel
Most of you received an update on the status of the various bills
at the Air Branch Chief's meeting at Santa Fe, so I'll just review
a few of the highlights for you.
Senate: The full Environment and Public Works Committee completed
its mark-up of all titles, including the permit and enforcement
provisions, and reported them to the floor on Nov. 16. Staff here
are very pleased with the outcome in the Senate. The bill reported
out is close tc the President's bill and the expeditious action
will put pressure on the House to speed up their progress. The
Senate will probably reinstate alternative fuels in floor action.
Congress expects to recess tomorrow. Senator Mitchell has promised
to begin floor action when the legislators return on Jan. 23. A
goal President Bush is now pushing is to have a bill signed into
law by Earth Day in May 1990.
House: The House is not as far along in moving a bill through the
legislative process, but, in fact, is probably in better shape than
the Senate in terms of forging the compromises needed to arive at
a final bill. A complete bill has been reported to Dingell's full
committee. It is undergoing review by Sharp's Energy Subcommittee
for the cost sharing proposals the mid west representatives made
in the acid rain provisions.
Today's pouch should include the following:
1 Nov. 9 report hearing by the House Subcommittee on
Investigations and Oversight on the impact of proposed
legislation on sanctions for transportation project, the
highway trust fund, and EPA-DOT conformity activities.
2 Nov. 14 report on the Senate Committee on Energy hearing on
alternative fuels.
3 Nov 14 report on the Senate Subcommittee on Environmental
Protection on the mark-up of the acid rain bill.
4 Copy of Sununu's response to Waxman on the Administration's
position on the Act.
5 Washington Post article on the Senate acid rain bill.
-------
D. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE: 03 November 1989
TO: Regional Clean Air Act Contacts
FROM: Stephen Perkins
A development on the acid rain front. Dingell did offer the
outlines of proposed revisions to Title V of H.R. 3030 Thursday
afternoon, but it was not what you may have read about in Thursday
morning's Wall Street Journal. It claims to retain the cap, the
10 million ton goal, and the allowance system, and does not have
a generation fee or tax. However, it does have cost sharing
provisions in the form of a "polluter pays" emission fee on
utilities and industrial sources which would be used to offset
capital costs for some big midwest reductions.
The Administration's official position was no comment. That's
because, except for cost sharing, the offering looks interesting
and we are open to working with Dingell to see where this may lead.
The cost sharing provision may have a major emissions leak if as
implied at the top of p. 8, industrial sources are given allowances
but not required to hold them at year's end. That could be a 4.5
million ton leak. The cost sharing provisions will be a major
hurdle as the White House (read: Sununu) is dead set against it.
It will be interesting to see where this goes.
Today's pouch should include the following:
1. A copy of a release on the Dingell proposal.
2. A copy of Friday's Washington Post coverage of the above.
3. A copy of Thursday's Wall Street Journal article which
incorrectly pinned the Edison Electric Institute's trial
balloon on Dingell. EEI still has no sponsors for its
offering. Also attached is a copy of a Rep. Moorhead piece
against cost sharing.
So long for me. If George can be of assistance, please give a
call. (FTS 475-8952).
-------
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE: 02 November 1989
TO: Regional Clean Air Act Contacts
FROM: Stephen Perkins
Mark up in the Senate continues to be postponed. Folks are still
talking about alternative fuels. That still will be the next mark
up session, probably Tuesday. The promise of early floor action
looks dim. The rumor of no House action before next year is
getting stronger.
I also have a favor to ask of you from the acid rain folks here.
They're trying to better define the emissions from utility boilers
permitted between 1985 and 1989 and any others that may be in
operation by the date of enactment (say 4/1/90). For the sources
on the enclosed list in your region, please provide us with the
following information:
1. Are all the units on the list permitted?
2. Are there any other coal or oil-fired steam units expected to
be in operation?
3. List the plant name, unit number, S02 emission limit in
permit, with averaging time, and date of permit or permit
revisions.
Please phone or fax that data back to my replacement, George Abel,
by 11/08 with a contact we could follow up with if we have any
other questions. Thanks.
Today's pouch should include the following:
1. The list of utility sources we need your help with.
2. A copy of the report on the Senate's 10/26 mark up of Title
I. I've not included the amendments since they were in the
last pouch package.
3. A copy of amendment § 18 from the Senate Title I packages
which was missing from my last mailing..
4. Copies of some views on permitting and enforcement from NAM.
Expect more of this type of stuff to come forth from industry
groups in the coming weeks.
-------
Meeting Notes
-------
Meeting Notes
-------
Meeting Notes
-------
o
<.0
O
o
-------
1986 - 1988 REGIONAL
REGION I
OZONE PROFILE
I I
<>¦••• tiiiii
~
i
.hi i* .it*
.lit i* .it*
.ii« i* .hi
.11* U .III
.III I*
.IfI I* .lit
.III I* .III
llMMll
• laiil
•Ctll 1:1.
*•••¦ Miai) lt««NI M«
rnlttllHI in tM* II
»I*IU4: l«*tr I.
II* lnlH III - f»ll*«*l»»U
Ifdnd U»i l»l Ml - »tll»4«l»4U
llr Iihnm Inul
<&>
-------
OZONE MONITORING LOCATIONS IN
REGION III AND NEW JERSEY
-------
R E C I ON 111 OZONE STATUS
11ll 11 a a a MP-Cal I I r • a I
mi iiut jip-ciii if
¦ lill I I ••• I ilMI Iail|llla4
In11111 lat • t fir Iiim
Q Irt ai latl|iit«4 111•Iiaa ft I
_im
ilium
rmiTifiiii
lartir
•>~¦1•!
Cr ~ t airI•»
tirli
(uhr I ail
lllllltK
ItllM
T • r fe
VIST fllCIIII
I• • if11 Pallia
• lair
laiflli
lafciaii
Pi r i r
(iftlili
laarr•«I
mi urn str-ciu uiii
It* CailIi
In* itaalal
CIIr I ••
Pi li«« Ciarit' i
li II laara CI If
illiflaa J
Hilar
Pit I III
PhllalalpkW
llllflll
llll
HIT llll
lillI••ri C¦* r• 11
Pr a4« rI
-------
Region III Ozone SIP Call Areas
including the Expanded Planning Areas
(As of Noveotber, 1989)
AREA POPULATION (10001
Pennsylvania
Philadelphia - Wilmington - Trenton CMSA
Philadelphia County
Bucks County
Montgomery County
Chester County
Delaware County
Allentown - Bethlehem MSA
Carbon County
Lehigh County
Northampton County
Pittsburgh - Beaver Valley CMSA
Allegheny County
Fayette County
Washington County
Westmoreland County
Beaver County
Pittsburgh - Original SIP Additional Areas
Butler County
Armstrong County
AltdOQft MSA
Blair County 133
Srie MSA
Erie County 281
Earriaburg anon ..^'Carlisle MSA
Cumberland County 188
Dauphin County 236
Lebanon County 111
Perry County 38
Johnstown MSA
1637
513
663
334
557
54
278
231
1388
157
214
383
195
148
78
Cambria County
Somerset County
175
81
-------
AREA POPULATION (
Lancaster MSA
Lancaster County 387
Reading MSA
Berks County 318
Scranton « Wilkes-Barre MSA
Columbia County 61
Lackawanna County 223
Luzerne County 333
Monroe County 7 9
Wyoming County 28
Sharon MSA
Mercer County 124
York MSA
Adams County 70
York County 324
Maryland
Metropolitan Baltimore MSA
Anne Arundel County 397
Baltimore County 673
Carroll County 108
Harford County 152
Howard County 141
Baltimore City 754
* Queen Anne's County 29
Philadelphia - Wilmington - Trenton CMSA
* Cecil County 66
Washington, D.C. MSA
* Calvert County 41
* Charles County 84
* Frederick County 127
Montgomery County 643
Prince Georges County 678
-------
AREA
POPULATION / ii'iiQj.
District of Columbia
Washington, D.C. MSA
Washington, D.C. 626
Delaware
Philadelphia - Wilmington - Trenton CMSA
New Castle County 413
Non - MSA Area
* Kent County 103
* Sussex County 116
Virginia
Washington, D.C. MSA
Arlington County 158
Fairfax County 688
Loudoun County 64
Prince William County 169
* Stafford County 48
Alexandria City 108
Fairfax City 20
Falls Church City 10
Manassas City 20
Manassas Park City 7
Richmond - Petersburg MSA
* Charles City County 7
Chesterfield County 166
* Dinwiddle County 21
* Goochland County 13
* Hanover County 53
Henrico County 194
* New Kent County 10
* Powhatan County 13
* Prince George County 27
* Colonial Heights City 17
* Hopewell City 24
* Petersburg City 40
Richmond City 217
-------
AREA POPULATH . ; . >00 ^
Norfolk - Virginia Beach - Newport News MSA
Gloucester County 26
James City County 26
York County 40
Chesapeake City 130
Hampton City 125
Newport News City 157
Norfolk City 283
Poquoson City 10
Portsmouth City 111
Suffolk City 50
Virginia Beach City 319
Williamsburg City 11
WEST VIRGINIA
Parkersburg - Marietta MSA
* Wood County 93
Huntington - Ashland MSA
* Cabell County 106
* Wayne County 45
Charleston MSA
* Kanawha County 228
* Putnam County 41
Non - MSA Area
* Greenbrier County 37
KEY:
* indicates area currently designated attainment for ozone.
1988 SIP Call Area
1989 SIP Call Area
-------
REGION III STATUS
CORRECTION OF MAY 1988 SIP DEFICIENCIES
FY' 90
SPHS REGION III
STATE
DEF. REG.
MISSING
OTHER
I/M
NSR
TOTAL
TARGET
PROJECTION
DC
5
-
1
6
-
12
8
0
DEL
9
1
1
5
-
16
16
16
MD
16
1
10
-
-
27
21
21
PA
27
2
30
6
27
92
60
31
AC
11
2
4
-
-
17
11
9
PC
1
2
1
-
-
4
4
4
VA
39
5
15
-
-
59
50
35
108
13 62 17 27 227
170
116
-------
REGION III
CORRECTION OF MAT 1988 SIP DEFICIENCIES
FY '90 TARGET DATES
First Quarter - December 31, 1989
Delaware - 9 deficient regulations
Delaware - 1 missing regulation
Pennsylvania - 2 missing regulations
Third Quarter - June 30, 1990
Maryland - 16 deficient regulations
Maryland - 4 other regulations
Pennsylvania - 15 deficient regulations
Pennsylvania - 8 other regulations
Fourth Quarter - September 30, 1990
Delaware - 1 other regulation
Delaware - 5 I/M
District of Columbia - 5 deficient regulations
District of Columbia - 3 other regulations
Pennsylvania - 8 deficient regulations
Pennsylvania - 21 other regulations
Pennsylvania - 6 I/M
Allegheny County - 6 deficient regulations
Allegheny County - 1 other regulation
Allegheny County - 2 missing regulations
Philadelphia County - 1 deficient regulation
Philadelphia County - 1 other regulation
Philadelphia County - 2 missing regulations
Virginia - 37 deficient regulations
Virginia - 11 other regulations
Virginia - 2 missing regulations
-------
REGION III
NEW INITIATIVES
RVP
Expected Secretary's
signature
Submitted to EPA
Adopted by EQB
In court
Approved by Phila
Air Pollution Control
Board
Regulation under
development
DRY CLEANING
Draft regulations
using smaller cut-
off levels than
the CTG
I/M
STAGE II
Beginning 4/90
Statewide
Beginning 1/89
A) expanded vehicle
coverage
B) tampering check
DOT preliminary
development
Regulations
at Governor's
office
Approved by
Philadelphia
APCB
Beginning 1/89
A) expanded vehicle
coverage
B) computerized
analyzers
C) tighter enforcement
D) tampering check
-------
FY'90 EMISSION INVENTORY GRANT COMMITMENTS
REGION III STATES
State
Point
Area
Mobile
PENNSYLVANIA
PHILADELPHIA
ALLEGHENY CO
DELAWARE
MARYLAND
WASHINGTON DC
VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
11/30/89
11/30/89
3/1/90
11/30/89
11/30/89
11/30/89
11/30/89
12/31/893
11/30/89
11/30/89
11/30/89
11/30/89
3/31/90
6/30/90
i
11/30/89
11/30/89
3/1/90
3/31/90
1. PA responsible for submission
2. Washington Council of Governments (COG) responsible
for submission
3. Unrealistic date as contract is not yet issued
-------
O3/CO EMISSION INVENTORY ACTIVITIES
MEETINGS
- Regional meetings with all states were held in January and
September to discuss emission inventory development and issues.
- ATRMD has participated in interstate emission inventory
planning sessions for Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., and
Huntington, WV areas.
- ATRMD has met individually with states to discuss problem
areas on an on-going basis.
FUNDING
- Region III has awarded funds to all states for baseyear
emission inventory work in FY'90.
- $189,000 was awarded to the D.C. area in special 105 funds
in FY'89 for interstate emission inventory work.
- $200,000 has been set aside in FY'90 funds for emission
inventory development work for the Philadelphia area.
ADDITIONAL REGIONAL SUPPORT
- ATRMD has worked with West Virginia to develop an LOE
contract for emission inventory work. WV is unable to
undertake the effort on their own due to extreme personnel
shortages.
CROSS-MEDIA EI PROJECTS
- ATRMD is undertaking several projects which investigate VOC
contributions from other media (see attachment).
-------
CROSS-CUTTING PROGRAM INITIATIVES
PROJECT NAME: OZONE/CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSION INVENTORIES
CONTACT NAMEs David Arnold. Rebecca Taqqart. Kelly Bunker LEAD DIVISION: AMD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
In response to the continuing ozone and carbon monoxide (urban smog) problem, the U.S. EPA
announced a strategy to address this issue beyond the 1987 attainment date in the current
Clean Air Act(CAA). Part of this strategy involved notifying the Governor's of all states
with ozone/CO nonattainment areas that a comprehensive re-planning effort must be
undertaken. The keystone to such an effort is the development of a detailed and complete
emissions inventory for precursors to ozone. The large number of areas in Region III that
have failed to attain the NAAQS may be due in part to a significant underestimation of the
total atmospheric loading of VOC, NOx and CO contained in the 1982 attainment
demonstration. Therefore, Region III and the States have initiated work to identify and
quantify emissions from major and minor sources. Special emphasis will be placed on
identifying sources in other program media as well as nontraditional air pollution
sources. This inventory will also serve as a foundation to develop other air program
inventories such as air toxics and acid rain in response to possible CAA Amendments.
SIGNIFICANT MILESTONES—both past and future
1. Proposed Ozone/CO Post 87 Policy
2. Post 87 SIP Calls (Round 1)
3. Emission Inventory Guidance for
VOC/CO/NOx (Point/Area Source)
4. Emission Inventory Guidance for
VOC/CO/NOx (Mobile Source)
5. Water Program database survey
6. Identify POTW/industrial discharges
7. Determine POTW/industrial emissions
PROJECTED DATE
11/87
05/88
10/88
01/89
07/89
07/89
08/89
COMPLETED DATE
11/17/87
05/26/88
11/17/88
02/28/89
07/11/89
07/21/89
08/04/89
-------
2
SIGNIFICANT MILESTONES
8. Summary Report POTW/industrial impact
9. Post 87 SIP Calls (Round 2)
10. Cross-check OSWER TSDF database
10. LUST Program database survey
11. Cross-check SARA Title III (TRI)
database
12. VOC/Toxics Co-Control Study (MD)
13. RCRA/Landfill Program database survey
14. Superfund site data survey
15. TSCA/FIFRA Program database survey
(pesticides applications)
16. Cross-check ROMNET/NAPAP database
17. Completion of baseyear State Emission
Inventories (Round 1)
18. UAM speciation of inventory (10
chemical classes)
19. Completion of baseyear State Emission
Inventories (Round 2)
20. Air Toxics Inventory integration
21. Acid Rain Inventory integration (NOx)
PROJECTED DATE COMPLETED DATE
09/89 09/18/89
10/89 11/08/89
10/89
01/90
02/90
03/90
03/90
04/90
05/90
06/90
09/90
11/90
10/91
TBD
TBD
-------
REGION III
RULE EFFECTIVENESS STUDIES
I. PAST ACTIVITIES
A. Gasoline Marketing in FY'87-'88
1. Refineries, Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants
a. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
b. New Castle, Delaware
c. Baltimore, Maryland
d. Washington area (MD, DC, VA)
2. All field work completed, except Delaware
3. Final report for Baltimore bulk terminals completed
B. Stage I in Southeast Pennsylvania - FY'88
1. All field work completed
2. Final report by December 1989
a. Preliminary results indicate rule effectiveness
is < 67%
b. Similar results found in Kansas City, Kansas
and Kansas City, Missouri
II. CURRENT ACTIVITIES
A. Stage I in Metropolitan Washington
1. Region III, EPA-SSCD, EPA-FOSD, Maryland and
Virginia participating
2. Field work completed June 2, 1989
3. Final report expected to be completed by Spring 1990
III. FUTURE ACTIVITIES
A. All States, except West Virginia, expected to conduct own
study
B. Selection of Source Category to be in conjunction with
EPA
C. EPA's protocol and Region Ill's checklist to be used
D. Final reports expected by September 30, 1990
-------
WASHINGTON D.C. STAGE II AND INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE (l/M)
D.C. is considering bills which will:
(1) Eliminate Stage II vapor recovery systems:
Stage II is currently used in D.C. and is required in SIP
November 1, 1989 - D.C. Public Hearing - Region III
testified against Stage II Bill
As a result of hearing, a moratorium is being considered
for Stage II starting January, 1991
The bill is going to full committee review on November
28 and Council vote on December 5 and 19
District Congressional Committee will be given a 30 day
review
If this bill is passed a finding of SIP nonimplementation
should be considered
November 21, 1989 - Region III sent a follow-up letter
to the Council reiterating EPA's position on the bill
(2) Undercut the effectiveness of the I/M program;
D.C. is considering allowing decentralized, private gas
stations to inspect vehicles initirl.ly
Current programs allow initial inspections at centralized
stations only
Bill will result in a loss of hydrocarbon and carbon
monoxide reductions
October 11, 1989 - Public Hearing - OMS testified
against bill
October 31, 1989 - Region III sent a follow up letter
explaining in detail EPA's opposition to bill
-------
REGIONAL INITIATIVES ON TRANSPORTATION CONTROL MEASURES (TCMs)
Ozone replanning will likely require consideration of
TCMs
Region III is developing a strategy to address
mobile/transportation issues
Meetings are being held with relevant organizations to
discuss the role of TCMs and to develop public and
private sector support for such measure
URBAN AIRSHED MODEL (DAM) MODELING CENTER
As part of the ozone replanning, the UAM will likely be
applied for certain Region III cities
Cost and expertise are major issues
Region III is negotiating with The Maryland AMA to serve
as the Region III UAM modeling center
Regional and Headquarters funding will be required for
that effort
Significant cost savings will be realized
-------
MR PROGRAMS BRANCH EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS TRACKING SYSTEM
List of All Communication Records for the Ozone Program
11/29/89
PROGRAM DATE
PARTY
CAA
SUBJECT
STAFF T COST W/HRS LEG AUT STATUS
1 02
2 OZ
3 OZ
4. OZ
5. OZ
6 OZ
7 OZ
8 OZ
9 OZ
10 OZ
11 OZ
12 OZ
13 OZ
14 OZ
15 OZ
16 OZ
17 OZ
18 OZ
19 OZ
20. OZ
21 OZ
22. OZ
23 OZ
10/11/88
10/18/88
10/24/88
10/25/88
10/27/88
11/01/88
11/02/88
11/04/88
11/09/88
11/14/88
11/15/88
11/16/88
11/18/88
11/21/88
11/22/88
WVA,OH, KY N
ASSOC WEIGHT & MEASURES^
REGION I-II-II1 N
CO TASK FORCE N
MASROPC N
MARYLAND N
DELAWARE N
PENNSYLVANIA N
PA, DER STAFF N
REGION I-II-III STATES N
REGION I-II-III STATES N
REGION I-II-III STATES N
STATE SECRETARIES N
RICHMOND NEWS-LEADER N
PILCOP/DER N
03/CO INVENTORIESO JB,DA,RT, 0 00 30.0
12/06/88 MASROPC
12/09/88 FOSD/SSCD
12/12/88 DELAWARE
12/14/88 ALEXANDRIA GAZ
12/19/88 FOCUS MAG (DON COX)
12/20/88 WASHINGTON COG
01/06/89 COG - MD,VA,DC
01/13/89 FRIENDS SEL SCHOOL
N
N
N
N
N
N
STAGE II
ROMNET
KB, , , 0 00 4 0
03 STRATEGIES
SIP CALL
SIP CALL
SIP CALL
EI, VOC REGS
ROMNET
ROMNET
EI REQUIRE
TAG-03
SANCTIONS
304 SUIT
03 STRATEGIES
VOC RULE EFFECT
SIP CALL
OZONE NA
OZCNE NA
03 PLAWING
03/C0EI
OZONE
TM, JB, DA,
CO NONATTAINMENT DA, RT, LB,
DA,
TM,DA,CS,
DA,
LB,CS,
RT,
TM,JB,
DA,
DA,CS, ,
DA,IA, ,
DA, , ,
CS, , ,
DA, , ,
DA, , ,
CS, , ,
0 00 15.0
0.00 9.0
0 00 9 0
0 00 9 0
DA.CS,IA, 0 00 24.0
DA,RT,CS, 0.00 24 0
0 00 14 0
0.00 10 0
0 00 5 0
DA,RT,KB,CS 0 00 90 0
0 00 10 0
0 00 0 5
TM,JB,RT,DA 0.00 8 0
TM,JB,DA,RT 0 00 16 0
0.00 16.0
0.00 10.0
0 00 1.0
0.00 1 0
100.00 8.0
0 00 8 0
0 00 1 0
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
-------
PROGRAM DATE
PARTY
CAA
SUBJECT
STAFF T COST W/HRS LEG AUT STATUS
24 OZ
25 OZ
26 OZ
27 OZ
28. OZ
29 OZ
30 OZ
31. OZ
32 OZ
33 OZ
34 OZ
35 OZ
36 OZ
37 OZ
38 OZ
39 OZ
40 OZ
41 OZ
42 OZ
43 OZ
44 OZ
45 OZ
46 OZ
47 ' OZ
48 OZ
49 OZ
01/24/89
02/02/89
02/03/89
02/07/89
03/09/89
03/13/89
03/15/89
03/30/89
04/05/89
04/12/89
04/13/89
04/14/89
04/18/89
04/19/89
04/26/89
04/27/89
04/27/89
05/03/89
05/04/89
05/10/89
05/23/89
05/26/89
06/02/89
06/06/89
06/13/89
06/18/89
REG 3 - STATES N
GIRL SCOUTS N
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER N
MASROPC N
ALEXANDRIA GAZ N
BUCKS CO TIMES N
PA. SENATE N
SSCD/EOSD N
STATE OZONE MODELERS N
MD/OPPE N
VA NEWSPAPER N
FRANKLIN INSTITUTE N
STATE OZONE MODELERS N
ALLEGHENCY CO
REGION I & II
DUPCNT ELEM SCHOOL
DELAWARE
PA ENERGY OFFICE
VA. BOARD
N
MITRE CORP N
ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL N
N
MASROPC
CONGRESSMAN WELDGN'S N
N
WV CHAMBER OF COt+ERCE N
JACK WISO (citizen) N
OZONE EI, REGS
CLEAN AIR
RVP
03 STRATEGIES
SANCTIONS
CFC'S
RVP REGS
VOC RULE EFFECT
03/AIR TOXICS
OZONE PLANNING
03 MANAGEMENT
OZONE
03 MAPPING
03 STRATEGIES
03 STRATEGIES
SE/PA 03
SIP CALL
OZONE POLICY
03 POLICY
OZONE PLANNING
DA,CS,RT,
RT,
DA,
DA,
DA,
DA,
JB,DA
CS,
RCMNET, 5-CITY STUDY LB,
RT,
OZONE STRATEGIES RT,
STRAT/03/ACID RAIN RT,
RCMNET, 5-CITY STUDY LB,
DA.RT
CS,
RT,
LB,
CS,
DA,
RT,
DA,CS
DA,
TM,CS
TM.DA
JL
180 00 48.0
0 00 4.0
0 00 1 0
100.00 9 0
0 00 0 5
0 00 0 5
60 00 16 0
100 00 9 0
0 00 2 0
100 00 9 0
0 00 0 5
0.00 3 0
0 00 3 0
400 00 18 0
100.00 9 0
15 00 4 0
0.00 4 0
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
0 00 2 0 MAND ACTUAL
80 00 4 0
0.00 2 5
20 00 12 0
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
0.00 0.5 REAC ACTUAL
250 00 16.0
ACTUAL
WASHINGTON POST
N
OZONE NONATTAINMENT DA,
AIR QUALITY TRENDS DA,LB,
0.00 3.0 REAC ACTUAL
0.00 0.5 REAC ACTUAL
0.00 10 REAC ACTUAL
-------
PROGRAM DATE
PARTY
CAA
SUBJECT
STAFF T COST W/HRS LEG AUT STATUS
5C OZ
51 OZ
52 02
5? OZ
54 OZ
55 OZ
Or
CZ
c:
dC oz
6! OZ
62 OZ
f 3 CZ
6-; cz
<=, oz
66 OZ
67 OZ
6E OZ
69 OZ
70 OZ
06/21/89 PHILA INQUIRER Y
06/29/89 REGION 2,3 STATES N
08/21/89 CHEMICAL ENG'S CONF Y
08/29/89 STATE DIRECTORS Y
09/18/89 STATE PLANNING CHIEFS Y
09/26/39 MD AERL N
C9/:7/89 DE HIGH SCHOOLS N
09/28/39 DVRPC >
10/02/89 VA SAPCB/SABAP Y
10/11/89 STATE MONIT DIR Y
10/11/89 DC COUNCIL i
10/12/89 SEPTA/ENV GROUPS/EPA Y
1C/17/89 ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS Y
10/26/89 SO EAST ELECTRIC EXCH Y
i: '01/89 DC CITY COUNCIL Y
11/10/89 UNIV OF PA Y
11/15/89 EPA CCN; RF.G10N 111 i
11/16/89 ENGINEERS/TRANSPORTATIONY
11/17/89 DE COUNT/ 1NSPEC ASSOC Y
11/20/89 TRANS/PLANNIMG/ENV Y
11/29/89 SEPTA/BUSINESS COMM Y
ALTER FUELS PROV EE, , , 0 00 0,0 HAND ACTUAL
MDBILE SRCE EMISSONS DA,KB,RF, 0 00 24.0 REAC ACTUAL
OZCNE
CAA GENERAL
OZONE PLANNING
OZONE/RVP REGS
ANTI -TAMPERING
CAA/OZ
OZONE/CAA
OZONE/CAAA
I/M
TO, ,
TM.CS.KB
DA.CS.RT
DA.RF,
KB, ,
TE.DA.
TE.DA.EJ
DA, ,
KB, ,
MASS TRANSPORTATION LB,
GLOBAL WARM IN PHI LA RT,
CAA/ACID RAIN
TE,
STAGE II VAPOR CONTR KB,DA,
OZONE/CAAA SI, ,
K'i:> FFF5CTS SL, ,
MOB SOUR REGS/TECH LB, ,
SPEECH ON CAA PROPOS TE.DA,
MASS TRANS/TRANS LB, ,
MASS TRANSIT LB, ,
0.00 2.0 HAND ACTUAL
0 00 21.0 HAND ACTUAL
KB 300 00 60 0 REAC ACTUAL
35 00 16.0 REAC ACTUAL
35 00 8 0 REAC ACTUAL
0 00 6 0 HAND ACTUAL
400 00 35 0 REAC ACTUAL
100 00 18.0 HAND ACTUAL
115 00 16 0 HAND ACTUAL
0 00 0 0 MANU ACTUAL
0 00 2 0 HAND ACTUAL
0 00 0.0 HAND ACTUAL
100 00 16 0 HAND ACTJA!
0.00 8 0 HAND ACTUAL
0 00 0.0 HAND ACTUAL
0 00 2.0 HAND ACTUAL
0 00 16.0 HAND ACTUAL
0 00 2.0 HAND ACTUAL
0.00 2.0 HAND ACTUAL
Fiscal Year 1989 Totals
Fiscal Year 1990 Totals
Totals
1875.00 641.5
715.00 117.0
2590.00 758.5
-------
SOUTHEAST PA OZONE LAWSUIT
BACKGROUND
• 1982 SIP CONTAINED 30 TPD VOC EMISSION REDUCTION SHORTFALL
• 1983 SIP SUPPLEMENT #1 COMMITTED STATE TO ADOPT ADDITIONAL
CONTROL MEASURES TO ELIMINATE THE SHORTFALL
• 1985 SIP SUPPLEMENT #2 ATTEMPTED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ADDITIONAL
CONTROL MEASURES WERE UNNECESSARY
o 1987 EPA PROPOSES DISAPPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENT #2
. APRIL 5, 1989 EPA FINALIZES SUPPLEMENT #2 DISAPPROVAL
. APRIL 11, 1989 PILCOP FILES SUIT IN DISTRICT COURT
o DECEMBER 7, 1989 BRIEFING FOR ROSENBERG
LAWSUIT OVERVIEW
VULNERABLE TO SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
- NONIMPLEMENTATION OF SUPPLEMENT #1
MEASURES WITH AIR GRANT SANCTIONS
- FAILURE TO SET DATE CERTAIN FOR NEW SIP
- FIP FOR UNCORRECTED REGULATORY
DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED IN MAY 1988 SIP CALL
LESS VULNERABLE
- NONATTAINMENT-WIDE I/M
- SIP CALLS BASED ON 1988 DATA
- HIGHWAY GRANT SANCTIONS
- ENFORCEMENT OF CURRENT SIP
-------
CURRENT STATUS
. REGION III HAS DRAFTED A NONIMPLEMENTATION NOTICE OF INTENT, AS
AGREED AT THE ROSENBERG BRIEFING.
. OGC HAS RECOMMENDED THAT A SETTLEMENT OFFER BE MADE TO THE
PLAINTIFFS IN EXCHANGE FOR DELAYING ACTION ON THE
NONIMPLEMENTATION CLAIM AND SETTLING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AGAINST
EPA. THE OFFER WOULD CONSIST OF:
-THE NOTICE OF INTENT, WITH A COMMITMENT TO EITHER
PROPOSE NONIMPLEMENTATION OR PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTICE
THAT THE STATE HAS MET ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE SIP
WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF PUBLICATION.
-EPA WOULD SET A DATE CERTAIN FOR SUBMITTAL OF A NEW
OZONE SIP
-EPA WILL REFRAIN FROM FILING A SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
MOTION ON ALL CLAIMS, AND A MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN
CLAIMS ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS.
Prepared by: R. Taggart
January 8, 1990
-------
8 -
P
PENNSYLVANIA OZONE SUIT . - .
Conference Call ol j—er^ a~«~ .
November 13. 1989 A 0 /| a /] w
11:30 am f3> xM
Background
Several environmental groups have sued EPA and the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, alleging violations of nondiscretionary and discretionary duties
regarding Pennsylvania's ozone SIP. The complaint alleges that Pennsylvania
failed to meet several SIP commitments.
The most significant complaints against EPA are that EPA failed to:
1.) fix a time for Pennsylvania to revise its SIP in
response to the 1988 SIP call
2.) make a finding that the state has failed to
implement the plan and to impose the air grant cutoff
sanction
Region III, OAQPS and OGC agree that the same September 1991 deadline that
was used in response to similar litigation in 4 other jurisdictions should be
set for Pennsylvania (response to item (1.)).
Region III and OAQPS disagree on the proper response for (2.).
Nonimplementation Finding
February 1985--EPA approved Pennsylvania's submittal of a supplement to
its 1982 ozone SIP (Supplement #1) that purported to address the 5.5% emission
reduction shortfall in the original submittal and committed to adopt measures
sufficient to eliminate the shortfall by 3/15/85.
September 23, 1985--Supplement #2 recalculated the baseline and emission
inventories, concluding that no additional control measures were necessary.
April 5, 1989--EPA disapproved Supplement #2 because of the
unenforceability of a number of emission reductions responsible for eliminating
the shortfall. Pennsylvania has petitioned EPA to reconsider.
REGION 111--has prepared a Federal Register notice proposing to make a
finding of nonimplementation of the Supplement #1 commitments to eliminate the
5.5% emission reduction shortfall. This notice indicates that upon a final
finding the Section 173(4) construction ban would automatically go into effect
but that EPA has the discretion not to cut off air grant funds (176(b)) and
sewage grant funds (316).
0GC--could be comfortable with the nonimplementation finding but has
serious problems with the Region's language on air grant cutoff. OGC feels that
we need to decide very soon how the Agency should respond to the suit. They
would like to schedule a meeting with Mr. Rosenberg soon.
OAQPS--feels that there is nothing distinguishing about the Philadelphia
situation that would justify a nonimplementation finding there but not elsewhere.
Such a finding might also jeopardize the Clean Air legislation as well. The
present OAQPS position is that the State is still obligated to fully implement
its plan and the unimplemented measures should be folded into the SIP call.
-------
Excerpts from a memorandum:
Re: Meeting of Mid-Atlantic States on Ozone (03) and Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
From: John Silvasi, etc.
To: G.T. Helms, etc.
PLACE AND DATE OF MEETING
Rehoboth Beach, DE, Sept. 18 & 19, 1989
Representatives of PA, DE, MD, VA, WV, DC, Philadelphia, Allegheny
County (PA), and NJ (see attached partial list).
B. CORRECTION OF SIP DEFICIENCIES
Attachment provides a summary status of correction of SIP
deficiencies.
The major problems that most of the representatives voiced was the
requirement for the exemption level of 3 pounds of VOC/hour or 15
pounds of VOC/day for miscellaneous metals category. Under MD law,
the State cannot adopt regulations unless all affected sources can
be identified; MD cannot identify all sources under the 3 lb/15 lb
cutoff. Under VA law, the agency must at least identify the number
of sources covered; the VA agency cannot do this for the 3 lb/15
lb cutoff. Therefore, these two States are prohibited from
adopting the cutoff under their own rules.
The NJ representative indicted that it uses director's discretion
in approving single source variances and does not submit those
variances to EPA. Submitting them to EPA would be an
administrative impossibility, since NJ processes over 6000 changes
a year.
Region III is requiring all of its States to adopt 3 capture
efficiency test methods into their SIPs (viz. those specified in
Part 60, Subparts QQ and BBB, and the gas-gas with enclosure method
under development in Emission Measurement Branch). [Note that this
is not entirely consistent with headquarters guidance, which
requires merely that the SIPs require capture efficiency tests but
that the SIPs need only commit to adopt CE test methods after EPA
publishes a final test method applicable to other than specified
NSPS sources.]
Note: PA is also objecting to the requirement for the exemption
level of 3 pounds of VOC/hour or 15 pounds of VOC/day or 10 tons
of VOC/year (potential). PA wants a 50 tons of VOC/year actual
limit.
-------
A \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
* Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
MmJ Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 jryot
pA<*d
(imm
q 4DEC 1»989
01/
SUBJECT: Summary of FY 1989 Response to Phase I Requirements of the Post-1987
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide State Implementation Plan (SIP) Call
FROM: G. T. Helms, Chief
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch (MD-15)
TO: Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
As you recall, the Phase I requirements of the post-1987 ozone/carbon
monoxide (CO) SIP calls are that the final regulatory submittals for
correcting the deficiencies in the volatile organic compound (VOC) regulations
and for adopting missing regulations be sent to the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) by September 30, 1989. The other Phase I requirement 1s that the
emission Inventories be submitted to EPA by November 17, 1989.
I have attached a report generated from the October 4, 1989 Regional
update of the Regional Priorities Tracking System (RPTS) which shows that only
about 20 percent (762 of 3731) of the deficiencies and 25 percent (23 of 91)
of the missing regulations were completed by the September 30 deadline. A
survey which was designed to gain information on the status of the emission
Inventory development was distributed in early August. The results of the
survey show that about 70 percent of the ozone and 73 percent of the CO
emission inventories are projected to be submitted by December 1989.
Because the response to the Phase I requirements was so low, the Regional
Air Division Directors, during their October meeting, agreed to commit to at
least 75 percent of the original universe of deficiencies and missing
regulations in the FY 1990 Strategic Planning and Management System (SPMS)
targets. Regions with prior commitments of greater than 75 percent would
still be held to those commitments. The SPMS targets are Intended to provide
an incentive for Regions to encourage their States to correct the deficiencies
1n the VOC regulations and adopt the missing regulations. "Leveling the
playing field" 1s an important effort that will form the basis of the future
ozone control program.
If you have questions or comments, please call me (FTS 629-5527). Thank
you for your cooperation.
Attachment
cc: J. Calcagni J. Stubberfield
S. H1tte . T. Williams
S. Hoiman
B. Howard
J. S1lvas1
-------
RESPONSE TO PHASE I OF THE POST-1987
OZONE/CARBON MONOXIDE STATE IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN (SIP) CALLS
By
Sheila C. Hoiman
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Air Quality Management Division
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
November 1989
-------
RESPONSE TO PHASE 1 OF THF POST-1987 SIP CALLS
This report details the response to the requirements of Phase I
of the post-1987 ozone (0,)/carbon monoxide (CO) State Implementation
Plan (SIP) calls. The report 1s generated from the data in the 0,/
CO SIP Deficiency/Correction portion of the Regional Priorities
Tracking System (RPTS). The system was updated by October 4, 1989 and
the report is based on all final regulations submitted on or before September
30.
The report 1s divided into three sections which mirror the Phase
I requirements: deficiency correction; adoption of missing regulations;
and emission inventory development. The first two sections, deficiency
correction and adoption of missing regulations, detail the success by
Region for their States in submitting final rules. The third section,
emission Inventory development, focuses on the projected completion dates of
the emission inventories. AQMD recently distributed a survey designed to
gather information necessary to evaluate the current status of the emission
inventory development. The Regions were asked to complete the survey
for each agency (State/local) and return it to AQMD by August 18. The survey
results were compiled and a portion of the results are presented 1n this
report.
Deficiency Correction
There are 3731 deficiencies (1001 regulations) in the RPTS database.
Figure 1 displays the overall number of deficiencies corrected.
The empty bar shows the universe of deficiencies. The rlghthatch bar shows
the total number of final submittals received to correct the deficiencies. A
total of 762 deficiencies (20.4 percent) were corrected by September 30, 1989.
Figure 2 displays the number of deficiencies corrected by Region. Again,
the empty bars represent the universe of deficiencies, while the rlghthatch
bars show the completion rate.
Figure 3 represents the overall number of regulations submitted to
correct deficiencies by September 30, 1989. The empty bar is the universe of
regulations in the RPTS database; the righthatch bar is the number of
regulations submitted by September 30, 1989. A total of 196 out of 1001
regulations (19.6 percent) were submitted.
Figure 4 portrays the number of regulations submitted by Region. The
empty bars are the universe; the righthatch bars are the number of regulations
submitted.
Adoption of Hissing Regulations
There are 91 missing regulations 1n the RPTS database. Regions
I, II, III, V, VI, and IX identified missing regulations 1n their States.
-------
Figure 5 shows the overall response for submitting final rules to adopt
missing regulations. The empty bar reflects the universe of missing
regulations; the righthatch bar displays the number of submittals received.
A total of 23 final submittals (25.3 percent) were received by September
30,1989.
Figure 6 shows by Region the universe and the number of submittals
received by September 30, 1989.
Table 2 displays the total universe of missing regulations and the
commitment and completion numbers by July 7, 1989 for the two milestones by
Region.
Emission Inventory Development
Figures 7 and 8 reflect the expected dates of submittal for the ozone and
CO emission Inventories. Approximately 70 percent of the ozone and 73 percent
of the CO emission inventories are projected to be submitted by December 1989.
Figures 8-10 show the problems associated with the volatile organic
compound, the nitrogen oxide, and the CO portion of the inventories. The most
prevalent problems cited were time, personnel, and VMT data.
-------
FIGURE 1
FY 1989 OZONE/CO PHASE I ACCOMPLISHMENTS
FINAL RULES SUBMITTED TO CORRECT DEFICIENCIES
OVERALL - NUMBER OF DEFICIENCIES
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
~ UNIVERSE NUMBER OF SUBMITTALS
-------
FIGURE 2
FY 1989 OZONE/CO PHASE I ACCOMPLISHMENTS
FINAL RULES SUBMITTED TO CORRECT DEFICIENCIES
NUMBER OF DEFICIENCIES
1,000
800
600
400
200
V VI
REGION
~ UNIVERSE (7] NUMBER OF SUBMITTALS
-------
FIGURE 3
FY 1989 OZONE/CO PHASE I ACCOMPLISHMENTS
FINAL RULES SUBMITTED TO CORRECT DEFICIENCIES
OVERALL - NUMBER OF REGULATIONS
~ UNIVERSE [7] NUMBER OF SUBMITTALS
-------
FIGURE 4
FY 1989 OZONE/CO PHASE I ACCOMPLISHMENTS
FINAL RULES SUBMITTED TO CORRECT DEFICIENCIES
NUMBER OF REGULATIONS
250
200
150
100
50
0
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
REGION
~ UNIVERSE 0 NUMBER OF SUBMITTALS
-------
FIGURE 5
FY 1989 OZONE/CO PHASE I ACCOMPLISHMENTS
FINAL RULES SUBMITTED FOR MISSING REGULATIONS
OVERALL
~ UNIVERSE [7] NUMBER OF SUBMITTALS
-------
FIGURE 6
FY 1989 OZONE/CO PHASE I ACCOMPLISHMENTS
FINAL RULES SUBMITTED FOR MISSING REGULATIONS
NUMBER OF REGULATIONS
25
20
15
10
5
0
III V
REGION
~ UNIVERSE pi NUMBER OF SUBMITTALS
-------
FIGURE 7
Ozone SIP Inventories
Expected Submittal Dates (cumulative)
Number of Agencies
60
a ©
• ~ i i i i i i i L
5/89 6/89 7/89 8/89 9/89 10/89 11/89 12/88 1/90 2/90 3/90 4/90 5/90 0/90 7/BO 8/90
Expected Date of Submittal
Ten Agencies did not provide an expected submittal date
-------
FIGURES
CO SIP Inventories
Expected Submittal Dates (cumulative)
Number of Agencies
50
40
30
20
10
i
10/89 11/89 12/89 1/90 2/90 a/90 4/90 6/90 6/90 7/90 8/90
Expected Date of Submittal
Three Agencies did not provide an expected submittal date
-------
FIGURE 9
Ozone SIP Problem Summary
VOC Inventory
Problem
SAM "
ilH • -
1' * ' ¦¦¦ "* 1
Resources
Time
Personnel
VMT data
MOBILE4
EPA Guidance
... ri
*" N » «' ' * '*«. '
> x
iM»i* *' '
"7"
">V}|'"!' '
M ¦ ¦¦ v>; ^1' - ' ¦ )
T™"1—¦..., , ^
v.:-.1
W
-L
JL
2 4 6
Number of Times Problem Cited
8
-------
FIGURE 10
Ozone SIP Problem Summary
NOx Inventory
Problem
SAM
Resources
Time
Personnel
VMT data
w
! .i i yi
¦¦ f
: ,
.4 '• ' : '• •• >
-.i- ¦ f
r~v^-
IMWIIHIIIIMiniiniHUIII
o, . :: , /•; •
.;-i; ;:4i- =v' J- /. • ¦ ; • : ~
iiMyM.wu mi
, . ; :V : *-
—rF
" V ¦ .'ij ¦ i" ¦ *;." I. ¦ ¦;; li.; ¦; j.
mmjrMMsmMm
^ a.:,
• :¦<¦ •• ; • • i*.. N • V . >
to. v uv, *¦
2 3 4
Number of Times Problem Cited
-------
FIGURE 11
CO SIP Problem Summary
CO Inventory
Problem
SAM
Resources
Time
Personnel
VMT data
MOBILE4
Comp. Prog.
WwNWWWWWWHWtWIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIItlWI '
iiyfriJifr pi'i 'w*iii >1.'*
/
V. .. . , < «
-L
.......
4 6
Number of Times Problem Cited
8
10
-------
JAN |8 1990
BACKGROUND — REGION 3 VISIT
Office of Mobile Sources
Gasoline Volatility Litigation - During the week of January 8,
1990, EPA entered into a settlement agreement with the State of
Pennsylvania to settle litigation filed by the State over EPA's
failure to adopt Phase 2 RVP standards in its March 22, 1989,
final rule for the federal gasoline volatility program. In the
settlement, EPA agreed to have a final rule for phase 2 of the
program signed by the Administrator by June 1, 1990.
State Gasoline Volatility Programs - Region 3 has advised OMS
that several states in Region 3, including Pennsylvania,
Maryland, and Delaware, are at various stages of consideration
of state RVP programs (that would be more stringent than the
current federal program) to start in the summer of 1990.
Before such state programs could be effective, it is necessary
for EPA to approve SIP revisions which would show that the
programs are necessary for attainment of the ozone standard.
OMS is working with Region 3 to get these SIP revisions
submitted by the states as soon as possible, and subsequently,
processed by the Region and Headquarters as quickly as
possible. OMS is also working with Regions 1, 5 and 6 on state
RVP programs for several other states.
Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) and Antitampering Programs (ATP) -
Five states (Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, and
the District of Columbia) have I/M and/or ATP programs, all of
which have been in operation since the early 1980s. Region 3
staff continue to be very cooperative with OMS in working with
their states to correct problems related to these programs.
One notable area of progress has been the improvements
implemented in the Virginia I/M program in the last two years.
Virginia has approximately doubled the number of vehicles
inspected, as well as converting to computerized emission
analyzers and making significant improvements in its
administrative oversight program.
-------
Meeting Notes
-------
Meeting Notes
-------
-------
BRIEFING
EDWIN B. ERICKSON
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
WEST VIRGINIA SIP CALL
DECEMBER 29, 1989
-------
WEST VIRGINIA
PROGRAM SHORTFALLS
ACTIVITY
FY 86
FY 87
FY 88
FY 89
PM10
Failed to submit
SIP development
plan
($10K for SIP
developmemt) Failed
to submit SIP for
Group I area8
Failed to submit
action plan for all
areas
($15K for SIP
development) Work
plan for Weirton
area was delayed
Failed to submit
committal SIP for
Group II areas
Failed to submit
SIP action plan for
Group II areas
Behind on
activities for
Group I areas
S02
Failed to submit
non-regulatory GEP
reviews for S02 SIP
Failed to submit
negative
declaration for GEP
plants
Lack demonstration
for attainment of
secondary NAAQS for
SIP for Harrison
Co. (continuing to
present)
Failed to submit
Draft GEP REGS
o3
Lack inventory but
have scope of worl
for contractor in
FY'90 ($40K)
-------
HANCOCK COUNTY
1981
1981
12/10/84
10/10/85
5/28/86
1986
1987
7/31/88
12/14/88
9/14/89
WEST VIRGINIA SIP CALL
CHRONOLOGY OF KEY EVENTS
Modeling study by H. E. Cramer predicts violations
of NAAQS in Pennsylvania caused by Ohio and West
Virginia sources.
Pennsylvania files § 126 petition for interstate
pollution abatement.
EPA publishes denial of petition but acknowledges
need for further study.
Formation of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio
(PAWVOH) study.
Technical meeting to establish PAWVOH goals and
schedule.
Monitored violation of S02 24-hour NAAQS in
Weirton.
Monitored violation of S02 24-hour NAAQS in
Weirton.
Meeting of PAWVOH Technical Workgroup.
Completion of preliminary modeling. Weirton Steel
found to be only major source of significant
nonattainment.
Meeting with Director, WVAPCC presenting EPA's
intention to "disinvest" PAWVOH in favor of
refocusing effort on Weirton Steel.
MARSHALL COUNTY
11/22/76
8/07/77
9/30/79
10/11/83
6/27/85
Replacement of Kammer stacks with single, 900-foot
stack.
Section 123 (GEP) provision of Clean Air Act.
Ohio Power completes fluid modeling to justify
tall stack according to proposed GEP regulation.
GEP regulations remanded to EPA as result of
Sierra Club appeal.
Promulgation of final stack height rules, Kammer
fluid modeling demonstration invalidated.
-------
Fall 1985
4/21/86
4/28/86
5/09/86
5/22/86
9/04/86
1/11/88
3/11/88
3/18/88
6/14/88
7/07/88
8/26/88
11/04/88
Nov. 1988
3/31/89
4/21/89
6/27/89
9/14/89
AEP files petition for reconsideration.
Denial of petition for reconsideration.
Meeting of all parties.
Meeting with WV and AEP to discuss GEP
implementation.
Meeting to discuss technical issues.
EPA letter to WVAPCC, citing outstanding issues,
including presence of low-level sources of
concern.
Letter to WVAPCC citing WV deficiencies.
Meeting with WVAPCC to discuss GEP shortfalls.
Request for action plan from WVAPCC.
Meeting with AEP presenting overview of problems.
AEP requests approval of emissions balancing
proposal.
Letter stating deficiencies in proposal.
Letter to WVAPCC stating urgent need for action.
WVAPCC meets with AEP, BP Oil/ and Columbian
Chemical, tells them cooperative action
unnecessary.
AEP sends compliance demonstration to EPA.
Letter to WVAPCC specifying requirements of full
attainment demonstration.
WVAPCC submits summary of modeling done by BP Oil
and Columbian Chemical.
Meeting with Director, WVAPCC presenting EPA'a
concern with unresolved issues.
-------
WEST VIRGINIA PROGRAM SHORTFALLS
-Region III Activity-
The West Virginia Air Pollution Control Commission (WVAPCC)
is currently operating with 42 employees, 19 employees below the
funded personnel compliment of 61 employees. Of these 16
vacancies, 8 are engineering positions. The reason for this high
vacancy rate is due, in part, to the lower, less competitive
salaries offered by the WVAPCC. Also, a State-wide hiring freeze
has recently been reinstated by the Governor in response to a $40
million budgetary shortfall in the State. This staffing situation
may be further affected by a proposal to incorporate the APCC with
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
EPA Region Ill's Regional Administrator Erickson has met with
the Governor of West Virginia recently to discuss the problems the
State is facing with its environmental programs. RA Erickson
stressed to the Governor the need for the salaries of the State
environmental agencies' personnel, including WVAPCC, to be
competitive with industry salary levels. EPA has suggested to
WVAPCC, specifically, the use of AARP/SEEPs to supplement their
existing staff while trying to hire permanent full-time employees.
Another way EPA has aided WVAPCC is by training their current
personnel at the Region III office, using actual workload for
training purposes.
This type of training has already been used for the WVAPCC's
modeling personnel. One individual from West Virginia spent two
weeks with the modeling staff in Region III learning modeling
techniques while completing actual work for WVAPCC. The Region III
modeling staff has also provided valuable technical advice to the
WVAPCC modeler(s) via tele-conferencing.
-------
West Virginia Air Pollution Control Commission Staff
Administration
D. Farley, Director
L. Kopelman, Attorney (P/T)
T. Mowrer, Secretary II
S. Moore, Secretary I
N. Sitton, Bookkeeper
L. Casto, Receptionist
VACANCY, File Clerk
J. Chandler, Librarian
J. Hedgecock, Photographer
F. Baker, Messenger
E. Toler, Custodian
Engineering Division
VACANCY, Chief
VACANCY, Engineer II
VACANCY, Engineer II
VACANCY, Engineer I
VACANCY, Engineer I
J. Adkins, Engineer I
A. Azevedo, Engineer I
M. Fleming, Engineer I
D. Porter, Engineer I
A. McCutcheon, Secretary I
Compliance Division
R. Weser, Chief
J. Parkulo, Engineer II
VACANCY, Engineer I
VACANCY, Engineer I
R. Hill, Engineer I
P. Rader, Engineer I
T. Adkins, Secretary I
Planning Division
J. Benedict, Chief
Toxicology Division
VACANCY, Toxicologist
Laboratory & Air Monitoring Div.
R. Engle, Chief
A. Smith, Chemist III
J. McCoy, Chemist II
V. Flesher, Chemist II
VACANCY, Chemist I
R. Bradley, Chemist I
R. Porter, Chemist I
VACANCY, Chemist I
C. Spann, Engineer II
B. Samms, Technician II
E. Price, Secretary I
Data Processing Division
VACANCY, Chief
J. Nessif, Supervisor
VACANCY, Data Entry Clerk
J. Richards, Secretary I
Hazardous Waste Division
VACANCY, Chief
VACANCY, Engineer I
VACANCY, Engineer I
Northern Panhandle Regional Office
J. Tredvay, Chief
T. Carroll, Air Poll. Spec.
VACANCY, Chemist I
D. DeWitt, Chemist I
L. English, Chemist I
VACANCY, Chemist I
VACANCY, Technician I
R. Plecha, Technician I
G. Gardner, Secretary I
North Central Regional Office
W. Taylor, Chief
D. Chadvell, Technician I
J. Ebert, Technician I
V. Duckworth, Secretary I
-------
APCC PERSONNEL SALARIES COMPARED
TO CLOSEST CIVIL SERVICE CLASSIFICATION
CIVIL SERVICE CLASS
SALARY
RANGE
AVG. APCC
Chemist 1 - in
$15,072 -
$32,000
1 $24,400
Division Chief
$20,400 -
$58,150
$34,450
Clerk 1
$ 8,900 -
$14,900
$11,230
Computer Operation Supv.
$18,756 -
$33,180/
$32,300
Data Process Manager I - 11
$22,440 -
$48,1403
Data Process Supv.
$18,760 -
$33,180
$28,300
Various Technician Types
$13,370 -
$25,200
1 $12,658 1
T echnicians-in-Training
$11,340 -
$19,270
Custodian
$ 8,900 -
$14,900
$10,090
•Engineer I
$23,470 -
$41,840
$22,950
•Engineer II
$24,552 -
$43,848
$28,290
Engineer-in-Trainir.g I
$18,760 -
$33,180"}
Engineer-in-Training II
$20,520 -
$36,400 \
Librarian I - III
$15,070 -
$31,690
$19,760
Secretary I
$10,870 -
$18,440
$12,515
Secretary II
$11,340 -
$19,260
$16,070
Photographer I
$10,872 -
$18,440
$15,570
~ Note: Engineering Staff Positions
Available at Current Full
Funding:
Engineer I:
16«*
Engineer IT:
7
Total:
23
Projected Engineering Staff
Needed:
At Least 23
Current Engineering Staff
Level:
Engineer I:
10
Engineer II (including Division Chief): _3
Counting one (1) Air Pollution Specialist and the Pltinning Division Chief
-------
West Virginia Air Pollution Control Commission
Position Classification ~ Positions # Vacancies % Vac.
Director
Division Chief
(includes 2 Regional Directors)
Supervisor
Engineers I & II
Chemist I, II & III
Technician I & II
Air Pollution Control Spec.
Attorney (Part-time)
Book Keeper
Data Entry Clerk
Secretary I & II
File Clerk
Librarian
Photographer
Receptionist
Messenger
Custodian
Total
1
9
1
16
11
5
0
4
0
8
4
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
44
0
50
36
20
0
0
0
100
0
100
0
0
0
0
0
31
-------
REGIONAL SALARIES PER POSITION (1909)
ALL CO
DE
D.C.
MO
PA
PHI LA CO
VA
WV
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
SABS WV
ENGINEER I
$17,940
$24,276
$22,080
$26,190
$27,260
$22,950
$23,450
$23,550
ENGINEBR II
$27,108
$29,702
$32,090
$30,122
$25,839
$34,440
$30,996
$25,150
$29,431
30,042
ENGINEER III
29,919
32,498
33,836
36,775
32,368
33,108
28,290
32,399
33,084
ENGINEER IV
34,230
38,308
42,648
34,345
37,383
37,383
ENG./MANAGER I
35,952
37,256
41,593
41,443
39,533
32,500
38,046
39,155
ENG./MANAGER II
47,902
47,054
47,449
47,724
44,207
39,745
35,488
44,224
45,680
ENV. SPECIAL. I
25,470
22,517
20,608
20,707
23,208
25,196
23,364
22,144
22,902
23,010
ENV. SPECIAL. II
27,355
30,515
28,984
28,718
31,622
27,185
29,063
29,063
CHEMIST I
17,940
21,637
27,833
26,445
20,988
22,969
23,464
CHEMIST II
19,272
24,593
33,903
33,603
30,010
26,366
27,958
28,276
METEOROLOGIST
26,394
38,929
29,595
31,639
31,639
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
Honorable W. Gaston Caperton III
Governor of West Virginia
Charleston, West Virginia 23511
DRAFT FINAL
FOR
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR'S
SIGNATURE
Dear Governor Caperton:
Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (the Act) requires each State
to adopt plans which provide for the implementation, maintenance
and enforcement of the national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). West Virginia submitted an initial State Implementation
Plan (SIP) in response to these requirements which was approved by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on May 31, 1972.
However, Section 110 also requires that the State revise that plan
under certain conditions. A key feature of Section 110 of the Act
requires the State to revise the plan whenever the plan is
"substantially inadequate" to achieve the basic purposes of the
Act.
In determining whether the plan is sufficient to achieve the
NAAQS, EPA must consider whether the State has provided the
"necessary assurances that the State will have adequate personnel,
funding, and authority to carry out such implementation plan"
[Section 110(a)(2)(F)(i)]. This Section requires the State to
commit and maintain adequate resources in the air quality
management program to implement and enforce the SIP as well as
carry out the essential planning activities which are important to
a viable program.
It has become increasingly apparent that West Virginia has
not maintained a sufficient resource commitment to the air quality
management program. The lack of an appropriate resource commitment
has manifested itself in several ways. Among these are failure to
submit a plan for attainment and maintenance of the new particulate
matter (PM10) NAAQS, failure to respond to a May 26, 1988 SIP call
for ozone and carbon monoxide, and continuing violations of the
NAAQS for sulfur dioxide. West Virginia's failure to provide
adequate resources has resulted in continued violations of the
NAAQS which not only endanger the public, but, under federal
permitting requirements, may be preventing the construction of
major new sources or modification of existing sources of sulfur
dioxide. Further details on all of these situations are discussed
in the enclosure to this letter.
-------
2
This letter takes two actions. First, I am notifying you that
EPA finds the West Virginia SIP substantially inadequate to attain
and maintain the ambient air quality standards due to inadequate
resources. EPA makes this finding pursuant to Section
110(a)(2)(H)(ii), based on the State's failure to comply with the
requirements of Section 110(a) (2) (F) (i) of the Act. We are
requesting that within 60 days you respond to our concerns and
provide an action plan to: (1) examine the resource needs of the
air quality management program; and (2) prepare a plan for
allocating resources to this program to resolve all the identified
program deficiencies.
Second, please also be advised that EPA finds the West
Virginia SIP substantially inadequate to attain and maintain the
NAAQS for sulfur dioxide in Hancock County. EPA makes this finding
pursuant to Section 110(a)(2)(H)(ii) of the Act, based on the
State's failure to correct violations of the NAAQS, and in so doing
calls for a revision to the West Virginia SIP to attain and
maintain the NAAQS for sulfur dioxide in Hancock County. We are
requesting that within 60 days you submit an action plan to EPA
with a schedule for identifying and adopting control strategies to
enforceably reduce sulfur dioxide emissions in Hancock County
sufficient to attain and maintain the NAAQS.
Mr. Thomas J. Maslany, Director, Air, Toxics and Radiation
Management Division, is sending a more detailed letter to Mr. G.
Dale Farley, Director, West Virginia Air Pollution Control
Commission, identifying what should be included in the action plan
for addressing the resource deficiencies as well as in the action
plan to respond to the call for a plan to achieve the NAAQS for
sulfur dioxide in Hancock County. The staff of the Air, Toxics and
Radiation Management Division is prepared to work with the State
of West Virginia in developing these plans and in identifying the
resource needs.
It is important to note that, should West Virginia fail to
respond to these findings that the SIP is substantially inadequate,
EPA may be required to impose certain sanctions under the Act.
Among these sanctions is a moratorium on source permitting for
major new sources and existing sources seeking expansion. As the
finding of inadequacy due to inadequate resources applies to
implementation of the entire SIP and not to a specific pollutant
or geographic area, this sanction could become effective State-
wide. Any EPA action that would result from an inadequate response
to this letter, however, will be effective only after notice-and-
comment rulemaking.
-------
3
The EPA is committed to providing the necessary technical and
administrative assistance to define the scope and timing of actions
which must be taken by the State to resolve the identified SIP
inadequacies. I trust that EPA and the State will work closely
together in the coming months so that together we can protect the
citizens of West Virginia while fostering economic development at
the same time. I look forward to this cooperative undertaking.
Sincerely,
Edwin B. Erickson
Regional Administrator
Enclosure
cc: Leonard Harvey, Secretary
Commerce, Labor & Environmental Resources
L. Newton Thomas, Chairman
WVAPCC
G. Dale Farley, Director
WVAPCC
-------
Attachment
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has previously
identified to West Virginia a number of air quality problems which
must be addressed. The first step in addressing these problems is
the commitment of sufficient resources to effectively design air
quality management programs. Failure to initiate or complete
planning in the following areas endangers the health of the public
and may prevent the construction of new major stationary sources
or expansion of existing sources.
PM10
On July 1, 1987, EPA promulgated a new ambient air quality
standard for particulate matter. The former Governor of West
Virginia was notified that a plan to attain and maintain the new
NAAQS for the Follansbee area of Brook County was to be submitted
to EPA for approval by April 30, 1988. While West Virginia has
undertaken certain activities related to the development of a plan,
the final plan is seriously overdue. This is of particular
concern since EPA has recently received notice of a potential
lawsuit to promulgate Federal plans in those areas where States
have failed to fulfill the requirements as they relate to PM10.
In addition to the Follansbee area, West Virginia must evaluate the
adequacy of the current State regulations for the control of PM10
in the remainder of Brook County and Hancock County. This
assessment and revisions to the SIP, as appropriate, must be
submitted to EPA by August 31, 1990.
Ozone/CO
On May 26, 1988, EPA notified former Governor Arch A. Moore
that the Huntington and Parkersburg areas had failed to attain and
maintain the ozone NAAQS and that Weirton had failed to attain the
NAAQS for carbon monoxide. On November 8, 1989, you were notified
that the Charleston area and Greenbrier County are considered
nonattainment with respect to the ozone NAAQS. Both these "SIP
calls" require the State to undertake the planning process for
development of new attainment plans. While the one-year schedule
for the 1989 SIP call is just beginning, I am concerned that West
Virginia has been unable to meet the SIP development schedule in
the 1988 SIP call.
-------
Sulfur Dioxide
By this letter, EPA has notified Governor W. Gaston Caperton
III that the West Virginia SIP is substantially inadequate to
attain and maintain the NAAQS for sulfur dioxide in Hancock County.
This finding, made pursuant to Section 110 (a)(2)(H)(ii) of the
Act, calls for a revision to the West Virginia SIP. Within 60
days, West Virginia is to respond to this SIP call by submitting
an action plan with a schedule for identifying and adopting
control strategies to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions in Hancock
County sufficient to attain and maintain the NAAQS. EPA is
currently assisting West Virginia with the review of permit
applications for the construction of new source and the expansion
of existing sources of sulfur dioxide. Air quality analyses
performed in conjunction with these applications have identified
additional areas that may not be attaining the NAAQS for sulfur
dioxide. It appears that the NAAQS are not being attained in
Marshall and Monongalia counties. In addition, EPA has concerns
with the West Virginia SIP as it applies to sulfur dioxide ambient
levels in Grant and Harrison Counties.
-------
py^io
November 27, 1989
REGION III ACTIVITIES IN PM-10 IMPLEMENTATION
Areas With Violations
The only Group I area in Region III is the Follansbee, West Virginia -
Mingo Junction, Ohio, interstate^area. Progress with SIP development is being
aided by monthly teleconferenfces "with the Regional Offices, States, and the
Sulfur Dioxide/Particulate Matter Programs Branch. Collection of on-site
meteorological data was initiated last spring (April 1989) when a met tower
was erected for the PAWVOH study. A monitoring network to collect samples for
receptor modeling is currently being established. Emissions data has just
been obtained for sources at Wierton Steel that may impact the study area.
The State of Ohio is carrying but most of the SIP development activities
because of West Virginia's funding and staffing difficulties. Since basic
field data are still being collected for this area, the SIP is about 9 months
behind schedule. Therefore, the proposed SIP may not be ready for public
hearing until the end of 1991.
Violations have also been measured in Wierton, West Virginia, (a Group II
area) and in Clairton, Pennsylvania (a Group III area). West Virginia does
not have the staff to prepare a SIP for Wierton, but we have requested a SIP
development plan. The Regional Office is collecting emission inventory data
for Wierton by means of a section 114 letter.
PM-10 violations are being measured at a school (Libertyboro) near the
USX coke batteries in Clairton. The Allegheny County agency submitted a SIP
development plan. The emission inventory and modeling protocol are currently
being prepared. The SIP is scheduled to be completed by the end of 1990.
Group II and III Area SIP's
The Region has not published notices of approval although most of the
States have submitted their Group II and III SIP's. The Air Programs Branch
reported that two notices have been submitted to the Regional Counsel for
concurrence.
USX Bubble
The Region is adequately responding to an application for a PM-10 bubble
at USX Fairless Works. For your information, USX has attempted to apply
pressure to have a bubble approved by June 1990 to avoid penalties for
noncompliance. They have been told that a full demonstration that the PM-10
NAAQS can be maintained is required and that this cannot be completed by USX
and reviewed by the Region by June.
-------
Region III
PAWVOH
The PAWVOH study was conceived to design an area-wide model for sulfur dioxide
sources. The study is not finished, the States having only completed data
collection. From the information gathered thus far the problem appears to be
mainly due to low level sources. The region is considering redirecting the
study to deal only with those low level sources. The region is also
discussing SIP calls with us based on the four low level sources that were
identified in the study.
West Virginia Potential SIP Call Areas
The Region is in the process of issuing a generic SIP call which addresses,
among other problems, SO, deficiencies in three counties in West Virginia
(Hancock, Marshall, and Monongalia). The basis for the SIP call is the lack
of the State's commitment of resources in the West Virginia Air Pollution
Control Commission to provide for adequate enforcement of the SIP and for
remedying deficiencies. This SIP call affects not only S02, but PM-10 and 03
as wel1.
-------
Meeting Notes
-------
Meeting Notes
-------
a
in
fs
-------
PSD /MSP PROGRAM
Michael Shapiro Visit
January 1990
FY 1989 ACTIVITIES
* SEE ATTACHED CHART FOP. STATE STATISTICS
* A total of 36 reviews/determinations were done
by Region III in FY 1989
* STATE STRONG POINTS
PA - Modeling
DE - Cooperation
* STATE V7EAK POINTS
VA - Modeling, BACT
17V - Modeling
FY 1990 ACTIVITIES
* SEE ATTACHED CHART FOR STATE STATISTICS
* IcSed on conversations v.; i t ]; State permitting staffs, we
expect between 35 to 4 5 PSD permits next year. This
figure does not include the 20 to 30 applicability
decisions requested of us ec-ch year.
- Training for all state/local agencies is mandatory for
Fy 1990. Every state/local agency in our Region has
requested assistance/training and we have coi..:.",itted to
do cs r.uch as possible this year. 1"e urgently need the
PSD/MS P. Training Manual now under development by RTP s.o
that ve can meet our commitments.
* SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS/ENFORCEMENT CASES
SOLAR TURBINES - ISSUE PAPER ATTACKED
Although the District Court recently granted Solar's
request for Summary Judgement, at the company's request,
we are continuing negotiations to develop a Consent Order
or Agreement to resolve this litigation. The CO will
call for a final NOx emission limit of 25 ppr: and may
inciude the payment of substantial penalties as well as
for stipulated penalties should any element of the CO not
be satisfied. At the same time, EPA is requesting the
Dept. of Justice appeal the -District Court decision.
-------
2
MONTGOMERY COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY - Municipal
waste incinerator in Montgomery County, Maryland.
Substantial citizen opposition. EPA's review of the BACT
analysis raised several issues and we are discussing
resolution of our concerns with Maryland.
ULTRASYSTEMS, HADSON POKER, VIRGINIA - ISSUE PAPER
ATTACHED - there are four cogeneration plants being
proposed by this corporation. We have reviewed the first
two projects and found major deficiencies in both the
modeling and BACT analyses. The State has issued the
first permit (November 22, 1989) without resolving the
modeling (use of actual emissions for the NAAQS analysis)
issues and without adequately documenting the EACT
determination. The pern.it was appealed by Region III to
the Administrator (40 CFR §124.19) on December 26, 1989.
ORD LETT"? TO VIRGINIA - COPY ATTACHED - apparently a
representative of the Virginia Dept. of Air Pollution
Control (VDAPC) contacted the Control Technology Center
with a query regarding S02 controls. The question was
referred to the Gas Cleaning Technology Eranch in F.T? and
a letter was sent to VDAPC that, based on information
from a 1979 study, magnesiu;.< oxide scrubbers may not be
reliable and are too expensive for sre.ll (30 - 60 MD
plants. The letter clearly points out the need for EPA
staff to be sensitive to not only the questions being
asked but to our responses.
REGIONAL OPINIONS ON OVERVIEW
* Under the current differential oversight protocol, EPA
v'iil never be out of the "overview" business. This was
not the intent of the Potter memorandum.
* At least one other Region is considering implementing a
different phase-down approach than that currently being
studied by the three pilot regions.
* Differential oversight protocol must be streamlined and
implemented consistently across the country.
-------
TABLE I
LEVELING
10/16/89
Modale State A Stale B Stale C State D State E
6TL :NV5 :PN tfl :IQ{S :PN 6(1 :IO/5 :PN €fl :I0/5 :PN 6/1 :10/5 : PN
• •* •••
L Applicability 112 113
II. BACT/1AER 112 112
IIL Air Quality 112 112
Impact
IV. Modeling 1 12 1 2 3
V. Enforceability 12 3 112
VI. Public Notice 2 2 3 1 2 2
1
1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
1
2
1 1
1 1
1 2
1 2
2 3
2 2
* • Initial Permit Reviewer Consensus June 1, 1989
•• - Reflects the current levels as reflected since June 1, 1989
*** - Leveling reflected at public notice where initial EPA letter issued
and used by state as basis for applicant revisions.
-------
S02 (1) (2) (3)
ACTUAL
EMISSIONS
S02
MAXIMUM (4)
ALLOWABLE
EMISSIONS
NO,
ACTUAL
EMISSIONS
NO,
MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE
EMISSIONS
Lane Co. (1)
LBS/HR TONS/YR
33.9 112
LBS/HR TONS/YR
480. 2,103
LBS/HR TONS/YR
19.7 65
LBS/HR TNS/YR
96.1 421
BGF (2) 6.2 22
Ross Labs (3) 40.2 169
Burlington (1 123.3 407
100.2 439
299.5 1,312
924. 4,047
2.0
9.3
58.2
7
39
192
13.7
58.4
194.1
60
256
850
(1) 24 hrs/day, 5 1/2 days/ week, 50 weeks/yr
(2) 24 hrs/day, 6 d'lys/week, 49 weeks/yr
(3) 24 hrs/day, 7 days/week, 50 weeks/yr
(4) 24 hrs/day, 365 days per year
JD-JC1
-------
pen pr/irvc
I vj U i \ J . _ n 0
(ACuW. t PROJECTED :990)
45 -r-
i
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
YEAR
Hi jPE&TS ¦ IAPPUC DETERU.
-------
PSD REVIEWS
(ACTUAL 1989 & PROJECTED 1990)
PA DE MD DC VA WV
STATE
O FY 1989 n FY 1990
-------
CO
ft
cc
u_
O
cc
W
CD
5
z
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7H
6
5 «
A «
3 «
2«
1
0
~ PA
PSD REVIEWS
(ACTUAL 1989 & PROJECTED 1990)
/
ACT FY89
A
/
/I
PRO FY90
FISCAL YEAR
1 M DE £vJ MD ~ DC ~ va £T] wv
-------
PSD REVIEWS
(ACTUAL FY 1989) TOTAL = 36
WV (19.4%)
-------
PSD REVIEWS
(PROJECTED FY 1990) TOTAL
= 39
-------
NSR PROGRAM ISSUES
SIP nonattainment regulations need corrections and updating to reflect
new strategy/demonstration development efforts and timeframes.
Modeling guidance and policies need to be communicated to
industry/consultants in a more active manner.
PSD SIPs and delegation agreements must be amended to include the N0X
increments which are effective in November 1990.
Currently the Region is locked into the 30-day public comment period
for review of permits. Many times this is the first time the Region
is aware of a facility's application.
No new resources have been added to this program for the past few
years despite continued program growth.
Potential permitees and states are confused over EPA's Ambient Air
Quality Modeling Guidance. A recent case has focused particular
attention on "Impacts from Existing Sources" (see attached letter from
Commonwealth of Virginia to John Calcagni).
Lack of consistency in overall permit review, especially in Best
Available Control Technology (BACT), exists between the Regions. This
is also a problem within Regions due to lack of sufficient resources
compiled with insufficient review time resulting sometimes in
incomplete permit reviews or no permit review at all.
NSR Workshop has been postponed until long-awaited guidance promised at
last year's workshop is finalized.
Several National Policy/Guidance documents are long overdue. Among
these are:
- Post 1987 NSR Policy
- Top-Down BACT Guidance
- Fuel Conversion/Capable of Accommodating
Training is badly needed for not only Regional personnel but also
state personnel. The intent of the PSD/NSR program is to provide the
states training to help them operate effective PSD/NSR programs with
EPA providing oversight and assistance functions.
NSR is an important, critical program in regard to controlling Global
Warming since the rise of the earth's temperature is attributable in
inpart to co2 emissions released from fossil-fuel burning sources.
-------
WALLACE E. REED. CHAIRMAN
CHARLOTTESVILLE
ELIZABETH H HASKELL. VICE CHAIRMAN
MARTINSVILLE
J4N
rfOTHY E BARROW
VIRGINIA BEACH
SAM C BROWN. JR.
RICHMOND
MANUEL DEESE
RICHMOND
COMMONWEALTH o
WALLACE N. DAVIS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Department of Air Pollution Control
ROOM 801. NINTH STREET OFFICE BUILDING
POST OFFICE BOX 10089
RICHMOND. VIRGINIA 23240
(604) 786-2378
FAX# (804)225-3833
TDD • (604) 371-6471
December 29, 1989
Mr. John Calcagni
Director, Air Quality Management Division
Mail Drop 15
U. S. EPA
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Dear John:
RECEIVED
JAN 1119©
ENFORCEMENT CASE
ACTIVI1ILS SECTJQfl—
rect o
•JAN
Itll1
As we discussed on the phone, we are still trying to find a
so-lution acceptable to DP*. on the question of maximum allowable
emissions. In tr.e afcssr.rc cf ?.n operating permit system, the
regional office is telling us that we must assume that a source
operates 8,760 hours per year with the most polluting fuel our
existing source regulations would allow. This creates a problem
as the attached table demonstrates.
Last fall, we started the administrative process for
developing an operating permit system for existing sources and we
anticipate having a draft regulation ready for our Board review by
April of 1990, at the earliest, with final adoption in October
1990. The Virginia Administrative Process Act requires about a
yfear tc get a regulation in place. We need your help in the
interim until this regulation is in place.
The attached table lists actual emissions for four existing
sources in lbs. per hour and tons per year based on an existing
operating schedule and also the maximum allowable emissions in lbs
per hour and tons per year, assuming that the source would operate
with the dirtiest fuel that our regulations would allow. This, in
effect, means that a source who, historically, has used No. 2 oil
with a sulfur content of .5 percent or natural gas will shift to
a different oil with a sulfur content of 2.3 to 2.5 percent. While
it is theoretically possible for the sources in question to do
this, it won't happen in the real world.
When we model the proposed new source at its maximum emission
rate, the new source would be insignificant if we used actual
emissions for existing sources. However, the same modeling
-------
exercise using the maximum allowable emissions for existing sources
causes the new source to be significant at the points of maximum
impact.
The PSD permitting program in Virginia may come to a
screeching halt if we cannot find a workable solution to the
maximum allowable emissions question. Existing sources are
reluctant to enter into a consent agreement that states that they
won't do something that they don't have any intention of doing
anyhow because the consent agreement implies they are in violation
of something, which they aren't. Even if a source was willing to
sign a consent agreement, it is very time-consuming of scarce
resources. Additionally, we understand that the consent agreement
(CA) must have a public hearing preceeded by a 3 0-day comment
period before it is signed. After the CA is signed, it must be
submitted to EPA as a source specific SIP revision.
Unless something unforeseen happens, we will have an operating
permit in place prior to the time that any proposed new sources
could be built and put in operation, so what we need with your
help, is a workable solution in this interim period. The
difference in the hourly rate of emissions for SOz between actual
and maximum allowable ranges from 7.4 to 16 times what is happening
in the real world.
On Page 3 of your March 16, 1988 letter to Region III, you
state "If a violation of any NAAQS is revealed by this type of
analysis, then the adjustments described above may be made in cases
where it can be shown to the satisfaction of the permit granting
agency that historical operating levels and/or operating factors
will be representative of future conditions." Certainly, we expect
historical operating levels to continue since people are not going
to look for a dirtier fuel and its increased maintenance problems.
Some clarification of what EPA meant by this statement would be
useful.
There are several possible options for existing sources
without permits, some of which are listed below:
1. Assume all sources operate 8,760 hours per year with the
most polluting fuel the regulations allow. In the real
world, this is unrealistic and will create unreasonable
delays in the PSD permitting program.
2. Use historical actual emissions until we have our
operating permit system in place. This is the easiest
solution, but is not very conservative.
3. Use historical actual emissions and inflate them by some
percentage to make it conservative. We suggested this
to Region III last August, but received no official
response until EPA commented on the Altavista public
hearing at the end of November, rejecting the proposal.
-------
4. Use historical actual emissions, but assume the source
operates 8,760 hours per year rather than 5 days/week,
50 weeks per year or whatever. This might be the most
realistic approach because sources might increase shifts
or hours, but would not change fuels except in an
emergency.
5. Try to calculate a source's maximum hourly and annual
emission rate that would not cause an exceedance of an
ambient standard. This would be time-consuming and
expensive, but it would provide a maximum "legal"
emission limit.
John, my preference in the interim period would be to use
options 3 or 4, but we want to satisfy EPA's national policy and
would welcome your thoughts and suggestions. We are prepared to
meet with you and Region III anytime and at any place. With some
15 to 20 PSD projects in the works, we do need clear guidance from
EPA on how to do the modeling. Without it, we will experience
unreasonable delays in the PSD program.
Any suggestions you have on how to deal with this will be
greatly appreciated.
Sincerely
yvJohn M. Daniel, Jr., P. E.
v Assistant Executive Director
cc: ^Tom Maslany, Director, Air, Toxics & Radiation Management
Division, EPA
A1 Cimorelli, Meteorologist, Air Analysis & Energy Section,
EPA
Wallace N. Davis, Executive Director, DAPC
Pam Faggert, Director, Div. of Technical Evaluation, DAPC
Kirit Chaudhari, Director, Div. of Computer Services, DAPC
jd-jc
-------
MEW SOURCE REVIEW
DIFFERENTIAL REVIEW
Permit Oversight Initiative
OVERVIEW
. An approach for reducing Regional review as state/local
agencies demonstrate the ability to assure and issue
quality permits under federally approve programs.
. Directed at major new sources and modifications, and minor
sources on a Pilot Region call.
. EPA's expectations of quality are embodied in
Part 51, 52, the 1980 Workshop Manual, Guidelines on Air
Quality Modeling, Policy and Guidance as reflected in
the National NSR Checklist.
. Internal Agency consistency is required through the use of
the NSR checklist, both as the review guide and summary of
individual permit analyses.
. Levels of quality from l to 3 reflect increasing delivered
permit quality and indicate allowable reductions in EPA
involvement.
. Because distinct areas of the permit process exist;
leveling is separated to 6 areas, or modules.
.. It should be noted that the actual review and
development of a permit to construct is not
separated, eg. one permit engineer may be required
to assess all aspects. Divisions of responsibility
such as modeling may be administratively and
physically separated from the permitting
organization.
. A Level, and movement among the levels, is reflective of
the consistency of quality. One deficiency in five modules
reviewed allows a higher (Level 2) quality to be
recognized. Zero deficiencies in 3 consecutive reviews of
a module results in yet the higher level (Level 3) rating.
. Commensurate with the actualization of higher quality,
EPAs involvement in every permit is reduced to arbitrary
real time review of certain permits. Supplemental program
audits on an annual frequency to verify the higher level
status should continue as a quality assurance option of
EPA.
-------
. The plan recognizes that the quality of permits and
documentation begins with the applicant as influenced by
the proficiency of the issuing authority. One enabling
aspect has been the incorporation, through the issuing
agency, of an abbreviated applicant data checklist. The
objective is to foster permit quality at the start.
ACTLVm
. The Differential Review plan has been piloted since
June 1, 1989, by Regions 3, 5 , and 6.
. To date 8 States and 9 local agencies are actively
involved in the pilot program. In addition, first line EPA
staff through the Director of OAQPS have been apprised of
what the plan is about.
. Plan activity has been discussed and parts have been
modified with the participating agencies, both at the
working level and management. These include basic data
handling, reviews of permitting processes, and the
applicants checklist.
. The participating agencies in Region 6 have provided self-
audits of their programs and have voluntarily revised
activities in light of the HSR checklist comparison.
. Region 3 states have indicated that some will require the
35 page NSR checklist of applicants.
. The abbreviated checklist has been provided to over 300
prospective applicants and consultants, and importantly
these checklists are being submitted with the
applications.
. Initial leveling was conducted in accordance with the
deficiency matrix of the plan. Because the consistent use
of the NSR checklist had not yet been put into place,
prior comment letters and EPA reviewer interviews were
used for this effort.
. Subsequent review of 11 permits in Region 6 has
resulted in recognizing a higher quality level for
enforceability and public notice modules for some
agencies, and reinforcing initial leveling conducted
without checklist use.
-------
PERSPECTIVE
. Without a doubt, "gut" feelings that problems of
applicability, BACT, and modeling have been verified in
Differential Review. These modules are at level 1 and will
probably remain at level l. These are also associated with
the highest level of effort in permit review.
. The in-house requirement to use the NSR checklist and
abbreviated checklist standardizes our permit expectations
and initially answers our state's and applicant's
concerns, expressed prior to the pilot, on inconsistency
of our reviews.
. From a management decision stand point, the timing of
when leveling is conducted significantly influences the
perception of quality. A "real time" review has been to
get EPA involvement in the permitting process as soon as
possible. In Region 6, this has been at the time of permit
application. For Region 3 and 5 this is at the time of
public notice. The Potter memo of 1987 supports and
encourages the former, however leveling the quality of
permits at such and early date only judges the applicant
and ignores subsequent state efforts.
. The Differential Program also provides a pitfall. The
plan, which envisions early review, is to identify the
initial deficiencies, with a reassessment of the
deficiencies based on the state's findings, presumably at
the public notice milestone. There is no protection from
the use by the state of our findings as their own,
resulting in a false impression of the state's ability to
assure quality permits.
. Because the public notice milestone reflects the states
apparent satisfaction, leveling should be dune at this
point. This does not mean that EPA should be precluded
from early assessment. The impact of this early assessment
on levels can be seen in Table I for five state programs.
. Because higher levels of quality are limited to a few
modules, the screening process has not been tested. A
draft protocol is available, and continues to be analyzed.
. Participating states in Regions 3 and 6 have not
identified significant costs associated with their pilot
program participation. They have found it as a good forum
in which their requests for assistance, ie. training, can
not be ignored by the agency. The costs in time have been
identified as those associated with the use of the NSR
checklist (if a state process), explanation of the
abbreviated checklist, and review of the latter checklist.
Because no significant activity has occurred in
these areas, significance has not been measured.
-------
. Regional costs have been reported and are associated with
use of the two checklists. Region 3 has been completing
the abbreviated checklist as they review their permits,
where as Region 6 has been completing the NSR checklist as
a summarization of their review. Region 3 reports 2 to 3
hours to complete and Region 6 runs 4 to 5 hours. As
familiarity and reviewer consistency is established,
Region 6 anticipates that the time spent will be reduced.
Beyond this point all data is reduced and manipulated by
our automated leveling program. The reviewer is only
responsible for the checklist.
RECOMMENDATIONS
. Include an initial self-audit in the Differential Review
Plan using the NSR checklist. This allows the state to
appraise its own procedures in light of EPA1s expectations
in producing a quality permit.
. The leveling pit-falls should be recognized, specifically
when that milestone occurs.
. Program management should maintain the initial and public
notice Leveling Milestones because they can serve to
identify resources expended to achieve higher quality
levels.
. Begin the regional functions defined in Differential
Review nationally.
. Review Level criteria in 6 months for necessary
adjustment.
. Continue to pilot the screening and abbreviated checklist.
No judgement can be made on these aspects due to the
limited amount of activity.
. Review and update the NSR checklist. Some duplication
exists.
. Differential Review should be simply a part of a regional
permit review and quality assurance plan. As such, it must
be implemented consistently with very limited regional
flexibility so that the agency can focus on inhibiting
factors to permit quality.
-------
E i: F 0 R C E 1: E N T C 0 I" F I D E r T I A L
SOLAR TURBIIIES IPC.
CATERPILLAR TRACTOR CORP.
YORK, PEI?nCYLVAI:IA
ISSUE: EPA has determined that Solar Turbines cioes not have a valid
PSD permit and has issued an MOV and filed a complaint in the
District Court.
EACKGROU1D: DEP. issued a PSD permit for the construction of six oas
turbines (Solar "Mars" turbines) at the Caterpillar plant in
York, PA despite EPA's comments that EACT had not been
properly applied to the proposed facility. There were no nO.x
controls .
The
source will be located
in ar; attainnent area for
c
11
po 1 J
ntants except Ozone.
ITOx j b a j.iajor component in
th e
fori
at ion of ozone and 11 »e
a^jciiiuy ciicv ib to
cons id
tr
r , nor
Ccl" 0
fully, I'Ox controls in
ozone nonattair.; ant
£ r c. £ c
TO;.
. ".I T C
o i o p .r3 o r (-1 r' j. s o 3 r,'1 c. j o ~c
contributor to Acid
P.c-iin.
1—*
prop
osed peri it called for
a I-Ox lii.it of ap,-ro
i.i. c' 1- c
y " i-
1; \ 1. \,
vi.ilt permits. issued
i i't Re -j i on s VI, VIII,
i::, an
T
*C V i
the-
-ast year for si;, ilar
o r j. ci l ^ £ i i. > 'c* o
i.f'iECfc
1 i
u J.
u.
cal 1
for vater/stea-. ir.j&c
Lion as controls and
a i"Ox
T
i: t i":
tj r e a
t>"-L" than 7 5 pp;. v. -j
lic.ilion of appro^ria
te co i".
i_
I'D]
c C: c ]
o 10'j^ to uM. s source
\-ou 1 d result in a reduction
or
app r r>x i,.i;: t e 1 y 9 0 0 ± P" O f !"0x .
On January 25, 1980, a Gl?7 Or-Pt v.as issued to Solar order in--,
the cessation of constri-ct ion and/or o-etrl ;'on of the
tur'>:in>es. Sole r obtained a TRO fro.' tie District Cour-; i r>
On ll<.\ 26, 19 CS , the District Col rt v_. t anted our "oiiosi '.o
Dis: :'so an;7 vacated its Temporary Restrair Order. Rol...r
then notified DoJ of its intent to appeal the 5157 Order lo
the 3rd Circuit if v-'e intended to enforce it.
On june 3, 1988, an EPA inspector visited the proposed
facility and found that construction v;as proceeding.
-------
0
In response to Solar's notice and query, on June 17, 1583, DoJ
filed a civil complaint against Solar for constructing without
a valid permit and EPA issued an MOV for the same violation.
At that ti:ie, we also issued a Notice of rithdrawal of the
§1(57 Order so that we would be arguing the violation rather
than any "legal" issues relative to the Order.
On July 26, 198S, an inspector from ESD attempted to cain
entrance to the plant to conduct an inspection. Entrance was
denied, he took pictures from across the road that showed
construction was continuing. Later, an attorney for Solar
contacted Regional Counsel and confirmed that construction
was indeed continuing.
>\7e lave met with the company and its representatives in
August, Septenber er.'1 rove; bsr in an at'cei pt to rr?ci.
agree' ent on the installation of controls. Solar does not
ap^^-.r billing to agree to enforceable dates or cond i i. 5 <";n-.
In a. separate, * > L" t relate" issue, on i'ovenbe r 10, 19C-C-, t'>e
Adi. inistrator remanded the per1 -51 for the Pei.p.vau'ru;n r.esouroe
recovery Facility in I'ev Jersey becaise of c inadc-q^e L!-• "ACT
analysis. Che I.e..end Order reinforces the r equ i r e; .e;: t for a
"top-do'-T" L'ACC analysis and supports our case in tl'at it
requires that the EACC analysis be re-done to include ioie
complete information regarding various I:Ox controls, including
thermal de-mOx.
On December C, 19BC, oral arguments were presented before tin;
Third Circuit regarding tl:e appeals filed by Solar and IPA
fro.,; Judge Ha:-bo's Hay Order. Che Judges appeared, based on
the questions raised by the;.., to believe that the matter \-as
not "ripe", that the Section 167 Order was not a final Agency
action, and did not belong in their Court. Che authority
question was not discussed in any detcil although the briefs
filed by both p-crties did address this question. It j. II br
several i.'onths before a decision is issue." by the Third
Circuit.
On December 13, 1983, Judge Raiabo issued an Order granting
EPA's motion to amend its complaint to include penalties ;-nd
postponed any decision on the summary judgement motions until
after the Third Circuit issues its decision.
-------
3
In August 1989, Solar submitted a response to our
November 1988 draft Consent Agreement. Although
their alternative was not acceptable, we met with
the Company and their attorneys in October 1589
to attempt to negotiate an acceptable agreement.
The CO would require substantial penalties as well as
stipulated penalties for failure to satisfy each element of
the CO. The CO also would also require a final KOx emission
limitation of 25 ppm.
On November 28, 1989, Judge Rambo issued the final District
Court decision on this case. She granted Solar's Motion for
Summary Judgement and held that EPA cannot pursue enforcement
action against the owner/operator of a source that has
obtained a permit but rather must pursue action against the
State agency if we believe the permit to be invalid.
LPA is expected to request the DoJ to appeal this decision by
January 31, 199 0.
Solar has requested a settlement conference. This meeting
will be- held on January 17, 19S0 to continue our discussions
re-jcrdin^ the Consent Order/Settlement Ag r eemer. c .
CuiairrT
ACTIVITY:
Prepared by: Eileen !i. Glen
January 10, 199 0
-------
UL7RASYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
SOUTHAMPTON PLANT
SOUTHAMPTON, VIRGINIA
ISSUE: EPA has deter rained that the PSD permit issued by the
Virginia Department of Air Pollution Control (VDAPC)
is based on a record that does not support the EACT
determination reached by the applicant and the
VDAPC.
BACKGROUND: The VDAPC forwarded a permit review package to this
office requesting review and comments on the EACT
and modeling analyses during the 30-day public
comment period. Comments were submitted by EPA on
November 3, 1989 (within the required 30 days). V-'e
received one telephone inquiry from a VDAPC staff
person regarding one of the BACT issues. On
November 22, 1989, the VDAPC issued the final PSD
permit and response to EPA's comments
simultaneously. A copy of this package was hand-
delivered to the Regional Office on November 28,
1989.
Because both the VDAPC and Ultrasystems were well
aware of the possibility of a permit appeal pursuant
to 40 C.F.R. §124.19, we then had several conference
calls and meetings in which both parties attempted
to supplement the record. Despite these meetings,
the Regional Office believed that an adequate
argument and record had not. been developed and filed
an appeal to the Administrator on December 26, 1989.
This is one of approximately 20 cogeneration plants
contemplated in the Commonwealth of Virginia over
the next several years. It is one of four to be
built by this appl ican t. The plant will consist of
two 30 Mr coal/oil/tall oil fired spreader stoker
boilers, an auxiliary boiler, and ash, coal and
limestone handling systems. The proposed controls
consist of dry scrubbers for 90% S02 removal and
good combustion practices for NOx controls. The
Regional Office recommended wet scrubbers for 95%
or greater S02 removal and add-on NOx controls for
50% NOx removal. The applicant is arguing that such
controls are economically or technologically
infeasible. We also appealed the modeling record
in that major omissions were found and a full
analysis might result in a different permitting
dec ision.
All parties met on January 2, 1990, to discuss the
record and the applicant did agree to submit
additional modeling data and economic data.
-------
2
CUF.P.EI-TT
ACTIVITY: lie are continuing to review material as it is
submit! en f-nd to work with the VDAPC on the
development of an adequate DACT determination.
The VDAPC has informed the Regional Office that
they do agree with the need for add-on UOx controls.
The Chief Judicial Officer has requested that the
VDAPC file a response to our appeal by February 12,
1990.
Prepared by: Eileen K. Glen
January 10, 1990
-------
REGION III VISIT
NEW SOURCE REVIEW
Permit Review Workload
The Region will compare the number of permits issued during FY'89 and the
number in the "pipeline" in FY'90 to demonstrate the increasing permit review
workload.
Differential Oversight
The Region wants to preserve national consistency in implementing
Differential Oversight and wants to speed up the process of "backing off' of
permit review for individual agencies.
The Region believes that the current protocol in the pilot effort does
not promote a reduced level of review quickly enough. The protocol
essentially requires that five consecutive permits be error-free before a
State moves to a level requiring less EPA review.
Also, the Region is concerned that national consistency is important and
that at least one Region (Reg. IV) may be moving ahead with their own
approach.
OAQPS Position:
-- We strongly agree that national consistency is essential in the manner
in which we reduce permit oversight .
Questions for the Region:
o What changes would you suggest in the current pilot to speed up
disinvestment in permit oversight?
o Have you discussed this with Region VI (lead Region for this
initiative) to include an option in the pilot that would more quickly
move an agency to a less intensive level of review?
-------
Meeting Notes
-------
Meeting Notes
-------
Meeting Notes
-------
Meeting Notes
-------
Meeting Notes
------- |