2009 WI Workplan

PROJECT SUMMARY
Title:
Region 5 States Environmental Results Program for Autobody Refinishing Shops
Applicant:
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Air Management
PO Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921
Project Leads:
Commerce
Renee Lesjak Bashel
WI Department of Commerce
Small Business Clean Air Assistance Program
PO Box 7970
Madison, WI 53707
Phone: 608.264.6153 Fax: 608.264.6151
Email: Renee.Bashel@wisconsin.gov

DNR
Bill Baumann
WI Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Air Management
PO Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921
Phone: 608.267.7542 Fax: 608.267.0560
Email: William.Baumann@wisconsin.gov

Total Project Cost:
Requested from EPA:
$350,000
Leveraged, Non-Federally Funded Staff Time: $50,847
Total Budget:
$400,847
Project Period: October 1, 2009 – September 30, 2012
Statutory Authority and Flexibility: None.
Certification of State Agency Support: The Region 5 multi-state project is fully supported by
the following state agencies: WDNR, Indiana Department of Environmental Management,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and the
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency has
indicated support for participation of their SBEAP on the outreach and education phase of the
project. Support letters are attached separately in Appendix A.

1

Detailed Itemized Budget
The proposed budget includes funds to contract with the Wisconsin Department of Commerce
(Commerce) and support the Small Business Clean Air Assistance Program (SBCAAP) as the
project lead for this proposal in direct partnership with the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR) Bureau of Air Management. This contract would follow existing funding
practices by which the SBCAAP is currently funded 100% through the WDNR Air Program
Title V fees to conduct small business compliance assistance activities. The following table
details how the Commerce Contractual funding will be dispersed.
State leverage is based on the following commitments: WDNR project lead will coordinate
development and reporting with the SBCAAP project lead; SBCAAP will both lead the project
and provide staff time for ERP development and site visits. Indirect rate for WDNR personnel is
based on the WDNR memo in Attachment 1.
Category of funding
WDNR Personnel & Fringe
WDNR Indirect
Contractual: WI Dept of Commerce
Total (details in shaded table below)
Travel
Capital Equipment
Supplies
Others

2,395
327

Proposed State
Leverage Funds
2,395
327

398,125
0
0
0
0

48,125
0
0
0
0

350,000
0
0
0
0

Total Direct Costs
Total Indirect Costs
TOTAL COSTS

400,520
327
400,847

50,520
327
50,847

350,000
0
350,000

Details on WI Dept of Commerce
Contractual:
• Personnel
• LTE salary & fringe
• LTE indirect (13.8%)
• Contractor for IL site visits
• Contractor for ERP Performance
Analyzer upgrades
• Partner organizations (MOU)
o provide data quality training;
data compilation and
management; data analysis and
compile results for final report
o coordinate Consortium meeting
and other training logistics;
reimbursement for travel and
meeting costs
• Supplies
o JMP software
o printing and mailing of materials
o online self-cert development

Total Project Costs

Total Project Costs
48,125
52,700
7,300
25,000
20,000

2

Proposed State
Leverage Funds
48,125

EPA Funding
0

EPA Funding
0
52,700
7,300
25,000
20,000

182,000
(150,000)

182,000
(150,000)

(32,000)

(32,000)

2,000
60,000
1,000

2,000
60,000
1,000

Project Narrative
Project Abstract
To reduce emissions of air toxics, state environmental agencies and EPA regional offices must
work together to implement dozens of new area source NESHAPs. Thousands of sources
previously under limited regulation are now affected by these regulations, but states have limited
funding available for implementation. Therefore, a cost effective implementation solution is
needed. The Environmental Results Program (ERP) approach offers such a solution. State small
business environmental assistance programs (SBEAPs) are experts at providing effective
compliance assistance on limited budgets. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and
the Wisconsin Small Business Clean Air Assistance Program (SBCAAP, one of the SBEAPs)
will partner with other state SBEAPs in Region 5 and propose using ERP to implement the area
source rule 40 CFR part 63 Subpart HHHHHH (subpart 6H) as it affects autobody refinishing
shops and measure the changes in environmental performance that result. While the primary
focus of this project will be compliance with subpart 6H, as feasible we also will provide
education and collect data on compliance and best practices in other regulated environmental
impact areas, energy efficiency and pollution prevention.
Problem Statement
New federal rules to reduce air toxic emissions affect thousands of very small sources that
previously had little or no formal regulation by state or federal environmental agencies. Needed
emissions reductions will not be achieved without an effort to help small sources understand and
comply with the requirements in the rule. States lack sufficient resources to implement and
enforce the new rules. An Environmental Results Program is a more efficient and cost effective
method than a traditional permitting and compliance system to reach small businesses and
improve their compliance and environmental performance.
Project Objectives
The objective of the Region 5 States ERP for Autobody Refinishing Shops project
is to use the ERP structure to implement a portion of subpart 6H affecting autobody refinishing
shops and in doing so, determine the impact of direct compliance assistance, self-assessment and
certification, and random-sample site visits or inspections in lieu of traditional permitting and
enforcement inspections. Use of plain-language materials to explain the requirements and how to
determine if compliance was achieved, as a self-assessment checklist does, is believed by many
to be more effective in achieving a positive change in the behavior of a small business than by
solely providing them with a permit document written in legal terms with no further explanation
until a compliance inspector shows up on their doorstep. Following the ERP design, conducting
random sample baseline visits as well as compliance inspections following the compliance
assistance phase will measure whether we have achieved the outcome of improving
environmental performance of the shops affected by the new area source rule.
Methodology or Technical Approach
The WDNR and SBCAAP will partner with Region 5 state SBEAPs, other assistance staff and
EPA Region 5 Air Program staff to develop an ERP for the autobody refinishing sector affected
by the subpart 6H area source NESHAP, which will include compliance assistance, selfcertification, and statistical analysis of baseline and post-certification measurement of

3

performance. Four of the six Region 5 states have strong experience leading and/or participating
in the development and implementation of an ERP, which greatly improves our chances of
success on the proposed project. We will also partner with NEWMOA (Northeast Waste
Management Officials Association) to gain access to their expertise in developing and
conducting training on data collection, data management and analysis in a multistate project
(Common Measures), and planning and managing logistics of multiple States ERP Consortium
meetings.
The Region 5 ERP for autobody shops will develop in the following phases.
Phase One: The first step is to compile and refine the universe of sources in the project. State
SBEAPs will compile their best autobody refinishing universe and decide which areas in their
state will be selected for the urban focus; the regional urban universe will be used to select a
random sample for the baseline visits to be conducted by SBEAPs in all but Illinois. As soon as
possible, a university program that has historically conducted compliance assistance visits on
behalf of the IL SBEAP will be brought on board through a contract to conduct the baseline
visits in Illinois. WI Dept of Commerce will develop a memorandum of understanding between
each state SBEAP as well as NEWMOA to outline expectations for each entity’s role in the
project and how expenses will be reimbursed.
EPA Region 5 has stated that urban areas will be their priority in implementation of the area
source rules, since they are developed under the EPA Urban Air Toxics Strategy. In addition, an
urban area focus will make the best use of time and travel expenses, as well as to achieve the
biggest gains on public health impact from the environmental performance improvements and
improve the chances of reduced air toxics and collateral emissions (e.g., VOCs) in environmental
justice areas. Assessing impact on environmental justice areas is also a regional and USEPA
priority.
At the same time as the universe is refined, the inspection checklist will be developed through
discussions among state SBEAPs and EPA regional staff who are interested in participating.
WDNR and other state regulatory programs may also participate in checklist development as
they see fit or are able to given limited funding for area source work.
Upgrades to the ERP Performance Analyzer should be reviewed in this phase. SBCAAP,
NEWMOA staff, and a software contractor should conduct an analysis to determine what
upgrades are necessary to allow us to easily use the software in our future data analysis steps.
Phase Two: State SBEAPs and consultants will conduct the baseline site visits. Prior to
beginning that effort, all project field staff (2 to 3 per participating state and Region 5)
conducting the baseline site visits as well as follow-up compliance inspections will be trained
together to ensure common understanding of the measures and statistical principles for data
gathering are followed. NEWMOA will develop and conduct the training on data quality and
collection techniques for the project field staff. State SBEAPs will assist in developing training
on the environmental regulations for project field staff, depending on their program’s expertise.

4

Phase Three: Following completion of the baseline site visits, the participating states will submit
site visit data directly to SBCAAP in such a manner as to preserve confidentiality (as required
within each state) for all facilities visited. Analysis of baseline site visit data will reveal strengths
and weaknesses which will inform the outreach effort, including final material development.
NEWMOA will assist SBCAAP in compiling and analyzing the data from baseline site visits to
determine if there are particular areas where we should focus during the training and outreach
phase. We will need to have upgrades to the ERP Performance Analyzer completed at this stage
to take advantage of its utility and time savings for conducting this analysis.
SBEAPs along with EPA staff and other stakeholders will then develop common materials for
the compliance assistance phase of the ERP. There are a number of tools previously created by a
number of SBEAPs for the autobody sector that can be leveraged to help us create the ERP
materials. Workshops will be conducted throughout the six Region 5 states to help the autobody
refinishing shops understand the rule requirements and how to implement other efficiency and
best management practices.
Phase Four: A self-certification checklist that also meets the needs of the Notification of
Compliance Status for subpart 6H will be provided to all shops. These will be due on the
compliance deadline in subpart 6H. Region 5 EPA staff will provide any necessary follow up on
non-submittals of the Notification of Compliance Status, as needed.
Phase Five: The compliance program in the Air Branch at EPA Region 5 has agreed to conduct
the compliance inspections following the self-certification phase. EPA commitment to this effort
was outlined in a e-mail from Cheryl Newton, Acting Division Director, Air and Radiation,
USEPA Region 5, to state air directors on September 24, 2008, stating “EPA's Air Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance Branch has agreed to support the ERP pilot by conducting all post
compliance inspections of the sampled facilities in the Region.” The same universe established
for the baselines will be used for the EPA random sample for inspecting facilities.
Phase Six: Following completion of the compliance inspections, SBCAAP in concert with
NEWMOA staff will compile all data, conduct a statistical analysis, and write the final report.
Key Milestones
Federal fiscal year 2010
Fall 2009 (Oct-Dec)

1.
2.
3.
4.

Develop and submit QAPP
Identify universe of facilities
Select contractor for IL baseline visits
Complete MOU between WI Dept of Commerce and other state
SBEAPs and NEWMOA
5. Develop site visit checklist, protocol and training, data
management process
6. Conduct site visit training
7. Begin baseline site visits

5

Winter 2010 (Jan-Mar)

Spring 2010 (Apr-Jun)
Summer 2010 (Jul-Sep)
Federal fiscal year 2011
Fall 2010 (Oct-Dec)
Winter 2011 (Jan-Mar)

Spring 2011 (Apr-Jun)
Summer 2011 (JulSept)
Federal Fiscal Year 2012
Fall 2011- Winter 2012
(Oct-Mar)
Spring – Summer 2012
(Apr – Sept)

8. Quarterly Report
9. Finish baseline site visits (majority before JAN. 11, 2010: Initial
notification for existing sources)
10. Data management and analysis for baseline
11. In partnership with associations, develop outreach materials to
publicize the project
12. Quarterly Report
13. Mail self-certification and workbook to urban universe
14. Respond to requests for assistance on phone or site
15. Quarterly Report
16. Conduct workshops and other education
17. Quarterly Report
18. Help EPA develop post-certification inspection and data
management protocol
19. Quarterly Report
20. Finish development of post-certification inspection protocol and
data routines; Begin processing cert data (certs due: MAR. 11,
2011: Compliance notification/date)
21. Quarterly Report
22. Final cert data processing; Begin post-cert inspections; design
transition to Region 5
23. Quarterly Report
24. Finish post-cert inspections
25. Quarterly Report
26. Finalize post-cert data and analysis
27. Create vehicle for annual (or other periodic) submittals and data
management between state/fed
28. Finalize project report.

Addressing Evaluation Criteria
This final proposal includes all content submitted with the pre-proposal that was accepted by
USEPA. Additional information has been provided in sections on the Detailed Budget and
Transferability to address gaps in the pre-proposal.
One very important piece to the regional project has been resolved in the last few months. All
six states have committed to participate in the project (two states had still been in the process of
gaining internal support at the time of pre-proposal).
This proposal will support the USEPA Strategic Goals in the following ways:
• Goal 1, Sub-Objective 1.1.2: Healthier Outdoor Air, reducing emissions of air toxics.
By focusing on implementation of the NESHAP for Area Sources of Paint Stripping
and Miscellaneous Surface Coating, 40 CFR part 63 subpart HHHHHH (subpart 6H),
the project will assist in ensuring reduction of air toxics throughout the region as
6

opposed to the potential results without the project. Lacking additional funding, states
are not planning to take delegation for the area source rules. Ordinarily the SBEAPs
would provide some level of outreach on the requirements, as dictated by the
individual states’ program priorities. The proposed project will ensure widespread
outreach concerning the requirements across the Region 5 states. Without outreach,
there will be very limited and inconsistent application of the practices outlined in the
rule among shops. Improved application of the practices will reduce air toxics
throughout the six states.
•

Goal 5, Sub-objective 5.1.1: compliance assistance, reducing environmental risks in
all areas including those with environmental justice concerns. State SBEAPs have
been providing compliance assistance to small businesses for over 15 years. Because
they often have a measure of confidentiality, they have gained the trust and credibility
that allows small business owners a level of comfort in accepting assistance from the
programs even though they reside in state agencies. The SBEAPs provide their
assistance throughout their respective states. In developing an early partnership with
Region 5 EPA staff, they have agreed to focus the baseline and follow-up
measurement in the larger urban areas. Compliance assistance will still be available
state-wide, but by focusing the ERP presence of state and EPA staff in urban areas we
hope to drive additional reduction of the environmental impact of the shops in the
areas with the environmental justice (EJ) concerns. A preliminary review of the
proposed urban samples from all states indicates that many of the urban counties
identified as being included in the sample contain US EPA Environmental Justice
areas of concern or areas of higher concern. Where possible, following the two data
collection phases, the project will identify the number of shops sampled that were
located in areas of concern.
Also related to Goal 5 above is the side benefit of reduced VOCs due to
implementation of the NESHAP, and the ultimate effect of reducing ozone levels.
US EPA, within its rule development documents has estimated a reduction of nearly
20,000 tons per year of VOCs across the nation. If these reductions are achieved,
Region 5 states should see improved ozone levels given their own state as well as outstate transport contributions.

•

Goal 5, sub-objective 5.2.1 and 5.2.2: prevent pollution, promote environmental
stewardship; promote improved environmental performance through project with
sector-based and performance-based focus, conducted largely by providing direct
assistance to small businesses. In addition to the key indicators driven by the area
source rule requirements, we also will consider as many indicators as possible that
will address pollution prevention, energy and/or water efficiency measures and other
best practices we may find and individual states may choose to include. Considering
other best practices can help lead shops to improve their overall environmental
performance and thereby achieve a higher level of environmental stewardship. Our
ongoing collaboration with associations and firms representing the autobody
refinishing industry will undoubtedly lead those groups to encourage wider
environmental protection and stewardship approaches during and after the project.

7

We will convey pollution prevention, efficiency and best practices through the usual
compliance assistance techniques SBEAPs are well known for: plain-language
materials, comprehensive workshops, measurement of knowledge gained and overall
usefulness of the assistance provided. Through ERP, we will focus on performance by
producing data on performance changes and related environmental results.
Transferability
The Commerce project lead and other state SBEAP and assistance staff expect to provide
information on the results of this project through as many avenues as are made available to us.
In addition to routine discussion on States ERP Consortium monthly and workgroup conference
calls, we would propose sessions at the annual National SBO/SBEAP Conference, the
Environmental Summit, the ECOS spring or fall meetings, EPA’s Innovation Action Council,
NACAA and other media programs’ national conferences (where we include data collection
beyond the NESHAP), and as many States ERP Consortium face-to-face meetings as can be
arranged over the next few years. There may also be opportunities to visit ERP learning states,
to introduce a multi-state concept to other states and regions considering a similar project.
There has been a mixed response from states accepting delegation authority for the area source
NESHAPs. This project can demonstrate a potential tool for EPA Regional Offices to
implement regulations affecting a large number of small sources located in one or more states in
their region. The project will create a template of developed materials, process, and targeted
outreach efforts that can be transferable to similar implementation scenarios.
In addition, the project may result in development of compliance assistance tools for the shops
that differ from what is available in other states. We will follow our normal process of sharing
tools from this project and look for other avenues as well.
• Any compliance assistance tools created by SBEAPs are shared nation-wide through the
Small Business Environmental Home Page (http://www.smallbizenviroweb.org/default.aspx) through a variety of web pages within the site.
• Individual SBEAPs will share tools and information internally to help state regulatory
agencies understand how they might use a similar process in other programs.
The States ERP Consortium has arranged a way to share ERP tools through EPA’s
Environmental Science Connector. Any ERP related tools developed under this project will be
posted on the Environmental Science Connector so that other ERP states may borrow them.
Another tool that may be of assistance to other ERP states would be a guide on how to develop a
multi-state or multi-agency ERP. We will undertake development of a document (flowchart,
timeline, etc.) that will assist other states or Regions attempting a similar project.
A number of ERP states have been unable to use the ERP Performance Analyzer (originally
developed by MassDEP) because the system still had some gaps in usability – one primary
reason it wasn’t used for the Printer ERP was the need to hand enter all the questions and
responses. A goal of this project is to enhance the ERP Performance Analyzer for easier data
entry. The results of this enhancement will be designed for use by as many other states as
possible. Contractor funding will be set aside to address these needs.

8

Collaboration or Partnerships
This project will leverage the ERP Common Measures for autobody shops already developed in
a previous multi-state/EPA partnership project, but results may differ slightly due to variations in
regulations in Region 5 compared to the Common Measures states. The project will share ERP
results data with the States ERP Consortium and EPA for national ERP results reporting. All six
states in Region 5 are committed to participating in the project development and outreach; 5 of
the states will provide staff for baseline site visits.
In contrast to previous and current multi-state ERP projects which have had states conducting
independent state-by-state ERPs using a common core of topics and indicators, this project
proposes to pool autobody facilities across several states into a single universe from which a
random sample is chosen. In this way, the sector can be assessed using about 140 site visits total
versus over 600 visits if an ERP were conducted by six individual states. This lowers the burden
on individual states and on EPA during long-term implementation and is a revolutionary
application of ERP, which is now emerging as a viable alternative to facility-by-facility
conventional permitting/inspection routines. We have consulted ERP experts under EPA contract
in preliminary design of the project, and they have supported our planned distribution of site
visits to individual states in the region. Given the scope of data management a six state project
implies, we plan to include NEWMOA as a partner in this project. NEWMOA’s experience with
the Common Measures data compilation and analysis is ideal for our project as the Common
Measures project involved ten states as full participants as well as two or three others included as
learning states.
Public Involvement
To facilitate involvement by anyone interested in the ERP project, we plan to post all public
information on the Department of Commerce SBCAAP website and other state SBEAP websites
where possible. This is a simple avenue to distribute information and can be accessed at any
time.
We also plan to work closely with the trade associations in each state to ensure that member
shops are provided outreach materials in a timely manner and kept up-to-date on the status and
goals of the project. Industry specific business licensing mailings can also be an avenue to get
information out to all shops in states that have such licenses.
Other avenues for public involvement would be through the use of press releases and providing
articles to media outlets to inform autobody shops that may not be reached through the trade
associations. These venues would also inform the general public.
Outcomes and Measures
While the primary focus will be compliance with subpart 6H, we also will provide education and
collect data on best practices in energy efficiency and pollution prevention. To achieve that goal
we will produce the following outputs and measure the following outcomes.
Environmental Outputs
The expected environmental outputs from this project will include not only the standard products
expected for a State Innovation Grant (progress reports, statistical methodology and quality

9

assurance plan) but will also include a number of other products. During development of the
ERP a process for gaining stakeholder involvement and input will be laid out. The SBEAPs and
Region 5 staff will coordinate outreach and developing the universe through a series of
teleconferences.
For the ERP we will create the following documents: facility self-assessment checklist and
accompanying detailed workbook, materials and documentation associated with
workshops/training sessions to explain environmental requirements to the shops, and possible
on-line tutorial to assist facilities with completion of self-assessment. To compare these
compliance assistance tools and demonstrate their benefits over the traditional permitting and
enforcement system for a small business sector such as autobody shops, we will review how this
industry is approached in other states and/or regions and address the findings in our final report.
We will also consider conducting an evaluation of the industry perception of our compliance
assistance effort, through a survey or similar tool, at the end of the project to guide future use of
ERP with not only this industry but also similar small business groups.
Environmental Outcomes
The project will use the following measures as a starting point for discussions of what is
reasonable and achievable to measure in a shop visit. Beyond those measures directly related to
the requirements in subpart 6H, additional measures may be included based on consensus of the
partnering agencies. The measures listed are for the most part taken from the Common Measures
project for autobody refinishing shops. We hope to retain as much similarity as possible, to be
able to make correlations between our project and others using the Common Measures for
autobody refinishing. Where possible, the measures are compared to the outcomes listed in the
Logic Model by their number: ST=short term, I=intermediate, LT=long term. Where long-term
outcomes are identified, we are uncertain whether the data collecting within just two to three
years will be sufficient to show progress. Other outcomes in the Logic Model not identified here
are considered side benefits to the project that cannot be directly measured through the ERP
format.
Because many of the new requirements are not currently applied by states or are applied but only
in non-attainment areas, we can expect to see definite improvements on the control and training
measures. The extent of improvement will be hard to predict, since the rule has been effective for
over a year at the time of this proposal and it is uncertain whether shops will learn about the rule
through other means and implement the requirements prior to baseline measurements.
The partnering agencies have agreed to collect data on the elements of subpart 6H. Through
discussions taking place in the summer of 2009, the group plans to have a complete list of
additional measures that will be included in the baseline and post-certification data collection
phases. The group plans to complete their negotiations and provide their list to EPA Region 5
compliance and enforcement chief by the end of July, 2009. Then the group will work with EPA
Region 5 to come up with the final list by the end of August, 2009. The outcome measures will
be finalized as part of the QAPP.
Practices Associated with subpart 6H (ST-1, I-1)
• % using HVLP or equivalent high transfer efficiency technology (I-2)

10

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

% with high transfer efficiency painting training in place (I-3)
% with different components of training (I-3)
% using hands-on or classroom-only training (I-3)
Rate of documentation of training
% at which all spray-applied coatings used in enclosed booth or prep station
% of booths/stations fitted with particle filters (I-2)
% of booths/stations fitted with filter/system achieving 98% capture (I-2)
% where spray gun cleaning is done with enclosed or non-atomizing washers
% maintaining MSDS or formulation records for all solvents/coatings use
% maintaining records of the amount/content of coatings containing Cr, Pb, Cd, Ni, Mn
% using paint strippers containing Methylene Chloride (I-4, I-5)
% keeping records to document annual MeCl usage
Average and range of MeCL used (I-4, I-5)
Percent of MeCL users with written MeCl minimization plan
% maintaining records of the amount/content of coatings containing VOC and HAP

Other Practices Under Discussion
POSSIBLE AIR PRACTICES
• Average throughput (vehicles painted) per year (I-5)
• Average and range of coatings used (and HAP content) (I-4, I-5)
• % using dustless vacuum or overhead capture equipment (I-8)
• % keeping shop doors closed to avoid releasing sanding dust (I-8)
• % meeting applicable state requirements (ST-2)
POSSIBLE AIR RECORD KEEPING:
• Average and range of VOC and HAP content (% by weight) (I-4, I-5)
• Average and range of listed metals content (% by weight) (I-4, I-5)
POSSIBLE HAZARDOUS WASTE (I-8)
• Average and range of maximum amount of RCRA waste the facility generates in a month
• Numbers of facilities in generator classes (CESQG or VSQG, SQG, LQG)
POSSIBLE INDUSTRIAL WASTERWATER INDICATORS (I-8)
• % of facilities discharging IWW to surface water
• % of facilities discharging IWW to a storm, sanitary or combined sewer system
POSSIBLE POLLUTION PREVENTION-ENERGY EFFICIENCY INDICATORS (I-8)
• % of facilities taking one or more actions to conserve water the past three years
(distribution across menu of possible actions)
• % of facilities taking one or more actions to conserve energy over the past three years
(distribution across menu of possible actions)
• % of facilities taking one or more actions to reduce toxics the past three years
(distribution across menu of possible actions)
11

OTHE POSSIBLE OUTCOMES (from the States ERP Consortium’s Core Measures)
In presenting data on baseline performance of the sector, post-ERP performance and changes
between the two, WI will present the data in the format set forth in the "Template for Reporting
Core ERP Measures", Appendix C to "The States ERP Consortium Guide to Reporting ERP
Results," April 2009, to the extent possible given the measures included after final discussion
between the states and Region 5 EPA. Many of those are included here:
Self-Certification (ST-3)
• Final certification rate
• Rate of “high-concern” discrepancies with regard to facility certifications on indicators
• Rate of self-disclosed noncompliance
• Rate of return-to-compliance (RTC) plan submission (if RTCs used)
• Rate of self-disclosing facilities submitting one or more return-to-compliance plans (if
RTCs used)
Performance/Compliance Rates (I-1, I-5, LT-1)
• Summary of performance changes for each indicator (if follow-up inspection data is
available from Region 5 before project’s end)
• Aggregate achievement rate for all indicators
• Achievement rate across all compliance-related measures (commonly called a traditional
compliance rate)
• Average facility score for all indicators
• Distribution of facility scores for all indicators
• Average facility score for compliance-related indicators
• Distribution of facility scores for compliance-related indicators
• Average facility score for all compliance-related measures
• Distribution of facility scores for all compliance-related measures
Impact Changes (I-5, LT-2)
• Rate of managing/controlling certain environmental aspects
• Level of group emissions/waste/discharges/chemical usage related to certain
environmental aspects
• Relationship of project activity and typical impact (and changes if follow-up inspection
data is available from Region 5 before project’s end) on environmental justice areas
The outcomes under Impact Changes are probably the hardest to measure, and depend on the
ability to capture accurate information about emissions/waste generation, etc. We will investigate
the use of an emissions modeling approach to estimate reductions of VOCs and particulate
matter, and possibly estimating reductions in materials usage and organic HAPs. One tool we
will investigate is the DfE’s Emissions Reductions Calculator for the Auto Refinishing Industry
(May 2008). Another resource that is available is the baseline emissions and emissions reduction
estimates prepared during rule development for the Motor Vehicle and Mobile Refinishing
NESHAP. We need to investigate the pros and cons of each, and depending on which one best
meets our needs we will then design questions to capture the necessary information.

12

Outcomes linked with Funding
The project milestones (shown previously in the Key Milestones table) have been organized by
calendar year quarters beginning from the projected start date of October 1, 2009. Quarterly
reports will include expenses for that specific quarter, as seen in examples from New York and
Narragansett Bay ERP projects.
Past Performance
The WI Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Bureau of Air Management was awarded a
State Innovation Grant for a project titled “Improved Environmental Results and Increased
Regulatory Flexibility in Air Permitting for the Printing Sector Using EMS and ERP.” All
quarterly reports required for that project are up to date. The final report deadline has been
extended in order to allow data compilation to be completed.
The WDNR Bureau of Cooperative Environmental Assistance received a State Innovation Grant
for a project titled “Use of Whole Farm EMS as a Supplement to CAFO Permits for the Dairy
Sector.” WDNR has submitted quarterly reports due to US EPA in a timely fashion. Feedback
on the quarterly reports from US EPA has been positive in areas of content and structure. WDNR
anticipates it will satisfy the timeline outlined in the reporting schedule by the end of 2009.
Logic Model
See Attachment 2.
Reporting Requirements
Quarterly progress reports and a detailed final project report will be submitted in a timely fashion
according to the schedule/deadlines established by EPA after approval of the award. Quarterly
reports will track completion of project milestones, expenditures of funds, important outcomes
and unexpected problems or issues, and summarize technical progress. All data collected will be
shared with EPA for the purpose of assessment on a regional and/or national level. Reports will
be provided electronically to both the EPA designated grant Project Officer (PO) for the award
and to NCEI simultaneously. The final report will be completed no later than ninety calendar
days following the completion of the project period. The final report will include: a complete
overview/summary of all of the activities conducted within the grant project period; any and all
data and results; and an explanation of any impediments and how they were addressed.
The final report will include information provided in the format set forth in the "Template for
Reporting Core ERP Descriptors," Appendix B to "The States ERP Consortium Guide to
Reporting ERP Results," April 2009, to the extent possible given the data collected during the
project.
Key Personnel
William Baumann, at the WDNR, is the Compliance & Enforcement Section Chief within the
Air Management Program. This section is responsible for programmatic implementation of EPA
MACT standards, including promulgation of MACT standards into state administrative code.
Staff in Mr. Baumann’s section are responsible for leading the WDNR statewide MACT Team,
and staff in his section also assisted with the baseline inspections for the printer ERP project. Mr.

13

Baumann has made presentations at several recent NACAA annual Enforcement and
Compliance workshops on the topics of state funding impacts of GACT implementation, and
Wisconsin’s experience with the printer ERP.
Renee Lesjak Bashel, at the WI Department of Commerce Small Business Assistance Program,
has been conducting compliance assistance activities for small businesses with a focus on air
pollution regulations for nine years. Ms. Bashel was an Air Management Engineer for the
WDNR Bureau of Air Management for eight years prior. As Chair of the Technical
Subcommittee for the SBEAP’s National Steering Committee, she has been working closely with
USEPA OAQPS rule writers on multiple area source rules and in the process worked with
members of the subcommittee to provide input and comment on three area source rules since
2007. In partnership with WDNR, Renee has led their SIG printer ERP project since 2004.

14

Attachment 2
Logic Model

17

This page intentionally left blank.

18

• Outside trainers for
shops (paint and/or
equipment suppliers,
jobbers, tech colleges)

• Trade associations
and organizations
(insurance, etc.)

• Other ERP state staff

• Region 5 staff
• air toxics
• CRC
• air compliance
inspectors

Partners

• other DB

• state licensing or
registration

• Reference USA

• Business DB

• other autobody CA
tools

• Common measures

• Existing materials

• Region 5 SBEAP staff

• WI SBEAP staff
• WDNR manager

• SIG funding
• Contractors under
grant

Resources

• Analyze performance
in self-certifications

• Collect NOCS and
self-certifications

training

• Conduct outreach and

• Modify inspector
checklist for selfassessments and
NESHAP NOCS

• Develop compliance
assistance tools

• Conduct performance
assessments using
random sampling

• Conduct inspector
training for SBEAP and
EPA staff doing visits

• Develop checklist of
EBPIs for inspectors

• Selecting urban areas
in each state (some
overlap with
Environmental Justice
(EJ) areas)

• Develop list for
target universe

• Analyze data from
shop visits and
evaluate performance
of the sector

• Develop statistical
methodology & QAPP

Activities

• # NOCS and facility
self-certifications
collected

• # Shops, suppliers
and others trained on
NESHAP and other
requirements included

• # Other training
resources developed
(webinars, etc?)

• # Workshops
conducted

• # CA tools developed
– checklist, workbook,
training materials

• Follow up compliance
inspections conducted

• Baseline visits
conducted

• SBEAP and EPA staff
trained to conduct ERP
performance
measurement

• Urban universe list
and mailing list created

• Final Report on
evaluation of sector
performance

• Statistical
methodology & QAPP

Outputs

ST-5 Increase in
shop
understanding of
CA resources
available

ST-4 Region 5
SBEAP and EPA
staff learn about
ERP performance
measurement
techniques

ST-3 Increase in
shop knowledge
of conducting
self-assessment

ST-2 Increase in
shop knowledge
of other state
regs (RACT),
other media, and
BMP included in
CA materials

ST-1 Increase in
shop knowledge
of NESHAP

Short-term

I-8 Shops adopt BMPs
and other
performance
improvements
recommended by
SBEAPs and other CA

I-7 EPA region
accepts ERP as key
element in core
enforcement program
to implement area
source NESHAP

I-6 Regional/ Multistate collaboration is
successful

I-5 Shops reduce
emissions of PM,
VOCs and HAPs

I-4 More shops switch
to lower VOC and
HAP coatings or
eliminate HAPs

I-3 More painters
improve techniques
and reduce paint use

I-2 Shops increase
use of booths/filter
systems, HVLP guns

19

LT-7 Shops continue
to seek assistance on
new ways to improve
performance

LT-6 EPA gives credit
or flexibility for ERP
inspections within
partnership
agreements (PPAs or
similar)

LT-5 EPA includes
ERP as
implementation
option for NESHAP

LT-4 R5 ERP model
used by more
states/regions for
area source NESHAPs

LT-3 More paint
manufacturers find
ways to eliminate
ALL metal HAPs from
coatings

LT-2 Reduce risks
posed by HAPs in
coatings for shop
workers and
neighborhoods
(evaluate EJ areas)

LT-1 Shops continue
to improve
compliance with 6H

I-1 Shops comply
with NESHAP (6H) or
petition for
exemption

Long-term
(beyond project
term)

Intermediate

External Factors:
• training already conducted by suppliers and/or associations in some states
• shops using online resources to learn about rule and reacting
• economic conditions (deep recession) at beginning of project
•…

• Other SBEAPs

• Other trainers for
autobody shops

• Paint and/or
equipment
suppliers

• Trade ass’n and
other organizations

• Autobody Shop
owners, techs

• Other ERP states
(Consortium and
“learning states”)

• NCEI staff

• Region 5 SBEAP
and EPA staff

• other industry
sector groups

• other EPA HQ
staff

• NCEI staff

Customers

Outcomes

Program/Project Goal: Use the ERP structure to implement a portion of subpart 6H affecting autobody refinishing shops and in doing so, determine the impact of direct
compliance assistance, self-assessment and certification, and random-sample site visits or inspections in lieu of traditional permitting and enforcement inspections

Region 5 ERP for Autobody Refinishing Shops

20

This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix A
State Support Letters

21

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

•

520 Lafayette Road North

I

St. Paul, MN 55155-4194

I

651-296-6300

I

800-657-3864

I

651-282-5332 TIV

I

www.pca.state.mn.us

December 3, 2008

State Innovation Grant Program

National Center for Environmental Innovation

Office of the Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (MC 1807T)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest

Washington, DC 20460

Dear Sir or Madam:
This letter is to confirm my support for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA)
involvement throughout the proposed Region 5 States Environmental Results Program (ERP) for
auto body refinishing shops. The project is an innovative way to support the initial phases of
implementing the Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating area source National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Sources (NESHAPS) (40 CFR pt. 63, subp.
HHHHHH). Although the MPCA will not seek delegation of the NESHAP, we are happy to
partner with our peer states and Region 5 to address this new federal regulation which will affect
so many small facilities.
We have a great deal of interest in adopting new tools such as ERP which offer cost-effective
means of attaining environmental results. The MPCA has been using ERP's integration of
compliance assistance, self-certification, and statistical analysis of baseline and post-certification
data with our dairy industry. That experience leads us to believe ERP will produce and document
environmental compliance and performance improvement in the auto body refinishing industry.
I am in full support of the participation by our Prevention and Assistance Division in all aspects
of the program. Finally, I will support any necessary agreements among the participating states
and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 as long as they preserve any and all
working relationships and agreements that are in place within our state government.
We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this State Innovation Grant Program proposal,

and look forward to a successful partnership.

Sincerely,

\>..J-~
Paul Eger

Deputy Commissioner

PE/AI:rlr

'S)K

--4

St. Paul

I Brainerd I Detroit Lakes I Duluth I Mankato I Marshall I Rochester I Willmar

150 YEARS

J,TATFHoon

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

1021

NORTH GRAND AVENUE EAST,

JAMES R. THOMPSON (ENTER,

100

P.O. Box 19276,

SPRINGFIELD, IlliNOIS

WEST RANDOLPH, SUITE

11-300,

62794-9276 - (217) 782-3397

CHICAGO,

IL 60601 - (312) 814-6026

DOUGLAS P. SCOTT, DIRECTOR

2171782-3397

217/782-9143 (TDD)
May 7. 2009

State Innovstio!? Grant Program
National Center for Enviromnental Irj.l1ovatio7J.
G.S. Envirollil1ental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20460

RE: Support for States Environmental Results Program Project

Dear Sir or Madam:
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA) would like to confirm our support
for the Region V States Environmental Results Program (ERP) project, in particularly for the
education and outreach activities. This project is designed to support the initial phases of
implementing the Paint Stripping and Mi.scellaneous Surface Coating urea source NESHAP (40
with. the autobody refinishing sector.
CPR part 63 Subpart HHHHHH)
.
}

.

Thedllinois EPA currently funds and works with the Illinois Small Business Environmental
Assistance P'rcigram (SBEAP) housed at the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic
Opportu.ri'ify t6provide substantial environmental assistance to Illinois' small business
community. The Illinois EPA, in cooperation with the Illinois SBEAP, commits to work with
Region V and other involved states in a coordinated manner on this project. The Illinois EPA
believes that such projects are especially well-suited to provide valuable assistance to Illinois'
small businesses in better understanding and meeting their compliance obligations.
Note that the Illinois EPA has concerns with any parties other than the Illinois EPA conducting
compliance inspections andlor enforcement actions. We believe these activities are best
accomplished by the State's through their existing air programs which are experienced in, and
designed for, such tasks. In Illinois, inspection, compliance and enforcement actions are
performed by the Illinois EPA's field operations staff, compliance section, and division of legal
counsel. Federal funding to support compliance il1spections and enforcement of the numerous
existing and new Area Source NESHAPS should be considered "for these existing state resources
to compensate for the associated additional burden being placed on the states.

ROLKfUKO - 4302 North Main Street, Rockford, IL 61103 - (815) 987-7760 •
DES PlAI'JES - 9511 W. Harrison St., Des Plaines, IL 60016 - (847) 294-4000

ELGIN - 595 South State, Elgin, IL 60123 - (B47) 60B-3131
•
PEORIA - 5415 N. University St., Peoria, IL 61614 - (J09) 693-5463

BUREAU Of LAND - PEORIA - 7620 N. University St., Peoria, IL 61614 - (309) 693-5462 •
CHAMPAIGN - 2125 South First Street, Champaign, IL 61820 - (217) 278-5800

SPRh GFIELO - 4500 S. Sixth Street Rd., Springfield, IL 62706 - (217) 786-6892 •
COLLINSVILLE - 2009 Mall Street, Collinsville, IL 62234 - (618) 346·5120

MARION - 2309 W. Main St., Suite 116, Marion, IL 62959 - (618) 993-7200

The Illinois EPA commits to participating in innovative tools such as ERP, especially in regards
to programs targeting outreach and educational efforts to the regulated community. We
appreciate the opportlmity to participate in this State Innovation Grant, and look forward to a
successful partnership with other states and USEP A in this project.

Very truly yours,

Douglas P. Scott
Director