12/05/86

Application of August 7, 1986 Policy on LST Schedules in Consent Decrees

MEMORANDUM                             Dec. 5, 1986

SUBJECT: Application of August 7, 1986 Policy on LST Schedules in Consent
         Decrees

FROM:    /s/  Steve Hitte, Chief
         Regional Programs Section

TO:      VOC Compliance Workgroup


    I would like to share with you an example of how the August 7 LST policy
was applied to a recent Region V consent decree.  A source that coats the
inside of metal drums plans to comply with the VOC SIP by using low solvent
coatings in combination with a new application process.  The proposed
consent decree schedule allows more than three months to install and adjust
the new application equipment.

    The source has two coating lines which have been in violation of the
standard.  EPA issued a notice of violation on July 29, 1983 and filed the
complaint against the source on August 19, 1985.  In July 1986 the source
installed paint heaters and new applicators on one coating line and
conducted tests which demonstrated that this technology could be used to
apply low solvent coatings to the drum interiors.  However, it took more
than three months to complete the installation of the new equipment and make
the necessary adjustments.  The source has proposed a schedule for
installing the paint heaters and new applicators on the second coating line
which would bring the second coating line into compliance by February 28,
1986 (sic).  The question presented was whether this proposed schedule
violates the August LST Policy.

                                    -2-

    The August 7 LST Policy states that LST schedules can provide no more
than three months from the date of filing of the complaint for a source to
demonstrate compliance using complying coatings.  The intent of the policy
is to include the time to make process changes within the three months
allowed to find and use complying coatings.  As you will recall, we
reaffirmed this intent at our recent Atlanta meeting.

    However, given the facts of this case, SSCD and OECM-AED management
decided that the proposed longer compliance schedule would be acceptable,
provided that it contains interim milestones and stipulated penalties for
failure to meet them.  The decisive fact which led to this result was that
the source had already demonstrated that the process changes, in conjunction
with the low solvent coatings, would work and would allow the source to
comply with the applicable SIP limit.

    In this case, the source has conclusively demonstrated that it can
comply with the SIP by using LST and a process change both sooner and at
less cost than by installing pollution control equipment.  Under these
circumstances, it would be unreasonable for EPA to insist that the source
install incinerators or carbon adsorption systems instead of installing
paint heaters and associated new coating application equipment.  Such a
position would be indefensible at trial.

    This result is consistent with the primary purpose of the LST policy,
which is to require sources to comply as expeditiously as possible by the
use of demonstrated technology.

    If you have any questions, please call me at 382-2829 or Tracy Gipson in
OECM-AED at 382-2842.  Please share this memorandum with your management and
Regional Counsel.

cc: John Rasnic, SSCD
    Mike Alushin, OECM-AED
    Tracy Gipson, OECM-AED