. ~ 

ISSUES RELAT/NG TO VOC REGULATION 

CUTPOINTS, DEFICIENCIES, AND DEVIA TIONS 

C/arification to Appendix D 

of November 24, 1987 FFDERAL RF=G/STER 

May 25, 1988 

3 

Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Program Branch 

Air Quality Management Division 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

~4_ 
INTKUUUCTiUN 

Jn Noveinber 24, 1981, EPA proposed its post-1981 ozone and carbon 

.nonoxiae Nolicy statement. In that proNosal tne Ayency descriDea a 

process to mak2 SIP deficiency "calls" pursuant to Section 110(a)(2)(H) 

o r tne C 1 aan Ai r Ac t. ApNencii x U o f trre pruposea po I i cy statement 

contained a listiny of SIP deficiencies and inconsistencies t.hat 

snoulu oe aauressed and currected when States respona to such SIP calls. 

Thr puraose of tnis document is to provide additional clarification or 

.nose ardds described in Appendix U in wnich existiny Reasunabiy AvailaDie 

~ ontrol Tzcnnology (RACT) regulations for volatile oryanic compounas (VOC, 

nave not aeen adoptea and/or implemented on a nationally consistent oasis. 

This clarificatiun does not expand or modify existiny federal reyulatory 

reyuirements, but merely ennances Appendix D by providiny morr speciric 

information in cases where past EPA guidance or approved rulebmaking was 

vayue or ambiyuous. This document does not address issues covered in 

appenaix D related to new source review regulations. 

In tn2 April lytil letter froin tne EPA Administrator tu t:ne Governurs 

of 42 States, EPA announced its intention to undertake a three-part 

process in its post-lytil SIN revisions. First, EPA was to review all 

reaerally-aaNroved contro-1 commitments in the State implement:ation plan 

to aet2rmine whetnrr tney have been adoated. Second, EPA was to reviaw 

wnetner tnese aaopted measures are technically adequate and nneet minimunr 

nationdl standaras for consistency. Third, EPA was to tnitiate d coinprehensive yrogram to determine whether adopted measures are beiiny effective.l.y 

implementea. Tnis aocument addresses many of tne "ApNendix U" proDlems 

uncovered duriny the second part of this process. Correctioris of the 

aeficiancias aescrioeC herein Nrovide for a yredter dryree ut equi ty 

and national consistency amony all States ana localities that receive 

post-lydl ozone SIP calls. 

-~_. 
ISSUtS ktLATINV To VUC KEIiULATIUN CUTPUINTS, 

DEFICIENCIES ANO DEVIATIONS 

txecutive Summary 

3ased un ANpendix D of Federal Register of November 24, 1987 

1. itACT teyulation Exemptiuns-- 

' wnere EPA has areviously sNecified a reyulatiun size cutoff (in 

%.TG or other guidance documents--e.g., model reyulatiori documents, 

sucn as EPA-45u/2-79-UU4 and EPA-9U5/2-16-UU1), State nnust incor;,oraLC 

tnese cutoffs if their existing regulations are less st:rinyent. 

(See attacnment 1) 

' Wnere tPA has Nreviously sNeciried 3 lo VUC/hr or 15 ib VOC/daj 

cutuff, State may use it on actual emissions basis or use lU tNy 

tneuretical potential emissiuns (desiyn caNacity [or miiximum 

production] and 81bU nr/yr) betore ado-on control. Care snuula De 

taken to make enforceable any reyulations specified on an "actual" 

einissions basis. 

' Cutorf total determined from the sum of individual emi<.;siun sour:es 

within same CTG category. (Exception: Petroleum marketiny -- 

storaye tanks, terminals, and loadiny racks must oe connoinea.) 

' States may only use higher cutoffs if suNported by 5w. analysis on 

an emissions basis (snowiny that no siynificant emissiuns dirrerentiai 

occurs between EPA guidance and State choice). (See At:tachment 2) 

Z. Uerinition of lUU tpy non-CTG source-- 

° Aggreyate all unregulated sources (including sources wtiich would 

nave been coverea oy a CTG if they had been above the E:PA-acceNted 

size cutoff--e.g., <10U tpy graphic arts sources). 

° Base on theoretical potential emissions (design capacil:y [ or 

maximum production] and 816U hr/y r) before add-on control. 

° Cannot merely apply less-than-RACT controls to avoid applicability. 

° Can restrict nours of operation by leyally and federally enrorczable 

permit conditions to limit emissions below 100 tpy. 

°"Unce-in-always-in" conceNt must aNNly (i.e., if emiss -ions are 

found above cutoff, then State must aNNly RACT thereaft:er). 

3. Form of Surface Coatiny Emission Limit Units-- 

' Reyulations snuuld be expressed as lb VOC/gal or coatiny (less 

water and "exempt" solvents). "Exempt" solvents are ttiose 

determinea oy EPA to nave neyliyible Nnotochemical reac:tivity. 

See VOC definition, page 1-2. 

° If "equivalent" add-on controls, transfer etficiency, or emissiun 

traainy (cross line averaging) are contemplated, tnen r•egulation 

snould,also be expressed as lb VUC/yal of solids (or Ib VUC/lb 

solids -7r- graphic arts). 

° Alternattvely, tne reyulation can contain a calculation conversion 

procedure to determine compliance. Procedure must be c:learly defined, 

reNlicaole, and cunsider tne aoove factors.. (See Attac:nment 3) 

° Daily emission caps are desirable but not mandatory unless estabIished as Nart of the SIP control strategy. Th ey cannot be usea 

in exchanye for a relaxation of R{iCT. 

-~-y. 
1-2 

4. Exempt Solvents-- 

• Treat as water in "lb VOC/gal coating less water" calculations. 

• Cannot take credit in emissions inventory and attainment 

demonstration or - new source review for control of exempt solvents. 

• Exempt only those solvents determined to have negligible photochemical reactivity listed in the five Federal Recis ter 

notices (see RECOtV•1E110ATIOt1 FOR EXEMPT SOLVEN TS , page 2-5. ) 

S. VOC.Definition-- 

' Cannot use 0.1 mm Ilg vapor pressure cutoff -- inconsistent with E?A 

reactivity policy. Such a definition would exempt compounds of 

1ow volatility, which, under certain processes, wou'id volatilize 

and, therefore, participate in photochemical reactions. 

' Model definition: 

"Volati'le organic compound (VOC)--Any organic compound which 

participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions,. This inciudes 

any organic compound other than the following compounds: 

methane, ethane, methyl chloroform (1,1,1-trichloroethane), CFC-112 

(trichlorotrifluoroethane), methylene chloride, CFC--11 

(trichlorofluoromethane), CFC-12 (dichlorodifluoromethane), CrC-22 

(chlorodifluoromethane), FC-23 (trifluoromethane), CFC-114 

(dichlorotetrafluoroethane), CFC-115 (chloropentafluoroethane). 

These compounds have been determined to have negligiible photcchemical reactivity. For purposes of determining compliance with 

emission limits, VOC will be measured by the approved test methods. 

ilhere such a method.also inadvertently measures compounds with 

negligible photochemical reactivity, an owner or operator may 

exclude these negligibly reactive compounds when de termining 

compliance with an emissions standard." 

6. Corrections for Other VOC Rule Definitions-- 

' List from Appendix D: (coating, coating line, refirtishing, paper 

coating, fabric coating, vinyl coating) 

' EPA Regions to make SIP calls on State-specific defiinitional problerrs 

to ensure consistency with CTG's and to avoid vague and ambiguous 

wording. 

7. Transfer Efficiency (TE)-- 

' Where SIP allows credit for TE, SIP must clearly state the 

applicable baseline, emission limit, and test procecture. A 

replicable baseline should be no less stringent thari standard 

industry practice. 

' 60% default baseline acceptable for most large appliances, metal 

furniture, and miscellaneous metal coating operations; however, 

testing for actual TE above 60Z default baseline is needed to 

determine final compliance. 

' 30: Oefault baseline generally acceptable for certain auto coatings: 

i.e., surfacer and top coat waterborne equivalence (i.e., 2.3 1b 

VOC/gal coating, less water at 302 TE). See page 2­22. 

' TE cannot be used as an alternative means of control unless baseline 

is specified and test method is approved as part of the SIP. 

' Source-specific SIP revision is required unless use of TE is approved 

pursuant to generic SIP provisi_on (see discussion, page 2-14). 

' Actual TE's must be used; no NSPS TE table values allowed for final 

RACT compliance. 

-#vl~_ 
1-3 

S. Cross-Line Averaging (Bubble)-- 

• In cases where a State, prior to the post-1987 SIP call, has 

previously granted (without EPA approval) cross-line. averaging to 

a source, the State must include the cross-line aver-aging scheme 

for approval as a source-specific SIP revision under the emissions 

tradino (ET) policy (see 51 FR 43814, 12-4-86). Treat this as a 

de facto pending bubble, but only for purposes of the additional 

70-y control requirement. 

• Source-specific revision must meet ET policy on daily weighted 

average basis 

• If approved under generic bubble rule, generic rule must also meet 

provisions of ET policy 

• The following situations are examples of cross-line averaging: 

(1) The source averages emissions between two or more separate 

operations (e.g., auto prime coat and top coat) witti the same or 

different regulatory limits; and 

(2) The source averages emissions between two or more similar 

processes (e.g., separate conveyor lines of similar machines) 

with the same or different regulatory limits. 

9. Compliance Periods-- 

• SIP must clearly state compliance period (e.g., hourly, daily) anc 

averaging method (arithmetic or weighted). 

• Regulation must require compliance on no longer thari 

daily basis (generally acceptable), 

• Longer than 24-hr averaging must meet EPA policy (0'Connor memo 

1-20-84) 

• Compliance date extensions must meet EPA policy (Pol:ter memo 

8-7-86) 

10. Recordkeeping Requirements-- 

• Must keep records consistent with compliance time frames--daily 

compliance requires daily records 

• Employ most recent EPA recordkeeping guidance (guidaince forthcoming). 

11. Test 'tethods--Use most current EPA acceptable methods. A11 methods 

must be specified in the SIP. (See Attachment 4) For auto topcoatiric 

operations, see page 2-22. 

12. Capture Efficiency-- 

' Specify capture efficiency test method where capturer efficiency is 

discussed or implied in limit (e.g., web-coating operations with 

add-on control). 

' Employ most recent guidance on capture efficiency testing (guidance 

forthcoming). 

13. Equipmcnt Leak Components-- 

' Inaccessible valves are required to be monitored at least annually. 

' Unsafe-to-monitor valves are required to be monitored when conditions 

would allow these valves to be monitored safely, e.g., during shutdown. 

14. Exemptions, Variances, and Alternative Means of Control-- 

' Generic approval of emission trades is already cove red by EPA's 

emission trading policy statement (51 FR 43814, December 4, 1986). 

-~~- 
1-4 

• All SIP's must specify whether approval of source-specific exemptions, 

variances, and/or alternative means of control shall be accomplished 

as a source-specific SIP revision or by a determination of approval by 

the State Director (a "generic" provision). A11 such generic determinations and supporting documentation shall be submitted to the appropriate 

Regional Office. 

• To be approvable, a provision for generic approval of source-specific 

exemptions, variances, and/or alternative means of control must -- 

" specify appropriate test methods and other replicable criteria 

in accordance with guidance issued by EPA; AND 

" require that any source seeking approval o ~ exemption, variance, 

or alternative means of control demonstrates that its control 

method achieves emissions reductions equal to or greater than the 

emission reductions required by the SIP. 

' Provisions that are intended to be generic (i.e., not requiring caseby-case EPA approval for the alternative means to be federally effective) 

must meet the general principle of replicability described in EPA's 

emissions trading policy statement (51 FR 43850, December 4, 19II6). 

' Federal Reaister notices that approve SIP revisions containing general 

visions pro ~ that may be construed as generic procedures should include 

..EPA's "warning" about residual authority to ensure consistent actions 

under generic procedures. See page 2-14. 

' Seasonal controls (other than shutdown of natural gas afterburners 

or use of emulsified asp-halt) not allowed 

' State redesignation to attainment classification must not affect 

applicability of regulations. The EPA will approve a redesigna tion 

under 40 CFR Part 81 only if it meets EPA's redesignation policy. 
NIHAT DOES SIP CALL MEAN? 

(Regarding VOC RACT Rules) 

Kesponse to SIP calls will be made in two phases as described below: 

FIRST PHASE--LIMITED RESPONSE 

(S:P revision due 1 year after work plan is submitted under SIP ca11) 

' tlo additional regulatory requirements added 

' Meet all previously applicable requirements for 1987 extension 

areas and 1982 SIP call areas ("Level Playing Field") (e.g., 

consistent cutoffs, test methods). A11 such areas must meet 

reauirements of Groups I. II. and III CTG source categories. 

'No additional RACT requirement <100 tpy for contiguous rural county 

SECOt:D PHASE--FULL RESPONSE 

(After EPA Publishes Final Ozone/CO Policy) 

'New additional requirements possible for additional MSA and new 

contiguous (rural) SIP call areas. (May be mandatory or discretionary-- 

depends upon final policy). 

~ Groups I and II 

I Group III I 

> 100 tpy non CTG 

~ '':ew reGuirements possible for new isolated rural SIP call areas. Again. 

; depends upon final policy. 

Groups I and II: > 100 tpy coverage only ~ _ 
2-2 

CTG RACT REGULATION CUTOFFS/EXEMPTIOt;S 

' ~ecommended cutoffs contained in CTG's, model regulations, or EPA 

policy memorandums (See Attachment 1) 

' For additional CTG categories size cutoffs, see SELECTED COATINGS 

CTG CATEGORY REC01-;MEN0E0 EXEFtPTION LEVEL, page 16. 

' Calculating regulation size cutoffs for CTG sources 

" Base tpy cutoff on theoretical potential to emit (design capacity 

[or maximum production] and 8760 hr/yr) before add-on controls. 

Care should be taken to make enforceable any regulations specified 

on an "actual" emissions basis. 

" Cutoff totat determined from the sum of individual emission 

sources within same CTG category (Exception: petroleum 

marketing--storage tanks, terminals and loading racks must 

be combined) 

" Apply RACT if plantwide emissions > cutoff limi.t 

" If caught with emissions > cutoff limit in the future, then 

State must apply RACT ("once in, always in") 

" CTG area sources have no cutoff (e.g., cold cleaner dlegreasers 

and tank trucks) 

' SIP ca11 requires States to assess their existing VOC regulations and 

address cutoffs in EPA guidance. Exemptions can be granted only by 

way of the 5: rule (see Attachment 2) 

' In cases where past guidance recommends high cutoff (e.q., 100 tpy), 

SIP call should also recommend that State investigate small exemption 

levels to prepare for additional emission reductions under full response 

to SIP call 

~~_ 
2-3 

OEFINITION OF 100 TPY NON-CTG SOURCE 

' 6ased on theoretical potential to emit (design capacity [ or maximun 

production] and 8760 hr/yr) before add-on controls 

' To determine if > 100 tpy: 

" aogregate emissions of all nonregulated sources 

--include sources which would have been covered biy a CTG 

if they had been above the EPA-accepted size cuItoff--e.g., 

<100 tpy graphic arts sources 

--exclude regulated CTG sources 

' If > 100 tpy. evaluate RACT on a11 unregulated source types in plant 

' Even "status quo" (RACT-level) emissions must be put in regulation or 

federally enforceable permit form to avoid increases (e.ci., emission 

levels without any additional controls) 

' To achieve "below 100 tpy" (and avoid RACT). a State may limit production 

or capacity and specify this limitation in a federally eriforceable 

permit (cannot just apply minimal controls to go below 100 tpy) 

' Employ "once-in-always-in" concept for applicability 

-+~. 
2-a 

FORFt OF SURFACE COATING Er1ISSI0N LIMIT UNITS 

' Recommended form of emission limit--pounds VOC per gallon coating 

(less water and "exempt" solvents*) 

' However, if rule or SIP allows: 

" determination of compliance from "equivalent" add-on controls, 

" credit for transfer efficiency, or 

" emissions trades and cross-line averaging 

' Then rule nust have VOC limits expressed as both: 

" pounds VOC per gallon coating (less water and exempt solvents) 

to aid in compliance determination 

~ 

and 

" pounds VOC per gallon solids (or pounds VOC per pound of solids for 

graphic arts) 

_ 

or 

" provide clearly defined, replicable conversion calculation procedure 

to obtain equivalent limit (See attachment 3) 

' Daily emission caps are desirable, but not mandatory unless they are 

established as part of the SIP control strategy. Daily emission caps 

cannot be used'in exchange for a relaxation of RACT. 

*"Exempt" solvents are those determined by EPA to have negligible 

photochemical reactivity. See VOC DEFINITION, page 2-6. 
2-5 

RECOMr1ENDATION FOR EXEMPT SOLVENTS 

' Check all regulations 

' Cannot allow circumvention of EPA reactivity policy based on other 

1IOC definitions and exemptions 

'=or calculation purposes, any exempt compounds shall be -treated 

as water 

' Cannot take credit for control of exempt solvents for purposes 

of emissions inventory and attainment demonstrations or new source 

review 

' Exempt solvents are only those identified in the following 

Federal Reqiste r notices: 

" 42 FR 35314, 7/8/77 (Table 1) 

" -42 FR 38931, 8/1/77 (corrects 7/8/77 FR) 

" 44 FR 32042. 6/4/79 

" 45 FR 32424, 5/16/80 (clarifies 6/4/79 FR) 

" 45 FR 48941, 7/22/80 

-~~- 
2-a 

FORFt OF SURFACE COATING EPIISSION LIMIT UNITS 

' Recommended form of emission limit--pounds VOC per gallon coating 

(less water and "exempt" solvents*) 

' However, if rule or SIP allows: 

" determination of compliance from "equivalent" add-on controls, 

" credit for transfer efficiency, or 

" emissions trades and cross-line averaging 

' Then rule nust have VOC limits expressed as both: 

" pounds VOC per gallon coating (less water and exempt solvents) 

to aid in compiiance determination 

and 

" pounds VOC per gallon solids (or pounds VOC per pound of solids for 

graphic arts) 

or 

" provide clearly defined, replicable conversion calculation procedure 

to obtain equivalent limit (See Attachment 3) 

' Dai1y emission caps are desirable, but not mandatory unless they are 

established as part of the SIP control strategy. Daily emission caps 

cannot be used in exchange for a relaxation of RACT. 

; *"Exempt" solvents are those determined by EPA to have neglligible 

I photochemical reactivity. See VOC DEFINITION, page 2-6. 

-~._ 
z-7 

CORRECTIONS FOR OTHER VOC RULE DEFINITIOtlS 

' List from proposed ozone policy-- 

Appendix D 

" coating 

" coating line 

" refinishing 

" paper coating 

" fabric coating 

" vinyl coating 

"EPA Regions to make SIP calls on State—specific definitioinal problems 

to ensure consistency with CTG's and to avoid vague or ambiguous 

wording. 

-~~. 
2-8 

TRAVSFER EFFICIENCY (TE) 

' Where SIP allows credit for TE, SIP must clearly state the applicable 

baseline based on standard industry practice, emission l -imit, and fully 

replicable* test procedure for transfer efficiency. 

' Current guidance: in most cases, can accept use of 60: - transfer 

efficiency as baseline for: 

--Larae appliances 

--Mletal furni ture 

--Mi scel laneous metal parts 

' Testing for actual TE above the 60: default baseline is needed 

to deter•mine final compliance 

' In most cases accept use of 30: TE as baseline for auto surfacer and 

topcoat waterborne equivalence (i.e., 2.8 lb VOC/gal coating less water 

at 30: TE) (see page 2-22) 

' TE cannot be used as an alterna•tive means of control unless baseline is 

specified and test method is approved as part of the SIP 

' Source-specific SIP revision is required unless use of TE is approved 

pursuant to generic SIP provision (see discussion on EXEMPTIONS, 

VARIAtJCES, ANO ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF CONTROL, page 2-14) 

' Actual TE's must be used; TE table values (e.g., from NSPS) are 

unacceptable for final RACT compliance. 

* For a discussion of replicability, see 51 FR 43850, 12/4/86 

"k~r_ 
2-9 

CROSS-LINE AVERAGING (BUBBLE) 

' In cases where a State, prior to the post-1987 SIP call, has previously 

granted (without EPA approval) cross-line averaging to a source, the 

State must include the cross-line averaging scheme for approval as a 

source-specific SIP revision under the emissions trading (ET) policy 

(see 51 FR 43814, 12/4/86). Treat this as a de facto peridin g bubble, 

5ut only for purposes of the additional 20: contr~o"~ requiirement. 

' Sased on daily weighted average 

'No credit for downtime; however, credit allowed when there are 

enforceable production limits. 

' K-ust be submitted as source-specific SIP revision, unless processed by 

the State under an EPA-approved bubble rule. rtust be corrsistent with 

provisions of EPA ET policy 

' If allowed under EPA-approved generic bubble rule, generiic rule nust 

meet EPA ET policy* 

' Fix deficiencies in calculation procedures or compliance techniques 

associated with generic regulations 

' The following situations are examples of cross-line avera.giner: 

" the source averages emissiorts between two or more separrate 

operations (e.g., auto prime coat and top coat) with the same 

or different regulatory limits; and 

" the source averages emissions between two or more simiilar 

processes (e.g., separate conveyor lines of similar machines) 

with the same or different regulatory limits 

*NOTE: SIP ca11 needed for currently approved generic bubble rules 

that are inconsistent with EPA ET policy 

~:_. 
2-10 

COtiPLIANCE PERIODS 

' SIP must clearly state compliance period (e.g., hourly, daily) and 

averaging method (arithmetic or weighted) 

' In aeneral, regulation must require compliance on no lorger than a 

daily basis 

' Averaging times longer than 24 hours allowed ONLY in acc:ordance 

with established EPA policy (0'Connor memo--1/20/84) 

' Averaging periods in excess of 24 hours are not allowed generically. 

Must receive EPA approval as SIP revision 

' Reexamine pre-0'Connor memo approvals of > daily averagi!ng to 

ensure that RACT levels of control are applied 

' Compliance date extensions allowed only in accordance w ,ith Potter 

memo (8/7/86) 

-~:~~- 
2-11 

RECORDKEEPItJG REQUIRE!•tENTS 

' r:eep records consistent with compliance time frames--daily 

compliance requires daily records 

' Record or calculate coating solids use and VOC emitted consistent 

with compliance time frames 

EXXtPLES: gallons of solids per day 

pounds of VOC per day 

(This allows, for instance, one to calculate compliance with a VOC 

limit in terms of lb VOC/gal of solids) 

' List amount of diluents and (where relevant to determining compliance) 

wash and clean-up solvents 

' Document use of EPA test.methods or EPA-approved State rnethod in . 

calculating VOC content of coatings 

' Docunent methods used to calculate . volume percent solids content of 

coatings 

' Separately enforceable provisions must clear.ly require riecordkeepino 

' Employ most recent EPA recordkeeping guidance 

-s~~. 
2-12 

TEST METHODS AND CAPTURE EFFICIENCY 

' Use most current VOC test methods (See Attachment 4). For auto topcoatin5 

operations, see page 2-22. 

' All methods must be specified in the SIP. 

' Procedures should allow verification of accuracy. of test data. 

' Prescribe capture efficiency test method where capture ei- ficiency 

is discussed or implied in limit (e.g., web-coating operaitions with 

add-on control). 

'.Employ most recent EPA guidance on capture efficiency testing. 

-~.~-_ 
2-13 

EQUIPMENT LEAK C061PONENTS 

' Sources previously exempt from monitoring (e.g, plug and ba11 valves) 

subject to SIP requirements 

' Inaccessible valves are required to be monitored at leas2 annually. 

' Unsafe-to-monitor valves are required to be monitored when conditions 

would allow.these valves to be nonitored safely, e.g., during shutdown. 

m 

-~. 
2-14 

EXE"iPTIONS, YARIANCES, AtID ALTERNATIYE FIEANS OF CONTROL 

• Generic approval of emission trades is already covered by EPA's 

emission trading policy statement (51 FR 43814, December 4, 1986). 

For information on emissions trading, see page 2-9. 

• All SIP's must specify whether approval of source-specific exemptions, 

variances, and/or alternative means of control shall be accomplished 

as a source-specific SIP revision or by a determination of approval Dy 

the State Director (a "generic" provision). A11 such generic determinations and supporting documentation shall be submitted to,the appropriate 

Regional Office. 

• To be approvable, a provision for generic approval of sciurce-specific 

exemptions, variances, and/or alternative means of contr-ol must -- 

" specify appropriate test methods and other replicable criteria 

in accordance with guidance issued by EPA; AND 

" require that any source seeking approval of an exempt:ion, variance, 

or alternative means of control demonstrates that its control 

method achieves emissions reductions cqual to or greaiter than the 

emission reductions required by the SIP. 

' Provisions that are intended to be generic (i.e., not requiring caseby-case EPA approval for the alternative means to be fe(ferally effective) 

must meet the general principle of replicability described in EPA's 

emissions trading policy statement (51 FR 43850, December 4, 1986). 

' Federal Rea +ster notices that approve SIP revisions con taining general 

provisions that may be construed as generic procedures should include 

the following statement: 

It should be noted that, simitar to EPA's treatment of 

generic bubble rules (51 FR 43853,'column 3, 12-4-136), 

if a State-approved action under a generic rule does 

not meet ali the requirert:ents for replicability, it 

cannot be considered part of the SIP and by definition 

cannot replace prior valid emission limits in the SIP. 

Should EPA determine, as a result of its oversight 

activities that a State-approved action is inconsistent 

with the above requirements, it wi11 notify the State 

and source in writing and specify any necessary rernedial 

measures. In such circumstances, EPA may take appropriate 

remedial action to assure attainment and maintenance, 

including direct enforcement of the original SIP l -imits. 

' Seasonal controls (other than shutdown of natural gas a -Fterburners 

or use of emulsified asphalt) are not allowed. 

' State redesignation to attainment classification must niot affect 

applicability of regulations. The - EPA will approve a ripdesignation 

under 40 CFR Part 81 only if it meets EPA's redesignation policy. 
2-15 

ADDITIOt1AL CLARIFICATION BY CTG SOURCE CATEGORY 

(For Selected Categories) 

~ 

:,y_ 
2-16 

SELECTED COATINGS CTG CATEGORY RECOt•iMENDEC EXEMPTION LEYEL 

Applicable Source Categories: 

Can 

!!etal Coi 1 

metal Furni ture 

Magnet Wi re 

Large Appliance 

5ti scel laneous ?tetal Parts 

F1at uood Paneling 

Paper Coating 

Fabric Coating 

State may use: 

' 10 tpy theoretical potential emissions (design capacity [ or maximur+ 

production] and 8760 hrs/yr) before add-on control 

0 .3 1b YOC/hr or 15 lb/day actual emissions before add-on control 

' To show that there is no significant difference between "State-derived 

cutoffs" and EPA guidance, States must apply "SZ rule" (See Attachment 

2) to allow higher cutoff. Analysis must be based on corriparison of: 

" emissions after control under presumptive cutoff--with 

" emissions after control under higher cutoff 

" NOTE : Se rule applies to entire source category, not individual 

sources. RACT is the test for individual sources. 

' A11ow coatings usage rate (gal/day) as basis for exemption if shown 

equivalent to emission rate exemption (see EPA guidance nvmo fron 

Tom Helms, EPA/OAOPS, to Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X, Additional 

Information Concerning Emission Cut-off--3 lbs/hr, 15 lbs/day. 

::ovember 4, 1987). 

-+~. 
2-17 

GASOLINE LOADING TERPIINALS 

' > .2 0,000 gal/day--considered terminal 

' < 12 0,000 gal/day = bulk plant 

' allow rolling 30-day average to determine applicability---but nct 

for determining compliance with emission limit 

' Employ "once-in-always-in" concept for applicability 

' CTG limit recommendation--80 mg/1 

' Ensure that trucks using terminals pass leak-tight test 

-,c~

:- 
2-ls 

GASOLINE BULK PLANTS 

' Cefined as < 20,000 gal/day ttiroughput 

' Allowed exemption--< 4,000 gal/day throughput 

' Recommend CTG control alternative #3 (Submerged fill + vapor 

balance--in and out) 

' Allow rolling 30-day average for determining applicabiliity--but 

not for determining compliance 

' Employ "once-in-always-in" concept for applicability 

' Recommend tank truck must be certified leak tight at bu'Ik plant 
2-19 

LEAKS FR0t1 PETROLEUPI REFINERIES 

' Define "leak" as VOC concentration > 10,000 ppm; VOC conc:entration 

< 10,000 ppm is not a leak 

' No CTG cutoff for petroleum refinery size 

--applies to all refineries 

' Recommend consistency with SOCPtI leak CTG guidance, i.e., valves 

located such that monitoring personnel must be elevated 2 meters 

above permanent support surfaces or require scaffolding nnight be 

exempt from quarterly monitoring. Annual monitoring stilll requireC. 
2-20 

MISCELLANEOUS REFItaERY SOURCES 

' vacuum producing systems, wastewater separators, and proc:ess unit 

turnarounds 

' tio CTG cutoffs 

' Recommended cutoff--only recovered petroleum products with Reid 

vapor pressure 0.5 pounds or greater are covered. Affected sources 

are not covered if throughput of these recovered petroleum products 

is < 200 gal/day. 

'. Ftay al so wi sh to consi der NSPS where no cutoff i s recomrwnded. 

Segregated storm water runoff drain sy5tems and non-conti3ct 

cooling water systems are exempt. 

:~ 
2-21 

SERVICE STATIONS--STAGE I 

' Reaulation can be written two ways: 

--tank size, or 

--gasoline throughput 

' Tank si:e: 

--exempt storage tanks < 550 gal capacity for agricultural use 

--exempt < 2,000 gal capacity storage tanks in place before 1/1/74 

--exempt < 250 gal capacity storage tanks in place after 12/31/78 

' Gasoline throughput: 

--exempt < 10,000 gal/mo (120,000 gal/yr) throughput for service stations 

--allow rolling 30-day average for applicability 1evel--but not for 

compliance — 

' Employ "once-in-always-in" concept for applicability 

' Apply 5: rule for other than 10,000 gal/mo (120,000 gal/yr) exemption 

(5: rule applies to the entire source category and not individual 

facilities). 

r 

-~:. 
2-22 

AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHT DUTY TRUCK COATING 

' EPA autocoating protocol is the preferred method for ca'Iculating daily 

topcoat emission rate (protocol forthcoming) 

' Topcoat regulation must be amenable to use of EPA autocoating protocol: 

" Emission limit must be in units of lb VOC/gal of solids 

deposited (2.8 lb VOC/gal coating, less water at 

30 percent TE translates to 15.1 lb VOC/gal solids deposited) 

" Compliance must be calculated on a daily weighted average basis 

" Topcoat operation must include a11 spray booths, 

flash-off areas and ovens in which topcoat is applied, dried 

and cured (excludes final off-line repair). 

' Emission limit for surfacer (guidecoat) should be expressed in pounds of 

VOC per gallon of solids deposited witfi compliance calcvlated on a daily 

weighted average basis if transfer efficiency is to be considered in 

determining conpliance. In these cases, the EPA protocol may be applica5le 

for calculating daily surfacer emission rate. 

' The SIP should specify whether anti-chip ma terials applied to raain body 

parts (e.g., rocker panels,tottom of doors and fenders', and leading edge 

of roof) are treated as.surfacer or miscellaneoous metal coating. 

These anti-chip materials should generally be treated as surfacer, 

especially if transfer efficiency is to be considered in compliance 

demonstrations. Underbody anti-chip (e.g., underbody plastisol) should 

be specified as a miscellaneous metal coating. 

' Coatings other than primer, surfacer, topcoat and final repair should 

generally be considered miscellaneous me tal coatings. (See memorandun 

from Richard Rhoads, EPA/OAQPS, to Directors, Air and Ha=ardous ~ laterials 

Division, Regions I-X, Applicability of VOC Control Techniques Guidelines 

(CTG's) to the Automobile Manufacturing Industry. July 31, 198C.) 

' t;o CTG cutoffs 

' Should define exemption level on plantwide basis 

' CTG applies only to manufacture of new vehicles 

' New and modified sources must also meet new source review requirements, 

which may include BACT and LAER. 

-~ 
2-23 

CUTBACK OR £MULSIFIED ASPHALT 

' No CTG cutoffs 

' Recommend seasonal exemptions (i.e., outside of ozone season) as opposec 

to temperature forecasting (e.g., < 507). (See memorandum from Richar.1 

Rhoads, EPA/OAQPS, to Air b Hazardous tiaterials Division Directors, 

Recions I-X. Cutback Asphalt-acceptable RACT Regulation. December 19, 

197S). 

' Specify (1) no higher than 7% oil distillate as maximun allowable solven -, 

content in emulsified asphalt, as determined by ASTM dist'illation test 

0-244, or (2) allow use of certain grades or applications of emulsifieG 

asphalt with the following maximum solvent contents as determined by 

.AST'•t 0-244; (a) 3e limit for seal coats used in early spring or late 

fa11; (b) 30 limit when chip seals used when aggregate is dusty or 

dirty; (c) 8: limit when mixing with open graded aggregate that is not 

well washed; and (d) 12Z limit when mixing with dense graded aggregate 

(See memorandum from Richard Rhoads to Director, Air b Hazardous i•taterials 

Division, Regions I-X, Clarification for Final SIP Actions on Asphalt 

Regulations, October 4, 1979) 

' Other exemptions for use solely as penetrating prime coat and when 

stockpiled for extended periods (longer than 1 month) (See memorandum 

from Richard Rhoads to Director, Air b Hazardous Materials Division, 

Regions I-X, Cutback Asphalt-Acceptable RACT Regulation. December 19, 

1978). 

-+~~- 
2-24 

SOLYEMT METAL CLEANING 

'Exemptions: See CTG for appropriate cutoffs 

' No 3 lb/hr, 15 lb/day exemption for sma11 cold cleaner degreasers 

(area source). (See memorandum from Richard Rhoads, EPA/OAQPS, to 

Oirector, Air b tlazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X, Clarifica:ion 

of Degreasing Regulation Requirements, September 7, 1972). 

I 

-~_- 
Z-25 

GRAPHIC ARTS 

' CTG cutoff < 100 tpy potential emissions (design capacity and 876C hr 

or maximum production) before control 

' EPA wi11 accept as an alternative emission limit 0.5 lb VOC/lb soliCs 

on a per line basis. (See memorandum from Darryl Tyler, EPA/OACPS, 

to Lirector, Air Division, Regions I-X, Alternative Compliance for 

Graphic Arts RACT, September 9, 1987.) 

' If a source wishes to average emissions across lines, it nust meet 

the general provisions of the EPA emissions trading policy. 

' Erploy "once-in-always-in" concept for applicability 

~t~:. 
ATTACHIYlENT 1 

CTG APPLICABILITY: 

CUTOFFS, EXE.*iPTIONS, AND GENERAL 

APPLICABILITY 

A;lcz-_. 
CTG APPLICABILITY: 

CllTOFFS, EXEMPTIONS, ANO GENERAL 

APPLICABILITY 

7he EPA has 4 ssued control technique guideltne (CTG) documents for 

3U sour:e categortes, two regulatory gu -;deline documents covering 25 o` 

:tiese 30 source categories, and several policy and other miscellaneous 

gu'.dance memoranda. Part of the guidance prov',ded in the CT'G's, the 

:wo regulatory documents, and the guidance memoranda concerns cutoffs, 

exempt'ons, and other sim',lar guidance on the applicability of the recommended control techniques. This ',nformation is sunmarized in Tables 1, 2, 

and 3 for 29 of the 30 source categories. The CTG for the 30tn source category, lJegetable Oil, was recommended by EPA not to be implemented by the 

States unt 4.1 test method uncertainties were resolved, and thus is not includec 

'n these tables. A complete list of references is provided at the end of 

tnese tables. 

Th ~ s information represents guidance issued prior to May, 1988. For 

categorles with cutoffs listed as "None", no specific gu'.dance on cutoffs has 

Deen 4 ssued for th'.s part'cular category although a 3 lb/hr or 15 lb/day 

general exemot'.on has been discussed in pre-1988 guidance. For current 

; yu'dance on cutoffs for categories 1',sted here as "None", see "Issues Relatiny 

to VOC Regulations. Cutpoints, Oeficiencies, and Deviat:ons - Clarif',cat:on 

to Appendix 0 of November 24, 1987. Federal Register," May 1988. 

also, for CTG Groups I and II for nonattainment areas that ne'tner 

-ece've-j an atta:nment date extension beyond 1982 nor received a not 4 ce of 

S:? def=c`enc'.es ("SIP calls"), States were not required to cover sources 

w':n em:ss 4 ons less than 100 tons per year, even ',f the CTG or EPA gu 4 aance 

~ contalned no applicability size cutoff. 

Last Update: 5/16/88 

.~_ 
7~ 

< 

C 

v 

i' . 

~ 

... 

~ 

~ 

-~ ~'• .. 

. ~ I 

I ~ 

L ' 

~ 

: = I 

OA 

• ~, ~ y 

• c. ~ ..i 

. ,.., 

' , ~ 1 Q • ( 

C ~ No z ~ • ; ^. = 

N Z 

. N • ~ A L 

' ~ ; •~ ~ d ~ ~ ~;~ =~► ~ ~ ; 

A /p N r 

w ~e 

~ 

.. •.1 A m 

, ie N I ^ O 

~O 

r. 

O 

. , I ~ • i 

1 ' 

N 

N^ , 

w • 

'J 

~ ~ 

O C 

• i ~. 

N• A 

C. T..• y~ w • 

~ L. ..~i N w aL 

Q~ • 

V Q t 

y a 

•y ~ .T N 

46- w o. a o 41 q6. 

~ ac o+o a .r 

•`~e~ aci E ~?- N — _c ` .. o :i ,r. 

CU 

C'r a 0 ~ 

a1 i0 >. QJ ~ Q! .r D. N w c: ~ J ~n q Q 

. - v.~ • • ~.r :f~ 

; ~ .. 

` • 

C ~ I AA O ~••~ > E L ~• QI Q ~ N0O Y7 O~ ~•+ V ~• ' ' .r • ~ di a A ~ r L A Q7 ~1 r N•~ '^ d A 7~ L CS ~[ e~ ~ 'O 

7; ~ a. wL~ CN G N L• 0J A C: ~ 0 V^S 

.~ a O .e ~+ C ~ w.rl >~ O O 7 ~r • N Qi ~r. w v A.. L A ~... 

.•r , ~ ~ ... ~► r .~ — ..,•r ~

Non t: C1 L A 7K Q1 O C 7 v • A_ 

'~'~ N Of G ~ si O '~ O r+ Q1 Q7 C C•- uN C':f m A • __— --A ~ Aq N 3~o~~~a --~n 

L C 6 O. Q7 A _ L ~ w 1~ N O C.~ L w L Qi U! L. O N S; _4c !1 

cu "' ~e',yd Ncws w ° a, ~n~ >>o r.Aw a, a o`V%.A 

, v! w NN ~ 

I 

^N V s a ^Q" ,%G 

... ~ ~.. ~. 

V 

.... 

; 

~ • 

• 

• 

~ ~ 

„y ~ ,; 

~ 

N 

, 

, 

; C ' ~t •~ • 

w p 

L a QJ Qy 

f ~ y~, ' N A C ^ w ~ ~ 

w . 

, o ~ ; O - 

N 

> 7► 

i0 ' A 1J ~ A 

t%f vf 

r N ~4 
/\ 

~ a 

O~ 

L ~ 

4d 

. y 

r ~ 

A 

c~ 

N ^~ 

L ~1 

t + 

L 

0 0 

N 

~ 

N 

d." . 

A A r 

O a! 

C CM • 

A ~ 

N L N 

p N CL 

110 c d 

T T 

r. + 

O r+ 

v+ CA 

C +~ 

1A Q~ 

w~ L O 

C C 

A 

N E, 

A 

u ~ 

~ 6 

i C 

N U 

A • 

u •~ 

VI T 1 

v N m 

a) w 

G7 

r 

q Cu 

1~ C 

V N ~ 

( ~ 

I r 

~ 

— I 

N 

J ~ 

L 

~~ 

J 

~ ; J 

. ~ 

— ~- 

< . 

I ~ 

1 = 

I C 

I ~ 

' N \ 

~ ~ r 

! N ~ 

j N ~ 

C~ O 

I ~ ~ 

I A N 

L v 

I ~ p 

N 6 

f y~ = V 

' a o I 

I A ~ 

! O A 

! C C I L 

~ O 

i1 

i O A L f C ~+ 

d °'0. o «°+c >> 

VI 

ZJ •..~ ^~ \?~ ~ r N • L N>~ L L L N 

N T C N\ ' CL d 

7~c ~ +~ •~ V L>~ ~O 

— A ~ G S7 

~ O 

o N O ~ A N I 

a 

y L> Q 4l) ~p 

.+ p T ~e a A o 

~ 

L = M. 

N~ ~ T..+ ~ + Q . ~ Cf ie 4! ~ V 

r N q•'7 N 

"^

N 

A C 

+J a 

..+ p'_~ .•• ^ ,^r ^ ~ L O A CJ 41 61 • ~ O 4A o 

~~ ^ • • O V O.+ • tC ~ LC'7 N W. ' 

C 

~ –L 

=•.+ ~ C ~ ... ~C 

yo ~ .a y I 

~ A L ~•. 

~'~ p, "d L y 

N o ~ A y 

+.~ 4+ L o y OC 

y! 

CJ .r C 

X.~ L. C r ~ E ~O 6~ - C! C ^~+ N U V r C N L 

W v+ .r ..+ ^ N .4 

— 1 V 

~ ~ r~ • 

L C 

~ A y 

I Q q •~ + ~ If L 

r _y iC 

I N C ~ 7 

N ! o ~ ! v ~ s_ 

' E a7 J 

' r C! ~ v 

I 

I A 4.0 ~ • 

r ~ O G7 1 

N ~+ .d ~ 

I

y~ q r+ ... 

I 

R ' ~ I 

d ! 

N C! 

q ~ i 

; ' r 

L N i C 

.~ 

N A C 

~ 

I cu ~ . C I ~ y A 

I ! 

cr. 

! A N ~'; I U 

~ C _ - 0! L ~ 4! L. CJ C• I ~ O 

a 

' x~ 

~ ^ ~ 11 37 L L , ~ 

~ 

L: 

I 

~ • 

ti'i oa 

v; 
.r 

~ 

~ 

'.Pf 

~ 

~ 

G 

V 

:..7 

i 

! 

a 

~ 

~ 

= 

y~ ~ 

` 

N 

~ 

y ~ 

~ • 

1 

. • C 

t..r 37 6► 0l a 

rE C 

' ' G~ O 

~ L C O+ C ~ O C••• ^ N C~ ~ C 07 

' ~ V w • r0 w L t"'f L a! >~ y ~ 

N AC7 O ~ = V N ~ ~ N 7C O O N = +~ O C u Cl oN V A 

~ S7 T ~t v 41 0 • 'e Q a! 4) 

w 41 L • w 47 L L 

N C w O A 

~ q y.~ A E +• A C•~ ~ Cl O%• 

• ~ ; N C L ~ d w v; r A w Oei 01 Gi N C 

• G 9J G ~ r 

- 

C W l+! L L c qt 

6 

L t r C 41 N • .7 L r C 

O G O— w N L. G ? 4+ w+~ • 

~ t•r L. rr N N ~ 61 r0 7 61 41 +~ G q . ~ rn Qf w.d r0 •C L N C 

L. 

C L; E r+ 

• C A 61 a! N OJ VI r0 !V d w 

N O 41 L>% 0 C G 41— 

.~ L w O 41 3 E ~s O C L. 41 ~ , 

I 

Nr C L O 

I.M 

'e C ws cL ~~ ~ A E C V ~ 

re A; 0! w W 'r Q t,7 G O 61 al G A Ci C 

C; G•+t G > N ~p w L >•~ Q 

~; ~ v+w— ao•- s o ~ ^ o•~ -~ .+ e 

,„ Ac N•vcL- ~ v ou cvo ~ o 

E • . ~~ `-" ~ 'e E C O N rn vN d L 

~t v d U L 6! •O C 4J ~ c a! V O L. 

w . A C L. L ~ r• — O C'^ C O . A24 C Oi L w w O O Q C O 

' V L L2.., a O Q► A •O u•• C 

' ..• w •e ~ rn C ~ C L ~ > >• O C N +• • 

vf v+ a1 Z+~ • +~ w o td w L. L. 

' V C C rn w^ C► w V C O— 

Q a► O C w w C 0 C 41 — %- O L 

• ~ ; E tJ w O w A 4) 41 v1 N w > C1 • 

• O O 0i 41 :1 In w Z +- w W A rn L C C 

C Z_ C O' A N rC ^ L C a7 A 

rn e ~ •v O ~ C w t O O eN L. 

A A N w Z ~ w w O w L V•+ , 

' r , • . . • • 

~ 

A • C C L. r Pj C 

4! I _7 A C 

; , _ ~ G w w ~ C ~• 47 ~ u L y ~ A C L ~ 

A C C N >~ ; O V O•.~ O ~ C7 L y 

•.- > A IA al — 01 'C > 4A • .• v w c L ~ = ~ 

; A rn E > y =G 

~o 

•e = ~ 0 3 ~ 

w G L 0~ G• C L E L C ~ 

w O w.- +• ~ O d_ 4J ~ _ • 

w ~ - q y ~ 

w~ 3> >. u+ C 

~+ ' C w ;•.• Q A: u A C 6~J O O— C V 07 G ~ C•~ L 

OJ SJ 

O; 

C di N C L. +• w L • 

C L q E ~ A a C L. - C A

. C ~ C_J w M w A 

~+ C o 41 41 O C Q~ A O C' O V a7 

A N L L. L. L G CI u 

~ -•~• A V N 

~ A + C L. L C C 

~ J ~ 

~ 

q e w A L. .v 6 ~,py j, 

L. N a1 C 1 -.3 > L ~ '~ N ~J v Si .^. ..+ N ~ 

, ~ 'C L. C'N c N\ C O a^ Q L. A > C M 

. ai 01 41 C A N 4A L CZ-1 "J +~ 

. c L. y n w • ^++ L g a1 07 1 = L L'~ ^ C — - 

~A GL A ~' E ~+L!"9 A d A V C:7 

i 

. ' 

~ 

q 

~..~ 

^ 

~ 

.... 

~ • 

, r 

~ • 

~ r 

, 

i , 1t 

i ~ ~-' • 

~ r\ 

A 

V1 — 

Q 6J 

u C A w 

w O 

~ V 

•O 

w 

d 

~ cm 

~.+ C 

C r 

C~ C 

> A 

~ d 

CA r~ 
~ 

~ 

r.n 

:.0 

G 

G.: 

n 

G 

N . I J 

; t ~ 

~ 

~ , t 

1 

' N 

' ~ a 

' V 

~ V 

t q 

' G7 6EJ c 

' L. N O 

~ V1 +~ 

; O sO N 

t r ~T N 

N ~ VI L. 

C C 

L ~ N A 

L. L. 

8' ~ u c • 

~ ; A 

~ • C r+ ~ C 

L ~L r• 7~ 

~ • ,~ c4 • 

• ~ va,au 

i t ~ c x ~ 

~ 

, • - ce 

~ N r1 • 

` • •~ O V I 

= N T L 1 1 y ~ q y=^ I 

.. x 

, 

. r 

~ UI 

; u o) Nai 

r G7 y L. 

, 

^ 

c 

~ Vf oO ' 3J ^ ^ r ~ ~• ~ L C ~d. ~ 6i 07 ., > ot 

. , ; 0J C ~ r~i 

V 

c ~.q

i ~ rqi C L 

q d q q 7•^ G7 q q 
+ r r 1 

A A 

w Of E 4n 

G7 C U. •. ~ 

z +- A U ._ 

~ c a B 

Q A ~ L 

uCi Z N Z 

N A 

o7 

V w w w w 

N L q C 1 

~ 

V'~f U 

N 

v 

N 'O 

O 4n 

L '31 

y L a v _ c 3 ~ 

L 1 

.. .y. 

A ~ 

Ci y 

i 

~ r 

N ~ 

N N 

r • 

I ~ 

. 

N 

; 

N 

L T ~ ~ 

~ r 

s : I 

: 

' C ; 

+ ; ~ 

.. , . 

+ ; . 

H ~ . 

~ . . 

I ~ . 

G..: . 

V LC 

7 A 61+ y L 

y~ 

•^ N Z \ 

C~ 

W. N .T y i ~'~ q •^' es L ^ 

yLw .-Eao ~ a 

x 

7f w T d N O. w ~ O ~ o_e 

_ • /C ~~ + . w..yi 

r., 

. .+ 

i v w u ie A A ~C - O Gr N 

.~ w G~ u 0~ w.r ~ I 

`- 

o J O% 

L R 

r . 

~ 

.r 

V~ r p~O L E L+ 71~+ A w^ C 47 ^ A A C 

L rO • N ' w w Of o L L CD o V C A O A N 

Vz L p L •.d CJ 

U— d rCa 'C.0 V ~ ~~ ~ - V.~ 

N rr 41 A -- V1 w L ~ U r~ .I >~ • C W. 

. 47 %D 47 G C ~.~ N =

~r, .r • d•r A i~ L r C C A i Z qC C J A ~ 

6J w 3 f'1 c i0 d rr O w a1 v~ O T~ 

y+ 

- 

r L 

V^~ 

r0 ~1 c O 41 v ~

•^ •_ iy + - C L • N f'~1 L Vf 

G7 E 

_ 

p 41 G+ 7% • 

E-AO 

A A'~ 

E ca 

AN 

V >+a+ 

~ >` N . 

..d • ~ w E N 7m- C 1A 10 N cz • L 4.04 ^= C 

a ~ • 

c— E q o O w o w

~[ L 

~ 

vN ^ 

+ N V L • O '•- d ?4 ~D 

p C. N i E ~• ~:~ , 

Z Gl • C N 

%• A w y N A v' 

y y A A l. ~ L^ N r w L C r. .~ N • ~•'~ , O O ~"+ W L w r~•~ ~n I 

A o o r0 L 7 a A 

L L 

L 3J 

w ~ 

GI '^ ••• E c'~ r0 x A ~.~ 

~ O 

G 

w U 

7+ 

O A 

~' + - 

U tA .+ • 

6i =~ L: 

o c ~~ w ar ~ _.+ a- d ad o uw x ~, > =_ 

A C ^ d U' 1 N 1'L NI d— V U w G7 N C^ N + 

E^ C ~ G1 N A+• N r7 c u y O • 

~ y r •• •Nr G G

w7 

~r. L Q~ +~' QI q N + C. ~'•+r L+ > w L G E 

(U O w - L C u'f On .G ~n O • J 

C O+ w w 

Cu 4) O 

L c oC 

O u_ 

w ~ C L V u Oe w q.r -•~ Q eh d C+ Cj ; 

C+• O 

~ 

O^. +• Zr ^ A ~ 

V A 

— d 

w 

7 ~t N E N C E C 

N W V C ~ in +- C C O+ ~ A~•+ 

w N '•- V ~ C^~ V~ w A l L. 47 ~ L V ~ 

 

C_ >> y ~ "- 

Z w 

. 

z 3 

. 

~•• ~ O. w r q q L A w E 

• 

I

I 

G N%b. 

. . 

CC 

• . 

~ 

r I 

~ L . 

~ I A • ~ LA N 

y> I I 9- L N 

I

' •• 0~ C w • 

1 L~ V1 00 

~ c w ` T c1 I I \ ~ ^ V > >~ • 

1 N L r L^ 

i 

z v> w V V O. 

~ i 

+ ~ - ~ = r 

A ~ ~ G. 00 

~ • ~ 

...r "~ N ~ . 

sc rn 

V N .•~ C 

J•~ ... ~0 I z 
10 c ~ 

~• L N 

L C r tf'f w O+ O a O u — v o w 

' ~ w ~ A • .+ . A ~ ~ •.+ 0J ~ 

~ oO iC n O cm A O. A L ~ ' a tJ . o iJ 

^ a7 • L 

O 01.N O 6l L O L ^ ' Z. 

A.O + N ~ 

~ 

. ~ 

~ 

= O O Gi L N 37 C ti'f N O 

N ~ v ~ N r U 

~ I ~.. +► 

 . 

cm 

 ~ 

w I + w E , 

O d 

• yL L i 

L ~ 

y " 

vr Ad 

I 

- 

x O ~ v 

• ~ , 1~ i •D ' 

:V 

C 

r~ - 

. 

L 

~ 

N 

~ a 

' ' « Q ~ • 

~'

+ ~ I ~ O c 

67 

_ 

L A >> V O 

~ • o c ~ 

• . 

Ol ••• CJ' 41 ~ C 

w y a.+ N • 01 O ~• _- = O•. ie O L 

N I N -Nt ttf y ~+ 

 ~ t ~ C N 

~ 

L~ C L ~ N~ 

o'~ oO w N 7 ,C - 

~ 

N A iC ~O ; '^ 3 ~^ '° E a ^, d w • Y 

L 

I ~ w 

3 _ N N . 

...r L^J N Cu •~ E A 

.r_ N ~ N O 

T 

L • A i0 ~ r a! 

N E w._ ^ !L ~O N ~ 

O N QI C7 t ~ r ~ 

• "~ y L C y ~ ,[ Q N Gi O O ~ N C a! 3oC :7 c v 3 ~ ~ ~ •~ Er c L c O a —_ — G ~ c 

A N C L :i 

... w •r N O N ^ ..+ 

w S~ O tlJ ' ~ ~ w O • ~ L 0! C ~ ^ 67 W <i7 

v> N ~ p O. t 3 t•r O a o.J a+ O tn 

. • 7 N y~ 61 L O L •+ r+ •+ L E C L L tn O G7 •^ ~ , 

' ; L •~ ~ w G~ O • +• ~L A tJ J c L v ".i 'O <i 

' N ~ a! N w A Q1 L Of tL9 3 C ~. O CI " . 

N 

00

.~ L. 

Q 'r 

~C 3 L a.+ 7.~ 7 

G ~ .. A a! I ~ +` IA •J 7 O OfO .1.4 +• r G 

w O O. N (u•J d O i. C N N Z -- : O 

3) L GJ N x oO 'r C Q O — a ••+ O am •r A r+ •~ .~. 7 L^ . 

- ~ L.p >, N A •r O G1 ,O 6! a.A "O y U L > 

_ .+ o•- = ~ .. ~ s w ~ C a, a a— ~ <u— 

Os Q~ o c L o ~ v o a7 L OLJ A Q A Lm 7•~ iu q — ? • : Z O 4A L •- V v. • • w Ci O 

Cr L N 

..+ N 

AAL 

•+ 3 w *+ Oi 

x t 

•+ L •J G -`" G G • C! c G a, c c >, re ~ a >, ~ e •-~ -- s 

' • , +d ••• 7 N ^ L A > i0 A ,^., +~ A a y 

Lz OJ C. C7 r G. c L L 71 a.+ •r • i_ y w> 

fa 

• 

,~• r r. O x 

v 

"o N 

A C 4► .. ~o C C ro 7 O. w... O L V 3 L ee a ~ O G c 

n~. w ~ + w e C =G A Q E - 3~ 

O w O•r O C O w w O d d A M^•► O 4n • a+- I ~o •- 

C V Q 

• 

C 7 v C N N 3 C N9 C ~• ~O .•• ~~t •J N ~ O ; ~ N~ O 9•'_ Q .7 

N 4! y QJ w 7 

G7 L U ~ v v 

N.0 

d•+ ~ 

N ai >1,L L i!! 

6J V C Q 

N N JC 7 tO .7 C1 y•~ 

a7 V1 •+ i0 Q • i. G? 

A w • p y^ a~ e~ •J 

, O w~ a a ~ N 

. 

O 3 a 

. 

O N ~ r+ N O. 

. 

O> 3Y ~ N tn.✓ .~ O ~ 

• • 

- 

.r 

v 

~ 

s 

:.7 

y 

C 

~ 

c..~ 
~ 

.~ 

u 

_u.. 

N 

:i 

~ 

~ 

t..7 

` 

O z 

_ 

= 

... 

~ 

;K: _. 

~ 

C• r N I N " I 

• G~ . i ~ 

. 

~ 

y: i • 

I 

r 

, 

"C C O Y N ( 

C ~. 

• ~ L r+ r+ O O O • 

' y ~ i. w • C C+ w A C N 

; ~ z Ci O C•'► +. 

•~ .~ ~O w A 

~ L ~ 

6

y E 

~1~ ~ I L y C! a•r •• N E O ~ 

4v tj 

, • ~ .. I ~ ""'y.

~ a '° N> N) 

; 6 Ci L O v +. i0 >• ~ A 

. O w y w V.~ _. y r.. > N C1 L • 

~ O V1~ C N i. C1 

• . ~~ 

NyaVC N 

d v'~ N ` 1r °°

~ja°` 

' C 1 

C ~ 9 • 

Gr 3A • A r+ A ie 

r . O a i. O w GI 

~. ••~ • 

•.1 ~ 

v 

~d 

>~ -. . 

uV w 

Q .~.. 

NCI a^ N l. 41 

+ Q.

= .r..+.r 

; .-+ • O C ~ A O N C w.. O C ~ N 

C, .C+ 6 O Z O ~ N + 9 6i q Z 

w.•°+ v d C d 6 ~ w u O 

a ~ cm 

C 1

q.1 N

~ N A .~ q•~ 

~ c 

31 > .7 •a N 

' • d~L S. N A q L V N 

~ 

' A A 

oO CI E A ~0 

•~ 

w 31 v dl 

C1 4 Cf A L 

r N C N 

~.r 

%d L w N w _0- y ` O 

' C~ ~ w L ~ w A CL 

v~. N N C ' A • 

CT O 60 Oi N 60 A JL .. — i. 

~ ' N 6 N O 9 L v' 

~ 

• O6 V E w O 

• 

' 

Cl O N A 0 

~. N 61 C1 7 ~ i. 

L

r0 

r L 

~. 31 q 

~ ; 

• 

~ • • 

$ N • 

. ` r I 

C C L A 1~ t+ Z L ~ 

• 

v t O 

• 

M~ w A w w > 

. I 

• 

 • 

' 

r 

N ~ 

• 1 1 

r 

~• 

r 

r y 

~ 1 

r 

' 

I ~ r I I 

~ ,•„ 1 t I 

, , o • ~ , ~ 

r r . ; a 

; ; + c v d o 

' 

Q 

C 

~ 

~ 

L p~ 

~L A o, 

A ) 

ry _C 

C3 N 

A 

~t 

V.O . 4. 7 c L 

~ 7f .r v ` O < 

~ o 

:c•+ ~ vy u ^w 

c

_NVE I 

c.i, ~• NI L ~ u V O V^.

O+ 

. 9i ~ ~ Q. ' ~ ~ ( u1 O 

x O

~e ( L ; G . G 

t~ ~= ' W °` —, , 

" 

, I ~ I 

, ~o , a ' , 
; • ~ ~ 

~ • , ~ 

; I 

+ ~ . 

~ N ~ 

~ ~ .. 

= ~ . 

~ s ; : 

~ ' N 

~ . 

~ ' `• 

L t 

N ^ N C 7 I 

.y+ ? L d 

° i 

- c ^ v a ~ ac+ ~► s ? E 

v••_- 7 , r- A i ~~ x 

• >z a 

V 3 o O 

.c+ .°- " cIA 

N^, G7 = 37 ~ x..y.r r P9 

r L al CJ N ~ A 

.~+ N A r+ 0U C O • C 1 

3 y G ac V ai OO ra 

C E 

N >. 0i O ~+ C 

I 

~ C A C 3 I E ^ N N N ~ J 

O A O N C N~ d O V 

C N SG I +rrG 

= C O L i O O O.+- L^ 

~7 3J O o Q I L N y tf 

A o ~+ N a y E ir aN c 

a 

~+= L.+ A ~ v= o N coZ 

C S N O rr y O L. Of 

~. O 

4Ai u aE+ oN ad ~ ~ E N v a ~e~~f 

E A 2 N L v •r C ~ C~ N • I .~ ^ L a1 O A • 

~ u>, C~ ~ d I ~O CS o L o d d L c A= Eac L ~ o.ac Sz E ~+ a7 v, 

~ • 

•^ 4 ~ 

N 

~ 

; 

C N 

7 

, C 

~+ 7 I •.O. C 

."' _. ^_ N ~ ~O S • 

L • C~ G e~+ .'_, _ o. ~-• - s,•:. ~ _ 

~ or .,r 

•% ~ N V , O ~ e~1 

O •~ C N • 

ic N r. 

^ N y A N d 

•C N 

i 

; 

, L 

q ~ 

. ~ 

' ~ > 

; C ~ 

, y ~ 

~ ^ 

~ - 

o ~ N 

I , 

I C N ' A a► p r Qi L 

i 

~ •, i N• r+ C 

CQ ^ ~ 

~ 

N 67 • r U O J t ~ N - 

t l"'f ^ ~r ~ A•r i 

~ Z4d .+ N O 3~ ; S ~.. •-• E r ~~ 

C7 x 

, O O ~+ r C 4J •~•i .~ U•.~ - J e~1 ~ N•~ ~ 

, C N +. +d ',' .~ N I + L O L 

~ N N L. 7 W ~ W :i L ~ 

C1 U NNr+ C U N S A ! J i O ai 064) en CJ C A J i7 S' , ~ I G r r• ~r d A i3~ Y. L L v. v 

• ~ ' ~ 1 ~ 

- 

• . ' _ L y I . ' ~ •~ 

N q vN+ 

_ 

„o'"' Z) 

~ 10 6. 

`r 6."' 

72 73 

f[ UI ' C Z.~ Jf t%f A. 

F~ a _ 

L~ ~ L O _ N A 

• — 4 •^-+ yd i '0L • r•• ' NSJ 
s 

u 

c 

u ~ 

~ 

C 

G..~ 

.` 

F~i 

- 

-; 

~ 

~ 

N~ 

37 , 

V , 

L 

, 

s, 

~ ~ A 

. 

V 

. 

Q 

` 

. S ~ 

, y> 

~ L A 

' ~ ' ~ d d ^ • 

~ A N 

' • i • c a 

 ' ' A O 

~ ~ e•~ 

~ v ~ O A • 

; C; 3Lr• 

a+ 

~ O ~ 

, r/ N w 

N (u 

~ , O.N•~ 

1 : y ~ ~ O : c u o L. ( 

: o ~ o 

~ 

>Qc uAA } 

O 

4j°-•= OA

: = • c.u.~ cyd ~ 

•• a ~ ••• S C o w y v L. N 

IAV•+a- agtu u 1 ~ 

~ 

; ~ ~ o; ~, ~n ~ • Aa.+ C~ O 

en 

N 7N C 3v- ( 

, A d N N4nV-N v Cy.+ Q y 

r+ x A 

.~. ~..~ 

t 1 

' 

~• 

_-- 

~ 

I • _ '_ 

 ~ . •~ C7 C7 C 

O 

 L ~1 ! C •.+ 01 ...r 

r _ 

.~.~` A^ 

66JIrL7G 

ri. 
REFERENCES 

.. Control of 4ydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading TermInals. 

_PA-.150/2-77-026. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Off ~ ce of 

a'" Jual'.ty Plann:ng and Standards. October 1977. OAQPS No. 1.2-022. 

=. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Bulk Gasol;ne Plants. 

EPA-450/2-77-035. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of A:- 

Jual=ty Planning and Standards. December 1977. OAQPS No. 1.2-085. 

B. Correspondence. W. C. Barber, Director, OAQPS, EPA, to Hon. L. Gudge-, 

House of Representat:ves. November 13, 1978. 

=. Regulatory Gu'.dance for Control of Volat'le Organic Compound Em 4 ss 4 ons 

from 15 Categor',es of Stationary Sources. EPA-905/2-78-001. U.S. 

Environmental Protect'on Agency, Region V, Air and Hazardous Mater"als 

Div;sion. April 1978. 

5. Memorandum. Richard G. Rhoads, 0 i rector, CPDO, EPA, to 0 1 rector, ;,t r and 

Hazardous Mater'.als Division, Regions I-X. Evaluation of 10,000 gals/montn 

Throughput Exemptions for Petroleum Marketing Operations. August 17, i979. 

5:. Control of Volatile Organic Em',ssions from Storage of Petroleum L ~ qu:ds 

=n Fixed-Roof Tanks. EPA-450/2-77-036. U. S. Environmental Protect'on 

Agency. Off'ce of Air Quality Planning and Standards. December 1977. 

OAQPS No. 1.2-089. 

7. Memorandum. B. Polglase, Technical Guidance Section, EPA, to G. T. Helms, 

Ch=ef, Control Programs Operation Branch, EPA. Applicabi1ity of Fuel 

Storage Regulations to JP-4 Jet Fuel. December 23, 1981. 

3. Control of Reflnery Vacuum Producing Systems, Wastewater :ieparators 

and Process Unit Turnarounds. EPA-450/2-77-025. U.S. Environmental 

Protect ~ on Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Staridards. 

Octobe.^ 1977. OAQPS No. 1.2-081. 

3. Control of Volat'le Organic Compounds from Use of Cutback Asphait. 

EPA-450/2-77-037. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

a'.r Oual'ty Plann',ng and Standards. December 1977. OAQPS No. 1.2-090. 

10.Memorandum. R. G. Rhoads, D;rector, CP00, EPA, to Oirector, Air and 

Hazartious Materials Division, Regions I-X. Cutback Asphalt VOC Regulat ~ o,s. 

•larch 6, 1979. 

11.Memorandum. R. G. Rhoads, OIrector, CP00, EPA, to Director, A ~ r and 

Hazardous Mater ~ als Oiv ~ sion, Regions I-X. Cutback Asphal ~ t - Acceptaole 

RACT Regu;lation. December 19, 1978. 

12. Control of Volat'.le Organic Emissions from Solvent Metai Clean=ng. 

E?A ~50/2-77-022. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

A',r Oual',ty Plann'ng and Standards. November 1977. 
i;. Memorandum. R. G. Rhoads, Director, CPDO, EPA, to Director, Air ana 

:iazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X. Exemption for Cola Cleaner 

Degreasers. July 2, 1980. 

14. Memorandum. R. G. Rhoads, Director, CPDO, EPA, to Oirector, Air anc 

Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I, III-X, and Director, Environmental Programs Oivision, Region II. Clarification of Degreasing Regulation Requirements. September 7, 1978. 

:5. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources 

- Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Faorics, Automopiles, and Light-Duty Trucks. EPA-450/2-77-008. U.S. Environmental 

arotection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standaras. May 

1977. OAQPS No. 1.2-073. 

16. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sour:es 

- Volume III: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture. EPA-450/2-77-032. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ai.r Quality Planning ana 

Standards. December 1977. OAQPS No. 1.2-086. 

17. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources 

- Volume IV: Surface Coating for Insulation of Magnet Wire. EPA-450/ 

2-77-033. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ai>' Air Quality 

Planning and Standards. Oecember 1917. OAQPS No. 1.2-087. 

18. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existiny Stationary Sources 

- Volume V: Surface Coating of Large Appliances. EPA 450/2-77-034. . 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Planning and Standarts. 

December 1977. OAQPS No. 1.2-088. 

19. Control of Volatile Organic Leaks from Petroleum Refinery Equipment. 

c"PA 450/2-78-036. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards. June 1978. OAQPS Nci. 1.2-111. 

20. Guidance to State and Local Agencaes in Preparing Regulat:ions to Cantro ~ 

Volatile Organic Compounds from Ten Stationary Source Cat:egories. 

EPA-450/2-79-004, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards. September 1979. 

21. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary SourcesVolume VI: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Parts and Pr•oducts. "c?.S450/2-78-015. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of air aua;ity 

Planning and Standards. June 1978. OAQPS No. 1.2-101. 

22. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Statiionary SourcesVolume VII: Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood Panelirig. EPA-450/2- 

78-032. ' - Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards. June 1978. OAQPS No. 1.2-112. 

23. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Synthesized 

Pharmaceutical Products. EPA-450/2-78-029. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standarbs. Decemcer 1973. 

OAOPS No. 1.2-105. 

-t~:~. 
2 1 . Control of volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Pneumatic 

Ruober Tires. EPA-450/2-78-030. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Jffice of Air Quality Planning and Standards. December 1978. OAOPS 

Vo. 1.2-106. 

25. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Petroleum Liquia Storaae in 

External Floating Roof Tanks. EPA-450/2-78-047. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Stanaards. DecemDer 

1978. OAQPS No. 1.2-116. 

25. Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Existing Stationary SourcesVolume VIII: Graphic Arts - Rotogravure and Flexography. EPA-450/2- 

78-033. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quali_y 

Planning ana Stancards. December 1978. OAQPS No. 1.2-109. 

27. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning 

Systems: EPA-450/2-78-050. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards. December 1978. OAQPS No. 1.2-117. 

29. Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Gasoline Tank Trucks 

and Vapor Collection Systems. EPA-450/2-78-051. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standaras. Decemoer 

1978. OAQPS N0. 1.2-119. 

29. Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Manufacture of 

High-Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrenle Resins. 

EPA-450/3-83-008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air_ 

Quality Planning and Standards. November 1983. 

30. Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Synthetic Organic Chemical and Polymer Manufacturing Equipment. EPA-450/3-83-006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standares. 

March 1984. 

31. Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Large Petroleum Dry 

Cleaners. EPA-450/3-82-009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of air Quality Planning and Standards. September 1982. 

32. Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Air Oxiaation 

arocesses in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry. EP.4- 

450/3-34-015. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. DEcemoer 198-1. 

23. Control of Volatile Organic Compound Equipment Leaks from Natural 

Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants. EPA-450/3-83-007. U.S. E.Environmental 

Protection Agency. December 1983. 
ATTaCHMENT 2 

E.`C.a."iPLE 52 RULE CALCULATION 

-~-a. 
EXAhtPLE OF At, APPLICATIOH OF THE 5 PERCE14T EOUIVALEt:CY P.ULE 

State "X` was in the process of developing volatile organic compounc 

(VOC) reaulations for the "Meta1 Furniture" control technioue guideline 

(CTG) category. 

an analysis of their emission inventory for their ozone nonattainment 

area disclosed the following with regards to metal furniture plant 

potential enissions. 

(81: Overall Control Efficiency) 

Pre-control Post Control Post Controi 

(Potential) (CTG A1lowable) (St. Rec. A11owa:,le; 

Plant "A" - 100 t/yr 19 t/yr 19 t/yr 

Plant "6" - 300 t/yr 57 t/yr 57 t/yr 

Plant "C" - 18.5 t/yr 3.5 t/yr 18.5 t/yr 

Plant "D" - 80 t/yr 15.2 t/yr 15.2 t/yr 

Plant "E" - 90 t/yr 17.1 t/yr 17.1 t/;+r 

. .Total 588.5 t/yr 111.8 t/yr 126.E t/yr 

The cutpoint recommended by EPA for the metal furniture source 

category was a VOC emissions.level of 10 tons per year potential. The 

State was considering a cutpoint of 25 tons per year potential in order 

to provide relief to Plant "C". It was intended to show that with a 25 

ton/yr cutoff, allowable emissions would be within 5 percent: of potential 

enissions by applying a 10 ton/yr cutoff. 

An evaluation of the various plant potential emissions (assumina 9C. 

capture efficiency and 90: control) indicated that post control (CTG) 

allowable VOC emissions (with a 10 ton.per year cutoff) would be 111.P. 

tons/yr. 

Post control allowable VOC emissions (with the State's recommended 

25 ton per year cutoff) would be 126.8 tons/yr. 

The difference in post control allowable emissions fronn the metal 

furniture source category would be 126.8 - 111.8 = 15.0 tons/yr. 

15 

1~~8 x 100 = 13.4 percent 

Therefore, allowable emissions with a 25 tons per year cutoff would 

not be withi;n 5 percent of allowable emissions with a 10 ton per year cutoff; 

thus, the 25- ton/yr cutoff would not be acceptable. 

-~:.~i 
ATTACHIYlENT 3 

VOC CONVERSION_CALCULATIONS: COATINGS 

-~~_ 
VOC CONVERSION CALCLTLATIONS: 

COATINGS 

OZONE ANO CO PAOGRAMS BRANCH 

OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING G STANOARCIS 

FEHRUARY, 1988 

~ 

• L...( L~ • 

= u 

M w 

-~ =~- 
I ~ I 

i N 

' m=o 

;o I ~ N I !I O 

~ 

, •----• 

: 

~ 

'd A 

~ a 

O ~ 

O C~ 

~ U 

~ O 

o z 

w ~ 

0 0 

z " 

o a 

w ~ 

'd U 

~ 

~ 7 

o ~ 

U 

; 

i , , 

, 

N 

• _ 

~ o ~ 

~ 

' 

; c

~• 

, 

~. 

o 

V) 

. E o; , 

' z z ~ o ~

a o > 0 ~ 

-~ \ ~ 

V7 ~~ O O ~ Y^~Z ~ O 

J -~ ~ 4. J ~ N ~ ~ 

F~ ~ ~ U \ 

,. 

v Q, 

G 

Q 

' Q ~ ~ Q Q 

~ W t, o Q C 

; > ; O 

Z J 

\; 

C,•) 

J 

; ~ 

> Z 

J ~ ~ 

cn 

J 

~ 

N W ~ 

~ 

~~ 0 

~ Q Q ( ~ >; O; Q Q 

c~ o 

Z Q 

> 

o~ 

t~ O t~ t~ o QC~ 

Z 

O V~ ; 2 °0 v N 11 ~ C~ wCo ~ O Uo 

 Ln 

 - . U O 

a~ 

I ~ ' ~ o 

~ a 

o~_ ~ U 

11 

z ~ ~ g ~ 

tO 

~- 

U' a J; 

~ . 

: 

0 

~ 

I; 

~ ; > II 

~~ 

U? 

Q~i° 

p 

tA. 

O 

J 

O 

ao 

~ W`~ 

> ~ — w 

, ~ ~ 

pJ I O -~ ~ 

> `J > 1 

~ > > > 

Z 

a o cn =*Z - 

~ 

r~ 

!•Z- Q 

O 

} t/~ 

J 

UI Q ~ 

~ L; i 4— 

O ~ < ~ ;~ CV L' ~ > ; ~ 

(M ~ ~ 

° o ~ 1° 

> U qb I I 

CN ~ 

-4k 

I 

W w 

CL 

w 

~ 

W 

~ ` 

 N - ~ V) N 
T 

U ~ ~ N ~ 

mMm " 

UJ 

ZV~ C 

N 

~ I 

I 

m 

w 

~ 

~ 

~ 

F~ 

~ 

C4 

O 

C\l O 

a 

~ 

~ 

-y U 

7 

~ 

cn { 

~ 

~ ~ I 

or A 

~1 

Z O I 

~ ~ 1 

~ U 

w O 

U ~ o ; I 

~ I 

~ ~ I 

O Z ~ ~ 

z ~ 

0 0 

~ U ~ 

~ a 

~ \ 

o U 

U ~ 

~ 

~ 

\~ 

~ ~ \ 

\ \ ~ 

• \ ~ \ 

~`. ~\ 

~ \ m \ _ 

C7 \ 

~ 

~ \ 

~ 1 

o ` 

o~, \ 

1~ 

QaI'Iddv SQTIOS 'IVD/OO.A# 

-~ 

~ o 

C~7 N9 C\t N .~.i O tA O 
i 

=ROGfiaM TO COVVERT #VOC. •3,4L OF Lu,;TING, TO 

»VOC!GaL SOLIDS Z< #VOC/'#_OLIDS 

*4 CC:• '_aL COAT I NG #VOC , GAL SOL I DS #VOC; #SOL I L•S 

i.- 0.1 

l.a :.!~ •:.l 

4 

-. ': ► Z. i !+• - 

-•- -• i '-+•- 

=.4 ~ .6 ~:► .: 

: . 6 4.0 '-' • - - . 8 4.5 ~:► , ~ 

•'•+ J. 1 <:!• _ 

_•- 5.7 '!.a 

_ . 4 6, - !;. 4 

-. 6 7.0 i>, 4 

7.9 4i.5 

~ • '• ~ 8 . 8 0 • J 4.= 9.9 0.6 4.4 10.9 0.7 4.6 1: _ ~ :► . g 

4.8 1:.8 9 

5•0 15•6 1•(i 

5.5 _1.@ 1.4 

5.6 ~=.4 1.5 

E.' :5.' 1.6 

.j. ,3 _7.4 

=. ~ :9,7 1.9 

7 1-5.O ...: 

'• _ 79. 

=.' 4:.7 _•- 

~ . -► 4 ~ . 1 ~ . ? 

=•- :: ~.~ :,~ 

~ . = ~ '• = a. . 

-4.' 

=• 11'. . 4 =, - 

1`~ -• 1 _. 

. 1 F ~ . 1 • . - 7 . _ 

~. • = _. .. ' 1 • ~ ~ - _ 

• ~ - - ^ ~ • ' _ ~ . . 

!uC riErlSITr = -. _a #VrL.'Gr,L 

r'cfJ 3 I T r 

~ 
=F•C•LF,:.M CaLL=L' "SC'LIDC.ALCULMTE" 

= F i2GF.aM TO CaLCULATE VOC ': =0L I D5 

-= L=-INT " 

7 

__ L =R:w-^ FROGRAM TO CONVEfiT #VOC/GAL OF COATING TO" 

- ~_F:F.INT ° #VOC/GAL SuLIL'S '< #VOC/ #SOLIDS": LF•F: :IVT: LF:F :^1' 

_FRINT " #VCi'=IGaL COATING #VOC/GAL SOLIDS #VOC.'#SOL:uS" 

-- L==:INT " 

_- LF Z~ I NT 

70 ° aTEF' .$ 

.•'.' :J- _ ~ 

.3•:.. .] ~~~ sl, ~~y 

_S:OL=.1NS! 

F_M ;.F F.1 NT US I NG FGF:MAT F F I NTS QUT MNSWE^:5 W I TH ONE D I C I MNL F LACE 

;.EM AL'aO St IF'S SFACES F'En ALL THE 

u -S FEM :EE PAGE 7-1 Q'7 OF GW-E+raE IC MANUAL 

_FF.INT USING 

NE.{T X 

'_n X=S. S TO 7 .76 STEF .1 

- -'.": ~ = I _ '•' • . 

L.J= 1 / _ 

r;NE='{-W 

F.Er1 D=_rlS:-r' OF SOLIDS IS 1b #VOC/GAL 

:= ~; I NT US I NG S : LFSOL 

rjE x T : 

`FF:INT:LFRINT:LF'RINT " 

_= ~ :NT:(„FRINT " aSSUMES VOC LENSIT'Y = - .76 #VOC/GAL" 

L=F:"iT" SOLIDS DEPJGITY = 16.0 #iGAL" 

-~:. 
ATTACHMENT 4 

TEST :IETHODS OR PROCEDURES 

FOR GROUP'I, II, AND III CTG'S 

-k.-Y- 
.ti 

J 

./•1 

~ 

c 

~ 

> 

~ 

> 

C 

~ 

Y 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

E! 

- L 

3_J 37 :i 

N 1~ 1~ '~: 

= =^ 

_ _ _ ° s~'i i ~ •.~7 ~ ~ c.7 -.p Z ; Z =  ~ 

C ~ .O ~ C ~G ~D C •a ' ~ •O - 

r0 

L 

/O 

L v~ 

~ ~ a 37 p ~ 1! G. a 

LV N li VI 

oO ;~ 

O76 36- 

~ ' C Q ~ 7~^ "" Q Q- T^ C: '~~1~ ~r Q Q ~ ~f•~ 

J tR.r N -n 

~ ... C! l S Q ~ ... ~ 1! •~ ~ Q 1~ ~ ~ 

-..+ M' 1j 11 0! ~ S N N O7 ~ N 'L ~ • N N J ~. 

y C ~ N N— 1! V1 — l9 n 

a I 7 C 7•~ oS ~ 

O O^~ ~~++ Q O o r Q = O O O..+ S 

If ~ 7 Cl ~ r0 Q :9 t ~ ^'C Q ~~ A Q L ~~ V G 

:7 u u ~- ~ .d ..+ .+ ~ '1 ~ - r+ .+ .~ — a ..+ .d — = Z 

O u" U W fL 1! O W ~ y o-Aj 

:.~ ~'. ~ ~ C ~ ~~ ~ ~ C >• E ~ •~ ~ 

..~ 

x S ~ 

~ 

~ JI 

~ O C 

•• z — ..+ > tA N, 

v _ ~n — o v+ ..- o o v+ •— o 

., ~ 

A 

v G 

v, V 7 

s 

1 

N 

n e Q c Q 

r— v I et .L Q Q 

7_ 

i 

i 

A 

i 

~ a ~ 

I L J v 

~ ~ ~ N y •C 3 .~ 

v~~ 

j[ v 

• O U ~ 'L 

. 7 ~ v~ .~ - •O C T 

'O C 

I 

I I I 
. ~ _ - "' 

. N T1 •= L7 L U 

=• ~ 

` .. z • = _„ ~ - 

~ •• ~ C L C 

v ~ 2-6 .. 1_ .. C~ .^L = L Jd . 

~ i • ~ ~ V ' .~ :J ' rr 

~ ~ • S ~! C .. ~_ ~ .. , sG .. ~ 

C-0 N ~ 

= N Ni + 

 y ~ v - r L ~ N L r •d L 

 r j C = • p Si G • N:J O N 

b N 

'r '7 • ~ f ~ 

~ ~ • ~ 7 ti ~ ~ ~ 

~ 

Q 

 ~ _ ~ 

 pf ? 

 'l. a 

oc 

•n 

~ 

t 

'l. 7 y .../ _ 

 i 

C I 

9 f.. az N J .il p '3 I 

5 

~ _ ~ i • ~ 

Jt 

Q 

I I 

i 

I 

~ 

~ 

~ 

I— 

V 

. 1 ~ 

r 

~ N 

i 

' t 

N N 

N Z t I

c/f 

v ~ 
I 

r 

~ 

~ - 

a ~+ - ~• n G_ 

- 

^ ~ 

r ~ 

~.. ~ 

O_ C .~ •• i ~ 

~ „'I _ > ~ • ^ _ 

~_ y' j _ j • v 1 

s •- _ „ c ccc vi 

-Z L 7 7= 

~ ~ ~ • 6') , ~_ J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

•~ .^ V ~ C ~ ' ~ ~ . ~ 

~ ~V ~~ , ^J 

ti ~ ti 

l s C < < 

i 

~ 

~ N 

= N J 

V 

~ N ~ 

r .r 

• L. 1_ N 

q N ~ 

s ~ J i ^ 

?r ^ 11 

N ~ ^ 
_ 

- ~ - _ a d .0 •.o .~ 

_ - 1~ Gr' r. ~L7 

~ Q 

~I 

qr ._. ~ -. ... Q .~.. w 

c ~ y c tV w e ~ Q ~ 

Q 11 N N :V _ 

_ ~ = N I ~ . - i - ,~•~ o - - ~ _ _ ~ 

~_ _ — 77 ~ 

L 

• . ~ _J ~: J 'i J _~ ~ _~ 

~ r -. ~'► ~ 

~i i r'~ S. -. = i I r ~ 

` 1 

= > ~ = 1 'O 

w ~ :n .r - ..i C - v' - ` ~ _ Z. 6 : J+ ~ c = .r e - o 'n : o ~~ _ _ - _ c = 

— S r . - 

c 

~ -M . y 1 ~ i'q 

r L 

- 

1 e+'1 1i • !~1 ~'! r 

ti ^1 1i 

wi 

' ~ — s z • 

Ac 

_ r N L. 

c I_n - Op ~! - 6. f ==_ U C 9 ~ 

~ 

J N )~ 

. 

~_ + I ~ • - - 

l :.i , ~ L j 4 
N = L 

1 

.X J 

q 

~ 7 

. a 

~ ~ C ~ •L ~ N ~ 

t ~ ~ 

~ ! ~ 

- u G 

r 

Y 

9 

~ J 'A 

~ N 

4--=_ 
L 

~ r , :rl 

x 

 ~ ~ r .d '~ ~ ~ • ~ 

., 

- t 

.. 7 ~ _ ~ •— L C •~ L — 

VN 

~ 

~~ u+ 

~ ,• ,~ +~ "1 

- 

• _ :.' ~, -_ r~ rl 

Q Q Q .. ~ 

t I I 

W W 

, 

~ 

1 ~ 

J C 

N L ~ 

OL ~+ ••• ~ 

- N O a 

~ 9 ~ J ~ >. ~► - 

j ✓• ` ~ > C ~+? O '— 

..+ x 

37'—Z ~ ~ 

c; — v — • a. :, 

i0 L 

L , •, ~.. v =~: e 

r 7 J 1 7 N 

— ~ 21% 

~ L• — ...r L '•' C ~ ~ , ~ 

~ ~ = J~ i i~ /•~ 

.~•' 
~ 

r 

c — 

_ V 

d_ •1_ J . ~ ~ ~ . 

— ~ r 

L ri 

~ ~ ~ •' _ ~ 

~ ~ • w •^-' •~ ~ 

^ • r 9 J ~ w 

6 L ! zo w :e _ ~ = ,p w , •G r 

~ •l ~ w 

~ 

Z 6— ..1 

~ • — .~ ~ .. O 

~ ~ A I'1 >~ w 1• ^ _ 

J ~r •— • _C ~ 

~ ?! ~ •• _ ~.r ~ ~ — 

~ • 

~ ~ 

= .._ 

•J r ~ 

e ~ • w — :.7 

w 

Z - - o ~_ - 

qr ~ ~• r ~ •` • ."_ ~ 

~ - ~ = ~ ~q w y = ' !•! "O C 

'V' 

.r .+ >~ 

- ~ .:. t i•i zi :w • ~ 

c 

w r ~~_ r G ^ • V J 

. - • ~ ~ ;J L 

31 

r ~' 

~ r^ •~ — L• L L r ~ 

r ^ — r ^ _. ~ _ ~ r :7 

~ ~ ~ •! r =t = .r. JN r .7 w 

T1 • y • ' L .J L ~ 

< —G ~ • ^ > > > 9 ` ~ ~ J 

~ 

N G C 

w • • • li Z • ~ 

r :.: :-? ~•~i ~ •r. 4 r ~ _ :n •~ s . 
;2 4 2r2 ,ic? 7 2s: 'A?_:,,0:5 `Jr 'l:,ia:t I ? -'r;3^ 

'e: :: . Sa"': 2 3n ~: /d't:::'• - : 7.- 3iers?s t° Jr St_: 4 on3ry »-jr_ac, 

av.ena i X .4 , 

'• ~ :- _ ,. ~ 8"V 2 3nC ':2'JC!' - r3vers2s `cr SC3:ionary S•~~; .eS •~ '_ :m ~ --=='- 

?r 'duC:S, ;r;,aJs2C 48:55, JC:Ouer ?:. :183j 

'~ =-• „- - .2:2r'1'nd:t0:1 Jf S:acx uas 'leioctC% 3ni Vol'Jme:riC :'N ;--:? ' -!_e = 

Dito: T;;oe) »J ..=4 50, a,:oencix A. 

: i rec: Weasurdnen: of 3as 'lo lume Tnrougn ?i es ane xns 1 

19 FR 37592, AuSus: 13, 1983. 

~ e:?r'f1'n3:iJn Jf _.t^3u5: oas ':71:'tne 7 1 ow R.'.:_ ;n scS.i 

.1 2. F< 27?74, A::cLia: 12, 

=- •-- -- :2:?r -1 ^3t',^.^ J' S:3C< Gds '/? i ::'tf 

3;.3Cx5 or O.C_s ,3:an_3ro J1.:: 7.J2!. .7ro:Os2: =S =8':_:, -_:.:_ -.. 

-?c3` . 

•.,—sir=men: cr Gas Ratas tn Srnall ?;;;es :n.-:k;c:s, :-=---=- . 

Oc:ooe- 2' , :?93) 

•'e: __ _ =as ,r.ai Jsis 'or ,r,arton DioxiJe, Cxygen, SxC2SS :•lir, 3nt :ry '1C'?-;,' _- 

;.ei ~;,- , i0 CFK 0. i Appenaix A. 

- 

:?:?-ni^a:ion :f ;!r,'s tJre CJnt°nt in S:3cx Gis.-.s„ _T? 

.:3-?nC1x A. 

' u~ s?u ~ s .,r:9n': _.:* ~ Gu n CS :• ~ ~ aa :~ ~ 

:=:en;-a:ion :f '!•~ ; a:tle Jr;anic C:.npeunc L e:,cs, ~ c F A 37c ~ •; - s: --• 

. ?6 _ . ' - 

.^.a:tOn '.r HaloSenat3a 3r;jnics °• rr::n S:_:i:na"'y 3cur:=s, - ----_- 

33756, ,;une 1:, 1 380). 

•e: .: ?- Jp:_r--nina:ion cf !o'ati,e ya::er Conten:, iate" Oe^s Sol i:.s, and aeignt Sol ids ot Surface Coa: ;ngS, 4C! C== 00, ,;p;;e^c •x -, 

::e:en 4 nation of 'lolatile Matter Content and uensi :.: of ?rin;,i^^y - -.c; 

ana Relatea Czati-,gs, :0 CFK 60, apaendix A. 

'- - ar~+ina:ton o` Totat Gas?=us ~~ o:~metnane Jrgan:c _, ss•cns :s 

= ~ • C=R 50. ~~.pencix A. - - 

Oe:eninat ion of Tcrai Gaseous Organic .onczntr3t ions 'js in; 

:on;za:ion ,:nalyzer, 31595, .1u5us: 1?, .?33, 

Je:=rei^ation of To*_al Gasaous Jrganic C3ncentr3tien ' , s4n5 = ~~ c^- 7 s= e ~ - 

~ - 

- 

5•v° :n7r3re ~ ,;ndiy=er, d ~ FR . 7 5 9 1, ;.u;us;. .3, 

7 7 na:ton of l:por Tigti:ness or Gaso1 ine Je ,ive'-. -a^ ~ c ~ s r^_ 

~` : ~ ess.ri-lacu:;n 'es:, •3 r-4 31=:7, ausus: i?. _:c ~ . 
ATTACHMENT 5 

INDEX TO EPA GUIDANCE P4E.*iORANDUMS AND POLICIES 
Updated - 

INDEX 

Reccatr ~ended Policy on Control 42 FR 35313 

of Volatile Organic Ccs%pounds 

Recomnended Polic.y on Control 42 FR 32931 

of Volatile Organic Ccreposnds. Correction 

Attairanent/Nonattainment - Status Designat,ions Hawkins 

Inplementation of RACT on Hydrocarbon Hawkins 

Stationary Sourors 

Criteria for Approval of 1979 SIP Revision5 Administrat:,: 

Exarple De=nstration of Attainrtent for Rhoad.s 

Photochemi cal Oxidants 

Stage I Vapor Recovery - Bulk Plants Barber 

Development of Regulations for HC RACT from Ba=Ser 

C:'G' s 

Criteria for Prcposing Approval of Revision 43 FR 21673 

to Plans for Nonattainnent Areas 

Regulations for HC Sources Covered by Ms Helsrs 

Application of RACT to Fbint Sasrces of V0C Neligan 

in Rural Areas 

Vapor RecoMery Regulations Required to Meet Rhoads 

RACT Requirements for the 1979 SIP 

Internal Offsets for RACr Categories Hawkirzs 

Pzo.^edures for Measuring Volatile Organic Rhoad.s 

Caqounds 

Requirement for VOC RACT Regulaticn.s in all Hawkins 

Oxidant Nonattainnrnt Areas 

Clarification of Attainment/Nonattafnment Rhoads 

Evaluation Guidance 

Oxidant Standard Hawkins 

Clarification of EPA Policy on Eai.ssions ef BarSer 

Methyl Chloroform - 

Clarification of Degreasing Regulation Rftads 

Requirements 

Continuity of SIP Regulations Hawkins 

~ 

2. 8/O1/77 

3. 1/03/78 

4. 2/02/78 

S. 2/24/78 

6. 3/16/78 

7. 4/03/78 

S. 4/28/78 

9. 5/19/78 

10. 6/05/78 

- 11. 6/13/78 

12. 6/30/78 

13. 7/03/78 

14. 7/10/78 

15. 8/04/78 

16. 8/15/78 

17. 8/23/78 

18. 8/24/78 

19. 9/07/78 

; 

= 20. 9/11/78 
21, 9;'18,78 Cateqorical Carliance Schedules for VOC ,5ources Ras:.ic 

9/29/78 Vapor Recovezy ht~ eting Ouestions 

. ~ 

23. 10/06/78 Co"nents on Auto Industry Prq=sals Rhoa•'.s 

N. 10,'12/78 Unclassi:ied Counties with Significant %0- Hawk:ns 

Pflint Source 8+aissions 

25. 10/26/78 Qzone ZYansport Values Sar SIP Revisions Barber 

26. 10/26/78 Definition of Volatile Orgnnic CarQounds Helrtis 

2;. 10/27/78 Ocidant Standard Hosic Oraup Meeting on 10/19/78 lieiin 

28. 11/03/78 Wlatile Urganic Cen+pounds Qeissions Inventory Barbar 

29. 11/03/78 Categorical Compliance Schedule for VOC Sources Barber 

30. 12J09/78 Clarification of Paper Coating Definition for Rhoac's 

VtZ Sources 

3:. 11/13/78 Vaste Dis;osal Requlations for WC Calcagni 

32. 11/13/78 Clarification of RFP for Acidant Control BarSer 

Strategies 

33. 11/16/78 Wlatile Organic Co"pound Dnissions Reductions Farber 

; at GM 

34. 11/21/78 RACT Uptions for Can Coatinq Uperations Rtioads 

35. 12/07/78 Selee.ion of Ox Design Value Rhoads 

36. 12/19/78 Cutbacic Asphalt — Acceptable RACT Regulat,ion Rhoads 

37. 12/20/78 Availability of End Seal Canpounds for Can lielms 

Manufacturing Operations 

38. 12/21/78 Reasonable FUrther Progress Requize++ents for Jares 

Areas with Difficult Oxidant Problens 

39. 12/22/78 Request for Response to Proposed Cariplianoe Iiotmn 

Schedules by the Nev England States for 

Ccordinated Air Use Manayeeent (NLvCAiIM) 

40. 12/29/78 P5D and NSR SIP Revision Sitnittals Hotrnan 

41. 1/16/79 Continuity of SIP Regulations — Revised Hawicins 

F.nclosure 

42. 1/16/79 New England States for Cflorciinated Air Use Rtloac+.s 

_ Management (NFSCAUM) Com; ~ liance Program fi= VUC 

_= 5our ons 

-+~ — 

43. 1/25/79 Consistency in VUC Regulations Heym 
.,... 

~...,. 

.. ,,. 

45.

46.

4 ~ ,. 

48.

49.

50.

, .. 

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

~ 52. 

59.

60.

I 

61.

62.

63.

! _~ .. 

21121/79 Leter+ination of Reductions Necessary to Attain P.ti;,ads 

the Ozone Standard 

3/06/79 Regulation of Methyl Chlorofor++ (1, 1, 1, HarSer 

ZYicholoroettiane) and Methyl Chloride. 

3/06/79 Cu=adc Asphalt WC Regulations Rhoads 

3/15/79 CUestioRS and Answezs on WC Aequlations PolGlase 

4/04/79 State Irrplementation Plans; General Preamble 44 FR 20372 

for Proposed Ruler.iaking on Approval of Plan 

Aevi sions for Nonattairmnt Areas 

4/13/79 Phbric Coating F}nission Limits Hel:-n 

5/01/79 Letter to 3m on Bubbling Rhoacl.s 

5/03/79 Paper Coating PMission Liimits Fiel.^s 

5/04/79 Neeci for F?nission Offsets in Pural 03 Non- Rhoacis 

attainpent Areas 

5/16/79 Need for Rural Elnission Offset in Approved Rhoads 

State Plans 

5/18/79 Ir+plenentation of RfP Reyuiremnts Rar:xr 

5/21/79 Lraft Largua+ge - Preambles for SIP Proposals Rhoads 

and Approvals 

5/24/79 Evaluation of RAl.' for an Automobile Asse;nbly Rhoatls 

Prime Coating Operation 

5/25/79 Submission of State Air Peaeits as SIP Revisions Rtiaads 

6/04/79 Air Ouality; Clarification of Ageney Policy 44 FR 32042 

Concerniry c7zone 5IP }ievisions and Solvent 

Reactivi ties 

6/15/79 Baseline Transfer E+ficiency for Spray Applica- tlalsh 

tion af itiater-bDrne Autc=tive Coatincs 

6/20/79 htodifications to Aecamaendations for Solvent Rhoays 

Metal Cleaning 

7/03/79 ' Appropriate Transfer Efficiency for "Wate ~=rne Rhoads 

Fqu ivalence' 

8/17/79 EValuation of 10,000 gals/nonth thraughout Rhoads 

Exe*ptions for Petroleum [Narketirq Uperaticxns 

8/17/79 5% Dm"onstration - Rhoads 
. ....- 

~~wl 

F;. 8, 12 2/79 

65. 8/28/79 

66. 9/19/79 

67. 10/04/79 

68. 11/15/79 

69. 12/12/79 

70. 12/21/79 

7.. 1/03/80 

72. 1/28/80 

73. 3/20/80 

74. 4/18/80 

75. 4/25/80 

76. 4/30/80 

77. 5/05/80 

78. 5/16/80 

79. 6/16/80 

80. 7/02/80 

81. 7/07/80 

82. 7/18/80 

83. 7/21/80 

= ea. 7/22/80 

State Implementation Plans/Revi sec: Schedules Fiavtcins 

for St-ftmitting Reascnably Available Cor.trol Technology Regulation bor Stationary Sources of vUC 

SSP; General Preamhle for Proposed Rulemalking 44 FR 50371 

on Approval of Plan RevisiorLs for Nonatt.airvreat 

Areas-Supgler+ent 

9zamry of State Ir++plementation Plan WC Polglase/ 

Regulations CalcaSni 

Clarification for Final SZP Actions on Asphalt Rhoads 

Regulations 

vUC Test Mettrods of Procedures Rhoads 

Dcemptions for Degreasers Rhoads 

VOC'Regulations Issues Heims 

VOC Regulations IssuQs Iie2.^S 

State and Re;ional Agencies Continue to l7ake Sr,:rran 

Serious Errors in Calculating Equivalence with 

the RACI' Recav2ndations for SLrface Coating 

Nev fUgitive Hydrocarbons E1missiorLs Faetors for Rhoads 

Petroleum Refineries arcl Aetrodhemical Pl.ants 

1pp1 i cabi li ty of VC7C F]++i ssions Cuidelines : Gi acoone 

GEnera 1 motors Corporation, Pbrth Tnrrytcy•m 

Assa-bly Plant 

Ccmpliance Schedules for La+ 5olvent Tedtnolo7Y Rhoads 

Program of the Graphic Arts CTG Category 

Letter to N. Y. DEC, Phaanaceutical CIG Frillia:n.4 

Procedure ta Calculate Equivalenc.y with the C'IG Rhoads 

Recomnendations for SLrface Ccating 

Solvent Reactivities 45 FR 32+24 

Gasoline Tank Truck RegulatioRs Rheada , 

Dcemption for Cold Cleaner Lbgreasers Rhoads 

L*teznination of Capture E:ficiency Aerry 

Ietter tw Texas Oil Martceters Associatio» Rhoads 

Calccilation of E.Vaporation Loss frae External Williarts 

Floating Fbof Tanks : 

Solvent Reactivities List Additions 45 FR 48941 
SCaI 

a:. 7/23i 80 Letter to NF.SCAUM on Tank ZYucks Barier 

96. 7/30,i80 Leaks frcr Gamline Tank Trucks He'.rtis 

8'. 7/31/8U 1pplicability of WC Control Technique Guic9e- R.tioads 

lines (CrGs) to the Autoriobile Marufactiring 

Industry 

88. 8/04/80 Applicability of Paper Caating, Fabrie Coating, He2.-ns 

and Ck-aphic Arts CTG 

89. 8/08/80 ReqLest for Confiaeation of the nefinition of Iip:rrs 

a 100 Zbn Sotsae as Applied to Cbntrols in the 

Gasoline Storage and lariceting Chain 

90. 8/22/80 1he Use of Peanf t ConditionR to nefine Fbtien- Rhoads 

tial to Dmit 

9:. 8/25/80 Fabric Pr intirg Def inition Be^y 

92. 8/28/80 Issues Concernirg WC RACT II Feyulations Helm 

beveloprent 

93. 9/03/80 Miscellaneois Metal Parts and Products CTV iielms 

F}rission Limits for Coating of Shipping Pails 

and Dnans 

— 94. 10/17/80 Fquivalency Calcailations with the C3L' Reccm- Rhoads 

rendations for Surface Coating 

95. 10/24/80 Set II WC Aequlation Approval Hawkirzs 

96. 10/28/80 Standards of Aerfoimance for New Stationary 45 FR 71537 

sourots: Graphic Arts Industry; Publication 

Aotogravure Printing; Prqposed PAile and Notice 

of Public Fiearing 

97. 11/20/80 Pble of Improved Transfer Ef ficiency in Dercn- Rtioads 

strating Car+pliance vith the CTG Reco-nrencfations 

for S1irf ace Coating 

98. 11J20/80 Apprepriate Transfer Efficiencies for Metal RtioaC.s 

Furniture and Iarge Appliance Coating , 

99. 11/2U/80 Canpliance wit#: vUC Qnission Limitations for Hmwkins 

Can Coating Operations 

100. 11/25/80 PQprawal anri Prorulgation of In9lementaticm 45 FR 78121 

Plans; Revised L>zaciline for Sub*dssion of VCZ 

RACr Regulations for Set II CG 

_ 101. 11/28/80 Ppprcpriate ZYansfer -Efficiencies for Metal Helirs 

FLirnittse and Large Appliance coating 

102. 12/01/80 Revised Seasflnal Afterburner Policy BarSer 
Y♦ 

e..J • 

103. 1:/02, 1 80 }ble cf Improved Z`: ansfer Ef ficiency in Hel^s 

Deron.4tratinr CcR pliance writh the CTG Rec=— 

nendations for Surface Coatin; 

104. 12/02/80 Cost Ef fec iveness for RAC? - Application r.o He:.-.%s 

Leaks frQn Petroleir+ Refinery Equipnent 

:05. 12/02/80 RACT for Specialty Printing Operations Rtioa~s 

106. 12/03/80 Set II WC Aegulations Apprwal R=roacs 

107. 12/03/80 Caepliance vith WC Haiszion Limitatioas for Iiawlcins 

Can Coatirg uperations 

108. 12/24/80 RACT/IAE3t @teaninations for Casket Coaters tielnts 

109. 12/30/80 New Nonattainment Llesiqnations Rhoads 

110. 1/16/81 Model Index for Qzone SIPs Calca„ni 

111. 1/22/81 SIPs, Approval of 82 Ozone Plan for P.kten5ion 46 FR 7182 

Areas Final Pblicy 

112. 1/28/81 • Letter to Devmkoehler Concerning Coatirg BarSer 

Specifications 

113. 1/28/81 Federal Paint Specificatiore Vfs-A Vis RarSer 

114. 2/U3/81 Part D Conditional Approvals - Prioritizing iie]ms 

Conditions 

115. 2/06/81 Storage Tank Vapor Balance Reyuirenents at Zyler 

5ynthesized Pharneceutical Produets Marufaicture 

Facilities 

116. 3/13/81 Applicabilit:y of F1ue1 Storage Regulations to ZLertc 

JP-4 Jet FLel 

117. 3/24/81 Test Methods for the Set I and Set II CZG Tuerk 

Sousce Categories 

L' 8. 4/03/81 Clarification of WC 'Z'est Method" Aequirtanents ZLerlc , 

119. 4/06/81 VOC Test Methods or Prooedures for Group ]: and ZLeric 

Croup II CT'CF 

120. 4/17/81 Internal Surface Coating Hubble for Rhode Island willfams 

121. 4/23/81 Criteria for Aeviewing State WC Bihhle Tuerk Requlations 

122. 4/24/81 Letter to Massp7rt on' Jet FLel Burr 

123. 4/29/81 NSPS, Pbtroleum Liquid Storage Vesselg - 46 FR 23984 E:;uivalency Letermination 

11 

4-;-- -- 
• 1Y 

4/ 3 0,/31 

~ 

1:5. 5/06/81 

126. 7/21/81 

137. 7/24/81 

129. 7/24/81 

129. 8/07/81 

130. 8/11 /81 

i31. 8/14/81 

132. 9/11/81 

_ 133. 9/22/91 

134. 9/22/81 

135. 9/24/81 

136. 10/20/81 

137. 10 /2 6/81 

138. 11/04/81 

139. 11/06/81 

140. 11/09/81, 

141. 11/ 3 0/81 

142.

— 143.

~ 144.

Status of 1982 Ozone SIP DBta Base Rhoads 

Cost Effectiveness of Gasoline T`ank Truck Tyler 

Certification Pro3ram 

State of Michigan Stage I Service Station 58 Fie:.~ 

Determination 

Tank Truck Certification korkshcp Follow-u p Nicholson 

Results of the Aegional 3uvey of Studies 

Related to RACS Beyond the VCt CTCs tielms 

Norici rng dreup Meetiry - Aeview of 111( d) Gu ide- Good+.ri n 

lines to Control I)richlorroethylene, Perchloroethylene, 111 TYichloroethane Methyl Chloride and 

Trichlorotri-flousoethane from Ekisting Urganic 

Sn lve nt Cleaners 

Aerosol Can Mountin,; Cup Sealant Compounds iie-1 -ns 

Applicability of the t+iscellaneous Metal Pazts tie:Jrs 

C'iG to the Coating of IIectre+otive Parts 

Aeview of PA Greup II WC iiegulations Pblglase/t:illia--s 

Surmnry of Graup I and II WC RACT Requlations Nidholsan 

Review of Final Grcip II WC Regulations for Fblglase/Williars 

Massachusetts 

Surmery of Graup I WC Aegulatiora tirilliaans 

Cc+tpliance Schedules for Auto Assenbly 46 FR 51366 

Paint Shops 

WC Hegulations for the 1982 SIP [ielc+s 

Status of State Action on Greup III and Polglase 

Heyond Source Categories 

Pblicy -on the Use of Caxlitional Apprwals Aennett , 

(Ocaft) 

New Proceciures for Review of State Implementa- Bennett 

tion Plans 

Revi ew of Pl an Revi s ions by the Of f ice of Be nnett 

Managerent and Hudget 

Fblicy on the Use of Conditional Approvals; Bennett 

Sirenry of Tank Truck Certification Tests Pfllglase 

Letter to George Payne on Can Manufacturing AarSer 

12 /11/81 

12/14/81 

12/14/81 
6v I 

1:5. 2 /09;'82 

~ 146. 2/ 12/82 

247. 3/19/82 

1:8. 3/19/82 

149. 3/25/82 

150. 4/08/82 

151. 4/19/82 

152. 6/18/82 

153. 8/27/82 

15+. 9/07/82 

155. 9/28/82 

156. 11/O1/82 

157. 1/17/83 

158. 3/04/83 

159. 4/04/83 

160. 4/15/83 

161. 4/21/83 

162. 5/10/83 

163. 5/17/83 

164. 6/03/83 

165. 6/06/83 

166 6/28/83 

Accepta5ility of Li:lahxr+a's DB-onstration Concernin;, the Surface CoatiN of Miscellan'ecus 

!ye tal Pa rts and Pr oducts 

Acoeptability of Uklaharna's Daronstration Concerning the Surface (bating of htiscellaneous 

Metal Parts and Products 

Ppproval and Promulgation of Ir.+pleeentation 

Plans; San Francisco Ray Area Air Basin rbnattainnent Area Pian (Aoiler-Plate for 'good 

cause') 

San FYancisco Nonattair:++ent Plan 

Clean Air Act Restriction Applyirq to SZP 

Aevisions Due 7/1/82 

F>?A 8+ussions 7~ra3ing Policy 

WC.s fran Aakeries 

A_-ime Coating at Chrysler Assen.hly Plant 

Ec;uivalency with the Perchloroethylene Dry 

Cleaning CT'G RACr Reconnendations 

Clarification of Meno Dated hsay 6, 1981 '1Yvck 

Certification Program 

Roliey on Excxss dnissions Diring Startze ~ , , 

Rhutdown, rtaintenance, and Msalfunetions 

Frrata Sheet for Petroleum Dry Cleaners 

Allowable Tank Zruck tenainal Fhission Limits 

Fevie•+ of Illinois Gresip II WC Fules 

Draft RACP Determinations 

Reynolds Metals - vUC 8sbhle with Lflng-Z1ean 

fl+dssions Averaging 

Averaginy Time - vWC E2?uivalence 

CarQliance Calculations 

Graphic Arts - 100 TPY Fbtential E ~cenption 

Ciuidance for Non ~.Z~ RALT Deteaninations 

Bodc Cwer Caating 

Ta nk Truck 13a tch Cove rs 

Letter to Da+ Cher+ical an EJcempt Solvents 

2b 1S}LS 

se r.'~ 

47 FR 11866 

47 FR 11866 

Ft -.-Y-O= 

Sp ink 

Carb 

Ty1 er 

tielrtis 

Helm 

Bennett 

Fa ane r 

Palglase 

clilliams/?ol;lase I 

wi llians 

Pie lns 

Palqlase 

Palglase 

Iie lms 

Pblglase 

Calcagni 

He lms 
.67. 6,'29/83 Dcclusion tf. Exempt Solvents Fro?+ VX Ca1C-? - He="s 

lations 

168. 7/05/83 Reynolds Metal Bubble Helm 

169. 9/14/83 Allowable Tank Truck Terminal Flnission Limits-- Pblglase 

Upda te of 1/17/83 Memo 

170. 9/19/83 Zest Methods for Gasoline Bulk Teaainals Mc:.augnlin 

171. 10/12/83 Averaging Times for CQnpliance Tyler 

172. 10/20/83 Addition of Dilution Solvents to Printing Inks Polglase 

173. 10/24/83 Solvent Reactivities Federal Fe;:s:e: 

174. 10/31/83 Averaging Times for Canplianoe with WC Tyler 

enussion Linaits 

175. 12/05/83 Iyeeting Report on Leng-Teae Averairy for 'JVC Fblglase 

Sources 

176. 1/20/84 Avera;,ing Ti,mes for Cmpliance vith WC F}nission O'Conrno: 

Limits--SIP Revision Policy 

'_77. 1/27/84 Violations of Record Keepirg Provisiom irt SS= 

Approved SIP3 

178. 2/29/84 Draft PEVCo Report for SUrface Coating Polglase 

Cal culations 

179. 3/06/84 WC Equivalency Calculations - Clarification Tyler 

of Requireswnts 

1.80. 3/08/84 Ietter to Lillquist on Flexible Padcaging Cannon 

181. 3/15/84 Reynolds and iestvaco Plant Proposed Helm 

Ozone SIP Revisions 

182. 4/16/84 Letter on WC extend oa+pliance dates Rottblatt 

183. 5/7/84 Zbpcoating and Printy of Urethane t`abric Helrrus 

and Sheets 

184. 5/7/84 Ecclusion of Vf r+yl Plastisfll fror Helms 

WC Canpliance Calculations 

185. 5/21/84 Conf izma tion that WC Regulations Tyler 

` are required for C'IG III 

186. 6/19/84 Regional siavey - WC Equivalency Polglase 

Calculations 

187. 6/25/84 Confio++ation of Definition af 100 TPY Helrtis 

/ Sasce _ 

- ~~_ 
168. 6/25,i84 Aprlicat,~ ility of CTG III Zyler 

. 189. 7/30/84 Federal ly Enforceable Feani ts Heim 

fQ 100 TPY non CT'G souroes 

190. 8/28/84 WC data sheet for suppliers Emison 

of paints and ooatings 

101. . 8/29/84 WC Po li cy Rasnic 

( Ftan 19 vCC IssLe Resolution Process ) 

192. 9/11/84 methoft to esta5lish daily violations frot+ Eer.y 

annual Vt)C u.se data 

193. 9/14/84 WC test methods or procedures for Graup I„ Tyler 

11, and II I CTC,e 

19:. 11/07/84 C.onnecticut vOC issues Msrphy 

195. 12/06/84 C.-mnents on WC clarification r+af+o Hac;y 

196. 12/21/84 Cannecticut WC issues Iielm 

197. 1/09/85 Clarification of CTG RACT Reoowendation for Zyler 

Hiqh-Lbnsity Polyethylene, polypropylene, 

and polystyrene 

198. .2/04/85 Stadc height in facilities using air strippinq Cannon 

" for qroundwater clerning 

199. 2/11/85 Response concernirg VOC clarification memo ZYler 

200. 4/02/85 Dnission li+nits for coating of shippinq pails Eielrs 

and drums 

2U1. 4/23/85 Consideration af Orqaniaols in WC Ocripliance Bnison 

Calculations 

202. 4/23/85 Pri~ng on Lfisuppvrted Vinyl Fil+n Cbvereci Grumt~ler 

~ 

203. 5/20/85 Results of may 3 WC reeting S.S~ 

(BYam 19 Vcr. Lssue Aesolution Acocess) 

204. 7/22/85 Y (9raphic Arts - Add-On C.ontrol Systens Lblton 

205. 8/15/85 Fabric Coating - Dip and I,npregnator Coati.nq Crumpler 

706. 8/27/85 Classification of eenzene as a WC Zy+ler 

207. 8/29/85 Paper Coating RACT Leteanination Johnson 

_ 208. 12/16/85 Baseline Z1Te Period for WC Z~ransfer Effi.cien- Fielms 

~ _= cy Oredi ts 
• Y ~ 

~ •~b\~~ 

~ 

2^~ 9 . 1,': 7, 1 6 L sues 0 3 (e ) and 1 5 of the WC Issue P: ice 

Aasalution Process: Esta5lishirg Prxf of 

WC 8nissions Violations, and BuSbles in 

Consent Lacrees Resolving Civil Actions 

Under 5ection 113(b) of the Clean Air Act 

(From 19 VCt Issue Aesolution Process) 

210. 1/31/86 Responses to Zwo WC Ouestions Raisec9 by 55= 

Regional Offices 

(FZ-on 19 VOC Issue Resolution Process) 

211. 2/28/86 Aesponses to Four WC Lssues Raised by F3-lison 

the Regional Uf f ioes and Llepartreent of 

Justice 

( Fre;n 19 VOC Issue Resolution Process ) 

212. 4/11/86 Aespvnses to Five vOC Issues Raised bf the En+ison 

Regional Offioes and Department of Justicer 

(Frce 19 VOC Issue Resolution Pr ooEss ) 

213. 5/01/86 Dcemption of Negligibly P:iotochenically Tyler 

React ive CarpounciS hy the State of Sait.h 

Caroli na 

214. 5/16/8 6 Compl i ance tli th WC Bni ss ion Limi tations E'* i son 

for Can Cbatirg operations 

.(Froe 19 vOC Issue liesolution Process) 

215. 5/22/86 Dce:nption of tvegligibly Photodhenically Tyler 

Reactive Co*pounds by the State of Sauth 

Carolina 

216. 8/04/86 Kdsuse by industry of Co~t and Cost Ef fec- Berry 

tiveness as a Zbol to Avoid Canpliance vit:h 

Ehvi rorn+e ntal Aequl a tions 

217. 8/07/86 Fblicy on the Availabilit:y of Lawp•Solvent Pbtter 

Technology Schedules in Clean Air Act 

Fnforcemnt Actions 

218. 8/07/86 Fblicy on SIP Revisions Requesting Carpliance Patter 

lbte Extensicxts fcr VLt Soucces 

219. 9/22/86 Aeactivit.y of Acetylene Hathaway 

220. 10/07/86 DuD Directive on vOC Ca+pliance Hitte 

221. 10/30/86 Inclusion of Cleanti,i Solvents in Deteanining Helms 

Applicability to tie 100-Tbn Fer fear Non--.Z'G 

Requi reee nts 

-~~~ 
Early Ccnpliance and St,ip;alated Penalties in 

. VOC Enforcenent Cases 

2_3. 1/20/87 Deternination of Economic Feasibility 

2:4. 3,^6/87 Novernber 21, 1986 Meaorandsm Titled "Early 

Coaplianoe and Stipulated Penalties in 

VOC Enforceaent Cases" 

Z=5. 4/17/87 Definition of VOC 

226. 6/25/87 Enission f.Wt-0ff for Control Technicues 

Guidelines - Volatile Orqanic Crsmposnd 

Souro=s 

227. 7/21/87 Definition of Volatile Organic Cotpasnds 

(vOC 's ) 

229. 9i09/87 Alternative Compliance for Graphic Arts 

RACT 

11/04/87 Additional Information Concezrning Emission 

C-it-Of: — 3 lbs/hr, 15 lbs/day 

PSS:.i G/ L :.:s'::' 

He'_.,Ts 

f? i =te 

He Lzs 

qelas 

Helirs 

Tf'-e= 

He?,s 

1 

i — 

-~_ 
4/13/79 

8/04/80 

8/25/80 

12/02/80 

8/05/85 

11/09/78 

5/13/79 

8/04/80 

8/29/85 

10/06/78 

11/16/78 

5/24/79 

4/18/80 

7/18/80 

7/31/80 

10/20/81 

6/18/82 

11/20/80 

11/28/80 

Helms 

Helm,s 

Berry 

R.hoads 

Crumpler 

Rhoads 

Helms 

Helms 

Johnson 

Rhoads 

Barber 

Rhoads 

Giaccone 

Giaccone 

Rhoads 

46 FR 51386 

Tyler 

Rhoads 

Helms 

`GF Updated 

Cross Reference Index bv Source Cate ^ory 

` Cateeorv 

1) Su:!ace Coating of Cans 

2) Su:face Coating of Metal 

Coils 

3) Surf ace Coating of Fabrics 

4)'Sirface Coating of Paper 

Products 

5) Surface Coating of Auto- 

- mobiles 

6) S::rface Coating of Metal 

F"rniture 

7) Surface Coating of Magnet 

wire 

8) Sur.`ace Coating of . Large 

Appliances 

9) Gasoline Terminals 

10) Gasoline Bulk Plants 

11) Stage I Vapor Recove ry 

Roof Tanks 

Date of 

Memo 

11/21/78 

12/20/78 

11/20/80 

12/03/80 

8/11/81 

12/14/81 

5/16/86 

C► ricinator 

Rhoads 

Helms 

Hawkins 

Hawkins 

Helms 

Barber 

Emison ( 19 VCC 

11/20/80 Rhoads 

11/28/80 He1nLs 

8/08/80 Helms 

8/22/80 Rhoads 

9/14/83 Polglase 

9/14/83 Polglase 

7/21/81 Helms 
Cross Re`erence Index bv Source Catecorv loc. 2) 

Lvr 

Date of 

. ~C 3• r. — y e— — m

Gasoline Storage in Fixed 8/08/80 

Roof Tanks 

13) Petroleum Refinery Process 3/20/80 

14) C::tback Asphalt 12/19/78 

3/06/79 

10/04/79 

15) Solvent Metal Degreasing 9/07/78 

12/12/79 

7/02/80 

16 ) S,:rface Coating of Miscel- 8/04/80 

laneous Metal Parts and 9/03/80 

Products 1/28/81 

8/14/81 

2/09/82 

2/12/82 

4/02/85 

17) Flatwood Paneling 

- 18) P:iarmaceutical 4/30/80 

8/04/80 

2/06/81 

3/13/81 

19) Pneumatic Rzbber Tire 

20) Vegetable Oil 

21) Graphic Arts 4/25/80 

8/04/80 

10/28/80 

5/10/83 

7/22/85 

9/09/87 

22 ) Dry Cleaning 8/04/80 

8/07/81 

8/27/82 

11/O1/82 

10/24/83 

23) Leaks at Petroleum 12/02/80 

Re:ineries 

~~. 

Oricinator 

Helms 

Rhoads 

Rhoads 

Rh oa ds 

Rh oa ds 

Rhoads 

Rhoads 

Rh oa ds 

Helms 

Helms 

Barber 

Helms 

Helms 

Helms 

Helms 

Giaccone 

Helms 

Tyler 

Tuerk 

Rhoads 

Relms 

Federal Register 

Polglase 

Dalton 

Tyler 

Helms 

H e lms 

Helms 

Farmer 

Fede ral Registe: 

Helms 
LVC 

C=oss Reference Index bv Source Cateaorv (oa. 3) 

- Date of 

Catecorv Nemo Oricinator - 

24) External Floating Roof 8/08/80 Helms 

':anks 3/13/81 Tue rk 

4/29/81 Federal Reg:s:er 

25) Gasoline Tank Trucks 6/16/80 Rhr.ads 

7/18/80 Rhoads 

7/21/80 Wi lliar:s 

7/30/80 Helms 

5/06/81 Tyler 

7/24/81 Nicholson 

12/14/81 Polglase 

9/07/82 Helms 

6/06/83 Calcagni 

9/19/83 McLaughliz 

26) Bub5l 4 ng 5/01/79 Rhoads 

7/15/79 Walsh 

4/17/81 Williams 

4/29/81 Tuerk 

4/08/82 Spink 

4/15/83 Helms 

7/05/83 Helms 

10/12/83 Tyler 

10/31/83 Tyler 

12/05/83 Polglase 

1/20/84 0'Connor 

3/09/84 Tyler 

1/22/86 Price (19 VOC Issues) 

2/28/86 Emison (19 VOC =ssues 

27 ) Solids Applied/Transfer 6/15/79 Walsh 

Efficiency 7/03/79 Rhoads 

1/28/80 Salman 

5/05/80 Rhoads 

8/04/80 Helms 

10/17/80 Rhoads 

11/20/80 Rhoads 

12/02/80 Helms 

2/26/81 Salman , 

3/04/83 W:lliams/Polglase 

6/29/83 Helms 

2/29/84 Polglase 

3/06/84 Tyler 

12/16/85 Helms 

4/11/86 Emison (19 VOC Iss;:es 

-~:. 
" r 

C:css Rererence Index bv SoLrce Catecorv_(~)c. 4) 

Date of 

~ Ca-_eoory Memo Oricinator 

IS) Exemo_t Solvents 7/08/77 Federal ReCis:er 

8/24/78 Aarber 

3/06/79 Barber 

6/04/79 Federal Reyister 

7/22/80 Federal Register 

2/26/81 Salnan 

6/28/83 Helms 

6/29/83 Helms 

10/24/83 Federal Re;:s ,-e: 

5/01/86 Tyler 

5/22/86 Tyler 

9/22/86 Hathaway 

29) Capture Efficiency 7/07/83 Berry 

30) Test Methods 11/15/79 

~ Rhoads 

3/24/81 Tuerk 

4/03/81 Tuerk ! 

4/06/81 Tuerk 

'4/l1 86 

~~~i 

Emison (19 VOC :ssues I 

31) Beyond Set I and II CTG 7/24/81 Helms 

11/04/81 Polglase 

12/30/81 Helms 

8/23/84 Rasnic (19 VOC Iss;.;es 

1/31/86 SSCD (19 VOC Issues` 

6/25/87 Helms 

11/4/87 Helms 

32) 111(d) 8/07/81 Goodwin 

33) Definition of VOC 10/26/78 Helms 

8/27/85 Tyler 

4/17/87 Helms 

7/21/87 Helms 

34 ) RrP 12/21/78 James 

35) 5$ Rule 8/17/79 Rhoads 

36) Long Term Averaging 10/31/83 Tyler 

12/05/83 Polglase 

1/20/84 O'Connor 

3/06/84 Tyler 

37 ) Jet Fuel 3/13/81 Tuerk I 

4/21/81 Polglase 

.4/24/81 Burr 

_ 38) Dilution Solvents 10/20/83 Berry 

{``' 10/30/86 Helms 
. CGF 

Cress Reference Index bv Source Catecorv (oa. 5) 

~ Date of 

Cateccrv Mey*o !Oriainatcr 

39) De:inition of 100 9/07/79 Rhoads 

Ton-Pe r-Year 8/08/80 Helms 

8/22/80 Rhoads 

5/10/83 Polglase 

6/2 5/84 He lms 

2/28/86 Enison ( 19 VOC :ss::es : 

4/11/86 Eeison ( 19 VUC :ss::es ~ 

40) C?G III 5/21/84 'Tyler 

41 ) AfterSurners 12/01/80 Barber 

2/28/86 Emison ( 19 VUC :ss::es ; 

42) Non-CTG Bakeries 4/19/82 Ca r5 

43 ) Hi y^h Lensity Polyethylene, 1/09/86 Tyler 

Polypropylene, and Polystyrene 

44) Surface Coating of Vinyl- 4/23/86 

coated FaSric or Vinyl 

Sheets 

45) Criteria for Plan Revisions 5/19/78 

for Nonattainment Areas 

46) Lov Solvent ?echnology 8/07/86 

11/21/86 

3/16/87 

47) Compliance Date Extension 8/07/86 

48) General VUC Issues 5/20/85 

49) Recordkeeping/ 1/17/86 

Reporting 4/11/86 

50) Class A1, A2, and. 1/31/86 

B VUC sources 

51) Baseline Ye ar for VOC 2/28/86 

Percent -Emission Reductions 

as per State SIP Regulations 

Crumpl e r 

43 FR 21673 

Potter 

Rasnic/Alushin 

Hitte 

Potter 

SSCD (19 VOC Issues) 

Price (ly VOC Issues) 

Emi son ( 19 VOC Is sue s'! 

SSCD (19 VUC Issues) 

Emison (19 VOC Issues) 
• Cv z' 

Cross Reference Index bv Source Cateoory (o~~ 

52 ) Type of Co;++pl i ance Honitor- 4/11/86 Emi son ( 19 VOC i ssue s) 

ing When Incineration Is 

Used Sporadi cally 

53) Cost Effectiveness of 8/04/86 Berry 

controlling VOC's 

54) Clean up Solvents 10/30/86 Helms 

~ 

_ r 

~ 
aTTaCHMENT 6 

SL'*L`lARIES OF CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES (CTG'S) 

-~~_ 
SUrMARr OF CTG DOC'JMENT FOR TANK TRUC% GASOLINE LOAOING ":RMINJ.L< 

~ Any tank truck loading operitions at the pritary rinoiesaie outle: 

AFTE,ED ~ for gasoline .hicn delivers at teest 76.000 liter/day (20.000 gal/e+y 

~ F;.C:L:TIES A fac+lity .nicn aelivers under 20.000 gal/aay is covere: oy :ne 

CTG for bulk plants. 

NUr.6ER OF AcCoraing to the 9ureau of Census, there vere 1.92 1 : :e•+*inals in 

AFFECTED 1972. Current estimetes are aoout 1.600 terminals nationride. 

FAC:L:TIES 

VOC Estimattd annual em ssions are 150.000 Ng/yr (275.00C ron/rr;•'` I ~nich reoresent aoout 0.9 perceet of estimatea VOC emissions nation.:oe! EMISSiOyS 

N1~ T. ONw I0i 

i VOC ritnout vapo► recovery syste+ns. VOC em,ssions can range from :.5 •-r 

E*':SSIOti 1.4 9/1.000 1iters of througnout (5 to 12 lb/1.000 981). For d;y;!c:' 

RANGE OEa stze facility having a throuqnout of 950.00C titer/oay (25i,.200 ga:i:ay 

FACILITr VOC emissions are estimattd to be 200 Mg/yr (220 toniyr). 

~ For •n uncontrolled acil+ty .n th fi:ed roof tanks, a 133.0OC 'I:e- 

~ 100 TOh/YR ~ /day (35.000 gal/aay) plant would result in VOC emisston of 10: :oniyr. 

~ SOURCE For an uncontrolled facility rtth floating roof tanks. a 454.00C lite•/ 

~ SIZE I day (120.000 .ga1/day) facility .ould result in VOC emissions of 

100 ton/yr. 

. The reconenended e+.issilon limit is 80 mq/titer (0.67 Tb/1.000 gal) 

EME ~ SION of gasoline loaded. This liwit 1s based on submerged fi11 and vaoor 

liMiT ''ecovery/control system. No leoks in the vapor collection system 

during operation is a rwquir+tent. 

vOC 

REDUC'ION A minimum control of 87 percent is e:oected for trrc loading 

PER facility. 

FAC:LITY 

BASIS: 250.000 yal/day facility .ith active vapor controt systeTs. 

COSTS Caoital cost: $140.000 - $195.000 

; Annualized cost: s 20.000 - s 30.000 

I Cost effectiveness: S120 - $180 per ton VOC 

_~. 1 
StA*IARY OFC'TG DOCUMENT FpR 9ULK GASOLINE PLANT: 

; I A wnOlesalt gasoline dtStrtDutton faciltty wntCn ntS a maAtmya, 

: AFr:C'Eo I da+ty tnrougnout of 76,000 liters (20.000 gal) of gasollne. 

FACILlT1ES1 Facil , ttes .nlcn deliver over 20.000 gal/day are cavere: under 

the C'G for term+nais. Potentially severe econolnic narosnlo :ay :e 

~ ( encauntered ey eulk plants wnicn deliver iess than 4,30C gali:ay. 

~ NtJMBER OF There rere 23.367 putk olants in 1972 accordino to the 

1 A • TtN OurNu OT Ltnfus. {.urreeL 917.1054te1 are a00YL ii7.4WU WI& 

i FACILITI_S gasolint plants nationride. 

vOC Estiarteo annual emissions are 150.000 Mg/yr I16:,70C ariy; 

[1e,15] wnlch reoresent aeout 0.6 percent of est'Imated vCC 

~

ENISSIMS 

Nn- iah6irt emtsslons natlonwtde. 

vOC ( A facility with thrte storage tanks wouid nllve YOC eRissions 

£r•SSION aooroY i ~ na: i ng 4.4 kg/day (20 l0/day) olus a range of 0.2 :o 3.: - 

RArw? 1.000 l i ters througnout (2.0 to 25.0 1D/1,000 ga1'). For a ;y: •:a. 

P£R slze facility having a througnout of 18.900 liter/day (5,i3O0 ;al/ 

FACSLITY day) avtrage vOC e+eissions are estterted to oe 15 Mg/yr (17 tonl;r;. 

100 TON/YR ; 

SouRCE pone. 

I 

SI2E 

Emtsston limtts rtcowlnended in ter11K of equiomnt specifiption 

CTG alternatives: ; 

EMISSION 

LIMIT 

1 Submrged fi11 of outgoing tank trucks. 

2, Alternative 1• va0or palance fOr inc0e» ng transfer. 

3. Alternative 24 va0or palance for outgoing transfer. i 

I vOC Em+ssioe Reductions ( Total P1ant I AI1 Transfen , 

1 REDUC'ION Alternative 1 22 percent 27 percent ° E R FAC Alternative 2 Sa percent 6a otrcen; ~ "'TY ~ Atte 77 oercent 92 oercen: 

SASIS: 4,000 gal/day throughout using suoTergeo fill 

i

and vapor palance forOoth ine0min9 and outgo+ng transfers:. 

COSTS 

~ Caoital cost: f4.000 - S10.000 

; Annuwlized cost: s 100 - s 1.200 ; 

~ Ccst effectiveness: $9 - S90 per ton vOC 

2 

-+r~:. • 
Surw Rr OF OOCUMENT FOR GASOLINE SERVICE :TATIONS - S'AGE : 

~ Transfer of gasoline froe aelivery trucks to service station 

; AFFEC't:D storage tanks. 

i FACIL:TIES rro esenotions .ere noted in the 'Design Criteria for S:age ; 

i Vaoor Controt Syste+ns.• 

AFF ..TED ` Estimated to be 180.000 retail gasoline service stations 

I FAC:LITIES inationriae. There are 240.000 other gasoline aisoensing outlets. 

~ vOC For transfer of gasoline to serv+ce station storage tanks, v0C, 

Er:SSIOhS emissions estiau ted to be 400.000 Mg/yr (440.000 ton/yr) ~

la,',: ; 

NR7ION:IDE .nicn re0resents aoout 1.5 Dercent of estiw ted VOC emissions 

nationvlae. 

YOC Ylthout va0or controls. VOC e1111ssions are estteiited to be 

EMISSIOn 1.4 kg/1.000 liters (11.5 lb/1.000 gal) of trrougn0ut. For a ty0ical 

RApGE oER facility having a throughout of 1S1.000 titer/aro (40.000 9al/MoI vCC 

FACILITY e+nissions +rould be 2.5 Mg/yr (2.8 ton/yr) for Stage I. 

100 TON/YR For an uncontrolled facility, t 2.800.000 liter/mo (750.000 

SOURCE gal/eio) throughout results in VOC e+eissions of 100 ton/yr, verY 

SIZE fete service ftations will have this si2e throughput. The enlisStOns 

include botn Stage I and Stage II losses. 

CTG Emisston tiwits retoweenoeo tn terais ot aputpwent soecifications. 

EMISSION Rscoawenaed controls are sub.erged filt of storage tanks. vaoor oalance 

LIMIT between truck and tank. and a leak free truck and vaoor transfer system.. 

VOC 

REDUCTION Stage I control cen reduce transfer losses by 9S• oercent and 

vER total facitity losses by SO percent. 

FACILITY 

BASIS: Ao0lieation of suomrged fill and vaoor balance to a 

serrice station rith thrle tants. 

~ COSTS• I 

! Caoital cost: $600 

i Annualiied cost: (S200) 

• Cost effectiveness: (S110) oer ton VOCt I] J 

• (S---) inaicates savings 

3 
SUMMARY OF CTG DOCUI4ENT FOR PETROLEUM 

LIQUID STORAG'c IN FIXED-ROOF TANKS 

i I Fised•roof storage tants having a caoacity greater tnan 150.500 lIte*s 

i al or 950 0011 and storin petroleun ~ l i ou i ds .nich have a true vaoor xF=°C'E D I greater th~ n 10.5 kPa (1.5 gpsia). Fised-roof tanks ~nicr+ ~ nave caoac ~ t - es ;e:> :-e- 

; Fs::::7IES I 1,600.000 liters (420.000 gal or 10.000 001) used to store proouce: crvee :' ar.e 

~ conaensate prior to lease custooy transfer are e:enpt. 

; nuMBER OF I 

I AF=:C:ED Estiwated for the reer 1976 to_oe 7.300 tanks nationmioe. 

~ %AC:LITI:S I 

Est+wated annual e+nissions are 560.000 Mg/yr (616.0C10 ton/yr) wn,cr •• ~ •.se• - E"'~

oc SSIOxS aoout 2.1 oercent of the estsmated vOC emissions nationMide. En~ issions c• ;C: ~ -;- 

i NAT:Ow.:3E fijed-roof tanrs are 4.7 times tnat fran e:isting floating roof tanics, 

L tota l caoacity of fi:ed Yoot tank storage is less.[la3 

i VOC emission ranges for gasoline or crude oil storeae assumlnc 5 to ?^ • 

-

^- 

~ vOC j overs per year and a true vaoor pressurs of 13.8 to 69 kila ( 2 .0 ta 1C osia'. 

i _M•SS10tt ~ S i z e—~► S• a 1 1 i M e d i u n~ i L a- g e 

i Caoacity (9al) az0 a 10 2.3 : 106 6.3 : 1C' 

iiANGE Diaiensions - 

diaa. a ht. (ft) 

PER vOC Exisssons 

Gasoline (49/yr) 

(ton/yr 

FACILITY Crude Oit (Mg/y* 

(ton/yr) 

SO : 30 

12 - 113 

13 - 12S 

7 - 65 

8 - 72 

100 s 40 

52 - S3S 

57 - 590 

28 - 311 

30 - 340 

150 : 48 

123 - 1.3S3 

135 - 1,490 

68 - 796 

75 - 875 

~ 100 TON/rR variaelp depending on wany oarae ~eters includinq the tyoe and vaoor oressure o 1 

50uRC' the oetroleu ~n 1iQuid stored. scnedule of tank filting anel ewotying, ana :ne 

i SIZE 9eograpnic location of tank. As shorn aoove amdiue size tant can easily e:cer. 

100 ton/yr emssstons of vOc. 

I 70 Emission limits recoeeenoed in te+m of eouiosent soecifications: :nsta " a:•:- 

; E'!1SSI0N of internal floating roofs or alternative eauivalent control. Tyoes of al:erna; ~ e 

LIMI' controts are not soecified in the CTG docsment. 

~ vOC 

! aEDUC'lOh vOC en ~ sssion reouction of 90+ percent can oe acn lewed oy installation o' 

O ER internal floating roofs. 

FAC:L:TY 

BAS:S: 55.000 0ol (2.310.000 qal) 4ediue size tant .itn gasoline c- : —ice :. 

.ith true vaoor pressure range of 14 to 69 kPa (2 to 10 psia) and 5 to :: ::,rnove-s 

per year. 

COS7S• 

; Caoital cost: S31,000 

; Annualized cost: S(70.000) to 2.100 

Cost effectiveness: (S123) - S73 oer ton vOC i 

• (S-) inoicates savings 

4 
SsuVARY OF CTG OOCtntENT FOR PROCESSESAT PE'RCL.' RE=:NER:E. 

Tht affected facilities and oceretions are: 

a, vacuuT 7roduc+na systeTs (vPS). 

AFF::'E;, b. Waste.ater seoarators (WS). 

FAC:L:TIES C. Process unit turnarounas (PUT) -(i.e.. snutdown, rezai- : I ~ i11s0ection. snd start uo ofa DroceSS unit). 

Tne CTG oroviaes no esenotions. 

' :UM.c.rp^OF 

AFCg ~,E; No estina tes ot tl+e nuniber of indiv i dual tac i lit i es are •vs l lac l e. 

AC:L:TIES T ~

re are aoorasiertely 255 refineries nationrioe. 

Estlmated annual nationr+se eTisstons from vscuuR oroducinc svS;e"s 

I 

;SOIOhS II yPS). "'asteW ter seGarators ( WS), an0 D roCess un i t turraraunCS ~~ -'; EM 

~ NA•I ~H~ ::E 1 are 730.00'v Maiyr (80:.000 ton/yr) rnicn reoresent aoout 2.7 oer:er: if 

es;imatea vOC*e+r•issians natsonv+ae. [14] 

I Tne estimated average ane ual vOC emsssions froR affec:ee fac ~ 1•;•es 

! ypC ,st a oetroleum refinery are 2.560 Mg (2,320 ton). Emission fac:crs ,see 

i E'!:SSION Ifor estieuting uncontrolled. reactive vOC emsssions are: 

I RAhG: 

PER A. y►S • 1 ~ 5 kq/10 3m3 ( 50 }b/103 bbl) refinery tHrougnout. 

FAC3L'TR ~ b. NS • 570 kq/10~3 m3 (200 lb/10 bbl) refinery tl+rougnout. 

c. PUT • 860 kq/10 w (301 lb/T03 bbl) refinery tbrougnout. 

The folloring annusl refinery trrouqNouts wi11 result in 100 ton/yr 

~

100 TON/rR uncontrolled vOC emisslons froe eech affetted facility type: 

SSI2EF a• voS - 24.6 : 106ee3 (3.9 s 106 bbl). 

b. rS • 6.3 : 106+n3 (1.0 a 10 6 bbl). 

c. PUT - 4.2 : 10 a>3 (0.67: 10 bpl). 

EA1silon liwtts retOeIDenOed in tefles of e0uionlnt sDe[lficattons: I Er~SION a• ~S - incineration of vOC en ~ issions fron~ conaensers. 

~ LIMI• b. WS - coverinq seoarator forebays. 

c. otlT - co ~noustion of vaoor vented fron~ vesse.ls. 

; vot tepleelnting tne reconaended controls can redur.e vOC em+sstons Dy: 

REDUC';ON + a. vPS - 100 oercent. 

~£~ I b. +S - 95 oercent. 

iAC:L:'Y c. PUT - 98 oercent. 

9AS:S: A 15.900 ,n 3 /day (2,500 obl/day) refinery using :ne 

~ :recommenaed control eauiaeent. 

i COS'S • ~ VPS w S o,,• • C ur .: s 

. Lao+tal cost s1,000: 24 • 52 63 98 

Annuslijed cost S1.000: ( 95) -(89) (310) 26 

~ Cost effectiveness S/ton : (104 ) -(96) ( 90) 5 

• (i-) indicates savings 

5 

S. 
SUMARr OF CTG OOCUMENT FOR CJTBACK ASPMAL' 

AFF E „ED I Roa ~ray Construction and nuintenance operatlons ufing asnnal- `inue$ietl , FAC::ITIES .itn oetrolawe distsllates. 

~ NUFtoEN OF 

AFF: : ,EO f No estimates .ere obtained. 

I Ya Estiwated annw 1 e+eissions are 655.000 Mg/yr (720.000 toniyr;. Tn,s 

E~'ISSIONS I no'tsents aoout 2.4 oercent of est » ~eted vOC en~ issions nationr+oe.. ~ . 

•11w.;a... ~G 

Esttmated YOC eMtsstons froe. cutback asDnalt PrOaluC:ton are: 

'vOC EMISS ~O~: A. 0.078 kq/kg (ton/ton)"of slor cure asonalt. ~ aAnGZ P_R o. 0.209 kg/kg (ton/ton) of e~ edium cure asonalt,. I

FAC'LITr ( C. 0.204 kg/kg (ton/ton) of raoid cure asonalt. 

100 TON/rR Not generally apolicable to this source cateqory since tne n a,n sources 

SOURCE S I 

 ZE 

 of e~nissions are the road surtaces ~a+ere the asonalt is aoolied. 

~ CrG Substitate wter and nonvolatile e ~eulsifier for l~etroleue~ distillate ; EMISSION Ible"dsng stock. LIMIT 

~ vOC i I REDUCTION vOC Wssion reductions are aooro:iieately 100 pertent. ; PER 

FACILITY 

i 

! BASIS: The major cost associated uitn control 01' vOC is tne orice 

CCS:S• difterence betreen Cutback and eniulsified asonalt. A arice difterentla', l of S cent/gallon savings to 1 cent/gallon oenalty results in a cast ef- 

!fectiveness range of (S73) - $15 per ton vOC. 

• (i---) indicates savinqs 
SUMMARY OF CTG OOCUMENT FOR SOLYENT METAL CLEAN:ING 

Three typeS Of solvent degreasers are aftected: 

A. Cold cleaner: batca loaded, nonooiling solverr, ae: ease-. 

b. Ooen too vapor degreaser: batcD load. boiltng solvent 

degreaser. 

FAC:LITIES ; c- Conveyorized degreaser: continuously loaaled, conveyorizea 

solvent degreaser. either ooiltng or nonooiling. 

Ooen too vapor degreasers saaller than 1 m 2 of cloen area are eser:; 

ifroe+ the aoolication of refrigerated chillers o Cartion adsor0ers. 

Conveyorized deareasers sw ller tnan 2.0 of atr/vapor inte-ace 

iare eaeerot from a reauirenent for ama)or control dev+ce. 

EStifttes of the nupper Of solvent degreasers nattonrtde for :? ~ e 

NL' K_v OF ' year 1974 are: 

: AF=::'ED I a. Cold cteaners (CC) - 1.220,000. 

c•:::LITIES ; b. Ooen too vaoor degreasers (OT) - 21.000. 

; c. Conveyorized degreasers (CD) - 3.700. 

~ I Estiartes of annual nati0nvide e-rissions are: 

CC - 380,000 Mg/yr (419.000 ton/yr). 

' VOC b. OT - 200.000 Iq/yr (221,000 ton/yr) 

I

EMISSIONS C. CD - 100.000 Mg/yr (110.000 ton/yr) 

w:TION':IDE Irhich represent about 2.5 percent of estier,ted YOC emissions nation.+,de.; 

~ VOC Averaged emission rates per degreaser: 

EyISSION a. CC - 0.3 Mg/yr (0.3 ton/yr)• 

RANGE oER b. OT - 10 Mq/yr (11 ton/yr). 

I FACILITV c. CD.-27 Mg/yr (30 ton/yr). 

I 100 TON/rR I 

' SDURCE Oata indicate that on an average 10 open too degreasers or 4 conSI2E veyorized degreasers My emit 100 ton/yr. 

i I The VOC ewission Iieit 1s reconnended In terax of eouioTent soec+- 

I C'G fications and ooeration precedures. Reouired control eauioTe++: can oe 

E'!I:S:ON 'as sinole as a eanuaily operated -ant cover.or as conssles as a caroon 

~ LiM:T ~ adsor7tion system deperdsng on tl+: type. size. and drsign of tne 

loegreaser. 

The actual perCent VOC reduCtion rill vary deoen0ing On Lne Cont*0' 

YOC .eou+oeent installed and the ooerational procedures follo"a. Recoen+enc - 

AEiUCT:ON :ed Contr0l inethadS Can reaute VOC enwisstons byc 

PER A. CC - SO to S3 oercent (• 20 oercent). 

FACIL:TY j o. OT - 45 to 60 oertent (Z 15 percent). 

c. CD - 25 to 60 oercent ( 710 percent). 

i 9ASIS: CC of 0.5 m .ort area usinq 411n volatility solvent (a! 

I l andlov volatility solvent (b): OT of 1.67 er .ort anea; and CD of 

 3.9 mZ .ort area. 

~ COSTS Caottal Cost I Annualized Cost I Cost Ef Oectiveness 

I ) 1.200 ~ s 1 ~10n / -on V C 

CC-a ~ I 001 ~ 

~ CC-o 0.065 (0. 26) (2i0) 

OT I 0.3 - 10.7 ( (0.94 - 0.8 

`-n 

(360) ; 

i CD 7.5 - iB (3.7) - 1.5 (260) - 260 

--i indicates savinqs 

-~- 
Surra,:%Y OF CTu OOCUMEt:' FOR COA':r:C OF :;,r:: 

~ tu T..o- and tnree-oiece can surface coat+no l,nes +ncluc+nr, :.^.e 

F:C:LITiES ! a001 1 catton areas an0 tne arying ovens. ~ 

NU`:a:; Gr ; 

AFFECIIEL I Estimated to be 46C affected facilities nationr+ae. 

FACIL.' E5; 

! vOCi Estiaated annual em i ss i ons from can coat+ng fac ~ tit+es are 

EF:SS:OtS •Mg/yr 0SJ.000 ton/yr) wnlcn reoresent aoout C.. oerzent of :.n.e eS: -::= ~ 

N.'.T;Ot:.;:E'nat+on.+ ~ e V0 ~ e—ss•ons. (t4 ~ I5j 

( vOC ; 

Typ+:al annual eRtsstons frdm can coatlna line5 can vtry '-:- 

1(1s tonsi for tno sealing to 24C M; (26C ton) for tro-o+e:e car 

~~ . ;inc for a Olant averaye of 310 M; (340 ton;. 

F.:C:.:' ~' I 

i 10: TO::,'YR 

) SOURC: I Ty0ical can coetina facilities as re0resentea +n tne ='C .o-4:c a" 

I S:ZE ` aooroacn or e:cetd 100 TOY VOC emisssons if uncontrollec. 

I CTG The ecosa ~ended VOC emsssion limits are: 

I a. Sheet coattng, tro-Osece exterior 0.34 kg/1 (2.8 lb/gal;• 

EMISSION b. Two- and tnnt-Otece interior 0.51 kg/1 (4.2 lb/961)' 

L1MIT c. T.o-piece ena e:terior 0.51 kg/1 (4..2 lb/ga1)• 

I d. Thret-piece siae sta. 0.66 kg/1 (5.5 lb/gal)• 

~ e. End seal c0ound 0. om ~4 kg/1 (3.7 lb/gal)• 

VOC Tht actual percent reauction wi11 vary deDenaing on tne solvent 

pEDUC'IOt; content of tne esisting coattngs ana the control metnoa seiectec. 

oER lmolementation of tne recamnenoed control metnoas can reduce VC: arr+s- 

~ FAC:L:TY Isions by 6 ~ to 100 oercent. 

~ BAS:S: S.000 sefm facitity ussng tnermai or catalyt-,c +n r•ne•a- 

~ ion ritn Orimary heat recovery, or aasorptlon itn recovee!: so'•+eq: 

~STS credtted at fuei value. 

C,tv1TAL COST: 1125.000 - 5162.000 

CJST : 142 000 - S71.000 

I COST EF=ECTIVENESS: f135 - 17n6 oer ton VOC ! 

• Coattng m+nus water 

8 
SUMMART OF C~G DOCUMEKT FOp COATING OF ME,A; :O::S 

i sFF. ~g. I Coil surface coating lines including tne aoolication areas, tne er.- 

:tng OvtnS, an0 Lne OYtnCn areai. 

.14LIMr., OF ' 

Estimated to oe 180 faciiities nationwide. 

FwC:L:TIz'$ ~ rC: I Estiaatea annual emissions frw coll coatlng fac4l1t;es are 

I torl'vr:, wn1Cn re reient a00ut 0.1 DercMt of tr• eS: - - 

i N,cT:O ..IOE ;Tatea nattonrioe YOC emissions. 14,15J 

vC; I 

E"'::::01. ' Averaoe annYalvOC emisston for a typiCal faCtlit,• is es:l•:.a:e: 

~ RF:.:,: P$R ! to oe 180 rc ; 20G tont . 

; F ~::L; •• r ~ 

i 100 TOnirP , 6 2 9 ~ 2 cc •, 

SOURCi •L i s es: ica tea tnat 2: 10 T(Z 1 10 t. ) ot czil caa:e: ._ 

~ SI:E result in a potentiat eenssion of 100 tons of vOC. 

t 

C G The reconsnended vOC emisston tiwit is 0.31 tg per liter of coa:ing I El!' .SSION 

; LIMIT mtnus .ater (2.6 1p/9a1). 

vOC actw 1 percent reduction rilt vary depending on tne solvent 

i REOUCTION 

~

Icont

aThe

nt of tnt exrstrno Coatings and t1+e control nretnod selec:e:. - ImolePER eentation ot tne recoamenoed control aetnods can reduce vOC emissions oy 

FACILITr 170 to 98 percent. 

~ {OASIS: 15.000 scfm facility using incineration ritn prrnr ry neat 

I Iretovery. 

C:S'S voital cost: = $170.000 

i nnnualized cost: ar S 70.000 

! ~ Cost effectiveness: S51 - S94 per ton vOC 

4 
SUMAP.r OF C'G OOC:.71Ef;' FOF. COA7ING OF FABPIC ANC '1111% 

FaOric ana v#nyl surtace coating lines including tne 40o11ca:•or 

!.F-rE'::: 'areas ana t-te crying ovens. Faoric coattng inciu0es all tyDe: 

F,; ~ :LIT;ES ' coatinCs aDolieo to fabr'C. Vlnyl COatIna reterS tD eny prtntin-, 

lae:Orative, or protective to0coat a0olted ove ► vinyi coatec f;Ort: ;r 

vin,l sne!ts. 

OF 

;:F=:C't:: EstiR.ateG to oe 130 facilities nation.ride. 

vOC Es:'ma:ee annual e+riss i on froR faoric coat ~ r. ooera :i0n5 are 

I ~':t IM~ 'vr •On/vr1, (15) The vinyl SeOrnen: G` Lh6 sa:r'C 

yAT:Oy.: le^i:s aooe: ]:.0_: ~g'yr ,s0.0'M ton/yrl. VOC fror fao ic coa:•nc -•c. JE i ~ resents 1oo, it .e D'Ir:ent 0f the !stinyted'V0= er.tsstOns 

v(~ C 

~ EF1:S::Oh I 

RAn.;E vER Average annual vOC emissions are estimated to oe 950 "e !44C ::n . 

I FACILITY 1 

100 TON/TR I 1 ~Upr: M y put the sraallest faprit coatinq tacitittes snoul0 eaceee anisI SIZE sions of IOu ton/yr of vOC. 

The recoesnen+ded vOC ewission liaits are: 

C G a. Fabric coating 0.35 tg per liter ot coating minus .ater 

EtIISS10N (2.9 lb/gai ). 

L;nIT b, vinyi coating 0.45 tg per liter ot coating minus water 

~ (3.8 1b/961). 

~ vOC j The attuai percent reauction •i11 vary aeoenaing on the soiver: 

I RE:uC'ION content of tne esisting coatsngs and the control n+ethod seiec:ec. 

vga limoiementation ot the recoamenaed control eethoas can reauce vOC em ~ sF:, C;_;Tr IsIons oy d0 to 100 DerCent. 

~ BAS:S. 15.000 scf+e fac+lity using incineration .rit" Orira ry "ea: 

jrecovery or adsorption ritn recovered solvent creaited at fue ,va;:,e. 

Caoital cost: 5150.000 - 5320.000 

Annuali=ee cost: S 60.000 • S 75.000 

' Cos; ettectiveness: 1;34 - C39 oe ► tan vnC 

'

AL

` 10 
SUMMARr OF CTG OOCUMENT FOR SURFA:E COATING OF PAPER PRODUr': 

Paoer suriace coating tines includinq the aooiication areas ane :ne 

drying ovens. Tne CTG docunient aoolies to eanufactur+ng of ednesive 

FAC::I':.5 ' tapes, adnesIve taoels. decorated paoer, eoot cove s, of"ce cooie• 

;oaoer, caro0n oa0er, typewrlter ri00ons, and pnotogra0nic lilf*s. 

yU"°_E:_- OF i SIC 26.7, oaoer Coating and G1azing, nad 397 plants in 1 9E7. 

Current estimates for tnis category are 290 olants nation. »e. FAC:L.TI.S 

i Estimatev annutl emissions are 3?C.000 N/yr (35C.30C ton— ;. :' 

! vC: i tr.isamount, tne manufacture of pressure sensitive taoes ane laoe's !s 

estimate: to eRit :63.000 1 0;1y► (290.000 ton/yr). ETissiors 'ror. -?%e 

coa:inc ofsaoer products represent aoout 1.2 percient of nation,.,oe vC: 

I ( eR:aions. [14 J 

i vOC Emiss ions from typical paper coat ing lines can vary from 23 to 

I

Ey1SSI0N It50 tq/hr (50 to 1.000 10/nr). A plant may have 1 to 20 coat:ng !tnes. 

RANGE PER It is estimated that the annual average vOC enission from oaoe ► coatinc 

FACILITV I plants is 1.480 Mg (1,630 ton), 

100TON/rR 8ased on the data given, a plant with one larqe line or tyo 

- I

SOURC's s,yll lines can e:ceed 100 ton/yr of VOC eaissions„ SIZE 

I ~~G The reconniended VOC en~ i ssi on 1 itai t i s 0.35 kq per l i ter 

EM.SSION I of coating msnus .ater (2.9 1p/gal). L IMIT 

!

v0: I The actuat percent rtduction will iary deoend'ing on the solvent I RE7UCI I<:N ~ content of the e=lsttng coatingS and the contr0l method selected. 

Pry Im0lementatlon Of the rectMvnended contr0l methOds can reduce VC: 

FAC :L;Tr emissions py 80 to 99 oercent. 

! BASIS: 15.000 scf+n facility using incineration wit!+ oriinary neat 

recovery or adsorptlon witn recovered solvent credlteC at fue1 faiue. 

C ''~ j Caoital cost: S150.000 - S320.0130 

I Annualized cost: S 60.000 - S 75.7130 

i Cost effectiveness: S34 - S40 oer ton vOC 

11 

-*-__ 
SL'ttiMAtt OF CTG OOCUMENT FOF COATING IN AUTOMOBILE ANO LIG1T-DC.r' TaC: r 

i I Automoolle and ltgnt-duty trLCt surface ••oaLIng 'ines inc:uCim^y:f:e• 

,fFF:C-~

;, ;aoollcatlon areas, the flasnoff areas. and the dry+ng overs. 

i F:.;:::ES i The CTG orov ~ aes no e:emotions but notes tnat i: may no: oe 

ireasonable to convert an existtng rater-borne dio o ii e c.at•"c s!s:e, 

NumE=: OF ' 

~ :,F=::'~ _ ; Identlf,ed for the year 1977 to oe 47 D1antS natton.iae. 

; FACIL:TIE. I 

vpc I Estlmated annual eRISs/ons frOR.autD anG 119nt 3u:y ' -9c• : , af*:S 

~ Er:ec10•:c 'are 90.003 MO/yr (lOC,000 ton'vr). 9, 1 ­ Is aoOUL 0.3 oerce^: 

N:.Ti7N.::: ieS: ~ metl: V0: e" ~ SS/0nS natl0n .in ~ 

, vOC i E~+issions frontyoical coatiny 11nes can vary 

~i~. 

•. 

~ oee l tq/hr (60C to a.00C lb/hr). Averaqe annual e+nisslains are es::na:e: :_ :e 

I FACIL:T`► 12 • 380 Mg (2•620 ton) oer suc3ect o ant. 

~ 100 TON/vt 1. All uncontrolied coating l,nes at the assenoly,plants are ezoec:e: 

SOL;:: I Ito e1nit 1n escess of 100 tons of vOC oer year. SIZE 

I 

The recom~lended vOC enl ~ ssion limits are: 

IEyISSIOts 

~G 

a. Prime coating 0.23 rg/1 (1.9 ib/gal) minus ate• 

LIMIT b. TOo coating 0.34 kq/1 (2.8 lb/51a1) minus rater 

c. Final reoalr coating 0.58 tq/1 (4.8 ib/5la1) minus wa:er 

I I The actual oercent reduction will vary deoending on tne solver; 

! vOCcontent of tne es i sting coatings and the cont ro l metnod sele_:ec. 

REOUC':ON I Ieoiementation of the recommended alethods can reduc:e '+OC emiss:ans `z^• 

oEA I 

FAC:LITt ~ a. oriwe coating - 80 to 93 eercent. 

b. Too coating - 75 to 92 Oertent. 

c. Ffnal reoair coating - not availabie 

BASIS: 30 - 65 unitS per hour facility with Substantial .arlaoi'l:y 

1n bOtn eXisttng ooeratlons and potentially a0pliGlole control Systems. 

COSTS 

Caoital cost: $6.500.000 - S50.000„000 

Anitw lited cost: S2.000.000 - S25.000„000 

Cost effectiveness: S1.000 - S4.000 oer ton vOC 

12 
Stl"O4Rr OFCTG OOCL'r!ENT FOR COATING OF MFTAL FURNI71 RE 

AF7:"E;, ~etai furniture surface coating Iines including tne 

~ FAC:LIT:ES ~ aoolication and flasnoff areas. and tne drying ovens. 

~

NU 'QE+ OF i 

AFF:_ :- Aooro:iauteiy 1.400 facilities wuld Oe affeCtetl nat+ona''. 

FACIL:TIES ~ 

Estietited annual em+sstons are 90.000 Mg/yr (10G.00= :on , 

; Er:SSIoNS ( yr ).1 15 3 ThIs represents aoout 0.3 perctnt of estieAted 'IC: 

I i

':`~ N•:v: ~ wrissions natl0nride.C 1.:] 

~ vOC I 

I

Er.:SSICa E Estiinated averege annual vOC emissions are 70 Mg 

RAN3i oER li(80 ton) oer facitity. 

~ FAC:LITY 

~ 100 TOK/rR For a a ~ ooel dio coating line. a Plant coating (.ritn no arin,er;, 

( SSjpr E 1.500.000 n~ 2 (16.200.000 ft 2 ) of snelving oer year woutd emtt 

~ aoout 100 ton/yr. 

CG The recownended vOC e+nission liwit is 0.36 tg oer liter EMISSION of coating ainus .ater (3.0 1p/gal). LIMIT 

vOC The actwl percent reduction wilt vary deoending on tne soivent 

REDUCTION content of the esisting eoatings and the control wethod selecte:. 

. PER I=lenrentation of the recoM*need control Methods can reduce YC: 

FACILITTt emissions oy 50 to 99 oereent. 

dASIS: A dio eoating faeility coating 7,000.000 +t 4 ot sne!+Im; 

; per year converting to .ater-oorne or electrodeoosition: 

COSTS 

' Caoital cost: f 3.000 - f124.000 

~ Annualiztd cost: $11,000 - s 2S.000 

Cost effectiveness: S"O - $657 Per ton vOC 

13 
SU!*1ARY OF CTG OOCUMENT FOR COATING OF MAGNEi wIRE 

~

AFFECTED yire coating oven. FACIL.TIES I 

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

, Estte,ated to be 30 plants nationvioe. It f s not unusual fpr a•ire 

FACILITIES coating plant to have 50 coating ovens. 

vOC CTG states that there is no .ay to knor rww Mucn solvent is ac:.ra " 

EMISSIOr.S emittea. About 29.500 estric tons (32.500 ton) of solvent are use: eacNATIONWIOE year but such of tt+ls is controtled. 

voC EMISSION Emissions fro+a a typical uncontrolled oven rill be apprp:ima_e'y 1 - 1

RANGE PER kg/hr (26 lb/hr). The averagt annual emissions of vOC per plan; are 

FACILITY estie+ated to be 314 Mg (340 ton). 1153 

100 TON/TR 

SOURCE C±G indicates that each of the facilities, if uncontrollea, coula 

SIZE easily e:ceed 100 

CTG 

E„ISSION THe recoeeended YOC emission lieait ts 0.20 1g per liter af caating 

LIMIT minus wter (1.7 lp/gal). 

vOC The aetual percent reduction .ri1l vary depefiding on tne so)vent 

RF.OUCTION content of tde e:isting coatings and tf+e control methoo selecte:... 

PER lavlewentation ef the recp•Aended control netlrods can reduce vOC 

FACiIITY ewissions by 90 percent. 

6ASIS: 10.000 sef+e faeility eantrolling V01; by use of incineratior. ' 

rith priwary heat recovery. 

COSn Capital cost: Appro:iartely S220.000 

I Annuali=ed cost: $85.000 - $115.0010 

Cost effectiveness: $105 - S140 per ton YOC 

-~. 14 
SUrhARr OF CTG OOCUMENT FOR COATING OF LARGZ APPLIANC:: 

IAFC;:'E_ Large aool i ance surface coat i ng including the pri me, s i ngie, or 

i FAC:L:'IES I toocoat aoolication areas, the flasnofF areas. and the oven. 

NU► c -c -OF 

Estiauted to be a0out 270 Olants nationride. 

~ FACILITIES I 

cMVOC ^ ~ Estimated annual emissions are 42,000 Mg/yr (46,700 toniyr.- ^ 

I.nlcn rearesent aoout 0.2 oercent of est iautea nationr i ae 'r0: 

NA'IONW I OE e+niss i ons. 

VO[ 

Er::SIC'. I The average annual VOC emissions are estimated to be 

RA.% -: DEo. 170 Mg (185 ton ). 

FACILITY 

I 

I 

100 TON/rR Extraoolating tne eodel facility data. a D1ant coating 221,7C ~ 

SOURCE clothes .asher cabinets per year .ouid e:ceed 100 ton/yr e,ntssion: o! 

SIZE uncontrolled VOC. 

CG EMISSION The recoaa~ enaed VOC e~nission limit is 0.34 kg Der liter 

LIMIT ot coating .inus .ater (2.8 lb/gal). 

VOC The actual oercent rtduction .ill vary deoending on the solvent 

REDUCTION content of the e:isting coatings and the control method selected. . 

PER tepleeientation of the recaseeded control esthods can reduce VOC 

FACILITY emissions by 79 to 95 percent. 

dASIS: 768.000 clotnes rasher cabinets coated Der year us+ng 

various coalptnatlons of contro) technt0ues. 

I C'OSTS• , Caoitai cost: S70.000 - S1.250.000 

Annualized cost: (S300.000) • $350.000 

Cost effectiveness: (S1.050) - 11.180 oer ton VOC 

• (S---) indicates savings 

15 
SL^L"'GNRY OF CTG DOCUMEN'f FOR LE.V:S FROM PETROLEUM REFINERY EQUIPME:IT 

I Aff.cted Petrulcum reflnery equipmenc lncluding pump seals, cosipressor 

faciilties qealr. seal o11 degaraing vents. pipeline valves. flanges and 

I(p. b-1) • other connections. pressure relief devices, process drains, 

and open ended pipes. 

yumder of There were 311 petroleum refineries in the nation as cif 

affected January 1. 1979. 1 : 

facilitias 

vOC The escimsted vOC eaisaions nationwide sre 170.000 Mg/'year. 

I emisrlonr or abouc 1 pereenc of the total VOC emisaions from stationary 

I nationvide soure ~ea. 

(p. S-1 )• 

vOC The potential VOC emissions per leaking source range from 1.0 to I 

esiaslona 10 kR/day. 

rsnRe per 

facillty 

I 

(p. 3-2)• 

100 con/vear A single leaking source has the potential co sait 0.4 to 3.7 Hg 

suurce slze vOC/year (0.5 to 4.1 ton/yr). A refinery with between 25 and 

(p. 1-3. 2-3)• 227 leaking component+ would emit 100 tons/year of V01:. A 

model smdium %ize refinery may have 90.000 leaking components. 

CTf: If a leakinR component has a VOC concencracion of oveir 10.000 ppm 

esirrlon at che potenttal leak source. Lt should be scheduled 1For msinlioits tenanee and repaired within 15 ctays. 

(p. 1-3)• 

vOC Estiwated to prevent the release of 1821.1 Mg/year (Z007.4 ton/ 

reduction per year) of VOC at a model medium size refinery (15,900 m 3 /day) by 

facility reducing emisslons from 2933.6 M` (3233.5 ton) co 1112.5 Mg 

(calculated) (1226.1 ton) per year. 11 

Coat+ 8asls: J• monitoring and mslntenance pregrsm for a 15.900 m l /day 

(p. 4-tl)• (100.000 bbl/day) refinery (Fourth quarter 1977 dollars). 

Inrtrumrntation Capital Cost 8s800 

Ttical Annurllzed Costa 115.000 

~ Coyt Effectiveness S/Ng (86.85)* 17 

S/ton (78.81)tl 3 

~The yource of tlie sumnsry lnformation is che indicated page number(s) in "Control 

of folatile Orqanlc Compound l.daks from Petrolnum Refinery Equipment." 

EPA-450/2-79-03h. 

- YumberM ln parent iesen nre savtngs. 

I 

16 

.. 

~ 
SL'`M%.RY OF CTG DOCUMENT FOR SURFACE CUATING OF MISCELLANEOL'S ~MTlV.. 

PARTS AND PRODUCTS 

" 

. ~.. _ 

-'_• ' ~ ..r 

Atlrtte~ CO•tlnt •I~OIIC•flnn •frM. flwhelf .lrr•n. Jrvrrfl • •nfY Orwns r..r , 

f•tllltlr• i rnu(atufon ~ .1 : 

(r. l-2)• •. 1~rar 1•r~ rthln•ry 

' I b. Sril 7•r~ rcklnen 

I ; e. Srlt •boll•nc•• 

Coerel•1 re111aer'y 

' ~ r. IMuetTl•1 reklhec7 I I 1. rurle•tet rtsl rreeucc• I 

~ . Ahr ethor t1lMwtrl•1 C•teser7, uhlch cNt1 rtel•, ' 

~ wwer f1C Y)er greuN 7})9. lncluelw. ~ t 

I 4ce►t thwo fecllltLUe uhleh •re tewrN bT ►revlw CTIa. i 

, fIr>rerot i ec,000 1• I 

. •tt•ete~ 

fKtllciw 

I 

J 

ra 960 • 10 q ' "a/9r (I • IOt teselrr) •ectrcN fer 1977 • .n/eh 1 

sYwtelle I reNreewt• •Mut 1 .0 Mrewt et •t•tie11er7 N11rte r•tlrte• ~ 

~ r ttwethe NlNlnn•. "' • I 

. rpC •. Au Nlrlw fecter ot 0.66 kg YOC/1 Ceetlh{ 1N• veter j 

I sYeelw (7.) lb rOtlwl eeeclp{ lee• wcer) cw he •epccee trw 

' rcty rer • r•ctltt9 ucticste0 • ceecthc lwNwd •t 71 rerteht er{Mte 

~ f•ctllt. oelvNt, 25 rerawt Nl1Y by reluee. 

~ 

fef fetilltlo• utlllichc w•lectrNeMeltlM preceso ch• vOC 

1 ' ))' Nloe /w t•ctur le 0.)6 kc rOC/1 Ce•tiht lo•o wc•r (7.0 1►/g•1). 

- -'+ 

I 1 0 ew•/7r Ah wl•elw teetec ef S. S lb 90C//•1 ts+ilee thet • elhltn• breere I •etiree •It• I res• ot ).bA • 10' e•1 eweth{ trcerlel/yr uwle be rNulreN tor • 

I(e•lculet•r) teullt! te be • recwcce) 100 ceedTr wree. 

~ CTC 

•ttt ee t w 

~ 1114t 

~ (~ . •1 • 

Ceetthc eethee 

•. yr er tercN .•cr drce/ 

ltems 

. Cleer ert 

e. Me er latrwuese euler 

tUwp et erll surer 

et eelets et>•11« 

1. lwer eeecitye 

2. Other 

~ . OYtdNr. AerMl eipesYre 

er •strwit pertotuwt• 

ehereetarleetee 

r. ►reNew t teler tte. ltw 

1•rce nrbor ot co or• 

•hl1eN. of ftrec eewc 

en uetreetee terrwre 

Meet•weN ll~lt•eiw vc' ra 

rel. —

Crctne , 

O.a2 W1 M3 1►/M1) 

0.32 k{/1 (4.7 lfr/pl) 

0.05 ke/1 (0.A !b/Nl) 

0.36 be/1 ().0 1►/s•1) 

0. 1-2 kl/I ().1 lA/cel) 

0.36 k{/1 0.0 lb/c•U 

~ •Iretr•t• I ~ vOt Por6enc reeuCclw tn rOC Nl1•teh• I rNYLtl w 

i 

PrOteeeeNttle•tlell (CNttll / t Mul~ewt ehwce) f0•90 ~ ot t•e lllt ~ Ctt1•uet sY Crrterlt M► ' ~ (r • I•1) • 

 Coot• ~ ~tl l•: A eNllr •tce ce•tlh{ llh• (- 743,000 e = 17T, - •• 104 ft'/yr) ~ 

I

(rr. 3•!! t• ~ ulth •lhblo er M cNt eeer•tlen uelne f lwr-te•c. dlc~ -cNt. 

i 3•lA) • i Or eAr• -te•t •egllc•tlelle. t*e rNl/e• ceoer th• tot• of 

i NVer•1 elttef•Ilt 9~C tehtreL oettelle. . ~ Capttu ceet 20-I.e17 

; (31000) 

~ AnswellseN aeet (27) 1 -40= 

I ($1000) 

r Cwt .trrcturellee• 

I _ I (s/p0) (290)•-6.841 I 

(!/tw) (261) 1 -e,2M 

'tAe Nwee e! the •~ry lstertrclw c• ch• 1Mlc•cw N{e uNeor cb "Cwcrel •( 

Vel•tile OTWLe fhteetwe frr talecthG Steclerr7 fwrcee, velre Yt: furt•c• 

Co•tlee ef q•e•11•wesue Met•1 P•rte •he t•refuec•," CTA-430/7-76..013. 

~Mutberb t11 Nre\t)1rr •r• Nttnd•. 

17 
SL'`41ARY OF CTC DOCtJAENT FOR FACTORY SURFACE COATING OF 

FLAT WOOD PANELING 

Affected n ~e •.Ifr.:a•A i...illtl,a ~. art factortos that +wrface cont the 

taetlltieo loilwtnt tvnr. ..i flat Wood panets: 

tp. 1•2)• a. Nardvood plweed 

b. /arttcleboard 

o. Nardboard i 

I Musree r .• f 

iaffecttd 

(ae111t1es 

~ i0. I-2) • 

Af f erted Factllttes ristlotwtdt Total 

a. Nasdw•d plw ood 2 4 7 

b. setlelsboard !0 

C. Ilerdbeard 67 

YOC 

. ~atsatont 

In•ttonvlde 

•..~.~ . - _ . 

IvoC 

lol"••lon 

ranae Per 

factlttv 

(Tablt 2-2 

1%. ;-S) • 

100 tott•lyr 

.ourrt aise 

(calculaced) 

CTC 

Nl ea lan 

11a1t 

~ (p, v)• 

i 

, ndur t t mf 

;Per lacliltl .I ( rable 2-1 

ID. 2-A)• 

Coat• 

(Table 1-2 

p. 1•9 )• 

I 

•.c • 10` ttp/yr (9.) - 10` ton•/rr) ••tisaced for 1977 uhieh 

repr••ent• about 0.5 percent ol •tatlonary souret e•tlYted 

p~alew lotte. t t 

Pnttnttal VON' .•etwwlWl• Mr teeted eurlae. •rea •re: 

0.4 r.. •.0 wr/Ittn a., (0.e to 16.5 lb/1000 10) 

depend)ns on ttw reatinfl/euring reeess as wll as the eoetlna 

aatlrtalM Nwed. 

Itaaed on the VI)C eel••1•n ranN above. a l00 tp7 qouree vottld 

roat a elnlwkte annusl thrnuphput of: 

).tl • 10% to 7.7 • 10# •tandard pan•l•/yr 

Where a•tandard panel t• 2.97 e7 (72 tt=l. 

Ileeosrrnd•d liuttation 

Prtnted hardvootl plPtroed 2.9 kR ViDc/100 a•' 

aud parttclehoard (6.0 lb VOC11000 tt2 ) 

natural (tnt•h hardveod plYreed 5.8 k{ VOC/100 02 ) 

(12.0 lb VOCI1000 ct=) 

~

Cla•w i(' finUthas for hard- 4.8 kS VOC/100 a2 ) 

bnnrd wtntilnt (10.0 lb YOc/1000 It=) 

7e to 90 IMereewt vrlC emoi••ton reduetion, dependlng on ooaein{ 

srtt:rtal and toteraRt, throuRh we ot wter-boflte eeatings, 

lncineraclun, adwrpttea, ultravtelet turtng or eleetron beau 

curinp. 

6ea1•: 

shlit ~ : 1 2 

r.n•1•/rr: 2.000.000 4,000.000 

Vaterborna I W/Watorbnrne I Yaterborna1 W/Var•rbnrntl 

t:apttal rnat 1 52 153 I S2 13S 

(51000) ' 

Aenualised co+t 101 12 200.8 234.16 

(S10fM1 

j Co•t ef frct 1 w"e+w 

(S/Ma) 269 292 236 264 

i (S/ton) 244 264 232 260 

•'The •ourct~ of the stnw•ry tnfors•tion ts the indleat•d paga ntrtler ln "Control of 

Volatlle O'tt•nie .ainetetta fron tslatinR Statlonery Sources, 9olus• VII: faetory 

Surfaee l'.osting of lat Wood anelinR." EtIr450/2-75•032. 

!1•1tnition on P. vlt of E A-450/2-76-072. 

18 

r~ 
SU@4tARY OF CTC DOCIMENT FOR MANUFACTURE OF SYN'iHESIZED 

PHARMACEIJTICAL PRODUCTS 

Afleeted Synthesia..d pbArwsceucieal nsnufacturinR facilities. Specific I 

facilities sources Include: i 

(p• 1-4) • I 

l. Drvere S. rilters 

2. Aeactors 6. Extraetion equip~nc ~ 

). Distillation Units 7. Csncrifu8es I ~ 4. Storage and transfer 8. Crystailizers. 

of VOC ~ 

Nunber of Ertimstad 800 plsnca nationwide I 

affected 

facilltiee ' 

(p. 1-2)• 

50,000 .4g/yr (55,000 tons/yr) estisuted for 1977 which repiresenca i 

(

VOC 

afiesiona about 0.3 parcent of stacionary source estinated VOC ealssions." ~ nacionwide 

VOC Not available 

eniaalon 

range per 

facil ity 

.100 con/yr Not avatlsble 

eouree aiae 

C:C 1. a. Surface condensers or equivalent control on-vants froa 

emission reactors. dSstillation operacions, crystallizers; cenliait crifuges. and vacuue dryers that enit 6.8 kg/day (13 lb/day) 

(a. 1-5) or sore VOC. 

h. Surface condensers must met certain temperature versus VOC 

vapor pressure eriteria. 

2. Additional apecifie anlsslon reductions are required for air 

dryers, production equips,ent exhaust systi•ss. and scorage and 

transfer of VOC. 

3. Lnclosures or covers are reeommended for rocary vacuvs filters, 

processing liquid containing VOC and in-process tanks. 

~ 4. Repair of conponencs leaking liquids concaining VOC. 

VOC Not available 

reduction 

I 

per facility 

i

Coscs Gpital and Annualized Cost Sraphs are provided for the following cypes I 

(pp• 5-14 of control equipwenc: conservation venca. floacing roofs, prsssure 

~ co 5-42)• vessels, carbon adworption syscems, theraal and catalytic imcineracion 

I syscems. water cooled condensers. chilled wacer and brine eooled condenaers. freon cooled condensers. packed bed scrubbers and venturi 

acruhhers. 

fCosc effectiveness daca is not ealculated for cypical plant:i. 

~ -- - 

The eource of the susnary inforuation la the indicated page(s) in "Control of Volstile 

OrRanic Emisaione frow Nanufacture of Synthesized Pharsu ceutical Producta," 

EPA-450/2-78-029. 

19 

-+~~. 
SU"'LMARY OF CTC DOCUMENT FOR MANUFACTURE OF PNEUMATIC RUBBER TIRES 

r-. — -••- ----.. 

. 

------ 

Affected Rubber tiro mmtufaccurtnq plants, producing passenqer car, anJ lignt • 

~ facilltles xnd wedi ~~m Jucv cruck cires. Operacions affecced are: undertread 

i

(pp. 1-1. cementinq. hencl dipptnR. cread end cementin(t. and green cize sprayinq. ; 

t-11 • ~ 

~ 

Number of !7aximuw of 61 rubher tire plants nationwide 

affected 

faeilitier 

(p. 2 -2) • 

I

vOC 1976 VOC emissluns estimace from rubber tire maaufacturinq tocalled 

em.isw/ons 88.200 MR/yr (97.200 tons/yr). This quantity represents 0.6 percent 

nacionrride of total national VOC emiy+ions from stacionary sources. 

(p. 1-2) • 

' vOC The average t:ire plant La estimated to release 4.000 kg per day I etsission (8.820 lb/day) of ewisstons or 1.000 Mg vOC per year (1.100 tons/yr). 

range per ' 

facillty i , ( v • 1-2)• 

!00 tons/yr The wodel pianc. producinY 16.000 tires/day , has pocential to e>sit 

~ ouree etze 1. 460 !1R/yr (1.600 tons VOC/yr). Therefore a plant produeing approxi- 

(p. 2-8) ' mately 1.0~ )0 r.lres/day vould be a potential 100 tons/yr source. ~ 

C3L VOC eslrslons reduction from the affected operscions is reco>sssended I 

emiselon through use of carbon adsorption or ineineration. Wacer-based coat- 1 

limit ings stsy be used for green tire spraying. 

(p. 4-2) • 

vOC a. Carbon adsorption gtves an overall efficiency of 62-86 percent in 

reduction reducing VAC omissions, vhen applied to che affected operations. 

per facility b. Incineration ptives an overall efficiency of 59-81 percent vhen 

(p ' 1 4) • applied to the affected operations. 

c. Water-based concings, applied co green tire spraying. provide an 

overall emlssion reduction efficiency of 97 percent. 

Costs 1lasla : A sodul 16,000 tlres/day plant using the various concrol ~ (pp. 4-11. tedhnoloqles reconnnended on the follovinv, affected operations. i 

4-15) • All coxcs are based on January 1978 dollars. • f 

Unuercread end I Creen tire in Tread 

_ ce~aencing 8ead dippg cen~ enting 1 srraying 

Capltal cosc 130-340 115-250 135-375 15-430 I 

(S1000) 

~ Annualized eoKC 92-280 70-985 100-340 118-490 

I 

i (S1000) ~ Cost offrctivenoss 

(5/Mq) 166-505 1.4^A-20.A00 1.140-3.880 ; 202-839 

(S/can) 150-458 1.340-18.800 1.000-3.500 184-763 

"The .our,:o e+f the rummary lnfurmacion t% clte indlcaced nate(s) in "Control 

of Volatile Organlc Emisrions front Manufaeture ef Pneumacic RubbeT Tires." 

EPA-450/2-78-030. 

20 
SUFQ4ARY OF CTC DOCUMENT FOR EXTERNAL FLOATINC ROOF TANKS 

r•-------,••-- 

- - - -- 

1 Affected ~ F.xternal fioatinc roof tanks larger chan 150.000 liters (40,000 gal) 

facilities I acoring petrol.tan llqtilds. See excepcions notud !n texc. 

i (D• 1-2)• 

!lumber of I There is an rrtlmated 13,800 internal and external floacing roof tanks 

~ affected I that are larRer tl+an 150,000 liters (40,000 Ral). The numoer of ex- 

; factlittes ~ ternal floating roof tanks ls noc availabie. 

(p. 2-1)' 

i vOC An estimated 65.000 Mq (71.630 tons) of VOC vaR emitted in 1978 vhich 

emisslons I repreNencs about 4.0 pereent of statlonary source escimaced emissions. 

nnrtonvtde j 

(D. 1-2) • 1 

vOC ~ The emission range for a 30.5 m(100 ft) diameter cank storing 41.4 kPa 

~ emission I(6 psi) vapor pre+sure gasoline is 212 Mg/yr (233 tons/yr) for a slighcly 

I range prr gapped primary seal to 2.2 Mg/yr (2.4 tons/yr) for a tigiht rim-mounted 

i facility secondary seal over a tight primary seal. 

(pp. 

L3-9) • - 

~ 100 tons/yr No ylnRle floatlnK roof tank is expeeted to emit more than 100 

sonrce slse tonr/yr. l.' 

I 

CZ C I A continuour secondary seal nr equivalent closure on all aff.eted 

emission I storage tanks. plus certain laspectlon and recordkeeping requirements. 

llmic 

I (pp• 5-1, 

i S- ~ ) • 

I 

vOC• RanRes frow ahout 2f10 to 2 Mg/yr (220 to 2.2 tons/yr). 

r!duetlon 

per facility 

(Dp. 3-3. 

~ 3-9) • I 

j ronts I easis : Extornal floating roof tank 30.5 m(100 ft) in di.ameter vith a 

, (Dp• 4-9. eapacity of 8.91 ■ 106 Liters (55.000 bbl) eontrcilied by a rim 

~ 4-12) ' mountcd s~~ond~r~ scal. 

~.apttal cosc 16.9 

($1000) 

Annualized cost 3.3 

($1000) 

j Coet effectiveness 

i (S/Mg) (66)'-3,655 

I (5/con) . (59) * -3,316 

wfhe source nf the itimmary lnfnrmatlon !s the indicated page(s) in "Control of Volatile 

Orqanic Emisnluns from Pctrnleum Llquld Stnrage in External Floating Roof Tanks," 

EPA-450/2-78-04;7. 

~ Humoers !n parenthesis Lndlcate credlts. 

-~• - 

21 
SUr'QtARY OF CTC DOCUMENT FOR CRAPHIC ARTS — ROTOGRAVURE 

AND FLEXOGRAPHY 

~ Affected F1exoRraMitc atu1 rutu :ravure prncessor applLed to publicatinn and 

fecLlltle* ~ packaRlnR printlnx. 

~ (p. I-1)• • ' 

Nunmer nf ' :,. Puhllcatton printlnt; ls done in larse printinR plantS. .....M+ r 

i affected( less than 50 ln toctl. 

faclll[fes I h, fiere are approxisuttely 13 to 14 thousand gravure println. -m1:: 

( P • ' -5)• and 7f) thouxand flexographlc printing units. 

vOC a. Gravure 100.000 Mg/yr 1976 (110.000 tonR/yr) 

eetselnns h. Flexn ;raphy 30,000 Mg/yr 197I, (33. 001 ) tons/yr) 

no ttnnvldo 

(p. :-A)• Thts represents ahnuc n.8 f+rrcent of stationary source t-t1m1te6 

I

-- -- •-• -. ~ 

 i•dswt'ons. 

vOC a- rravure 7.4 Mx/princing unit per year 

cnlnelun (8.2 tonn/unlc) 

renRc per b. Flcxo sraphy t Mg/printing unlc per ycar ; facllicy (1.1 tonn/printinR un/t per year) (calculotcd) 

100 tons/yr A p1Ant v111 he a potentlal 100 tons/yr VOC source tf !t uses 

;.eource else ~ 110-180 Mg (12n-20(1 tons) of tnk per ye+tr, uhere che soivent 

1 1concentraclon Ir 50-85 percent. 

I CTC t .a ,of vaccr-hurne ur h1Rh sollds Lnks seeting certain c:umposition 

eelastnn cricerta or the.tise of capture and control epuipnent wh(ch provides: 

~ limit ~ ~ a , 75 perct•nt nverall VOC reduction vhere a publicaition 

~ (vp• 1 --. rutoRravure process Ls esiployed; 

i h. 65 porcrnt overall VOC reduction vhere a packacf.nR rocorotncravure process ls e"loycd: or. 

C. 60 prru•nt overall vnC reductlon vhere a flexographlc I 

t I printinl; proccss Ls employed. 

~—•-- ~ ---- _ ._t--------.. -- ..__ __ . ~_ _ _ ~ 

vQr Srwo aK 1 Tr, t I m 1 t ah ovc . 

j per fnclllty ~I I 

Coe t s ~ I 1 Ca irA on Gi rn ..,n ~ (pp• 4-9 VpC rontrul uptlon [ncinerator, Incinerator ' adsoirvclnn .adsor•, tiunl 

i

4-17) . Ink usagc. I ~ 1 

I MR/yr ~ 7 i 2,500 3,500 

I 1 (tone/yr) I (7.7) I (2.750) (3,860) (7•7= 1 11 

~ VOC conccntraclon ppm l _- S00 _- S00 ; l,.nn `- ,:on 

~ ~ Capltal cost I 94,000 I 1,110.000 701„00n ! 7ni • , 1n0 

Annuallstkl cott ( 24,900 ~ 1,66S,500 72,80n (.I,;nrt)•, 

~ Cost effect(vonrss I 

S/hMt B, 31+0 1.650 

1, ~,A0 46 

~ 

'P'he Mowrco nf the Yueaury lnformatlon ts ttie 1nJicatad paRe nueber in "'Concrol of 

volstllc nrganlc FaeLssions fr,wn F.xlatinr Stacionary Sources, Volume V?II: Graphlr 

Arts RntoRravure and Floxoogrnphy," F:PA-450/2-71 11-033, 

Nufiers /n parenttieses are savLnus• 

22 
SU*':~ 1ARY OF CTC DOCUMENT FOR PERCHLOROETHYLENE DRY CLFs1NZ:IC SYSTE.'4S 

(

lffrcte•J ~ AI'fectc•J fnc•tlltt . •. aro culn—o1+erat ed, cummercial, anJ induetrlal arv ! 

,facilltleq clenntnc; cv.tvm. vltlr1, uttlize perciclnrnechylene ns ~ nIvent. 

tt+. --1)• I 

V~ cnACr of ~ a. Coln-ull 1.,900 

; affected I 1). Commerclal 44,6(M 

i facillties ; c. Industrial 230 i 

(calculated) ~ ! 

~-- ------- • 

i L'OC a. Culn-op 21.400 Mq/yr (23.500 tons/yr) 

; ccnir.tonw h. Cummerclal 123,000 Mr/yr (135.000 tons/yr) 

! nationvlJo C. Industrial 11,600 MP/yr (15,000 tons/yr) 

! t 'r' 1 " Tha estimaced 158,000 MR VOC/yr is 0.9 percent of total stationary 

' -11 • Hource eqtlm:cceJ emissions. 

VOC Uncontrolled VOC emissions 

emiseton 

rangc per 

Typo of MLRnt kg/yr (lb/yr) 

facillty a. Coln-op 1,460 (3 1 200) 

(p. 5-2)• 1+. Ccnmerctal 1.240 (7,200) 

~ C. Industrtal 32.400 (72.000) , 

100.tons/yr t A larRc LndustriaJ dry cleaning plant. processinR 750 `1a (825 tons) of 

source slzr clochen per ye:ir. vould be a potential 100 tons VOC per year source. 

(extrapolAtcd), 

CTr: ' i. Aeductitcn of Jryer outlet concencration to less than 1n0 ppm VOC, 

emix++lnn hy meanri c,f c:crhon adsorpcion. (Facilities vith inadetluate space. 

limit or ste:cca c: pncity for adsorbers are excl cded.) 

( p p '4-1 h. Reductlun uf VOC cynissions from filter and distillation vastes. 6-4) • 

' c. f.liminnta llqnid and vapor leaks. 

VOC Carbon adsorption applied to cosesercial and [ndustrial plants vill 

reduccion reduce overali VOC emissLons by 40-75 percent. j 

per facllity I 

(pp. 2-5, ~ 2-7)• ~ 

Coste ~ Basls : Carbon ad.corhers for a commercial plant cleaning 46,000 kg 

(p. 4- 5)" (I(10,O1)Q lh) of clothes per year. I Capttw) c•ccyt 54,500 

Annuallzed cnxt 5300 

Cn•r offectivaness 590 credic/MR 

580 credic/ton ~ 

---- — - - ~ •The oinurcc• of the yummary infor+natlon /s ttie indicated page number in "Control of 

Volatile Organlc t:missLons from Perchloroethylene Dry CleaninR Systems," EPA-450,'2-78-050. 

I 

23 
SU'4tARY OF CTC DOCUMENT FOR LEAKS FROM CASOLINE TANK TRUCKS AND 

VAPOR COLLECTION SYSTE.*! 

--~ 

( Affected a. c:asoline tank crucks that are equipped for vayor col]lection. 

facilities b. Vapor collection systenn+ at bulk terminals, bulk plaeits, and service 

I ( p' 2)e stations thot are equipped vich vapor balance and/or vapor processing

sysces. n~ ~ 

Number of ~ Not available ~ I affectad I , 

! faci11t1es 

VOC Not available 

esiasions 

nationvide 

vOC Not available 

I esission 

range per 

facility ; 

CTC 'Phe control approacti la a canbination of tescing, sonitoring, and equipemission ment desiRn to ensure that Rood siaintenance practices are employed to j 

limit prevent leaks frow.truck canks or tank compartments and vapor collection i 

(pp.•1 systass during gasoline transfer at bulk plants, bulk terminals. and ~ and 2) service stations. A leak is a reading greacer than or eQual to 100 

percent of the LEL at 2.5 em froe a pocential leak source as detected by 

a cosibustible gaa detector. 

vOC Not available 

reduction 

i 

per facility ~ 

Costs Not avallable I 

''IT+e source of the sunaiary infor+nacion is the lndicated paRe number in "Control of Volati:e 

Organic Compound Leaks froa Caaoline Tank Trucks and Vapor Collection Syatems," 

EPA- 4-50/2-78-051. 

24 

-+«:_ 
Surriarv of ;,TG Uocument for t•tanufacture of High-Densir.y 

rclye•thylene, ^olypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins 

- AF=ECTED FACILITIES: This CTG applies to emissions from certai ~ n processes 

in the manufacture of high-density polyerhylene, 

polypropylene, and polystyrene. 

The manufacture of these three polyr.cers aire estimated 

to account for 53,000 ton/yr of VOC emissions or 56' ~ 

of emissions from all types of polymer mzinufacturinc. 

Typical size uncontrolled plants could ennit: 

high density polyethylene 3,100 tons/yr 

polypropylene 5,700 tons/yr 

polystyrene 260 tons/yr 

CTG E';ISSION LIMIT: The following emission reductions or limiitations are 

considered representative of RACT: 

(1) For polypropylene plants using liquici phase 

processes: a 98 weight percent reductiori or reduction 

to 20 ppm of continuous VOC emissions from the 

polymerization reaction section (i.e., reactor vents), 

the material recovery section (i.e., decanter vents, . 

neutralizer vents, by-product and diluenit recovery 

operations vents), and the product finistiing section 

(i.e., dryer vents and extrusion and pel'letizing vents). 

(2) For high-density polyethylene plants using liquid 

phase slurry processes: a 98 weight perc:ent reduction 

or reduction to 20 ppm of continuous VOC er+issions fror 

the material recovery section (i.e., ethylene recycle 

treater vents) and the product finishing section (i.e., 

dryer vents and continuous mixer vents). 

(3) For polystyrene plants using continuous processes: 

an emission limit of 0.12 kg VOC/1,000 kg product fror. 

the material recovery section (i.e., pro(iuct devolatili:er 

system). 

CCI:'?OL TECHt:ICUES: Flares or thermal incinerators are the most commonlv 

used control devices. They can destroy 98. of the 

streams ducted to them. 

Condensers are often used on polystyrene vents. These 

can control 95p of the VOC emissions passing throuch the!r. 

-+~ 

25 
2 

CG`TROL COSTS: Cost per ton of VOC controlled is a func:tion of 

the uncontrolled emission rates. The C1'G gives 

emission rates (in Kg VOC/Mg product ancf tig/yr) 

above which the control cost is S1000/htg or less. 

Similar cutoffs are given for S2000/t•19 aind 

53000/ttg. A State may choose to use any cutoff 

which gives an appropriate level of stri'ngency. 

26 
Summary of CTG Uocument ror VUC LeaKs 

from SUCMI/Polymer Manutacturiny 

Ar"Fzt;TEO FAI;ILITItS/ 

aPPLICA8ILITY: EquiNment in VUC service in Nrocess units proaucin ~, 

synthetic organic chemicals listed in SOCt4I NSPS anc 

manuracturiny Nolymers and resins; 

Applies to VOC leaks from process equipment: 

pumps, compressors, vaives, open-enaeu lines, 

sampling connections, safety relief devices. 

;,Tu EMISSIUN LIMIT: Equipment specifications and insNections/maintenanc2 

requirements: 

1. CapNiny of open-ended lines (exceNt when 

i n use) 

2. Quarteriy leak detection and repair or pumps, 

valves, compressors, safety relief devices 

3. Repair components apNeariny to leak on oasis 

of sight, smell, sound 

4. Less frequent monitoring than yuarterly for valves 

in gas or lignt liquid service 

5. Weekly visual inspections tor indications ot leaks 

from pumps in light liquid service 

6. Monitor safety relief devices after eacn uverpressure 

relief for proper reseating 

j r • 

~ I 

( ' 

I 

27 
Summary of CTG Uocument for VOC Emissions 

From Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners 

AFFEt;TEU FaCILITIES/ 

APPLICAdILITY: Petro)eum solvent wasners, dryers, solvent rilter;, 

settling tanks, vacuum stills, and other containers 

and conveyors of Netroleum soivent usea in petroieun 

solvent dry cleaning facilities. 

Applies to all petrolrum solvent dry cleaniny 

facilities consuming 123,OOU liters (32„500 gallons, 

or more or Netroleum solvent annually. 

CTG EMISSION LIMIT: 1. Petroleum solvent dry cleaning dryer: 

tither 

• VUC limit of 3.5 lb of VOC per lUU lo ary 

weight of articles dry cleaned 

Or 

• Install solvent recovery dryer 

2. Petroleum solvent filtration system: 

Either 

° Limit VOC content in filtration waistes 

to 1 lb per lUU lb dry weight of articles 

dry cleaned 

Or 

° Install cartridge filtration system; drain 

filter cartriages in their sealed housings 

for 8 nours or more betore their removal 

3. Repair petroleum solvent vapor and liquid 

leaks witnin 3 workiny days after icentifyiny 

the leaks 

~ 28 
Suminary oT CTG Uocument tor VUC Emissions froin Air Uxidation Processes 

In Synthetic Oryanic Chemical Manufacturing Indust:ry 

aFFEi;TEU FACILITItS/ . 

APPLICAbILITY: Air oxidation tacilities witnin SUCMI, incluainy 

all reactors using air as oxidiziny agent to Nroauce 

an oryanic cne+nical. 

Includes any eyuipment (absorbers , adsoroers , condensers, 

ammonia/HC1 recovery units) used to collect VUC `or 

beneficial use or reuse (for sale or recycling) 

; ." ~ cMISSION LIMIT: For eacn air ozidation process vent stream, eitner : 

1. Use combustion device (e.g., thermal oxidation, 

flares, boilers) to reduce VOC emissions by yd weiynt 

percent or to 20 ppmv, whichever is less stringent; 

OR : 

Z. Maintenance of total resource erfec:tiveness (TRE ) 

index value greater than 1.0 (TRE is a measure of cost 

eftectiveness of controlliny air oxidation streams «itn 

a 98% combustion device (thermal oxidat:ion). A TKE incex 

of 1.0 is equivalent to a cost eftectiveness or 

S16uU/My (198u dollars) of VOC emission reduction) 

29 
Summary of CTIi Uocumerit for VUC Equipment Leaks 

From Natural Gas/Gasoline Processiny Plants 

aFFtCTtU FAI;ILITItS/ 

aPNLICA6ILITY: EquiNment in VUC service witnin a Nrocess unit in 

onshore natural gas processing plants. 

EquiNment leaks troni yas plants are VUC emissions 

that result when process fluid (either gas or liquid) 

leaks from plant equiNment: pumps, cornpressors, vaives, 

pressure relief devices, open-ended valves or lines, 

flanyes and cunnections, gas-operated cuntrol vaives. 

RACT applies only to equipment containing or contacting 

a Nrocess streain with VUC concentration ot 1.0 percent 

by weight or more 

CTC EMISSIUN LIMIT: Equipnent sNecifications and insNections/maintenance 

requirements: 

1. Quarterly monitoriny of pumps, valves, compressors, 

and relief valves 

2. Weekly visual inspection of pumps 

3. Repair any component that appears to be leakiny 

on the basis of siyht, smell, or sound 

4. Less f requent monitoring than quarl:erly for 

difticult-to-monitor valves 

5. Capping of open-ended lines (excepi: when open 

end is in use) 

6. Leakiny components should be tagged and repairea 

witnin 15 days or at next, snutdown. 

30 

~ 
Summary of CTIi Uocumerit for VUC Equipment Leaks 

From Natural Gas/Gasoline Processiny Plants 

aFFtCTtU FAI;ILITItS/ 

aPNLICA6ILITY: EquiNment in VUC service witnin a Nrocess unit in 

onshore natural gas processing plants. 

EquiNment leaks troni yas plants are VUC emissions 

that result when process fluid (either gas or liquid) 

leaks from plant equiNment: pumps, cornpressors, vaives, 

pressure relief devices, open-ended valves or lines, 

flanyes and cunnections, gas-operated cuntrol vaives. 

RACT applies only to equipment containing or contacting 

a Nrocess streain with VUC concentration ot 1.0 percent 

by weight or more 

CTC EMISSIUN LIMIT: Equipnent sNecifications and insNections/maintenance 

requirements: 

1. Quarterly monitoriny of pumps, valves, compressors, 

and relief valves 

2. Weekly visual inspection of pumps 

3. Repair any component that appears to be leakiny 

on the basis of siyht, smell, or sound 

4. Less f requent monitoring than quarl:erly for 

difticult-to-monitor valves 

5. Capping of open-ended lines (excepi: when open 

end is in use) 

6. Leakiny components should be tagged and repairea 

witnin 15 days or at next, snutdown. 

30 

~ 
ATTACHMENT 7 

EPA PROTOCOL FOR CALCULATING DAILY EMISSION RATE 

FOR aUTOMOBILE AND LIGH?-DUTY TRUCK TOPCOAT OPERATIONS 

(TO BE PROVIDED) 

-~~- 
ATTACHMENT 8 

APPENDIX D. :VOVEMBER 24, 1987, FEDERAL REGISTER 

~ 
Federcal Rea+sm / Vol. 57- No. 21-8 1 Tuesday. I3ovetttber :A. 1987 /Notieee 45105 

lafoewtatwn for ProPowd Standatds 

EPA-150/3-i1-a'iaa• Me7 186t,• 

' Satfaes Coa ting ot Plastte ~ ets ior 

B°isra Na~e~a unda~eds. lnfaesaooa for ProP 

December 1905. 

dphscacbeoncally Reawye Organic 

Cotsenmd batssaoas From Consttnter 

and CojnaMvW Prodncrs. EPA 902/4- 

86„pQL prepmsd by EPA Repon II. 

Vovemiter 19L 

9. E.aluanon oLa Paint Spray Hootls 

L t,lizsg Air ReorcWation. EPA-4OO/sBi-1{3 

la eenefits of titieoptoceasor Control 

ot Cunag Ovens for Solvent Based 

Coattaga. EPA-62512-86-031. Septastzbet 

1964. 

The EPA Region I'V has pesparetd with 

contracsor assistance. a number of 

reports oo specific non-CI'G sottrces ia 

spetdfic citias Tbese reports describe 

contml technology whicb is available. 

The rsports Gstad below were prepared 

by EPA Region IV. 

11. Volatt'le Organic Compound 

Controi at Specific Soutces in lAttisville. 

Kentue3cy aad Nashvilie. Teonesaee. 

EPA-9o4/941-0t17. December 19si. 

'Ibia report discusses control 

teedtnology for these indastries: 

Wood Furniture - 

Aluminum Rolling Mfll Lubricant 

Control 

Fibergiam Reinfortxd Polyester 8oat 

Huilding (Stynene Emissioos) 

12. Technical Support ia tbe 

Development ot a Reviaed Ozone State 

Implementation Planlor Atlanta. 

Georgia. prepared.for EPA Region N by 

Pacific Envirotsmental Services. EPA 

Contract Na 66-0Y-3887. August 198S. 

This report indudes: 

ArcSitectural Surface Coating 

Automobile Refinishing 

Commercial/Consumer Solvent Use 

Fuel Cotnbustion 

Casoline Volatilitv 

Aircraft Emtssions 

Degreastng 

Lawrt and Garden Equipment 

:3. Sun:mary Repon for Tcchnical 

Suppnrt :n Developtnent of a Revised 

Ozone State Implementation Plan for 

Me-nphts. Tennessee. prepared for EPA 

Reg:on IV bv Pacific Emiror.mer.tal 

Ser::ret. EPA Cor.trar.t No. 68-02-9897. 

; :ne 1985. 

Th,s mu:ti•volume report ir.cludes: 

':: ood Furniture Coattng 

T-':rge Loading Factlittes 

Sheet Fed Paperboard Coattng 

Chemiul Processtng Plants 

Solvent Extraction 

Offset Lithography 

Buik Plants 

14. Technical lnformation Doctunent 

for Techntcal Support in Development of 

a Revised Oeone State Implemetttstion 

Plan for Birmi:tgham. Alabanta. 

prepared for EPA Reg;ion IV by PacfSc 

Enri:vnateatal Setvices. EPA Contract 

No. go-02-3e87. This ctttsists of a series 

of repa t'a pablished in October and 

Novetnbr'r 1964 and f ebrnary 19ti5. 

Ittdt:seae s covered inelude: 

Surface ('.oatiag af Iirge Aitcraft 

Paint >Vtanufacttttsng 

Coke Plrot:esaes 

Lamination cf Vinyl Conatertops 

Mineral Wood Production industry 

Bnck Maartfacturing Industry 

Explosives Manufactutang Industry 

A nttmber of onntrol teehnology 

documents have been wtdely ctrculated 

as draft documents for revtiew. Some of 

these documents have never beea iaaued 

as final documents such as CTG's for 

variow reasons. but tbey still contain 

much heipful tecfutical infotmation. 

Copies of some of these may be stiil 

available from FpA. especially fiom the 

Emissions Standards and Engineermg 

Diviaion of the Offue of Air Qoality 

Planniag and Standarda. Among these 

are: 

1s DrafL "Control of Voladile Otpnic 

Compound Emissions From FuU-Web 

Peoaess•Color Heatset Web Offsat 

Lltbogesphie PtQttirtg.'• Attgttst igsi. 

1a Draft "Cotttrol Teebnique 

Guideliaae for tlte Contzol of VolatUe 

Organic Emissions From Wood 

Furnittm Coating." April iltV. 

17. DrafL "Fabric Pnnting ittdiwttry— 

Sackgrototd 4tformattioa for Propowd 

Statadards". Apri121.19Qi. 

ia Dmtt "Ec,ottomic impact Analysis 

of Catalytie Incineration and Carbon 

Adsorption on the Fabric Ptinting 

Industry." Noventber 19t1'1. 

19.Draft. "Control of Volatile Otganic 

Emissions From Existing Stationary 

Sources: Paint Manufaeturing Industry." 

U.S. EPA. OAQPS. In addition. EPA's 

Air Toxies Control Technology Center 

has issued the following repon: 

20.Air Stripping of Contaminated 

1h'ater Sources. Air Emissions and 

Control. )u(y M. 1987. Prepared for Air 

Toxics Control Techno(ogy Center. U.S. 

Eevtronmental Protection A>sency. 

F.esearc:t Tnangle Park. North Carolina 

Z: .11. 

Putentiol Netv Source Rrview /.VSRI 

.49eosures 

The primary approach a State could 

follow to tnittgate the effects of growth 

by reductions through its NSR proRretn 

would be to subject more sources to 

new source eevtew. 

The followtng tneasures are being 

suggested for States to consider in their 

control strategies as appropnate 

techniques to deal with growth. Under 

currettt rsles, new sources and 

mod>fieations may be exempted from 

the Pert D ma jor iVSR reptutrements by. 

(1) Haring a potential to ennt beiow 

certain thresholds (100 tons per year 

(tpy) for new sources and 40 tpy of VOC 

for modifieations to emsnng major 

sourcesj: (2i not betng locates ut an area 

designatad aa nonattatatsent under 

section 107 of the Clean Air Act (Act): 

and 131 qualifying for one of the spectfic 

exemptions contatned in the NSR 

regulations (e.g.. converston to 

municipal wastes for power generation. 

producnon inereases not linated by a 

permit. increased operating aours). 

Each of these situations has a 

separate set of possibie solunons or 

revisions. 

(1)Thresho/ds—The thteshoids 

contained in tJte NSR program could be 

lowered to. say. ZS tpy for major sources 

and major modifications. A significant 

portion of the total VOC emissions 

generafly eome from small sources. so 

oweting entofis would bnng 

significantly more of the VOC ttsaissioas 

into the tnajor NSR progratn. Even ZS tpy 

threshold may not cover a tnajonty of 

the entisaions resulting ftota new 

sourees. One study has shown that for 

VOCs, modifitations and new sottrees 

etnittittg lesa than S tpy compose SS 

percent of total new VOC emissiona. 

(2)Location Outsfde Nonottainment 

Ano—States may wish to apply the 

nonattainment area N05R r;quirements 

of seerion 1Td of the Cleaa Air Act (and 

State programs under that section) to 

sources located outside but near 

designated nonattainment areas. 

(3)Specific Euemptions—The 

definitions cttrs'ently contained in the 

NSR ptogram exempt certatn increases 

in emissions from being constdered as a 

modification. These exempttons allow 

sources capable of accomtnodating 

alternative fuels or raw matenals to 

swttch fue(s or raw itatenals (e.g.. from 

oil to coal) without betng subtect to 

major tiSR requtrements. Also. sources 

may tncrease thetr operating houn {e.g.. 

from A hours per day to =4 hours per 

c1ayI and throughput (e.tt.. from 60 

percent of caorcity) to the maximum 

posstble Khtle rneet:ng Federai \SR 

requirements (t:n(ess the caanQes are 

spccifically lim:ted by Federal 

enforceable cnndttionsl. States could 

remove these exemptions !rom :he 1SR 

regulations. 

Appendix D—Discrepancies and 

Inconsistencies Found in Curtent SIP's 

The EPA has reviewed a number of 

SIP's and found inconsistencies and 

discrepancies frotn established EPA 

policy and guidance. The following 
45206 Federal Register / Vol. SZ No. 2..,6 / Tuesday. Novemb er 24.1987 / Notices 

discu»ion lists tke most protninent 

problems and suggests corrections to 

these problems. While no State or local 

agenctes am specifically identified. EPA 

intends to discuss individual State and 

lonl deficienctes with the appropnate 

agenues at the ttme the SIP call is tnade. 

a. .4chieve Consistettt Jmplementation 

oP.vew Soort:e Review Progroms 

Dunng its audits of State and local 

NSR programs. EPA has found 

considerable differences in how 

agenctes implement the r NSR 

regulauons. EPA has found. for example. 

that many mator modificauons, of 

soutses esr-ape preconstrucuon revtew 

and that lowest achievabie enusston 

reduction (LA.FR) determinations for 

sources subiect to NSR are often 

inconsistent and insufficiently sttingent. 

!n many cases. these problems may 

result from improper interpretation of 

the applicable rules. To minimize the 

likelihood that thia will occur in the 

future. EPA'intends to develop guidance 

oa such issues as how emissions 

increases and decreases should be 

calculated for nettmg purposes, when 

and how implementing agencies may 

use growtb allowances as a subsutute 

for ofisets. and how to ensure that best 

availabie control teclutology and iAER 

determinations reflect the best 

techaology for the aource in question 

rather thaa simply the new source 

pertormance standaeds wntrol leveL 

The EPA also intends to increase its 

auditing and enforcement of State 

programs. 

Vew Source Review Regttlations 

The pnmary focus of the newaource 

review regulattons is to evaluate the 

emissions impact of new or modiBed 

source projects before constrvction 

commences on the projects. The basic 

requ rement for a new source of air 

pollution ts to ensure that ts emissions 

do not cause any new nonattainment 

sttuations or exacerbate any existtng 

nonattatnntent problems. All sources 

must "prove." generaily by modeling air 

quaittv tmpacts befure and after the 

proposed cttange, that they do not cause 

or contnbute to any nonattathment 

problem. For mator new sources and 

mator :nodificat ons w shir.g to Iccate in 

destrnated nonattatnment areas. the 

appltcant must also show that the most 

strtr.qent pollution control equtpment 

(I.AER) is betng installed, that all other 

sourcea owned by the applicant wtthtn 

the State are in compliance (Statewtde 

compliancel, and that the emission 

tncreases are either offset or taken into 

account w th an approved growth 

allowance (emisston offsets). These 

requirements are listed in the Clean Air 

Act in sections 372 and 171. 

The wording in some State NSR 

regulations allows or has the potential 

to aUow certatn aources to avoid some 

or all of the tntended requtrements of 

new aource rev ew. This .s in conflict 

with the Federal provisions. since State 

rules can be more stringent than the 

Federal provisions. but in no case can 

they be less stringent. The EPA believes 

that appropnate guidance and technical 

support can help ensure that States 

impiement the new sotuce review 

regulauons in confonrtance with EPA 

poliry: however. States may need to 

correct or ciarify some of their 

trsguiations to avoid possible 

applicability or enforcement problems 

that may anse under new source review 

due to less stringent provisions.'fhe 

following areas are the focus of efforts 

to schieve conforntity with EPA poticy. 

8xetnptions 

Pertttit Cottditions: Federal 

requirements state that only federally 

enforceable permit conditions may be 

ased to exempt a souree from the 

requirements for major sourees. State 

operating pennits and State consent 

decrees am not federally enfocceable 

unless incorporated into the SIP either 

through F.PA approved case•by-case 

tvlemaking or through a generic 

mechanism. State preconstrvction 

permits issued by States under SPAapproved SiP reguiations purauant to 40 

CFR 51.11L 51.24, or 51.= as well as 

consuticuon permits iasued by EPA or 

by delegated States under 52.21 are 

federally enforeeable. 

State Nonattaintnent Designotions: 

The SPA will not perntit a State to 

exempt sources located in 

nonattainment sreas that the State has 

destgnated "atta ntnent" without EPA 

approvai. Similarly. States wtll not be 

permttted to use attainntent 

demonstrationa that have not received 

EPA approval todetermtne whether an 

offset or netting transiictton s consistent 

with RFP. 

Ceneral.• States should revise thetr 

re;ul•rttons to remove any rettulatury 

provts ons that could be used to exe:r.pt 

any source from any maior tiSR 

requiremants. The only atviustons +. ~ 

those contatned in the Federal 

definitions of tnaior stalounary sou,r.es 

(iq CFR 51.165(a((1(fivl( or mainr 

modifications 140 CFR 51.163(H;11)(vl(. 

No source type (e.g.. cotten gtns. 

resource recovery facilitya or source 

class (e.g. reactivated sources) may 

have a bianket ezemption from any new 

source review requirement. This is a 

problem under the major source and 

major modiGcation thresholds. since the 

NSR provisions requ re that all em:sston 

increases be act:umula ed for 

applicabilit),purposes. For example. a 

s ngle cottort gin may be a m nor source. 

while four cotton gtns (under common 

ownenhip) locattng on one ptece of •ana 

would constttute a major source or 

major modifiication. States may retatn 

exemptions from minor source 

permitting requirements if (1 ► there 

extsts a federally approved growta 

ailowance tei mtttgate resulttng 

increases in emissions and (:1 State 

regulations expressly prohibtt the use cf 

the exempticins to exempt any mator 

source or mator modificatton from matcr 

NSR requiretnents. 

Clean Spot Eremption: As a result of 

the August 1f980 rulemaktng wh cit was 

conducted att part of the A/abama 

Power decision. State regulations cannot . 

contain provisions that exempt a source 

from tnajor new source review 

requirements where the aource does not 

••significantly cause or contnbute to a 

violation of a National Ambient Atr 

Quality Stanidard." The August 1980 

requiretnents subject any major source 

or major modliRution located in an EPA 

designated nonattainment area to the 

major NSR rerquirements regardlass of 

the ambient impact of the source. Some 

SIP's. however. still retain this 

exemption antd should be revised. 

Offset/Nettirug Requirements ' s 

Ojfsets: Ths EPA requires State 

ragulations tci contain enforeeable and 

specifc cntetia on the credib lity of 

emission reductions as offsets. These 

provisions must include a specific, weIldefined baseline for emission tncreases 

and decreases. a requtrement that ail 

em ssion reductions used for offsets be 

federally enfctrceable (see sect on on 

permtt conditiions above). certatn 

ri!strictions on the use of emission 

reducaons ca:::;ed by pr.or shut.loa•ns 

and curtatlmenta as offacts. and the 

prnh bit on of the use of any emtsston 

reducttons jlre•rav mcludad tn a State 

•itti nment drmorstrxrnn. TFe !ast 

r^vu rement listed is to rr.sure :adt a 

Otarr dars r•rnt :,se a re lur.tton t:vrce. i.e.. 

.. ~ t . f .M I ~ . . ~ 1•1. Uf )J ~ :.• .• ••1 

~ ' • ~ t . , ~ .•..ft\ IInJI ••~•I ~ It:I•In ~ lt t ~ • 

, •r....rw• .. ..m.t.'.mr`.'nn1. ~ e.nJ..s:r1 

.. •..f•• t.. F.:• \ a i•r•t prumt::;Jnon ui ~ •\:..•,~ 

~.\R . J.. ~ 

.. • . 

_ . •.4 ia.s .. • . . 

Y7' 1. V) '•FI I t:. t• f;' 1-.• F..t...twr.• t r•.:. - t. 

.Jt+r rn.•-. •r I aN R :y'i: .•\... • d 

S. :•u:'tl ; .n.p.•..al •e\ ..u.wst 11.t. ..rt anl.ss .• •i 

untd F.t'{ ita:..'!v rr,\t.rs :Mo n•:o..tm •y.• :..os 

the rqrPrnt requ4•7nMn'4 .'.•fMUn m.•fa•t t:' J -wt:.• 

chrn"q •rs rr.rnwuwws to n:re' t 1 4»s• •Mu:-t•nten+s 

.nd EPA tnen reiexes 'nese rwWtrrfn•ms punuJnt 

to tt11i CMA sentement Jr •ement. F.PA ..ul .IIJ» 

the Sl.tes to Cnrnne tletr .ppncahle re'tv.t•oM es 

•ppropnJte 
Fatdseal Resieter / Vol. S2 No. 2_°d / Tuesday. November 24. 1987 / NoKicetr 45107 

once !ot attautment pueposes aad once 

for autigation ef new soarce growth. 

.\'ert:ag: Ttte EPA eequtres State 

regttlauons to contain spetific and 

enforceable criteasa if a Strite wtshes to 

allow a soutce to "net out" of major 

NSR revtew. A source "nets out" of 

majoe new source review by secuting 

emtsaion decrtases wuhin the soutte to 

mtttgate increases from the same source. 

resulting m an "insignificattt" emissioas 

increase on a sourcewide basis. The 

Federal eegulations require the following 

c.z:ena for netting: (1) An "aetual" 

baseiine: (2) health and welfare 

equn alence between the emission 

tncreases and decreases:(3)Fedaral 

enforceability of ettusswas detxeases 

(see sectton on permit conditions 

above): (4) a spetaGc contataporanaous 

ttme frame (up to 10 yean): and (S) the 

prohibition on the use of any reductions 

already incorporated in a State's 

attaitunent demonstration (see 

discussion on oflsetiing above). Z'he 

health and welfare equivalence 

generally focuses on the concept of air 

qualiry: the air quality effects of the 

propttsed netting action mast result in 

equtvaleat or improved air quality. For 

"stable° pollutants. this places an 

emphasis on dispersinn. For an ozone 

nonattarnatent area. the relative 

reactivities of the VOC species also 

plays an important role in air quality 

dete:minauons. The State should not 

allow a netting traasaction that causes 

an incsase in a reaetive VOC and a 

dernase in a negligibly reactive VOC 

even if the absolute amotmt of VOC 

emttted does not intsease significantly. 

The contemporaneous timefratne is 

needed to ensure that increases are 

accumuiated over a reasonable period of 

time. to discourage conswction projects 

exempttng themselves from NSR. and 

ensure that decreases are not so old as 

to aiready be taken into aceount in 

att,:inment demonstrations. Also. if a 

r ducaon occurred a very long time ago. 

that reductton should go towards 

assisttng an area to show attainment 

ra:::er than assisttng a souree to avoid 

-otor `:SR reouirements. 

Oe':r.!t:ons 

VCC.: NSR re;L:attons should use a 

•^.0 .:ef:nition that defines VOC as all 

:~ r•:c compounds except those that 

Fr•'. !:as :isted :n its Federal Register 

r.:,:.r.es as no:tphotochemtcally reactive. 

1S-!- VOC definttion tn RACT 

r-sulunons dtscussion.) 

CGr^er. NSR regulattons should contain 

cioer definttions. consistent wtth Federal 

ruqwrements. for the followtng terms: 

St,vunnary source: actual emisstons: 

rllowable emtssions: fugitive emisstons: 

cnrr.mence or begtn construction: 

building, struuure, or facility: and major 

stationary soetse. State regulations that 

do ttot cowtain good. conetse definitions 

that meet the Federal requirements nsk 

traating souttes inequitably because of 

varyiag vtterpretations of the 

definitiona. For example, minor 

vartattona in a State ruie regarding the 

LAER definttion which appear 

untmportant eould aUow a source to 

avoid installing proven technology by 

argtting that it costs too much. a result 

that is unacceptable using the EPA 

definition. The definitions must provide 

a framework to make decisions 

replicable among soutses. 

Small Sources 

Lock oj Minor Soture and Minor 

Modification Review: As required by 

the Federal rules. SIFs should reqttire a 

review program of aU sources of air 

pollution regardless of size. This review 

must include an assurance that no new 

sourrs or modification wif( interfere 

with sttainment and maintenance of the 

standard as weil as a requirement that 

all construction projects be subject to 

public ctunment procedure. Many States 

only have requirements for taajor 

sources and major modifications. States 

may only exempt minor soureas from 

these requirements if (1) there exists a 

federally approved growth allowanre to 

mitigate resulting increases in etnisaions 

and (2) State regulations expressly 

prohibit the use of exemptions to 

exentpt any major source or major 

modifications from NSR requirements. 

b. Ensanr CcnJormity o/S!P'a Witb 

Existmg EPA Poiicy 

Although tttost SIP regulations have 

met tbe tertns of EPA's requirements for 

Part D plana. EPA may have approved 

some SiPs containing rules that do not 

meet those eequirements. 

Some State regulations controlling 

VOC emissions are being implemented 

in a manner that is not conststent with 

EPA requirements and policies and can. 

in certain cases, significantly interfere 

wtth the effectiveness of those 

regulations. These implementat,on 

problems appear to be caused by 

:acorrect or ambiguous definttions. 

vartable interpretatton. the lack of key 

proctsions (e.g.. compliance ttmes. test 

atethoc'.s. etc.). or spectfic provisions in 

State regulattons that are i nconsistent 

with current EPA policies. !n sor..e 

cases. these problems can interfere wtth 

the States' ubility to (1) secure their 

e%pected umisstons reductions from 

styttonary source RACT regulations or 

121 control emtsston growth through thrir 

NSR regulations. EPA plans to work 

with States to identtfy these problem 

areas and provtde tratning. guidance. 

and oither tetdutical support to ensure 

that RACT and NSR reguiations are 

effectively impiementbd. 

Statianary Source RACT Ragulatlona 

The existing RACT regulations were 

developed as a major component of the 

S1P su-ategtes to achteve VOC emtssto I 

reducttons. The followtng destaii;es th4 

areas where RACT regulattons have 

been adopted and/or tmplemented on 

an iaconsistent basis. 

RACT Regulation Exemptions 

Marty of the CTC's that EPA issued :n 

the late 1970's reeommended that States 

exempt from their RAC'f ruies oniy 

those sources falling below certa n stze 

or thrctughput cutoffs. Other CTC's 

recontmended no such cutoffs. Some of 

the RACT regulations now in the SIFs. 

how",er, establish exentpttons w der 

than tltose recotnmended in the CTC's 

or provnde exemptions so ambiguous as 

to be susceptible to abuse. The EPA wi:l 

requir+e the States to amend such ruies to 

ensure that these exemptions conform to 

the CTC recommendations in all cases 

excepe those for which the State 

provides adeqaate justificauon that the 

CTC lievel would impose urtreasonable 

requinttments in that State. 

Defiaition of 10o Tons Per Year Source 

The EPA guidance has called on Sip's 

for extension areas to require RAC'i' for 

sourses with the potential to entit more 

than 100 tons per year (tpy), but that do 

not fa11 into a CTC category. Althottggit 

EPA frttended the deFinition of source 

for this purpose to be the entire plant. 

some SIFs are susceptible to an 

interptrotation rsquinng RACT only for 

indivicival emissions units emttttng more 

than 1iD0 tpy. Also. some SIP's are 

susceptible to a reading under which the 

source must apply RACT only if it has a 

potenttal to emit more than lo0 tpy with 

controls. EPA intended. however. to 

have States apply RACT to non-CTC 

sources emitt:ng more than :hat amour.t 

..+thout controis. Therefore. EPA mtencs 

to reSu,re the relevant States to amend 

VOC : sles that do not cleariy retlect 

FPA's intent. 

ONrr lsaues 

Emsurg VOC rules cont,un a.•ar:ety 

uf othcr ambigu:t:es end ecemp::uns 

that atay impede effurts to achieve fuil 

RACT•ievel reduc:ions. Although some 

of the affected State or local agenc:es 

currentiy interpretthese rules 

cons:stently with EPA policy. courts .. iIl 

frequently turn to the actual words of 

the rules to decide the legal obligations 

of the affected sources. For that reason. 

EPA believes it is essenttal for States to 

- ~~. 
311110!r' .. 

dSIOS 

Federal ReRister / Vol. S2. No. ="6 / Tuesd3y. November 24. 1987 /:Votices 

amend these tvles to state clearly what 

is requlred. Unttl the States change 

these tvles. the Agency will conttnue to 

Interpret them conststent wtth EPA's 

Intent when it apptoved them and wtll 

encourage the relevant State or local 

agent:ies to do the same. Examples of 

these dericienctes are desuibed 

generaliy below. 

Fmrssion Lrmtt Units: VOC t•ules 

incorporattng limtts expmssed as 

pounds of VOC per gallon (lb VOC/gal) 

of coating should also list the equivalent 

lb VOC/gal of solids emisston limit. lt 

v► t11 be acceptable but not mandatory to 

totally replace pounds of VOC per 

gallon of coating tuuts wtth untts of lbs 

VOC per gallon of solids. VOC rules 

should state that units of Ibs VOC/gal of 

soiids be used for all calculations 

involving emission trades. cross-line 

averaging, and detertaining wmpliance 

by add-on control equipment such as 

incinerators and carbon adsorben. 

Exernpt Solvents: Compliance 

calculations for coatings expressed as Ib 

VOC/gallon coating (less water) should 

treat exet#tpt solvents such as 1.1.1- 

trichloroeiltane and methylene chloride 

as water for purposes of calculating the 

"less water" part of the coating 

composition. 

VOC Deflrtitfons: These euies should 

define VOC as all organtc compounds 

except those that EPA has listed as 

photochemically nonreactive in its 

Federal Register notices. Many rules 

incorrectly contain a vapor pressure 

cutofi (e.g.. 0.1 ntmHg) that effectively 

exempts some photochemically reactive 

compouads (such as butyi dioxitol. a 

patnt soivent. and certain mineral oils) 

from control. The following definition is 

a model for use: 

Voiatue Orgontc Compound /VOCJ—Any 

orqantc compound whtch parttalpates tn 

atmosphenc photochemrcat reacttons: that ts. 

any oreamc compound other than those 

whrci the Admtntstrator destt;nates as havtnE 

neqfts:ble photochemteal reactrvtty VOC 

mav o• eneasured by a reference metbod. an 

epunat!Rt methud. an aiternattve m!thod or 

bv Procedures specrfiod under 49) CFR Part 8ff. 

A »f!rrr" method. an:aurvalent methnd. or 

an .ster.!attve ar,hud. howev!r. may aiso 

a:•asur! nonreac:tva nrqvntc compounds. In 

suc- cases. an own!r or operrinr msy 

e3t•.:4ue the nonreac:rve nrtt+rnrc cumoMtnds 

wn.- ue•!rr.unrnq cnmp.adnr.e wt:h a 

s•da.:.rd. , 

Ot!,.fr poFinruons: A varietv nf other 

deftalt,ons tn VOC rulas are tnconsl3tent 

wtth EPA's CTC's. EPA proposes to 

tdentify these deficlenctes and require 

the States to remedy them. 10 

----.~~ 

' f .r •santsrle. debmoans of "cnrunq ttn! .. 

"novrd nm eaetnpt front contrM coatsnR hnes thmr Jo 

not "wt odise nvens. Also. dehnmons of 

Mtntsn.nR m tmscerlaneo,y tnetal ewnne ru4n 

TranslerE'f/iciency: Transfer 

eff'iciency is a measure of how 

etficientiy coattng solids are appiied to 

the objecta being coated in spray 

coating operations. lncreasing transfer 

effictency reduces the atnount of coating 

used for a particular job and may 

thereby reduce VOC emtssions. Some 

States have attempted to provide 

sourees with credit for transfer 

efflraency improvements. 

The EPA proposea to require that 

sourees be allowed to seek credit for 

transfer efficiency improvements only if 

tne SIP speciries a baseline transfer 

efficiency and a test method acceptable 

to EPA for determintng actual transfer 

effictency. (The use of default. a»umed 

or table trsnsfer efficienry values would 

be unacceptabie.) This could be done 

either with general or source-speciric 

SIP revisions. 

Cross Line Averogfng: A source may 

use crossline averaging only upon (1) 

EPA approval as a source-specific SIP 

revision or (2) State adoption under a 

cross-line averaging or equivalency rule 

that EPA has approved generically. 

Cotnp/fonce Periods: VOC tvies 

should describe explictly the compliance 

timeframe associated wtth each 

emission limit (e.g- instantaneow or 

daily). However. where the rules are 

silent on compliance time. BPA will 

interpret it as instantaneous. The rules 

could include periods longer than 24 

hours only in accordance with the 

memorandtun from )ohn O'Cottnor. 

Acting Director of the Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards. dated 

anuary 20.1964. entitled "Averaging 

Times for Compliance With VOC 

Emission Limits-SIP Revision Policy." 

and only as sourt:e-specific SIP 

revisions. 

Recordkeeping: T:se EPA would 

require States to amend their VOC riles 

to require explicitly that sources keep 

records needed to assess compliance for 

the titneframe specified tn the rule. 

Records must be commensurate wtth 

requlatory requtrements and must be 

avallable for examinatinn nn reque-iit. 

The SIP must ;tve reporttng scfieuuias 

,nn.ud awke uear that ':n•hn " .tr a.• 

rrpwtr hv on4tnal .•twprn~nr n..n t(... ~ nrrn s n.n 

r«tina~tne. R ~frntslunQ snm..,; i.v ,;rane•J .. :` 

:rp:ar.tnne of u+M «twprn•.nt. T.te dehnu•.m ofpwtwrr cnrnM sttould lu retm.d to m+rt ► r: ~ ... :h..t 

!he 9+pe► codree rrgulauons r.uvnr r.o.t•inu un 

plwsnc LlLn and eal.Jltc fod as r•tl as p.p+t pan+r 

and iahne etaau:u ih.wid cover iaturauun 

op+rauons as w!1t as sirictiv cn.tt:'2 oP•-ran.,ns. 

% invl t:oattne dehntnuns snuuld mn.e 0~ :het 

meantsol aod plasusnl coaunts Iwhu.n tra.t.nnn4llv 

hwe comrtneP ubUe or no sow.nrl cannot be ue.d 

to SuM.te emtswons from vmyl prin:tne and 

upewnne. t:uatnne +nould be dwfLned to .nelude 

"funatnnal" as wNl as proteettve nr deeoranve 

filmL 

and reporting formats. For erampie. 

these rules must requtre datly records f 

the SIP requires daliy cumpitance. lf a 

eompany us bubbling Its enusstons on d 

datly basis. the rules must require darly 

records to determtne compliance. It 

units of Ib VOC/gallon soiids is used :n 

ealeulations for daliy compiii nce. tne 

source must record gallons o, solids 

used per day and pounds of "OC 

emttted per day. The rules should dlso 

require sources to list separateiy the 

amount of diluents and. where reievant 

to determtning compiiance, wash and 

clean-up VOC. Beyond that. they snould 

require solirces to document (1) th.:t tne 

coatings manufacturer used elther EPA 

Method 24 or an EPA-approved Stdte 

method to calculate the amount of VOC 

per gallon of coattng (less water and 

exempt soivents ► and (2) what method 

the manufacturer used to calculate the 

volume percent solids content of the 

coatings. 

Test Methods: EPA will requlre States 

to amend their VOC rules to requtre the 

use of the most cttrrent test methods to 

detettnine the VOC content of coattngs 

(e.g.. EPA 1Reference Method 23 (1•hour 

bake) or e(juivalent ASTM htethods (. 

The method used to determine voiunte 

percent sollids should be specific and 

should be an EPA-approved method (see 

"Procedures for Certifytng Quhntity of 

Volatile Organic Compounds Emltted Sy 

Paint. Ink. and Other Coattngs." EPa450/3-84--0ri9. December 1964). The 

procedurea tn outdated ASTM methods 

and the Valume II CTG are generailv no 

longer acceptable. Procedures should 

specify tttat EPA or States may vertfy 

test data submttted by companies wtth 

independent tests and that EPA or State 

condueted tests will take precedence. 

The EPA will aiso requtre States to 

amend theur VOC rules to state the 

procedures to be used to measure 

capture end control device ei 1ciN7ciPs. 

For etemp8e. the rules for sume tn•pes u: 

srwrces or cuntrnl systems shoul;i 

r:tqulre the use •.)f tempurary enr.lr„ure,. 

r.tt5cr than matnrtal bdiancec. in :.,ptur-f 

tests. P:ot•;s:olts :h.tt re•:•,rro 

°w.11 enSlncered c.lpture sys:Pm:; nr 

•'ia.r.tnutn reasunn5la c.tpture' :h.::::d 

bt: rr.clJced wtth sper.ifiC cunrrn) 

rrnrn •mr~,ts. 

'•: /:.. :trv•tf l.r .. C":' ..:c ~ i:c: "` •• 

F-, .1 .:..111 requtr• et;utpmr;tt !• ~.ti, ~ iP 

--t!,ulations to he stren¢thrnrJ dr. 

to t!te Intent uf the CTG's. Fur r•.,.r-;P. 

suur: es thait have prevtouslv :e••n 

exempt froirn monttortng requtre^:^n!s 

due to line st2e or the use of piue and 

ttall vaives should becnme subt•c: to r ~ 

SIP requirements. In aJdittun. SIP's 

should not exempt unsafe and 

Inaccesslble valves from all pertod:c 
Federal Register / Vol. 5=. No. =B / Tuesday. November 24. 1987 / Notices 45109 

monttonng requirements. The EPA 

beiieves that tnaccesstble and unsafe-tomonttor valves should be monttored as 

often as practtcable because of the 

potenttal for finding leaks and reducing 

emtsstons. The EPA does not consider 

annual monttonng or tnonitonng at 

shutdown to be an unreasonable burden 

for tnaccesstble and unsafe-to-monttor 

valves. 

For natural gas plants. RAC'f should 

apply to equtpment that contatna or 

contac:s a process stream wtth a VOC 

concentration of 1.0 percent by weight 

or more. Equtpntent wtth process 

streatns contatntng relatively low 

percentages of VOC (i.e.. between 1.0 

and 10.0 percent) contrtbutes a 

stgnilicant ponton of total emtssions 

from natural gas plants and. therefore. is 

subject to RACr requirements. 

Ecentptions attd Var:ances: Many 

SIP's contain provisions givtng the State 

authonty to grant variances. 

exemptions. and alternative means of 

control strategtes. SIFs muat clearly 

state whether EPA approval of such 

vanances is tequired on a case-by-case 

basiti before such a variance. exemption. 

or alternattve means becomes federallyeffecttve. Provistons that are intended to 

be genenc (i.e.. not requiring case-bycase EPA approval for the alternative 

means to be federally-effective) must 

meet the general pnnciple of 

replicability described in EPA's 

Emusions Trading Poiicy Statement (51 

FR 43914. December 4. 1986). 

Appeodix Fr—C'uidance Doewnent on 

Eabaaced 1/M 

l. Intraduction 

The EPA has considered the potential 

for greater VOC and CO reductions from 

vehtcle tnspection and maintenance 

programs. and believes that substaatial 

er.hancement is available. 

The EPA is considering a variety of 

opttons relative to enhanced I/M. 

including establishing a specif9c 

e.^.itanced I/M performance level fcr 

sone nonattatnment areas as well as 

reiyinq on the 3 percent reduction 

; ec:::re:rent to force cons:deratton of 

r.nnanced 10-1 in lieu of a mandated 

;r-rc^tanre requirement. The letter 

wouid ailow States to consider 

:-e l,enefits cf er.hanced I; .M. along with 

c-cse of other control messures. in 

L~ ec:c'in3 how to meet the 3 percent 

atiaraqe nnnual reduction requ:rement. 

TLe other option toward which EPA :s 

pres!nt!y learntr.g would be to establtsh 

e spectfic enhanced 1/1A requiremer.t for 

areas wtth relatively senous ozone or 

CO nonatta nment problems. The 

ren:autder of thts appendit descrtbes 

aspects of and issues related to a 

separate enhanced I/M requiremenL if 

adopted. Possible enhancements fall into four 

categones. First operattng losses due to 

improper inspections. incomplete 

enforcement. or lenient repair waiver 

svstems can be reduced. Second. 

addittonal vehicles whicJt are exempt 

based on age. or vehide type can be 

made subject to the inspection 

requirement. Third. the emission test 

portion of the periodic inspection can be 

made more sophisticated or the pass/ 

faU limtts or cutpoints more stringent. 

Fourth. important emisaion control 

components can be checked visually, or 

by other means that do not involve 

emtsstons measuremenL for evidence of 

tampenng or misfueling. 

The concept of "enhanced I/M." 

therefore. covers both increases to the 

coverage and stringency of inspection. 

and improved management practices to 

assure full effectiveness. The. 

requirements being considered for areas 

adopttng enhanced I/M are explained in 

detail below. 

11. Eacltground 

ln 1978. EPA hrst established policy 

for the implementation of the I/M 

progrants required under the Clean Air 

Act Atstendments of 1977. This poiicy 

addressed the elements to be included• 

in SIP revisions, minimum emission 

reduction requirements, administrative 

requirements. and schedules for 

implementation. Approvable I/M 

programs were to be in place in all 

ozone and CO extension areas by the 

end of 1982 and were to produce at 

least a 25 pereent reduction in light-duty 

vehicle hydrocarbon exhaust emissiona 

and at Ieast 3 percent reduction in CO 

exhaust emisstons as of the end of 1987. 

At thia time. there are I/M programs 

operating in 60 urban areas in 32 States. 

There are a variety of program designs 

in place. some which just exceed 

mtnimum levels. and some whtch 

contain additional measures to achie , •e 

greater emission reducttons. The EPA 

audits of 1/M programs over the last 3 

ycars have identtfied both considerable 

accempl:sltments by State and local 

agenc:es tn tmpiementing progratns 

successfuliv, and a number of operattnR 

problcros. These audit findir.:s serve as 

the bas:s for the increased str:ngency 

ar.d the addittonal admtnistrative 

r•q ~iremeats associated wi:h enhunced 

li %l. 

111. ':rs • Ferror.-ance S:ondard ,`or L'OC 

a:td CO Reduc:jor.s 

Tie EP.1 has develo-,ed a contputer 

model whiclt it proposes to use to assess 

the benefits of vanous 11M program 

destgns. expressed as annual tons of 

reduction from a typtcal urban tleet of 

one mtllion vehtcles. The model is based 

on MOBIfE3, but perfotms addtttonal 

manapulattons of the emtsston estimates. 

The assumpttons empioyed tn thts 

computer model are exptatned tn aetail 

in thie teehntcal report. er.tttled "`detnod 

for Estt.-nattng the Cost-Elfecttveness of 

Inspect.on/Matntenance Ptrogram 

Destgns... 

Tlte LPA is leaning toward a nomtr.al 

perfortnance standard to be ach,eved by 

en}tatnced 1/M of 5700 tons of HC and 

89.000 tons of CO per year per tntllion 

light-duty vehicies over the first 5 years 

of operation of the enhanced prograr... 

This level represents the design ;evet c: 

the thi.rd most strtngent of the ~—, or so 

distinet 1/M programs ctuzentiy ir 

operation. As discussed tn the preanbie 

of this poliey. EPA ts aiso constdenng 

other perfot3nance levels whit:tt couid 6e 

established. if a separate enhanced I!.M 

requirement is adopted. The levei of 

performance descnbed above wouid be 

equivalent to the following destgn: 

—Centralized biennial inspec::otts 

—20 model yean of passenger can and 

light trucks 

—z0 percent stringency for pre-1981 

vehit:les 

—[dle test 

—207(b) cutpoints for 19t31— vehicles 

(1.2 percent CO/ZZO ppm HC) 

—Catalysi inleL and lead deposit 

inspections on 19t31+ vehicles 

—5 percent waiver on the emtsston 

shiort test 

Progtrams which vary from this desiga 

yet have equivalent emtssion reducstons 

would be acceptable. For example. 

decentraiized bietutial inspections and/ 

or fewer model years of coverage are 

also allowed. provtded other features of 

the program destgn are strengthened 

suc.h that the esttmated benefit ateets 

the new performance standard. 

Prog:ams may show equ:vaiency to 

t4:s destgn using eather nattonal or loc:l 

condtttons of tampenngimtsfueitng 

r:.tes. vehic!e tvpe mtx. average speed. 

em. [:se of loeal condi::ons -jy rer:it :r 

a ;e:forr..arce standard differrrrt t^3n 

5700 1 ' G9.OUC: tn all cuses. equivaiancc :c 

t!:e at:ove design wouid be t=e 

cc::t:cl::nQ cc:tcrmr fur a;pravai. 

I'4,r ^ew corr.puter node! ^as :wu 

aatures wh:c'l,. ivere not :-ciuded ;n 

MC31LE3 but which grow ou: of :he ;::Itt 

3 %cars of evaivat:ng operatinti 

progrns. F9rst. fur purposes of SI? 

a;proval. decentraltzed prcgr3ns 

be creu:ted wt:h identtfytng and 

repa.rtnc ec sttng tampenng at a rate 

ah,ch is less than t^at mocieled for 

centraltzed proarans. The intttal 

nnalysis suggests a reduced 

-~4.