Attachment E

In the Matter of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, et al., Docket No. EPCRA-HQ-2009-

8001, CWA-HQ-2009-8001, and CAA-HQ-2009-8001

Audit Protocols for Legacy AT&T Wireless Service, Inc (AWS) Sites

This document sets out two separate audit protocols for evaluating certain environmental regulatory 

compliance obligations at Legacy-AWS sites, as defined in Paragraph 3 of the above-referenced Consent 

Agreement, that Respondent owns or operates, as described below in Paragraphs I.A. and II.A. In 

accordance with the terms of the protocol, the first audit will evaluate the stationary and portable 

emergency backup generators located at the facilities listed in Attachment E-1 to this protocol for 

compliance with certain federally-enforceable air pollution control regulations promulgated by state and 

local governments, adopted pursuant to Section 110 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7410, as well as 

requirements of the Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engine New Source Performance 

Standard (“NSPS”) (40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart IIII) and the Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engine 

NSPS (40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart JJJJ) that the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) promulgated 

under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C § 7411. The second audit requires an 

evaluation of the facilities listed in Attachment E-2 to this protocol for compliance with Spill Prevention, 

Control and Countermeasure (“SPCC”) requirements of Section 311(j)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act, 42 

U.S.C. § 1321(j)(1)(C). Respondent has undertaken these audits in partial settlement of the matters set 

forth in the Consent Agreement. 

This protocol is not a permit and shall neither supplant nor relieve Respondent from any other 

applicable legal requirements. 

I. Clean Air Act Section 110 and 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subparts IIII and JJJJ

A. Clean Air Act Audit Coverage. 

This audit covers the federally-enforceable requirements contained in State Implementation Plans 

(“SIPs”), adopted pursuant to Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7410, that were in effect on June 1, 2009. It 

also covers requirements contained in the Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engine New Source 

Performance Standard found at 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart IIII (“Subpart IIII”) and the Spark Ignition 

Internal Combustion Engine New Source Performance Standard found at 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart JJJJ 

(“Subpart JJJJ”), which EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C § 7411, 

that were enforceable on June 1, 2009. 

There are 1,361 facilities listed in Attachment E-1 to this protocol that Respondent has identified as 

possible locations of Legacy-AWS stationary and portable emergency backup generators. Respondent

made a good faith effort, using reasonably available information, to identify these facilities. This audit 

will evaluate the compliance of the stationary and portable emergency backup generators located at the 

facilities listed in Attachment E-1, provided that Respondent continued to own or operate the facilities on 

June 1, 2009. Available information for each of the generators believed to be currently on-site is included 

in Attachment E-1. After the audit is completed, Respondent will submit to the EPA a final audit report 

that will include an updated version of the generator information. For each facility, this information will 

be current through the date that Respondent confirms the generator information for that particular facility. 

New Cingular will evaluate compliance using this updated information.
2

As described in greater detail in the paragraphs below, the audit requires an evaluation of the 

following federally-enforceable SIP and Subpart IIII and JJJJ requirements:

1. Is the generator owner or operator required to have an air permit -- state minor source 

preconstruction or operating, Title V, or Prevention of Significant Deterioration/New Source 

Review (PSD/NSR) -- and if so, does it have the required permit?

2. Is the generator owner or operator required to provide some form of “notice” to claim eligibility 

for an exemption or permit-by-rule, and if so, has the required filing been made?

3. If the generator owner or operator has a permit, is the generator in compliance with the terms of 

the permit? 

4. If the generator owner or operator claims an exemption from permitting, is it in compliance with 

the requirements necessary to qualify for the exemption?

5. If the generator is subject to substantive air pollution requirements that are not necessarily 

included in a permit (such as opacity, particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emission limits, fuel 

sulfur requirements, and Subparts IIII and JJJJ emission limitations), is it in compliance with 

them?

B. Audit Methodology. 

1. Permitting and Notification. With regard to the obligation to obtain a permit, or to provide 

notice to claim eligibility for an exemption or permit-by-rule, Respondent will complete the 

process it has undertaken to evaluate the applicable law to determine whether the generator was 

required to obtain a permit or submit a notice, and if so, whether the generator fulfilled that 

obligation. 

2. Substantive Air Pollution Requirements. For generators that are subject to a substantive air 

pollution requirement, such as an emission limitation, whether the requirement is contained in a 

permit or not (including any such requirement that is an eligibility criterion for an exemption 

from permitting or is a requirement otherwise applicable to sources that are exempt from 

permitting), Respondent will evaluate compliance in the following manner. 

a. SIP Emission Limitations. For each generator located in a state that imposes federallyenforceable SIP emission limitations for particulate matter (i.e., PM10, PM2.5, etc., collectively 

“PM”), nitrogen oxides (“NOx”), or sulfur dioxide (“SO2”), Respondent will use the methods 

described in Paragraphs I.B.2.a.i – v of this protocol to evaluate generator compliance. 

Respondent will use the methods described in Paragraph I.B.2.a.vi to evaluate compliance 

with federally-enforceable SIP emission limitations for pollutants other than PM, NOx, and 

SO2.

i. (1) Except where otherwise stated, for generators with engines that are not subject to 

New Source Performance Standards in 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart IIII or Subpart JJJJ, or 

the federal nonroad emission standards in 40 C.F.R. Parts 89, 90, and 1048, Respondent

will evaluate compliance with PM, NOx, and SO2 emission limitations for each engine 

type (e.g., compression-ignition or spark-ignition) by utilizing the applicable emission 

factors that EPA has published in the documents entitled, Exhaust and Crankcase 

Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling - Compression Ignition (EPA 420-P-04-

009 – April 2004) [hereinafter “Compression-Ignition Document”] and Exhaust Emission 
3

Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling: Spark-Ignition (EPA 420-R-05-019 – Dec. 2005) 

[hereinafter “Spark-Ignition Document”], in accordance with the procedures set out in 

Paragraphs I.B.2.a.ii – iv, below. For the purposes of this protocol, these documents are 

collectively referred to as the “nonroad model.” 

(2) For generators with engines that are subject to NSPS Subpart IIII or Subpart JJJJ, 

Respondent must first evaluate compliance with the federally-enforceable SIP emission 

limitations by relying on the manufacturer’s certification, specification, or data 

demonstrating compliance with the applicable NSPS emission limits. If the 

manufacturer’s certification, specification, or data are not available, or not considered 

reliable, Respondent will notify EPA and proceed to use the methods set out in 

Paragraphs I.B.2.a.ii – iv to demonstrate compliance

(3) For generators with engines that are subject to the federal nonroad emissions 

standards in 40 C.F.R. Parts 89, 90, and 1048, Respondent must first evaluate compliance 

with the federally-enforceable SIP emission limitations by relying on the manufacturer’s 

certification, specification, or data demonstrating compliance with the applicable nonroad

emission limits. If the manufacturer’s certification, specification, or data are not 

available, or not considered reliable, Respondent will notify EPA and proceed to use the 

methods set out in Paragraphs I.B.2.a.ii – iv to demonstrate compliance.

(4) For generators with engines, such as turbine engines, that are not subject to the 

New Source Performance Standards in 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart IIII or Subpart JJJJ, or 

the federal nonroad emission standards in 40 C.F.R. Parts 89, 90, and 1048, and for 

which the Compression-Ignition or Spark-Ignition Documents do not provide emission 

factors, Respondent must first evaluate compliance with federally-enforceable SIP 

emission limitations by relying on the manufacturer’s certification, specification, or data 

for the specific engine make and model. If the manufacturer certification, specification,

or data are not available, or not considered reliable, Respondent will notify EPA and 

proceed to use other reasonably available data/information and best engineering judgment

or perform stack testing in accordance with Paragraph I.B.2.a.v below.

ii. When using the nonroad model to evaluate compliance with PM and NOx SIP emission 

limitations, Respondent will select the applicable zero-hour steady state emission factors 

in Table A2 of the Compression-Ignition Document or Tables 4 – 6 of the Spark-Ignition 

Document, as applicable, adjust those factors for engine deterioration and fuel content 

limits, as required below, and then compare engine emission estimates with the 

applicable limitations (see tables in Attachment E-3).

a) For compression-ignition engines, Respondent will use the engine horsepower rating 

and “technology type” (e.g., Base, Tier 0, Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, Tier 4A, Tier 4B, 

etc.) to select the applicable zero-hour steady-state emission factors from Table A2 of 

the Compression-Ignition Document. For spark-ignition engines, Respondent will 

use the engine “technology type” (e.g., G2N1, G2N2, Gasoline, LPG, CNG –

Uncontrolled, Phase 1, Phase 2, etc.) to select the applicable zero-hour steady-state 

emission factors from the relevant table (i.e., Tables 4 – 6) in the Spark-Ignition 

Document. For each engine, Respondent will select the technology type using one of 

the following four options in the Company’s discretion.

- Option 1: When Respondent can determine the date of engine manufacture from 

the engine faceplate, manufacturer’s information or other reliable evidence, 
4

Respondent will select the emissions factors for the technology type 

corresponding to that date of manufacture.

- Option 2: When the date of manufacture is unavailable, Respondent may 

estimate that date using the date of generator purchase, when it can be reliably 

determined, and Respondent will conservatively select the emissions factors for 

the next oldest technology type, provided Respondent can demonstrate that the 

engine was new when purchased.

- Option 3: When the date of manufacture is unavailable, Respondent may 

estimate that date using the date of generator installation and conservatively 

select the emissions factors for the next oldest technology type, provided 

Respondent can (a) reliably determine the date of installation and (b) demonstrate 

that the engine was new when installed.

- Option 4: When Respondent cannot determine the year of manufacture and 

cannot reliably estimate it using Options 2 and 3 above, Respondent will evaluate 

compliance using the emission factors for the oldest (i.e., “Base” or 

“Uncontrolled”) technology type, except for those compression-ignition engines 

greater than 50 hp for which Respondent will use the Tier 0 emissions factors.

b) When initially using the nonroad model to evaluate compliance with SIP limits, 

Respondent will select the most conservative relative deterioration factors for the 

oldest technology type (i.e., “Base” or “Uncontrolled”) in Table A4 of the 

Compression-Ignition Document and Tables 1, 2, and 7 from the document entitled 

Non-Road Spark-Ignition Engine Deterioration Factors (EPA 420-R-05-023 --

December 2005) [hereinafter “Spark-Ignition Deterioration Document”], as 

applicable (see tables in Attachment E-3). Respondent will then input the relative

deterioration factors (i.e., the variable “A”) into Equation 4 on page 19 of the 

Compression-Ignition Document, or Equation 2 on page 3 of the Spark-Ignition 

Deterioration Document, as applicable, to derive the deterioration factors (i.e., “DF”) 

that Respondent will use to adjust the zero-hour steady-state emission factors for 

engine deterioration. If, as described in Paragraph I.B.2.a.ii.e, below, the initial 

deterioration-adjusted emission estimates are not at least 5% below the applicable 

SIP limit, Respondent may run the nonroad model again using the same equations to 

derive a deterioration-adjusted emission estimate that accounts for the fraction of the 

engine’s useful life expended by assuming (a) the engine was run at the maximum 

number of hours per year allowed under applicable law, or when there is no such 

limit, (b) the engine was run at 500 hours per year as discussed in the Agency’s 1995 

guidance entitled, Calculating Potential to Emit (PTE) for Emergency Generators

(Sept. 6, 1995). 

c) When initially using the nonroad model to evaluate compression-ignition engine 

compliance with PM SIP limits, if the applicable fuel sulfur content limit allows use 

of fuel with higher sulfur content than the applicable default assumption in the 

Compression-Ignition Document, Respondent will adjust its zero-hour steady-state 

emission factors upward to assume use of fuel containing the maximum sulfur 

content allowed under the applicable limit. Otherwise, Respondent will use the 

default assumption for sulfur content to make an initial evaluation of compliance. If, 

as described in Paragraph I.B.2.a.ii.e, below, that initial evaluation generates an 

emission estimate that exceeds the SIP limit or is within 5% of that limit, Respondent
5

has the discretion to run the nonroad model again. When running the model again, 

Respondent may adjust the emission factors downward to account for applicable fuel 

content limits, including applicable fuel sulfur limits that are lower than the default 

assumption, provided the limits are (1) federally enforceable or legally and 

practicably enforceable by a state or local air pollution control agency and (2) 

consistent with the requirements of the state in which the emission units are located

and (3) Respondent can demonstrate that is in compliance with applicable 

requirements. In the final audit report, Respondent will identify those generators for 

which Respondent relied upon fuel content standards that are not federallyenforceable to demonstrate compliance with a SIP limit.

d) For compression-ignition engines, if the applicable SIP limitations are expressed in 

lbs/MMBtu, Respondent will convert those emissions factors from Table A2 of the 

Compression-Ignition Document that are expressed in terms of engine output into 

units of heat input using the average brake specific fuel consumption (“BSFC”) of 

7,000 Btu/hp-hr. Respondent also will assume a No. 2 diesel heating value of 19,300 

Btu/lb to convert BSFC from Btu/hp-hr to lb fuel/hp-hr. For spark-ignition engines, 

if the applicable SIP limitations are expressed in lbs/MMBtu, Respondent will use the 

conversion factors in the Spark-Ignition Document to convert the emissions factors 

expressed in terms of engine output into units of heat input, as well as to convert fuel 

heating values. 

e) After running the nonroad model, adjusting the zero-hour steady-state emission 

factors for deterioration and fuel content, as required, Respondent will compare (A) 

the estimated emissions from the engine(s) to (B) the applicable federallyenforceable SIP limitations. If the estimated emissions from the engine(s) are at least 

5% below the applicable SIP limit, Respondent will assume that the generator is in 

compliance with that limit. If neither calculation of the nonroad model provides 

emission estimates that are below the respective SIP limit by at least 5%, Respondent

may demonstrate compliance using the methods set out in Paragraph I.B.2.a.iv, 

below.

iii. To evaluate compliance with SO2 SIP emission limitations, Respondent will use Equation 

7 in the Compression-Ignition Document or the analogous equation on page 17 of the 

Spark-Ignition Document, to derive an emission factor. Respondent will adjust for local 

fuel content limits in the manner described above in Paragraph I.B.2.a.ii.c. Respondent

will then compare (A) the estimated emissions from the engine(s) to (B) the applicable 

federally-enforceable SIP limitation. If the estimated emissions from the engine(s) are at 

least 5% below the respective SIP limit, Respondent will assume that the generator is in 

compliance with that limit. If neither calculation of the nonroad model provides emission 

estimates that are below the respective SIP limit by at least 5%, Respondent may 

demonstrate compliance using the methods set out in Paragraph I.B.2.a.iv, below.

a) For compression-ignition engines, Respondent will use the applicable default value 

for the fraction of fuel sulfur converted to direct PM. If the applicable SIP 

limitations are expressed in lbs/MMBtu, Respondent will convert the emissions 

factors into units of heat input as described in Paragraph I.B.2.a.ii.d, above. 

b) For spark-ignition engines, Respondent will use the applicable default value for the 

fraction of fuel sulfur converted to direct PM. If the applicable SIP limitations are 

expressed in lbs/MMBtu, Respondent will use the conversion factors in the Spark-
6

Ignition Document to convert emissions factors and fuel heating values as described 

in Paragraph I.B.2.a.ii.d, above. 

iv. If running the nonroad model pursuant to Paragraphs I.B.2.a.ii - iii above results in 

emission estimates for engine(s) that are not below the respective SIP limit by at least 

5%, or if Respondent chooses not to begin its evaluation of compliance with SIP limits 

using the nonroad model, Respondent may use any or all of the following methods to 

demonstrate compliance: (1) choose to rely on manufacturer specifications or emissions 

data for the specific make and model of the engine(s), or (2) perform stack testing as 

described in Paragraph I.B.2.a.v, below. Respondent may also choose to conclude that 

there is noncompliance with the limit. When Respondent uses the nonroad model to 

evaluate compliance, it will identify those generators in the final audit report for which 

the initial run of the model generates engine emission estimates that are not below the 

respective SIP limit by at least 5%.

v. Respondent may elect stack testing to demonstrate compliance with federally-enforceable 

SIP emission limitations. In such an event, Respondent may use any of the following 

methods to analyze emissions: (1) Testo Model 350 portable multigas emission analyzer, 

(2) EPA Methods 5 (excluding the condensable fraction of the results), 6C, 7E, and 10, or 

(3) any other analyzer or method that both EPA and Respondent have approved. If 

Respondent elects testing, Respondent may rely on the test results for a stack-tested 

engine to estimate the emissions from a non-stack-tested engine of a similar make and 

model, as defined in Attachment E-4 to this protocol. Respondent will disclose the test 

results in the final CAA audit report.

vi. In the event that there are applicable, federally-enforceable SIP emission limitations for 

pollutants other than PM, NOx, and SO2 that are not addressed in the CompressionIgnition or Spark-Ignition Documents, Respondent will use reasonably available data or 

information and best engineering judgment to evaluate compliance with those limitations. 

If such pollutants are addressed in the Compression-Ignition or Spark-Ignition 

Documents, Respondent will use those documents to derive deterioration-adjusted 

emission factors to evaluate generator compliance with the emission limits in a manner 

consistent with the methods set out in Paragraphs I.B.2.a.i – iv of this protocol.

b. Fuel Content. For fuel sulfur content requirements, Respondent will rely on fuel supplier 

specifications, receipts, or other documentation.

c. NSPS Subparts IIII and JJJJ. Respondent will evaluate compliance with NSPS Subpart 

IIII and JJJJ fuel requirements by reviewing receipts, specifications, or other documentation 

of what fuel the Company’s suppliers have provided. Respondent will evaluate compliance 

with NSPS Subpart IIII and JJJJ emission limits by relying on the engine manufacturer’s 

certification regarding compliance with the applicable standard, or to the extent stack testing 

is authorized under the Subparts, Respondent may elect stack testing to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limits.

3. Monitoring, Reporting, and Records. For facilities that are subject to requirements to report, 

monitor or to create and/or maintain certain compliance records for their generators, including but 

not limited to keeping an engine run log, submitting an annual emissions inventory, or monitoring 

and/or keeping records pertaining to opacity requirements, Respondent will review those records 

for 100% of those facilities whose permits impose such requirements. Respondent will pay the 
7

negotiated penalty and receive a release and covenant not to sue for those facilities found to have 

potential noncompliance.

For facilities that have generators that are subject to monitoring, reporting, and/or recordkeeping 

requirements that are not contained in permits, including but not limited to keeping an engine run 

log, submitting an annual emissions inventory, or monitoring and/or keeping records pertaining to 

opacity requirements, Respondent will have the option to either (a) review the records for all such 

facilities or (b) review the records for a random sample of those facilities and then extrapolate the 

fail rate to the rest of such facilities, as further outlined below. 

If Respondent chooses to review the reporting, monitoring and/or recordkeeping for a random 

sample of those facilities, it will supplement the records review with an additional spot-check 

confirmation process that will require physical visits to 20% of the sample to check the accuracy 

of information and records sent to the auditors. The locations visited would be representative of 

the various facility types (e.g., cell towers) in the sample. Respondent will pay the negotiated 

penalty and receive a release and covenant not to sue for those facilities in the sample that are 

found to have potential noncompliance and are identified to EPA. Attachment E-5 to this 

protocol explains how the sampling and extrapolation would be done.

Respondent will extrapolate the “fail” rate of the sampled facilities to estimate the number of 

violations at the remaining facilities at issue for which the monitoring and/or recordkeeping

requirement is not contained in a permit. Respondent will identify the remaining facilities at 

issue in an attachment to the final audit report. Respondent will pay the negotiated penalty based 

on the estimated number of violations and receive a release and covenant not to sue for all 

facilities identified in that attachment.

To the extent corrective action is required at those facilities whose compliance status is based on 

an extrapolation from the rate of noncompliance of those facilities that are sampled, such as if 

Respondent’s sampling indicates that a percentage of facilities are not reporting, monitoring or 

maintaining required records in compliance with applicable federally-enforceable requirements,

Respondent shall implement changes to its compliance management system that are prospective 

and company-wide. Those changes shall be designed to ensure that each facility complies with 

the federally-enforceable monitoring and recordkeeping requirements applicable to it.

C. Audit Schedule. 

1. Audit Period. Respondent will complete the Clean Air Act audit within eighteen months, unless 

Respondent elects stack testing to demonstrate compliance and cannot complete the audit in that 

timeframe because of circumstances related to the testing that are beyond the Company’s control (e.g., 

delays in obtaining a regulator’s permission or the availability of a person technically qualified to conduct 

testing). The audit period will begin on the first day of the month immediately following the month 

during which the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) signs the final order approving the consent 

agreement for this matter. 

If Respondent elects stack testing and cannot complete the audit within the eighteen-month audit 

period because of circumstances beyond its control related to such testing, Respondent will provide 

written notice to EPA as soon as Respondent determines that it cannot meet the deadline. Respondent

will propose a work plan identifying the number of generators that remain to be tested, a schedule for 

completing the testing, and a new deadline to complete the audit. Such deadline extension shall be

subject to approval by EPA, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld or conditioned.
8

2. Reporting. Respondent will submit a mid-term status report on the Clean Air Act audit. 

Respondent will submit the report by no later than thirty calendar days after the end of the first nine 

months of the audit period. Respondent also will provide EPA with a final Clean Air Act audit report by 

no later than ninety (90) calendar days after the end of the audit period. The final audit report will include 

an update of the Attachment E-1 inventory. Any violations reported in the final audit report will contain 

the following information. 

Facility address (street, city, state, zip code), 

Nature of potential violation(s) (e.g., failure to apply for permit install and/or operate, failure to 

provide notice and/or maintain operating records, etc.) and negotiated penalty,

Duration of noncompliance (either presumed or determined),

State regulation violated, and support for federal enforceability (e.g., date EPA approved 

regulation as part of SIP, date published in Federal Register, Federal Register citation ),

Description of source(s) (e.g., size of generator, type of fuel used),

Date Respondent determined possible noncompliance

Date facility returned to compliance, and 

Actions taken to return to compliance (e.g., submission of permit application/exemption request 

or notice to appropriate regulatory agency)

3. Corrective Action. The implementation of any corrective action is not a part of this audit 

protocol. The terms of the consent agreement and final order (“CAFO”) for this matter will separately 

establish timelines for the implementation of corrective actions. 

4. Force Majeure. The terms of the Force Majeure Clause in Section VIII of the CAFO will apply 

to all obligations set out in this Clean Air Act audit protocol.

II. Clean Water Act Section 311(j)(1)(C)

A. SPCC Audit Coverage. 

This audit will cover applicable Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan (“SPCC”) 

requirements contained in Section 311(j)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1321(j)(1)(C), and 

the implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. Parts 112.1 - .8. The audit will evaluate whether each of the 41

Legacy-AWS facilities listed in Attachment E-2 is in compliance on the date of its evaluation with the 

requirements outlined below, provided that Respondent owned or operated the facility on June 1, 2009. 

Respondent made a good faith effort, using reasonably available information collected during a 2007 data 

validation exercise, to identify the listed facilities. 

The proposed audit will involve physical visits to all of the facilities listed in Attachment E-2, 

provided Respondent continued to own or operate them on June 1, 2009, to evaluate the following:

1. Is the facility currently in compliance with the obligation to develop a SPCC plan? 

2. For those facilities that currently have a plan:

a. Do the content and requirements of the plan comply with the regulations?
9

b. Are the structures and equipment at the facility in compliance with what the plan and the 

regulations require?

c. Is the plan kept up to date and the supporting documentation maintained, and is this 

documentation available on-site, where required?

d. Are the facility and equipment regularly inspected and tested, are the employees receiving 

training, and are records of such inspections, testing, and training maintained, when required 

by the plan and 40 C.F.R. § 112.7 (e) – (f)?

B. Audit Schedule. 

1. Audit Period. Respondent will have six months to complete this SPCC audit. The six-month 

audit period will begin on the first day of the month immediately following the month during which the 

EAB signs the final order approving the consent agreement for this matter. 

2. Reporting. Respondent will provide EPA with a final SPCC audit report by no later than fortyfive (45) calendar days after the end of the audit period that will include an update of the Attachment E-2 

inventory. Any violations reported in the final audit report will contain the following information. 

Facility address (street, city, state, zip code), 

Nature of potential violation(s) (e.g., failure to prepare and implement an SPCC Plan, no 

secondary containment, no inspections and/or recordkeeping, etc.), 

Duration of noncompliance (either presumed or determined),

Capacity of tank(s), 

Storage contents, 

Date Respondent determined possible noncompliance, 

Date facility returned to compliance, and

Actions taken to return to compliance (e.g., development of an SPCC plan, and specific steps for 

implementation).

3. Corrective Action. The implementation of any corrective action is not a part of this audit 

protocol. The terms of the CAFO will separately establish timelines for the implementation of corrective 

actions.

4. Force Majeure. The terms of the Force Majeure Clause in Section VIII of the CAFO apply to all 

obligations set out in this SPCC audit protocol.