# . ~

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 minimunrnationdl 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 estab

## Iished as Nart of the SIP control strategy. Th ey cannot be usea in exchanye for a relaxation of R{i CT.

-~ -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 bythe 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 pro visions

~ 

### 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

' < 1 2 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

. A N • ~ L



### ' ~ ; •~ ~ d ~ ~ 

# ~;~ =~

# ► ~ ~ ;

A /p N r

w
~ e 

# ~

.. •.1 m A

, ie N I ^ O

~ O r. O

. , I ~ • i

1 '
N N ^ ,

w • 'J ~ ~ O C • i



# ~

. N• A T..• C. y~ w •

~ L. N aL

..~i w Q~ • V Q t y a N .T • y ~ 46- w o. a o 41 q6.

~ ac o+o a .r 

# — •`~ e~ a

c i E

~ ? 

# - N _c `

.. 

# o :i , r. CU 

# a 0 ~ C'r
w a1 i0 >. QJ ~ Q! .r D. N 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 v

t: C1 L A 7K Q1 O C 7 • 

# 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 11 0 

### 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 C u 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

i 1 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 4 A 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

q •~ + I Q ~ 

# I f 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. I U ! A N

~ ';

~ 

### 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 a

. t .r 37 6► 0l rE C O ' ' G ~

~ L C O+ C ~ O C••• ^ N C ~ ~ C 07 ' L a! y ~ >~ ~ V w • r0 w L t"'f

N AC7 O

~ 

# =

V N ~ ~ N 7C O N O 

# = +~ O C u Cl oN V A

~ T ~t S7 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%• w Oei • N

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

### • G 9J G ~ r

- C W l+! L L c qt 6 r L t r C 41 N • .7 L 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 , L. C 41 I C L O Nr I.M

~

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

~ + ' u w ;•.• C Q A: A C 6

~ J O O— C V 07 G ~ C•~ L OJ SJ O; C di N C L. +• w L • L q L. - C E ~ A a C 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 ~, p y j ,

~ L. N a1 C 1 > L ~ - .3 ' ~ 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 6 E J c ' ' L. N O

~ V1 + ~ ; O sO N

t r N

~ T

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) a N i

r G7 y L.

, 

### ^ c

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

### ., > ot

~ r~i
. , 0J C

; V c ~. q i ~ r q i 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 u C i Z Z N
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. .T

N y i ~'~ q •^' es L ^ yLw .-Eao
~ a x 7f w T d N O. w ~ O ~ o_e

_ • /C ~~ + . w.. y i r.,

. .+ i A C N v

~ -

w u ie A O Gr

.~ 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 = Z q C

~ r, .r • d•r A i ~ L r C C A i 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 1 0 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 .+ •

6 i =~ 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 •• • N r G G w 7 G E

~ r. L Q ~ +~' QI q N + C.

~ ' • +r L+ > w L (U O w - L C u'f On .G
~ n O • J C O+ w w Cu 4) O L c oC O u_

C+ Cj ; w ~ C L V u O e w q.r -• ~ Q eh d C+• O ~ +• Zr ^ A ~ O^. 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. 47 ~ L V ~ C_ >> y ~ " - l 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 9- L N 

## I 

# 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. 0 0 ~ • ~

...r " ~

. N ~ sc rn V N .• ~ C J•

~ ... ~ 0 I z10 c 

### ~

~ 

## • L N L C r tf'f w O+ O a O u — v o w ' ~ w ~ A • .+ . A ~ ~ •.+ 0J ~ n ~ oO iC A

O cm A O. 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 + ~ 

## I

, w w E O d

• y L 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~

, C - o'~ o O w N 7 ~ N A iC ~O w ^, d • Y 

# ;

~ 

# ^ '^ 3 '° E a

L I ~ w

3 

# _ N N . ...r L^J N C u •~ E A .r_ N ~ N O T L • A i0

~ r a! N E w._ ^ !L ~ O N ~ O t

~ r N QI C7 ~ • C y "~ y L 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

... •r N O N ..+ w ^ w ~ ~ S~ O tlJ ' w O • ~ C L 0! ~ ^ 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—

v L A

o a7 O

L J A 7• ~ iu ? Os Q ~ o c L o ~ Q Lm 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 ro 7 O. w... O L V A C 4► .. ~ o C C 

### 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 7

N 4! y QJ w 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• ~ i0 a7 V1 •+ 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 V 1~ C N i. C1 • 

# . ~~ N y a V C N d '

v ~ N ` 1 °

r °

~ j a°` ' C 1 C ~ 9 

# • Gr 3A • A r+ A ie r . O a i. O w GI

~ . •• ~ • •.1 ~ v ~ d > ~ -.

. a^ w u V Q .~

.. C N I 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 

# a
~ 

### u O 

### cm C 1 q .1 N ~ N ~ c

A .~ q•~

> .7 •a N 31 ' • d
~ L S. N A q L V N
~ ' A A oO CI E A
~ 0 • ~ w 31 v dl

A L C1 4 Cf r N C N ~ .r %d L w N O 

# w y ` _0- ' 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 L

~ . 31 q r
~ 

## ; •
~ 

## • 

# • • $ 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 I ~ ,•„ 1 t

, , o • 

### ~ , 

### ~

r r


# . ; a 

## ; ; c v + d o
' Q

C ~ ~ L p ~ 

# o,

~ L A A ) r y _C C3 N A
~ t V.O

. 4. 7 c L

~ 7f ` O < 

# .r v

~ 

# o :c•+

~ 

### vy u ^w 

### c _NVE I u V O V^. O + c.i,

~ • NI L ~

. 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 s ? - c ^ v a ~ a c + ~

### ► 

### 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 O O ra 3 y V

G ac ai C E N >. 0i O ~ + C I N ~ J ~ C A C 3 I E ^ N N O A O N C N~ d O V S G I C N +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 r a

N i c a A ~ ~ += L.+ N

v= o coZ C S N O rr y O L. Of O ~. 4A i u a E + oN ~ ad N

E 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 E ~ Z4d .+ N O 3 ~ ; S

~ .. •-• 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 S A ! U N J i O ai 0 64) 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 v N +

_ „o'"' Z)



### ~ 10 6. `r 6."' 72 73 f[ UI ' C Z. ~ Jf t%f A. F~ 

## a _ L~ ~ 

### L O

_ A N
• — 4 •^-+ y d i ' 0 L 

### • r•• ' NSJs



### 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 7 N 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^ 66 JIrL7G 

### 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 ancHazardous 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 SynthesizedPharmaceutical 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 U 

# o 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

, 

### ~ ~ p



### J 

## 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) 

# NT U ~ ~ N ~ 

### mMm " UJ

ZV~ C N
~ I I 

### m



# w

~

~

~ F~



### ~ 

# C4 

# O

C\l O 

# a



# ~ ~ -y U 

# 7

~ 

# cn {

~
~ ~ I 

# o r 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

7 0 ° 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•
~ o S ~ ~~++ Q

O O^~ 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

.. ~_ ~ .. , .. s G ~ ~ • 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



# ~ _

~ 'l. a •n 'l. 7 y .../ i oc ~ _ pf ? t I C 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 I t
c/f 

# v ~I 

# r ~

~ -

a ~ 

### + -

~ 

### • n G_

-

^ ~

r ~ ~.. ~ O_ C .~ •• i ~

~ 

## „'I _ > ~ 

## • ^

_

~ 

# _ y' j

_ j • v 1

s •-
_ „ c ccc vi

-Z 7 7= L

~ ~ ~ 

### • 6') , ~ 

### _ J

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

•~ .^ C V ~ ~ ' ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~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 v'

- C

- ` ~ 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 4N



# = 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

• 1 _ J

. ~ ~ ~ . d_

— ~ r

L ri



### ~ ~ ~ •'

_ ~

~ • w •^-' ~ •~ ~

^ • r 9 J ~ w

6 L ! zo w : e

_ ~ = ,p w , r

• G

~ •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. J N r .7 w T1 • y • ' L .J L ~ < —

G ~ • ^ > > > 9 ` ~ ~ J
~ N G C w • • • l i 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

~ 

### ;,- i , i0 CFK 0. 

## A ppenaix 

## 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': _.:* ~ n ~ ~ :~

' Gu 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 O x 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. !

_ ~ 

### .. 

## 21 1 21/79 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, 1 2 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 Fiavtcinsfor St-ftmitting Reascnably Available Cor.trol Tech

## nology 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 BarSerY♦ 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 nlines to Control I)richlorroethylene, Perchloroethy

## lene, 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 oductsAcoeptability 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 10 1

. . 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: HelmsLVC 

## 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 TylerPolypropylene, 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;•'`

~ 

### nich reoresent aoout 0.9 perceet of estimatea VOC emissions nation.:oe! 

# I 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 OF C'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 for Ooth 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 i nationriae. 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 g psia). 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 : 10 6 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 l 

### ewed 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

4SsuVARY OF CTG OOCtntENT FOR PROCESSES AT 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 of a DroceSS unit).

Tne CTG oroviaes no esenotions. ' : UM.c.rp ^ OF 

### AFCg

~ 

### ,E; No estin a 

### 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). "' a 

### steW ter seGarators ( W 

### S), an0 D ro 

### Cess 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 3 m 3 ( 50 }b/10 3 bbl) refinery tHrougnout. FAC3L'TR 

# ~ b. NS • 570 kq/10 

# ~ m3 (200 lb/10 3 bbl) refinery tl+rougnout. 

### c. PUT • 860 kq/10 w (301 lb/T0 3 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 : 106ee 3 (3.9 s 10 6 bbl). b. rS • 6.3 : 10 6 +n 3 (1.0 a 10 6bbl). 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 : (10 4 ) -(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 savinqsSUMMARY 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 ( 7 10 percent). 

# i 9ASIS: CC of 0.5 m .ort area usinq 411n volatility solvent (a! 

### I lov volatility solvent (b): OT of 1.67 er .ort anea; and CD of



### l and 

### 3.9 mZ .ort area.

~ 

### COSTS Caottal Cost I Annualized Cost I Cost Ef O 

### ectiveness



### I ) 1.200

~ 

### s 1

~ 1 

### 0n / -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 ` a 

### oo roacn 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)• om ~ 

### e. End seal c0ound 0.

~ 

### 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"'::::0 1 . ' Averaoe annYal vOC 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: i ca 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 a The 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

4SUMAP.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 ann u al 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 M

~ Upr: 

### 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.is amount, 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 of

saoer products represent aoout 1.2 percient of nation,.,oe vC: I ( eR:aions. [14 J 

### i vOC Emiss i 

### ons from typical paper coat i 

### ng 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 RE7UC I 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 fron tyoical 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;:: Ito e1nit 1n escess of 100 tons of vOC oer year. 

# I SIZE 

# I The recom

~ 

### lended vOC enl

~ 

### ssion limits are:

~ G 

# I EyISSIOts 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



### 12Stl"O4Rr OF CTG 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 l i(80 ton) oer facitity. 

### ~ FAC:LITY

~ 

### 100 TOK/rR For a a

~ 

### ooel dio coating line. a Plant coating (.ritn no arin,er;, ( S Sjpr 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 pr i 

### 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
cM 

### VOC ^

~ 

### Estimated annual emissions are 42,000 Mg/yr (46,700 toniyr.- ^



### I.nlcn rearesent aoout 0.2 oercent of est i 

### autea nationr i 

### ae 'r0: NA'ION W 

### I O 

### E 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. 

## C'OSTS• , I 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 nationvide soure

~ ea. I (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 1. rurle•tet rtsl rreeucc• I 

## 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 • IO t teselrr) •ectrcN fer 1977 • .n/eh 1 sYwtelle I reNreewt• •Mut 1 .0 Mrewt et •t•tie11er7 N11rte r•tlrte• ~

~ ttwethe r NlNlnn•. "' I • . rpC •. Au Nlrlw fecter ot 0.66 kg YOC/1 Ceetlh{ 1N• veter j I sYeelw (7.) lb rOtlwl eeecl p { lee• wcer) cw he •epccee tr w ' 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 ' )) ' N loe / 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 ltw

t teler tte. 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, - •• 10 4 ft'/yr) ~ 

## I (rr. 3•!! t• ~ ulth •lhblo er M cNt eeer•tlen uelne f lwr-te•c. dlc

~ -cNt. Or eAr• -te•t •egllc•tlelle. t*e rNl/e• ceoer th• tot• of i 3•lA) • i i NVer•1 elttef•Ilt 9~C tehtreL oettelle.

.

~ Ca p ttu ceet 20-I.e17 ; (31000)

~ AnswellseN aeet (27) 1 -40= I ($1000)

r Cwt .trrcturellee• I (s/p0) (290)•-6.841 I

_ 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 e rted Factllttes ristlotwtdt Total

a. Nasdw•d plw 2 4 7 ood 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 e 7 (72 tt=l. Ileeosrrnd•d liuttation Prtnted hardvootl plPtroed 2.9 kR ViDc/100 a•' aud parttclehoard (6.0 lb VOC11000 tt 2 ) natural (tnt•h hardveod plYreed 5.8 k{ VOC/100 0 2 ) (12.0 lb VOCI1000 ct=)



# ~ Cla•w i(' finUthas for hard- 4.8 kS VOC/100 a 2 ) 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. 4 

### 60 !1R/yr (1.6 0 

### 0 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. 

### L 3-9) • -

~ 

### 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 storage tanks. plus certain laspectlon and recordkeeping requirements.

I 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■ 

### 10 6 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 3 0,000 Mg/yr 197I, (33. 001 ) tons/yr) n o 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 1 concentraclon 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 ro ntrul 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

~ V OC concc ntraclon 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 1 1-033, 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 e d, 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 n ~ sysces. ~ 

### 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 u nda ~ eds. lnfaesaooa for ProP December 1905. d ph sca cbeoncally Reawye Organic Cotsenmd batssaoas From Consttnter and C ojn aMvW Prodncrs. EPA 902/4- 86 „pQL prepmsd by EPA Repon II. Vovemiter 19L 9. E.aluanon oLa Paint Spray HootlsL 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 preconstrvctionpermits 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. Theseprovisions 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 of pwtwrr 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 SyPaint. 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 EPAbeiieves 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 tobe 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.